Grand Canyon overflight proposal

"RomeoMike" wrote in message
...
Still don't get it? You are so good at being argumentative and putting
words in my mouth. Did I say these areas are restricted?

They ARE restricted. People flying airplanes aren't permitted there.
Whether you said it is immaterial.

Did I imply that no one else can visit these places? I have never tried to
restrict access to any of these places, how could I?

The same way that people (apparently other than you, judging from your
reply) have already restricted access to those places.

Many of them are on maps obtainable from the BLM, National Forest Service
and National Park Service. This is public land, open to anyone with the
eyes to see it.

Sorry, I thought you were arguing *against* aircraft accessing the land.
Your statement above argues *for* access by aircraft.

Or are you saying that only the people of whom you approve should be granted
full access? That is, people in airplanes don't count. Only people who
hike in are deserving of free access?

Pete

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
("Marc J. Zeitlin" wrote)
As a long time pilot that has always loved airplanes and airplane noise,
and ALWAYS looks up when I hear an airplane overhead (and who works at
Scaled and is around planes all day, every day), the big deal is that
it's really nice to have peace and quiet sometimes, especially in a
"natural" setting. And that's only from a "people-centric" position.


You might enjoy the BWCA in Northern Minnesota.
[Boundary Waters Canoe Area]

http://www.bwcaw.org/


I did seven days/six nights in a canoe up there when I was in Boy Scouts...

Awesome experience!

Jay B

In article ,
"Marc J. Zeitlin" wrote:

Well, that's the nub of the gist, isn't it. Who gets to define what's
reasonable and unreasonable? As I pilot, I certainly like flying over
beautiful places, but as a hiker, I can't stand the noise that the
aircraft make. I'm willing to give up flying over National Parks (or at
least this one), so that I can have less noise. So for me, it's a
reasonable concession. For you it isn't.

Not many live in the Mojove Desert, miles and miles of empty space.
Were it not for all those airplanes flying around, it would probably be
a very peaceful place.
And then there are those new rocket planes, with their sonic booms. :-))

It's not the flying that is the activity in question. It's the viewing of
the Grand Canyon.

No, it is the (powered) flying. Viewing the Grand Canyon from the air
(in a powered airplane) is what affects other people. It's the noise.

I doubt that there would be objections to gliders flying down the canyon
(though there may be objections to the support infrastructure).

I even said so in my post, but you decided to trim that
part from your quote

I disagree that it is the flying.

(I suppose to make your own post seem like it was a relevant reply)

It's a conversation, not a conspiracy. Here's your full post:

Peter Duniho:
"Jose" wrote in message
t...

If blorging interferes with gluping, and gluping interferes with blorging,
which one should be restricted? Why?


Blorging should be, because you can blorg anywhere, but you can only glup at
the particular site.

Peace and quiet is not unique to the Grand Canyon. The view is. Enjoyment
of the view should take priority over enjoyment of peace and quiet.

As I've already said numerous times, I'm not against moderate regulation.
But banning any user goes too far.

Pete

....and here's mine...

Blorging should be, because you can blorg anywhere, but you can only glup at the particular site.


I never said where blorging or glupping was possible. However I'll go with that for now.

One can fly anywhere. One can only commune with the grand canyon in silence at the grand canyon. So, flying should be restricted, by your comment above.

Jose

Neither Blorging nor Glupping were defined, yet you chose one. Using
that logic, that one should be chosen no matter what the defintions of
blorging and glupping are, so long as they fit your logic. The
definitions I chose fit your logic (though not your vision).

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

They are public lands, where *everyone* (every person, that is...my dog is
not welcome) is granted equal access.

Yes, the people are welcome. Their acoutriments are restricted. This
includes boom boxes, paving machines, airplanes, and buzz saws. And
people are =not= granted complete acceses, just equal access. For some
areas you may NOT enter without a permit, and permits are limited. So,
while the access to permits may be equal, the access to the park is not.
People without permits MAY NOT enter the park (or certain areas of the
park.)

Wrong. The national park system was designed *for* the hoi polloi of
civilization.

Wrong. The national park system was designed to get away from the hoi
polloi, one at a time.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On 2006-04-21, Ron Lee wrote:

While I agree with most of your sentiment, I can't let this pass. I'm
hardly a a hyper-fit Aryan uber-athlete (I'm none of those things) yet
I'm pretty confident I could hike to the bottom of the Grand Canyon
(yes, I have been there so I've got an idea on what it'd be like!)

It is coming back up that is harder.

It still doesn't take a hyper-fit Aryan uber-athlete!

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Last year a 79 year old man did 45 rim-to-rim (20+ miles) Grand Canyon
crossings. He plans to do 52 this year.

"Jose" wrote in message
t...
Neither Blorging nor Glupping were defined, yet you chose one.

Ask a stupid question, you get a stupid answer.

Neither Blorging nor Glupping were defined, yet you chose one.

Ask a stupid question, you get a stupid answer.

It's very much not a stupid question. It is the framework by which
stupid answers are found.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

You are either dense or a troll. To everyone else, enjoy the public
lands legally as you wish. That's what I did today. Beautiful solitude,
no trolls in sight.

Peter Duniho wrote:
"RomeoMike" wrote in message
...
Still don't get it? You are so good at being argumentative and putting
words in my mouth. Did I say these areas are restricted?

They ARE restricted. People flying airplanes aren't permitted there.
Whether you said it is immaterial.

Did I imply that no one else can visit these places? I have never tried to
restrict access to any of these places, how could I?

The same way that people (apparently other than you, judging from your
reply) have already restricted access to those places.

Many of them are on maps obtainable from the BLM, National Forest Service
and National Park Service. This is public land, open to anyone with the
eyes to see it.

Sorry, I thought you were arguing *against* aircraft accessing the land.
Your statement above argues *for* access by aircraft.

Or are you saying that only the people of whom you approve should be granted
full access? That is, people in airplanes don't count. Only people who
hike in are deserving of free access?

Pete