Dear HCN,
Dennis Brownridge brought
up some interesting points in his article about the National Park
Service’s “Proposed Action” of their Draft General Management Plan
for Grand Canyon National Park (HCN, 4/3/95). Unfortunately, his
treatment of the subject was, while not necessarily wrong, at least
remarkably biased, and did not begin to offer the whole picture for
examination. A few examples:
* While plans for
the “mammoth new parking lots’ he mentions at Mather, Desert View
and North Rim exist, he fails to mention that the Park Service also
proposes to remove several already existing parking lots, and
revegetate those areas. The idea is to get people to gather away
from the rim, and from these parking lots disperse on foot or bike
or in public transit. According to the agency’s transportation
specialist, it will not cost the $100 per person or group that
people fear. They are also considering options to allow backcountry
hikers to drive private vehicles to the trailheads under some sort
of permit system. While I am not sure I support the idea of
building new parking lots, gathering people away from the rim and
getting them out of their cars does not seem like all that bad an
idea.
* Mr. Brownridge states that the NPS will
“open up wilderness stretches on both rims from new bike and
pedestrian trails.” First of all, there is nothing anywhere near
the developed areas of both rims (which is what the plan is
addressing) that even remotely resembles wilderness. The plans show
these trails running right through areas already in use, in some
cases using pre-existing roads. Hooray! Get the public out of their
cars, onto their feet and bicycles. If we want to encourage people
in this regard, we’d better give them some means to do
it.
* The 260 “new” lodging rooms mentioned is
not quite accurate. Yes, about 240 rooms will be added. These will
be created by adding onto already existing structures, such as the
Yavapai Lodge, or by converting historic cabins into low-cost
lodging. Again, while this does encourage more people to come, it
encourages the right kind of visitation, which seems more important
than mere numbers. We need to discourage the kind of “fly-by”
visitation that gets people there for two hours only. We do want to
encourage people to come, stay, learn, see, appreciate. Also, Mr.
Brownridge failed to mention that the Kachina and Thunderbird
lodges would be removed in this plan, and the area vegetated and
used for public seating, programs, etc.
* The
plan proposes to take the gift shops out of certain areas, and put
others, like the Hermit’s Rest and Desert View Watchtower
facilities, back to their original historic character and usage,
getting rid of the tacky crap that is sold in most of them today.
In certain areas, the gift shops would be removed, as would other
non-historic facilities.
* The “private
development” outside the park that Mr. Brownridge mentions may be
very important. The town of Tusayan is in desperate need of some
well-planned and thoughtful development to become a viable town.
The living conditions in Tusayan are unsatisfactory, there is
little sense of community, and no place to educate your children or
let them play. The people of Tusayan would like to guide their own
development, and that should be done. Tusayan needs to be a place
people want to live, and can live comfortably and happily. They are
the gateway and part of the support system for a fluctuating “city”
of 5 million people. Some things that private development might
bring to their town are better housing, schools, parks, an
environmental education center, a community center, etc. Perhaps
they could become the community that houses all support facilities
for the park.
Some other proposed actions set
forth by this plan, which Mr. Brownridge failed to mention,
are:
* The historic village area will be used by
pedestrians only, and many of the historic structures will be
reused and turned into facilities like museums, interpretive
centers, Grand Canyon Field Institute classrooms and offices, a
Native American Cultural Center, arts in the park facility, etc.
This will effectively offer visitors a chance to experience
something other than the restaurants and gift shops in which they
currently spend most of their time. They will have an opportunity
to learn about the canyon and the region, and to get out of their
cars while doing it.
* Mule use on the South Rim,
and possibly North Rim trails, will be reduced, and the Fred Harvey
concession will be more responsible for helping with trail
maintenance. Vehicle size and numbers on the North Rim will be
limited, and visitors will be required to use a public transit
system for Bright Angel Point.
* The park will
develop and implement an ecosystem approach to managing threatened
and endangered species, and plans an active research and recovery
program.
There are many other ideas in this
proposal, but this will serve to get the point across. While I do
not necessarily think that the “Proposed Action” holds all the
answers, or that it is even the single best idea, there are some
good attempts in it to obtain a balance between the increasing
number of visitors and the protection of the resource and quality
of the visitor experience. This plan makes a good effort to do
something that up to now has never been done: It attempts to
educate visitors about the canyon and make it mandatory for them to
get off their butts and out of their
cars.
Christa
Sadler
Flagstaff,
Arizona
Christa Sadler is a
writer, geologist and river guide in Grand Canyon, and an educator
at the Grand Canyon Field Institute, Prescott College and Northern
Arizona
University.
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline There’s more to the story about crowded Grand Canyon.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
