> Ben Hardings Issues and Answers
[...]
> > Issue: The current system excludes large segments of the U.S.
> > population
> >
> > The current system rations by price in the commercial sector and
> > inconvenience in the private sector. These rationing methods
> > eliminate large percentages of the U.S. population from having
> > reasonable access to the Grand Canyon.
A basic assumption is that resource management -- ie of user impact on
the Canyon -- is more important than access. That being a given, we
have a limited, oversubscribed resource that we control by some form
of rationing.
There is no conceivable rationing method that won't eliminate large
percentages of the US population from having access to the the river.
That's GOOD, that's the point of a rationing system. The unfortunate
fact is that at any give time more people would like to go than can
go, and any scheme you chose will be have to select some and reject
others.
Therefore, the issue is not that people are excluded. The issue is
WHO gets excluded -- that is, 'fairness'. In those terms, I think
your analysis of 'fairness' has some flaws:
> > Commercial trips through the entire canyon cost around $2800 per
> > person. This excludes all but a small percentage of the U.S.
> > population.
At this rate you can send a family of 4 for $12000 -- a large sum,
true -- the cost of a compact car. How many families have a second or
third car? Which is more important, a shiny new car, or a 2 week trip
for the family in the Grand Canyon?
It is *far* more a matter of priorities than it is any kind of
absolute limits. Given 8 years (the average time on the wait list) a
*large* percentage of families in the US could save $12000 by putting
away $125/month. A 5 year loan for $12000 is $240/month. *Millions*
of people can afford this. [Perhaps we should be grateful that most people
value cars more than Canyon Trips.]
The people capable of putting together a private trip are a *far*
smaller percentage of the US population.
> > The miner's canary in this system is the Boy Scout
> > or Explorer troop or similar youth group.
I don't agree with this.
A trip down the river is a valuable experience. Given the scarcity of
the commodity involved, it would be more accurate to call it a
*precious* experience.
Therefore, it *should* be expensive to go down the Grand Canyon. You
either pay with money, or you pay with time and committment. But by
one or another of these measures, basic supply and demand economics
dictates that the cost *must* be high. A high cost in time,
committment, or money means that an average boy scout troop is simply
not going to go down the Canyon. By the same token, the average boy
scout troop does not going skiing in the Alps, or take six months and
hike the Pacific Crest Trail.
That's the way it should be. Any system that does not eliminate the
average scout troop will either be unfair, or completely blow the
resource management criteria. To state that another way -- if the
system makes it feasible for the average scout troop to do a trip,
then there will be lots of scout troops doing it -- either displacing
non-boyscouts, or overloading the resource.
This gets me back to one of the central problems in this debate --
what is 'fair', anyway?
At the driest possible level we define fairness in terms of
probability -- you set up some basic qualifying criteria (eg, sending
a postcard to the NPS), and then use some procedure that guarantees
that each 'qualified' applicant has precisely the same probability of
'winning'.
This dry approach, though arguably the only 'truly fair' one, is
unsatisfactory to many, because it fails to take into account the
relative subjective value of the experience. That is, such a system
has the unfortunate characteristic that some people, no matter how
strong their desire for a trip through the Canyon, will never get
chosen. We could say that a lottery is 'fair', but it isn't 'just',
somehow. A 'just' sustem also includes some accounting for relative
value.
The 'common-pool' approach is fair in the 'dry' sense, but has no
'justice', and, while I can appreciate it from an intellectual
standpoint, I actually prefer the flexibility of the current flawed
situation. Someday I may need to sell my car, and float down the
river in something less than 3.6 years :-)
-- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html ==================================================================== To subscribe, send email to majordomo@songbird.com, with "subscribe gcboaters" as the only line in the message body. To unsubscribe send "unsubscribe gcboaters". For further information send "info gcboaters", or see http://www.songbird.com/gcboaters ====================================================================