Re: Kent's points

Kent Crispin (kent@bywater.songbird.com)
Sun, 12 Oct 1997 18:19:57 -0700


On Sun, Oct 12, 1997 at 04:49:42PM +0000, Benjamin Harding wrote:
> Kent made a few points in an earlier message.

Pardon me for stepping in to this late, BTW -- it's quite likely that
everything I say has been said 50 times before, and I am just being a
fool who doesn't know history...

> > 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.
>
> Would you then propose that we stop advertising the Grand
> Canyon.

That's a pretty broad generality -- I'm not sure what it would even
mean, to tell you the truth.

> The first rule for getting out of a hole is: Stop digging.
>
> > The people capable of putting together a private trip are a *far*
> > smaller percentage of the US population. [than those who can afford
> a commercial trip]
>
> Based on your first point, this makes me wonder why you think
> we need concessionaires at all.

?? You misread my argument, I fear.

> This position, that NPS should let those capable of doing it
> themselves use the canyon first, before providing any
> concessionaire services, was the jist of the Wilderness Public
> Rights Fund lawsuit in roughly '79. It's an argument based on
> the organic act that enabled the formation of the NPS.

Just to be sure -- though interesting, this is not a position I take.
Perhaps you know that, but the wording you use seems to indicate you
think I espouse it...

In abstract theory I'm fairly neutral about whether concessionaires
should be allowed at all. In the concrete actuality, I think that the
present system is not that bad.

And in practice, "capable of doing it themselves" is pretty vague. I
think I could probably make it down the Canyon without killing
myself, but it would be a first order adventure. I would much rather
do it with some more experienced people along. Well. Maybe not, but
one has to be practical...

> I personally don't think you need to go that far, but I also
> believe that the WPRF suit was correct in its basis and if NPS
> doesn't accommodate actual demand for trips it will leave itself
> exposed to more litigation down the road.