Grand Canyon overflight proposal

"Jose" wrote in message
...
It's interesting that the desire for natural quiet doesn't recognize
all the sources of "unnatural sound"

Well, it does. It attacks them one at a time.

So when will those folks get around to trying to ban each other person
hiking, picnicking, camping, etc. next to them?

IMHO, that's what makes this fuss so annoying to me. I perfectly understand
the desire to have peace and quiet. But a popular National Park isn't the
place to find that. Places like Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, Yosemite,
etc. are just one step away from being as bad as Disney Land. To argue that
aircraft, of all things, are what are ruining the peaceful experience is
just ridiculous.

Yes, there need to be *some* kind of regulations, as much for air safety as
for noise abatement. But to think that it makes sense to completely ban
aircraft? IMHO, the parks would be more enjoyable to me, on the ground, if
aircraft were permitted, and all the ground-based visitors (except me, of
course) were banned. The airplane noise would bug me a little, but it's all
the people right around me that I find most annoying. They are loud,
intrusive, inconsiderate, and pollute the immediate environment to a much
greater degree than any aircraft might.

Pete

Places like Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, Yosemite,
etc. are just one step away from being as bad as Disney Land. To argue that
aircraft, of all things, are what are ruining the peaceful experience is
just ridiculous.

Perhaps at the visitor center, but you go out a ways and you can find
peace and quiet. There is a self-filtering going on - those who want to
experience peace and quiet badly enough can do so. It involves getting
away from people, and that is what the national parks are all about.

Alas, the hoi polloi don't know the difference, and stay at the
visitors' center and think they've been to Yosemite. Those that care,
hike away from the crowds and get to see the park the way nature
intended it to be expereienced. (*)

It's not meant to be easy, otherwise they'd put a freeway through it.

Jose
(*) ok, a little poetic lice... er.. certificate.
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
om...
Perhaps at the visitor center, but you go out a ways and you can find
peace and quiet. There is a self-filtering going on - those who want to
experience peace and quiet badly enough can do so. It involves getting
away from people, and that is what the national parks are all about.

It's a matter of degrees. Even at Disney Land, you can find a quiet corner.

However, by definition if you're annoyed by someone else's noise, you
haven't found a place that is unpopular and remote enough to offer
uninterrupted peace and quiet.

This includes noise from people who choose to visit the site using an
aircraft.

I don't mind some minimal regulation to try to set aside quiet areas.
However, there are already what I think are too many restrictions on flight
over the Grand Canyon, and banning aircraft outright is simply not fair. It
panders to a special-interest group, at the expense of another group's
legitimate rights.

Pete

It's a matter of degrees. Even at Disney Land, you can find a quiet corner.

You have a wildly different view of "quiet" than I have when I travel to
the middle of the country, pack a week's survival equipment on my back,
and walk thirty miles "thataway".

banning aircraft outright is simply not fair. It
panders to a special-interest group, at the expense of another group's
legitimate rights.

Rights are not absolute.

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

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

"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

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

"Jose" wrote

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.

It seems as though you are in favor of being able to view the canyon from a
certain perspective; backpacking or hiking in your case.

Another way to do view the canyon is from the river, on a boat or raft.

Another is by air. You can certainly gain a perspective of the canyon by
air, that can not be achieved any other way. Eliminating viewing the grand
canyon by air is eliminating one perspective of viewing the grand canyon.

It would be just as wrong as eliminating the view from the river. Not fair,
I think.

Restrict the air routes, and altitude, and make sure there are areas that
will not be touched by the sound, but don't eliminate the wonderful
perspective that viewing the grand canyon by air provides.
--
Jim in NC

"Jose" wrote in message
t...
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.

It's not the flying that is the activity in question. It's the viewing of
the Grand Canyon. I even said so in my post, but you decided to trim that
part from your quote (I suppose to make your own post seem like it was a
relevant reply).

Pete