Originally Posted by rivervibe
A big point is that portions the GC river corridor could and SHOULD be a wilderness. That would essentially permanently take it off the table for development and give it a whole host of other protections that it deserves. Wilderness is vital for the moral compass of an industrialized society. Motors in the GC are one of the larges impediments to the long term protection of this wholly unique treasure.
As the "boating community" we know what's there. We should be the most vocal in the fight to preserve the Canyon for generations.
So what if you couldn't zip though it in a week or less? I would think that you'd be missing the whole point of being there and if you were sitting on top of that whine the whole while anyway. And yes, I see the argument that such shorter trips allow more individuals to see the Canyon and so more people have their eyes opened to astounding beauty of this planet and all that. I get it.
I'm sure I'll catch shit for this, but I really don't care.
I'm not intending to flip shit, just bring up a counter point. Once it becomes wilderness you've just removed (or greatly increased the difficulty of) access for those less fortunate than your self. It's the biggest drawback to wilderness IMO, if you can't walk long distances, ride a horse or in this case row a boat (or get/pay someone to row for you) you're instantly excluded from experiencing these wonderful treasures. I understand your point but in your quest to protect the canyon have you thought about who you may be limiting from a right you seem to enjoy?
I never thought of this until my mother lost her leg. She had dreams of revisiting places of her youth (that were then not wildneresses) and that dream was severed with her leg. I'm not saying we shouldn't have wildernesses. I am saying there are places so special that all should be able to enjoy them. Is the canyon such a place?