Posted on 12/28/2003 1:33:24 PM PST by Holly_P
TUCSON, Ariz. - Grand Canyon National Park is refusing to add more names to its 20-year waiting list for Colorado River rafting permits, angering some private rafters.
The decision won't affect people seeking commercial rafting tours, and the Park Service says it makes sense to stop taking applications because the permit process is under review, with a new plan expected by the end of next year.
In an effort to preserve the canyon, the park allocates 169,950 user-days, giving 68 percent to professional outfitters. Nearly all the other permits go to private boaters.
There are now more than 8,000 people on the waiting list for self-guided trips; more than 1,000 names are typically added every year.
Many rafters and wilderness advocates accuse the Park Service of catering to wealthy tourists who use the professional outfitter services. They also say the agency spoils the canyon experience by permitting helicopters to transport visitors and by allowing motorized boats - often used by guide services - on the river.
"This freeze on self-guided permits might as well be the park saying that a theme-park experience on the Colorado - not its unique wilderness qualities - is all that matters," said Kim Crumbo, a former river runner and wilderness manager with the park.
But outfitters said visitors take the shorter, motorized tours because they're more convenient and perceived as safer.
"It's our view that the Park Service has acted responsibly," said Mark Grisham, executive director of the Grand Canyon River Outfitters Association. Grisham said his group had no involvement with the park's decision to freeze the waiting list.
In January 2002, private rafters, commercial outfitters and federal officials settled a lawsuit and agreed to restart a planning effort that will decide how to divvy up permits, how to manage helicopter use, the size and duration of river trips and how to protect park resources.
The park expects to release a draft environmental impact statement within the next few months, spokeswoman Dawn O'Sickey said.
"If we wind up staying with the same system, we haven't done anything to hurt that," she said.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.
This in turn puts it under a whole different set of treaty rules. Common sense no longer applies to anything done there.
In fact, there is another opportunity for big-bucks fundraising.
This in turn puts the land under a whole different set of operating treaty rules.
Common sense, of course, no longer applies to anything done there because the treaty is with the beloved United Nations.
The NPS employees are attempting to operate all national parks under these rules.
(Congressional Research Service Reports) National Park System: Establishing New Units
Your second link merely identifies some locations in Alaska that are World Heritage Sites. A World Heritage Site is a site where the U.S. has voluntarily agreed to follow international guidelines in preserving the area. You have not demonstrated that the U.S. would behave differently concerning the preservation of these areas in the absence of such an agreement.
Incidentally, because the agreement has been duly signed and ratified, it also has the force of U.S. law under the U.S. Constitution. In a legal sense, it is U.S. law. Naturally, you have the right to petition our government to abrogate this treaty, and the U.S. has the right to secede from its conditions at any time.
In sum, your argument until this point appears to be UN=bad; UN=different; UN=treaty different; therefore, UN treaty=bad. Not much to hang your hat on.
Try this World Heritage Sites.
Run a Google search for World Heritage Sites System. You will see what is demonstrated and more.
Are you chuckling yet?
No, it doesn't because it only gathers information for the UN through Congress. By this I mean that these reports are turned over to the UN for evaluation as new biospheres.
"A World Heritage Site is a site where the U.S. has voluntarily agreed to follow international guidelines in preserving the area."
Please, sincerely, explain to me why we need international guidelines for the preservation of these land areas in the UNITED STATES. Zimbabwe nor Uganda, nor any other country in this world should have any say whatsoever as to what is done to, for or with any land area in the UNITED STATES!
"because the agreement has been duly signed and ratified, it also has the force of U.S. law under the U.S. Constitution."
YES, THIS IS 100% TRUE. Again, please, sincerely, explain to me why we need to put American soil under the guidelines of a group that does NOT have the best interests of the United States first and foremost. Why do we need to follow any organizations policies that are not absolutely in line with our Constitution. The UN is concerned about a one world government, our Constitution says the powers to govern the US belong to American citizens who are authorized to vote, not Germans or Russians.
My opinion of the legislators who caress the socialist/communist UN is much lower than you think it is. I don't want my hat anywhere near them.
Are you aware of these hidden treaties?
a package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands -- no recorded vote. The U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification was ratified by the U.S. Senate on October 18, but few Senators yet know that it has been ratified. Senator Craig Thomas (R-WY) introduced a package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands -- no recorded vote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.