t the Fall Meeting this year the subject of our bylaws and goals statements came up for discussion, as it tends to do every few years or so as we revisit our purpose and examine the changes happening in the world around us as well as within our own ranks. We spent a long time on semantics and whether or not the order of the statements was appropriate for the actions that we have been taking and wish to take in the future. We came to the conclusion that the statements are, by and large, good ones and that with a tad bit of re-shuffling the order looked fine. After all, it's hard to get the whole purpose of a group as diverse as this one, protecting a place a diverse as Grand Canyon, down in a few simple statements.
One persistent question lurked at the corners of the discussion. What exactly is the Grand Canyon experience that we are trying to “provide”? (Normally, we'd put the word experience into quotes but I place the quotes around the word provide because I'm not sure we provide it—maybe just help it along a little.) Discussion of the question always raises the point (quite true) that we can't define the Grand Canyon experience, that it is different for everyone who comes down the river, for privates and commercials, for motor or oar passengers, for guides or guests. End of discussion. OK, but I still think that “providing the best possible river experience” is a little nebulous when it comes down to arguing details of the new CRMP. This is probably the most important document that we will encounter in our river careers, in part because it may be the last one governing the actions for most of us who are now running the river, and in part because WE have a chance to affect its direction. When we come to the table to talk turkey, do people know what brand of turkey we're talking? (They know we don't want drug testing, hair nets and rubber gloves and "loss control specialists", but do they really know why?) Do we usually find ourselves RE-acting to ideas proposed by other people? In short, do we appear like a bunch of people who can be magnanimous when it comes to “protecting the Grand Canyon”, but who whine when it comes to rules and regulations that might affect our independent, iconoclastic lifestyle?
I have a feeling that few people out there really understand what we are fighting about with a lot of these regulations. Is that in part because we have no “mission statement” of what we believe to be true and right and worth protecting about the Grand Canyon experience? What is it about a river trip that enables (to use a very ‘90s term) people to have that experience, whatever experience it might be, that we are trying to provide and protect? I think we need to tell the world what we know, not just in letters to the editor, or poems or short stories, but in a statement that can be read at meetings, given to the NPS and air tour operators, handed to bureaucrats and politicians and lobbyists. We need a calling card by way of introduction to what follows in the meetings and the sessions and the discussions.
This is brought up occasionally at board and general meetings. It gets some attention and then dies a painless death through disinterest, or perhaps the belief that it's not important or can't be done. I'm bringing it up here as a way of seeing if this is something that other people feel is important. The following statement is one I wrote as a way of starting off. This is what I have written, based on my experiences. It is not what I am suggesting we as an organization say. But perhaps it is a place to start. Whatever the final outcome of this idea, nothing at all or something that bears no resemblance to what I have written, I don't think it's wrong for us to speak from our hearts in this instance—we have a lot of love for this place and this community, the job we do and the people we take down the river. Let's tell people why it matters.

It is Grand Canyon River Guides' belief that the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River, in all its manifestations, offers an experience of wildness (notice I did not use the word wilderness for those who are squeamish about such things) and connection with the land that is important for the human spirit and can be equaled in few places on the earth today. The Grand Canyon has the ability to change people's lives in lasting positive ways that go far beyond relief from stress or exciting fun usually associated with a simple vacation. We have seen the Grand Canyon provide confidence, awareness, understanding and peace in its tiniest of grottos and its grandest of vistas, in its silence and beauty and the mystery of the unknown. We have seen that with the passing time of a river trip, people can leave more and more of the unnecessary concerns of their lives behind, and begin to connect with what is truly important for them. We have watched people learn to accept the land on its own terms and take responsibility for their own actions through living in the Grand Canyon. We have seen people leave better, happier, stronger and healthier than they came. We believe that these experiences stem directly out of separation from the trappings, rules, conditions and technology of the outside world. They come from the ability to take risks, to hurt oneself, to immerse oneself in the natural world around one, rather than being "protected" from it. And we believe ourselves to be stewards and protectors of this experience for the river visitor.

We need to define the resource that we are trying to protect. Of course the air tour operators will argue about being the most "protective" of the resource: they think that the "resource" is simply the physical being of the rocks and sands and plants and waters of Grand Canyon. We're saying that the resource is more than just that. Perhaps we have never made a statement like this because we think it's obvious: "it's the Grand Canyon, stupid." But I don't know how self-evident this is. We are the ONLY people in the world who have seen what we have seen. We are the only ones who have 30 years of consistent opportunity watching the "Grand Canyon Experience" happen to people. We have the numbers, we have the stories, we have the people behind us. (This is not to say that our experience is more valid than anyone else's—only more consistent.) Lew Steiger made the point that every time a new cadre of NPS officials comes to the table we have to start from ground zero. Would a statement like this help them to understand why we fight the way we do, why we choose one alternative over another, why we believe what we believe—in short, who we are? Would it matter to them? I don't know—perhaps not. Certainly, some sort of statement to this effect might give us a definable framework with which we could go to the table and make our case. We don't want hairnets and rubber gloves because they are inconsistent with what we believe to be important about this place, which we have stated here. Perhaps this is a proactive way to define something that all of us are fighting to protect because we see it dribbling slowly through the legal and economic cracks of the amusement park era we live in.

Christa Sadler