he following are some of the responses we received from the Wilderness Questionnaire. Each response is not necessarily represented in full‹many have been excerpted due to space constraints. Names have been excluded, but status (i.e. guide, general, etc.) has been included for the reader¹s information. We have tried to give a fair and proportionate sample of the responses we received. The numbers listed in parentheses following each option are the percentages of choices for: guides / general members / total questionnaires received.

Option A: Full Wilderness for the canyon and for the river immediately (35 / 39 / 36)
The responses we received in this area expressed concern over the levels of protection the Park has received in the past, and concern for the future as well. Many people stressed the need for the greatest protection possible for future generations, recognizing that the loss of motorized travel would affect the industry, jobs and the ability of a certain sector to see the Canyon, but expressing that the Canyon is a special place that should not be managed for recreation.

It is very disheartening how the Park Service has degraded, developed and exploited our National Park and its ³wildlands.² Wilderness seems the next step to ensure that areas remain unscathed and wild for generations to come. Think about the changes you have seen in your lifetime. That is no time at all! If we can forget about ourselves and think Œsolely¹ for the Canyon, River and its whole, full protection is the only way. (general)
To exclude the river is absurd! The river is the heart of this magnificent wilderness! (general)
ŠI want it to have the biggest degree of protection possible. If that means the end of motors and tourists who are only willing to devote minimal time to the experience, perhaps in the long run, that is for the best.Š First and foremost the Canyon should be protected for itself and all the non-human creatures that call it home. (general)
Perhaps if the nps had been in compliance with the original proposed potential wilderness designation, i.e. not introducing the use of motorized boats for river patrol purposes, I would be more tolerant.Š There is no reason for the continued use of motors: the idea of saving jobs does not import the same impact, to me, as that of saving and protecting the Grand CanyonŠ (guide)
Is the Canyon worthy of wilderness status?‹Yes! Is the River part of the Canyon?‹Yes! Just because some enjoy motorized trips and others profit by them isn¹t just cause to compromise the Wilderness by their use. Jobs come and go, that shouldn¹t be the basis of establishing gc as a Wilderness! (guide) Because it¹s the Grand Canyon, not a Grand Canyon. No more self-protecting compromising. It¹s the right thing to do. (guide)
After many years of guiding people of almost all ages and many physical abilities on Class IV Wilderness rivers (incl. the Grand Canyon), and after photographing a splore trip on the Yampa with several paraplegics, I am skeptical about the motor outfitters¹ claims that their trips allow people to experience the river who wouldn¹t otherwise be able to partake in an oar trip. (guide)
We need to preserve the Canyon and Corridor for now and the future. I have jumped out of airplanes and run the n.y. Marathon and at 50 my great adventure and self-awareness has come from the beauty and riches of rafting the river and hiking the inner canyons. These opportunities are rare‹they must be preserved. (general) I may never raft the river (without motors) but I find solace in the idea of a Canyon without mechanized intrusion. (general)
I don¹t think economics should dictate (resource management should!), but it¹s important to know the economics because that¹s what¹s driving the other guys. (general)
The Canyon has been under study for Wilderness designation for years, while public uses have increased dramatically. It has been managed primarily for recreation rather than for Wilderness values. (general) We owe it to this noisy, commercialized world. There are so few places that could qualify as Wilderness left, that we need to look past our tunnel vision at the grander view. (guide)
Wilderness offers the best, most comprehensive protection for the Canyon.Š The long term benefits of protections we would achieve from Wilderness designation far outweigh other issues. The degradations we have seen since Wilderness management was trounced in the early ¹80s will only worsen. (guide)
The motorized ³Wilderness² being sold in the Canyon today is little more than a multi-night Disneyland ride. If not the Canyon, then where else can the American public be able to find the true river Wilderness that Congress intended to preserve in 1964? We owe it to those who will follow us to preserve that which we cannot replace. (general)
I feel that full Wilderness classification for the Canyon is the only way to ensure that the Canyon remains unspoiled for generations to come. I am fully aware of the pros and cons of the motor vs. oar debate and I have run several motor trips through the Canyon. I am not anti-motor.Š I think that anything less than full Wilderness classification will weaken Wilderness classification of other areas. I live and ranch adjacent to the Flat Top Wilderness in Colorado and an analogy I see would be the opening of a road or railroad through the middle of the Flat Tops and designating that as a non-wilderness or potential Wilderness corridor. The precedent that sets could be very dangerous. (guide)

Option B: Full Wilderness for the canyon, Potential Wilderness for the River Corridor (26 / 41 / 36)
There is still some understandable confusion about the concept of Potential Wilderness. While most people who supported the concept understood that it does mean the ultimate removal of motor rigs from the river, others still see it as a way to have motors forever and still have a Wilderness on the river. Potential Wilderness is a way to defer the whole question to a later date and most probably to Congress, and it buys time to try and work out solutions that please most, if not all, people, but the whole point is to ultimately remove motorized travel from the river corridor. Some of the responses we received found this solution to be preferable because it allowed time for other solutions and options to be developed in a phase-out of motors. Other people believe that a Wilderness with motors grandfathered in or allowed indefinitely is the best way to go. Some people were concerned about leaving anything up to Congress, others felt that putting the decision off until later is just easier, and therefore preferable. Many people expressed support for the motorized rafts, some also said that sacrifices should be made in order to protect the Canyon and the River. Many people asked whether the river could really ever be a ³true² Wilderness with Glen Canyon Dam in place.

I believe that the Canyon is a gift to mankind and intended to be kept as close to natural as possible. Thus my ³ideal² would be to have a designation as full Wilderness for Canyon and River immediately. But then my empathy for fellow citizens who have been making a living with motorized boats kicks in. And then the thought of transition becomes important. With planning and commitment it is very plausible that no jobs or businesses be lost. My family has been in business for generations and one thing we have learned is that things change. And often, what is perceived as potentially debilitating can actually end up more profitable in the end. Creativity and progressive outlooks can produce amazing ways to deal with change when one really decides to take on the challenge. It seems thatŠPotential Wilderness designation for the River would accommodate this possibility. (general)
Motor boatmen need time to convert to rowing. This seems like a good way to allow them to do so. (guide)
This was not an easy choice, because in the long run I believe motors help protect the Canyon by moving many people through quickly so they can say they did it without causing the traffic jams and enormous damage that oar/paddle only access would cause. At least ³B² allows motors to continue while offering the Canyon Wilderness protection‹a must. (guide)
It¹s time we started looking toward the future and thinking about use, how much it has increased. Getting rid of motors doesn¹t need to mean fewer jobs or less money for the outfitters‹it just means we need to think carefully about crowding and congestion. Giving everyone access in their desired way ends up making it mediocre for everyoneŠ (guide)
My intimate inner canyon experiences have all been commercial oar trips.Š Intellectually, I can make an argument for full Wilderness immediately. Practically, I am compelled to allow time for this to be achieved. My management preference would be a gradual increase in the oars-only weeks, a decrease in split trips and an expansion of the Wilderness concept to include the skies above the Canyon.Š Surely the majesty of the Canyon and our love for it should impel us humans to give it back its freedom to be wild. With that as the established goal the decisions along the way become focused on the health of ³the place²‹and that is where the emphasis belongs. (general)
My choice of Potential Wilderness for the River corridor is to allow time to figure out how best to meet the needs of all who love this place. (general)
Ultimately, the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River should be protected as Wilderness for future generations. This option allows for a sane and slow phase out of motorized rafts if people decide that this is necessary. Designating the river corridor as non-wilderness permanently would weaken Wilderness protection around the country. (general)
Protect what we can, as soon as we can, and then work to resolve the remaining issues. This situation is too complicated to await a Grand Solution. (general) We should protect what¹s left without creating major hardships for people working with the motors now. Also, the ³quickie² trips that the motors allow do expose people to the Canyon who wouldn¹t otherwise see it from the River so it¹s a hard question. (general)
ŠThere is only one Grand Canyon and we are responsible for protecting it the best we can.Š I feel that full wilderness for the Canyon and Potential Wilderness for the river provides the best of both worlds. It would give the Grand Canyon the protection it needs and deserves with time to resolve the issue of motorized travel in the river corridor. (guide)
I think the river corridor should be a potential Wilderness for now with motors to be phased out over 10­15 years except for a few weeks (2­3) a year when the truly physically disabled people could go using motors. (general)
Šdoes each Wilderness area have to conform to the same rules as the next? Aren¹t there some Wilderness areas where motorized traffic is allowed on a limited, controlled basis? Can¹t each Wilderness area be managed in a way that allows for the intrinsic values and usages of the area? Can¹t a niche be carved for motor traffic on the river? (general)
Non-Wilderness designation for the river corridor is too vulnerable. If we are not able to achieve the partial protection we desire in the present state of affairs, you can be sure that it is going to be next to impossible to regain protection if we let it go now. (guide)
Federally designated Wilderness is an artificial construct which, sad to say, is now a necessity if we hope to preserve any bits of our world in anything close to its pristine glory.Š The Canyon is one of the places that deserves our greatest respect and the highest level of protection‹protection from the inevitable, creeping degradation that follows in the footsteps of too much of humankind. The issue of motorized vehicles in Wilderness areas is being battled over all ¹round the country in various permutations. In the Rockies and Sierra it¹s over helicopter landings for backcountry skiing and here in Alaska it¹s about allowing snowmobiles into Denali Nat¹l Park. And in every case, I have to say that the right things to do, the only thing that gives our kids and their kids any hope of seeing and experiencing what we have been fortunate enough to see and experience is to say no categorically to motors in Wilderness. These are the places where the price of admission has to be high. The price of admission is sweat and skill and knowledge, and maybe even some risk. If we ³drop the price of admission² by allowing motors, whether they¹re outboards, helicopters, or snowmobiles, it¹s the Canyon, the mountains, the deserts, the tundra and all the wild things living in those wild places that will suffer.Š It¹s time we all acknowledge that quiet, or actually the lack of mechanical noises, is a dwindling natural resource and an increasingly precious one because of it.Š The demand for trips through the Canyon will not go away.Š The demand will continue to increase‹there is only one Grand Canyon‹it is the superlative river Wilderness experience.Š The Canyon and the respect, care and reverence it deserves is by far the highest, most important factor to be considered in this choice, not a few businesses or even the employees of those businesses. (general)
ŠIn trying so hard to offer variety you are eliminating the one unique thing the Grand Canyon has to offer: a true Wilderness river trip of substantial length. Ša proposed compromiseŠin addition to the late Fall, early Spring no-motor periods, add one or two designated periods during the primary season (of about 3 weeks each?) where the river corridor is run as a true Wilderness. This means no motors, lower usage levels, no helicopter exchanges, etc. (general)

Option C: Non Wilderness corridor for the river, Wilderness for the canyon (21 / 12 / 16)
The most common comments we received in this category stressed the importance of allowing motorized use to continue for the sake of variety and the less ³able² passengers who wish to travel through Grand Canyon. Many people expressed concern over what would happen to crowding in the Canyon if all those motor passengers were placed on oar boats. A few people felt that the river was well protected enough, others said that motorized use in Grand Canyon is unique and should be protected as such. A few people responded that Glen Canyon Dam made the river non-Wilderness anyway. One response rated the options in light of GCRG¹s stated goals, and found that, to him, Option C upheld our goals better than all the others, especially ³celebrating the unique spirit of the river community² and ³providing the best possible river experience.² His main concerns revolved around the crowding and congestion that would occur with the loss of motors, and the loss of a unique part of the river community.

This option allows for the most varied categories of people to experience the canyon. Complete Wilderness designation eliminates the majority of our citizens from being able to ³handle² the trip. (general)
Šcommercial trips and the present allocation do not promote a Wilderness experience. A large percentage of passengers I row down the river make unsolicited comments about the inappropriateness of motor powered boats. I personally can¹t imagine managing the present allocation without the use and schedule of motorized trips. Šwhat Wilderness would mean: Present allocation would have to be drastically cut. Motors would have to be banned. The present idea of commercial trips would need to be changed. Satellite and cell phones banned and helicopter evacs limited to life-threatening events.Š I cannot see any of these things happening. Nor do I really believe they need to in order to protect the Canyon. If protecting the river truly means ³Wilderness status² and nothing else will do, then I am willing to give up my job as a river guide and advocate all of the above curtailments. However, it is more realistic to believe that there is a political/legal way to design a protection vs. use plan. (guide)
A two-boat Canyoneers trip passes in 60 seconds. They all camp together. If this trip were oar powered it would take 11 or 12 boats minimum. If all trips were like this you could walk from boat to boat up and down the river. Šthe amount of people in the Canyon at any one time would double if not triple to meet the demand because of slower trips. Now a person has a choice. (guide)
I feel things are good and getting better as they are‹let¹s not try and drastically limit types of people and change things to fit some new definition. Šfrom my experience as a motor guide, people are genuinely affected by the Canyon‹most say the best experience of their lives. I take a lot of folks down a year,Šmost would not have been able to have done a 14-day trip and many would not have been able to do hike out or in options. (guide) The clientele on motor trips is totally different than oar trips‹and they deserve to see the river, just as much as others. I compare the gc with Yosemite. The river is the road in Yosemite‹same thing. There are plenty of other rivers in the sw to get a Wilderness experience. (guide)
I¹m not really in favor of motor boats but I know they serve a big purpose in ³shuttling² lots of folks down. I believe if they were phased out, allocation would need to be cut. I don¹t see that happening. What I would like to see is very strong protection for the river corridor (maybe create a type of protection for Grand Canyon itself) and allow motor boats, butŠnot year-round. (guide)
Motoring gc is unique. Nowhere else in the world can you do this kind of trip on a motor rig. Also to limit the numbers traversing gcŠto a level consistent with Wilderness would deprive too many people of seeing the gc from the river. Also, bureaucratic Wilderness protection is contrary to the basic essence of Wilderness. (guide)
As much as I prefer row boats, I must concede that motorized boats remain the best means of transport for the masses. The commercial ³greyhounds² move the most number of river runners, faster, and with less impact to campsites or side canyons used typically by smaller groups/trips. Motor trips of short duration are more affordable to the greater public. (guide)
I was fortunate to take a 14 day raft trip and will always be grateful that I stumbled onto the raft trip rather than a motorized trip. However good friends of mine took the motorized trip and I believe the Canyon had as profound an impact on them as it did me. They would not have had the experience at all if it weren¹t for their motorized craft because of their initial fear of the river and rapids. It is important to reach as many types of people as possible to savor the impact of the Canyon. I believe only in that way will we be able to save what we have left. (general)

Option D: Remove the entire park from Wilderness consideration at all (8 / 2 / 5)
One outfitter responded in this category, so for ease of this particular set of numbers, we included that response with the guides. Most of these responses centered around support of motors, but not of removing the river from management objectives of the rest of the Park. While this may not be a very realistic option, we thought we¹d throw it in to see what the response was.

The scariest words I know go like this: ³I¹m from the government and I¹m here to help you.² Leave things as is. (general)
Please remember that as people become older they are not as able to cope with strenuous activities and sudden changes of lifestyles. So I believe that motorized crafts should continue operating in Grand Canyon so long as noise pollution remains at acceptable levels and they seem to be safer also. (guide)
I would be in favor of Option C but I don¹t think it will go anywhere. Grand Canyon should be managed in a way best suited to Grand Canyon without worrying about how it affects other potential Wilderness areas. I¹m concerned that any Wilderness designation for the Park will eventually lead to the elimination of motors. (guide) Wilderness designation is inappropriate and unnecessary. The river is used by far too many people to even approach the definition of solitude inherent in the Wilderness concept. Be that as it may, a lot of good comes from giving a lot of people the ³Grand Canyon Experience.² Wilderness precludes motors and motor use is an important part of the experience. The present mix of motor and oar powered trips allows for the current levels of use without trips getting in each other¹s way to any great extent. If all use was rowing, it would be a constant traffic jam of oar trips. All nps and Science trips should be motorized. Much more cost effective than oar-powered trips. (guide)

Option E: None of these (10 / 6 / 7)
These responses covered a wide range. Some people just asked some questions about the whole issue. A few people suggested a Wilderness with motors grandfathered in for the river corridor. One respondent suggested just enforcing existing rules and regulations and not doing anything special. Still another suggested a compromise of motor use at the 1980 levels. One person asked how we could even consider Grand Canyon a Wilderness without re-introducing predators to the ecosystem.

Perhaps a compromise solution would be to allow motors at the 1980 level of use as a nonconforming historical use under Wilderness protection. This would still allow some faster trips for some folks, yet greatly reduce the motor impacts of today. At the same time, all helicopter services to facilitate shorter trips should be eliminated. (general)
I would strongly support any plan that called for no permanent structures to be built in the Canyon, no proliferation of motorized vehicles in the Canyon and the preservation of the Canyon itself, i.e. to leave it as it is. It is unrealistic to think we can reverse the erosion of Wilderness but it is realistic to try and preserve (or at least slow down the loss of) Wilderness. (guide)
Create a designation unique to Grand Canyon. It should allow for river and backcountry access to continue as they are today but restrict any further development or increase in use throughout the park.Š If we are not going to consider the creation of a true Wilderness and fully restore the varied ecosystems of Grand Canyon, then perhaps we should accept that Grand Canyon, even with its fragmented wildness as it exists, has value to our society as a place of education and inspiration, resources that it can offer most anybody because it is so accessible. (guide)
ŠWhile I love the idea of Wilderness protection for the River, motor rigs can be grandfathered in. And should be! Historically motors were used in the first 100 [people]. Motors are providing a good trip.Š No more changeovers. Adhere to the 40 miles a day rule. The Wilderness issue has certainly given us sights to shoot for but let¹s construct our own view of what¹s right for the Canyon and plateaus surrounding it. (guide)
Ša precedent exists for retaining motors in the Wilderness, viz. the Frank Church/River of No Return, where jet boats and aircraft were grandfathered in. Thus, I take a positionŠmotorized raftingŠgrandfathered in. (guide)
Instead of seeking Wilderness designation for the Park, varied interest groups, etc. might consider reaching out in a visionary process unique to Grand Canyon National Park that involves the tribes in the decision-making process from the very beginning that will manage not only the Park lands and river corridor, but also tribal lands in the best interest of all parties involved respectfully of their differences. (guide)

So, there you have it. Or at least some of it. A wide variety of opinions from your friends and fellow river runners, all expressing love for the Canyon, the River and the experience provided by a visit there. Which is exactly what we thought we¹d hear. This wasn¹t a vote, or a popularity contest. It was a way of trying to put a finger on the pulse(s) of our membership.

So what do we do with all these responses? Does this mean that gcrg will now head out with banners flying in an all-out campaign for ‹? No, it does not. We are still a community and believe that we can achieve more on all fronts as a unified community than as a divided one, and we did not receive a clear mandate for any one viewpoint. After a lot of discussion, the Board of Directors has come to the conclusion that we cannot support any one of the current positions in the Wilderness debate. Our responses showed us two things very clearly: many people support Wilderness for the Colorado River, and many people support motors on the river. Some people support both at the same time. Confusing? You bet. We¹ve got a headache. So we will by necessity remove ourselves from this particular debate. Is this going to make a lot of you happy? Absolutely not. We will probably get a whole pile of heated letters telling us what panty-waisted sissies we are now, just as we got similar input telling us we were scum for supposedly supporting removal of motors (which we did not). Perhaps, at some point, as someone explained patiently the other day, a decision is going to need to be made, and we will need to be on one side or the other. Perhaps. We will work on what we can without ripping the community apart. We will, however, continue to be a forum for opinions on all sides of the issue. We may not be able to take a stance, but we believe that the issues and opinions should be aired. There have been a lot of issues that gcrg has not taken a stand on, drug testing and decommissioning of Glen Canyon Dam being two of the most recent and controversial. But you have seen articles and read discussions about them all. You may see things you disagree with, or agree with, or think are complete bull, poorly timed or poorly written, about Wilderness and other issues. We will continue to print them. So what can we say? We can say that we support a management strategy that does not separate the river as a legal non-Wilderness corridor. We can say that we would like the river to have some form of protection greater than it now has, perhaps as a Wild and Scenic river, or some other status. We support a management strategy that no longer allows for increases in allocation and technology. We support Wilderness principles in management (even if we can¹t support Wilderness designation) for the river. And we support a dialogue, any dialogue, that will take all of us away from a polarized ³us vs. them² stance and towards a discussion of how indeed we want this resource to be managed. We can also encourage you to write to the Park or to your representatives with your opinion, whatever that may be. In the coming months, gcrg will try to be part of crafting solutions to some of these issues that work for the river and her visitors. We will take all the comments and suggestions and fears and concerns that you sent us in your responses and use them in our discussions. There are other important issues within the whole crmp process that are still up for debate, and which we can and must still work on. The ultimate decision will be made in the offices of the Park Service or the halls of Congress. It may seem frustrating that we have to talk about ³managing² this land as anything at all. But we have set foot on it‹many feet‹and it is up to us to make sure the place is something worth coming back to in the future, no matter what its legal designation is. Grand Canyon River Guides