here are a few things that are important: It is important to get all the information before you take a stance, to have your own opinion, to at least try to understand someone else¹s opinion, and it is most important never to patronize another person or group that sees things differently than you see them. Everyone has an agenda (no big secret) and, although it is necessary to feel strongly about one thing or another, it is also necessary to make concessions so that positive change is possibleŠand change is inevitable. We have no control over the fact that things evolve, the whole damn universe is fixed for it, but we do have some say in how it happensŠat least right here and right now we do.

I have my opinions, but that¹s not what I want to write about. Recently, I have been trying to listen to what other people are saying and, although I don¹t agree with all of it, I can understand it. It is called empathy. Don¹t get me wrong, I don¹t think I know everything, and I am not calling for a love-in. I am not even suggesting apathy but, now that each side has defined its viewpoints and taken a stance, it is time to look for some common ground.

In case you hadn¹t guessed, I am suggesting a way to deal with all the issues surrounding the Colorado River Management Plan (crmp). In fact, this suggestion I am making relates to just about any controversy. Both sides of an issue are important and, whether or not these are your opinions, there are a few questions we each have to ask about the people involved: Who does not understand why some people are against the removal of motors in Grand Canyon? Who doesn¹t understand what it must feel like to fear the loss of one¹s job, and perhaps even that thing which has defined his/her entire existence since childhood? What if it was your business that had been begun by your father or grandfather? Can anyone honestly tell me that these people do not care about Grand Canyon? Does anyone really believe that either oar or motor guides, outfitters or private boaters don¹t want to protect the ecosystems and integrity of the place, while also enjoying and sharing it? And then I¹ve got to ask, what¹s up with the issue always being people and what people need and want? When do we accept that we are actually a part of this planet, and that it does not revolve around the whims of humans? Will we, as a species, ever truly admit the harm we have caused and try to find a way to heal it? The point is that each perspective is valid in its own right, and each has its place in figuring out the answer to the question ³what do we do?²

Everyone involved needs to realize that inflexibility only hinders one¹s cause, and antagonizing others neither sways their opinions nor educates them. Besides, who in all this controversy doesn¹t want what is best for Grand Canyon? This question brings me to another point: what the hell is best for Grand Canyon? Why is it always an issue of human experience versus ecological harmony? We are a race defined by our technological advances, there must be a solution. I sure don¹t have it, but I do have a modest suggestion; take a moment and step outside your brain, try to look at things from a different perspective and, hopefully, you will think twice before you get in the face of someone whose eyes you have looked through.

Nicole J. Corbo