Making an Impact

   There you are. You’ve just tied up at Saddle Canyon and shut down the motor, and you begin to lead your 20 folks up the heavily worn trail. Arriving in the upper valley, you sit down for a moment to let everyone catch their breath. Just ahead, you notice one of the folks walking off the trail to pee in the bushes. The drone of an airplane begins to reverberate off the walls. Several thousand feet above, air tour passengers looking down upon the side canyon can easily distinguish the deeply etched trail, cut over the years by countless thousands of river traveler’s feet. The aircraft passes out of earshot, their temporary impact ended. The trail, however, will remain for generations. Surely, there is no visitation without impact. Who’s right? Who’s wrong? Neither? ..... Both?

   Although banning all human visitation would drastically reduce impact, it is obviously not a realistic option. Nor is it realistic to allow any one type of visitation to become so overwhelming that it detracts from all others. The realistic solution, as always, is balance. Enforcing reasonable restrictions on each form of visitation ultimately protects them all.

   It must be conceded that a good deal of Grand Canyon’s most invasive air traffic is a direct result of the boating industry. And when a crew member or passenger is injured, we rely heavily on pilots for assistance. We are bound together, and we aren’t so very different.

   We aren’t trying to defeat the air tour industry, nor was anyone trying to defeat the river industry when use limits became a dire necessity to protect the river corridor. That action was taken none too soon, illustrated by Havasu Harbor on a busy day in June. Examples abound of other rivers where such measures weren’t taken soon enough, resulting in zones of bumper-boats which make Havasu seem pristine.

   In 1971 the number of Grand Canyon outfitters was frozen, as was their individual growth. Obviously the restrictions weren’t detrimental to the river industry; quite the contrary. River companies increased substantially in value partly as a result of the limits imposed upon them.

   Since the 1987 Overflights act was passed, the number of flights has doubled; the number of air tour operators has more than doubled, rising from 20 to 43. Perhaps the first step to manage this rapidly expanding industry is to prohibit further influx of operators, thereby protecting current ones. With such protections in place, air tour operators need not be adversely affected by growth restrictions.

   Many among the air tour industry have shown remarkable initiative by striving to reduce the impact they generate. The river industry has also made admirable effort, but all must continue to reexamine their own impacts.

   It is well known that some motor rigs, due to a combination of boat design, type of motor, speed of schedule, and driving style, are louder than others. It is to our advantage, as our equipment is replaced, to evolve quieter rigs and lean towards less invasive schedules.

   Rowing trips, by design, spend more time in the Canyon and more time off the river, thereby producing far greater human impact. Boatmen should stress and overstress the importance of staying on trails, peeing IN the river (not just near it), containerizing ALL solid waste, and refraining from remodeling the beach to one’s immediate needs. Some boatmen denounce motor trips, then proceed to Whitmore for a passenger exchange via helicopters. Perhaps a step away from hypocrisy would be for outfitters to refrain from offering such trips during non-motor season.

   The air tour industry is quick to point out such inconsistencies. Their industry is currently under fire, but we all are, right? All those who work in the Canyon impact the Canyon. Accepting that, we should all strive to keep our impacts to a minimum.

Jeri Ledbetter