hen GCRG first heard of plans by the National Park Service to remove the bat towers from the north shore of the Canyon, there were more pressing issues. Since the larger, more spectacular south towers on the Hualapai land would remain, we were surprised at the ensuing controversy. There are several guides in our community who feel the bat towers are historically significant and should be preserved, (Guano!, bqr 8:4, 8:2). Others are just as adamant that they should be removed; some couldn’t care less. No matter how you feel about the towers, recent developments should raise some huge red flags. This controversy goes well beyond the bats or the towers; it has become an issue of wilderness and wildlife protection versus states’ rights.
The first priority of this organization is, and always has been, protection of Grand Canyon. Unquestionably, wilderness designation is the best possible protection we could attain for any part of Grand Canyon. Yet, according to the NPS, such designation cannot happen to that area as long as the towers remain. Several guides have commented that as they motor among the mud flats of Lake Mead, surrounded by jet boats, speed boats, jet skis and tamarisk, the pursuit of wilderness designation seems absurd. But we should not write off the entire area based on our narrow perspective of what we can see from the lake. Beyond its shores there is a vast, wild, and beautiful area that contains some of the largest side canyons in all of Grand Canyon; an immense area of hidden springs, spectacular beauty and wildlife. Shouldn’t the wilderness values of this area take precedence over a deteriorating 40 year old man-made structure?
The NPS has set aside many historic structures for preservation. But where is the line between a structure of true historic interest, and merely old stuff? The spectrum of man’s relics in Grand Canyon includes ancient split-twig figurines, Anasazi ruins, the Ross Wheeler, the Bundy jars, the bat towers, the USGS cable crossing, and Glen Canyon Dam. How do we distinguish between artifacts we should preserve and debris which detracts from wilderness values? To do so, perhaps we must reexamine man’s sometimes egocentric perception of his own importance.
The bat towers are certainly unique; their construction was monumental. However, US Guano Corporation, driven by the desire to turn an immense profit, gave little or no thought to the damage it was doing to the bat population or anything else. When it became obvious they had greatly overestimated the amount of guano and underestimated the costs, they simply shut down, leaving their toys strewn about like spoiled children.

If we are to revere such monuments to man’s greed and shortsightedness, what message are we sending? If times had changed and man no longer did such things— no longer raped the land for the almighty dollar—it would be more important to preserve these reminders. “Look, you guys!”, you could say as you passed the towers, “Back then people actually just took what they wanted from the land and never even considered restoring it to its natural state. They sometimes even passed the costs along to the government! How quaint.” But we have no shortage of such reminders. Man continues to exploit the land, to pummel the earth until its wealth is exhausted, then move on, giving little thought to cleaning up the mess he leaves behind. We should not embrace such behavior.

The State Historical Preservation Office supported removal of the towers, asserting that the action “should have no effect on any National register listed or eligible property.” Concurring with the NPS proposal were Arizona Game & Fish, the Bureau of Land Management, National Parks and Conservation Association, Wildlands Project, Sierra Club and Grand Canyon Trust. The EIS process determined no significant impact from the proposed action. During the public comment period, eighteen respondents were supportive of proceeding with the removal of the towers, fourteen were opposed, and two expressed no opinion. The Hualapai Tribe raised objections, although the largest towers on their land would have been untouched. Officials from Mojave County expressed outrage.
When the NPS announced they would proceed with the project, they were informed that Mojave County law enforcement would stop NPS personnel who attempted to remove the towers. Whether we want the towers saved or not, we should not applaud this action. Rather, we should be extremely concerned that a local government could exert such control over resource management decisions made, with due process and public input, by the NPS. The scary part is, what’s next? Mining? Grazing? If NPS doesn’t have ultimate authority over our nations parks, where are we headed?
Wilderness protection is a complicated process; it directly affects people who must give up certain uses of the land; this issue is no exception. Considering the current onslaught on our nation’s wilderness, it is vital that we preserve as much as possible. The vast, often unnoticed and unappreciated area north of the lake deserves the best protection available.

Jeri Ledbetter