>I agree that things are out of hand, but specifically with the Grand Canyon
>the key to the place is the NPS proposed wilderness designation. If that
>goes through it doesn't matter whether Arizona administers the park or not.

Hmmm...though if title were transferred to Arizona it might well matter.
Simply allowing Arizona administrate it as federal land would, of course,
force them to manage as prescribed by the Wilderness Act.

Remember, though, that grazing is allowed under the Act. In NPS lands,
grazing is usually only grandfathered for the current generation. This
was what happened at Joshua Tree, and the old man is dead now, and the
cows gone.

If Arizona were to manage the land, grazing might well be allowed in
the plateau (if anyone were interested). Perhaps not in this park,
but the point is that as a general way of thinking about managing our
public lands, putting over to the states just sucks. Even if they're
designated as wilderness and kept that way, the Wilderness Act allows a
suprising amount of development, even mining if there are active
claims.

>The rim tourist areas are important to Arizona
>economically and frankly they were sacrificed years ago; I couldn't care
>less if that area became an Arizona State Park.

I do, more because of the potential harm done by setting such a
precedent than any concern for this particular patch. If AZ got the
most popular parts of the Grand Canyon, you can bet that Wyoming would
be after the most popular spots in Yellowstone, etc etc etc on down
the line.

When it comes to issues like this, you can't simply think as a natural
history lover, wilderness lover, etc - you must think like a sneaky,
cynical, bought-and-paid-for politician and think not about the
proposal on the table, but all the assholes lined up outside the
door waiting to exploit the same chink in the armor if you once
give way on a point of principle.

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>