If any place were worthy of being exempt from commercialization, I would say Horseshoe Canyon qualifies.
SITLA claims their mandate is simply to raise money, so there is not much we can expect from them in terms of broader perspectives. As Kim Christy, deputy director of SITLA said, “This application allows the agency to potentially generate revenue from very remote property that is otherwise economically challenged.”
Fascinating word spin.
I’ve known what it feels like to be economically challenged; I didn’t think it mattered to the land.
That thinking comes from the mindset of “highest and best use,” that every square inch of earth’s surface should generate as much money as possible, regardless of how inappropriate that use is to other human and community values.
Christy goes on to say that although SITLA will attempt to mitigate any conflicts expressed, the permit process will not be “impeded” because of them.
So, where does that leave us? Some governmental units (BLM, NPS, Grand County) have little or no voice in the matter. Another, SITLA, will be unswayed.
But, we might ask the permit applicants, Pinnacle Helicopters, if they really want to be responsible for turning the Great Gallery into a roaring echo chamber.
Is it “worth” it? For whom?
They seem to be the only party who can make a difference in how the situation will play out. Since our institutions and bureaucracies don’t seem to have the means to do the right thing, perhaps Pinnacle Helicopters could simply withdraw their request.