Grand Canyon Skywalk - No Cameras allowed

The Arizona Republic (local paper) had a lengthy artcicle about the new Skywalk

at the West Rim of the Grand Canyon and they mentioned that no cameras were

allowed on the skywalk because the Indian tribe was concerned that cameras

might sratch the glass.

 

I called the reservation line of the West Rim to confirm that this information

was correct and they did indeed confirm this. The lady I talked to was as upset

as I was about this rule. To make matters even worse, they don't even have

lockers for your camera - so you are out of luck if you bring one and you will

be out $75. Should you manage to smuggle a camera onto the skywalk and be

caught they will fine you $500. She suggested that I should write a letter to

the tribe and complain about the situation.

 

I guess as long as they have this rule they won't see me on that skywalk.

Cameras scratch the glass? What about diamond rings? Do you have to leave them back in your car too?

 

The thing looks like a blight on the landscape from what I've seen on the TV news.

I wouldn't patronize that eyesore for asthetic reasons. That a tribe of 2,000 Indians could be allowed to do that much visual damage to a natural treasure is appalling. Worse yet, the tribe plans to construct a cable car line from the canyon rim to the river bed:

 

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-skywalk11feb11,0,6802248.story?coll=la-home-headlines

For an admission fee of $25 you are not even allowed to take a picture while on it; makes total sense to me ;-)

"That a tribe of 2,000 Indians could be allowed to do that much visual damage to a natural treasure is appalling"

 

Interesting response. I suppose there were a whole hell of alot more than 2,000 when we took it from them, no? Hasn't even been that long...

 

Let 'em have their corner. The "damage" isn't visible from 99.9% of the place. No worse than the accomodations on either rim, the constant helicopter noise disrupting the solitude, etc.

I guess they have a perfect right to prevent anyone from spoiling their new creation.

 

Can the Canyonland theme park be far behind?

"I suppose there were a whole hell of alot more than 2,000 when we took it from them, no?"

 

 

Rather than "suppos(ing)," please hold forth on whether there "were a whole hell of alot more than 2,000" Hualapai Indians in the 1800s and whether they owned the Grand Canyon such that it could have been taken from them.

 

 

The National Park Service is doing its best to preserve the canyon- no small feat, given that the federal government doesn't own all the lands around the canyon. This skywalk is in suprisingly poor taste for a Native American group that forwards itself as a steward of the area.

From the LA times:

 

"...When the cantilevered structure opens to the public next month, it will be the most conspicuous commercial edifice in the canyon. And, if the tribe's plans come to fruition, the Skywalk will be the catalyst for a 9,000-acre development, known as Grand Canyon West... Construction on an attached 6,000-square-foot visitors center and restaurant is to begin after the walkway opens....the development may eventually include hotels, restaurants and a golf course..."

 

I suppose you could always point your camera in the other direction - though not while you are standing on the Skywalk of course.

Guys, lighten up. It could be worse.

 

If they were Florida Indians, there would already be a humongous glittering neon casino built out over the Canyon with a bungee drop to the bottom and back.

It's not an "indian" (native american) issue. I suspect that there would a a queue of white European-American property developers a mile long if the NPS were handing out building permits for the Canyon.

 

Someone would probably try to build a bridge across it! Perfect for photography, bungee jumping and BASE jumping, plus you could slap a $100 toll on it for motorists who want to go from the north to south rim without a 200 mile drive as well as hang an elevator off it for those who want the true wilderness experience of visiting the canyon floor. It would be better than the iMax movie.

No cameras allowed has nothing to do with scratching the glass. I suspect the real reason is they want to make money off the post cards and stock images from the site. They own all the images, they make all the money. It's the same in a lot of places. I actually had a bartender tell me there are no pictures allowed in thier establishment due to liability issues once, he then politely asked if I'd like to purchase a postcard featuring an image of the bar.

Where's George Hayduke when you need him most?

"That a tribe of 2,000 Indians could be allowed to do that much visual damage to a natural treasure is appalling. Worse yet, the tribe plans to construct a cable car line..."

 

Do you share all this dismay with all those roads, concessions stands and so forth that decorate so many other 'natuaral treaures' or is your scorn only for "a tribe of 2,000 Indians"?

 

No need to answer really. The fact that you specifically mention their race pretty much tells us all we need to know.

"Do you share all this dismay with all those roads, concessions stands and so forth that decorate so many other 'natuaral treaures' or is your scorn only for 'a tribe of 2,000 Indians'?"

 

 

Yes, I'm dismayed by the commercial development bordering many national parks. No, my scorn isn't limited to Indians, but an Indian-built walkway is the subject of the post. Your hyper-PC attitude that anyone who would dare criticize an Indian tribe for any reason must be a racist is absurd.

It sounded like a cool idea when I first heard about it, but if it is indeed a "tourist" attraction, then to expect tourists to not have a camera is a little ridiculous (nearly everyone has them on their cellphones for that matter these days). I say vote with our feet. No cameras, no photographer tourists. Maybe they'll change the rule.

 

As to the damage to the vista, we can always remove it with photoshop ;-)

Hayduke Lives!....Haus.

Sorry Eric, but if you actually read the posting, the issue was about photograpghy being forbidden not about the structure itself. Likewise, there is no reference by me relating to criticism of a tribe "for any reason", there is a reference to you going out of your way to mention a "tribe of 2000 Indians" being allowed to do something that is already commonplace.

 

I'm delighted to learn that you are dismayed about commercial development bordering many national parks.

 

Regarding the original post, It would be interesting to know if other "loose objects" are banned or if there is a likelyhood that camera lenses are likely to be placed on the transparent floor which can cause damage. Apparently some sort of slippers are required to be worn to prevent damage. Ultimately, if photograghy is banned at a location designed to be a 'tourist attraction', the market will determine whether the ban or attraction continues. Especially if the ban becomes well known.

Whatever I think about the walk itself (not impressed), the idea of having photo police on it is beyond absurd.

 

I have been to their canyon, marvelled at the falls, walked down to the river, etc. But there is no way would I pay money to visit that new overhang, and especially being denied the right to point a camera and click a button. Totally ridiculous.

 

Long ago I read "Bury My Heart", but that was many years before the coming of the casinos.

Not all that unusual these days. Plenty of "attractions" are doing their darnedest to limit photography so they can make more money selling their own images.

 

The most egregious example of this, in my mind, is the Sistine chapel -- the ceiling's restoration was copyrighted by the restoration company, who now disallow all photography of the work on the basis that they own the rights to the restored parts of Michaelangelo's work!

 

I agree, it's foolish, and it's an attraction I plan on avoiding. But don't worry -- in the not too distant future the whole world will be private property and we'll be paying licensing fees for every image we take ...

David,

 

I just read an article on patent/copyright "innovations", and you may be more correct that you ever wished

"...and we'll be paying licensing fees for every image we take ..."

 

In which case I won't care much what happens to the world like this and who blows it up and for what reasons. Soon they will licence the air you breathe and put a fee for using your own eyes - as the eyes may be yours, but the views you may see are not...