This last winter, I had the opportunity to visit "The Antelope Canyon" - it isn't a National Park but instead a protected land. I had tried many times in the past to visit but was unable to due weather and finally succeed last February. In the summer it gets extremely hot and other times of the year, the canyon can get flash floods. It is also on tribal land and native American must escort you through the canyon. They only let some many visitors per day, so you must make your reservations many months in advance with no guarantee of getting through. I wanted to visit another area called the "The Wave" but due to time and some other circumstances I never made it. I know I will make it to "The Wave" eventually.
Here are some photo from Antelope Canyon.
Which leads me to the discuss this week - > I saw an article last week on US Interior Chief looking at our National Monument & National Lands and how they are being used and protected.
Here is the article --> www.williamsnews.com/news/2017/sep/05/zinke-no-national-monuments-be-eliminated-some-be-/
In the past, national lands is run not by the National Park Service but by the BLM (check out the link)
Discussion questions
What is your impression of the article? Do you think, that major tracts of land should be preserved on the US tax payer dime? How would you recommend the land be managed? There are competing groups; the conservationists and the business interests. Many times, these lands contain many of the most precious national resources out there that are invaluable to budding industries. How do we balance the needs of both? Also as a side note - what is the one place you are most interested in visiting in the USA and why?