The damnation of the canyon is one man's account of the effects of turning a free
flowing river into a damn. He uses his first hand experience as a seasonal park ranger to
evaluate the transformation of the region, what he calls as its "damnation". The author
has "had the unique opportunity to observe firsthand some of the differences between the
environment of a free river and a power plant reservoir". However he has a certain bias,
he admits to this, he is what most would call a "tree hugger". He identifies himself as a
"butterfly chaser, a googly eyed bleeding heart and wild conservative." Making his views
to his perspective of what he wants to see.
The author feels that the building of the dam has destroyed the river's natural
beauty and wonder. He is "Poorly and impressed by the concrete aggregates and statistics
in the cubic tons." I understand the author's point of view, but does he really truly
understand the effects of other sources of power? Even tells the readers that think he is
exaggerating, to take a trip on the river below the dam. He tells them to do this so they
can experience nature's beauty. But that does not thoroughly will prove his point.
The amount of people living in America is greatly increasing in those people
require certain needs, such as power. That power has to come from somewhere, it can
either come from a natural source such as a damn or a polluting power plant.
Sometimes the negatives outweigh the benefits that something can provide. The author
claims there is now an utter baroness of the reservoir shoreline. One could argue to that
the baroness is a lot better than a polluted, sewage filled, river were nothing could use it.
The author also claims that area used to team with all kinds of wildlife such
as songbirds and beavers, before the dam was built. Even the author does not directly
state what happened to the wildlife. He says these things are "lost, crowded out - or
drowned and buried under mud". The wildlife could have simply relocated when the dam
was being built. The author also neglects that the damn may have created a new habitat
for wildlife. The fish population greatly increased after the damn was built. Animals and
plants have been around longer than people, they are capable of adapting to there
surroundings. Nature is capable of amazing things which the author overlooks and he
does not give it the credit that it deserves. An example of that adaptation is when a boat
sinks, it just does not sit there and wither away, but it's turned into a home for many fish
and other creatures. Nature always finds a way.
The reservoir also provides many recreational activities, which were not available
before the dam was built. The wide variety of activities may cost more but can now be
available to all kinds of people, who may never had a chance to experience it. The author
argues that before the dam was built, one could make a float trip down the river for days
at low costs. Floating a river might be fun But for some it may not compare to the thrill of
The author makes use of ethos, pathos, and logos. The author makes the powerful
use of pathos to people's values and beliefs. He talks of nature's natural beauty and how
it should be preserved. And if people are naturally good, that they'll realize what they're
looking over and destroying. The use of pathos is also used to make people who benefit
from the damn feel guilty, by describing that the water was polluted after the damn was
built. He uses his work as a park ranger to appeal to the ethos. To show that he has a
firsthand account of the events. I feel that the law there lacks the use of logos to appeal to
the readers reason. The evidence he presents his from a personal point of view and not
from facts and he seems to lack of consistency.
It seems to me that the prevention of pollution for a natural power source would
alone be enough to build a dam. The author does not realize that "over 20 million people
living in the Southwest U.S. depend upon Lake Powell for an ensured water supply and
their economic well being." However I feel the author over looks this in his naturalist
point of view. He also fails to provide any facts are statistics on wildlife damage. Which
seems that all his statements are based on his personal point of view and not as a whole.
The author states that nature will find a way to restore itself, but in the meantime and
power sourceis needed for humans. And it can either be provided through safe clean ways
as or by the damaging polluting ways.