My jaw is dropping as I read this. The photos you've included are jaw-dropping - it looks like an incredible place. And sadly, what's happening to this area is jaw-dropping too.

You've presented the issues so clearly - it's clearly a complex case. It's an economic boon for the Hualapai people - but economics isn't everything, and it could be something they'll come to regret.

In the UK, we've had suggestions that the likes of Coca-Cola and Disney could take sponsorships of our National Parks. Frankly I don't see why these areas "need" their investment. I'm not an expert, but I used to volunteer as a Park Ranger, and I'm going to be doing more voluntary work soon. Most people visit these wild areas because they're wild, not because they're micro-managed. I don't see anything wrong with a few sensitively-handled schemes to help people with disabilities access some of the remoter areas, but once these areas are subject to profit-making, things tend to deteriorate.

The beautiful area of Glencoe in Scotland was purchased by the National Trust in the 1930s, partly financed by significant donations from the Scottish Mountaineering Club. They stipulated that the visitor centre was to be in the village, at the northern end of the glen, so that the glen itself would remain wild. And that's the way it's been for almost 100 years - yet thousands of tourists come to enjoy it. It's a much smaller area than Grand Canyon, but as a principle, profits and wild areas usually cancel each other out before long.