Who Can Save the Grand Canyon?

No. They exist because they exist. It's a privilege that we get to appreciate them.

We can't seem to lose the notion that the universe was created for us.

When the earth is a barren ball of rock and humanity is long-gone, maybe someone out there will notice the irony in it all.

> I met a traveller from an antique land Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand, Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown, And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed: And on the pedestal these words appear: 'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!' Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away."

My point is, the beauty of these places is in many cases derived specifically from their remoteness. Their inaccessibility is precisely the nucleus of what makes them what they are.

Sure it's absolutely unfair that disabled persons won't have that experience without far more effort, if at all.

But is the solution really to make it such that no one can?

But to turn it into a mini-Las Vegas would be a crime.

You can't turn nature into a tourist trap. There's no way the two can co-exist, and nature would lose. It's difficult to get to, yes. But that's the charm of it.

Hardin suffered from polio, contracted before WWII, and walked using braces and crutches for the rest of his life.

While I cannot find an online reference to that view, it's one he visited multiple times in his essays, collected in several books: http://www.powells.com/s?kw=garrett+hardin&class=

... Enjoy them in certain ways, that preserve their nature as much as possible. Think about designated wilderness areas, for example. How do you run an asphalt sidewalk through a designated wilderness area, where rangers must use hand-saws instead of chainsaws? Can it still be wilderness if you do?

“A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”

But why do the trails get so much usage? Because Yosemite Valley has experienced heavy development, which allows a ton of people to stay there at one time.

The actual mission of the National Park Service, according to the bill that created it, is:

> to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

It's the last part where people get mad at the NPS. One cannot look at a picture of Yosemite Valley as it originally existed, and the mess it is today, and think that it's "unimpaired."

Likewise, I don't see how anyone can look at what is proposed for the Grand Canyon and say it would leave the GC unimpaired.

What makes natural experiences so valuable is that they are not shaped to the conveniences of human beings. National parks are not just about pretty scenery. They are about preserving an experience that once was common, but is almost gone.

There is no way to improve access to that experience without also harming it. And once it is gone, it's gone forever. We have no idea how to create natural experiences. All we can possibly do is protect the few we haven't already wrecked.

Hikers don't seem to mind this very much -- in fact, it's common for even fairly experienced hikers to ascend in the morning and take a bus down later, so that they may spend more time at the summit. There are several somewhat lower (but still spectacular) peaks in the same range, which are largely untouched.

I hate this ridiculously entitled attitude. If you aren't a great climber in fantastic physical shape, just don't go to Everest. I have the same kind of contempt for people who pay crazy sums of money to go on a Safari in Africa with loads of guides to shoot lions or elephants, so they can show their friends back home the pictures and the carcasses.

Actually - in that same vein. Those are the same people that show up to Burning Man spending insane sums of money and completely defeating the spirit of that event.

I am not a climber, a hunter, or someone who has ever gone to Burning Man, but if you want to take part in those cultures, you should do so with respect and humility.

The only problem I have with it is that bodies are rarely taken back and therefore contribute to the pollution of the mountain. Other than that....as long as everyone climbing knows that there is a 1.4% chance of dying, it's fine. I imagine there are extreme sports which have a similar if not higher death ratio,and I would never want to be forbidden from doing something I love just because I "can" die. And I imagine climbing to the top of Everest is what makes it special, not just standing on the top.

So given those choices, what's the answer?

People visit the Canyon for its natural beauty. You can't improve on that by building something.