[danielweber]

In high school, every Monday my geology teacher Mr. Weinle would show slides from a national park he visited. One of them -- I don't remember which -- had an asphalt sidewalk running through it. He said "I was mad as hell when I saw this. This is nature! You should protect it!"

Then he switched slides to the next picture he took: it showed a man with leg braces walking through the park. He held up his fingers and said "at this point I felt about this tall."

These parks don't just exist in a vacuum. They exist so that people can enjoy them.

I'm not necessarily endorsing this modification to the Grand Canyon. There is value in preserving it for the future as is, and there is also value in making it accessible. It's a trade-off. Some parks -- and I don't just mean the flat ones, since the amazing geology generally happens where there is significant vertical distance involved -- should be accessible even to those with special needs. Maybe enough are already. Maybe not.

[lambeosaurus]

> They exist so that people can enjoy them

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."

[cbd1984]

No, the parks exist for humans.

The Universe simply exists. It's not guaranteed that any part of the Universe will be part of a park.

[coroutines]

I think the original guy meant they exist because humans voted to protect them for our enjoyment. I don't think we're protecting these sites (national parks) simply to exist. The land would be too useful for other functions to just "exist". They're protected and to some degree (imo) they should be made accessible so they can stay protected/respected :>

[elif]

Think about the most beautiful, breathtaking beach or vista you've been to. I'm talking blow-your-mind, stop you in your tracks to contemplate the natural world caliber of beautiful. Maybe you've never had that experience, but if you have, how long did it take you to get there? how many people were around?

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?

[dredmorbius]

"A bad road is a good filter."

One of my own favorite sites, long reachable only by a long and often difficult to traverse dirt road, had a paved road put in some years ago. And while there were some environmental arguments in favor (the dust from vehicles washed into local creeks and affected aquatic life), it hugely changed the nature of the destination at the end of the road.

[pmcg]

Some places are really beautiful, but would not be less beautiful just because people can enjoy them.

Maybe the solution is to preserve these places until we have relatively cheap tech (like quadcopter drones) that can carry people to some of these places. Allow them to come in only at certain times or whatever so normally the place is still as wild as ever. Or VR connected to drones that people can fly around... there are many possibilities in the not-too-distant future that probably.

But right now the only practical way to make these places accessible is with paved roads so that's what happens.

[727374]

Yeah, but we're not talking about a asphalt sidewalk here. We're talking about a massive gondola system. There are far less invasive ways to make the park more accessible. You can currently ride a mule down to the colorado river from the main park offices. If you're unable to take a mule, you can take a helicopter tour.

[unreal37]

I see the point you're making. I've been to the Grand Canyon, and it's difficult to get to. Even off the main road, it's 30 slow miles over unpaved dusty, bumpy road to get to the Western rim. If night falls, you're in tough shape because the road is unlit. If you are low on gas, or need a break, there's no place to stop. Even in 2015, the canyon is hard to get to.

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.

[shas3]

The 'western rim' is not inside the National Park [1]. The 'legit' Grand Canyon, the one covered by the National Park is very accessible (the rim)!

[1] http://www.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/skywalk.htm

[anomicron]

SkyWalk is a tourist trap, expensive as hell. You are not even allowed cameras on the actual skywalk, so you have to buy their photos. The skywalk itself is an inslut to nature. I hope I knew a way of getting to the Canyon from Las Vegas without having to pay this robbers.

[sosborn]

> inslut

Probably not intended, but this is a great word to use in this instance.

[avn2109]

>> "...it's difficult to get to."

I'm surprised that nobody else has brought this up: No less an authority on matters arid and wild than Edward Abbey has written extensively [0-1] on the inaccessibility and remoteness of the Grand Canyon. If I had to sum up his position on this topic, it might be "That's the point."

[0] http://www.amazon.com/Desert-Solitaire-A-Season-Wilderness/d...

[1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Monkey-Wrench-Gang-P-S/dp/00611297...

[cbd1984]

> If I had to sum up his position on this topic, it might be "That's the point."

Yes, because only the able-bodied should be able to enjoy the richness of the region.

[m741]

You can simply drive to the rim. The entire path around the rim is paved and handicap-accessible. You can take a mule into the canyon. It's difficult to get to only in the sense that you must drive for several hours from any nearby city to reach the area.

[prawn]

Exactly, it's remote but it's not inaccessible. The same is true of Yosemite, Death Valley, Yellowstone, Arches, etc.

[sstrudeau]

The example of exactly this happening at Niagara Falls was part of the impetus for the National Park System in the first place.

[dredmorbius]

Garrett Hardin -- he of the Tragedy of the Commons -- addressed the question of disabled access to wilderness. He opposed 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=

[carapace]

(Just wanted to point out that the obvious solution there is to fix the poor man's legs, not pave the world. For perspective, one of my best friends is quadriplegic and I'm pretty sure that he would love to visit the Grand Canyon and he would deplore this development with all his heart.)

[sliverstorm]

These parks don't just exist in a vacuum. They exist so that people can enjoy them.

... 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.”

[jonknee]

Grand Canyon NP is already accessible with pavement, sidewalks and even nice restrooms.

[snowwrestler]

There are asphalt trails in some side canyons of Yosemite Valley. They are asphalt because the trails are so heavily used that any normally constructed trail would require frequent significant (expensive) maintenance. Asphalt was the least worst option.

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.

[cbd1984]

Right. Giving the less-able access to those experiences would degrade them for the ones who should have them: The fully-able.

[snowwrestler]

If equal access for all is your primary concern, then what is the argument for preserving wilderness at all? Why not build roads into every wild area and escalators to the top of every mountain?

And what would the wilderness look like if we did that?