It has long been a characteristic of human societies that oppressed classes end up pitted against each other, as though one is the cause of the other’s oppression. In America, certainly, we’ve seen it in ethnic and racial tension, and more recently in issues of gender identity and expression. When it comes to the matter of improved access to the Forest Preserve for those with disabilities, let’s not let it happen here in the Adirondacks.
We must recognize that people with disabilities constitute a protected class and deserve accommodations to affirm and secure their civil rights. But we must recognize that land classified as Wilderness also constitutes a protected class and likewise deserves accommodations to protect it. In New York State, we have long acknowledged both of these imperatives for protection, though our record of following through with policies to assure them has been mixed. Those who want to improve access in the Adirondack Park for people with disabilities are right to do so. Those who want to protect Wilderness from motorized access are right to do so. It’s easy to portray these interests as opposed – just look at recent media coverage. But it’s a mistake and it’s a tremendous waste of goodwill.
I have a better idea: let’s do both.
The impetus for the current debate is the Adirondack Park Agency’s proposal to amend the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan (SLMP). This is the document that secures the rights of Wilderness to exist on its own terms: untrammeled, where humans are visitors who do not remain. As such, it is central, even sacred, to those who would spend the better part of their lives defending wild places and to the vast number of Americans, with and without disabilities, who cherish Wilderness. The majority of land on the globe has been modified to serve human interests. In New York State, Wilderness is the only land which reverses that relationship: human beings are expected to modify their behaviors to serve its interests. This hardly qualifies as an onerous imbalance: less than 4% of the land in New York is protected as Wilderness and it’s much less if one considers the Northeast as a whole. By any reasonable standard, Wilderness is a scarce and precious resource.
One of the sacred tenets of Wilderness is that it must remain free of motorized access. Considering that motor vehicles have reshaped the planet, the fundamental characteristic of Wilderness as untrammeled makes that condition a no-brainer. Indeed, the SLMP explicitly forbids public use of motorized vehicles in Wilderness. Herein lies the potential issue with some of the APA’s proposed new language. In order to address accommodation for people with disabilities, the APA is proposing changes to the SLMP that would allow motors in Wilderness.
There are three parts to the potential changes in question. First, a proposed new paragraph states:
In keeping with ADA Title II regulations on mobility devices (CFR § 35.137), wheelchairs are allowed on state lands anywhere that pedestrian access is permitted. The DEC is responsible for interpreting federal regulations and guidance to determine where the use of Other Power Driven Mobility Devices (OPDMDs) may be appropriate.
There is no argument about the first sentence. It is Federal law, State law and a fundamental civil right that an individual in a wheelchair be allowed to go anywhere a pedestrian on foot is allowed to go. Furthermore, wheelchairs are formally defined in law in a way that mitigates any concern that a device able to significantly impact Wilderness would be defined as a “wheelchair.” Wheelchairs may be powered, but they must be designed for individual use and be appropriate for indoor use. That means gasoline-driven devices or those as wide as 3 feet are out.
The problem is with the second sentence and with the formal definition of an OPDMD, which is given in another proposed paragraph:
Other Power Driven Mobility Device – consistent with applicable law and regulation, an OPDMD is currently defined as any mobility device powered by batteries, fuel, or other engines––whether or not designed primarily for use by individuals with mobility disabilities––that is used by individuals with mobility disabilities for the purpose of locomotion, or any mobility device designed to operate in areas without defined pedestrian routes, but that is not a wheelchair.
That definition obviously includes a wide range of devices, including golf carts, ATVs, powered wagons and motorized bicycles, all of which are prohibited in Wilderness. Yet, the first paragraph above grants the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) discretion to interpret the guidelines to allow use of OPDMD’s.
Furthermore, and most concerning, the APA also proposes to amend the definition of “Motor Vehicle” in the SLMP to exclude not just powered wheelchairs, but OPDMD’s as well. That means anything definable as an OPDMD could, at the DEC’s discretion, be used in Wilderness. This is a direct violation of the letter and spirit of the SLMP and of Wilderness in particular. Hence, we arrive at the supposed conflict in rights: access versus Wilderness.
The State so far has insisted that it must follow the law. It also contends that just because the law allows discretion does not mean they will exercise it. Yet, such potential use, whatever the law says, directly contradicts the meaning of Wilderness. So how do we resolve this supposed contradiction in rights and accommodations? Where can we find wise guidance?
How about the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) itself?
It is a distinctly American democratic tradition to balance competing rights and interests, and the ADA is no exception. Those who crafted and amended the ADA recognized the value of Wilderness as something different from all other lands. The Act explicitly exempts Federal Wilderness (which has the same definition as Adirondack Wilderness, almost word-for-word): powered wheelchairs are allowed (although trails are not required to be modified to accommodate them), but the same allowance is not granted to OPDMD’s. In their wisdom, the designers of the ADA understood what many disability advocates have also voiced: Wilderness is for everyone, just the way it is, and as a precious and scarce resource, its right to exist in a natural state must be accommodated.
This gives us the opportunity for a simple bottom line: if the Federal Government can exempt Federal Wilderness from the ADA requirements for OPDMD’s, then the State of New York can do the same for Adirondack Wilderness.
This need not be hard to accomplish: the APA can start by removing the proposed language excluding OPDMD’s from the definition of “Motor Vehicle.”
As a lifelong advocate for equity and inclusion, and as someone who has designed and built ADA-compliant structures for uses that typically ignored people with disabilities, I can say with confidence that the Adirondack Park is not even close to meeting the needs of people with disabilities. We need Universal Design to be pervasively applied in our communities; we need ADA-compliant front-country infrastructure at all major recreation destinations and trailheads; we need a robust ADA-compliant transportation system to allow people with mobility limitations to visit places to which they would not otherwise have access. We need many more miles of accessible trails, both on private land and on Forest Preserve lands. We need to support New York State’s CP-3 policy. We need to support those who use wheelchairs and wish to have a wilderness experience.
We can do all of that and keep Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices out of Wilderness.
Photo at top: John Dillon Park outreach coordinator Jason Thurston enjoys the view at Grampus Lake. Photo by Mike Lynch/Explorer file photo.
Some entity (in this case the ASLMP is selecting the DEC – seems reasonable) that has to interpret the federal law. If the federal law already has “exempted” OPDMD’s from wilderness” why not just let the DEC interpret the law as such.
But what it means is that people with disabilities that can’t do it with a manual wheelchair are not going to experience wilderness, but I guess that is okay since they would destroy the wilderness character if we allow that. Look at some of the accommodations we have made for people already, giant staircases (ore bed brook), ladders, cables (on gothics), bridges, cat walks (avalanche lake) on and on.
Personally, I think an electric wheelchair makes less noise than a person hiking with their dog or kids. Also, I think if that cannot be operated safely then the ADA would not allow it anyway
Both manually powered and battery powered wheelchairs are part of the ADA definition as it pertains to Wilderness already. As a person who uses a manually wheelchair (paralyzed from the waist down), for my day-to-day concrete jungle excursions, I find using that chair for anything more then a mild gravel road is near impossible. Instead, I use my battery powered off-road wheelchair to accessing Wilderness and adventures with my family and friends. By definition I am legally allowed to use a wheelchair in Wilderness, and you are right…while there is a social stigma that my wheelchair will trammel the resource or is “out of Wilderness character”… in reality (as a former Wilderness ranger) I am less a damage to the resource than the hoards of people walking off trail and leaving toilet paper land mines everywhere. It is just a shift in perspective that people with disability are capable and WANT to enjoy these experiences. And now there is some incredible technology (mainly the use of battterys) that are allowing us to be able to!
What Pete Nelson says makes sense. NY State can both increase accessibility for people with disabilities
and have sensible regulation/ restrictions regarding the kind of motorized access to the 4% of NY State lands that are wilderness. It’s not an either or scenario.
As a disabled elder with a walker I finally read an article that made sense. I have no idea how any person in a manual wheelchair can navigate on any trail They hardly have access to restaurants and upstairs’ businesses as it is. Motorized wheelchairs yes but be prepared for many rescues on rough terrain. I wish people could just learn to live with what the abilities they have. I would love to sing lead soprano like a dear friend of mine but my pitiful croaking would not be tolerated or encouraged. I look at the mountains and I am happy. I am happy when everyone else in our large family goes hiking or kayaking even tho I can’t anymore. Let the wilderness stay forever wild for the good of all of us.
That’s unfortunate bias. You are right. Out country has barely reached compliance with ADA to our resteauranrs, post office and bathroom in our nations capitol, to be specific. Yet, with new technology of wheelchairs we are almost more capable in the natural environment because we, the user, can pick and choose our environment, the experience, the difficulty of our adventure. Whereas in the built environment, we are stuck with what is there—- All that to say, it isn’t our ability or capability that holds us back from things, it is often the physical barriers that we have placed —- like too narrow of doorways to bathrooms and buildings. Equally so, the man made structures on trails like the gates to access a trail or bridges that are less then 36 inches wide. Then add into the the social barriers that we are not able, capable or are more at risk just because our disability is an easy visual, vs the person with heart disease etc.
“Let the wilderness stay forever wild for the good of all of us”…yes, let’s do that! Thank you for your insight.
In my younger days I manufactured furniture for the disabled in Pittsburgh pa. I understand the meaning of the word disabled. It means not able. That is the fact of the matter. I am not tone deaf to the sacrifices of the disabled. So to accommodate all to the top of Mt Marcy would go against the laws of the natural world. If ever I become disabled I will recognize my limitations and accept that the wilderness and the wild should not be compromised for my misfortune or disability. Lets not lose focus and forget what this 6 million acre piece of land stands for. Wilderness, Wildlife, Wild. It is not central Park.
Thank you, Joe. “Lets not lose focus and forget what this 6 million acre piece of land stands for. Wilderness, Wildlife, Wild.” Perfectly said.
Nobody is accomodating anyone to the top of Marcy. I think the premise of Pete’s argument here is wrong. Many of these areas are just wilderness from a label on a map. The High Peak’s Wilderness has so many accomodation already for non-disabled people. Like I mentioned, stairs, catwalks, cables, bridges, even a fully stocked caretaker’s cabin. The list goes on and on. If you really want to get into NYS wilderness you gotta get off the map where things haven’t been altered even if it is labeled something like Wild Forest. It’s like the bogus argument about “motorless waters”. There are probably hundreds of thousands of acres of water that is off limits to motors even if it isn’t listed that way on a map. Lot’s of these is places where motors are technically allowed but you just can’t get a motor boat there. If you want more motorless waters just go there with your canoe.
“We need many more miles of accessible trails, both on private land and on Forest Preserve lands.” No, we don’t. The Adirondack State Park is protected wilderness. The desires of humans having access should not be the first consideration, no matter who it is accommodating. Humans have encroached nature to the point where imbalance can be found everywhere on this planet. Where is the line drawn to protect nature versus the desires of humans to invade/encroach/disrupt the natural balance? This isn’t about being fair to some and not others…it’s about priorities. Protecting the wilderness and all that naturally inhabit the park should be the only consideration. Those who are tasked as stewards of the park must consider their job as protecting the park from more human encroachment the first priority over the desires of a few. The park has various locations for people with disabilities to visit, including campgrounds, parks, and attractions. There’s also several websites that address those who are disabled and wish to visit the Adirondacks. Here’s just a few that pop up when inquiring online:
https://curbfreewithcorylee.com/2021/07/25/wheelchair-accessible-adirondacks-travel-guide/
https://wonderswithinreach.com/2024/09/wheelchair-accessible-adirondacks/
https://www.adirondackhub.com/accessibility
https://accessibleadirondacktourism.org/
Claiming that those with disabilities are left out of the equation just isn’t true. Creating more paths and disrupting habitat – from insects to animals to trees – to accommodate those who want to go where they want to go, regardless of what it takes to create those trails, is the opposite of protecting the park.
Thank you Stephanie!
Ah but see. In big “W” Wilderness (federal land) it is a balancing act of Wilderness law and Accessibility laws. Nothing about the Wilderness needs to be “changed” necessarily for people with disabilities to access it now—- myself and 2 others used our off-road wheelchairs to “hike” the rim to rim of the Grand Canyon! The trail is at it is! IT WAS HARD, as hiking the Grand Canyon for anyone is.
Yet, on federal lands, we have standards that even state specific trail building parameters that “should be used to the best extent practicable”. Yes terrain and prevailing cultural resources are give as an exemption to NOT meet this parameters.
I agree with you, one of the 5 qualities of Wilderness character is to preserve a natural quality and another is Undeveloped. Yet, another of the 5 is opportunity for primitive and unconfined recreation. A balancing act it seems of meeting the qualities set out in Wilderness to preserve yet have solitude recreational experiences. Yet another set of laws, the ADA, ABA and Section 504 state that “people with disabilities can not be discriminated against in programs or activities that receive federal funding.” So, how do we balance ALL of these things, undeveloped, natural yet recreation?
Another standard, for our federal lands, states that trail information (width, cross-slope, length, running slope, and surface type) is required for any new or altered trails (this standards created in 2013). I wonder if we looked at this conundrum from a different angle? Rather than assuming people with disabilities are asking to pave every trail to the top of mountains to be “included,” I wonder if we just considered that all humans have different desires and abilities (disability or not) and maybe if we just started providing this objective trail information—- more of us with disabilities would be able to pick the Wilderness, solitude, recreational challenging experience we have been looking for—- without making a single modification to the natural environment. That, and educating the public about mobility devices and that they are legally allowed in Wilderness anywhere foot traffic is allowed. ;).
The disabled have NO access to any Wilderness areas in the park. It is okay to say that you don’t want them to have any access for a number of reasons, that may be totally legitimate. But stop claiming they have access now.
Simply not true. The park has various locations for people with disabilities to visit, including campgrounds, parks, and attractions. Here’s just a few places that pop up when inquiring online:
https://curbfreewithcorylee.com/2021/07/25/wheelchair-accessible-adirondacks-travel-guide/
https://wonderswithinreach.com/2024/09/wheelchair-accessible-adirondacks/
https://www.adirondackhub.com/accessibility
https://accessibleadirondacktourism.org/
I believe, in general, most of the discussion involves adding more accessibility features/design/routing to EXISTING trails – rather than pushing for increasing the net mileage of foot trails. I can think of many trails that would require minor re-routes and perhaps hardening some soft spots to become wheelchair accessible. Simple, existing short trails to a lake or through/around wetlands and through old-growth forests that we all take for granted (think VICs) are usually too rough for most devices. I think VICs would be a good place to focus attention on access. Many trail alterations that have been made to reduce erosion and harden their trails could be expanded to allow electric and manual wheelchairs. Great parking and facilities as well. No, it ain’t wilderness, but at least some wild character remains there. Viewing wetlands and vistas from a boardwalk or platform always helps me recharge. Getting away from traffic noise, listening to wildlife, smelling the forest – why deny that opportunity for others if there is a simple, cheap fix?
I believe most disabled people realize they will always have severe limitations on their lifestyles and potential goals. But I believe it is easily within our power to at least make more natural places available to them at reasonable cost (and volunteerism) – even if it isn’t spectacular, rugged backcountry like the HPW.
Paul, unfortunately what is glossed over in Pete’s otherwise thorough assessment is that the reasonable accommodation/OPWDD exemption in Title V, Section 508(c) of ADA applies to Federal wilderness areas ONLY. It specifically does not include state wildernesses, such as the land units in the Adirondacks and Catskills. It is for this reason that APA is not excluding OPWDD from consideration of reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities … because the Federal code does not allow it to. The State of NY actually petitioned the Dept. of Justice to include state-designated wilderness in the exemption and the DoJ denied that request.
No, you’re not correct in this, Adk Resident – and nothing is being “glossed over.”
Go look up “ADA Update: A Primer for State and Local Governments” and you’ll find the following language to show just how the code DOES allow for the exclusion of OPDMD in wild, natural areas – which allowed California and other states to develop clear, well-drafted policies that DO exclude them:
“Public entities must consider these factors in determining whether to permit other power-driven mobility devices on their premises:
the type, size, weight, dimensions, and speed of the device;
the volume of pedestrian traffic (which may vary at different times of the day, week, month, or year);
the facility’s design and operational characteristics, such as its square footage, whether it is indoors or outdoors, the placement of stationary equipment, devices, or furniture, and whether it has storage space for the device if requested by the individual;
whether legitimate safety standards can be established to permit the safe operation of the device; and
whether the use of the device creates a substantial risk of serious harm to the environment or natural or cultural resources or poses a conflict with Federal land management laws and regulations…”
AND from language long prior to the update… whether they “can be operated without fundamentally altering the nature of the services, programs, or activities.”
Secondly (oops, sorry for the reverse order here?), while DEC has no policy and is refusing to develop one, NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation DOES have a clearly written policy (https://parks.ny.gov/documents/inside-our-agency/PublicDocuments/GuidancePolicies/OtherPowerDrivenMobilityDevices.pdf) that cites the above AND largely prohibits all gas-powered OPDMD’s with the following strong language:
One type of OPDMD is a mobility device powered by a gas-fueled engine using natural gas, gasoline, diesel, synthetic or biofuel, or a combination thereof, including all-terrain vehicles (ATV), carts, off-road bikes, motor scooters, motorcycles, tractors and vehicles (whether two, three, or four wheeled). OPDMDs equipped with gas-fueled engines will largely be prohibited in many park settings due to risks outlined below; however, the risks associated with gas-powered devices warrant an individualized assessment of the device’s operating condition, operator’s knowledge of existing conditions and restrictions, and the intended itinerary. This will reduce the risk of safety hazards arising from conflicting use of facilities and trail conditions. Consultation has not presented an unreasonable burden to users; virtually all state park facilities are staffed and have the capacity to review the request on-site and consult without undue delay.
OPRHP facilities possess significant natural topographical features and ecological resources that are managed to support a wide range of plant and animal communities in harmony with public recreation. Gas-powered OPDMDs present a substantial risk of harm to operators, visitors, and the immediate environment due to their internal combustion engines and relatively large dimensions, weight, driving range and/or horsepower.
Additional risks posed by gas-powered devices are detailed as follows:
• Volatile fuels present a risk of fire created by ignition systems and the heat of engine combustion.
• Fuel tanks may leak or fuel may spill during refueling. Fuel leaks damage the
environment and may cause fire.
• Engine noise can produce a significant zone of disturbance to native wildlife and can negatively impact visitor experience. Noise presents a health risk to park users when it exceeds 70dB, which the World Health Organization has set as a maximum safe noise level in the workplace. Many gas-powered devices, such as ATV and motor bikes, have the capacity to routinely exceed this threshold level under otherwise normal operating conditions.
• The exhaust of small internal combustion engines may pose an air quality risk for park visitors and employees.
It would seem NYS OPRHP actually cares about protecting the natural and wild areas for which it is responsible,
And finally, see California State Parks’ policy on OPDMD’s (which it would appear was used by NYS OPRHP as a model) here:
The opening paragraph reads:
“In conformance with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), California State Parks is pleased to improve access for people with mobility disabilities by allowing the use of Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices (OPDMD) in areas where they can be operated safely, without posing substantial risk of serious harm to natural or cultural resources, and without fundamentally altering the nature of our services, programs, or activities.”
NOTE(!) the exclusion from any areas where they would fundamentally alter “the nature of our services, programs or activities.” This is the precise language used by many states to fully and acceptably (to the federal Department of Justice) exclude use of OPDMD’s from areas classified as wilderness.
It’s almost beyond belief that DEC staff are arguing as they are arguing.
Interesting discussion that follows on Walt Linck’s earlier article on the Almanack. I commented on that article and suggested that the DEC should find some standards for the OPDMDs that provided a bit more mobility on rougher terrain than a “standard” motorized wheelchair. Comments on Pete Nelson’s article seem to recognize that the disabled cannot expect to go to as many places in Wilderness as the abled.
My comments on the earlier article suggested limits on tire size, number of riders (one would be good), and horsepower to define the OPDMDs that would be allowed in Wilderness. I suggested that the standards would perhaps permit some access on the truck trails that are still being maintained, but that would be it. Access to Camp Santanoni should definitely be possible with permitted OPDMDa because that road is in a Historic District that allows the great camp to remain there.
Finally, thinking of the long series of legal actions following the Crane Pond road closure case, I would hope that some minor accommodation for the disabled access would head off another long legal battle.
Petes article is THE direction to go. Keep wilderness FREE of anything more than current regs. EXPLORE more access in Wild Forest on a location specific basis using the Great Camp Santanoni example. I recall in the 1980s when I attended a public hearing on the classification of Perkins Clearing lands that had been recently acquired. An elderly gentleman walked to the podium with the aid of a cane. We all expected that he was going to advocate a wild forest classification and not wilderness. Instead, he gave an impassioned speech about how even though he would never be able to enjoy actually being in the tract, he would get far more satisfaction about knowing that others would be able to have the wilderness experience that he used to enjoy as a younger man.
“What avail are 40 freedoms, without a blank spot on the map” (Aldo Leopold).
Please stop with the comments making it sound like “age” is the disability. That’s nonsense. Very young people can be disabled.
I didn’t get that from Tom’s comment at all. True, age is not “the” disability, but disabilities typically are additive as we age. However sometimes remediation can help with enjoying life – especially in an area as rugged as the ADKs.
Here is a terrific article everyone engaged in this conversation should read:
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/national/081700nh-hike.html
The State of New Hampshire now partners with this organization, “Northeast Passage,” to help make fantastic experiences like this happen for people with disabilities. The State of Minnesota partners with “Wilderness Inquiry” to make this sort of thing happen via canoes in the Boundary Waters wilderness. And in Massachusetts, the State partners with three different NGO’s who offer the same sort of services; they have the whole state “covered,” according to my State-employed friend, Marcy. (And fyi, even though there is no designated wilderness in Massachusetts to make motor-vehicle use such a big issue, Marcy tells me that to date they never used motor vehicles there in their programs.)
WE could see this kind of State partnership in programming in the Adirondacks, if the State cared enough. I believe it’s not only discriminatory that our State/DEC seems not to care enough, but that it’s also patronizing for them to simply want to open up new motor-vehicle access, essentially hand out keys to all types of motor vehicles and say, hey – go have a blast… ruining the resource in the process, and this in the name of helping persons with disabilities.
I see I accidentally left out the link to the California State Parks policy on OPDMD, sorry. So here it is:
https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=31345#:~:text=Who%20may%20use%20OPDMD%3F,substantially%20limits%20a%20person's%20mobility.
To me, the sensible compromise is to allow limited use of motorized vehicles (FOR LEGALLY HANDICAPED PEOPLE ONLY) in wild forest areas, but not wilderness. Wild forests already allow more intensive use and are often close to snowmobile trails anyways.
We shouldn’t destroy wilderness to give everybody absolute access to everything. I’m a middle aged guy with a bad knee. Marcy and Algonquin is above my level. I don’t support paving a road to their summits just so I can drive up. But there can be some accommodations made.
As a disability advocate and lover of the Adirondacks I too feel the emotional conflicts that OPDMDs can induce when applied to our wild forest and wilderness areas.
However, I disagree with Pete’s statement “if the Federal Government can exempt Federal Wilderness from the ADA requirements for OPDMD’s, then the State of New York can do the same for Adirondack Wilderness.”
No, the State of New York ~ cannot ~ do the same for the Adirondack wilderness. The ADA is ~ federal ~ law, and preempts NYS law, and the constitutional “forever wild” protection. New York State is legally required to comply with the ADA. Its just that simple.
I agree that Federal Law preempts state law and NY State must comply with the ADA. That is absolutely correct. However, it’s not just that simple. The ADA provides limiting criteria for operation of OPDMDs, including safety, negative impact on the environment ., cultural or historical resources, or substantial change to the purpose of of the area or facility being used. The exemption for Federal Wilderness does not directly apply to State Wilderness, but it does establish a clear precedent that, based upon these criteria, Wilderness is inconsistent with access by OPDMDs. The ADA exempted Federal Wilderness for good reasons, and the reasoning applies to ADK Wilderness too. In other words, there is room to create a reasonable policy without changing the definition of motor vehicle.