Editor’s note: This “It’s Debatable” column ran in the March/April issue of Adirondack Explorer magazine. In this regular column, we invite organizations and/or individuals to address a particular issue. Click here to subscribe to the magazine, available in both print and digital formats: www.adirondackexplorer.org/subscribe.
The Question: Should motorized mobility devices be allowed in Wilderness Areas in the Adirondack Park for people with disabilities?
Let’s follow the law and prioritize common sense over fear
In these divided political times, we should embrace following the law always, not just when it suits our ideals.
Thirty years ago, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation decided to ignore the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). It did not go well. There was a court ordered settlement that is still in effect today.
In a 2024 public hearing on amendments to the State Land Master Plan (SLMP), I listened as one person stated, “follow the NY Constitution, not the federal ADA.” That seems to be what happened 30 years ago. It failed the state, and people with disabilities.
Another said, “do what you have been doing, [i.e. continue the case-by-case reasonable accommodation process], just do not change the SLMP.” Attitudes like that really weaken a core document for the Adirondacks.
I listened to four men tell the audience, which included a woman sitting in her wheelchair, that people with disabilities had enough access and should be happy with what they have. Meaning the access that was wrested from DEC.
There’s this idea that people with disabilities will be driving pickups and tractors all over the wilderness. Sorry, that just doesn’t make sense. Clearly, those are defined as motor vehicles and not allowed.
The State Land Master Plan clearly defines what a motor vehicle is. Motor vehicles are not allowed in Wilderness, Primitive and Canoe areas. Allowing a motor vehicle in these areas could fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity.
When you look at the ADA’s assessment factors for determining where uses of “other power-driven mobility devices” (referred to as OPDMDs) are appropriate, it is clear the federal government gives DEC room to say no to permits for use of them in Wilderness, Primitive, and Canoe areas.
Take an area like Santanoni Preserve, where use of motor vehicles already exists administratively. As a one lane wagon road with no guide rails, requests for motorized access would trigger the following safeguard from the assessment factors: “A public entity may impose legitimate safety requirements necessary for the safe operation of its services, programs, or activities.” Personally, I am not seeing motorized use being permitted, barring a unique set of circumstances, with the draft changes to the State Land Master Plan.
A person with a disability must ask for a permit, detailing where they would like to go and what their mobility device is. Access with OPDMDs would be assessed for compliance with the following factors (again, citing the ADA Title II regulations on mobility devices, CFR § 35.137):
- The type, size, weight, dimensions, and speed of the device;
- The facility’s volume of pedestrian traffic (which may vary at different times of the day, week, month, or year);
- The facility’s design and operational characteristics (e.g., whether its service, program, or activity is conducted indoors, its square footage, the density and placement of stationary devices, and the availability of storage for the device, if requested by the user);
- Whether legitimate safety requirements can be established to permit the safe operation of the other power-driven mobility device in the specific facility; and
- Whether the use of the other power-driven mobility device creates a substantial risk of serious harm to the immediate environment or natural or cultural resources,
It seems clear, DEC has a lot of room to deny permits on Wilderness, Primitive, and Canoe areas.
It is also clear the ADA requires the DEC to make reasonable modifications to their policies, practices or procedures to permit OPDMDs on a case-by-case basis.
Why would advocacy groups think it is good practice to ignore federal law? Potentially setting the stage for another ADA lawsuit, when in reality the potential for motorized use is so low in Wilderness, Primitive and Canoe areas?
It is disappointing to see how easy it is for permits to be denied for persons with disabilities. On what seems like the rare occurrence a permit is given in one of those designations, we should embrace the person’s experience. Not stubbornly tell them they don’t belong on Adirondack Forest Preserve land.
– Gerald Delaney, is the executive director of Adirondack Park Local Government Review Board, with a 25 year career in law enforcement.
It simply can’t happen.
The very idea is oxymoronic.
“Wilderness Areas” in the Adirondacks will cease to exist the moment such new authority to allow public use of “other power-driven mobility devices” (OPDMDs) within their bounds is granted. Gone. There is simply nothing so central to what wilderness is than the protection of a beautiful, typically rugged natural area’s communities of wild animals and plant life, from the variety of harmful impacts of motor-vehicle use. Our state’s heralded, 140-year-long legal, planning and management effort and success in restoring such expanses of truly wild country here in our mountains would be wiped out.
If Gov. Hochul signs off on it, this would be the most regressive environmental and social law and policy change witnessed in my lifetime as a New York resident. I know of no wilderness in the U.S. (federal or state) where such an important protection has ever been revoked. I don’t know of any other place in the U.S. where government staff have so angrily refused to commit to providing meaningful opportunities for people with disabilities to experience the sort of thrills, inspiration, sense of self-worth and accomplishment, inner peace and even psychological healing that wilderness experiences can provide. In Minnesota, Wilderness Inquiry teams up with the government to provide wonderful (motorless!) wilderness canoe-trip opportunities for people with disabilities in the Boundary Waters. In New Hampshire, Northeast Passage partners with the government to provide a variety of wilderness, motorless travel and camping opportunities in the White Mountains. But New York government officials would rather “open up the gates,” encouraging people with disabilities to ride into what are now Wilderness Areas atop all kinds of motor vehicles, ignoring the fact that motor vehicles must be prohibited for everyone if these exceedingly rare values are to be preserved.
It is this lazy, ignorant approach that is the actual discrimination occurring against people with disabilities, as it outright denies them what real opportunities exist. It patronizes them, too, assuming that people with disabilities do not want or cannot successfully tackle anything in the range of physical and psychological challenges typically inherent to primitive conditions.
For a truly wondrous example of the right way to go about providing access, see video link in the box above. Be sure to listen to what participants say near the end. It’s clear they would never want any wilderness destroyed in their name… supposedly on their behalf.
That is what’s near to happening in our Adirondack Park. I can’t predict what the intensity of near-term and long-term use (or types of use) would be, but ATVs, UTVs, trucks, scooters of various types, tracked devices and you name it—any number of contraptions featuring motors for propulsion can all qualify as OPDMDs. (The proposed new definition of “Motor Vehicle” reads, “a device for transporting people… incorporating a motor or engine of any type for propulsion… [including] automobiles, trucks, jeeps… any type of all-terrain vehicles, [etc.]… but [not including] other power driven mobility devices”—which can be ALL of the above!) In New York alone, approximately 2 million adults qualify for “handicapped parking” placards (sufficient for establishing a person’s disability-status claim), as do millions of visitors from other states. And the issuance of permits for recreational use of these motor vehicles could theoretically have no geographical bounds.
Do you love that quiet, half-hour walk or trail run on the Jackrabbit Trail to the McKenzie Pond shoreline? Prepare yourself for encountering ATV riders hunting up a little “wilderness experience” for themselves who’ll zip past you on the trail. And I should plan to trek out to [not sayin’ where!] to tell all those great blue herons nesting in that hardwood treetops-rookery to just quit all their squawking. They should be able to calm right down, as soon as I inform them that those aren’t really motor vehicles rumbling down below them during their chick raising, since our governor will have used her magic pen, with a click of her heels, to remake them into not-motor-vehicles.
POOF!
“Hochul’s hocus pocus.” Like in some scary, modern sequel to “The Wizard of Oz” in which it turns out the horde of bad monkeys is us.
– Walter Linck worked for the Adirondack Park Agency for 20 years. His primary responsibility was administering the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan.
Key terms explained:
Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan: The leading policy document governing state lands in the Adirondack Park, including the approximately 2.7 million acres of Adirondack Forest Preserve protected by the state Constitution’s “forever wild” clause.
Adirondack Park Agency (APA): The state agency that oversees public and private development in the park.
Other power-driven mobility devices (OPDMDs): Defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as “any mobility device powered by batteries, fuel, or other engines… that is used by individuals with mobility disabilities for the purpose of locomotion, including golf cars, electronic personal assistance mobility devices… such as the Segway® PT, or any mobility device designed to operate in areas without defined pedestrian routes, but that is not a wheelchair.”
Photo at top from iStock.
““Wilderness Areas” in the Adirondacks will cease to exist the moment such new authority to allow public use of “other power-driven mobility devices” (OPDMDs) within their bounds is granted. Gone.”
Can’t you already get a Temporary Revocable Permit for them? So is it already gone?
Mr Linck points out the jackrabbit trail. Let us not forget that the roadway was illegally closed and taken by NYSDEC to benefit certain user groups. One wonders how many more roadways were illegally confiscated by NYSDEC to maintain the status quo. A thorough independent investigation is warranted.
What exactly are you debating here?
My God. I wonder if Mr. Linck even knows any disabled people.
Interesting question. I wonder if anyone actually advocating for this know anyone who is disabled or are disabled themselves, at least any without ulterior motives. I’m guessing not given that it represents the soft bigotry of low expectations. It seems obvious that this is driven by “special interests” who seek to undermine wilderness designations and regulations and who are exploiting “disabilities'” to do so.
No, we should NOT allow them in. These vehicles will encroach on wildlife, foliage, and create disturbance(s) we have yet to understand or imagine. As stewards of this grand park we must guard against humans encroaching in ways that are damaging. It’s enough to allow human exploration on foot. It is the equivalent of air boats in the Everglades…they may allow people access to areas they wouldn’t necessarily be able to attain, but at a huge cost with regards to noise pollution, displacement of wildlife, and fumes from the engines polluting the water/air. It’s too late to say “sorry” once damage is done. If you can’t get there on foot you don’t belong there.
We build huge staircases in wilderness areas for hikers (you have been on the ore bed brook trail right?). Were you guarding against that encroachment? Or is it just this limited use by disabled people that you are guarding against?
“Limited use” is the key phrase here. Indeed, it is the crux of the debate. Unless “limited use” is clearly defined by all stakeholders, little progress can be made toward policy.
Clarifying what “limited use” ensures debating all aspects of further encroachment and coming to an agreement that ensures the wilderness stays just that. Every step should be taken with careful consideration when it comes to humans bringing technology into the last of the pristine, untouched wilderness that belongs to the plant and animal kingdom first. Thank you for your comment.
Agree. These “debates” often come down to black and white statements, but they are neither helpful or possible. We can’t espouse “100% access everywhere” any more than we can “restrict all human access” in the FP. Anything other than thoughtful, case-by-case policy evaluation, serious public input, and eventual decisions will just breed more dissatisfaction.
Perhaps the current federal ADA legislation regarding “outdoor access” needs to be fine-tuned by Congress, but I don’t see that happening in this administration.
Motors, Paul, motors. The argument is about motorized use/access.
Thank you for pointing out the obvious point I was making.
A staircase doesn’t emit ongoing pollution. Stop trying to take my insights as a prejudice against any person, especially disabled persons. It’s about being good stewards and not further encroaching on wild habitat.
The stairs are to protect the area from erosion and other damage. The rules against motorized access are for the same reason.
I really hate to sound ableist, but the Adirondacks is what it is, and it’s not for everyone. I’m an overweight retired guy, and I’d need to shed some weight and do some training and muscle development to tackle Mt. Marcy. So should APA install an elevator or escalator for me, to get me to the top of Mt. Colden Trap Dike without all that fuss of actually climbing the mountain? I LOVE the Adirondacks! I love driving the roads, fishing the rivers, viewing the waterfalls, swimming wherever I can, and just being a part of it all, as much as I can. But it’s not a theme park. It’s a “forever wild” wilderness and semi-wilderness, and with that comes the fact that it will not have ability accommodations for everyone. My own mother had polio as a teen, and walked with a limp for most of my life, before her final year in a wheelchair, so I definitely have a heart for the handicapped. But to re-work an entire region’s basis for existence in this way would upend it entirely. So no, I do not think motorized vehicles (gas or electric) should be allowed as some request.
Exactly. What makes the Adirondacks the Adirondacks is the wilderness areas. Wilderness by definition does not have roads, or escalators, or helicopter landing pads, or motorized carts. The moment you plow paths and open the gates to motor vehicles, it’s not wilderness anymore – it’s just like any other place
My mother is 83 and would love to stand on the peak of Mt Marcy. But she is incapable of hiking to the top, for reasons that she has no control over. Therefore the State of New York should pave a road to the top of Marcy (or install a helicopter landing pad), because it would be unfair to deprive her of her constitutional right to “access” any and every place she might want to visit?
I may have always dreamed of being a star football quarterback. But wanting something does not give me the “right” to have it. My obvious disqualifications for the task preclude me the “right”, so that the rest of the team can be successful. Same concept applies here.
Just give Otak/Hanmi Global another million dollars to find a solution.
It’s NOT debatable. The Wilderness Act of 1964 and the provisions in our state constitution based on it (Thank you Howard Zanhieser) represent codified legislation. It’s not mysterious, open for interpretation, or negotiable. It does not contain a clause that says “until such time as our society skews old…” nor does it provide for a time when our society puts less of a premium on physical health and activity. There are clear provisions for what can and cannot take place in big W wilderness areas. People don’t have to like it, but until they can prompt the legislation to alter it, they have to live with it.* I honestly think if somebody posted an article entitled “Carbon Monoxide is bad to breathe” people would take sides and argue the point. Some things Is what they Is.
*It is also not reasonable to say “I don’t like the party in charge, so the Law/Rule shouldnt apply to me.”
The Wilderness Act of 1964 has ZRO bearing on state lands in New York (or any other state for tha matter). Article 2 of such ack defines the scope of the act as “[f]or this purpose there is hereby established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be composed of federally owned areas designated by Congress as “wilderness areas” … “.
Howard Zanheiser was born on February 25, 1906. Article 7 of the state constitution (now renumbered as Article 14) was added during the 1894 Constitutional Convention. It was ratified by voters in Novermber thatsame same year. How does one thank a man for his role in that when he was born 12 years after enactment?
What is clear is the the Federal governmnt in establishing taht American’s with Disabilities Act chose to only exempt FEDERAL wilderness lands from the reasonable acomodation reqirements of the act. DEC will freely tell you that they worte to the Department of Justice asking for NY (state) wilderness areas to enjoy that same exemption that the federal wilderness does. DoJ denied that request and maintained their federal premption over state laws that is allwoed for in the US Constitution.
ADK – Compare the definition of Wilderness in the APSLMP with the language contained in the Wilderness Act of 64. Read some of the things written about Howard and his relationship to Paul Schaefer who said “Zahniser’s thinking about wilderness and its preservation was shaped in critical ways by his admiration for the Adirondack Forest Preserve.” I did mispeak when I suggested the provisions of our constitution we based on his writings, but In as much as I have to explain my admiration and gratitude of anyone to anyone – thats my reasoning.
No vehicles in wilderness areas. I sometimes wonder if canoe carts (the two wheeled canoe carriers) are actually legal.
Waste away while you dither and debate whether the likes of me should defile your pristine wilderness ( remember acid rain, road salt and other pollutants from afar). This is another example of your vaunted hospitality. You allow Downstate and other large NY municipalities to build huge prisons up here to house non resident rapists, murderers, robbers etc in your home towns but rail against immigrants crossing the border thousands of miles south of you. You root out DEI but stand behind some of the meanest comments printed on this site. I sometimes wonder to what end people who give large amounts of time and money to help keep this place “open”,so to speak, but who cannot walk uphill any more are still doing here and annoying you by asking for something promised to all Americans by the ADA. Equal access !!
People are railing against immigrants coming across the southern border because we are paying for them. Why is it the taxpayers obligation to make sure they are housed, fed, clothed, etc?? I have no issues with DEI as long as it is not used for promotional gains. No one should get a job based on it, should be about the most qualified candidate. Not sure how anyone can disagree on that. Taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund it.
I could care less about where prisons are built. But if someone commits a crime they should be there. Time we start putting some teeth back into our laws and sentencing
No one is against “equal access” or abiding by the ADA. HOWEVER, there is nowhere on this planet where everything can be “accessible” to every person, everywhere. Millions of us have limitations of one kind or another. Some limitations and disabilities fall under the ADA, and others don’t. I am in my 60’s and recognize there are certain hikes that I shouldn’t (and don’t want to) do anymore in order to stay safe and not be in pain. Aging does not entitle me to demand a road be built to a summit because I can’t make the hike anymore and want to drive up. Nor would I expect accommodations to be made to me if I were young and was injured in an accident, and did permanent damage to a knee that required the use of a cane and prevented me from doing backcountry hikes. I would accept that I need to choose alternative activities to enjoy the outdoors. No matter the disability, access can and should be provided WHERE REASONABLY POSSIBLE. It is unreasonable and irrational to expect every acre of wilderness to accommodate every possible disability. Some of us cannot access the deep backcountry. Some of us never could. Are we going to pave every trail and have charging stations along the way for motorized wheelchairs to achieve a 7 mile climb? If a wheelchair-bound person is injured deep in the backcountry, are the rescuers expected to carry that person and their wheelchair 5 miles to the trail head? Or are we going to do what we are already doing, which is providing safe, accessible recreation in places where such access can be constructed with minimal harm to a specially protected (under law) ecosystem?
Incredibly well said. Thanks for some sound reasoning on this subject.
Ditto!
Like most readers, I value Adirondack Ex/Al as a meeting place for reasonable people to converse and to exchange opinions, concerns, and creativity which reflect our various life experiences.
What especially saddens me, on this particular April 22 – Earth Day – is to watch as the step-by-step dismantling of 55 years of environmental progress as it unfolds, with no end in sight. What became of those people we elected to create practical bipartisan governance on our behalf?
If I read the tea leaves correctly, America has now chosen to reject the legacy of clean air, clean water, and greater protection of our precious and fragile natural world, that came about after that first Earth Day in 1970.
Those accomplishments will become just a footnote (if even that) in the upcoming revisionist history of America, glorifying the accomplishments of the few, and paid for by their “dark money”.
My apologies to the world’s children.
Hang in there, Louis. The backlash is coming. The ship will be righted.
The Mid-Terms are the KEY.
Let’s hope the Democrats put up some good candidates and change a few of their policies. I’d like to not have to vote Republican again
Are there not sufficient non-Wilderness areas in the ADKs where people with disabilities can get out and experience nature? Maybe they need to be more clearly marked on maps and trailhead signs with a disability logo.
When the state purchases the Boy Scout camp on Lows Lake they should allow that property to remain as is to allow people with disabilities and other groups to enjoy it. Instead gates will be put up , buildings that probably are already designed to be handicapped accessible will be torn down to satisfy the bullshit forever wild clause .
Some posters here are so worried about their own forever wild experience being disrupted that they are willing to sacrifice a disabled person’s ability to experience the same. Kind of sad.
William, as I said in a previous post, no one is against the notion of equal access and no one is against ADA law protecting people with disabilities. However, being certified as disabled does not entitle you, me, or anyone else with physical limitations of any kind, to demand a road be built, complete with motorized wheelchair charging stations, from the trail head to the summit of every mountain we could possible desire to climb, so a disabled person may “experience the same.” This is not discrimination. Should there be elevators and roads built in to Mt. Everest so I can summit it? If they don’t do it, is that “sacrificing a disabled person’s ability to experience the same?” Billions of us have physical limitations of some kind, whether it be age, an arthritic hip, obesity, limb paralysis, cerebral palsy, you name it. The ADA requires access and reasonable accommodations be provided for work, school, and essential services in public places. It does not require that all types of outdoor recreation and sightseeing activities be made accessible to every person. And if you want to talk about the “forever wild experience,” in the Adks, sadly, that ship has pretty much sailed. Overtourism has already ruined that. The Adks have become a theme park.
I am certainly not advocating for roads to the top of each mountain. (Although fortunately Governor Roosevelt saw it differently in the mid 1930’s when he had a road and elevator no less put up Whiteface). I am not even advocating for trail improvements. But i will mention this, there is a 1/2 mile canoe carry off the Blue Mountain Road northwest of Paul Smiths. There you will find a State gate across a road that leads to the St Regis River. Foot traffic only allowed. Personally, it would not ruin my experience to have a Veteran that lost both legs above the knees and one hand in the Battle of Ramadi to an IED drive his tracked wheelchair down that road and sit by the river. In fact, I bet it would improve all our experiences.
I’m older, I’ve had a stroke, I don’t enjoy the strength in 50% of my body that I once did. Yet I hauled myself and a pack all the way to Sly Pond. That accomplishment would have been quite diminished had someone in a similar circumstance come rolling by — which, furthermore, would be quite impossible without major expenditure and alteration of the nearly impossible wilderness “trail.” That sense of accomplishment is something that will never leave me. Your comment represents the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Haderondah,
People just like to argue any political issue – regardless of logic. Absurdist statements equating anything other than obviously IMPOSSIBLE “universal access” as an attack on mobility-impaired individuals is an argument that goes nowhere in this debate.
Absolutism doesn’t work in this debate. There obviously is a big difference between being “allowed” to access FP lands and providing safe mobility to any/all FP lands. The latter scenario is patently impossible and absurd. It doesn’t mean safe mobility cannot be provided in more locations, but they need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, not blanket statements.
Nuance and the ability to compromise should be the key elements of this debate, not absurdist, absolutist attempts at shaming.
That is an awesome accomplishment! My comment was directed at a since deleted post where the poster was concerned about motorized vehicles zooming past them on a trail.
I think that trail is a great example because it is easily accessible, it is a nice spot, and it ISN’T a wilderness area. It’s an old road, a motorized wheel chair would not damage the area or cause any untoward intrusion. Anymore than that, an ATV for instance, would. But that is a very common sense area for electrically assisted wheel chair access. It would even be a nice spot for an accessible camp site. It would not degrade wilderness designation.
Does anyone remember that most of the Adirondacks were clear cut by rapacious lumber companies before the APA was formed ? The raison d’etre for the agency itself ? This is not pristine wilderness – mostly it is second growth. The only pure wilderness you will find here is in Alaska. This is not reasoned discussion at all, We have fallen into our usual siloes !
Once again, the tired trope of second growth forest isn’t primeval forest so therefore isn’t “wilderness.” You’re right you are in a silo. If so you would know by now you have no point. None. It is entirely irrelevant. Most people understand that forests grow when left to their own devices and that motorized activity is extremely harmful to that growth. Many also know that using your story regarding Alaska is actually the reason to preserve designated roadless, unmotorized areas. In fact, the wilderness areas of ADKs are widely known as the best preserved roadless areas east of the Mississippi and which is ofc a major reason to keep them that way.
Agree. IMO, the entire point of the Forest Preserve is to not “revere” it as-is (much of it looked like no-man’s land on a battlefield when the FP was created), but to ALLOW it to become old-growth 1000 years from now following natural forest procession and climate alterations.
“Development” on FP lands needs to be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis – evaluating a multitude of factors. Whether to harden/preserve existing man-made inroads/structures/trails, or to actively allow them to revert to the wild. I believe there is good compromise to be found, but it requires stakeholders to listen to each other and not talk over each other. With good compromises, everyone gives up a little to gain a consensus for the better good. And indeed, NYS residents are a major stakeholder!
Yes, I would like it if we could please stop developing Forest Preserve already. Old Growth or not. The tourism industry has completely hijacked the Adirondacks to the point where it already has lost many of its wilderness characteristics. And the notion that there should be universal recreational access for all people to every plot of state land is simply silly. The High Peaks are anything but a “Wilderness.” It is Disneyland. It’s become a cartoon of itself. Can we just finally leave this tiny piece of land on the planet alone? People who need more people, more facilities, more pavement, more parking, more toilets, more gift shops and hotels, etc. have soooooo many options in the rest of the country and world. Can we preserve just a little of it? Must we really be this greedy? I know all the arguments about economic development vs. environmental protection. The ultimate problem is OVERPOPULATION. Too many people. Period. Must every acre of forest in the country be turned into a tourist trap? Is this the best we can do? The permanent population in the Adks is dropping. Schools are closing. Services will disappear and this will be nothing but a vacationland for second homeowners, STRs, hotels and those barely eeking out a living working for them. Unsustainable, contrary to ROOST’s “sustainable” tourism marketing!
Really ? There is a law on the books called the Americans with Disabilities Act. As you have written you are in the silo of people who can pick and choose which of our laws you will live within and which you won’t !
No one is expecting a disabled person to drive a semi up to the top of Mt. Marcy – but if someone wants to explore further, by whatever means useful to disabled people, the wilderness, who are you to deny him/ her the right ? I really don’t think we will see hordes of disabled folk on your favorite mountain any time soon. And the DEC has been making it easier by improving trails, taming inclines and providing parking and access to all you ablebodied hikers for years. No need to bushwhack in. Not to forget the Rangers who are usually up on most of the major peaks in season.
Could you explain how you would select which areas of the 2 million acres of public Forest Preserve within the Adk Park would be made accessible to a level equal to that of able-bodied people? And to what extent – for which disabilities? Using your logic, anyone with physical limitations (or who is legally classified as disabled) has the right to the same access to the same activities, in any location, as the able-bodied population, to ADA standards, right? Do you have the right to access summits and fishing sites with an appropriately paved surface for your wheelchair or golf cart? How would this development occur, to what extent, and at what cost? Could you really achieve the goal of making access for the disabled totally equal to that of able-bodied persons, everywhere? Or do you think there would still be practical limitations to what the disabled could do in the backcountry? How much digging and paving would you permit in the backcountry in order to reach equal rights under your definition? I think what you are asking is already being done. Where it is practical and feasible and affordable, we are making the Forest Preserve more accessible to more disabled citizens where we can. But there will be limitations to what can be achieved and reasonable choices have to be made. And again, the ADA does NOT require equal access to all possible recreational opportunities. About your comment on the Forest Rangers being available in the backcountry, please remember how many thousands of square acres each Ranger must cover. They are spread very thin and already doing back to back rescues because of the exponential increase in hiker traffic over the last 2 decades. Disabled or not, you shouldn’t ever assume that you won’t be stuck overnight, or at least for many hours, before a Ranger can get to you for a rescue. They can’t be everywhere at once, but somehow the public expects them to.
As it is obvious you have no clue what you’re talking about, allow me to help.
The ADA specifically exempts wilderness areas.
Next, actual disabled people and people with physical limitations (such as myself) who enjoy wilderness enjoy it for the same reasons folks who are not disabled or physically limited. One of those reasons is to test strength and endurance, to accomplish arriving at a destination accessible only under your own physical power. Which is pretty much the defining characteristic of wilderness area — a place one can explore, every corner if they wish, by their own physical power. Very, very few people are physically capable of doing that — and everyone who cares understands that, because a wilderness area is a nature preserve first and foremost, not your local playground.
Finally, your assumptions are revealing your bigotry. You have no ability to identify whether the mountain is filled with disabled people — there are presumably disabled people on every mountain and every trail right now. Furthermore, if motorized assistance is indeed needed there are multiple areas, many more than designated wilderness areas, where one can explore, camp fish, etc. right now. Which might explain why they’re not sitting here and advocating for the destruction of the wilderness they love while leaving folks such as yourself to exploit their disabilities in an effort to undermine wilderness designations.
Well said, haderondah!
The ADA is not great at illustrating the letter vs. the spirit of the text. Wilderness and back-country were clearly not well thought out to satisfy all situations.
In the Park, all of us have the RIGHT to scale a cliff (observing Perigrine regulations!). Does that mean if everyone has that right, the ADA requires structures/modifications to the cliff to allow mobility-impaired individuals to scale it?? I cannot swim – does that mean ADA should require bridges across all deep waters throughout the park to allow for my disability? Yes, these are absurd points, but illustrative of many of the arguments here. Absolutist statements/positions are not going to solve the problems being debated here.
No no no! After a lifetime of walking the Adirondack trails, I am now age disabled and can only briefly enjoy the easiest of.trails. But even those quiet walks are now disturbed by thick-treaded bikes and horses coming up behind me and forcing me to move aside and digging into the trails. Leave the remaining places of wildness and quiet remain, places where animals can roam free and trees are left to stand as nature planted them, uncontrolled. Where bushwhacking rather than cultivated trails prevail. Even though I cannot go to those places, I am very happy to know they are there. Haven’t humans destroyed enough of our native lands?
The Ore Bed Trail staircases were mentioned, above. They are atrocious structures, drilled and pinned to bedrock, that don’t comply with the guidelines and criteria of the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan; their construction would never have been approved by State Land staff at APA. So DEC staff out of Ray Brook had a pro crew of the Adirondack Mountain Club build it without any consultation and review by APA. A number of surprised, upset people sent me photographs of it, which I forwarded to DEC’s head of Lands & Forests in Albany along with my harsh review of it and what had happened. He openly accepted that what had occurred was a problem we’d have to deal with, but he knew an agreement to remove the d###d things would become an instant brouhaha (defended by certain of his staff as a “safety issue”) and it happened that at that time there was new litigation pending against DEC by parents who’d lost a son in a tragic accident the family was blaming on DEC negligence. So he pointed to the litigation, argued that it would be a very bad moment for the Department to be considering removing any kind of “safety” structure, and asked if I could agree to delay dealing with it until the litigation was resolved.
I understood… I agreed… and then what – two or more years passed (?) before the litigation was resolved and DEC was not held responsible for the young man’s death. I don’t remember. I can’t explain why I didn’t resurrect the issue. I didn’t decide not to, and the only other thing I can say is that this was just one of SO many tussles with DEC over their management of State lands not in conformance with the APSLMP it just didn’t rise to the top again before I retired. My apologies to you who care. I failed in this. Ore Bed trail is a convenience to all those hikers trying to bag their peaks as quickly as they can; it is not some “necessity,” and there are so many trails crisscrossing the High Peaks,anyway, it would be good, in my view, to simply brush that trail in, formally close it, and get rid of those staircases that look like they belong inside somebody’s large house, not out in the Adirondack wilderness.
Maybe would should just close down all forests in the park. No one is allowed off the roads to access any parts of the forest.
Rob,
This is a type of absurdism ad extremis argument. It doesn’t really wash nor does it effectively refute Walter’s statement.
Reading some of these comments I think that would make a lot of people extremely happy
I understand your frustration Rob, when you say; “Let’s hope the Democrats put up some good candidates and change a few of their policies. I’d like to not have to vote Republican again.”
I hope that more voters like you (and like me) are waking up to the sorry state of our mainline political parties, and the urgent need to find better people with better ideas to elect to lead America and protect our Constitution.
Too many people we’ve elected are ignoring their solemn oath to protect the Constitution and their obligation to govern on behalf of the American people.
Special interests use flattery, lavish favors,”dark money” and every other trick in the book to corrupt our leaders. We used to call this corruption of government “graft”. Call it what you will, but it is up to all of us to put the brakes on it, before American Democracy is lost forever!
That, in my opinion, is what Adirondacks of every point-of-view (and Americans everywhere else), should be discussing, first and foremost, before motorized mobility or other hot topics we all have opinions on.
How about it Melissa? Let’s make Adk. Ex/Al the “go-to” place for “change that matters”.
Mr. Curth, while I appreciate that looking at the big picture is extremely important, and that this issue doesn’t seem connected to our wider problems, I am compelled to point out that issue is entirely indicative our wider problems and IS in fact, our wider problem.
The need for motorized access to our wilderness areas does not exist. It isn’t real, it isn’t a real problem. But here we have folks attempting to conflate what is real with what is not by using emotional, fact free language to manipulate people into advocating for the weakening of wilderness designations in service to private, corporate interests.
I would argue that this issue is one of the frontlines of our wider problem.
Louis, we cannot do anything about the current conditions in Washington or Albany until the next election but we can protest and comment and write Letters to the editor and ordinary people can debate each other ( cordially) in safe spaces like this. I don’t think this is a political party issue. If the Adirondacks had oil ( or rare earth metals ) this would be an entirely different discussion. But we only have trees ! And beautiful scenery. I am here each summer for a short time but I am more involved in life up here than where I reside legally. The beach is the big attraction here. But I think we should keep this discussion going until we get some further guidance ( ???) from the DEC and the APA and then start in again.
Don’t forget we should write letters to our REPRESENTATIVES to keep their feet to the fire. Whether we voted for them or not, we are still their constituents! If they want to remain in office after election day, they need to listen to us. Increasingly, this concept seems to be lost on many elected officials, and even many voters. Don’t let your representative’s decisions be dictated purely by their Party affiliation. They are working for US, not the Party!
There should not be an absolute prohibition. The world is not going to end if a few motorized vehicles travel on suitable surfaces through state lands which are somewhat arbitrarily classified as “wilderness” as opposed to “wild forest” or some other classification. In many cases the “wilderness” was working timberland not many years ago and there are roads through it suitable for driving log trucks on. Concerns about “pollution” are nonsensical, particularly if the vehicle is electric.
You seem to misunderstand, wilderness designation is an absolute prohibition. That’s the point. Wilderness designations are not arbitrary, they are typically designed to connect contiguous areas in order to preserve or rehabilitate natural habitat. The concern is about erosion and other damages to the natural quality of the land and the maintenance or restoration of wilderness quality (primitive) footpaths. There is no shortage whatsoever of forest preserve land that is not classified as wilderness that one may access and the state could non-disruptively improve handicapped access. By definition, trails that exist in any designated wilderness area whatsoever are not suitable surfaces for motorized vehicles.
“In many cases the “wilderness” was working timberland not many years ago and there are roads through it suitable for driving log trucks on.”
Forest Preserve designations and SLMPs are made for the present and future, not based on previous land usage.
With deference to Walter Linck, Rob, Haderondah, Joan Grabe, Boreas, An Adirondack Resident, and all the rest who shared opinions on wilderness and motorized access, I resist adding my own opinions on this topic only to call your attention to the matter of priorities.
The Adirondacks, like much of rural America, is experiencing economic uncertainty on a scale beyond anything most of us have ever seen! Meanwhile, the fawning,”tap dancing”, and outright lies offered by self-serving elected leaders just gets worse and worse!
We need to demand genuine progress from our political leaders on the urgent needs of people and businesses struggling to survive in rural America! If they can’t or won’t help us, they should be replaced with new leaders who will. Shouldn’t that discussion be the number one topic for all of us who care about America’s future?
I traveled into Dixon Park a while ago and there was no one using the facility. I use the Moose River Plains complex often and seldom see any use of the handicapped campsites. I remember “The Stones of Shame” brought to the capital after he DEC blocked vehicle access to Crane Pond. My point is there are plenty of available wild areas to provide the access needed for all citizens to enjoy. I agree with Haderondah, there is plenty of motorized access available today.
The Wilderness in the Adirondacks or any where else in the US is one pen stroke away from an Executive Order by an erratic, uninformed individual who inhabits the White house. (One would like to think that a State has the ability to protect its wilderness areas, but all bets seem to be off in the new regime of ignoring the courts.)
…and the courts ignoring the Constitution.