The ATC Compliance With Americans With Disabilities Act, Part Two

[The Weasel]

I hope Rock will understand that I think this is an important topic and not close it.

I'm disabled. I am about 80% deaf in one ear, and 60% in my other. Hearing aids don't help much, since the form of deafness makes understanding sounds hard. I've represented other disabled people, and among my life achievements, equal to my 600 miles of AT thru hiking is bringing a major class action in my own name against film studios to force greater closed captioning. In a word, I identify with not just the AT, but with people who have disabilities.

Those of you who think that the AT - or other trails - are not for the physically handicapped are wrong, and that extends to "wheelchair backpacking" as well as those who use wheelchairs but can also function to some extent using braces or crutches. Wheelchairs are light enough and strong enough that they can stand up to the stress of distance hiking, as marathons have shown on city streets. I've seen wheelchair users on strenuous trails, and chatted with a few. Yeah, it's not easy. They are in superb physical condition, usually, and have upper body strength that is phenomenal.

And yeah, the women take a pee, folks, and the wheelchair-bound men and women both like to get on a toilet seat in a privy to take a dump. It's a little harder for them to do either without a privy, as you might imagine (if you were a bit more sensitive and bothered to think about it).

It took me about 8 seconds using Google to search for "wheelchair backpacking" and find this lady's site, http://perchesinthesoul.com/ (read "about me" under her picture, and what I am sure is her post in another forum, "Doctors With Disabilities" (read down a bit to "WakeElf"'s post, which is third down). http://www.disapedia.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?p=528&sid=af9bec9c6d3af86281f9ca2fd1dc7749 Lonely Planet's site has a Blog about Walt Balenovich, who has written "Backpacking in a Blue Chair". http://www.lonelyplanet.com/blogs/community/entry/blue_chair

I know it sounds counter-intuitive that the handicapped want to backpack (and can!) but we're really are like you in one way: We have minds, with feelings and goals and hopes, and, in some cases, those minds and feelings and goals include remote trails. More than you might realize, we're able to do things that you don't think we can. But while nobody - including the disabled - suggests putting a ramp up Albert Mountain or such places, it's not harming any of you to put a modest ramp on a shelter privy.

The Weasel

[jersey joe]

I personally don't think there is anything wrong with putting a ramp on a privy, but, weasel, will you concede that making the entire AT wheel chair accessable is not only nearly impossible but should not be done? I mean there are limits to accomodating the handicap no?

[The Weasel]

Joe ---

It's not "nearly impossible." It's impossible. And no one has suggested it. But it's always something like that when the disabled want a modest improvement; someone then says, "But we can't make everything that way," and uses that as a reason to mock, and defeat, the real proposals. All the law requires is "reasonable" accommodation for the handicap; but all too often, that is used as an "escape phrase" to say that "no accommodation" is possible.

Yeah, when someone re-routes a trail that was accessible to he handicapped, they should think about whether the rerouting is necessary, or perhaps keeping the old route as an acceptable alternative.

TW

[Alligator]

This link (http://www.state.tn.us/environment/recreation/pdf/trailada.pdf) offers some discussion, Q&A, and photos concerning the ADA Accessibility Guidelines. It comes from the TN Dept. of Environment and Conservation.

[Foyt20]

Who should pay for the modifications?

[Alligator]

Who should pay for the modifications?The public should pay for it.

[Lilred]

Who should pay for the modifications?

All taxpayers of course. Taxpayers pay for the trail for people without disabilities, it only makes sense that tax dollars cover accessability as well. After all, disabled people are taxpayers too, and their taxes paid for the AT as well. Where there is a possible access with a wheelchair, there ought to be provisions at shelters and privies. I've seen wheelchairs that can climb stairs, won't be long that they can get up mountains, if not already.

[orangebug]

Reasonable accommodations are paid for by government when the facilities are public. Zoning / building codes determine reasonable accommodation changes when privately owned facilities are modified/constructed.

There is always a price to pay. Prior to ADA (and prior Rehabilitation Act), that price was borne exclusively by the disabled - to the point of losing access to even the city sidewalks.

It makes little sense to require full accommodation for shelters/privies in backcountry that aren't accessable except by hiking community elite. There are other areas for reasonable accommodation that are far higher priority. Given the numbers of disabled vets entering our society after this very expensive war, we will face many challenges setting priorities.

[Lone Wolf]

some years back the AMC added on new construction to Galehead hut. they had to put in ramps and all that other crap to meet ADA standards. totally ridiculous if you've ever hiked in that area. no wheelchair bound person would even think of trying to get there.

[Alligator]

some years back the AMC added on new construction to Galehead hut. they had to put in ramps and all that other crap to meet ADA standards. totally ridiculous if you've ever hiked in that area. no wheelchair bound person would even think of trying to get there.One misconception of ramps is that they only benefit people in wheelchairs. There are other types of disabilities that ramps help, missing limbs for instance. I'll bet a Marine with a missing leg could make it up there.

[Foyt20]

One misconception of ramps is that they only benefit people in wheelchairs. There are other types of disabilities that ramps help, missing limbs for instance. I'll bet a Marine with a missing leg could make it up there.

Yes, and if he made it up there, he probably wouldnt need a ramp to get into the shelter.

Btw, i am more than happy to help or assist anyone with a disablility. Its just that i think that people need to realize what their limitations are and stop doing something just becasuse it makes everyone "equal". Equality is an impossible goal, and an idea that was based more on conditions than on actual circumstances. there comes a time that people need to wake up, and realize that maybe there are things that we just cant do.

I cant run a marathon, so i say well, thats something i cant do. I dont Sue the sponsor or the organizer of the marathon to shorten it. I tried to be a professional firefighter, but i could not pass the physical test. I didnt sue for the department of personell to make the test easier, i realised it and moved on with my life.

[KnowledgeEngine]

When I read this thread I remembered something I had seen recently Dean Kamen's IBOT standing wheelchair (http://www.ibotnow.com/) I understand those who can not get purchasing assistance probably cannot afford to purchase this.

Something novel/intresting however would be to rent them at town access, much like many large cities rent bikes for greenway use.

[Alligator]

Yes, and if he made it up there, he probably wouldnt need a ramp to get into the shelter.
...He doesn't need the shelter either. It's just a convenience to use that he/she paid for. Since it gets paid for, as Lilred quite eloquently pointed out, in part by the disabled, they have a right to determine how it is constructed.

Further Foyt, the guidelines for trails detailed are a mix of input from various groups. They are a compromise regarding reasonable accomodation.

[johnny quest]

Those of you who think that the AT - or other trails - are not for the physically handicapped are wrong

the AT...like most things in life, are for anyone who can do it. healthy he-men have failed thru-hikes, while at least one blind-man succeeded. i think most people here on whiteblaze understand that and dont see the trail as belonging to only the young or superfit.
you can sue every state the AT goes thru, you can shave off the hills and pave the trail, blast thru the rock and put ramps over creeks. you might end up with something everyone can experience, but what would that experience be?

[Alligator]

the AT...like most things in life, are for anyone who can do it. healthy he-men have failed thru-hikes, while at least one blind-man succeeded. i think most people here on whiteblaze understand that and dont see the trail as belonging to only the young or superfit.
you can sue every state the AT goes thru, you can shave off the hills and pave the trail, blast thru the rock and put ramps over creeks. you might end up with something everyone can experience, but what would that experience be?
From my link in post 4.
Will we have to bring existing trails up to ADA standards?
No. The proposed accessibility guidelines require all newly constructed and altered portions of existing trails connected to accessible trails or designated trailheads to comply.

Here's a more extensive page (http://www.access-board.gov/outdoor/outdoor-rec-rpt.htm) on the final report.

[jniehof]

some years back the AMC added on new construction to Galehead hut. they had to put in ramps and all that other crap to meet ADA standards. totally ridiculous if you've ever hiked in that area. no wheelchair bound person would even think of trying to get there.
Except for the ones that did. One group climbed Galehead in three days, staying at Galehead hut both days. There was also (I forget if it was before or after) an ascent of Lafayette, staying at Greenleaf. It was written up in Appalachia--roughly 2000-2001 timeframe.

[The Weasel]

Yes, and if he made it up there, he probably wouldnt need a ramp to get into the shelter.

Btw, i am more than happy to help or assist anyone with a disablility. Its just that i think that people need to realize what their limitations are and stop doing something just becasuse it makes everyone "equal". Equality is an impossible goal, and an idea that was based more on conditions than on actual circumstances. there comes a time that people need to wake up, and realize that maybe there are things that we just cant do.

I cant run a marathon, so i say well, thats something i cant do. I dont Sue the sponsor or the organizer of the marathon to shorten it. I tried to be a professional firefighter, but i could not pass the physical test. I didnt sue for the department of personell to make the test easier, i realised it and moved on with my life.

Well, Foyt, did it ever dawn on you that maybe we don't want your help? Maybe we just want things that present hurdles for us - but not for you - that aren't necessary ones to be reduced, so that ones that are necessary can be left to us. There are people in wheelchairs who do technical mountain climbing, and more. But maybe we are just a little tired of patronizing from people like you who then say, "But I don't want to see the public pay for eliminating curb ramps...or privy steps."

If you couldn't run a marathon, it's because of your lack of conditioning. Every marathon now has wheelchair sections, blind people run them, and pretty much every other handicap; if Steven Hawking paid the entry fee to an "open" marathon, he'd be allowed in. As for being a pro firefighter, if you were excluded because of a physical limitation that can't be overcome, you would have no lawsuit; if it was because of your own lack of conditioning, look in the mirror.

I don't ask for "equality" since neither you nor any government can give me my hearing back. I do ask for equality of opportunity, and for government (and people like you) to realize that actions of yours that make it harder for the handicapped should be avoided.

TW

[johnny quest]

what action is he or anyone else taking to make it harder for the handicapped? is lack of taking action you want, action?

[sofaking]

weasel, i have very diminished hearing also. i don't remember the %, but the one hearing aid is basically useless and the other just sort of helps me get by...i don't consider myself disabled, just inconvenienced- and i don't wear my hearing aids when i go out on the trail because they're such a p.i.t.a to keep up with/dry/clean...so am i understanding you correctly that i am in some way being dis-serviced by the a.t.c. or society in general? maybe i need to move on out to cali and get represented...:-?

[Alligator]

...In a word, I identify with not just the AT, but with people who have disabilities.

...
The Weasel didn't say his disability creates a problem for him in regard to the AT. He was explaining the motivation behind his interest in this issue.

[sofaking]

i'm still not understanding the issue or the motivation...

[orangebug]

Who understands the motivation of folks leaving perfectly good homes and beds and going into snake and bear infested woods? Or who want to sleep in vermin ridden shelters?

Folks with disabilities have the same warped sense of entitlement that the rest of us enjoy.

Now, I am having some trouble with understanding whether use of hearing aids qualifies as a disability. The courts have ruled that use of optical glasses does not qualify for disability/reasonable accommodations - for instance with pilots and airline company retirement procedures.

[Alligator]

i'm still not understanding the issue or the motivation...I don't comprehend your lack of understanding.

[sofaking]

I don't comprehend your lack of understanding.
well, state the issue for me...how is the a.t either in/not in compliance with the ada? is this the issue, or are we supposed to just listen to a bunch of proselytized references and links to different interpretations of the ada?

[Alligator]

Here's a simple example (http://www.ada.gov/lawenfcomm.htm) of where the hearing situation could apply to the AT. You may (rarely) run into a law enforcement officer on the AT.

[Alligator]

well, state the issue for me...how is the a.t either in/not in compliance with the ada? is this the issue, or are we supposed to just listen to a bunch of proselytized references and links to different interpretations of the ada?A personal example. A couple of years ago I volunteered to help construct a privy. We were building it at a facility for later transport. The person in charge of the construction knew about ADA guidelines for the privy. The layout was just a little more complicated to create the privy than previous designs, so the guy cut off the extra length needed to make the platform ADA compliant. It was therefore not in compliance.

[sofaking]

Here's a simple example (http://www.ada.gov/lawenfcomm.htm) of where the hearing situation could apply to the AT. You may (rarely) run into a law enforcement officer on the AT.
and how is this an example of the a.t being inaccessable to the disabled? i still need you to clarify your point about this thread.

[sofaking]

A personal example. A couple of years ago I volunteered to help construct a privy. We were building it at a facility for later transport. The person in charge of the construction knew about ADA guidelines for the privy. The layout was just a little more complicated to create the privy than previous designs, so the guy cut off the extra length need to make the platform ADA compliant.
so the a.t is in non-compliance with the ada because your privy was shortened...was this privy located to or connected to a handicapped accessible section of trail? were people complaining about not being able to use the privy because it was non-compliant?

[The Weasel]

The Weasel didn't say his disability creates a problem for him in regard to the AT. He was explaining the motivation behind his interest in this issue.

Thank you, 'Gator. You're very correct.

How does society make things harder? It happens all the time, and it even happens 'on the trail.'

Simple example: A curb is constructed, today or last month or twenty years ago - it doesn't really matter - at a street corner. It, like the rest of the curb down the block, rises 8" from the street. A man or woman in a wheelchair can't navigate it, so they have to get their wheelchair to the street at a driveway away from the corner, risking injury. How did "society" make things harder? Before the curb, there was only a grassy or dirt level to the street. The curb could have been built flush to the street there, at no greater cost. Other examples abound, in the minds of those who care.

On the Trail? Yes, there are curbs at many street/road crossings, and the AT has been there, probably before the curb. Privies don't need to be 'built up' with steps, and other trail construction may not be thoughtful, either; steps built into trails may look nice, but involve no less work than grading back from the 'rise'. Examples should abound here, too, for those who care. Is that step a problem for an amputee on an artificial leg? Yes. A deal breaker? Probably not. But harder? Yeah.

And yeah, 'Faking, I take my hearing aid out when I hike, for the same reasons as you. There is little that is created along the trail that is sound-based, at least by the ATC or trail owners such as the NPS. I am pleased, though, that the NPS (and most other agencies) provide accommodations to the hearing-disabled that make using their services easier. And while you may not think of yourself as disabled, well, many people - including me - don't wear their disability as a badge on their sleeve, but we are. When things are done that give us a more level playing field, that's a good thing. But as someone put it better than me, above, I pay taxes to build things, too, and provide services to the public, and it's not too much to expect that those taxes don't make life harder for those who have handicaps. And you benefit from the ADA too, as does everyone else.

TW

[The Weasel]

so the a.t is in non-compliance with the ada because your privy was shortened...was this privy located to or connected to a handicapped accessible section of trail? were people complaining about not being able to use the privy because it was non-compliant?

'Faking....

All sections of the Trail are "handicapped accessible." It depends on what handicap you're talking about. Some sections are wheelchair accessible, but privy access problems aren't limited to just people in wheelchairs. Wider doors, for instance, make it possible for those using walking assistance (crutches, braces, walkers) to enter. Ramps help those who have difficulty using steps. So do 'arm rails.' There are other mods that assist others who have different needs. Not all are necessary in every instance, but it isn't right, either, where none are even considered when trail construction occurs.

TW

[sofaking]

Thank you, 'Gator. You're very correct.

How does society make things harder? It happens all the time, and it even happens 'on the trail.'

Simple example: A curb is constructed, today or last month or twenty years ago - it doesn't really matter - at a street corner. It, like the rest of the curb down the block, rises 8" from the street. A man or woman in a wheelchair can't navigate it, so they have to get their wheelchair to the street at a driveway away from the corner, risking injury. How did "society" make things harder? Before the curb, there was only a grassy or dirt level to the street. The curb could have been built flush to the street there, at no greater cost. Other examples abound, in the minds of those who care.

On the Trail? Yes, there are curbs at many street/road crossings, and the AT has been there, probably before the curb. Privies don't need to be 'built up' with steps, and other trail construction may not be thoughtful, either; steps built into trails may look nice, but involve no less work than grading back from the 'rise'. Examples should abound here, too, for those who care. Is that step a problem for an amputee on an artificial leg? Yes. A deal breaker? Probably not. But harder? Yeah.

And yeah, 'Faking, I take my hearing aid out when I hike, for the same reasons as you. There is little that is created along the trail that is sound-based, at least by the ATC or trail owners such as the NPS. I am pleased, though, that the NPS (and most other agencies) provide accommodations to the hearing-disabled that make using their services easier. And while you may not think of yourself as disabled, well, many people - including me - don't wear their disability as a badge on their sleeve, but we are. When things are done that give us a more level playing field, that's a good thing. But as someone put it better than me, above, I pay taxes to build things, too, and provide services to the public, and it's not too much to expect that those taxes don't make life harder for those who have handicaps. And you benefit from the ADA too, as does everyone else.

TW
am i correct in understanding that your position is that the a.t.c and society in general, are required to make the trail handicapped accessable, even if there isn't a logical or reasonable or even necessary demand for it because of the ada? and that the trail is in non-compliance?

[johnny quest]

How did "society" make things harder? Before the curb, there was only a grassy or dirt level to the street. The curb could have been built flush to the street there, at no greater cost. Other examples abound, in the minds of those who care.


that is some skewed logic. it suggests "society" got together in a dark cigar-smoke filled room and said "lets screw those cripples!"
but that aint what happened. curbs are there for a reason...drainage for one. before the concrete curbs were muddy horsecrap filled dirt roads with wooden walkways. before that were rocks and treestumps and bushes.
what time and place do you want to go back to that was an idyllic ada dream?
i reject your notion that anyone actively made things harder.

[sofaking]

yeah, i'm done with this retarded(oops, sorry ada) thread and subject.

[Blissful]

My hat's off to those who can hike with a disability - but I'm thinking, if they can do strenouus trail work up rocky inclines in a w/c for example or with a prosthesis, they certainly can get up a few steps to a privy without the need of a ramp. (?) Or if not, the woods is available. I don't think a few privy steps would stop someone that motivated. Or if so, then one would need ramps at shelters (which I think some of them are difficult enough to get in to even if you aren't physically disabled)

(from one who is blind without glasses and had to hike that way for two days with broken glasses after SPringer)

[le loupe]

so the a.t is in non-compliance with the ada because your privy was shortened...was this privy located to or connected to a handicapped accessible section of trail? were people complaining about not being able to use the privy because it was non-compliant?

it doesn't matter if a disabled person "can't" reach a remote area the privy would still have to comply with the requirements of the ADA.

to talk about things I know- buildings and the building code - I can design a building that will conform to the requirements of the building code and the ADA. That building may not have an accessible route to a second floor but if that floor has a bathroom it must meet the standard required for an accessible bathroom

[Pete Moss]

If they are man or woman enough to get up the mountain,I dont see how not having a wheel chair ramp at the privy will keep them off that toilet seat

[Alligator]

that is some skewed logic. it suggests "society" got together in a dark cigar-smoke filled room and said "lets screw those cripples!"
but that aint what happened. curbs are there for a reason...drainage for one. before the concrete curbs were muddy horsecrap filled dirt roads with wooden walkways. before that were rocks and treestumps and bushes.
what time and place do you want to go back to that was an idyllic ada dream?
i reject your notion that anyone actively made things harder.Folks make things actively harder by opposing simple, cheap modifications to new construction as evidenced above in my privy example. The worker refused to extend the privy platform the required distance. That's a real, true story.

[Alligator]

If they are man or woman enough to get up the mountain,I dont see how not having a wheel chair ramp at the privy will keep them off that toilet seatIf you are man enough to make it up the mountain, why do you park your ass on the privy instead of crapping in the woods? It's more convenient.

[Odd Thomas]

the AT...like most things in life, are for anyone who can do it. healthy he-men have failed thru-hikes, while at least one blind-man succeeded. i think most people here on whiteblaze understand that and dont see the trail as belonging to only the young or superfit.
you can sue every state the AT goes thru, you can shave off the hills and pave the trail, blast thru the rock and put ramps over creeks. you might end up with something everyone can experience, but what would that experience be?

the thruway

[SGT Rock]

I hope Rock will understand that I think this is an important topic and not close it.

Naw, it is an important topic. The other thread was going south quick as people fought over the bone. Closing it was more of a time out while administrators went off to do their real-world business until we could come clean that up.

This thread is already better. Instead of cleaning that one up I'll just let this be the new subject. I just hope people can play nice.

[Lone Wolf]

Except for the ones that did. One group climbed Galehead in three days, staying at Galehead hut both days. There was also (I forget if it was before or after) an ascent of Lafayette, staying at Greenleaf. It was written up in Appalachia--roughly 2000-2001 timeframe.

just stunts was all they were. it tooks many people to carry the person in the wheelchair. proved nothing

[weary]

MATC has built a lot of steps on eroded sections of the trail in recent years. We call it "trail hardening,i.e." making the trail less susceptible to erosion from storm water and disturbances caused by lug soles and hiking sticks.

Essentially we are changing relatively smooth, but steep, earthen ramps, with crude steps formed by rocks, boulders and chiseled ledge. A few people, like me, occasionally complain that the steps are human intrusions into the natural enviroment. I go along mostly because without the steps, trails tend to erode into deep gulleys, which probably also handicaps access by some.

To date, no one has suggested that this work violates the ADA laws. But it is an interesting question.

Weary

[Pete Moss]

If you are man enough to make it up the mountain, why do you park your ass on the privy instead of crapping in the woods? It's more convenient.

Well Alligator, I said nothing as to where and how I do my business, so dont assume anything. Second, my observation makes perfect sense, so dont get your panties in a wad.

[max patch]

The guy that started this thread also posted a while back that rerouting the trail away from towns was some type of conspiracy to make it hard for regular people to get to the trail -- limiting the trail to "elistists" -- and since advertising at trailheads is prohibited only well known ALDHA members would get all the shuttle business. Or some such nonsense; I think I'm remembering all this correctly.

[Alligator]

If you are man enough to make it up the mountain, why do you park your ass on the privy instead of crapping in the woods? It's more convenient.

Well Alligator, I said nothing as to where and how I do my business, so dont assume anything. Second, my observation makes perfect sense, so dont get your panties in a wad.I think you'd be FOS if you stated that you have never crapped in a privy, unless you've never overnighted on the AT. But if you haven't, I dub thee privylessledged.

The rest of your "observation" fails to take into account that shelters and privies are conveniences. They aren't intended to be challenges, but instead are provided for primitive comfort. That comfort is in part paid for by handicapped people, who do deserve a say in how they are managed.

[tomsawyer222]

Yea this is ridiculous why change anything on the trail for anyone? That is not the nature of the trail.... The trail is unforgiving it is supposed to be hard it is not governed by normal society it is "supposed" to be nature. There are no ramps in nature...... The trail should not be changed for any reason to help some one complete it or to hike on it. It just makes to more pround when you complete it that you did it the way it was with no help. This should not even be an issue cause i would love to see a wheelchair person complete (with no help) the trail cause it is not possible there are places you have to climb cross creeks and do all sorts of stuff ! I am not going to say the handicapped are bad or anything but you cant get things your way all the time look on the bright side you are still alive..........

[SGT Rock]

The same logic could be applied to shelters. The trail is not meant to be 'comfortable' so why have shelters? They are not needed. Really, if you believe that the trail is for the hardy of heart and any accommodation below hard core is frivolous.

But if you ascribe to the idea that we have shelters and they are there just for the convenience of hikers, why not make them even more convenient? After all, there are handicap people that do hike. You are not going to make trails wheelchair accessible unless you pave the mountains, but you can make privies and shelters accommodate the ones that can make it how ever they get there. One Leg walked it. There is a photo of a guy back in the 50s carrying his mother to the top of LeCont the hard way, some shelters are in areas of multi-use so a handicap person could get there on a horse. Don't say it cannot happen because someone may prove you wrong or you may find out you are not as right as you think you are.

So anyway, if I had a handicap grandson and helped him to get to Icewater Shelter for the night he should be able to use the privy just like everyone else, after all it is there for convienince of hikers. It may as well be convienent for everyone that visits if it doesn't ruin the trail experience any more than a regular privy would.

[le loupe]

I keep hearing about how handicapped people pay for things-

I thought the various trail clubs maintained the various sections via volunteer labor & donations.

Can someone give me a better synopsis of the funding behind the AT?

[Pete Moss]

Alligator- Can' say I've never used a privy, but dont like to. Same principle as I will not go in a public restroom. I agree that the handicapped and disabled have as much say so as I do on this issue, they are tax payers like you and I. What I'm saying is this, If a person is capable enough to get up a mountain to a privy and they gotta go, they will are fully capable of getting into a privy. I just feel that money spent to upgrade privys with ramps is money wasted on the very few who would benefit from this. Spending money on more rangers and keeping parks open is more important to me. thats all, but I can respect your opinion as well.

[johnny quest]

i dont know that i agree that the shelters and privys are there for anyones convenience. i thought they were there to control and cut down on overuse...same as a tent pad isnt there to make tenting more comfortable but to keep people from clearing out too much of the area.
if a trail club is building ar fixing a shelter or privy and want to include ramps or solar lights or coathooks or doorbells that is great. have at it. the point being raised in this thread is that the government should force all these privys and shelters to comply.

[SGT Rock]

I keep hearing about how handicapped people pay for things-

I thought the various trail clubs maintained the various sections via volunteer labor & donations.

Can someone give me a better synopsis of the funding behind the AT?
You are basically right. My contributions to the ATC, my spending money on the ATC maps, and my contributions to the local clubs are what pays for the trail. For the most part - there are exceptions.

But I will add to that, things like the ATC license plates, this is money collected by the states that do them that will go back to the organizations that sponsor them through grants. So say the NC tag draws $100,000, that money can be drawn by the ATC and used for trail projects in the state. It ain't really taxes that pay for that, it is people volunteering for that tag and paying the extra - so it really is more like buying an ATC product.

The exceptions to this, at the level I know of, are places like GSMNP where the park service often builds and maintains the facilities inside the park. That comes from their budget, as do all the other facilities inside the park. So a bathroom in the GSMNP has to follow the ADA as does any new shelter, privy, or any other facility you can think of on the trail. And your tax dollars do pay for that.

I'll muddy this a little more by saying that a shelter and privy built on NFS land has to follow the rules set forth by the NFS and be approved by that local FS office. The ATC has guidelines that help clubs build and stay in those guidelines. So lets say the Tennessee Eastmen want to build a shelter with privy - the local land manager will tell them if their designs meet the regulations they have to follow in regards to the ADA. If they want to add that structure - it has to follow the rules that land manager must follow. And the Tennessee Eastmen club would have to worry about paying for it or not building it.

[sofaking]

shelters and privies are not limited to being categorized as conveniences. while they may indeed be considered 'luxury items', they serve to minimize impact in high use areas-shelters, as high impact as they may seem, actually limit the amount of surrounding area impact- without them, every watersource and campsite would end up sprawling all over the area, kinda like our cities and suburbs. privies, while disgusting, need to be used when staying at shelters, to keep the 'toilet paper flowers' from running rampant- if you don't want to use the privy, don't stay at shelters- tent away from the area.

[Pete Moss]

Exactly...and there are more pressing budget issues to be addressed first.

[SGT Rock]

i dont know that i agree that the shelters and privys are there for anyones convenience. i thought they were there to control and cut down on overuse...same as a tent pad isnt there to make tenting more comfortable but to keep people from clearing out too much of the area.
if a trail club is building ar fixing a shelter or privy and want to include ramps or solar lights or coathooks or doorbells that is great. have at it. the point being raised in this thread is that the government should force all these privys and shelters to comply.

In some areas this is correct, but not all (not even most). There are some places even the local clubs will tell you their shelters don't make sense at all. The AT created the shelter system back in the 30s before overcrowding was even an issue. If you really wanted to just reduce impact you could have designated campsites and not add the shelter to that point. But this is the logic for them in places like GSMNP which is the most visited park in the East. But there the shelters are packed in the spring.

Other places they are just there because they are convenient and it is the AT culture to have shelters. If you ever talk about doing away with shelters people come out of the woodwork to complain.

[SGT Rock]

shelters and privies are not limited to being categorized as conveniences. while they may indeed be considered 'luxury items', they serve to minimize impact in high use areas-shelters, as high impact as they may seem, actually limit the amount of surrounding area impact- without them, every watersource and campsite would end up sprawling all over the area, kinda like our cities and suburbs. privies, while disgusting, need to be used when staying at shelters, to keep the 'toilet paper flowers' from running rampant- if you don't want to use the privy, don't stay at shelters- tent away from the area.

They don't limit the impact any more than just having a designated tentsite would. The GSMNP has lots of trail and only a dozen shelters - almost all of them on the AT (all but 2). It is an AT culture thing to expect shelters. If you think the extra money spent on privies at shelters to make them handicap accessable is an issue, then try to get them to stop building them in the first place.


Exactly...and there are more pressing budget issues to be addressed first.
If there were more important budget issues then shelters wouldn't be built in the first place. It's a red herring.

[Alligator]

Alligator- Can' say I've never used a privy, but dont like to. Same principle as I will not go in a public restroom. I agree that the handicapped and disabled have as much say so as I do on this issue, they are tax payers like you and I. What I'm saying is this, If a person is capable enough to get up a mountain to a privy and they gotta go, they will are fully capable of getting into a privy. I just feel that money spent to upgrade privys with ramps is money wasted on the very few who would benefit from this. Spending money on more rangers and keeping parks open is more important to me. thats all, but I can respect your opinion as well.From what I've seen, (but I am having trouble getting the exact rules) it's only for new facility construction that the reasonable accomodations kicks in. I agree with that and while it would be nice to make older facilities compliant I'm not sure it is required. I have a reference saying that only new FS facilities need to be.

[SGT Rock]

From what I've seen, (but I am having trouble getting the exact rules) it's only for new facility construction that the reasonable accomodations kicks in. I agree with that and while it would be nice to make older facilities compliant I'm not sure it is required. I have a reference saying that only new FS facilities need to be.
New or radically altered.

[Alligator]

If a privy needs to be built to prevent overuse, it needs to be accessible otherwise it won't get used:-?.

[Alligator]

New or radically altered.Yes, that was not totally correct what I said. What I have says (a Q & A) new and reconstructed. Some maintainence issue is keeping me from getting the FSORAG:(.

[SGT Rock]

Yes, that was incomplete what I said. What I have says (a Q & a) new and reconstructed. Some maintainence issue is keeping me from getting the FSORAG:(.

I imagine you probably have access to the latest FS guidance on how they comply with the ADA.

[Lyle]

Yea this is ridiculous why change anything on the trail for anyone? That is not the nature of the trail.... The trail is unforgiving it is supposed to be hard it is not governed by normal society it is "supposed" to be nature. There are no ramps in nature...... The trail should not be changed for any reason to help some one complete it or to hike on it. It just makes to more pround when you complete it that you did it the way it was with no help. This should not even be an issue cause i would love to see a wheelchair person complete (with no help) the trail cause it is not possible there are places you have to climb cross creeks and do all sorts of stuff ! I am not going to say the handicapped are bad or anything but you cant get things your way all the time look on the bright side you are still alive..........

You have apparently not done any volunteer trail construction if you believe that nature has not been changed to make the trail easier to hike on for you. There is a tremendous amount of changing that goes into building a trail.

I have no objections to making a trail handicap friendlier where that is practical or even useful. I do have a problem painting with a broad brush and saying that every new shelter, privy and bridge needs to meet ADA standards designed for urban parks. It is being interpreted by many governmental units in this way.

Bridges that are accessible only by an 18" wide tread-way, sometimes incorporating rocks, steps, and stream crossings, has to be built a minimum of 3 1/2 to 4 ft wide with approach ramps, in order to accommodate a wheel chair. The only way a wheelchair can reach such a bridge is if it is carried in. This increases tremendously the amount of cost, labor, materials and time required by the volunteers to build and maintain the bridge, with absolutely no demonstrable benefit to anyone. In fact, building bridges in this manner encourages bicycle, ORV and horse traffic, things that we are trying to eliminate from our foot trails, thus causing great damage.

Our legal system and government is eliminating any application of common sense. That is what allows 5 year old children to be charged with sexual harassment, 18 year old boys to be sentenced to 30 years in prison for having consensual sex with his 16 year-old girlfriend, and elementary school students to be suspended from school or arrested by the police because their mother sent a cold tablet to school with them.

Painting with a wide brush, abandonment of any common sense.

[Pete Moss]

If there were more important budget issues then shelters wouldn't be built in the first place. It's a red herring.

Like I say, parks are closing, break-ins and vandalism is a regular occurance, I would just like to see this addressed before building wheelchair ramps on top of mountains.

back to scenario of a grandson-you help him get to the shelter to campout, you wouldnt help him figure out a way to get in and use a privy the way it is??Yes it would be easier if ramped, but it wouldve bee easier to get him up the trail if they paved it, so should we pave the trail?I understand it would be easier and convinient for those who are handicapped, but it is a matter of cost vs. worth.

[Alligator]

I imagine you probably have access to the latest FS guidance on how they comply with the ADA.That's the FSORAG I mentioned, Forest Service Outdoor Recreation Accessibility Guidelines. That covers FS lands. But there's a second document put out by the Access Board that may not have been finalized. It was finished in 1999 but needed a lengthy review process.

[SGT Rock]

Like I say, parks are closing, break-ins and vandalism is a regular occurance, I would just like to see this addressed before building wheelchair ramps on top of mountains.
Well if these are the big problems, then building shelters at all detracts from fixing these problems. They are not needed.

But if someone plans to build a new shelter or privy, knowing that there are these other problems, then they have committed to a luxury expense. If they have gone that far, then spending a little extra time and money to make that shelter or privy meet regulations and make the experience easier for those that make it there won't suddenly make cars less safe.


back to scenario of a grandson-you help him get to the shelter to campout, you wouldnt help him figure out a way to get in and use a privy the way it is??Yes it would be easier if ramped, but it wouldve bee easier to get him up the trail if they paved it, so should we pave the trail?I understand it would be easier and convinient for those who are handicapped, but it is a matter of cost vs. worth.Now you are confusing the trail with the "accessories" that go with it. The shelter and the privy are not the trail. They are not required for the trail to provide a challenge. But when you add them you add convinences. It's lame to decide these convinences should only be convineinet for some and the rest need to be tougher or suck it up. This ain't the Army.

[Pete Moss]

Agree totally with the first part of what you say Rock, and see where you are coming from with "the accessories" of the trail.

If they are going to build new shelters and privies(which I personally don't agree with), sure why not take the small extra step while building to make it a little more convinient, but requiring all privys to be upgraded is another story

[Alligator]

...
Bridges that are accessible only by an 18" wide tread-way, sometimes incorporating rocks, steps, and stream crossings, has to be built a minimum of 3 1/2 to 4 ft wide with approach ramps, in order to accommodate a wheel chair. The only way a wheelchair can reach such a bridge is if it is carried in. This increases tremendously the amount of cost, labor, materials and time required by the volunteers to build and maintain the bridge, with absolutely no demonstrable benefit to anyone. In fact, building bridges in this manner encourages bicycle, ORV and horse traffic, things that we are trying to eliminate from our foot trails, thus causing great damage.
...Bridges on FS lands fall under FSTAG regulations, Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines. (Some summary info.) (http://blueandwhitecrew.org/files/FSTAG_summary.pdf)In order for the bridge to need the extra accessibility guidelines,
1)The trial or trail segment connects to an existing accessible trail or trail segment or
2) The trail or trail segment connects to a designated trailhead.

Those conditions imply that yes a wheelchair user could get there so yes the bridge should be compliant.

See how there are conditions built into these regs?

[clured]

Oh my god, this is so stupid. Sorry. I'm not trying to be insensitive; this is just retarded. If someone in a wheelchair can hike to a shelter, how incredibly condescending is it to think that they would need a ramp to get up to the privy?

A while back there was a big hullabloo at the University of Alabama gym, when someone threatened to sue the university for not putting braile inscriptions on the signs marking the squash courts. It was the stupidest sort of identity-politics stunt, as is making shelters handicapped accessible. Did the guys in the wheelchairs actually climb up to Galehead by themselves? If not, then they proved how pointless the whole thing is.

The trail is valuable because it exists as a challenge. It is what it is. There are greater challenges in the world, and lesser challenges. But the point of any challenge is that it is static, that it serves as a constant standard against which to match your willpower, skill, fitness, etc. As soon as you start pussifying it, it becomes meaningless.

[SGT Rock]

Agree totally with the first part of what you say Rock, and see where you are coming from with "the accessories" of the trail.

If they are going to build new shelters and privies(which I personally don't agree with), sure why not take the small extra step while building to make it a little more convinient, but requiring all privys to be upgraded is another story

Well then you agree with what is going on. Lets say I have to repair the shelter at Overmountain - then there is nothing I have to do other than fix it. But if I want to build a new one or replace an old one, then it will have to get upgraded based on the requirements of the local land manager.

I think the problem with the ADA and the debate is that it isn't well understood and at times it isn't even well defined as to how it is applied. The original thread that started this whole debate (the closed one) the writer tried to use the ADA ad an argument to change the trail and change existing structures without understanding how it applies. The other end of that people are arguing against the ADA based on that sort of drivel and the perception that the regulation will turn the trail into another paved walking park - which it won't.

I agree that some of the things it does don't make a lot of sense. Like this: if you have a ford on a creek and want to build a bridge you have to make that bridge handicap accessible. So instead of going through all that you leave the ford. Now which is actually more accessible for the person with a disability?

[Lyle]

Bridges on FS lands fall under FSTAG regulations, Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines. (Some summary info.) (http://blueandwhitecrew.org/files/FSTAG_summary.pdf)In order for the bridge to need the extra accessibility guidelines,
1)The trial or trail segment connects to an existing accessible trail or trail segment or
2) The trail or trail segment connects to a designated trailhead.

Those conditions imply that yes a wheelchair user could get there so yes the bridge should be compliant.

See how there are conditions built into these regs?

Your condescending tone is not necessary. The regulations are not being interpreted like this. Managers are taking a hand-off approach to making any determination, and are requiring all new construction to be built to accessibility standards. It is happening and is a problem.

[SGT Rock]

Oh my god, this is so stupid. Sorry. I'm not trying to be insensitive; this is just retarded. If someone in a wheelchair can hike to a shelter, how incredibly condescending is it to think that they would need a ramp to get up to the privy?
Not all handicap people use a wheelchair. The privy is there for convinience, not the challenge.


A while back there was a big hullabloo at the University of Alabama gym, when someone threatened to sue the university for not putting braile inscriptions on the signs marking the squash courts. It was the stupidest sort of identity-politics stunt, as is making shelters handicapped accessible. Did the guys in the wheelchairs actually climb up to Galehead by themselves? If not, then they proved how pointless the whole thing is.
Actually I see this as a good point. If the guy got up to a hut, A HUT, then that hut ought to meet the regulations for anyone that makes it there - however they get there. It is also a convinience and a service.


The trail is valuable because it exists as a challenge. It is what it is. There are greater challenges in the world, and lesser challenges. But the point of any challenge is that it is static, that it serves as a constant standard against which to match your willpower, skill, fitness, etc. As soon as you start pussifying it, it becomes meaningless.
And the trail still is. This applies to the accessories of the trail. The conviniences.

[SGT Rock]

Your condescending tone is not necessary. The regulations are not being interpreted like this. Managers are taking a hand-off approach to making any determination, and are requiring all new construction to be built to accessibility standards. It is happening and is a problem.
I didn't see it as condescending. He just points out how the FS determines if a structure on it's managed land must meed ADA regs or not.

[Alligator]

Oh my god, this is so stupid. Sorry. I'm not trying to be insensitive; this is just retarded. If someone in a wheelchair can hike to a shelter, how incredibly condescending is it to think that they would need a ramp to get up to the privy?
I think it's kind of naive that you don't realize that it is the people with disabilities who have advocated for these things. In fact, fought tooth and nail. These rules have been designed with major input from disabled groups.

...
The trail is valuable because it exists as a challenge. It is what it is. There are greater challenges in the world, and lesser challenges. But the point of any challenge is that it is static, that it serves as a constant standard against which to match your willpower, skill, fitness, etc. As soon as you start pussifying it, it becomes meaningless.Little kids have walked the trail. It's not Everest.

[MOWGLI]

Your condescending tone is not necessary. The regulations are not being interpreted like this. Managers are taking a hand-off approach to making any determination, and are requiring all new construction to be built to accessibility standards. It is happening and is a problem.

Lyle:

First of all, you're wrong. But IF all new construction along the AT had to be build to accessibility standards (it's not), what exactly would the problem be?

What the ATC is doing regarding accessibility is a good thing. If you see a presentation on what they're doing, you'd probably agree.

[Alligator]

Your condescending tone is not necessary. The regulations are not being interpreted like this. Managers are taking a hand-off approach to making any determination, and are requiring all new construction to be built to accessibility standards. It is happening and is a problem.I was pointing out that it is not so cut and dry. It depends on the construction. Facilities falling under FSORAG need to be universal access. Trail falls under FSTAG. If you are sure you are following the regs, stand your ground and explain your position.

[weary]

....your "observation" fails to take into account that shelters and privies are conveniences. .....
Actually privies are designed to concentrate human waste so that the landscape around shelters and camping spots are not blighted with piles of human waste.

Weary

[The Weasel]

am i correct in understanding that your position is that the a.t.c and society in general, are required to make the trail handicapped accessable, even if there isn't a logical or reasonable or even necessary demand for it because of the ada? and that the trail is in non-compliance?

No, you're not correct.

The ATC and those who operate it (largely, but not totally, state and US governments) are required to take into account handicap access to the AT. This means before making changes (either to the trail itself or to structures, which includes privies) to consider whether it would be reasonable to make accommodations for the handicapped, such as (but not exclusively) physically disabled people. If those accommodations are reasonable, then yes, they should be made. It's not a question of "is there a demand" for them; very literally, such things are a "if you build it, they will come."

Not every change needs accommodation; in some cases, cost would be prohibitive, and in others, accommodation would not be really beneficial. But in many cases, if not most, considering whether there is a need and a benefit will result in changes to what is done. It's sort of like saying that an environmental impact statement needs to be done before changing a land use; it can alert people to things that can, and should, be done to mitigate problems.

Much of the AT, if not all of it, is accessible to people with significant physcial handicaps, including people who are physically fit but use wheelchairs, and with modest changes, more of it could be. That would be a good thing.

And by the way, yes, hearing loss IS a recognized physical disability. Corrected vision is, also. It depends on the circumstance.

TW

[weary]

i dont know that i agree that the shelters and privys are there for anyones convenience. i thought they were there to control and cut down on overuse...same as a tent pad isnt there to make tenting more comfortable but to keep people from clearing out too much of the area.
if a trail club is building ar fixing a shelter or privy and want to include ramps or solar lights or coathooks or doorbells that is great. have at it. the point being raised in this thread is that the government should force all these privys and shelters to comply.
You have it right -- or at least the reason cited for shelters by most maintainers. It is true that some people just like to build things in the woods.

Weary

[clured]

I think it's kind of naive that you don't realize that it is the people with disabilities who have advocated for these things. In fact, fought tooth and nail. These rules have been designed with major input from disabled groups.


Just because they don't realize it's a degrading battle to pick doesn't mean that it isn't degrading anyway.

The "the hut's a convenience also" argument doesn't really work. I mean, that line of thought is sort of all or nothing; if you litigate to install ramps and handicapped bathrooms in Galehead, then the same legal argumentation, really, would mandate that you also build a ski lift from the nearest accessible road. Or that you pave the trail. You can't just do a little bit. Once you do anything, in principle you have to do it all.

People in wheelchairs can't "hike" in the Whites. This sucks, but it's true. They can be carried, but in that case they can also be carried up the steps of Galehead. I would love to see a wheelchair navigate the rockscramble on the way over South Kinsman, or make the near-vertical, in-the-middle-of-a-waterfall descent off Garfield to Galehead Hut.

And also, as legislation, it's just such inefficient management of resources. I mean, it's just like the braile markings on squash court signs. How many blind people play squash? How many people in wheelchairs show up at the steps of Galehead? My guess is none, other than the people that did it as a political stunt with help from ablebodied hikers, and they don't count.

Put the money into environmental law to protect the trail corridor. Don't waste it on multi-million dollar renovations that will help effectively no one.

[SGT Rock]

Actually privies are designed to concentrate human waste so that the landscape around shelters and camping spots are not blighted with piles of human waste.

Weary
As a function of design they do that. That is like saying a car is to provide transportation to work.

But as a strategy of emplacement, some places that probably need them don't have them, and some places that have them don't necessarily need them. They could all go away and the trail would still function by digging cat holes like is done on the rest of the trail. Back to the other analogy - when you have the ability to ride a bike to work it ain't necessary to have a car, but a car is more convenient.

[The Weasel]

Well then you agree with what is going on. Lets say I have to repair the shelter at Overmountain - then there is nothing I have to do other than fix it. But if I want to build a new one or replace an old one, then it will have to get upgraded based on the requirements of the local land manager.

I think the problem with the ADA and the debate is that it isn't well understood and at times it isn't even well defined as to how it is applied. The original thread that started this whole debate (the closed one) the writer tried to use the ADA ad an argument to change the trail and change existing structures without understanding how it applies. The other end of that people are arguing against the ADA based on that sort of drivel and the perception that the regulation will turn the trail into another paved walking park - which it won't.

I agree that some of the things it does don't make a lot of sense. Like this: if you have a ford on a creek and want to build a bridge you have to make that bridge handicap accessible. So instead of going through all that you leave the ford. Now which is actually more accessible for the person with a disability?

Rock-

In brief, the ADA is very well understood. What causes problems is so many people trying to avoid it because it "costs" to comply. The cost of NON-compliance is worse, which many don't realize, though.

Your example is, regretably, imperfect. If no bridge is built, or the bridge that is built is noncompliant, the disabled person is equally incapable of using it. So the bridge is better off not built, than building it out of compliance, which tells the disabled person who comes to the new bridge, "Tough rocks, crip. Wade the creek or go back home where you belong."

Go read Backpacker about the Iraqi veteran who tried to scale Ranier with an artificial leg. I'm not going to be the one to say, "Aw, heck. We don't need to comply with the law. He should stay home and look at the pictures of the hill." I think you would have the same problem with that as I do.

TW

[Pete Moss]

Thanks for clarification of the issues Rock. I dont agree with where alot of money in our government goes, and still don't think alot of common sense is being used in this scenario.I also understand that I havent walked a mile in a handicapped persons shoes and wouldnt understand those needs.

[The Weasel]

Oh my god, this is so stupid. Sorry. I'm not trying to be insensitive; this is just retarded. If someone in a wheelchair can hike to a shelter, how incredibly condescending is it to think that they would need a ramp to get up to the privy?

A while back there was a big hullabloo at the University of Alabama gym, when someone threatened to sue the university for not putting braile inscriptions on the signs marking the squash courts. It was the stupidest sort of identity-politics stunt, as is making shelters handicapped accessible. Did the guys in the wheelchairs actually climb up to Galehead by themselves? If not, then they proved how pointless the whole thing is.

The trail is valuable because it exists as a challenge. It is what it is. There are greater challenges in the world, and lesser challenges. But the point of any challenge is that it is static, that it serves as a constant standard against which to match your willpower, skill, fitness, etc. As soon as you start pussifying it, it becomes meaningless.


Gosh, Dave. I'm sorry that you think it's "retarded" to have this discussion. I'm even sorrier that you don't see that term as "insensitive."

I've seen paraplegics do technical climbing of mountains, and I've seen modified marathon wheelchairs climb trails that are as hard as the AT. Tell you what: Let's leave you home and let them use the trail. That would be insensitive, though. So how about we make it usable for them, and not just you? Or is that too "pussifying" for you?

Damn. Sure hope you stay physically perfect until the day you die. Otherwise, you'd feel retarded, or something.

You're just wrong, man.

TW

[SGT Rock]

Just because they don't realize it's a degrading battle to pick doesn't mean that it isn't degrading anyway.

The "the hut's a convenience also" argument doesn't really work. I mean, that line of thought is sort of all or nothing; if you litigate to install ramps and handicapped bathrooms in Galehead, then the same legal argumentation, really, would mandate that you also build a ski lift from the nearest accessible road. Or that you pave the trail. You can't just do a little bit. Once you do anything, in principle you have to do it all.

Actually it is not an all or nothing issue. It is only if you want to cut your nose off to spite your face.

Or in this case: if you say it now makes it too hard to have a huts system because making a wheelchair ramp for them are too much extra effort. And you have to get rid of all of them. Well no one ever said that EXCEPT the people that don't want ramps. If they went through all that effort to put the hut into the mountins in the first place - then a little extra ain't going to hurt anyone. And this only applies when you rennovate or build new ones.

And again, there is a logical end to how this is applied. No one is telling anyone to pave trails or build lifts to mountains EXCEPT the people that find chair ramps silly. Again, it is a red herring argument. You are the only one that thinks you either pave trails and add lifts or you don't build a couple of ramps at a building. It is a fairly rediculous argument to make.


People in wheelchairs can't "hike" in the Whites. This sucks, but it's true. They can be carried, but in that case they can also be carried up the steps of Galehead. I would love to see a wheelchair navigate the rockscramble on the way over South Kinsman, or make the near-vertical, in-the-middle-of-a-waterfall descent off Garfield to Galehead Hut.
And no one advocated making the Whites wheelchair accessable. Only the services on the trail that a handicap person can make it to no matter how they get there. Apparently it only counts if they get there totally under their own power?


And also, as legislation, it's just such inefficient management of resources. I mean, it's just like the braile markings on squash court signs. How many blind people play squash? How many people in wheelchairs show up at the steps of Galehead? My guess is none, other than the people that did it as a political stunt with help from ablebodied hikers, and they don't count.Ok, so anyone that gets there with help doesn't count. Got it. What if the next person didn't get there by stunt? What if some disabled vet with no legs hiked up there, and the ramp, handicap toilets, and bigger walk ways made it possible for him to enjoy the hut like you?

As to the squash court - well whatever. We are talking trail, not U of A.


Put the money into environmental law to protect the trail corridor. Don't waste it on multi-million dollar renovations that will help effectively no one. I didn't know a few ramps were multi million dollar projects. I also am quite sure that the laws come out of different funds. The ATC does not enact or enforce any laws that I have ever heard of.

[SGT Rock]

Rock-

In brief, the ADA is very well understood. What causes problems is so many people trying to avoid it because it "costs" to comply. The cost of NON-compliance is worse, which many don't realize, though.

Your example is, regretably, imperfect. If no bridge is built, or the bridge that is built is noncompliant, the disabled person is equally incapable of using it. So the bridge is better off not built, than building it out of compliance, which tells the disabled person who comes to the new bridge, "Tough rocks, crip. Wade the creek or go back home where you belong."

Go read Backpacker about the Iraqi veteran who tried to scale Ranier with an artificial leg. I'm not going to be the one to say, "Aw, heck. We don't need to comply with the law. He should stay home and look at the pictures of the hill." I think you would have the same problem with that as I do.

TW
My point was that it is not well understood by the average person. That is why we are even having this debate.

As to my example - this was meant to be an example of how the rule can actually hurt accessability. If I were building a bridge and had to do it to standards and for some reason couldn't - well then no one benifits.

[The Weasel]

For those who think this is academic, or silly, or "retarded," read this story about "one of us"...a woman who says she was "defined" by backpacking and hiking, before MS hit her. Take a look at the pictures. Then tell me it's a waste of money to have a slightly wider door on outhouses and a little ramp for her husband to push her up.

www.baynature.com/v06n04/v06n04s_wheelchairrider.html (http://www.baynature.com/v06n04/v06n04s_wheelchairrider.html)

TW

[The Weasel]

Trail wheelchairs. They exist. It's a new world, people. Let the handicapped go where they want, and stop sniveling that they expect to do so.:D

http://www.lashersport.com/products-btt.html

TW

[mudhead]

That was a good read.

[SGT Rock]

Yes, actually Skeemer from this site contacted me a while back about doing something like this. Helping someone wheelchair bound on a thru.

[Appalachian Tater]

Everyone should remember that they might find themselves in a wheelchair any day, or with another type of disability. Even a temporary problem can keep one from easily using stairs.

Ramps and handrails and wide doors and spacious bathrooms, etc. help more than just the handicapped. Ramps are especially important. People pushing baby carriages, shopping carts, or dollies benefit from ramps, as well as people with cardiopulmonary diseases or even just obesity.

[johnny quest]

ADA compliance of facilities at state and federal parks that are actually accessible to the handicapped makes sense. forcing compliance in remote shelterspots on the trail doesnt. it would be cheaper to hire sherpas to carry the few wheelchair-bound hikers (????) who actually would want to go so far up the trail.
god, i feel so wickedly un-pc! goodnight everybody!

[The Weasel]

From my 600 miles, I would estimate that there is no more than 10 miles - if that - that a determined wheelchair athlete could not accomplish unaided. Some - the approach to Albert Mtn and Charlie's Grunion - would be a challenge, and need care. But I know people who would try.

TW

[Pete Moss]

Good article Weasel...Like I say, we all may feel one way about something now, but walk a mile in the others shoes and you may change your mind.

[SGT Rock]

ADA compliance of facilities at state and federal parks that are actually accessible to the handicapped makes sense. forcing compliance in remote shelterspots on the trail doesnt. it would be cheaper to hire sherpas to carry the few wheelchair-bound hikers (????) who actually would want to go so far up the trail.
god, i feel so wickedly un-pc! goodnight everybody!

Oh come on man, that ain't true. Think about it... It only applies to new construction. I doubt there are going to be that many more extra new shelters made, and most shelters that are going to have privies already do.

Now a sherpa, last time I looked a totally supported thru was going to cost 10,000+. And that guy wasn't going to carry the primary.

Again, no one is forcing anyone to retro-fit. It is new projects or large rennovations. If you are spending $500 on lumber for a new shelter, a $12 for an extra sheet of plywood ain't that much of a cost inflation - especially when you think about how little this actually happens during the year and how it doesn't even apply to all shelters or privies.

[SGT Rock]

Some - the approach to Albert Mtn and Charlie's Grunion - would be a challenge, and need care. But I know people who would try.

TW
I assume you mean Bunion. I don't think the trail to there was all that hard considering what I have seen some of these guys do.

I think a guy doing it ought to have a partner though. Nice to have some back-up.

[The Weasel]

I assume you mean Bunion. I don't think the trail to there was all that hard considering what I have seen some of these guys do.

I think a guy doing it ought to have a partner though. Nice to have some back-up.

Great typo....LOL

No, it wasn't hard, Rock. But ummmmmm....there isn't a guardrail and it's a bit of a drop. And narrow.

TW

[SGT Rock]

Great typo....LOL

No, it wasn't hard, Rock. But ummmmmm....there isn't a guardrail and it's a bit of a drop. And narrow.

TW
Ohh, that. Pffffttt. It wasn't that bad.

[smokymtnsteve]

maybe we should install a guard rail?

[SGT Rock]

maybe we should install a guard rail?
Yes, but he should be armed,

[smokymtnsteve]

Yes, but he should be armed,

on our hikes up here in AK, K and I carry bear spray and a 12 ga. pump

[SGT Rock]

Nice. I carry something else.

[rickb]

Would motorized access to and along the AT be permitted under current law, if that is was deemed necessary by a person with disabilities to reach a shelter, view or other point of interest?

[SGT Rock]

Would motorized access to and along the AT be permitted under current law, if that is was deemed necessary by a person with disabilities to reach a shelter, view or other point of interest?
I would think not.

[rickb]

I am not so sure. Think snowmobile.

[smokymtnsteve]

wasn't ole one leg's leg motorized?

[SGT Rock]

I am not so sure. Think snowmobile.Motorized transport like that in some areas is feasible and allowed during certain times of the year - but not down here. I may be wrong, but as I understand the National Scenic Trails act the use of motorized vehicles is generally prohibited.


wasn't ole one leg's leg motorized?

No, it was like a fluid filled shock system controlled by computers as to the resistance and where it locked, no motors.

[Skidsteer]

Rick is making the "slippery slope" argument.

It bears thinking about in the big picture.

[SGT Rock]

Maybe. But I doubt building a ramp on a couple of privys is the same as letting a bunch of snowmobiles ride in the National Parks.

A group tried the same logic with mountain bikes about 10 years ago. It didn't fly.

[shelterbuilder]

I am not so sure. Think snowmobile.

SGT rock is right - motorized vehicles are generally prohibited, as are "pack animals", so no using llamas to carry in those wheelchair-bound folks.

[rickb]

SGT rock is right - motorized vehicles are generally prohibited, as are "pack animals", so no using llamas to carry in those wheelchair-bound folks.

Service animals are OK almost anywhere.

[SGT Rock]

I think the NPS, FS, and most othr places would distinguish between a pack animal and a service animal.

So a hiker in a trail chair with a dog getting through the Smokies would probably be fine, but trying to get dragged by a llama would end up getting stopped.

[rickb]

I think the NPS, FS, and most othr places would distinguish between a pack animal and a service animal.

So a hiker in a trail chair with a dog getting through the Smokies would probably be fine, but trying to get dragged by a llama would end up getting stopped.

People get goats and pigs on commercial airliners. Seems like the llama would be providing an undeniable service.

[SGT Rock]

People get goats and pigs on commercial airliners. Seems like the llama would be providing an undeniable service.
They get them on as live cargo.

Actually I just looked up the reg on that, while I am not a lawyer - there are a few special requirements that should be met that would probably exclude a pack animal from being a service animal. One site specifically talked about this sort of thing. A domesticated animal that could provide a service such as this doesn't qualify as a service animal by the ADA.

Anyhow... There are other rules about service animals and how they can denied access. There is no flat rule that they have to be allowed everywhere - just most places.

[Foyt20]

People get goats and pigs on commercial airliners. Seems like the llama would be providing an undeniable service.

Which airline? I have a pig i want to take to the approach trail.:rolleyes:

[shelterbuilder]

Okay, here's my "take" on this subject - one brought up by my own recent handicap. On Sunday, I was out with the work crew that was opening up a temporary re-lo around the stone-arch bridge over Rausch Creek (here in Pa.). The re-lo picks up the old AT route, which crosses Rausch Creek on some rocks farther upstream. Frankly, this crossing frightened me: having had a total laryngectomy last May, and breathing through a stoma at the base of my neck, had I slipped into the water and gone under (a definite possibility with high, fast water), I could have drowned before anyone could have pulled me out, because I have no way of keeping the water from flowing into my lungs. Slowly and carefully, I made the crossing anyway - "fools rush in where angels fear to tread" - but no one in the group seemed to understand my fear (not even the RN who was with us).

As I understand it, ADA is there to eliminate obstacles from new construction and major renovations. I'm not trying to say that there should be a bridge here - this is only a temporary re-lo until the Game Commission can build a new bridge over the old one - and I'm not trying to use my disability as an "entitlement ticket", but being on the other side of the discussion for the first time in my life, I can understand how easy it is for "normal" people NOT to understand how some very simple things can be major obstacles for those with disabilities. I believe that the saying has been attributed to the Native Americans: "Let me not critize my neighbor until I have walked a mile in his moccasins".

FWIW.

[Alligator]

I'll catch up in a few minutes, but here (http://www.appalachiantrail.org/site/c.jkLXJ8MQKtH/b.839595/) is what the ATC has to say about the Access Board guidelines and also FSTAG and FSORAG rules. Note in most cases that FSTAG and FSORAG rules are stricter. Where they aren't, the Access board guidelines will take precedence once finalized.

[cutman11]

While in general it seems reasonable to make accomodations for the disabled, there are times in which it becomes a ridiculous governmental intrusion. A few ramps at reasonably accessible areas seems rational, if the cost is not burdensome.

I am reminded of the sometimes excessive nature of the govt when I go to an ATM machine. The buttons you push are required to have braille lettering imprinted, presumably so the blind can push the correct buttons. INTERESTINGLY, though, if they were blind, they would not be able to READ THE MONITOR that asks them what information they need to supply with the buttons!!!!!!!! This is the kind of crazy costly nutty stuff that goes on. I would be afraid the AT would turn into something similar. After all, it was supposed to be a wilderness experience, and although it is sometimes no longer that, can we at least try to have most of it as natural as possible, and if the disabled are able to do what it takes to make the hike, then so be it.

[SGT Rock]

While in general it seems reasonable to make accomodations for the disabled, there are times in which it becomes a ridiculous governmental intrusion. A few ramps at reasonably accessible areas seems rational, if the cost is not burdensome.

I am reminded of the sometimes excessive nature of the govt when I go to an ATM machine. The buttons you push are required to have braille lettering imprinted, presumably so the blind can push the correct buttons. INTERESTINGLY, though, if they were blind, they would not be able to READ THE MONITOR that asks them what information they need to supply with the buttons!!!!!!!! This is the kind of crazy costly nutty stuff that goes on. I would be afraid the AT would turn into something similar. After all, it was supposed to be a wilderness experience, and although it is sometimes no longer that, can we at least try to have most of it as natural as possible, and if the disabled are able to do what it takes to make the hike, then so be it.
FWIW I don't think if the trail signs had to be printed with braille as well it would make the AT any easier or harder for us sighted people.

[rickb]

They get them on as live cargo.


Or in the passenger cabin:

Pig: http://wc.arizona.edu/papers/94/70/01_95_m.html

Goat: http://travel.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/fashion/sundaystyles/14PETS.html


These days people rely on a veritable Noah's Ark of support animals. Tami McLallen, a spokeswoman for American Airlines, said that although dogs are the most common service animals taken onto planes, the airline has had to accommodate monkeys, miniature horses, cats and even an emotional support duck. "Its owner dressed it up in clothes," she recalled.

There have also been at least two instances (on American and Delta) in which airlines have been presented with emotional support goats. Ms. McLallen said the airline flies service animals every day; all owners need to do is show up with a letter from a mental health professional and the animal can fly free in the cabin.

[SGT Rock]

Yes, but you are still trying to play slippery slope with apples instead of bananas.

That has nothing to do with the AT other than you somehow seem to think it does. And if you notice, the people trying to get special consideration often find that they are wrong. I reckon a barracks lawyer can also find work on the outside of the military as an attorney with people that want to believe they are right.

But anyway, this also doesn't prove anything about snowmobiles.

[Alligator]

Would motorized access to and along the AT be permitted under current law, if that is was deemed necessary by a person with disabilities to reach a shelter, view or other point of interest?

The proposed guidelines from the Access Board are here. (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/Relationship Between Use of All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) and the Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Trails)
Relationship Between Use of All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) and the Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Trails
During the committee deliberations, some individuals expressed concern that applying the proposed accessibility guidelines to trails in the “back country” or lesser developed portions of outdoor recreation areas would make it more difficult for public land managing agencies to appropriately manage the use of all terrain vehicles (ATVs) and off highway vehicles (OHVs) in these areas. One concern was that requiring land managing agencies to consider making trails in lesser developed areas accessible according to the proposed guidelines would make it more difficult to control and restrict where these types of devices may be used.
The proposed guidelines for trails address their design, construction, and alteration in the same manner that other accessibility provisions address fixed facilities. They are similarly based on the dimensions and use patterns of those assistive devices commonly referenced throughout the Board’s guidelines. While in the outdoor environment it may be possible to encompass a wider variety of mobility enhancing equipment, the necessity of protecting the environment and maintaining the appropriateness of the setting might exclude certain devices, particularly ATVs or OHVs. That decision is reserved for the administrative agency or owner of the affected property and is beyond the scope of these guidelines.

They have considered your question. Their response leans toward no, but leaves it somewhat open to the land agency to protect the resource from damage and the setting. In other words, the AB rules don't appear to be exanding anything, but leaving authority where the authority currently rests (the adminstrative agencies).

[The Weasel]

Nice. I carry something else.

Yeah, your discharge papers and the cell numbers of your platoon members, all of whom carry heavy heat and like you. Sheesh. What a wuss.

TW

[rickb]

Yes, but you are still trying to play slippery slope with apples instead of bananas.

That has nothing to do with the AT other than you somehow seem to think it does. And if you notice, the people trying to get special consideration often find that they are wrong. I reckon a barracks lawyer can also find work on the outside of the military as an attorney with people that want to believe they are right.

But anyway, this also doesn't prove anything about snowmobiles.


OK I got off on a tangent. The point is that when two sets of well-meaning laws are in conflict, its not always obvious which will trump the other.

So far, not a problem.

[Alligator]

Further AB rules, this is one exceptions that was mentioned I think earlier.
Condition 2. Compliance Would Substantially Alter the Nature of the Setting or the Purpose of the Facility, or Portion of the Facility.
This condition includes trails intended to provide a rugged experience such as a cross country training trail with a steep grade or a challenge course with abrupt and severe changes in level. If these types of trails were flattened out or otherwise constructed to comply with the technical provisions for accessible trails, they would not provide the intended and desired level of challenge and difficulty to users. Trails that traverse over boulders and rocky outcrops, are another example. The purpose of such trails is to provide people with the opportunity to climb the rocks. To remove the obstacles along the way or reroute the trail around the rocks would destroy the purpose of the trail. The nature of the setting may also be compromised by actions such as widening a trail through the use of imported surfaces in a remote location or removing ground vegetation in meadows or alpine areas.

Trails and other outdoor elements such as picnic and camping areas are designed to provide a particular opportunity for the user. Throughout the discussions regarding these outdoor elements, many committee members were concerned that complying with the technical provisions could change the nature of some recreation opportunities. Further, compliance could negatively impact the unique characteristics of the natural setting, the reasons why people choose to recreate in the outdoors rather than an indoor environment. People using primitive trails or camping areas, for example, often experience the outdoor environment in a more natural state with limited or no development. Evidence of manufactured building materials or engineered construction techniques in such a setting can change its primitive character, and therefore, the user’s experience. In these settings, people are generally looking for a higher degree of challenge and risk where they can use their outdoors and survival skills. Compliance with the technical provisions, particularly those related to surface and obstacles, could destroy the “natural” or “undeveloped” nature of the setting. This condition addresses these concerns.

[The Weasel]

Would motorized access to and along the AT be permitted under current law, if that is was deemed necessary by a person with disabilities to reach a shelter, view or other point of interest?

No, it would not, for such things as ATVs, unless no other reasonable method of access were possible, and I don't think "preference" would count. In other words, someone who generally uses a self-powered wheelchair to access normal life activities would not be allowed to use an ATV, for instance, simply because it would be "hard" to use a self-powered wheelchair. But powered (generally electric) wheelchairs would be allowed, I think, if that was the primary method of locomotion for an individual. Thus, Steven Hawking would be allowed to use his electric wheelchair but someone who uses a regular self-powered chair would not.

By the way, it's not "to reach a point of interest." The law requires accommodations to achieve access to uninteresting places, too.

TW

[WalkingStick75]

You wanna know why other countries think Americans are stupid, ADA is an example or should I say some peoples interpretation of it. Lawmakers do their best in wording but are often the laws need modifying. Case in point, Michigan's concealed pistol law. When written it was worded so even polices officers off duty were in violation of the law if they left the jurisdiction where they worked. The spirit of the law, the intention of the law was not to pave trails or make outhouses in remote wilderness areas wheelchair accessible.

[clured]

Gosh, Dave. I'm sorry that you think it's "retarded" to have this discussion. I'm even sorrier that you don't see that term as "insensitive."

I've seen paraplegics do technical climbing of mountains, and I've seen modified marathon wheelchairs climb trails that are as hard as the AT. Tell you what: Let's leave you home and let them use the trail. That would be insensitive, though. So how about we make it usable for them, and not just you? Or is that too "pussifying" for you?

Damn. Sure hope you stay physically perfect until the day you die. Otherwise, you'd feel retarded, or something.

You're just wrong, man.

TW

Weasel,

You are misreading me. I'm not mocking disabled hikers. Obviously, I have a huge, huge, huge amount of respect for someone that gets out on the trail with a physical disability. I'm blessed with a good young body, and I know how hard it is out there even with my good health. Someone that hikes with a disability is a tougher man than me.

My issue is just that this seems like such an incredibly tangential and ineffectual form of advocacy for the physically disabled. You said it yourself; there are lots of places in cities where roads could be made much more navigable for wheelchairs with simple grading on the curbs. In big cities, changes like that could help thouands of people a week. There may be one or two handicapped people that hike parts of the trail / all of the trail every couple years or so (do you have statistics on this?), but it just seems like a big fat misuse of effort to lobby for the shelters and privies on the AT to be retrofitted when you could devote the same resorces to helping so many more disabled people.

If there is someone in a wheelchair this is willing to undertake the enormous challenge of backpacking on the AT, then they will be game for the challenge of getting into a privy without special ramps.

I'm not personally attacking you, Weasel. But I think you know as well as I do that this issue is about 90% symbolic.

SGT Rock, about the question of assist: it's not that it "doesn't count" if they have help, just that the issue is moot since the same help that gets them to the shelter/hut could also help them up the stairs, thus making the additions unnecessary; I don't mean it in a judgemental way.

[Alligator]

You wanna know why other countries think Americans are stupid, ADA is an example or should I say some peoples interpretation of it. Lawmakers do their best in wording but are often the laws need modifying. Case in point, Michigan's concealed pistol law. When written it was worded so even polices officers off duty were in violation of the law if they left the jurisdiction where they worked. The spirit of the law, the intention of the law was not to pave trails or make outhouses in remote wilderness areas wheelchair accessible.The law has been modified, as is noted in post #123.

The ADA covers far more disabilities than wheelchair bound people. It's a major civil rights law. It may have specific problems, but it is a far from stupid law. It has made major improvements in millions of people's lives.

[Alligator]

...There may be one or two handicapped people that hike parts of the trail / all of the trail every couple years or so (do you have statistics on this?), but it just seems like a big fat misuse of effort to lobby for the shelters and privies on the AT to be retrofitted when you could devote the same resorces to helping so many more disabled people.
...One or two every couple of years? Your perception is incredibly skewed. There are millions of Americans that use assistive devices for mobility impairment. This site (http://www.joniandfriends.org/disability_stats.php) lists 7.4 million, reference at bottom. It's not just about the people in wheelchairs though (of which there are 1.2 million Americans). There's another 6.2 million or so that use other devices.

Frolicking Dinosaurs uses a cane (or did), she's mentioned this before. There's also One Leg. I'm sure we could round up a few more on this site if we needed to.

You weren't mocking disable hikers? You said it was degrading for them to argue for their rights. Their rights include going to the bathroom with some dignity, i.e under their own power.

[The Weasel]

You wanna know why other countries think Americans are stupid, ADA is an example or should I say some peoples interpretation of it. Lawmakers do their best in wording but are often the laws need modifying. Case in point, Michigan's concealed pistol law. When written it was worded so even polices officers off duty were in violation of the law if they left the jurisdiction where they worked. The spirit of the law, the intention of the law was not to pave trails or make outhouses in remote wilderness areas wheelchair accessible.

No, Stick, other countries think Americans are stupid because people in other countries are stupid. OK? And the ADA - which many of them don't have - is one of the reasons they are stupid, and it's one of the reasons why talented, smart, hardworking people want to be Americans instead of, say, Zimbabweans or Burmese, especially if they are handicapped. If you have a problem with Michigan's "shall carry" law, well, go bitch at the Republican legislature that passed it, but it doesn't have anything to do with disabled people. OK? And no one is suggesting "paving" the AT, although some trails that get a trail surface are getting semi-paving. You know what? People with kids love those trails. They can use strollers and more. Sorry about that. As for outhouses in remote areas, I'll tell you what: You be the one to tell that wheelchair trail hiker lady that she has to crawl up the steps to take a pee, OK? Are you gonna be there telling her how the ADA is stupid? No? And why not?


Weasel,

You are misreading me. I'm not mocking disabled hikers. Obviously, I have a huge, huge, huge amount of respect for someone that gets out on the trail with a physical disability. I'm blessed with a good young body, and I know how hard it is out there even with my good health. Someone that hikes with a disability is a tougher man than me.

My issue is just that this seems like such an incredibly tangential and ineffectual form of advocacy for the physically disabled. You said it yourself; there are lots of places in cities where roads could be made much more navigable for wheelchairs with simple grading on the curbs. In big cities, changes like that could help thouands of people a week. There may be one or two handicapped people that hike parts of the trail / all of the trail every couple years or so (do you have statistics on this?), but it just seems like a big fat misuse of effort to lobby for the shelters and privies on the AT to be retrofitted when you could devote the same resorces to helping so many more disabled people.

If there is someone in a wheelchair this is willing to undertake the enormous challenge of backpacking on the AT, then they will be game for the challenge of getting into a privy without special ramps.

I'm not personally attacking you, Weasel. But I think you know as well as I do that this issue is about 90% symbolic.

This is what's known as a "straw man" argument: You set up something easy to knock down - "retrofitting privies" - and then act like you've won an argument by saying, "that's mistaken." No one is saying that; what Alligator correctly says is that trail changes occur - including new or rebuilt privies - there should be consideration for how to make them accessible to all.

And as for the "well, we can't fix everything, so let's ignore this one in favor of the really, really, really important ones," well, let me ask this of you: How many calls to your local city council have you made to object to the step-curbs in your city? If you have, well, that's great. But if not, maybe you should do that before saying, "Don't do anything for handicaped trail users, either."


The law has been modified, as is noted in post #123.

The ADA covers far more disabilities than wheelchair bound people. It's a major civil rights law. It may have specific problems, but it is a far from stupid law. It has made major improvements in millions of people's lives.

'Gator has it nailed. But I'll tell you this: Until the Voting Rights Act was passed, it was pretty easy to say, "Who needs it? There ain't any Nigras voting, so why do we need any dumb law?" Before the Equal Pay Act was passed, it was easy to say, "That's a stupid idea. Women don't need the same money as men for the work they do." Before Title IX, it was easy to say, "Spend the same money on college/school sports for girls? Girls don't want to play sports; that's dumb." The ADA makes a lot of playing fields level that weren't, and there are a lot more that should be.

In the '70s, an unfeeling America pretty much said to its disabled wheelchair-bound Vietnam War vets, "Get a skateboard and go drink up your disability check, we don't really care about you." This war? Phenomenal strides in battle medicine is sending home (thank God!) men and women with injuries they would have killed them before, or sent them into hiding in their wheelchairs. Now? Technology is putting them back in the mainstream, on titanium legs and biomechanical arms and a whole lot more.

And I'm not gonna be the one that tells some fine vet who wants to be the first to 'chair the AT, or who wants to take his kids for a simple weekend on Springer and is willing to wheel up the hill to do it that we don't care enough to put a damn ramp when we build a new craphouse even though the law requires it. And if it's someone who wasn't a vet, well, they get it too. It's a little old for the handicapped to have to be heroes to do some of this stuff; just stop making it harder and we'll be just fine, OK?

But maybe you folks don't need that help. Until you need it, of course.

TW

[Appalachian Tater]

This country needs more deaf lawyers go The Weasel!

[The Weasel]

One or two every couple of years? Your perception is incredibly skewed. There are millions of Americans that use assistive devices for mobility impairment. This site (http://www.joniandfriends.org/disability_stats.php) lists 7.4 million, reference at bottom. It's not just about the people in wheelchairs though (of which there are 1.2 million Americans). There's another 6.2 million or so that use other devices.

Frolicking Dinosaurs uses a cane (or did), she's mentioned this before. There's also One Leg. I'm sure we could round up a few more on this site if we needed to.

You weren't mocking disable hikers? You said it was degrading for them to argue for their rights. Their rights include going to the bathroom with some dignity, i.e under their own power.


Thank you, 'Gator: You've put it beautifully. And lest people wonder, it's unnecessarily hard to use a cane, a walker, or crutches to go up (and down) steps when a ramp is easily provided, at no greater cost than the steps would be.

But maybe the real point these people are making is that the disabled, the handicapped, the FD's with canes and the vets on crutches just shouldn't be out there on the trail. Screw 'em, huh? They should stay home and watch TV. Is that it?

Sorry, folks. I don't agree with that.

TW

[The Weasel]

This country needs more deaf lawyers go The Weasel!

As a matter of fact, there are a lot more than me, and there is even a web site for us. Most of them do far more than I do. But thanks.

TW

[Appalachian Tater]

the vets on crutches just shouldn't be out there on the trail. Screw 'em, huh? They should stay home and watch TV. Is that it?

Here in New York we give the vets with crutches jobs standing in the middle of intersections "directing" traffic or making sure the benches in the ends of the subway cars stay warm. Also blocking heating grates during the winter with cardboard boxes to keep the rats underground. If they can upgrade to a wheelchair they get to hold the door open at the ATM for change or park in the crosswalk so people don't accidentally wander into traffic and get injured. Also they create plenty of employment for nurses as mental health case managers.


As a matter of fact, there are a lot more than me, and there is even a web site for us. Most of them do far more than I do. But thanks.

TWMaybe you should advocate for braille on the trail signage and blazes. The "80% deaf lawyers supporting 80% blind hikers in obtaining their rights" group.

[rickb]

OK. Let me see if I understand.

We all agree that bog bridges don't need to be made wheelchair friendly, but that back-country privies do.

Simple.

[sofaking]

This country needs more deaf lawyers go The Weasel!
the last thing this country needs are any more lawyers PERIOD.

[Alligator]

OK. Let me see if I understand.

We all agree that bog bridges don't need to be made wheelchair friendly, but that back-country privies do.

Simple.No. I think the proposed Access Board guidelines are reasonable. The bridge should be made accessible if the trail leading up to it is accessible or the bog is adjacent to the trailhead.

I have no problem with the extra dollars for the privies. They don't cost much more if it's a platform.

[clured]

One or two every couple of years? Your perception is incredibly skewed. There are millions of Americans that use assistive devices for mobility impairment. This site (http://www.joniandfriends.org/disability_stats.php) lists 7.4 million, reference at bottom. It's not just about the people in wheelchairs though (of which there are 1.2 million Americans). There's another 6.2 million or so that use other devices.

Frolicking Dinosaurs uses a cane (or did), she's mentioned this before. There's also One Leg. I'm sure we could round up a few more on this site if we needed to.

You weren't mocking disable hikers? You said it was degrading for them to argue for their rights. Their rights include going to the bathroom with some dignity, i.e under their own power.

Um, I know that there are lots of disabled people. That's not the relevant figure. It's how many disabled people are out hiking the friggin AT. And no, don't tell me that there are millions of wheelchair bound people sitting around wringing their hands thinking "Damn! If only those privies had ramps I could thru-hike the AT!"

I'm sorry, but this whole issue just smacks of stunt. It's not an important issue because there are very, very, very few disabled hikers. Why? Because no matter how you spin it, "disabled" and "hiker" are at least in part a contradiction in terms. Are there disabled hikers? Yes, clearly. But I think I'm on pretty solid ground in saying that they are extremely few and far between.

It's not the lack of accomodations that are keeping the people in question off the trail. It's that THEY CAN'T WALK. Let's keep that in perspective.

[Appalachian Tater]

It's not the lack of accomodations that are keeping the people in question off the trail. It's that THEY CAN'T WALK. Let's keep that in perspective.But they can roll if the surface and slope meet certain criteria.

[rickb]

No. I think the proposed Access Board guidelines are reasonable. The bridge should be made accessible if the trail leading up to it is accessible or the bog is adjacent to the trailhead.

I have no problem with the extra dollars for the privies. They don't cost much more if it's a platform.


A lot of thought went into those guidelines, I think. Thanks for posting.

[SGT Rock]

Um, I know that there are lots of disabled people. That's not the relevant figure. It's how many disabled people are out hiking the friggin AT. And no, don't tell me that there are millions of wheelchair bound people sitting around wringing their hands thinking "Damn! If only those privies had ramps I could thru-hike the AT!"
Actually I wonder why there would have to be millions hiking the trail before someone did something to improve facilities. I figure a hiker or two (or a stroller or two) that gets out to these locations would be enough. Here, check this guy out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMcnwOZhJoQ

I'd love to see him wheeling his son up to Icewater Shelter or just about any other. If he did, well damn, wouldn't it be nice if his son could use the privy. I don't see how that hurts you or anyone else to make that sort of thing happen as privies are added or upgraded.


I'm sorry, but this whole issue just smacks of stunt. It's not an important issue because there are very, very, very few disabled hikers. Why? Because no matter how you spin it, "disabled" and "hiker" are at least in part a contradiction in terms. Are there disabled hikers? Yes, clearly. But I think I'm on pretty solid ground in saying that they are extremely few and far between.And there will always be only a few. Again, numbers don't matter except to you and a few that feel this somehow is hurting them. I really cannot see how it impacts you or your hike if there are some ramps to the privy or a few ramps up to bridges instead of ladders.

No one has spun it or seems to want to re-arrange the whole trail, except you when you are using as logic to not make the added facilities to the trail meet ADA. What an odd position to take.



It's not the lack of accomodations that are keeping the people in question off the trail. It's that THEY CAN'T WALK. Let's keep that in perspective.
Actually some can walk, just not that well. Would it screw up your trail experience if Team Hoyt was out there? It wouldn't mess up mine. It might actually encourage me to stop sniveling when my ankle is just a little sore.

BTW, if you watch that and don't get choked up... Wow.

[The Old Fhart]

"Although the AMC encourages involvement of all people in its mission and activities, accessibility became an issue recently as the Club was in the process of rebuilding the Galehead hut. The U.S. Forest Service informed the AMC that the hut must conform to the Americans with Disabilities Act's (ADA) accessibility requirements. To make the 38-bed hut accessible, it cost the AMC an additional $50,000 beyond the initial cost of $400,000 to include a ramp along with widened hallways and the elimination of steps up to the bathrooms."

"U.S. Forest Service officials say they have no plans to pave trails or significantly change the wilderness experience. Over the past eight years, the Eastern Region of the Forest Service expended 18 million dollars to improve accessibility. Moreover, the federal government has recently formed an advisory committee to establish standards and create a plan as to how to enforce the ADA in the back country. Janet A. Zeller, who oversees the Forest Service plan on accessibility said, "When you get to a person-built facility, you're beyond what nature has put there... therefore it needs to meet a standard so that when you get to a structure you know what to expect" (AMC Outdoors Magazine, October, 2000)."

[Alligator]

There's certainly more than 2 or 3 every couple of years Clured:rolleyes:. You keep focusing on wheelchairs but there are 5 times as many people needing other devices. I've seen folks with canes before, I don't stop and count them. To top all that off though, there are plenty of other people with other disabilities. Diabetes, heart conditions, Multiple Scelerosis, Rhuemotoid Arthritis, AIDS etc. Those are just some of the hikers that I know of. Many of these folks benefit from accessible trails.

[The Old Fhart]

Alligator-"To top all that off though, there are plenty of other people with other disabilities."...and the only disability you can't accomodate for is a closed mind.:D

[Lone Wolf]

this is a dumb friggin thread. fat asses should be catered to more than cripples. at least fat asses attempt a hike

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

I haven't read this whole thread so I may repeat what someone else has said. As Alligator notes, I use two offset canes to hike. Before that, I used a walker and before that, a wheelchair. You'd be surprised just where you can get a wheelchair if you are determined.

However, the sort of person who gets a wheelchair to most backcountry shelters isn't going to need a ramp or grab bars to use most privies. Even while in a wheelchair I got myself on and off the potty without assistance after the first week or so - and I was in no shape to go hiking when I needed assistance. I cooked, did laundry, shopped, got in and out of the car alone (including getting the wheelchair in and out) while in a wheelchair by using other devices (mostly my walker). Getting into a shelter with my gear would have been more of a challenge IMO than getting into and using a privy.

[weary]

We all face disabilities. It's a fact of life. Mine will arrive sooner than most others on this forum. Realistically, they have already arrived.

But my views haven't changed at all. I have worked all my life for a tough trail, a challenging trail. None of the infirmities of age have changed my mind. I would view an easy trail, a wheelchair accessible trail, the failure of a lifetime long effort.

Most people, handicapped or not, will never seriously hike the Appalachian Trail. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't matter. Millions dream about what they will never experience. Millions take comfort in knowing a bit of wildness may survive them. I know I do.

Those who talk of an accessible trail fail to understand. Accessibility is not a good. It's a failure. It's the destruction of the dream of millions over many generations.

Weary

[clured]

There's certainly more than 2 or 3 every couple of years Clured:rolleyes:. You keep focusing on wheelchairs but there are 5 times as many people needing other devices. I've seen folks with canes before, I don't stop and count them. To top all that off though, there are plenty of other people with other disabilities. Diabetes, heart conditions, Multiple Scelerosis, Rhuemotoid Arthritis, AIDS etc. Those are just some of the hikers that I know of. Many of these folks benefit from accessible trails.

Right, but the only disabilities that are relevant here are the ones that inhibit mobility - those that affect your ability to climb stairs (or, say, massive rocky rooty forbidding mountains!).

I think Weary said it better than I can. I completely stand by my first comment. This is astonishingly stupid. The idea of making wilderness areas "acessible" to wheelchairs is laughable, and if you can't see that then I think your judgment is being clouded by a blind and foolish devotion to political correctness. It's a substance-less exercise in feel-good fluff.

[SGT Rock]

Actually I think many people would find many of the people you just dismissed as the lest likely to be considered PC.

And again, it isn't making the trail (I'll say it again), the trail a handicap accessible place. It is the Shelters, privies, and other structures. But if you want to join with Weary to fight against the thing that isn't happening then be my guest.

Also note, if you hung out in the politics forum you just agreed with one of the PC people. Hmmmm:-?

[The Weasel]

OK. Let me see if I understand.

We all agree that bog bridges don't need to be made wheelchair friendly, but that back-country privies do.

Simple.

No, Rick. What we - well, you, anyhow - agree on was elegantly recognized by Anatole France, when he said, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

Yes, the bridges, when rebuilt, need to be accessible to all. Not just those fortunate enough not to need the benefit of the law. Don't worry. You won't really notice it. Until you need to, that is.

TW

[The Weasel]

Right, but the only disabilities that are relevant here are the ones that inhibit mobility - those that affect your ability to climb stairs (or, say, massive rocky rooty forbidding mountains!).

I think Weary said it better than I can. I completely stand by my first comment. This is astonishingly stupid. The idea of making wilderness areas "acessible" to wheelchairs is laughable, and if you can't see that then I think your judgment is being clouded by a blind and foolish devotion to political correctness. It's a substance-less exercise in feel-good fluff.

How cruel that you think it 'stupid' for those who - and they exist, today, despite your desire to deny their very existence - would enjoy far more what you both take for granted and would deny to them.

TW

[clured]

How cruel that you think it 'stupid' for those who - and they exist, today, despite your desire to deny their very existence - would enjoy far more what you both take for granted and would deny to them.

TW

Oh come on, Weasel. It's a low blow to try to make me into the big bad wolf. I'm not trying to "deny" handicapped people anything - you act like I'm anti-wheelchair, and I'd have them crawling around in the dirt on their bellies.

I think you are losing perspective a bit on this. You do realize, right, that most people, when confronted with this question, would laugh out loud? Maybe they're all just insensitive anti-wheelchair bigots, or maybe there is some wisdom to the reflexive incredulity that 99% of people would feel when hearing something like this. When I first saw the title of this thread, I honestly thought the whole thing was a parody for a few seconds before realizing it was serious.

You can disagree with me, but don't act like I'm so out of line, and "cruel." If pointing out that backpacking is and always will be inherently more challenging for the disabled makes me "cruel," then guilty as charged.

The trail is not an "equal opportunity" enterprise, by definition. It is a physical and psychological meritocracy, as it should be.

[le loupe]

They don't cost much more if it's a platform.


BTW its never just a little more-

its a larger platform, probably 5X5 so they can turn around.
a ramp up
if the ramp is taller than 6" it mean roll-off protection
the same ramp would require guard rails @ 42" above the ramp surface
and handrails at 36"

What about grab bars - horizontal & vertical for someone to transfer from chair to privy?
Is the privy seat built to the correct height?

and thats just the basics...

[SGT Rock]

He knows. He built one before.

I'll let Alligator speak for himself on the why - but like me he once thought this sort of thing was silly. He changed his mind for a reason, and so did I.

See at one point I thought it was a silly idea. Then I did some reading on what the ADA actually does for trail and how it impacts (unlike some who have decided it will change the trail) and then hiked with some handicapped people (not just one). After all that, I decided it wouldn't hurt to make a few of the structures of the trail more accessible for those likely to need them a hell of a lot more than I can. I'm able bodied and can ford creeks, I can dig cat-holes, and I can do my own shelter. Truth is I do a lot of this. But where we do put up structures for the convenience of hikers - we might as well make them convenient to the level of those that need those conveniences the most.

For someone that doesn't actually need them to say when we do build these conveniences we ought to make them hard because hikers are hard folks - well they miss a huge point in all that.

[Pokey2006]

If structures are in places where wheelchair-bound people can get to them, then by all means they should be handicapped accessible. If the handicapped people can't even get to the structures, then it's a silly waste of money. Pretty simple.

I'm all for handicapped people having access to the outdoors, by the way. I think the movement over the last several years of constructing rail trails has been fantastic, for both the able-bodied and the handicapped.

[SGT Rock]

If structures are in places where wheelchair-bound people can get to them, then by all means they should be handicapped accessible. If the handicapped people can't even get to the structures, then it's a silly waste of money. Pretty simple.
In my experience some can get to these places. Maybe noat a lot, Maybe not always in easy ways. Maybe not totally under their own power. So I guess you are saying that it really is a good idea since some of them do get out to these sites.


I'm all for handicapped people having access to the outdoors, by the way. I think the movement over the last several years of constructing rail trails has been fantastic, for both the able-bodied and the handicapped.
Agreed.

[Pokey2006]

Well....a good idea in some spots. I can think of a couple shelters off the top of my head that could easily be accessed by the handicapped. Ones near the road, or a short, flat walk in from the road. But on top of a mountain in the Whites? Naw, that's just nuts. It really just boils down to a little common sense. I think any blanket regulations need to leave room for common sense, through granted exceptions, variances, etc.

But I agree that we shouldn't completely discount the handicapped just because the trail is hard yada yada.

[minnesotasmith]

After all, disabled people are taxpayers too, and their taxes paid for the AT as well.

Disabled people are net consumers of taxes via various kinds of welfare. Most do not work, and on a net basis are anything but "taxpayers".

[minnesotasmith]

For those who think this is academic, or silly, or "retarded," read this story about "one of us"...a woman who says she was "defined" by backpacking and hiking, before MS hit her. Take a look at the pictures. Then tell me it's a waste of money to have a slightly wider door on outhouses and a little ramp for her husband to push her up.

www.baynature.com/v06n04/v06n04s_wheelchairrider.html (http://www.baynature.com/v06n04/v06n04s_wheelchairrider.html)

TW

She doesn't want stiles or even waterbars on trails. Talk about the disabled wanting to change the whole world, rather than themselves...

[minnesotasmith]

Or in the passenger cabin:

Pig: http://wc.arizona.edu/papers/94/70/01_95_m.html

Goat: http://travel.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/fashion/sundaystyles/14PETS.html

An apparent shrink, a Dr. Fudin said: "If a person can't entertain the idea of going out without an animal, that would suggest an extreme anxiety level," she said, "and he or she should probably be on medication, in psychotherapy or both."

Agreed. I'm expecting any time now for some loophole-using animal nut out hiking to claim their 3 unruly pit bulls are "therapy animals". Then, they get to take over a shelter built for humans (without warning forcing a hiking family out into the rain in the middle of the night, along with at least one small child). Or, they bull their way into a hostel that disallows animals, making for a degraded experience for the majority of other hikers, and motivating the hostel owner/operator to close down the hostel as the only way to avoid the legal liability and general hassle of someone else's animals being forced onto his property against his wishes, as if it was the dognut's property, and not his.

[MOWGLI]

An apparent shrink, a Dr. Fudin said: "If a person can't entertain the idea of going out without an animal, that would suggest an extreme anxiety level," she said, "and he or she should probably be on medication, in psychotherapy or both."


Substitute "gun" for the word "animal" in the above statement, and it makes infinitely more sense. At least animals provide companionship and entertainment. And many (probably the vast majority) dog owners have no issues whatsoever with anxiety.

In fact, you're on record saying that you want to carry 4 guns during your alleged walk across Alaska, aren't you? Seek help NOW. :D

[rickb]

Yes, the (bog) bridges, when rebuilt, need to be accessible to all. Not just those fortunate enough not to need the benefit of the law.

I am not sure that The Weasel has ever walked on a bog bridge, or even know what they are.

Any attempt at making most of them accessible would not be good for the Trail.

Its remarkable that any lover of the AT would think otherwise.

[MOWGLI]

I am not sure that The Weasel has ever walked on a bog bridge, or even know what they are.

Any attempt at making most of them accessible would not be good for the Trail.

Its remarkable that any lover of the AT would think otherwise.

Agreed - 100%.

[Lone Wolf]

gonna have to have a special barge to get folks in wheelchairs across the kennebec and other maine rivers

[canoehead]

I've worked with many folks with disabilites of all kinds, :welcomethe blind riding bikes, kayaking, canoeing, rock climbing and hiking and just when I thought they couldn't do it, They showed me they could.


So Rock on

Everyone should be able to play :sunand have fun in the sun!
and for those who don't think we should help in accommodating the disabled, then think again.

My father once said
But for the grace of god there go I.

Peace!

[ki0eh]

Five years as a stroller jockey with this: http://www.chariotcarriers.com/english/html/cougar.php has certainly made me appreciate the ADA accommodations within the built environment - and notice the accommodations not made as well (New York City subways are somewhat dicey...)

The big stalls in public restrooms are also pretty handy when you have a rugrat.

If you're creating new mini-built environments open to the public, those need to comply with accessibility standards, as already discussed.

The unbuilt environment is what many of us are seeking when we head out on a footpath that extends beyond the reach of the lawn mower. My little girl demands to be carried on a rail trail but she'll keep going under her own power on this: http://www.pahikes.com/trails/standingstone02.asp So there is a tension between not excluding those of different abilities, and destroying the unbuilt environment (whether natural or historic) to enable the differently abled.

[Lone Wolf]

there are no handicap port-a-johns at the trail daze campground

[Lyle]

There's certainly more than 2 or 3 every couple of years Clured:rolleyes:. You keep focusing on wheelchairs but there are 5 times as many people needing other devices. I've seen folks with canes before, I don't stop and count them. To top all that off though, there are plenty of other people with other disabilities. Diabetes, heart conditions, Multiple Scelerosis, Rhuemotoid Arthritis, AIDS etc. Those are just some of the hikers that I know of. Many of these folks benefit from accessible trails.


Automatic External Defibrillators and Instant glucose must now be provided at every shelter. Let attorneys make the rules and this is what we come up with. No common sense.

[minnesotasmith]

Substitute "gun" for the word "animal" in the above statement, and it makes infinitely more sense. At least animals provide companionship and entertainment. And many (probably the vast majority) dog owners have no issues whatsoever with anxiety.



Books or Walkmans can provide entertainment on the trail for hikers bored with the AT as well, and they don't steal food, damage gear, or attack and injure innocent passers-by.

Guns are tools as much as backpacks or boots, albeit with different uses for different times. Their possession was meant by the men who wrote the (albeit now sadly mostly ignored) contract that is the supreme law in our country to be virtually unrestricted so that the citizenry could stop a tyrannical government that did not respect law higher than itself. They had just done this themselves. Guns keep us out of Auschwitz.

Dogs? Fun, yes, occasionally useful (yes, I intend to have one or two dogs along on my Alaska hikes), but ultimately they're mainly just self-heating teddy bears with somewhat more complex responses than the "pull-a-string-and-hear-talk" dolls our sisters used to be into when young children. They're not needed to have a working, prosperous, free society, whereas anyone whose hike has been negatively affected by a dog may well conclude that removing them from the trail will improve life in that direction. In close to a year total I've hiked on the AT, I found that most dogs on the Trail should not have been out there.
=============================

Back to the original subject...

If the disabled/handicapped/people with whatever kind of problems you want to talk about can get out there by their own means in the boonies and get around, fine, more power to them. If they can't, it's their issue, not mine, and I see no need to take extra money from already overtaxed, mostly-struggling people who generally don't give a rat's about hiking anyway to make it possible for these tiny few to go places they can't manage on their own. There is nothing stopping all these supposed millions of productive, employed, outdoor-oriented handicapped people from passing the hat amongst themselves to gather cash for "improvements" almost no one else needs enough to spend their money on.

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

there are no handicap port-a-johns at the trail daze campgroundThere was one in 2005 and I purposely camped near it - I was still using a cane full-time and a walker in the morning until my leg warmed up.... BTW, a handicapped port-a-potty does not have a huge ramp - it sits closer to the ground and is designed so you can roll the wheelchair up to the door and use the grab bars to get inside without the wheelchair, is larger than a standard model, has grab bars and the stool is higher than normal.

This may not have to be a build it the way we always have versus build all this extra stuff onto building it the way we always have discussion. I'm wondering if a redesign of the backcountry privies couldn't be done to make them both handicapped-friendly and reasonably economical to build.

[Alligator]

Automatic External Defibrillators and Instant glucose must now be provided at every shelter. Let attorneys make the rules and this is what we come up with. No common sense.Common sense would dictate that before you criticize the rules you take the time to read them first. There are cost factors built into these regulations. Obviously you'd rather believe what you want to believe rather than making that effort.

[weary]

.....This may not have to be a build it the way we always have versus build all this extra stuff onto building it the way we always have discussion. I'm wondering if a redesign of the backcountry privies couldn't be done to make them both handicapped-friendly and reasonably economical to build.
The biggest part of building a privy is getting the materials to the site, at least in Maine. Handicapped accessible usually means bigger and more materials -- always a chore when you are five miles from the trail head.

This may be less of a problem in more civilized places.

Weary

[Alligator]

...
Back to the original subject...

If the disabled/handicapped/people with whatever kind of problems you want to talk about can get out there by their own means in the boonies and get around, fine, more power to them. If they can't, it's their issue, not mine, and I see no need to take extra money from already overtaxed, mostly-struggling people who generally don't give a rat's about hiking anyway to make it possible for these tiny few to go places they can't manage on their own. There is nothing stopping all these supposed millions of productive, employed, outdoor-oriented handicapped people from passing the hat amongst themselves to gather cash for "improvements" almost no one else needs enough to spend their money on.Hey idiot, let me tell you something. I've got a wife and kids and that makes our family a unit. WE contribute to the ATC, OUR local trail club, I've done some trail maintainence, and I'm now one of three maintainers for 3 miles of trail. Both my wife and I hike, work, and pay taxes. When I go out and maintain, she watches the kids. As far as anyone is concerned, we both share our money and time with the trail. My wife suffers from Multiple Sclerosis, a mobility damaging disease. We are fortunate at this time to not have her mobility impaired, although she suffers from associated MS problems such as heat intolerance, fatigue, and once a week downtime from her medicine. She has paid her dues in regard to being someone who should have some rights to using both the AT and any public trails. She doesn't expect the trail to be radically altered, nor do I, but accessible where it can reasonably be done. Your argument is ridiculously stupid, ignorant, and narrow-minded.

[weary]

Well....a good idea in some spots. I can think of a couple shelters off the top of my head that could easily be accessed by the handicapped. Ones near the road, or a short, flat walk in from the road. But on top of a mountain in the Whites? Naw, that's just nuts. It really just boils down to a little common sense. I think any blanket regulations need to leave room for common sense, through granted exceptions, variances, etc.

But I agree that we shouldn't completely discount the handicapped just because the trail is hard yada yada.
MATC has moved all its near road shelters over the past few years to eliminate kids partying.

Weary

[Alligator]

There are additional costs under the Access Board rules but a study of the costs determine that these were not economically significant. I'll post the study as soon as I find it again.

The privy I helped build was a platform privy. The bowl/seat they had needed to be the correct height. I don't think it was any different than the regular one. The platform would I think have needed 1 or 2 2x4's and potentially an additional sheet of plywood. They were hung up on supporting the overhang of the platform.

[minnesotasmith]

Hey, idiot... She has paid her dues in regard to being someone who should have some rights to using both the AT and any public trails. She doesn't expect the trail to be radically altered, nor do I, but accessible where it can reasonably be done. Your argument is ridiculously stupid, ignorant, and narrow-minded.

She has full access to the AT right now. There is no guard telling her she can't come on to any part of the Trail, no threat of her being fined or arrested. Where and how fast she goes on the AT is just between her and the Trail. What she wants (or at least you want) is to have the trail changed with just her (or a very, very few other people, who won't do the work or pay to have it done) in mind. That's what I have a problem with.

If someone decided that the AT is not for them (too tough or for whatever reason), there are plenty of relatively-level paved roads. Leave our trail be.

[The Old Fhart]

Minnesotasmith-"...If the disabled/handicapped/people with whatever kind of problems you want to talk about can get out there by their own means in the boonies and get around, fine, more power to them. If they can't, it's their issue, not mine, and I see no need to take extra money from already overtaxed, mostly-struggling people who generally don't give a rat's about hiking anyway to make it possible for these tiny few to go places they can't manage on their own..."So you must also not support public schools (or inclusion) because you don't yet have a genetically engineered offspring with a biologically significant other that require these facilities. :D

Alligator-"Your argument is ridiculously stupid, ignorant, and narrow-minded."succinct and on point!:banana

[Alligator]

She has full access to the AT right now. There is no guard telling her she can't come on to any part of the Trail, no threat of her being fined or arrested. Where and how fast she goes on the AT is just between her and the Trail. What she wants (or at least you want) is to have the trail changed with just her (or a very, very few other people, who won't do the work or pay to have it done) in mind. That's what I have a problem with.

If someone decided that the AT is not for them (too tough or for whatever reason), there are plenty of relatively-level paved roads. Leave our trail be.It's her trail too, and it belongs to the millions of other disabled folks. In fact, it belongs to all the people. Some of them can't walk, and some of them do so with difficulty. They are entitled to use it too. It is one of their rights guarenteed under the law. So get over your elitist garbage that it somehow belongs to you.

Further, there are millions of disabled working people. Most folks would rather work and be contributing members of society than sit locked away in a wheelchair in an institution. I doubt you believe that since your world view is a little ****ed up.

[minnesotasmith]

So you must also not support public schools

Correct. I don't recall one clause in the USCon giving the gov't authority to run such things, let alone forcing parents to send their children to them. Schools were and are typically effective inversely to gov't involvement with them.

If you want children educated well, end gov't involvement in schools. Close all the colleges of "education" and bar anyone with a degree in education or NEA/AFT association from setting foot on a school campus, except in the capacity of a parent. End tenure, bilingual classes, social promotion, & mainstreaming the handicapped/LD. Teach only Literature/Writing/Science/Math/History during high school core hours (any other stuff after hours voluntarily and at parents' expense), and while you're at it require teachers of grades past 5th to have degrees in their subject matters (yes, you'll have to pay the computer science and chemistry teachers 2-3x as much as the English teachers to have any).

For anyone with a real interest in this subject, I suggest three books:

"The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America" by Charlotte Iserbyt

"We Must Take Charge" by Chester Finn

"The Worm in the Apple" by Peter Brimelow

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

The biggest part of building a privy is getting the materials to the site, at least in Maine. Handicapped accessible usually means bigger and more materials -- always a chore when you are five miles from the trail head.

This may be less of a problem in more civilized places.If a privy is built up on a platform then a ramp is necessary to meet ADA requirements. However, if the pit is made accessible in some way other than building over it - perhaps digging into a hillside and having one side open for access to the pit area while the ground on the other side could be made ADA accessible without a ramp - then the conventional design becomes ADA compliant just by using careful site selection and bit more elbow grease. With the exception of extra wood needed to make the stool higher and wood or metal for the grab bars, I do not see how such a design would require more material than the current privies. I have looked at the Backcountry Sanitation Manual (http://atfiles.org/files/pdf/atcsanitation.pdf) and can see many places where simple changes could make privies more handicapped-friendly without seriously impacting the amount of materials needed to build or the primitive quality of the sites.

I'm going to throw in something here that many may not have considered - let's say me and my two off-set canes hike 7 or 8 miles of hard trail with a backpack and arrive at a shelter. I can guarantee you that no matter how much Vitamin I I take, my right leg and hip (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?p=202410#post202410) are going to need some babying at this point and far more babying the following morning before I get the leg and hip limbered up. While I may not absolutely have to have the ADA modifications to use the privy, I certainly am going appreciate them.

I'm not much different than the hikers I know with bad backs, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, various orthopedic issues, etc. that are out there hiking - and Clured, there are far more than 2 or 3 a year. I know nine that are currently hiking LD on either the AT, CDT, or PCT right now. My guess is there are dozens more I don't know.

[minnesotasmith]

Further, there are millions of disabled working people. .

I'm delighted to hear that there are plenty of "disabled working people" who between them are obviously quite capable of paying at market rates for special construction for their own purposes out of their own pockets, not using the club of government to force others to provide it. If they don't choose to spend their money that way, well, who are you to force them to live their lives a certain way?

[johnny quest]

I don't see how that hurts you or anyone else to make that sort of thing happen as privies are added or upgraded.
And there will always be only a few. Again, numbers don't matter except to you and a few that feel this somehow is hurting them. I really cannot see how it impacts you or your hike if there are some ramps to the privy or a few ramps up to bridges instead of ladders.
BTW, if you watch that and don't get choked up... Wow.
why do you assume any one who argues against ADA compliance on the AT as coming from the standpoint of being personally hurt by it? its not that i am simon legree...necessarily....its that i worry about the huge cost versus the very few citizens that will be affected. if private clubs and organizations want to spend the extra money to go ada, god bless them. but if it comes to taxpayer money going to make the trail ADA compliant at a cost way out of proportion to the people benefited, then it should be looked at with the cold eye of an accountant.
whenever you let emotion rule your opinion your in danger.

[SGT Rock]

why do you assume any one who argues against ADA compliance on the AT as coming from the standpoint of being personally hurt by it? its not that i am simon legree...necessarily....its that i worry about the huge cost versus the very few citizens that will be affected. if private clubs and organizations want to spend the extra money to go ada, god bless them. but if it comes to taxpayer money going to make the trail ADA compliant at a cost way out of proportion to the people benefited, then it should be looked at with the cold eye of an accountant.
whenever you let emotion rule your opinion your in danger.
Actually no emotion here other than wondering how after all the discussion by people that have explained the exact impact this has, that we still have folks claiming that the ADA rules are changing the entire trail, or are requiring tons of money to be spent, or are requirinng re-routes, or are requiring all things be retro-fitted, or are using taxpayer mone, etc. etc. etc.. None of that is true. As has been explained over and over it applies to new structures being built, that the clubs are responsible for almost all of those, and that the trail itself will still go voer boulders and all the other places people want it too. Yet even with explaining all that people start talking about having to build chair lifts, pave trail, add AEDs, etc. IT is like everyone wants to fight against what they think is going to happen instead of listening to what is actually going in.

Anyhow...

Look, here is why I closed the last one. MS is now off on a tangent again about why government is evil, how it is unfair to the rest of us his taxes are being used to pay for things on the trail for them (which is pretty much bull dookie) and the rest of the crap like name calling is starting up again. It is amazing how lack of understanding of the ADA and how it impacts the trail starts getting people into rants about the Government in Education, The University of Alabama, Guns, the Tax code, etc. Again. Time out is now called. Go talk about hiking again somewhere.