Universally accessible trail section opened - Barre Montpelier Times Argus

[WhiteBlaze]

Universally accessible trail section opened Barre Montpelier Times Argus, VT - 2 hours ago KILLINGTON (AP) — The first universally accessible Vermont portion of the Appalachian Trail will be formally opened Saturday in a ceremony in Killington. ...

More...

[Newb]

one day they'll pave the whole thing.

[Pedaling Fool]

I really don't know what to say about this type of trail upgrade/change. I'd normally say something like: this is a small step on a slippery slope; but in this case I'm just not sure if that's applicable here.

More info from GMC's website:
http://www.greenmountainclub.org/news.php?id=144





.

[MOWGLI]

They replaced a dusty roadwalk with an accessible 900' boardwalk. I say, "bravo!"

If the ATC and the local trail clubs aren't proactive, and make available some accessible trail where it makes sense - it will eventually be forced upon them. Voluntary cooperation is much better than being mandated by the feds to do something. I applaud the ATC and their efforts!

[wakapak]

It's a beautiful section of trail....i remember the old dusty roadwalk, and this year when we got to it and the trail turned back into the woods across the road, i was very happy!! then it came down to the falls, which are magnificent, and that made me happier!!! Then we walked across this awesome section of boardwalk, crossed a road and went back up into the woods!!! it's truly a nice upgrade of that section that section that they did, and you can tell that all the maintainers worked hard on it!! i remember telling Chaco as we were hiking it how much of an awesome upgrade that was instead of walking a dusty old road! he loved it too!
i think it's great that it'll allow some people less fortunate than us to be able to see the wonderful falls! remember, the creator of the trail originally thought of it as a way to get people out of the cities and into the woods, not necessarily for it to be done as one continuous hike. i think sometimes alot of us lose sight of that fact....

[minnesotasmith]

It's just not paved to make it easy for vehicles such as wheelchairs. I hope and expect it never will be (gov't is too broke to do that).

If an American (not in jail or something) wants to go on a particular section of the AT, there's no locked gate or armed guard to stop them or fine them if they do (well, other than maybe Katahdin on a Class IV day). It's just their own preferences or personal limitations that might keep them from going to a particular section, and that's a private, personal issue, certainly not one to involve spending tax money on, having anything connected to gov't forcing clubs to do anything different, etc. Forcing a club of volunteers to overbuild a privy in the middle of nowhere (that cost the gov't nothing) to "handicapped" standards that cost the club extra makes about as much sense as (true story) a bank getting fined BC they didn't put braille on their drivethru ATMs.

It all comes back to choosing persuasion (the tool of civilized humans) or initiating force (the tool of barbarians and thieves). If you can't convince anyone with your logic they should choose to do something voluntarily, perhaps you should examine what you favor. If you can't defend your proposal, odds are it's indefensible (and should be dropped).

[MOWGLI]

Ignorance is bliss.

[Alligator]

It's just not paved to make it easy for vehicles such as wheelchairs. I hope and expect it never will be (gov't is too broke to do that).

If an American (not in jail or something) wants to go on a particular section of the AT, there's no locked gate or armed guard to stop them or fine them if they do (well, other than maybe Katahdin on a Class IV day). It's just their own preferences or personal limitations that might keep them from going to a particular section, and that's a private, personal issue, certainly not one to involve spending tax money on, having anything connected to gov't forcing clubs to do anything different, etc. Forcing a club of volunteers to overbuild a privy in the middle of nowhere (that cost the gov't nothing) to "handicapped" standards that cost the club extra makes about as much sense as (true story) a bank getting fined BC they didn't put braille on their drivethru ATMs.

It all comes back to choosing persuasion (the tool of civilized humans) or initiating force (the tool of barbarians and thieves). If you can't convince anyone with your logic they should choose to do something voluntarily, perhaps you should examine what you favor. If you can't defend your proposal, odds are it's indefensible (and should be dropped).

Your argument fails yet again because the trail exists through government involvement, it's called the National Trails Systems Act. The trail itself was put together in places by force (eminent domain) and in part by public money (again, thievery in your eyes). It's pretty hypocritical to accept the National Trails Systems Act and ignore Disability Laws. That's the package you get when you use public lands.

[minnesotasmith]

It's pretty hypocritical to accept the National Trails Systems Act and ignore Disability Laws. That's the package you get when you use public lands.

The National Trails Systems Act, the clubs of volunteers agreeing to maintain sections of the AT (including building privies), etc., all came about before the main disability (unearned) rights act came out. It's not the deal that was agreed to. A contractual change has to be voluntarily agreed to by all parties involved (which has not happened), or it has no right to go into effect.

Handicapped-obsessed people wanting the whole AT paved so wheelchair-bounds can use it as easily as they do sidewalks are like hydrophobes wanting the oceans to be dryed up (in both cases at someone else's expence); they're not reasonable people. If someone in Georgia with a disability wants to get to Maine, and they don't care for how the AT is now enough to transit it as-is, they should use a means that follows pavement or uses wings.

[MOWGLI]

It's not the deal that was agreed to. A contractual change has to be voluntarily agreed to by all parties involved (which has not happened), or it has no right to go into effect.

You ought to read the US Constitution sometime. You might not spout off like this if you were actually familiar with how our government works - as designed.

[MOWGLI]

Handicapped-obsessed people wanting the whole AT paved so wheelchair-bounds can use it as easily as they do sidewalks are like hydrophobes wanting the oceans to be dryed up (in both cases at someone else's expence); they're not reasonable people.

Kinda like how someone who is skeered of dogs expects EVERYONE to leash and muzzle their dogs on public lands - even if the law says otherwise?

PS: Nobody is talking about "wanting the whole AT paved."

[Alligator]

The National Trails Systems Act, the clubs of volunteers agreeing to maintain sections of the AT (including building privies), etc., all came about before the main disability (unearned) rights act came out. It's not the deal that was agreed to. A contractual change has to be voluntarily agreed to by all parties involved (which has not happened), or it has not right to go into effect.

Handicapped-obsessed people wanting the whole AT paved so wheelchair-bounds can use it all are like hydrophobes wanting the oceans to be dryed up (in both cases at someone else's experience); they're not reasonable people. If someone in Georgia with a disability wants to get to Maine, and they don't care for how the AT is now enough to transit it as-is, they should use a means that follows pavement or uses wings.

A contractual change huh? It's a public law, which according to the Constitution are changeable and enforceable. If you want the protections afforded by said law, you get the rest of US law as well. Otherwise, get yourself together a group of like minded individuals and purchase your own private trail.

I know this is difficult for you to comprehend, but the trail belongs to all Americans. Some Americans are disabled, and deservedly have a right to reasonable accomodation. Very few people (if any at all) have actually called for paving the trail. It's just a straw man argument employed by those who look to deny the disabled their legal rights.

The paving argument is just silly anyway. I predict artificial legs in 20-30 years, if not sooner.

[minnesotasmith]

You ought to read the US Constitution sometime. You might not spout off like this if you were actually familiar with how our government works - as designed.

Much of it is sadly ignored now, from prohibitions on ex post facto law (think CERCLA), bills of attainder (just had one to help out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae), double jeopardy (remember the cops convicted in a second trial for pounding on Rodney King?), the power to declare war solely resting with Congress (every U.S. war since WWII has lacked a Congressional declaration of war), equality under law (affirmative action), "No state shall...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts (ever heard of the Federal Reserve?), Amendments 5 & 7 (child support/alimony issues in "family" courts), Article IV Section 4's guarantee of protection against invasion (about 20 million easily-found and unexpelled illegal aliens come to mind), and, most importantly, Amendment 10 (about 90% of FedGov expenditures and 99%+ of Federal laws).

However, as the saying about neutrality goes: "It is not like virginity; it does not disappear at the first violation.". So it is with Constitutional rights.

[MOWGLI]

You still don't get it, and I have little confidence you ever will.

[Jack Tarlin]

Smith:

Nobody wants, and nobody is sugesting that the Trail be paved.

Your comments, especialy those in regards to the expectations or supposed "demands" of handicapped people and their advocates, are offensive in the extreme.

[NICKTHEGREEK]

You ought to read the US Constitution sometime. You might not spout off like this if you were actually familiar with how our government works - as designed.

Don't you dare contradict him he's a scientist and as such completely open minded

[minnesotasmith]

Smith:

Nobody wants, and nobody is sugesting that the Trail be paved.

Your comments, especialy those in regards to the expectations or supposed "demands" of handicapped people and their advocates, are offensive in the extreme.

Truth is a defense against charges of libel. The truth:

http://overlawyered.com/2008/01/uk-f...lchair-access/ (This kind of legal "logic" could be applied to trails like the AT; watch landowner access end, to avoid having to build gates)

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...s_/ai_62162020 (Could affect WhiteBlaze.net)

http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_...shakedown.html

http://overlawyered.com/2006/12/ada-the-new-crips/

http://overlawyered.com/2007/07/viol...rst-protected/

http://overlawyered.com/early-years/...chives-part-3/ (these two: "Crowded drugstores illegal" and "Colorblind Traffic-Light Installer Gets Fired, Sues")

http://overlawyered.com/early-years/...chives-part-3/ "“The physically and mentally disabled may no longer be barred from becoming pilots or air traffic controllers. Eyesight and other medical tests imposed on flight crew have been found to be in breach of anti-discrimination laws.”

http://overlawyered.com/early-years/...chives-part-1/ "“Sorry, Slimbo, you’re in my seats”. Columnist Peter Simpson isn’t impressed with the opinion of the Canadian government that, as a matter of handicapped rights, severely overweight airline passengers should be given an extra seat free of charge"

http://overlawyered.com/early-years/...chives-part-2/ ("Ability to remain conscious not obligatory for train dispatcher, EEOC argues.)

http://overlawyered.com/2003/06/arch...pre-july-2003/ (Many more)

Yeah, the disabled and their advocates are really reasonable in their requests.

[Alligator]

Show some links where it says that advocates are calling for paving the whole Appalachian Trail. I'm personally not going to weed through those links as most of them don't seem trail related and that's the discussion at hand. It's the claim you made.

[minnesotasmith]

I'm personally not going to weed through those links as most of them don't seem trail related and that's the discussion at hand.

If short on time, I suggest reading the first two. One is very much on-topic about hiking trails, and the other could directly affect the website whose forum on which we're posting.

P.S. Are you familiar with the concept of the camel's nose under the tent?

http://camelphotos.com/tales_nose.html

Some things should be stopped at the beginning, before they go all the way.

[MOWGLI]

Show some links where it says that advocates are calling for paving the whole Appalachian Trail. I'm personally not going to weed through those links as most of them don't seem trail related and that's the discussion at hand. It's the claim you made.

HE CAN'T SO HE WON'T.

You know, this is another one of Minnesota Smith's outrageous attacks on the volunteers and organizations who make the trail possible. This time he takes a shot at the disabled - at the same time. Very classy. (not)

The GMC decided to commit their funds and organize volunteers to improve this section of the trail, but that's not good enough for MS. Although he undoubtedly hasn't given a dime to the GMC This guy has to try and score some cheap political points by spewing factual inaccuracies.

I do indeed hope that Minnesota Smith at least has the decency to skip this part of the trail - should he get that far on his next thru-hike attempt. If he's going to tear down the efforts of the ATC & GMC, at least be can consistent and skip the part of the trail that offends his sensibilities so terribly.