[at-l] Re:nonsense, or not

[Cosmo.A.Catalano@williams.edu (Cosmo.A.Catalano@williams.edu)]

Ted, I couldn't agree more.  I strongly--no make that fiercly--believe the AT is
for foot travel only.  People have worked too hard to create it, build it, nuture
it and protect it to see it "become a sidewalk".  My long term fear is that after
it fades from it's current popularity (in 10, 15, 20 years?), will the government
regulations that it is becoming increasingly burdened with finally scare away all
of our hardworking volunteers?  Will the trail again become a series of
disconnected segments disruped by stretches of abandoned, unmaintained trail?  I
can tell you that it won't happen in Mass as long as I can get out there.  I seem
to be in one of my darker moods, I fear.

As to the economics, you are correct, we are seeing more and more money out there
hiking around.  But I know for certain it isn't necessary to have an unusual
amount money to hike the AT (other than the ongoing, daily necessities of life).
Yes, it's easier to stay in the #@$%^! huts in the Whites and pay the campground
fees in the Greens, but it still can be done on a shoestring with cheap
(realtively) gear and economical choices at town stops.

Cosmo

Quoting ted anderson <atted@tampabay.rr.com>:

> Cosmo,
> Another perspective to look at is this:  I'd love to go live in Europe for
> a
> few months, then perhaps the Scandinavian countries for a while.  I might
> be
> stratified with just climbing Mount Everest.  My problem is, I am
> economically challenged.  The wealthy can do it, so shouldn't I be afforded
> the same opportunities?  All of us have a "disability" of some kind, but I
> think there should be a limit as to what others should do for me.
> Otherwise
>  we might actually see the day that the hiking trails of America would
> become sidewalks.  BTW, in no way do I intend to degrade the importance of
> millions of physically disabled people, nor place them on the sidelines of
> life.
>

> Just my opinion,

>

> Soleman - WAYAG

> Ted Anderson  www.trailjournals.com/soleman

>

>

>

> -------Original Message-------

>

> From: Cosmo.A.Catalano@williams.edu

> Date: Saturday, November 23, 2002 3:10:07 PM

> To: at-l@mailman.backcountry.net

> Subject: [at-l] Re:nonsense, or not

>

> The costs of ADA access aren't just in ramps. And being disabled, dosen't
> jsut

> mean legless. The entire building must be equally accessible to
> handicapped
> folks as to others. Door knobs are now paddles that can be manipulated by
> people

> w/weak or fingerless hands/arms. Signage must be in braile or raised
> letters
>
> Every room, doorway, entry way etc. must have room for a 5ft diameter
> turning

> area for wheelchairs. Toilets, sinks, counters, mirrors,etc. must be
> useable
> by
> both "normally" abled and disabled people.

>

> Is it silly to include these standards in a location where disabled people
> are

> unlikely to go? I would have thought so some years ago, but now not I'm not
> so

> sure. Yes it is government run amok, but as a human, it personally makes
> me
> uneasy to exclude other members of the species because of their appearance
> or

> other things that are beyond their control--especially when we have the
> ability

> to make it possible not to.

>

> Now deep in the details of the planning and construction of a new theatre

> building, I can testify that one of the significant factors driving the
> design of

> not just the auditorium area, but of the backstage facilities, studios,

> classrooms etc., is the accomodation of people in whleelchairs. Shall we
> expect

> disabled humans to only attend cultural events and schools, and never try
> to
> test
> themselves in the outdoors? I don't think so.

>

> Cosmo

>