[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [at-l] Handicapped access

> > And conservationists don't have an agenda?

> I think we all have agendas.  One of mine is protecting public
> lands.  You are free to disagree with me, but it doesn't change
> the fact that people might try to use ADA to change the Wilderness
> Act in ways me and others might find unfavorable.

Okay.

> > Apparently, some disabled people have bought into the notion
> > that public lands are their lands, too.

> They are.  A disabled person has the same right to use public lands
> as a non-disabled person.  The question is, do they have the right
> to change public lands to make them more accessible. In the case
> of Wilderness areas, I say no because in order to make it accessible,
> it would no longer be a Wilderness area.

Sure they do. They have just as much right to assert their
interest as you do yours, regardless of how the lands happen
to be legislatively zoned today.

As public property, your slightly less than one quarter-billionth
interest (not ownership) in the trail is no greater or less
than that of some disabled fellow who perhaps has never even
heard of the AT, or General Sh***ead National Forest, or whatever.

That's the consequence of having the government acquire the
land. The trail's fate now rests in that never-ending jello
wrestling match called Congress. May the bigger battalions
win.

I wish you luck.

-- 
mfuller@somtel.com, Northern Franklin County, Maine
The Constitution is the white man's ghost shirt. }>:-/> --->
* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List | For info http://www.hack.net/lists *

==============================================================================