Re: [at-l] ADA on the AT

[bullard@northnet.org]

The intent of ADA was to remove barriers to participation in major life
activities by thoughtless design of doorways, lack of ramps/elevators as an
alternative to stairs/escalators and "reasonable" workplace accommodation
to allow the disabled to hold a job. The key word is "reasonable". It is
not my understanding that, for example, an employer would be required to
hire a disabled person and make an accommodation which would cost the
employer so much that having them work there would result in a net loss for
the employer on hte work the disbled peron did. Nor was it the intent that
absolutely everything *anyone* can do should be made possible for everyone
who is disabled, just normal life things (work, shopping, theater,
restrooms, etc.).

Unfortunately there is a segment of the disabled population who would like
to have the courts enforce the broadest of interpretations on ADA.
Ironically, from my own observation it seems that those who advocate the
broadest application of ADA are among the least disabled. A case in point
is the battle over use of ATVs in the Airondacks. They are prohibited by
the "Forever Wild" clause in the NYS Constitution but some groups are using
ADA to try to crack the ban and have succeeded (at least temporarily) in
getting the courts to rule that ATVs can be used by the disabled on roads
and trails where the rangers use motorized vehicles. Bear in mind that the
rangers use motorized vehicles in some of these areas only rarely when
necessary to respond to an emergency situation. 

One "disabled" person who was interviewed on TV asserted that he could ride
his trail bike (note: that's bike, as in 2 wheels) over any trail that a
hiker could hike and that under ADA, he should be allowed to. I've climbed
all 46 high peaks and hiked many other trails that I couldn't trail bike
and I'm not disabled. I would have to contend that if he could do that, he
isn't disabled either, but it is that sort of extremist demand that prompts
both the automatic horror of non-disabled hikers and the idiotic attempts
of bureaucracy to mollify such groups. It is interesting that several
disabled groups have sided with the State against such unreasonable demands
because they realize that the resulting negative reaction will hurt their
chances at getting reasonable accommodations.

From my point-of-view: Thru-hiking the AT, indeed wilderness hiking in
general, is not and should not be an activity covered by ADA. Face it. Even
counting the section hikers, weekenders and day hikers, hikers are in the
minority. Also, despite the fact that some of us spend a good deal of our
spare time doing it, hiking is not a "major life activity" for the
so-called average individual. Even at that we already have examples of
disabled individuals accomplishing it *without accommodation* so it already
is open to the truly motivated. All thruhikers get there on their mental
determination anyway (have you ever read a journal with no complaints of
aches, pains etc, etc, etc.?) and given differences in fitness, size,
gender, age or whatever, it's tougher for some than for others. In the end,
completing a hike is (and should be) a personal achievement not something
that someone else made possible by bringing the challenge down to our level.

Could the trail be more accommodating to the disabled without bulldozing
and paving it? I'm sure a bit of creative thought could come up with some
ideas that could help without destroying the experience for everyone else.
In the Adirondacks there are a few handicapped trails (wheels chairs not
ATVs) and we probably could and should have more. There is at least one
high peak (Whiteface) which can be driven and elevatored to the summit.
Should we do that with all trails and summits. Absolutely not.

Saunterer

* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List |  http://www.backcountry.net  *

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