Wheel in the WIlderness

12:32 p.m. on June 30, 2011 (EDT)
6 reviewer rep
8 forum posts

I am a very strong hiker and marathon runner but because of a shoulder injury a pack causes me to much pain in that area.  So I gave up overnight trips and just would go for runs so as not to have to care anything on my back.

I have had the pleasure of using a devise to carry my load that uses a single 16" wheel It works with a pack or bike pannier attached just above the wheel.  It then extents up with a handle adjusted for you on a pole and one on the very top.  There is a bungee attached down by the bags that goes to your waste, this keeps it from running away from you.  It is pushed out in front of you which enables you to avoid many trail obstacles.  You do have to lift it over some depending on the trail.  

Here is what I am getting at I have been told that I can't use it in Wilderness Areas and even have been question about its use in National Parks.  Why is this?  It causes no trial damage and does not interfere with other hikers use of the trail. 

Now to avoid allot of needless discussion I do understand that Mt. Bikes could cause trail damage (horse don't apparently but lets not go there ether).  Mt bike could cause user conflict such as being ridden to fast down the trail.  Game carts and wheel barrels could block and cause passing problem for other hikers. So with those things understood lets just discuss why a wheel used in a trail friendly manner is forbidden.

1:35 p.m. on June 30, 2011 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
910 forum posts

Probably because of a knee jerk reaction by government drones, I mean workers. They see a bicycle tire and bicycles are not allowed on the trail therefore that is not allowed on the trail and they can now exercise the power vested in them to enforce the rules. After all you might just hop on that thing and coast down hill like one of those old stick horses and that would mean a lot of paper work.

My advice, get a note from a doctor and claim it is a handicap device under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

2:21 p.m. on June 30, 2011 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
580 forum posts

You add one wheel and it's a slippery slope....... : )

Seriously, there are many places where you can hike with your monocycle (not unicycle) why not enjoy those. Otherwise, why should the people with other disabilities miss out on the "wilderness"; pave the trails for electric scooters.

You say the problem is with your shoulder; why not use a tumpline then for supporting your pack and leave your shoulders free?

I vote "No" on the wheel. But I hope you continue to enjoy hiking and the outdoors. Good luck.

4:38 p.m. on June 30, 2011 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
1,236 forum posts

That is truly absurd, I mean come on.  If I'm in a wheel chair are they going to tell me to get of the trail no wheel(s) allowed.  How about a motorized wheel chair, is this now considered to be a motorized vehicle.  Motorized vehicles are not allowed on the trails.  I belive in the the rules and all but when low level, board people are given to much power this is sometimes the result.  I'm really, really aggitated  now.  Who's trails and parks are these anyway.  I understand overmywaders vote of no on the wheel but I'm not sure there is anything to vote for here.  Now I'm really pissed.  As I'm gear junky with a bad back, well documented over the past 30yrs,  I would qualify for a assistance device to be able to enjoy my parks and forests.  First, I will would agree with ocalacomputerguy and i would "get a note from a doctor and claim it is a handicap device under the Americans with Disabilities Act" (because.......well......it is) or what ever paperwork my goverment demands of you.  If I have medication that a doctor gave me a prescription for would they kick me out for using drugs in a park or forest, take my cane or crutches?  Second, I think this is cool idea and I know that if you send me a link to this device that you are using I will champion the cause and find a used one somewhere.  They will not kick me out with out a fight on that one.  I can just see it now, "Sir no dogs allowed here".  "But this is a service dog and here is my proof".  "I'm sorry no dogs allowed".  "But by law says I'm allowed to have my dog here with me".  "I'm sorry no dogs allowed, please exit the park."   The next time this happens I would suggest you get names, id info and or badge numbers and take this to the next level.  I know that that sounds like a hassel but if we don't stand up for our rights then we will have no rights.  You should be able to hike, backpack, camp where ever the rest of are allowd to even if you need assistance device, as these are your lands as well as everyone else. The Americans with Disabilities Act give you the right(s) to enjoy everyplace that is open and avaliable to the rest of the people who don't have phyisical problems.  You should not be relegated to a flat trail made for "you" people.  Don't make me get assistance device and use it in national, state, parks & forests,  Don't............I'm telling you Don't

7:05 p.m. on June 30, 2011 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
580 forum posts

apeman said:

As I'm gear junky with a bad back, well documented over the past 30yrs,  I would qualify for a assistance device to be able to enjoy my parks and forests.  First, I will would agree with ocalacomputerguy and i would "get a note from a doctor and claim it is a handicap device under the Americans with Disabilities Act" (because.......well......it is) or what ever paperwork my goverment demands of you. ...

  You should be able to hike, backpack, camp where ever the rest of are allowd to even if you need assistance device, as these are your lands as well as everyone else. The Americans with Disabilities Act give you the right(s) to enjoy everyplace that is open and avaliable to the rest of the people who don't have phyisical problems. 

 apeman,

Once you introduce vehicles, you lose wilderness. A quadriplegic might wish to enjoy the wilderness; I can understand that, however to get him/her there means building a road, thus removing the wildness. Should we build roads through all our wilderness, to the peak of every mountain? I don't think so.

I can no longer climb a grade, even with my dual ventricular pacemaker (with ICD, but no Ipod) working overtime. But I don't want anyone to move a stone or level a path in the backcountry on my behalf.

If the poster wants wilderness, a tumpline will get him there. Substitute the tumpline for the shoulder straps of a pack and use the hip belt - slicker than deer guts on a pump handle. The wheel will not get him up a rockfall or across a scree slope; you know, real backcountry.

JMO, of course.

10:56 p.m. on June 30, 2011 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
910 forum posts

 The reason for using the ADA was to get government rule enforcers who can't use judgment or simply have none, off of his back. If you mention disability government rule enforcers tend to leave you alone. In some cases they will let you get away with ridiculous things.  For instance allowing pot belly pigs on airplanes as "service" animals.  RainierDon doesn't need any modifications to the trail or anything else.  He has come up with a solution to his problem that won't cause harm to the environment and requires no tax payer money.

I am not suggesting that we should pave the outdoors and put handicap capable port-a-potties all over the place. THAT would be stupid. Bypassing idiots that can't be bothered to think "What is the reason for the rule?" vs. "Is there a way I can interpret a rule so I can exercise my power?"

Again, I just suggested the ADA because it would keep rangers or whoever from hassling him.

11:15 p.m. on June 30, 2011 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
1,236 forum posts

 

 

 

I'm not advocating changing anything other than the the treatment of a person with an aid device which by law has the same rights as you or I.     I'm not asking the forest service to bring in 4 people to carry anyone to the top of the mountian nor level a trail.  This is an aid device (a picture of which is on his Avatar) no different than cane or crutches that is no wider than a person.  it is not motorized nor can you ride it.  It will do no more damage to the trail then walikng and the trail as it is being pulled behind a person. As you would not take a guide dog, a hearing aid, crutches, canes, away from a person who needs them.  I firmly belive that this aid falls in the same category the before mentioned aids.   There is a strict no dog policy in all federal and many state parks, however I do belive that without exception if one has a guide or companion animal they are exampt from this rule/law.  I belive you should not take this aid device form a person who needs it.  If RainierDon needs this to help him I'm all for it.  On another note I belive that if was placed before a judge, if one was issued a ticket, it would be ruled to be a device no different than the ones I listed above and he would then be allowed to use it.  I would hope that this would be a last resort.  This is of cource my opinion and we are all entitled to our opinion.  I ment no dissrespect to any one who has an opinion of any kind on this nor any other subject, but if I found myself being told not to use the trail with this aid item I would demand a ticket and take it to court as I bet  RainierDon pays fedreal taxes which means that trail belongs jsut as much to him as to any of us. 

12:30 a.m. on July 1, 2011 (EDT)
3 reviewer rep
101 forum posts

The 1964 Wilderness Act which was passed by our elected representatives in Congress is what this rule is based on. It specifically states:

PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN USES

 (c) Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing
private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.

(Emphasis added.)

It is not some faceless bureaucrat making this decision but the people who represent us that made this decision. (Plus, I think that in practice there are exceptions made for wheel chairs on any trail they can negotiate). 

Dogs are allowed in National Parks; at campgrounds and along roads, just not on trails.

Another solution would be to use a pack animal, such as a dog, goat, llama, mule, or horse. This is allowed by the Wilderness Act.

If a Ranger is going to write up a hunter for using a game cart, they are going to write up a hiker for using a pack cart.

I understand RanierDon's situation, but there are legal (if not preferred) ways for him to access wilderness areas.

3:37 a.m. on July 1, 2011 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
1,236 forum posts

SnowGoose, Thanks for finding that for me as I knew not where to look.

 

SnowGoose said:

"The 1964 Wilderness Act which was passed by our elected representatives in Congress is what this rule is based on. It specifically states:

PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN USES

(c) Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing
private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.

(Emphasis added.)"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990, AS AMENDED"

states:

"TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

CHAPTER 126 - EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES

Sec. 12101. Findings and purpose

(a) Findings

The Congress finds that

(1) physical or mental disabilities in no way diminish a person’s right to fully participate in all aspects of society, yet many people with physical or mental disabilities have been precluded from doing so because of discrimination; others who have a record of a disability or are regarded as having a disability also have been subjected to discrimination;

(5) individuals with disabilities continually encounter various forms of discrimination, including outright intentional exclusion, the discriminatory effects of architectural, transportation, and communication barriers, overprotective rules and policies, failure to make modifications to existing facilities and practices, exclusionary qualification standards and criteria, segregation, and relegation to lesser services, programs, activities, benefits, jobs, or other opportunities;

(7) the Nation's proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities are to assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for such individuals; and"

(b) Purpose

It is the purpose of this chapter

(1) to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities;

(2) to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities;

Furthermore:

 

"Sec. 12132. Discrimination

Subject to the provisions of this subchapter, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity."

 

 

I (apeman) truly belive that after looking over and reading quite a bit of the "AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990, AS AMENDED" that it is actually discrimination being perpertrated in this instance.  I do not think they would make a person leave who was in a wheel chair nor leave his wheel chair behind.  There is alot to read and I did not read it entirely.  I did read what I thought to be pertant to this discussion.

Here is the entire text of the  AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990, AS AMENDED

http://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.htm#12132

 

SnowGoose said:

"If a Ranger is going to write up a hunter for using a game cart, they are going to write up a hiker for using a pack cart."

 

I (apeman) belive that would be a correct use of the law except and unless  the hunter could show that they have a disibliity and need the cart.

 

 

 

SnowGoose said:

"Dogs are allowed in National Parks; at campgrounds and along roads, just not on trails."

 

 

 

That is a correct statement except in the case of guide animals. I found this info at the below list web site.

"At national parks and at other federal sites, guide dogs and hearing-assistance dogs are not considered pets, so regulations governing their presence are far less restrictive. Some parks, however, require you to register these animals upon your arrival."

Taken from this web site:

http://usparks.about.com/library/weekly/aa042598.htm

 

 

 

Regarding wheelchairs.  By definition a wheelchair is a vehicle (see link below for defintion) just as a one wheeled cart is a vehicle.  Even though vehicles are band from national park trails.  Wheelchairs are not banned:

(vehicle definitionmovement-none.jpg

http://mw4.m-w.com/dictionary/vehicle)

I. Use of wheelchairs for the mobility impaired is allowed in the backcountry in accordance with the following regulations:
CFR 36, Part 1. Section 1.2 (e): The regulations in this chapter are intended to treat a mobility-impaired person using a manual or motorized wheelchair as a pedestrian, and are not intended to restrict the activities of such a person beyond the degree that the activities of a pedestrian are restricted by the same regulations.

Manual and motorized wheelchairs as defined in section 1.4:
Manual wheelchair: A device that is propelled by human power, designed for and used by a mobility-impaired person.
Motorized wheelchair: A self-propelled wheeled device, designed solely for and used by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion, that is both capable of and suitable for use in indoor pedestrian areas.

 

 

 

It is consevable that you could use a pack dog as well as the other pack animals that Snowgoose listed above.

II. Use of guide dogs for the hearing and vision impaired and other service animals in the backcountry is allowed with the following guidelines:
A service animal is defined as an animal that performs some of the
functions and tasks that the individual with a disability cannot perform such as carrying a pack for persons with mobility impairments, assisting persons with balance, or alerting medically dependent persons of specific conditions (such as oncoming seizures).

Prior to accessing the backcountry with a guide dog or service animal, individuals with disabilities shall complete and obtain the Guide/Service Animal Permit; ask for Yell 470.

Companion dogs or other pets for the mentally or emotionally impaired are not allowed in the backcountry, or on nature trails or boardwalks.

The above information was taken form this site:

http://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/wheelchairs.htm

 

I (apeman) belive the "The 1964 Wilderness Act'" is in violation of the "AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990, AS AMENDED , or,  could it be the other way around.  They do however appear,  to me,  to be in conflict with each other and I still would take the ticket and go to court as I still belive that a person w/ a single wheel cart is being discriminated against in regards to using the cart if he/she needs it because of a disabilitie.  The best way to lose your right's is to do nothing and let them be taken way. 

Snowgoose and overmywadders I thank you for the lively debate.

10:56 a.m. on July 1, 2011 (EDT)
MODERATOR REVIEW CORPS
658 reviewer rep
2,148 forum posts

 

 The two laws, though superficially seem in conflict, they however are not:

In the ADA state  "Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be [...] no form of mechanical transport" (emphasis added)

The law makes if quite plain

1>  By law, physically impaired or disabled person have the protected right to use service animals or mechanical assistance to access areas open to non-impaired persons. 

2> The Wilderness Act specifically states that it is subject to existing law and rights, therefore it cannot contravene or subvert those rights otherwise provided to impaired persons.

 

Rainier Don,

To be eligible, I believe you would be required to be declared/certified as being impaired. To avoid any problems would also likely have some form of Dr/medical declaration of necessity for your monocycle as an assistance device.

7:24 p.m. on July 1, 2011 (EDT)
TOP 10 REVIEWER REVIEW CORPS
3,325 reviewer rep
1,206 forum posts

So... The Wheel is banned from Wilderness?  Or just when used as a form of transport?  What If I use a trekking pole?  That is using levers (a simple machine) therefore a mechanical aid to transport.  I think a modified wheelbarrow is WELL within the bounds of wilderness.  I see it now, once we let in the WHEEL, its a small step to luxury resorts and monster truck racing. 

I'd use the damn thing.  No one in their right mind would ever write a ticket over that.  So that means you should not hike near Seattle.  But most other places should still be in-play. 

So which other simple machines are next?  Talk about a slippery inclined plane, I mean slope!  What next? The lever?  The Gear? The Inclined Plane?  I use inclined planes all the time as a form of transport whenever I climb a trail.  I agree that the wheel is no more un-wildernessy than any other simple machine. 

Darn, how will I ever manage the wilderness without these wonderful devices?

10:54 a.m. on July 2, 2011 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
580 forum posts

gonzan,

I believe your interpretation of the Wilderness Act is flawed. The clauses -

PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN USES
(c) Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights,

indicate that those owning or leasing land within the boundaries of a Wilderness area at the time of the act (1964) would retain their access rights as detailed in Section 5a

SECTION 5. (a) In any case where State-owned or privately owned land is completely surrounded by national forest lands within areas designated by this Act as wilderness, such State or private owner shall be given such rights as may be necessary to assure adequate access to such State-owned or privately owned land by such State or private owner and their successors in interest,...

The ADA, OTOH, is quite specific about wilderness access:

Sec. 12207. Federal wilderness areas

(a) Study

The National Council on Disability shall conduct a study and report on the effect that wilderness designations and wilderness land management practices have on the ability of individuals with disabilities to use and enjoy the National Wilderness Preservation System as established under the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).

(b) Submission of report

Not later than 1 year after July 26, 1990, the National Council on Disability shall submit the report required under subsection (a) of this section to Congress.

(c) Specific wilderness access

(1) In general

Congress reaffirms that nothing in the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) is to be construed as prohibiting the use of a wheelchair in a wilderness area by an individual whose disability requires use of a wheelchair, and consistent with the Wilderness Act no agency is required to provide any form of special treatment or accommodation, or to construct any facilities or modify any conditions of lands within a wilderness area in order to facilitate such use.

(2) "Wheelchair" defined

For purposes of paragraph (1), the term "wheelchair" means a device designed solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion, that is suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area.

The above clearly indicates that the only provision made for the disabled is to allow a wheelchair in wilderness areas, so long as that wheelchair is suitable for indoor use in a pedestrian area. This proviso prevents the use of fuel-driven vehicles that produce excessive noise and/or fumes but allows electric wheelchairs.

The poster's monocycle doesn't qualify as a wheelchair for two reasons - no chair and it is not designed solely for a mobility-impaired person for locomotion. The poster is not impaired in locomotion, he simply wishes to use one method of carrying something. There are other methods available to him.

So, the laws are not in conflict. The ADA planned for, and accommodated, a wilderness exemption, but made it quite specific.

The law is unambiguous - "No wheelie thing in the wilderness."

11:15 a.m. on July 2, 2011 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
580 forum posts

While the law is unambiguous, those who administer the law have been provided with a tool for determining what accommodations they may extend to individuals for wilderness access. The Wilderness Access Decision Tool - see http://www.wilderness.net/toolboxes/documents/accessibility/wild_access_decision_tool.pdf is, IMO, excellent, and negates the frequent mention in this thread of agency personnel making arbitrary decisions.

1:53 a.m. on July 4, 2011 (EDT)
6 reviewer rep
8 forum posts

Throw the baby out with the bath water.  Not sure exactly what that means.  Here another good one; Start down that road and it’s a slippery slope.  I guess that means that if one thing is wrong then everything associated with it is also wrong.  Maybe that makes decision a lot easier but isn’t that just being lazy?  What ever happened to common sense?  If regulators make an allowance for one thing that doesn’t open the window to every possibility.   Why not write a clear meaning to a ruling and not leave it open to so much debate.  If protecting the wilderness and the trails into them is their objective why not just state that.  How’s this for a rule on trail use.

 It is illegal to use any device other then human power to move or transport gear.  Anything that causes trail damage or user conflict can not be used. Trails are for use in an as is bases and no special design will become stand because of any group with special needs.  Thus not all trails will be suitable for all some may be gentle and smooth, other steep and rugged thus is the nature of back country travel.

Oh gee that would make using horse illegal we might have to modify it for that special group.

Now in defense of the one wheel pack idea let’s look at some of the positive angels.  The wheel would keep people on the trail because that’s were it works best.  The idea of carry things out (garbage) would not be a weight issue.  So just maybe that would encourage more people to do so.  Young children to small to walk the distance or carry a back could learn to enjoy and protect our wildernesses by being expose to them.  How you say?  Dad or mom could push the one wheel pack out in front of them and when Jr. gets too tired to walk, into the child carrier on the adults back they go.

12:37 p.m. on July 4, 2011 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
580 forum posts

Don't forget "The thin end of the wedge" or, my personal favorite, "The nose of the camel." Don't let the nose of the camel into the tent or soon you will have the whole camel.

These are axioms precisely because, in many instances, they are true. In the U.S. courts, precedence is the byword. If your one-wheel device is allowed, even though you are not disabled and alternate methods of carrying are available, then the precedence is set. The next person who requests the use of a game cart for hauling out deer cannot be denied - precedence has been set. Then it is mountain bikes...

Yes, you want what you want. However, if you value a true wilderness setting you will make a small sacrifice and hump the load as others do; though without weight on your shoulders. You can still use your wheel in areas where it is legal.

9:51 a.m. on July 5, 2011 (EDT)
MODERATOR REVIEW CORPS
658 reviewer rep
2,148 forum posts

OVM,

You are correct, it is clear I misinterpreted what that section was defining.  I should have read the whole act and related statutes, and appreciate your posting them.

10:22 a.m. on July 5, 2011 (EDT)
6 reviewer rep
8 forum posts

Here's a precedence for you. Man by his proven nature is destructive so if we let one man in the wilderness then other will follow. So maybe to protect them we should band humans. You failed to answer any of my questions what's wrong with writing a law that is protective and easy to understand. Oh and what about the horses if we let one horse in the next thing you know we will be plowing the meadows. Discrimination is what we have going on now the weak,injured, health issues and many of the old are told to stay out. So please if you can't come up with a better argument your wasting this forms time. All I want is honest and open debate.

12:51 p.m. on July 5, 2011 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
580 forum posts

ranierdon,

Did you read the laws - the wilderness act, the ADA, as well as the toolkit for determining what is permissible? They are all linked in the thread.

Laws are written to be as clear and concise as possible. There is substantive due process, a legal requirement that a law cannot be so difficult or unambiguous as to be "void by vagueness." If you can find that above, you can demand the laws be stricken as un-Constitutional - of course you must be arrested first. :)

I have answered your questions but not your kvetching. Many things are unfair in this world but perhaps the worst is what has become known as "the tyranny of the minority." A few examples:

  • A ten-year old child has severe emotional problems and is considered a potential physical threat to others as well as distracted with his screaming. However, his mother doesn't want him to be excluded from the mainstream classes, so she insists that the child be in a classroom with 25 other children, most of whom are not so handicapped. The result is that for at least one hour a day the child's tantrums and chair throwing require the teacher to withdraw the class from the room while a publicly-funded individual aide tries to calm the boy. Twenty-five students have their education impaired at - considerable additional public cost - because of the mother's demands.
  • One disabled person in a city in ME decides that the system of individual vans to carry wheel-chair bound people wherever, whenever, they wish to go in the city is discriminatory. She insists that all public buses have wheel-chair lifts installed so that she can take any of the buses. The result of the suit: wheel-chair lifts were installed on all buses; however the cost was so great that they had to halt the van service. Now a wheel-chair bound person must struggle a city block through the snow to catch a bus, instead of being able to call a van service (free to them) and have an attendant come to the door and help him/her to the van.
  • or the golfer with the bad foot who insisted in playing in the professional league rather than the disabled league. He won the suit and was allowed to drive in a golf-cart from hole to hole; meanwhile the other golfers had to continue to obey the league rule and walk the course through the heat. Quite an advantage, eh?

I'm sure we could continue the list; however, it is not necessary. In each of the three cases above, the majority suffered as a consequence of the selfish petulance of a minority. Sure, I can understand the desire of the mother to have her son treated as "normal" (I dislike that word); the wheel-chair plaintiff wanted the same thing; and the golfer wanted to not be excluded (just as you wish to not be excluded). And in each case the damage they caused others, and sometimes themselves, far exceeded any "good" provided.

If you can read those aforementioned laws and toolkit, and find glaring inequities, point them out. Give us chapter and verse. Otherwise, you have no valid argument.

4:40 p.m. on July 5, 2011 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
1,236 forum posts

@ overmywaders

Thanks for theThe Wilderness Access Decision Tool link (above) regarding the wilderness act of 1964.  

After reading and then having a couple of days to think about what it is says and re-reading it again after that, a couple of things become clear.  First,  nothing, and, I mean nothing that has a wheel on it that might be considerd a vechical will be allowed into areas coved by the Wilderness act.  I belive this is two fold, there is the theroy that if you let one person do it everyone else will try and claim foul when they were not allowed, and this would probably happen to some degree.  Second, If the rangers on the ground were allowed to approve or disapprove a cart then there would be alot of people allowed to use their cart who should not be allowed, conversely, alot of people who should be allowed to use their cart who would not be allowed, as no matter how you try interpret a directive, 10 differnt people (rangers) will make ten different decisions.   If this were to happen then rangers would have to take alot of time for this and would not  be able to attend to their regular job duties.  The other thing that becomes clear is that there is an avenue whereby a person can get an excemption.  As I'm sure there have been many, many excemptionts applied for, a few examples were shown in the "The Wilderness Access Decision Tool" to show us their decisision making process in regard to approving and disapproving the use of special devices regarding disabled people.

@ RainierDon  I would hope that if you are a person with a disability and have the medical proof that that says that you cannot use the trails/lands that are provided to the rest of use without the use of your one wheeled cart that you apply for an excemption.  If an excemption is not provided then you may find relief in the courts but that would take alot of time and money.  If it were up to me I would say yes, however it is not up to me and in fact I have no say in it, that is just my opinion.

Last I leave you with this warning.  If the striker "wheel" gets stuck on your lighter, do not turn it over and try to free it up by rolling it on a rock on the ground.  If the "wheel" touches the ground you would by definition have a vechical in the backountry being used to transport a flamable material.  ;-}>.

Thanks all for providing lively debate and thanks to all for keeping it civil.  I actually learned alot that I did not know before this topic came up.

July 29, 2014
Quick Reply

Please sign in to reply

 
More Topics
This forum: Older: Skiing tragedy in Norway, four supposed dead Newer: ExxonMobil pipe leaks oil into Yellowstone River in US
All forums: Older: crestridge internal frame pack? Newer: The Best Jacket Ever