Kurt's Polaris vs Jon Tester

The new Wilderness bill by Jon Tester is receiving a backlash, pushing for calls to congressmen by Kurt's Polaris.

Why? If I understand correctly, a loss of access. I am not sure of the acreage discussed though I was under the impression Tester has the intent of opening acreage for multi use type opportunities for motorized vehicles and an additional area for mtn cycling while enhancing the Wilderness area.

/mini rant:
I am NOT a fan of the Wilderness Act from a disability standpoint and anyone that looks at another American and says you can not enter is pretty much a flat out discrimination issue from my thoughts though it somehow an exception to the rule - how it is currently viewed... Maybe one day a disabled person will manage to push this up the courts though until then...
Anyhow, the reason I bring this up is, content on Kurt's Polaris Facebook references the discrimination of disabled mobility into the Wilderness - may be through comments though it does touch an ongoing nerve within my own anti discrimination beliefs.
/End min rant.

I want Wilderness that is untouched by motorized / wheeled type use (less a disability necessity). I also want to make sure there is a mutual appreciation for mechanized use land as well. It seems that is what Tester is proposing though it is not how Kurt's Polaris views Tester's idea.

Anyone know more about it?

reference material: <edit: wrong link. - Work does not enable Facebook, least from this computer. I can not link Kurt's Polaris FB on this topic. Oops... maybe someone will.>
Reference to Tester's bill: http://missoulian.com/news/local/te...cle_1048b78b-9bf9-5396-850d-8cfa39ebf54f.html

My understanding is the Blackfoot-Clearwater Stewardship Acts recognizes key snowmobile areas and legally protects snowmobilers' freedom to use it. Now some folks will be just knee-jerk anti-snowmobile, and some folks will be knee-jerk anti-Wilderness, while other folks will be knee-jerk anti-logging. But from where I sit, this looks like a pretty sensible attempt to bring reasonable folks together for a solution. That seems something to support to me.

I don't know who Kurt is, but he should have bought a Yamaha

Seems like a lot of folks from Montana have been at the table for this and are supporting it.

I know Kurt and I live in Seeley Lake. The bill does not take any areas from snowmobilers that are not already closed to riding. It does make those areas wilderness under the bill. It also opens several thousand acres to snowmobiles that is currently closed to them. It also adds some areas for mountain bike access. The bill also supports the timber industry and in particular Pyramid Lumber in Seeley Lake. Kurt had supported the bill on several different occasions then changed his mind again according to several people that attended meetings where he was present.
My personal belief is this bill gives something to all party's but not everything to one group over another. Personally I support it. It's not perfect but it works for everyone involved. It also has created a situation where all groups can get together and work together and come to a positive solution.
Anyway that's my thoughts on the issue.
Dan

That is how I viewed it though figured maybe there was something missing... as typical within politics. It does openly present an ongoing issue with opposition, the fervor gathering over an impression it is adverse to the outdoor community. Naïve considerations by those willing to follow along without the time or interest to evaluate for ones self.

It's impressive to find mutual value with such a varied spectrum of interest especially considering the heat generated over the whole Wilderness Act, public land and interest to transfer to states. Kudos to Tester and Daines and those involved in the value presented.

Sytes said:

/mini rant:
I want Wilderness that is untouched by motorized / wheeled type use (less a disability necessity). I also want to make sure there is a mutual appreciation for mechanized use land as well. It seems that is what Tester is proposing though it is not how Kurt's Polaris views Tester's idea.

Click to expand...

I must disagree with you on this. Should we start paving access into wilderness areas to make them accessable? I think not! Is there going to be a guard to keep out anyone who is not disabled?
There are plenty of areas that are accessable to people with disabilities without ruining a wilderness area.

Many are confused by the American Disabilities Act (ADA), thinking that the access discrimination which by the act requires certain design and construction features for handicapped access to buildings and facilities (particularly those public), implies a level of discrimination just the same as discrimination based on religion, age, sex, or color, which meets strict legal definitions and requirements. The two types of discrimination are very different. To argue that disabled persons are discriminated against because they cannot easily access the Chinese Wall in the Bob Marshall Wilderness area, and thus there should be paved wheel-chair accessible trails to that destination, is akin to arguing that due to my vertically-challenged physical condition, I cannot dunk the basketball, so I am discriminated against ... therefore the basketball rim should be lowered from ten feet to eight feet by regulation to mitigate the "discrimination" against my physically handicapped height.

I do not support any form of construction to facilitate within the Wilderness. After all, the Wilderness Act is set for this purpose.

However, the Wilderness Act came before the ADA thus there is no mention of disability protections within the Wilderness Act.

My two coppers on this... Nothing should be constructed beyond that which is constructed for wilderness transport... i.e. bridge, drainage, etc. There is opportunity to for an individual to use forms of outdoor wheelchair transport designed type tools for the disabled. Edit added: This differs between USFS Wilderness and NPS Wilderness, surprisingly. Actually, I am still not sure about the electric... One section says electric is not permissible, another section specifies ALL USFS is available to electric...

I'll share my personal example as shared in a response PM to another here. Nice enough inquiry and I appreciate his interest.

Sytes via PM said:

I broke my neck March 2012 in an ATV accident on my property. I was a quadriplegic and inpatient in Missoula for 4 months. About 2 - 3 weeks, I was able to move my toes and from then on with great support (from here as well) I am back up and going. It has been 5 years since and I am back at work as a <edited>. About 75-80% of my prior abilities.
During this time frame, the first and second season, I wanted to get into the Wilderness... More as a personal testament to myself that I was recovering. I called, then sent a letter and was formally denied the use of my game cart to help me bring my gear into the wilderness as I was very weak and have constant nerve, with frequent surges of nerve pain throughout my body and a tightening of my upper chest. My nerves are damaged.

I was refused. I was not seeking anything electric, nor an atv, nor a road... I wanted a letter authorizing the use of a manual game cart to haul my backpack weighted gear in and out and for getting game out.

This opened my eyes to a protected federal law against disability discrimination that was openly discriminating against my disability BY the federal government.

Anyhow, that is it.

Click to expand...

This is from the National Council on Disability:

The Wilderness Act was written before the rights of people with disabilities were part of the national debate. Not surprisingly, there is no mention of people with disabilities in the Act. Over time, as people with disabilities began to use the wilderness, the question was raised whether a wheelchair is a mechanical device and therefore prohibited from the NWPS. The four federal agencies responsible for managing the NWPS have responded differently to this question.

In 1990 Congress passed the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA gives civil rights protection to individuals with disabilities similar to those provided to individuals on the basis of race, sex, national origin, and religion. Among other issues, the ADA addresses specific wilderness access in Section 507(c):


(1) In General--Congress reaffirms that nothing in the Wilderness Act 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 to facilitate such use.

Click to expand...

I find it incredibly interesting that "Congress reaffirms that nothing in the Wilderness Act is to be construed as prohibiting the use of a wheelchair in a wilderness area..."

YET, I was denied the use of a simple game cart to aid with the disability I shared at that time. After the first season I've not applied for disability "handicap" hunting tags in MT as I feel I can manage contrary to my docs opinion. Beyond reproach is my intent to keep from any perspective of abusing any disabled opportunities.

Ya... sure, such would be abused... This is the case in any situation however my contention is you don't chop the damn tree down because of a few bad apples.

I appreciate the dialogue on this topic and respect your opinions. I am far from looking for handouts or what have ya and can handle the nay-sayers... however having been in a spot where I really wanted to find that main value, the outdoors, within that time of my life - and nothing more powerful than the Wilderness for myself, I faced a, "road closed" sign and, in my opinion, that was not right.

References:
https://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/pr...the definition of a wheelchair on the NFS.htm
http://www.ncd.gov/publications/1992/December1992#9

Thanks, Sytes, for the good information and great perspective. I have no argument with that whatsoever.

Sytes said:

I appreciate the dialogue on this topic and respect your opinions. I am far from looking for handouts or what have ya and can handle the nay-sayers... however having been in a spot where I really wanted to find that main value, the outdoors, within that time of my life - and nothing more powerful than the Wilderness for myself, I faced a, "road closed" sign and, in my opinion, that was not right.

Click to expand...

It's also "not right" that Staight Arrow can't dunk a basketball, neither can I so while I don't want the game of basketball changed they should lower the basket for us so we can have equal access to dunking the ball.
Sorry but wilderness needs to stay wilderness with road closed signs.

Gr8bawana said:

[/B]

It's also "not right" that Staight Arrow can't dunk a basketball, neither can I so while I don't want the game of basketball changed they should lower the basket for us so we can have equal access to dunking the ball.
Sorry but wilderness needs to stay wilderness with road closed signs.

Click to expand...

The "road closed" sign was an analogy. I should have made that clear. The lack of discretion, which they are permitted, to permit the use of a game cart was a "road closed" for me to proceed.

Brick Walls Are There for a Reason

Whether in our careers or romantic lives, we all come upon roadblocks and seemingly insurmountable walls. “But the brick walls aren’t there to keep us out,” Randy said. “The brick walls are there to stop the people who don’t want it badly enough. They’re there to stop the other people.”

Click to expand...

I saw this quote and have found that it is true with just about everything we do in life...no matter what road blocks we may find...albeit some are much more difficult to overcome than others.

I bet I could guess what Kurt thought of the Quiet Waters Initiative.

While I can definitely see the concern from those with disabilities with the lack of accommodating access, the argument for it is stained by the sheer amount of "more roads" advocates bringing out the old and infirm as an excuse to plow into wilderness. From the sound of it, Kurt is doing just that.

Jim Posewitz has spoken about this much more eloquently that I have could, so I will leave it at that.

Interesting side thread on disabilities in wilderness. It's become more personal to me as my son has developed a severe disability. I do not think Wilderness Areas and disabilities are at all mutually exclusive. I've taken my son backpacking, knowing I could only go in as far as I could carry him out, if emergency arose. We can also access our local Wilderness by canoe, which we do now that he is older and bigger. One time I hiked across Glacier Park (which is managed as Wilderness) with a guy who lost a leg in a construction accident. Also, Idaho's new Boulder-White Cloud Wilderness converts an old mining road specifically into a wheel-chair accessible route leading to an alpine lake. So I think there is a lot of grey area in this argument which is often made in black-and-white terms.

MattK said:

I saw this quote and have found that it is true with just about everything we do in life...no matter what road blocks we may find...albeit some are much more difficult to overcome than others.

Click to expand...

Yes. I also felt that way and still do as far as it advances people ability to overcome. It is a great quote though once I found myself unable to access a part of America specifically managed by the same govt that prohibits disability discrimination, I wanted my access to my public lands as well... it's a shoe on the other foot analogy...
I no longer need mechanical assists so I may enjoy my "Federally protected" Wilderness though I now understand that analogy.
The quote is valuable. It pushes people beyond their thoughts of what can be accomplished. Been there, done that from where I was to where I am.
However, this is our public land.

Ben, that is amazing! Ever written a piece on something of this sort?