When former Salt Lake City resident John Galland, a paraplegic, explored the Wasatch forest areas of Utah and rafted the Colorado River, he didn't use a motorized wheelchair. He used a manual one.
"It's wiser to use a manual wheelchair because it's lighter," he said.For that reason, Galland believes motorized wheelchairs and vehicles are not needed to transport disabled people into wilderness areas. He also agrees with a Utah organization for the disabled and two others from out of state that oppose an amendment that would allow the use of wheelchairs in wilderness areas.
The House-approved amendment, sponsored by Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Utah, is part of the Americans with Disabilities Act, a civil rights bill protecting the disabled population. Galland and others feel the amendment contains vague language by failing to define the word "wheelchair." They fear it will be broadly interpreted or misconstrued to include use of recreation vehicles in wilderness areas.
"Who's to say that an all-terrain vehicle wouldn't be used by someone claiming it's a motorized wheelchair?" asked Carol Majeske, director of Special Populations Learning Outdoor Recreation Education, a privately funded Utah organization that takes disabled people outdoors. "We don't even take motorized wheelchairs on our trips because they are pretty heavy and big and would get wet," she said.
In agreement is Greg Lais, director of Minneapolis-based Wilderness Inquiry, and David Espeseth, executive director of SOAR of Portland, Ore., a conglomeration of non-profit groups that takes disabled people on outdoor adventures.
From Lais' experience, electrical wheelchairs are "virtually impossible to deal with in those settings," so the disabled often are carried piggy-back.
However, Rick Guldan, Hansen's legislative press secretary, said, "Their concerns are unfounded. We do not want internal combustion engines in the wilderness areas any more than they do."
To dispel fears, Guldan said the term "wheelchair" was defined as "a medical device, a conventional type of wheelchair, either a wheelchair with an electric motor or a mechanically driven or physically driven type of wheelchair," by Rep. Bruce Vento, D-Minn., chairman of the House national parks subcommittee.
"We're not undermining the wilderness experience," Guldan said, "but extending it to the handicapped."
Yet Lais is not appeased. He wants a further definition in the amendment. Espeseth agrees. "If they modified `wheelchair' with the word `manual' or `non-motorized,' it would clear up the source of controversy," he said.
However, Guldan said, it isn't necessary because Vento's definition is in reports and congressional records. If a case came to court, the reports would clarify the language of the amendment.
Another solution for Lais and Majeske is having the National Council on Disabilities study the issue with disabled people.
"We're really glad the issue is receiving the attention that it is, but we want to make sure that it's treated to the depth that it deserves and not brushed off with some surface treatment," Lais said.
However, not all groups oppose the clause. Supporters of the amendment include Charles Doane, chairman of the Utah Board of the Division of Services to the Handicapped; Meechi White, director of Park City's Handicapped Sports; Sherry L. Repscher, director of Utah Governor's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities; the National Council on the Handicapped; Ministry of Concern for Public Health; National Rehabilitation Association; and the Disabled American Veterans.