Erik Schultz’s piece about his tragic fall,
which left him a paraplegic and unable to savor the wilderness,
makes a (HCN, 12/12/05: Wheelchairs and wilderness can coexist).
Why? If it’s a choice between personal satisfaction and
wilderness protection, we must choose wilderness.
Bob
Marshall, Ed Abbey, Aldo Leopold — all considered
mechanization of wild nature anathema to the wilderness. If
government policy makes an exception for Erik Schultz, then it
should make an exception for me because I am old and can no longer
walk unassisted. Though I had no great injury to take me out of
up-close wilderness enjoyment, I have lost my “wheels” to aging and
a suspect circulatory system.
But though I can no longer
walk well enough for a wilderness experience, I still want strict
rules about motorized (even electrified) rigs.
More
exceptions for the handicapped, the aged, the culturally and
socially impaired, the inner city and golden oldie busloads —
it’s too much and will lead to further fragmentation of the
wilderness. The wilderness is more important than me and my wants.
It belongs to the ages.
So let those of us who are no
longer physically able to get within the wilderness itself, learn
to appreciate it anyway, way off in the purple distance, properly
untouchable.
It has meaning and values apart from the
desires of man.
David
Tillotson
Lakemills, Wisconsin
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Seniors reject more wilderness access.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
