## Letter to New Hampshire dept of Travel & Tourism, September 2018
## sent to Victoria Cimino, director at the time, as an escalation
##
http://www.visitnh.gov/industry-members/about-us/staff-directory/
I have an issue that Ms. Codispoti would normally handle, but I am told she's on vacation this week so I assume that escalating to you may bring a better response. It also seems appropriate to make you aware of the situation anyway. I'm not sure if phone or email is better for you, but here I can sort of state my case in an organized way. Your voicemail box was full, by the way, so between that and Ryan's delayed notice of Jenn's absence it's been a little frustrating trying to reach someone there who can speak to my problem. [He also suggested using email, by the way.] I live near Boston but was up around Lincoln over last weekend, and had a great time doing some climbing in that area. I tackled Mt. Moosilauke, which I remembered from a trip over a decade ago and it was nice to refresh my memory of that place. On my drive up I happened to swing into the Canterbury "welcome center", and found something upsettingly UNwelcoming at that location. Out front are at least TWO large, obnoxious signs that try to dictate to visitors' attire and appearance, particularly with regard to footwear. I submit to you that this is nothing but discrimination, and is totally out of line with the goals of your department. It is based entirely on old social myth, which has never actually been true. I avoid wearing shoes, for health reasons among others, and a growing [albeit slowly] segment of the population adopts similar practice. It is a personal choice, same as anyone who avoids smoking/drinking or certain foods or whatever, and there is nothing wrong with it as it harms nothing and no one. For an example of enjoying the health benefits of being naturally unshod, you have only to read my writeup of my Moosilauke trip: http://techno-fandom.org/~hobbit/pix/moos1809/ So I hope you can see the complete illogic of being told to put on footwear for a quick walk into a well-maintained building. You probably are already aware that there are NO laws, regulations, health codes, or whatever against being barefoot, and for such signs to be so blatantly visible only reinforces the long-standing but 100% wrong social meme that it's somehow bad. Knowledge of the actual truth is slowly spreading, however, and if you search for phrases like "barefoot hiking" you can easily see for yourself. You do yourselves and the motoring public a total disservice by letting this sort of obstacle mar your otherwise welcoming facility. It is exactly equivalent to your center staff telling random visitors something like "you're too ugly, you can't come in here". How would you feel being greeted in such a fashion? Are they going to turn away bikers with head-to-foot tattoos, for example? Or overweight travelers? While it wasn't the staff itself at Canterbury trying to impede my entry and they were kind enough to provide contact information for your department, they should not be supporting this kind of misinformation. These are state-run public accomodations, and as such it's not even clear that they *can* discriminate in this arbitrary manner. There are people in this world who *have* to avoid wearing shoes for explicit medical reasons, and five minutes on the internet can find you ample proof. Thus, trying to force anyone into footwear for the sole purpose of entering a structure may very well be an ADA violation. Assuming you're in Concord with all the other government offices, just walk down the hall and ask your very own health departments and legal counsel about this. Examine the many letters from state health and agriculture offices hosted at barefooters.org as another example. There is no legal or rational basis for having these signs up, and never has been. What I discovered is not even consistent. On my way home I also stopped at the Sanbornton facility, all of what, six miles away from Canterbury? and not only were there no such signs posted, but I had a great conversation with the desk person there who completely understands the benefits of going barefoot and the illogic of trying to dictate against it. I found and reviewed some of your documents from 2015 or so when you were inviting public comment on rest-area improvements and changes. One set of slides showed a picture of the Sutton area, with another unwelcoming sign out front but worded in a different way. Wherever these have been coming from, it seems driven by some arbitrary personal decisions, probably by someone(s) with some kind of weird hangup about feet. It is inappropriate for them to bring that into their public workplace, worse yet misrepresented under any guise of "authority". Honestly, I thought New Hampshire was smarter than this. "Live free or die"? But you must do it with shoes on even if they're completely unnecessary and often harmful? Nonsense. Another aspect the documents mentioned is that New Hampshire's economy is heavily dependent on tourism, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to jeopardize the smooth and effective implementation of that. Those signs should be permanently removed, across the entire state, and the staff at the welcome centers educated in cheerful acceptance of their visitors' healthy lifestyle choices. Thank you for prompt attention to this, and please don't hesitate to ask for more information if needed. _H*