WhiteBlaze Pages 2024
A Complete Appalachian Trail Guidebook.
AVAILABLE NOW. $4 for interactive PDF(smartphone version)
Read more here WhiteBlaze Pages Store

Page 3 of 42 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 832
  1. #41

    Default

    Well written letter detailing obviously legitimate concerns that can not be increasingly discounted, ignored, or absorbed. Registered AT thru-hiker numbers provided by BSP detail some exponentially steep increases sometimes in rather short time frames. WOW, in the eight yrs since I did a AT NOBO thru registered NOBOers increased from 500 in 2006 to 901 in 2014.

  2. #42
    imscotty's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-13-2011
    Location
    North Reading, MA
    Age
    64
    Posts
    1,271
    Images
    7

    Default

    I think that Just Bill's suggestion of moving the start of the AT to Amicalola State Park where resources exist to better educate and manage hikers was an excellent one. Honestly, I do not think that 50 respectful LNT hikers heading North a day would be more than the trail could handle. The problems develop when large groups bunch together and from the ignorance or willful misbehavior of a minority. I think that a program of education and restrained enforcement by caretakers/ ridge runners at the start of the trail would go a long way to alleviating some of these issues.

    Hiker Feeds: I know that this subject has been beat to death, but I am becoming increasingly convinced that this kind of 'Trail Magic' does not benefit the trail community. Just like feeding the bears creates 'nuisance animals' and ultimately does them great harm, I fear that feeding some hikers keeps some 'nuisance hikers' on the trail that otherwise would have gone home.

    Baxter State Park has their own agenda and the entire hiking community needs to do what they can to address their concerns. It is difficult to imagine an AT that did not end at the peak of Katahdin, but something needs to be done to help move the celebratory party off the summit.

  3. #43
    Registered User
    Join Date
    11-13-2009
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Age
    70
    Posts
    2,552

    Default

    I could see that an AT permit be required. An online LNT and hiker etiquette etc. online course required. Also available at nell's gap Amicalola Falls, and a few other choice places. A small fee could fund more shelters and replacing some bad ones, and other needs.
    Baxter might tell the offenders at 1am , or whatever, to shut up or lave the park immediately, and enforce it, and put those people on a no summit list.
    Word would get around fast to not mess around in Baxter. Sounds like Baxter needs some sort of public phone service.

  4. #44
    ME => GA 19AT3 rickb's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-12-2002
    Location
    Marlboro, MA
    Posts
    7,145
    Journal Entries
    1
    Images
    1

    Default

    Question:

    The letter states that BSP is the controlling authority over the AT within he park. I get that.

    The letter further states that 15 mile section of the AT within the boundaries of the park has "NO FEDERAL DESIGNATION."

    I don't get that.

    I always thought the northern terminus of the AT was explicitly defined as Katahdin in the National Scenic Trails Act.

    I don't want to get into hair splitting on that, but since the Seperintendent felt that important enough to include in his letter I was curious.

    Is it possible the official, federally designated, Trail ends 15 miles short of Katahdin?

  5. #45

    Default

    "Maine could still enjoy the park by doing so ON FOOT. Everyone is allowed to enter but just on foot."

    I guess Tipi just can not fundamentally understand that Baxter was very specific about what could and could be done in the park for perpetuity. His vision may not line up with current thinking but he bought the land and made the rules. His vision was the post war family car camping concept and wanted to keep car camping as the main use of the park. The long term head ranger with a lot of credibility, Buzz Caverly near the end of his term tried to implement a concept of closing the roaring brook road and turning it into a walk in only campground, there was a major uproar and he was vilified by many folks. He retired soon afterwards.

    Dogwood missed the point of my National Park comment. The proposed park is east of BSP in the former industrial low land forest lands. It may have its charms but all the really interesting high terrain is in the park. BSP is unable to expand or modify itself to accommodate visitors from the east so anyone staying in the new national park will need to drive south or north to the park gate as a day visitor. Baxter already limits day use at the most popular trailheads and I expect that these restrictions would be expanded if the National Park was built.

    I have been going on and off to BSP for at least 45 years, and the impacts of the limited auto traffic haven't been real obvious to me. The speeds are low as the roads are intentionally maintained that most wouldn't want to go any faster and the canopy is tight to the edges of the road so noise doesn't carry very far. Unfortunately, the road impact at the locations that AT hikers tend to visit like the Birchses, Abol and KSC is am impact. There is a new plan to slowly expand back country opportunities to allow multiday trips with loops (which is very limited today) so they are heading in the direction away from car camping but given the limitations of the deeds of trust, I don't see a major change in the management.

  6. #46
    ME => GA 19AT3 rickb's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-12-2002
    Location
    Marlboro, MA
    Posts
    7,145
    Journal Entries
    1
    Images
    1

    Default

    Baxter State Park Purpose
    12 MSRA Pt. 2; c. 211; sub-c. 3; §900
    (All quotations are directly from the letters and deeds submitted to the State of Maine by Percival P. Baxter during his lifetime.)

    Seldom has a more generous gift been presented to a people than has been given by Percival Proctor Baxter to the people of the State of Maine. It is incumbent upon them, the recipients, to preserve the trust impressed upon them, to ensure for themselves and for future generations the fullest use of Baxter State Park consistent with the desires of the donor.

    Governor Baxter's expressed desires were that this park "shall forever be retained and used for state forest, public park and public recreational purposes ... shall forever be kept and remain in the natural wild state ... shall forever be kept and remain as a sanctuary for beasts and birds."

    Lest those that follow, uncertain of Governor Baxter's wishes, seek to define his desires in ways inharmonious with their original intent, this section is enacted.

    It shall be the object of the Baxter State Park Authority to preserve the grandeur and beauty of Maine's highest peak, Mount Katahdin, as well as the 45 other mountains, the numerous lakes, ponds and streams; to subordinate its own wishes to the intent of Governor Baxter; to recognize his wish that, in this era of change, one thing of natural beauty remain constant.

    This intent must be interpreted so as not to separate this park from the people to whom it was given; but rather seek to have it enjoyed and "used to the fullest extent but in the right unspoiled manner."

    As a public forest it shall remain in its natural wild state and when "the Forests of our State have been cut off and disappeared, when civilization has encroached upon the land we now refer to as 'Wild Land,' this park will give the people of succeeding generations a living example of what the State of Maine was 'in the good old days' before the song of the woodsman's axe and the whine of the power saw was heard in the land."

    As a public park and a place of recreation, it is apparent that it is intended for "those persons who enjoy the wilderness" and that the repeated use of the word "recreation" refers to the use of this park compatible with its natural state as a wilderness area and an expanse "for those who love nature and who are willing to walk and make an effort to get close to nature ... with pleasant foot-trails built and attractive camp-sites laid out in the valleys, by the brooks, and on the shores of the water."

    As a tract kept in its "natural wild state," it is intended that "everything in connection with the park must be left simple and natural and must remain as nearly as possible as it was when only the Indians and the animals roamed at will through these areas ..." Access to the park shall be provided only "as may be necessary to accommodate those persons who wish to enjoy the great unspoiled area that now is the property of our State ..."

    As a "sanctuary for beasts and birds" it shall be forever a "sanctuary and home for the creatures of the wild," and as refuge "against hunting, trapping and killing" where "hunting with cameras will take the place of hunting with guns."

    While this area bears the name park, it is not to be confused with the existing state park system and is to "be separately administered free from any connection with the larger State Park Commission." (Bureau of Parks and Lands) That system, purchased with the funds of the people, must change from time to time to accommodate changing circumstances and the varying desires of its proprietors; not so, Baxter State Park, purchased by the generosity of one man, richly endowed, and presented to the people with specific stipulations.

    "While I am living I fear no encroachments on the park, but as time passes and new men appear upon the scene, there may be a tendency to overlook these restrictions and thus break the spirit of these gifts."

    Solemnly cognizant of the responsibility, it shall always be the purpose of the authority to satisfy the terms of the Trust.

    https://www.mainememory.net/artifact/9357

    Last edited by rickb; 12-13-2014 at 09:03. Reason: add link

  7. #47
    Registered User
    Join Date
    02-04-2013
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    4,316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by imscotty View Post
    I think that Just Bill's suggestion of moving the start of the AT to Amicalola State Park where resources exist to better educate and manage hikers was an excellent one. Honestly, I do not think that 50 respectful LNT hikers heading North a day would be more than the trail could handle. The problems develop when large groups bunch together and from the ignorance or willful misbehavior of a minority...
    If we look at how the JMT is managed, both the total number of people starting on a given day AND limits on group size are enforced in a way that appears to be sustainable. In addition, the first night camping area is usually limited in some way on the permit. Having ten groups of five people is going to have much less impact that two groups of 25 people.

    As for Katahdin, maybe Baxter State Park should implement a permit system for summiting much like the Mt Whitney permit system. AT Thru hikers would receive a Katahdin stamp as part of their permit subject to certain limitations on timing and group size and with the understanding that failing to comply will result in immediate removal from the park and a prohibition against attempting the summit for a calendar year. Alcohol and drugs on the summit would result in some meaningful fine. Something tells me that the idiots making a scene on the summit would be deterred by that since being kicked out prior to the summit would mean that they haven't thru hiked the AT. Think about the incentive effect of having that consequence for misbehavior after having hiked 2000+ miles in pursuit of a goal. It would put even 90+% of idiots on their best behavior. And parties on the summit would be deterred by the fine given that many hikers are quite broke by the end of their hike.

    The problems don't seem as insurmountable as many appear to believe.

  8. #48
    Clueless Weekender
    Join Date
    04-10-2011
    Location
    Niskayuna, New York
    Age
    68
    Posts
    3,879
    Journal Entries
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rickb View Post
    Is it possible the official, federally designated, Trail ends 15 miles short of Katahdin?
    The Federally designated trail ends at Katahdin.

    That doesn't mean that the Federal government owns the land. It doesn't.

    The trail is operated under a cooperative agreement between the Department of the Interior and the State of Maine. I don't know the full terms of the agreement. The letter is strongly hinting that Uncle Sam isn't holding up his side of the bargain.

    All that the National Scenic Trails Act says about the route of the trail (other than that it runs from Springer to Katahdin) is that "as far as is practicable" it should follow the 1967 proposal. It's entirely possible that Maine never consented to a formal designation of the route and has merely acceded to allowing hikers along it. I say this in ignorance of the actual terms of the agreement, of course. Given the terms of Baxter's legacy, I suspect that Maine insisted on a great deal of control.

    And for the Federal government to condemn State land - or even condemn an easement on it - would be a Big Deal, legally. The Supreme Court has held that the Federal government does have that power (United States v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230 (1946)), and a 2012 appellate decision has held that a Federal taking extinguishes public trust rights in the land (United States v. 32.42 Acres of Land, 683 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir. 2012)). For the Federal government to condemn the extinction of a public trust would likely negate the terms of Baxter's will. Nevertheless, for a case of this prominence, actually exercising the power would be a matter of many years of litigation, legislation, and grandstanding in all three branches of government. Believe me, we don't want to go there.
    I always know where I am. I'm right here.

  9. #49

    Default

    Is it likely State Police would be called out to the next booze and drugs "celebration" at the summit of Katahdin, in the state park? I mean, the sense of "entitlement" seems to rule, here, for far too many AT hikers. Sneak around GSNP rules, etal.

  10. #50
    Registered User DavidNH's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-02-2005
    Location
    Concord, NH
    Age
    61
    Posts
    2,050

    Default

    The best thing about the Appalachian Trail is the people. The worst thing about the Appalachian Trail is the people.


    At best, AT hikers are guests in BSP (and thank you to Bamboo Bob for setting someone straight about this) and are entitled to absolutely nothing beyond an overnight stay at the Birches. Those who would stealth in the park deserve to be escorted out .. regardless of time of night.

  11. #51

    Default

    The National Scenic Trails Act was passed while Baxter was still living. My opinion is he would have had some objection or other noted statement if there was some issue with the terms. He knew the trail was there. Major relocations are required in the Act to be approved by the Sec. of the Interior. While I most certainly understand the frustration BSP has with thruhiker behavior, the suggestion of the nuclear option of moving the terminus is not the appropriate way to ameliorate the situation. The letter was sent to his counterparts at the ATC and the Appalachian Trail Park Office and was not as tactful as might be expected to be sent to an agency partner.
    "Sleepy alligator in the noonday sun
    Sleepin by the river just like he usually done
    Call for his whisky
    He can call for his tea
    Call all he wanta but he can't call me..."
    Robert Hunter & Ron McKernan

    Whiteblaze.net User Agreement.

  12. #52
    ME => GA 19AT3 rickb's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-12-2002
    Location
    Marlboro, MA
    Posts
    7,145
    Journal Entries
    1
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alligator View Post
    While I most certainly understand the frustration BSP has with thruhiker behavior, the suggestion of the nuclear option of moving the terminus is not the appropriate way to ameliorate the situation. The letter was sent to his counterparts at the ATC and the Appalachian Trail Park Office and was not as tactful as might be expected to be sent to an agency partner.
    The letter explicitly states that the Trail in Baxter is NOT federally designated as part of the AT under the National Scenic Trails Act.

  13. #53

    Default

    By allowing the expectation that park employees will get on the radio and arrange for transportation and other types of communication they are bringing this on themselves...and I know what a headache it is because I've dealt with these kinds of situations before. All they have to do is tell hikers to make their arrangements before entering the park...either that or provide a means for them to make their own arrangements within the park for a fee.

  14. #54

    Default

    Here are two options for changing things in a way that would deal with some of the concerns of those who manage Baxter State Park. If ATC and Park personnel get together and decide it's in their interests to keep Katahdin as the northern terminus then they could try

    Option 1:

    Instead of routing the AT inside the park in the circuitous manner it is now, make a bee-line for the summit. From the park boundary, use the Blueberry Ledges Trail for half of its length, build a new mile-long connector trail from it to the Abol Campsite, then up the newly constructed Abol Trail (replacing the old Abol Slide Trail) to the summit -- and I assume building new trail does not violate Gov. Baxter's conditions since the park is already building new trail to replace Abol Slide.

    NOBOs could start their last day at Abol Pines Campsite or Abol Bridge Family Campground, just outside the park, then do around four miles of non-strenuous hiking to get to Abol Campsite, inside the park, then 4.2 difficult miles up to Baxter and another difficult 4.2 miles back. Vice versa for SOBOs. This would mean a 12 to 13 mile day (compared to the present 10.2 mile day up and down the Hunt Trail) with no overnight stay required. NOBOs and SOBOs who do have their acts together could reserve space for an overnight stay at Abol Campsite, but a summit could realistically be managed without it. The special setting-aside of overnight spaces for NOBO thru-hikers (current policy at the Birches) would be eliminated. No special accommodations for thru-hikers. If park personnel don't like vehicle traffic associated with thru-hikers, then thru-hikers can start and end their day (with 16 miles of hiking the last day) at Abol Bridge, and vehicles can use Golden Road to access it and never go inside the park. If 16 miles is too great a hardship, limited parking could be allowed at Abol Campsite for just overnight campers and approved shuttle drivers. Camping facilities near Abol Bridge would need to be beefed up, but the ATC has the money to do it if they make it a priority.

    If, on the other hand, ATC and Baxter State Park managers find their conflicting mandates just can't be squared then we can try

    Option 2:

    The trail could end, as bamboo bob suggests, at Abol Bridge. Again, facilities there would need to be improved (and maybe some nice but modest monument could be erected) and vehicles could access the location via Golden Road with no need to enter the park. There are lots of great trails in this country that don't use hard-to-access mountaintops as termini and maybe it's time for the AT to follow suit (and by the way, I like Just Bill's suggestion to have the southern terminus at Amicalola Visitor Center instead of Springer).

    Lots of good could come from moving these termini. The NOBO hiking season could be extended by a couple weeks since October weather in Maine is better at lower elevations than on top of Katahdin -- and there is only one AT mountain between Katahdin and the Bigelows over 3000 feet (White Cap at 3650). If NOBO hikers knew they had more time they might feel less pressure to start in such a narrow time window at the start and traffic at the outset in Georgia could be dispersed some.

    The Abol Bridge area and Amicalola Visitor Center can be supervised for inappropriate behavior a heck of a lot better than the top of Katahdin and Springer can. And both locations are much better suited to hiker education of NOBOs and SOBOs than those mountaintops are.

    Finally, I want to mention a principle I hold dear that informs these suggestions of mine: I think every hiker who wants to hike on the Appalachian Trail should be free to do so. They should be free to do so without having to apply for permits, pay fees, be subject to quotas or show proof of having taken education sessions or have prior hiking experience -- all ideas that have been suggested frequently in the last couple days here on Whiteblaze.
    Last edited by map man; 12-14-2014 at 20:22.

  15. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alligator View Post
    The National Scenic Trails Act was passed while Baxter was still living. My opinion is he would have had some objection or other noted statement if there was some issue with the terms. He knew the trail was there. Major relocations are required in the Act to be approved by the Sec. of the Interior. While I most certainly understand the frustration BSP has with thruhiker behavior, the suggestion of the nuclear option of moving the terminus is not the appropriate way to ameliorate the situation. The letter was sent to his counterparts at the ATC and the Appalachian Trail Park Office and was not as tactful as might be expected to be sent to an agency partner.
    Follow this thread I kept wondering just how this information became public so soon (freedom of information act ???). Now Re-reading the original post I see it was posted on Baxters website...highly irregular for internal communica, very odd indeed.

    Never the less here we are. Shame some hikers can't follow the rules laid down. So much easier to live life within the law.

  16. #56
    imscotty's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-13-2011
    Location
    North Reading, MA
    Age
    64
    Posts
    1,271
    Images
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronk View Post
    By allowing the expectation that park employees will get on the radio and arrange for transportation and other types of communication they are bringing this on themselves...and I know what a headache it is because I've dealt with these kinds of situations before. All they have to do is tell hikers to make their arrangements before entering the park...either that or provide a means for them to make their own arrangements within the park for a fee.
    One of the problems is the difficulty of arranging pick up by family and friends of thru-hikers that have finished their hike. Not knowing the finish date makes the reservation system near impossible to use. Perhaps some flexibility in the BST rules for pick-up parking and early entry to the park for those who wish to join their loved ones on their final climb up Katahdin would alleviate some of the radio traffic.

  17. #57
    imscotty's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-13-2011
    Location
    North Reading, MA
    Age
    64
    Posts
    1,271
    Images
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rocketsocks View Post
    Follow this thread I kept wondering just how this information became public so soon (freedom of information act ???). Now Re-reading the original post I see it was posted on Baxters website...highly irregular for internal communica, very odd indeed.
    I noticed that too Rocketsocks. Clearly this is a 'Shot across the bow" of the AT hiking community.

  18. #58
    ME => GA 19AT3 rickb's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-12-2002
    Location
    Marlboro, MA
    Posts
    7,145
    Journal Entries
    1
    Images
    1

    Default

    Seems obvious that hikers don't have much good will left in Baxter.

    A couple years ago the Park even saw fit to make mention of a thru hiker is spotted in Millinocket with a sign asking for money-- in thier annual report.

    Not cool on the part of the hiker, but that this story was deemed worth of inclusion in the Parks annual report may be telling.

  19. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by imscotty View Post
    One of the problems is the difficulty of arranging pick up by family and friends of thru-hikers that have finished their hike. Not knowing the finish date makes the reservation system near impossible to use. Perhaps some flexibility in the BST rules for pick-up parking and early entry to the park for those who wish to join their loved ones on their final climb up Katahdin would alleviate some of the radio traffic.
    I've never understood why the logistics involved for both termini need to be such a pain the butt, seems foolish and unnecessary.

  20. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by imscotty View Post
    I noticed that too Rocketsocks. Clearly this is a 'Shot across the bow" of the AT hiking community.
    that my read as well.

Page 3 of 42 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 ... LastLast
++ New Posts ++

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •