Baxter State Park AT concerns - Wow

[Tipi Walter]

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.

I totally and irrevocably AGREE. I never backpack anywhere EVER which requires me to get a permit or reserve a camping spot or spend folding money for the freedom and joy of humping a 75 lb pack up a mountain day in and day out. There are fortunately still vast areas in the Southeast mountains which are wide open and free and require nothing but your body and your gear and the willingness to walk. Amen. It's sad that the GSMNP just recently stopped free-roaming backpacking by requiring a $4 a night fee and requiring every single camping spot to be reserved before a trip.

So imagine doing a 14 day trip in the Smokies and telling them where you will be camping every night. It's impossible and it's demented. Maybe on Day 8 the creeks will rise? Maybe on Day 10 a blizzard hits? Maybe I get food poisoning on Day 4 and need to sit put for 3 days? Can't happen with the new system. And then you're "illegal" and running from the law etc.

It's odd that people here on Whiteblaze would suggest these lame ideas to institute permits and fees and reservations for hiking any part of the Appalachian Trail. It makes me wonder if Whiteblaze is made up of hardcore freedom-loving backpackers or guys that want to acquiesce to the Tent Police and put a stop to all free roaming.

[imscotty]

@MapMan:

Option 1: As usual a brilliant analysis on your part. Seems like a reasonable change that maintain the integrity of the AT while eliminating many of the issues BST has to deal with.

Option 2: Honestly I think it would be devastating for AT hikers if this were to happen. Katahdin really is the 'Greatest Mountain,' such a majestic and sacred site to finish a personal journey.

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.

A could not agree more Mapman, a permit / fee system should be the absolute last resort. A place where anyone can come to commune with nature is more in keeping with Benton MacKaye's vision.

[Connie]

I see little or no perspective, among vocal hikers.

A state park concept is family recreation, including picnics, camping, boating, not explicitly hiking. If hiking, day hiking. If really big state park, maybe hiking and camping but I would think few state parks are that big.

And so, you are "guests".

Have you no awareness, you are "guests". Even if you pay a fee, you are "extra".

I think so, because a state park is not a thru-hike.

A branch of the federal government "declared" a scenic trail.

As far as I know, it is a "straw man" vote. No one "has" to comply. It is voluntary.

I think it is absolute "hubris" to think all this should be kept "private".

Most people, I venture, do not want self-declared "hiker trash" in their neighborhood.

[rafe]

Tipi, have you been to Baxter Park? I have, a few times now. I'm OK with the regulations. It's a really special place, and it wouldn't be without those regs. Also: don't compare it with GSMNP or SNP, or the AMC in the White Mountains -- it's a whole different situation.

The nightmare trip scenario you posit isn't at all like what happens in real-life. Rangers I've met and heard about are usually very accommodating of reasonable needs of hikers. They won't abide lawlessness or blatant stupidity, but otherwise, no problem.

I think it's fine that you have your southeast mountains in which to roam free and do as you wish. And it's also fine that other specific areas operate by different rules.

[rocketsocks]

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 Campground, 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 Campground, 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 Campground, 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 Campground 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 a heck of a lot better at lower elevations than on top of Katahdin -- and other than Katahdin there is only one AT mountain north of 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.

Agree 100% self policing needs to happen or the aforementioned will likely be installed never to be repealed.

"Don't fence me in"

[Another Kevin]

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.

I think we're in violent agreement here. Your message expresses one of many considerations that I summed up under the general heading of "we don't want to go there!"

The relationship between the A-T and Baxter State Park has been somewhat strained for at least forty years, and "thru-hiker entitlement" has always played a major part in the strain. The strife goes all the way back to Warren Doyle and the incidents with the UConn hikers back in the 1970's. It's nothing new, but at some point something's going to give. I just hope it doesn't happen with the current state of the case law, because 32.42 Acres of Land is a potential disaster for public land trusts. However awkward the dealings with BSP's administration might be, condemning a Federal corridor through it, extinguishing the terms of his trust, would surely have Baxter spinning in his grave!

[Stepinwolfe]

Excellent analysis and recommendations by Map Man.
I know nothing of the politics involved here—just an old guy from VA who has section hiked all of the AT in Maine and another 1000 miles to the south.
A few observations:
1. My experience with the Baxter State Park Rangers and other employees while hiking through Baxter State Park was very positive. Most significant, they were actually out there on the trail interacting with and helping hikers. Compare this visible level of effort to what I’ve seen from the Feds (NPS Rangers)--invisible on the AT, even in SNP.
2. Although BSP states AT hikers comprise only 3% of annual visitors, I wonder what the hiker economic impact is on Millinocket and the surrounding area? I suspect this may be why the letter wasn’t written any more forceful than it was—they really don’t want the hikers to go away or reroute, but just behave a little better.
3. Inappropriate behavior on the AT seems to be everywhere, not just In BSP. I even noted a homeless couple living in an AT shelter in PA last summer. Additional resources (to inform) are not a solution, in my opinion.
4. So in the long run, if the BSP risk analysis tilts in favor of local needs/priorities vs thru hiker numbers and behavior, it seem to me that inevitably we may get an “end run” to Katahdin, an “early exit” at Abol Bridge or someplace else, or a major reroute at the northern terminus.

[Offshore]

A little courtesy and common sense would go a long way. In the meantime, I'd start with strict enforcement of the rules/regulations by BSP rangers (word would travel fast), including a polite refusal to serve as messengers or concierges. Planning and executing a thru involves a lot of logistics, and the portion that takes place in BSP is no different. If you don't like the rules or can't figure out the logistics, then don't use the park. The biggest issue is how do you get the hiking community to self-police - like an honor code of sorts and then begin to instill a new attitude to reduce the number of problem hikers. If I were on a thru, the last thing I would want is a trail experience where some thrus treated it as a multi-month, multi-state, 2,000 mile long spring break party. Its up to hikers on the trail to recognize problem behavior and stand up to it. As stated in the letter, the root of the problem seems to be the self-entitled attitude of some hikers - "I'm special and the rules don't apply". I see this pop up on this site and even on day hikes on the AT when encountering some thrus. This is a tough one when we've now had a couple of generations growing up where everyone was told they were special, got a trophy for showing up, and whose hovering parents arrested their development. (I just finished a 7 year volunteer stint at a university and saw this every week. I also had newly graduated science and engineering hirees who needed constant reinforcement to do their jobs.) This isn't to say that all thrus are bad or that its a particular age group that is the problem, but its the bad ones that leave an impression. After all, BSP felt compelled to write this letter about a subset of approximately 3% of park visitors. Maybe the problem will diminish as our population ages and less are able to thru due to physical, financial or time limitation.

I also don't think that the AWITW and Wild movies will have a huge effect on hiker populations in BSP. A lot more may start, but the herd will be culled long before BSP. Remember, Bryson didn't even finish. As far as Wild is concerned, anyone who goes to see this expecting a hiking movie will find themselves watching more of a Lifetime TV film. I'm not sure how big the overlap in the Venn diagram would be.

[Coffee]

Permit systems like GSMNP and Grand Canyon which require predefined itineraries are indeed problematic especially for long distance backpackers. I much prefer the system in the Sierra Nevada jurisdictions where quotas exist for a trailhead and sometimes dictate the first night's campsite but leave the backpacker free to roam beyond that as circumstances and preferences dictate. As long as permit systems follow the Sierra Nevada model, I can live with it and support it as long as quotas are not so low as to make it impossible for spur of the moment travel (walk up permits). And I have no issue with reasonable fees for permits either. I prefer user pay systems to funding everything under the sun with general tax revenues.

I dont think that the problems are nearly as intractable as they may appear. Institute daily quotas and group size limitations at each terminus for all hikers (both reservation based and first come first served). Offer thru hikers a permit via ATC that requires membership and in exchange smooths the way with each jurisdiction (much like PCTA does), and put in place a permit system for Katahdin much like Mt Whitney with the thru hiker ATC permit offering access within reasonable limitations. Hire a babysitter to monitor the summit of Katahdin if needed with stiff penalties for drugs and alcohol. Am I missing something or wouldn't this solve most of the worst issues?

[Alligator]

I think we're in violent agreement here. Your message expresses one of many considerations that I summed up under the general heading of "we don't want to go there!"

The relationship between the A-T and Baxter State Park has been somewhat strained for at least forty years, and "thru-hiker entitlement" has always played a major part in the strain. The strife goes all the way back to Warren Doyle and the incidents with the UConn hikers back in the 1970's. It's nothing new, but at some point something's going to give. I just hope it doesn't happen with the current state of the case law, because 32.42 Acres of Land is a potential disaster for public land trusts. However awkward the dealings with BSP's administration might be, condemning a Federal corridor through it, extinguishing the terms of his trust, would surely have Baxter spinning in his grave!

Yes, we are in agreement. It would be an ugly litigation process.

My personal opinion is that at the end of the process, Katahdin would still be the terminus of the Appalachian Trail.

Yeah it would be much better to not go through litigation. It would be very wasteful.

[Alligator]

The letter explicitly states that the Trail in Baxter is NOT federally designated as part of the AT under the National Scenic Trails Act.

The letter says the trail is not federally designated. I saw that. But Katahdin is specifically mentioned in the Trails Act as a terminus, as well as the AT is established in the Act. The process for many of the other long distance trails is discussed. If there is a bilateral agreement modifying that somewhere I have not seen it referenced. I haven't read the deeds of trust either but Dir. Bissell says they do not mention AT thruhikers. BSP does have an agreement with MATC that says BSP maintains authority but then again major relocations require Sec of Interior.

It would be messy. They won't litigate IMO, they will end up negotiating. It would be a big uproar and higher ups would get involved. The higher ups will then reach a compromise and afterwards say "We could have fixed this without all this trouble, why did it get escalated?" Then someone may get reprimanded. Which is why I think the threat is not appropriate.

Better really to work together to improve behavior.

[Bronk]

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.

The letter was made public because they want the public to be prepared for what they do next...

[Dogwood]

I did miss where you were going Peakbagger. Thanks for helping fill in some of the gaps. I know nothing about a proposed NP east of BSP other than what has been shared here.

Rickb, appreciate the BSP Purpose being posted.

[Bronk]

What's funny to me about the letter is that its almost like Baxter State Park is putting the responsibility off on the ATC to control the behavior of hikers while in their own park. If you've ever talked to anyone that has run a campground you'll find that stupid nonsense goes on everywhere, with all kinds of people. You can't tell me that they don't have a lot of the same issues with the users of their other areas. Its really just that they can put a name to thruhikers.

[rickb]

The letter was made public because they want the public to be prepared for what they do next...

Bronk,

While the letter is online and accessible to anyone who knows where to find it, I don't think there is a link to it on their website.

I stand to be corrected on that.

In short, I am not convinced that it was intended for wide public distribution. Part of the realm I think this might be the case is that there are other documents in that directory that I can't image were intended for publication on the net, like this letter from a park user who had a problem with geese:

http://www.baxterstateparkauthority....se_KP11_14.pdf

It's almost like someone was using that directory like a "dropbox". Again, I stand to be corrected. If there are links to the letter I am obviously all wet on this.

[rocketsocks]

A little courtesy and common sense would go a long way. In the meantime, I'd start with strict enforcement of the rules/regulations by BSP rangers (word would travel fast), including a polite refusal to serve as messengers or concierges. Planning and executing a thru involves a lot of logistics, and the portion that takes place in BSP is no different. If you don't like the rules or can't figure out the logistics, then don't use the park. The biggest issue is how do you get the hiking community to self-police - like an honor code of sorts and then begin to instill a new attitude to reduce the number of problem hikers. If I were on a thru, the last thing I would want is a trail experience where some thrus treated it as a multi-month, multi-state, 2,000 mile long spring break party. Its up to hikers on the trail to recognize problem behavior and stand up to it. As stated in the letter, the root of the problem seems to be the self-entitled attitude of some hikers - "I'm special and the rules don't apply". I see this pop up on this site and even on day hikes on the AT when encountering some thrus. This is a tough one when we've now had a couple of generations growing up where everyone was told they were special, got a trophy for showing up, and whose hovering parents arrested their development. (I just finished a 7 year volunteer stint at a university and saw this every week. I also had newly graduated science and engineering hirees who needed constant reinforcement to do their jobs.) This isn't to say that all thrus are bad or that its a particular age group that is the problem, but its the bad ones that leave an impression. After all, BSP felt compelled to write this letter about a subset of approximately 3% of park visitors. Maybe the problem will diminish as our population ages and less are able to thru due to physical, financial or time limitation.

I also don't think that the AWITW and Wild movies will have a huge effect on hiker populations in BSP. A lot more may start, but the herd will be culled long before BSP. Remember, Bryson didn't even finish. As far as Wild is concerned, anyone who goes to see this expecting a hiking movie will find themselves watching more of a Lifetime TV film. I'm not sure how big the overlap in the Venn diagram would be.

Guilt and shaming by ones peers is a great motivator. It comes down to the the old saying

...if ya see somethin' say somethin'

The letter was made public because they want the public to be prepared for what they do next...

winner winner chicken dinner!

[Dogwood]

...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.

I totally and irrevocably AGREE. I never backpack anywhere EVER which requires me to get a permit or reserve a camping spot or spend folding money for the freedom and joy of humping a 75 lb pack up a mountain day in and day out. There are fortunately still vast areas in the Southeast mountains which are wide open and free and require nothing but your body and your gear and the willingness to walk. Amen. It's sad that the GSMNP just recently stopped free-roaming backpacking by requiring a $4 a night fee and requiring every single camping spot to be reserved before a trip.

So imagine doing a 14 day trip in the Smokies and telling them where you will be camping every night. It's impossible and it's demented. Maybe on Day 8 the creeks will rise? Maybe on Day 10 a blizzard hits? Maybe I get food poisoning on Day 4 and need to sit put for 3 days? Can't happen with the new system. And then you're "illegal" and running from the law etc.

It's odd that people here on Whiteblaze would suggest these lame ideas to institute permits and fees and reservations for hiking any part of the Appalachian Trail. It makes me wonder if Whiteblaze is made up of hardcore freedom-loving backpackers or guys that want to acquiesce to the Tent Police and put a stop to all free roaming.

I share the same ideals expressed here by Mapman and Tipi. Few backpackers are as free roaming, free spirited, freedom loving as myself. But, as I suspect is the situation with Mapman and Tipi, we know that free anything often isn't as free as might be initially assumed. Being Free comes with responsibilities. Being Free comes with knowing consequences will follow. My freedom to swing my fist ends where another person's nose begins. My dog knows that its freedom often extends only to the boundary of where it's leash ends.

Being Free comes with an understanding - that is not to be ignored - that each of the way we experience freedom impacts others.

This is not a moot point. Not all who seek freedom acknowledge this. The AT hiker free roaming free spirited mindset is not to be taken upon without acknowledging freedom in this larger context. It's my guess Mapman and Tipi acknowledge this version of freedom in their outdoor experiences. Not everyone does.

According to all my AT hiker hands-on observations - nor does every AT hiker. Especially of great concern is the increasing extent this occurs among the concentrated AT thru-hiker crowd and the negative impact that follows. It contributes to a good amount of friction resulting in greater animosity directed at the AT hiking community, and sometimes hikers in general.

It's directly responsible for one of the core concerns in Mr. Tipton's written letter. We can analyze ad nauseam external "solutions", and very well they may be part of the overall longer term future for the AT, such as undertaking creating reroutes, ending the AT at Abol Bridge, blah blah, etc. but until this is not appropriately addressed it will continue to fester, magnify in intensity, and create new conflicts.

It most definitely is not a BSP issue either. It's a AT culture issue particularly among the AT thru-hiking masses.

[Grampie]

There has been a influx of articles writen in the past few years pertaining to this problem of AT over use. Baxter has decided to take on this problem before it becomes more out of hand and than drastic measures have to be taken. Since I thru-hiked in 2001 I yearly spent numerious hours hiking on the AT and being a caretaker at Upper Goose Pond Cabin. I have not only experienced a larger influx of hikers, in recent years, but also a attitude change in these hikers. I see a change in the attitude of the younger crowd, 18-30 year olds,who have lost respect for athority and see spending time on the AT a time to show this disrespect by flaunting established rules and regulations. The new attitude is "so what."
If the number of thru-hikers continue to grow something will have to be done to put limits on trail usage in places that warrant it.
Because of Baxters ability to regulate rules,in the park ,they will probably institute some new measures to try to rectify their stated problems. It should be up to the ATC to also do their part to address the rest of the trail.
We all have the right to use the AT. What we don't have is the right to abuse it's rules.

[DavidNH]

What I don't understand is why so many of you can't abide by the basic regulations of a place like Baxter State Park.. one of the most beautiful places in the northeast, if not in the entire country. You think just because you hiked a long way, 2000 miles mostly unencumbered that you should have privileges (stealth camping, tolerance of partying in pack travel etc) in Baxter? It really makes me sad. And don't even get me started on Warren Doyle.. what he has said both on White Blaze and now on facebook are very distressing. You all should thank the Lord that places like Baxter State Park still exist, that the AT brings you to it and terminates at perhaps the most magnificent viewpoint in all of New England. The park is mostly a wilderness park.. and is regulated to keep it that way. Thank God for that. Furthermore with the ridiculous crowds now starting northbound from Springer (note ATC statistics) the trail in my view is no longer a trail for those who seek wilderness travel.. or even a distant approximation therefor. Frankly a permitting system to control the crowds wouldn't be such a bad idea.

[dudeijuststarted]

Valid points, no argument. We must respect the concerns of the park authority and allow the ATC to work with them to alleviate these issues. The trail is much bigger than the realized fantasies of any individual or group of hikers.

2015 thru hikers: show the trail community what character is all about!!!