the down side of Scott Jurek's record AT hike-- Baxter state park condemnation

[TJ aka Teej]

Katahdin's not going anywhere.
The AT ends at the boundary, the ATC has no authority inside the Park.
I'm fine with ending special privileges for thru-hikers, especially after reading so much crap from people who should know better.
Paint the blazes blue, tear down the Birches, and if ATers want to visit the Park they can make reservations like everyone else.

[TJ aka Teej]

Katahdin's not going anywhere.
The AT ends at the boundary, the ATC has no authority inside the Park.
I'm fine with ending special privileges for thru-hikers, especially after reading so much crap from people who should know better.
Paint the blazes blue, tear down the Birches, and if ATers want to visit the Park they can make reservations like everyone else.

[Sarcasm the elf]

Katahdin's not going anywhere.
The AT ends at the boundary, the ATC has no authority inside the Park.
I'm fine with ending special privileges for thru-hikers, especially after reading so much crap from people who should know better.
Paint the blazes blue, tear down the Birches, and if ATers want to visit the Park they can make reservations like everyone else.

I like your new signature.

[rickb]

The AT ends at the boundary.

I understand why some at BSP would state that. I even expect some believe it. But an act of Congress would suggest otherwise.

By any chance do you know the legal underpinnings of such a statement?

As for the ATC's authority, my guess is that you would have to agree that it is almost non-existent anywhere along the Trail. It may have more influence in some places than others, of course.

[Sly]

One easy option that would help alleviate the problem would be to reroute the AT on the Blueberry Ledges Trail. I don't have the exact numbers but it looks like it would cut 5 miles from Abol bridge to K and make for an easier day hike. No reservations, no illegal camping, no non-paying guests.

[BirdBrain]

I understand why some at BSP would state that. I even expect some believe it. But an act of Congress would suggest otherwise.

By any chance do you know the legal underpinnings of such a statement?

As for the ATC's authority, my guess is that you would have to agree that it is almost non-existent anywhere along the Trail. It may have more influence in some places than others, of course.

Even if the trail is mandated by federal law to end at Baxter Peak, Baxter has the authority to require any person that enters the park to go through the permitting system like everyone else. If that happens, only trespassers or permitted hikers would be able to thru. What do you suppose that would do to the numbers starting at Springer? Do we really want that shoving match? Isn't just growing up a bit a better plan?

I should note that the last question is directed at the punks who say screw Baxter's silly rules.

Imagine for a moment competing with several thousand thru's for a permit that you need several months down your hike. Imagine if you get one but guess wrong on how long it takes to get there.

[egilbe]

Reading the National Trails Act, it looks like BSP has the authority to end the trail at the border. Since its a private entity and voluntarily allowed the trail to cross the property, if the trail doesn't adversely affect the use of the property. The trail can generally be routed somewhere else. There is no AT border markers in BSP. There is allowances in the act that allows the trail to be moved, if it is adversely affecting private property and its intended use. BSP has a strong case that the AT is adversely affecting the summit of Katahdin.

[egilbe]

http://www.baxterstateparkauthority.com/hiking/at.htm

Katahdin, along with the surrounding landscape, is part of Baxter State Park -a 209,501 acre wilderness sanctuary and forest preserve. The Park was the lifelong project of one man, former Maine governor (1921-1924) Percival Proctor Baxter. Baxter State Park is self-supporting, in large part due to trust funds set up by Percival Baxter and fees paid by users. By his design, the Park is administered separate and distinct from any other agency or state park in Maine. Percival Baxter clearly stated his goal was to place preservation of natural resources as a priority over the recreational use of his park. Our regulations are designed to support this goal. This page is not designed to promote increased use of the Park but to inform those long distance hikers already intending to come here. See our Long-Distance Hiker Alert (tab on this page) for current information on Thru-Hiking in Baxter State Park. Our regulations are distinct from what may be encountered elsewhere, and various groups, including Appalachian Trail and International Appalachian Trail hikers, have expressed confusion or misunderstanding of them. Each of our regulations and operating policies were created to address one or more of the following issues:

• Protection of the Parks natural features and wilderness
• Protection of the visitors wilderness experience
• Promoting an attitude of personal responsibility and safety

There is no other entity comparable to Baxter State Park along the Appalachian Trail corridor, in terms of the Park's origin and mission, as well as the policy-making responsibility and autonomy with which the three members of the Baxter State Park Authority are entrusted. All visitors to this Park are recipients of a very special gift; please work with us to honor the intent of such a generous gift by upholding our policies and regulations.

[Pedaling Fool]

Scott Jurek was issued three citations. It does not mean he is guilty of the offenses. Yes it was probably real champagne, although the label is not showing the front of the bottle. What was the litter and what were the circumstances regarding the group attendees? I read an eyewitness account saying there were less than 12 people in his group with him when he arrived.

On the BSP FB page, the media is cited as violating their commercial media permit by filming within 500' of Baxter Peak. That means the media had a permit given by the park, BSP gave them a commercial media permit. They don't have to do that, but they were apparently ok with it everywhere else along the trail. The BSP site states that any specific conditions will be noted on the permit. Their blank media permit that I found does not say no filming within 500' of the peak so I don't know how this is stipulated exactly. Would be helpful to see the actual granted permit. As far as Scott and his crew go, they were probably aware that the media had a permit but may not have known about the summit conditional clause. I can't find anything about a 500' rule when I search for one on the park site or elsewhere. It's not at all shocking that the media overstepped their bounds. BSP is not against commercial media as there is a list of at least ten permits issued for a period of just a few months on their website including LL Bean, Nature Valley, and Al Jezeera America. The tone there is a little harsh in my view if they are against commercialization. I can certainly understand being unhappy if the media crew violated the rule though, particularly if it was explicitly verbally stated and/or clearly written. But I don't know the circumstances of that.

Should of dumped a cooler of Gatorade on his head. That would have been more challenging.

Those are all good points. I don't know the answers, but very good points.

I like your new signature.

His signature is just more evidence that this has nothing to do with SJ; it has everything to do with thru-hikers.

[MuddyWaters]

Allowing access by trail, even if not part of AT, doesnt eliminate problem.
Expect no access at all unless drive in.

The problem isnt the AT
The problem is AT hikers
Read again
The problem is AT hikers


The hikers, are proven to be not the kind of people BSP wants.

BSP has made it clear, this is not their problem to solve. They will solve it by ending access, expect it to be totally. No blue blaze option.

[Emerson Bigills]

SJ is responsible for knowing and following the rules. Clearly, he and his team researched the trail and understanding BSP's regulations should have been a part of that. He could have made a positive statement about following the rules in a time of tension between the park and the AT hiking community. He and his team failed. Issuing them citations was very fair.

Having said that, while I respect BSP's rules, I found their public whining less than impressive.

There are no "good guys" in this unfortunate incident. Two parties showing us how not to act.

[Sly]

Allowing access by trail, even if not part of AT, doesnt eliminate problem.
Expect no access at all unless drive in.

The problem isnt the AT
The problem is AT hikers
Read again
The problem is AT hikers


The hikers, are proven to be not the kind of people BSP wants.

BSP has made it clear, this is not their problem to solve. They will solve it by ending access, expect it to be totally. No blue blaze option.

If this in response to my suggestion, Blueberry Ledges wouldn't be a blue-blaze option (it is now) but official AT.

If AT hikers in the BSP aren't BSP's problem, who's are they? (in this case they they issued fines to SJ) When problems arise in the GSMNP, who handles them?

[rickb]

I see parallels to Deflate Gate.

* Great athlete
* Athlete's association with group that flaunted rules in past
* Controling authority with total authority but ineffectual using it
* Controlling authority that looked to "catch a big fish" to further its agenda
* Controlling authority not interested in preventing problem beforehand -- what's the gain in that?
* A good guy paying the price caught up in **** for no fault of his own

Tongue in cheek? Somewhat, but in both cases it's all about agendas and then making the "facts" fit the case that the Big Dogs are trying to make. That people in power at BSP are playing this game is sad, and does not bode well for what comes next.

The other potential parallel with Deflate Gate is that one or a few individuals in control of a important organization can do some really dumb things. That does not bode well for what comes next, I think.

[MuddyWaters]

If this in response to my suggestion, Blueberry Ledges wouldn't be a blue-blaze option (it is now) but official AT.

If AT hikers in the BSP aren't BSP's problem, who's are they? (in this case they they issued fines to SJ) When problems arise in the GSMNP, who handles them?

They are the ATCs problem to solve, if they want to retain access to BSP.

BSP is smart enough to see the trend. What was accomodated as an irritation at 300 hikers per year, is becoming unmanageable at 1000+, and is simply something they refuse to deal with at future numbers. Time to go. That is what it is about. Solve it yourself, or leave.

Citation to out of state rule breakers that never plan on returning to ME, have about zero chance of being paid. BSP knows this too.

[BirdBrain]

If this in response to my suggestion, Blueberry Ledges wouldn't be a blue-blaze option (it is now) but official AT.

If AT hikers in the BSP aren't BSP's problem, who's are they? (in this case they they issued fines to SJ) When problems arise in the GSMNP, who handles them?

BSP and GSMNP are entirely different animals. Many people do not grasp this. Baxter is not obliged to tolerate the AT crowd and their screw authority attitude. They can just say stay out. I think that is what MW means by they are not BSP problem (to attempt to reform). Peer pressure would be a good start at reform. Unfortunately many a blogger feels "screw the authority and their silly rules" is a viable approach. Baxter is not obliged to tolerate that attitude.

[jersey joe]

Meanwhile, Scott's latest post on FB today doesn't address the Baxter situation.

Instead he posted an inspirational account of a blind person motivating him to finish his hike and a video of him leading the blind guy up bear mtn.

[tdoczi]

this all reminds me of the ever reoccuring argument about why the AT is so "poorly blazed" in the white mountains. too many of just don't get that the world does not revolve around one trail and that the whole thing could cease to exist today and places like the smokies, shenandoah, the whites and baxter would keep on as if nothing major had happened. its not all about the AT, not even close.

watch, to prove my point i promise at least one person will try and argue that without the AT one or all of these places would suffer...

[Sly]

We're not talking about 1000 AT thru-hikers causing problems, only a small percentage of that 1000. How is the ATC supposed to regulate hiker behavior in BSP.

It appears no suggestions will satisfy BSP, in which case ending the trail outside BSP will be inevitable. Of course, BSP will also suffer in recognition and reputation along with a lack of fees paid by hikers and family and friends that enter BSP that support them, as well as others interested in the AT. Maybe that's the way they want, a park used only by residents.

[tdoczi]

Of course, BSP will also suffer in recognition and reputation along with a lack of fees paid by hikers and family and friends that enter BSP that support them, as well as others interested in the AT. Maybe that's the way they want, a park used only by residents.

and there it is. perhaps not directed at my statement but never the less... BSP won't loose anything over the AT not ending there anymore. to think otherwise is to blindly think entirely too much of our precious little trail, and to me, this is what begets the notion that the places the trail goes through has to do it the trail's way (or the way the hikers of the trail want it) rather than vice versa.

[MuddyWaters]

We're not talking about 1000 AT thru-hikers causing problems, only a small percentage of that 1000. How is the ATC supposed to regulate hiker behavior in BSP.

It appears no suggestions will satisfy BSP, in which case ending the trail outside BSP will be inevitable. Of course, BSP will also suffer in recognition and reputation along with a lack of fees paid by hikers and family and friends that enter BSP that support them, as well as others interested in the AT. Maybe that's the way they want, a park used only by residents.

Bingo

The AT attracts too many thruhikers, who are not out there for reasons consistent with BSP usage. They want to travel in large groups, and party, and break rules as they see fit.

It is the ATCs problem, that they are attracting those people in first place.

BSP doesnt want those people.

Promoting thruhiking, festivals, events, trail magic, even shelters, all contribute to attracting the wrong types of hikers to the AT. Its turned into somewhat of a spectacle, not a wilderness experience, which is what BSP strives to be.

After 6 mos of behaving the wrong way, they wont change when they get to BSP.