3% vs. 20%

[handlebar]

I was at Baxter Peak in late July, 2007 during the "weekend" between two sessions of Maine Trail Crew. I found the same situation as Marta: just a few thru-hikers finishing up, but a zoo-ful of day hikers. I'm sure the 3% is accurate as BSP has records on the number of people entering the park, including thru hikers coming in through the gate at the southern boundary of the park. The 20%, however, sounds like it is an estimate designed to support Baxter State Park Director's plan to change the AT terminus.

The fact that he included an allusion to this issue in his FB post on ultramarathoning confirms his prejudice.

I took the opportunity to read all the comments on Bissell's FB post. Most were from the trail running community. I felt it important to call Bissell out on his piling on his concerns with thru hikers and the Appalachian Trail when making a post titled: "Ultramarathoning in Baxter State Park --- Another Perspective".

Again here's what Bissell piled on:

"An additional discouraging observation. The Appalachian Trail provided the challenge and backdrop for this event and consequently, provided the conduit for this event to land in Baxter Park. The profile of the AT is large enough to attract the corporate sponsorship necessary to support and carry such an event. The AT is apparently comfortable with the fit of this type of event in its mission. The formal federal designation and authority of the Appalachian Trial does not extend into Baxter State Park. The AT within the Park is hosted at the consideration of the Baxter State Park Authority. The Authority is currently considering the increasing pressures, impacts and conflicts that the Appalachian Trail brings to the Park and if a continued relationship is in the best interests of Baxter State Park."

Here's my reply:

"I believe it is correct that by policy Baxter State Park does not condone nor permit commercial activities. (Neither does the ATC, incidentally). That being your policy, one has to wonder why you did not act when you either knew full well that the summit would be exploited for commercial gain or chose to feign ignorance. I find it disconcerting that you allude to ATC's supporting such activities---"The AT is apparently comfortable with the fit of this type of event in its mission." As a more than 30 year member of the ATC, I have never seen any evidence that the ATC supports "such activities." The ATC does not recognize fastest known times---only completed hikes of the entire trail whether they take a person weeks, months or years. It seems you have an "ax to grind", to wit, to change the northern terminus of the AT to some point other than Baxter Peak. That you insert in your post above such an allusion shows that intent. I hope you will continue to work with the ATC, ALDHA, and other interested parties to resolve the issues you brought to the ATC's attention last fall regarding the behavior of a tiny minority of AT thru hikers as well as the pressure that increasing numbers of AT hikers are placing on Baxter State Park, rather than continue a crusade to justify ending the relationship of Baxter State Park with the Appalachian Trail. I am confident that, if all parties work together in good faith, those issues can be resolved, that Baxter State Park can remain wild, and that Baxter Peak can remain the northern terminus of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail for years to come."

Personally, I believe the Baxter State Park Authority (its governing board) would be very foolish to force a change. There would be a major outcry from the Appalachian Trail community which would likely compel action to secure the trail corridor to Baxter Peak whether BSP likes it or not. The Secretary of the Interior, under the National Trails Act of 1968, has the authority to acquire an easement over the trail corridor by eminent domain, if negotiations to resolve the issues brought forth by BSP fail.

[tdoczi]

The Secretary of the Interior, under the National Trails Act of 1968, has the authority to acquire an easement over the trail corridor by eminent domain, if negotiations to resolve the issues brought forth by BSP fail.

has this ever been done? and if so, why not? has the trail just not ever been removed from anywhere worth fighting over? seems to me like it has. though perhaps not past 1968?

[rickb]

As an AT SOBO, I went through the whole process to get a campsite at Katadin Stream the night before I started. I was nervous about the process, but it all worked out.

There is a lot to be said for good-will, common sense and letting things work themselves out-- provided everyone is on the same page

One thing you have never seen on Whiteblaze is a thread encouraging NOBOs to secure reservations at KSG well in advance, lest they be denied the opportunity to summit Katahdin.

And that is a good thing, I think. I sure as heck am not going to start one.

Unlike Roaring Brook CG on the north side of Katahdin (as well as some other places) where you can reserve a single bunk, the only reserved options at KSG are sites/Lee-tos that hold 4 to 6 people.

Would it really be a good thing for thru hikers to read Laurie P's post about 30 to 40 thru hikers at the Birches, and scare them into reserving a spot weeks in advance?

At a minimum, that would deny other people -- thru hikers and other users alike -- the opportunity to use the facilities they reserve should their schedules change and they become a no show.

What's more, just 5 anal/responsible thru hikers could easily lay claim to camping resources that could accommodate 30 people! An if 30 thru hikers look to make reservations, they could be tying up spots designe to hold up to 180 people. Not good.

What happens when hikers really get scared and they make their reservations -- just in case -- months in advance-- perhaps even before the get to Harpers Ferry? Things fall apart, right?

Others have thought about this, of course. It's part of the reason the Birches can be said to be good not only for thru hikers, but for anyone who has aspired to camp at KSG.

Since having thru hikers diligently compete for reserved spots in the park like everyone else creates its own set of problems, there must be another solution.

And there is.

Its just not a very good one.

[Dogwood]

I've heard the claim that 3% of the Baxter visitors, (thru hikers), use 20% of Baxter resources. How is that possible? What's going on?

Do you have a GF? Wife? Significant other? Have raised children? Live in the U.S.?

If so you shouldn't have to ask this question.

GF is one half my intimate relationship yet consumes 70% of my money, credit, time, and closet space. I keep telling her no more clothes, shoes, purses, or scented candles.

My two adult nephews, when invited to stay over for a couple of days, even though only representing 50% of the four mouths to feed(GF, myself, and the two of them) drink 80% of my beer and 80% of the shrimp in the Shrimp Scampi with Linguine I've made for dinner. I got that covered though as I tend to invite them over when I'm building a shed, cleaning out the garage, painting the house, replanting the vegetable garden in the spring, etc to help out. Alcohol and food can be used for great leverage.

The U.S. population, about 319 million, represents about 4.5 % of the world population but consumes 80% of the global prescription opioid pain medication and 99% of the global hydrocodone, the opiate in Vicodin, and by far consumes the most amount of oil than any other nation, including the nation of China, the most populated nation, with about 1.4 billion people.

[Dogwood]

What will continue to happen is a greater conflagration of conflicts for the AT well beyond the borders of BSP should the AT continue to be modeled and managed on a come one come all basis basically as it currently is overall. When a trail culture, or growing segment of a trail's users, is largely disconnected from Nature, the rest of the trail community, and largely ignorant about the larger world around them there should be no surprise when contentious debates arise.

Much of this is analogous to attempting to restore a person back to cardiovascular health by placing a Band Aid over a person's chest that may require a heart transplant or losing 150 lbs.

[Sly]

I share your opinion.

The numbers do matter. Those are important facts upon which people are basing their perception of the problem. If the numbers aren't accurate the perception is not accurate. People have been using the 3 and 20 percent statement repeatedly. It would be nice to know what the 20% is based on. Offhand I'd think the 3% number is based on something, usually percentages that don't end in 5 or 0 have some factual basis. Percentages ending in 5 or 0 though suggest rounding or estimation of some sort, as well as any percentage that is easily converted from a fraction. That's what I find 75% of the time anyway.

Baxter had 2,017 AT Hikers last year (sobo, flip, thru). I assume the number of total visitors at roughly 67,000 which is around the figures in the past.

[Dogwood]

Members of the ATC and AT community, perhaps especially the AT thru-hiking community culture, aren't getting it. Step outside of being a member of this community for a moment. Look at the AT, some of its management and modeling, and its thru-hiker culture through the eyes of Great Smoky Mountains and Shenandaoh NPs, White Mountains/AMC, BSP, some towns, hostelers, trail town businesses, some private property owners, other land users the AT is routed through, hunters, etc. Must I refresh some memories here of contentious relations and situations elsewhere involving the AT community? Increasingly, the AT community is being perceived as acting like the 800 lb gorilla on the block, the one that others have to increasingly kowtow to. We are increasingly making the incorrect assumption that we have to be catered to and coddled. If these threads are any indication of the larger AT community it seems so. I notice little humility in threads like this. Could the AT community demonstrate a deeper understanding with greater willingness to walk a mile in other person's shoes?

Even here, after well expressed posts by Handlebar, there is an inherit assumption in this statement, "I hope you will continue to work with the ATC, ALDHA, and other interested parties to resolve the issues you brought to the ATC's attention last fall regarding the behavior of a tiny minority of AT thru hikers as well as the pressure that increasing numbers of AT hikers are placing on Baxter State Park, rather than continue a crusade to justify ending the relationship of Baxter State Park with the Appalachian Trail."

Sounds good but there is an inherit underlying assumption that BSP authorities have to resolve the current situation by absorbing the current number of AT hikers entering from outside it's borders among it's many other entrants. MAYBE, the AT numbers entering from outside its borders are already TOO MUCH OR VERY NEAR TOO MUCH from their perspective? To me, it's quite obvious a more problematic issue going forward, from BSP's perspective, considering its mission, and the way BSP is managed, it is being assumed BSP will increasingly absorb an increasing AT usage of its entrants into the future. There is no end in sight for increasing AT numbers from BSP's perspective. The order of the day could be read as, here BSP gag on some more AT hikers. This is what we want and this is what we will get. We will impose our trail and community upon you. Fine, don't like it we'll reroute our trail somewhere else you crusading idiots with a narrative of expelling the wonderful almighty AT and its community from your pitiful environment.

What COULD resolve and avoid much of the conflict with BSP, and quite possibly with the others I listed, now and in the future, and demonstrate significant willingness to compromise is if the AT was managed and modeled NOT on a come one come all style! Seems like some insightful folks over at the PCTA think this is worth doing! Hmmmm?

Aren't people listening to BSP authorities? Did they actually carefully read and consider what was in the fall letter?

[Tuckahoe]

Members of the ATC and AT community, perhaps especially the AT thru-hiking community culture, aren't getting it. Step outside of being a member of this community for a moment. Look at the AT, some of its management and modeling, and its thru-hiker culture through the eyes of Great Smoky Mountains and Shenandaoh NPs, White Mountains/AMC, BSP, some towns, hostelers, trail town businesses, some private property owners, other land users the AT is routed through, hunters, etc. Must I refresh some memories here of contentious relations and situations elsewhere involving the AT community? Increasingly, the AT community is being perceived as acting like the 800 lb gorilla on the block, the one that others have to increasingly kowtow to. We are increasingly making the incorrect assumption that we have to be catered to and coddled. If these threads are any indication of the larger AT community it seems so. I notice little humility in threads like this. Could the AT community demonstrate a deeper understanding with greater willingness to walk a mile in other person's shoes?

Even here, after well expressed posts by Handlebar, there is an inherit assumption in this statement, "I hope you will continue to work with the ATC, ALDHA, and other interested parties to resolve the issues you brought to the ATC's attention last fall regarding the behavior of a tiny minority of AT thru hikers as well as the pressure that increasing numbers of AT hikers are placing on Baxter State Park, rather than continue a crusade to justify ending the relationship of Baxter State Park with the Appalachian Trail."

Sounds good but there is an inherit underlying assumption that BSP authorities have to resolve the current situation by absorbing the current number of AT hikers entering from outside it's borders among it's many other entrants. MAYBE, the AT numbers entering from outside its borders are already TOO MUCH OR VERY NEAR TOO MUCH from their perspective? To me, it's quite obvious a more problematic issue going forward, from BSP's perspective, considering its mission, and the way BSP is managed, it is being assumed BSP will increasingly absorb an increasing AT usage of its entrants into the future. There is no end in sight for increasing AT numbers from BSP's perspective. The order of the day could be read as, here BSP gag on some more AT hikers. This is what we want and this is what we will get. We will impose our trail and community upon you. Fine, don't like it we'll reroute our trail somewhere else you crusading idiots with a narrative of expelling the wonderful almighty AT and its community from your pitiful environment.

What COULD resolve and avoid much of the conflict with BSP, and quite possibly with the others I listed, now and in the future, and demonstrate significant willingness to compromise is if the AT was managed and modeled NOT on a come one come all style! Seems like some insightful folks over at the PCTA think this is worth doing! Hmmmm?

Aren't people listening to BSP authorities? Did they actually carefully read and consider what was in the fall letter?

Well said Dogwood.

What I am also bothered by is the attitude expressed by some that the solution is not a change in behavior but that the Feds should take the trail corridor to keep it open should BSP make the decision to close the AT in the park.

[Traveler]

If everyone would just follow the rules, the problems would diminish if not disappear.

[Sly]

Well said Dogwood.

Not really. When he wasn't even there, he's portraying the ATC and ALDHA as being dimwitted at the meeting with BSP.

[Cobble]

Even having an absolute daily quota either crossing abol bridge or entering the 100 mile wilderness could relieve a lot of the problem. Force the bubble to thin out and to keep clumps from entering Baxter at the same time.

Just because the rest of the trail runs like the wild, wild west doesn't mean that the 100 mile wilderness and Baxter have to operate that way as well. In fact the AT might better fulfill its purpose if it does not.

If the ATC and AT in general can understand Baxter's pain points I think a lot can be done short of relocating the trail or adapting the other 95% of the trail.

[Dogwood]

Never said or implied one thing about ALDHA. I have little idea where ALDHA stands on this issue. I have said some things about the ATC though. Did we have to be at that meeting to know and comment on what the ATC has publicly shared about where it stands on certain management issues and modeling? Are you denying the ATC does not model the AT in general on a come one come all model?

I regret you took what I said as intending to mean the ATC is dimwitted. There are many fine, truly exceptional, tirelessly working, trail political savvy, well connected, knowledgable people at the ATC that love the AT. I have nothing but the greatest admiration for the people at the ATC. If I didn't believe the ATC is a mighty force of good I wouldn't be supporting it or a 13 yr member.

I do see conflicts arising though based on this model. I recognize the ATC as playing a major factor in kicking this can of conflicts further down the road in their stubbornness to adhere to such a model.

[Sly]

Who said this?

The order of the day could be read as, here BSP gag on some more AT hikers. This is what we want and this is what we will get. We will impose our trail and community upon you. Fine, don't like it we'll reroute our trail somewhere else you crusading idiots with a narrative of expelling the wonderful almighty AT and its community from your pitiful environment.

I don't speak for the ATC but this statement is far from their stance. If there's anyone not paying attention, it's you.

[volleypc]

has this ever been done? and if so, why not? has the trail just not ever been removed from anywhere worth fighting over? seems to me like it has. though perhaps not past 1968?

I don't think this is entirely accurate. This is what it says.. That in selecting the rights-of-way full consideration shall be given to minimizing the adverse effects upon the adjacent landowner or user and his operation. Development and management of each segment of the National Trails System shall be designed to harmonize with and complement any established multiple-use plans for the specific area in order to insure continued maximum benefits from the land. The location and width of such rights-of-way across Federal lands under the jurisdiction of another Federal agency shall be by agreement between the head of that agency and the appropriate Secretary. In selecting rights-of-way for trail purposes, the Secretary shall obtain the advice and assistance of the States, local governments, private organizations, and landowners and land users concerned.

In the past there have been areas where the State has taken the property and given it to the National Park Service, but the way the law stands now the NPS can not take property by eminent domain. The way the A.T. is managed it is basically a group of partnerships which can be an extremely efficient way to manage this type of Park, the problem is that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. With limited funding to go to the different partners for management, trail work, etc, I think you will see more areas over exaggerate the impacts and making threats to remove the trail with the goal of receiving more funding from the A.T. Are there rude hikers? yes.. Should it be addressed? yes... But Baxter State Park was out of line and simply lied about the incident with Jurek in their Park.

[swisscross]

"to remove the trail with the goal of receiving more funding from the A.T."

Are you saying the ATC pays Baxter money?
Never heard that before.

[Dogwood]

LOL. I know, I can be very protective of the ATC too when I believe it's not being appreciated for the great work that it does much of it unrecognized behind the scenes. My comments referring to the ATC, the AT community, and thru-hikers, don't arise from malice for it but out of a passionate desire to assist and make it better. How better do you think we can do that? Indeed, you were at the meeting. Most(none?) of us were not(were). Please share further if you will. I respect your opinions.

But, please take the post above I'm being quoted from in total context of all to whom I'm referring - "Members of the ATC, AT community, AT thru-hiking community culture,... Step outside of being a member of this community for a moment." ​Must I also explicitly remind everyone that I'm also referring to people here on WB since they too can be included in the AT community? I'm referencing the ATC as far as its modeling and some of it's management practices, not necessarily in regard to every single thing that was opined in that post.

I absolutely do recognize some in the long list that I gave above having that opinion of the AT and some in the AT community. I note some animosity increasing. Can not members of the AT community, including but not exclusively thru-hikers, be demanding? assumptive? self-absorbed? Is it not what threads like these are about?

[Another Kevin]

I do fault Mr Bissell for sending a confusing message. (I do not discuss the Jurek incident here.)

He says several different things, any one of which could be used if his intent is to close down the Trail. The inconsistency among them gets in the way of coming up with creative solutions to any of the problems.

The overarching tone is that A-T hikers are simply too numerous and that ATC's promotion of the Trail: "come one, come all" (the strategy of unlimited growth) is unacceptable. He states fairly explicitly that the sheer numbers are the problem; that even if hiker behaviour were exemplary (it is not!) the numbers would remain unsustainable. I take him at his word until this is explored further, which is why I have made several posts pledging to stay away from Katahdin and urging others to do the same. If our mere numbers overtaxes the resources, there is no other solution. It also follows that a permit system - probably the only solution to sheer numbers - will become a denial system. Since there will always be more hikers behind us, if there is simply not enough Katahdin to go around, someone will always be turned away. Those who are turned away will either abandon their dreams, or else come back, swelling the pool of would-be users for the next round and making for an even bigger group of disappointed would-be hikers. We are close to that situation today for some of the more popular attractions in our National Parks.

But he undermines his own argument by then trying to support it with a parade of horribles about hiker expectations and hiker misbehaviour. If the problem is expectations - that The Birches and Katahdin Stream simply cannot support the level of use, then creative solutions for getting hikers into and out of the park without an overnight stay begin to look possible. (I exclude any solution requiring new construction to increase the available resources. If BSPA feels that growing the campgrounds is out of keeping with the character of the park, that's their prerogative. If the problem is lawlessness, then the solution is perhaps law enforcement. This comes down to money. BSPA does not have the resources to enforce the law, but having someone else - ultimately hikers, through permit fees or whatever - pay for the enforcement would go a long way. Let's say that the permit were $50 (rather than the $10 or whatever it is to stay at The Birches). That won't break a hiker's budget, bul multiplied by a few hundred hikers, could pay for a couple of rent-a-cops for a couple of months, which really accounts for thru-hiking season, particularly if ticket revenues also go to the purchase. (If ticket revenues fall, well, then ... mission accomplished.)

The "3% of users" also undermines that argument that we are simply too numerous: we must be doing damage out of proportion to our numbers. Otherwise, if the 3% are too numerous, the other 97% surely must be excessive.

And that parade of horribles isn't the only possible explanation for the "3% vs 20%" point. It could be that the concentration of A-T hikers into a couple of months, while the rest of the BSP users spread out over three seasons, means that the damage done by that 3%, being concentrated in time, is that much greater. Or it could be that most of the 97% confine their visits to more robust areas of the park, while the 3% damage more fragile resources. Or it could be that the point is mere puffery, without hard facts behind it.

In any case, it's obvious that there is a problem with hiker behaviour. Addressing it is a matter of education, of law enforcement, or of design. (Many behavioural problems can be solved simply by making it easier to do the right thing than the wrong thing.) There is also claimed to be a problem simply with hiker numbers. The latter problem can be solved only by rationing - which will result, inevitably, in some being turned away. Most here would prefer to deny the problem of numbers; the ATC, as well, may struggle with it. But until we can actually explore further what Bissell actually means in the somewhat incoherent message, we simply don't know..

[volleypc]

"to remove the trail with the goal of receiving more funding from the A.T."

Are you saying the ATC pays Baxter money?
Never heard that before.

They do not pay Baxter. They fund projects that take place inside Baxter and manage the projects. In this instance, the Maine Appalachian Trail Club would be the partner responsible for the work. The trail clubs/organizations that maintain the trail put together projects and request funding for them. When and if the government funds the projects a funding agreement is created and the work is carried out by the trail club. The Maine Appalachian Trail Club maintains from Hwy 26 (Grafton Notch) to the summit of Katahdin. Much of this work is with programs such as the student conservation corp or other student programs while being inspected and assisted by the trail club.

[Sly]

Of course thru-hikers can be demanding (it's one of the reason for this conversation), and many may have said, "enough, take the AT out of Baxter" but their opinions don't count as much their actions.

[Just Bill]

I'm with Kevin...
This is a dead discussion really. Even if you drill down the numbers... perception is reality in this case.
Mr. Bissell's perception being the only reality we need to face at this time.

All we can do is offer what little constructive options or ideas for Sly or Laurie P to perhaps pass on and hope that representatives of BSP will work in good faith.
Don't mix up the park with the people involved.

Otherwise we should simply devote our energy towards changing behaviors, first our own... perhaps others where we can.
Ideally we can reach a point where Another K feels good about climbing Big K.