Appalachian Trail record-setter says Baxter State Park officials 'vilifying' him - Pr

[Traveler]

Juerek was not only cited for infractions, he was publicly shamed by the park director himself.

One way he was shamed was by the public accusation of littering.

That the Park Director elected not to share that this charge was based on Champagne Spray at the time the headlines were written is telling.

Given there were discussions with the sponsors about this commercial event taking place, including how media has to work in the park, I find the whining about all this to be a lot of noise about something that could have/should have been avoided.

Follow the rules, if you don't and you get caught, Cowboy up a little and don't whine about it, pay the fine, say you are sorry, and move on. If your opinion is the park made an example of him by public "shaming", Scott only has himself and/or a few people in his "posse" that exposed him to that. It wasn't you or I, the regulatory landscape of BSP, or the enforcement actions that provided the opportunity for BSP to drive the issue once they got the car. Support for busting park regs because "others do it too" is its own worst enemy as a defense.

[X-Pat]

... They were notified of what was expected of them. They chose to ignore the rules fully knowing the consequences to themselves and to the AT as well. The authorities told them what behaviors they expected.....

Well, according to Scott's statements, they did exactly what the authorities told them. They hiked up in a group size within the limit (which was apparently confirmed by a ranger), the guy who brought the champagne asked a ranger if it was OK and was told that yes, it's OK, as long as he keeps it away from children, and the "littering" charge for spraying champagne is downright laughable. Still, Scott stated that he accepts full responsibility and will pay any fines that he has to pay.
But of course, we wouldn't believe anything that Scott says, would we now? People had obviously made up their mind about Scott and his FKT attempt long before he got to BSP.

[rickb]

Looks like only the court cases for all of 2013 got posted in my pervious post. Not sure why.

Here is a list of the 2013 warnings-- note that the few the open container warnings are at a campsite which is seldom was used by thru hikers -- but one I highly recommend. They chop firewood for you and have canoes and a great view of K, and it is absolutely wonderful.

Here is the summary:

image.jpg

Facts matter.

[Shae]

all BSP officials have to do is enforce rules with ZERO tolerance, equally across the board, and not pick and choose who to mess with. that simple

Ditto. Well said.

[Traveler]

nope. not my position. for years BSP has done a lousy job enforcing anything. they chumped out on this Jurek thing. zero tolerance across the board. though i bet if Jurek was born and raised in Millinocket he'd of gotten a free pass for sure

Could be, could be your selective enforcement is their available enforcement. I really don't know, however the point remains, his crew and media people were informed of the park rules, they (and Scott) put themselves in the position that they are in now. No one else. That BSP may be using it to their political advantage is immaterial, had the infractions not occurred, they would not be able to.

I tend to agree with zero tolerance, however there are limits to all things based on budgets, manpower, and timing. Perhaps this is one way BSP is using a higher profile commercial event to make their point of the regs of the Park so less enforcement personnel are necessary.

[rickb]

Hi AdamKRZ,

I see you are from New Britian, CT.

If you have a vanity AT license plate, I think I shouted a hello out my car window (or door, since the window broke at 200,000 miles) a few months back.

Rick B

[BirdBrain]

Back from getting the last 15 of the 48 4000' hills of NH. I had hoped this had died down. There is a reason for this "selective" enforcement. It is not that complicate. It has nothing to do with us evil Mainers hating people that are not Mainers. It has nothing to do with a desire to pick and choose. There is an obvious detail that is clear to those willing to see it. This was a high profile event that was well advertised. The world was about to see stills and video from Baxter Peak of a crowd cheering as a less than obscure person sprayed booze on the peak. How could Baxter not "select" this event to go public. BSP does not have the resources to get every infraction. Quite frankly, BSP does not need resources dedicated for most people that visit that peak. There is a crowd that requires special attention. That crowd strains BSP's abilities to enforce rules. These things should be self evident. We could help. Instead, some act confused. This whole situation is immensely frustrating. I cannot recall a time in my life where I made a serious comment about another state or people that categorized that state or people in derogatory terms. I see this often during the discussion of this subject. I cannot imagine saying (pick the state or people) are elitists or bigots or stuck up or on and on. We are not jerks en masse up here. I am going to continue to assume that those that make such blanket statements do not represent the fine people of the states they live in. I could assume the opposite if I were to act in kind. Please guys. Think for a minute. There is a reason BSP has done what they have done. It is as simple as trying to combat the public event that sends the wrong message. The timing was bad. It came at a time of rising friction. It is not because Mainers are evil.

[rickb]

BSP does not have the resources to get every infraction.

Observations like that are disappointing.

In 2013 BSP issued exactly 8 formal warnings for open container violations-- all of them at a campground not traditionally frequented by thru hikers. These warnings may have been for the same incident.

They issued zero open container citations (zilch, nada) that year that resulted in a court case or fine.

[BirdBrain]

[QUOTE=rickb;1993333]

BSP does not have the resources to get every infraction.[/QUOTE]

Observations like this are disappointing.

In 2013 BSP issued exactly 8 formal warnings for open container violations-- all of them at a campground not traditionally frequented by the hikers. The issued zero citations (zilch, nada) citations that year that resulted in a court case or fine.

The selective focus on a insignificant detail is disappointing. Regardless of the number cited, it is a fact that they do not have the resources to get every infraction. However, that truth is infinitely secondary to the real issues at hand. It is disappointing that people would rather focus on debating numbers than focus on fixing issues.

[Another Kevin]

Back from getting the last 15 of the 48 4000' hills of NH. I had hoped this had died down. There is a reason for this "selective" enforcement. It is not that complicate. It has nothing to do with us evil Mainers hating people that are not Mainers. It has nothing to do with a desire to pick and choose. There is an obvious detail that is clear to those willing to see it. This was a high profile event that was well advertised. The world was about to see stills and video from Baxter Peak of a crowd cheering as a less than obscure person sprayed booze on the peak. How could Baxter not "select" this event to go public. BSP does not have the resources to get every infraction. Quite frankly, BSP does not need resources dedicated for most people that visit that peak. There is a crowd that requires special attention. That crowd strains BSP's abilities to enforce rules. These things should be self evident. We could help. Instead, some act confused. This whole situation is immensely frustrating. I cannot recall a time in my life where I made a serious comment about another state or people that categorized that state or people in derogatory terms. I see this often during the discussion of this subject. I cannot imagine saying (pick the state or people) are elitists or bigots or stuck up or on and on. We are not jerks en masse up here. I am going to continue to assume that those that make such blanket statements do not represent the fine people of the states they live in. I could assume the opposite if I were to act in kind. Please guys. Think for a minute. There is a reason BSP has done what they have done. It is as simple as trying to combat the public event that sends the wrong message. The timing was bad. It came at a time of rising friction. It is not because Mainers are evil.

Bissell's message from last year was quite clear.

Even if A-T hiker behaviour were exemplary - which it unquestionably is not - A-T hikers are simply to numerous to accommodate. He repeated this point several times - and then went on to state that the problem is compounded by hiker behaviour. But the problem is simply that we are too numerous. We must shift our focus to limiting our numbers. That part is abundantly clear. Nothing else will suffice. The law enforcement issues are merely evidence that the limit must be even lower than it would be if everyone complied with the law. They are a distraction.

Yes, as you say, we could help. We could make a personal commitment never to visit, and urge others to do the same. If there is not enough Katahdin to go around, then someone must forgo it.

I have already done so.

I am not claiming that Mainers are elitists, bigots, or anything of the sort. I'm sure that Mainers would offer me a warm welcome - a welcome that they can ill afford. It's like visiting dirt-poor Aunt Martha, who insists upon putting on the groaning board for visitors, even though it means she will be doing without for the rest of the month. I do not wish to impose that upon Maine. Baxter gave the park to the people of Maine. If there is not enough of it that non-Mainers can be accommodated without damage, then the rest of us would simply do well to leave it to its owners.

[BirdBrain]

Bissell's message from last year was quite clear.

Even if A-T hiker behaviour were exemplary - which it unquestionably is not - A-T hikers are simply to numerous to accommodate. He repeated this point several times - and then went on to state that the problem is compounded by hiker behaviour. But the problem is simply that we are too numerous. We must shift our focus to limiting our numbers. That part is abundantly clear. Nothing else will suffice. The law enforcement issues are merely evidence that the limit must be even lower than it would be if everyone complied with the law. They are a distraction.

Yes, as you say, we could help. We could make a personal commitment never to visit, and urge others to do the same. If there is not enough Katahdin to go around, then someone must forgo it.

I have already done so.

I am not claiming that Mainers are elitists, bigots, or anything of the sort. I'm sure that Mainers would offer me a warm welcome - a welcome that they can ill afford. It's like visiting dirt-poor Aunt Martha, who insists upon putting on the groaning board for visitors, even though it means she will be doing without for the rest of the month. I do not wish to impose that upon Maine. Baxter gave the park to the people of Maine. If there is not enough of it that non-Mainers can be accommodated without damage, then the rest of us would simply do well to leave it to its owners.

I believe in the skills and abilities of a seasoned hiker. I believe if thru's put their hearts in it, that Mr Bissell would not even know they were there. I say again, we are not the ones with training wheels on. We know how to do it and do it efficiently. The clumsy rookie day hikers should be the issue for Baxter. It is a willful act that makes walk-ins the problem. There is no good reason for that reality.

[Another Kevin]

I believe in the skills and abilities of a seasoned hiker. I believe if thru's put their hearts in it, that Mr Bissell would not even know they were there. I say again, we are not the ones with training wheels on. We know how to do it and do it efficiently. The clumsy rookie day hikers should be the issue for Baxter. It is a willful act that makes walk-ins the problem. There is no good reason for that reality.

Be that as it may, Mr Bissell has stated explicitly that even if our behaviour were exemplary, we would still be too numerous. I believe him more than I believe you. He's the director of the park.

[Lone Wolf]

Be that as it may, Mr Bissell has stated explicitly that even if our behaviour were exemplary, we would still be too numerous. I believe him more than I believe you. He's the director of the park.

it's clear to me he wants the AT gone from the park.

[Wülfgang]

They made an example out of him. Fair or not, that's the way it is. Whether he's a nice guy or "pompous athlete", he got nailed because what he was doing was high profile and would impact the park one way or another.

We're all armchair quarterbacking here, but as a professional he should have just said "Hey, I'm sorry, wont happen again, future hikers please respect our parks" and been done with it. Declined any further interviews until it all blew over.

[WingedMonkey]

Finally, he fired back at Bissell’s suggestion that he brought a corporate event to Baxter Peak.

“I happen to be a professional athlete and I am supported by sponsors, but it was not ‘an event,’ ” Jurek said. “I didn’t have a finish line … and what I was doing was like any other thru-hiker. I just happened to be a professional athlete who had a following and sponsors.”

This is where I started scratching my head.

[Another Kevin]

it's clear to me he wants the AT gone from the park.

Who am I to say otherwise? I have no claim on it. The park has large areas, including Katahdin itself, that are supposed to be wilderness.

“A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”

If the sheer number of people along the Hunt Trail are threatening the nature of being untrammelled by Man, then perhaps he is right to restrict numbers or close it entirely.

[MuddyWaters]

Jurek wasnt targetted

His activity was

They would have closely watched and ticketed any other high profile activity

Such things, whether they break rules or not, are not what wilderness areas are about.

They dont belong in BSP
They dont belong in national parks
They dont even belong, imo, on a national scenic trail

When its high enough profile that magazines, and video crews start intruding, its gone too far.

Commercial media permits need to be denied completely , by BSP, NPS, and ATC for this crap.

[Sarcasm the elf]

Can we get a Jurek filter on the news feed?.

Second that...

[rickb]

Even if A-T hiker behaviour were exemplary - which it unquestionably is not - A-T hikers are simply to numerous to accommodate.

One thing interesting about such observations regarding thru hikers is that the foundation is not on protecting the natural ecosystem of Katahdin, but rather an arbitrary aesthetic.

Nobody is suggesting that thru hikers are adversely disrupting the Bicknell Thrush, or damaging the rare Potantilla plant.

In fact, my guess is that the park managers fully realize that the developed campgrounds at ponds around the park have an impact on wildlife that eclipses that of thru hikers by an order of magnitude.

This is not to minimize the importance of protecting a visual aesthetic at Baxter peak-- but just put it in context.

Another thing to put in context is how the park has accommodated changes in demand in the past-- the bunkhouses built in Roari Brook being just one example-- or the drive-in car campgrounds as another.

Bottom line is that a narrative is being created that thru hikers are the problem, and that the mountain is in jeopardy because of them. And that is just not right-- not even close.

Without minimizing the importance of operational "middle management" issues regarding thru hiker impact, behavior and ways to improve things, the larger narrative should not be accepted without question. At least not at the "executive level" and not in public discourse either.

[BirdBrain]

This is where I started scratching my head.

I find myself in agreement here. That was an absurd and nonsensical statement by Jurek.