Jensen Bissell's Lament

[JustaTouron]

And there will undoubtedly be a process to deal with peak time thru pressures that should be followed then too. I do agree there will need to be a permit system of some sort.

Here is where it will get ugly.... A boy scout troop in VA wants to take a day hike on the AT on a weekend in which the bubble is coming thru the area. Their permits are denied by the ATC. 28 senators in 14 states along with 50 or so House reps from those states introduce a bill in congress demanding that the local citizens get priority for day hikes over thruhikes (who have no unified political power, unlike the local citizens) In the preamble of the bill it is mentioned the AT was not intended to be thruhiked but used for short term use, but the people who live near it.

[Another Kevin]

The ATC's strongest argument on why your grandmother is in fact already a trolley car is that being Baxter didn't assert a demand for money in 1968 as a taking it is now too late to assert the demand and that ATC has a valid easement on BSP. And it is a strong argument. BSP also has a strong argument. I don't know which way a court would rule. Nor does anyone else. And unlike Brady and Goodell neither BSP nor ATC wants to roll the dice. I predict they will continue to poster each claiming that they have the final say but continue to compromise so neither party feels a need to take it to court.

A Federal taking would be truly the nuclear option, since it would extinguish Percival Baxter's public trust. The court case would be a disaster for the Trail, whichever way it was decided. If it goes in favor of the Feds, nothing blocks the whim of a future Congress from simply selling it off. If it goes in favor of the State, then the backlash against the case having been brought in the first place would be the loss of the trail easement. Everyone knows we don't dare open that can of worms.

[Bronk]

Problem is the ATC is the ATC and Baxter State Park is Baxter State Park. How can the ATC enforce anything there if the park employees on the ground in their own park can't stop it? As others have said, most of the people causing problems are probably not even dues paying members of the ATC. It is within BSP's power to solve the problems they are having. Instead they are throwing a temper tantrum like a 2 year old and blaming others. If warnings aren't working, then write tickets. If tickets don't work, slap the cuffs on them. It is within their power to control what happens in their park. The question is, do they have the will to do it?

[BirdBrain]

Here is where it will get ugly.... A boy scout troop in VA wants to take a day hike on the AT on a weekend in which the bubble is coming thru the area. Their permits are denied by the ATC. 28 senators in 14 states along with 50 or so House reps from those states introduce a bill in congress demanding that the local citizens get priority for day hikes over thruhikes (who have no unified political power, unlike the local citizens) In the preamble of the bill it is mentioned the AT was not intended to be thruhiked but used for short term use, but the people who live near it.

That scenerio (along with any number of local concerns) illustrate the stupidity of thru's that want to fight for "better" representation. Their inability to grasp the most basic concept of who actually would win in a fight over rights makes Bissell sound like Churchill in comparison.

[Traveler]

Here is where it will get ugly.... A boy scout troop in VA wants to take a day hike on the AT on a weekend in which the bubble is coming thru the area. Their permits are denied by the ATC. 28 senators in 14 states along with 50 or so House reps from those states introduce a bill in congress demanding that the local citizens get priority for day hikes over thruhikes (who have no unified political power, unlike the local citizens) In the preamble of the bill it is mentioned the AT was not intended to be thruhiked but used for short term use, but the people who live near it.

It would be interesting to see Congress react to something and actually do something, though this would be relatively small enough an issue that it won't be too far beyond them. Since that isn't a likely outcome, there would probably be a more probable system needed.

The AT itself is far too porous for strict permitting in terms of the entire trail. In CT alone there are approximately 22 road crossings and access trails that connect directly with the AT. I suspect inside the next decade or two there will be specific areas that will need permits to camp, similar to what GSMNP uses now. An example of this might be a thru hiker obtains a permit for Springer to Katahdin or Harpers Ferry to Springer for lets say $60.00. The permit allows them some special considerations but not a lot, but it does give them access to a "one call" system that has to be accompanied by a discrete number where they can make reservations, obtain local permits, etc which can be managed electronically. Lots of nooks and crannies in this process to be sure, however, I can see this being how the permit system is put into effect.

The BS troop may not be a good example. They would be competing for a Group Area permit with other large groups and likely would be able to get their weekend or work around where they could stay with a trail routing change.

The issue will probably remain at BSP out of the 100-mile wilderness. That gets a lot of traffic and not all of it is from thru, which would require a reservation or permit to be acquired prior to going into that area. Its been said here that Mumford might be the logical place to make that call, using the discrete number, they can be put into a queue with a specific day they would be able to climb Katahdin. If they miss the window, there will be a high possibility they can get one on a standby basis for no-shows (as they were themselves) so few permitted passages would not be used in any given day.

We have systems to keep over two million people flying every day in the US, granted the infrastructure to do that is pretty extensive as compared to the AT, however the point is it is not impossible to figure out a working system. Not everyone will be happy, but everyone will get an at bat.

[rafe]

The article at the link, by someone claiming a certain inside status at BSP, says it was Jurek's commercialism that most irked park officials.

http://www.sprinkleshikes.com/jenhik...ter-state-park

[Don H]

The article at the link, by someone claiming a certain inside status at BSP, says it was Jurek's commercialism that most irked park officials.

http://www.sprinkleshikes.com/jenhik...ter-state-park

From the article; "[COLOR=rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.701961)]For example, on my 2012 thru hike I didn't know the rules about alcohol and I popped the champagne just like many other hikers before me."

When I thrued in 2011 I didn't know about the no alcohol rule either. Seems much of the problem could be solved with education.[/COLOR]

[Don H]

Also it appears that the thing that angered BSP officials the most, visible corporate sponsorship logos (the head band), was not a violation.

[MuddyWaters]

The problem is thru hikers, and thru hiking.
General trail use is distributed throughout trail, throughout year. Thruhiking creates concentrated grouping.

In 20 yrs it doesnt matter if you nobo, sobo, flipflop, or whatever. There wont be enough trail or BSP or GSMNP to go around.

[rafe]

In 20 yrs it doesnt matter if you nobo, sobo, flipflop, or whatever. There wont be enough trail or BSP or GSMNP to go around.

If that's our worst problem in 2035, we'll be doing great. Chances are it won't be my problem.

[Datto]

Suggestions:

1) Stoppengruber Bissell negotiating with the ATC about hiker issues is likely a waste of breath -- the reality, whether any of the rule-follower-types here want to admit it or not, is that ridiculous stupid rules are not going to be followed by the normal, everyday, law abiding, church-going citizens in society no matter how many times Barney Fife has a meltdown about the stupid rule being broken (just look at Prohibition for an example). Also, the ATC doesn't represent hikers in the least -- entertaining negotiations in that realm will lead to expectations that will never be met. Instead (assuming anyone of the various groups actually wants to deal with this issue directly an organzation must be formed to specifically represent AT hikers (including AT thru-hikers) that can speak for the vast majority of the hiker crowd -- of course this would likely take a few years before coming to fruition but negotiating with the ATC on hiker issues is the wrong approach and will not lead to success.

2) This entire discussion and confrontation likely could have been completely avoided, from my view, had Bissell not shot his mouth off in the global media -- Bissell should get outside help when dealing with media and public relations issues and hire a designated PR person who has a clue about current culture -- the PR person would likely have known ahead of time the situation was probably going to go bad and could have gotten ahead of it without Bissell having to open his mouth.


Datto

[Datto]

I'm an engineer, so I'm usually the one say "Do the math." If 1000 hikers finish the AT every year, and they finish over a window of 60 days, that's about 16 per day. If each AT hiker spends an hour on the summit, and there is about a 4 hour daily window on the summit, considering up and down times, that's 4 thru-hikers per hour. If he thinks 200 hikers at one time is a problem, and is caused by thrus, that would mean 800 per day, or 48,000 thru hikers per year. I suspect this jack hole is exaggerating for dramatic effect.

Thanks for putting this analysis together. It clearly shows the issue is such a molehill that got a mountain put under it by Bissell when Bissell open his mouth to the global media.

From my view, this entire escapade shows the leadership at Baxter is just some wild gun-mouth-slinging person in-charge who found himself promoted way beyond his level of competence.


Datto

[Traveler]

2) This entire discussion and confrontation likely could have been completely avoided, ....

Datto

Agreed. Had the rules of the park been observed, there would not have been any issues at all.

[Datto]

One of the biggest problems with Bissell et al (from a practical standpoint and a likely problematic legal standpoint) is the selective enforcement being used by Bissell -- the "rules" seems to be applied just the whim of Bissel whenever he feels like it and toward whatever group Bissell has decided he doesn't like.

I went through and re-read the listing of stated rules for visitors to Baxter State Park again. There are so many exceptions to the rules it just starts looking like "well, if you know someone at Baxter then the rules don't apply."

Why don't the Baxter rules just say "No firearms or weapons. Period." Instead, it's about whether your firearms are in your trunk (wink wink) or whether your bow is unstrung (wink wink) or whether your howitzer is in a case or not (wink wink). What kind of clarity is that? The rule should just state, "No firearms or weapons of any kind are allowed in the park."

Why don't the Baxter rules just say, "No hunting or trapping. Period." Instead, it's all about exceptions for location in the park where hunting is or is not supposedly allowed, Crazy. I can already hear the response about anmal management and harvesting or some special needs group that believes they have the right to go hunting anywhere they feel like it.

The rule talking about use of electronic devices in the park "in any way that impairs the enjoyment of the Park by others is prohibited.". Wow, that would seem to me to be complete unenforceable. Completely at the whim of whomever happens to be in-charge for the day at that particular spot in the park. What is one person's enjoyment could easily be somone else's impared enjoyment.

Snowmobile traffic being allowed in the park. Makes it such that loud obnoxiousness is permitted to desecrate the landscape but only during certain times of the year. Might as well make it okay for a boombox to be strapped to the snowmobile since you won't be able to hear the boombox over the snowmobile anyhow. Seems to not matter at all if someone's enjoyment is imparired -- just as long as it's a certain time of year and you face true north and you know someone who works at the park.

A maximum group size of 12 people who are wiithin one mile of each other -- how in the world is that determination made in order to make the rule enforceable? By the time AT thru-hikers get to Katahdin they pretty much know each other and are going to be starting in the early morning so they're going to be heading up the Hunt Trail around hhe same time. Is that an illegal group even though they never have grouped together in the past (I wasn't ever a part of any particular group when I thru-hiked the AT but there certainly were more than a dozen thru-hikers on Katahdin when I went up in mid-Octber.

All of a sudden there's a media event in Baxter from a notable trail runner where selective enforcement is used by Bissell and Company in order to make a point in the global media against AT hikers as a group? What if I don't consider trail running to be the same as AT thru-hiking? Bissell is singling me out as bad when it's the trail runner community who should be admonished.


Datto

[egilbe]

One of the biggest problems with Bissell et al (from a practical standpoint and a likely problematic legal standpoint) is the selective enforcement being used by Bissell -- the "rules" seems to be applied just the whim of Bissel whenever he feels like it and toward whatever group Bissell has decided he doesn't like.

Or maybe when someone is caught?

I went through and re-read the listing of stated rules for visitors to Baxter State Park again. There are so many exceptions to the rules it just starts looking like "well, if you know someone at Baxter then the rules don't apply."

Why don't the Baxter rules just say "No firearms or weapons. Period." Instead, it's about whether your firearms are in your trunk (wink wink) or whether your bow is unstrung (wink wink) or whether your howitzer is in a case or not (wink wink). What kind of clarity is that? The rule should just state, "No firearms or weapons of any kind are allowed in the park."

Ever hear of the 2nd Amendment? No, read the Constitution sometime

Why don't the Baxter rules just say, "No hunting or trapping. Period." Instead, it's all about exceptions for location in the park where hunting is or is not supposedly allowed, Crazy. I can already hear the response about anmal management and harvesting or some special needs group that believes they have the right to go hunting anywhere they feel like it.

Because hunting and trapping is allowed in areas of the park. It not rocket science. Don't overthink it to try to make a point that is only on your head

The rule talking about use of electronic devices in the park "in any way that impairs the enjoyment of the Park by others is prohibited.". Wow, that would seem to me to be complete unenforceable. Completely at the whim of whomever happens to be in-charge for the day at that particular spot in the park. What is one person's enjoyment could easily be somone else's impared enjoyment.

Makes sense to me. If you want to go to a disco, why go to Baxter? Time and place for everything.

Snowmobile traffic being allowed in the park. Makes it such that loud obnoxiousness is permitted to desecrate the landscape but only during certain times of the year. Might as well make it okay for a boombox to be strapped to the snowmobile since you won't be able to hear the boombox over the snowmobile anyhow. Seems to not matter at all if someone's enjoyment is imparired -- just as long as it's a certain time of year and you face true north and you know someone who works at the park.

Well, since the park is closed to camping during the Winter, the only people who are going to enjoy Baxter are people who arrive on snowmobile to hike Baxter. Again, try to exercise your brain too much trying to find a fault where one doesn't exist

A maximum group size of 12 people who are wiithin one mile of each other -- how in the world is that determination made in order to make the rule enforceable? By the time AT thru-hikers get to Katahdin they pretty much know each other and are going to be starting in the early morning so they're going to be heading up the Hunt Trail around hhe same time. Is that an illegal group even though they never have grouped together in the past (I wasn't ever a part of any particular group when I thru-hiked the AT but there certainly were more than a dozen thru-hikers on Katahdin when I went up in mid-Octber.

Which is why they want to limit through-hiker access to the park. Do you understand yet that you are part of the problem?

All of a sudden there's a media event in Baxter from a notable trail runner where selective enforcement is used by Bissell and Company in order to make a point in the global media against AT hikers as a group? What if I don't consider trail running to be the same as AT thru-hiking? Bissell is singling me out as bad when it's the trail runner community who should be admonished.

If you are the face of the trail-running community, you deserve to be singled out because you are an idiot.


Datto

Very simple

[JohnHuth]

Here's an op-ed piece from the Bangor Daily News

https://bangordailynews.com/2015/09/...ref=OpinionBox

By and large, the people I've spoken with are sympathetic to the BSP folks. This may just be a 'sampling' issue for me, but the folks I know are pretty conservation minded.

[TJ aka Teej]

Why don't the Baxter rules just say "No firearms or weapons. Period." Because there is hunting in Baxter. To get to areas where hunting is allowed, you must travel through game preserves, so keep your firearms in the trunk.
------
The rule talking about use of electronic devices in the park "in any way that impairs the enjoyment of the Park by others is prohibited.". Wow, that would seem to me to be complete unenforceable. If I'm at site 19, I don't want to hear a loud radio from site 20.
---
All of a sudden there's a media event in Baxter from a notable trail runner where selective enforcement is used by Bissell and Company in order to make a point in the global media against AT hikers as a group? "All of a sudden"? BSP has made ATC aware of the issue of ATers behaving badly for decades. The AT has been relo'd away from a campground, AT lean-tos have been removed, an area for ATers was built away from other visitors, staff has been added, info kiosks have been built. Several months before Jurek's circus violated agreements with the Park the Director informed ATC in writing they'd better start acting. "All of a sudden"?

You seem to have formed strong opinions about something you have weak knowledge of, Datto.

[TJ aka Teej]

the park is closed to camping during the Winter

Camping in Baxter is allowed in winter.

[Datto]

If you are the face of the trail-running community, you deserve to be singled out because you are an idiot. Very simple

Ha, I don't know for sure if that was directed at me specifically but thanks for the laugh. Trail running looks like lots of extra work for no real reason -- I'm more the type to drink champagne and throw shoes at posters mounted on my basement wall.

Which is why they want to limit through-hiker access to the park. Do you understand yet that you are part of the problem?

Nope. The teensy number of thru-hikers entering Baxter is not the problem at all. The problem is Bissell's mouth and his obvious and complete ineptness at handling public relations issues affecting the park.[/QUOTE]

Ever hear of the 2nd Amendment? No, read the Constitution sometime.

Holy cow -- can you see Russia from your back porch too?

If you want to go to a disco, why go to Baxter? Time and place for everything

Disco??

You can tell by the way I use my walk
I'm a hikin' man, no trail running talk.

And champagne's all right. It's OK.
And you won't look the other way.
We can try to understand
The New York Times' effect on man.

Don't need more shots from of a gun.
Stayin' alive, Stayin' alive.


Datto

[Datto]

"All of a sudden"? BSP has made ATC aware of the issue of ATers behaving badly for decades. The AT has been relo'd away from a campground, AT lean-tos have been removed, an area for ATers was built away from other visitors, staff has been added, info kiosks have been built. Several months before Jurek's circus violated agreements with the Park the Director informed ATC in writing they'd better start acting. "All of a sudden"? You seem to have formed strong opinions about something you have weak knowledge of

If you think the produce in the grocery store is not fresh enough, why would you go to the hardware store to complain?


Datto