Baxter state park

[Slo-go'en]

Interesting point. Too bad Percival didn't donate the land and have Baxter SP made a designated wilderness area. Just think---No roads, no snowmobiles, no 44 foot RVs, no airplanes, no bicycles---just humans on foot.

Baxter SP is a big chunk of land. There is one road along the western periphery of the park and a couple fairly short access roads which go to campgrounds not too far in from the gate. BTW, The RV can only be 22 foot long, but it can have a trailer so long as the combined length is 44 feet or less. Airplanes can only land on three very large lakes, which all extend beyond the park boundaries or are very close to it. Interior parts of the park are only accessible by foot. Katahdan is the big draw but only fraction of what is there.

[Bronk]

you have a point then, perhaps. i think part of the issue is the rules dont need to be explained to most of the visitors. i mean who besides AT users are going to pop champagne on top of katahdin? it also seems like the idea of illegally camping is all but impossible except if you hike in on the AT. maybe thats why the rules arent explained all that well, it could be done better. i still think it would matter little to thrus. theyre going to do what they have to do, and, as others have stated, some may just accept the consequences. the issue is they may be accepting the consequence of the no more AT in baxter on behalf of all of us.

I've never been to Maine but in the southern Appalachians I have seen people with a bottle of wine on a mountaintop many times.

[rafe]

I've never been to Maine but in the southern Appalachians I have seen people with a bottle of wine on a mountaintop many times.

It happens on Katahdin routinely, and has been happening for many years. The diff this year is that the photo was blasted on Facebook to a very large following. Most thru-hikers don't have 160,000 followers on facebook.

[Bucketfoot]

Years ago a man named Percival Baxter donated thousands of acres of land that he owned personally to create Baxter State Park. Not to mention that upon his death 7 million dollars from his estate was given to maintain the park. Is it asking so much to respect his wishes. I have been section hiking the AT for years and I will have just as much to celebrate as anyone else.Some day I will complete it all and I will be climbing Katahdin. When I do i will quietly have my picture taken at the sign and turn around and go home. Some people think everything is about them. It"s not!

[WILLIAM HAYES]

Thats what I observed dont care if you believe it or not you were not there there were no "Caveats" in anything I said you may want to look up the definition of the term caveat before you misuse it again

[lemon b]

Thank you Peakbagger for pointing out a quote from Mr Baxter. For certain applying his intent to 2015 is up to the staff of BSP as directed by the fine voters and taxpayers from the State of Maine. ATC must be grateful their input was sought.

[Wet Foot]

Uh, because most hikers really don't care who "counts" their completion. It's amazing to me the bull__t we try to come up with to get grown up adults to act like grown up adults. Easiest solution is to move the terminus from Baxter Peak on Katahdin to some low-profile, non-sexy thing, such as a gravel parking lot near Abol Bridge.

[Traveler]

The northeastern corner of the park near Mountain Catcher Pond would be a good place to end the AT at Huber Road. Nice wilderness area to hike through and once at the trail end at Huber Road, its only a 25 mile walk out to Patten ME.

[Bronk]

Uh, because most hikers really don't care who "counts" their completion. It's amazing to me the bull__t we try to come up with to get grown up adults to act like grown up adults. Easiest solution is to move the terminus from Baxter Peak on Katahdin to some low-profile, non-sexy thing, such as a gravel parking lot near Abol Bridge.

How many years has it been since Mt Oglethorpe was the southern terminis? Yet people still post on here asking about the feasibility of starting a thruhike there. If they move the terminis I'd bet at least initially most people would finish their hike atop Katahdin.

[Slo-go'en]

How many years has it been since Mt Oglethorpe was the southern terminis? Yet people still post on here asking about the feasibility of starting a thruhike there. If they move the terminis I'd bet at least initially most people would finish their hike atop Katahdin.

Not if they don't let you in without a reservation.

[Don H]

Not if they don't let you in without a reservation.

And then you've got a whole new group of people competing for reservations in BSP, many of which will be no shows because they really don't know exactly when they'll get to the park. This would just create another reason to move the terminus.

If the problem was rule breakers in the park the fix would be easy, just enforce the rules and fine people. But that's not the problem.
If the problem was a lack of funding then just increase fees to hikers. But that's not the problem either.

The problem is BSP doesn't want to deal with the flood of thru-hikers in September and October. The fix for that problem is move the terminus. And that can't be done until BPS lays the groundwork of multiple complaints over a few years. Then they can say "we tried, it didn't work, get out". Then park leadership will be happy.

[Bronk]

Not if they don't let you in without a reservation.

Yeah, but if anything is clear from this discussion it is that Baxter doesn't enforce their rules, which seems to be at least half the problem.

[KDogg]

Isn't the problem, from BSPs point of view, AT hikers? The numbers that they give regarding people accessing the park from the AT include thru hikers but they are really just a small part of that total. The emphasis on thru hikers as being the problem has always bothered me in this regard. Am I wrong in this calculation?

I agree, too, that a little bit of policing could go a long way. Many posters on here have said that the rangers have been generally lenient about having a celebratory drink, etc. You can't have it both ways.

[rafe]

I agree, too, that a little bit of policing could go a long way. Many posters on here have said that the rangers have been generally lenient about having a celebratory drink, etc. You can't have it both ways.

It may be "selective enforcement" to single out a celebrity offender (one with a huge following) versus a typical Joe Blow Thru Hiker or even your typical Baxter Weekend Warrior. So what? If this were the worst case of selective enforcement in the USA, I'd share your outrage. Scott chose to make a "big splash" and maybe got just a bit more attention than he was looking for.

[Traveler]

Yeah, but if anything is clear from this discussion it is that Baxter doesn't enforce their rules, which seems to be at least half the problem.

So unless its total enforcement 24/7, its partly their problem? By that standard your local police are half the problem of speeders and drunk drivers in their jurisdiction since they don't enforce speeding laws or run drunk check points 24/7. Seems to me leaving room for leeway via education or other allowances is better than the maximum application of law. Somehow I will bet you don't tell the police officer that gave you a verbal warning for pushing the speed limit that if he doesn't ticket you, you will speed again there.

[colorado_rob]

Just a few quick thoughts on the "BSP Situation".... I just finished the AT a few days ago (10/1). BSP was definitely a highlight, and Maine is The Best state along the trail, to be sure... Katahdin was, of course, a fine finish.

Anyway, at the time my wife and I were there (she did the 100-mile and Katahdin with me), there were at least a couple dozen AT thru hikers of all ages (but mostly 20-somethings), and I witnessed zero bad behavior in the three days we spent in the park, with the exception of one particular ranger, who really had a bug up his butt. The other rangers were friendly, informative and fun and really seemed to like their jobs.

The ranger with the bug up his butt just plain wasn't friendly, plus he kicked 8 people off the ranger station porch in a torrential downpour (and we were already soaking wet to the bone from the all day rain last Wednesday), even after a much friendlier ranger told us we could stay there as long as we liked. We (my wife and I and another older couple) had a dry place (lean-to) to go, a group of 4 young thru hikers did not, though the four of us eventually chipped in and bought them one. We had all been waiting for a shuttle to Millinocket, which never came that night.

The next day after we summited and were gathered at the ranger station, an official BSP vehicle showed up and four sparkly clean, perfectly dressed people got out and visibly scowled at the ~20 thru hikers waiting for the AT Lodge shuttles; one even said something in a nasty tone stating that no, they would not be any sort of a ride for any of us. My wife and I were amused, but not surprised. We saw them again the next morning in the AT café, same smug looks. From an earlier pic in one of the news stories, I think one of them was one of the guys who had it in for Scott Jurek.

I any case, we did like BSP enough that we plan on returning and re-climbing Katahdin by some additional routes. We sure hope the ATC and BSP can get together and find some "solutions to the problem", though we witnessed absolutely zero problems. Non AT hikers outnumbered AT hikers by at least 10 to 1, and I sure can't see where any significant extra resources go to supporting AT thru hikers, other than a 5-minute check-in at the ranger station. I just don't get it. Much ado about nothing IMHO.

[Don H]

"We sure hope the ATC and BSP can get together and find some "solutions to the problem"

There will be no getting together because one side has no desire to compromise.

[Starchild]

So where does getting drunk or stoned on top of Katahdin, or illegal camping,or illegal dogs in BSP have to do with an effort to get close to nature?

Getting drunk there, never knew this was ever on the table as a problem. What I've heard is a celebratory drink of an adult beverage, or fraction of a standard drink is sometimes practiced, but not the the point of impairment. I have likewise not heard of stoners being a problem at the big K. Illegal camping I have heard, perhaps a different system by BSP could take care of that. As for dogs I don't think I'm the best to address this one.

[rickb]

And then you've got a whole new group of people competing for reservations in BSP, many of which will be no shows because they really don't know exactly when they'll get to the park. This would just create another reason to move the terminus.

If the problem was rule breakers in the park the fix would be easy, just enforce the rules and fine people. But that's not the problem.
If the problem was a lack of funding then just increase fees to hikers. But that's not the problem either.

The problem is BSP doesn't want to deal with the flood of thru-hikers in September and October. The fix for that problem is move the terminus. And that can't be done until BPS lays the groundwork of multiple complaints over a few years. Then they can say "we tried, it didn't work, get out". Then park leadership will be happy.

Exactly.

Spot on.

[Starchild]

Just a few quick thoughts on the "BSP Situation".... I just finished the AT a few days ago (10/1). BSP was definitely a highlight, and Maine is The Best state along the trail, to be sure... Katahdin was, of course, a fine finish.

Anyway, at the time my wife and I were there (she did the 100-mile and Katahdin with me), there were at least a couple dozen AT thru hikers of all ages (but mostly 20-somethings), and I witnessed zero bad behavior in the three days we spent in the park, with the exception of one particular ranger, who really had a bug up his butt. The other rangers were friendly, informative and fun and really seemed to like their jobs.

The ranger with the bug up his butt just plain wasn't friendly, plus he kicked 8 people off the ranger station porch in a torrential downpour (and we were already soaking wet to the bone from the all day rain last Wednesday), even after a much friendlier ranger told us we could stay there as long as we liked. We (my wife and I and another older couple) had a dry place (lean-to) to go, a group of 4 young thru hikers did not, though the four of us eventually chipped in and bought them one. We had all been waiting for a shuttle to Millinocket, which never came that night.

The next day after we summited and were gathered at the ranger station, an official BSP vehicle showed up and four sparkly clean, perfectly dressed people got out and visibly scowled at the ~20 thru hikers waiting for the AT Lodge shuttles; one even said something in a nasty tone stating that no, they would not be any sort of a ride for any of us. My wife and I were amused, but not surprised. We saw them again the next morning in the AT café, same smug looks. From an earlier pic in one of the news stories, I think one of them was one of the guys who had it in for Scott Jurek.

I any case, we did like BSP enough that we plan on returning and re-climbing Katahdin by some additional routes. We sure hope the ATC and BSP can get together and find some "solutions to the problem", though we witnessed absolutely zero problems. Non AT hikers outnumbered AT hikers by at least 10 to 1, and I sure can't see where any significant extra resources go to supporting AT thru hikers, other than a 5-minute check-in at the ranger station. I just don't get it. Much ado about nothing IMHO.

BSP any comment? It does appear your (BSP's) credibility is shrinking. The more we know the better.