Baxter state park
Heres a far out idea, what if the conservancys policy about issuing a patch, or completion cert was conditional upon not receiving any form of a legal citation anywhere along the corridor? In other words, you f-up, your hike doesnt count.
The linked article says,
"The top priority is protecting the wilderness aspects of (the) place."
Say what? How can you do this and let in 40 foot RVs??
Gov Percival Baxter's intent was to preserve a wilderness environment, according to the article. They failed in that. Why? Here are some examples according to their Rules and Regulations:
** RVs 44 feet long may enter the park. Oops.
** Take off and landing of aircraft is permitted on three main lakes in the park. Oops, noise pollution.
** Motorboats are permitted on these three lakes. Oops, noise pollution.
** Snowmobiles are allowed on four lakes and on several park roads. Oops, more noise pollution.
Preserving a wilderness environment?? Not likely, not with the above exceptions.
So instead they pick on hikers and backpackers? Are we flying in on airplanes or rolling in on RVs or snowmobiles? Not likely. And walking is very quiet.
I still believe the Baxter admins are looking for $$$ from the ATC to pay for additional rangers, etc.
It would be interesting to see if money would make the problems disappear.
Order your copy of the Appalachian Trail Passport at www.ATPassport.com
Green Mountain House Hostel
Manchester Center, VT
http://www.greenmountainhouse.net
BSP has a good point about preserving the park, because it is an incredibly beautiful mountain park. The misbehavior is worthy of a high-pressure, long-term campaign from both parties. Mature, responsible people do not destroy an American institution in a rash, childish manner.
Dudejuststarted must've not read my post.
just wait til next year, the number of AT hikers will continue to spike higher
business must be getting better for hostels and shuttle drivers these days
last time I spoke to the #1 shuttle driver in Waynesboro, VA, his number of shuttle rides gets higher each year, this year was off the charts
------------------------------------------------------------
I still think its ridiculous that Baxter is whining to the ATC about things that are going on in their own park. If they cannot enforce their own rules within their own park, what exactly do they expect the ATC to do from Harper's Ferry? I too wonder if this is about money. If it is, why not just say so? If the guys in 44ft RV's are paying fees enough to cover the resources they are using and the AT hikers are not, why not just figure out an appropriate fee? This is all well within the powers of Baxter to solve.
A.) No, I didn't read your postOriginally Posted by Tipi Walter
B.) Doing so did not change my opinion
C.) You likely misinterpreted my post
D.) AT hikers have nothing to do with motorized vehicle policies
** RVs 44 feet long may enter the park. Oops.
** Take off and landing of aircraft is permitted on three main lakes in the park. Oops, noise pollution.
** Motorboats are permitted on these three lakes. Oops, noise pollution.
** Snowmobiles are allowed on four lakes and on several park roads. Oops, more noise pollution.
Unfortunately Percival Baxter who donated the park and made the rules left these exceptions in place but they are far less of an impact then they appear. The snowmachine issue was fought in court and the court ruled that his intent was allow limited use. The snowmachine use is in the winter a decidedly less busy time of the year, and many winter users appreciate the broken out trails. The three lakes permitted for aircraft are only partially in the park thus the park cannot prohibit aircraft landing on them. Same with the powerboats. Kind of hard to stretch a fence across the lake to prohibit these uses.
You are stretching it a bit on RVs. The rules allow a 22 foot single unit or a 44 foot combined unit vehicle. Conceivably that could include a RV. The reality is that the roads would be basically impassable to a standard RV without an escort blocking the road from incoming traffic. Almost guaranteed is that anything on the roof of the RV like AC units would be torn off the roof pretty quickly. If the RV did enter there are very few sites that would accommodate it. With the exception of the Foster Field Group sites, the next closest sites that might accommodate Nesowadnehunk campground an hour north of KSC. The next option is about two hours north in Trout Brook farm. Even if the RV does enter the park, it cannot use its generator so it would have a limited stay until the house batteries were flat.
Hikers who follow the rules at Baxter are always welcome. Those who ignore the rules or are unaware of them are not. Unfortunately one of the rules is that camping areas are limited and the best use of the campsites are to allow people to make reservations in advance. The park long ago inadvertently allowed very unrestricted camping and the net result was significant degradation of the parks resources. The choice was close several campgrounds or get strict on limiting access. Many of the degraded sites have recovered and the majority of the people who plan to go to Baxter realize that the rules are needed to keep the park wild.
Duplicate post
Last edited by peakbagger; 10-04-2015 at 07:43.
"Hikers who follow the rules at Baxter are always welcome."
Peakbagger, as a hiker who did follow the rules I'm getting the feeling that AT hikers in general are not welcome. Consider some of the comments from Baxter including a petty complaint about a hiker in Millinocket begging for money, among other cmments painting all hikers with the same brush.
And from LW's link according to Baxter officials one speed hike finish on K and we're turning the mountain into a race course!
“I don’t think he ever envisioned it becoming a racetrack or the end of a competition".
"Chainsaw" GA-ME 2011
The reality of the situation is that the Baxter officials get to set the rules, and we get to follow those rules. Fair is not part of the equation. We can ask for the rules to be changed, but they don't have to if they don't feel like it. Unfair?? hell yes. But suck it up. They are not going to make much money on a hiker fee, but what's wrong with a hiker fee? We do use the park and should contribute. Hiker misbehavior is a problem and we need to do as much as we can to stop it. I think it is ridiculous to ask ATC to control hiker behavior from 1000 miles away. Jurek got tickets, they should do more of that.
But the bottom line is they have the power to make rules and we do not. So grow up, stop whining and follow the rules.
for years BSP officials turned a blind eye to the alcohol thing. now all of a sudden it's way taboo. they should have enforced rules with zero tolerance from day 1. they're the whiners
What the difference between a Drunk Maine Judge that get a passenger killed in his boat and a" Out of Stater" trail runner with a bottle of booze?
Nothing happens to the judge but the "out of stater get to pay a $500 fine decreed by the killer judge. Welcome to Maine its gonna cost you.
You must not have read the rules for BSP either.
http://www.baxterstateparkauthority.com/rules/#vehicles
5.1. No vehicle over nine (9) feet high, seven (7) feet wide, or 22 feet long for a single vehicle or 44 feet long for combined units may enter the Park. Oversize units may be authorized to use the Park road system by special use permit, subject to conditions set by the Director. The Director may restrict the use of vehicles by persons without camping reservations.
"You don't make progress by standing on the sidelines, whimpering and complaining. You make progress by implementing ideas", Shirley Chisholm.
Baxter isn't suddenly having an issue... The problem has been there and Baxter has been dealing with it. Just because we on WB have not heard about every ticket, does not mean they have not been dealing with the issue. The reality is that it is not EVERY thru-hiker that is the issue (or lots of tickets would have been issued and we would have heard about it). It is far more likely that those who have been popped for various offenses have slunk off because they know they are guilty.
The problem is that there are more hikers every year. Every year there are more issues. The numbers are not decreasing... It was one thing when there were only hundreds of people hiking the trail each year. At some point a line does have to be drawn. Why? Because people today do not seem to understand the word "no." If a host asks you not to do something, shouldn't you (as the guest) stop the behavior?
Rather than sit here and point fingers, isn't it time we do something about the behaviors (the drinking & drugging on Katahdin, the asking for rides, the stealth camping, etc) so they are a non-issue? Isn't it time for the hiking community to set an example of the behaviors that should be exhibited by those who are experienced and have respect for the outdoors?
What the heck is wrong with taking responsibility for making sure the trail remains the way we want it to be? It's a pretty simple question.
The problem is what bsp stated. They have a fixed capacity model, the atc does not.
The atc plan for bsp, is currently to spread growing #of hikers out throughout yr thru flip flops , without giving bsp any resources to help deal with them. Spreading the additional future load out, doesnt help bsp, they still need increased staffing.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
