white house landing

[weary]

I was the leader of a legal (and successful) winter trip to the major peaks in Baxter in the winter and I can tell you that the requirements aren't a problem for qualified and prepared groups. The only people who complain seem to be the people who try to sneak in, ignoring the rules, and get caught, fined, or jailed. I know of 3 such instances where this has happened and the pithy complaints are always the same.

I've backpacked in the park during the winter months at least a dozen times, always with a permit from the park officials, though I haven't always carried the required gear or had a fresh certificate from a doctor, mostly because often no rangers were around to check and often I joined winter trips at the last minute. I've long since lost count of all my Baxter excursions.

But, I've been on the Katahdin tableland a half dozen times and on the summit once in winter. I'm well aware of winter conditions in Baxter. And in the hundred mile wilderness. And winter conditions throughout the Maine hills. Winter for 30 years was my favorite time for backpacking.

I also have an instinctive dislike for petty bureaucrats and their petty rules. I could use stronger words, but I don't want to slide into a banned discussion.

As Rick points out, "freedom of the hills" remains something to cherish and to fight to preserve. Baxter is a wonderful place in all four seasons. The rangers are uniformly friendly and helpful. But I truly believe the park authority has made a travesty of Governor Baxter's dream.

The park allows far more motors than Baxter wanted, and imposes far more regulations than he ever dreamed his park would need. I haven't checked recently, but for years camping places for motorists increased, while back country camping opportunities diminished.

Weary

[The Old Fhart]

TOF-"...The only people who complain seem to be the people who try to sneak in, ignoring the rules, and get caught, fined, or jailed...."

Weary-"...I haven't always carried the required gear or had a fresh certificate from a doctor, mostly because often no rangers were around to check..."

"I also have an instinctive dislike for petty bureaucrats and their petty rules."

Thank you for providing such a good example.

[Alligator]

Folks, you either need to get back to talking about White House Landing or you need to start a "new" thread about the rules at Baxter.

[johnny quest]

Folks, you either need to get back to talking about White House Landing or you need to start a "new" thread about the rules at Baxter.

no kidding! these some add mofo's.

the real point im making here is that whl is a benefit to the hiker that matc should recognize and utilize by "signing" it.
and they got good burgers.

[superman]

On the other hand the controversy gives WHL free advertising. Wingfoot felt strongly that there shouldn't be signs for businesses on the AT. I am not the keeper of the trail...I'm just a hiker. I couldn't work up a care back then and I still can't. I leave that to those who bother to carry a hammer to that point in the trail to take a sign down or put one up. It is what it is.

[johnny quest]

not that i give a crap what wingfoot thought (how did HE get into this conversation?) but i agree on that point. i never suggested that whl or anyone else should be able to advertise on the at. i said the matc, in recognition of whl's existence being a value to the hiker, should mark the already direction sign that is there with an direction and distance to the landing to whl. sheeesh.

[emerald]

Some posting still seem to fail to grasp NPS has a role to play. I don't know what NPS policies may apply.

USFS may have altogether different policies from NPS regarding signage. AMC huts are a POI signed along the AT on USFS administered land elsewhere.

I don't consider that advertising any more than I do the signs along Vermont highways that indicate the direction and distance to businesses.

I would think AMC will wish to have trails to their camps indicated along the AT in the 100 Miles. I hope the same standards will apply to them as everyone else.

[TJ aka Teej]

I also have an instinctive dislike for petty bureaucrats and their petty rules.

Having a multi-year hissy fit over a sign on a woods road pointing to a hostel seems petty.
Posting endlessly about places one has never been, signs one has never seen, and people one has never met - also seems petty.

I've been to WHL twice, once as a Companion editor, and once on a Dad and daughter backpacking trip. I've also hiked on by, seeing an orange spray painted sign once, and three other times seeing no signage. The only sign at the trail/road junction the last two times was a small MATC one high in a tree saying 'Maher Tote Road'. I found the people at WHL welcoming, the service excellent, the facility beautiful, the location spectacular, and the prices a fine value.

The sign stuff started several years ago, when the owners of WHL would move their snowmobiling signs to the trail crossing in the summer. They'd find that once or twice a year someone would tear down their signs and throw them into the bushes. So they'd put them back up. It's good that ATC finally decided to contact WHL and explain their rule concerning signage.
The signs are gone. Please find something else to complain about, preferably something based on personal experience visiting WHL.

[Marta]

A sign saying "Maher Tote Road" would work for me.

The one time I walked through--intending to go to WHL, which I did--the "road" wasn't marked at all, but Stumpknocker (whom I met hiking in the opposite direction) had described what to look for, so I found it. I was the only hiker staying there that day and night. Later I talked to other SOBOs who had planned to go there, but had missed it because the "road" was just a gap in the trees where there was apparently a canal running through the woods.

As Teej said, why is it so much more offensive to have a sign pointing to a hostel than have a sign pointing to a shelter?

But once everyone gets all mad about it, sensible solutions go out the window...

[Alligator]

...
As Teej said, why is it so much more offensive to have a sign pointing to a hostel than have a sign pointing to a shelter?
...

I'm not claiming offense here, but I can think of two reasons:
1. Money is involved.
2. It's sets a precedent and other businesses will then want one.

[johnny quest]

i think ALL the hiker related businesses on the a.t. in the 100 mile wilderness should have a marker sign pointing to its blueblazetrail. oh wait, there aint none. and from what i saw of maines economy, there isnt much danger of any new ones sprouting up.

[Lone Wolf]

this whole sign thing is an extreme non-issue

[bulldog49]

A sign saying "Maher Tote Road" would work for me.

...

Works for me too. No reason not to mark the "road/trail" in some manner. It's not even identified on the Maine map.

[Alligator]

Works for me too. No reason not to mark the "road/trail" in some manner. It's not even identified on the Maine map.

It seems like putting a geographical reference sign of some sort might be a reasonable compromise.

[Kirby]

Yeah, there are two roads within 2/10ths of a mile of each other that could both be the road. How about once of those signs that says where you in relation to somethings in each direction.

Kirby

[TJ aka Teej]

A trailjournals entry by a hiker who stayed there this season:

http://www.trailjournals.com/entry.cfm?id=256912

[weary]

A sign saying "Maher Tote Road" would work for me.
....As Teej said, why is it so much more offensive to have a sign pointing to a hostel than have a sign pointing to a shelter?...

Well, for one thing a sign to a shelter is a sign to things that have been an intrinsic part of the trail from the days of Benton MacKaye's earliest dreams. The sign posted on public property to a commercial business posted on public property is a violation of the regulations of the NPS that bought and paid for the land with an appropriation from Congress.

White Blaze spent many acrimonious weeks a while back complaining about a hiker's alleged violation of private property. I think the concerns about that unlawful behavior apply equally to private business posting blaze orange signs on public property in violation of the rules. Even TJ, I'm sure, recognizes that this is true, since he was so sure of the villainy when hikers allegedly interfered with private property rules.

Weary

[weary]

Works for me too. No reason not to mark the "road/trail" in some manner. It's not even identified on the Maine map.

The latest Maine map predates the agreement worked out between WHL and the NPS -- the owner of the trail corridor. The sale of trail maps is an important addition to the MATC annual budget. We can't afford to change them everytime a business works out an agreement with the National Park Service. I'm quite sure that the next edition of the maps will reflect that agreement. In the meantime, I'm sure the various trail guides will post the information.

Weary

[Marta]

Well, for one thing a sign to a shelter is a sign to things that have been an intrinsic part of the trail from the days of Benton MacKaye's earliest dreams....

Is WHL not one of the original Maine camps that have been around since the earliest days of the AT?

Wasn't there something in Benton MacKaye's earliest dreams about a chain of rustic camps that would soothe the soul of the urbanite?

[Phreak]

Wasn't there something in Benton MacKaye's earliest dreams about a chain of rustic camps that would soothe the soul of the urbanite?

Yeah, my understanding is there were enough camps along the 100 mile wilderness to allow people to stay at one each night of their trip.

I could be wrong but it seems to me Weary has a personal grudge against WHL.