Baxter State Park AT concerns - Wow

[peakbagger]

The following letter was sent to the ATC by the superintendent of Baxter State Park to the ATC and a copy of it is on the BSP website.

http://www.baxterstateparkauthority.com/pdf/meetingAuthority/Dec162014/AT%20Ron%20Tipton%20Wendy%20Janssen%20letter%2011% 2019%202014%20scanned.pdf

It lays out a lot of issues, no solutions but what is not said is just important and what it said. When the IAT attempted to force a route in the park at its beginning, the park responded by closing down a trail and forcing the trail to run outside park borders.

I do applaud the enforcement against people who submit false papers for service dogs.

[DavidNH]

This letter by the Baxter State Park authority lays out nicely the problem with AT thru hikers these days. Not all, perhaps not even most, but way too many of them are self entitled jack asses that just want to party as if the trail was one big college campus. Fact is, no hiker-- esp no thru hiker-- has any god given right to be on the trail or to access its facilities. Using drugs or heavily drinking alcohol on the summit of Katahdin in full view of the families and day hikers is really pretty low right along side those who don't respect park regulations or tell a care taker in late afternoon they are going to hike the 10 miles to Abol but really plan to stealth camp. that is both dishonest and disrespectful.

[Old Grouse]

My first reaction was that BSP should require hikers to pass an IQ test for entry. It looks like that would cut the numbers of abusers significantly.

[Slo-go'en]

Wow. If this keeps up it sounds like before long the park will be closed to thru hikers and trespassers shot.

Maybe the AT needs to buy some land the other side of Abol Bridge and build a holding pen with a lottery to select who gets to climb the mountain each day. After paying a $200 fee and of course without their dog and recreational enhancements.

I guess thru hiking has become too easy or there's a lot of yellow blazing going on.

[Coffee]

Yet another reason to plan a SOBO thru hike starting around July 1 2016 or 2017 when few NOBOs will be at Baxter yet, and then avoiding shelters and other party zones as much as possible until the NOBOs have dwindled. The culture described in the letter is exactly the opposite of what I would seek on an AT thru hike.

[Old Hiker]

I agree with posts #1-4 above, but playing devil's advocate:

I think it sounds like the letter writer is saying ALL AT hikers are doing the behaviors he's complaining about. I think he may be exaggerating a wee bit on some of it (no evidence, just opinion) and relying on hearsay.

Still: if the illegal behaviors are going on, perhaps a stiff fine and/or 30 day jail stint would cut down on the behaviors, properly advertised, of course.

[Mags]

Daaamn....

"Fake service dogs" is not just a problem in BSP unfortunately. A growing trend in NP units overall...heck society in general.
:(

[imscotty]

Wow, sounds like the issue of AT overcrowding is coming to a head. In reference to the other thread going on about similar issues at the Springer end, it looks like encouraging more SOBO starts from Katahdin will just increase the problems on the North end.

I presume (hope) that the threat to restrict the AT from the park (some other terminus) was just an attention getter, but this has to be taken seriously. I hate to say it but the time for a Thru-hiker permitting system may have arrived.

[imscotty]

Clearly the the movies Wild and AWITW has the BSP officials very concerned.

[Ktaadn]

So, the ATC made a mistake by putting the trail on a piece of land that they could never get full control of(I know this is not the only example of this) and BSP made a mistake by assuming that all AT hikers would be respecful, polite, and honest.

My advice to BSP would be to take a harsher line on enforcement. Other option is for both parties to shake hands and part ways.

[Slo-go'en]

Yet another reason to plan a SOBO thru hike starting around July 1 2016 or 2017 when few NOBOs will be at Baxter yet, and then avoiding shelters and other party zones as much as possible until the NOBOs have dwindled. The culture described in the letter is exactly the opposite of what I would seek on an AT thru hike.

Apparently SOBOs are a big problem too. They want to climb the mountain without first getting the proper reservations and permit (their not a thru hiker yet) and many are ill prepared to enter the 100 mile wilderness.

[Slo-go'en]

I agree with posts #1-4 above, but playing devil's advocate:

I think it sounds like the letter writer is saying ALL AT hikers are doing the behaviors he's complaining about. I think he may be exaggerating a wee bit on some of it (no evidence, just opinion) and relying on hearsay.

The writer of the letter is an official of Baxter state park who know exactly what she is talking about. The complaint is of the shear numbers arriving at Baxter and that many of them behave badly. Enough to be an issue and a concern.

[Tipi Walter]

I love it when a Park administrator whines about people on foot in a park wide open to 44 foot RVs, motorboats, airplanes, snowmobiles and motorcycles. With a total number of 63,500 visitors to Baxter, the honchos are desperately worried about the 3% who are on foot? Crazy. How can 3% challenge their Park mission? Or challenge the "wilderness experience for park visitors" when the Park has numerous roads and 10 major car campgrounds?

Once again the car crowd dictates user numbers and car campgrounds seem to be the top priority for Baxter. Was 44 foot RVs part of Mr Baxter's initial vision of the land? Doubtful. How about aircraft allowed to land and take off on 3 lakes in the Park? Was Mr Baxter warned of this?

Here's a neat quote---
"We do not plan on expanding lodging availability . . . for AT hikers in Baxter Park." Why the heck not? How about closing the 10 car campgrounds first and then focus on those on foot??

Baxter Roads
** Golden road.
** Maine 157 (Baxter Park rd).
** Park Tote Rd cuts thru all the park.
** Roaring Brook rd.
** Wadleigh Mt rd.
** Braley Ridge rd.

MAJOR BAXTER CAR CAMPGROUNDS
** Daicey Pond campground.
** Katahdin Stream campground.
** Abol campground.
** Chimney Pond campground.
** Roaring Brook campground.
** Nesowadnahunk Field campground.
** Russell Pond campground.
** South Branch Pond campground.
** Trout Brook Farm campground.

I'd close all of the above first and THEN ponder those on foot. Oh, and snowmobiles can be used on 4 lakes and on many roads in the park. And outboard motorboats are allowed on 5 lakes/ponds. Crazy.

[Coffee]

Apparently SOBOs are a big problem too. They want to climb the mountain without first getting the proper reservations and permit (their not a thru hiker yet) and many are ill prepared to enter the 100 mile wilderness.
Sure but I understand the regs and can easily plan to abide by them.

[Deadeye]

It would be very interesting to know the age of the AT hikers that register at BSP... I wonder how well it would correlate to baby boomers reaching retirement age. I'll be one of those statistics soon

[burger]

I am fully in agreement with the letter writer: it's time for a quota/permit system. Parks and forests and wild places in general cannot handle unlimited numbers of visitors without damage to the resources that those parks are meant to protect.

Judging from the from the rate that those numbers in the graph are going up, it won't belong before we have 2000, 3000, even 5000 thru-hikers (NOBO and SOBO) wanting to summit Katahdin plus a large number of section hikers. That's too many.

[Sly]

Tipi, car camper vehicles are confined to roads, while AT hikers impact fragile alpine areas. It also appears that many AT hikers are breaking Park rules, and skipping out on fees. The state of Maine doesn't owe non-residents anything.

[Sly]

It would be very interesting to know the age of the AT hikers that register at BSP... I wonder how well it would correlate to baby boomers reaching retirement age. I'll be one of those statistics soon

The letter mentioned the influx of college age kids, not baby boomers.

[Old Grouse]

Oh, so it isn't gangs of foul-mouthed 60-70 year olds smoking, drinking and yucking it up in BSP? I guess we still have to go to Sun City for that, eh?

[illabelle]

Aside from the complaints about misbehaving hikers, the letter also mentioned more than once the time spent by rangers in "extensive and ongoing radio communications" assisting hikers with campground reservations and communications with shuttles/family/etc. Is there a reasonable solution to this that would ease at least one of their frustrations? Maybe a self-serve radio system or - God forbid! - a cell tower.

[peakbagger]

Some folks forget Baxter State Park is actually a wilderness preserve managed for animals with some humans allowed as long as they don't bother the animals. The majority of the operating rules are based on the rules that Baxter supplied and the state agreed to when they accepted the park. Some of the rules were unclear and have been fought in court. The deeds of Trust and the supporting documentation of intent is in four very large bound manuals. In general what was in existence when Baxter is living stays but any subsequent changes are extremely difficult to implement and subject to litigation. With the exception of the NE corer of the park, I am unaware of any new or expanded campgrounds except the birches which were and offset to the Daicey Pond accommodations. Abol Narrows was closed as it was a semi private use by the Millinocket Boy Scouts allowed by Baxter.

I occasionally attend the opening day reservation day in January and the drive in campsites and cabins tend to be in the greatest demand. The vast majority of the people signing up are Maine taxpayers and voters and I expect their advocacy supported by the deeds of trust is going to hold a lot more sway than a small number of out of state folks that don't want to follow the rules.

Baxter was overrun in the early seventies soon after Baxter passed away and the state had not put a mechanism in place to manage the use. There were considerations to shut down many campgrounds for good and the final response was to go to reservation system which limited park usage. Waterman's Forest and Crag book has a couple of chapters on the response of the various agencies in the Northeast to the overuse of the seventies.

Motorcycles are banned from the park, Snowmobiles were a gray area as Baxter allowed the rangers to use them so the compromise in court was to allow the use of the tote road. Campers are seriously limited mostly to conversion vans and the canopy over the road would do great damage to any large units. Motorboats and airplanes are only allowed in water bodies not entirely in the park.

As I have told folks for years, its a PITA to get in the park but once you get in and away from the day hiking crowds you know why it was such a pain . I plan to be driving around 8 hours in a few weeks to the headquarters to book my favorite spots this summer.

I haven't done the JMT but I think there are similar rules to limit use to a sustainable level.

Just think about the current issues compared to if the proposed National Park gets built to the East of the park. Interesting to think of a national park where the major attractions are inaccessible. Baxter firmly established that BSP could not be turned into a National Park or transferred to the US government so folks heading to the new park will have to follow the same rules as everyone including thru hikers.

[Connie]

I have never been to Baxter State Park.

The RV's and car campers in Glacier National Park, MT are not really seen.

The campgrounds are hidden from the road.

There are no snow machines or motorboats.

I understand cross-country skiing the road, in Winter, could happen now that the park is open in wintertime. I haven't seen any cross-country skiers. I know, I would like to cross-country ski there.

There are canoes and kayaks.

My experience is practically no one hikes: 10 minutes from parking, at a trailhead, I might see three people.


However, if "party-ers" showed up at the summit parking lot of Going-to-the-Sun Highway there would be a response, after they got over the shock because it is so "out of place".

If you want "spring break" where you are, advertise 24-hour bars. No closing.

Dancing, music. That will make it happen.

On the point, we might go "camping" in a downtown city park and see how well that goes over.


If Baxter State Park keeps snow machines on designated closed roads or trails, and, motorboats on designated lakes and sees no impact on wildlife or fish, that is their choice.

I understand snow machines break down often, involving rescue.

I heard Lake Tahoe shut down jet boats and may have shut down motor boats.

There is a concern, I would think, about marine gasoline and noise affecting fish and wildlife, who need to live.

That involves foraging for food, movement to and from shelter during the day and night, and, seasons of the year, breeding, "calving" and living their species natural life cycle in their locale.


Right now, mule deer are threatened because there is a parasite in standing water. The irrigation ditches have standing water, in places, because the irrigation ditches are not cleared out. There isn't much other standing water, elsewhere, except that of livestock troughs. I am used to seeing irrigation ditches maintained, and, water troughs have water movement with a syphon and/or underwater pump. I have also seen a copper plate in a trough, to inhibit algae. I haven't seen anything like it, around here, in Montana.

It doesn't take much to ruin a riparian habitat, either, by removing all "brush" so the water temperature is too high and no shade over the water in places for fish to live. The wild animals need the riparian habitat for forage, access to water, and, for travel to forage.

These things are not "too complicated" to know.

If there will be a natural environment, we need to know "how it works" to have a natural environment.

[Bluebearee]

[QUOTE=Tipi Walter;1928070]I love it when a Park administrator whines about people on foot in a park wide open to 44 foot RVs, motorboats, airplanes, snowmobiles and motorcycles. With a total number of 63,500 visitors to Baxter, the honchos are desperately worried about the 3% who are on foot? Crazy. How can 3% challenge their Park mission? Or challenge the "wilderness experience for park visitors" when the Park has numerous roads and 10 major car campgrounds?

Have you ever been there? Apparently not. It's not open to RVs, or motorboats or airplanes or motorcycles. Yes to snowmobiles on the perimeter road only. There are no park improvements, no potable water, no showers, no camp stores. 8 of the 10 campgrounds are vehicle accessible and 2 are backcountry.

[Coffee]

Baxter was once private property gifted to the state and should be run however the donor intended it to be run. I don't think any of us have a right to complain about that. It would be different if the lands were always public property and new government regulations are under discussion but that isn't the case. The stringent requirements were a condition of the gift to the people and the donor didn't have to gift the land at all.

[colorado_rob]

Very well thought out and well said letter, and the upbeat take that I get from it is that BSP still wants to fully support the AT hiker community, just with some additional or better-enforced regulations. I fully support them in their quest to keep BSP a more pristine wilderness experience.
(and I hope to finish on Katadin next fall myself)

[TJ aka Teej]

The ATC needs to fund and staff: a position and info kiosk in Monson, 2 100 Mile ridge runners (could be AMC staffers), a staffer dedicated to Abol Bridge area, a RR from Hurd Brook to Daicey Pond, and a RR from Daicey to Katahdin Stream Campground. The position in Monson can help nobos reserve sites other than at the Birches. In September I counted 22 ATers at a Birches campfire the same night there were 8 empty sites at KSC. If outside sources can't help BSP with the AT crowds, BSP will do it themselves. And believe me, you do not want that to happen.

[Alligator]

AT Use and trends are scheduled for 20 minutes out of 120 minutes on the 12/16/2014 BSP Advisory Committee Meeting.

I think the bullet on SOBO's is not well supported, there's been a decline in the past two years per their data and it's not a particularly increasing line in their figure. From 2000 on its not much of a rise at all.

Also, how are section hikers counted? Are they people hiking the trail with the purpose to complete?

Most of the other points are reasonably detailed.

[DLP]

I heard Lake Tahoe shut down jet boats and may have shut down motor boats.
There is a concern, I would think, about marine gasoline and noise affecting fish and wildlife, who need to live. It is off topic... but jet skis and boats are allowed on Tahoe. The biggest concern in Tahoe is rain/snow melt run off and sediment reducing the lake clarity. There are plenty of boats with "Keep Tahoe Blue" stickers. http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/environment/article2606717.html

Another big concern is invasive plants and mussels or animals. There are boat inspections (with a fee). http://tahoeboatinspections.com/

Many of the boat launches were shut down last summer, but that was due to the drought and the low water level at the boat launches. Boats and jet skis may be annoying (if you are not on the boat...), but are very much allowed.

PS... I agree... WOW! to Baxter State Park letter.

[Havana]

There's no doubt that usage is going to increase on a resource that already seems overloaded. At the end of the day it's going to require both permitting and additional resources for assistance and enforcement activities. Someone is going to have to pay for all that and the "someone" is those who want to summit.

[HighLiner]

I hiked the 100 mile wilderness and Baxter this past July to finish the AT after 20 years of section hiking. Thank goodness I did so before the "bubble" of NOBO's arrived. Yes, there were many regulations, but I must say the rangers I met were each committed to upholding the BSP rules and I appreciated their efforts, even though I had to pay quite a bit of money to reserve a site at Katadhin Stream and for my family to enter the park. But it was worth every penny. Katadhin is special.

My point is simple, follow the rules, they are there to maintain the primitive charter of the park. Seems we now have overcrowding problems at both ends of the trail, see other thread. The future will be interesting. I see a permit system similar to the one used for the JMT coming.

[Connie]

DLP, it was shut down over gasoline in the water.

It was shut down, when I was last there, at Carnelian Bay. It has been awhile. I suppose more strident regulation of gasoline out the exhaust?

That was the "issue".

Motorboats were mentioned... at lakes, re: Baxter State Park.

[stephanD]

[QUOTE=Old Hiker;1928057]I agree with posts #1-4 above, but playing devil's advocate:

I think it sounds like the letter writer is saying ALL AT hikers are doing the behaviors he's complaining about. I think he may be exaggerating a wee bit on some of it (no evidence, just opinion) and relying on hearsay.




Same old story...the few spoil it for everybody

[bamboo bob]

Here's a neat quote---
"We do not plan on expanding lodging availability . . . for AT hikers in Baxter Park." Why the heck not? How about closing the 10 car campgrounds first and then focus on those on foot??
I'd close all of the above first and THEN ponder those on foot. Oh, and snowmobiles can be used on 4 lakes and on many roads in the park. And outboard motorboats are allowed on 5 lakes/ponds. Crazy.[/QUOTE]

Because Baxter is for the people of Maine. Everyone else is a guest. Solution = End the AT at Abol Bridge.

[Tipi Walter]

I am fully in agreement with the letter writer: it's time for a quota/permit system. Parks and forests and wild places in general cannot handle unlimited numbers of visitors without damage to the resources that those parks are meant to protect.

Judging from the from the rate that those numbers in the graph are going up, it won't belong before we have 2000, 3000, even 5000 thru-hikers (NOBO and SOBO) wanting to summit Katahdin plus a large number of section hikers. That's too many.

Agree with limiting the numbers, but I'd start first with the 60,000 people entering the park who are not on foot. IE the rolling couch potatoes.


Tipi, car camper vehicles are confined to roads, while AT hikers impact fragile alpine areas. It also appears that many AT hikers are breaking Park rules, and skipping out on fees. The state of Maine doesn't owe non-residents anything.

Car campers are not only confined to roads but also can use the 10 established car campgrounds in the park. And traffic noise travels a fair distance from the roads they use.



I love it when a Park administrator whines about people on foot in a park wide open to 44 foot RVs, motorboats, airplanes, snowmobiles and motorcycles. With a total number of 63,500 visitors to Baxter, the honchos are desperately worried about the 3% who are on foot? Crazy. How can 3% challenge their Park mission? Or challenge the "wilderness experience for park visitors" when the Park has numerous roads and 10 major car campgrounds?

Have you ever been there? Apparently not. It's not open to RVs, or motorboats or airplanes or motorcycles. Yes to snowmobiles on the perimeter road only. There are no park improvements, no potable water, no showers, no camp stores. 8 of the 10 campgrounds are vehicle accessible and 2 are backcountry.

You may need to re-read the Park's regs on vehicles in the park. See---

5. VEHICLES AND TRANSPORTATION

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.
5.2. Within each campground or picnic area, all vehicles must park in designated areas. A maximum of two vehicles may park at each campsite for which parking space is provided. No vehicle may park on the traveled portion of any Park road, or obstruct a designated parking space.
5.3. All vehicles must display an entrance permit while in the Park. Vehicles parked overnight without an entrance permit displayed or with an invalid permit may be towed away at the owner's expense.
5.4. No person may operate any vehicle within the Park so as to endanger any person or property, nor operate a vehicle in excess of 20 miles per hour, or the posted speed limit, whichever is less.
5.5.The operation of Motorized trail bikes and ATV’s (all-terrain vehicles) is prohibited within the Park. The operation of Motorcycles is prohibited on unpaved roads within the Park. Bicycles are allowed only on maintained roads within the Park with the exception of roads in the Scientific Forest Management Area (SFMA) where bicycles are prohibited.
5.6. Take off and landing of aircraft in the Park is prohibited except on Matagamon, Nesowadnehunk, and Webster Lakes. Persons landing aircraft on permitted waters in the Park must register with Park Headquarters or a gatehouse in advance. "Aircraft" is defined to include any machine or device capable of deriving support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air, including, but not limited to model craft, hot air balloons, hang gliders, para-sails and para-gliders.
5.7. All boats and canoes left in the Park and not registered with Park Headquarters will be disposed of as abandoned property. The use of motor boats or outboard motors in the Park is prohibited except on Matagamon, Nesowadnehunk, and Webster Lakes. Outboard motors of ten (10) horsepower or less are permitted on Upper and Lower Togue Ponds.
5.8. Snowmobiles may be used on Matagamon, Nesowadnehunk and Webster Lakes and Lower Togue Pond, and on the following road or trail segments within Baxter State Park:
5.8.A. The Park Tote Road between the southern Park boundary at so-called Caribou Pit and the Park boundary just south of Matagamon Landing;
5.8.B. The so called Logan Pond Road along the north shore of Lower Togue Pond;
5.8.C. The spur road between the Park Tote Road and Camp Phoenix; and
5.8.D. The existing trail along the East Branch of the Penobscot River from Second Lake Matagamon to the northern boundary of the Park.
Unauthorized use of snowmobiles in any other portion of the Park is prohibited. Operators of snowmobiles must comply with all requirements of State Law.

So yes, the park is open to RVs and motorboats and snowmobiles etc despite what you say. See---

http://www.baxterstateparkauthority.com/rules/




Here's a neat quote---
"We do not plan on expanding lodging availability . . . for AT hikers in Baxter Park." Why the heck not? How about closing the 10 car campgrounds first and then focus on those on foot??
I'd close all of the above first and THEN ponder those on foot. Oh, and snowmobiles can be used on 4 lakes and on many roads in the park. And outboard motorboats are allowed on 5 lakes/ponds. Crazy.

Because Baxter is for the people of Maine. Everyone else is a guest. Solution = End the AT at Abol Bridge.

Baxter could still be for the people of Maine while still closing the roads and the car campgrounds and the motorboats and airplanes and snowmobiles etc. The people of Maine could still enjoy the park by doing so ON FOOT. Everyone is allowed to enter but just on foot. And just think, in a country of fat Americans, wouldn't closing the roads and allowing more people to use the park on foot help in the reduction of congestive heart failure?

[Dogwood]

I feel ya. But that isn't going to happen no matter how much you complain or the merit of your argument. Backpackers, those on foot, aren't the only ones who need Nature the outdoors. BSP is a place big enough and managed well enough to allow for multiple activities and out of staters if done with care. The BSP, as well as the AMC, GSMNP, SP etc folks go to some extensive measures to allow hikers, including ATers, a great AT/hiking experience. How much further they are willing to go with the prevailing current AT hiker mindset and protocols I don't know. They are all good people to cooperate with though. I always find if I inform myself what's expected of me, adjust my attitude, and my behavior, mainly as a backpacker, these folks have all been wonderful to work with.

[Coffee]

Baxter is a special case having been given to the people of Maine by an individual. He got to set the rules. But for public lands in general, restricting access to the masses to at least part of the resource is a good way to guarantee political backlash. Why would your rolling couch potatoes support park funding if they are denied access? Public support won't exist and that wouldn't be a good thing for backpackers. Some sort of balance is required.

[Coffee]

Stated differently, public lands need to be managed for all people to have some access in a manner consistent with protecting the resource. You cannot just manage lands for backpackers and restrict reasonable access to the sedentary masses and expect politicians to provide funding. Certainly not in today's political environment. And keep in mind some people aren't sedentary by choice. Parts of our public lands should be accessible to such people as well within reason.

[Dogwood]

"Interesting to think of a national park where the major attractions are inaccessible."

Very rarely does that last for long. Read the NPS mandate. It includes allowances for human activity but not unbridled wild west lawless irresponsible unconscionable unprincipled disrespectful I'll do as I damn well please please human activity.

[freightliner]

I was the manager of bowlin camps by Baxter State Park north gate so I got to know the park rangers pretty well. So I always ask them about thru hikers and how many they've seen. There biggest complaint about thru hikers is the needy self-centered attitude. Hikers think because they hiked the whole way they should be able to climb the mountain whenever they want. They throw a little tantrum if it happens to be a class III day and the mountain is closed. They also told me stories about what thru hikers do on top of the mountain to celebrate their achievement. You got to remember people hike that mountain with there kids. Thru hikers scream yell swear smoke pot and drink alcohol while hogging the top of the mountain for hours. So when those people with their kids come down the mountain they've voice there
disappointment to the Rangers. Year after year they hear complaints about thru hikers and what they do on top of the mountain. The ATC needs an ambassador there to make sure everybody behaves. GMC had to put them on Mansfield and camels hump to be sure everybody behaves correctly. Maybe there should be a sign they're saying please celebrate off park lands. Get your photo shake your fist feel good about yourself and then go into town to celebrate your achievement. After all you're not done until you get to the bottom of the mountain and out the of park.

We all need to stop and think about what it's like to be a park ranger there having to deal with everybody who comes and goes.

[rickb]

To summarize, recreation is seconday to resource protection at Baxter. I get that-- it's a core value and mandate. And good for the moose who live there.

Further, the increase in thru hikers and section hikers is growing fast, and now surpasses 3% of the annual visitors to BSP. They are concentrated though, and place demands and show little gratitude.

Not much was mentioned about how these numbers are damaging the resource, but other kinds of problems were noted, including those created by SoBos coming to the park -- in part to avoid trail magic --are creating excess work and radio calls.

I hope this ends well, but I detect an absence of love.

With all the negativity in that letter, I do find it heartening that many 10s of thousands of acres immediately adjacent to BSP are now protected through the ongoing efforts of a relatively recent thru hiker and the generosity of his family.

[Dogwood]

Well written letter detailing obviously legitimate concerns that can not be increasingly discounted, ignored, or absorbed. Registered AT thru-hiker numbers provided by BSP detail some exponentially steep increases sometimes in rather short time frames. WOW, in the eight yrs since I did a AT NOBO thru registered NOBOers increased from 500 in 2006 to 901 in 2014.

[imscotty]

I think that Just Bill's suggestion of moving the start of the AT to Amicalola State Park where resources exist to better educate and manage hikers was an excellent one. Honestly, I do not think that 50 respectful LNT hikers heading North a day would be more than the trail could handle. The problems develop when large groups bunch together and from the ignorance or willful misbehavior of a minority. I think that a program of education and restrained enforcement by caretakers/ ridge runners at the start of the trail would go a long way to alleviating some of these issues.

Hiker Feeds: I know that this subject has been beat to death, but I am becoming increasingly convinced that this kind of 'Trail Magic' does not benefit the trail community. Just like feeding the bears creates 'nuisance animals' and ultimately does them great harm, I fear that feeding some hikers keeps some 'nuisance hikers' on the trail that otherwise would have gone home.

Baxter State Park has their own agenda and the entire hiking community needs to do what they can to address their concerns. It is difficult to imagine an AT that did not end at the peak of Katahdin, but something needs to be done to help move the celebratory party off the summit.

[squeezebox]

I could see that an AT permit be required. An online LNT and hiker etiquette etc. online course required. Also available at nell's gap Amicalola Falls, and a few other choice places. A small fee could fund more shelters and replacing some bad ones, and other needs.
Baxter might tell the offenders at 1am , or whatever, to shut up or lave the park immediately, and enforce it, and put those people on a no summit list.
Word would get around fast to not mess around in Baxter. Sounds like Baxter needs some sort of public phone service.

[rickb]

Question:

The letter states that BSP is the controlling authority over the AT within he park. I get that.

The letter further states that 15 mile section of the AT within the boundaries of the park has "NO FEDERAL DESIGNATION."

I don't get that.

I always thought the northern terminus of the AT was explicitly defined as Katahdin in the National Scenic Trails Act.

I don't want to get into hair splitting on that, but since the Seperintendent felt that important enough to include in his letter I was curious.

Is it possible the official, federally designated, Trail ends 15 miles short of Katahdin?

[peakbagger]

"Maine could still enjoy the park by doing so ON FOOT. Everyone is allowed to enter but just on foot."

I guess Tipi just can not fundamentally understand that Baxter was very specific about what could and could be done in the park for perpetuity. His vision may not line up with current thinking but he bought the land and made the rules. His vision was the post war family car camping concept and wanted to keep car camping as the main use of the park. The long term head ranger with a lot of credibility, Buzz Caverly near the end of his term tried to implement a concept of closing the roaring brook road and turning it into a walk in only campground, there was a major uproar and he was vilified by many folks. He retired soon afterwards.

Dogwood missed the point of my National Park comment. The proposed park is east of BSP in the former industrial low land forest lands. It may have its charms but all the really interesting high terrain is in the park. BSP is unable to expand or modify itself to accommodate visitors from the east so anyone staying in the new national park will need to drive south or north to the park gate as a day visitor. Baxter already limits day use at the most popular trailheads and I expect that these restrictions would be expanded if the National Park was built.

I have been going on and off to BSP for at least 45 years, and the impacts of the limited auto traffic haven't been real obvious to me. The speeds are low as the roads are intentionally maintained that most wouldn't want to go any faster and the canopy is tight to the edges of the road so noise doesn't carry very far. Unfortunately, the road impact at the locations that AT hikers tend to visit like the Birchses, Abol and KSC is am impact. There is a new plan to slowly expand back country opportunities to allow multiday trips with loops (which is very limited today) so they are heading in the direction away from car camping but given the limitations of the deeds of trust, I don't see a major change in the management.

[rickb]

Baxter State Park Purpose
12 MSRA Pt. 2; c. 211; sub-c. 3; §900
(All quotations are directly from the letters and deeds submitted to the State of Maine by Percival P. Baxter during his lifetime.)

Seldom has a more generous gift been presented to a people than has been given by Percival Proctor Baxter to the people of the State of Maine. It is incumbent upon them, the recipients, to preserve the trust impressed upon them, to ensure for themselves and for future generations the fullest use of Baxter State Park consistent with the desires of the donor.

Governor Baxter's expressed desires were that this park "shall forever be retained and used for state forest, public park and public recreational purposes ... shall forever be kept and remain in the natural wild state ... shall forever be kept and remain as a sanctuary for beasts and birds."

Lest those that follow, uncertain of Governor Baxter's wishes, seek to define his desires in ways inharmonious with their original intent, this section is enacted.

It shall be the object of the Baxter State Park Authority to preserve the grandeur and beauty of Maine's highest peak, Mount Katahdin, as well as the 45 other mountains, the numerous lakes, ponds and streams; to subordinate its own wishes to the intent of Governor Baxter; to recognize his wish that, in this era of change, one thing of natural beauty remain constant.

This intent must be interpreted so as not to separate this park from the people to whom it was given; but rather seek to have it enjoyed and "used to the fullest extent but in the right unspoiled manner."

As a public forest it shall remain in its natural wild state and when "the Forests of our State have been cut off and disappeared, when civilization has encroached upon the land we now refer to as 'Wild Land,' this park will give the people of succeeding generations a living example of what the State of Maine was 'in the good old days' before the song of the woodsman's axe and the whine of the power saw was heard in the land."

As a public park and a place of recreation, it is apparent that it is intended for "those persons who enjoy the wilderness" and that the repeated use of the word "recreation" refers to the use of this park compatible with its natural state as a wilderness area and an expanse "for those who love nature and who are willing to walk and make an effort to get close to nature ... with pleasant foot-trails built and attractive camp-sites laid out in the valleys, by the brooks, and on the shores of the water."

As a tract kept in its "natural wild state," it is intended that "everything in connection with the park must be left simple and natural and must remain as nearly as possible as it was when only the Indians and the animals roamed at will through these areas ..." Access to the park shall be provided only "as may be necessary to accommodate those persons who wish to enjoy the great unspoiled area that now is the property of our State ..."

As a "sanctuary for beasts and birds" it shall be forever a "sanctuary and home for the creatures of the wild," and as refuge "against hunting, trapping and killing" where "hunting with cameras will take the place of hunting with guns."

While this area bears the name park, it is not to be confused with the existing state park system and is to "be separately administered free from any connection with the larger State Park Commission." (Bureau of Parks and Lands) That system, purchased with the funds of the people, must change from time to time to accommodate changing circumstances and the varying desires of its proprietors; not so, Baxter State Park, purchased by the generosity of one man, richly endowed, and presented to the people with specific stipulations.

"While I am living I fear no encroachments on the park, but as time passes and new men appear upon the scene, there may be a tendency to overlook these restrictions and thus break the spirit of these gifts."

Solemnly cognizant of the responsibility, it shall always be the purpose of the authority to satisfy the terms of the Trust.

https://www.mainememory.net/artifact/9357

[Coffee]

I think that Just Bill's suggestion of moving the start of the AT to Amicalola State Park where resources exist to better educate and manage hikers was an excellent one. Honestly, I do not think that 50 respectful LNT hikers heading North a day would be more than the trail could handle. The problems develop when large groups bunch together and from the ignorance or willful misbehavior of a minority...

If we look at how the JMT is managed, both the total number of people starting on a given day AND limits on group size are enforced in a way that appears to be sustainable. In addition, the first night camping area is usually limited in some way on the permit. Having ten groups of five people is going to have much less impact that two groups of 25 people.

As for Katahdin, maybe Baxter State Park should implement a permit system for summiting much like the Mt Whitney permit system. AT Thru hikers would receive a Katahdin stamp as part of their permit subject to certain limitations on timing and group size and with the understanding that failing to comply will result in immediate removal from the park and a prohibition against attempting the summit for a calendar year. Alcohol and drugs on the summit would result in some meaningful fine. Something tells me that the idiots making a scene on the summit would be deterred by that since being kicked out prior to the summit would mean that they haven't thru hiked the AT. Think about the incentive effect of having that consequence for misbehavior after having hiked 2000+ miles in pursuit of a goal. It would put even 90+% of idiots on their best behavior. And parties on the summit would be deterred by the fine given that many hikers are quite broke by the end of their hike.

The problems don't seem as insurmountable as many appear to believe.

[Another Kevin]

Is it possible the official, federally designated, Trail ends 15 miles short of Katahdin?

The Federally designated trail ends at Katahdin.

That doesn't mean that the Federal government owns the land. It doesn't.

The trail is operated under a cooperative agreement between the Department of the Interior and the State of Maine. I don't know the full terms of the agreement. The letter is strongly hinting that Uncle Sam isn't holding up his side of the bargain.

All that the National Scenic Trails Act says about the route of the trail (other than that it runs from Springer to Katahdin) is that "as far as is practicable" it should follow the 1967 proposal. It's entirely possible that Maine never consented to a formal designation of the route and has merely acceded to allowing hikers along it. I say this in ignorance of the actual terms of the agreement, of course. Given the terms of Baxter's legacy, I suspect that Maine insisted on a great deal of control.

And for the Federal government to condemn State land - or even condemn an easement on it - would be a Big Deal, legally. The Supreme Court has held that the Federal government does have that power (United States v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230 (1946)), and a 2012 appellate decision has held that a Federal taking extinguishes public trust rights in the land (United States v. 32.42 Acres of Land, 683 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir. 2012)). For the Federal government to condemn the extinction of a public trust would likely negate the terms of Baxter's will. Nevertheless, for a case of this prominence, actually exercising the power would be a matter of many years of litigation, legislation, and grandstanding in all three branches of government. Believe me, we don't want to go there.

[Connie]

Is it likely State Police would be called out to the next booze and drugs "celebration" at the summit of Katahdin, in the state park? I mean, the sense of "entitlement" seems to rule, here, for far too many AT hikers. Sneak around GSNP rules, etal.

[DavidNH]

The best thing about the Appalachian Trail is the people. The worst thing about the Appalachian Trail is the people.


At best, AT hikers are guests in BSP (and thank you to Bamboo Bob for setting someone straight about this) and are entitled to absolutely nothing beyond an overnight stay at the Birches. Those who would stealth in the park deserve to be escorted out .. regardless of time of night.

[Alligator]

The National Scenic Trails Act was passed while Baxter was still living. My opinion is he would have had some objection or other noted statement if there was some issue with the terms. He knew the trail was there. Major relocations are required in the Act to be approved by the Sec. of the Interior. While I most certainly understand the frustration BSP has with thruhiker behavior, the suggestion of the nuclear option of moving the terminus is not the appropriate way to ameliorate the situation. The letter was sent to his counterparts at the ATC and the Appalachian Trail Park Office and was not as tactful as might be expected to be sent to an agency partner.

[rickb]

While I most certainly understand the frustration BSP has with thruhiker behavior, the suggestion of the nuclear option of moving the terminus is not the appropriate way to ameliorate the situation. The letter was sent to his counterparts at the ATC and the Appalachian Trail Park Office and was not as tactful as might be expected to be sent to an agency partner.

The letter explicitly states that the Trail in Baxter is NOT federally designated as part of the AT under the National Scenic Trails Act.

[Bronk]

By allowing the expectation that park employees will get on the radio and arrange for transportation and other types of communication they are bringing this on themselves...and I know what a headache it is because I've dealt with these kinds of situations before. All they have to do is tell hikers to make their arrangements before entering the park...either that or provide a means for them to make their own arrangements within the park for a fee.

[map man]

Here are two options for changing things in a way that would deal with some of the concerns of those who manage Baxter State Park. If ATC and Park personnel get together and decide it's in their interests to keep Katahdin as the northern terminus then they could try

Option 1:

Instead of routing the AT inside the park in the circuitous manner it is now, make a bee-line for the summit. From the park boundary, use the Blueberry Ledges Trail for half of its length, build a new mile-long connector trail from it to the Abol Campsite, then up the newly constructed Abol Trail (replacing the old Abol Slide Trail) to the summit -- and I assume building new trail does not violate Gov. Baxter's conditions since the park is already building new trail to replace Abol Slide.

NOBOs could start their last day at Abol Pines Campsite or Abol Bridge Family Campground, just outside the park, then do around four miles of non-strenuous hiking to get to Abol Campsite, inside the park, then 4.2 difficult miles up to Baxter and another difficult 4.2 miles back. Vice versa for SOBOs. This would mean a 12 to 13 mile day (compared to the present 10.2 mile day up and down the Hunt Trail) with no overnight stay required. NOBOs and SOBOs who do have their acts together could reserve space for an overnight stay at Abol Campsite, but a summit could realistically be managed without it. The special setting-aside of overnight spaces for NOBO thru-hikers (current policy at the Birches) would be eliminated. No special accommodations for thru-hikers. If park personnel don't like vehicle traffic associated with thru-hikers, then thru-hikers can start and end their day (with 16 miles of hiking the last day) at Abol Bridge, and vehicles can use Golden Road to access it and never go inside the park. If 16 miles is too great a hardship, limited parking could be allowed at Abol Campsite for just overnight campers and approved shuttle drivers. Camping facilities near Abol Bridge would need to be beefed up, but the ATC has the money to do it if they make it a priority.

If, on the other hand, ATC and Baxter State Park managers find their conflicting mandates just can't be squared then we can try

Option 2:

The trail could end, as bamboo bob suggests, at Abol Bridge. Again, facilities there would need to be improved (and maybe some nice but modest monument could be erected) and vehicles could access the location via Golden Road with no need to enter the park. There are lots of great trails in this country that don't use hard-to-access mountaintops as termini and maybe it's time for the AT to follow suit (and by the way, I like Just Bill's suggestion to have the southern terminus at Amicalola Visitor Center instead of Springer).

Lots of good could come from moving these termini. The NOBO hiking season could be extended by a couple weeks since October weather in Maine is better at lower elevations than on top of Katahdin -- and there is only one AT mountain between Katahdin and the Bigelows over 3000 feet (White Cap at 3650). If NOBO hikers knew they had more time they might feel less pressure to start in such a narrow time window at the start and traffic at the outset in Georgia could be dispersed some.

The Abol Bridge area and Amicalola Visitor Center can be supervised for inappropriate behavior a heck of a lot better than the top of Katahdin and Springer can. And both locations are much better suited to hiker education of NOBOs and SOBOs than those mountaintops are.

Finally, I want to mention a principle I hold dear that informs these suggestions of mine: I think every hiker who wants to hike on the Appalachian Trail should be free to do so. They should be free to do so without having to apply for permits, pay fees, be subject to quotas or show proof of having taken education sessions or have prior hiking experience -- all ideas that have been suggested frequently in the last couple days here on Whiteblaze.

[rocketsocks]

The National Scenic Trails Act was passed while Baxter was still living. My opinion is he would have had some objection or other noted statement if there was some issue with the terms. He knew the trail was there. Major relocations are required in the Act to be approved by the Sec. of the Interior. While I most certainly understand the frustration BSP has with thruhiker behavior, the suggestion of the nuclear option of moving the terminus is not the appropriate way to ameliorate the situation. The letter was sent to his counterparts at the ATC and the Appalachian Trail Park Office and was not as tactful as might be expected to be sent to an agency partner.
Follow this thread I kept wondering just how this information became public so soon (freedom of information act ???). Now Re-reading the original post I see it was posted on Baxters website...highly irregular for internal communica, very odd indeed.

Never the less here we are. Shame some hikers can't follow the rules laid down. So much easier to live life within the law.

[imscotty]

By allowing the expectation that park employees will get on the radio and arrange for transportation and other types of communication they are bringing this on themselves...and I know what a headache it is because I've dealt with these kinds of situations before. All they have to do is tell hikers to make their arrangements before entering the park...either that or provide a means for them to make their own arrangements within the park for a fee.

One of the problems is the difficulty of arranging pick up by family and friends of thru-hikers that have finished their hike. Not knowing the finish date makes the reservation system near impossible to use. Perhaps some flexibility in the BST rules for pick-up parking and early entry to the park for those who wish to join their loved ones on their final climb up Katahdin would alleviate some of the radio traffic.

[imscotty]

Follow this thread I kept wondering just how this information became public so soon (freedom of information act ???). Now Re-reading the original post I see it was posted on Baxters website...highly irregular for internal communica, very odd indeed.


I noticed that too Rocketsocks. Clearly this is a 'Shot across the bow" of the AT hiking community.

[rickb]

Seems obvious that hikers don't have much good will left in Baxter.

A couple years ago the Park even saw fit to make mention of a thru hiker is spotted in Millinocket with a sign asking for money-- in thier annual report.

Not cool on the part of the hiker, but that this story was deemed worth of inclusion in the Parks annual report may be telling.

[rocketsocks]

One of the problems is the difficulty of arranging pick up by family and friends of thru-hikers that have finished their hike. Not knowing the finish date makes the reservation system near impossible to use. Perhaps some flexibility in the BST rules for pick-up parking and early entry to the park for those who wish to join their loved ones on their final climb up Katahdin would alleviate some of the radio traffic.
I've never understood why the logistics involved for both termini need to be such a pain the butt, seems foolish and unnecessary.

[rocketsocks]

I noticed that too Rocketsocks. Clearly this is a 'Shot across the bow" of the AT hiking community.that my read as well.

[Tipi Walter]

Finally, I want to mention a principle I hold dear that informs these suggestions of mine: I think every hiker who wants to hike on the Appalachian Trail should be free to do so. They should be free to do so without having to apply for permits, pay fees, be subject to quotas or show proof of having taken education sessions or have prior hiking experience -- all ideas that have been suggested frequently in the last couple days here on Whiteblaze.

I totally and irrevocably AGREE. I never backpack anywhere EVER which requires me to get a permit or reserve a camping spot or spend folding money for the freedom and joy of humping a 75 lb pack up a mountain day in and day out. There are fortunately still vast areas in the Southeast mountains which are wide open and free and require nothing but your body and your gear and the willingness to walk. Amen. It's sad that the GSMNP just recently stopped free-roaming backpacking by requiring a $4 a night fee and requiring every single camping spot to be reserved before a trip.

So imagine doing a 14 day trip in the Smokies and telling them where you will be camping every night. It's impossible and it's demented. Maybe on Day 8 the creeks will rise? Maybe on Day 10 a blizzard hits? Maybe I get food poisoning on Day 4 and need to sit put for 3 days? Can't happen with the new system. And then you're "illegal" and running from the law etc.

It's odd that people here on Whiteblaze would suggest these lame ideas to institute permits and fees and reservations for hiking any part of the Appalachian Trail. It makes me wonder if Whiteblaze is made up of hardcore freedom-loving backpackers or guys that want to acquiesce to the Tent Police and put a stop to all free roaming.

[imscotty]

@MapMan:

Option 1: As usual a brilliant analysis on your part. Seems like a reasonable change that maintain the integrity of the AT while eliminating many of the issues BST has to deal with.

Option 2: Honestly I think it would be devastating for AT hikers if this were to happen. Katahdin really is the 'Greatest Mountain,' such a majestic and sacred site to finish a personal journey.



Finally, I want to mention a principle I hold dear that informs these suggestions of mine: I think every hiker who wants to hike on the Appalachian Trail should be free to do so. They should be free to do so without having to apply for permits, pay fees, be subject to quotas or show proof of having taken education sessions or have prior hiking experience -- all ideas that have been suggested frequently in the last couple days here on Whiteblaze.

A could not agree more Mapman, a permit / fee system should be the absolute last resort. A place where anyone can come to commune with nature is more in keeping with Benton MacKaye's vision.

[Connie]

I see little or no perspective, among vocal hikers.

A state park concept is family recreation, including picnics, camping, boating, not explicitly hiking. If hiking, day hiking. If really big state park, maybe hiking and camping but I would think few state parks are that big.

And so, you are "guests".

Have you no awareness, you are "guests". Even if you pay a fee, you are "extra".

I think so, because a state park is not a thru-hike.

A branch of the federal government "declared" a scenic trail.

As far as I know, it is a "straw man" vote. No one "has" to comply. It is voluntary.

I think it is absolute "hubris" to think all this should be kept "private".

Most people, I venture, do not want self-declared "hiker trash" in their neighborhood.

[rafe]

Tipi, have you been to Baxter Park? I have, a few times now. I'm OK with the regulations. It's a really special place, and it wouldn't be without those regs. Also: don't compare it with GSMNP or SNP, or the AMC in the White Mountains -- it's a whole different situation.

The nightmare trip scenario you posit isn't at all like what happens in real-life. Rangers I've met and heard about are usually very accommodating of reasonable needs of hikers. They won't abide lawlessness or blatant stupidity, but otherwise, no problem.

I think it's fine that you have your southeast mountains in which to roam free and do as you wish. And it's also fine that other specific areas operate by different rules.

[rocketsocks]

Here are two options for changing things in a way that would deal with some of the concerns of those who manage Baxter State Park. If ATC and Park personnel get together and decide it's in their interests to keep Katahdin as the northern terminus then they could try

Option 1:

Instead of routing the AT inside the park in the circuitous manner it is now, make a bee-line for the summit. From the park boundary, use the Blueberry Ledges Trail for half of its length, build a new mile-long connector trail from it to the Abol Campground, then up the newly constructed Abol Trail (replacing the old Abol Slide Trail) to the summit -- and I assume building new trail does not violate Gov. Baxter's conditions since the park is already building new trail to replace Abol Slide.

NOBOs could start their last day at Abol Pines Campsite or Abol Bridge Family Campground, just outside the park, then do around four miles of non-strenuous hiking to get to Abol Campground, then 4.2 difficult miles up to Baxter and another difficult 4.2 miles back. Vice versa for SOBOs. This would mean a 12 to 13 mile day (compared to the present 10.2 mile day up and down the Hunt Trail) with no overnight stay required. NOBOs and SOBOs who do have their acts together could reserve space for an overnight stay at Abol Campground, but a summit could realistically be managed without it. The special setting-aside of overnight spaces for NOBO thru-hikers (current policy at the Birches) would be eliminated. No special accommodations for thru-hikers. If park personnel don't like vehicle traffic associated with thru-hikers, then thru-hikers can start and end their day (with 16 miles of hiking the last day) at Abol Bridge, and vehicles can use Golden Road to access it and never go inside the park. If 16 miles is too great a hardship, limited parking could be allowed at Abol Campground for just overnight campers and approved shuttle drivers. Camping facilities near Abol Bridge would need to be beefed up, but the ATC has the money to do it if they make it a priority.

If, on the other hand, ATC and Baxter State Park managers find their conflicting mandates just can't be squared then we can try

Option 2:

The trail could end, as bamboo bob suggests, at Abol Bridge. Again, facilities there would need to be improved (and maybe some nice but modest monument could be erected) and vehicles could access the location via Golden Road with no need to enter the park. There are lots of great trails in this country that don't use hard-to-access mountaintops as termini and maybe it's time for the AT to follow suit (and by the way, I like Just Bill's suggestion to have the southern terminus at Amicalola Visitor Center instead of Springer).

Lots of good could come from moving these termini. The NOBO hiking season could be extended by a couple weeks since October weather in Maine is a heck of a lot better at lower elevations than on top of Katahdin -- and other than Katahdin there is only one AT mountain north of the Bigelows over 3000 feet (White Cap at 3650). If NOBO hikers knew they had more time they might feel less pressure to start in such a narrow time window at the start and traffic at the outset in Georgia could be dispersed some.

The Abol Bridge area and Amicalola Visitor Center can be supervised for inappropriate behavior a heck of a lot better than the top of Katahdin and Springer can. And both locations are much better suited to hiker education of NOBOs and SOBOs than those mountaintops are.

Finally, I want to mention a principle I hold dear that informs these suggestions of mine: I think every hiker who wants to hike on the Appalachian Trail should be free to do so. They should be free to do so without having to apply for permits, pay fees, be subject to quotas or show proof of having taken education sessions or have prior hiking experience -- all ideas that have been suggested frequently in the last couple days here on Whiteblaze.Agree 100% self policing needs to happen or the aforementioned will likely be installed never to be repealed.

"Don't fence me in"

[Another Kevin]

The National Scenic Trails Act was passed while Baxter was still living. My opinion is he would have had some objection or other noted statement if there was some issue with the terms. He knew the trail was there. Major relocations are required in the Act to be approved by the Sec. of the Interior. While I most certainly understand the frustration BSP has with thruhiker behavior, the suggestion of the nuclear option of moving the terminus is not the appropriate way to ameliorate the situation. The letter was sent to his counterparts at the ATC and the Appalachian Trail Park Office and was not as tactful as might be expected to be sent to an agency partner.

I think we're in violent agreement here. Your message expresses one of many considerations that I summed up under the general heading of "we don't want to go there!"

The relationship between the A-T and Baxter State Park has been somewhat strained for at least forty years, and "thru-hiker entitlement" has always played a major part in the strain. The strife goes all the way back to Warren Doyle and the incidents with the UConn hikers back in the 1970's. It's nothing new, but at some point something's going to give. I just hope it doesn't happen with the current state of the case law, because 32.42 Acres of Land is a potential disaster for public land trusts. However awkward the dealings with BSP's administration might be, condemning a Federal corridor through it, extinguishing the terms of his trust, would surely have Baxter spinning in his grave!

[Stepinwolfe]

Excellent analysis and recommendations by Map Man.
I know nothing of the politics involved here—just an old guy from VA who has section hiked all of the AT in Maine and another 1000 miles to the south.
A few observations:
1. My experience with the Baxter State Park Rangers and other employees while hiking through Baxter State Park was very positive. Most significant, they were actually out there on the trail interacting with and helping hikers. Compare this visible level of effort to what I’ve seen from the Feds (NPS Rangers)--invisible on the AT, even in SNP.
2. Although BSP states AT hikers comprise only 3% of annual visitors, I wonder what the hiker economic impact is on Millinocket and the surrounding area? I suspect this may be why the letter wasn’t written any more forceful than it was—they really don’t want the hikers to go away or reroute, but just behave a little better.
3. Inappropriate behavior on the AT seems to be everywhere, not just In BSP. I even noted a homeless couple living in an AT shelter in PA last summer. Additional resources (to inform) are not a solution, in my opinion.
4. So in the long run, if the BSP risk analysis tilts in favor of local needs/priorities vs thru hiker numbers and behavior, it seem to me that inevitably we may get an “end run” to Katahdin, an “early exit” at Abol Bridge or someplace else, or a major reroute at the northern terminus.

[Offshore]

A little courtesy and common sense would go a long way. In the meantime, I'd start with strict enforcement of the rules/regulations by BSP rangers (word would travel fast), including a polite refusal to serve as messengers or concierges. Planning and executing a thru involves a lot of logistics, and the portion that takes place in BSP is no different. If you don't like the rules or can't figure out the logistics, then don't use the park. The biggest issue is how do you get the hiking community to self-police - like an honor code of sorts and then begin to instill a new attitude to reduce the number of problem hikers. If I were on a thru, the last thing I would want is a trail experience where some thrus treated it as a multi-month, multi-state, 2,000 mile long spring break party. Its up to hikers on the trail to recognize problem behavior and stand up to it. As stated in the letter, the root of the problem seems to be the self-entitled attitude of some hikers - "I'm special and the rules don't apply". I see this pop up on this site and even on day hikes on the AT when encountering some thrus. This is a tough one when we've now had a couple of generations growing up where everyone was told they were special, got a trophy for showing up, and whose hovering parents arrested their development. (I just finished a 7 year volunteer stint at a university and saw this every week. I also had newly graduated science and engineering hirees who needed constant reinforcement to do their jobs.) This isn't to say that all thrus are bad or that its a particular age group that is the problem, but its the bad ones that leave an impression. After all, BSP felt compelled to write this letter about a subset of approximately 3% of park visitors. Maybe the problem will diminish as our population ages and less are able to thru due to physical, financial or time limitation.

I also don't think that the AWITW and Wild movies will have a huge effect on hiker populations in BSP. A lot more may start, but the herd will be culled long before BSP. Remember, Bryson didn't even finish. As far as Wild is concerned, anyone who goes to see this expecting a hiking movie will find themselves watching more of a Lifetime TV film. I'm not sure how big the overlap in the Venn diagram would be.

[Coffee]

Permit systems like GSMNP and Grand Canyon which require predefined itineraries are indeed problematic especially for long distance backpackers. I much prefer the system in the Sierra Nevada jurisdictions where quotas exist for a trailhead and sometimes dictate the first night's campsite but leave the backpacker free to roam beyond that as circumstances and preferences dictate. As long as permit systems follow the Sierra Nevada model, I can live with it and support it as long as quotas are not so low as to make it impossible for spur of the moment travel (walk up permits). And I have no issue with reasonable fees for permits either. I prefer user pay systems to funding everything under the sun with general tax revenues.

I dont think that the problems are nearly as intractable as they may appear. Institute daily quotas and group size limitations at each terminus for all hikers (both reservation based and first come first served). Offer thru hikers a permit via ATC that requires membership and in exchange smooths the way with each jurisdiction (much like PCTA does), and put in place a permit system for Katahdin much like Mt Whitney with the thru hiker ATC permit offering access within reasonable limitations. Hire a babysitter to monitor the summit of Katahdin if needed with stiff penalties for drugs and alcohol. Am I missing something or wouldn't this solve most of the worst issues?

[Alligator]

I think we're in violent agreement here. Your message expresses one of many considerations that I summed up under the general heading of "we don't want to go there!"

The relationship between the A-T and Baxter State Park has been somewhat strained for at least forty years, and "thru-hiker entitlement" has always played a major part in the strain. The strife goes all the way back to Warren Doyle and the incidents with the UConn hikers back in the 1970's. It's nothing new, but at some point something's going to give. I just hope it doesn't happen with the current state of the case law, because 32.42 Acres of Land is a potential disaster for public land trusts. However awkward the dealings with BSP's administration might be, condemning a Federal corridor through it, extinguishing the terms of his trust, would surely have Baxter spinning in his grave!Yes, we are in agreement. It would be an ugly litigation process.

My personal opinion is that at the end of the process, Katahdin would still be the terminus of the Appalachian Trail.

Yeah it would be much better to not go through litigation. It would be very wasteful.

[Alligator]

The letter explicitly states that the Trail in Baxter is NOT federally designated as part of the AT under the National Scenic Trails Act.The letter says the trail is not federally designated. I saw that. But Katahdin is specifically mentioned in the Trails Act as a terminus, as well as the AT is established in the Act. The process for many of the other long distance trails is discussed. If there is a bilateral agreement modifying that somewhere I have not seen it referenced. I haven't read the deeds of trust either but Dir. Bissell says they do not mention AT thruhikers. BSP does have an agreement with MATC that says BSP maintains authority but then again major relocations require Sec of Interior.

It would be messy. They won't litigate IMO, they will end up negotiating. It would be a big uproar and higher ups would get involved. The higher ups will then reach a compromise and afterwards say "We could have fixed this without all this trouble, why did it get escalated?" Then someone may get reprimanded. Which is why I think the threat is not appropriate.

Better really to work together to improve behavior.

[Bronk]

Follow this thread I kept wondering just how this information became public so soon (freedom of information act ???). Now Re-reading the original post I see it was posted on Baxters website...highly irregular for internal communica, very odd indeed.

Never the less here we are. Shame some hikers can't follow the rules laid down. So much easier to live life within the law.The letter was made public because they want the public to be prepared for what they do next...

[Dogwood]

I did miss where you were going Peakbagger. Thanks for helping fill in some of the gaps. I know nothing about a proposed NP east of BSP other than what has been shared here.

Rickb, appreciate the BSP Purpose being posted.

[Bronk]

What's funny to me about the letter is that its almost like Baxter State Park is putting the responsibility off on the ATC to control the behavior of hikers while in their own park. If you've ever talked to anyone that has run a campground you'll find that stupid nonsense goes on everywhere, with all kinds of people. You can't tell me that they don't have a lot of the same issues with the users of their other areas. Its really just that they can put a name to thruhikers.

[rickb]

The letter was made public because they want the public to be prepared for what they do next...

Bronk,

While the letter is online and accessible to anyone who knows where to find it, I don't think there is a link to it on their website.

I stand to be corrected on that.

In short, I am not convinced that it was intended for wide public distribution. Part of the realm I think this might be the case is that there are other documents in that directory that I can't image were intended for publication on the net, like this letter from a park user who had a problem with geese:

http://www.baxterstateparkauthority.com/pdf/meetingAuthority/Dec162014/RoyChastonGeese_KP11_14.pdf

It's almost like someone was using that directory like a "dropbox". Again, I stand to be corrected. If there are links to the letter I am obviously all wet on this.

[rocketsocks]

A little courtesy and common sense would go a long way. In the meantime, I'd start with strict enforcement of the rules/regulations by BSP rangers (word would travel fast), including a polite refusal to serve as messengers or concierges. Planning and executing a thru involves a lot of logistics, and the portion that takes place in BSP is no different. If you don't like the rules or can't figure out the logistics, then don't use the park. The biggest issue is how do you get the hiking community to self-police - like an honor code of sorts and then begin to instill a new attitude to reduce the number of problem hikers. If I were on a thru, the last thing I would want is a trail experience where some thrus treated it as a multi-month, multi-state, 2,000 mile long spring break party. Its up to hikers on the trail to recognize problem behavior and stand up to it. As stated in the letter, the root of the problem seems to be the self-entitled attitude of some hikers - "I'm special and the rules don't apply". I see this pop up on this site and even on day hikes on the AT when encountering some thrus. This is a tough one when we've now had a couple of generations growing up where everyone was told they were special, got a trophy for showing up, and whose hovering parents arrested their development. (I just finished a 7 year volunteer stint at a university and saw this every week. I also had newly graduated science and engineering hirees who needed constant reinforcement to do their jobs.) This isn't to say that all thrus are bad or that its a particular age group that is the problem, but its the bad ones that leave an impression. After all, BSP felt compelled to write this letter about a subset of approximately 3% of park visitors. Maybe the problem will diminish as our population ages and less are able to thru due to physical, financial or time limitation.

I also don't think that the AWITW and Wild movies will have a huge effect on hiker populations in BSP. A lot more may start, but the herd will be culled long before BSP. Remember, Bryson didn't even finish. As far as Wild is concerned, anyone who goes to see this expecting a hiking movie will find themselves watching more of a Lifetime TV film. I'm not sure how big the overlap in the Venn diagram would be. Guilt and shaming by ones peers is a great motivator. It comes down to the the old saying

...if ya see somethin' say somethin'


The letter was made public because they want the public to be prepared for what they do next...
winner winner chicken dinner!

[Dogwood]

...Finally, I want to mention a principle I hold dear that informs these suggestions of mine: I think every hiker who wants to hike on the Appalachian Trail should be free to do so. They should be free to do so without having to apply for permits, pay fees, be subject to quotas or show proof of having taken education sessions or have prior hiking experience -- all ideas that have been suggested frequently in the last couple days here on Whiteblaze.


I totally and irrevocably AGREE. I never backpack anywhere EVER which requires me to get a permit or reserve a camping spot or spend folding money for the freedom and joy of humping a 75 lb pack up a mountain day in and day out. There are fortunately still vast areas in the Southeast mountains which are wide open and free and require nothing but your body and your gear and the willingness to walk. Amen. It's sad that the GSMNP just recently stopped free-roaming backpacking by requiring a $4 a night fee and requiring every single camping spot to be reserved before a trip.

So imagine doing a 14 day trip in the Smokies and telling them where you will be camping every night. It's impossible and it's demented. Maybe on Day 8 the creeks will rise? Maybe on Day 10 a blizzard hits? Maybe I get food poisoning on Day 4 and need to sit put for 3 days? Can't happen with the new system. And then you're "illegal" and running from the law etc.

It's odd that people here on Whiteblaze would suggest these lame ideas to institute permits and fees and reservations for hiking any part of the Appalachian Trail. It makes me wonder if Whiteblaze is made up of hardcore freedom-loving backpackers or guys that want to acquiesce to the Tent Police and put a stop to all free roaming.

I share the same ideals expressed here by Mapman and Tipi. Few backpackers are as free roaming, free spirited, freedom loving as myself. But, as I suspect is the situation with Mapman and Tipi, we know that free anything often isn't as free as might be initially assumed. Being Free comes with responsibilities. Being Free comes with knowing consequences will follow. My freedom to swing my fist ends where another person's nose begins. My dog knows that its freedom often extends only to the boundary of where it's leash ends.

Being Free comes with an understanding - that is not to be ignored - that each of the way we experience freedom impacts others.

This is not a moot point. Not all who seek freedom acknowledge this. The AT hiker free roaming free spirited mindset is not to be taken upon without acknowledging freedom in this larger context. It's my guess Mapman and Tipi acknowledge this version of freedom in their outdoor experiences. Not everyone does.

According to all my AT hiker hands-on observations - nor does every AT hiker. Especially of great concern is the increasing extent this occurs among the concentrated AT thru-hiker crowd and the negative impact that follows. It contributes to a good amount of friction resulting in greater animosity directed at the AT hiking community, and sometimes hikers in general.

It's directly responsible for one of the core concerns in Mr. Tipton's written letter. We can analyze ad nauseam external "solutions", and very well they may be part of the overall longer term future for the AT, such as undertaking creating reroutes, ending the AT at Abol Bridge, blah blah, etc. but until this is not appropriately addressed it will continue to fester, magnify in intensity, and create new conflicts.

It most definitely is not a BSP issue either. It's a AT culture issue particularly among the AT thru-hiking masses.

[Grampie]

There has been a influx of articles writen in the past few years pertaining to this problem of AT over use. Baxter has decided to take on this problem before it becomes more out of hand and than drastic measures have to be taken. Since I thru-hiked in 2001 I yearly spent numerious hours hiking on the AT and being a caretaker at Upper Goose Pond Cabin. I have not only experienced a larger influx of hikers, in recent years, but also a attitude change in these hikers. I see a change in the attitude of the younger crowd, 18-30 year olds,who have lost respect for athority and see spending time on the AT a time to show this disrespect by flaunting established rules and regulations. The new attitude is "so what."
If the number of thru-hikers continue to grow something will have to be done to put limits on trail usage in places that warrant it.
Because of Baxters ability to regulate rules,in the park ,they will probably institute some new measures to try to rectify their stated problems. It should be up to the ATC to also do their part to address the rest of the trail.
We all have the right to use the AT. What we don't have is the right to abuse it's rules.

[DavidNH]

What I don't understand is why so many of you can't abide by the basic regulations of a place like Baxter State Park.. one of the most beautiful places in the northeast, if not in the entire country. You think just because you hiked a long way, 2000 miles mostly unencumbered that you should have privileges (stealth camping, tolerance of partying in pack travel etc) in Baxter? It really makes me sad. And don't even get me started on Warren Doyle.. what he has said both on White Blaze and now on facebook are very distressing. You all should thank the Lord that places like Baxter State Park still exist, that the AT brings you to it and terminates at perhaps the most magnificent viewpoint in all of New England. The park is mostly a wilderness park.. and is regulated to keep it that way. Thank God for that. Furthermore with the ridiculous crowds now starting northbound from Springer (note ATC statistics) the trail in my view is no longer a trail for those who seek wilderness travel.. or even a distant approximation therefor. Frankly a permitting system to control the crowds wouldn't be such a bad idea.

[dudeijuststarted]

Valid points, no argument. We must respect the concerns of the park authority and allow the ATC to work with them to alleviate these issues. The trail is much bigger than the realized fantasies of any individual or group of hikers.

2015 thru hikers: show the trail community what character is all about!!!

[rocketsocks]

Valid points, no argument. We must respect the concerns of the park authority and allow the ATC to work with them to alleviate these issues. The trail is much bigger than the realized fantasies of any individual or group of hikers.

2015 thru hikers: show the trail community what character is all about!!!


+1 Dude
Character: what you do when no one is looking.

[rickb]

BSP list all citations written for various infractions in their annual reports, as well as the disposition of each case.

On reviewing the most recent year's report I took note that while they issued multiple $200 ticket to hikers who did not have flashlights, not a single ticket was issued for alchohol consumption to anyone on Katahdin.

Not sure why The Rangers have not done so, because this is clearly an issue of great import to the Superintendant.

They did make special note that a reported thru hiker was spotted in Millinocket with a sign asking for Money.

[Dogwood]

Valid points, no argument. We must respect the concerns of the park authority and allow the ATC to work with them to alleviate these issues. The trail is much bigger than the realized fantasies of any individual or group of hikers.

2015 thru hikers: show the trail community what character is all about!!!

+2 :banana
+3:banana
+4:banana

.
.
.
.
.
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...............

[Sly]

Follow this thread I kept wondering just how this information became public so soon (freedom of information act ???). Now Re-reading the original post I see it was posted on Baxters website...highly irregular for internal communica, very odd indeed.

Never the less here we are. Shame some hikers can't follow the rules laid down. So much easier to live life within the law.

It was buried deep in the website and is in the agenda for a BSP meeting on 12/16/2014

http://www.baxterstateparkauthority.com/more/meeting.htm

[Tipi Walter]

BSP list all citations written for various infractions in their annual reports, as well as the disposition of each case.

On reviewing the most recent year's report I took note that while they issued multiple $200 ticket to hikers who did not have flashlights, not a single ticket was issued for alchohol consumption to anyone on Katahdin.


This is infuriating. Instead of challenging all hikers, focus on the drunks, litterbugs, above-ground turd-leavers, tampon-spewers, bonfire fanatics, bicyclists, illicit horseback riders etc etc.

[rocketsocks]

It was buried deep in the website and is in the agenda for a BSP meeting on 12/16/2014

http://www.baxterstateparkauthority.com/more/meeting.htmaaah, gotcha. ;)

[Sly]

BSP list all citations written for various infractions in their annual reports, as well as the disposition of each case.

On reviewing the most recent year's report I took note that while they issued multiple $200 ticket to hikers who did not have flashlights, not a single ticket was issued for alchohol consumption to anyone on Katahdin.

Not sure why The Rangers have not done so, because this is clearly an issue of great import to the Superintendant.

They did make special note that a reported thru hiker was spotted in Millinocket with a sign asking for Money.

Probably because they don't have a ranger stationed on the summit. That doesn't excuse hikers when there's no one around to enforce the rules, it's still forbidden, but reported enough to cause concern.

[Dogwood]

drunks, litterbugs,.... tampon-spewers,.....

Then, I'd definitely advise you not visit the beach in Seaside Heights NJ on the weekend of Labor Day.

LOL. OMG your rants are amusing but with a good dose of reality included.

[bamboo bob]

Based on what I've read here I guess AT people think they are entitled to the use of Baxter State Park. I expect the next thing I'll see is an ATC plan for a federal takeover of the AT corridor in Baxter. You folks who think the Federal Government should run everything will be pleased to all get out'

[rocketsocks]

drunks, litterbugs,.... tampon-spewers,.....

Then, I'd definitely advise you not visit the beach in Seaside Heights NJ on the weekend of Labor Day.

LOL. OMG your rants are amusing but with a good dose of reality included.

I haven't been there in almost 30 years, and never liked that area back when, way to much testosterone floatin' around in the air, and not just the men...older ladies fighting in the streets, crazy place it has always been.

[dudeijuststarted]

Easy solution. Two Words: Hard. Ranger.

[jacob_springsteen]

How about a campaign to have the northern terminus of the AT at Abol Bridge? Katahdin ain't going no where and it would be optional for thru-hikers to climb it, therefore reducing the compulsive bad behavior a bit. Also, the way the ATC pushes the whole '2000 miler' club mentality thing should be toned down. Thru-hiking has become too much of a spectator sport and is losing its inward-looking aspects.

[Bronk]

Even if the terminus were moved to Abol Bridge people would still feel like they hadn't finished if they didn't climb Katahdin. Look how many years its been since the southern terminus was at Mt Oglethorpe and every once in awhile the topic still comes up of someone wanting to begin their hike there.

And as far as those $200 tickets for not having a flashlight, I seriously doubt anybody was fined $200 for not having a flashlight. Around here if you get a speeding ticket you can go to the prosecuter and he'll cut you a deal: I'll double the fine and reduce the ticket to a noisy muffler...that way your insurance won't go up. I'd bet most of these $200 tickets were for alcohol or dope but the kids involved were given the opportunity to buy their way out of having to explain that to prospective employers for the rest of their lives.

[rickb]

And as far as those $200 tickets for not having a flashlight, I seriously doubt anybody was fined $200 for not having a flashligh.

Hey Bronk,

Here is a screen shot showing they do:

29171

There was no doubt a good reason for the citations-- the persons without the flashlight could well have ignored the Ranger's warnings regarding the propriety of a late start and then required a rescue-- who knows.

My point was that since the Park considers thru hiker violations to be a significant problem, it struck me odd that they have not issued many citations for those violations. To be more direct, it seems like those clearly irresponsible behaviors (ie champagne or other toasts on K in direct violation of the BSP rules) are being addressed by a complaint to the ATC rather than in the field.

The annual report also lists all the formal warnings given for such things as illegal camping. Again, given how egregious the behavior has been presented in the letter, I was taken aback by just how few warnings were given-- much less how few citations.

To be fair, the most recent report on line was published in 2013-- for the 2012 season. Things may have changed dramatically since then. It may also be possible that the park personel observing such violations don't have the powers to issue citations or warnings-- with their only recourse being to make a mental note and then have a letter sent to the ATC and NPS.

Also, I do believe that thru hiker attitudes and respect for regulations could be improved, and encourage effort by the ATC and the larger AT community to help with that. Any disrespect to the letter and spirit of BSP rules should not be tolerated, and the individuals responsible should be taken to task.

I still cannot get over the Park telling the ATC and NPS that the AT is not Federally designated within its boundaries, however. Just seems odd to mention if not true-- and most shocking if it is really true.

[bamboo bob]

How about a campaign to have the northern terminus of the AT at Abol Bridge? Katahdin ain't going no where and it would be optional for thru-hikers to climb it, therefore reducing the compulsive bad behavior a bit. Also, the way the ATC pushes the whole '2000 miler' club mentality thing should be toned down. Thru-hiking has become too much of a spectator sport and is losing its inward-looking aspects.

Dude, I just said that. Lets start a committee with a web page. And dues.

[Bronk]

Hey Bronk,

Here is a screen shot showing they do:

29171

There was no doubt a good reason for the citations-- the persons without the flashlight could well have ignored the Ranger's warnings regarding the propriety of a late start and then required a rescue-- who knows.

My point was that since the Park considers thru hiker violations to be a significant problem, it struck me odd that they have not issued many citations for those violations. To be more direct, it seems like those clearly irresponsible behaviors (ie champagne or other toasts on K in direct violation of the BSP rules) are being addressed by a complaint to the ATC rather than in the field.

The annual report also lists all the formal warnings given for such things as illegal camping. Again, given how egregious the behavior has been presented in the letter, I was taken aback by just how few warnings were given-- much less how few citations.

To be fair, the most recent report on line was published in 2013-- for the 2012 season. Things may have changed dramatically since then. It may also be possible that the park personel observing such violations don't have the powers to issue citations or warnings-- with their only recourse being to make a mental note and then have a letter sent to the ATC and NPS.

Also, I do believe that thru hiker attitudes and respect for regulations could be improved, and encourage effort by the ATC and the larger AT community to help with that. Any disrespect to. The letter and spirit of BSP rules should not be tolerated, and the individuals responsible should be taken to task.

I still cannot get over the Park telling the ATC and NPS that the AT is not Federally designated within its boundaries, however. Just seems odd to mention if not true-- and most shocking if it is really true.What shows up on paper is not always what happens in reality...in fact from a lot of the life experiences I've had, what shows up on paper rarely shows the real story. Every week in a local paper here you see a long list of people who were cited by local police for having a noisy muffler. Everybody around here knows that those were originally speeding tickets that got plea bargained either with the cop on the side of the road or in the prosecutor's office.

I'd imagine a park ranger saying "Hey kid, put the champagne bottle down. You know you're not supposed to have that up here. I'm gonna cut you a break and give you a choice. I can write you for the alcohol or you can pay a $200 fine for not having a working flashlight. Your choice." If it were me I'd take the $200 ticket and count myself lucky I didn't have an alcohol charge on my record. Much easier to tell a prospective employer about how you got some BS ticket for having dead batteries in your flashlight.

[rickb]

Agreed, Bronk.

In fact, if you look at the list of formal warnings given, you might agree with me that the Rangers at BSP are very accommodating. Or depending on your view point, just good guys.

29172

The ONLY reason I mention this is share the number of formal written warnings and violations. Given the tone of the letter, I would have expected to see more.

Given the Superintendant's concern for the families (some with children) who have been forced to witness illegal celebrations including alchohol on K, I would have expected to see some tickets written.

And make no mistake about it. Given his concern with that matter, I would fully support such law enforcement efforts. To the extent the crimes are associated with the AT, I would fully support the NPS contributing financing to those efforts.

Assuming they were able to -- if the AT within the boundaries of Baxter is not Federally recognized, I amagine that could be problematic.

[Offshore]

How about a campaign to have the northern terminus of the AT at Abol Bridge?

Isn't that just saying "Lets change the location of the northern terminus to a place where we think entitled, obnoxious behavior won't (yet) be considered to be a problem."? Katahdin isn't the problem, a subset of thu hikers apparently is. Relocating the northern terminus solves nothing but simply moves the problem further south. Its not a real solution.

[Bronk]

Perhaps they need to document more of what is going on there...they seem to pride themselves on having stats for the number of AT hikers in the park going back a long way, but much of what they say otherwise seems to be anecdotal. I'd bet that they give out many, many verbal warnings and are not documenting them...if they get mad enough to pull out their ticket book they write a ticket rather than a formal written warning. But like you say, if they start writing tickets, word will get around fast. Maybe that's what they need to do to address the issues they are having.

I also wonder if its a funding issue. They say that AT hikers are a small percentage of their user base yet they complain of the resources they expend on this small user group. I've never talked to anyone tasked with policing a campground that doesn't have frequent problems with loud parties that go late into the night...not much different than a bunch of rowdy kids on a mountain top celebrating the end of a thruhike. I wonder if AT hikers might be a thorn in their side because they don't generate the revenue that the other campgrounds do, and if there is anything that can be done to remedy that.

[Tipi Walter]

Isn't that just saying "Lets change the location of the northern terminus to a place where we think entitled, obnoxious behavior won't (yet) be considered to be a problem."? Katahdin isn't the problem, a subset of thu hikers apparently is. Relocating the northern terminus solves nothing but simply moves the problem further south. Its not a real solution.

I think whatever northern terminus they pick should be a final backpacking destination with camping available. As it is now, Katahdin is only a dayhiking destination since no one is allowed to camp on top. So, you have 2,000 milers ending their glorious hike with a puny anti-climatic dayhike. Have fun folks but don't stay for long at the end. And god forbid don't spend the night.

[BaxterBear]

Hello all. My first post is going to be a good one.

I have carefully read the document from my good friends at Baxter and they are spot on. In fact, they have many friends who carefully sift through blog posts, Facebook posts, trail journals.... for any sign of this kind of behavior. Trust me, they are dead serious on this. I know for a fact that they are ready to ban the AT from Baxter by 2019 if massive changes are not implemented. And they will not hesitate for one second. They have to put up from so much crap from massively self absorbed thru hikers each season. It's very grating and unless something is done, the grand mountain Katahdin will be denied for all future thru-hikers.

If someone would like to see some current and direct evidence in regards to the amount of disrespect they have to deal with during thru-hiker season, take a look at but one of the 2014 blogs I have discovered ( and passed onto Baxter ) where a thru-hiker shows absolutely no shame in his disrespect for Baxter State Park.

The thru-hiker is named Kyle Rhorig and he completed his thru-hike on 10 October 2014, during his 195th day on the trail. Kyle is a classic "partier" and is exactly who Baxter and the ATC are up against.

http://www.kylethecatalyst.com/author/kyle/

Part of the log kyle wrote about his summit:

" The sign that marked the summit of katahdin and the northern terminus of the Appalachian trail. The sign that marked the completion of a fantastic accomplishment and the end of a great journey. I walked up to the sign and placed just my index finger on it for about 2 seconds and dropped my hands back to my side. Done. The feeling I felt at that moment was the equivalent of the biggest collective sigh I’ve ever had in my life. My whole body just relaxed as I felt every fiber in it exhale as if I had been holding my breath for the last 195 days. It was a tremendous feeling. I felt tears swell up in my eyes uncontrollably, but I didn’t get the crazy “crying face contortions”. Just about half a dozen frozen tears squeezed out before my emotions turned to pure happiness as we all began congratulating and hugging each other. We all took our pictures with the sign and some group pictures. Katana even got her own solo picture with the sign. Being that it was freezing, and the wind was sustained probably close to 30mph, with gusts stronger than that every now and then, we decided to start heading back down. It was close to noon by this time, and many of the clouds that had shrouded the mountain were burning off. The view that was uncovered was the most fantastic I ever saw. So dramatic, colorful and powerful it was, I could think of nothing better to look at and be left with at the end of such an amazing adventure. I allowed katana to follow along with us as we made our way down to the tablelands. At this point, it was “mission accomplished”. I didn’t care what kind of trouble we got in now. Nothing could ruin today. I was ready to pay any fine they slapped me with. I was trailing behind with her when another guy heading to the top came by us. He wasn’t wearing a uniform, but all his matching gear gave him kind of an “official” look. He stopped next to katana and knelt down and said “this is a fine looking dog, may I ask if it’s a service dog?” “The jig is up” I thought to myself. I could have lied I suppose and told him she was a service dog, but being forthright just seemed like the right path at this stage. I had been caught fair and square in my game of cat and mouse. “No she is not” I replied. “Are you aware that it is against park policy for non service animals to be up here?” He answered. “Yes I am” I replied. He seemed a little surprised by my honest answers, and a little unsure of what to do. This led me to believe that he was probably not a ranger, but probably someone who worked closely with the park, or was friends with those who did. The last thing he said to me was “You know that you’re cheating the system by having a dog up here right?” I thought about that statement for a few seconds and then said…..”do you know why I came out here on this journey for 6 and a half months?” He didn’t say anything. “Because **** the system” I said, and continued my climb down. He didn’t say anything else to me. I’m positive he called down to alert officials though, as you will see in just a moment. Maybe that wasn’t the best thing to say to someone in that situation, but in my flurry of emotions, it just felt right. In a way, this whole journey kind of felt like you were sticking it to “the man”. Like “look at me! I can live in the woods, do what I want and be happy without having to deal with your stupid social norms, rules and expectations of being a productive drone to a depressed society!” This felt like the cherry on top to all of it. "


If you examine the wording carefully you will see EXACTLY the type of person Baxter State Park is talking about. And there are hundreds like him. Their primary purpose is to party and reach Katahdin. They are not interested in flip flops of any kind. They will have NO involvement in the Appalachian Trail after they have their selfish thru hike. In fact, they REVEL in breaking the laws and ignoring permits and rules - it adds to their sense of accomplishment.

The ATC and Baxter are facing some very, very, difficult choices in the very near future. Big change is coming, the only question is if these two parties can display the leadership needed to have positive effect with minimum onerous rules and regulations. I fear the worst. Benton and Myron must be rolling in their grave/urn right about now.

Thanks for the time it took to read this long post.

[Don H]

And hundreds of people every year climb Katahdin and follow the rules.

Enforce the rules, fine the rule breakers and quit threatening the rest of us!

[TJ aka Teej]

I still cannot get over the Park telling the ATC and NPS that the AT is not Federally designated within its boundaries, however. Just seems odd to mention if not true-- and most shocking if it is really true.
IIRC the ATC rep (J.T. Horn?) was told tough chit regarding the Daicey Pond re-route.

[rickb]

Baxterbear,

Welcome to Whiteblaze.net. If you have not discovered already, I am sure you will find a wide variety of opinions and perspectives on this site.

Your's are most welcome, especially since they seem to come from a different foundation than most here. I don't agree with your overall assment of today's thruhiker's but, clearly the one you found on the Internet is not a god ambassador for that group.

One specific question.

You mentioned 2019 as a specific date by which the AT could well be banned from Baxter. Can you inform what the significance of that date is? Is there a memo of understanding with the NPS or such, that runs through then?

[vamelungeon]

Obey the rules or move the terminus outside of the park. I don't blame the park personnel for being sick and tired of the bad behavior. How do you discourage self centered mindless entitled idiots? I think a few nights in jail would be a good wake up call for some.

[Don H]

Maybe too much "HYOH".
I believe the self centered mindless entitled idiots are in the minority but command the most attention.
I notice that from info on the BSP that vehicle citations outnumber hiker citations. Maybe they should close the roads.
It appears as though BSP is sick of AT hikers to the point of nit picking, mentioning a hiker in Millinocket begging for money and complaining about hikers threatening to petition to extend the trail over Knifes Edge.

The answer is better education and stricter enforcement which is BSPs responsibility. The ATC should also play a major role.
If not move the terminus to Abol, BSP could save some money and maybe lay off some staff.

[Kevin108]

The place averages 5 hikers a day. They should be able to handle that. The more rules/fees/regulations, the more "wild" is removed from the wilderness.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[squeezebox]

I can believe there are people who start not knowing what they are doing, crash and burn at Neels Gap or shortly after. The it's a frat party folks who run out of money 1/3 thru, and are off the trail who spend half their time drinking in town. But some of those have unlimited amounts of money from daddy, and continue to Baxter. Try to get their dog under the the wire when the rules are clear. Daddy says I don't have to follow the rules. Try to get their dogs into the park, drinking alcohol in the park, What's wrong with these sociopaths?
The park has a right to protect itself.
Straaighten out you're not 3 yr old any more.

[JumpMaster Blaster]

I'm going to jump into the fray and say this- I have a sneaking suspicion the VAST MAJORITY of people that the BSP official is referring to are UNDER the age of 30. This generation of "me, me, me" is notorious for that. "Let's stick it to the man, mommy and daddy always told me I was special & everyone else should think so". One doesn't even ever have to set foot on the AT to see the entitlement mentality of some thrus; all you need to do is read WB, some Facebook posts, or blogs. It's sad, actually. The few will ruin it for the many, and "Wild" and "A Walk In The Woods" will only be part of the reason. Social media and the ability to get the tales of your travels out to hundreds of people will be the main reason there will be an explosion of hikers in the coming years.

Isn't it telling that it wasn't a 40 or 50 year old person was going around defacing Natoinal Parks out west with their "art" and then bragging about it? That's the mentality and the mindset that will destroy the beauty of the AT. I wonder how many potential and successful thru hikers are ATC members?

Don't get me wrong- I don't have a dislike for youngsters, it's just simple logical reasoning. For those of you who are taking care of the trail and Mother Nature and leaving no trace- thank you and rock on!

[Lone Wolf]

I'm going to jump into the fray and say this- I have a sneaking suspicion the VAST MAJORITY of people that the BSP official is referring to are UNDER the age of 30.

100% correct

[bat_manatee]

I'm going to jump into the fray and say this- I have a sneaking suspicion the VAST MAJORITY of people that the BSP official is referring to are UNDER the age of 30. This generation of "me, me, me" is notorious for that. "Let's stick it to the man, mommy and daddy always told me I was special & everyone else should think so". One doesn't even ever have to set foot on the AT to see the entitlement mentality of some thrus; all you need to do is read WB, some Facebook posts, or blogs. It's sad, actually. The few will ruin it for the many, and "Wild" and "A Walk In The Woods" will only be part of the reason. Social media and the ability to get the tales of your travels out to hundreds of people will be the main reason there will be an explosion of hikers in the coming years.

Isn't it telling that it wasn't a 40 or 50 year old person was going around defacing Natoinal Parks out west with their "art" and then bragging about it? That's the mentality and the mindset that will destroy the beauty of the AT. I wonder how many potential and successful thru hikers are ATC members?

Don't get me wrong- I don't have a dislike for youngsters, it's just simple logical reasoning. For those of you who are taking care of the trail and Mother Nature and leaving no trace- thank you and rock on!

Should they also "Get off your lawn!" Jumpmaster?

There are just as many old ****heads in the world as there are young ones, don't make the issue about age...it's about ****ty people. Baby Boomers are not exactly a shining example of social responsibility (except in their own minds).

ATW!

p.s. I'm a paratrooper and over 30.

[jacob_springsteen]

Isn't that just saying "Lets change the location of the northern terminus to a place where we think entitled, obnoxious behavior won't (yet) be considered to be a problem."? Katahdin isn't the problem, a subset of thu hikers apparently is. Relocating the northern terminus solves nothing but simply moves the problem further south. Its not a real solution.

OK. How about more ridge-runners on the trail then, instead? They will be paid for by fees charged at shelter sites along the AT.

[JumpMaster Blaster]

Should they also "Get off your lawn!" Jumpmaster?

There are just as many old ****heads in the world as there are young ones, don't make the issue about age...it's about ****ty people. Baby Boomers are not exactly a shining example of social responsibility (except in their own minds).

ATW!

p.s. I'm a paratrooper and over 30.

I'm not referring to "the world", I'm referring to the AT. As someone who appreciates the manpower and time necessary to maintain the trail, if some idiots go out and trash it, then yes, they should get the hell off my lawn.

I'm willing to bet my hazardous duty pay that the majority of the thru hikers trashing the trail & hostels etc are under 30.

[BaxterBear]

I learned about it from casual discussion with specific people. It is not a coincidence that both the ATC and Baxter have both spoken out about the issue, so close together. Even if it's not on paper or policy yet, it's always good to have options open for the future in case nothing is done.

[BaxterBear]

Both this post and the last are for rickb, I forgot to quote the post and add this detail:

I am in no means saying that all thru-hikers are like the person I revealed, but their numbers are increasing dramatically over the past 5 years due to numerous issues, social media, the parenting style of the early to mid 90's ( Everyone is a winner, you are SPECIAL, both sides win in a kids baseball/football game to not hurt their feelings, etc. ) the deterioration of the country, the mindset of an increasing amount of under 30's that they will never be able to achieve the American Dream, lack of confidence in the politicians, the overall relaxing of basic respect in the country and lowering of societal expectations and standards of conduct.

I am also in complete agreement that nearly 100% of the problem is partying hikers under 30 years old. Probably under 25 years old.

The person I shown you is not an isolated incident. People like the person I shared are the VAST majority of hikers during the peak season on the AT these days. It never used to be like this. We always had people out there to party, but sometime during the last 5 years there is a sense in the woods during the early season that THEY belong out there to party, and people out there who are serious about thru-hiking are the outcasts.

I experienced it myself during my thru hike at the start, middle, and end of the peak rush in March/April. Lone Wolf is spot on here with almost all of his posts.

[Don H]

The person I shown you is not an isolated incident. People like the person I shared are the VAST majority of hikers during the peak season on the AT these days. It never used to be like this. We always had people out there to party, but sometime during the last 5 years there is a sense in the woods during the early season that THEY belong out there to party, and people out there who are serious about thru-hiking are the outcasts.

If you're saying the vast majority of thru-hikers are rule breakers I have to disagree. Based on my own experience in 2011 I saw none of this in BSP and very little during my entire hike.

[Sly]

So, you have 2,000 milers ending their glorious hike with a puny anti-climatic dayhike. Have fun folks but don't stay for long at the end. And god forbid don't spend the night.

Have you ever been out of the south or above treeline? The climb and the mountain are magnificent, but it's a fragile alpine area where extreme weather happens within minutes. Of course there's no camping on the summit. They'd be dragging ill-prepared bodies down every other day. However, one can overnight in one of the established campsites. That's the way the park was set up, that's the way it's run. Unless you're a resident of the state of Maine you have no say.

[peakbagger]

BSP runs on a tight budget, they get little or no support from the state and have to self fund the operation of the park. They need to staff the park with trained professionals year round with a core staff and then they need to bring in seasonal staff with a reasonable level of training in June through September to handle mostly the weekends. The reality is that the majority of the campgrounds in the park are near empty for half the summer season and the sites in the north end of the park are very underutilized for 3/4 of the season. Typically for a campground like Katahdin stream the ranger is responsible to manage the daily check ins and checkouts, clean the facilities, deal with any problems that will occur with 60 to 70 plus campers, deal with the day use parking and the 100 plus dayhikers that come along with it. Throw in that they are expected to hike the trails and also deal with what usually are daily requests for rescues or assistance on the trails and adding in having to supply personal babysitting services for a minority but ever increasing percentage of thru hikers and I can see where the park is raising the issues.

I could see that it comes down to the that park would like to get ATC to commit resources to offload the extra work for handling thruhikers. ATC may want to assist but I expect that paying and finding a place for a full time ATC staffer 7 days a week for 2 months is not something that is easily funded. Even if they do have a full time ATC ridgerunner, the resources in the park are finite and much as some would wish and hope, the park is not going to expand the camping resources available in the park. I think the choice comes down to if someone wants to hike the trail and summit Katahdin they have two choices, make arrangements in advance using the systems in place or take their chances that they may have to sit outside the park for a day or two hoping to take advantage of the slots that are open. I expect some entrepreneur, like the AT Lodge will very soon start picking up folks at Abol bridge and driving them into the park for a fee to day hike the mountain.

With the exception of the week prior to labor day and the weekends in late august until Labor day, it is very rare not to be able to book a spot in one of the three Katahdin trailhead campgrounds at the last minute. Once September first is past, finding slots is during the week is almost guaranteed.

[Traveler]

Interesting reaction all the way around to the conditions documented by BSP. As a simple business problem, when 3% of your clientele who are revenue negative are causing you to spend a significant percentage of available resources to manage, the decision is easy. That the Park continues to support AT Thru's is a testament to their patience and desire to support the historic terminus of the trail (the AT thru the park to the summit is a very, very small percentage of land it has to support overall).

There are a few issues that the ATC may need to consider, the problems noted by BSP are also experienced on other areas of the trail. You can see a lot of posts on this board that reflect that. If the suggestion the ATC fund positions like ridge runners or other means to operate hiker services in BSP are serious, those services would be desired by other places that have high thru hiker support costs. This may mean a permit for registering with ATC for a thru hike may be in the future. That could be a cost of say $50 - $100 per person which would be used to support these positions that the AMC may be required to fund in places like BSP. Not paying this would not be much of an issue, but as an example there would be no official record of completing the trail, or other services would be limited like having to pay an entry fee into national parks/forests that are not required today.

The issue of self-policing the trails is perhaps the most reasonable and rational. Though I believe the HYOH concept is good, when the behaviors as noted by the BSP folks appear, it does little for the collective good of the tribe to ignore it or allow it to continue without saying something. I have to agree with some of the comments that it tends to be the 18 - 25 year old group who are at the center of this, from my experience. Perhaps easier for those with grey hair having both survived our early 20s and shepherding children through the process, there should be some conversation on how best to to do this. I am concerned without hiker self policing, we will eventually lose portions of the trail due to unrestrained behavior from people who either don't understand, or don't care about rules and their impact of behavior on others.

Then there is the issue of "ease of use". This combines both the trail services that used to be rather limited that have grown into a seasonal industry along the corridor and internet resources. Years ago planning for the trail did not have an "Easy" button by simply posting to a bulletin board asking "what should I take" and get answers from 20 to 40 seasoned hikers within 30 hours. We may have made this too easy a goal to reach for many people who may not have otherwise been interested, have the ability to prepare/plan, or be emotionally mature enough for the endeavor. Tagging for example has increased along the corridor (and brought up by BSP folks as a growing problem), in places that just aren't that easy to reach by car so some of this is within our tribe this behavior comes from in many instances. This behavior is supported by those who witness it and say nothing just as much as its supported by those who carry the paint cans.

As BaxterBear points out correctly, the folks at BSP are serious about these issues, which is not hyperbole. Its more our problem (as a community) to help resolve. BSP officials could simply close the trail at the park bounary and leave it to the ATC to do what they wish outside the boundaries of the park. That they have opted not to do this suggests a willing partner looking for help in solving the problems. I sure don't have a lot of answers outside if you see something, say something. But my guess is like any tribe or community, many of the answers lay here.

As Walt Kelly once famously said through his cartoon character, "We have met the enemy, and it is us", rings true to a great measure here. Just my two cents...

[ChefATLTCT]

Every thruhiker should work a couple months in a hostel down south before their hike. I did, after my hike,and discovered that thruhikers suck! and it was only Tennessee.

during two thousand we had party groups that contained many 30 plus year olds.

the day i finished, there were 40 dayhikers and only a couple of thrus, in fact, many of them chose to whip out there cameras and photograph me during a very emotional experience, in which I cried.some getting right in my face.

[Old_Man]

There is a lot of young person bashing in this thread. Kids are enthusiastic. The problem is probably not 23 year olds smoking pot on Katahdin but more that tourism and conservationism are not good bedfellows. There is no one group of people to blame.

[Lone Wolf]

There is a lot of young person bashing in this thread. Kids are enthusiastic. The problem is probably not 23 year olds smoking pot on Katahdin but more that tourism and conservationism are not good bedfellows. There is no one group of people to blame.

i helped the caretaker at "The Place" in damascus for about 8 years. i can assure you that 99% of the problems there were caused by 20 something year olds. i do blame that age group

[jawnzee]

And hundreds of people every year climb Katahdin and follow the rules.

Enforce the rules, fine the rule breakers and quit threatening the rest of us!

I hope this can be the solution.

In the meantime, cultivating a culture of responsibility on the AT can go a long way.

[Coffee]

There is a lot of young person bashing in this thread. Kids are enthusiastic. The problem is probably not 23 year olds smoking pot on Katahdin but more that tourism and conservationism are not good bedfellows. There is no one group of people to blame.
Has there ever been an older generation that didn't think young people are screw ups?

[dangerdave]

No. Don't take it personal.

Wisdom grows from experience. No exceptions.

[Bronk]

Hello all. My first post is going to be a good one.

I have carefully read the document from my good friends at Baxter and they are spot on. In fact, they have many friends who carefully sift through blog posts, Facebook posts, trail journals.... for any sign of this kind of behavior. Trust me, they are dead serious on this. I know for a fact that they are ready to ban the AT from Baxter by 2019 if massive changes are not implemented. And they will not hesitate for one second. They have to put up from so much crap from massively self absorbed thru hikers each season. It's very grating and unless something is done, the grand mountain Katahdin will be denied for all future thru-hikers.

If someone would like to see some current and direct evidence in regards to the amount of disrespect they have to deal with during thru-hiker season, take a look at but one of the 2014 blogs I have discovered ( and passed onto Baxter ) where a thru-hiker shows absolutely no shame in his disrespect for Baxter State Park.

The thru-hiker is named Kyle Rhorig and he completed his thru-hike on 10 October 2014, during his 195th day on the trail. Kyle is a classic "partier" and is exactly who Baxter and the ATC are up against.

http://www.kylethecatalyst.com/author/kyle/

Part of the log kyle wrote about his summit:

" The sign that marked the summit of katahdin and the northern terminus of the Appalachian trail. The sign that marked the completion of a fantastic accomplishment and the end of a great journey. I walked up to the sign and placed just my index finger on it for about 2 seconds and dropped my hands back to my side. Done. The feeling I felt at that moment was the equivalent of the biggest collective sigh I’ve ever had in my life. My whole body just relaxed as I felt every fiber in it exhale as if I had been holding my breath for the last 195 days. It was a tremendous feeling. I felt tears swell up in my eyes uncontrollably, but I didn’t get the crazy “crying face contortions”. Just about half a dozen frozen tears squeezed out before my emotions turned to pure happiness as we all began congratulating and hugging each other. We all took our pictures with the sign and some group pictures. Katana even got her own solo picture with the sign. Being that it was freezing, and the wind was sustained probably close to 30mph, with gusts stronger than that every now and then, we decided to start heading back down. It was close to noon by this time, and many of the clouds that had shrouded the mountain were burning off. The view that was uncovered was the most fantastic I ever saw. So dramatic, colorful and powerful it was, I could think of nothing better to look at and be left with at the end of such an amazing adventure. I allowed katana to follow along with us as we made our way down to the tablelands. At this point, it was “mission accomplished”. I didn’t care what kind of trouble we got in now. Nothing could ruin today. I was ready to pay any fine they slapped me with. I was trailing behind with her when another guy heading to the top came by us. He wasn’t wearing a uniform, but all his matching gear gave him kind of an “official” look. He stopped next to katana and knelt down and said “this is a fine looking dog, may I ask if it’s a service dog?” “The jig is up” I thought to myself. I could have lied I suppose and told him she was a service dog, but being forthright just seemed like the right path at this stage. I had been caught fair and square in my game of cat and mouse. “No she is not” I replied. “Are you aware that it is against park policy for non service animals to be up here?” He answered. “Yes I am” I replied. He seemed a little surprised by my honest answers, and a little unsure of what to do. This led me to believe that he was probably not a ranger, but probably someone who worked closely with the park, or was friends with those who did. The last thing he said to me was “You know that you’re cheating the system by having a dog up here right?” I thought about that statement for a few seconds and then said…..”do you know why I came out here on this journey for 6 and a half months?” He didn’t say anything. “Because **** the system” I said, and continued my climb down. He didn’t say anything else to me. I’m positive he called down to alert officials though, as you will see in just a moment. Maybe that wasn’t the best thing to say to someone in that situation, but in my flurry of emotions, it just felt right. In a way, this whole journey kind of felt like you were sticking it to “the man”. Like “look at me! I can live in the woods, do what I want and be happy without having to deal with your stupid social norms, rules and expectations of being a productive drone to a depressed society!” This felt like the cherry on top to all of it. "


If you examine the wording carefully you will see EXACTLY the type of person Baxter State Park is talking about. And there are hundreds like him. Their primary purpose is to party and reach Katahdin. They are not interested in flip flops of any kind. They will have NO involvement in the Appalachian Trail after they have their selfish thru hike. In fact, they REVEL in breaking the laws and ignoring permits and rules - it adds to their sense of accomplishment.

The ATC and Baxter are facing some very, very, difficult choices in the very near future. Big change is coming, the only question is if these two parties can display the leadership needed to have positive effect with minimum onerous rules and regulations. I fear the worst. Benton and Myron must be rolling in their grave/urn right about now.

Thanks for the time it took to read this long post.If park officials aren't enforcing the rules they have, what makes them think that imposing more "onerous rules and regulations" will solve the problem? What exactly do you think this kid with the dog would have done if Baxter closed the AT? Do you really think he would have gotten to Abol Bridge and shrugged his shoulders and turned around and gone home? No way...he would sneak into the park and walk the old AT route to the summit. They need to enforce their rules. If its a money issue, they need to figure out a way to make money off the people causing all these problems.

[Wayne hall 5155]

Should we just ban anyone that is not at least 40 years old to step foot on the AT ? I am 52 and just completed a thru hike this year, I don't drink or do drugs. From what I seen just as many hikers in their forties or higher smoked weed and did a lot of drinking. I hiked with quite a few young people some did smoke a little weed and drink a little in town. For the most part if you are 18 or 82 if you hike all day with a pack on your back you will be in your tent asleep before dark. The day I summited Katahdin there about 12 thru hikers and 60 day hikers, the day hikers seemed more rowdy to me.

[wdanner]

I was reading Lauriep's thread about the unsustainable number of starts happening at Springer and I thought this article on Appalachiantrials.com showed the domino effect of the bubble at Katahdin. I'm not sure what document the author is showing in the picture but it's certainly discouraging. It clearly shows the same lack of respect that is being displayed down south.

http://appalachiantrials.com/dear-class-2015-beyond/

[mattjv89]

A compelling document indeed. You'll find there is already a lengthy discussion about the same document in this thread:

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php/107864-Baxter-State-Park-AT-concerns-Wow?highlight=baxter

[wdanner]

I was wondering if there was already a thread. I did a little looking but didn't have a good idea of search terms.

[Doc]

After reading these posts I finally have to jump in. As a long time member of MATC we have been dealing with these issues for some time, and continue to struggle to find a solution. Baxter State Park has been extremely patient over the years dealing with what they see as a problem that is not even part of their mission. To simplify, imagine that the AT ends on someone's privately owned land, maybe even at a special part of that land like a small pond or rock formation. Only by the good graces of that land owner are AT hikers allowed to walk through the pasture to that pond at the terminus. Should certain groups abuse that good will I think that they would indeed be tempted to say "no more." BSP is not a state or federal reserve, as those who know its history understand. Right or wrong, AT hikers have been a thorn in the side of BSP for some time and past attempts to deal with this issue have clearly not gotten through to the knuckleheads who threaten the hospitality offered by BSP to the AT community.

[Connie]

"Today's Posts" and "What's New" near the top of tge website are a good start.

[BaxterBear]

Doc, the reason it has not 'gotten through' to the knuckleheads is that each year a new crop of knuckleheads comes to the AT during peak season. These types of hikers do not care at all about Baxter, the future of the AT, anything. They ONLY care about having fun on their thru hike and see themselves as the ultimate 'bad asses' who are 'bucking society'.

Realize that they get more of a rush the more rules they break, they feel more 'free from society'. I have shown just one example of this kind of hiker, Kyle Rhorig. Each year hundreds like him are out on the trail partying and trashing it up. I know this for a FACT. Why? We all would not be talking about these issues at all if it were not true. Lone Wolf knows the score, he like he said saw this first hand at the Place.

I remember staying AT the place during my thru hike and I am pretty sure the guy who threw out some pot smokers from the ground was Lone Wolf.

Social media and the ease of which they communicate is making it far worse these days. If you read the Facebook AT groups ( I am a member of all of them, to feed info to Baxter and the ATC ) you see them discuss this behavior openly without fear. It's disgusting because they are getting away with it.

More gems from 2014 thru-hiker, Kyle Rhorig:

" At this moment, I had pretty much accepted that I was busted and that rangers would be coming up to intercept me, or at the very least, be waiting down at the bottom. I wasn’t worried. We made our way down very slowly, congratulating other thru hikers that were on their way up to relish in the feelings that we had just experienced and were still experiencing. Still, no rangers. It took over 4 hours to get back down, and still I encountered no rangers. I began to get a feeling of…”Maybe I can get out of here clean”. I put katana back in the pack for the last mile back to camp. We arrived at the camp, and at this point I was all nerves. Another hiker informed me that a group of rangers was standing around just down the road at the only exit, looking like they were waiting for something. Everybody packed up. I kept katana in my pack and I just threw all of my individual pieces of gear into the back off DSOH’s dad’s SUV. I got in the back seat and put my pack in my lap. As we drove down, the rangers waved for us to stop. One of them poked their head almost through the drivers window and asked “there’s no dogs in this vehicle are there?” “Nope, no, nope, not here” came the small chorus from all of us. The other rangers were walking around peering through the Windows. My body was surging with anxious excitement and adrenaline. The lead ranger was putting a lot of focus on DSOH in the front passenger seat who had a small backpack sitting on his lap. The funny thing was that it only had gear in it. My backpack, on my lap was the one with the dog in it, but no one was putting extra focus on me. The ranger kept his stare on DSOH and repeated “are you sure there are no LAP dogs in here?” DSOH kept his poker face stare right back at the ranger and replied “nope, I’m just a person, not a dog”. “Ok, you folks have a good one, congratulations” the ranger replied, and we pulled away. MADE IT! I could hardly contain my excitement! Not long before, I had accepted that this little foray of mine was gonna set me back some serious bucks. Now, I was home free! This was the real cherry on top! Sticking it to the man, one last time and getting away with it! The nearest town was 20 miles away and called “Millinocket”. Later that evening we were at a restaurant called “the AT cafe” along with quite a few other hikers who had finished today. Everyone was asking me if I had been caught. Apparently they had checked every car before and after us and had even spoke to a bunch of individual hikers about it. Everyone had covered for me. It was a great feeling. "

I think the letter Baxter wrote to the ATC was brilliant. I know intelligent people work at the ATC and I also know that if Baxter was willing to write such dramatic things regarding the AT openly for the public internally they are more than ready to 'pull the trigger' to ban AT hikers from the park and remove the AT from Baxter. The letter really does read like 'this is the last chance ATC, to save the route in Baxter - let's get some real change in place'.

If it's not heeded expect Baxter to close the historic northern terminus by 2019. As everyone should know, Baxter is not a common state park. It's unique and special, and they take their special place in Maine VERY seriously. Those 3% are causing 90% of the headaches during the season.

[jawnzee]

More gems from 2014 thru-hiker, Kyle Rhorig:

Is there any way for him to receive punishment now since he has made his wrongdoing public? Like with the person who vandalized the national parks with her graffiti?

[BaxterBear]

From the same Appalachian Trials website:

Springer and Katahdin: The Alpha and The Omega
http://appalachiantrials.com/springer-katahdin-alpha-omega/



And we wonder why the ATC is not having success with promoting flip-flops and the like.

[wdanner]

I think self-policing would go a long way. Too many people these days are willing to watch someone else do something they know is wrong without saying anything. If the guy spraying champagne all over himself on top of Katahdin had 20 people get in his face about being disrespectful, it wouldn't take long for a substantial amount of that behavior to change.

[dangerdave]

Part of the problem is right here. I have read the blogs and journals of some current posters on WB, even a few from the current Class of 2014, showing pictures of themselves with self-proclaimed adult beverages in their hands by the sign on Katahdin.

Here's Texaco, age 22, (poster on this site) with "a cold Sam Adams Lager served in my commemorative Katahdin Mtn pilsner glass"

29181

So, is WB part of the problem, where such activity is glorified among young hikers? Using Texaco as the example, in his thread Game Over: Completed My Thru (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php/105472-Game-Over-Completed-My-Thru), everyone congratulated him on his wonderful speedy accomplishment (myself included), but not one of you called him out on breaking the rules in BSP. I'm new to this, so I had no idea you couldn't drink a beer on Katahdin, discreetly or otherwise. Now I know.

My question is why didn't someone---anyone---call Texaco out on it? He posted it right there for all to see and praise. He must not have feared any repercussions.

[Coffee]

I didn't realize that there was an alcohol ban either until reading this thread. It isn't something I think about since I don't drink. I suspect that the real problem isn't someone having one beer on the summit but drinking to excess. But it shouldn't happen at all if against the rules.

[Tipi Walter]

Part of the problem is right here. I have read the blogs and journals of some current posters on WB, even a few from the current Class of 2014, showing pictures of themselves with self-proclaimed adult beverages in their hands by the sign on Katahdin.

Here's Texaco, age 22, (poster on this site) with "a cold Sam Adams Lager served in my commemorative Katahdin Mtn pilsner glass"

29181

So, is WB part of the problem, where such activity is glorified among young hikers? Using Texaco as the example, in his thread Game Over: Completed My Thru (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php/105472-Game-Over-Completed-My-Thru), everyone congratulated him on his wonderful speedy accomplishment (myself included), but not one of you called him out on breaking the rules in BSP. I'm new to this, so I had no idea you couldn't drink a beer on Katahdin, discreetly or otherwise. Now I know.

My question is why didn't someone---anyone---call Texaco out on it? He posted it right there for all to see and praise. He must not have feared any repercussions.

Very good post, Dangerdave. This in my opinion is the solution to the Katahdin problem---sorting thru the "miscreants" and leaving the rest alone. If you're up there and you see something amiss, take a few pics and post them in your blog trip report.

I was backpacking the BMT in the Big Frog wilderness in TN recently and "caught" 4 horseback riders riding illegally on a couple trails thru the wilderness. I took their picture and mentioned this fact and posted it on my trip report.

http://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/keyword/big%20frog%20mt/i-Hq3rCWF

[wdanner]

aHA! I didn't even realize those were there. Thanks!

[Mags]

Do you honestly believe that BSP takes such a narrow view of the rules as someone hoisting cold one to commemorate an achievement?

I can't speak for them, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the BSP people are more concerned with the partiers up until 2am keeping everyone awake than someone passing around a bottle of champagne among friends and family.

[Bronk]

I'm not sure how the ATC in Harper's Ferry is supposed to get a better handle on hikers than Baxter who can't even control them in their own backyard. As has been pointed out, only 25% of thruhikers are ATC members and more than likely the ones causing the problems are not even ATC members. Should the rangers at Baxter turn in their badges to the ATC and let them handle enforcement?

I find it absurd that Baxter State Park is complaining to the ATC about panhandlers in Millinocket when they can't even control what happens on their own grounds.

[dangerdave]

From the BSP website...

"General laws of the State pertaining to alcohol and drugs apply within the Park. Maine law prohibits the drinking of alcoholic beverages in public places."

You may be less likely to get caught and fined if you are discrete, but it does not become less illegal. Given the current atmosphere, IMO, it would be better to discourage the breaking of any rules in the Park if we want to keep the AT Katahdin terminus alive. I know I'm not doing this hike in order to flex my civil disobedience, and I don't think others should either. Getting caught by authorities being stupid used to be an embarrassment. The Facebook generation seems to take it a matter of pride.

I'll be hiking my own hike, obeying whatever rules apply to me in each state, all parks, and every town along the way. The AT allows for a lot of fun and freedom. No need to push the envelope, unless you need validation from the rest of the morons.

[swisscross]

Part of the problem is right here. I have read the blogs and journals of some current posters on WB, even a few from the current Class of 2014, showing pictures of themselves with self-proclaimed adult beverages in their hands by the sign on Katahdin.

Here's Texaco, age 22, (poster on this site) with "a cold Sam Adams Lager served in my commemorative Katahdin Mtn pilsner glass"

29181

So, is WB part of the problem, where such activity is glorified among young hikers? Using Texaco as the example, in his thread Game Over: Completed My Thru (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php/105472-Game-Over-Completed-My-Thru), everyone congratulated him on his wonderful speedy accomplishment (myself included), but not one of you called him out on breaking the rules in BSP. I'm new to this, so I had no idea you couldn't drink a beer on Katahdin, discreetly or otherwise. Now I know.

My question is why didn't someone---anyone---call Texaco out on it? He posted it right there for all to see and praise. He must not have feared any repercussions.

I too followed Texaco's blog and did not see the harm with a single beer upon completion. Texaco and his group seems pretty darn respectful of others throughout his journey.
Below is a link of what has to change. Got to around 6:50.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEbdLQBYTgY

[Havana]

I too followed Texaco's blog and did not see the harm with a single beer upon completion.

I don't see a problem with this either unless we're battling a culture that seems to have slipped off the edge. While it's easy to point to a handful of bad actors partying till 2 am, the rules are the rules. If you don't like them, don't play the game. Self-policing does need to be part of the game.

The landowner (BSP) also needs to step up enforcement and if they need to fund it, charge the people who are using their lands (us).

None of this is a right. It's a privilege.

[Tipi Walter]

I think it's one thing to be a snitch and report people to the govt Tent Police---something I would never do---because the Tent Police are a big part of the problem regarding outdoor access. Then again, when I see abject idiocy from backpacking individuals (or horseback riders) I write about it in my trip reports and take the necessary fotogs.

One time in 2007 I backpacked up to a mountaintop in a protected wilderness area and found an acre of the mountain completely clearcut by the forest service whereby they landed a helicopter. Remember, this is a designated wilderness. It so pissed me off that I took several pics and immediately emailed them to a lawyer in the Knoxville Sierra Club. So, sometimes I'll be a snitch if the offense is bad enough. This time it was the Tent Police who did the unconscionable damage.

A single guy with a beer is miniscule compared to what other crap I have seen, but one guy with a beer becomes 10 drunks with a bonfire with loud monkey howling and then the stage is set for human idiocy and the institution of their policy to Let's Leave A Big Damn Trace. Gotta shut them down somehow.

[imscotty]

Part of the problem is right here. I have read the blogs and journals of some current posters on WB, even a few from the current Class of 2014, showing pictures of themselves with self-proclaimed adult beverages in their hands by the sign on Katahdin.


I have to confess, I always imagined myself enjoying a nice adult beverage at the top of Katahdin. After reading these threads I will have to save that for Millinocket, I would not want to do anything that could harm the AT for others. That said I seriously doubt that Texaco or anyone else quietly celebrating their achievement at the top of Katahdin is at the root of the complaints from BSP. It is people who demonstrate complete disregard for their surroundings and anyone else that have created this problem.

I think that groups will sometimes misbehave in ways that the individuals in the group never would. Changes that would minimize large groups of thru-hikers congregating at the Katahdin summit would better protect the resource and the experience of others present. Break up the bubbles!

[peakbagger]

The BSP rangers do not like to write tickets, they would much rather educate. When push comes to shove, they can write tickets. Contrary to popular belief there is not a ranger stationed on the mountain and the reality is that they are so darn busy running the campgrounds that you don't see them often on the trails except for the Chimney Pond Ranger. I don't think they will write someone up for a beer on top but I have been up on the summit several times when it was clouded in with a stiff wind where a hiker could get lost sober and/or hypothermic and a bunch of thruhikers are up on top and have drank enough to be a danger to themselves or those who might have to go look for them. Folks forget that if you walk about 10 feet east behind the summit sign, its a very fast 1000 foot plus tumble down into Chimney Ravine.

[Old_Man]

It's funny how quickly old people forget that they were once just as young and stupid whenever it suites their arguments.

It's also funny how Baxter, the ATC, the NPS, really any organization that "runs" wild areas, love to cry foul when attendance numbers are down but as soon as business picks back up, it's a problem. What a ridiculous contradiction.

[Traveler]

It's funny how quickly old people forget that they were once just as young and stupid whenever it suites their arguments.

It's also funny how Baxter, the ATC, the NPS, really any organization that "runs" wild areas, love to cry foul when attendance numbers are down but as soon as business picks back up, it's a problem. What a ridiculous contradiction.

I think BSP memo was pretty well stated. Behave in a mature and respectful manner and the issues evaporate.

[Old Hillwalker]

It's funny how quickly old people forget that they were once just as young and stupid whenever it suites their arguments.

It's also funny how Baxter, the ATC, the NPS, really any organization that "runs" wild areas, love to cry foul when attendance numbers are down but as soon as business picks back up, it's a problem. What a ridiculous contradiction.

I remember very well being young and stupid. Thank God I am now old and less stupid but feel bad about my behavior back then. However I somehow feel good that I was a paid killer for over 20 years thanks to Uncle Sam (RA) Hoo-rah

Second sentance: Huh?

[dangerdave]

My point (perhaps poorly stated) was not that Texaco was part of the rowdy crowd. I read his blog and enjoyed it very much. He did, however, glorify breaking the rules in BSP by publicly posting his summit photo, beer in hand. Does that maybe encourage others to do the same?...or more? I was going to do it myself, because I had seen so many pictures of others doing it that I thought it was alright. I researched further and learned differently. What about the people who don't look any further than the photos and get caught? They then become part of the problem.

So if a little rule breaking is ok, then everyone can burn a little trash in a fire ring, as long as they don't dump a bunch along the trail. You can poop next to a water source sometimes, that's ok if you're discrete and nobody sees you, or you don't alert the rangers. While I admit that "being smart while doing stupid stuff" is a good motto for risky behavior, it would appear that we are being watched. The only way we are going to improve the current status is to stick to the rules, period.

[stephanD]

"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main." John donne

[Sly]

It's funny how quickly old people forget that they were once just as young and stupid whenever it suites their arguments.

It's also funny how Baxter, the ATC, the NPS, really any organization that "runs" wild areas, love to cry foul when attendance numbers are down but as soon as business picks back up, it's a problem. What a ridiculous contradiction.

You're defending scofflaws and blaming the victim? Seems to be a trend.

[upstream]

Am I the only one who thought all the bad behavior stuff was just anecdotal evidence, that the real culprit, according to the letter, was the ATC agressive marketing?

Didn't this all start around 2007 with the "Restructuring" and renaming from conference to conservancy and renaming the magazine and increased emphasis on fundraising?

[gpburdelljr]

Am I the only one who thought all the bad behavior stuff was just anecdotal evidence, that the real culprit, according to the letter, was the ATC agressive marketing?

Didn't this all start around 2007 with the "Restructuring" and renaming from conference to conservancy and renaming the magazine and increased emphasis on fundraising?

The letter expressed a concern on the increased numbers AND states that "The culture and attitude of many AT hikers seems to be changing".

[Dogwood]

Congratulations to Mrs Jennifer Williams, a prospective 2015 AT thru-hiker. Instead of joining in the fray complaining or pointing fingers she took it on herself for not only initiating informing herself pre hike of AT related issues but also displays a good dose of admirable character by expressing common ideas of decency, conscientiousness, maturity, and responsibility. Mrs Williams contributes positively to the educational process in self policing our community which I'm sure she'll continue to do as she positively affects the attitudes of others in the hiking community. It certainly sounds like she will be representing the AT 2015 thru-hikers as a most conscientious respectful fun loving bunch. Have a great hike Mrs Williams. WE need more like you!


http://appalachiantrials.com/dear-class-2015-beyond/

[Dogwood]

Congratulations to Mrs Jennifer Williams, a prospective 2015 AT thru-hiker. Instead of joining in the fray complaining or pointing fingers she took it on herself for not only initiating informing herself pre hike of AT related issues but also displays a good dose of admirable character by expressing common ideas of decency, conscientiousness, maturity, and responsibility. Mrs Williams contributes positively to the educational process in self policing our community which I'm sure she'll continue to do as she positively affects the attitudes of others in the hiking community. It certainly sounds like she will be representing the AT 2015 thru-hikers as a most conscientious respectful fun loving bunch. Have a great hike Mrs Williams. WE need more like you!


http://appalachiantrials.com/dear-class-2015-beyond/

[JohnnySnook]

I hate to say it but maybe all hikers that want to be classified and rewarded the recognition of being a thru hiker must sign in at the start.
They must take a short class and watch some videos on how to properly conduct themselves on the trail.
Hold them to higher responsibility as they are representing the AT on their Facebook, youtube, vimeo, trail journals, and all other social media. Much more than any other group.

When hiking with the trouble makers these hikers need to told what they are doing wrong and ruining it for everyone.

If they want to smoke weed walk out into the woods and come back. These days many don't mind it as long as its not in their face. If they want to drink do it in moderations around others in a shelter or go camp somewhere away from others.

Maybe create a reporting system.

When the reach the ATC for their picture if they have been reported as taking the wrong path on the trail time after time they are put on probation.

At this point they have a limited number of future negative reports and they're done.

Too many strikes and no summit of Katahdin. Banned from Baxter!

I'm sure many would gladly turn them in if they try to enter Baxter. I would even if it meant clogging up the radio transmissions inside Baxter that seem to be a big concern in the park when it comes to thru hikers.

[soilman]

Am I the only one who thought all the bad behavior stuff was just anecdotal evidence, that the real culprit, according to the letter, was the ATC agressive marketing?

Didn't this all start around 2007 with the "Restructuring" and renaming from conference to conservancy and renaming the magazine and increased emphasis on fundraising?
Put the blame where it belongs, on the people causing the problems, not the ATC, BSP, or any other group.

[Offshore]

Do you honestly believe that BSP takes such a narrow view of the rules as someone hoisting cold one to commemorate an achievement?

I can't speak for them, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the BSP people are more concerned with the partiers up until 2am keeping everyone awake than someone passing around a bottle of champagne among friends and family.


Wishful interpretations aside, the BSP rules can't be any clearer - so yes, I do. There may be degrees of breaking the rules, but they are being broken nonetheless. Limiting it to just one beer or champagne toast does not make one special, nor is one specially entitled to it. A harsh reality of life is sometimes "no" really does mean "no".

[Coffee]

I would think that the effects of a drink or two after reaching the terminus would have a tiny impact on the level of natural dopamine that would exist upon completing a thru hike. For those who drink, might as well save the drinking for town and respect the regulations.

[rocketsocks]

Do you honestly believe that BSP takes such a narrow view of the rules as someone hoisting cold one to commemorate an achievement?

I can't speak for them, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the BSP people are more concerned with the partiers up until 2am keeping everyone awake than someone passing around a bottle of champagne among friends and family.

I think it's more the blatant wanton attitude which was observed that allowed for it's inclusion in the memo to be pointed out. if it was kept on the down low...might not even be an issue, but alas, the cat is outta the bag, all are now under a microscope...and here we are, doing nothing and wishing it away at this point is not an option any longer.

[Sly]

Do you honestly believe that BSP takes such a narrow view of the rules as someone hoisting cold one to commemorate an achievement?

I can't speak for them, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the BSP people are more concerned with the partiers up until 2am keeping everyone awake than someone passing around a bottle of champagne among friends and family.

I think it's mostly large groups that take over the sign in a ceremonial fashion such as portrayed in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEbdLQBYTgY&t=6m55s) while day hikers with or without families also on the summit waiting their turn to touch/read the sign.

[Sly]

Am I the only one who thought all the bad behavior stuff was just anecdotal evidence, that the real culprit, according to the letter, was the ATC agressive marketing?

Didn't this all start around 2007 with the "Restructuring" and renaming from conference to conservancy and renaming the magazine and increased emphasis on fundraising?

And how does fundraising create problems at BSP? I don't see how the ATC is aggressively marketing thru-hiking as much as:

OUR MISSION

The Appalachian Trail Conservancy’s mission is to preserve and manage the Appalachian Trail – ensuring that its vast natural beauty and priceless cultural heritage can be shared and enjoyed today, tomorrow, and for centuries to come.

OUR VISION

The Appalachian Trail Conservancy’s vision is to connect the human spirit with nature – preserving the delicate majesty of the Trail as a haven for all to enjoy.

We are committed to nurture and protect this sacred space through education and inspiration. We strive to create an ever-expanding community of doers and dreamers, and work to ensure that tomorrow’s generations will experience the same mesmerizing beauty we behold today.

OUR VALUES

The Appalachian Trail Conservancy is guided by a set of core values that represent the organization’s commitment to preserve and manage the Appalachian Trail. We pursue our mission and vision by our dedication to:

Volunteerism and Community Support: We exist through the generosity, talents, and support of our members, supporters, and our volunteers: the very soul of the Trail.

Spirit of Cooperation: We cherish our partnerships with agencies, communities, clubs, volunteers, students, and citizens. We collaborate to achieve a common goal.

Sustainability: We seek to minimize our impact on the environment and incorporate the ideals of sustainability in our everyday operations.

Integrity: We act honorably in accordance with the highest standards of personal and professional conduct. We always hold ourselves responsible to fulfill our mission to the public.

Passion for Excellence: We are determined to be the best at what we do as individuals and as an organization. We are passionate about our work and strive for excellence.

Creativity & Innovation: We recognize the importance of innovation. We work hard to improve and become more effective in all of our endeavors.

Empowerment: We strive to empower staff and volunteers to achieve personal and professional fulfillment in their lives.

Health and Safety: We apply the highest standards of health and safety to our work practices. We expect our partners to do the same.

Enjoyment: We value our work as a source of enjoyment and satisfaction. We are proud of the Trail and the growing A.T. community.

Diversity: We are committed to supporting and sustaining a diverse organization that is fair, inclusive, and respectful.

[RED-DOG]

The only way this problem will be solved, the ATC needs to step up and start a permit system. and with more Ridgerunners in place.
and if you get caught hiking any part of the trail without the proper permit, the ridgerunner should have the Authority to give the offender a hefty fine.

and BSP needs to start their own system with only a X number of people being able to hike up katahdin in a season.

but the ATC want cause their scared that a permit system will detour people from hiking the AT, their in the business to promote the trail not demote it. if you want the truth the ATC caused this problem by GLORIFYING the AT and now their not in a position to solve the problem.

[RED-DOG]

The ATC caused this problem now their not in a position to solve it.

[Sly]

The ATC caused this problem now their not in a position to solve it.

You sure it wasn't A Walk In The Woods?

How on earth did the ATC cause the problem? I don't see anywhere on their website that says "Yeah hikers act like idiots and break all the rules."

[rocketsocks]

The ATC caused this problem now their not in a position to solve it.
I respectfully disagree RED-DOG, individuals broke the rules, individuals need to fix the attitudes with which they hike, all the other stuff to come is smoke and mirrors...it needs to be a mindset, innate (if that change is possible) I believe it is.

[rocketsocks]

I respectfully disagree RED-DOG, individuals broke the rules, individuals need to fix the attitudes with which they hike, all the other stuff to come is smoke and mirrors...it needs to be a mindset, innate (if that change is possible) I believe it is.Ye must be born again.

[The Old Chief]

The only way this problem will be solved, the ATC needs to step up and start a permit system. and with more Ridgerunners in place.
and if you get caught hiking any part of the trail without the proper permit, the ridgerunner should have the Authority to give the offender a hefty fine.

and BSP needs to start their own system with only a X number of people being able to hike up katahdin in a season.

but the ATC want cause their scared that a permit system will detour people from hiking the AT, their in the business to promote the trail not demote it. if you want the truth the ATC caused this problem by GLORIFYING the AT and now their not in a position to solve the problem.

Well now I shouldn't even be allowed to walk down the main streets of Hot Springs or Damascus without a permit from the ATC. Sure hope those Ridgerunners don't use choke holds to subdue me.

[Starchild]

The only way this problem will be solved, the ATC needs to step up and start a permit system. and with more Ridgerunners in place.
and if you get caught hiking any part of the trail without the proper permit, the ridgerunner should have the Authority to give the offender a hefty fine.
Ridgerunners have no authority, they are educational, not enforcement. They can radio for a LEO if needed but we all know how that goes in the backcountry.

I don't believe ATC has any enforcement ability, and no authority to issue permits - they can issue but would have no more legal standing then if I started issuing them and could not demand that hikers apply or carry them.

[DavidNH]

I remember when I summitted Katahdin back on September 30, 2006. Most of the folks up there were day hikers, coming up in streams via the Abol Trail, the steepest and shortest route to the summit. I only remember a handful of AT hikers on the summit and they surely weren't crowding the sign. Odd thing.. in the movies it always seems like there's no one up there but the person at the northern terminus sign. You get there and there are tons of people.

[Mags]

Wishful interpretations aside, the BSP rules can't be any clearer - so yes, I do. There may be degrees of breaking the rules, but they are being broken nonetheless. Limiting it to just one beer or champagne toast does not make one special, nor is one specially entitled to it. A harsh reality of life is sometimes "no" really does mean "no".

It's obviously you don't live in the real world then. The actual enforcement of rules are rarely a black and white as you make it to be :) but, hey, if you wish to think otherwise and thinK Rangers are automatons go for it! Our friend, a ranger in grand Teton, tends to disagree.

[Traveler]

It's obviously you don't live in the real world then. The actual enforcement of rules are rarely a black and white as you make it to be :) but, hey, if you wish to think otherwise and thinK Rangers are automatons go for it! Our friend, a ranger in grand Teton, tends to disagree.

Perhaps this would be the domain of self policing..... Social disapproval can be a powerful tool.

[Offshore]

It's obviously you don't live in the real world then. The actual enforcement of rules are rarely a black and white as you make it to be :) but, hey, if you wish to think otherwise and thinK Rangers are automatons go for it! Our friend, a ranger in grand Teton, tends to disagree.

Ahh, the familiar ad hominem "tempered" by a smiley - a bit passive aggressive, no?

It actually doesn't look like the rangers are enforcing the rules looking at the previous message that had an attachment summarizing the number of tickets written. It seems that a bit of zero tolerance would a long way to demonstrate to the self-entitled "just one beer" crowd (days, sections, or thrus) that the BSP people are serious about it. Besides, you can toast using a non-alcoholic beverage. If one needs the alcohol in that one beer or that one sip of champagne that badly, they have far bigger issues than just being so self-indulgent.

[Mags]

Perhaps this would be the domain of self policing..... Social disapproval can be a powerful tool.

True dat.

But, I was thinking more along the lines of the old chestnut "Nine is fine; ten will get you the pen" in reference to speeding tickets.

A cop has every right to give a speeding ticket for someone going slightly over the speeding limit. Usually, not always, it is excess of a min of 5 MPH..but usually more, for a ticket. (Small rural towns tend to be the major exception it seems!)

Or, go to an outdoor concert venue. The security or even law enforcement tends to ignore anyone discreetly drinking a beer in a magical red cup. Someone grilling burgers having a beer in a red cup is, again, usually ignored. The person blatantly doing Jaeger bombs and getting hammered will be cited.

That's the real world.

Shades of gray even when the rules themselves are black and white.

And to think otherwise, well, at this point someone either lives in a bubble or just wants to debate online for the sake of debating.

To bring it back, to think that the many people over the years that have had discreet alcohol consumption in the park, (be it thru-hikers, weekenders or even day trippers) is what BSP is really concerned about is ludicrous.

Yes, they are breaking the rules. In the same way that someone drinking from a red cup is breaking the rules at an outdoor concert.

In the cyber-B&W world, we'd have a lot more tickets.

In the real world we inhabit, resources are thin and officials have better things to worry about.


Ad hominem "tempered" by a smiley - a bit passive aggressive, no?

Not at all. It is called sarcasm. And actually directed at your position my friend. And not passive at all. Aggressive? Absolutely! ;)


It seems that a bit of zero tolerance would a long way to demonstrate to the self-entitled "just one beer" crowd (days, sections, or thrus) that the BSP people are serious about it.

Being serious, and I hear what you are saying, with all the families, campgrounds and hikers, this just may not be logistically possible.

[Hot Flash]

Baxter could still be for the people of Maine while still closing the roads and the car campgrounds and the motorboats and airplanes and snowmobiles etc. The people of Maine could still enjoy the park by doing so ON FOOT. Everyone is allowed to enter but just on foot. And just think, in a country of fat Americans, wouldn't closing the roads and allowing more people to use the park on foot help in the reduction of congestive heart failure?

And what happens when someone wants to bring their disabled child or family member to the park? Or when someone very old wants to spend some time outdoors? You can't shut people out just because you don't like how they camp, or because they're not able to "use the park on foot" like you are.

[Offshore]

True dat.

But, I was thinking more along the lines of the old chestnut "Nine is fine; ten will get you the pen" in reference to speeding tickets.

A cop has every right to give a speeding ticket for someone going slightly over the speeding limit. Usually, not always, it is excess of a min of 5 MPH..but usually more for a ticket however (Small rural towns tend to be the major exception it seems!)

Or, go to an outdoor concert venue. The security or even law enforcement tends to ignore anyone discreetly drinking a beer in a magical red cup. Someone grilling burgers having a beer in a red cup is, again, usually ignored. The person blatantly doing Jaeger bombs and getting hammered will be cited.

That's the real world.

Shades of gray even when the rules themselves are black and white.

And to think otherwise, well, at this point someone either lives in a bubble or just wants to debate online for the sake of debating.

To bring it back, to think that the many people over the years that have had discreet alcohol consumption in the park, (be it thru-hikers, weekenders or even day trippers) is what BSP is really concerned about is ludicrous.

Yes, they are breaking the rules. In the same way that someone drinking from a red cup is breaking the rules at an outdoor concert.

In the cyber-B&W world, we'd have a lot more tickets.

In the real world we inhabit, resources are thin and officials have better things to worry about.



Not at all. It is called sarcasm. And actually directed at your position my friend. And not passive at all. ;)


And a great illustration of the underlying problem - thanks!

[RED-DOG]

Aside from the complaints about misbehaving hikers, the letter also mentioned more than once the time spent by rangers in "extensive and ongoing radio communications" assisting hikers with campground reservations and communications with shuttles/family/etc. Is there a reasonable solution to this that would ease at least one of their frustrations? Maybe a self-serve radio system or - God forbid! - a cell tower.
yeah it sounds like the BSP wants the ATC to compensate them for all their hard work and the ATC should pay for the services that is given to long distance hikers in BSP, The ATC is being SLACK by not addressing the issues sooner and more aggressively through out the entire AT not just in the BSP. they aggressively marketed the trail, Glorified the thru-hiker their for given the thru-hiker the mind set of it's okay to do whatever you want to out their, The ATC caused this problem and now they need to STEP UP and solve the problem.

[Hot Flash]

You all should thank the Lord that places like Baxter State Park still exist, that the AT brings you to it and terminates at perhaps the most magnificent viewpoint in all of New England. The park is mostly a wilderness park.. and is regulated to keep it that way. Thank God for that.

Katahdin is a laccolith. It was further shaped and sculpted by glaciers, some as recent as 15,000 years ago.

Therefore, I thank no imaginary friend for it, but rather I am grateful that volcanism and glaciation managed to collide in such a beautiful manner. No gods required.

[RED-DOG]

Ridgerunners have no authority, they are educational, not enforcement. They can radio for a LEO if needed but we all know how that goes in the backcountry.

I don't believe ATC has any enforcement ability, and no authority to issue permits - they can issue but would have no more legal standing then if I started issuing them and could not demand that hikers apply or carry them.
This is what I am talking about things needs to drastically change starting with the ATC.

[Coffee]

I've been to the ATC website and visited the headquarters in Harpers Ferry this spring on my section hike. I don't see how they are glorifying thru hikers or condoning poor behavior. The people at the ATC were friendly and helpful allowing me to store my pack while exploring the town and providing information on water sources on the nearby segment I was hiking. They also had in stock every map of the AT along with guidebooks.

In my opinion, what the PCTA is doing with "Wild" is much more promotional than anything I've seen the ATC do, although arguably the PCTA is simply trying to stay ahead of the curve in dealing with what they perceive to be an influx of hikers who otherwise would lack necessary information.

[q-tip]

I believe the most important sentance in this exrtremely well crafted and examined analysis of the impact of AT hikers is"A review of the planning and management documents does not indicate a consideration of sustainable use". As the Baxter letter points out, the popularity and utilization of the AT is and will most proably continue to increase in the coming years. Having hiked 1,100 miles of the trail, I understand why that trend will continue and am concerned with two issues.

First, sustainability must be integrated into the ATC mission, planning and management of the AT. More troubling however is what I have seen as the increasing sense of entitlement within the AT community. Hiking the AT is not a right, it is a PRIVILEGE. In order to preserve the land we most love, there may be a rational requirement for imposing more structure and limits on AT utilization.

I surely do not have any answers, but a sustained and meaningful dialogue with representatives of all of the AT community, hikers, land and water management, service suppliers, AT trail towns and even gear manufacturers would enable us to develop a strategic plan and implementation schedule before it is too late. Serviving AT hikers is not the highest priority for many of the entities that have an environmental, social and fiduciary responsibility for the lands under their care.

The Baxter letter was clear in a most detailed and evidenced base analysis. These issues must be addressed. On the current trajectory, supporting the AT hikers in the future is in peril.

[Dogwood]

It would go a long way in solving problems, like over crowding, if the ATC stopped promoting the AT as a set trail as a set number of miles between two set(alpha and omega) termini. If the ATC publically recognized the AT as Benton MacKaye desired - as a system of trails - giving greater promotional wt to these other alternative routes and THs much would be gained.

Our ultimate aim is more than just a trail–it is a whole system of them, a cobweb planned to cover the mountains of the eastern country. It is not ‘to turn the people loose in there’ and give vent to the vandal, but just the other way–to turn them loose to kill the vandal. Here is where the planning comes, for a playground and a living ground–well equipped, well cared for, and well used. –BENTON MACKAYE, Progress Toward the Appalachian Trail, Appalachia, 1922

Not until what is celebrated on the AT is not food, money, equipment, accomplishment, a swift like ride in a Greyhound bus down a 6 lane super highway, or even the trail, but the wilderness, treating the AT as a gardener tends to his garden, will this stop.

The Appalachian Trail as originally conceived is not merely a footpath through the wilderness but a footpath of the wilderness. –BENTON MACKAYE, address to the members of the Seventh Appalachian Trail Conference, held at Skyland, VA, June 22, 1935


We celebrate not the trail, but the wild places it passes through. –RAY JARDINE, The Pacific Crest Trail Hiker’s Handbook, 1996

To walk; to see and to see what you see. –BENTON MACKAYE, on the ultimate purpose for hiking on the Appalachian Trail, 1971


Remote for detachment, narrow for chosen company, winding for leisure, lonely for contemplation, it [the Appalachian Trail] beckons [or leads] not merely north and south but upward to the body, mind and soul of man. –MYRON AVERY, final report to Appalachian Trail Conference, 1952; also attributed to Harold Allen, one of the early AT volunteers


The Appalachian Trail derives much of its strength and appeal from its....practically endless character. This is an attribute which must be preserved. I view the existence of this pathway and the opportunity to travel it, day after day without interruption, as a distinct aspect of our American life. –MYRON AVERY, final report to Appalachian Trail Conference, 1952

[Dogwood]

It was definitely sarcasm AND it was definitely displayed as an ad hominem "tempered" by a smiley. :D

Mags, I took your advice. Last night I slept outside in the woods behind the house on a lake in a makeshift debris shelter I built with my niece and nephewin the rain. I felt wetter but much better this morning. No sarcasm or ad hominems intended. Smiley included though definitely intended to display temperance. :)

[swjohnsey]

Folks in Maine seem to like the tourist dollars but not the tourists. I wonder what the reaction would be if folks in Texas let residents into therir parks for free but charged residents of Maine.

[Offshore]

Folks in Maine seem to like the tourist dollars but not the tourists. I wonder what the reaction would be if folks in Texas let residents into therir parks for free but charged residents of Maine.

That's not all that implausible. The state parks in NJ have a two tiered fee structures - one for state residents and another for out of state. The fees vary by park and by season, (link) (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/parksandforests/parks/feeschedule.htm) but the out of state price difference can be up to twice the in-state price. I guess they figure NJ taxpayers are supporting the parks via taxes already. But even as a NJ resident who pays a lot of taxes, it strikes me as petty. No idea of how out of staters feel about it, but there's no shortage of cars with PA plates in Island Beach State Park or NY plates in Waywayanda State Park on summer weekends.

[Dogwood]

.....First, sustainability must be (better) integrated into the ATC mission, planning and management of the AT. More troubling however is what I have seen as the increasing sense of entitlement within the AT community. Hiking the AT is not a right, it is a PRIVILEGE. In order to preserve the land we most love, there may be a rational requirement for imposing more structure and limits on AT utilization.

Surviving AT hikers is not the highest priority for many of the entities that have an environmental, social and fiduciary responsibility for the lands under their care.

The Baxter letter was clear in a most detailed and evidenced base analysis. These issues must be addressed. On the current trajectory, supporting the AT hikers in the future is in peril.

Thank you for the well reasoned comments Q-tip.

As Mr Tipton's letter made clear, so much so that he mentioned it twice boldly highlighting it both times, and it was mentioned in his Conclusion quite forcefully, was the increasingly conflicting models by which the ATC oversees the AT - "The AT model seems to be based on unlimited use while BSP operated under a fixed capacity model" and "Of principal concern to us(BSP) is the conflict between the management models of the ATC and BSP". WE would be grossly ignorant if we didn't see similar scenarios reaching a tipping point with the NPS with the AT routed through GSMNP particularly, and quite possibly Shenenadoah NP, in the not too far future, and quite likely with the AMC through the White Mountains. Rerouting the AT is not a practical solution to this likely increasing source of friction especially as demands on AT accessibility increase. Trying to jump safely through a multitude of hoops while not taking a major tumble and dodging multiple fires without getting burned, which seems like the situation the ATC places itself in by continuing to adhere to a hardline management model of unlimited AT use, is simply impractical.

[Traveler]

I believe the most important sentance in this exrtremely well crafted and examined analysis of the impact of AT hikers is"A review of the planning and management documents does not indicate a consideration of sustainable use". As the Baxter letter points out, the popularity and utilization of the AT is and will most proably continue to increase in the coming years. Having hiked 1,100 miles of the trail, I understand why that trend will continue and am concerned with two issues.

First, sustainability must be integrated into the ATC mission, planning and management of the AT. More troubling however is what I have seen as the increasing sense of entitlement within the AT community. Hiking the AT is not a right, it is a PRIVILEGE. In order to preserve the land we most love, there may be a rational requirement for imposing more structure and limits on AT utilization.

I surely do not have any answers, but a sustained and meaningful dialogue with representatives of all of the AT community, hikers, land and water management, service suppliers, AT trail towns and even gear manufacturers would enable us to develop a strategic plan and implementation schedule before it is too late. Serviving AT hikers is not the highest priority for many of the entities that have an environmental, social and fiduciary responsibility for the lands under their care.

The Baxter letter was clear in a most detailed and evidenced base analysis. These issues must be addressed. On the current trajectory, supporting the AT hikers in the future is in peril.

Agreed, and well put. How this is done remains the question. I think as a community, we have lost the patience of BSP for the window of time required to establish a true self policing tribe on the trail and need to do something more serious to ensure the terminus remains the summit of Katadin.

I don't know if anyone on this board is plugged into the groups or committees that would be involved in this, so for what its worth, the following concept(s) or bits of, may provide some solution:

One way to do this that can be managed by the ATC would be putting in a required ATC stop for thru hikers as they come into proximity of BSP. This would be a ATC staffed check in area/stop that would register those hikers who will strike out to summit Katahdin (or strike out into the 100 mile wilderness as SOBOs). These people would receive information of BSP rules and the importance of following them to ensure trail sustainability. Conversely, SOBOs who are unprepared can be more easily spotted and coached by ATC staff/ridge runners.

Presuming an agreement with BSP is reached on a maximum daily number of thru hikers that number of hikers would be "metered out" or released each day into the park. Hikers would be issued a colored tag (changes for the days of the week) at this stop, demonstrating where they came in from and they have been briefed, etc. On the BSP end, enforcement of entry could be a simple visual check at the Katahdin Stream Ranger Station area (or along the AT itself) of the daily colored pack tag. Park visitors can be issued a different type of ID tag by BSP as they enter the Park. No tag and you are escorted from the park and would have to pay for re-entry as a day visitor the following day.

This ATC staffed facility could also include radio service (separate from BSP) or perhaps a cell tower that can be used to coordinate BSP services, rides from outside the park, etc. Thus lessening the demand for BSP services by thru hikers.

Funding for this can be done a few ways, for example a simple means of revenue would be a service fee that thru hikers would pay to ATC for trail use, record keeping, etc. This fee could be fairly minimal at $50.00 to $100.00 but would provide access to National Parks and Forests much like the Adventure Pass, with the added feature of being added to the ATC record books and/or other services (with this mechanism there would likely be other parks that could utilize similar facilities. Those not wanting to pay the service fee could avoid that, but would pay a fee at the BSP entry point that might be smaller, but not provide ATC record inclusion.

The ATC facility at BSP could help offset costs with, a small goods store for hikers who have to stay the night or who may not be well prepared going south can purchase food or other needs.

The issue of sustainability is married to the numbers of people who are on the trail. If the daily numbers combined with service needs are too great for BSP, then it will need to be managed on an enforced basis. Granted there are flaws and things to be worked out in this plan, however its a starting point perhaps. As much as I hate fees, I think the success of the trail itself has become the chief problem with the trail itself and requires something north of voluntary compliance.

[Dogwood]

I like that AT Traveler. The ATC can pre sift AT hikers to lessen the load/issues on BSP by having a check in AT kiosk pre BSP entry. Could have one pre entry into GSMNP for AT thru-hikers as well. Even if obvious educational unmanned kiosks were at these pts it would help assist the NPS and BSP. They would also be needed on each side of the White Mountains and SNP. Could be good for message boarding as well.

[Seatbelt]

I have followed this thread with interest and learned a lot. I had no idea that BSP was not actually a state(owned) park. I'll bet most thru-hikers don't know (or care) about this either. They probly assume that it is just like any other state park and therefore treat it that way, which is less than desirable in many cases. It would definitely "get thru-hikers' attention" if the park were closed to them or a major change was made. I certainly hope that something can be worked out because I want to summit Big K someday on a section hike and hope it is still a part of the AT.

I would venture to say that if they announce a future closing/change/whatever that does NOT include Katahdin as a part of the AT in the future, there will be a lot of hikers decide to hike it before this deadline, thereby possibly increasing the number of hikers in the immediate future.

[Slo-go'en]

When Earl Shaffer "thru hiked" the AT, the die was set and it's now a firmly entrenched tradition. Changing that mindset will not be easy.

I would guess that a sizable percentage of the up tick in numbers recently are due to Baby Boomers and war vets. In a few years these numbers will decline and things will go back to normal. It's just a temporary surge.

[Dogwood]

[QUOTE=Slo-go'en;1929335...I would guess that a sizable percentage of the up tick in numbers recently are due to Baby Boomers and war vets. In a few years these numbers will decline and things will go back to normal. It's just a temporary surge.[/QUOTE]

According to stats the increase in numbers is a general trend not a temporary surge.

[Doc]

I have been a member of a MATC committee (CARE) which has tried to deal with this issue. My committee has in the past hired a ridge runner charged with meeting hikers coming into BSP and basically explaining the rules of BSP and trying to convey LNT principles. A few years ago BSP took over hiring and paying this person with limited success on the problem discussed. BSP seems to have gone way beyond what might be seen as realistic efforts to deal with this issue and still serious problems exist. BSP rightly feels that a large part of their limited resources are spent trying to control an issue that is not part of their mandate. I hope that a solution can be found but the AT community probably has a limited time frame to accomplish this before BSP says "no more."

[Tipi Walter]

And what happens when someone wants to bring their disabled child or family member to the park? Or when someone very old wants to spend some time outdoors? You can't shut people out just because you don't like how they camp, or because they're not able to "use the park on foot" like you are.

Not everyone can go everywhere at all times. A blind person can't play pro football. A legless person can't climb K2. A handless person can't play the clarinet. With millions of miles of roads already constructed in the United States, I think the infirm and the old and the crippled have plenty of places to go. Not every wild place needs easy access. There's no road to the top of Denali---you must walk. Is this a slap in the face of those who can't make the journey? Heck no.

And yes you can shut people out who can't walk---it's called designated Wilderness areas.

[Traveler]

Not everyone can go everywhere at all times. A blind person can't play pro football. A legless person can't climb K2. A handless person can't play the clarinet. With millions of miles already constructed in the United States, I think the infirm and the old and the crippled have plenty of places to go. Not every wild place needs easy access. There's no road to the top of Denali---you must walk. Is this a slap in the face of those who can't make the journey? Heck no.

And yes you can shut people out who can't walk---it's called designated Wilderness areas.

Wow.......

[Dogwood]

Ouch. I think I actually got sprayed with the odor of that one as I sit here at the B-fast island on my laptop. WB is a good place to share strong views, umm pick a fight. It's so impersonal. Fewer repercussions.:eek: :( :confused:

[rocketsocks]

And what happens when someone wants to bring their disabled child or family member to the park? Or when someone very old wants to spend some time outdoors? You can't shut people out just because you don't like how they camp, or because they're not able to "use the park on foot" like you are.Wounded warriors are using donated tracked wheel chairs, quit a few have already been awarded. I'll never hike Everest, so what, I don't feel I've lost because there aren't any provisions for me, just the way it goes in life.
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTnK22a9332xAgUnTkhHN2PSoiuErJlK cOq85bCNnxU4v1sTILm4g:bloximages.chicago2.vip.town news.com/dailyjournalonline.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/1/78/178db72b-caa0-5fa9-9ae5-056cd2b3eb70/538f03fd84b41.preview-620.jpg

[rocketsocks]

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTnK22a9332xAgUnTkhHN2PSoiuErJlK cOq85bCNnxU4v1sTILm4g:bloximages.chicago2.vip.town news.com/dailyjournalonline.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/1/78/178db72b-caa0-5fa9-9ae5-056cd2b3eb70/538f03fd84b41.preview-620.jpg

[rocketsocks]

It would go a long way in solving problems, like over crowding, if the ATC stopped promoting the AT as a set trail as a set number of miles between two set(alpha and omega) termini. If the ATC publically recognized the AT as Benton MacKaye desired - as a system of trails - giving greater promotional wt to these other alternative routes and THs much would be gained.

Our ultimate aim is more than just a trail–it is a whole system of them, a cobweb planned to cover the mountains of the eastern country. It is not ‘to turn the people loose in there’ and give vent to the vandal, but just the other way–to turn them loose to kill the vandal. Here is where the planning comes, for a playground and a living ground–well equipped, well cared for, and well used. –BENTON MACKAYE, Progress Toward the Appalachian Trail, Appalachia, 1922

Not until what is celebrated on the AT is not food, money, equipment, accomplishment, a swift like ride in a Greyhound bus down a 6 lane super highway, or even the trail, but the wilderness, treating the AT as a gardener tends to his garden, will this stop.

The Appalachian Trail as originally conceived is not merely a footpath through the wilderness but a footpath of the wilderness. –BENTON MACKAYE, address to the members of the Seventh Appalachian Trail Conference, held at Skyland, VA, June 22, 1935


We celebrate not the trail, but the wild places it passes through. –RAY JARDINE, The Pacific Crest Trail Hiker’s Handbook, 1996

To walk; to see and to see what you see. –BENTON MACKAYE, on the ultimate purpose for hiking on the Appalachian Trail, 1971


Remote for detachment, narrow for chosen company, winding for leisure, lonely for contemplation, it [the Appalachian Trail] beckons [or leads] not merely north and south but upward to the body, mind and soul of man. –MYRON AVERY, final report to Appalachian Trail Conference, 1952; also attributed to Harold Allen, one of the early AT volunteers


The Appalachian Trail derives much of its strength and appeal from its....practically endless character. This is an attribute which must be preserved. I view the existence of this pathway and the opportunity to travel it, day after day without interruption, as a distinct aspect of our American life. –MYRON AVERY, final report to Appalachian Trail Conference, 1952love all the quotes, thanks for that.

[MuddyWaters]

Ridgerunners have no authority, they are educational, not enforcement. They can radio for a LEO if needed but we all know how that goes in the backcountry.

I don't believe ATC has any enforcement ability, and no authority to issue permits - they can issue but would have no more legal standing then if I started issuing them and could not demand that hikers apply or carry them.

The AT is administered by the National Park Service, ie the government. You had better believe their chosen designee can write a ticket, fully enforceable by law, if they choose to make it so. A little training and some signatures on paper is all that would be required.

[BaxterBear]

The trail culture has changed dramatically from 2006, and even from 2012. It has crept up on the AT for years but very recently it has spiked the bad behavior that is actually co-ordinated on various Facebook thru hiking groups. Everyone needs to understand they take pride in breaking the rules at it adds to their enjoyment. A perfect example is the blog I shared from Kyle Rhorig, the disrespect and **** the law attitude was with him the entire hike and he was not alone, and they all cover for each other.

I am am not trying to blame all young people but the majority who act like this are young and use social media heavily.
A new pack comes in year after year with greater disrespect built upon what they have read from the previous years thru hikers and it seems ok to them to do this. That is why it's going to be difficult to educate them - they will listen but then ignore the rules when they feel they won't get caught. I am really beginning to think only very strict rules and strict enforcement will work. If you make it very expensive to keep hiking in the party style like they do soon word will get out over social media to the kids that the party is over, and many will not be interested in hiking anymore.

[rickb]

The trail culture has changed dramatically from 2006, and even from 2012.

Is that when you thru hiked? Did you go by BaxterBear?

[Praha4]

I'm even less inclined to attempt a thru-hike after reading the recent Baxter State Park problems with thru hikers. I agree with Baxter Bear's comments on how trail culture has changed in the last decade. I've seen the changes just since 2009 on my many AT section hikes from GA to VT. But it's not just on the AT. We live here in one of the biggest Spring Break beach destinations, and we've seen the really big changes in the behavior of the young kids coming here each year over the last decade. Less respect for public and private property, trashing the beaches and the area, less respect for law and order and authority in general, more "me first".. narcicistic behavior, more public drunkenness and generally just acting like spoiled brats. So the generation that grows up where everybody got a trophy, where everybody gets a "pass", no matter what their grades in school, well they just feel entitled to everything, including having that party on the summit of Katahdin, and to hell with whoever doesn't like it if they trash the AT and do whatever makes them feel good. Hey it's not all the young kids, I've met a ton of great kids on the trail too, but it's a darn shame we see a larger number of numbskulls out there these days.

[Praha4]

Doc, this won't end until the fad of doing an AT thru hike has passed. I would not blame BSP one bit for saying no more.
I have been a member of a MATC committee (CARE) which has tried to deal with this issue. My committee has in the past hired a ridge runner charged with meeting hikers coming into BSP and basically explaining the rules of BSP and trying to convey LNT principles. A few years ago BSP took over hiring and paying this person with limited success on the problem discussed. BSP seems to have gone way beyond what might be seen as realistic efforts to deal with this issue and still serious problems exist. BSP rightly feels that a large part of their limited resources are spent trying to control an issue that is not part of their mandate. I hope that a solution can be found but the AT community probably has a limited time frame to accomplish this before BSP says "no more."

[Traveler]

The AT is administered by the National Park Service, ie the government. You had better believe their chosen designee can write a ticket, fully enforceable by law, if they choose to make it so. A little training and some signatures on paper is all that would be required.

Indeed true, it wouldn't take a lot in face of issues like those BSP has framed well. Given these issues and the growing trends, its a very likely outcome. Permitting for trail/camping use is common around the US, no reason it can't be on the AT.

[DavidNH]

BaxterBear... I have no reason to question what you have said but boy does it ever make me sad. I thru hiked the AT in 2006 and there was a party atmosphere on much of the trail then (to my dismay!). And now it is much worse you say. Something is going to need to be done. Get rid of these lawless and selfish attitudes. Perhaps permit the numbers who can start (put a barrier on that forest road near Springer and have a heavy police or ranger presence on the approach trail. Perhaps have ridge runners all along the trail who will slap fines. Maybe Maine State Police could assist the Baxter State Park Rangers. There's a lot of ******** on the trail that need to experience the big hose for a while (i.e. the slammer, the clink, you get my drift). Yes I am going over board here but we've got to do SOMETHING. The AT is clearly no longer what Mckay envisioned. How long until it becomes a 2,000 mile long stream of trash and debauchery?

[peakbagger]

I am not so sure about the contention that NPS can delegate enforcement authority to ATC. Even if they did ATC effectively delegates responsibilities for each trail section to a designated club so each trail club would need to develop enforcement authority. I don't think that most trail clubs would have a lot of interest in paying for a trail cop. I maintain a section of boundary in Maine and it is made quite clear that the only entity that has enforcement authority is the single national park service officer assigned to the AT based in Harpers Ferry VA. There are frequent ongoing issues with trespass on NPS land in maine (usually boats stored) and the usual approach is to leave lots of warnings but that's about it. Given the patchwork of landownership even figuring out what agency has what rights for enforcement would be a nightmare. Contrary to popular belief the AT is not fully owned by the NPS, there is a reported "continuous right of way" from Maine to Georgia but the types of agreements vary including stretches of private land with very restricted rights. In those areas barring special legislation, I expect that the NPS has zero enforcement authority.

If folks remember the recent government shutdown the AT was officially closed and in theory it was illegal to access the trail on federal lands. I don't recall anyone getting busted for entering it.

On the other hand where the trail runs through a national park, national forest and state parks there are LEOs that can and do enforce rules. There is an attempt to do so in the whites but the reality is that most thru hikers regards the rules as a game with the stealth camping suggestions maintained at the Glencliff hostel as the set of "rules" they follow to avoid getting caught even though the reality is there is no need to violate the rules to hike the whites. Repeated cat and mouse games with overwhelmed authorities along the hike from Georgia encourage folks to think Baxter is just one other game to play. Unfortunately the rangers at Baxter take things far more seriously because of the rules they work under and the result is conflict. Unlike the rest of the AT, the park has the option of restricting or eliminating access to their section of the AT as a management tool. They did if for the IAT and push comes to shove they can do it for the AT.

[mudsocks]

Unfortunately the rangers at Baxter take things far more seriously because of the rules they work under and the result is conflict. Unlike the rest of the AT, the park has the option of restricting or eliminating access to their section of the AT as a management tool. They did if for the IAT and push comes to shove they can do it for the AT.

Any reading on this? What was done and what was the effect?

[peakbagger]

Not sure on your question. The original IAT trail route was published prior to gaining permission from landowners, sort of" build it and they will come". The route started on Katahdin then went north on the Northern Peaks trail down into the Russell Pond area and then out of the park via an old logging route and then into private land. The park pushed back and now the IAT starts at the easterly boundary of the park. Conveniently, there was a major blowdown on the Northern Peaks trail in that period and it was abandoned for many years. A few early IAT hikers got busted for trespass at other spots where permission wasn't obtained but eventually the current route apparently was developed to avoid the contentious private lands and the park. The IAT gets a trickle of hikers so crowding issues are minimal. I guess a blonde with a big backpack and movie will have to change things :)

The Friends of Baxter State Park finally convinced the park into reopening the Northern Peaks trail last year. The park has a long range plan to add in hiking trails north of the summit to increase multi night backpacking opportunities as currently they are pretty poor. I expect the Abol trail reroute is going to suck in the resources they had assigned so the plan is probably pushed back. Incidentally one of the proposed routes would come in from the east side of the park north of Turner mountain from the Kathadin Lake purchase roughly where the IAT route may have run. If the National park proposal happens I expect there will be intense pressure to build new trails from the east to access the park interior.

[Praha4]

BSP should charge a hefty fee for thru hikers to summit Katahdin. No tickee, no laundry. Keep out the drunks and dopers.

[imscotty]

BSP should charge a hefty fee for thru hikers to summit Katahdin. No tickee, no laundry. Keep out the drunks and dopers.

Praha4, I hope you do not really think that restricting Katahdin to the wealthy is the best solution. This beautiful, sacred place should be open to all who seek it regardless of their means. Please punish people who behave badly, not the poor. They are not one in the same.

[Coffee]

BSP should charge a hefty fee for thru hikers to summit Katahdin. No tickee, no laundry. Keep out the drunks and dopers.

Just have the same rules for everyone and thru hikers will have to follow the same regulations. OR - my preferred solution - the ATC should establish some sort of thru hiker permit system that would both control the number of hikers starting to reduce that bottleneck but also provide entry to Baxter Park and Katahdin subject to strict rules such as limiting the numbers who can enter each day on a first-come-first-served basis. Also, throw the book at anyone violating drug and alcohol rules and do it consistently. Pretty soon word will get down the grapevine that Baxter SP rangers don't tolerate BS.

[TurboWells]

I have followed this thread with interest and learned a lot. I had no idea that BSP was not actually a state(owned) park. ...snip...

I see this pop up from time to time and it is not correct. BSP is a State of Maine owned park. However, unlike other State of Maine parks, it is managed by the Baxter State Park Authority and is completely self-financed (mostly through timber sales and trusts).

The authority given to BSPA is written into Maine law and is available here:

http://legislature.maine.gov/legis/statutes/12/title12sec900.html

Specifically §900-§908.

Those interested in the police powers of the BSPA employees should check out §905.

-TurboWells

[Tipi Walter]

Hey boys, speaking of Baxter, check out this latest Facebook post---

https://www.facebook.com/baxterstatepark?hc_location=timeline

It's about a guy who didn't register or whatever. Oops, it becomes a $10,000 trip.

[perdidochas]

Has there ever been an older generation that didn't think young people are screw ups?

Not since before ancient Greece: Here is what Socrates is reported to say on the subject.

“Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.”
― Socrates (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/275648.Socrates)

[perdidochas]

Has there ever been an older generation that didn't think young people are screw ups?

Not since before ancient Greece: Here is what Socrates is reported to say on the subject.

“Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.”


― Socrates (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/275648.Socrates)

[swisscross]

Hey boys, speaking of Baxter, check out this latest Facebook post---

https://www.facebook.com/baxterstatepark?hc_location=timeline

It's about a guy who didn't register or whatever. Oops, it becomes a $10,000 trip.

"requesting reimbursement of costs." Good luck with that!

[Dogwood]

It is only so long before you come face to face with the realization that a model that predisposes that a basically infinite number of physical entities - humans beings - can be jammed into a finite physical space is simply illogical unsustainable. What often happens, as this same mass consuming unbridled self absorbed species seeks to attempt to ridgidly adhere to this unsustainable concept, is they repeatedly attempt to move on to other resources they can insatiably consume unfettered. The collective mindset's objective eventually becomes to consume(enjoy?, to HIKE?) in a self absorbed manner. It becomes likened to a swarm of locusts that devour everything in its path eventually consuming resources to such an extent they leave a swath of destruction where they have been sometimes eventually turning on each other consuming one another. One might assume such a species, particularly a species that tends to regard itself in such high esteem, so advanced, and so evolved, would have observed this by now taking meaningful collective steps to avoid such a scenario.

After having carefully considered the content of Mr Tipton's letter it certainly seems evident some of humanity has recognized this.

[Don H]

I thought it was only the thru-hikers that were the problem. From the Baxter FB page posted 2 hours ago:

After entering the Park without registering and camping for several nights at Roaring Brook and Chimney Pond without reservations, a group of two men from Ontario, Canada separated, with one man returning to a vehicle at Togue Pond and the other man heading up on Katahdin on Monday, December 8. The hiker had only a tent, light boots and minimal gear. Rangers became aware of the situation late in the day on Monday and started fires and lit propane lights in Katahdin-access roadside camps in case the hiker found his way out Monday night. On Tuesday, Rangers began actively searching for the hiker. The National Guard responded to our request with a Blackhawk helicopter equipped with Forward Looking Infrared sensors. The helicopter could only fly for 2 hrs due to the worsening weather in front of a significant rain and snow storm forecast for Tuesday afternoon and evening. Later on Tuesday morning, Rangers located the hiker who had left the Helon Taylor trail, traveled down the slope and through the forest to eventually reach the Roaring Brook Road after falling through ice and spending an uncomfortable night in the woods.
The search, including helicopter and Ranger time, cost over $10,000.
In accordance with Park Rule 2.2 ..."The Baxter State Park Authority may request reimbursement of search and rescue costs in cases of reckless hikers", we will be sending a letter to the rescued individual requesting reimbursement of costs.

[rocketsocks]

10 grand for having your life returned to you...priceless!

[Coffee]

Seems like they got a bargain given the alternative.

See, this is the way Baxter SP officials can show the hiking community that they mean business when it comes to their own rules. Start throwing the book at enough people and word will get around. Make examples of a few people and maybe that's enough to solve the majority of the problem.

[rocketsocks]

It is only so long before you come face to face with the realization that a model that predisposes that a basically infinite number of physical entities - humans beings - can be jammed into a finite physical space is simply illogical unsustainable. What often happens, as this same mass consuming unbridled self absorbed species seeks to attempt to ridgidly adhere to this unsustainable concept, is they repeatedly attempt to move on to other resources they can insatiably consume unfettered. The collective mindset's objective eventually becomes to consume(enjoy?, to HIKE?) in a self absorbed manner. It becomes likened to a swarm of locusts that devour everything in its path eventually consuming resources to such an extent they leave a swath of destruction where they have been sometimes eventually turning on each other consuming one another. One might assume such a species, particularly a species that tends to regard itself in such high esteem, so advanced, and so evolved, would have observed this by now taking meaningful collective steps to avoid such a scenario.

After having carefully considered the content of Mr Tipton's letter it certainly seems evident some of humanity has recognized this.
nature do have a way of working things out...very astute DW.

[Don H]

Seems like they got a bargain given the alternative.

See, this is the way Baxter SP officials can show the hiking community that they mean business when it comes to their own rules. Start throwing the book at enough people and word will get around. Make examples of a few people and maybe that's enough to solve the majority of the problem.

I think the key word there is "Request". Doesn't sound like they have legal authority.

[rickb]

OR - my preferred solution - the ATC should establish some sort of thru hiker permit system that would both control the number of hikers starting to reduce that bottleneck but also provide entry to Baxter Park and Katahdin subject to strict rules such as limiting the numbers who can enter each day on a first-come-first-served basis.

Don't they already have capacity controls in place with the Birches? If you control the base, you control the summit, right? Mostly, I mean.

My understanding is that the Birches accommodates a maximum of 12 thru hikers, and that when it reaches capacity a paid BSP greeter/gatekeeper stationed near Abol Bridge is tasked with directing the overflow to commercial campgrounds and accommodations outside of the park.

Not sure how this works in practice, but I cannot imagine many thru hikers take on Katahdin without staging at the Birches the night before or, if lucky, at an open campsite, lee -to or cabin that wasn't reserved 4 months in advance or was booked by a no-show.

I suppose they could head into Millinocket or stay outside the park the night before summiting, but if they yellow blaze back to KSCG, surely they are controlled/redirected like everyone else when they reach the Main Gate, correct?

I stand to be corrected, but very few thru hikers make the dash up Katahdin by walking in on the AT from outside the park, right?

But I think I may be missing something. The letter talks about something like 40 thru hikers climbing K all together. It don't doubt that to be true (but not often), but where are the coming from? Where did they stay the night before?

[Coffee]

From what I've read, Birches is indeed limited to twelve per night but the letter from Baxter SP to the ATC complains that this is ignored. Well they have a rule so they should enforce it! If there was a severe enough penalty for illegally camping in the park or for drug and alcohol use, word would spread quickly through the grapevine not to mess around with Baxter Rangers.

My my idea was that maybe ATC and Baxter could coordinate somehow in the context of a "thru hiker permit" issued by ATC and more clearly governing thru hiker conduct and penalties for violations. Since many thrus are no doubt out of money by the end, would a $500 fine for blatant disregard of the Baxter rules have an impact? Yes, I think so if enforced. Stories of the guy who was fined $500 and couldn't afford to fly home would quickly spread.

[Another Kevin]

I've never been there, but from what I hear, they actually bend over backward to accommodate the overflow. Katahdin Stream and Abol are frequently not full to capacity on weeknights, even in the summer, and they have been known to let thru's share tent-sites (and even bend the rules slightly about site capacity). If you're polite and don't start demanding that they HAVE to accommodate you because you're a THRU-HIKER.

[dudeijuststarted]

I've never been there, but from what I hear, they actually bend over backward to accommodate the overflow. Katahdin Stream and Abol are frequently not full to capacity on weeknights, even in the summer, and they have been known to let thru's share tent-sites (and even bend the rules slightly about site capacity). If you're polite and don't start demanding that they HAVE to accommodate you because you're a THRU-HIKER.

This is true. They accommodated our group of five thrus to a tent site with no notice. We arrived very early and asked for their suggestion vs. insisting on a site / shelter space. They didn't have to do this and we were prepared to hike out. The rangers at BSP were actually super-friendly and didn't seem worn out by the herds, all the more reason to respect these honest concerns.

[MuddyWaters]

Hey boys, speaking of Baxter, check out this latest Facebook post---

https://www.facebook.com/baxterstatepark?hc_location=timeline

It's about a guy who didn't register or whatever. Oops, it becomes a $10,000 trip.

Pay up or we wont let you back in the U.S.

theres a tough decision to make...right.

[hikehunter]

I am between a rock and a hard place here....
I have rental property and dogs can damage the property....
Out in the wild there are critters all over....maybe not at elevation....???
If people that hike the trail will do the "leave no trace" they will carry some doggie poop bags.
If you do not want people poop in the trail .... you most likely do not want dog poop in the trail...

If you hike with a dog (which is fine with me) , then you need to pack out or cover the leavings as you would do with the human stuff.....

I think that is the main point of the problem.....
If a hiker digs the hole for the dog or packs out the poop....then let them bring the dog....
:o:-?:p:rolleyes::rolleyes::-?:-?:-?

[Offshore]

Praha4, I hope you do not really think that restricting Katahdin to the wealthy is the best solution. This beautiful, sacred place should be open to all who seek it regardless of their means. Please punish people who behave badly, not the poor. They are not one in the same.

Great point - how about some expectation of personal responsibility from BSP visitors rather than sweeping penalties? Looking at the BSP numbers, AT hikers are about 3% of the population using the park, so its not the absolute number that seems to be the problem. The problem seems that such a low percentage of park visitors are causing such a high percentage of issues.

On the BSP side, they should enforce their own rules. And, yes, it should start out as a zero tolerance. It's a lot more effective to start with strict enforcement and if conditions allow, acknowledge the shades of gray than it is to to start off easy and then try to regain discipline when things get out of hand. (It's the rationale of boot camp. I also learned this from my own experience training military and law enforcement personnel.) Unfortunately, BSP seems to have taken the second approach. Their degree of their concern expressed in the letter doesn't seem to reflected in their ticketing statistics cited earlier in this thread.

As far as the hiker community, there is some responsibility to self-police, but I'm really not sure what the "hiker community" really is. Just because a miscreant is a hiker, it doesn't make them part of my circle, it just makes them an idiot with a backpack. But to protect our own recreational interests, there should be some peer pressure regarding what is considered to be acceptable behavior.

[jawnzee]

I thought it was only the thru-hikers that were the problem. From the Baxter FB page posted 2 hours ago:

After entering the Park without registering and camping for several nights at Roaring Brook and Chimney Pond without reservations, a group of two men from Ontario, Canada separated, with one man returning to a vehicle at Togue Pond and the other man heading up on Katahdin on Monday, December 8. The hiker had only a tent, light boots and minimal gear. Rangers became aware of the situation late in the day on Monday and started fires and lit propane lights in Katahdin-access roadside camps in case the hiker found his way out Monday night. On Tuesday, Rangers began actively searching for the hiker. The National Guard responded to our request with a Blackhawk helicopter equipped with Forward Looking Infrared sensors. The helicopter could only fly for 2 hrs due to the worsening weather in front of a significant rain and snow storm forecast for Tuesday afternoon and evening. Later on Tuesday morning, Rangers located the hiker who had left the Helon Taylor trail, traveled down the slope and through the forest to eventually reach the Roaring Brook Road after falling through ice and spending an uncomfortable night in the woods.
The search, including helicopter and Ranger time, cost over $10,000.
In accordance with Park Rule 2.2 ..."The Baxter State Park Authority may request reimbursement of search and rescue costs in cases of reckless hikers", we will be sending a letter to the rescued individual requesting reimbursement of costs.

He was gone for a day and they send out a Blackhawk? He made it out the next day uncomfortable but fine. I don't forsee him paying...

[Hot Flash]

Not everyone can go everywhere at all times. A blind person can't play pro football. A legless person can't climb K2. A handless person can't play the clarinet. With millions of miles of roads already constructed in the United States, I think the infirm and the old and the crippled have plenty of places to go. Not every wild place needs easy access. There's no road to the top of Denali---you must walk. Is this a slap in the face of those who can't make the journey? Heck no.

And yes you can shut people out who can't walk---it's called designated Wilderness areas.

Screw your selfish entitlement, thinking that only able-bodied people should be allowed into parks. I said that anyone should be allowed access, I didn't say we had to build roads and ramps for them. If they can do it, LET THEM.

Here is a legless man who climbed Everest: http://english.pravda.ru/society/stories/17-05-2006/80446-climber-0/

So, put that in your hate-pipe and smoke it.

[Tipi Walter]

Screw your selfish entitlement, thinking that only able-bodied people should be allowed into parks. I said that anyone should be allowed access, I didn't say we had to build roads and ramps for them. If they can do it, LET THEM.

Here is a legless man who climbed Everest: http://english.pravda.ru/society/stories/17-05-2006/80446-climber-0/

So, put that in your hate-pipe and smoke it.

But the legless man DID NOT climb K2---my point. I knew about Mark Inglis. And what's your point anyway, that if he can do Everest then all legless people should be able to hike the AT or the PCT or bushwack thru any wilderness w/o the need for roads and ramps?? I mean if Mark can do it, why do we even need any roads in any national parks?

Think thru your outrage. There are 20 million people in the US who have problems walking. There are 6.5 million with vision problems. Let's say we build roads for these 27 million Americans to the very corners of the backcountry and into every acre of every wilderness area. Will these handicapped people be the only ones allowed to use these new roads? Will the roads only be open to them and no one else? Nope.

Never underestimate the car addiction of the normal healthy fat American. Once the 27 million physically challenged individuals use these roads, they will be followed by 283 million American rolling couch potatoes and Harley screamers who will take advantage of the access offered to the handicapped. If they build it, we will come.

You say, "Anyone should be allowed access". Then you say "I didn't say we had to build roads and ramps for them". Well, which is it?? Without roads and ramps "anyone" won't be allowed access because many of the "anyones" are handicapped.

If they can do it, let them?? But many cannot do it. So . . . . .

You just don't make any sense.

Should everyone have access to the Appalachian Trail? Yes? Okay, then we have to pave the entire trail for either wheelchair access or ATVs. Otherwise, it's ONLY available to those on foot, period.

[Coffee]

The idea that *all* wilderness should be open to people with disabilities is kind of a straw man argument. The controversy is more related to *removing* existing access to areas long accessible by motor vehicle. If we could go back in history it would be great to have a roadless Yosemite Valley or Cades Cove but that ship has long sailed. I am not an advocate of removing existing access except in rare circumstances but I am also not an advocate of making existing wilderness areas more accessible.

[Tipi Walter]

The idea that *all* wilderness should be open to people with disabilities is kind of a straw man argument. The controversy is more related to *removing* existing access to areas long accessible by motor vehicle. If we could go back in history it would be great to have a roadless Yosemite Valley or Cades Cove but that ship has long sailed. I am not an advocate of removing existing access except in rare circumstances but I am also not an advocate of making existing wilderness areas more accessible.

Pretty much where I stand, too. We have enough roads. Too many roads.

And we should never forget Jack Huff who backpacked his mother up Mt LeConte in the Smokies on the back of a chair. Maybe this is the solution and alternative to road access:). See---

"You can’t mention Jack Huff without relating the famous story about taking his mother to the lodge. Back in 1928, Huff’s mother, after hearing about all these wonderful views from the top of Mount LeConte, wanted to see them for herself. Unfortunately, she couldn’t climb the mountain, so Jack attached leather straps to a wood and wicker chair, then literally carried her up the mountain on his back. Unfortunately for them the all-too-frequent fog and clouds encircled the mountain, preventing Jack’s mother from enjoying a view. Jack carried her back down three days later. "

From---
http://www.lecontelodge.com/category/around-the-lodge/

http://realsouthernmen.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/huff_chair.jpg


(http://www.lecontelodge.com/category/around-the-lodge/)

[BaxterBear]

I find it slightly insane that people would want to destroy the wilderness they want to visit by paving a road for their wheelchair. I am all for as much access as possible for the handicapped but at some point it's just not realistic and feasible to do without immense cost and destruction to the environment.

When I was a child and teen I wanted nothing more than to play pro baseball with the Red Sox. Guess what, I was not good enough so I never was able to do so. I did not demand that the standard of pro ball be reduced so I could play. I realized life is what it is, and it's often not fair. So I moved on with my life and found something else. I did not hold onto my bitterness.

[evyck da fleet]

Not sure how this works in practice, but I cannot imagine many thru hikers take on Katahdin without staging at the Birches the night before or, if lucky, at an open campsite, lee -to or cabin that wasn't reserved 4 months in advance or was booked by a no-show.

It's not that difficult to hike from Abol Bridge to Katahdin and back to the ranger station for a shuttle to town in a day if you are a thru hiker that's been hiking 20 mile days. That's the distance for the day and you only need to carry food/water for the day making you a dayhiker, especially if you drop your back for a daypack at the ranger station.

A group of 20 (yellow blazing) hikers could also go into Millinocket from Abol Bridge for alcohol/illegal substances and shuttle up to the ranger station the next day for a 10 mile round trip to Katahdin and celebrate on top. I saw both instances and while the majority of the party group were in their 20s included were a few 30 or 40 year olds which probably makes the percentage of misbehaving hikers per age group the same.

I also have to admit to not knowing all the rules and having split a beer on the summit. Although, I'm not sure how Baxter can fine hikers for that without having a ranger on the summit. Its far easier to fine someone for not being able to produce a flashlight than to catch them with alcohol or have them admit to it when they don't have to produce it and can't be searched for it
.

[BaxterBear]

A friend joked that Baxter could hire a group that takes shifts flying surveillance drones 24/7 with the ones at night having night vision to catch rulebreakers and record them at the sign on the top. I laughed, but then realized this is not as absurd as it once sounded 5 years ago. :( You can even automate them in time.

[Tuxedo]

I have read all threads and great work. 2 ways of thinking here well more but from me mainly 2. As a AT hiker thats been to Springer twice and BSP once I have a Hiker thru opinion and as a business man I have an opinion. I have not been a active AT hiker since 10/01/06 so the view of poor etiquette is just not comprehended as I only met 1 fella I'd like to toss off the trail out of I don't know(500+) how many AT hikers. I'd like to think all Rangers, Ridge runners and caretakers liked/loved this stinky, scummy vagabond during my 02'-06' multiple adventures.

I want to play devils advocate a bunch even tho I mainly agree with your over-all points of view. Many have pot-kettle'd the expressed views on rules(drinking mainly) I didn't bring booze to either terminus but I still have broken the rules with my eternal soul, I've been a groomsman 10ish times and have done a few shots/snips of Gods good "grace" in a back room of a Grand Cathedral or humble Chapel many many times. Jesus loves a sinner thankfully and forgives those who attend a Fellowship stretched from GA>ME only to break some rules in the end.

If SNP had a foot traffic issue and forced us to hold up at Rockfish Gap until the number lottery to pass what would NOBO's do? What would the ATC do to prepare the AT between the Priest's and Rockfish Gap? The argument is simple really, It's no longer a trail... it's a Six Flags ride line. Add a DJ while in line to play Free Bird from Skynyrd and the line won't feel as long. Making hikers have credentials to pass sounds to much former Soviet block and no longer the AT Fellowship. In this devil's advocate sees a comparison of data ripe for the picking, now SNP is hardly wilderness compared to BSP I know. SNP has a highway running through it and 4 hwy crossing it so lets say 10,000x the access of BSP. The data within the data of how many thru hikers get to BSP that got a ride to Abol and not walked the 100mi wilderness is probably not even recordable as a stat. So when Mr Bissell says to many on foot and 12 a day is a hard line thou shall not pass number13, well please, walking 250miles of Maine to get to BSP and told a trail rule is complete Moose bull puckie. In the data admitting 60,000 visit by car and 3% by foot has an eyebrow tweek that 4% is crossing the line? BSP has crossed their arms and gives AT the boot in 2019 because of the increased foot traffic, bad attitudes and rules broken. Lighten up Francis 12hiker foot traffic is an easy fix isn't it or is the Six flags line really hard to imagine?

Don't be hate'n on no Wild movie and A Walk in the Woods, all of us have a way of finding out about the AT and I read about it in National Geographic 10page advertisement/documentary for GM(or Jeep) from the mid to late 90's. The wave of N00bs is gonna happen for sure, data shows the sharp increase is really behind anyway the population of this country has tripled since the AT inception and doubled since 1950 first thru hike. Grow or die goes the saying and Mr. Bissell's letter is both a resistance to the growth and a request for help with that growth. BaxterBear is confident that growth is over and BSP is done and ready to rinse clean of the Hiker scum. Increase the rules will increase the assumed liability and increased liability will create more rules. So end the relationship then move the famous sign as the BSP Ranger told me the "take photo here sign" to a different summit and take my stinky, scummy, petulance thru hiker attitude with it ha?! showed you. It's ironic the Southern terminus move was because of urban encroachment and the Northern terminus gets moved for BSP to stay wilderness unlike the rest of the AT.

Mr. Bissell's advocate in me says this; YAAA-GAUUr BOOOMMMBS!!!!! thats right... trouble with a capital MTV. Having a vision of the youngsters turning the AT/BSP into a cross between MTV's The Real World and Jersey Shore has every hikers' Fellowship freedoms in jeopardy. His letter imo reflects in a professional manner this fear, so rolling up his sleeves to get some power of the pen. Now I sadly am not close to qualified to walk in Mr. Bissell's shoes and the view I have of BSP has at most 3% smidgen of a day of a year knowledge to his 60,000 folks yr, times his many years of service to us. For all I know Mr Bissell is the Ranger that referred to the Katahdin sign as "take photo here sign" so I imagine if given the opportunity to share a scotch with him we could figure out all the AT and BSP fixes. I dont live near the trail to roll up my sleeves to help fix or to invite Mr. Bissell for that cheer(unless your in the Chicago burbs area anytime soon). I wish defending the rules breaking was easy but its a perspective in business that has served me well, "there is no such thing as a bad trainee" and the AT is in many ways more then a trail. More then Wilderness more then fellowship, miles, rules and 2 terminus. It's a lesson and even tho a bunch see it as a party many of them have reached out to grow. I feel 15years ago many of the kids didnt have to interact with adults anymore because they could just zone out to a handheld gameboy like device. They have remained a kid longer then the real world allowed me to be a kid but I had the same issue until that moment came in my teens and 20's. Mr. Bissell and BSP has the right to be in the babysitters business and if they so chose not be. Neither a permit system or relocation remedies the root issue.

Mr. Bissell and BSP staff please serve us hiker scum the best you can, teach us when we go astray. Foot traffic is going to increase no matter what movie or book or MTV's Real Trail Shore comes out. There has always been a time where older and experienced folks referred to youth as derogatory generalization. From my perspective and reading the journals of the 70's a large number of war torn Vets and seekers of middle earth created a increased flow of AT hikers and BSP expanded service. Flow increased again when Bill Bryson's book came out and most of those services expanded more. Since I've known of the trail this country has increased 11% in population over 30mil folks. Is the data Mr. Bissell shows really that lopsided to the point of BSP can't handle it when about 200mil in population has been added to the country since Katahdin became the northern summit. History is repeating for BSP and I speculate that BSP Directors, Board members and Rangers faced this before in the 50's-80's and 90's-now and found a way for me to enjoy BSP in 06' sobo(nobo up to Rangley, ME in 03' and left the trail for a knee injury). I think you can find a way again so that I can reunite with your "take photo here sign" in 2020 and beyond.

[dangerdave]

Ugh! This is all very discouraging...but not disconcerting. I'm not changing my plans because of a bunch of idiots. I'm starting my thru when I want to! HYOH, right! If it means I'm in the middle of the bubble, then I'll have a chance to educate some ignorance along the way. How can we teach these hikers to respect the land if we are not there? How can we advise them to follow the rules if we are willing to fudge them ourselves.

I think it's a terrible double standard to insist that everyone follow LNT to the letter (follow the rules), then shrug our shoulders at discrete public drinking in BSP (break the rules). This thing is a PR nightmare. We need experienced, driven, soulful, and thoughtful representatives---and lots of them---on the AT doing damage control. If all of the people who care about the AT avoid the AT, it is doomed.

I'm just sorry I waited too long to thru hike this awesome trail. I'll give it my best, though, even in the face of this negativity.

[Tipi Walter]

I find it slightly insane that people would want to destroy the wilderness they want to visit by paving a road for their wheelchair. I am all for as much access as possible for the handicapped but at some point it's just not realistic and feasible to do without immense cost and destruction to the environment.

When I was a child and teen I wanted nothing more than to play pro baseball with the Red Sox. Guess what, I was not good enough so I never was able to do so. I did not demand that the standard of pro ball be reduced so I could play. I realized life is what it is, and it's often not fair. So I moved on with my life and found something else. I did not hold onto my bitterness.

Totally agree with this post. I also thought of a sports analogy---Suppose I want to/I must participate in pro football and so I demand that the NFL let people over 60 years of age the opportunity to play. It's absurd but they agree to it. I'm killed in the first quarter. Is age a handicap? Of course it is.

[Tipi Walter]

In the data admitting 60,000 visit by car and 3% by foot has an eyebrow tweek that 4% is crossing the line? BSP has crossed their arms and gives AT the boot in 2019 because of the increased foot traffic, bad attitudes and rules broken. Lighten up Francis 12hiker foot traffic is an easy fix isn't it or is the Six flags line really hard to imagine?

BaxterBear is confident that growth is over and BSP is done and ready to rinse clean of the Hiker scum. Increase the rules will increase the assumed liability and increased liability will create more rules. So end the relationship then move the famous sign as the BSP Ranger told me the "take photo here sign" to a different summit and take my stinky, scummy, petulance thru hiker attitude with it ha?! showed you. It's ironic the Southern terminus move was because of urban encroachment and the Northern terminus gets moved for BSP to stay wilderness unlike the rest of the AT.

Mr. Bissell and BSP staff please serve us hiker scum the best you can, teach us when we go astray. Foot traffic is going to increase no matter what movie or book or MTV's Real Trail Shore comes out.

3% of 63,000 is 1,890 hikers. This foot propelled onslaught must be terrifying to the Baxter Tent Police. Never mind the 61,000 rolling couch potatoes who enter the Park and do untold damage with noise pollution, outhouses, exhaust stink and mere gawking, the worst behavior of all.

Probably the worst attitudes seen in Baxter are the driving "campers" pulling in 44 foot RVs---they must be grim-faced indeed. And when they fire up their generators we all pay.

Picking on hikers and backpackers is apparently the current favored activity for the Tent Police nowadays, just look at the GSMNP rules restricting backpackers solely (and not dayhikers). We must pay $4 a night and tell the honchos where we will be camping every night and make a reservation for each night. Meanwhile 10 million visitors come in on rolling couches and pay nothing.

Is there a $20 car entrance fee? Heck no. Will the TN legislature change this and begin a car fee? Heck no. So let's pick on those who backpack. Ergo let's study the Baxter problem. Does Baxter have a car entrance fee just to enter for a dayhike and then leave? How can 1,890 backpackers be such a problem and not the 61,000 others?

I hope when Baxter institutes a backpacker quota they do the same and drop the 61,000 number down to 10,000. Let's limit all humans, both rolling and on foot.

[full conditions]

Ugh! This is all very discouraging...but not disconcerting. I'm not changing my plans because of a bunch of idiots. I'm starting my thru when I want to! HYOH, right! If it means I'm in the middle of the bubble, then I'll have a chance to educate some ignorance along the way. How can we teach these hikers to respect the land if we are not there? How can we advise them to follow the rules if we are willing to fudge them ourselves.

I think it's a terrible double standard to insist that everyone follow LNT to the letter (follow the rules), then shrug our shoulders at discrete public drinking in BSP (break the rules). This thing is a PR nightmare. We need experienced, driven, soulful, and thoughtful representatives---and lots of them---on the AT doing damage control. If all of the people who care about the AT avoid the AT, it is doomed.

I'm just sorry I waited too long to thru hike this awesome trail. I'll give it my best, though, even in the face of this negativity.
DD - I'm sure you are a good guy and a very thoughtful hiker. You sure sound like someone any one of us would feel lucky to hike with. But here's the problem - according to the ATC's count, better than 2,500 people left Springer last year ostensibly headed for Maine, with the vast, vast majority of them leaving between March 1 and May 1. Now that comes out to an average of about 42 thru hikers per day signing in on the summit. Some days its close to a hundred. So most of us think "well....a hundred people stretched out over several miles isnt so bad". But the impact is really felt at all those shelters and campsites. When scores of campers show up at one of these destinations, things happen in a fairly predictable way - first arrivals stake out their spots in the shelter until the shelter fills up (first 8 - 10 folks) then the tenters head for the obvious tent pads or cleared sites. The later arrivals show up, drop their packs and go hunting up something suitable. Naturally, these folks want something reasonably private, so they head off into the woods and set up their tents (being careful to be as LNT as they can be), but, of course they cant help but trample the herbaceous vegetation and as more and more campers show up the tent sites grow deeper and deeper into the surrounding woods. It gets worse. All those campers using and reusing the same campsites night after night, collect water, cook dinner, stretch their hammocks, dig their holes, poop, and wear more and more trails through the woods. This scenario is played out night after night for better than 60 days every year for the last decade and is likely to get much worse this year.

My point is that its not just bad hikers - its the sheer volume of hikers. You dont have to be one of them. You can do an awesome thru hike of your own creation sans mob. There are a number of alternate hikes described on the ATC's website, any one of which sounds to me way more appealing than the same ole same ole. Instead of becoming just another member of the horde, you can do something unique and special and if you're worried about being too alone, anymore the trail gets plenty of traffic year round just about everywhere. I think its worth considering.

[Don H]

First BaxterBear made this comment in his post #101: "Trust me, they are dead serious on this. I know for a fact that they are ready to ban the AT from Baxter by 2019 if massive changes are not implemented. And they will not hesitate for one second.

And then this quote from Tuxedo:

BSP has crossed their arms and gives AT the boot in 2019 because of the increased foot traffic, bad attitudes and rules broken.

I'd like a source for this date of 2019 for BSP ending their agreement with the AT. Anyone?

[RED-DOG]

Sounds like the ATC and the AMC and US Government needs to collaborate and come up with an Alternate Northern Terminus, that would be nice to have either way, WHOOPS my bad I mean AMC and the US Government since the ATC don't have any authority! that's probably why the ATC is being so silent about this issue, I would think since the ATC claims to be the trail stewards they would be a little more outspoken about such an Issue maybe it's best they kept quite.

[rocketsocks]

DD - I'm sure you are a good guy and a very thoughtful hiker. You sure sound like someone any one of us would feel lucky to hike with. But here's the problem - according to the ATC's count, better than 2,500 people left Springer last year ostensibly headed for Maine, with the vast, vast majority of them leaving between March 1 and May 1. Now that comes out to an average of about 42 thru hikers per day signing in on the summit. Some days its close to a hundred. So most of us think "well....a hundred people stretched out over several miles isnt so bad". But the impact is really felt at all those shelters and campsites. When scores of campers show up at one of these destinations, things happen in a fairly predictable way - first arrivals stake out their spots in the shelter until the shelter fills up (first 8 - 10 folks) then the tenters head for the obvious tent pads or cleared sites. The later arrivals show up, drop their packs and go hunting up something suitable. Naturally, these folks want something reasonably private, so they head off into the woods and set up their tents (being careful to be as LNT as they can be), but, of course they cant help but trample the herbaceous vegetation and as more and more campers show up the tent sites grow deeper and deeper into the surrounding woods. It gets worse. All those campers using and reusing the same campsites night after night, collect water, cook dinner, stretch their hammocks, dig their holes, poop, and wear more and more trails through the woods. This scenario is played out night after night for better than 60 days every year for the last decade and is likely to get much worse this year.

My point is that its not just bad hikers - its the sheer volume of hikers. You dont have to be one of them. You can do an awesome thru hike of your own creation sans mob. There are a number of alternate hikes described on the ATC's website, any one of which sounds to me way more appealing than the same ole same ole. Instead of becoming just another member of the horde, you can do something unique and special and if you're worried about being too alone, anymore the trail gets plenty of traffic year round just about everywhere. I think its worth considering.what if all hikers between certain dates slept...ROT "Right on Trail" literally...it would spare the surrounding areas, keeping tents on an already compacted tread way.

[Malto]

what if all hikers between certain dates slept...ROT "Right on Trail" literally...it would spare the surrounding areas, keeping tents on an already compacted tread way.

Then I would be stepping on them in the morning and evening.

[rocketsocks]

Then I would be stepping on them in the morning and evening.I never said it was a perfect plan :D