Potential Solutions to the BSP issues

[peakbagger]

Much as folks like to complain about things here is my contribution to alleviating the BSP thru hiker issues during peak periods that could be implemented quickly . Feel free to make constructive comments and I expect the minority will makes fools of themselves posting non productive comments.


The biggest issues on that BSP stated are

-Group sizes in excess of 12
-Thru hikers showing up with no reservation making staff spend resources fitting them in
-rowdy behavior in side the park impacting other guests at night
-illegal camping in the park without reservation
-staff time dealing with thru hiker special requests

My solution can not solve all of them but my theory is let someone make buck

First assumption, if BSP more aggressively enforces the regulations and ships a few folks home without the ability to summit, that will cut down on the rules breakers. The access to Hunt trail is pretty easy to monitor and it wouldn't be that difficult to assign a resource to cull out those in the park illegally. Yes this eats up BSP resources in the short term but even if the endpoint is moved outside the park they will still have to deal with folks wanting to climb the mountain out of tradition. All one needs to do is issue a hiking pass to those with legit reservations or who entered the gate as day use folks. This step is not mandatory and a policy change to the park but it not a substantial expansion to the processes in place.

Here is my what I believe is workable solution for those without reservation, not ideal, but most likely acceptable to 90% of the thru hikers.

The solution - Have a shuttle firm set up at Abol Bridge, they would need a locked trailer and place for folks to wait, I expect Abol Bridge Store wouldn't mind the business. There is no limit in the number of people who can drive into the park in a vehicle but practical limitations due to vehicle size probably limits it to 16 in a stretch van but due to group size limitations 12 would be ideal. The shuttle firm establishes an early morning pick up point at Abol Bridge, money gets exchanged, Day packs are thrown in for those who want them and their packs are locked in the trailer otherwise the hiker takes their pack (One reason not to cram the van full) The van then drives the hikers over to the Togue Pond gate and arrives when the gate opens. Then its on to KSC. He then drops them off at KSC. Dropping off hikers at KSC is currently legal and is already being done by the AT Lodge and many other groups camping in the park. The thru hikers climb the mountain and then hike out of the park back to Abol Bridge and drop off the day pack and get their pack back. The shuttle could probably get two trips in the morning with one van (24 hikers total ). After the two morning trips , the driver would do shuttles to Millinocket to a facility like the AT Lodge until late afternoon or to Medway for the 7:40 PM bus pickup. He would then do a trip to Roaring Brook to pick up folks who went over the top to Roaring Brook (if they prearranged it). In the evening the shuttle would shuttle folks back into town to the AT lodge or some other accommodations. I expect at some point the camping options at Abol Bridge will need to be expanded either on the BPL site or profit site, there is developed campground on the way between Abol Bridge and the park gate for those who want showers and more amenities that also could be incorporated into the plan.

Nothing in this plan is that different than current park practices, shuttles already travel in and out of the park hauling hikers. The enforcement aspect is unfortunately something that BSP has to deal with as even if the AT is moved out of the park folks will still want to climb Katahdin. The issuance of day hiker permits and monitoring of the Hunt Trail is probably in the cards anyhow and it wouldn't be a significant expansion of the DUPR and Reservation Permits system to incorporate day hiker passes.

What does this accomplish ?

It keeps thru hikers without reservations out of the park once the Birches are full, BSP staff will still need to enforce access as they have the enforcement ability but I expect it will not take long for the news to be filtered down the trail that getting fined and banned from the park is bad way to end a thru hike. By monitoring access to the Hunt Trail (the AT) even folks who sneak in are still busted. As folks who have tried to bushwhack in this area will know, off trail hiking is not something easy to do so bypassing the trail head or some checkpoint a few minutes up it is difficult.

It limits group size by default to the capacity of the van.

The park doesn't need to scramble to find spots for thru hikers without reservations.

Folks who want to party can party outside the park

Shuttles out to Medway and Millinocket are part of the plan and hikers who want to go over the knifes edge to Roaring Brook have the option if they make arrangements, thus the rangers don't need to deal with this

I think there is enough revenue to cover expenses and make a profit for the shuttler. If ATC wants to run it as a non profit partially supported by donations so be it.

Downsides

It costs money, many folks are out of cash by the end of the hike but the reality is that they will be paying for a couple of nights in the park if they can get a slot. If they have no money currently they can sneak into the park and take their chances and possibly get busted and banned but that's the real world. This service could be paid in advance and thus could be budgeted for.

It does break up a strictly Northbounder route slightly by doing a short flip. For those purists, that's what reservations are for.


So besides the entitled folks who believe that they are special cases and that the world should revolve around them, what fundamental flaws are in this plan?

[Walkintom]

The biggest flaw I see with this plan is that people generally don't like other people dictating to them.

Thruhikes are becoming more popular, not less. With continual advances in technology and gear, the set of people who are able to complete them is becoming more inclusive, not less.

Pressures on the trail resources are going to continue to escalate. The mission of BSP runs counter to the changing culture of thruhikers. That's an arguable point, but I mean ALL thruhikers, not just the ones discussing such things on forums like this.

BSP is probably, imo, not the best place for the AT terminus going forward.

That solves the root of the issue rather than trying to band-aid it with fixes that certain people will always find oppressive and therefore attempt to circumvent. Those types of people are, inevitably, inclusive of some of those who cause the most and biggest problems.

[peakbagger]

I acknowledge your flaw but also realize that PCT thru hikers are having to deal with being dictated to on the John Muir Trail this year. The land managers have been actively managing this trail for years and the mandatory thru hiker registration just makes it easier to manage.

The "tragedy of the commons" applies to all free unmanaged resources, if common resources arent managed by some entity, then the resource is degraded to the point where its no longer a resource.

So your solution is just move the terminus? My proposal is a way of attempting to manage the resource before shutting it down which is what moving the terminus does.

Thanks for some rational input

[illabelle]

I like your thinking, PB, and applaud you for attempting to come up with a solution that can be implemented by the AT community without waiting on the machinery of government, or reacting after BSP closes the park.

Not having been there, I wonder what the thru-hiker traffic is like at Abol, whether it's easy enough to concentrate them into a couple of van-loads each morning. It seems reasonable enough once people get used to the idea. After all, they learn the Kennebec ferry schedule.

The thing that worries me about your proposal is, if this could be done profitably, why hasn't it already been done? Maybe it's been tried, and there were other obstacles you didn't address?

[BirdBrain]

I do not believe Baxter is enjoying the thought of being the heavy. I do not believe they are used to this issue. Most people that visit are respectful and obey the rules. This is becoming an issue because of thru's. Thru's are the ones that need to change. I am not arguing your points. I just wish we would recognize that we are the problem, not Baxter. We need to come up with a plan that culls the trouble before it hits Abol Bridge. I don't agree that Baxter becoming better policemen is the ideal solution.

[Coffee]

I like the ideas proposed, although not being familiar with BSP, I'm not sure about the logistics. In general, however, people on message boards prefer to pontificate and complain rather than consider creative solutions. A few days ago I started a thread about the ATC possibly extending the official AT from the Gulf to Canada, with BSP bypassed, but the comments were mainly along the lines of "you can already do that hike" which misses the entire point of changes to official trail designations.

[Another Kevin]

I'm afraid of what happens when they simply run out of slots. I suspect that with a BSP-specific permit system, we may get to where it comes down to how long a hiker is able to wait. Imagine arriving at Abol Stream and being told that the next available van ride is three weeks away (or even worse, that it's booked solid for the rest of the season). That's close to the situation for some of our more popular National Parks already.

I could be reading the tea leaves wrong about Bissell's letter. He states in black and white that the exploding numbers are too much to handle, even if hiker behaviour were examplary. But then all the examples he uses to back it up are founded upon out poor behaviour. I'm willing to take him at his word that the numbers are too great.

[BirdBrain]

So besides the entitled folks who believe that they are special cases and that the world should revolve around them, what fundamental flaws are in this plan?

Let me rephrase. I like the constructive thinking. Increasing numbers is an issue. If we were all friends of Baxter, a happy conversation would be happening between the ATC, MATC, and Baxter. Solutions similar to yours would be on the table. It is the above group that makes the conversation not a happy one. No matter where the trail goes, the presence of that last group will cause problems. The solution is to find a way to exclude that last group, to remove them, to not tolerate them, to kick them out, to make them so uncomfortable that they would not want to be anywhere near the trail. They are already feeling some pressure. That is why you get comments that equal let's move the trail where I can do the things Baxter does not want me to. Now I will put this thread on ignore so don't get frustrated while can kickers proclaim me negative.

Edit: I should note that perfection or the lack thereof is not the issue. We all err. We all cause damage through ignorance as we learn. Intent is the issue. When someone is told to not be part of a group larger than 12, not take alcohol to the peak, and not film within 500, but do it anyways... that is intent. Malicious intent is the problem, not rookie mistakes made by well meaning pilgrims. There is room for mistakes. Intentional violations should be met with no mercy.

[peakbagger]

I liken Abol Bridge to similar to the Kennebec River Crossing. Hikers have to arrive at the crossing to meet the ferryman in a certain time window and if they know what the time window is that can plan on that. The traditional thru hiker approach is stay at Hurd Brook, then hike out to Abol Bridge and hike up to Birches for a leisurely afternoon before getting up in the AM to climb the mountain. In theory they get up on the summit early and if they time it right may be able to hitch or get a shuttle to the AT lodge in Millinocket (or other accommodations) and then get a ride to catch the bus in Medway in the AM. Timing wise with this proposal a hiker needs to be camped out at the BPL site at Abol in order to catch a shuttle in the early AM. The problem is that the Birches slots appear to fill up in the early AM by folks who missed out the day before. There apparently is now a BSP employee at the trailhead to the park that attempts to locate spots in the park once the Birches is full. Inevitably folks are apparently told to camp at the BPL site near Abol Bridge and wait until the next day. This backup apparently is pretty consistent. BSP is having issues that some folks are impatient and elect to head into the park after the BSP employee leaves and stealth camp in the park or some just try to head all the way to the Birches and hope they don't get caught. Even worse is if there is a bad weather day on the mountain. The trails will be closed up the mountain some days and then the thru hikers in the Birches will stay another night thus preventing any additional thru hikers in the park making the backup worse. With 10 to 20 thru hikers a day I expect it is manageable but with groups of 30 or 40 thru hikers plus section hikers and folks who are doing the wilderness I expect the system has to change.

I will be up at the park in about 6 weeks and will do a bit of research at Abol Bridge on the day I drive up.

[Starchild]

Hiking/backpacking in general used to be for few people, this is changing in a big way, I thank partly the gift of the internet for this and I do feel this is how it was intended to be (by the creator, Source, Ma Nature, whatever that entity should be or what you may wish to call it). It was always meant to be our common inheritance, not just the private domain for a select few.

As such I do feel that the management, and mission statement as is current at Baxtor and LNT is flawed as we are suppose to be there, and also be part of nature, to be one with nature. (LNT, for all its good is very anti-human 'in oneness' with nature, it is more of isolating humans from nature)

Baxter stands as the old model which is falling and failing to meet the needs of the people accessing their inheritance a connection of humans with nature, those needs will only increase, IMHO Baxter will eventually need to change, or be recognized for what it is, a stronghold holdout (by intimidation and force) denying the people their inheritance.

The AT represents the new model, where everyone is welcome, we get taught and mentored on our journey, we make mistakes, we help each other and learn on our way, free from fear, but just cared for by others which we also care for.

IMHO, and as I see it the AT will prevail because the new model will prevail, so in that it does not matter what Baxter does at all. Move the AT or not, let Baxter do what it can and will, if they don't want us it is not important, they can not stem the growing tide, I do believe many there do know this, but hoping they can avoid what is coming and has come.

The Native Americans knew what they were talking about when they called Katahdin it's name, the greatest mountain. No other mountain I know of has a trailhead on earth that requires 500,000 vertical feet to travel from the start of the trail to the mountain top terminus. I do believe the first people were given this name as a foreshadowing of the Northern Anchor of the AT, what is becoming a American Pilgrimage, a journey experience where nature, self and community blends together for a greater overall experience. As such I see it very much that Baxter opposing the people but very possibly the Great Spirit.

[peakbagger]

So what exactly does the prior post this contribute to this thread ?

[Coffee]

Baxter stands as the old model which is falling and failing to meet the needs of the people accessing their inheritance a connection of humans with nature, those needs will only increase, IMHO Baxter will eventually need to change, or be recognized for what it is, a stronghold holdout (by intimidation and force) denying the people their inheritance.

The people's "inheritance" with respect to BSP was dictated by the man who left the property to the people. If we don't like his terms, we can opt out of participating. The AT probably should be rerouted to a new and exciting destination - the Canadian border. Then BSP will be a side trip for those who have the willingness to plan ahead and adhere to the terms of the "inheritance".

[rickb]

Re-routing the AT inside the park to the shorter trail between ABCG outside of the Park to KSCG would have many of the same benefits as your proposal, but with far fewer complications.

I predict this will happen sooner than later.

The core issue remains, however: The sheer numbers of hikers walking into the park, and their likely exponential increase in the years to come.

The AT is not moving, but access to it may be severely restricted because of these numbers.

Not to minimize the other complaints, but best to alway remember that the REAL issue behind the voiced complaints is the NUMBER of hikers going up Katahdin. If all traveled as lightly through the park as Thoreau and Muir, it would help-- but not enough to address BSP's real concern.

Sheer numbers.

Only two ways to address that long term-- reduce the number or distribution of hikers going up Katahdin, or accept the numbers coming.

[Starchild]

So what exactly does the prior post this contribute to this thread ?

Baxter's view may not matter, they can do what they wish, and set up shuttles as suggested, ultimately the people's inheritance to the land will prevail.


Coffee (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/member.php/46139-Coffee)[/COLOR]]The people's "inheritance" with respect to BSP was dictated by the man who left the property to the people. If we don't like his terms, we can opt out of participating.

The People's inheritance is from the Great Spirit, not from the former governor. The former is eternal, the later temporary.

[bill1980]

Somehow I suspect the Great Spirit will not involve him or herself here, and we will have to deal with BSP with the more concrete examples and suggestions expressed by other contributors in this thread.

That being said, are there other locations that could possibly be the terminus without going to the Canadian border? Obviously, Katahdin is the iconic terminus, one that can't be duplicated, but there may have to be another choice.

[Coffee]

When I die, I'd prefer if the executors of my will follow my will rather than consult the Great Spirit when it comes to disposing of my assets.

[Donde]

Following the rules is the solution.

[Dogwood]

I actually understood what you were conveying Starchild but that does not mean I agree with all you said. Whether MT Katahdin was given as an inheritance by the eternal Great Spirit or whether it was by the temporary Govenor Percival Baxter both bestowed it conditionally:D

[Starchild]

When I die, I'd prefer if the executors of my will follow my will rather than consult the Great Spirit when it comes to disposing of my assets.

Do what you will with your assets and let the Great Spirit will do what he/she will with his/her's. I'm fine with that.

[Coffee]

All I'm suggesting is that Baxter's wishes should be paramount when BSP officials determine policy. To do otherwise seems disrespectful to say the least.

[Slo-go'en]

I remember back in 2008 the summit was closed for over a week due to bad weather in early October. When it finally cleared, some 50 thru-hikers were lined up to climb Baxter peak.

[Driver8]

The Native Americans knew what they were talking about when they called Katahdin it's name, the greatest mountain. No other mountain I know of has a trailhead on earth that requires 500,000 vertical feet to travel from the start of the trail to the mountain top terminus.

Springer Mountain in Georgia does.

[peakbagger]

Reportedly, 50 "thru hikers" a day summiting can be a weekly occurrence of late. Lost in the discussion is BSP lists anyone coming in through Abol Bridge as "thru hikers". There are numerous people hiking the 100 mile wilderness who don't have reservations who enter the park and avail themselves of the thru hiker facilities. I have encountered many reports of thru hikers being joined by friends and relatives for the last few days of a hike and staying at the Birches. I appreciate how much that may mean to a thruhiker but its just another contribution to the problem.

[rickb]

Two things to ponder:

1. BSP elected to fund the AT Seward position themselves. See below for comment on this in the park's 2012 annual operating report


In 2012, Baxter State Park assumed the full labor and administrative cost for this position, formerly called the Maine Appalachian Trail Club (M.A.T.C.) Abol Ridge Runner. We had increasing needs where the A.T. enters the Park at the same time the M.A.T.C. was experiencing a greater need for patrols in the 100 Mile Wilderness, just south of the Park. Some of the need was due to increased numbers of Southbound thru-hikers and some to a overall increase in numbers of thru-hikers (see cumulative stats on Long Distance hikers in the Appendix section of this report). In a departure from the previous shared model for this position, Park administrators decided to absorb the full cost of the position, also changing the position title in the process. Our long-standing, cooperative partnership with the MATC continues but the Park Naturalist position now takes on full hiring and supervision for this position.

2. That same report mentions that while long distance hikers represent 2% of the park's visitors, long distance hikers represent over half of those aspiring to climb Katahdin. I would add that the long distance hikers are not evenly distributed over the course of the season.


With distance hikers representing about 2% of total Park useand more than half of all Park visitors aspiring to climb Katahdin...

Baxter's management philosophy has always included restricting access, even to its core constituency. It has had total control in that regard, and a clear mandate to do so.

Not so with regard to long distance hikers who arrive by foot.

Behavior issues should not be trivialized, but in the big picture are a red herring.

If the ATC believes that all thru hikers should be able to end their hikes at the northern terminus, they would do well to always keep that in mind.

[peakbagger]

Well I guess my proposal must be perfect as I haven't seen any postings with any constructive changes to the plan.

Rick does bring up a valid point that a shuttle concept doesn't alleviate hiking volume up the Hunt Trail (the AT). It is very well hardened and even more so with ongoing extensive work by MATC and other trail crews. The loss of the Abol trail for the last two years has most likely really concentrated the use of the Hunt Trail as there are only two trails on the west side of the mountain which are a lot more accessible from the majority of the park and with Abol out of the picture that leaves the Hunt Trail as the one that gets double the use. It interesting on the statistics, having been part of the day use morning rush and also having observed it in person while camping, it is quite impressive the wave of day hikers that appear when the gate is opens in the morning and the day hikers hit the trail. I am usually on the Roaring Brook side but on weekends 40 vehicle loads of day use pass holders usually containing at least 2 hikers arrive at the parking lot and are on the trail in a half hour span. That probably exceeds the days thru hiker traffic up one trail. In reality the numbers are more especially on the KSC side as every camper in the park has the right to park at KSC even before the 35 day use cars show up.

Barring limiting the number of hikers on each trail, the only option is to manage the trails by the use of ridgerunners. The park has been somewhat successful in using the strings to delineate the trail bed in the tablelands and having active feet on the ground educating hikers can make a big difference, but most likely wouldn't have made a bit of difference for determined groups that are out to party or organized media events like the recent one.

By the way plenty of day use passes available for Labor day weekend at KSC and Roaring Brook as of today.

[egilbe]

By the way plenty of day use passes available for Labor day weekend at KSC and Roaring Brook as of today.

That would require some forethought and planning which some through-hikers seem incapable of. I'm OK with moving the Northern Terminus to the Canadian border. It would match the PCT, as far as the terminus goes and still would go through some beautiful country, would almost match the PCT in length. Mt Katahdin could be the Mt Whitney of the East Coast. Get a permit to climb it, but its not part of the trail.

[peakbagger]

Hmmh, that does bring up a few more options. Just route the AT straight up the Long Trail thru VT to Journeys End at the border. Skip NH and Maine or do the same thing in NH via the Coos trail which splits off the AT around Mt Jefferson. In Maine, the Maine Huts and trail system does get closer to the Canadian Border but there still would be quite a gap, it crosses near Long Falls Dam road east of Bigelow.

[tdoczi]

would of course be a major re-route and perhaps not even remotely possible but i think it would be cool to end it at one of the coastal mountains. acadia national park and cadillac mountain come to mind first but i'm sure there are others, perhaps better candidates.

[rickb]

Well I guess my proposal must be perfect as I haven't seen any postings with any constructive changes to the plan.

Rick does bring up a valid point that a shuttle concept doesn't alleviate hiking volume up the Hunt Trail (the AT). It is very well hardened and even more so with ongoing extensive work by MATC and other trail crews. The loss of the Abol trail for the last two years has most likely really concentrated the use of the Hunt Trail as there are only two trails on the west side of the mountain which are a lot more accessible from the majority of the park and with Abol out of the picture that leaves the Hunt Trail as the one that gets double the use. It interesting on the statistics, having been part of the day use morning rush and also having observed it in person while camping, it is quite impressive the wave of day hikers that appear when the gate is opens in the morning and the day hikers hit the trail. I am usually on the Roaring Brook side but on weekends 40 vehicle loads of day use pass holders usually containing at least 2 hikers arrive at the parking lot and are on the trail in a half hour span. That probably exceeds the days thru hiker traffic up one trail. In reality the numbers are more especially on the KSC side as every camper in the park has the right to park at KSC even before the 35 day use cars show up.

Barring limiting the number of hikers on each trail, the only option is to manage the trails by the use of ridgerunners. The park has been somewhat successful in using the strings to delineate the trail bed in the tablelands and having active feet on the ground educating hikers can make a big difference, but most likely wouldn't have made a bit of difference for determined groups that are out to party or organized media events like the recent one.

By the way plenty of day use passes available for Labor day weekend at KSC and Roaring Brook as of today.

After I posted BSP's observation that while long-distance hikers represent just 2% of park visitors they make up more than half of those climbing Katahdin, I was asking my self "Can that be right?"

Looking at at your post, it can't imagine it is. And yet it is stated clear as day on page 78 of the 2012 annual report:

http://www.baxterstateparkauthority.com/pdf/reports/BSP2012ORComplete.pdf

Not sure what to make of that-- just a typo perhaps? That said, the PERCEPTION sometimes matters as much as reality.

I wonder.

[Dogwood]

Reportedly, 50 "thru hikers" a day summiting can be a weekly occurrence of late. Lost in the discussion is BSP lists anyone coming in through Abol Bridge as "thru hikers". There are numerous people hiking the 100 mile wilderness who don't have reservations who enter the park and avail themselves of the thru hiker facilities. I have encountered many reports of thru hikers being joined by friends and relatives for the last few days of a hike and staying at the Birches. I appreciate how much that may mean to a thruhiker but its just another contribution to the problem.

Forgot that. Thx for the reminder. I see your pt and agree it does add to thru-hiker issues.

[Dogwood]

After I posted BSP's observation that while long-distance hikers represent just 2% of park visitors they make up more than half of those climbing Katahdin, I was asking my self "Can that be right?"

Looking at at your post, it can't imagine it is. And yet it is stated clear as day on page 78 of the 2012 annual report:

http://www.baxterstateparkauthority.com/pdf/reports/BSP2012ORComplete.pdf

Not sure what to make of that-- just a typo perhaps? That said, the PERCEPTION sometimes matters as much as reality.

I wonder.

What I make of that is there is definitely a workable solution for the AT to continue to be routed to the summit of Mt Katahdin.

[egilbe]

After I posted BSP's observation that while long-distance hikers represent just 2% of park visitors they make up more than half of those climbing Katahdin, I was asking my self "Can that be right?"

Looking at at your post, it can't imagine it is. And yet it is stated clear as day on page 78 of the 2012 annual report:

http://www.baxterstateparkauthority.com/pdf/reports/BSP2012ORComplete.pdf

Not sure what to make of that-- just a typo perhaps? That said, the PERCEPTION sometimes matters as much as reality.

I wonder.

Most of the people who go to BSP not to climb Katahdin so that makes perfect sense. They go there to see the rest of the park. There are 45 mountains in that park and in my visits, I've hiked 5 or 6. Half of the park is North of Katahdin and through hikers never even go there. People spend weeks up there and never climb Katahdin.

[peakbagger]

I think the statement in the Park report may have been a grammar issue. Looks like they needed a comma or maybe rewording(I am not an English major but look at the statement when you add a comma)

"With distance hikers representing about 2% of total Park use, and more than half of all Park visitors aspiring to climb Katahdin, most expecting a pristine natural environment, this recent trend caused concern late in the summer". My read is half the visitors to the park be it by car or walking in want to climb up Katahdin, that makes sense. I think the 2% reference is referring back to the various impacts that the 2% are doing and how that 2% is impacting the 50% expectation that the trails and park are a pristine natural environment.

The version with the comma added makes more sense to me.

[Dogwood]

"free unmanaged resources" - ????, don't exist, it's a Faguzzi, fugazzi, it's a whazzie, it's a whoozie.. it's a.. fairy dust. It doesn't exist. It's never landed. It's no matter, it's not on the elemental chart.

[Dogwood]

[QUOTE=rickb;1990443]Two things to ponder:

1. BSP elected to fund the AT Seward position themselves. See below for comment on this in the park's 2012 annual operating report

In 2012, Baxter State Park assumed the full labor and administrative cost for this position, formerly called the Maine Appalachian Trail Club (M.A.T.C.) Abol Ridge Runner. We had increasing needs where the A.T. enters the Park at the same time the M.A.T.C. was experiencing a greater need for patrols in the 100 Mile Wilderness, just south of the Park. Some of the need was due to increased numbers of Southbound thru-hikers and some to a overall increase in numbers of thru-hikers (see cumulative stats on Long Distance hikers in the Appendix section of this report). In a departure from the previous shared model for this position, Park administrators decided to absorb the full cost of the position, also changing the position title in the process. Our long-standing, cooperative partnership with the MATC continues but the Park Naturalist position now takes on full hiring and supervision for this position.




Despite all the boo hoo hooing, belly aching, and stiff necks who are taking a rigid stand against BSP and the people of Maine this is YET ANOTHER CLEAR EXAMPLE, OF WHICH THERE ARE MANY, that BSP DOES INDEED VALUE AT HIKERS. BSP is going to increasingly extraordinary measures to accommodate AT hikers. WHY? do you think they do that?

Don't be taken in by the negative accusations against BSP and the great people of the state of Maine. Instead of wasting energy on negativity the AT community should expend it wisely by assisting BSP and the people of Maine. They are the AT communities allies. Don't make them out to be your enemies. Some greater cooperation is what is needed! Continuing down this negative arrogant self serving narrow minded road will only lead to more conflict, not only in Maine but elsewhere.

[Another Kevin]

I think the statement in the Park report may have been a grammar issue. Looks like they needed a comma or maybe rewording(I am not an English major but look at the statement when you add a comma)

"With distance hikers representing about 2% of total Park use, and more than half of all Park visitors aspiring to climb Katahdin, most expecting a pristine natural environment, this recent trend caused concern late in the summer". My read is half the visitors to the park be it by car or walking in want to climb up Katahdin, that makes sense. I think the 2% reference is referring back to the various impacts that the 2% are doing and how that 2% is impacting the 50% expectation that the trails and park are a pristine natural environment.

The version with the comma added makes more sense to me.

Punctuate it as you will. The great majority of BSP visitors do not aspire to climb Katahdin during their visits. About half of the visitors that do aspire to climb Katahdin arrive afoot from Abol Bridge.

[Walkintom]

When I die, I'd prefer if the executors of my will follow my will rather than consult the Great Spirit when it comes to disposing of my assets.


For how long?

I'm sure Caesar's dispositions were excellent in his will - though that document was quickly discarded in favor of the then current needs and desires of several of his immediate successors.

Given the current squabbling in our political system I'm not sure we're much better than Antony and Augustus, alternatively throwing away money on lion-pulled chariots and immense amounts of money handed out for votes.

I agree both that we need a solution that works and that the area shouldn't be ruined. I just strongly doubt that the ever increasing crowds will buy into the get into line to sign up for a shuttle variety. I'd do it, but I follow LNT as best I can without someone riding me about it.

[peakbagger]

I don't agree kevin. most people who visit BSP do want to climb Baxter peak at some time during their visit. The park has acknowledged that in the past and outside of the Brothers, Coe and Fort "loop" and Hamlin which are NE 100 highest peaks, that's the only reason many hikers go there. Its a hikers park and views are tough unless you head up a mountain. Look at the reservation pages and you will see the campgrounds closer to the summit are booked first with the ones in the north of the park rarely full until the last minute. The Day Use parking passes were instituted for only the Katahdin trailheads as overcrowding of the other trails is not a significant issue. There are 245 campsites/shelters in the park, add in the current 75 DUPR passes (there was another 30 when Abol trail was open) and assume 2 persons per site or DUPR and that is 640 folks with reservations in the park. At least 150, the DUPR folks definitely are summiting and that leaves 490 potential hikers in the park, lets assume they are there for three nights and they climb the mountain once (I have hiked it twice in three days a couple of times as a short term camper), so lets assume 1/4 of the campers in the park are going to be heading to the summit so that's 122 additional hikers or a total of 273 hikers potentially summiting daily up two major trailheads. The reality is that 1 day out of 3 usually is marginal weather so the actual number is higher on sunny days. Now add in the reported groups of 50 thru hikers a day during peak periods and that's 322 people all heading to the same wooden sign. Add in the foul weather component and reasonably there could be 600 plus people heading to the summit during a nice day mostly centered around arriving at noon. That size crowd can be accommodated but add in special events or bad hiker behavior and the hiking experience can be impacted for all. Thus using my rough numbers thru hikers are probably 16% of the actual katahdin hikers on a particular day. The Hunt trail is currently the only approach from the west while at Roaring Brook there are two initial trail choices, Chimney Pond and Helon Taylor a few minutes up the trail and then Chimney Pond branches to Dudley, Catheral, Saddle and Hamlin Ridge. Looking at it that way, even with a 50/50 split east to west, the density of hikers could be 4 times higher on the Hunt Trail.

Of far greater impact is 50 distance hikers demanding/expecting a place to camp in the park every night when only 12 slots exist at the Birches. Just waiting in line until one of the 12 slots are open doesn't work as the crowd will keep getting larger and larger. Expanding the Birches just makes the bad behavior situation worse and it encourages large groups to summit. Shuttling folks around as I propose and instituting hiker permits to keep out folks who try to sneak in does not solve the camping issue or bad hiker behavior but I expect it will weed out quite few bad apples as they have to pay to hike and are by nature limited in group size by the size of the shuttle bus. Add in a second shuttle bus and it makes dent in the 50 per day number far better than the 12 per day current limit.

[rickb]

I think the statement in the Park report may have been a grammar issue. Looks like they needed a comma or maybe rewording(I am not an English major but look at the statement when you add a comma)

"With distance hikers representing about 2% of total Park use, and more than half of all Park visitors aspiring to climb Katahdin, most expecting a pristine natural environment, this recent trend caused concern late in the summer". My read is half the visitors to the park be it by car or walking in want to climb up Katahdin, that makes sense. I think the 2% reference is referring back to the various impacts that the 2% are doing and how that 2% is impacting the 50% expectation that the trails and park are a pristine natural environment.

The version with the comma added makes more sense to me.

Great catch. I am sure you are right.

Elsewhere in the report they give usage by Trail.

The Hunt Trail alone saw something like 9506 people registering that year.

That thru hikers remain very much a minority on Katahdin -- albeit a significant minority -- is a very good thing.

Still smiling on how I got tripped up by a comma :-)

[Another Kevin]

Elsewhere in the report they give usage by Trail.

The Hunt Trail alone saw something like 9506 people registering that year.

That thru hikers remain very much a minority on Katahdin -- albeit a significant minority -- is a very good thing.

I stand corrected. I now am puzzled why Bissell's letter last fall led off about numbers - and indicated that the numbers alone cannot be supported even if hiker behaviour were exemplary.

Of course, it's possible that he's simply overwhelmed when the bubble hits Katahdin. The 9500 are most likely distributed over the entire four-month hiking season from mid-June to mid-October - about eighty a day. The A-T hikers (Baxter labels all who arrive afoot from Abol Bridge alike, whether they started at Abol, Monson, or Springer) arrive 50 a day for a few weeks, and probably are half the hikers on K at peak times. Since the Hunt Trail statistics are no doubt counting them, it wouldn't astonish me that they're a majority at the Katahdin summit in late September and early October.

[BirdBrain]

Great catch. I am sure you are right.

Elsewhere in the report they give usage by Trail.

The Hunt Trail alone saw something like 9506 people registering that year.

That thru hikers remain very much a minority on Katahdin -- albeit a significant minority -- is a very good thing.

Still smiling on how I got tripped up by a comma :-)

And then there is the Helon Taylor, Dudley, Cathedral, Saddle, and Hamlin.

[egilbe]

That's only counting those who bother to register. I've seen people walk by the clipboard without bothering to sign in.

[BirdBrain]

Once you start to grasp the sheer numbers of hikers going up all the various trails, the 3% consuming 20% starts to become clear. The 3% is only an issue because of the problem they present. If they grow to 10% they will consume more than half the effort of the park. There is a solution. We have the knowledge. We are the experienced. There is no reason that the 3% could not become 2% of the park's effort. I believe if we put our hearts to it we could actually have a net positive effect. Why not? We are not the ones with training wheels on.

[Lone Wolf]

That's only counting those who bother to register. I've seen people walk by the clipboard without bothering to sign in.

cuz it ain't mandatory, a law, a requirement

[TJ aka Teej]

I remember back in 2008 the summit was closed for over a week due to bad weather in early October. When it finally cleared, some 50 thru-hikers were lined up to climb Baxter peak.
Several entitled thrus went up during the closure.

[TJ aka Teej]

Much as folks like to complain about things here is my contribution to alleviating the BSP thru hiker issues during peak periods that could be implemented quickly .
Asking Baxter to do more isn't an option. And it's a misconception that they don't enforce rules, kick folks out, roust stealth campers, etc.
There's plenty of camping out at Abol. The private campground just built 8 bunkhouses, Abol Pines fits over 80 easy, and there's lots of legal area to pitch a tent. An AMC type shuttle inside the Park would be cool, certainly would make current car-drop hikes (DoubleTop, up-and-overs of Katahdin) easier.
The Kiosk sign-up system sucks. Quite often one hiker races ahead from Hurd Brook to sign up all their friends - and fights and arguments break out. Bless that trail-runner, wicked hard job. The reason it's 'long distance' and not 'thru-hikers' is that when the lean-tos were at Daicey there'd be fights about purity - "He shouldn't get to stay! He skipped 10 miles two months ago!" And that chit still happens.
Monitor access to the Hunt? How? Placing a Ranger at the trailhead 24/7? Even if you put in a turnstile, you can still 'whack around it through the blueberry patches and moose yard.

The meeting today will have probably little impact on the outcome. This'll be up to the Class of '15. They have the opportunity to save it, or end it.

[peakbagger]

One of the reasons I came up with the shuttle concept was to effectively cut out the need for the Birches. Let private/public entities at Abol Bridge deal with the camping issue and put the shuttles in place to allow thru hikers to complete their hike while minimizing the BSP staff time chasing around trying to fit in overnighters. I expect a cell repeater would be installed fairly quickly.

I wouldn't post the employee at the turnstile, I would have them head up the Hunt trail possibly as far up at the bridge across the stream but the best approach is have the location be somewhat random. This staff member would also act to turn back hikers without adequate gear. I agree its an additional BSP function. Years ago the rangers were far more active in meeting hikers near the trailheads but due to their other responsibilities this isn't happening. No need for 24/7 its pretty predictable when the majority of thru hikers are going to be heading up.

I have far less faith that thru hikers will self manage their way to deal with the park concerns. My feeling is that the carrot and stick approach needs to be put in place. Put systems in place that make it easy to complete the hike and have enforcement in place to deal with those who decide they don't need to follow the rules.

[jersey joe]

Once you start to grasp the sheer numbers of hikers going up all the various trails, the 3% consuming 20% starts to become clear. The 3% is only an issue because of the problem they present. If they grow to 10% they will consume more than half the effort of the park. There is a solution. We have the knowledge. We are the experienced. There is no reason that the 3% could not become 2% of the park's effort. I believe if we put our hearts to it we could actually have a net positive effect. Why not? We are not the ones with training wheels on.

I would argue that the traffic in Baxter attributed to thru-hikers is much more than 3%.
I know when I thru hiked I had 7 people meet me in BSP. I'm sure many do this and bring non-thrus with them.
Also I've been back to BSP twice since thru hiking with larger groups. I wouldn't have ever visited BSP if I hadn't thru-hiked.

So, yeah, i'm sure the percentage of visitors caused by thru-hikers is still on the smaller side, but I don't buy into the 3% number being used.
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

[BillyGr]

Once you start to grasp the sheer numbers of hikers going up all the various trails, the 3% consuming 20% starts to become clear.

If that is an issue simply stop providing the extra services they do - let the hikers make their own arrangements like everyone else does?

[jdx1177]

I've really come around to the thinking that BSP is just not the place to end the AT. I'm liking some of the ideas I've read in the various threads.
Of course BSP has every right to manage and regulate the park as they see fit, to preserve it's wilderness.
So it almost seems obvious that as thru hiking increases this is only going to be more and more of an issue. If accommodating more people, whether thru hikers or not, goes directly against the core mission of the park, then it is not reasonable to ask them to change.
So my vote is to keep the AT as it exists now to the summit of katahdin, but extend it to the other side of BSP to join the IAT. I'm only assuming this is physically doable, I have no first hand knowledge of that area.
Then the decision to either make that the official terminus or use the IAT route to the Canadian border and make the official terminus there, which would be my preference.
Also no camping in BSP for thru hikers, they must pass completely through in one day.

[JimBlue]

If that is an issue simply stop providing the extra services they do - let the hikers make their own arrangements like everyone else does?

I agree, stop the free pack with goodies and terminus to another location in Maine. Saves the environment in BSP.

[Montana]

Several entitled thrus went up during the closure.
I was one of the "50". Although I can't say that my knowledge is complete, the only people I know that summited during the closure started climbing the morning of the closure, and as such had no knowledge of the mountain closure. These people were not entitled thrus (I met a few along the way, so I know what I'm talking about), and given the weather conditions of their hike I'm sure they would have preferred the five day delay and the blue-bird sky that us "50" experienced.

The summit party on Oct 8, 2008 was loud, and there was alcohol and pot consumption (no minors were present as far as I remember and can tell from my pictures). The rangers asked us all to lower our voices, but otherwise allowed these activities to continue. When confronted with the noise complaint, the party died down, everyone was respectful. No $200 citations were issued.

Were there too many people on the summit? Probably. I can't judge how durable the surface was since it was mostly snow covered, but I remember the summit essentially being a pile of rocks, fairly durable. Regardless, the rangers made no effort to stop that many people from being on the summit by stopping us at the campground or by asking us to make our summit visit short. I saw no signs at the trailhead mentioning any rules and the ranger we spoke to at the campground made no mention either, so I had no idea that we "50" had collectively broken any rules let alone the same rules that Jurek was charged with breaking.

Did Jurek deserve getting three citations and a public tongue lashing by Bissell? I would have to say no. Bissell should be ashamed of his FB attack post (in part because of the copyright infringement, he had no right to repost those images), committing a few misdemeanors like this is no reason to have your name drug through the mud. The spraying of champagne is the only thing that Jurek did that bothers me even a little since the very next rain would have washed away any evidence. What does bother me is how BSP has unevenly applied their overly strict rules. If Jurek really deserved any of those citations, why did no one else in his party receive a ticket when they were all equally guilty? Why were we "50" allowed to summit together, and why did the rangers choose to ignore the alcohol and pot consumption (I have a couple pictures of me holding a Long Trail Ale at the summit sign, should I have received a ticket)?

[Traveler]

To casually suggest "its only a pile of rocks" at the top of Katahdin ignores the special environment that summit is and other alpine areas are. Pouring booze on this environment is not good form, regardless of the celebratory need and/or posturing for photos. The next rain will take the ingredients of the booze and spread it to other areas not initially impacted by the spill, I'm sure you can understand downstream contact and its impact it may have on fragile alpine lichens and other fragile life forms. Having been there a few times I have yet to run across behavior that callous to the alpine environment. Most of the time people are in hushed voices and hyper-sensitive to their impact of the summit and areas leading to it. Some respect that environment, some have no clue what the environment is, others really have no interest but their own.

Imagine what the summit would be like (or the park overall) without the rules that have long existed there, which some flout as being immaterial or "overly strict". There are a very few who feel their "freedom" is limited by rules, though when asked what specifically are "overly strict" are not able to answer in specifics. Not surprisingly, these individuals find LNT is a silly concept which leads to the "entitled" title among some observers. Its these rules that have managed to keep BSP in a fairly natural state over the years. The issue of who gets a ticket and who doesn't is an issue of discretion of Rangers, much as its the discretion of the traffic police officer to not give you a ticket for going 69 in a 55 and providing a warning.

The issues of AT thru's at BSP are long standing and increasing, albeit the Park Superintendent could go about the awareness differently, that fact remains. Bottom line is, all visitors are asked to do is understand the rules BSP has clearly available to everyone who is interested in going into the Park, and follow them. When that happens there are few issues. If that is too difficult for people due to the literacy requirement or not being able to limit their behavior accordingly, its probably better they find other places to be.

[Montana]

To casually suggest "its only a pile of rocks" at the top of Katahdin ignores the special environment that summit is and other alpine areas are. Pouring booze on this environment is not good form, regardless of the celebratory need and/or posturing for photos. The next rain will take the ingredients of the booze and spread it to other areas not initially impacted by the spill, I'm sure you can understand downstream contact and its impact it may have on fragile alpine lichens and other fragile life forms.

Given that alcohol is a rather volatile liquid, I doubt that it could do much damage before it vaporizes away. Any unfermented sugars might actually help the fungus portion of the lichen symbiosis, given that is exactly what the cyanobacterial symbiote provides in the relationship. The CO2 that creates the bubbly is already in gaseous form and should enter the atmosphere rapidly. Aromatic hydrocarbons (that grape smell) are very volatile (how else would you smell it?) and as such probably completely evaporate before the alcohol. Are there other ingredients that we need to worry about? I guess what I am saying is that I very much doubt that a little spilled bubbly can do any immediate or lasting harm, although I agree that it was poor form to purposefully spray it about the summit.

However, this is just conjecture on both of our parts. I just got done running a fairly thorough search of the scientific literature on this subject and found that no one has done any science to better understand the effects of having champagne, beer, or other fluids (like urine) spilled on lichen or other alpine flora. If you know of a paper that can clarify these issues, I would be happy to read it (even if it is behind a paywall), but as far as I can tell it doesn't exist.

As far as overly strict rules:
No public consumption of alcohol. I assume this means no tipping one back around an approved campfire either. How many tickets do they write for this offence?
No children under the age of 6 above timberline. A responsible adult taking their kid for a hike should not need to worry about staying below treeline, especially if the weather is good.
No person may operate a vehicle in excess of 20 miles per hour, or the posted speed limit, whichever is less. Wait, if the speed limit is 30, we still are limited to 20? That makes sense.

[TJ aka Teej]

Always nice to see an old thread come back to life.
It's very disappointing to see the ATC going all in for Walk in the Woods. I hope they're at least getting compensation for advertising and promotion.
The AT actually ends at the Park boundary - there is no AT corridor inside Baxter.
I've made my thoughts known to BSP folks - end all special considerations for ATers. Transition the Birches to a site available for all users by reservation as a hike in site. If ATers wish to stay in the Park they can by following the same reservation system all other users comply with. Discontinue the Abol Bridge trail runner, end the free daypacks, remove the AT register from the Ranger's porch, remove all AT designations from signage, and stop handing out ATC 2000 miler paperwork.

[bat_manatee]

Always nice to see an old thread come back to life.
It's very disappointing to see the ATC going all in for Walk in the Woods. I hope they're at least getting compensation for advertising and promotion.
The AT actually ends at the Park boundary - there is no AT corridor inside Baxter.
I've made my thoughts known to BSP folks - end all special considerations for ATers. Transition the Birches to a site available for all users by reservation as a hike in site. If ATers wish to stay in the Park they can by following the same reservation system all other users comply with. Discontinue the Abol Bridge trail runner, end the free daypacks, remove the AT register from the Ranger's porch, remove all AT designations from signage, and stop handing out ATC 2000 miler paperwork.

This comment (and most of TJ's others) seems pretty in line with the cold, mean, generally unpleasant attitude I experienced from a majority (but obviously not all) Mainers.

The whole "if you don't like it, get out" attitude is strong up there. It's kind of hilarious that all the grumpy Mainers are the ones calling Thru-Hikers entitled.

Maybe you guys need more sunshine. You probably have seasonal affective disorder, or some sort of brain chemical imbalance from eating too many ocean cockroaches.

Mainers cause WAY more damage to their own wild lands than any thru hiker... So logically, to make the greatest difference in the condition of BSP, make it hard to get to... Close all the roads and make everyone hike in. I bet you'll see a huge drop in trail impact when the car campers and day hikers can't haul in cases of beer and bags of trash.

If you really cared about the park you'd probably be concerned about the 97% of its visitors who trash the place.

[rickb]

The AT actually ends at the Park boundary - there is no AT corridor inside Baxter.

This statement is factually incorrect.

[egilbe]

This statement is factually incorrect.
This statement is factually incorrect.

[Harmless]

When it didn't work, the southern terminus was changed. If it isn't working, why not change the northern terminus?

Yes, it has been traditional to end at Katahdin. Traditions can change. While making the northern terminus into a less remarkable hill has some emotional down-side, it isn't all negative. A less remarkable northern terminus will reduce the appeal of NOBO route, possibly increasing SOBO treks, and spreading out the bubble.

If Baxter doesn't want the AT, move the AT. Who wants to hike where he's not welcome?

[Wildfang]

Following the rules is the solution.

Agreed. If everyone did what they were told and respected the law whether they agreed or disagreed with it, then the trail and the world would be a better place. The rules are there for a reason.

[Starchild]

When it didn't work, the southern terminus was changed. If it isn't working, why not change the northern terminus?

Perhaps, but the Great Spirit gave the name of Katahdin to this mountain. Katahdin means 'The Greatest Mountain'. The Great Spirit knew what he/she is talking about, no other mountain on earth has a trail that ascends more vertical , over 500,000 ft from it's start to mt top end (I would like to know if this is true). It is the AT that makes 'Baxter Peak' Katahdin. The moving of the AT off this peak, with due respect to the native tribe, would not be right and would need to be addressed by the Great Spirit.

[TJ aka Teej]

the Great Spirit gave the name of Katahdin to this mountain
The Penobscots would disagree.

no other mountain on earth has a trail that ascends more vertical , over 500,000 ft from it's start to mt top end (I would like to know if this is true)
What's that, like 95 miles? No, the Hunt Trail doesn't take you as high as satellites.

It is the AT that makes 'Baxter Peak' Katahdin.
The Penobscots would disagree.

[TJ aka Teej]

This is emblematic of the problem BSP has with ATers - you tell them they'll have to follow the rules and they cry that's being:

cold, mean, generally unpleasant
to their fragile and entitled little egos.

[TJ aka Teej]

This statement is factually incorrect.
What part of Baxter Park is owned by the federal government, Rick?

[squeezebox]

What Great Spirit?
I thought that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny were in charge.

[rafe]

I just don't get the hating on people from Maine.

[rickb]

What part of Baxter Park is owned by the federal government, Rick?

Please realize that the "Appalachian NationalScenic Trail is created by the complex patchwork of land ownership along much of the length ofthe Trail. The Trail crosses lands administered by eight national forests, six national parks, onenational wildlife refuge, 67 state game lands, forest, or park areas, and more than a dozen localmunicipal watershed properties". In addition "the Appalachian Trail Park Office has acquired [more than] 2,700 tracts comprising more than 105,000 acres of land that are located in and among thelarger blocks of existing forest, park, and game lands".

To suggest that the AT does not exist except where it traverses land owned by the Federal Governement is factually incorrect.

The AT does not end at the boundary to Baxter State Park.

That you, but especially anyone associated with Baxter, would suggest otherwise is troubling and just plain wrong.

.

[MuddyWaters]

In BSP the AT has no federal designation. It uses existng trails within the park, and is under the control of only the Baxter park authority. It is only part of the AT, because they allow it to be used as such.

[rickb]

In BSP the AT has no federal designation. It uses existng trails within the park, and is under the control of only the Baxter park authority. It is only part of the AT, because they allow it to be used as such.

The AT absolutely has federal a designation within Baxter State Park, just as the Trail has federal designation where it passes through PA State Game Lands, for example.

Bissell's assertions to the contrary is posturing, and the ATC and NPS have wisely elected not to get sucked into a battle of words with him on that. The man is not ignorant-- his words were chosen for a purpose.

The AT uses existing Trails in Baxter State Park, just as it does in all 14 states through which it travels.

The AT operates under a "Cooperative Management System" whereby multiple entities are responsible for maintaince, regulation and protection of the Trail as it passes through their lands.

Here he is where it gets interesting-- and of concern.

Baxter absolutely could challenge the Act of Congress that established the AT through Baxter State Park. The Park is not only beloved by the people in the State, it is a particular source of pride.

With a well-established rational (as Bissell is creating), the retirement of Pam Underhill and her replacement with rotating NPS leaders, and the almost certain support of Maine Political contingent and her people, it is possible that Congress could reroute the AT out of the park if Bissell "put up a gate" -- rather than taking the "nuclear" option look of condemimg it (as they have elsewhere) or use the kind of "persuasion" that only the federal Governement can.

But make no mistake about it. The AT was established by an Act of Congress

But there is another more likely path for Baxter to take-- and I believe they are already on it.

Rather than prattle on, I would simply ask that you think about what that could be.

[rocketsocks]

But there is another more likely path for Baxter to take-- and I believe they are already on it.

Rather than prattle on, I would simply ask that you think about what that could be.I'll take a stab at it...reservation & permitting to a point making it in effect ending the trail at baxter's boarder but for the lucky few each year.

[bat_manatee]

This is emblematic of the problem BSP has with ATers - you tell them they'll have to follow the rules and they cry that's being:

to their fragile and entitled little egos.

You missed the point entirely. I assert that thru hikers are NOT the most damaging group of users in BSP, overall OR per capita.

If your stance was truly about protecting the park and not about a general dislike of non-Mainers or thru hikers. (or just a generally ****ty attitude) you would be addressing the damage from the hoardes of car campers and day users, instead of trying to alienate some excellent allies (namely the ATC and the Thru Hiking community)

[TJ aka Teej]

Bissell's assertions to the contrary is posturing, and the ATC and NPS have wisely elected not to get sucked into a battle of words with him on that.
His 'posturing' resulted in ATC/NPS requesting a meeting in Maine on the issue.
The likely path is that special considerations for certain visitors will end.

[TJ aka Teej]

I guess we can add having a

****ty attitude
to being

cold, mean, generally unpleasant
for asking folks to follow the rules.

[bat_manatee]

I guess we can add having a

to being

for asking folks to follow the rules.

Congratulations on adding absolutely nothing to discussion, while simultaneously proving my point.

It's kind of sad that you can't just own up to your own prejudices and poor attitude.

Why don't you leave and let those who actually care about the AT and Baxter have a grown up discussion? You're obviously just a troll.

[rafe]

Haha. Guy from New Mexico with 19 posts calls guy from Maine with 5000 posts a troll.

[tdoczi]

The AT absolutely has federal a designation within Baxter State Park, just as the Trail has federal designation where it passes through PA State Game Lands, for example.

Bissell's assertions to the contrary is posturing, and the ATC and NPS have wisely elected not to get sucked into a battle of words with him on that. The man is not ignorant-- his words were chosen for a purpose.

The AT uses existing Trails in Baxter State Park, just as it does in all 14 states through which it travels.

The AT operates under a "Cooperative Management System" whereby multiple entities are responsible for maintaince, regulation and protection of the Trail as it passes through their lands.

Here he is where it gets interesting-- and of concern.

Baxter absolutely could challenge the Act of Congress that established the AT through Baxter State Park. The Park is not only beloved by the people in the State, it is a particular source of pride.

With a well-established rational (as Bissell is creating), the retirement of Pam Underhill and her replacement with rotating NPS leaders, and the almost certain support of Maine Political contingent and her people, it is possible that Congress could reroute the AT out of the park if Bissell "put up a gate" -- rather than taking the "nuclear" option look of condemimg it (as they have elsewhere) or use the kind of "persuasion" that only the federal Governement can.

But make no mistake about it. The AT was established by an Act of Congress

But there is another more likely path for Baxter to take-- and I believe they are already on it.

Rather than prattle on, I would simply ask that you think about what that could be.

so does that mean, for instance, that one of the farmers in NJ or NY whose property the trail passes over can not decide to revoke his permission to pass over his land? be serious please. you keep making this statement that no one here agrees with that ive seen as it were obvious fact when unless theres a special case made for it because it is the terminus that your position obviously isnt the case.

[rickb]

so does that mean, for instance, that one of the farmers in NJ or NY whose property the trail passes over can not decide to revoke his permission to pass over his land? be serious please. you keep making this statement that no one here agrees with that ive seen as it were obvious fact when unless theres a special case made for it because it is the terminus that your position obviously isnt the case.

By and large the AT was routed to with the cooperation of the landholders over which is passes.

But not everywhere. You might want to google these 4 words "Appalachian Trail Eminent Domain".

That said, ED is something that should never be used in a conversation regarding certain special and beloved areas that have historically been good hosts to the trail.

That last resort option would never come into play in those places no matter how strained the relationship, and its mere mention would send a lot of of good people to the parapets. There is no reason for that.

ED is relevant to this conversation only to the extent that it underscores how seriously the Department of the interior takes the National Scenic Trail Act. Google it.

[tdoczi]

By and large the AT was routed to with the cooperation of the landholders over which is passes.

But not everywhere. You might want to google these 4 words "Appalachian Trail Eminent Domain".

That said, ED is something that should never be used in a conversation regarding certain special and beloved areas that have historically been good hosts to the trail.

That last resort option would never come into play in those places no matter how strained the relationship, and its mere mention would send a lot of of good people to the parapets. There is no reason for that.

ED is relevant to this conversation only to the extent that it underscores how seriously the Department of the interior takes the National Scenic Trail Act. Google it.


even still, the hypothetical process would look something like this- baxter kicks the AT out (they CAN, saying they cant is silly) the NPS or the ATC or whoever has the authority declares, if they decide to do so, eminent domain. it then turns into a huge court battle. perhaps baxter looses in the end. bot to twist that into "baxter cant do that" is a distortion to put it mildy.

[MuddyWaters]

By and large the AT was routed to with the cooperation of the landholders over which is passes.

But not everywhere. You might want to google these 4 words "Appalachian Trail Eminent Domain".

That said, ED is something that should never be used in a conversation regarding certain special and beloved areas that have historically been good hosts to the trail.

That last resort option would never come into play in those places no matter how strained the relationship, and its mere mention would send a lot of of good people to the parapets. There is no reason for that.

ED is relevant to this conversation only to the extent that it underscores how seriously the Department of the interior takes the National Scenic Trail Act. Google it.

If you read the Scenic Trails Act, on non-federal land, there are agreements with states and private landowners.
Eminent domain was used in a few places. It was used for GSMNP as well.

A part of the selection of the trail routing stipulated that the trail use be consistent with the usage of the lands it passed thru.

It no longer is as far as BSP is concerned.

The trails act is not chiseled in stone. There are things in it that never came to be.

It also provides for federal money to support, and manage parts of the trail where needed. This is something BSP might be interested in , the feds paying for more rangers to patrol and enforce the AT.

[Starchild]

Bringing up the Eminent Domain issue does expose perhaps the real issue. The AT is gaining popularity and with that will gain political power and support. The growth of it may hit critical mass where it's own popularity is what draws more people to it.

In this context it's a power play, Baxter trying to diffuse the trail's appeal and decouple the trail from their park so as not to lose it, which they very well could.

All they are doing now is putting up a smoke screen and make it seem like the hikers are the problem, I don't believe they every were. Hikers are great people and should not take the fall for this political game they are playing.

[MuddyWaters]

His 'posturing' resulted in ATC/NPS requesting a meeting in Maine on the issue.
The likely path is that special considerations for certain visitors will end.

This actually would take a big step forward in solving problems.
Ending special consideratins for thrus everywhere would.

But , it would cut down on the # of hikers, which is clearly not what the ATC wants.

[rickb]

While I would hate to see the AT end anyplace other than Katahdin for most reasons, the one exception would be if it were to be rerouted to a new Natioanl Park in the area.

Appalachian Trails (plural) National Park would be a good name for it.

The new park could also host the terminus of the IAT.

[jdx1177]

Sorry haven't scanned all the various threads on this topic to see if this has already been posted but here you go. NPR Story on the AT including some Baxter concerns
http://www.npr.org/2015/09/07/438293730/when-the-wild-gets-crowded-appalachian-trail-s-celebrity-climbs

[George]

But there is another more likely path for Baxter to take-- and I believe they are already on it.

Rather than prattle on, I would simply ask that you think about what that could be.

"regulate out of existence" is a practical often used strategy - takes some time but gets the job done

[George]

reading the plaque at the top of K gave me some ???

9 sq miles was Baxter's donation - to be kept wild, free of roads etc

the park is larger than that now?

the park has roads

are they picking and choosing what parts of the original charter to apply to what parts of what is now the now complete park?

how about remove all the buildings and roads - make the park all walk in and 100% wilderness (modern definition) - wouldn't this be the "spirit" of the original charter - and certainly alleviate any crowding

[CoolBobby]

reading the plaque at the top of K gave me some ???

9 sq miles was Baxter's donation - to be kept wild, free of roads etc

the park is larger than that now?

the park has roads

are they picking and choosing what parts of the original charter to apply to what parts of what is now the now complete park?

how about remove all the buildings and roads - make the park all walk in and 100% wilderness (modern definition) - wouldn't this be the "spirit" of the original charter - and certainly alleviate any crowding

+5
Well said... I've been saying it since I was a kid..

[Traveler]

From one of the many sites that have the history of BSP:

"The park was a gift to the people of Maine from Governor Percival P. Baxter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percival_P._Baxter), who used his personal wealth over a 32-year period to purchase and donate the original 201,018 acres of the park starting with a 6,000 acres purchase in 1930 from the Great Northern Paper Company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_Paper_Company). Since Gov. Baxter's death in 1969 the park has been increased to a total of 209,501 acres, including the 2006 addition of a parcel of 4,678 acres and spectacular Katahdin Lake. Inside the park boundary there is no electricity, running water, or paved roads. In keeping with the "Forever Wild" philosophy expressed by Gov. Baxter"

The roads we see today were by and large there when the land was purchased and set aside. The Park is not allowed to pave, expand or add to them.

[handlebar]

+1 to Peakbagger's proposed solution. It's disappointing the discussion devolved somewhat into slamming BSP management/Mainers/Thruhikers, rather than focusing on a solution which accommodates the concerns of day hikers, thru hikers, and the terms of the BSP trust deeds. Some additional advantages: 1) it keeps hikers out of BSP if it's not likely to be possible to summit, 2) BSP could charge a franchise fee to the shuttle providers allowing BSP to recoup some of the costs of enforcement of its rules, 3) it gives an opportunity for some enterprising Mainers to make a business.

BSP might also consider a "Baxter Peak Permit" that all persons intending to climb Baxter Peak must pay. The permit should be for a specific date, or range of dates, and reserveable only a certain number of days in advance with the same refundable no-show surcharge described below to prevent abuse. This could be used to limit the number on the trails to Baxter Peak to whatever BSP determines is the carrying capacity of the various trails (Hunt, Abol Slide, etc.) and the summit itself. Proceeds of the fee could be used to support an enforcement ranger at Baxter Peak, who could issue coupons for the surcharge refunds.

Additional consideration when converting Birches to a hike-in reservation site: Allow reservations to be made only 7 days in advance for this site. This will allow thru-hikers and 100-mile wilderness hikers the option to make reservations from Monson. All reservations should cost a large amount ($50 per person/$100 per shelter at KS, Abol, Roaring Brook, and any other campsites that are base areas for a Baxter Peak summit) charged to a credit card (BSP already charges credit cards over the phone for car campsite reservations) with the excess over the normal charge being refunded (to the credit card) when the person reserving actually shows up. This would discourage spurious reservations by those who don't actually show up. In addition, for KS shelters, assign reservations on a per person basis (not per shelter). The person making a reservation is not reserving a shelter, but, rather a place in the shelter. The same BSP personnel that enforce the reservation system, could issue a coupon for the refund of the surcharges. Those hikers reserving a place in KS or Birches would assume the risk of Katahdin be closed in for the following day.

Assuming a prime nobo thru hike window of approximately 60 days Aug 15 to Oct 15, and assuming Birches is fully used as a reservation only site, this solution provides an accommodation for approximately 2100 hikers each day, more if the KS shelters are reserveable on a per person basis. One obvious concern is that the number of thru hikers may grow to greater than 2100. The number can be expanded by using alternate itineraries (flip-flop/sobo).

A note about statistics: Someone once said that there are "...lies, damned lies, and statistics" illustrating the point that one can come up with numbers to justify just about anything. From my point of view, there is one place where actual numbers of northbound thru hikers who are likely to enter BSP can be gathered: the Ferry across the Penobscot River. I'll bet the ATC has these numbers. If they don't, they should start collecting them by date ASAP.

[TJ aka Teej]

From my point of view, there is one place where actual numbers of northbound thru hikers who are likely to enter BSP can be gathered: the Ferry across the Penobscot River. I'll bet the ATC has these numbers. If they don't, they should start collecting them by date ASAP.
They've been collected and reported since the inception of the ferry service.
Baxter also collects data for the ATC, first at Daicey Pond, and now at Katahdin Stream. The Rangers give the ATers their 'number' as they arrive just as ATC does at Harpers Ferry. The KSC ranger also offers ATC 2000 miler paperwork to finishing GAMErs. Interesting to note only 2 out of 3 finishing thrus take the paperwork when offered.

[jbwood5]

I arrived in Baxter on 8/9/15. There were 8 thru hikers in the Birches. I did not find the Park especially crowded. I climbed Katahdin on the 9th and there were probably 20 people up there with people constantly coming and going. Perhaps a little crowded, but nothing unexpected for a Sunday. My wife checked in to the gate about 6:30 AM with no parking reservations and fully expected to be turned away for entry (you can come back about 3:30 PM and pick up a thru hiker), however, she was issued a pass for Katahdin Stream. I think there are only certain times when it gets crazy at Baxter, but other times it can be OK.

[jbwood5]

Actually I arrived in the Park on Saturday the 8th of August and stayed in the Birches. I summited on the 9th.

[Another Kevin]

They've been collected and reported since the inception of the ferry service.
Baxter also collects data for the ATC, first at Daicey Pond, and now at Katahdin Stream. The Rangers give the ATers their 'number' as they arrive just as ATC does at Harpers Ferry. The KSC ranger also offers ATC 2000 miler paperwork to finishing GAMErs. Interesting to note only 2 out of 3 finishing thrus take the paperwork when offered.

Some "thrus" in the BSP sense started in Monson. Some actual GAMErs disdain the patch, some are flip-flopping, and some have aqua-blazed, yellow-blazed, or otherwise not qualified for 2000 Miler. Some simply picked up the paperwork already, or don't want to get it dirty and will grab a copy later. And it would be None Of Anyone's Business why someone doesn't want the paperwork when offered.

[TJ aka Teej]

Some "thrus" in the BSP sense started in Monson.
You're confusing qualifying for a camping spot at the Birches with being a thru hiker.

[rotorbrent]

they are pencil pushing desk riders.


they get paid the same if zero hikers or 5,000 hikers

so being the lazy government people they are

They regulate and discourage visitors as much as possible

less visitors less work same pay

the poor BSP rangers are temp jobs caught in the Middle

[jbwood5]

The rangers I encountered were pretty nice and helpful. I did get chased down in the morning for not registering at the trailhead beyond Katahdin Stream, but that was because another ranger was giving a talk to a group of young people ready to start up the mountain and I never saw the register box with all the people crowded around.

[adamkrz]

I have not read all the previous posts but would love to see the trail end somewhere on the Maine coast.

[atraildreamer]

They've been collected and reported since the inception of the ferry service.
Baxter also collects data for the ATC, first at Daicey Pond, and now at Katahdin Stream. The Rangers give the ATers their 'number' as they arrive just as ATC does at Harpers Ferry. The KSC ranger also offers ATC 2000 miler paperwork to finishing GAMErs. Interesting to note only 2 out of 3 finishing thrus take the paperwork when offered.

Here are some of the figures, posted as attachments, as discussed in this thread:

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php/107864-Baxter-State-Park-AT-concerns-Wow?p=1931900&highlight=#post1931900

Here are the links to the referenced documentation:

http://www.matc.org/for-hikers/kennebec-river-ferry/ (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php/107864-Baxter-State-Park-AT-concerns-Wow?p=1931900&highlight=#post1931900)

http://www.appalachiantrail.org/abou...il/2000-milers (http://www.appalachiantrail.org/about-the-trail/2000-milers)

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/content.php/45

http://www.baxterstateparkauthority....re/reports.htm (http://www.baxterstateparkauthority.com/more/reports.htm)

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

[Lightingguy59]

I have not read all the previous posts but would love to see the trail end somewhere on the Maine coast.

That's actually a very good idea.

Cadillac Mt. in Acadia would be my vote, the park is currently well set up to handle more visitors then BSP can deal with, it's likewise a beautiful spot and the communities in the region have a better transportation system in place then Millinocket, so easier to get out of at end-of-hike, as well as easier to deal with any additiobnal visitors greeting a thru-hiker.

All kinds of positives, IMO.