View Full Version : 3% vs. 20%
squeezebox
07-25-2015, 20:39
I've heard the claim that 3% of the Baxter visitors, (thru hikers), use 20% of Baxter resources. How is that possible? What's going on?
Another Kevin
07-25-2015, 21:29
The A-T hikers demand a lot of attention from the staff, both by needing more law enforcement (alas!) and by needing more support - trying to line up unreserved camping at Katahdin Stream, using the radio to help hikers meet up with whoever's taking them home, cleaning up after the inconsiderate, and so on.
One would think that the thru-hikers would be more able to function independently, not less, but that doesn't seem to be the case in practice.
Lone Wolf
07-25-2015, 21:30
I've heard the claim that 3% of the Baxter visitors, (thru hikers), use 20% of Baxter resources. How is that possible? What's going on?
drinkin', druggin', rule breakin', illegal campin', etc., etc.
It's all part of the narrative they are trying to create. This is not to minimize the issues, but rather not to accept the narative as presented.
There is no way in hell that thru hikers command 20% of the park's resources.
Starchild
07-25-2015, 21:49
One would think that the thru-hikers would be more able to function independently, not less, but that doesn't seem to be the case in practice.
In my experience it is quite the opposite. Thru hikers are in a continuous state of dependance, needing rides, places to clean themselves up, even needing borrowed clothing during town stops. That is the beauty of thru hiking, being a child again and being loved for who you are.
Another Kevin
07-25-2015, 22:02
That is the beauty of thru hiking, being a child again and being loved for who you are.
(*shakes head sadly*)
Lone Wolf
07-25-2015, 22:12
In my experience it is quite the opposite. Thru hikers are in a continuous state of dependance, needing rides, places to clean themselves up, even needing borrowed clothing during town stops. That is the beauty of thru hiking, being a child again and being loved for who you are.
oh brother :rolleyes:
It does not matter if it is accurate. The 3% /20% is the real belief of those who run BSP.
Maybe it is 4% / 18% in reality. It is just a way of BSP to express it concern that thru hikers are overly demanding on the time and resources of the park. What ever the ratio, reasonable minds must agree that thru hikes present a disproportionate burden on the personnel and resources of BSP.
shakey_snake
07-25-2015, 23:17
Thruhikers walk into the park, and expect to ride out. No other park visitor to Baxter has as real of a logistical issue.
How the hikers manage to solve their problems can be a complicated process that involves technology, planning and cooperation of various elements.
Honestly, it seems like a real mess trying to reinvent the wheel, here. All anyone really needs is an "Northern terminus approach trail"--similar to Springer--that has a publically accessible parking lot. That said, Springer is in pretty disgusting condition after the spring glut waddles through and I don't blame Baxter for trying to avoid a similar fate.
It does not matter if it is accurate. The 3% /20% is the real belief of those who run BSP.
No it isn't.
mrcoffeect
07-26-2015, 07:08
so what their saying is on any mid to late summer day. when the parking lots fill up in less than two hours of them opening the gates. those are all thru hikers and their cars?????
BPA please do not piss down my back and tell me its raining.
Traveler
07-26-2015, 09:51
No it isn't.
BSP was pretty specific in their letter of the resource consumption. If you've other data I would like to see it.
BSP was pretty specific in their letter of the resource consumption. If you've other data I would like to see it.
Not in this letter:
http://www.baxterstateparkauthority.com/pdf/meetingAuthority/Dec162014/AT%20Ron%20Tipton%20Wendy%20Janssen%20letter%2011% 2019%202014%20scanned.pdf
The whole idea that thru hikers consume 20% of the park's resources is so laughable that if there is any individual of authority up there who sincerely believes that, they should be encouraged to find a new career.
It's all part of the narrative they are trying to create. This is not to minimize the issues, but rather not to accept the narative as presented.
There is no way in hell that thru hikers command 20% of the park's resources.
I'm afraid these words wouldn't have gone over well in negotiations with BSP.
Honesty would be a good starting point.
The park maintains how many cabins, Sly?
How many campgrounds that are not ever visited by thru hikers?
How many miles of trail maintenance do they complete?
How many canoes, bunkhouses, leantos to they keep up?
How many rescues do they perform?
How may reservations do they process from the Millinocket office?
How many Forestry studies to they oversee?
How many latrines for the 60,000+ visitors do they keep is such good condition.
How many special programs do they run?
No, thru hikers do NOT consume 20% of the park's resources. If that is what they are telling you, they are either completely misinformed (very unlikely) or are creating that narative for a specific purpose.
The ATC would be wise to always keep that in mind.
Does it really matter Rick? There are issues which need to be corrected.
I can't comment on the percentages. However, as Kevin noted, staff time is the primary park resource expended on management of Appalachian Trail hikers. Here are some of the issues:
1) Nobos who come into the park without reservations when The Birches site is full (Birches holds 12; some days the number of nobos is 20,30, 40, or rarely, even more). In theory, nobos could make reservations for Katahdin Stream campground like all other visitors, but they rarely do. The park has traditionally recognized that it would be difficult for nobos to predict their arrival time in advance (which is why reservations have not been required for long-distance hikers), or even know if they were going to be able to make it that far in their journey. But the number of nobos arriving without reservations in a park with a finite number of camping spots is now overwhelming the park during a portion of the season.
2) Sobos who don't have reservations and are unprepared for the climb and the 100-mile wilderness.
3) Flip-floppers (starting in Georgia, flipping from some point mid-Trail) who don't have reservations.
4) Nobos who break rules (issues related to stealth camping, alcohol and drugs, and fake service dogs).
5) Families of nobos who want to meet their hikers and climb with them and don't have parking or camping reservations.
ATC, managing partners, and others in the A.T. community need to work together to do a better job of educating hikers about the special situations in Baxter State Park. We already have a number of action items coming out of the meeting with Baxter State Park last week (and some were already underway).
Not in this letter:
http://www.baxterstateparkauthority.com/pdf/meetingAuthority/Dec162014/AT%20Ron%20Tipton%20Wendy%20Janssen%20letter%2011% 2019%202014%20scanned.pdf
The whole idea that thru hikers consume 20% of the park's resources is so laughable that if there is any individual of authority up there who sincerely believes that, they should be encouraged to find a new career.
i think what may be closer to true and might be what they are meaning to say is that on days that see heavy thru hiker traffic, thru hikers are 3% of the people and consume 20% of the resources. i have absolutely no problem believing this.
i think what may be closer to true and might be what they are meaning to say is that on days that see heavy thru hiker traffic, thru hikers are 3% of the people and consume 20% of the resources. i have absolutely no problem believing this.
...and likely that 3% of the thru-hikers cause a disproportionate part of the problem. While I doubt that anyone could come up with a verifiable or useful statistic, doesn't this type of imbalance hold true for society in general? It's almost always the case that a few are very different from most: a very few people hold a huge share of the wealth; a very few commit murder; a few are incredibly smart; a few screw a lot of things up for the rest of us.
Well the old law enforcement saying does seem to apply. "90% of the people don't need governing and the other 10% can't be governed." Guess we know which group the thru hikers fall into.
On a serious note after reading the letter that rickb linked I now realize the scale of the problem. I have no suggestions on how to fix the BSP situation, but who could be surprised if they boot the AT out of the park? Given this growth from when I lived out east and hiked the AT all the time I can imagine the problems in the South. It must be horrible. SNP with no privies was disgusting enough 10 years ago. The place must be like a sewer now.
Sounds like the AT community needs to start figuring out ways to cut the volume of thru hikers down significantly.
(*shakes head sadly*)
sighs loudly in agreement with Kevin. :(
Its a fee based park. Why not up the fee for the birches (with 12 slots) and build 3 more shelters (+18 slots) or simply level out some woods for tents. Ummm stop using the radio to get hikers rides... The logistics are straightforward. The problems are easily solved.
Anyone who argues that the car campers are better and lower impact than thru-hikers has got to be kidding.
The real issue is Baxter doesn't like not having CONTROL. While the numbers keep going up... the paying customers and citizens resent more and more climbing Katahdin to be embarrassed cuz they are "only" day hikers.
Its the AMC White Mountains issue all over again. Thru Hikers make others look bad. (Note: paying customers)
Does it really matter Rick? There are issues which need to be corrected.
Yes, It does.
The special stresses that thru hikers create in BSP are real, and should be addressed. I congratulate you and the ATC for your efforts in that regard.
I also respect the special mandate that was given to the stewards of Baxter State Park. They have been resolute in their efforts to protect the park, and I respect them for that.
Despite the fact that the park frequently reaches capacity (note the Facebook advisories on the Day Use Parking Reservations) they are not creating more spots. Why?
Simple: To limit the number of hikers on the trails.
Now, at the same time they are effectively turning away traditional park users by design, the Park is forced to take in thru hikers in whatever numbers may come. How could that not be a source of agita?
Buy why is that important to discussion of thru hiker -- and Scott Jurek's -- behavior?
A clue can be found in the increasing number of times the Park's director is quoted to say things like
"[QUOTE]The formal federal designation and authority of the Appalachian Trial does not extend into Baxter State Park. The AT within the Park is hosted at the consideration of the Baxter State Park Authority. The Authority is currently considering the increasing pressures, impacts and conflicts that the Appalachian Trail brings to the Park and if a continued relationship is in the best interests of Baxter State Park.
Really? The Federal Designation of the AT does not extend into BSP? That is ridiculous of course, but those words are not repeated (again and again) out of ignorance, but rather by design.
I believe that design is to lay the groundwork for the day that the Park announces the number of thu hikers entering Baxter is simply too great, and they put up a virtual fence-- as they have already done for those enterin by car -- once a specific number is reached.
Working to mitigate specific thru hiker issues is laudable, but so long as the park leadership maintains that the Federally designated trail ends at its border and suggests that thru hikers are consuming 20% of their resources (if indeed that is the cases), or making other gross exaggerations as they did with Jurek, I think it is reasonable to believe they are actively working to create a specific narrative-- whether not they say so or not.
And this narative will include a chapter about how they met with the ATC and the rest, but alas-- no matter how hard they tried.....
Focusing on thru hiker behavior is great for the mid-level folks on both sides, but the core issue for those who really shape the future of the AT and Park will remain the absolute number of hikers, and the park's willingness to accept them.
And exaggerated claims, statements and characterization are all part of set up.
Just one person's opinion.
Well said Rick. Hikers need to behave, but hiker behaviour seems more of an excuse than the cause of what Baxter is talking about.
Its the AMC White Mountains issue all over again. Thru Hikers make others look bad. (Note: paying customers)
lol you're funny. while there are "good" and "bad" hikers everywhere, the "good" hikers in the whites can hike circles around most thru hikers. the thrus make them look bad? try the other way around. once again, a thru (or any other variant of AT focused hiker) makes himself look totally ignorant to the larger world around them.
squeezebox
07-26-2015, 16:17
RickB
you have not said anything about the misbehavior of some of the thru hikers. As if you claim it does not exist. BSP consistantly says that is the problem, numbers does not seem to be their complaint, very much. Sounds like you are making up your own story because you don't want to believe what is really going on.
Just follow the rules and it shouldn't be a problem anymore.
I believe that design is to lay the groundwork for the day that the Park announces the number of thu hikers entering Baxter is simply too great, and they put up a virtual fence-- as they have already done for those enterin by car -- once a specific number is reached.
Ummm, that day has come. The limit is, and has been, 12 hikers per day entering the park via Abol bridge (1 night only). In the near term making new space isn't going to happen unless BSPA relents and outside funds are obtained. Otherwise, one need a reservation just like the car campers.
MuddyWaters
07-26-2015, 17:20
Ummm, that day has come. The limit is, and has been, 12 hikers per day entering the park via Abol bridge (1 night only). In the near term making new space isn't going to happen unless BSPA relents and outside funds are obtained. Otherwise, one need a reservation just like the car campers.
They can handle more, limited by availability of nearby campgrounds like KS and Abol.
But, thru hikers have no way of knowing in advance if there are, because they dont make reservations.
They are expecting to be catered to.
There really is no legitimate reason thru hikers cannot make reservations for camping space, and summit days, by Monson. Plan conservatively.
Heliotrope
07-26-2015, 19:10
Overnight visitors to BSP typically obtain reservations months in advance. They are informed of park rules ahead of time and consider themselves lucky to get to camp there. There is also a strict limit on how many cars can enter the park ona given day. When I want to climb Katahdin I arrive at the gate by 6:00 AM to make sure I can get in. Thru hikers enter the park through an ungated entry, the AT. My impression is that thru hikers feel they have a right to be there. BSP really is a special place with very pristine trials and a very uncrowded feel in a part of the world where the impact is typically high - the white mountains for instance. When I first visited Maine I was turned away at the gate to BSP because the park was full. I was pissed. How could a wild place be full? Now that I live here I get it. I think thru hikers are used to doing their thing whenever and wherever for 2000 miles.
Heliotrope that's what these other guys are saying. Baxter says its hiker behaviour BUT hiker behaviour has been there all along. Furthermore Baxter's solutions are numbers focused not behaviour focused which is telling.
We surely can all agree that far too many thru hikers gain an air of entitlement on the trail [**cough** Hiker feeds **cough**. Free handouts **cough**]. Excuse me, got something in my throat. That certainly is a discussion that needs much attention.
But if the ATC goes into negotiations armed to debate and address hiker behavior when the REAL issues are numbers and control... Everybody loses. Baxter is SAYING behavior, but people here are questioning that is the REAL issue at hand.
(Squeezebox Rick didn't addresss it at all...he didn't deny or discount it. Please be careful of accusing Rick by what he didn't say. I'm sure he's as equally disgusted as the rest of us of real abuses by thru hikers in Baxter and elsewhere. Though I'm equally sure you didn't mean anything bad towards Rick by what you said either. So I hope everyone's cool.)
handlebar
07-27-2015, 11:23
This from Muddy Walters is certainly true:
"There really is no legitimate reason thru hikers cannot make reservations for camping space, and summit days, by Monson. Plan conservatively."
By the time thru hikers or those hiking long sections nobo reach Monson, they can reasonably predict their arrival at Katahdin Stream.
It seems to me this can be encouraged by posting plenty of information in trail towns, hostels, etc. from the Whites north as well as in trail guides. A similar notice should be posted on BSP's website. The ATC can contact publishers of trail guides to encourage adding this information. This can take the form of a notice in a very large (1" high type face) posted where thru hikers, section hikers, and 100 mile wilderness hikers would be bound to see it multiple times BEFORE reaching the gate to the park on the trail. The notices must be blunt consisting of simple, short declarative sentences with lots of white space similar to the following:
"You must reserve a campsite or shelter place in Baxter State Park at the Birches campsite, Katahdin Stream or at another BSP campsite.
Reserve your site from Monson by calling: (nnn)-nnn-nnnn between the hours of xAM and xPM.
All spaces may be filled for your desired date. You may need to reserve a later date. You may wish to take an extra zero in Monson. You may wish to carry extra provisions to allow you to slow your hike thru the Hundred Mile Wilderness.
Do NOT plan to meet family at Katahdin Stream to join you in your summit. They may not be able to obtain a parking permit or gain entry to the park.
Baxter State Park enforces a quota on the number of cars permitted to enter the park each day. If a family member or friend will be driving you from the park, DO make sure he/she arrives at the Baxter State Park gate when it opens so they can be assured of gaining access.
Baxter State Park prohibits Alcoholic Beverages and Illegal Drugs including Marijuana.
You must hike to the summit of Baxter Peak in groups of 12 or less.
Please be respectful of other park users. Etc.
Please respect these rules. There is a risk that Baxter State Park will close Katahdin as the terminus of the AT if there areviolations of these rules. Don't spoil things for future generations of thru hikers.
There is a $nnn fine for violations of Baxter State Park's rules."
Similar language can be provided for southbound thru hikers who will need to reserve a campground in BSP prior to entering the park.
It's sad that this needs to be dumbed down for the tiny percentage of offenders, but that is the case.
I also see no reason why thru hikers should not pay a fee when making their reservation to help defray the "burden on the Baxter State Park". BSP takes phone reservations from car campers charging a fee, why not thru-hikers.
When I hiked the CDT, I had to make reservations for Yellowstone from several days south. It was not an unreasonable burden. One CDT thru hiker who failed to make a reservation was fined.
Most nobos reach BSP late in the summer season, after school starts and family vacation time is over (that date has crept forward so now it's mid-August in most of the country). The pressure for some of the campsites in Katahdin Stream, KS, (in addition to Birches) is reduced after Labor Day. Indeed, when our cohort reached KS on Oct 2, 2005, there were plenty of spaces open in the shelters open at KS. I suspect this is generally the case after Labor Day. In 2006, in the interval between two sessions of Maine Trail Crew, I was able to make reservations in July only one day in advance for a weekend campsite at Abol Slide CG.
That said, I truly believe that BSP is singling out thru hikers. In my experience, section hikers (in this case those hiking the 100 mile wilderness) and day hikers (those driving in to summit Katahdin) are a greater burden on resources and just as likely or even more likely to ignore rules. Case in point: while working on ATC's Sweat Crew last week, two hiking parties passed our work site with dogs that were not on a leash. Neither were thru or section hikers and it was evident that neither dog was a service dog. (We radioed their descriptions and direction of travel in the hope they would be cited.)
...
I also see no reason why thru hikers should not pay a fee when making their reservation to help defray the "burden on the Baxter State Park". BSP takes phone reservations from car campers charging a fee, why not thru-hikers.
....
That said, I truly believe that BSP is singling out thru hikers. In my experience, section hikers (in this case those hiking the 100 mile wilderness) and day hikers (those driving in to summit Katahdin) are a greater burden on resources and just as likely or even more likely to ignore rules
All thru-hikers that overnight in the park pay a fee, whether it's $10 walk-in at the Birches, or $30 for a reservation at a lean-to or tentsite at KSC (4-6).
Anyone that starts at Monson and hkes the 100 mile wilderness is considered an AT thru-hiker and also eligible to stay at the Birches.
A lot of people seem to be picking and choosing what they think the problems are. Take the letter in it's entirety. It's not only sheer numbers and a potential growing problem, but hiker behavior. All areas need to be addressed.
In no particular order.
numbers
grouping
illegal camping
fee avoidance
alcohol
littering
excessive partying
dogs
etc
handlebar
07-27-2015, 12:50
....
I believe that design is to lay the groundwork for the day that the Park announces the number of thu hikers entering Baxter is simply too great, and they put up a virtual fence-- as they have already done for those entering by car -- once a specific number is reached.
Working to mitigate specific thru hiker issues is laudable, but so long as the park leadership maintains that the Federally designated trail ends at its border and suggests that thru hikers are consuming 20% of their resources (if indeed that is the cases) .... I think it is reasonable to believe they are actively working to create a specific narrative-- whether not they say so or not.
And this narrative will include a chapter about how they met with the ATC and the rest, but alas-- no matter how hard they tried.....
Focusing on thru hiker behavior is great for the mid-level folks on both sides, but the core issue for those who really shape the future of the AT and Park will remain the absolute number of hikers, and the park's willingness to accept them.
And exaggerated claims, statements and characterization are all part of set up.
Just one person's opinion.
(I edited out the references to Jurek's stunt as being irrelevant to the issue of thru hiking. Jurek was NOT a thru hiker. He was a self-centered egotist challenging himself on a trail run. Good for him that he set a new record, but I won't be impressed by any of his product endorsements, nor do I buy for a minute that the whole show at the summit wasn't planned for that purpose. The focus on Fastest Known Times in traversing long trails is inappropriate. Baxter State Park was correct to issue summons, though spilling champagne as littering is a bit far fetched.)
Much as it saddens me, I believe that rickb has a point here. I don't think any mitigation the ATC or ALDHA implements will deter BSP's management from a goal to end the summit of Katahdin as the northern terminus of the Appalachian Trail. If BSP were serious about mitigating the issues they would have already taken actions such as modifying their website as I indicate above. The information is included on BSP's web site, but the wording is not direct. For example, in the FAQ, answering the question, "Can I bring my dog?", the website rambles on about how Gov. Baxter loved his succession of Irish Setters, instead of simply saying, "No. Dogs are not permitted withing Baxter State Park." Simple declarative sentence.
Even more disconcerting and ominous is this paragraph in Jensen Bissell's Facebook post:
"An additional discouraging observation. The Appalachian Trail provided the challenge and backdrop for this event and consequently, provided the conduit for this event to land in Baxter Park. The profile of the AT is large enough to attract the corporate sponsorship necessary to support and carry such an event. The AT is apparently comfortable with the fit of this type of event in its mission. The formal federal designation and authority of the Appalachian Trial does not extend into Baxter State Park. The AT within the Park is hosted at the consideration of the Baxter State Park Authority. The Authority is currently considering the increasing pressures, impacts and conflicts that the Appalachian Trail brings to the Park and if a continued relationship is in the best interests of Baxter State Park."
The fact that the ATC has disclaimed that "it is comfortable with this type of event in its mission" and that the ATC received zero dollars from the sponsors will be overlooked IMHO.
So RickB, I believe your observation of an upcoming fait d'accompli at least in the mind of Jensen Bissell is accurate.
ericmcdaniel
07-28-2015, 11:09
Doesn't AWOL's Guide (which 99% of thru hikers I met carry) actually have all of this information about needing a reservation, needing to arrange a ride out of the park, etc. in it already?
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Doesn't AWOL's Guide (which 99% of thru hikers I met carry) actually have all of this information about needing a reservation, needing to arrange a ride out of the park, etc. in it already?
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
People don't read "directions". Many people want to do what they want to do...then expect someone else to help them when their lack of preparation bites them in the *ss.
Be it for software, planning a vacation, putting together furniture or calling Baxter State Park.
I am not disagreeing with you..just an observation I have seen over the years.
squeezebox
07-28-2015, 21:52
In support of Scott "spilling" the "champagne"
The bottle(s) were hiked up the mountain so the "champagne" must have been warm when it reached the summit. Also it was shaken up the entire trip to the summit, causing a great deal of aggitation. The cork was popped instead of being slowly and gently released, further bruising the "champagne". And last but not least it was not from the champagne region of France, so it really wasn't champagne.
Of course he threw it out, who in their right mind would not have?
My next post will be about why the testosterone poisoned thru hikers are justified in their behavior, and deserve pitty and treatment from us, after all it is a disease not a choice.
rizutto61
07-28-2015, 22:41
I have never been to Baxter Park but plan to next summer. Can't the park somehow do permits like GSMNP does to create revenue to have a thru hiker post ect. Possibly make more "spots" (not familiar with the park-more room somewhere?) for camping. Maybe a pay phone with a book for transportation to towns when finished. If the ATC is serious with working with them possibly have a thru hiker ambassador who works with the Baxter guy they hire with permit money. Strictly enforce the rules, at the same time try to educate hikers before they make mistakes. Not to rehash but Jurek didn't have any intention of littering, crowding or disrespecting the trail. Many don't who may have a beer up there. There is nothing we can do to change the idiots who don't care but let's hope they are a very small minority.
Alligator
07-28-2015, 23:39
Yes, It does.
The special stresses that thru hikers create in BSP are real, and should be addressed. I congratulate you and the ATC for your efforts in that regard.
I also respect the special mandate that was given to the stewards of Baxter State Park. They have been resolute in their efforts to protect the park, and I respect them for that.
Despite the fact that the park frequently reaches capacity (note the Facebook advisories on the Day Use Parking Reservations) they are not creating more spots. Why?
Simple: To limit the number of hikers on the trails.
Now, at the same time they are effectively turning away traditional park users by design, the Park is forced to take in thru hikers in whatever numbers may come. How could that not be a source of agita?
Buy why is that important to discussion of thru hiker -- and Scott Jurek's -- behavior?
A clue can be found in the increasing number of times the Park's director is quoted to say things like
Really? The Federal Designation of the AT does not extend into BSP? That is ridiculous of course, but those words are not repeated (again and again) out of ignorance, but rather by design.
I believe that design is to lay the groundwork for the day that the Park announces the number of thu hikers entering Baxter is simply too great, and they put up a virtual fence-- as they have already done for those enterin by car -- once a specific number is reached.
Working to mitigate specific thru hiker issues is laudable, but so long as the park leadership maintains that the Federally designated trail ends at its border and suggests that thru hikers are consuming 20% of their resources (if indeed that is the cases), or making other gross exaggerations as they did with Jurek, I think it is reasonable to believe they are actively working to create a specific narrative-- whether not they say so or not.
And this narative will include a chapter about how they met with the ATC and the rest, but alas-- no matter how hard they tried.....
Focusing on thru hiker behavior is great for the mid-level folks on both sides, but the core issue for those who really shape the future of the AT and Park will remain the absolute number of hikers, and the park's willingness to accept them.
And exaggerated claims, statements and characterization are all part of set up.
Just one person's opinion.I share your opinion.
The numbers do matter. Those are important facts upon which people are basing their perception of the problem. If the numbers aren't accurate the perception is not accurate. People have been using the 3 and 20 percent statement repeatedly. It would be nice to know what the 20% is based on. Offhand I'd think the 3% number is based on something, usually percentages that don't end in 5 or 0 have some factual basis. Percentages ending in 5 or 0 though suggest rounding or estimation of some sort, as well as any percentage that is easily converted from a fraction. That's what I find 75% of the time anyway;).
When NOBO CDT hikers reach Glacier, they have to stop in East Glacier and negotiate backcountry permits to get them through the final 85 miles of the trail. It seems like Baxter SP needs an analogous system for metering out entry permits for AT NOBOs. Most NOBOs should be able to summit Katahdin and exit Baxter without camping at the Birches, if they launch their last day from Abol Bridge.
As an AT SOBO, I went through the whole process to get a campsite at Katadin Stream the night before I started. I was nervous about the process, but it all worked out.
The July 3d while I was on Katahdin, there was one other SOBO starting, a handful of NOBOs finishing, and a zoo-ful of day hikers, including one with a dog running around loose. I'm not going to hazard a guess at what the percentages of thru-hiker problems v. day-hiker problems are, but when you have a multi-faceted problem, it's smart to try to pick the low-hanging fruit first. Day-hikers and car campers don't have a nice, organized group representing them. I'm glad ALDHA and the ATC are there to negotiate on behalf of long-distance hikers. I hope some tweaks to the process can be put in place to make it work better for everyone.
handlebar
07-29-2015, 11:10
I was at Baxter Peak in late July, 2007 during the "weekend" between two sessions of Maine Trail Crew. I found the same situation as Marta: just a few thru-hikers finishing up, but a zoo-ful of day hikers. I'm sure the 3% is accurate as BSP has records on the number of people entering the park, including thru hikers coming in through the gate at the southern boundary of the park. The 20%, however, sounds like it is an estimate designed to support Baxter State Park Director's plan to change the AT terminus.
The fact that he included an allusion to this issue in his FB post on ultramarathoning confirms his prejudice.
I took the opportunity to read all the comments on Bissell's FB post. Most were from the trail running community. I felt it important to call Bissell out on his piling on his concerns with thru hikers and the Appalachian Trail when making a post titled: "Ultramarathoning in Baxter State Park --- Another Perspective".
Again here's what Bissell piled on:
"An additional discouraging observation. The Appalachian Trail provided the challenge and backdrop for this event and consequently, provided the conduit for this event to land in Baxter Park. The profile of the AT is large enough to attract the corporate sponsorship necessary to support and carry such an event. The AT is apparently comfortable with the fit of this type of event in its mission. The formal federal designation and authority of the Appalachian Trial does not extend into Baxter State Park. The AT within the Park is hosted at the consideration of the Baxter State Park Authority. The Authority is currently considering the increasing pressures, impacts and conflicts that the Appalachian Trail brings to the Park and if a continued relationship is in the best interests of Baxter State Park."
Here's my reply:
"I believe it is correct that by policy Baxter State Park does not condone nor permit commercial activities. (Neither does the ATC, incidentally). That being your policy, one has to wonder why you did not act when you either knew full well that the summit would be exploited for commercial gain or chose to feign ignorance. I find it disconcerting that you allude to ATC's supporting such activities---"The AT is apparently comfortable with the fit of this type of event in its mission." As a more than 30 year member of the ATC, I have never seen any evidence that the ATC supports "such activities." The ATC does not recognize fastest known times---only completed hikes of the entire trail whether they take a person weeks, months or years. It seems you have an "ax to grind", to wit, to change the northern terminus of the AT to some point other than Baxter Peak. That you insert in your post above such an allusion shows that intent. I hope you will continue to work with the ATC, ALDHA, and other interested parties to resolve the issues you brought to the ATC's attention last fall regarding the behavior of a tiny minority of AT thru hikers as well as the pressure that increasing numbers of AT hikers are placing on Baxter State Park, rather than continue a crusade to justify ending the relationship of Baxter State Park with the Appalachian Trail. I am confident that, if all parties work together in good faith, those issues can be resolved, that Baxter State Park can remain wild, and that Baxter Peak can remain the northern terminus of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail for years to come."
Personally, I believe the Baxter State Park Authority (its governing board) would be very foolish to force a change. There would be a major outcry from the Appalachian Trail community which would likely compel action to secure the trail corridor to Baxter Peak whether BSP likes it or not. The Secretary of the Interior, under the National Trails Act of 1968, has the authority to acquire an easement over the trail corridor by eminent domain, if negotiations to resolve the issues brought forth by BSP fail.
The Secretary of the Interior, under the National Trails Act of 1968, has the authority to acquire an easement over the trail corridor by eminent domain, if negotiations to resolve the issues brought forth by BSP fail.
has this ever been done? and if so, why not? has the trail just not ever been removed from anywhere worth fighting over? seems to me like it has. though perhaps not past 1968?
As an AT SOBO, I went through the whole process to get a campsite at Katadin Stream the night before I started. I was nervous about the process, but it all worked out.
There is a lot to be said for good-will, common sense and letting things work themselves out-- provided everyone is on the same page
One thing you have never seen on Whiteblaze is a thread encouraging NOBOs to secure reservations at KSG well in advance, lest they be denied the opportunity to summit Katahdin.
And that is a good thing, I think. I sure as heck am not going to start one.
Unlike Roaring Brook CG on the north side of Katahdin (as well as some other places) where you can reserve a single bunk, the only reserved options at KSG are sites/Lee-tos that hold 4 to 6 people.
Would it really be a good thing for thru hikers to read Laurie P's post about 30 to 40 thru hikers at the Birches, and scare them into reserving a spot weeks in advance?
At a minimum, that would deny other people -- thru hikers and other users alike -- the opportunity to use the facilities they reserve should their schedules change and they become a no show.
What's more, just 5 anal/responsible thru hikers could easily lay claim to camping resources that could accommodate 30 people! An if 30 thru hikers look to make reservations, they could be tying up spots designe to hold up to 180 people. Not good.
What happens when hikers really get scared and they make their reservations -- just in case -- months in advance-- perhaps even before the get to Harpers Ferry? Things fall apart, right?
Others have thought about this, of course. It's part of the reason the Birches can be said to be good not only for thru hikers, but for anyone who has aspired to camp at KSG.
Since having thru hikers diligently compete for reserved spots in the park like everyone else creates its own set of problems, there must be another solution.
And there is.
Its just not a very good one.
I've heard the claim that 3% of the Baxter visitors, (thru hikers), use 20% of Baxter resources. How is that possible? What's going on?
Do you have a GF? Wife? Significant other? Have raised children? Live in the U.S.?
If so you shouldn't have to ask this question.
GF is one half my intimate relationship yet consumes 70% of my money, credit, time, and closet space. I keep telling her no more clothes, shoes, purses, or scented candles.
My two adult nephews, when invited to stay over for a couple of days, even though only representing 50% of the four mouths to feed(GF, myself, and the two of them) drink 80% of my beer and 80% of the shrimp in the Shrimp Scampi with Linguine I've made for dinner. I got that covered though as I tend to invite them over when I'm building a shed, cleaning out the garage, painting the house, replanting the vegetable garden in the spring, etc to help out. Alcohol and food can be used for great leverage.
The U.S. population, about 319 million, represents about 4.5 % of the world population but consumes 80% of the global prescription opioid pain medication and 99% of the global hydrocodone, the opiate in Vicodin, and by far consumes the most amount of oil than any other nation, including the nation of China, the most populated nation, with about 1.4 billion people.
What will continue to happen is a greater conflagration of conflicts for the AT well beyond the borders of BSP should the AT continue to be modeled and managed on a come one come all basis basically as it currently is overall. When a trail culture, or growing segment of a trail's users, is largely disconnected from Nature, the rest of the trail community, and largely ignorant about the larger world around them there should be no surprise when contentious debates arise.
Much of this is analogous to attempting to restore a person back to cardiovascular health by placing a Band Aid over a person's chest that may require a heart transplant or losing 150 lbs.
I share your opinion.
The numbers do matter. Those are important facts upon which people are basing their perception of the problem. If the numbers aren't accurate the perception is not accurate. People have been using the 3 and 20 percent statement repeatedly. It would be nice to know what the 20% is based on. Offhand I'd think the 3% number is based on something, usually percentages that don't end in 5 or 0 have some factual basis. Percentages ending in 5 or 0 though suggest rounding or estimation of some sort, as well as any percentage that is easily converted from a fraction. That's what I find 75% of the time anyway;).
Baxter had 2,017 AT Hikers last year (sobo, flip, thru). I assume the number of total visitors at roughly 67,000 which is around the figures in the past.
Members of the ATC and AT community, perhaps especially the AT thru-hiking community culture, aren't getting it. Step outside of being a member of this community for a moment. Look at the AT, some of its management and modeling, and its thru-hiker culture through the eyes of Great Smoky Mountains and Shenandaoh NPs, White Mountains/AMC, BSP, some towns, hostelers, trail town businesses, some private property owners, other land users the AT is routed through, hunters, etc. Must I refresh some memories here of contentious relations and situations elsewhere involving the AT community? Increasingly, the AT community is being perceived as acting like the 800 lb gorilla on the block, the one that others have to increasingly kowtow to. We are increasingly making the incorrect assumption that we have to be catered to and coddled. If these threads are any indication of the larger AT community it seems so. I notice little humility in threads like this. Could the AT community demonstrate a deeper understanding with greater willingness to walk a mile in other person's shoes?
Even here, after well expressed posts by Handlebar, there is an inherit assumption in this statement, "I hope you will continue to work with the ATC, ALDHA, and other interested parties to resolve the issues you brought to the ATC's attention last fall regarding the behavior of a tiny minority of AT thru hikers as well as the pressure that increasing numbers of AT hikers are placing on Baxter State Park, rather than continue a crusade to justify ending the relationship of Baxter State Park with the Appalachian Trail."
Sounds good but there is an inherit underlying assumption that BSP authorities have to resolve the current situation by absorbing the current number of AT hikers entering from outside it's borders among it's many other entrants. MAYBE, the AT numbers entering from outside its borders are already TOO MUCH OR VERY NEAR TOO MUCH from their perspective? To me, it's quite obvious a more problematic issue going forward, from BSP's perspective, considering its mission, and the way BSP is managed, it is being assumed BSP will increasingly absorb an increasing AT usage of its entrants into the future. There is no end in sight for increasing AT numbers from BSP's perspective. The order of the day could be read as, here BSP gag on some more AT hikers. This is what we want and this is what we will get. We will impose our trail and community upon you. Fine, don't like it we'll reroute our trail somewhere else you crusading idiots with a narrative of expelling the wonderful almighty AT and its community from your pitiful environment.
What COULD resolve and avoid much of the conflict with BSP, and quite possibly with the others I listed, now and in the future, and demonstrate significant willingness to compromise is if the AT was managed and modeled NOT on a come one come all style! Seems like some insightful folks over at the PCTA think this is worth doing! Hmmmm?
Aren't people listening to BSP authorities? Did they actually carefully read and consider what was in the fall letter?
Tuckahoe
07-29-2015, 15:48
Members of the ATC and AT community, perhaps especially the AT thru-hiking community culture, aren't getting it. Step outside of being a member of this community for a moment. Look at the AT, some of its management and modeling, and its thru-hiker culture through the eyes of Great Smoky Mountains and Shenandaoh NPs, White Mountains/AMC, BSP, some towns, hostelers, trail town businesses, some private property owners, other land users the AT is routed through, hunters, etc. Must I refresh some memories here of contentious relations and situations elsewhere involving the AT community? Increasingly, the AT community is being perceived as acting like the 800 lb gorilla on the block, the one that others have to increasingly kowtow to. We are increasingly making the incorrect assumption that we have to be catered to and coddled. If these threads are any indication of the larger AT community it seems so. I notice little humility in threads like this. Could the AT community demonstrate a deeper understanding with greater willingness to walk a mile in other person's shoes?
Even here, after well expressed posts by Handlebar, there is an inherit assumption in this statement, "I hope you will continue to work with the ATC, ALDHA, and other interested parties to resolve the issues you brought to the ATC's attention last fall regarding the behavior of a tiny minority of AT thru hikers as well as the pressure that increasing numbers of AT hikers are placing on Baxter State Park, rather than continue a crusade to justify ending the relationship of Baxter State Park with the Appalachian Trail."
Sounds good but there is an inherit underlying assumption that BSP authorities have to resolve the current situation by absorbing the current number of AT hikers entering from outside it's borders among it's many other entrants. MAYBE, the AT numbers entering from outside its borders are already TOO MUCH OR VERY NEAR TOO MUCH from their perspective? To me, it's quite obvious a more problematic issue going forward, from BSP's perspective, considering its mission, and the way BSP is managed, it is being assumed BSP will increasingly absorb an increasing AT usage of its entrants into the future. There is no end in sight for increasing AT numbers from BSP's perspective. The order of the day could be read as, here BSP gag on some more AT hikers. This is what we want and this is what we will get. We will impose our trail and community upon you. Fine, don't like it we'll reroute our trail somewhere else you crusading idiots with a narrative of expelling the wonderful almighty AT and its community from your pitiful environment.
What COULD resolve and avoid much of the conflict with BSP, and quite possibly with the others I listed, now and in the future, and demonstrate significant willingness to compromise is if the AT was managed and modeled NOT on a come one come all style! Seems like some insightful folks over at the PCTA think this is worth doing! Hmmmm?
Aren't people listening to BSP authorities? Did they actually carefully read and consider what was in the fall letter?
Well said Dogwood.
What I am also bothered by is the attitude expressed by some that the solution is not a change in behavior but that the Feds should take the trail corridor to keep it open should BSP make the decision to close the AT in the park.
Traveler
07-29-2015, 18:52
If everyone would just follow the rules, the problems would diminish if not disappear.
Well said Dogwood.
Not really. When he wasn't even there, he's portraying the ATC and ALDHA as being dimwitted at the meeting with BSP.
Even having an absolute daily quota either crossing abol bridge or entering the 100 mile wilderness could relieve a lot of the problem. Force the bubble to thin out and to keep clumps from entering Baxter at the same time.
Just because the rest of the trail runs like the wild, wild west doesn't mean that the 100 mile wilderness and Baxter have to operate that way as well. In fact the AT might better fulfill its purpose if it does not.
If the ATC and AT in general can understand Baxter's pain points I think a lot can be done short of relocating the trail or adapting the other 95% of the trail.
Never said or implied one thing about ALDHA. I have little idea where ALDHA stands on this issue. I have said some things about the ATC though. Did we have to be at that meeting to know and comment on what the ATC has publicly shared about where it stands on certain management issues and modeling? Are you denying the ATC does not model the AT in general on a come one come all model?
I regret you took what I said as intending to mean the ATC is dimwitted. There are many fine, truly exceptional, tirelessly working, trail political savvy, well connected, knowledgable people at the ATC that love the AT. I have nothing but the greatest admiration for the people at the ATC. If I didn't believe the ATC is a mighty force of good I wouldn't be supporting it or a 13 yr member.
I do see conflicts arising though based on this model. I recognize the ATC as playing a major factor in kicking this can of conflicts further down the road in their stubbornness to adhere to such a model.
Who said this?
The order of the day could be read as, here BSP gag on some more AT hikers. This is what we want and this is what we will get. We will impose our trail and community upon you. Fine, don't like it we'll reroute our trail somewhere else you crusading idiots with a narrative of expelling the wonderful almighty AT and its community from your pitiful environment.
I don't speak for the ATC but this statement is far from their stance. If there's anyone not paying attention, it's you.
volleypc
07-30-2015, 10:21
has this ever been done? and if so, why not? has the trail just not ever been removed from anywhere worth fighting over? seems to me like it has. though perhaps not past 1968?
I don't think this is entirely accurate. This is what it says.. That in selecting the rights-of-way full consideration shall be given to minimizing the adverse effects upon the adjacent landowner or user and his operation. Development and management of each segment of the National Trails System shall be designed to harmonize with and complement any established multiple-use plans for the specific area in order to insure continued maximum benefits from the land. The location and width of such rights-of-way across Federal lands under the jurisdiction of another Federal agency shall be by agreement between the head of that agency and the appropriate Secretary. In selecting rights-of-way for trail purposes, the Secretary shall obtain the advice and assistance of the States, local governments, private organizations, and landowners and land users concerned.
In the past there have been areas where the State has taken the property and given it to the National Park Service, but the way the law stands now the NPS can not take property by eminent domain. The way the A.T. is managed it is basically a group of partnerships which can be an extremely efficient way to manage this type of Park, the problem is that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. With limited funding to go to the different partners for management, trail work, etc, I think you will see more areas over exaggerate the impacts and making threats to remove the trail with the goal of receiving more funding from the A.T. Are there rude hikers? yes.. Should it be addressed? yes... But Baxter State Park was out of line and simply lied about the incident with Jurek in their Park.
swisscross
07-30-2015, 14:27
"to remove the trail with the goal of receiving more funding from the A.T."
Are you saying the ATC pays Baxter money?
Never heard that before.
LOL. I know, I can be very protective of the ATC too when I believe it's not being appreciated for the great work that it does much of it unrecognized behind the scenes. My comments referring to the ATC, the AT community, and thru-hikers, don't arise from malice for it but out of a passionate desire to assist and make it better. How better do you think we can do that? Indeed, you were at the meeting. Most(none?) of us were not(were). Please share further if you will. I respect your opinions.
But, please take the post above I'm being quoted from in total context of all to whom I'm referring - "Members of the ATC, AT community, AT thru-hiking community culture,... Step outside of being a member of this community for a moment." Must I also explicitly remind everyone that I'm also referring to people here on WB since they too can be included in the AT community? I'm referencing the ATC as far as its modeling and some of it's management practices, not necessarily in regard to every single thing that was opined in that post.
I absolutely do recognize some in the long list that I gave above having that opinion of the AT and some in the AT community. I note some animosity increasing. Can not members of the AT community, including but not exclusively thru-hikers, be demanding? assumptive? self-absorbed? Is it not what threads like these are about?
Another Kevin
07-30-2015, 14:50
I do fault Mr Bissell for sending a confusing message. (I do not discuss the Jurek incident here.)
He says several different things, any one of which could be used if his intent is to close down the Trail. The inconsistency among them gets in the way of coming up with creative solutions to any of the problems.
The overarching tone is that A-T hikers are simply too numerous and that ATC's promotion of the Trail: "come one, come all" (the strategy of unlimited growth) is unacceptable. He states fairly explicitly that the sheer numbers are the problem; that even if hiker behaviour were exemplary (it is not!) the numbers would remain unsustainable. I take him at his word until this is explored further, which is why I have made several posts pledging to stay away from Katahdin and urging others to do the same. If our mere numbers overtaxes the resources, there is no other solution. It also follows that a permit system - probably the only solution to sheer numbers - will become a denial system. Since there will always be more hikers behind us, if there is simply not enough Katahdin to go around, someone will always be turned away. Those who are turned away will either abandon their dreams, or else come back, swelling the pool of would-be users for the next round and making for an even bigger group of disappointed would-be hikers. We are close to that situation today for some of the more popular attractions in our National Parks.
But he undermines his own argument by then trying to support it with a parade of horribles about hiker expectations and hiker misbehaviour. If the problem is expectations - that The Birches and Katahdin Stream simply cannot support the level of use, then creative solutions for getting hikers into and out of the park without an overnight stay begin to look possible. (I exclude any solution requiring new construction to increase the available resources. If BSPA feels that growing the campgrounds is out of keeping with the character of the park, that's their prerogative. If the problem is lawlessness, then the solution is perhaps law enforcement. This comes down to money. BSPA does not have the resources to enforce the law, but having someone else - ultimately hikers, through permit fees or whatever - pay for the enforcement would go a long way. Let's say that the permit were $50 (rather than the $10 or whatever it is to stay at The Birches). That won't break a hiker's budget, bul multiplied by a few hundred hikers, could pay for a couple of rent-a-cops for a couple of months, which really accounts for thru-hiking season, particularly if ticket revenues also go to the purchase. (If ticket revenues fall, well, then ... mission accomplished.)
The "3% of users" also undermines that argument that we are simply too numerous: we must be doing damage out of proportion to our numbers. Otherwise, if the 3% are too numerous, the other 97% surely must be excessive.
And that parade of horribles isn't the only possible explanation for the "3% vs 20%" point. It could be that the concentration of A-T hikers into a couple of months, while the rest of the BSP users spread out over three seasons, means that the damage done by that 3%, being concentrated in time, is that much greater. Or it could be that most of the 97% confine their visits to more robust areas of the park, while the 3% damage more fragile resources. Or it could be that the point is mere puffery, without hard facts behind it.
In any case, it's obvious that there is a problem with hiker behaviour. Addressing it is a matter of education, of law enforcement, or of design. (Many behavioural problems can be solved simply by making it easier to do the right thing than the wrong thing.) There is also claimed to be a problem simply with hiker numbers. The latter problem can be solved only by rationing - which will result, inevitably, in some being turned away. Most here would prefer to deny the problem of numbers; the ATC, as well, may struggle with it. But until we can actually explore further what Bissell actually means in the somewhat incoherent message, we simply don't know..
volleypc
07-30-2015, 14:55
"to remove the trail with the goal of receiving more funding from the A.T."
Are you saying the ATC pays Baxter money?
Never heard that before.
They do not pay Baxter. They fund projects that take place inside Baxter and manage the projects. In this instance, the Maine Appalachian Trail Club would be the partner responsible for the work. The trail clubs/organizations that maintain the trail put together projects and request funding for them. When and if the government funds the projects a funding agreement is created and the work is carried out by the trail club. The Maine Appalachian Trail Club maintains from Hwy 26 (Grafton Notch) to the summit of Katahdin. Much of this work is with programs such as the student conservation corp or other student programs while being inspected and assisted by the trail club.
Of course thru-hikers can be demanding (it's one of the reason for this conversation), and many may have said, "enough, take the AT out of Baxter" but their opinions don't count as much their actions.
Just Bill
07-30-2015, 15:27
I'm with Kevin...
This is a dead discussion really. Even if you drill down the numbers... perception is reality in this case.
Mr. Bissell's perception being the only reality we need to face at this time.
All we can do is offer what little constructive options or ideas for Sly or Laurie P to perhaps pass on and hope that representatives of BSP will work in good faith.
Don't mix up the park with the people involved.
Otherwise we should simply devote our energy towards changing behaviors, first our own... perhaps others where we can.
Ideally we can reach a point where Another K feels good about climbing Big K.
Ideally we can reach a point where Another K feels good about climbing Big K.
I say we kidnap, blindfold him, and drop him off in BSP with a park map, stack of LNT copies, pile of mattocks and Macleod's, multiple work gloves, megaphone, WAG BAG, and bottle of champanya, no alcohol of course. :p
Another Kevin
07-30-2015, 17:17
Ideally we can reach a point where Another K feels good about climbing Big K.
I say we kidnap, blindfold him, and drop him off in BSP with a park map, stack of LNT copies, pile of mattocks and Macleod's, multiple work gloves, megaphone, WAG BAG, and bottle of champanya, no alcohol of course. :p
Now I'm feeling bad again about phoning up a trail boss and giving my apologies for this weekend. :(
My knee is feeling a lot better, but humping gardening tools up 1600 feet of elevation might be pushing things, considering that I was using a cane and a knee brace for about three weeks and just ditched them a couple of days ago. They're doing vegetation control, some heavy blowdown removal, and waterbar maintenance on the Giant Ledge trail in the Catskills, so the tools would likely be shovel, loppers, saw and maybe a mattock, Pulaski, or rock lever. If I went, I'd feel compelled to do my part with the crew and wind up doing a Proverbs 16:18. It's really a struggle to convince myself that it would be foolish pride to go, not sloth to stay home.
Lone Wolf
08-02-2015, 12:15
http://www.pressherald.com/2015/08/02/maines-baxter-state-park-pushes-back-rising-number-thru-hikers/
http://www.pressherald.com/2015/08/02/maines-baxter-state-park-pushes-back-rising-number-thru-hikers/
Good article.
Another Kevin
08-02-2015, 19:05
Its a real problem.
Which specific problem have you chosen that picture to illustrate?
I see a large number of people in the photograph. Is that the problem to which you allude? If you expect to find solitude on a fine summer day, you will surely not find it atop a famous mountain that has a nontechnical approach unless extremely strict controls are put in place to exclude the public from it. I suspect that even without the A-T, BSP has enough visitors to gather quite a crowd on the summit of Katahdin, unless we assume that virtually all of the visitors who aspire to climb the mountain arrive via the Trail.
About a third of the people in the photograph appear to be treading, sitting or lying on non-durable surfaces. I say 'appear' because the perspective for many of them does not let me distinguish vegetation from rock amid the vegetation. There are only about half a dozen that I could say are definitely doing so. Is that the problem to which you allude? If so, the best solution might be to initiate a 'summit steward' program for public education. Were I a faster climber, or were a campsite somewhere near the treeline provided for such a steward, I might be tempted to volunteer for such duty occasionally. Alas, I am not a fast climber, so if I were expected to ascend from Katahdin Stream or Chimney Pond in time to instruct the hikers, it simply wouldn't happen safely. But I imagine that faster hikers than I, well schooled in LNT, could be recruited.
The behaviour of those shown in the picture appears otherwise unremarkable. They are resting after the ascent, conversing amongst themselves, photographing, snacking and writing in journals. One small group appears posed for a picture at the sign, and another group appear to be awaiting their turn for the picture. Is there obvious misbehaviour that I'm missing?
Some of the people appear to be congregating in groups that are beyond BSP's 12-person limit. It is far from clear to me that they are actually associated, rather than being people who met by chance on the mountain. I am unaware of a rule that requires strangers to maintain a minimum separation among their parties. If there is such a rule, little is being done to publicize it, other than apparently citing Jurek for violating it - if indeed his excessively large group was composed, as he claims, of well-wishers who attached themselves to his entourage.
Nobody appears to be littering, and there is little evidence of strewn debris. Nobody appears to be consuming alcohol or illicit drugs, with the possible exception of one or two who may be smoking, and another one or two with containers of liquid in their hands. The individuals in question may just be eating, smoking tobacco, or rehydrating themselves; I cannot see anything in the picture to inform me one way or the other.
Stating that 'there is a problem' calls upon your readers to solve the problem. What would you have us do? I'll state my own position yet again.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'll assume that you mean that the sheer number of people is the problem. If that's the case, I've already committed to avoiding Katahdin and urging others to do the same. I will go no farther at this point. The incoherent message from BSPA is still sufficiently unclear that it is not yet time to ask my representatives in Congress to support legislation to abandon the northern terminus. (For one thing, it is not clear to me that the enabling legislation requires the trail to be open to all comers. It could be that the northern terminus should remain at Katahdin even if the circumstances allow few to visit it.)
If that is indeed your belief, you should be as explicit as I am. If there is not enough Katahdin to go around, then call at least upon non-Mainers to stay away. Don't just hint at it. I won't demand that you stay away yourself; you are a Mainer, and perhaps entitled to it - it was gifted to the people of Maine. But make your position clear. Handwringing about "too many people" does nothing without coming forward and saying that people who might otherwise wish to visit must be denied the chance to do so, and opening the discussion of who ought to be turned away.
If people who would wish to visit must be turned away, then I shall voluntarily step aside. I have nothing to bring that would justify taking another's opportunity away.
BirdBrain
08-02-2015, 19:30
Does it really matter Rick? There are issues which need to be corrected.
I am not going to read this thread in its entirety. I think Sly nails it. What does it matter what the number is? Let me answer the question as a nay sayer: Because BSP is lying to inflate a problem so they can kick out us people because they hate us. Here is reality. The average person that visits that park by percentage is much more likely to respect the rules of the park. Those visitors come from all over the planet. It is the ones that walk in that by percentage create a larger nuisance. Our focus should be on us and the nuisance we create, rather than focusing on red herring nuances.
It is comical that much of any blame gets placed upon thru hikers. Go to White Cap Mountain and see how much trash or destruction of wildlife you find. The most disgusting and damaged parts of the AT are in areas that are easily accessible to tourist, day hikers, and overnighters. If you believe this 3/20% BS then you obviously have never thru hiked.
Uncle Joe
08-31-2015, 21:08
I just don't have much respect for BSP. I imagine the issue is being inflated for press. They watched Jurek open a bottle of champaign then quickly summoned some righteous indignation AFTER the fact, if the reports are true.
squeezebox
08-31-2015, 22:12
Some reports say that Jurek was notified before hand. Everyone knows places like Baxter have rules you need to find out about. Jurek was wrong.
Baxter picked on Jurek to inflate the press? Yes! and to a very effective degree. It's not about personal profit of any kind. It's about keeping Baxter as a wilderness.
I just don't have much respect for BSP. I imagine the issue is being inflated for press. They watched Jurek open a bottle of champaign then quickly summoned some righteous indignation AFTER the fact, if the reports are true.
Scott flashed his champagne-popping to 160,000 followers on Facebook. I suspect that's what triggered the reaction from Bissell.
the fix for most of the issues already exists: the local hostel runs daily schelduled shuttles in/out of the park -but only in the prime time (sept/ Oct) - a little bit of expansion / publicizing and remote (outside BSP - like Millinocket ) parking coordination would be the simple cure for distance as well as day hikers - anything other than scheduled transport is difficult as cell service is poor in all of Maine
gregpphoto
09-06-2015, 20:09
Can I ask why it seems that people think drugs and alcohol are ONLY consumed by thru hikers? Ive spent little to no time on the AT itself but have hiked and backpacked all over the nation including the northeast where lean-tos are prevalent and it seems like everyone consumes drugs and alcohol, not just thru hikers.
BirdBrain
09-06-2015, 20:21
Can I ask why it seems that people think drugs and alcohol are ONLY consumed by thru hikers? Ive spent little to no time on the AT itself but have hiked and backpacked all over the nation including the northeast where lean-tos are prevalent and it seems like everyone consumes drugs and alcohol, not just thru hikers.
The consumption of drugs or alcohol is not the issue. It is where it is done is the issue. You are correct in your observation. Thru's are not Martians. They represent a cross section of society. However that observation is irrelevant. I grew up hunting, trapping, and digging clams. Those facts are as irrelevant as are the choices I make about drugs and alcohol. They only become relevant when I do them in a place where it is not allowed. I am a libertarian when it comes to what someone does with their body on their property. However, if they want to do that stuff in a place that they ought to have some respect, I am no longer all about their freedom. A church is not a place to see a strip tease. BSP is not a place to have a party. People can abuse themselves any way they want. Have at it. I don't care. People just need to have a clue. There are some places they should not be doing those things. Thru's are just people. However, some thru's think every place belongs to them. It is that minority that create the inaccurate observations like most thru's being druggies and drunks.
gregpphoto
09-06-2015, 20:49
The consumption of drugs or alcohol is not the issue. It is where it is done is the issue... I am a libertarian when it comes to what someone does with their body on their property. However, if they want to do that stuff in a place that they ought to have some respect, I am no longer all about their freedom. A church is not a place to see a strip tease. BSP is not a place to have a party.
You know, they do serve wine in church :D
Really, couldnt agree more about the church analogy. I love how Abbey especially wrote about that. Its why I cant stand what National Parks have become (or always were, I guess). RVs do not belong in nature. Burger stands and movie theaters (looking at you, Yosemite Valley), do not belong in in nature. But to your point, perhaps the real issue isnt where, but how? I consume weed on just about every hike I go on, and beer often as well, but I never in a way that will negatively impact my fellow hikers, aka, well off trail, or at my own camp, not in a shelter. I always respect quiet hour, always pack out my cans of course, etc. Basically I am following all the principles of LNT, except for following the law of the land itself (not for long, but pot is still illegal).
BirdBrain
09-06-2015, 20:57
You know, they do serve wine in church :D
Really, couldnt agree more about the church analogy. I love how Abbey especially wrote about that. Its why I cant stand what National Parks have become (or always were, I guess). RVs do not belong in nature. Burger stands and movie theaters (looking at you, Yosemite Valley), do not belong in in nature. But to your point, perhaps the real issue isnt where, but how? I consume weed on just about every hike I go on, and beer often as well, but I never in a way that will negatively impact my fellow hikers, aka, well off trail, or at my own camp, not in a shelter. I always respect quiet hour, always pack out my cans of course, etc. Basically I am following all the principles of LNT, except for following the law of the land itself (not for long, but pot is still illegal).
Have you been to Baxter? It isn't perfect. However, it is closer to perfect then a bunch of parks. As to the weed. I smoked from age 12 to 19. I have shared a bunch of camps with pot smokers. Pretty common on the trail. Pretty common in the real world. I was raised by change smokers. Smoking of any kind does not get me worked up. I don't do either, but feel alcohol is 10 times the drug pot ever thought of being. But again, such social issues are not the problem. From reading your posts, on the surface, it appears you are not the problem either.
gregpphoto
09-06-2015, 21:00
Have you been to Baxter? It isn't perfect. However, it is closer to perfect then a bunch of parks. As to the weed. I smoked from age 12 to 19. I have shared a bunch of camps with pot smokers. Pretty common on the trail. Pretty common in the real world. I was raised by change smokers. Smoking of any kind does not get me worked up. I don't do either, but feel alcohol is 10 times the drug pot ever thought of being. But again, such social issues are not the problem. From reading your posts, on the surface, it appears you are not the problem either.
God I hope Im not! I try to be a working part of the solution, preaching the message of LNT like a Johnny Appleseed, but dirtier and more homeless.