PDA

View Full Version : Hikers Gone Wile (Fox News Byline)



About_Time
08-30-2015, 11:31
Found this link on the Fox News Website: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/30/hikers-behaving-badly-appalachian-trail-partying-raises-ire/?intcmp=hpbt3

deerdog
08-30-2015, 14:32
I hope this activity slacks off.

Googan
08-30-2015, 18:53
give me a break. lots of people head outdoors to get smashed. its not some new invention or problem. sounds like sour grapes

nsherry61
08-30-2015, 20:05
If Baxter State Park would spend their time figuring out how to welcome, and then manage, the crowds constructively instead of seeing restrictions as the only solution, there would be a lot less angst and a lot more appreciation of the Park Resources.

just dad
08-30-2015, 20:51
My children and I were in Baxter State Park earlier this month when we finished section hiking the AT. Baxter State Park was a very special, idyllic place, and fortunately it has rules in place to keep it that way. The park was not overrun with people, and our time at the summit of Katahdin was an amazing conclusion to our hike of the AT. That would not have been the case if the park or the summit of Mt. Katahdin were overrun with people. During our time in Baxter State Park we spoke with several rangers and found them all to be wonderful people. Mt. Katahdin and Baxter State Park can be an amazing finish (or start) to the AT for years to come if AT hikers follow Baxter State Park's simple rules. Those rules are primarily (1) don't bunch up to summit Katahdin, and (2) save the celebration for town.

Traveler
08-31-2015, 07:17
If Baxter State Park would spend their time figuring out how to welcome, and then manage, the crowds constructively instead of seeing restrictions as the only solution, there would be a lot less angst and a lot more appreciation of the Park Resources.

They do that now at the road accesses to the park. If people thru hiking into the park would bother to understand the rules and abide by them when there, there would be few issues. Its on us, not them.

BirdBrain
08-31-2015, 08:53
If Baxter State Park would spend their time figuring out how to welcome, and then manage, the crowds constructively instead of seeing restrictions as the only solution, there would be a lot less angst and a lot more appreciation of the Park Resources.

If hikers would abide by the restrictions, there would not be an issue here. Baxter would be brainstorming with the ATC and MATC on how to accommodate the growing numbers of reasonable people, instead of having this present conflict. Baxter already gives deference to thru's. They let them in without advanced warning and at a lower rate then those that drive in. They provide a site exclusively for thru's. They provide day packs for thru's so they can hike lighter to the end. All of this is completely irrelevant in the minds of many because Baxter's silly rules don't let them do as they please anywhere they please. It is such an intolerable evil to have to abide by restrictions, that some vilify good people and advocate moving the terminus. Mainers are called all kinds of names because of a bunch of entitled jerks want the freedom to do as they please. The problem is the attitude, not the restrictions.

rickb
08-31-2015, 11:57
If hikers would abide by the restrictions, there would not be an issue here. Baxter would be brainstorming with the ATC and MATC on how to accommodate the growing numbers of reasonable people, instead of having this present conflict. Baxter already gives deference to thru's. They let them in without advanced warning and at a lower rate then those that drive in. They provide a site exclusively for thru's.

Your point is well taken, and I expect that the accommodations made that allow 12 thru hikers to stay in a special area without advance reservations was done principally out of generosity, and the park's long history of extending a welcoming hand to thru hikers.

That said, if the day ever came where individual thru hikers were asked to competed for the 4 to 6 person sites within the park like everyone else, it would be a real mess. Just think how that would play out.

To put it another way, the Birches serves through hikers and Traditional users both.

If you don't agree with that, how about we start encouraging thru hikers to make reservations well in advance for KSG-- just in case they need them.

Traveler
08-31-2015, 13:30
Your point is well taken, and I expect that the accommodations made that allow 12 thru hikers to stay in a special area without advance reservations was done principally out of generosity, and the park's long history of extending a welcoming hand to thru hikers.

That said, if the day ever came where individual thru hikers were asked to competed for the 4 to 6 person sites within the park like everyone else, it would be a real mess. Just think how that would play out.

To put it another way, the Birches serves through hikers and Traditional users both.

If you don't agree with that, how about we start encouraging thru hikers to make reservations well in advance for KSG-- just in case they need them.

I doubt it would create much of an issue, one should have a fair idea of when they will make it to Birches by Monson for example, so the idea of making a reservation isn't really that onerous. Or as been suggested, end the AT at Birches period. If you want to go to the top of Katahdin, you can make entry like everyone else and nab a no-show spot or make a reservation in advance.

rickb
08-31-2015, 16:19
I doubt it would create much of an issue, one should have a fair idea of when they will make it to Birches by Monson for example, so the idea of making a reservation isn't really that onerous. Or as been suggested, end the AT at Birches period. If you want to go to the top of Katahdin, you can make entry like everyone else and nab a no-show spot or make a reservation in advance.

The burden would be on the families looking for accommodations within the park.

If thru hikers were to learn that KSG was their only viable option, they would adapt to that reality. Of the 5,000+ starting out, is it conceivable that 1% might might reserve a spot before they even hit the Springer?

That would tie up 50 sites with the capacity to hold up to 300 people-- most of which would never be used.

What if 10% of hikers get nervous and make their reservation from Harpers Ferry? That's about 250 sites with the capacity to hold up to 1500 people taken out of inventory, most of which would never be used.

And so on.

You don't need to be John Nash to conclude many people competing for a limited resource with imperfect information would be a cluster ****.

This is why eliminating the Birches an "making thru hikers reserve like everyone else" without also elimination the AT would never be an acceptable solution to the Park.

Traveler
08-31-2015, 17:15
The burden would be on the families looking for accommodations within the park.

If thru hikers were to learn that KSG was their only viable option, they would adapt to that reality. Of the 5,000+ starting out, is it conceivable that 1% might might reserve a spot before they even hit the Springer?

That would tie up 50 sites with the capacity to hold up to 300 people-- most of which would never be used.

What if 10% of hikers get nervous and make their reservation from Harpers Ferry? That's about 250 sites with the capacity to hold up to 1500 people taken out of inventory, most of which would never be used.

And so on.

You don't need to be John Nash to conclude many people competing for a limited resource with imperfect information would be a cluster ****.

This is why eliminating the Birches an "making thru hikers reserve like everyone else" without also elimination the AT would never be an acceptable solution to the Park.

I am not a proponent of eliminating the Birches and while I don't disagree with you overall, I am wondering if there are solutions in the event something along those lines happens. Allowing reservations made on the trail to be at a specific mileage, place, or days away from BSP. That presumes a number of sites would be set aside during high use periods of time, but those sites would be issued to other hikers if there are no-shows, much as the park does with other sites. Imperfect as stated of course, but there are probably a few ways to make that work short of a permitting system similar to what are used on the western trails.

RED-DOG
09-01-2015, 09:20
Live and let live.

Starchild
09-01-2015, 10:08
Perhaps a sensible solution is to have several 'birches', each accommodating only a limited number of thru hikers, and far enough apart to have it inconvenient for the hikers to hang out and party as one big block party, away from the regular guests, as well as perhaps make it harder to regroup for the summit attempt as one big group. Have the reservations made as they enter at Abol, and once full you go to the next shelter back, perhaps a mile or so apart.