View Full Version : Baxter state park
Lone Wolf
10-03-2015, 13:43
http://www.pressherald.com/2015/10/03/tensions-between-baxter-state-park-appalachian-trail-dominate-meeting/
Heres a far out idea, what if the conservancys policy about issuing a patch, or completion cert was conditional upon not receiving any form of a legal citation anywhere along the corridor? In other words, you f-up, your hike doesnt count.
Tipi Walter
10-03-2015, 14:31
The linked article says,
"The top priority is protecting the wilderness aspects of (the) place."
Say what? How can you do this and let in 40 foot RVs??
Gov Percival Baxter's intent was to preserve a wilderness environment, according to the article. They failed in that. Why? Here are some examples according to their Rules and Regulations:
** RVs 44 feet long may enter the park. Oops.
** Take off and landing of aircraft is permitted on three main lakes in the park. Oops, noise pollution.
** Motorboats are permitted on these three lakes. Oops, noise pollution.
** Snowmobiles are allowed on four lakes and on several park roads. Oops, more noise pollution.
Preserving a wilderness environment?? Not likely, not with the above exceptions.
So instead they pick on hikers and backpackers? Are we flying in on airplanes or rolling in on RVs or snowmobiles? Not likely. And walking is very quiet.
I still believe the Baxter admins are looking for $$$ from the ATC to pay for additional rangers, etc.
It would be interesting to see if money would make the problems disappear.
dudeijuststarted
10-03-2015, 14:43
BSP has a good point about preserving the park, because it is an incredibly beautiful mountain park. The misbehavior is worthy of a high-pressure, long-term campaign from both parties. Mature, responsible people do not destroy an American institution in a rash, childish manner.
Tipi Walter
10-03-2015, 14:49
Dudejuststarted must've not read my post.
just wait til next year, the number of AT hikers will continue to spike higher
business must be getting better for hostels and shuttle drivers these days
last time I spoke to the #1 shuttle driver in Waynesboro, VA, his number of shuttle rides gets higher each year, this year was off the charts
Tipi Walter
10-03-2015, 15:32
------------------------------------------------------------
I still think its ridiculous that Baxter is whining to the ATC about things that are going on in their own park. If they cannot enforce their own rules within their own park, what exactly do they expect the ATC to do from Harper's Ferry? I too wonder if this is about money. If it is, why not just say so? If the guys in 44ft RV's are paying fees enough to cover the resources they are using and the AT hikers are not, why not just figure out an appropriate fee? This is all well within the powers of Baxter to solve.
dudeijuststarted
10-03-2015, 16:53
Dudejuststarted must've not read my post.
A.) No, I didn't read your post
B.) Doing so did not change my opinion
C.) You likely misinterpreted my post
D.) AT hikers have nothing to do with motorized vehicle policies
peakbagger
10-03-2015, 18:58
** RVs 44 feet long may enter the park. Oops.
** Take off and landing of aircraft is permitted on three main lakes in the park. Oops, noise pollution.
** Motorboats are permitted on these three lakes. Oops, noise pollution.
** Snowmobiles are allowed on four lakes and on several park roads. Oops, more noise pollution.
Unfortunately Percival Baxter who donated the park and made the rules left these exceptions in place but they are far less of an impact then they appear. The snowmachine issue was fought in court and the court ruled that his intent was allow limited use. The snowmachine use is in the winter a decidedly less busy time of the year, and many winter users appreciate the broken out trails. The three lakes permitted for aircraft are only partially in the park thus the park cannot prohibit aircraft landing on them. Same with the powerboats. Kind of hard to stretch a fence across the lake to prohibit these uses.
You are stretching it a bit on RVs. The rules allow a 22 foot single unit or a 44 foot combined unit vehicle. Conceivably that could include a RV. The reality is that the roads would be basically impassable to a standard RV without an escort blocking the road from incoming traffic. Almost guaranteed is that anything on the roof of the RV like AC units would be torn off the roof pretty quickly. If the RV did enter there are very few sites that would accommodate it. With the exception of the Foster Field Group sites, the next closest sites that might accommodate Nesowadnehunk campground an hour north of KSC. The next option is about two hours north in Trout Brook farm. Even if the RV does enter the park, it cannot use its generator so it would have a limited stay until the house batteries were flat.
Hikers who follow the rules at Baxter are always welcome. Those who ignore the rules or are unaware of them are not. Unfortunately one of the rules is that camping areas are limited and the best use of the campsites are to allow people to make reservations in advance. The park long ago inadvertently allowed very unrestricted camping and the net result was significant degradation of the parks resources. The choice was close several campgrounds or get strict on limiting access. Many of the degraded sites have recovered and the majority of the people who plan to go to Baxter realize that the rules are needed to keep the park wild.
peakbagger
10-03-2015, 18:58
Duplicate post
"Hikers who follow the rules at Baxter are always welcome."
Peakbagger, as a hiker who did follow the rules I'm getting the feeling that AT hikers in general are not welcome. Consider some of the comments from Baxter including a petty complaint about a hiker in Millinocket begging for money, among other cmments painting all hikers with the same brush.
And from LW's link according to Baxter officials one speed hike finish on K and we're turning the mountain into a race course!
“I don’t think he ever envisioned it becoming a racetrack or the end of a competition".
squeezebox
10-03-2015, 20:21
The reality of the situation is that the Baxter officials get to set the rules, and we get to follow those rules. Fair is not part of the equation. We can ask for the rules to be changed, but they don't have to if they don't feel like it. Unfair?? hell yes. But suck it up. They are not going to make much money on a hiker fee, but what's wrong with a hiker fee? We do use the park and should contribute. Hiker misbehavior is a problem and we need to do as much as we can to stop it. I think it is ridiculous to ask ATC to control hiker behavior from 1000 miles away. Jurek got tickets, they should do more of that.
But the bottom line is they have the power to make rules and we do not. So grow up, stop whining and follow the rules.
Lone Wolf
10-03-2015, 20:43
The reality of the situation is that the Baxter officials get to set the rules, and we get to follow those rules. Fair is not part of the equation.
for years BSP officials turned a blind eye to the alcohol thing. now all of a sudden it's way taboo. they should have enforced rules with zero tolerance from day 1. they're the whiners
rotorbrent
10-03-2015, 21:20
What the difference between a Drunk Maine Judge that get a passenger killed in his boat and a" Out of Stater" trail runner with a bottle of booze?
Nothing happens to the judge but the "out of stater get to pay a $500 fine decreed by the killer judge. Welcome to Maine its gonna cost you.
Dudejuststarted must've not read my post.
You must not have read the rules for BSP either.
http://www.baxterstateparkauthority.com/rules/#vehicles
5.1. No vehicle over nine (9) feet high, seven (7) feet wide, or 22 feet long for a single vehicle or 44 feet long for combined units may enter the Park. Oversize units may be authorized to use the Park road system by special use permit, subject to conditions set by the Director. The Director may restrict the use of vehicles by persons without camping reservations.
gpburdelljr
10-03-2015, 22:02
"You don't make progress by standing on the sidelines, whimpering and complaining. You make progress by implementing ideas", Shirley Chisholm.
Water Rat
10-03-2015, 22:53
Baxter isn't suddenly having an issue... The problem has been there and Baxter has been dealing with it. Just because we on WB have not heard about every ticket, does not mean they have not been dealing with the issue. The reality is that it is not EVERY thru-hiker that is the issue (or lots of tickets would have been issued and we would have heard about it). It is far more likely that those who have been popped for various offenses have slunk off because they know they are guilty.
The problem is that there are more hikers every year. Every year there are more issues. The numbers are not decreasing... It was one thing when there were only hundreds of people hiking the trail each year. At some point a line does have to be drawn. Why? Because people today do not seem to understand the word "no." If a host asks you not to do something, shouldn't you (as the guest) stop the behavior?
Rather than sit here and point fingers, isn't it time we do something about the behaviors (the drinking & drugging on Katahdin, the asking for rides, the stealth camping, etc) so they are a non-issue? Isn't it time for the hiking community to set an example of the behaviors that should be exhibited by those who are experienced and have respect for the outdoors?
What the heck is wrong with taking responsibility for making sure the trail remains the way we want it to be? It's a pretty simple question.
MuddyWaters
10-04-2015, 00:20
The problem is what bsp stated. They have a fixed capacity model, the atc does not.
The atc plan for bsp, is currently to spread growing #of hikers out throughout yr thru flip flops , without giving bsp any resources to help deal with them. Spreading the additional future load out, doesnt help bsp, they still need increased staffing.
Leanthree
10-04-2015, 00:21
Baxter isn't suddenly having an issue... The problem has been there and Baxter has been dealing with it. Just because we on WB have not heard about every ticket, does not mean they have not been dealing with the issue. The reality is that it is not EVERY thru-hiker that is the issue (or lots of tickets would have been issued and we would have heard about it). It is far more likely that those who have been popped for various offenses have slunk off because they know they are guilty.
The problem is that there are more hikers every year. Every year there are more issues. The numbers are not decreasing... It was one thing when there were only hundreds of people hiking the trail each year. At some point a line does have to be drawn. Why? Because people today do not seem to understand the word "no." If a host asks you not to do something, shouldn't you (as the guest) stop the behavior?
Rather than sit here and point fingers, isn't it time we do something about the behaviors (the drinking & drugging on Katahdin, the asking for rides, the stealth camping, etc) so they are a non-issue? Isn't it time for the hiking community to set an example of the behaviors that should be exhibited by those who are experienced and have respect for the outdoors?
What the heck is wrong with taking responsibility for making sure the trail remains the way we want it to be? It's a pretty simple question.
Because there is no one way that any particular "we" want the trail to be. Some people want fewer hikers, some want more. Some want more culture: things like hostels, shuttles, trail magic, etc. While others want to reduce services and make the trail harder to complete and more like west hiking. Some want to knock down the shelters and some want more shelters. In this particular case, one "we" thru hikers want things one way and one "we" Baxter SP officials want it another.
To me, it is 100% reasonable to have champagne at the top of a mountain. That is against Baxter State Park rules, and the rules lay out some sort of punishment for doing so. It is therefore also 100% reasonable to me for someone to drink champaign at the top of Katahden and get fined for it. That doesn't make the champaigne drinker a bad person and that doesn't make the ranger issuing the fine a bad person. I don't see why everyone can't just all follow the rules and stop whining that someone broke them. Just fine them and move on. Let the recipient of the fine either pay it or fight it given reasonable due process. If the fine isn't big enough to stop bad behavior then get more rangers or higher fines. That goes for stealth camping, or anything else that is against the rules. This really isn't hard.
If too many people are entering the park then make a rule about that. Plenty of places have permits, then make a rule to handle situations where people don't have permits and enforce them. If there aren't too many people entering the park, then quit complaining about all the people.
This all seems like a failure of Baxter State Park to enforce their own rules or to have the correct rules in place. Make reasonable rules and enforce them. Maybe in addition to fines you can have a lifetime ban as punishment. None of this is the ATC's fault, nor can the ATC fix any of these supposed problems. Even if Abol Bridge becomes the official AT end point according to the ATC I am sure as hell going up K immediately after my AT hike ends.
squeezebox
10-04-2015, 01:11
for years BSP officials turned a blind eye to the alcohol thing. now all of a sudden it's way taboo. they should have enforced rules with zero tolerance from day 1. they're the whiners
you're right
So what do think you or we can do about it, except now we are expected to follow the rules.
One concern of mine is the Park's repeated statements about hikers bringing animals into the park under the protection of ADA rules -- when some of those hikers may not actually qualify.
I don't know where this falls on the decision makers list of concerns, but given talk of channeling Baxter I think this might be very high up-- and potentially what is actually driving much of this-- even though the decision makers are not articulating this aloud. Because they can't.
Percivile Baxter was famous for his love of dogs. Every schoolboy and girl in the state has heard the story of how he had flags across the state lowered to half staff when his beloved pet died. And yet Governor Baxter was beyond firm in his resolve that dogs not be allowed in his Park.
The ADA and Fedeal Law has trumped those explicit desires, and the folk at Baxter know that is one force they cannot resist.
The thing is, a small but significant number of AT hikers do travel with service animals. This is no surprise, of course-- in part because of the special restorative nature of hiking the Trail.
But singling out the AT as the primary source of ILLEGAL service animals -- based on anectodtal evidence like when they wrote in their annual report a hiker was heard to have pulled on over in the park in Monson-- does those people who rely on their service animals a disservice.
If animals in the park disturb the decision makers, they should challenge those breaking the established rules with the full weight of the State's Power.
My concern is that in channeling Governor Baxter and his desire to keep dogs out of his park, they may be creating a pretext that hurts those who have a right to be there with their animals, including some of those our country owes a very great debt.
Baxter isn't suddenly having an issue... The problem has been there and Baxter has been dealing with it. Just because we on WB have not heard about every ticket, does not mean they have not been dealing with the issue. The reality is that it is not EVERY thru-hiker that is the issue (or lots of tickets would have been issued and we would have heard about it). It is far more likely that those who have been popped for various offenses have slunk off because they know they are guilty.
FYI, The park publishes a list of every ticket issued in its annual report. I have posted the list of tickets for alcohol violation before and it is exceedingly short-- about 1/2 dozen or so for the most recent year published. Moreover, all of these were written a campground not normally frequented by thruhikers, and quite possible all for a single event (based o. Issue date).
To me, it is 100% reasonable to have champagne at the top of a mountain. That is against Baxter State Park rules, and the rules lay out some sort of punishment for doing so. It is therefore also 100% reasonable to me for someone to drink champaign at the top of Katahden and get fined for it. That doesn't make the champaigne drinker a bad person and that doesn't make the ranger issuing the fine a bad person.
wow, thats exactly that the attitude thats the problem, i've never heard it stated quite so clearly. BSP doesnt want to deal with giving out all those tickets and the impact of them and has suggested their solution might be to not let the AT end in their park anymore. is that 100% reasonable?
peakbagger
10-04-2015, 07:32
[QUOTE=Don H;2009014]"Hikers who follow the rules at Baxter are always welcome."
Peakbagger, as a hiker who did follow the rules I'm getting the feeling that AT hikers in general are not welcome. Consider some of the comments from Baxter including a petty complaint about a hiker in Millinocket begging for money, among other cmments painting all hikers with the same brush.
The problem is that a lot of the chat and vilification on the internet is being made from afar and the 90% that are having no issues dont make it an issue, thus you hear about the 10% that have issues with the rules. I actually spent two afternoons hanging out at the park entrance at roaring brook and I didn't see any evidence of hikers not being welcome. I did see a lot of attempts at showing what the rules were, interpretations of the rules for those who decided that they didn't have to apply to them and explanations of what would happen if they elected to ignore the rules. On the two days I was there the Birches were not full. The staff does go out of their way to accommodate thru hikers but its a constrained resource, once all the camping spots are full they are full and the rules of the park require that every overnight camper has to stay in an official campsite. As for issues with large groups of AT hikers wanting to summit at the same time, there are group size limits that apply. As for conduct on the summit, contrary to popular belief there is something called common courtesy and some folks go way beyond what should be extended to others. I personally have seen thru hikers drunk/stoned at the summit stumbling back down the tablelands from the summit.
I think its reasonable that hikers entering the park have a plan on where to stay and how to get home and shouldn't have an expectation that the park staff is going to be their personal chauffeur, unfortunately a minority of folks have a sense of entitlement that they deserve special treatment as they voluntarily elected to hike the AT. What makes it worse is that the response of the majority is to cry about it on social media.
mtntopper
10-04-2015, 07:38
wow, thats exactly that the attitude thats the problem, i've never heard it stated quite so clearly. BSP doesnt want to deal with giving out all those tickets and the impact of them and has suggested their solution might be to not let the AT end in their park anymore. is that 100% reasonable?
Yes it is 100% reasonable. Either follow the rules or stay out of the park. That is also 100% reasonable. NPS ask the same when hiking the tail. Camp in the proper areas. Use bear canisters where posted. Don't build fires where prohibited. No different than what BSP is asking. Just follow the rules whatever they are.
Yes it is 100% reasonable. Either follow the rules or stay out of the park. That is also 100% reasonable. NPS ask the same when hiking the tail. Camp in the proper areas. Use bear canisters where posted. Don't build fires where prohibited. No different than what BSP is asking. Just follow the rules whatever they are.
i think if one were to go to ME right now, find the remaining thrus and take a very simple survey, one question "BSP does not allow alcohol, are you planning on knowingly breaking this rule?" i think you will find near 100% will answer "yes." those who arent ging to drink at the summit probably wouldnt have one way or the other because that isnt their thing. but a thru who wants to but upon hearing the rules decides that they need to follow the rules instead of breaking them? good luck finding one. and if you think i'm wrong then i think you need to spend some more time in the woods with these folks. meeting ones in ME this year who were nearly done and getting a sense of their attitude about it was quite the experience.
The day-to-day managerial issues are important, but not the root problem.
An anti-AT narrative is being created for a reason.
The narrative is powerful.
The park's superintendent has painted a picture of a summit with 200 people on it (really?) and thru hikers begging on the streets of Monson. He has explicitly stated that the Act of Congress which establishes the terminus at Katahdin is NOT something he needs consider-- since the AT's official designation ends at the park's boundary.
If the ATC, and more importantly the NPS, concentrate on just the articulated issues regarding thru hiker behavior and assumed unsustainability in terms of thru hikers numbers, they will be doing he AT a grave disservice.
They say the trail is all about people. Not sure I agree with that, but it is a truism that every organization is.
Peakbagger, When I was in Baxter in 2011 my interaction with the staff was all positive. The rangers were great! The feeling of not being welcome, IMO comes from the park administration in their comments and writings. It's become quite apparent that they (the park administration) would be happy if thru-hikers never set foot in the park again.
On the other hand we, the AT hikers have not done what we need to do to help solve the problem. One of the things the MATC and ATC seem to be doing, from reports I've heard, is education along the trail. I think this will help. I know I had no idea that large groups and alcohol were not allowed until the Jurek situation. I don't recall even seeing rules posted at Abol or at the campsite in Baxter.
I know I had no idea that large groups and alcohol were not allowed until the Jurek situation. I don't recall even seeing rules posted at Abol or at the campsite in Baxter.
so youve never read the entries concerning BSP in any of the who knows how many guidebooks dealing with the subject there are? maybe you havent, but i think most people read stuff like that and it just doesnt register. then later when asked theyll say they never heard anything about it. i deal with this kind of thing at my job constantly, i can tell a room full of people the rules and expectations and 25 minutes later one of them will say no one told them.
Traveler
10-04-2015, 08:22
Dudejuststarted must've not read my post.
It was immaterial to the complaint.
so youve never read the entries concerning BSP in any of the who knows how many guidebooks dealing with the subject there are? maybe you havent, but i think most people read stuff like that and it just doesnt register. then later when asked theyll say they never heard anything about it. i deal with this kind of thing at my job constantly, i can tell a room full of people the rules and expectations and 25 minutes later one of them will say no one told them.
Your point about warnings not registering is well made.
One thing that helps is sharing them in the most direct and unambiguous way possible.
Did you see the picture included in the OPs article that warns thru hikers against excessive celebration?
32190
Why no mention of a zero tolerance policy on alcohol incliding beer and campaign toasts? Or climbing on the sign? or crowding around the sign for more than 5 minutes or so? Or congregating in ad hoc groups around the sign.
Is that sort of stuff posted on the sign that has been cropped out on this photo?
Your point about warnings not registering is well made.
One thing that helps is sharing them in the most direct and unambiguous way possible.
Did you see the picture included in the OPs article that warns thru hikers against excessive celebration?
32190
Why no mention of a zero tolerance policy on alcohol incliding beer and campaign toasts? Or climbing on the sign? or crowding around the sign for more than 5 minutes or so? Or congregating in ad hoc groups around the sign.
Is that sort of stuff posted on the sign that has been cropped out on this photo?
you think people read (or care about) whats on signs? i have a saying "the sign is always there for everyone else."
HighLiner
10-04-2015, 08:32
I completed the 100 mile wilderness and climbed Katadhin last year after 15 years of section hiking. That last trip was carefully planned and included reservations at one of the Katadhin Stream lean-to's. It was an amazing adventure I will never forget. Yeah, filling out the climbing permit and registering was a little much, but those were the rules; I politely followed them. The trail is just a path. Why can't a camp over site person, similar to what's in place at many of the White Mountain AT campsites, be hired by the ATC to manage the hikers at a campsite of adequate size and location? That individual could fulfill the role of completing the permit applications and would help instill a sense of ATC ownership. My personal observation is the Baxter employees are simply annoyed at the endless caravan of hikers. If this was implemented I doubt Baxter would notice the traffic, the impact, or the people.
Traveler
10-04-2015, 08:32
Whats reasonable to 90% of people is to follow the rules BSP has established and all but illiterates are able to see along the way to Katahdin. To the 10% these rules are not reasonable and all kinds of straw man arguments are used to avoid them like "They don't give tickets to everyone", or "I didn't know the rules", and other juvenile "he did it and didn't get caught" nonsense.
Even if everyone coming in from the AT were to follow all the rules, the sheer number of people entering from the trail is growing. Their impact will eventually need to be reduced via some kind of metering system. Until then, if we can get the kids and those acting like kids to calm down, respect the rules of the property, and behave as adults they claim to be, the impact will be lessened to the point there can be more reasoned approaches.
Though I would hope that could happen, given what I see I doubt our community is capable of it.
Water Rat
10-04-2015, 08:39
I am fully aware that people choose not to read signs. I am fully aware that the "community" is made up of many, many individuals who want different things.
I am also aware that the way to get what you want is not to knowingly break rules and then whine about it and say, "that's the way it's always been."
If we act like the adults we are supposed to be, then the issue is not as "in your face" for Baxter. If we then abide by the rules and create helpful solutions (which, some are working on), then they will be far more willing to keep working with us to come up with a solution that will work for both sides.
bamboo bob
10-04-2015, 09:03
I don't make the rules and I don't break the rules. Baxter is a State Park for Mainers. When Abol bridge becomes the AT terminus that little store will sell a lot of beer.
Casey & Gina
10-04-2015, 09:12
To me, it is 100% reasonable to have champagne at the top of a mountain. That is against Baxter State Park rules, and the rules lay out some sort of punishment for doing so. It is therefore also 100% reasonable to me for someone to drink champaign at the top of Katahden and get fined for it. That doesn't make the champaigne drinker a bad person and that doesn't make the ranger issuing the fine a bad person. I don't see why everyone can't just all follow the rules and stop whining that someone broke them. Just fine them and move on. Let the recipient of the fine either pay it or fight it given reasonable due process. If the fine isn't big enough to stop bad behavior then get more rangers or higher fines. That goes for stealth camping, or anything else that is against the rules. This really isn't hard.
I agree. It is completely reasonable to do whatever you like as long as you accept the consequences for doing so if you choose to. The only reason Jurek got so much attention was because of the crowd following him. Very few people try to set a speed record running the AT, so it's to be expected that people will crowd around when it happens. He chose to do this and gain publicity, and chose to violate a known rule at the summit. So a consequence was perfectly reasonable.
Another hiker may have known the rule, but discretely packed up the same bottle of champagne, found a private spot, and had himself a drink at the summit, without any attention or fine. People do this all the time in all different environments, and it only becomes an issue if they draw attention to themselves or otherwise create a disturbance. Rules are created generally not with the expectation that 100% of people will follow them, but to prevent the further consequences that happen if everyone feels unrestricted in doing so. A policeman will not generally issue a citation to a homeless man sitting in a discrete place drinking a beer out of can kept hidden in a paper bag and taking care of his waste properly, but get a group of 10 together or have him tossing his empty bottles on the ground or brandishing his bottle out for all to see or acting belligerent, and it becomes a different story.
Jurek chose to violate the rules belligerently in front of a crowd, he deserved a consequence. Doing so will encourage others to do so, and increase the overall detriment to the park. A high-visibility disregard of the rules deserves a high-visibility consequence being issued. That doesn't make him bad but this sort of behavior can be expected to not be tolerated, and he - as a high-visibility personality - should strive to set a better example for others. The only problem is Baxter blaming it on ATC and trying to make it their problem, and criticizing all AT hikers as a whole, which is ridiculous and sends completely the wrong message (I imagine now some are pissed and will have the cash for the fine budgeted just to do the same action blatantly). ATC's purpose is not to monitor hiker activity to a micro-managerial level. If there is a trail it will be used in all sorts of ways. If there is a big mountain in the middle of a wilderness, it will also be used in all sorts of ways. It is the responsibility of the state park to set and enforce rules they see fit. If they cannot successfully enforce them, the rules are unreasonable and/or the consequences are not severe enough.
Whats reasonable to 90% of people is to follow the rules BSP has established and all but illiterates are able to see along the way to Katahdin. To the 10% these rules are not reasonable and all kinds of straw man arguments are used to avoid them like "They don't give tickets to everyone", or "I didn't know the rules", and other juvenile "he did it and didn't get caught" nonsense.
i think continuing to put forth this notion that its a small group of people causing trouble isn't helpful. if you take the BSP rules about no drinking and no camping limits and ask thrus in ME who are about to finish the AT how much they care about those rules (if they are even aware of them) you'd see those numbers are likely flipped. that some of them don't break the rules is coincidence. ie, you can't exceed the camping limit for the birches if its not full, and you cant break the alcohol rules if you dont drink alcohol. the attitude of way more than a small percentage of thrus is "after all this time and distance spent hiking i'm going to do what i want." thats undeniable and that is the root of the problem, i think.
Furlough
10-04-2015, 09:20
Baxter isn't suddenly having an issue... The problem has been there and Baxter has been dealing with it. Just because we on WB have not heard about every ticket, does not mean they have not been dealing with the issue. The reality is that it is not EVERY thru-hiker that is the issue (or lots of tickets would have been issued and we would have heard about it). It is far more likely that those who have been popped for various offenses have slunk off because they know they are guilty.
The problem is that there are more hikers every year. Every year there are more issues. The numbers are not decreasing... It was one thing when there were only hundreds of people hiking the trail each year. At some point a line does have to be drawn. Why? Because people today do not seem to understand the word "no." If a host asks you not to do something, shouldn't you (as the guest) stop the behavior?
Rather than sit here and point fingers, isn't it time we do something about the behaviors (the drinking & drugging on Katahdin, the asking for rides, the stealth camping, etc) so they are a non-issue? Isn't it time for the hiking community to set an example of the behaviors that should be exhibited by those who are experienced and have respect for the outdoors?
What the heck is wrong with taking responsibility for making sure the trail remains the way we want it to be? It's a pretty simple question.
This. Well said Water Rat. In general the problem seems to be two-fold across the entire length of the AT (not just BSP). Those 2 problems are: 1) increased use straining limited resources. 2) a sub-culture on the part of some but not all AT hikers, that portrays a sense of entitlement, a me first attitude-rules are meant to be broken, or are not meant for me mentatilty. A little good old fashioned golden rule protocol would go a long way. It is difficult to understand why it is so easy for some to walk through life and the trail with no or very little sense of self responsibility.
This seems to be all about money and to a certain degree ego's. Maybe the ATC should stop handing out thru hiker certificates. My thought is that if Baxter was still alive he wouldn't want vehicles in his park. Of course, it would be too simple to expect people to hike for the love of wilderness alone and for one to experience wilderness they would need to walk in carrying their means for survival. Both the ATC & BSP are way too commercial.
so youve never read the entries concerning BSP in any of the who knows how many guidebooks dealing with the subject there are? maybe you havent, but i think most people read stuff like that and it just doesnt register. then later when asked theyll say they never heard anything about it. i deal with this kind of thing at my job constantly, i can tell a room full of people the rules and expectations and 25 minutes later one of them will say no one told them.
The 2010 A.T. Guide, which was my sole source of trail information, mentions nothing about size of group or alcohol in Baxter.
I have a picture of the Kiosk at Abol and there is nothing there stating the rules that I can see nor do I recall any such signs posted (although the rules might have been in with the 20 or more pages posted all over the kiosk).
The ranger at check in did not discuss rules, just signed us in and directed us to our campsite.
So yea, I'd say there's room for improvement in getting this information out.
peakbagger
10-04-2015, 10:10
My thought is that if Baxter was still alive he wouldn't want vehicles in his park. I don't think there is any evidence of that. Percival Baxter was alive into the late sixties (his death was June 1969) and routinely was driven into the park (he had a chauffeur). His vision of a visit to the park would be what most folks would regard as car camping. KSC, RR Brook and Abol all are predominately drive up campgrounds where a camper parks his car at his site. There are walk up sites but they rarely involve much more than a 3 minute walk.
I have a picture of the Kiosk at Abol and there is nothing there stating the rules that I can see nor do I recall any such signs posted (although the rules might have been in with the 20 or more pages posted all over the kiosk).The rules were posted prominently at the kiosk at the Abol bridge entrance this fall as well as interpretations of the rules for those who are unable to read the full set. Realistically unless there is a full time employee administering written quizzes to hikers entering the park, there is always going to be the hiker that say the rules werent prominent enough.
Like the rest of the state of Maine, there is no drinking alcohol in public law. Its not an arbitrary park rule, its state law and Baxter Peak is public. Folks can do and enjoy alcoholic beverages at their campsite and a ranger wont hassle anyone about alcohol at a campsite unless its accessory to some other rules violation like the quiet hours rule.
Contrary to what apparently the hiking public believes , there is rarely park staff at the summit and with the exception of the campgrounds you will rarely run into them . For the most part the rules are management tools used when common sense and courtesy isn't working. Writing a citation is a last resort. On the other hand when high visibility PR events occur within the park the park does assign staff so the park is shown appropriately. One high visibility image of a person popping off and spraying a bottle of champagne with prominent sponsorship logos is going to set the expectation that everyone should plan to bring a bottle. Unfortunately 200 plus people a day in a roughly 50' circle for 3 to 4 months a year is not a great place to spray sugar containing beverages as bees and other insects are attracted.
I have just sat on the sideline and watched the threads and posts continue to discuss all the angles of the AT. I also have watched the ATC's philosophy shift as an organization, while Baxter State Park and even our Whiteblaze members from Maine increased the volumn of their issues with the AT. The problems of numbers, park trail capacity, dogs, alchohol, following rules, not following rules, enforcement, shelter graffitti and damage, hostel closings, hiker entitlement, and the fragile system found on Katahdin as well as Springer and places inbetween is not a physical isssue as much as it is a mental issue. The mental preparation of each person stepping foot on a hiking trail and deciding that they are there as an integral part of the environment and not just a visitor, ruler, and definitely not just passing thru without any responsibility to the damage left in their (our) wake; must be instilled in each of us. LNT should be part of all off our beings; not just a nice slogan. The next Generation needs to learn the urgency of LNT or the AT will be an eroded memory of a once wonderful green tunnel. However, the next Generation learns from each of us. The issues of the AT start in our own backyard parks every time a person fails to take 10 extra steps to follow the curve of the trail and instead cuts the corner to have the entire hillside erode away, or drops their beer can (not allowed in the 1st place), or doesn't bury their kleenix because they couldn't make it back to their cars.
I must admit that I was on the side of S. Jurek and thought the celebration was much to do about nothing. While I do beleive he was the poster child for the Park's frustration; I remember the saying, with great power (to set a FKT) comes great responsibility. Many eyes were on him. I feel that Scott was mentally prepared for the record but not mentally prepared for the AT or Baxter State Park. Was he "one" with the trail or just a visitor from Colorado? Was the trail a means to an end, something to be conquered and then left for others to conquer? Did he LNT (no matter how small or large the impact of a peice of cork or drop of alchohol, physically or mentally)? I am not about beating him up, either. He defended himself quite well. This is all in the past. The Summer of 2015. We need to look forward to 2016 and beyond.
We all are part of the problem and all must become part of the solution. I am no "tree hugger" or major activist; but someone that has grown to love the Smokey Mountains over a lifetime of memories. I live in Ohio but that is just a governmental boundary, man made. When I hike in the foothills of the appalachian mountains in my state, am I not connected to the AT and even my brother in Maine? I hope that if I ever return to the Rocky Mountains of Colorado, I don't just "visit" them and leave, because I should be connected to them as much as I am the Smokey Mountains. I hope that I LNT, a memory of my time there. The earth can and will heal, the question is how deep of a wound do we choose to inflict.
Finally, I beleive one word sums up everything. That word is RESPECT. Respect the Trail! Respect each other! Respect the people and entire communities that connect each section to the next because we are alll connected and all must be trail angels. Respect Springer and Katahdin. Respect every Shelter, privy, (whether you agree with them or not) water source, animal, lightning strike, tree, etc. Respect for this earth.
It must be taught. It must be instilled in each of us. It must become mental. Then and only then will Respect become a outward product of who we are. For if we fail to Respect the AT, we disrespect ourselves. Utimately, we won't just have to worry about our journey ending on Katahdin.
Dang....sorry for the rant. On to other threads about what is the best.....
What I find interesting is that the BSP Authority focuses on Gov Baxter intent to keep the park a wilderness but ignores his desire to have the park be a place of recreation "for those who love nature and who are willing to walk and make an effort to get close to nature ... with pleasant foot-trails built and attractive camp-sites laid out in the valleys, by the brooks, and on the shores of the water." The quotes are the actual words or writing of Gov Baxter. http://www.mainememory.net/artifact/9357/
It's easy to look for the bad in any group of people, and define the group by it's worst elements. It's also wrong.
It sure looks like Baxter State Park wants to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Tipi Walter
10-04-2015, 10:44
What I find interesting is that the BSP Authority focuses on Gov Baxter intent to keep the park a wilderness but ignores his desire to have the park be a place of recreation "for those who love nature and who are willing to walk and make an effort to get close to nature ... with pleasant foot-trails built and attractive camp-sites laid out in the valleys, by the brooks, and on the shores of the water." The quotes are the actual words or writing of Gov Baxter. http://www.mainememory.net/artifact/9357/
Interesting point. Too bad Percival didn't donate the land and have Baxter SP made a designated wilderness area. Just think---No roads, no snowmobiles, no 44 foot RVs, no airplanes, no bicycles---just humans on foot.
The 2010 A.T. Guide, which was my sole source of trail information, mentions nothing about size of group or alcohol in Baxter.
I have a picture of the Kiosk at Abol and there is nothing there stating the rules that I can see nor do I recall any such signs posted (although the rules might have been in with the 20 or more pages posted all over the kiosk).
The ranger at check in did not discuss rules, just signed us in and directed us to our campsite.
So yea, I'd say there's room for improvement in getting this information out.
you have a point then, perhaps. i think part of the issue is the rules dont need to be explained to most of the visitors. i mean who besides AT users are going to pop champagne on top of katahdin? it also seems like the idea of illegally camping is all but impossible except if you hike in on the AT. maybe thats why the rules arent explained all that well, it could be done better. i still think it would matter little to thrus. theyre going to do what they have to do, and, as others have stated, some may just accept the consequences. the issue is they may be accepting the consequence of the no more AT in baxter on behalf of all of us.
WILLIAM HAYES
10-04-2015, 14:57
I just recently summited Katadhin and stayed in the park. The rangers there were super nice to me. In fact everyone I met on the staff at Baxter was exceptionally professional and friendly. Personally all of the thru hikers I met were well behaved both in the birches and while at the top of Katdhin. I am sure there are a few silly acting thru hikers they have to deal with , It appears to me that it is a problem that coulrld be better handled by increasing the staff at Baxter pehaps funded thru a permitting fee structure, Anyway my two cents
peakbagger: "The rules were posted prominently at the kiosk at the Abol bridge entrance this fall as well as interpretations of the rules for those who are unable to read the full set. Realistically unless there is a full time employee administering written quizzes to hikers entering the park, there is always going to be the hiker that say the rules werent prominent enough."
Again I did not see any rules posted in 2011, I was not there this year and can't address the current situation.
Administering written quizzes is a little extreme, but maybe a friendly reminder from the ranger when you check in would be helpful.
For BSP I don't think the problem is the few rule breakers (consider the lack of citations), BPS's problem is just too many people, specifically the wave of thru-hiker during the 6 week or so season. IMO it seems as though they would rather not deal with them. They're mostly out of staters anyway and we all know BPS was established for the people of Maine.
I am wondering if BSP minds are already made up concerning moving the trail. This meeting then would be just to say they did due diligence to correct the problems they see. I am not sure how their numbers stack up. How can 2000+ long distance hikers have done K last year or are they counting all hikers that hike K on the AT including weekenders?
As to misbehavior fines do work being thrown out of the park works better. Also if they charged AT users the same rate as other campers and their numbers are accurate they would make enough to pay for additional help during high use times.
My only other constructive idea is besides paying entrance fee is to build a culture where every section or thru put in a day of volunteering to help BSP. This would show that we are not a bunch of self-entitled, law-breakers but people who love the wilderness.
I just recently summited Katadhin and stayed in the park. The rangers there were super nice to me. In fact everyone I met on the staff at Baxter was exceptionally professional and friendly. Personally all of the thru hikers I met were well behaved both in the birches and while at the top of Katdhin. I am sure there are a few silly acting thru hikers they have to deal with , It appears to me that it is a problem that coulrld be better handled by increasing the staff at Baxter pehaps funded thru a permitting fee structure, Anyway my two cents
so none of them drank alcohol at the summit? really? i'll believe you if you say so, but i'd be shocked.
WILLIAM HAYES
10-04-2015, 16:32
so none of them drank alcohol at the summit? really? i'll believe you if you say so, but i'd be shocked.
really-no one that I saw did while I was at the top if they did it was not public or obvious
really-no one that I saw did while I was at the top if they did it was not public or obvious
sort of sounds to me like you didnt see it but you know someone or someones was planning on it
WILLIAM HAYES
10-04-2015, 16:50
nope but you make a lot of assumptions
Emerson Bigills
10-04-2015, 19:43
It seems to me the poster twice stated what he saw. It seems you have your mind made up and want the other post to support your agenda.
It seems to me the poster twice stated what he saw. It seems you have your mind made up and want the other post to support your agenda.
no i believe him. just, thought it interesting he inserted like 3 caveats into his answer instead of just saying "no, no one drank any alcohol." his answer was more like a politician in front of congress saying "not to my knowledge." or "not in my recollection."
Its not a BSP rule about no alcohol. Its a state law prohibiting drinking in public.
squeezebox
10-04-2015, 21:00
What I find interesting is that the BSP Authority focuses on Gov Baxter intent to keep the park a wilderness but ignores his desire to have the park be a place of recreation "for those who love nature and who are willing to walk and make an effort to get close to nature ... with pleasant foot-trails built and attractive camp-sites laid out in the valleys, by the brooks, and on the shores of the water." The quotes are the actual words or writing of Gov Baxter. http://www.mainememory.net/artifact/9357/
So where does getting drunk or stoned on top of Katahdin, or illegal camping,or illegal dogs in BSP have to do with an effort to get close to nature?
Slo-go'en
10-04-2015, 22:42
Interesting point. Too bad Percival didn't donate the land and have Baxter SP made a designated wilderness area. Just think---No roads, no snowmobiles, no 44 foot RVs, no airplanes, no bicycles---just humans on foot.
Baxter SP is a big chunk of land. There is one road along the western periphery of the park and a couple fairly short access roads which go to campgrounds not too far in from the gate. BTW, The RV can only be 22 foot long, but it can have a trailer so long as the combined length is 44 feet or less. Airplanes can only land on three very large lakes, which all extend beyond the park boundaries or are very close to it. Interior parts of the park are only accessible by foot. Katahdan is the big draw but only fraction of what is there.
you have a point then, perhaps. i think part of the issue is the rules dont need to be explained to most of the visitors. i mean who besides AT users are going to pop champagne on top of katahdin? it also seems like the idea of illegally camping is all but impossible except if you hike in on the AT. maybe thats why the rules arent explained all that well, it could be done better. i still think it would matter little to thrus. theyre going to do what they have to do, and, as others have stated, some may just accept the consequences. the issue is they may be accepting the consequence of the no more AT in baxter on behalf of all of us.I've never been to Maine but in the southern Appalachians I have seen people with a bottle of wine on a mountaintop many times.
I've never been to Maine but in the southern Appalachians I have seen people with a bottle of wine on a mountaintop many times.
It happens on Katahdin routinely, and has been happening for many years. The diff this year is that the photo was blasted on Facebook to a very large following. Most thru-hikers don't have 160,000 followers on facebook.
Bucketfoot
10-05-2015, 00:02
Years ago a man named Percival Baxter donated thousands of acres of land that he owned personally to create Baxter State Park. Not to mention that upon his death 7 million dollars from his estate was given to maintain the park. Is it asking so much to respect his wishes. I have been section hiking the AT for years and I will have just as much to celebrate as anyone else.Some day I will complete it all and I will be climbing Katahdin. When I do i will quietly have my picture taken at the sign and turn around and go home. Some people think everything is about them. It"s not!
WILLIAM HAYES
10-05-2015, 01:34
Thats what I observed dont care if you believe it or not you were not there there were no "Caveats" in anything I said you may want to look up the definition of the term caveat before you misuse it again
Thank you Peakbagger for pointing out a quote from Mr Baxter. For certain applying his intent to 2015 is up to the staff of BSP as directed by the fine voters and taxpayers from the State of Maine. ATC must be grateful their input was sought.
Wet Foot
10-05-2015, 09:07
Uh, because most hikers really don't care who "counts" their completion. It's amazing to me the bull__t we try to come up with to get grown up adults to act like grown up adults. Easiest solution is to move the terminus from Baxter Peak on Katahdin to some low-profile, non-sexy thing, such as a gravel parking lot near Abol Bridge.
Traveler
10-05-2015, 09:15
The northeastern corner of the park near Mountain Catcher Pond would be a good place to end the AT at Huber Road. Nice wilderness area to hike through and once at the trail end at Huber Road, its only a 25 mile walk out to Patten ME.
Uh, because most hikers really don't care who "counts" their completion. It's amazing to me the bull__t we try to come up with to get grown up adults to act like grown up adults. Easiest solution is to move the terminus from Baxter Peak on Katahdin to some low-profile, non-sexy thing, such as a gravel parking lot near Abol Bridge.How many years has it been since Mt Oglethorpe was the southern terminis? Yet people still post on here asking about the feasibility of starting a thruhike there. If they move the terminis I'd bet at least initially most people would finish their hike atop Katahdin.
Slo-go'en
10-05-2015, 11:17
How many years has it been since Mt Oglethorpe was the southern terminis? Yet people still post on here asking about the feasibility of starting a thruhike there. If they move the terminis I'd bet at least initially most people would finish their hike atop Katahdin.
Not if they don't let you in without a reservation.
Not if they don't let you in without a reservation.
And then you've got a whole new group of people competing for reservations in BSP, many of which will be no shows because they really don't know exactly when they'll get to the park. This would just create another reason to move the terminus.
If the problem was rule breakers in the park the fix would be easy, just enforce the rules and fine people. But that's not the problem.
If the problem was a lack of funding then just increase fees to hikers. But that's not the problem either.
The problem is BSP doesn't want to deal with the flood of thru-hikers in September and October. The fix for that problem is move the terminus. And that can't be done until BPS lays the groundwork of multiple complaints over a few years. Then they can say "we tried, it didn't work, get out". Then park leadership will be happy.
Not if they don't let you in without a reservation.Yeah, but if anything is clear from this discussion it is that Baxter doesn't enforce their rules, which seems to be at least half the problem.
Isn't the problem, from BSPs point of view, AT hikers? The numbers that they give regarding people accessing the park from the AT include thru hikers but they are really just a small part of that total. The emphasis on thru hikers as being the problem has always bothered me in this regard. Am I wrong in this calculation?
I agree, too, that a little bit of policing could go a long way. Many posters on here have said that the rangers have been generally lenient about having a celebratory drink, etc. You can't have it both ways.
I agree, too, that a little bit of policing could go a long way. Many posters on here have said that the rangers have been generally lenient about having a celebratory drink, etc. You can't have it both ways.
It may be "selective enforcement" to single out a celebrity offender (one with a huge following) versus a typical Joe Blow Thru Hiker or even your typical Baxter Weekend Warrior. So what? If this were the worst case of selective enforcement in the USA, I'd share your outrage. Scott chose to make a "big splash" and maybe got just a bit more attention than he was looking for.
Traveler
10-05-2015, 15:10
Yeah, but if anything is clear from this discussion it is that Baxter doesn't enforce their rules, which seems to be at least half the problem.
So unless its total enforcement 24/7, its partly their problem? By that standard your local police are half the problem of speeders and drunk drivers in their jurisdiction since they don't enforce speeding laws or run drunk check points 24/7. Seems to me leaving room for leeway via education or other allowances is better than the maximum application of law. Somehow I will bet you don't tell the police officer that gave you a verbal warning for pushing the speed limit that if he doesn't ticket you, you will speed again there.
colorado_rob
10-05-2015, 17:02
Just a few quick thoughts on the "BSP Situation".... I just finished the AT a few days ago (10/1). BSP was definitely a highlight, and Maine is The Best state along the trail, to be sure... Katahdin was, of course, a fine finish.
Anyway, at the time my wife and I were there (she did the 100-mile and Katahdin with me), there were at least a couple dozen AT thru hikers of all ages (but mostly 20-somethings), and I witnessed zero bad behavior in the three days we spent in the park, with the exception of one particular ranger, who really had a bug up his butt. The other rangers were friendly, informative and fun and really seemed to like their jobs.
The ranger with the bug up his butt just plain wasn't friendly, plus he kicked 8 people off the ranger station porch in a torrential downpour (and we were already soaking wet to the bone from the all day rain last Wednesday), even after a much friendlier ranger told us we could stay there as long as we liked. We (my wife and I and another older couple) had a dry place (lean-to) to go, a group of 4 young thru hikers did not, though the four of us eventually chipped in and bought them one. We had all been waiting for a shuttle to Millinocket, which never came that night.
The next day after we summited and were gathered at the ranger station, an official BSP vehicle showed up and four sparkly clean, perfectly dressed people got out and visibly scowled at the ~20 thru hikers waiting for the AT Lodge shuttles; one even said something in a nasty tone stating that no, they would not be any sort of a ride for any of us. My wife and I were amused, but not surprised. We saw them again the next morning in the AT café, same smug looks. From an earlier pic in one of the news stories, I think one of them was one of the guys who had it in for Scott Jurek.
I any case, we did like BSP enough that we plan on returning and re-climbing Katahdin by some additional routes. We sure hope the ATC and BSP can get together and find some "solutions to the problem", though we witnessed absolutely zero problems. Non AT hikers outnumbered AT hikers by at least 10 to 1, and I sure can't see where any significant extra resources go to supporting AT thru hikers, other than a 5-minute check-in at the ranger station. I just don't get it. Much ado about nothing IMHO.
"We sure hope the ATC and BSP can get together and find some "solutions to the problem"
There will be no getting together because one side has no desire to compromise.
Starchild
10-05-2015, 18:32
So where does getting drunk or stoned on top of Katahdin, or illegal camping,or illegal dogs in BSP have to do with an effort to get close to nature?
Getting drunk there, never knew this was ever on the table as a problem. What I've heard is a celebratory drink of an adult beverage, or fraction of a standard drink is sometimes practiced, but not the the point of impairment. I have likewise not heard of stoners being a problem at the big K. Illegal camping I have heard, perhaps a different system by BSP could take care of that. As for dogs I don't think I'm the best to address this one.
And then you've got a whole new group of people competing for reservations in BSP, many of which will be no shows because they really don't know exactly when they'll get to the park. This would just create another reason to move the terminus.
If the problem was rule breakers in the park the fix would be easy, just enforce the rules and fine people. But that's not the problem.
If the problem was a lack of funding then just increase fees to hikers. But that's not the problem either.
The problem is BSP doesn't want to deal with the flood of thru-hikers in September and October. The fix for that problem is move the terminus. And that can't be done until BPS lays the groundwork of multiple complaints over a few years. Then they can say "we tried, it didn't work, get out". Then park leadership will be happy.
Exactly.
Spot on.
Starchild
10-05-2015, 18:38
Just a few quick thoughts on the "BSP Situation".... I just finished the AT a few days ago (10/1). BSP was definitely a highlight, and Maine is The Best state along the trail, to be sure... Katahdin was, of course, a fine finish.
Anyway, at the time my wife and I were there (she did the 100-mile and Katahdin with me), there were at least a couple dozen AT thru hikers of all ages (but mostly 20-somethings), and I witnessed zero bad behavior in the three days we spent in the park, with the exception of one particular ranger, who really had a bug up his butt. The other rangers were friendly, informative and fun and really seemed to like their jobs.
The ranger with the bug up his butt just plain wasn't friendly, plus he kicked 8 people off the ranger station porch in a torrential downpour (and we were already soaking wet to the bone from the all day rain last Wednesday), even after a much friendlier ranger told us we could stay there as long as we liked. We (my wife and I and another older couple) had a dry place (lean-to) to go, a group of 4 young thru hikers did not, though the four of us eventually chipped in and bought them one. We had all been waiting for a shuttle to Millinocket, which never came that night.
The next day after we summited and were gathered at the ranger station, an official BSP vehicle showed up and four sparkly clean, perfectly dressed people got out and visibly scowled at the ~20 thru hikers waiting for the AT Lodge shuttles; one even said something in a nasty tone stating that no, they would not be any sort of a ride for any of us. My wife and I were amused, but not surprised. We saw them again the next morning in the AT café, same smug looks. From an earlier pic in one of the news stories, I think one of them was one of the guys who had it in for Scott Jurek.
I any case, we did like BSP enough that we plan on returning and re-climbing Katahdin by some additional routes. We sure hope the ATC and BSP can get together and find some "solutions to the problem", though we witnessed absolutely zero problems. Non AT hikers outnumbered AT hikers by at least 10 to 1, and I sure can't see where any significant extra resources go to supporting AT thru hikers, other than a 5-minute check-in at the ranger station. I just don't get it. Much ado about nothing IMHO.
BSP any comment? It does appear your (BSP's) credibility is shrinking. The more we know the better.
mtntopper
10-05-2015, 20:10
Just a few quick thoughts on the "BSP Situation".... I just finished the AT a few days ago (10/1). BSP was definitely a highlight, and Maine is The Best state along the trail, to be sure... Katahdin was, of course, a fine finish.
Anyway, at the time my wife and I were there (she did the 100-mile and Katahdin with me), there were at least a couple dozen AT thru hikers of all ages (but mostly 20-somethings), and I witnessed zero bad behavior in the three days we spent in the park, with the exception of one particular ranger, who really had a bug up his butt. The other rangers were friendly, informative and fun and really seemed to like their jobs.
The ranger with the bug up his butt just plain wasn't friendly, plus he kicked 8 people off the ranger station porch in a torrential downpour (and we were already soaking wet to the bone from the all day rain last Wednesday), even after a much friendlier ranger told us we could stay there as long as we liked. We (my wife and I and another older couple) had a dry place (lean-to) to go, a group of 4 young thru hikers did not, though the four of us eventually chipped in and bought them one. We had all been waiting for a shuttle to Millinocket, which never came that night.
The next day after we summited and were gathered at the ranger station, an official BSP vehicle showed up and four sparkly clean, perfectly dressed people got out and visibly scowled at the ~20 thru hikers waiting for the AT Lodge shuttles; one even said something in a nasty tone stating that no, they would not be any sort of a ride for any of us. My wife and I were amused, but not surprised. We saw them again the next morning in the AT café, same smug looks. From an earlier pic in one of the news stories, I think one of them was one of the guys who had it in for Scott Jurek.
I any case, we did like BSP enough that we plan on returning and re-climbing Katahdin by some additional routes. We sure hope the ATC and BSP can get together and find some "solutions to the problem", though we witnessed absolutely zero problems. Non AT hikers outnumbered AT hikers by at least 10 to 1, and I sure can't see where any significant extra resources go to supporting AT thru hikers, other than a 5-minute check-in at the ranger station. I just don't get it. Much ado about nothing IMHO.
You were there for 3 days and saw what you saw and then reported it here. I have a feeling that if you were there everyday for months you would come away feeling somewhat different if you were to see and witness what they have been reporting.
The rules are the rules. Whether I agree with them or not they still are the rules. It seems to me that more education from hikers to hikers would be a good thing. We started a task force to help with educating people on the trail here in Catawba Va.
As far as Scott Jurek goes. He got what he deserved. He and his group broke the rules, blatantly in the presence of a BSP official.
Starchild
10-05-2015, 20:31
BSP biggest issue is that they have Katahdin inside their property. Their mission statement is clearly outside what this mountain represents. Perhaps they should sell this land and buy some other that would be more in tune to whom they feel Governor Baxtor's wishes were so he can rest in peace.
mtntopper
10-05-2015, 20:42
BSP biggest issue is that they have Katahdin inside their property. Their mission statement is clearly outside what this mountain represents. Perhaps they should sell this land and buy some other that would be more in tune to whom they feel Governor Baxtor's wishes were so he can rest in peace.
What is their mission statement?
colorado_rob
10-05-2015, 21:13
You were there for 3 days and saw what you saw and then reported it here. I have a feeling that if you were there everyday for months you would come away feeling somewhat different if you were to see and witness what they have been reporting.
The rules are the rules. Whether I agree with them or not they still are the rules. It seems to me that more education from hikers to hikers would be a good thing. We started a task force to help with educating people on the trail here in Catawba Va.
As far as Scott Jurek goes. He got what he deserved. He and his group broke the rules, blatantly in the presence of a BSP official.What-EV-er on the SJ thing... what did he "get" exactly by the way? Not much except a tarnished name from some unfortunate circumstance.
But yeah, I agree 3 days certainly isn't even close to enough time to make any judgments whatsoever, but I came away with an entirely different feeling than I had expected; it was a serene and happy place, dominated by non thru hikers, even though it was mid-week. And I saw it in both horrible and perfect weather. I have to ask though.... I spent 2 nights and part of 3 days there... have you spent any time there yourself?
Good for you and others in that education thing (I mean this sincerely, not being sarcastic). We saw flyers in all shelters and little trail Kiosks throughout Maine talking about behavior in BSP. Maybe this is all that is really needed to keep most of the isolated but unnecessarily obnoxious events from happening in BSP (and in your case, VA). I just hope that BSP and the ATC don't over-react either way and sane heads prevail in the long run.
I have nothing but respect for Gov. Baxter for what he did to bring this park into existence. It really is a fantastic place.
Traveler
10-06-2015, 07:57
And then you've got a whole new group of people competing for reservations in BSP, many of which will be no shows because they really don't know exactly when they'll get to the park. This would just create another reason to move the terminus.
If the problem was rule breakers in the park the fix would be easy, just enforce the rules and fine people. But that's not the problem.
If the problem was a lack of funding then just increase fees to hikers. But that's not the problem either.
The problem is BSP doesn't want to deal with the flood of thru-hikers in September and October. The fix for that problem is move the terminus. And that can't be done until BPS lays the groundwork of multiple complaints over a few years. Then they can say "we tried, it didn't work, get out". Then park leadership will be happy.
Reservation systems can be worked out successfully, as evidenced by the air travel industry, but will require some investment. The question is more where the ATC wants the trail to end. At Katahdin summit, Abol Bridge, Huber Road, or other point. Once that is determined the problems become logistical in nature and solvable. Doing nothing won't be an option much longer.
peakbagger
10-06-2015, 09:01
I expect there will be fewer thruhiker issues this year then last and the reason has nothing to do with SJ. The reason is a very unusual weather pattern. Relative to past years, Maine and much of northern new England has been in borderline drought conditions. Since the end of august, there has been significant rain about 1 day out of 7 at worst (unfortunately Colorado Rob seems to have picked the rainiest day in the stretch to visit). The "system" in place currently can handle the average distance hiker loading (not without some issues) where the system gets fouled up is bad weather day. Hikers are going to tend to queue up outside the park and inside the park to go up the summit on a sunny day and that's where the problems arise. On rainy day folks at the Birches are going to stay an extra day or fill up a spare slot at KSC leaving no room for the next days group of arriving thru hikers. They then have nothing to do but sit around and if they can find a source, that's the time when alcohol or drugs can fuel less than polite behavior. On typical years the standard rule of thumb is you get one good day out of three to summit Baxter, usually its sunny one day , partly cloudy the next and rain and thunderstorms the day after. Thus on typical year 1 in 3 of the days is probably going to lead to more distance hikers wanted to get in the park then there are open slots. This year its more like 1 in 7 days. On some years a big front moves in in late September early October and the wait for reasonable weather may stretch out to 5 or more days of rain. I expect in that situation, a lot of tempers get pretty raw on the behalf of staff and hikers.
As I had pointed out long ago in my solution post (that eventually got hijacked into one of many SJ threads), there could be system put in place using a shuttle van and someone to manage it by using the state campground at Abol bridge for overflow when the Birches and other slots in the park fill up. There is another obvious alternative to those familiar with the reservation system that could nearly triple overnight slots for thruhikers in the park but based on my observation prior to Labor day, I expect the majority of space related issues kick in from mid September onto early October. As for entitlement issues that are ultimately the source for bad behavior and ignoring the rules, the only hope is lots of education and someone in the background to enforce the rules. All of these options require money and staff time and those costs should not be on Baxter's dime. Unfortunately ATC is a non profit and non profits tend to spend their money on high profile acquisitions that attract more visibility and donations. Most folks would prefer cutting a check to "save the highlands" then one to deal with difficult thruhikers with entitlement issues. MATC runs on shoestring and stretches every buck to the maximum amount possible, funding a shuttle services and an paid staff member is luxury they can not afford to do. Contrary to popular belief the cost to run a shuttle and staff it is not going to get covered by a donation can and a couple of buck fee.
I tend to give the rangers a lot of slack, rarely does a seasonal ranger last more than a season if they have a attitude against guests. Permanent rangers are frequently out of sight of the public but if they have survived the long wait for full time, they also have good guest skills. What many folks don't realize is that the ranger does not work an 8 hour day. It highly likely that the KSC ranger is called out for search and rescue of lost or injured hiker several times a week and typically that means getting to bed around 1 or 2 AM the next morning. These S&R operations use multiple staff so all the staff tends to get little sleep. They then have to be up before sunrise (4:30 in early summer) to meet the next days day hikers. Most folks can pull that off for just a few days and then exhaustion kicks in. Thus when some entitled brat comes in their face complaining that they deserve a ride around the park or into Millinocket after their hike or demand a place to camp or decide that the rules don't apply I expect some of those brats would report the rangers as having an attitude.
As the previous poster noted, doing nothing wont be an option and that's really what the park director was pointing out in his second letter to ATC and MATC which had been predated by a similar letter a few years previously. The numbers are going up and the ATC is actively promoting higher visibility of the AT thus ATC and MATC have to be proactive and their efforts to date haven't been enough.
peakbagger
10-06-2015, 09:01
Duplicate post (don't know why the forum is doing this lately)
Katahdin is a glorious place to end, or begin, a long hike. It would be a shame to lose it. But it's their Park, their rules, and they can do what they want. Users of the Park can fight to change those rules if they want to (good luck with that!) but if they break those rules there are consequences. For them and all who follow.
Far more likely than changing rules would be if ATC, ALDHA, Maine ATC, or a combination of these clubs plus other individuals and sponsors made an offer to help put boots on the ground in the form of BSP ridgerunners whose only purpose is to deal with AT hikers. They would report via satellite phone or walkie talkie anything that they cannot handle on their own so BSP law enforcement rangers can quickly intercede.
Yes, this will cost $$$. Better get busy. I'll pledge a few $$$ each year if this effort gets going. Probably others would too. And each organization or sponsor would need to prioritize this to a degree.
This sounds mean and militaristic but it's likely the only way to curb the behavior of a few who are ruining it for everyone else.
Lone Wolf
10-13-2015, 18:45
http://www.insideedition.com/headlines/12335-officials-will-crack-down-on-celebrations-on-the-appalachian-trail-over-littering-concerns
http://www.insideedition.com/headlines/12335-officials-will-crack-down-on-celebrations-on-the-appalachian-trail-over-littering-concerns
While I can understand the sentiment, not sure about leaving a whole cupful of cremated remains like that right at Baxter Peak.
Traveler
10-14-2015, 07:10
While I can understand the sentiment, not sure about leaving a whole cupful of cremated remains like that right at Baxter Peak.
A permit is required for scattering cremains around a State or National Park in the New England States. I seriously doubt permission would be given for bits of people to be tossed on the ground at the Terminus sign as that video shows. What the clown in the video is doing is past creepy, just watching the dust from Poppi float about, I wonder how many people breathed that in over the following few days.
Not all cremains are the same. One of the reasons for permitting this process is some cremains have bits of bone and teeth in them that can easily be confused with remains from a body that would launch an investigation.
Lone Wolf
10-21-2015, 17:04
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/30/hikers-behaving-badly-appalachian-trail-partying-raises-ire/
Old Hillwalker
10-21-2015, 17:30
Good old faux news
Lone Wolf
10-21-2015, 17:45
Good old faux news
nothin' fake about the article. would you prefer MSNBC or CNN or BBC?
nothin' fake about the article. would you prefer MSNBC or CNN or BBC?
Maybe the BBC. American news has lost its journalistic integrity and is for entertainment value only. The article is real. The intentions behind it is suspect.
WingedMonkey
10-21-2015, 18:10
Hundreds of miles away, misbehaving hikers contributed to a small Pennsylvania community's recent decision to shutter the sleeping quarters it had offered for decades in the basement of its municipal building.
Assuming they mean the "Jail House".
They could have at least provided a source.
Other "news" reports have said otherwise.
Traveler
10-21-2015, 18:26
I had to like the Jurek quote and subsequent actions to his behavior as reported, clearly a message needed to be sent:
"There is always a bad apple or two, but these are people that spend four to six months for a year on the trail, on their feet, experiencing the wilderness. I can't imagine them wanting to do things that would violate the wilderness," said Scott Jurek, an ultramarathoner from Colorado who last month completed the trail in a record time of 46 days, eight hours.
After celebrating with a bottle of champagne at Katahdin's summit, Jurek received citations for consuming alcohol, hiking with a large group and littering. He argued that the citations were unfair and that Baxter officials were using him to send a message to problem hikers.
mtntopper
10-21-2015, 20:21
I had to like the Jurek quote and subsequent actions to his behavior as reported, clearly a message needed to be sent:
"There is always a bad apple or two, but these are people that spend four to six months for a year on the trail, on their feet, experiencing the wilderness. I can't imagine them wanting to do things that would violate the wilderness," said Scott Jurek, an ultramarathoner from Colorado who last month completed the trail in a record time of 46 days, eight hours.
After celebrating with a bottle of champagne at Katahdin's summit, Jurek received citations for consuming alcohol, hiking with a large group and littering. He
argued that the citations were unfair and that Baxter officials were using him to send a message to problem hikers.
He is not only a ultra runner but a whiner as well.