PDA

View Full Version : No children under 6 allowed above timberline in Baxter Sate Park.



TJ aka Teej
07-24-2018, 18:11
Baxter's a great place for little kids. Fishing, canoeing, swimming, hiking to waterfalls, s'mores around the campfire, children's programs all summer, a truly wonderful place.

Except above timberline.

Baxter's access rules and regulations are well thought out and crafted with safety of all visitors as their top priority.

"Rule 2.2 - No children under the age of 6 are allowed above timberline."

Taking small children above treeline in Baxter is simply recklessness bordering on intentional endangerment.

The rule was written by people intimately familiar with conditions and risks in all weather and all seasons - their knowledge and experience trumps all whims and wishes from under-informed parents.

The risk is not worth it - no matter how much you want that Instagram pic.

Lauriep
07-24-2018, 20:55
Great post.

rickb
07-24-2018, 21:18
Something happen that precipitated those posts?

FreeGoldRush
07-24-2018, 22:53
Smart move. Allowing parents to make choices regarding their children's safety would be irresponsible.

rhjanes
07-24-2018, 22:57
Is the rule new? Just wondering.

egilbe
07-25-2018, 06:07
Is the rule new? Just wondering.

Been posted at the trailheads for years. Somepeople are too dumb to be allowed to reproduce.

T.S.Kobzol
07-25-2018, 06:55
this is probably a prequel to the event should the family with little children that is currently hiking the AT make it to BSP.

Lone Wolf
07-25-2018, 07:40
this is probably a prequel to the event should the family with little children that is currently hiking the AT make it to BSP.

probably the point of this post

Gambit McCrae
07-25-2018, 07:56
Agreed,
The kid wont know any different, and he can come back when he is 6, still not knowing the difference and hiking up Big K, boy what a AT reunion vid that will make...
In real time, their videos are several weeks behind where they are on the trail. So they could in fact be done with the trail by now but I would say it would be pushing it a bit.

TJ aka Teej
07-25-2018, 08:04
Is the rule new? Just wondering.

From the 70s.

Tundracamper
07-25-2018, 08:04
I am curious what is so terribly dangerous that a parent canít carry a child under 6 above the timberline there. Iíve been to Mt. Evans, which is about 3 times the elevation, and recall seeing kids up there. If you donít want them hiking, fine. But why canít an adult carry one if they want to?

TJ aka Teej
07-25-2018, 08:11
this is probably a prequel to the event should the family with little children that is currently hiking the AT make it to BSP.

Not in particular. There's recently been 3 babes in backpack carriers that I know of in the 100, and this applies to car campers too. It's been an increasing trend.
That family isn't in the Whites yet, as far as I know.

T.S.Kobzol
07-25-2018, 08:18
I put the family on 'media ignore' a few months ago. :-)

George
07-25-2018, 10:18
I put the family on 'media ignore' a few months ago. :-)

why are you here - if you want to be closed minded

I had my doubts, but they are close to pulling it off - there are a hell of a lot worse things those kids could be exposed to

T.S.Kobzol
07-25-2018, 10:22
Why am I where? On whiteblaze.net? Does the world of thruhiking revolve around this hiking family? Are we going to delete the forum when they finish their thru hike? :-)

I'm here because I like hiking, camping and long distance trails but there are some attention grabbing personalities I dislike. I hope that's ok with You? By now you probably dislike me...why are you here? :-)




why are you here - if you want to be closed minded

I had my doubts, but they are close to pulling it off - there are a hell of a lot worse things those kids could be exposed to

George
07-25-2018, 10:25
certainly there are reasons for the under 6 rule - but the same reasons would apply to people who are in the administrations opinion:

too old

too fat

too stupid

etc...

if they have done the rest of the trail with the kid, more tests have been passed than most people who go above tree line

George
07-25-2018, 10:28
why are you here? :-)

to help you open your mind


reality - wasting time until saturday, when I start another trip

T.S.Kobzol
07-25-2018, 10:31
I've already given them time to watch their videos at the beginning of their hike and then I was done with them. Now I don't care. Cheers for wasting time until next trip. Mine starts tomorrow. :-)



to help you open your mind


reality - wasting time until saturday, when I start another trip

Gambit McCrae
07-25-2018, 10:32
to help you open your mind


reality - wasting time until saturday, when I start another trip


I like you George! :) lol
T.S.Kob...meh not so much

D2maine
07-25-2018, 11:29
Not in particular. There's recently been 3 babes in backpack carriers that I know of in the 100, and this applies to car campers too. It's been an increasing trend.
That family isn't in the Whites yet, as far as I know.

why spam every AT forum you can find with Baxter info that is readily accessible by anybody - its not like the park rules are hidden away and only you are the keeper of the info


https://baxterstatepark.org/rules-and-permits/

LittleRock
07-25-2018, 11:40
Welp, guess that means I can't finish section hiking the AT for at least another 5 years if want my kids to climb big K with me. Good thing I still have a little over half the trail go to...

RuthN
07-25-2018, 11:43
Not in particular. There's recently been 3 babes in backpack carriers that I know of in the 100, and this applies to car campers too. It's been an increasing trend.
That family isn't in the Whites yet, as far as I know.

This blogger saw them in NH "a few days ago" according to a July 23 post. https://thetrek.co/appalachian-trail/crawford-family-omelette-man-franconia-ridge/

They might relish being prevented from climbing Katahdin. It would be good for their story line.

Last Call
07-25-2018, 12:37
So, the thru-hiking family of 8 won't be able to set their record? That is a crying shame :( There should be an exception made for them as it was for the "Backpacking Bobby" a few years back....they deserve it to be able to have the record!

George
07-25-2018, 13:54
So, the thru-hiking family of 8 won't be able to set their record? That is a crying shame :( There should be an exception made for them as it was for the "Backpacking Bobby" a few years back....they deserve it to be able to have the record!

no one "deserves" a record - but as I stated i a previous post, they have demonstrated more ability then many that baxter deems "worthy"

Gambit McCrae
07-25-2018, 13:58
I don't really think "records" are deserved, they are just attained.

Heliotrope
07-25-2018, 15:12
When my daughter was born i couldnít wait for her to turn 6 to climb Mt. K with me. Sheís now 13 and I am planning her first climb up this summer. Having climbed it many times in various weather conditions and knowing her ability- she wasnít ready until now. Plus now she wants it . There is a trend among modern parents to want super achieving kids. Yes,kids can be quite resilient and capable. Overall itís a reasonable rule.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

rocketsocks
07-25-2018, 16:23
Sometimes the mountain comes to Mohamed.

kestral
07-25-2018, 16:25
When my daughter was born i couldn’t wait for her to turn 6 to climb Mt. K with me. She’s now 13 and I am planning her first climb up this summer. Having climbed it many times in various weather conditions and knowing her ability- she wasn’t ready until now. Plus now she wants it . There is a trend among modern parents to want super achieving kids. Yes,kids can be quite resilient and capable. Overall it’s a reasonable rule.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Smart post. Each child is unique and a wise parent knows her / his limitations.

Feral Bill
07-25-2018, 16:51
Smart post. Each child is unique and a wise parent knows her / his limitations. Sadly, not all parents are wise, or even moderately smart.

Starchild
07-25-2018, 19:02
no one "deserves" a record - but as I stated i a previous post, they have demonstrated more ability then many that baxter deems "worthy"

That was Backpacking Buddy. IIRC they got a permit for him to go above treeline (though he was above treeline many times already).

TJ aka Teej
07-25-2018, 19:25
why spam every AT forum you can find with Baxter info that is readily accessible by anybody - its not like the park rules are hidden away and only you are the keeper of the info
If only every visitor to Baxter was as well informed as you!
If that were the case the dozens of families who show up every season wanting to take junior above timberline wouldn't show up wanting to take junior above timberline.
Tell me, tell us, how would you get the info out to people who show up claiming they had no idea about Rule 2.2?

D2maine
07-25-2018, 20:20
If only every visitor to Baxter was as well informed as you!
If that were the case the dozens of families who show up every season wanting to take junior above timberline wouldn't show up wanting to take junior above timberline.
Tell me, tell us, how would you get the info out to people who show up claiming they had no idea about Rule 2.2?

if the park thought it was such a big problem and wants to do more they can. the park already has a facebook page and a website - at some point its on the guests to put some very very minimal effort in.

Tundracamper
07-25-2018, 20:59
I've already given them time to watch their videos at the beginning of their hike and then I was done with them. Now I don't care. Cheers for wasting time until next trip. Mine starts tomorrow. :-)

Yeah, because having almost 900 posts on an Internet forum is not a waste of time? To each his own.

T.S.Kobzol
07-25-2018, 21:08
You missed the point. I was sympathetic to him referring to himself as wasting his time on a forum until he gets to go outdoors this weekend. To that I was saying I do the same, except my trip starts tomorrow. [emoji846]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

T.S.Kobzol
07-25-2018, 21:11
Wait, I got 900 posts? Wow. Since 2010. That's like 100 posts per year. 10 posts per month. Sounds about right [emoji1][emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wise Old Owl
07-25-2018, 21:30
why are you here - if you want to be closed minded

I had my doubts, but they are close to pulling it off - there are a hell of a lot worse things those kids could be exposed to

George - keep in mind you are posting in a forum of like minded people. The rule was put in place due to adults making poor choices on the AT trail. We all keep an open mind until someone over steps their bounds or provides a good reason to be put on ignore prior to be being expelled from WB, I have about 18 past posters on ignore for good reasons. Replying to a few individuals can be a clear mistake, that will not benefit others.

Sarcasm the elf
07-25-2018, 22:15
Wait, I got 900 posts? Wow. Since 2010. That's like 100 posts per year. 10 posts per month. Sounds about right [emoji1][emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Heck, some of us have had more posts than that in a single thread! :D:banana

43281

rocketsocks
07-26-2018, 01:51
That’s what happens when you have a conversation about nothing.

Tundracamper
07-26-2018, 08:32
Iím still curious why this odd rule exists. Nobody seems to know. Iíve hiked many miles on the AT and donít ever recall seeing anyone below age 10. Is this really a big problem?

D2maine
07-26-2018, 08:54
I’m still curious why this odd rule exists. Nobody seems to know. I’ve hiked many miles on the AT and don’t ever recall seeing anyone below age 10. Is this really a big problem?

its not an AT rule its a Baxter rule...i would guess there was an issue in the past that prompted it, the rule has been in place for around 40 years so this is nothing new...

T.S.Kobzol
07-26-2018, 08:57
TJ will probably chime in but I think climbing Katahdin via Hunt Trail is not a place for little kids. In many places it is nearly vertical with rod iron handholds. The handholds may have been built for adults and not very short people. Plenty of places for little kids to trip and fall. Then once you make it to the Table Land you could get immediately hit by high winds. Suddenly you are above the tree line at a place where wind has the opportunity to accelerate. Turning around and descending on this trail could be even harder for little kids. Added to the complexity BSP is remote. It's not the same as hiking Mt.Washington with several bailout points and a quick return to the convenience of civilization, electricity and waiting ambulance.

Now that I have said that ... my first son climbed Katahdin with me via Pamola Peak, Knife Edge when he was around 7. I had a few safety items with me (rope) and he had the experience of doing the Presi a year earlier and probably 30 peaks under his belt.

Starchild
07-26-2018, 09:06
If only every visitor to Baxter was as well informed as you!
If that were the case the dozens of families who show up every season wanting to take junior above timberline wouldn't show up wanting to take junior above timberline.
Tell me, tell us, how would you get the info out to people who show up claiming they had no idea about Rule 2.2?

I would like to add age restrictions in traveling through the wildernesses, and for that matter going above treeline, is highly unusual and I can see how many would not know this, nor have any reason to even consider to research it. I known in the whites and the Adrondacks, each have many hikes about treeline children are welcome, actually I can't think of anywhere besides Baxter which restricts it. In that I do get the info on rescues for the Adirondacks and can't recall it ever coming up. So yes I would say that Baxter needs to really point out rule 2.2 as it won't be expected.

Last Call
07-26-2018, 13:15
Shouldn't the A.T. have privileges that trump Baxter State Parks rules? And what is "Rule 2.2"? Any "rule" they arbitrarily made over 40 years ago should certainly be revisited with the modern technology we have nowadays....

HooKooDooKu
07-26-2018, 13:22
Shouldn't the A.T. have privileges that trump Baxter State Parks rules?
Why? Sure the ATC is a national entity, but you have to consider that Baxter is ALLOWING the ATC to include it's park as a part of the AT.
I believe there's has already been some scuttlebutt of Baxter considering removing itself as a part of the AT because of the rapid growth use of the AT has seen in say the last decade and the impact it's having on the state park.

Starchild
07-26-2018, 13:22
Shouldn't the A.T. have privileges that trump Baxter State Parks rules? And what is "Rule 2.2"? Any "rule" they arbitrarily made over 40 years ago should certainly be revisited with the modern technology we have nowadays....
There is a permit process in which it appears that AT hikers do get consideration. Also AT thru and LD hikers do have privileges which the general public does not, staying at the Birches.

D2maine
07-26-2018, 13:24
Shouldn't the A.T. have privileges that trump Baxter State Parks rules? And what is "Rule 2.2"? Any "rule" they arbitrarily made over 40 years ago should certainly be revisited with the modern technology we have nowadays....

No Baxter hosts the trail local rules apply just like every other place the trail passes through property not owned by the park service. As to revisiting the rule that is not going to happen no way no how, itís their park donít like it donít hike it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FreeGoldRush
07-26-2018, 13:34
No Baxter hosts the trail ... itís their park...
It's their park? This sort of thinking boggles my mind. I'm not sure where it comes from.

Last Call
07-26-2018, 13:36
It's their park? This sort of thinking boggles my mind. I'm not sure where it comes from.

I agree 100%....

D2maine
07-26-2018, 13:39
It's their park? This sort of thinking boggles my mind. I'm not sure where it comes from.

Are you saying that Baxter is owned by anybody other than the state of Maine. Itís a wilderness preserve first and a hiking paradise 2nd and that will never change - so yep itís their park and will be run their way


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Last Call
07-26-2018, 13:41
It would be interesting to see the "ownership" history of "their" park....is there a deed somewhere from the Native Americans?

D2maine
07-26-2018, 13:44
It would be interesting to see the "ownership" history of "their" park....is there a deed somewhere from the Native Americans?

LOL the moment when there is no question the discussion has run off the rails

Heliotrope
07-26-2018, 13:45
Shouldn't the A.T. have privileges that trump Baxter State Parks rules? And what is "Rule 2.2"? Any "rule" they arbitrarily made over 40 years ago should certainly be revisited with the modern technology we have nowadays....

Nope. Baxter is a land trust set aside by Percival Baxter as a gift to the people of Maine. It is to remain forever wild and undeveloped. The AT can be relocated from the park if the impact is seen as not in accord with the vision set forth when it was established.

Think of your visit as a privilege into a pristine, unspoiled and gorgeous area. The rules that govern use of these lands help retain itsí pristine and untrampled beauty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

tdoczi
07-26-2018, 14:25
Shouldn't the A.T. have privileges that trump Baxter State Parks rules?
people who just don't get what the AT is and isn't and what the areas such as baxter, WMNF, GSMNP etc, that the AT runs through but is not the center of, are will just always be with us i guess.

tdoczi
07-26-2018, 14:27
I agree 100%....
this sort of thinking boggles MY mind.

Last Call
07-26-2018, 14:30
this sort of thinking boggles MY mind.

So many elitists attitudes....reminds me of the ol' "Get off my lawn" grumpy old geezer....just imagine if all state parks were as restrictive as the vaunted Baxter, wouldn't that be a hoot?

FreeGoldRush
07-26-2018, 14:35
Think of your visit as a privilege...
Not a chance, but I appreciate your point of view.

Even if we believe it is unsafe to take a child under 6 up the mountain, we have to understand that we might be wrong. It's not our place to make that decision for every other parent on the trail.

Last Call
07-26-2018, 14:43
Well I, for 1, wouldn't want to see the disappointment in that child's eyes when he is told by the ranger that he couldn't summit after hiking 2,185 miles.....

Lone Wolf
07-26-2018, 14:53
the northern terminus should be at Whitecap

SoaknWet
07-26-2018, 15:00
You will find no deeds with Native Americans on it because there is No such persons. They were the First People, Native People or just the People! It was never America till the invaders named it that!

soilman
07-26-2018, 15:07
If you have hiked up Katahdin I think you can appreciate why this rule is in place. I think it would be very difficult for a small child to climb most of these trails. I am 6'1" and wonder how some shorter folks are able to get up and down in some places.

tdoczi
07-26-2018, 15:28
So many elitists attitudes....reminds me of the ol' "Get off my lawn" grumpy old geezer....just imagine if all state parks were as restrictive as the vaunted Baxter, wouldn't that be a hoot?

one could just as easily call the attitude that the rules shouldnt apply to you and you can do as you please elitist.

tdoczi
07-26-2018, 15:29
Even if we believe it is unsafe to take a child under 6 up the mountain, we have to understand that we might be wrong. It's not our place to make that decision for every other parent on the trail.

that i actually agree with. but the AT doesnt make the rules cause it's the AT and you don't get ignore rules you don't like because you hiked all the way there from GA

tdoczi
07-26-2018, 15:35
If you have hiked up Katahdin I think you can appreciate why this rule is in place. I think it would be very difficult for a small child to climb most of these trails. I am 6'1" and wonder how some shorter folks are able to get up and down in some places.
i once witnessed an adult carry a small child sitting on his shoulders up the mist trail in yosemite NP. not something i would attempt or advise others to do, but that doesnt mean i think anyone should have told them they can't do it.

i have to be honest, of all the BSP rules i've heard discussed this one veers the furthest from a genuine effort at conservation and closest to just restrictive busy bodying.

the cut off line is also kind of curious.... a 5 year old cant do it but a 6 year old can? do rangers who have doubts as to a child's age ask them for ID?

putts
07-26-2018, 15:37
What a bunch of misinformed entitled lazy whiners we have here. BAXTER STATE PARK IS NOT A STATE PARK! YOU DO NOT GET TO PLAY THE THIS LAND IS MY LAND CARD. LOOK IT UP. EDUCATE YOURSELF A SMIDGE BEFORE YOU WHINE ABOUT HOW ITS NOT FAIR. THE AT IS A GUEST OF BAXTER PARK. IT CAN BE KICKED OUT IF IT BECOMES UNDESIRABLE. BAXTER OWES YOU NOTHING. YOU AND YOUR 1-6 YEAR OLD BRAT ARE NOT SPECIAL DESPITE WHAT YOUR FAMILY TELLS YOU. THATS JUST THE WAY IT IS.

TJ aka Teej
07-26-2018, 15:54
Shouldn't the A.T. have privileges that trump Baxter State Parks rules?

A good way to think about this is to consider Baxter private property.
The AT, federal property, ends at the boundary.
So, no.

TJ aka Teej
07-26-2018, 15:59
It's their park? This sort of thinking boggles my mind. I'm not sure where it comes from.

It comes from the man who donated the land to the people of Maine, with strict conditions of use.
The Deeds of Trust are iron clad.

Sarcasm the elf
07-26-2018, 16:20
What a bunch of misinformed entitled lazy whiners we have here. BAXTER STATE PARK IS NOT A STATE PARK! YOU DO NOT GET TO PLAY THE THIS LAND IS MY LAND CARD. LOOK IT UP. EDUCATE YOURSELF A SMIDGE BEFORE YOU WHINE ABOUT HOW ITS NOT FAIR. THE AT IS A GUEST OF BAXTER PARK. IT CAN BE KICKED OUT IF IT BECOMES UNDESIRABLE. BAXTER OWES YOU NOTHING. YOU AND YOUR 1-6 YEAR OLD BRAT ARE NOT SPECIAL DESPITE WHAT YOUR FAMILY TELLS YOU. THATS JUST THE WAY IT IS.

Was that meant to be Billy Mays capslock or Lee Ermey capslock?

D2maine
07-26-2018, 16:57
It comes from the man who donated the land to the people of Maine, with strict conditions of use.
The Deeds of Trust are iron clad.

exactly the park authority is legally bound to run the park in accordance with the deeds of trust - that is the only thing that matters to them. thus "they" will run the park the way "they" see fit

D2maine
07-26-2018, 16:58
You will find no deeds with Native Americans on it because there is No such persons. They were the First People, Native People or just the People! It was never America till the invaders named it that!

the matter of land ownership is settled law the tribes-first peoples- whatever settled with Maine and the federal govt back in 1980.

D2maine
07-26-2018, 17:03
the northern terminus should be at Whitecap

this is possibly the stupidest thing i have read on the internet in weeks congrats.

i understand your thing is to try and make inflammatory statements to get a rise out of people, but this idea is only a good idea to somebody that enjoys cutting their nose off to spite their face. Not only because of baxter but you would skip a bunch of good hiking between whitecap and abol bridge.

D2maine
07-26-2018, 17:06
What a bunch of misinformed entitled lazy whiners we have here. BAXTER STATE PARK IS NOT A STATE PARK! YOU DO NOT GET TO PLAY THE THIS LAND IS MY LAND CARD. LOOK IT UP. EDUCATE YOURSELF A SMIDGE BEFORE YOU WHINE ABOUT HOW ITS NOT FAIR. THE AT IS A GUEST OF BAXTER PARK. IT CAN BE KICKED OUT IF IT BECOMES UNDESIRABLE. BAXTER OWES YOU NOTHING. YOU AND YOUR 1-6 YEAR OLD BRAT ARE NOT SPECIAL DESPITE WHAT YOUR FAMILY TELLS YOU. THATS JUST THE WAY IT IS.

the park is not going to kick out the AT that is silly talk - there is a damn good case that doing so would violate the deeds the park authority is legally bound to honor. But there is nothing stopping the park from removing any and all special privileges the long distance hikers now enjoy

D2maine
07-26-2018, 17:16
Well I, for 1, wouldn't want to see the disappointment in that child's eyes when he is told by the ranger that he couldn't summit after hiking 2,185 miles.....

so there is no responsibility on the parents to not even let it get that far...its no secret, the rules are easy to find, it has been in place for decades. at some point its mom and dad who should be doing the adult thing and respecting a place in which they are a guest.

Traffic Jam
07-26-2018, 17:48
this is possibly the stupidest thing i have read on the internet in weeks congrats.

i understand your thing is to try and make inflammatory statements to get a rise out of people, but this idea is only a good idea to somebody that enjoys cutting their nose off to spite their face. Not only because of baxter but you would skip a bunch of good hiking between whitecap and abol bridge.

Itís not a stupid idea at all. It would solve a lot of problems.
And I have to say, LW deserves a little more respect. He has a vast amount of experience on the AT and is a great source of knowledge. If he didnít keep forgetting the damn smiley face, his replies wouldnít seem so terse. ;)

D2maine
07-26-2018, 17:56
It’s not a stupid idea at all. It would solve a lot of problems.
And I have to say, LW deserves a little more respect. He has a vast amount of experience on the AT and is a great source of knowledge. If he didn’t keep forgetting the damn smiley face, his replies wouldn’t seem so terse. ;)

its a solution in search of a problem, it is quite possibly the worst location logistically to end the trail, it skips some of the best parts of the 100 mile, it skips baxter which is the jewel of the AT. Respect lol why its just walking...

Traffic Jam
07-26-2018, 18:35
lol why its just walking...

nah...’it’s just the internet’ works much better in this context. :)

Traffic Jam
07-26-2018, 18:35
lol why its just walking...

nah...íitís just the internetí works much better in this context. :)

D2maine
07-26-2018, 18:47
nah...’it’s just the internet’ works much better in this context. :)



nah...’it’s just the internet’ works much better in this context. :)

lol you can say that again

TJ aka Teej
07-26-2018, 18:57
the park is not going to kick out the AT that is silly talk - there is a damn good case that doing so would violate the deeds the park authority is legally bound to honor.

The Deeds of Trust direct that not one square inch ever comes under control of the Federal government.
The Park hosts the AT. The AT doesn't have say in any Park matter.
As the Director's letter to the ATC stated, the AT could easily end at the boundary.
Doing so wouldn't 'violate' the Deeds, there's a strong argument that doing so would actually enforce them.

peakbagger
07-26-2018, 19:00
Not sure the under six rule is specifically a Deeds of Trust issue, other than the BSP commission is delegated the right to make the rules in BSP. I don't think Percival Baxter cast the age 6 rule in stone. Far more likely that the BSP commission put in a common sense rule which is their right in managing the park. There are always exceptions like the girl who did the NH 4000s at age 6, but the vast majority of children age 6 are not in the condition to do it on their own and potentially put their parents at risk if they are carrying the kid.

rickb
07-26-2018, 19:01
It comes from the man who donated the land to the people of Maine, with strict conditions of use.
The Deeds of Trust are iron clad.



The Deeds of Trust do not mention 6 year old children.


Also, please recall that the AT was established by an Act of Congress to have Baxter Peak as its Northern terminous.

Is an an an act of Congress Subordinate to the Deeds of Trust?

D2maine
07-26-2018, 19:02
The Deeds of Trust direct that not one square inch ever comes under control of the Federal government.
The Park hosts the AT. The AT doesn't have say in any Park matter.
As the Director's letter to the ATC stated, the AT could easily end at the boundary.
Doing so wouldn't 'violate' the Deeds, there's a strong argument that doing so would actually enforce them.

the at was invited in by baxter himself - the argument to keep it there is far better than the snowmobile in the park argument. not saying the feds could or would take over at all, but there is an argument to be made that the trail belongs in the park because baxter himself wanted it so.

D2maine
07-26-2018, 19:04
The Deeds of Trust do not mention 6 year old children.


Also, please recall that the AT was established by an Act of Congress to have Baxter Peak as its Northern terminous.

Is an an an act of Congress Subordinate to the Deeds of Trust?

the act of congress does not in any way shape or form confer ownership of all AT land to the feds...

Last Call
07-26-2018, 19:10
Baxter STATE Park has zero say or authority in where the A.T. ends....it ends where the A.T.C. says it ends.

Last Call
07-26-2018, 19:13
Wait....you mean to tell me they allow snowmobiles in B.S.P.? (clutches pearls)

TJ aka Teej
07-26-2018, 19:14
Baxter STATE Park has zero say or authority in where the A.T. ends....it ends where the A.T.C. says it ends.

Baxter isn't a State Park.
the ATC has no say or authority on anything the happens in Baxter.

D2maine
07-26-2018, 19:15
Wait....you mean to tell me they allow snowmobiles in B.S.P.? (clutches pearls)

do you know anything about the park or do you just talk out your azz?

Last Call
07-26-2018, 19:17
do you know anything about the park or do you just talk out your azz?


Only trying to be helpful! :)

T.S.Kobzol
07-26-2018, 19:38
Azzome! [emoji1]

...yes. They are allowed from north gate to South Gate on the road only.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

rickb
07-26-2018, 19:57
Baxter isn't a State Park.
the ATC has no say or authority on anything the happens in Baxter.

Absolutely correct.

The ATC does not have any authority.

When the Appalachian Trail was created by an Act of Congress, the authority, such that it is, was conferred upon the Department of the Interior, and by extension to National Park Service.

As a politically savy organization (for the most part) excersizing restraint where appropriate (as in BSP) has been a wise strategy.

D2maine
07-26-2018, 20:09
Absolutely correct.

The ATC does not have any authority.

When the Appalachian Trail was created by an Act of Congress, the authority, such that it is, was conferred upon the Department of the Interior, and by extension to National Park Service.

As a politically savy organization (for the most part) excersizing restraint where appropriate (as in BSP) has been a wise strategy.

you have been trying this point for years and it simply is not true - the trails act did NOT give ownership of all AT lands to the feds. for years after the act the nps and atc negotiated with landowners for right of way and for transfer of ownership. the fact is Baxter could never have granted the feds either because the deeds were clear no fed control no way no how.

if the feds tried to take baxter by eminent domain or some other legal trick they would face not only the state of maine but every other state park and landowner that has the trail crossing its borders.

the best argument for keeping the trail in baxter is as long as keeping it does not violate the deeds - Baxter himself wanted it there and his actions and words are very very closely consulted on issues that are not directly in the deeds of trust.

Lone Wolf
07-26-2018, 20:17
this is possibly the stupidest thing i have read on the internet in weeks congrats.

i understand your thing is to try and make inflammatory statements to get a rise out of people, but this idea is only a good idea to somebody that enjoys cutting their nose off to spite their face. Not only because of baxter but you would skip a bunch of good hiking between whitecap and abol bridge.

whatever. i'm very serious. it wasn't inflammatory entitled maine guy:cool:

D2maine
07-26-2018, 20:22
whatever. i'm very serious. it wasn't inflammatory entitled maine guy:cool:

smiley face or no its a stupid idea for a bunch of reasons, if you want it off K fine but at least come up with a better idea than that

and really LOL at entitled:rolleyes:

Lone Wolf
07-26-2018, 20:26
Baxter isn't a State Park.
the ATC has no say or authority on anything the happens in Baxter.

in 91 the state of maine went on strike on july 1, the day Maineak was finishing his 56 day speed hike. the gate was wide open. no rangers. we reached the sign at 8:40 PM. the rangers work for the state

rickb
07-26-2018, 20:28
if the feds tried to take baxter by eminent domain or some other legal trick they would face not only the state of maine but every other state park and landowner that has the trail crossing its borders.

THe Department of Interior would be crazy (and they are not crazy) to do that. Not going to happen.

That said, an Act of Congress gives them the authority to do so.

This is from the act itself. Other sections deal with public lands.

g) The appropriate Secretary may utilize condemnation proceedings without the consent of the owner to acquire private lands or interests, therein pursuant to this section only in cases where, in his judgment, all reasonable efforts to acquire such lands or interest therein by negotiation have failed, and in such cases he shall acquire only such title as, in his judgment, is reasonably necessary to provide passage across such lands: Provided, That condemnation proceedings may not be utilized to acquire fee title or lesser interests to more than an average of one hundred and twenty-five acres per mile. Money appropriated for Federal purposes from the land and water conservation fund shall, without prejudice to appropriations from other sources, be available to Federal departments for the acquisition of lands or interests in lands for the purposes of this Act. For national historic trails, direct Federal acquisition for trail purposes shall be limited to those areas indicated by the study report or by the comprehensive plan as high potential route segments or high potential historic sites. Except for designated protected components of the trail, no land or site located along a designated national historic trail or along the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail shall be subject to the provisions of section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 1653(f)) unless such land or site is deemed to be of historical significance under appropriate historical site criteria such as those for the National Register of Historic Places.
(h)

Lone Wolf
07-26-2018, 20:34
Baxter isn't a State Park.
the ATC has no say or authority on anything the happens in Baxter.

in 91 the state of maine went on strike on july 1, the day Maineak was finishing his 56 day speed hike. the gate was wide open. no rangers. we reached the sign at 8:40 PM. the rangers work for the state

D2maine
07-26-2018, 20:36
in 91 the state of maine went on strike on july 1, the day Maineak was finishing his 56 day speed hike. the gate was wide open. no rangers. we reached the sign at 8:40 PM. the rangers work for the state

still does not make it a state park, its a public land trust legally - there is a distinction. a distinction Baxter carefully crafted and had approved by several different state legislative bodies and Governors. Baxter state park may be the single most difficult piece of land to legally take in all of the US. Baxter was no fool and he most definitely had a vision for the park he built with his own money and used every legal construct he could to make sure those wishes were followed forever.

D2maine
07-26-2018, 20:36
in 91 the state of maine went on strike on july 1, the day Maineak was finishing his 56 day speed hike. the gate was wide open. no rangers. we reached the sign at 8:40 PM. the rangers work for the state

still does not make it a state park, its a public land trust legally - there is a distinction. a distinction Baxter carefully crafted and had approved by several different state legislative bodies and Governors. Baxter state park may be the single most difficult piece of land to legally take in all of the US. Baxter was no fool and he most definitely had a vision for the park he built with his own money and used every legal construct he could to make sure those wishes were followed forever.

D2maine
07-26-2018, 20:42
THe Department of Interior would be crazy (and they are not crazy) to do that. Not going to happen.

That said, an Act of Congress gives them the authority to do so.

This is from the act itself. Other sections deal with public lands.

g) The appropriate Secretary may utilize condemnation proceedings without the consent of the owner to acquire private lands or interests, therein pursuant to this section only in cases where, in his judgment, all reasonable efforts to acquire such lands or interest therein by negotiation have failed, and in such cases he shall acquire only such title as, in his judgment, is reasonably necessary to provide passage across such lands: Provided, That condemnation proceedings may not be utilized to acquire fee title or lesser interests to more than an average of one hundred and twenty-five acres per mile. Money appropriated for Federal purposes from the land and water conservation fund shall, without prejudice to appropriations from other sources, be available to Federal departments for the acquisition of lands or interests in lands for the purposes of this Act. For national historic trails, direct Federal acquisition for trail purposes shall be limited to those areas indicated by the study report or by the comprehensive plan as high potential route segments or high potential historic sites. Except for designated protected components of the trail, no land or site located along a designated national historic trail or along the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail shall be subject to the provisions of section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 1653(f)) unless such land or site is deemed to be of historical significance under appropriate historical site criteria such as those for the National Register of Historic Places.
(h)

which still does not automatically give them ownership - just that they can try legal means to acquire land - trying this would pit the feds against every landowner and state on every section of any national trail against the feds. it would absolutely be disaster for hikers. there are a LOT of national trails with no complete right of ways and doing this would insure they never get completed.

rickb
07-26-2018, 21:01
Baxter State Park has been a great steward of the AT.

Despite some minor kurfufles, I have no doubt they will continue to be for a very long time to come.

The Feds will certainly respect the special relationship they have with the AT for reasons that go far beyond the all sacred deeds of trust.

D2maine
07-26-2018, 21:17
Baxter State Park has been a great steward of the AT.

Despite some minor kurfufles, I have no doubt they will continue to be for a very long time to come.

The Feds will certainly respect the special relationship they have with the AT for reasons that go far beyond the all sacred deeds of trust.

agreed the feds and Baxter will continue to co-exist for a long time, this whole issue is a tempest in a tea pot, Baxter has some rules, they are not hard or overly difficult to follow.

they also are still gracious enough to allow long distance hikers special access not allowed to the everybody else - because despite the bs found on the web they want the at in the park because baxter himself did.

they for sure will continue to do everything they can to control and run their park in a manner they see fit as per the deeds set forth in the establishment of the park and in the actions of and writings left behind by baxter, as they are legally bound to do. the place is awesome to visit and to hike - not only the big K but the entire park...

Tundracamper
07-26-2018, 21:18
Per Wikipedia...
ďSole governance is provided by the Baxter State Park Authority, consisting of the Maine Attorney General, the Maine Commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and the Director of the Maine Forest Service.Ē

Arenít the salaries of all three of those individuals paid by tax dollars? Sounds like the Park Authority works for the citizens of the State of Maine. So, I would think the ďtheirĒ in ďtheir parkĒ is the citizens, not the Park Authority.

D2maine
07-26-2018, 21:24
the park authority i believe is an unpaid thing, yes in their primary job the work for the state but as part of the park authority they are bound by law to run the park in accordance with the terms laid out by baxter in the deeds. there is no wiggle room for them and that was carefully crafted by baxter and approved repeatedly by successive state government sessions to make sure his gift was managed in accordance with his wishes.

D2maine
07-26-2018, 22:18
to expound on my last post here are the words of the current attorney general of the state member of the authority and possible future govenor
speaking directly on her thoughts about the park and her stewardship of it.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GvLBGDo60FFOwRo7cGMsiP_QUSDdsypp/view

TJ aka Teej
07-26-2018, 22:21
"While Baxter State Park bears the name “State” it is separately administered, free from any connection with the larger State Park system (Bureau of Parks and Lands/Dept. of Conservation). The Baxter State Park Authority, a three person authority consisting of the Attorney General, the Director of the Maine Forest Service and the Commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, has full power in the control and management of the Park and in the exercise of all Trust obligations."

George
07-26-2018, 22:27
Per Wikipedia...
“Sole governance is provided by the Baxter State Park Authority, consisting of the Maine Attorney General, the Maine Commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and the Director of the Maine Forest Service.”

Aren’t the salaries of all three of those individuals paid by tax dollars? Sounds like the Park Authority works for the citizens of the State of Maine. So, I would think the “their” in “their park” is the citizens, not the Park Authority.

yes citizens of the state of maine - which most distance hikers are not - in theory could non residents could be barred from the park

rickb
07-27-2018, 05:25
yes citizens of the state of maine - which most distance hikers are not - in theory could non residents could be barred from the park
While that is intuitively logical and could be argued in a federal court, that kind of BLANKET exclusion would almost certainly be prohibited.

Can you imagine a country where the Mayor of New York could declare Central Park open only to Reaidents of the city? Or where the stateís Governor could legally close the Adirondaks to all out-of-state visitors?

Not in America.

Thatís not to say it couldnít b attempted, just as some snooty towns have tried doing this with their public beaches. just that it would be allowed to stand.

Never underestimate the power of the Feds.

T.S.Kobzol
07-27-2018, 05:53
Well, Maine residents DO get priority during reservations....or at least used to before online reservations...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

rickb
07-27-2018, 06:07
Well, Maine residents DO get priority during reservations....or at least used to before online reservations...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes, they still do.

That is perfecty acceptable within the Public Use Doctrine.

The park will never exclude out of state residents, even if they could (which they can’t). BSP has consistently operated at the very highest standard, been inclusive and a fabulous operation. A bit of bluster from some aside, I have no doubt they will Continue on in that tradition, and as a long-standing friend to the AT.

Tundracamper
07-27-2018, 08:55
So then it was in Baxterís original wishes that children under six be prohibited? I doubt that.

D2maine
07-27-2018, 09:11
So then it was in Baxter’s original wishes that children under six be prohibited? I doubt that.

lest see if you can figure out under which part of these objectives the park is going to feel the no 6yr olds above tree line rule falls

The mission of Baxter State Park can be expressed in six primary objectives:

1.To protect the natural resources of the Park for their intrinsic value and for the enjoyment of present and future generations.
2.To provide various appropriate recreational opportunities to Park visitors.
3.To conduct exemplary sustainable forest management operations within the 29,537 acre Scientific Forest Management Area of the Park.
4.To maintain the facilities, infrastructure and data systems of the Park.
5.To provide for the safety of Park staff and visitors.
6.To manage and protect the fiscal integrity and independence of the Park for current and future generations.

egilbe
07-27-2018, 09:15
1, 2 and 5


How'd I do?

rickb
07-27-2018, 09:41
4.To maintain the facilities, infrastructure and data systems of the Park.


I new Gov Baxter was prescient, but for him to have foreseen the need to maintain data systems with in the Park is beyond amazing!

(D2maine adnd Egible are differnt people, right?)

Traveler
07-27-2018, 09:55
Per Wikipedia...
ďSole governance is provided by the Baxter State Park Authority, consisting of the Maine Attorney General, the Maine Commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and the Director of the Maine Forest Service.Ē
Arenít the salaries of all three of those individuals paid by tax dollars? Sounds like the Park Authority works for the citizens of the State of Maine. So, I would think the ďtheirĒ in ďtheir parkĒ is the citizens, not the Park Authority.

Since there seems to be a great deal of confusion about BSP, coupled with a remarkable inability or lack of desire to do some very simple research, I offer the following:

Yes, the State does pay the salaries of the politically appointed positions cited and this function is included in their respective job descriptions. The Baxter Land Trust specifically defines the beneficiaries of the park for the "citizens of Maine", which the aforementioned office holders are considered the best way to ensure the tenets of the Baxter Trust guide park management and provide transparency to the pubic.

BSP is funded through a variety of means, none of them involving State tax payers. Entry and camping fees along with revenues from wood products harvested from park land (per Trust conditions) provide nearly half the revenue required to fund park operations. Additional revenues come from Baxter trust funds set up to fund park maintenance in perpetuity. Independent trusts established by private citizens and groups also provide significant revenue for various park needs. Sponsor groups like "Friends of Baxter State Park" provide revenues and volunteer help that defrays park costs and direct donations to the park by individuals also represents a significant amount annually.

BSP, though it has State Park in it's name, is a separate entity from the Maine State Park system and is not part of the Maine State Park system. BSP has its own employees that perform maintenance services and provide law enforcement (Rangers). Rangers do participate in State training for law enforcement and also have access to State Pension Plan participation (if the employee desires it). BSP sponsors the appropriate financial requirements of these employees to the State for training and pension inclusion. The State Forest Service Game Wardens provide additional coverage and protections for wildlife in the park, who are not BSP employees. Before the hollering starts about the park paying for their services, Game Wardens are not employees of private land owners in the State who rely on help from Wardens to enforce game laws, illegal trespass, and other regulations outside of local law enforcement venue.

Succinctly, this is an extremely rare deed, if not a singular deed of land in terms of it's size, beauty, isolation, and management structure. As such, the tenets of Baxter's trust are meticulously followed to insure this area remains as wild as possible. If people have grievance with rules like the children under 6 above timberline, no pets allowed in the park, or alcohol prohibitions, they are welcome to write to the BSP Authority to express their displeasure, or if get onto a meeting agenda in attempt to modify the rule.

tdoczi
07-27-2018, 10:00
lest see if you can figure out under which part of these objectives the park is going to feel the no 6yr olds above tree line rule falls

The mission of Baxter State Park can be expressed in six primary objectives:

1.To protect the natural resources of the Park for their intrinsic value and for the enjoyment of present and future generations.
2.To provide various appropriate recreational opportunities to Park visitors.
3.To conduct exemplary sustainable forest management operations within the 29,537 acre Scientific Forest Management Area of the Park.
4.To maintain the facilities, infrastructure and data systems of the Park.
5.To provide for the safety of Park staff and visitors.
6.To manage and protect the fiscal integrity and independence of the Park for current and future generations.

why isnt the rule something more like "no children under 48 inches tall above treeline." ?

sorry, this is a bizarre rule. i respect their right to have it and don't for a second encourage or condone violating it, but i really don't agree with it.

George
07-27-2018, 10:19
lest see if you can figure out under which part of these objectives the park is going to feel the no 6yr olds above tree line rule falls

The mission of Baxter State Park can be expressed in six primary objectives:

1.To protect the natural resources of the Park for their intrinsic value and for the enjoyment of present and future generations.
2.To provide various appropriate recreational opportunities to Park visitors.
3.To conduct exemplary sustainable forest management operations within the 29,537 acre Scientific Forest Management Area of the Park.
4.To maintain the facilities, infrastructure and data systems of the Park.
5.To provide for the safety of Park staff and visitors.
6.To manage and protect the fiscal integrity and independence of the Park for current and future generations.

to me # 6 would be the primary as rescues cost $$ - so try to minimize the risk - but as I said before, then should there not be other limiting factors / prohibitions

FreeGoldRush
07-27-2018, 10:44
to me # 6 would be the primary as rescues cost $$ - so try to minimize the risk - but as I said before, then should there not be other limiting factors / prohibitions
There are PLENTY of examples of teenagers being less responsible than a parent and 5 year old traveling together. The "no children under 6 rule" seems a bit much if they are allowing teenagers unaccompanied by responsible adults.

T.S.Kobzol
07-27-2018, 12:50
You must be this tall to go on this ride [emoji3]





why isnt the rule something more like "no children under 48 inches tall above treeline." ?

sorry, this is a bizarre rule. i respect their right to have it and don't for a second encourage or condone violating it, but i really don't agree with it.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

tdoczi
07-27-2018, 12:59
You must be this tall to go on this ride [emoji3]


if it is really about safety that is the correct way to handle it and the only way in which it is enforceable.

the way it is stated now seems more like someone just doesnt want little kids on top of the mountain.

Starchild
07-27-2018, 13:47
1.To protect the natural resources of the Park for their intrinsic value and for the enjoyment of present and future generations.
2.To provide various appropriate recreational opportunities to Park visitors.
3.To conduct exemplary sustainable forest management operations within the 29,537 acre Scientific Forest Management Area of the Park.
4.To maintain the facilities, infrastructure and data systems of the Park.
5.To provide for the safety of Park staff and visitors.
6.To manage and protect the fiscal integrity and independence of the Park for current and future generations

1- The age restriction would seem to go against their first objective, denying parts fo the park to what is effectively the future generation.

Also note the emphasis, as stated, is not on protecting the natural resources, but the reason of doing so, which is enjoyment of people.

Heliotrope
07-27-2018, 14:04
1.To protect the natural resources of the Park for their intrinsic value and for the enjoyment of present and future generations.
2.To provide various appropriate recreational opportunities to Park visitors.
3.To conduct exemplary sustainable forest management operations within the 29,537 acre Scientific Forest Management Area of the Park.
4.To maintain the facilities, infrastructure and data systems of the Park.
5.To provide for the safety of Park staff and visitors.
6.To manage and protect the fiscal integrity and independence of the Park for current and future generations

1- The age restriction would seem to go against their first objective, denying parts fo the park to what is effectively the future generation.

Also note the emphasis, as stated, is not on protecting the natural resources, but the reason of doing so, which is enjoyment of people.




Nah. I do not know the numbers. But the bodies of dead children have been carried from the summit. Leave the arrogance aside and respect the potential power of this, The Greatest Mountain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

tdoczi
07-27-2018, 14:15
Nah. I do not know the numbers. But the bodies of dead children have been carried from the summit. Leave the arrogance aside and respect the potential power of this, The Greatest Mountain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

come now, is katahdin really all that especially dangerous?

can you cite one case of a dead child being carried off the mountain?

can you name one of other place in the country with a similar restriction on people below a certain age not being allowed above treeline?

can you make an argument that is not about safety but rather about how letting a 5 year old child above treeline can damage the environment in ways that, to cite another post, allowing unaccompanied 15 year olds can not?

Last Call
07-27-2018, 14:27
This is beyond ridiculous. Should be deeded back to the Native Americans it was stolen from.

tdoczi
07-27-2018, 14:36
This is beyond ridiculous. Should be deeded back to the Native Americans it was stolen from.

have you ever been on a reservation? cause i have. what would happen to katahdin if this somehow ever took place would not be pretty.

MuddyWaters
07-27-2018, 14:45
What an amazing country we live in, where people can spend time arguing about minutia outside their control, that has no bearing on them.

The other 98% of the world ,shake head and go back to work to scrape out their next meal .

tdoczi
07-27-2018, 14:48
What an amazing country we live in, where people can spend time arguing about minutia outside their control, that has no bearing on them.

The other 98% of the world ,shake head and go back to work to scrape out their next meal .
point well taken but you should re think the 98% part. and it is certainly not limited to this country.

Furlough
07-27-2018, 16:29
this is possibly the stupidest thing i have read on the internet in weeks congrats.

i understand your thing is to try and make inflammatory statements to get a rise out of people,
Looks like it worked.

TNhiker
07-27-2018, 16:40
have you ever been on a reservation? cause i have. what would happen to katahdin if this somehow ever took place would not be pretty.




cigarettes and gambling and alcohol problems at the top of katahdin, yee haw.....

tdoczi
07-27-2018, 16:54
cigarettes and gambling and alcohol problems at the top of katahdin, yee haw.....

many of them couldnt make it to the top or wouldnt bother trying, unless someone put in a horse trail. or maybe theyll build a lift and then a giant glass walkway across the knife edge

rocketsocks
07-27-2018, 20:56
A better way to decide who goes up the mountain, other than age might be...
”3 questions kid”
Do you love your country?
Ever flick anyone?
Whats your favorite colors?

rocketsocks
07-27-2018, 20:57
Yes
i would never do that
red, white and blue

rocketsocks
07-27-2018, 20:58
Your heart is true...you may pass.

Traveler
07-28-2018, 07:34
come now, is katahdin really all that especially dangerous?

can you cite one case of a dead child being carried off the mountain?

can you name one of other place in the country with a similar restriction on people below a certain age not being allowed above treeline?

can you make an argument that is not about safety but rather about how letting a 5 year old child above treeline can damage the environment in ways that, to cite another post, allowing unaccompanied 15 year olds can not?

In response to dangerous, the short answer is yes. Much like the northern White Mountains, Mt. Katahdin can go from benign to extremely dangerous in a very short period of time, wind being the primary ingredient to condition degradation. Though conditions are not quite as fierce as Mt. Washington can be, Mt. Katahdin is at the edge of the same weather corridor where large weather systems can collide and cause problems. Since the mid 1960s over 20 people have died from exposure or literally being blown off of the mountain while on the Knifes Edge. People can be easily caught on exposed terrain that becomes deadly by exceptionally fast weather changes quickly developing into hypothermic conditions and difficult footing.


Policy issues usually have some solid foundation that necessitated them, which may not be evident at a casual glance. For example, the under 6 rule may not have as much to do with physical ability as it does with child control and size. A 4 year old is nearly impossible to control by voice if they take off after something like a wind blown hat or to see something, which could be the reason for the policy. Even in what we would consider light winds of 25 mph, it could be enough to teeter a 4 year old over the edge of a rock, cliff, or trail like the Knifes Edge. As an aside, BSP does have the option to charge for rescue if they determine the party being rescued was reckless. I think the last time they exercised that was in 2014 for about $10,000 to recoup SAR costs.

I would suggest submitting policy questions to the Park Authority via letter or Emal (baxterstateparkauthority.com) or call the Park Headquarters at (207) 723-5140. I have always found park personnel to be very friendly and helpful and would be able to answer these questions.

tdoczi
07-28-2018, 09:35
In response to dangerous, the short answer is yes. Much like the northern White Mountains, Mt. Katahdin can go from benign to extremely dangerous in a very short period of time, wind being the primary ingredient to condition degradation.

that mst be why you hear about some many 5 year old children dying weather related deaths in the northern presis, colorado, the sierra nevada, canada, alaska, etc. they should really consider adopting the BSP policies and end all the carnage.

putts
07-28-2018, 09:51
that mst be why you hear about some many 5 year old children dying weather related deaths in the northern presis, colorado, the sierra nevada, canada, alaska, etc. they should really consider adopting the BSP policies and end all the carnage.

You are obviously very passionate about your opinion on this. So take action. Otherwise you are just a lazy whiner. Fight for those rights that Baxter State Park denies you. You could be a hero to preschoolers everywhere.

"I would suggest submitting policy questions to the Park Authority via letter or Emal (baxterstateparkauthority.com) or call the Park Headquarters at (207) 723-5140. I have always found park personnel to be very friendly and helpful and would be able to answer these questions."

tdoczi
07-28-2018, 10:08
You are obviously very passionate about your opinion on this. So take action. Otherwise you are just a lazy whiner. Fight for those rights that Baxter State Park denies you. You could be a hero to preschoolers everywhere.

"I would suggest submitting policy questions to the Park Authority via letter or Emal (baxterstateparkauthority.com) or call the Park Headquarters at (207) 723-5140. I have always found park personnel to be very friendly and helpful and would be able to answer these questions."
if i sent an e-mail about everything in the world that didnt make any sense it'd be a full time job.

your argument is just another variant on "why do people bother discussing things on internet discussion boards." a totally fair point, but it begs the question of why you read it and feel the need to reply and tell people, in essence, that they shouldnt bother talking. its rather curious.

Traveler
07-28-2018, 10:29
that mst be why you hear about some many 5 year old children dying weather related deaths in the northern presis, colorado, the sierra nevada, canada, alaska, etc. they should really consider adopting the BSP policies and end all the carnage.

Can't really speak to the hyperbole, but site you've the tools to get answers to your questions.

moytoy
07-29-2018, 18:33
What an amazing country we live in, where people can spend time arguing about minutia outside their control, that has no bearing on them.

The other 98% of the world ,shake head and go back to work to scrape out their next meal .

I've been off WhiteBlaze awhile but I can see not much has changed :)

Tundracamper
07-31-2018, 18:43
UPDATE....

It seems Kami contacted BSP about two weeks ago to ask about the kid. Guess weíll have to wait to see what happens...

https://youtu.be/KZvMGQ2yWlc