View Full Version : Good article about the new BSP director
peakbagger
08-19-2018, 06:10
https://www.pressherald.com/2018/08/19/baxter-state-parks-new-director-keeps-focus-on-wild/
Sure looks like he is not planning to stir things up which is great news for people like me who want to park to stay a wilderness, probably not good news for those who think it needs to go modern and open up the gates to unlimited AT access.
Interesting he wants to improve the Togue Pond gate. I remember the original setup when I first went up there in the early seventies and the current gate set up is major improvement. The original gate was at top of rise in front of a clearing that had a great view of the mountain. When the new gate was put in, they removed the old gatehouse and cleared out this area to make it a good spot to get a view of the mountain without a gatehouse in the way. If I remember correctly the park didn't always own all the land near south entrance so I think they had to fit in what they could.
I expect it will take a few years before he makes his mark. Given his age he will probably be there for quite a few years like the first two park directors.
I hope he does better than the guy they just got rid of.
Traveler
08-19-2018, 07:44
Good write up on the new BSP Director. There are a lot of challenges to keeping BSP wild, especially from those who want wifi or other conveniences in the Park. Fortunately Percival Baxter made the land use trust crystal clear in how it functions, wilderness over people being the core element. A unique place to be sure and worthy of upholding trust standards.
TJ aka Teej
08-19-2018, 08:54
I hope he does better than the guy they just got rid of.
Jensen did a fine job, and retired at after 30 years of service.
I hope Eben does as well as Jensen did.
Rockit Mann
08-19-2018, 10:14
It's funny that not everyone seems to think so! Like for example the ATC, ALDHA, and scads of thru-hikers the world over. They've done such a great job there is a 2019 KATAHDIN SUMMIT & BSP BOYCOTT - a plan that is gaining traction in certain circles that allow open, honest, inclusive discourse and do not posses an elderly fear of change. What sense does it make to preserve wilderness if not everyone can enjoy it? What sense does it make to invite a discussion and then silence those that dissent? The arbitrary and unscientific assignment of quotas on thru-hikers by BSP is just the most recent example of draconian nonsense perpetrated against A.T. hikers there.
Slo-go'en
08-19-2018, 10:48
It's funny that not everyone seems to think so! Like for example the ATC, ALDHA, and scads of thru-hikers the world over. They've done such a great job there is a 2019 KATAHDIN SUMMIT & BSP BOYCOTT - a plan that is gaining traction in certain circles that allow open, honest, inclusive discourse and do not posses an elderly fear of change. What sense does it make to preserve wilderness if not everyone can enjoy it? What sense does it make to invite a discussion and then silence those that dissent? The arbitrary and unscientific assignment of quotas on thru-hikers by BSP is just the most recent example of draconian nonsense perpetrated against A.T. hikers there.
The parks charter is very clear on how the park is managed.
The parks charter is preserve the wilderness, not to let everyone enjoy it. If you don't like it, tough cookies. You have absolutely no say in the matter. It's fascinating that those critical of the way the park is run don't even live in Maine.
Rockit Mann
08-19-2018, 11:03
The parks charter is very clear on how the park is managed.
The parks charter is preserve the wilderness, not to let everyone enjoy it. If you don't like it, tough cookies. You have absolutely no say in the matter. It's fascinating that those critical of the way the park is run don't even live in Maine.
Maine - still in America and not, unlike Texas, a republic unto itself. Your "tough cookies" totalitarianism tickles me btw. Lemme blind you with some actual science: http://www.appalachiantrail.org/home/community/news/2017/02/02/appalachian-trail-conservancy-challenges-baxter-state-park-2017-appalachian-trail-hiker-cap-due-to-lack-of-research-and-analysis
Rockit Mann
08-19-2018, 11:10
The parks charter is preserve the wilderness, not to let everyone enjoy it.
They took all the trees
And put them in a tree museum
And they charged all the people
A dollar and a half to see 'em
It's funny that not everyone seems to think so! Like for example the ATC, ALDHA, and scads of thru-hikers the world over. They've done such a great job there is a 2019 KATAHDIN SUMMIT & BSP BOYCOTT - a plan that is gaining traction in certain circles that allow open, honest, inclusive discourse and do not posses an elderly fear of change. What sense does it make to preserve wilderness if not everyone can enjoy it? What sense does it make to invite a discussion and then silence those that dissent? The arbitrary and unscientific assignment of quotas on thru-hikers by BSP is just the most recent example of draconian nonsense perpetrated against A.T. hikers there.
welp its true - every village has one
Furlough
08-19-2018, 11:38
Maine - still in America and not, unlike Texas, a republic unto itself. Your "tough cookies" totalitarianism tickles me btw. Lemme blind you with some actual science: http://www.appalachiantrail.org/home/community/news/2017/02/02/appalachian-trail-conservancy-challenges-baxter-state-park-2017-appalachian-trail-hiker-cap-due-to-lack-of-research-and-analysis
Not blinding at all and no actual "science" shared. "In our view this policy is not based on best practices, sufficient research or analysis of the current impact of A.T. hikers on park resources and the hiking experience. While we share the Park’s desire to protect the fragile alpine ecosystems on Katahdin, the ATC believes in a science-based, adaptive management approach to increased use at popular sites on the A.T."
I am an ATC member, and a PATC member and trail maintainer. So what I think is most relevant to the article you cite is "We will continue to work with BSP to provide an opportunity for long-distance A.T. hikers to climb Katahdin and complete their incredible journeys." Because, that is what is truly essential - continued dialogue along the entire length of the trail with Federal, State and local entities who have some impact on the trail use and the management of the trail. And I suppose to me at least, here in the US there is a real need to protect our diminishing wilderness areas. Hopefully the ATC and the BSP folks can work together to create a set of criteria that meets the constricts of the BSP trust and the desire to have Katahdin as an AT terminus. A lot of this depends on hikers themselves showing and giving respect for the gem that is the AT.
Furlough
TJ aka Teej
08-19-2018, 11:46
BSP BOYCOTT - a plan that is gaining traction in certain circles
One shuttle driver is a "circle"?
peakbagger
08-19-2018, 11:51
Maine - still in America and not, unlike Texas, a republic unto itself. Your "tough cookies" totalitarianism tickles me btw. Lemme blind you with some actual science: http://www.appalachiantrail.org/home/community/news/2017/02/02/appalachian-trail-conservancy-challenges-baxter-state-park-2017-appalachian-trail-hiker-cap-due-to-lack-of-research-and-analysis
The ATC is the party that didnt do any research and analysis, BSP published their research and analysis several years ago on AT hiker impact.
nsherry61
08-19-2018, 11:53
. . .They've done such a great job there is a 2019 KATAHDIN SUMMIT & BSP BOYCOTT - a plan that is gaining traction. . .
I love this idea. I think we should promote it to the fullest. I would think BSP would also be interested in promoting it. What a great way to voluntarily reduce the human impact on the park and keep it wildish!!
FreeGoldRush
08-19-2018, 12:19
The parks charter is very clear on how the park is managed.
The parks charter is preserve the wilderness, not to let everyone enjoy it.
If you don't like it, tough cookies. You have absolutely no say in the matter. It's fascinating that those critical of the way the park is run don't even live in Maine.
Enjoying your slavery and binary thinking? Here is my set of alternate suggestions:
1) Don't let someone so easily convince you of something because they have a "charter". Government employees are calling the shots, not Mr. Baxter.
2) Even those who love the wilderness often put people first in this world.
3) Yes, they have a say. Your attempts to make them believe they cannot speak will backfire.
4) Logical thinking does indeed happen across state lines. Expect it to continue.
And if you don't like that (I suspect you won't) then I'm sure you won't be taking your own advice and will instead have a say.
DownYonder
08-19-2018, 12:26
A question: was there anything in the deed of trust that dictated the land should be open to visitors?
I'm not understanding why the new director feels he must somehow balance increased demands with keeping the park ‘forever wild’ and ‘in a natural, wild state,’. The answer is not complex. If the land does not belong to "the people" and if there is not a directive to accommodate visitors....you don't. Leave it ‘forever wild’ and ‘in a natural, wild state,’.
A question: was there anything in the deed of trust that dictated the land should be open to visitors?
I'm not understanding why the new director feels he must somehow balance increased demands with keeping the park ‘forever wild’ and ‘in a natural, wild state,’. The answer is not complex. If the land does not belong to "the people" and if there is not a directive to accommodate visitors....you don't. Leave it ‘forever wild’ and ‘in a natural, wild state,’.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=baxter+state+part+deeds+of+trust
It's funny that not everyone seems to think so! Like for example the ATC, ALDHA, and scads of thru-hikers the world over. They've done such a great job there is a 2019 KATAHDIN SUMMIT & BSP BOYCOTT -
it never stops being funny when people think that BSP (or the whites, or SNP or GSMNP or any number of other places along the trail) needs the AT more than the AT needs it.
if there were ever a successful boycott odds are no one would notice. the few who did would likely throw a party to celebrate it.
Boycott Baxter!! It's a win-win!
peakbagger
08-19-2018, 15:02
Most of the complaints usually are folks from outside the region who are the least likely to visit the park.Therefore the boycott is going to have little impact.
The reality are most Nobo thru hikers are coming through during the most popular time of the season, if they dont grab a campsite someone else will. Thus no real impact from a boycott. I expect BSP would gladly shut down the Birches and Abol Gate. I expect there would still be a steady stream of thru hikers making reservations and heading up to the summit anyhow. What it really does is force more people to plan in advance which is what the park was asking for to begin with.
it never stops being funny when people think that BSP (or the whites, or SNP or GSMNP or any number of other places along the trail) needs the AT more than the AT needs it.
if there were ever a successful boycott odds are no one would notice. the few who did would likely throw a party to celebrate it.
I'm thinking of throwing a party to encourage people to boycott Baxter. Hard to keep an area forever wild when one has to bow to the wishes of people from away who have no idea the reason the park exists.
it never stops being funny when people think that BSP (or the whites, or SNP or GSMNP or any number of other places along the trail) needs the AT more than the AT needs it.
if there were ever a successful boycott odds are no one would notice. the few who did would likely throw a party to celebrate it.
I'm thinking of throwing a party to encourage people to boycott Baxter. Hard to keep an area forever wild when one has to bow to the wishes of people from away who have no idea the reason the park exists.
nsherry61
08-19-2018, 20:04
Maybe we should start a movement to boycott the AT. I think the AT would beinifit from a few less hikers as well.
TJ aka Teej
08-19-2018, 20:36
Baxter Park has a terrible reputation - according to a few people who've never been there.
nsherry61
08-19-2018, 20:39
Baxter Park has a terrible reputation - according to a few people who've never been there.
I will report that my only direct experience with Baxter was an exceedingly nice and exceptionally helpful woman that I talked to on the phone a few days ago. She was probably the most pleasant and helpful phone assistance I've had from anyone for anything in years!
Emerson Bigills
08-19-2018, 21:25
I don't profess to know all of the inside issues between the ATC and BSP (under Jensen Bissell), but my experience in BSP was unsurpassed on any trail. The rangers approached me several times in a friendly and helpful manner and were very encouraging of AT thru hikers. The short hike up the Hunt Trail is an epic finish to a long journey, one that I think about virtually every day. Anyone that forgoes this experience to make some silly political statement is being a fool. I respect BSP's charter and wish the ATC would work more closely with them to re-establish the partnership. Hopefully new leadership in both organizations will mend some fences.
I'm all for your boycott. But I'm just curious, are there specific demands? More special treatment than what is already shown to long-distance hikers? Another campsite exclusively for them? No capacity restrictions? No age restrictions above treeline?
I'm not on social media, so I'm not in the "in circle" of AT hiker rights activists. So I am serious in asking anyone who knows.
Traveler
08-20-2018, 07:11
The parks charter is preserve the wilderness, not to let everyone enjoy it.
Now you are starting to get it. The primary tenet of the trust is "forever wild", which means wilderness over people when decisions of park populations, regulations, and use have to be made. It's a unique place in the US, with it comes unique circumstances some people in our instant gratification society take a while to digest
Tundracamper
08-20-2018, 09:55
So is the boycott real or just chatter? Google turned up nothing.
FreeGoldRush
08-20-2018, 10:30
[/LEFT]
Now you are starting to get it. The primary tenet of the trust is "forever wild", which means wilderness over people when decisions of park populations, regulations, and use have to be made.
Not so fast. Baxter's initial gift to the state was two parcels totaling 5,960 acres. This includes Katahdin. In the deed Baxter writes his intentions of "public park" and "recreational purposes" before stating any other intent. I'm reading this directly for the original documents.
FreeGoldRush
08-20-2018, 10:49
This one quote from Baxter should clear up much of the nonsense and untruths written here about BSP:
"In all the deeds from me to the State the phrases 'natural wild state' and 'as a sanctuary for wild beast and birds' have been used. By these I do not intend that the Park forever shall be a region unvisited and neglected by man. I seek to provide against commercial exploitation, against hunting, trapping and killing, against lumbering, hotels, advertising, hot-dog stands, motor vehicles, horse-drawn vehicles and other vehicles, air-craft, and the trappings of unpleasant civilization. Nor is the Park to be kept exclusively for professional mountain climbers, it is for everybody."
He clearly intended for all hikers of all ages (everybody!) to be able to walk through this area.
The people who are blaming Baxter and his trust for the arrogant, exclusionary behavior at BSP are just off the charts ridiculous. He was very clear that he wanted commercial activity kept out, and EVERYBODY allowed in.
Now if there is a reasonable and logical reason to exclude people then that is a reasonable discussion to have. But don't act like our hands are tied because of one man named Baxter.
How does one keep Baxter Park forever wild and creating f a Santa Monica freeway to appease the fat tourists from Georgia
nsherry61
08-20-2018, 11:25
. . . "In all the deeds . . . I seek to provide against . . . motor vehicles, horse-drawn vehicles and other vehicles, air-craft, and the trappings of unpleasant civilization. . .
Oops. What happened? I see roads and car camping sites along with lean-tos and cabins for rent inside the park?! I expected to see parking around the perimeter of the park and nothing but trails inside.
It must be that park managers have decided to follow their interpretation of the spirit of the deeds and overlooked the letter of them to truly make it accessible to everyone including those that are not avid back-country foot travelers or paddlers. It looks to me like the deeds leave some conflicting priorities and thus park managers have no choice but the weigh the different and conflicting priorities of the deeds in the decision making. Personally, it looks to me like the managers grew up in a car oriented culture and have interpreted with irresponsible biases toward the access side and not the wild side, ignoring the "providing against . . . motor vehicles" clause. But then, I also haven't read all the deeds.
I think it would be interesting if Baxter were such a park where motorized vehicles were not permitted at all. Denali AK is a much larger and much wilder park where private vehicles are not allowed on the one road into the park past park headquarters (except with special permits).
FreeGoldRush
08-20-2018, 11:45
Well said, nsherry61. To be most consistent with Mr. Baxter's own words they would remove all roads, structures, and electric power. Maintain trails for foot travel only. And above all, allow access to EVERYBODY. That means that if someone wants to quietly walk in simply to enjoy the experience of being there, then they are welcomed. No limits on thru hikers, age, etc.
It is also clear that the State owns the park. People have said here that it should be viewed as a private entity because of the trust. That's nonsense. If the State really wants to operate it as Mr. Baxter wanted then it's not complicated. But it is a public entity (as Baxter said he wanted) and it is run by the State.
Captain Blue
08-20-2018, 11:50
I think a 2019 KATAHDIN SUMMIT & BSP BOYCOTT is an awesome idea! How do I donate to this cause?
I'm thinking an appropriate finishing point for the boycotters is the Abol Bridge Campground Store. They can drink all of the beer, wine and champagne they want, gather in groups larger than 12 people, make noise and litter on the restaurant floor. We can build a pile of rocks in the parking lot and call it "Little K" for them to summit.
As for the demands of the boycotters? I'm guessing it will be along the lines of "My mommy and daddy always said I was special, I want BSP to think I'm special too!"
HooKooDooKu
08-20-2018, 13:43
Oops. What happened? I see roads and car camping sites along with lean-tos and cabins for rent inside the park?! I expected to see parking around the perimeter of the park and nothing but trails inside.
Not to pick on nsherry61... but this seems to be a perfect example of where people seem to be passing along incomplete statements that others pick up on, pass along themselves, leading others to jump to conclusions that are completely false.
To put it simply... the deeding of Baxter State Park is NOT simple.
Everyone seems to talk about "The Deed"... but there was no "the deed". The creation of Baxter State Park was a multi-step process, and the land grant was not one simple all encompassing deed.
With just a little bit of research... here is an example of what I have learned:
The 1st parcel of land deeded to the state said "...that no roads or ways for motor vehicles shall hereafter ever be constructed thereon or therein...".
It would seem that people are passing this information on without the full context. As such, others read these incomplete statements and suddenly jump to the conclusion that Baxter's wish was for there to be "no roads" in Baxter State park and that the State of Maine has simply decided to ignore his wishes to do what they want.
But those words were only used in the deeding of the 1st parcel. It was NOT included in the deed for parcel #2 and #3 (and perhaps in none of the remaining parcels).
I'm guessing that that 1st parcel was likely Mt. Katahdin. Has the Baxter State Park paved a road to the top of Mt. Katahdin? Have they created a trail that you can drive a horse drawn carriage to the top of Mt. Katahdin? Of course not.
I guess, over-all, what I'm saying is that most you arguing that things in Baxter State Park should be "this way" or "that way" don't really have a clue about the full story of the creation nor the maintenance of Baxter State Park. It would seem you're simply choosing to take the partial truths and statements that fit with what your desire for the park should be and trying to tell the park what they should be doing.
Rather than complaining and arguing about what rules and regulations Baxter State Park puts in place in their efforts to fulfill Baxter's vision for this land, they should instead simply be thankful to the foresight and generosity of Baxter, and visit the park in a manor consistent with those rules and regulations.
It started off so we'll, too.
The trust is, I think, 32 separate deeds with each deed having it's own conditions and stipulations. Hence, why there is a tote road, which was a logging road, pre-dating the trust. It was grandfathered in. There is also a section of the park where hunting and trapping is allowed, another section where logging and it's effects are studied. Those exclusions to the "forever wild" wording is spelled out explicitly in the trust. Did anyone actually read the article linked?
It started off so we'll, too.
The trust is, I think, 32 separate deeds with each deed having it's own conditions and stipulations. Hence, why there is a tote road, which was a logging road, pre-dating the trust. It was grandfathered in. There is also a section of the park where hunting and trapping is allowed, another section where logging and it's effects are studied. Those exclusions to the "forever wild" wording is spelled out explicitly in the trust. Did anyone actually read the article linked?
BSP is a great place, and run by some very dedicated people.
The park serves the needs of a wide range of users, in different ways.
This is a a beautiful thing.
Some users will discover the park provides amazing rustic cabins with gas lanterns, cut firewood and canoes that families have enjoyed for generations (many at the very same spot and dates) at very affordable prices.
Other users will find rustic car camping oportunities, or backcountry bunkhouses. Still others will find group camping areas, and many more will find day hiking oportunities and special interpretive programs.
Thru hikers needs are accomodated as well, by and large, but in still different ways— right down to loaner day packs by friendly staff. Various user groups use the Park differnently, and the park recognizes this by their actions. All should be grateful for this jewel of a park.
The park has a manadate not only to provide a refuge for bird and beast, but to ensure used to the fullest extent but in the right unspoiled manner.
So so far so good!
That the park and it stewards are concerned about crowds on Katahdin is wholly appropriate.
Not sure why focus seems to be on capping thru hikers arriving at end of season, rather than managing the numbers on early August weekends, though.
BSP is a great place, and run by some very dedicated people.
The park serves the needs of a wide range of users, in different ways.
This is a a beautiful thing.
Some users will discover the park provided amazing rustic cabins with gas lanterns, cut firewood and canoes that families have enjoyed for generations (same at the very same spot and dates) at very affordable prices.
Other users will find rustic car camping oportunities, or backcountry bunkhouses. Still others will find group camping areas, and many more will find day hiking oportunities.
Thru hikers needs are accomodated as well, by and large, but on still differnt ways— right down to loaner day packs by friendly staff. Various user groups use the Park differnently, and the park recognizes this by their action.
The park has a manadate not only to provide a refuge for bird and beast, but to ensure used to the fullest extent but in the right unspoiled manner.
So so far so good!
That the park and it stewards are concerned about crowds on Katahdin is wholly appropriate.
Not sure why focus seems to be on capping thru hikers arriving at end of season, rather than managing the numbers on early August weekends, though.
you are free to ask them and report back or you could look at what the park has said about the subject and form an opinion
in the end i think it boils down to the park is not designed or managed for the unlimited growth model of the AT and it looks like they decided to cap long distance hiker numbers before it got out of control.
My only argument in what they did is why use sobos in the capped numbers, they have to enter the park like everybody else and thus do not receive any special privilege other than a loaner day pack that i know of.
My only argument in what they did is why use sobos in the capped numbers, they have to enter the park like everybody else and thus do not receive any special privilege other than a loaner day pack that i know of.
Very good point.
Do you have any theories why they would do such a thing?
Very good point.
Do you have any theories why they would do such a thing?
nope i do not - i would love to understand their reasoning why...
FreeGoldRush
08-20-2018, 21:31
They appear to have capped total annual foot traffic from thru hikers. If the feeling is that walking thru hikers are creating erosion, then isn't appropriate trail maintenance to support the numbers more in-line with Mr. Baxter's intention of making the Park available to everyone?
So few thru hikers go through there anyway. The vast majority of NOBO's quit before getting there. Only 10% of thru hikers are SOBO. I'm just not believing that this small group of people is creating an unmanageable issue by act of walking.
And if a budget for trail maintence is the issue, then I suspect any thru hiker will gladly pay a small fee. Two days of walking by one hiker doesn't do much damage and won't require much of a fee for maintenance.
I apologize for feeling like they don't like thru hikers, but this does not appear very welcoming to someone that walked over 2,100 miles to get there. Down at Springer Mountain I love seeing the SOBOs on the trail late in the year. I can't imagine someone telling them they can't walk past Neels Gap because they are a nuisance on the trial.
They appear to have capped total annual foot traffic from thru hikers. If the feeling is that walking thru hikers are creating erosion, then isn't appropriate trail maintenance to support the numbers more in-line with Mr. Baxter's intention of making the Park available to everyone?
So few thru hikers go through there anyway. The vast majority of NOBO's quit before getting there. Only 10% of thru hikers are SOBO. I'm just not believing that this small group of people is creating an unmanageable issue by act of walking.
And if a budget for trail maintence is the issue, then I suspect any thru hiker will gladly pay a small fee. Two days of walking by one hiker doesn't do much damage and won't require much of a fee for maintenance.
I apologize for feeling like they don't like thru hikers, but this does not appear very welcoming to someone that walked over 2,100 miles to get there. Down at Springer Mountain I love seeing the SOBOs on the trail late in the year. I can't imagine someone telling them they can't walk past Neels Gap because they are a nuisance on the trial.
if you really think that you have a better grasp than the park authority on Baxter's intentions then feel free to offer your input to them and to the new director. failing that you are free to take them to court and argue that they are not following the deeds of trust as they are legally bound to do.
i will warn you that the deeds of the trust, every writing, recording in fact every statement or act by Baxter dealing with the park is closely scrutinized prior to any shifts in park policy.
The only month-by-month breakdown on Katahdin hikers was in the park’s 2013 annual report.
1539 Hikers climbed Katahdin via in AT (Hunt Trail) in June that year
2759 Hikers climbed Katahdin via the AT in July
3213 Hikers climbed Katahdin via the AT in August
2046 Hikers climbed Katahdin via the AT in September
1214 Hikers climbed Katahdin via the AT in October
Some (not all) of these hikers were thru hikers. Some hikers (not thru hikers) submitted K via on of the other 1/2 dozen Trail leadingto the summit.
Not sure how a thru hiker cap — that would be probably applied in October — helps address peak usage.
In any event, it was Gove Baxter himself who cautioned future Superintendents that the park should be used to the fullest extent, but in a the right unspoiled manner.
I wish the new Superintendent the strength to find that balance in a way that honors those who walk into th Park, as well as those who car camp.
The only month-by-month breakdown on Katahdin hikers was in the park’s 2013 annual report.
1539 Hikers climbed Katahdin via in AT (Hunt Trail) in June that year
2759 Hikers climbed Katahdin via the AT in July
3213 Hikers climbed Katahdin via the AT in August
2046 Hikers climbed Katahdin via the AT in September
1214 Hikers climbed Katahdin via the AT in October
Some (not all) of these hikers were thru hikers. Some hikers (not thru hikers) submitted K via on of the other 1/2 dozen Trail leadingto the summit.
Not sure how a thru hiker cap — that would be probably applied in October — helps address peak usage.
In any event, it was Gove Baxter himself who cautioned future Superintendents that the park
long distance hikers were the only group they had no control over the numbers of - until the permit process
FreeGoldRush
08-20-2018, 22:11
long distance hikers were the only group they had no control over the numbers of - until the permit process
So? Is control the issue then?? Silly me, I though it would have been something related to maintenaing the Park for everyone to use as Mr. Baxter said.
So? Is control the issue then?? Silly me, I though it would have been something related to maintenaing the Park for everyone to use as Mr. Baxter said.
you just don't seem to grasp the fact that Baxter State Park has always and will always be a limited use park and this policy simply brought long distance hikers in line with the overall management polices of the park. unlimited growth in most definitely not in line with the intentions of the deeds of trust no matter how many different ways you try to make it so.
Alligator
08-20-2018, 22:22
How about linking the arguing specifically to the new director, which is ostensibly what the thread is about.
Alligator
08-20-2018, 22:24
How about linking the arguing specifically to the new director, which is ostensibly what the thread is about.Oh and keep a laser narrow focus on any political interjections.
TJ aka Teej
08-20-2018, 23:41
How about linking the arguing specifically to the new director, which is ostensibly what the thread is about.
The new director would not have been selected by the Authority if he wasn't a supporter of the donor's intent of limited access.
This is unquestionably a good thing.
Alligator
08-20-2018, 23:58
The new director would not have been selected by the Authority if he wasn't a supporter of the donor's intent of limited access.
This is unquestionably a good thing.Are there records of the interview of the new Director? Public statements of the Authority's deliberations regarding their choice? Not just what you think but proof of what you are saying?
I know the Authority is opinionated I've read their meeting minutes. I'm not really doubting what you are saying, just asking you to back it up since you're placing judgements at the end of your statement, yet the beginning isn't exactly proven. The original link about the new Director has only a few quotes from him plus a lot of other quotes and information that aren't directly about him.
we do know that the last 2 directors were foresters first so that to me speaks to how they see the park
or from the mouth of one of the current members of the park authority Janet Mills
"the Park represents a different culture, a different psyche than the
national park phenomenon, different from other places of cultural refuge. It is a place with a
different mission, different values. It is not for everyone. We do not invite groups and crowds,
posses of civilization through the open gate and along the rough marked trails"
The new director would not have been selected by the Authority if he wasn't a supporter of the donor's intent of limited access.
This is unquestionably a good thing.
According to the article, the number of visitors to the park rose from 55,539 in 2008 to 73,243 in 2017.
That is an increase of 17,704 people.
From 2007 to 2017 the number of thru hikers climbing Katahdin grew from 533 to 1186.
That is an increase of 653 people..
The footprint of each group was most certainly different.
* Most of those addition 17,704 visitors entered by car
* Many explored different section of the park by car over scores of miles.
* Some of the additional 17,704 shared ponds with loons (in park provided canoes)
* Some of the additional 17,704 came upon wildlife in remote settings
* Many of the additional 17,704 burned firewood harvested in and provided by the park
* Some of additional 17,704 people stayed in one of the scores of private cabins
* Some of the additional 17,704 traveled the Perimiter Road by snowmobile
* Some stayed just a night or two, many longer
*.Many of the additional 17,704 visited and stayed in the park on peak usage days.
In contrast,
* Most of the additional 653 thru hikers staued a single night
* Most arrived by foot, very few explored different areas of the park by car
*.Most stayed in a single structure, sited to minimize impact on wildlife
* Most of the additional 653 arrived in the Park well past Peak usage times
The new director’s challenge will not be easily met. Baxter is special, and beloved by the people of Maine, and protecting it has a political as well as a resource management component.
Sharing the resource among the traditional camper and park supporter — some of whom are now returning to the same cabins with their kids, that their grand parents brought their moms and dads, with people from away naturally creates tensions.
But when Baxter said that he wanted the park used to the fullest extent, but in a right and unspoiled way, I cannot help but think he would have turned a kind eye towards those additional 653 men, women and kids who walked to his beloved Katahdin all they from Georgia — and perhaps do so to even a more welcoming degree, than to the additional 17,704 who who arrived in their air condition cars.
The new director will need to figure that out.
Traveler
08-21-2018, 06:55
They appear to have capped total annual foot traffic from thru hikers. If the feeling is that walking thru hikers are creating erosion, then isn't appropriate trail maintenance to support the numbers more in-line with Mr. Baxter's intention of making the Park available to everyone?
So few thru hikers go through there anyway. The vast majority of NOBO's quit before getting there. Only 10% of thru hikers are SOBO. I'm just not believing that this small group of people is creating an unmanageable issue by act of walking.
And if a budget for trail maintence is the issue, then I suspect any thru hiker will gladly pay a small fee. Two days of walking by one hiker doesn't do much damage and won't require much of a fee for maintenance.
I apologize for feeling like they don't like thru hikers, but this does not appear very welcoming to someone that walked over 2,100 miles to get there. Down at Springer Mountain I love seeing the SOBOs on the trail late in the year. I can't imagine someone telling them they can't walk past Neels Gap because they are a nuisance on the trial.
The issue with thru hikers is not trail wear and tear, its an amalgam of behavior and allocation of resource issues as has been pretty well documented. As I understand the thru hiker cap, its expandable, though if more people than the current cap allowance arrive and all at about the same time, regulating the number of people per day setting out to climb Big K will likely be where the pinch is.