A Proposal

[Lone Wolf]

I propose the beginning/end point of the AT be on White Cap Mtn., some 70 odd miles south of Katahdin. Very remote, not so easy to access it by vehicle. No rules. You can finish with a dog too. Baxter Park slaps you in the face upon finishing. So many rules and regs to deal with. You walk 2100+ miles virtually rule free. Then BAM! 3/4 of the time Katahdin has s**tty weather anyway. Get to the top on a good day and look south towards Millinocket and spewing smokestacks. Beautiful!:) Overrated I say. What say you?

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

Perhaps it should begin / end at the boundary of Baxter State Park. This would eliminate the red tape and nasty weather on Katahdin without eliminating so many miles of trail and would make the terminus easier to access.

[Lone Wolf]

OK. I'll go for that. But most seem to need a mountain top to finish/end. Finishing at Abol Bridge would be cool. They gots beer and such!:D

[rickb]

Sombody stole L Wolf's computer. He can't type that many sentences in a row.

[fiddlehead]

I don't have a problem with the big K.
The weather can be bad on whitecap too.
But i like your idea of no rules and not easily accessible.
There are a ton of rules in Baxter for sure. (even more for out of staters)
No Rules RULES!

[Lone Wolf]

I don't have a problem with the big K.
The weather can be bad on whitecap too.
But i like your idea of no rules and not easily accessible.
There are a ton of rules in Baxter for sure. (even more for out of staters)
No Rules RULES!
I got tired of that Daisy Pond nazi couple always interrogating you when you got there. Question after question. Got smart and never checked in, kept going and stealthed. Baxter is too crowded. Don't care if I never go again. Lotsa great REMOTE places across the USA.

[Blue Jay]

You act like it's hard to avoid the Rangers. Just stealth on the Blueberry (some kind of berry??) Trail. The only Ranger you'll see is the kid they put on the summit.

[Darwin again]

Seems insulting and restrictive to have to dance the Baxter Jig after so much freedom for so long...

Make it so.
Abold Bridge the new AT Northern Terminus.
Wolf, talk to your people and hook this up.
Maybe Jack could file some papers or something...

[Big Dawg]

I propose the beginning/end point of the AT be on White Cap Mtn., some 70 odd miles south of Katahdin. Very remote, not so easy to access it by vehicle. No rules. You can finish with a dog too. Baxter Park slaps you in the face upon finishing. So many rules and regs to deal with. You walk 2100+ miles virtually rule free. Then BAM! 3/4 of the time Katahdin has s**tty weather anyway. Get to the top on a good day and look south towards Millinocket and spewing smokestacks. Beautiful!:) Overrated I say. What say you?

If you're looking for remoteness, why are you on the AT? Plenty of "remote" trails out there w/o having to change the beginning/end of the AT. :rolleyes:

[max patch]

LW is just stirring the pot.

[Big Dawg]

Seems insulting and restrictive to have to dance the Baxter Jig after so much freedom for so long...

Make it so.
Abold Bridge the new AT Northern Terminus.
Wolf, talk to your people and hook this up.
Maybe Jack could file some papers or something...

Please,,,, isn't Wolf's head big enough already? :D

[Big Dawg]

LW is just stirring the pot.

He seems to do that best!! ;)

[weary]

OK. I'll go for that. But most seem to need a mountain top to finish/end. Finishing at Abol Bridge would be cool. They gots beer and such!:D
Nay, nay. I like the idea of beer, But not ending the trail at a private campsite. and one only marginally friendly to hikers. They once threatened to arrest me because I persisted in sitting on a oicnic table at 10 a.m. while waiting for some hikers to show up.

Besides I maintained the trail to Whitecap for 25 years. It's a great mountain for ending the AT.

Weary

[the goat]

I propose the beginning/end point of the AT be on White Cap Mtn., some 70 odd miles south of Katahdin. Very remote, not so easy to access it by vehicle. No rules. You can finish with a dog too. Baxter Park slaps you in the face upon finishing. So many rules and regs to deal with. You walk 2100+ miles virtually rule free. Then BAM! 3/4 of the time Katahdin has s**tty weather anyway. Get to the top on a good day and look south towards Millinocket and spewing smokestacks. Beautiful!:) Overrated I say. What say you?

not a bad idea, not bad at all. i love white cap.

[Tha Wookie]

I got tired of that Daisy Pond nazi couple always interrogating you when you got there. Question after question. Got smart and never checked in, kept going and stealthed. Baxter is too crowded. Don't care if I never go again. Lotsa great REMOTE places across the USA.

Imagine if Warren said that.

[D'Artagnan]

Sombody stole L Wolf's computer. He can't type that many sentences in a row.

My first thought, too! :D

[Ender]

How about a mountain north of Katahdin? Go over the K, over the knife edge, and then continue to something remote.

[rhjanes]

Imagine if Warren said that.

or wingfoot........... ;)

[Amigi'sLastStand]

The AT should end at a bar with 5c beers, barbeque, and hula girls.

[chomp]

Imagine if Warren said that.

Wolf doesn't pretend to be an authority on the AT. In fact, his online personality is pretty much an a-hole. Warren paints himself as an educator and an Applachian Trail expert and authority.

[weary]

Wolf doesn't pretend to be an authority on the AT. In fact, his online personality is pretty much an a-hole. Warren paints himself as an educator and an Applachian Trail expert and authority.
True. Warren's skills. both as an educator and a trail authority, are why his insights are so important to most long distance hikers.

Weary

[Lone Wolf]

Wolf doesn't pretend to be an authority on the AT. In fact, his online personality is pretty much an a-hole. Warren paints himself as an educator and an Applachian Trail expert and authority.
I've never been called an Ahole. I'm hurt.

[mrc237]

I agree LW no-one has ever called you an a-hole. I never thought of K as a good place to end a hike the trail should go straight to Millinocket and end there. A place where you can celebrate not climb down some bis azz mountain! Are you really hurt?

[Lone Wolf]

Yes I'm crushed.

[Ender]

You big fibber

[chomp]

True. Warren's skills. both as an educator and a trail authority, are why his insights are so important to most long distance hikers.

Weary

Which insights are those? Insights like eating leftovers off tables in restaurants? Or jumping off bridges posted "No Jumping"? Or sneaking onto private land to avoid paying a fee? Or paying for one movie and then sneaking into two or three more movies theatres without paying? Or following Appalachian Trail rules and regulations only when it suits you? Or climbing Katahdin when it is closed due to unsafe weather and putting Baxter State Park Search and Rescue in a potentially life-threatening situtation? Or lying to the board of directors of a group that you founded to promote your own conservative agenda?

I agree - most hikers could really benefit from these kinds of insights.

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

A couple of serious questions for the general a-holes, hiker trash and educators...
Why would you rather have the terminus in a remote location rather than fairly close to a road?
Are there any mountains not currently on the trail near K, but outside Baxter, that might be a suitable terminus?

[Spock]

Na. Anything short of Katahdin is too soon. And you need a mountain to finish. So Katahdin or something farther. Then you can treat the Bigalows like what they are, nice bumps with fine views, blueberries and good air. I just don't get that big hill feeling from anything on the east coast except Katahdin. That puppy is the real thing.

[Lone Wolf]

It's not a tough hike.

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

While some may want to nix Katahdin for the toughness, most seem to want to move the terminus so as not to deal with the ridiculous regulations at Baxter and the often-foul weather on K. I dare say if we were selecting a terminus for the AT today, we would at least consider locating it elsewhere because of these factors.

[weary]

Which insights are those? Insights like eating leftovers off tables in restaurants? Or jumping off bridges posted "No Jumping"? Or sneaking onto private land to avoid paying a fee? Or paying for one movie and then sneaking into two or three more movies theatres without paying? Or following Appalachian Trail rules and regulations only when it suits you? Or climbing Katahdin when it is closed due to unsafe weather and putting Baxter State Park Search and Rescue in a potentially life-threatening situtation? Or lying to the board of directors of a group that you founded to promote your own conservative agenda? I agree - most hikers could really benefit from these kinds of insights.
I was just reporting facts, not opinions. An honest reading of the many posts about Warren shows that most hikers consider him wise. A relative handful agree with you.

Have you forgotten that this thread is about moving the trail off of over regulated Katahdin, to a mountain with almost no restrictions to the south.

Baxter Park and Katahdin are great places, made less desirable by too many foolish and unnecessary regulations.

Weary

[Lone Wolf]

LW is just stirring the pot.
Nope. Just trying to generate serious discussion. I personally never liked finishing my long distance hikes where your every move is monitored.

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

Weary, many who do not openly bash Warren's contributions do take them with a grain of salt. In my experience, the contributions of people who have completed multiple thru hikes or have done extensive section hiking have proven more reliable than Warren's advice on many topics. YMMV.

[chomp]

I was just reporting facts, not opinions. An honest reading of the many posts about Warren shows that most hikers consider him wise. A relative handful agree with you.

Have you forgotten that this thread is about moving the trail off of over regulated Katahdin, to a mountain with almost no restrictions to the south.

Baxter Park and Katahdin are great places, made less desirable by too many foolish and unnecessary regulations.

Weary

Actually, it is your opinion that most hikers consider him wise. In my experience, most hikers consider him at best outdated and at worst a danger to the AT. First, I don't agree that an honest reading of posts will support your claims. Second, I don't think that reading Whiteblaze posts provides much of an insight into what most hikers think. And third, I have two friends that have hiked with Warren "in the old days" who think that it is sad what he has become.

And I have not forgotten what this thread is about, but this is what Whiteblaze is about.. threads that meander. I checked, and this isn't posted in the Straight Forward section. I was just answering Wookie's question. You had to add your opinion that Warren highly regarded by most long distance hikers. That is a fact.

[max patch]

While some may want to nix Katahdin for the toughness, most seem to want to move the terminus so as not to deal with the ridiculous regulations at Baxter and the often-foul weather on K. I dare say if we were selecting a terminus for the AT today, we would at least consider locating it elsewhere because of these factors.

No no no no no. You are confusing a few contributors to an internet message board with reality. "Most people" do not want to move the terminus from Katahdin. If the ATC were to commision a poll you would find that well over 90% -- and that number is probably low -- think ending at K is perfect.

[max patch]

Or lying to the board of directors of a group that you founded to promote your own conservative agenda?



Warren Doyle conservative?

If he was any more to left he'd fall off the earth.

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

Max, I'd be interesting in seeing the results of such a poll as I feel the percentage against moving the terminus would be far lower than 90%. I base this on the many, many complaints I've read in successful NOBO thruhikers' journals about the headache dealing with Baxter's regulations has become.

[Jack Tarlin]

1. Regarding Wolf's suggestion: It was obviously meant as a joke, like a
great many of his posts here. The Baxter regulations are well-thought
out, necessary, and are entirely reasonable. Having to deal with them for
one day and one night (of a 180-day trip!) is not that big a deal.

2. Regarding Weary's post about most folks viewing a certain well-known
hiker as "wise".....well, this is certainly no longer the case in the
Appalachian Long Distance Hiker's Association, where his "wisdom" and
insights are so esteemed that he's been driven off the Board of the
organization, denied the chance to lead the group's annual gathering, and
been refused the opportunity of speaking to the group due to his proven
irresponsibility and thoughtlessness when given an open microphone.
Gee, Weary, if this is how the folks at ALDHA view wisdom, they sure
have an interesting way of showing it.

3. Regarding Max's contention that if this individual were any further to the
left, he'd fall off the earth.....hey Max, if you REALLY wanna contribute
something useful here, please tell us how we can drive this guy further
to the left. Thanks in advance.

[Tha Wookie]

Nope. Just trying to generate serious discussion. I personally never liked finishing my long distance hikes where your every move is monitored.

Wolf,

Don't you see this is a matter of national security? There's nothing wrong with being monitored every step of the way as long as as it makes you "free" -right?

All of those bearded men wandering around without proper ID's, jobs, showers ...... it goes on and on... it just gives me the creeps thinking about it. The fact is you don't know what they are planning. There are people all over the world waiting to blow up Katahdin.... what makes you so sure it's not the hiker next to you?

man that propoganda just fits about anywhere.....:rolleyes:

[kyhipo]

ok jack!I have known LW since 99 and well I agree with his piont of view.I dont like the feeling i have to rush out of a park to finish my hike,and hopefully i can a reservation,but who am I:rolleyes: anyways man! what makes you any better than LW when IT comes to trail politics?ky

[Jack Tarlin]

Geez, kyhipo, I never said I was "better" than Wolf.

What I said was that he was obviously kidding, and enjoys stirring things up here.....which he himself has admitted many times. Feel free to untwist your knickers and lighten up.

[Lone Wolf]

1. Regarding Wolf's suggestion: It was obviously meant as a joke, like a
great many of his posts here. The Baxter regulations are well-thought
out, necessary, and are entirely reasonable. Having to deal with them for
one day and one night (of a 180-day trip!) is not that big a deal.

2. Regarding Weary's post about most folks viewing a certain well-known
hiker as "wise".....well, this is certainly no longer the case in the
Appalachian Long Distance Hiker's Association, where his "wisdom" and
insights are so esteemed that he's been driven off the Board of the
organization, denied the chance to lead the group's annual gathering, and
been refused the opportunity of speaking to the group due to his proven
irresponsibility and thoughtlessness when given an open microphone.
Gee, Weary, if this is how the folks at ALDHA view wisdom, they sure
have an interesting way of showing it.

3. Regarding Max's contention that if this individual were any further to the
left, he'd fall off the earth.....hey Max, if you REALLY wanna contribute
something useful here, please tell us how we can drive this guy further
to the left. Thanks in advance.
No joke Jack. I don't like Baxter Park.

[bfitz]

I've never been called an Ahole. I'm hurt.
Never!!?? I doubt it!

As aholes go, you're one of the coolest I know (and I know lots of aholes)! I'd still go climb katahdin after I finished my hike on whitecap so I could celebrate with the rest of my friends.

[bfitz]

I thought this thread would be about someone getting married!

[kyhipo]

well nothing personal see!I could just tell he was serious:rolleyes: ky

[Jack Tarlin]

1. I stand corrected, Wolf.

2. But the fact is, the Baxter regulations exist for very good reasons. This is
an extremely highly used spot, and if park management did not regulate
where people stayed, where they went, and how long they could visit,
the Park would be destroyed by overuse.

3. For many years, park management, led by Buzz Caverly, who made the
preservation of the Park his life's work, have strived to follow the
original intentions of Governor Baxter. Their primary mission is, and always
has been the protection and preservation of the park, forever. They
realized long ago that the best way to do this was to limit the number of
visitors, and to regulate where they stayed.

4. Obeying these rules and regulations is a very small price to pay in order
to keep the Park in its present state. Let's compare Katahdin to Mt.
Washington.....does anyone want to see a road up Katahdin? Or a train
track? Or a snack bar at the foot and summit? Or thousands of visitors
daily?

5. In understand Wolf's sentiments, but conforming to Baxter regulations for
one day out of a six-month trip is not exactly a horrible burden, and when
one considers that conforming to these rules helps preserve Baxter for all
time.....well, this seems like a very small price to pay. People that want
to return to Baxter for an extended visit at another time are more than
welcome to do so. And when they return, even if years later, the Park
will be as beautiful as it was on their first visit.

[Tha Wookie]

1. I stand corrected, Wolf.

2. But the fact is, the Baxter regulations exist for very good reasons. This is
an extremely highly used spot, and if park management did not regulate
where people stayed, where they went, and how long they could visit,
the Park would be destroyed by overuse.

3. For many years, park management, led by Buzz Caverly, who made the
preservation of the Park his life's work, have strived to follow the
original intentions of Governor Baxter. Their primary mission is, and always
has been the protection and preservation of the park, forever. They
realized long ago that the best way to do this was to limit the number of
visitors, and to regulate where they stayed.

4. Obeying these rules and regulations is a very small price to pay in order
to keep the Park in its present state. Let's compare Katahdin to Mt.
Washington.....does anyone want to see a road up Katahdin? Or a train
track? Or a snack bar at the foot and summit? Or thousands of visitors
daily?

5. In understand Wolf's sentiments, but conforming to Baxter regulations for
one day out of a six-month trip is not exactly a horrible burden, and when
one considers that conforming to these rules helps preserve Baxter for all
time.....well, this seems like a very small price to pay. People that want
to return to Baxter for an extended visit at another time are more than
welcome to do so. And when they return, even if years later, the Park
will be as beautiful as it was on their first visit.

I agree. It's not too much too deal with.

checking in and staying low-tech (i.e., no cell phone us up top) for a little bit is worth it.

Without those regulations, can you imagine what that area would be like?

But really the bottom line is this: Baxter donated the land and wrote the rules. He could have kept it or sold it to a logging comany. But he decided to keep it more natural for our benefit. Those rules have helped it stay as nice and pleasant as it is, where nature dominates, and man comes to pay his respects to the greatest mountain.

But if you're blue-blazing anyway... why does it matter where you stop? Don't you already write your own rules anyway?

[Ridge]

Warren Doyle, whom I do think bumped his Knoggin on the way to Katahdin, (at least once on his hikes), has a long list of +'s and -'s. One of the big pluses, and where I came to known him, was his founding of ALDHA back in the 80's. Whomever gives him a mic should never underestimate what will come out, he'll piss everyone in the room off and maybe a few more outside in the least, at best some will ignore and look the other way and wish he was back on the trail.

I'm not a supporter or detractor of Mr Doyle, But one thing he relayed to me was that hiking, and in particular thru-hiking the AT, should be FUN, and not some arduous undertaking. For this I appreciate. I know I'd probably have less trouble hiking with him than sitting thru one of his poetic sessions!!! As far as I know he's only hurt himself, and I would venture to guess he's not hurt the AT nearly as bad.

[RITBlake]

But really the bottom line is this: Baxter donated the land and wrote the rules. He could have kept it or sold it to a logging comany. But he decided to keep it more natural for our benefit. Those rules have helped it stay as nice and pleasant as it is, where nature dominates, and man comes to pay his respects to the greatest mountain.


Well said.

If the weather is bad wait an extra day or two for it too clear up. If it's October 15th and they are closing it down, that's your fault, you should have planned better. There are signs in most hostels and some shelters regarding the closure for the previous 500 or so miles.

Too many regulations, boo hoo, give me a break.

[Lone Wolf]

Well said. If the weather is bad wait an extra day or two for it too clear up.

Too many regulations, boo hoo, give me a break.
You're still a boy. You're used to being told what to do and you do it.:)

[RITBlake]

You're still a boy. You're used to being told what to do and you do it.:)

Once I tied my shoes without ANY help

[mweinstone]

i hate change.

[Just Jeff]

Really? I get irritated when the clerk keeps my change.

I like to change my underwear sometimes, too.

[mweinstone]

if ya dont go to katahdin ten everyone has to ask ......,did you stop at abol bridge?
if we make it the end and some folks say no ,...then theres the issue of did you finnish the trail or did you just go to that stupid new abol bridge terminus?

[RITBlake]

if ya dont go to katahdin ten everyone has to ask ......,did you stop at abol bridge?
if we make it the end and some folks say no ,...then theres the issue of did you finnish the trail or did you just go to that stupid new abol bridge terminus?

No worries, it will never happen.

[TOW]

LW is just stirring the pot.i think he may have a good point..............

[TOW]

Never!!?? I doubt it!

As aholes go, you're one of the coolest I know (and I know lots of aholes)! I'd still go climb katahdin after I finished my hike on whitecap so I could celebrate with the rest of my friends.that kinda sounds brokebackish to me pal..................

[weary]

....But the fact is, the Baxter regulations exist for very good reasons. This is an extremely highly used spot, and if park management did not regulate where people stayed, where they went, and how long they could visit, the Park would be destroyed by overuse.

I don't object to regulating camping -- or even access to the park. I do object to the regulation of climbing by rangers who often have no real idea of hiking. I once left the park after a four day February visit. A ranger asked if I had summitted. I said "finally."

The ranger replied, "I've never climbed Katahdin in winter. I wouldn't have climbed it in the summer, if I hadn't worked here."

I don't know of another mountain anywhere where access is more restricted by regulations that have the force of law.


For many years, park management, led by Buzz Caverly, who made the preservation of the Park his life's work, have strived to follow the original intentions of Governor Baxter. Their primary mission is, and always
has been the protection and preservation of the park, forever. They
realized long ago that the best way to do this was to limit the number of
visitors, and to regulate where they stayed.

But the park can be protected without restricting where and when people hike. I've read virtually every word Governor Baxter ever wrote. It's clear he wanted a "forever wild" park. I don't recall Baxter ever suggesting that people should be protected from themselves.

That was not Baxter's position. It became the position of the three politicians he unwisely chose to be his park managers. The regulations are designed to protect the regulators from public criticsm when accidents happen. Unnecessary regulation is the antithisis of Baxter's dream for an "forever wild" park.

Talk of regulations keeping a road off the summit of Katahdin is simply blowing smoke. Jack's comparison with Washington reflects a total misunderstanding -- perhaps a deliberate misunderstanding -- of the different histories of the two mountain.

The road was built decades before anyone dreamed of a National Forest. It is an artifact of a total different era. There is no way given Baxter's deeds of trust that a road could be built to the top of Katahdin. To suggest, as Jack does, that we have to put up with over regulation of hikers in order to keep cars off the summit is pure nonsense.

Weary


Obeying these rules and regulations is a very small price to pay in order to keep the Park in its present state. Let's compare Katahdin to Mt.
Washington.....does anyone want to see a road up Katahdin? Or a train
track? Or a snack bar at the foot and summit? Or thousands of visitors
daily?

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

I think I finally understand why y'all want the finish to be on a mountain top. Having heard how crowded it is and how the park needs the protection of all these rules to survive, I'm more in favor of moving the AT totally outside of Baxter than I was before. Are there any mountains near Abol Bridge, but outside of Baxter that could replace Katahdin as the terminus?

[Darwin again]

Thrus are not the general public. Only about 300 thrus per year summit Katahdin. It seems that exceptions could be made for long distance hikers, beyond what there already are (shelter space set aside) if there is a big problem with oppressive regulations.

300 people a year aren't going to bring Baxter Park to ruin or destroy the "wilderness" experience.

The climbing restrictions are for the protection of everyone, hikers and rescuers. I've never been to Baxter, but a few rules aren't going break my heart when I finally do get there.

Hikers probably object to the idea of rules in Baxter more than the rules themselves, esp. after walking thousands of miles with pretty much very little or no regulation of their behavior.

Jus my 2 cents.:rolleyes:

[Ridge]

Some People are crazy, if there were no restrictions, they'd head up the mountain covered in ice in the middle of January wearing tennis shoes. Then we get into a rescue that not only cost money, but has risk. Next, will come the lawyers. Never underestimate the stupidness of a casual inexperienced hiker

Just Look at all the rescues on the nations trails that occur in good weather. Even if you could charge the hikers for the rescue, you'd still have the Lawyers to deal with.

From the Rangers/Rescuers standpoint I'd want to shut the trail down at first snow/ice and leave it closed until spring.

[mrc237]

In 98' I was hiking in Bax to finish a section hike a Ranger and some college kids were building a bridge over Rainbow stream. They had 2 iron beams with 8' flanges laid across the stream and had started laying planks across to form a walkway. When I approached I was told that under no circumstances would I be allowed to use the bridge. When I told the Ranger that I had crossed hundreds of streams with alot less footing then this one had and that I was also a NYC Ironworker and walked bazillions of beams a helluva alot higher than this stream for 30 years he just mumbled something about park regulations. That was my first encounter with BSP regulations on to the CG and more regs., and my last, in 00' ending a thru I stealthed.

[weary]

....The climbing restrictions are for the protection of everyone, hikers and rescuers. I've never been to Baxter, but a few rules aren't going break my heart when I finally do get there....
Come on, It's just a mountain. No other mountain on the whole trail has such a maze of regulations. Thousands of hikers a year climb Katahdin. Six year old kids climb Katahdin. My youngest climbed Katahdin 33 years ago as a five-year-old. The ranger that only issued me a warning was almost fired because he didn't take me to court.

We go to the woods and the hills to avoid "protection," to be on our own; to make our own choices. That's possible every where on the AT except on Katahdin. Sure Katahdin is a bit more difficult than the run of the mill AT hill, but it's no more dangerous than dozens of trails in the Whites, where there are no regulations at all -- other than not camping above the timberline.

Weary

[Darwin again]

Seems to me that sometimes the wilderness needs to be protected from idiots as much as idiots need to be protected from themselves while in the wilderness. So there are rules. And law enforcement types to keep them from wrecking the place or themselves or both and endangering rescuers.

ie: tourons I met just south of newfound gap on my way down from Mount Collins shelter. They were wearing sweatshirts and boat sneakers, carrying little plastic botttles of water and wearing jeans. I'd worn instep crampons half the way down from collins because of compacted snow and ice up to a foot thick on the trail higher up. These people asked me how far it was to Clingman's Dome. I once met a guy on Mount Marcy in the Adks, halfway up the trail, who'd just driven up from New jersey and decided to climb the highest peak in New York on a whim. He was overweight, wearing loafers, carrying a camera bad slung off one shoulder and a big aluminum tripod. No hat. Not a map, water, food or a clue.

Dealing with such people regularly must be gasket-blowing frustrating sometimes. The rangers have a daunting task in keeping both the parklands, trees, birds, rocks and animals and things, as well as the peeps who visit them, from coming to any of hundreds of possible unwitting and ugly ends at each other's whim.

I don't know, but I suspect lots of the rules are for the benefit/protection of the land in Baxter, not the people.

I offered that guy on Mount Marcy some water, but he refused it. He asked us which was the trail that led back down the mountain. I've never forgotten that dude, slathering along over the rocks in his mud-slickened tassel loafers. That's 14.7-mile round trip over trails similar to the Whites... Somebody gets well lost in the Adirondacks just about every year and some are never found.

I guess my point is that for some people, it's not just a mountain, even if we feel that way about it: no biggie.

[hacksaw]

Ya' know guys, the only real problem with the discussion of moving the trail terminus is that at some point you got to trot yourself down to the "Hill" in D. C. and run the plan by Congress and if you're really serious you should bring a big suitcase full of money so as to grease the wheels of progress lest the plan die in comittee. The AT, being the gem of the National Scenic Trails trails has to have the okey dokey from the congressional weasels before you get to toy around with the route. If this were a serious discussion whom among us gets the task of trying to get those weiners to do anything that doesn't make them any richer, more powerful, easier to get reelected, etc, etc. Not I quacked the duck!

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

Every year the AT gets a re-route or two from maintenance groups. It does not require an act of Congress to reroute the AT.


Q. How long is the AT?
A. The trail measured 2,168.1 miles in 2001. The total distance of the trail changes slightly from year to year as trail maintenance groups reroute the trail as needed.
http://www.outdoors.org/conservation/trails/at/at-faq.cfmAs to the reasoning for rerouting the trail:
Parts of the Appalachian Trail are periodically relocated to cross recently acquired lands, to better protect the footpath, and to improve the quality of the backcountry experience.
http://www.appalachiantrail.org/site/c.jkLXJ8MQKtH/b.878207/k.37BF/Relocations.htmIMO, the situation described at Baxter detracts from the backcountry experience and the footpath in this area could and should be routed away from what sounds to be an overused state park that needs stringent regulations to survive and accommodate the traffic.

Move the AT and Baxter becomes just another state park in Maine - not the northern terminus of the AT. This should result in less traffic on Katahdin which would make Baxter's idea of preservation easier to accomplish. Having the AT end in a true wilderness similar to the rest of the trail would improve the backcountry experience of hikers. This is a win-win proposal.

[weary]

Ya' know guys, the only real problem with the discussion of moving the trail terminus is that at some point you got to trot yourself down to the "Hill" in D. C. and run the plan by Congress and if you're really serious you should bring a big suitcase full of money so as to grease the wheels of progress lest the plan die in comittee. The AT, being the gem of the National Scenic Trails trails has to have the okey dokey from the congressional weasels before you get to toy around with the route. If this were a serious discussion whom among us gets the task of trying to get those weiners to do anything that doesn't make them any richer, more powerful, easier to get reelected, etc, etc. Not I quacked the duck!
The trail northern terminus isn't going to be moved. I'm participating to protest the rules on Katahdin that are designed to protect the foolish and ignorant from doing foolish and ignorant things.

If the forum didn't contain so many apologists for bureaucratic control over things that should be private decisions, I might succeed. The rules are mostly the result of the death of an ill-trained ranger attempting to rescue a woman trapped by an unexpected strorm on Katahdin's knife edge 30 or 40 years ago.

The rules don't prevent a recurrence of course. It's the nature of mountains to have unexpected storm events. They happen despite the regulations. That's the nature of unexpected events. Instead we are prevented from climbing whenever it rains hard or gets windy, regardless of our abilities to cope with such routine events. We are all reduced to the lowest common denominator.

Weather conditions that might be inconvenient to the foolish and ignorant keep us all off the mountain.

Weary

[Heater]

Really? I get irritated when the clerk keeps my change.

I like to change my underwear sometimes, too.

When the clerk keeps you change of underwear, that is going too far.

[Darwin again]

We are all reduced to the lowest common denominator.

Welcome to the Newer, Dumberer World Order.
You're supposed to stay at home and watch the Tee Vee and enjoy your bread and circuses, not be self-reliant, confident, competent and responsible.

The government is here to help you...repeat after me: The government is here to HELP you, the government is here to HELP you...obey the rules...obey the rules...obey....:eek:

[Gray Blazer]

<TABLE id=HB_Mail_Container height="100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0 UNSELECTABLE="on"><TBODY><TR height="100%" UNSELECTABLE="on" width="100%"><TD id=HB_Focus_Element vAlign=top width="100%" background="" height=250 UNSELECTABLE="off">Since we're being serious here....I haven't checked with the other floridiots...but, I'm proposing the southern terminus be in FL...say...the summit of Mt. Dora. 1. it would never be closed due to snow.2. you wouldn't have to begin/end your hike with a killer climb. 3. there are no rangers there to ruin your hike.......:rolleyes: </TD></TR><TR UNSELECTABLE="on" hb_tag="1"><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 1pt" height=1 UNSELECTABLE="on">
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE id=HB_Mail_Container height="100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0 UNSELECTABLE="on"><TBODY><TR height="100%" UNSELECTABLE="on" width="100%"><TD id=HB_Focus_Element vAlign=top width="100%" background="" height=250 UNSELECTABLE="off">S</TD></TR><TR UNSELECTABLE="on" hb_tag="1"><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 1pt" height=1 UNSELECTABLE="on">

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Ridge]

[quote=Gray Blazer][quote=Gray Blazer] <TABLE id=HB_Mail_Container height="100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0 UNSELECTABLE="on"><TBODY><TR height="100%" UNSELECTABLE="on" width="100%"><TD id=HB_Focus_Element vAlign=top width="100%" background="" height=250 UNSELECTABLE="off">Since we're being serious here....I haven't checked with the other floridiots...but, I'm proposing the southern terminus be in FL...say...the summit of Mt. Dora. 1. it would never be closed due to snow.2. you wouldn't have to begin/end your hike with a killer climb. 3. there are no rangers there to ruin your hike[quote]


You're right about the snow, or lack of it, but you didn't mention the SMOKE from wildfires FL has had in years past. I had to make a very long detour to get to a spot one year.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[MedicineMan]

'end in a true wilderness similar to the rest of the trail '
hmmmmm, crossing a road every 3-10 miles? walking through a town every 30-40 miles?
for true wilderness i suggest the furthest reaches of northern Canada but dont be surprised to see a rich American hunter sneeking up on a polar bear on a snowmobile with a highly paid inuit guide.

[Ridge]

True wilderness is a shopping center Wal Mart moved from a year ago to build a Super Store elsewhere.

[Ridge]

This one claims to be the true last and largest wilderness of North America, and its part of the Rocky Mountains. Roughly 25,000 sq miles of wilderness. Have you even heard of it?

http://www.muskwa-kechika.com/

[MedicineMan]

i wonder how many ways there are to describe/define wilderness...but in that place i doubt few would argue whether it is....my mom thinks i live in the wilderness because on the way up a bear crossed the road...in the end after all the debates over what it is i will settle with it being a state of mind...in fact just read a trailjournal entry about how wilderness feeling the AT was in the NJ section and only 34 miles from NYC...its all an illusion to one degree or another and Ridge please dont think i was slamming you, it wasnt even wilderness when Grandma Gatewood walked it.

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

'end in a true wilderness similar to the rest of the trail '
hmmmmm, crossing a road every 3-10 miles? walking through a town every 30-40 miles?I accept my lashing with wet ramen for calling the AT a wilderness trail. The point I was trying to make is that Baxter - with all the rules and crowds - is different for the majority of the AT.

While we are considering the viablity of AT relocations, why not route it away from the GSMNP? This is another area of the trail that suffers from overuse.

[Big Dawg]

Dino,,,, you beat me to it. I was getting ready to mention GSMNP. Tons of regulations there. Not sure how it compares to Baxter regulations.

Personally, I don't mind the AT staying in GSMNP & Baxter. Like I said before, the AT, in my opinion, is not a remote trail. Medicineman said it perfectly. If I want total remoteness & regulation free hiking, then I'd head out west/north.

[weary]

Dino,,,, you beat me to it. I was getting ready to mention GSMNP. Tons of regulations there. Not sure how it compares to Baxter regulations.

Personally, I don't mind the AT staying in GSMNP & Baxter. Like I said before, the AT, in my opinion, is not a remote trail. Medicineman said it perfectly. If I want total remoteness & regulation free hiking, then I'd head out west/north.
There are regulations designed to protect the trail environment and regulations designed to protect hikers from making mistakes. I support the former. I oppose the latter.

In 1993 and in several visits since I saw no rules that would have prevented me from climbing any mountain in GSMNP anytime I wanted to. That's not true in Baxter Park.

The same is true in the White Mountain National Forest. I can climb any mountain in any weather. I can't in Baxter State Park.

Nor can I find anything in Gov. Baxter's voluminous writings about his park that justify restrictions other than those designed to keep the landscape "forever wild."

Weary

[max patch]

I found the restrictions in the GSMNP and the SNP a bigger hassle than the regulations at Baxter. I also found the regulations for the trail in CT to have more of an impact on my hike than those in Baxter.

I hike Katahdin about every 10 years. If I lived in Maine I would probably have a different opinion.

[Big Dawg]

There are regulations designed to protect the trail environment and regulations designed to protect hikers from making mistakes. I support the former. I oppose the latter.

In 1993 and in several visits since I saw no rules that would have prevented me from climbing any mountain in GSMNP anytime I wanted to. That's not true in Baxter Park.

The same is true in the White Mountain National Forest. I can climb any mountain in any weather. I can't in Baxter State Park.

Nor can I find anything in Gov. Baxter's voluminous writings about his park that justify restrictions other than those designed to keep the landscape "forever wild."

Weary

Thanks for the detail!

I agree, support the former, not the latter.

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

The GSMNP does close both roads and trails during snow and ice storms to avoid accidents and rescues. They sometimes close trails in the lowlands due to flooding.

While I'm not a fan of lots of regulations, the regulations are not why I think the AT would benefit from being routed around Baxter and the GSMNP. Both areas are overused to the point that damage is inevitable. Routing the AT around the most visited national park in TN / NC and one of the most hiked mountains in Maine would cause those hiking the AT to use areas that are not currently being critically overused.

[Ridge]

The GSMNP does close both roads and trails during snow and ice storms to avoid accidents and rescues. They sometimes close trails in the lowlands due to flooding. ......

If US441 bisecting the GSMNP is ever Rock-slided into closure (similar to I-40 rock-slides), you'll see a decrease usage of the shelters and trail then, assuming the road is closed at the entrances to the park.

I would venture to guess that the most hiked and used section of the AT is that from Newfound Gap(US441) to IceWaterSpg shelter(possibly the most used) and Charles Bunion and back.

If you check historical records you'll see that controversy surrounding the building of US441 thru the park was abundant, too bad the environmentalist lost.

[rickb]

Both areas are overused to the point that damage is inevitable.

What kind of damage is being done in Baxter?

If you are talking about damage to a so-called wilderness experience for us tourists, I think you might have a point. Sharing summits sucks.

But if you are talking about damage to lichens and ecosystems I'm not sure I'd agree. The moose seem happy enough, and the world can live with a few less plants on the Tableland just fine.

[TIDE-HSV]

they want to revive the road around the south side! Not much chance of I-40-type rockslides on 441. Neither the topography nor geology really favor it.