View Full Version : Are you a scofflaw?
A hiker can camp pretty much anywhere they want along the AT with a number of notable exceptions. One can't set up thier own camp within 1/4 mile of a Hut in the White Mountains, for example.
This poll asks how may times you have ignored those kinds of rules on your thru or long distance section hikes.
Lone Wolf
09-13-2007, 06:45
dozens of times. no plant or animal was harmed in the commission of these heinous crimes
Frolicking Dinosaurs
09-13-2007, 06:51
He-dino is a quiet & somewhat solitary creature who much prefers to camp alone with she-dino rather than in group camps. (Count your blessing as both dinos snore like freight trains). In places that require you to camp at shelters or in sight of shelters, well.... dinos don't.
Gray Blazer
09-13-2007, 06:55
dozens of times. no plant or animal was harmed in the commission of these heinous crimes
As far as you know. Some purist bed wetting anti-scofflers are probably bent out of shape.
hopefulhiker
09-13-2007, 07:04
I obeyed all the rules but I found it was easy too.. I mean it was not like I was trying to follow the rules.. I just ended up that way....
saimyoji
09-13-2007, 07:41
Once I had a great time camping, thinking I was breaking the rules, I even laughed at how sneaky I was being. Then later I found out it was totally legit to camp where I was. Man was I bummed.
What exactly are the rules along the AT? Is it possible to hike one end to the other legally without paying for any camp or shelter or hiking fees? Which sections are most difficult to avoid such fees, and how can you legally avoid paying such fees? Also, what sections do you think such fees are reasonable and go towards a good cause, and what sections do you think it would be better to legally avoid paying such fees? I read somewhere that it might be best to try and avoid paying such fees in New Hampshire, but such fees might be well spent in Vermont.
Another question, when people that work in some shelters allow hikers to stay for free if the do some work, is this considered theft of services? In other words, does the shelter worker have the authority to use discretion to waive such fees for any reason?
modiyooch
09-13-2007, 09:30
I did not stay at the shelters or campsites in MD as requested. I hike alone alot, and thought better of it for my safety. (I had a real sweet campsite at a summit one evening) Left no trace. I did confess to the ridgerunner.
I've never had an occasion to violate the rules in Maine and New Hampshire. But I did camp without the required permits a couple of times as I explored some of the side trails in the Smokies and decided I didn't want to hike in the dark to reach a shelter on the AT.
In Shenandoah I was told by a campground "host" to take down my tent again and again as I waited for the office to open that sold Golden Age passes.
BTW. The pass is a great bargain. It has saved me many hundreds of dollars over the past 14 years.
Weary
max patch
09-13-2007, 10:21
I didn't camp at the shelters as required at the time in CT.
Lone Wolf
09-13-2007, 10:23
i camped underneath lonesome lake hut in the whites
I'm begging to ask more questions but I figure I'm done for the day.
If it's going to be done, I think the person that starts a stupid poll like this should be the 1st to deny or admit his wrong doing.
OK. I'll ask. How is this different than theft of services?
Lone Wolf
09-13-2007, 10:38
I'm begging to ask more questions but I figure I'm done for the day.
don't you have a job or something?
Actually I do. Thanks for reminding me. Back in an hour or two.
saimyoji
09-13-2007, 11:24
don't you have a job or something?
Not long ago there was another poster (a teacher) that admitted to surfing WB during class, and during a test no less. :eek:
Interesting Poll, did you have any personal preference or experiences that made you choose to post it?
Every time I hike, I hear about hidden little "gems" for places to camp.
warren doyle
09-13-2007, 15:09
You can legally hike the entire trail without paying a fee to hike or camp.
Sounds like a 'noble' goal to me.
(it use to cost 10 cents to cross the Bear Mountain Bridge over the Hudson but they discontinued this fee)
You can legally hike the entire trail without paying a fee to hike or camp.
Sounds like a 'noble' goal to me.
(it use to cost 10 cents to cross the Bear Mountain Bridge over the Hudson but they discontinued this fee)Thanks Warren. Good to know.
Just a Hiker
09-13-2007, 15:45
Hey all, I have a good story that is somewhat close to the topic of this thread. Anyway, this was in 2004, and my plan this day was to go from Pinkham Notch to Lakes of the Clouds Hut. The weather was great and I had a great climb up Madison. I stayed at Madison Springs Hut for awhile to eat something and rest my knees because I had fallen coming down Wildcat the day before. Anyway, It finally took off toward Mt. Washington and the weather changed really fast. The temp dropped quick and it started raining and the fog was rolling in fast. After awhile I knew I wouldn't make it to Lakes of the Clouds Hut, so I made my way to the Perch Lean-to. I made it there okay, and as I was sitting up camp I noticed a sign that said it cost $5 dollars to stay there. It also stated that if a representative from Randolph Mountain Club didn't show up to collect, then you were to mail the $5 bucks to the club when you had a chance.
Now as I am reading this I am thinking no fool is going to climb up here to get $5 dollars from my sorry azz, and I seriously doubt if I'll remember to actually mail it in. So I settle in, and the rain and fog are getting worse and worse as the evening goes on, so I figure I'll be camping alone, and I also figure that there is no way anyone is going to show up and collect $5 bucks from me. Anyway, it's nearly dark and it's foggy and raining, and all of a sudden from the fog comes a young guy with a small pack and a big headlamp. You guessed it, it was a caretaker from Randolph Mountain Club!! I was shocked, and I was also impressed that this guy actually hiked his assigned route to check the lean-to's and cabins that the RMC maintains. I think he was surprised to see me as well, but we chatted for a moment and then he asked me for my $5, which I promptly paid. We continued to chat for a moment, and then he returned to his duties.
Now I admit, if this guy hadn't shown up, the RMC more than likely would have never seen that $5 dollars (which the RMC really needs). Mainly because I would have forgotten, but I can't honestly say I would have mailed in that $5 dollars even if I had remembered. That doesn't make me a bad person or scofflaw, but I guess my point is that we have all probably broken the rules on the trail or have camped where we shouldn't or haven't paid a fee. It doesn't make us bad, it makes us human. Take care,
Just Jim
You can legally hike the entire trail without paying a fee to hike or camp.
Sounds like a 'noble' goal to me.
(it use to cost 10 cents to cross the Bear Mountain Bridge over the Hudson but they discontinued this fee)
I dayhiked thru the Bear Mountain area and the admissions lady at the zoo told me it wasn't necessary for me to pay the $1.00 or $2.00 admission fee.
I paid anyway. It just seemed like the right thing to do.
Now I admit, if this guy hadn't shown up, the RMC more than likely would have never seen that $5 dollars (which the RMC really needs). Mainly because I would have forgotten, but I can't honestly say I would have mailed in that $5 dollars even if I had remembered. That doesn't make me a bad person or scofflaw, but I guess my point is that we have all probably broken the rules on the trail or have camped where we shouldn't or haven't paid a fee. It doesn't make us bad, it makes us human. Take care,
Just Jim
I imagine most people bend the rules on occassion not out of a true desire to do any harm, but out of convenience. Techically, bending the rules may be wrong, but as long as it isn't flagrant or obviously harmful, then we justify it and move on. Perhaps we find a way to make up for the minor infractions another way, say by donating time or money or discouraging more harmful behaviors.
Example: There is a big difference between stealth camping in the wrong spot when you run out of daylight and trashing a commercial establishment or campsite for the sake of a party.
CoyoteWhips
09-13-2007, 16:21
I try not to break any laws that anybody wants to enforce. Just seems rude.
Can some explain who is going to enforce the rules???
I think we are all called upon to know and follow the rules ourselves. There are ridge-runners who monitor the corridor and encourage people to follow the rules. The AMC, among others, have people who collect camping fees at some of their sites. Some areas, like in the Smokies, are more strict than in other areas. Generally speaking, I think it is in everyone's interest to know and follow the rules in order to preserve the trail and the amenities. Failure to respect the rules could result in more restrictions or fewer services.
Jester2000
09-13-2007, 17:00
. . .Which sections are most difficult to avoid such fees, and how can you legally avoid paying such fees? Also, what sections do you think such fees are reasonable and go towards a good cause, and what sections do you think it would be better to legally avoid paying such fees? I read somewhere that it might be best to try and avoid paying such fees in New Hampshire, but such fees might be well spent in Vermont.
Another question, when people that work in some shelters allow hikers to stay for free if the do some work, is this considered theft of services? In other words, does the shelter worker have the authority to use discretion to waive such fees for any reason?
You can legally avoid paying fees by not availing yourself of the services/shelters for which the fees are charged.
In other words, don't want to pay? Don't go there. Some people find this to be difficult as they move through the Whites, but it's not.
So keeping in mind that the legal way to not pay fees is to not use services, and keeping in mind that whether or not to pay is based not on where the money goes but rather where you go and what you do, I'd say that you should pay wherever you use services, and use services wherever you feel you have to or want to. This may be all over the place, or only in a couple of places.
As for "work for stay," you're probably referring to huts rather than shelters (although there are some pay shelters with hosts). They are authorized to take on work for stay people, so it's not theft of services. And since you'll be doing some work, it's actually more like a barter thing (to warn you -- I've done some pretty noxious things for work for stay, although if you're lucky you'll just do dishes).
Just a Hiker
09-13-2007, 17:23
You can legally avoid paying fees by not availing yourself of the services/shelters for which the fees are charged.
In other words, don't want to pay? Don't go there. Some people find this to be difficult as they move through the Whites, but it's not.
So keeping in mind that the legal way to not pay fees is to not use services, and keeping in mind that whether or not to pay is based not on where the money goes but rather where you go and what you do, I'd say that you should pay wherever you use services, and use services wherever you feel you have to or want to. This may be all over the place, or only in a couple of places.
As for "work for stay," you're probably referring to huts rather than shelters (although there are some pay shelters with hosts). They are authorized to take on work for stay people, so it's not theft of services. And since you'll be doing some work, it's actually more like a barter thing (to warn you -- I've done some pretty noxious things for work for stay, although if you're lucky you'll just do dishes).
Hey all. I agree, if you can't pay the fiddler....don't go to the dance. When I was telling my little story earlier, I wasn't condoning not paying for services; in my own feeble way I was coming clean on own moral dilema on the trail. Fortunately, in my case, all worked out well.....The RMC got their money and I kept my good karma in tact. It would hurt me deeply if people thought I was the sort who condoned not paying for services. Anyway, I have to go call the IRS. LOL!!! Take care,
Just Jim
Jester2000
09-13-2007, 17:27
. . . It would hurt me deeply if people thought I was the sort who condoned not paying for services. Anyway, I have to go call the IRS. LOL!!! Take care,
Just Jim
I seriously doubt anyone would think that of you, Jim. I was just responding to JAK's question. Tell the IRS I said "hi." Oh, and also tell them, "don't audit me."
Since he started the post, I want to know when Rick is going to come back and tell us if he's a scofflaw? Otherwise, the thread is fits into the "trolling" category. Maybe we need a forum for that.
Appalachian Tater
09-13-2007, 18:32
You can legally hike the entire trail without paying a fee to hike or camp.
Sounds like a 'noble' goal to me.
Then why would you do something like use an access road on private property where a fee is charged and illegally avoid paying the fee by sneaking through (trespassing) as you have admitted to doing?
Sounds 'ignoble' to me.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
09-13-2007, 18:34
.......the legal way to not pay fees is to not use services, and keeping in mind that whether or not to pay is based not on where the money goes but rather where you go and what you do, I'd say that you should pay wherever you use services, and use services wherever you feel you have to or want to. This may be all over the place, or only in a couple of places.Very well stated, Jester.
Since he started the post, I want to know when Rick is going to come back and tell us if he's a scofflaw? Otherwise, the thread is fits into the "trolling" category. Maybe we need a forum for that.Desert Lobster could be the mod on that one.
Anyway, I was a scofflaw on my thru.
As a SOB0, I camped something over 1/4 mile north of the road that goes by Pinkham Notch. Normally, this 1/4 mile would have put me in a legal camping zone, but truth be known that stretch of trail parallels Route 16 off in the distance. Problem was, if I had stayed farther north on the AT, I would have been on a 45* incline (or so it seemed).
While you can't see the road, its there. And is most certainly within 1/4 mile. And you can't camp within 1/4 mile of any road in the Whites-- even if you are more than 1/4 mile away from the Trailhead.
What can I say? I ****ed up, and am not proud of it.
Rick
Lone Wolf
09-13-2007, 19:15
Then why would you do something like use an access road on private property where a fee is charged and illegally avoid paying the fee by sneaking through (trespassing) as you have admitted to doing?
Sounds 'ignoble' to me.
access to all AT trailheads should be free
Cookerhiker
09-13-2007, 19:26
I've been hiking the AT for 30 years and don't recall breaking any camping rules - not that I'm a goody 2-shoes, it's just that when I was ready to cash in for the night, I was always legal.
But on my JMT hike last summer, I probably camped too close to some of the alpine lakes.
Nightwalker
09-13-2007, 19:43
Then why would you do something like use an access road on private property where a fee is charged and illegally avoid paying the fee by sneaking through (trespassing) as you have admitted to doing?
Sounds 'ignoble' to me.
Why don't you give it up, Junior.
warren doyle
09-13-2007, 19:46
Sounds like good advice to me.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
09-13-2007, 19:54
access to all AT trailheads should be free I'm a section hiker - should I be sneaking into State Parks without paying the fees and not paying those pesky FS parking fees if I plan to hike the AT :confused: I don't think so.
Desert Lobster could be the mod on that one.
Anyway, I was a scofflaw on my thru.
Thanks for your participation. You're troll like status has been rescinded. :)
Lone Wolf
09-13-2007, 20:16
I'm a section hiker - should I be sneaking into State Parks without paying the fees and not paying those pesky FS parking fees if I plan to hike the AT :confused: I don't think so.
the only STATE park that has a fee is Baxter. and that's if you drive in. the only FS parking fees that i know of are in WMNF. there are ways around that
Frolicking Dinosaurs
09-13-2007, 20:25
the only STATE park that has a fee is Baxter. and that's if you drive in. the only FS parking fees that i know of are in WMNF. there are ways around thatSeveral of the State Parks have fees for vehicles - Your own Virginia State Parks (http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/state_parks/documents/feesadmprk06.pdf) for example charge $2 / weekdays or $3 / weekends
Several of the State Parks have fees for vehicles - Your own Virginia State Parks (http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/state_parks/documents/feesadmprk06.pdf) for example charge $2 / weekdays or $3 / weekends
Someone needs to write a guidebook! Heh, heh... :p
SGT Rock
09-13-2007, 20:31
How about this - don't drive the AT. If you do, plan to pay a little extra. Duh. If you can't hack paying the extra, maybe you really don't need a car.
Lone Wolf
09-13-2007, 20:33
Several of the State Parks have fees for vehicles - Your own Virginia State Parks (http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/state_parks/documents/feesadmprk06.pdf) for example charge $2 / weekdays or $3 / weekends
you get a free shuttle from me. i just gave a free shuttle last week to 3 nice sectioners
If it's going to be done, I think the person that starts a stupid poll like this should be the 1st to deny or admit his wrong doing.
My next poll may have something to do with extra catsup packages, and whether or not you throw them away or take them with you. Not sure yet.
But what do you cop to Sly?
But what do you cop to Sly?
Nothing, I'm perfect! ;) Nah, I sometimes camp too close to water, but when I do it's in a well impacted area. In order to help offset my infringes, I do routine trail maintenance and bust up fire rings.
Lone Wolf
09-13-2007, 20:48
Nothing, I'm perfect! ;) Nah, I sometimes camp too close to water, but when I do it's in a well impacted area. In order to help offset my infringes, I do routine trail maintenance and bust up fire rings.
i bust up shelters and paint white blazes blue
SGT Rock
09-13-2007, 20:50
And I plan to build a few toll roads and charge access to the AT for people in cars. Seems some people have huge problems with that. But I will have a firearm to enforce it ;)
LOL... That would be a hoot if someone painted a white section blue and a blue section white. What a conundrum for a purist once they found out.
But I will have a firearm to enforce it ;)
Someone had a small caliber pistol on the trail this year. I haven't fired a pistol in about 20 years but I hit a stick 2 of three times from about 30'. Better than the guy that owned the gun. I thought that was pretty cool.
warren doyle
09-13-2007, 21:37
Advocating illegal activities
Frolicking Dinosaurs
09-13-2007, 21:43
No thanks, WD. I'll leave theft of services to those better able to handle it. I enjoy being able to look everyone in the eye and sleep well at night.
As was said earlier, if you cannot afford the parking fee maybe you can't afford the car.
warren doyle
09-13-2007, 21:57
Advocating illegal activities
Appalachian Tater
09-13-2007, 22:16
You also can drive into national parks for free in the early morning.
I enjoy commemorating our nation's heritage, which was free national/state parks.
Most governments steal my money (taxes) by spending them on things that I am morally opposed to.
A couple less missiles/bombs, and lucrative contracts to private mercenaries, could provide all the funding that national/state parks need to allow free use of them.
I'm looking forward to a sound sleep tonight.
Way to go, Doyle, putting your money where your mouth is!
That might be your excuse for stiffing national parks, but state governments don't hire "private mercenaries" or build missiles or bombs.
It would appear to someone not as high-minded as yourself that you're just too cheap to pay for things like food, movies, and user fees at parks if you can steal them instead.
SGT Rock
09-13-2007, 22:27
It's always easy to find a way to justify theft LOL. I steal because the big corportatons blah blah blah, becaus the government blah blah blah. Next you will be mooning the cog because of GWB.
warren doyle
09-13-2007, 22:34
I don't moon the cog out of common sense and I'm the offspring of married parents.
State governments participate in corporate welfare.
SGT Rock
09-13-2007, 22:42
And personal welfare too. Last I looked there were programs on the federal level and state level to also provide welfare to individuals. Selective choosing of reasoning there.
Face it, you want the luxury of driving a car to places you could walk into and just don't want to pay. Other words - cheap. There isn't any honor or higher purpose in your actions - only personal gratification.
It isn't like you would starve or die if you didn't pay. You're simply justifying poor examples of behavior and at the same time condoning others and yet you also can find fault in others for their actions with a straight face. Continue to pat yourself on the back for how clever you feel.
Hypocrisy. LOL!
Frolicking Dinosaurs
09-13-2007, 22:44
Gee, WalMart has horrible business practices and doesn't treat its employee very well. Think I'll go shoplift from them --- if I get caught, I'm sure the judge will let me off when I explain how awful WalMart is and that this justifies stealing from them. :rolleyes:
SGT Rock
09-13-2007, 22:45
Wait until we get the PMs from him for the attacking behavior.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
09-13-2007, 22:50
Last time I checked the TOS didn't say we would keep the members from calling anyone out for promoting illegal behavior.
Appalachian Tater
09-13-2007, 22:53
Face it, you want the luxury of driving a car to places you could walk into and just don't want to pay. Other words - cheap.
Not just cheap, but lazy. Rather than walk in, or carry his own supplies, he relies on a motor vehicle--and the rest of us to pay for the parks/facilities/food/entertainment which he uses. In other words, a free-loader.
Doyle, since you're so lazy, I'll calculate the score for you:
Internegators: 3.
Cheap, lazy, free-loading, but legitimate, child: 0.
dixicritter
09-13-2007, 22:55
:::Goes and looks at WB TOS (http://whiteblaze.net/index.php?page=agreement):::
Nope don't see anything in there about that FD. :)
Frolicking Dinosaurs
09-13-2007, 22:59
Hey, Dixie, I found something about illegal acts in our TOS:
Discussions involving how to commit illegal acts, or involving the use, production and/or distribution of illegal drugs are forbidden.
WD,
Do you teach free-loading at your institute?
dixicritter
09-13-2007, 23:00
Yes and Warren has been made aware of that particular rule many, many times.
SGT Rock
09-13-2007, 23:08
WD,
Do you teach free-loading at your institute?
Doubt it.:p
I answer to a higher power.
Spirit Walker
09-13-2007, 23:29
Okay, I have a hypthetical question, based on a real issue that relates to this thread and the ESC thread.
On the Great Divide Trail in Canada, hikers are required to buy a National Park Pass ($62) and a Wilderness Camping Pass (another $62). Then we are required to make reservations for all national park campsites in advance – which is about half the trail. There is a service charge for the permit – how much it costs depends on how long it takes to make the reservation. There are also several Provincial Parks that we camped in. Two require advance reservations ($8 person plus a reservation fee of $8) and the rest ask that you pay at the campsite. Aside from the money involved, there is a certain inconvenience in having to figure out your schedule before you go and then it can be a real pain keeping to the schedule. There are wardens/rangers in the backcountry, but not a lot. So, how many of you would jump through the hoops and pay the fees in order to camp legally?
We decided that it was in our best interest, and in the best interest of future hikers, to stay legal. We bought our permits, made our reservations, and kept to the schedule. However, I think this is fairly rare. The trail gets little respect or support as it is - every time a warden meets a thruhiker who hasn’t bothered to get a permit, it gives all thruhikers a bad name. When it is an American – well, that really makes us look bad. There are only a handful of hikers on the trail at all – so when even a few don’t bother to get the permits, it is noticeable.
And yes, we did run into a warden who asked for our permit. So have several other CDT hikers we know.
So, what would you do?
Appalachian Tater
09-14-2007, 00:34
Okay, I have a hypthetical question, based on a real issue that relates to this thread and the ESC thread.
On the Great Divide Trail in Canada, hikers are required to buy a National Park Pass ($62) and a Wilderness Camping Pass (another $62). Then we are required to make reservations for all national park campsites in advance – which is about half the trail. There is a service charge for the permit – how much it costs depends on how long it takes to make the reservation. There are also several Provincial Parks that we camped in. Two require advance reservations ($8 person plus a reservation fee of $8) and the rest ask that you pay at the campsite. Aside from the money involved, there is a certain inconvenience in having to figure out your schedule before you go and then it can be a real pain keeping to the schedule. There are wardens/rangers in the backcountry, but not a lot. So, how many of you would jump through the hoops and pay the fees in order to camp legally?
We decided that it was in our best interest, and in the best interest of future hikers, to stay legal. We bought our permits, made our reservations, and kept to the schedule. However, I think this is fairly rare. The trail gets little respect or support as it is - every time a warden meets a thruhiker who hasn’t bothered to get a permit, it gives all thruhikers a bad name. When it is an American – well, that really makes us look bad. There are only a handful of hikers on the trail at all – so when even a few don’t bother to get the permits, it is noticeable.
And yes, we did run into a warden who asked for our permit. So have several other CDT hikers we know.
So, what would you do?
When you are in Canada or any other foreign country, you are a guest and should make an extra effort to scrupulously follow the laws and any rules or regulations that you encounter, whether the citizens of that country do so or not, for all the reasons you have mentioned, and to stay out of trouble as well.
Even if you are a morally superior being whose actions may not be questioned by mortals, another country is not the place to steal, lie, or avoid paying user fees that you are supposed to be paying if you must do those things.
Canada is also known to forbid even "minor" criminals entry and will tell you to turn your car around or get back on the plane.
Your honesty and willingness to co-operate with the underpaid people who work in parks is refreshing on this particular thread.
Blue Jay
09-14-2007, 01:46
I answer to a higher power.
Women?????
SGT Rock
09-14-2007, 01:47
Women?????
Yea, his mom.
You can legally avoid paying fees by not availing yourself of the services/shelters for which the fees are charged.
In other words, don't want to pay? Don't go there. Some people find this to be difficult as they move through the Whites, but it's not.
So keeping in mind that the legal way to not pay fees is to not use services, and keeping in mind that whether or not to pay is based not on where the money goes but rather where you go and what you do, I'd say that you should pay wherever you use services, and use services wherever you feel you have to or want to. This may be all over the place, or only in a couple of places.Thanks. That's what I was asking, whether it was still possible to find a legally free spot even in the Whites. As to where to spend and where not to, I was asking if there might be some sections where people are more apt to stay and pay at services because they seem more reasonably priced and/or the money seems to be put to better use, and not stay at the other services. I can see how that is somewhat subjective. I kind of like the idea in a way, because it make places like the Whites more challenging to avoid services legally, and it makes other sections more pleasant, that might not be as physically challenging but have more affordable services that you might feel better about supporting. So honesty is the best policy, but as others have said, there are occassions where we are simply being human and if we miss a chance to pay $5 somewhere and don't mail it in as we should have, we can try and make it up by tipping someone or making a donation further down the trail. Technically this is illegal, and not harmless, but I wouldn't get too upset about it compared to a zillion other things we do every day that causes a lot more harm.
I seriously doubt anyone would think that of you, Jim. I was just responding to JAK's question. Tell the IRS I said "hi." Oh, and also tell them, "don't audit me."I think you misunderstood or misinterpreted my question, but I appreciated your first reply. Thanks. A lot of people seem to be giving me flak for simply trying to be understanding of what others might do, and taking things in measure. So be it.
Sorry, no you didn't misunderstand. I just misunderstood the IRS joke. I should join up and start editing some of my stupid posts. Cheers.
I'm a section hiker - should I be sneaking into State Parks without paying the fees and not paying those pesky FS parking fees if I plan to hike the AT :confused: I don't think so.I think what L.Wolf was saying is that it SHOULD be free, and most often is. When I drive through Fundy National Park it cost $3 or something, but if my wife is picking me up at the end of the Fundy Footpath then it is free. On the other end there is now the Fundy Trail Parkway, which is an odd organization which is something in between a Provincial Park and a Private Organization. To get access to the Fundy Footpath through them you now have to pay. They used to provide a parking lot outside there gate, but they no longer do. There is still the original Salmon River Road buried in the woods someplace, but I think its blocked. You can still get dropped off outside their gate and they don't charge you for hiking the 10km through, which is very pleasant, but I think this will change in the future. I paid $30 for a seasons pass, which really only bothers me because they are using the money to extend the Fundy Trail Parkway further in parallel to the Fundy Footpath, which I don't want, not just to maintain the Fundy Trail Parkway. So it looks to me like the Footpath will cost money, just to hike, in the future. It would not surprise me if the same happens to the AT at some point.
The question is, when private organizations, or pseudo-private organizations that might even get some funding from government, deliberately block access to the AT with their services, and develop services parallel or adjoining the AT that you might not 100% agree with, should we be 100% cooperative with these folks when it isn't their services that we are really using? We just want to pass through and get to the AT. What is legal when they are trying to force us to pay and support for something we disagree with?
And personal welfare too. Last I looked there were programs on the federal level and state level to also provide welfare to individuals. Selective choosing of reasoning there.
Face it, you want the luxury of driving a car to places you could walk into and just don't want to pay. Other words - cheap. There isn't any honor or higher purpose in your actions - only personal gratification.
It isn't like you would starve or die if you didn't pay. You're simply justifying poor examples of behavior and at the same time condoning others and yet you also can find fault in others for their actions with a straight face. Continue to pat yourself on the back for how clever you feel.
Hypocrisy. LOL!I agree. But what if they started charging you to access the AT even by foot? What would you do then?
What if they were using the money to build a road running parallel to the AT?
Oh, and also eventually took over management of the AT. Like this:
Before:
http://fundytrailparkway.com/fundy_footpath.htm
After:
http://fundytrailparkway.com/phase_2.htm
How would you feel if the money they were extorting out of you was being used to pay for development you didn't agree with, and they used they fact that you were paying to reinforce their argumant that it was development that people wanted? So things can often get messy. I don't have the answers. I should get more involved politically, but really just want to go for a walk in the woods, preferably without hearing cars and RVs off my left shoulder.
My answer is that I do what I do. This year I paid the $30. Perhaps I shouldn't have. But I don't complain about other people if they avoided such fees when it is going towards such over-development. I agree however, that MOST times when people justify a 'crime', if is hypocrisy. But not always.
In order to help offset my infringes, I do routine trail maintenance and bust up fire rings.Thanks for reminding me about offsets. I know they work well for Al Gore.
I wrote a small check to the MATC the other day, with a note that my offsets be applied to WD's account. I didn't need them myself, and would have hated that they go to waste.
rickb,
Rather than simply blow holes through everyone elses moral dilemnas, you should try and consider a few yourself. They DO exist, whether you wish to believe it or not, and the authorities, despite any prevalent myths of infalibility do not have all the answers. So you should at least let us discuss such matters, even if you don't have to deal with them up in your ivory tower. Where is this ivory tower anyways? In the Whites I suppose. :)
Desert Lobster could be the mod on that one.
Anyway, I was a scofflaw on my thru.
As a SOB0, I camped something over 1/4 mile north of the road that goes by Pinkham Notch. Normally, this 1/4 mile would have put me in a legal camping zone, but truth be known that stretch of trail parallels Route 16 off in the distance. Problem was, if I had stayed farther north on the AT, I would have been on a 45* incline (or so it seemed).
While you can't see the road, its there. And is most certainly within 1/4 mile. And you can't camp within 1/4 mile of any road in the Whites-- even if you are more than 1/4 mile away from the Trailhead.
What can I say? I ****ed up, and am not proud of it.
Rick
It doesn't hurt either to at least "wonder" why certain fees or restrictions exist and whether or not people should abide by them. With a rule like 'no camping 1/4 mile from a road' for example. Does that exist to stop car camping, or to keep hikers safe, or to keep motorists safe? There is also the 'any port in a storm rule'. Whether or not it applies is usually at the discretion of the person seeking security. The other thing about roads, there might be a question about whether the road should be their to begin with, and whether it pre-exists the trail or not. Sometimes that matters. Usually it doesn't. My point is, it usually doesn't hurt to think, and to talk about such things. I don't see the point in entertaining such a poll if it is only to go duck hunting.
I thought this was suposed to be a kinder... gentler Whiteblaze?!!
http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/tongue/tongue0015.gif
Frolicking Dinosaurs
09-14-2007, 08:57
I thought this was suposed to be a kinder... gentler Whiteblaze?!!
http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/tongue/tongue0015.gif::: Dino senses Austexs didn't get the memo about tough love being the kinder, gentler way in the long run :::
The question is, when private organizations, or pseudo-private organizations that might even get some funding from government, deliberately block access to the AT with their services, and develop services parallel or adjoining the AT that you might not 100% agree with, should we be 100% cooperative with these folks when it isn't their services that we are really using? We just want to pass through and get to the AT. What is legal when they are trying to force us to pay and support for something we disagree with?I have the option of not choosing to use their roads, but if I use them, I need to pay for them. In the case of a private toll road, I have two choices - access the trail elsewhere or pay their toll. I am paying for the use of a road that cost the private company money to build and maintain - the use of their road is the service I am paying for.
There is something very squirrelly in the ethical logic of refusing to pay the toll for a road because you feel it should not be there and using that same road to get you to where you need to go.
As for State Parks fees: if I choose to drive into a state park and leave my car there (and I usually do because they are patrolled and my vehicle is safer), then I need to pay the fees. I am paying for a safe place to park. If I don't want to pay, I need to park and access the trail somewhere else.
::: Dino senses Austexs didn't get the memo about tough love being the kinder, gentler way in the long run :::
I have the option of not choosing to use their roads, but if I use them, I need to pay for them. In the case of a private toll road, I have two choices - access the trail elsewhere or pay their toll. I am paying for the use of a road that cost the private company money to build and maintain - the use of their road is the service I am paying for.
There is something very squirrelly in the ethical logic of refusing to pay the toll for a road because you feel it should not be there and using that same road to get you to where you need to go.
As for State Parks fees: if I choose to drive into a state park and leave my car there (and I usually do because they are patrolled and my vehicle is safer), then I need to pay the fees. I am paying for a safe place to park. If I don't want to pay, I need to park and access the trail somewhere else.I am not sure if you read all my post Dino, not that I blame you.
What if some new development takes advantage of the existence of the AT, and develops adjacent to and parallel along the AT, and charges you not just to drive you car through, but even just to walk through. And what if the use the fees they collect from you not just to maintain the services you use, but also the ones you don't, and also to pay for further development adjacent to and parallel to the AT that you don't want. Further, what if the use their statistics on how many people pay their fees to gain access to the AT as justification for further development. That might not be happening where you are, but it is happening here.
The problem is, in general, people that want services like roads, and RV parks, and ATV access, and cottage rentals, and even private home development, tend to have a very strong lobby, because they tend to generate more revenue and jobs and so forth. Trails like the AT do NOT exist because of the normal laws of supply and demand and political lobbying etc. Trails like the AT only exist because people are able to realize and communicate that they are simply the right thing do, not just for economic reasons. Does that mean we should break the law? NO. But it does mean that some fees do make you sick to your stomach, when all you might want to do is walk 10km to your trail, and they are using your money to ultimately destroy it, and in your name.
Here is the sort of development I am talking about. I'm not totally against it, but it seems to be taking more and more away each year. It's death by 1000 cuts.
Oh, and also eventually took over management of the AT. Like this:
Before:
http://fundytrailparkway.com/fundy_footpath.htm
After:
http://fundytrailparkway.com/phase_2.htm
How would you feel if the money they were extorting out of you was being used to pay for development you didn't agree with, and they used they fact that you were paying to reinforce their argumant that it was development that people wanted? So things can often get messy. I don't have the answers. I should get more involved politically, but really just want to go for a walk in the woods, preferably without hearing cars and RVs off my left shoulder.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
09-14-2007, 12:08
JAK, you do understand that the AT is a National Scenic Trail under the management of the National Park Service in the US :confused: The sort of development you mention would not be allowed. The trail goes thru a zoo which has an admission fee, but even that is waived for hikers. Since the trail is publicly owned or granted free-use thru easements on private property, I don't think any entity could charge a fee for walking on the trail.
If I don't want to pay, I need to park and access the trail somewhere else.What happens when there is no where else?
JAK, you do understand that the AT is a National Scenic Trail under the management of the National Park Service in the US :confused: The sort of development you mention would not be allowed. The trail goes thru a zoo which has an admission fee, but even that is waived for hikers. Since the trail is publicly owned or granted free-use thru easements on private property, I don't think any entity could charge a fee for walking on the trail.That is good. That used to be the way it was here with the Fundy Footpath, which was always free, and built by volunteers. But the Fundy Trail Parkway is new, and was built with help by taxpayer money. When it was first built you could still hike through it for free. Now you have to pay. What is worse, they are using the money to develop in close proximity to the Fundy Footpath, and might eventually replace it. Hopefully that sort of thing will never happen to the AT, though I would not be surprised if it is happening in little bits here or there.
max patch
09-14-2007, 12:19
What happens when there is no where else?
Theres ALWAYS someplace else.
And if that someplace else is a bit farther than you want to walk then suck it up and pay the $2 parking fee.
Theres ALWAYS someplace else.
And if that someplace else is a bit farther than you want to walk then suck it up and pay the $2 parking fee.Well I hope you will always be right where you live. In the case of the Fundy Footpath, I suppose I can always kayak to it, or drive all the way to Fundy National Park and get in that way. What bothers me though, is not paying for the service I use, but that that money is also going toward the destruction of the Footpath that I love.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
09-14-2007, 12:25
Well I hope you will always be right where you live. In the case of the Fundy Footpath, I suppose I can always kayak to it, or drive all the way to Fundy National Park and get in that way. What bothers me though, is not paying for the service I use, but that that money is also going toward the destruction of the Footpath that I love.This is why some of us are so politically attuned. We have fought for years to keep the wilderness wild by electing people who would vote to do so and making sure our officials knew how we felt about these issues.
The Solemates
09-14-2007, 12:33
you win JAK. the most posts on one thread, ever. and probably the most in a row without someone else's post too.
anyways...i'll admit it. we negated paying to camp by avoiding places that made you pay. we still do to this day.
at NOC we slept on the floor of the cabins with two other hikers who let us. we frequently would push it to a restaurant, gorge ourselves, and then catch a ride back to the AT and not want to hike in the dark so we'd camp within 1/4 mile of the road, many times on private property. this especially happened in VA. its a strange thing to wake up and see cows just a few yards away. we stayed at a number of campgrounds, arriving after dark and leaving before anyone showed up to collect. camped close to the road/waysides in shennies. stayed real close to penmar. stayed on private property in MD. because we were so early, talked the keeper at a handful of hostels to let us stay free. on occasion stayed in their yard if no one was around. "broke into" upper goose pond cabin before the season opened and stayed. often stealthed it in the Whites. and many others i'm forgetting im sure.
all this to say.... i'm not saying that makes it morally right nor am I advocating such, but LNT principles were always adhered to and we never disrespected anyone and no one ever knew we were there.
I think that is one reason I would like to hike the AT. First and foremost I want to do it for its natural beauty. Second for the trail people and trail towns. No offence. Third, to learn more about all you guys are doing right and how you do it. Not just trail maintenance, which looks super from the photos I've seen, but also how you deal with issues related to keeping the trail free from the wrong kind of development too close to the trail. I understand this is always going to be an issue of contention. Some development I hate. Some development I love. Most is a sort of messy in between.
Anyhow, I would like to see what y'all are doing. I hope you all get it right to. Because when you get it right we are sometimes smart enough up here to copy what you've done. But when you get it wrong, we ALWAYS copy what you've done. Cheers.
ChimneySpring
09-14-2007, 13:00
Someone had a small caliber pistol on the trail this year. I haven't fired a pistol in about 20 years but I hit a stick 2 of three times from about 30'. Better than the guy that owned the gun. I thought that was pretty cool.
I'm not sure that's cool at all. Especially since without fail every year I have to hear people down at the shelter near my house indiscriminantly firing .22's in the evening. Who woulda thunk that people would want to hike the trail just to be noisy? Oh well, I digress...
I'm not sure that's cool at all. Especially since without fail every year I have to hear people down at the shelter near my house indiscriminantly firing .22's in the evening. Who woulda thunk that people would want to hike the trail just to be noisy? Oh well, I digress...Not sure, but I think he had some sly humour built into his post. ;)
ChimneySpring
09-14-2007, 13:17
[quote=The Solemates;406995]we frequently would push it to a restaurant, gorge ourselves, and then catch a ride back to the AT and not want to hike in the dark so we'd camp within 1/4 mile of the road, many times on private property. this especially happened in VA.
we never disrespected anyone quote]
Yes you did. The owner of the property on which you decided it was ok to camp. Granted, it sounds like you were as "responsible" as possible when doing so, but trespassing is just that... trespassing. And I bet those people, if asked, would probably have allowed you to camp there. It's a slippery slope.... what's next, poaching?
Not as bad as the clown who showed up in his truck, in my driveway one afternoon last year "looking for another access point" to the trail because he surmised (correctly) that it was nearby. When I described to him where the trail and easement were, and how that related to my property and my neighbor's, he started asking questions that in essence indicated that he was looking for some other way to access the trail from private property.
BTW, if anyone is hiking and would like to explore a camp site location other than the shelters on the rollercoaster, PM me.
Jack Tarlin
09-14-2007, 13:25
Hey Dix:
If advocating illegal activity is expressly forbidden here at Whiteblaze, then why do some people have to be told this many, many times, as you put it.
Once should do it.
In future, I'd simply delete such posts as soon as they appear.
If memory serves, I seem to recall Mr. Doyle being positively effusive in his praise of website administrators a few weeks ago. He made it very clear that he was delighted on how they were doing their job, especially when it came to removing or editing objectionable posts.
Well, excellent. I concur. I also think the administrators are doing a great job. But since he's so pleased with their enforcement of website policy, he'll no doubt agree with them when they enforce WB policy in regards to posts advocating criminal activity.
These posts should simply be zapped the moment they appear. Then nobody would have to read them; newcomers to the Trail won't feel that such sentiments are acceptable or proper; and in that the posts will never appear, then neither will the angry posts in response to them, meaning Mr. Doyle won't feel harassed or persecuted anymore.
So simply delete this crap the minute it appears.
Everybody wins. :D
dixicritter
09-14-2007, 13:30
Hey Dix:
If advocating illegal activity is expressly forbidden here at Whiteblaze, then why do some people have to be told this many, many times, as you put it.
Once should do it.
In future, I'd simply delete such posts as soon as they appear.
If memory serves, I seem to recall Mr. Doyle being positively effusive in his praise of website administrators a few weeks ago. He made it very clear that he was delighted on how they were doing their job, especially when it came to removing or editing objectionable posts.
Well, excellent. I concur. I also think the administrators are doing a great job. But since he's so pleased with their enforcement of website policy, he'll no doubt agree with them when they enforce WB policy in regards to posts advocating criminal activity.
These posts should simply be zapped the moment they appear. Then nobody would have to read them; newcomers to the Trail won't feel that such sentiments are acceptable or proper; and in that the posts will never appear, then neither will the angry posts in response to them, meaning Mr. Doyle won't feel harassed or persecuted anymore.
So simply delete this crap the minute it appears.
Everybody wins. :D
You are absolutely right Jack. And we have done just that, only to have the posts reappear almost immediately. Would be nice if everybody won but unfortunately we don't. :)
Frolicking Dinosaurs
09-14-2007, 13:34
You are absolutely right Jack. And we have done just that, only to have the posts reappear almost immediately. Would be nice if everybody won but unfortunately we don't. :)Perhaps pre-moderation would be a better course for repeat offenders (pre-moderation is when every post someone makes has to be approved by a moderator or admin before it appears on the board.)
SGT Rock
09-14-2007, 13:36
Half the regulars here would have to be in pre-moderation LOL.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
09-14-2007, 13:45
You are absolutely right Jack. And we have done just that, only to have the posts reappear almost immediately. Would be nice if everybody won but unfortunately we don't. :)
Half the regulars here would have to be in pre-moderation LOL.Hey, I resemble that remark :D
I meant pre-moderation was a pausible way to deal with those given to nearly immediately reposting deleted material - not that many of those here.
I think there are always grey areas worth discussing, but I don't mind having my posts deleted. I don't think I've been around enough to be regular, but I could certainly use some pre-moderation, but wouldn't wish it on anyone.
Here is a thought for web developers:
What if you had the option of making some posts that are intended more as chatty comments and they just fade away and delete themselves after an hour. They would still be subject to language and decency rules, perhaps even more so, but it might be a way to stop someone like me from filling up the server. I don't think I would make more posts. I think I would just delete more of them. Alternatively, I could always join and do it myself, so there is a question: If I flagged the posts I intended to delete later, using italics or something, and then deleted them later, would that actually help things or confuse and annoy the heck out of people?
Gray Blazer
09-14-2007, 14:02
I think there are always grey areas worth discussing, but I don't mind having my posts deleted. I don't think I've been around enough to be regular, but I could certainly use some pre-moderation, but wouldn't wish it on anyone.
Here is a thought for web developers:
What if you had the option of making some posts that are intended more as chatty comments and they just fade away and delete themselves after an hour. They would still be subject to language and decency rules, perhaps even more so, but it might be a way to stop someone like me from filling up the server. I don't think I would make more posts. I think I would just delete more of them. Alternatively, I could always join and do it myself, so there is a question: If I flagged the posts I intended to delete later, using italics or something, and then deleted them later, would that actually help things or confuse and annoy the heck out of people?
Hunh? What?
Lone Wolf
09-14-2007, 14:04
Hunh? What?
He's an English teacher. He specializes in reading comprehension
Not sure what your question was, but I mean a forum that is sort of a hyrid between a forum and a chat server. I am not sure whether this post, or you post, as examples, would be a post or a chat, but I think the idea might have some merit.
Actually I'm an engineer, which explains a lot.
This would be a post intended more as 'chat'.
Oops, now it's more of a 'post'.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
09-14-2007, 14:08
JAK, I don't think Vbulletin software allows for posts that just fade away. While delting them yourself would be an option, it would likely cause a lot of confusion as people would respond to the posts and then the original wouldn't be there for others to see later.
I think you are right about Vbulletin.
It was meant as more of a software development idea.
I think you are right about the deleting also,
which is probably why its not a great development idea.
warren doyle
09-14-2007, 14:36
Almost 80% of the respondents to the poll do no-no's.
Interesting.
As long as they don't talk about them it's OK. :D ;)
Thanks for reminding me about offsets. I know they work well for Al Gore.
I wrote a small check to the MATC the other day, with a note that my offsets be applied to WD's account. I didn't need them myself, and would have hated that they go to waste.
Whatever. I prefer a more hands on approach. There aren't all that many maintainers on the CDT.
I would have difficulty judging anyone that maintains the trail I walk on.
Well, that's pushing it, but I would have difficulty do it in the same breath.
Jack Tarlin
09-14-2007, 15:25
80% might "do no-nos" but at least they acknowledge that they ARE no-nos.
What they aren't doing is making excuses for their actions, coming up with justification for them, encouraging others to emulate them, or giving tips on how others can imitate them.
The Weasel
09-14-2007, 15:43
To some extend, "paying" depends on what the "supplier" intends.
- "Pay or don't take/use." This is pretty cl ear; it you want it, you pay for it. If you don't want to pay for it, don't use it. End of discussion.
- "Admission $10 [followed by tiny print:] Donation." These are the "gotcha" types a lot of "free museums" use, so they can say "anyone can get it" except no one knows really that the place is free. Some state and federal parks play off of this by having "ticket booths" that sell tickets although there is no obligation to buy them. I think it's a bit deceptive. I usually enter such places for free and then leave an appropriate donation, usually more than the "required donation", but it's the principle of the thing.
"Free, Suggested Donation $10". This is how The Place has been in the past, for instance. You don't have to pay if you don't want to. The purpose though is to help those who can't afford a fixed amount. You're a freeloader (and worthy of being called such to your face) if you can afford the donation and don't leave it (or more).
"Free [with a catch]" Groups that are trolling for participants use this. Deceptive if the catch isn't clear upfront.
If you get something, you should pay for it, directly or indirectly.
The Weasel
max patch
09-14-2007, 15:45
Okay, I have a hypthetical question, based on a real issue that relates to this thread and the ESC thread.
On the Great Divide Trail in Canada, hikers are required to buy a National Park Pass ($62) and a Wilderness Camping Pass (another $62). Then we are required to make reservations for all national park campsites in advance – which is about half the trail. There is a service charge for the permit – how much it costs depends on how long it takes to make the reservation. There are also several Provincial Parks that we camped in. Two require advance reservations ($8 person plus a reservation fee of $8) and the rest ask that you pay at the campsite. Aside from the money involved, there is a certain inconvenience in having to figure out your schedule before you go and then it can be a real pain keeping to the schedule. There are wardens/rangers in the backcountry, but not a lot. So, how many of you would jump through the hoops and pay the fees in order to camp legally?
We decided that it was in our best interest, and in the best interest of future hikers, to stay legal. We bought our permits, made our reservations, and kept to the schedule. However, I think this is fairly rare. The trail gets little respect or support as it is - every time a warden meets a thruhiker who hasn’t bothered to get a permit, it gives all thruhikers a bad name. When it is an American – well, that really makes us look bad. There are only a handful of hikers on the trail at all – so when even a few don’t bother to get the permits, it is noticeable.
And yes, we did run into a warden who asked for our permit. So have several other CDT hikers we know.
So, what would you do?
I'd pay for the permits and -- giving it my best guess -- make and pay for the reservations.
However, I wouldn't worry about making sure I was at my reserved and paid for camp site on the exact specific day. I doubt the wardens would care if you were a day early or late as long as you made the effort and paid the money.
Jack Tarlin
09-14-2007, 15:50
Interesting post, Weasel, but in most cases, there's no doubt as to whether or not one is doing the right thing.
*A movie ticket, for example, is good for ONE admission to ONE movie. Even
children know this.
*When one is on a privately owned road and one KNOWS there is a fee
to use that road, then willfully doing otherwise can only be considered theft.
You're absolutely right about some things being unclear or ambiguous, but in most cases, thieves know exactly what they're doing.
I wonder about the Fundy Trail Parkway.
They might be required to let people through to the Fundy Footpath for free as part of their initial mandate when they got funding.
But they might not be required to tell people, even the people at the gate.
I will have to ask next time.
The Weasel
09-14-2007, 17:00
Interesting post, Weasel, but in most cases, there's no doubt as to whether or not one is doing the right thing..
Jack, That's my point precisely. Museums that are required (not all, but some...the Detroit Institute of Arts is one example) to be open to all for free, but that hide that fact by having ticket booths and a lot more to make most people not know about the free admission are being deceptive. So I never 'donate' the "admission" when I leave; I give a few bucks more, and put it in the donation bucket.
But then there are the people who have plenty of money, but say at The Place, "well, it's a suggested donation - says so right there on the wall! - so I don't have to give anything and no one will criticise me. Well, me, I criticised people then and would know: Such courtesies are for those who can't afford it, and staying for free there is no better (to me) than stealing from the collection plate.
Despite Fhart's statements to the contrary, you and I don't differ one whit (or, for that matter, "one Ben" or even "one Ben and Whit". Sorry folks: "In joke. For some.) about paying for what you get. Stealing is stealing. It hurts people - real human beings - on a real and immediate basis. It's not a matter of "priorities"; stealing is stealing. Little or big.
The Weasel
I think it is one thing to stealth camp illegally versus stealth camp to avoid paying a fee. The person who calls them the same with the "interesting" message is only trying to justify himself and outright criminal activity. Please do not characterize breaking a rule with deliberately avoiding paying for services. Both may be wrong, but they are not the same.
Appalachian Tater
09-14-2007, 17:44
The Metropolitan Museum has a suggested admission of $20.00 If I am just running in for thirty minutes or forty minutes to look at one gallery, I just give $5.00.
On the other hand, MOMA has a required admission of $20.00, so I go less often and only if I have several hours to spend.
the goat
09-14-2007, 17:57
dozens of times.
my most memorable was just down from the summit of washington on the south side. clear & cool night, the sky was amazing.
The Weasel
09-14-2007, 18:05
The Metropolitan Museum has a suggested admission of $20.00 If I am just running in for thirty minutes or forty minutes to look at one gallery, I just give $5.00.
On the other hand, MOMA has a required admission of $20.00, so I go less often and only if I have several hours to spend.
Why give less than the request? Unless you can't afford it. Giving less than the request is disagreeing with the value.
As for MOMA, it has 'free' nights on Friday. But they're not 'free'. Target pays for you to get in.
We disagree. You should give $21 to the Met, but only on leaving.
The Weasel
I think it is one thing to stealth camp illegally versus stealth camp to avoid paying a fee. The person who calls them the same with the "interesting" message is only trying to justify himself and outright criminal activity. Please do not characterize breaking a rule with deliberately avoiding paying for services. Both may be wrong, but they are not the same.
By definition, stealth camping is legal and generally means eating before camp and camping well off the trail. Illegal camping is, well... illegal.
Appalachian Tater
09-14-2007, 18:20
Why give less than the request? Unless you can't afford it. Giving less than the request is disagreeing with the value.
As for MOMA, it has 'free' nights on Friday. But they're not 'free'. Target pays for you to get in.
We disagree. You should give $21 to the Met, but only on leaving.
The Weasel
I do disagree with paying $20.00 to run in to look at two paintings or one room of Greek vessels or to meet somebody in the cafe for lunch. The museum allows you to pay what you want. If I am going to spend any significant amount of time, then it's the full amount.
Appalachian Tater
09-14-2007, 18:22
By definition, stealth camping is legal and generally means eating before camp and camping well off the trail. Illegal camping is, well... illegal.
Some people use now use "stealth camping" as a euphemism for "illegal camping".
Some people use now use "stealth camping" as a euphemism for "illegal camping".
Two wrongs don't make a right! ;)
I do disagree with paying $20.00 to run in to look at two paintings or one room of Greek vessels or to meet somebody in the cafe for lunch. The museum allows you to pay what you want. If I am going to spend any significant amount of time, then it's the full amount.
Good luck. You do know who you're "debating" with right? The "Wordy" Weasel
Appalachian Tater
09-14-2007, 18:29
Two rights don't make a wrong, either!
Appalachian Tater
09-14-2007, 18:33
Good luck. You do know who you're "debating" with right? The "Wordy" Weasel
I don't agree with him (or anyone else) 100%, but I have no problem with him like some have--he comes across as earnest and honest and as good of a person as a lawyer could be. He has been treated shabbily at times.
But you're right, I shouldn't get into a debate with him!
cannonball
09-14-2007, 18:46
you get a free shuttle from me. i just gave a free shuttle last week to 3 nice sectioners
Free? Don't you still owe me some beers as change from last June;)
Frolicking Dinosaurs
09-14-2007, 18:56
I know that a few places are consider fragile areas and camping there is prohibited - and that camping is prohibited within .25 miles of a road and very close to water, but is there anywhere on the trail where it is illegal to 'stealth camp' - meaning cook away from where you sleep and use scrupulous LNT rules to camp well off the trail in a pristine area besides the GSMNP (you are required to use a shelter or camp within sight of a shelter in GSMNP)?
the goat
09-14-2007, 19:12
meaning cook away from where you sleep and use scrupulous LNT rules to camp well off the trail in a pristine area besides the GSMNP (you are required to use a shelter or camp within sight of a shelter in GSMNP)?
baxter as well.
By definition, stealth camping is legal and generally means eating before camp and camping well off the trail. Illegal camping is, well... illegal.
I do not really know if I have camped illegally or legally stealthed. That's not the point. The point is did I stealth to avoid paying a fee? - the answer is no. Have I stayed at a "for fee" campsite and not paid? - the answer is yes. Was the season still open to pay the fee? - I don't know. Did I intentionally avoid the caretaker to avoid paying? - the answer is no. Did I look for the caretaker, so I could pay? - the answer is yes. Do I practice LNT and contribute to all the clubs whose turf I hiked through? - the answer is yes. Do I purposely avoid camping where a fee may be imposed or do I cheat any business out of a fee for services? - HECK NO! Do I go out of my way to be legal and pay my way? Yes, I try to, but sometimes they make it difficult and I do not feel good about not paying my way. Therefore, I contribute here and there whenever the opportunity avails. Discussions about how to avoid paying are revolting to me. If you think your taxes or whatever should cover you, think again. We are a country of laws and we need to follow them, otherwise anarchy prevails and I don't think we want to go there.
I Discussions about how to avoid paying are revolting to me. If you think your taxes or whatever should cover you, think again. We are a country of laws and we need to follow them, otherwise anarchy prevails and I don't think we want to go there.
I don't know why you're directling the post towards me, I never suggested anyone camp illegally or not pay when required.
I don't know why you're directling the post towards me, I never suggested anyone camp illegally or not pay when required.
Sly, my comments were defintely not intended towards you. I was replying to previous posts. I apologize if I wasn't clear.
Sly, my comments were defintely not intended towards you. I was replying to previous posts. I apologize if I wasn't clear.
OK, thanks for clearing that up. :)
Lone Wolf
09-14-2007, 20:08
once on a SOBO while in the building atop Mt. Washington i asked the state park employee on duty where one might kinda lay out for the night close to the buildings without being seen. he directed me to an awesome spot.
I would ask the moderators to delete L. Wolf's post immediately.
He has advocated this kind of lawless behavior for far too long. I have it on good authority that many of this year's northbounders were seen trampling the rare vegitation around Lakes of the Crowds to find his legendary stealth spot.
The spot he has so often bragged about here on line. With out a peep from the peepers.
I find it remarkable that he has not been rebuked by the the High Sheriff, because that kind of agregious activity (seriously) damages the Trail far more than, well, seeing two movies for the price of one.
I would also ask that Wolf be further fined $500 and be denied his next two drafts at Dots.
Thank you.
Lone Wolf
09-14-2007, 20:31
I would ask the moderators to delete L. Wolf's post immediately.
He has advocated this kind of lawless behavior for far too long. I have it on good authority that many of this year's northbounders were seen trampling the rare vegitation around Lakes of the Crowds to find his legendary stealth spot.
The spot he has so often bragged about here on line. With out a peep from the peepers.
I find it remarkable that he has not been rebuked by the the High Sheriff, because that kind of agregious activity (seriously) damages the Trail far more than, well, seeing two movies for the price of one.
I would also ask that Wolf be further fined $500 and be denied his next two drafts at Dots.
Thank you.
I don't drink no stinkin' draft. last time at the inn at the long trail iwas asked if i wanted one of them overpriced 4% alcohol genniss drafts. i opted for bud light in the bottle
There was a time I wouldn't have been able to wait for the pour either, L. Wolf. Hang in there.
Dances with Mice
09-14-2007, 23:08
It was about this time a buncha years ago when ...
I arranged a Scouting trip for a Troop of young'uns to earn a ... I forget. Either a Rank or a Merit Badge requirement. Aww, who cares? Either way it was going to be fun. Here was the plan: The boys and adult leaders would arrive Friday evening at Dockery Lake (http://www.fs.fed.us/conf/dkrylkcp.htm), immediately east of Woody Gap. We'd spend the night at a campsite there then Saturday morn after breakfast we'd load up and backpack up to the AT, then hike north along the ridge to Jarrad Gap (http://georgiatrails.com/trails/jarrard.html)and take that trail down to Winfield Scott lake.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
09-14-2007, 23:12
::: Dino curls up with blankie whle DWM tells bedtime story :::
Dances with Mice
09-14-2007, 23:34
It was about this time a buncha years ago when ...
I arranged a Scouting trip for a Troop of young'uns to earn a ... I forget. Either a Rank or a Merit Badge requirement. Aww, who cares? Either way it was going to be fun. Here was the plan: The boys and adult leaders would arrive Friday evening at Dockery Lake (http://www.fs.fed.us/conf/dkrylkcp.htm), immediately east of Woody Gap. We'd spend the night at a campsite there then Saturday morn after breakfast we'd load up and backpack up to the AT, then hike north along the ridge to Jarrad Gap (http://georgiatrails.com/trails/jarrard.html)and take that trail down to Winfield Scott lake.Continuing... And after a dip in Lake W.S. we'd hook up with other parents who had arrived at the group campsite and prepared us a barbeque supper. What could go wrong?
So we arrived at Dockery Friday evening and found the campsites were real small. We couldn't fit all 20 of us onto one site. So I felt real guilty about it, but I paid for 2 campsites and the boys all pitched their little backpacking tents shoulder to shoulder along the RV pull-ins at two campsites. I hoped I wouldn't get into trouble for hogging two campsites when there were so few campsites to share. But we were all together and close to each other, and adults were stationed at both sites for security. We had a quick supper and went to sleep.
And the next morning at breakfast I was greeted by a uniformed Deputy Sheriff asking why I was crowding so many bodies into so few campsites.
It seems there was a 6 person limit per campsite and I had exceeded that by 50 percent or so. I thought I was being considerate not taking up too many campsites - there were only about a dozen campsites total, our Troop would have taken up a quarter of the sites easily. I was trying to be nice and not fill up all the campsites. But evidently the volunteer campsite host called the Sheriff to report our Scout Troop's transgression.
So I did what I do whenever I'm confronted by authority: I groveled. "OH, I'm so sorry! It's all my fault! I am such an idiot! Please don't arrest me in front of all the boys, please?!" The deputy said he wouldn't if we didn't violate the rules the next night. We promised him we'd be hiking out first thing after breakfast. He left. We scurried to finish breakfast and left.
The other adult leaders and I tried to think when we'd last seen a deputy sheriff patrolling our subdivisions near Atlanta, but yet in the middle of the woods, miles from the nearest big city of Suches, a deputy was dispatched to make sure our Scout Troop was spread out among enough campsites. They take law and order very serious up there in N. GA.
So no good deed ever goes unpunished, right? I was trying very hard to be considerate of other campers so I had consolidated our Troop's impact as much as I could, yet I still got crosswise with the law.
The Weasel
09-15-2007, 01:29
I do disagree with paying $20.00 to run in to look at two paintings or one room of Greek vessels or to meet somebody in the cafe for lunch. The museum allows you to pay what you want. If I am going to spend any significant amount of time, then it's the full amount.
Tater, I just differ: While I think it's flat wrong for museums like the Met and the DIA to have "tickets" for any price, when they are supposed to be free, since most people pay out of a sense of shame, essentally, well, I'm not running them. When you go in for 2 paintings, or to get to the cafe, you're not going for 2 paintings, or to eat. You're going to 2 paintings at the Met, or lunch at the Met. There's no legal obligation to pay anything. But the management has said, "Being in the Met for any period of time is worth $20." If you don't agree, you don't have to pay. But that doesn't mean they're wrong, either. And it's their museum to decide about.
So we differ. If you want a classy place to eat, you should - on a moral basis - pay the full tilt. But not because you HAVE to, I agree.
The Weasel
Appalachian Tater
09-15-2007, 01:43
Tater, I just differ: While I think it's flat wrong for museums like the Met and the DIA to have "tickets" for any price, when they are supposed to be free, since most people pay out of a sense of shame, essentally, well, I'm not running them. When you go in for 2 paintings, or to get to the cafe, you're not going for 2 paintings, or to eat. You're going to 2 paintings at the Met, or lunch at the Met. There's no legal obligation to pay anything. But the management has said, "Being in the Met for any period of time is worth $20." If you don't agree, you don't have to pay. But that doesn't mean they're wrong, either. And it's their museum to decide about.
So we differ. If you want a classy place to eat, you should - on a moral basis - pay the full tilt. But not because you HAVE to, I agree.
The Weasel Actually only went there just to meet someone for lunch once and didn't pay anything just to walk through the museum to get to an overpriced sandwich joint. I don't believe that there is any moral obligation to pay anything to get to the cafe. It's not like the food is free.
When I am there for 30 minutes and pay $5, that's $5 more than they would have gotten otherwise. If I were forced to pay $20 to go for 30 minutes like MOMA does, I just wouldn't go at all.
And clearly management never said "being in the Met for any period of time is worth $20." I have no idea where you pulled that one from. They just have a suggested amount to donate and probably think it's crass to charge by the hour like an expensive hooker and I agree that $20 is appropriate when any sort of a real visit is involved. I also don't pay out of any sense of shame nor do I think museums necessarily should be free. Matter of fact, if someone tries to shame me into doing something, I am likely not to do it just to be contrary.
warraghiyagey
09-15-2007, 05:27
. . . They just have a suggested amount to donate and probably think it's crass to charge by the hour like an expensive hooker and I agree that $20 is appropriate when any sort of a real visit is involved.
Do expensive hookers charge by the hour? . . . or by the job. How does one come across such info?:D :D
SGT Rock
09-15-2007, 07:18
Maybe the Boy Scouts could come out with a "Sneak in Without Paying" badge.:cool:
I hear Warren used to teach that sort of skill, but found out only half his participants were actually paying for the course. I reckon they decided paying him was like individual welfare and they were Republicans. It was against their principles.:banana
There was a time I wouldn't have been able to wait for the pour either, L. Wolf. Hang in there.
If it isn't poured right - why bother. A good bartender will pour it as though it's for himself. ;)
Lone Wolf
09-15-2007, 07:25
If it isn't poured right - why bother. A good bartender will pour it as though it's for himself. ;)
yeah. didn't you have about 15-20 pours that one friday recently? :)
A good parallel to the "Suggested Admissions" tradition might be camping regulations for the White Mountains in NH.
The Forest Service publishes these regulation in a pamplet each year. http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain/recreation/camping/backcountry_rules_2006-07.pdf
While the actual regulations are very specific, this pamplet also lists very well meaning LNT guidelines (suggestions).
But this leads to confusion.
For example, there is no blanket regulation in the Whites about camping right next to a lake, or within a few feet of the Trail. Even if best practices would suggest doing so is seldom a good idea.
Something to consider, if for no other reason than to understand that the person who looks like a scofflaw in the Whites, may not be. The rules summary in the Companion isn't 100% correct insofar as it overstates your obligations (sort of like a museum guidbook not getting into the "suggested" spin on certain admissions). Still a good idea to always follow them all yourself, however.
Actually only went there just to meet someone for lunch once and didn't pay anything just to walk through the museum to get to an overpriced sandwich joint. I don't believe that there is any moral obligation to pay anything to get to the cafe. It's not like the food is free.
When I am there for 30 minutes and pay $5, that's $5 more than they would have gotten otherwise. If I were forced to pay $20 to go for 30 minutes like MOMA does, I just wouldn't go at all.
And clearly management never said "being in the Met for any period of time is worth $20." I have no idea where you pulled that one from. They just have a suggested amount to donate and probably think it's crass to charge by the hour like an expensive hooker and I agree that $20 is appropriate when any sort of a real visit is involved. I also don't pay out of any sense of shame nor do I think museums necessarily should be free. Matter of fact, if someone tries to shame me into doing something, I am likely not to do it just to be contrary. Do what most thru-hikers do when a donation sign is posted: donation = free. In this case you did the right thing.
yeah. didn't you have about 15-20 pours that one friday recently? :)
Aye, twas a grand eavnin'!
Appalachian Tater
09-15-2007, 12:47
Do expensive hookers charge by the hour? . . . or by the job. How does one come across such info?:D :D
Well, of course the lowest class of hooker charges a particular rate for a particular activity because she has a fast turnover and makes money on volume.
The more expensive hookers have an hourly rate (and an overnight rate) and rely on repeat business. They might accompany a customer to a social event.
The REALLY expensive hookers charge one flat fee for everything and the rate is agreed upon as part of the pre-nuptial agreement.
the goat
09-15-2007, 13:14
I don't drink no stinkin' draft. last time at the inn at the long trail iwas asked if i wanted one of them overpriced 4% alcohol genniss drafts. i opted for bud light in the bottle
so instead you opted for the 4.2% alcohol bud light, and sacrificed all taste.:-?
The Weasel
09-15-2007, 18:30
Maybe the Boy Scouts could come out with a "Sneak in Without Paying" badge.:cool:
I hear Warren used to teach that sort of skill, but found out only half his participants were actually paying for the course. I reckon they decided paying him was like individual welfare and they were Republicans. It was against their principles.:banana
Not funny about the Scouts, Rock: The Scout Law, first point: A Scout is Trustworthy. Sneaking ain't. Ninth Point, "A Scout is Thrifty...A Scout seeks to pay his own way." If Warren were registered in Scouting as a leader, he would probably be asked to leave the program, if he still sneaks and steals.
The Weasel
"It's only cheating if you get caught." Anon Patriot fan...
Jester2000
09-19-2007, 21:44
i bust up shelters and paint white blazes blue
And I sneak around right behind him and paint them red.
I answer to a higher power.
Also known as "Jester."
There is something very squirrelly in the ethical logic of refusing to pay the toll for a road because you feel it should not be there and using that same road to get you to where you need to go.
I never thought of it that way. You're right. It's a weird twisting of logic.
all this to say.... i'm not saying that makes it morally right nor am I advocating such, but LNT principles were always adhered to and we never disrespected anyone and no one ever knew we were there.
Until, you know, you posted.
Anyhow, I would like to see what y'all are doing. I hope you all get it right too. Because when you get it right we are sometimes smart enough up here to copy what you've done. But when you get it wrong, we ALWAYS copy what you've done. Cheers.
Now that's just funny.
ChimneySpring
09-20-2007, 10:20
The REALLY expensive hookers charge one flat fee for everything and the rate is agreed upon as part of the pre-nuptial agreement.
No, the really expensive ones don't discuss a fee or pre-nuptial agreement. You are chanrged retroactively at settlement time.
saimyoji
09-20-2007, 11:35
No, the really expensive ones don't discuss a fee or pre-nuptial agreement. You are chanrged retroactively at settlement time.
Bitter man.
The Weasel
09-20-2007, 11:36
No, the really expensive ones don't discuss a fee or pre-nuptial agreement. You are chanrged retroactively at settlement time.
And you know this how, Chim?
TW
ChimneySpring
09-20-2007, 14:49
Thankfully, not from personal experience! (BTW... it was a joke).
Do know some other people however who have been pretty well cleaned out by the type I mentioned!
I was hiking with a friend of mine earlier this month near Rockfish Gap, and he called me a blatant scofflaw for bringing a Nalgene 8 ounce flask full of bourbon. He drank some of it with me that night. But it raised a question for me--does anyone NOT travel with a flask?
Lone Wolf
09-20-2007, 15:41
it ain't against the law to carry a flask
it ain't against the law to carry a flask
Provided that flask's empty. More good advice from L. Wolf. Thank you very much for the invitation my good friend. Your kindness warms my heart.:rolleyes: :D
Alcohol is illegal for everyone including scofflaws on Pennsylvania State Game Lands and I'll be happy to post the link later. It's also not permitted in Pennsylvania at 501 Shelter and Eckville Shelter as well as many other places, but some people have to find out the hard way.
it ain't against the law to carry a flask
My friend actually called me the scofflaw not because I was carrying a full one, but because I consumed on the trail what was in it.
Lone Wolf
09-20-2007, 15:53
My friend actually called me the scofflaw not because I was carrying a full one, but because I consumed on the trail what was in it.
no biggie. pot is illegal everywhere but hikers smoke all the time everywhere on the trail. a little bourbon ain't gonna hurt anything
Lone Wolf
09-20-2007, 15:56
More good advice from L. Wolf. Thank you very much for the invitation my good friend. Your kindness warms my heart.:rolleyes: :D
Alcohol is illegal for everyone including scofflaws on Pennsylvania State Game Lands and I'll be happy to post the link later. It's also not permitted in Pennsylvania at 501 Shelter and Eckville Shelter as well as many other places, but some people have to find out the hard way.
BFD :rolleyes: i'm sure the game wardens in PA are everywhere trying to catch flask-carrying hikers. pack sniffer
Even a little is still illegal some places. Will any harm come of it, probably not. The problem is some people don't seem to know how little a little is and they call attention to themselves.
The Weasel
09-20-2007, 16:00
More good advice from L. Wolf. Thank you very much for the invitation my good friend. Your kindness warms my heart.:rolleyes: :D
Alcohol is illegal for everyone including scofflaws on Pennsylvania State Game Lands and I'll be happy to post the link later. It's also not permitted in Pennsylvania at 501 Shelter and Eckville Shelter as well as many other places, but some people have to find out the hard way.
Take a look at my article, "Backpacking Law" pages 10-11. There are a LOT of places, including much of the national and state park systems, including Shenandoah along the trail, where alcohol isn't allowed, and possibly this includes Baxter. While I doubt anyone is going to just get stopped and searched for it, anyone who drinks a half a nalgene of spirits might be wasted enough to get nailed if the wrong ranger comes by.
The Weasel
BFD :rolleyes: i'm sure the game wardens in PA are everywhere trying to catch flask-carrying hikers. pack sniffer
I have better things to do with my time than sniff packs. I'd rather bust your butt if I had time for it.
"Only the poor pay taxes."
"Only the pack sniffers aren't allowed to carry flasks."
"Only one of these statements is true."
;)
Lone Wolf
09-20-2007, 16:02
Take a look at my article, "Backpacking Law" pages 10-11. There are a LOT of places, including much of the national and state park systems, including Shenandoah along the trail, where alcohol isn't allowed, and possibly this includes Baxter. While I doubt anyone is going to just get stopped and searched for it, anyone who drinks a half a nalgene of spirits might be wasted enough to get nailed if the wrong ranger comes by.
The Weasel
Alcohol is sold in SNP. it's not allowed in baxter but rangers overlook it
Lone Wolf
09-20-2007, 16:03
I have better things to do with my time than sniff packs. I'd rather bust your butt if I had time for it.
come to damascus and give it a shot
Take a look at my article, "Backpacking Law" pages 10-11. There are a LOT of places, including much of the national and state park systems, including Shenandoah along the trail, where alcohol isn't allowed, and possibly this includes Baxter. While I doubt anyone is going to just get stopped and searched for it, anyone who drinks a half a nalgene of spirits might be wasted enough to get nailed if the wrong ranger comes by.
The Weasel
okay. last time it goes out with me then. and btw, the flask was NOT emptied (nor was even half of it).
come to damascus and give it a shot
Can't be bothered, it's too far. Maybe we could discuss the issue at Gettysburg over a couple of legal beers. I hear The Weasel might be there.;)
gold bond
09-20-2007, 17:46
Alright, alright...dang! If there is gonna be any beer drinkin', flask tippin' 'ol GB better git an invite!
I surely ain't afraid to drink in Baxter, Penn, in front of my wife...whatever! When a man, or lady wants a drink by golly it's our right to have one. Rules were made for one thing...to be broken! My grandfather always said..."A good lock will only keep a honest man out!"
Think about it.
gold bond, is Citizenship in the Community still required for Eagle?
The Weasel
09-20-2007, 18:46
Can't be bothered, it's too far. Maybe we could discuss the issue at Gettysburg over a couple of legal beers. I hear The Weasel might be there.;)
To my regret, while I am in the process of sending in the bucks to join ALDHA, I can't handle the cost this year to get to a great place. Drink a (legal) beer for me. Or three or so.
TW
gold bond
09-20-2007, 20:48
Shades my 'ol buddy, why yes it is and we have a community watering hole! How have you been? Good to hear from ya!!
gold bond, I wouldn't want to contribute to getting this thread off track, so I'll ask you whether or not you're a scofflaw in addition to asking if you think you might attend The Gathering.;)
To my regret, while I am in the process of sending in the bucks to join ALDHA, I can't handle the cost this year to get to a great place. Drink a (legal) beer for me. Or three or so.
TW
Sorry to hear you won't make it. I'm hopeful I will this year, but that remains to be seen.
Take a look at my article, "Backpacking Law" pages 10-11. There are a LOT of places, including much of the national and state park systems, including Shenandoah along the trail, where alcohol isn't allowed, and possibly this includes Baxter. While I doubt anyone is going to just get stopped and searched for it, anyone who drinks a half a nalgene of spirits might be wasted enough to get nailed if the wrong ranger comes by.
The WeaselWell does it include Baxter or does it not.:-? Sounds like you are on the fence. :D
The Weasel
09-21-2007, 01:21
Well does it include Baxter or does it not.:-? Sounds like you are on the fence. :D
To me, reading Maine's law on the point (see my article), it is pretty clear that alcohol is forbidden. Before any one starts whaling on me that I'm not a Maine lawyer (I'm not), I am pretty experienced in principles of statutory interpretation, since that's what I do for a living, including other jurisdictions. Last time I gave an unequivocal opinion, a lot of non-lawyers decided they know how to interpret statutes better than me, and got pretty violent in disagreeing.
It appears that Baxter rangers don't strictly enforce any 'no alcohol' regulation, which is within their enforcement discretion. But I think that it's prohibited, even though some rangers and park staff may not be familiar with the specific provision. But that's not to say it couldn't be enforced and, if "hiker incidents" keep happening, it just might be.
The Weasel
Baxter publishes a very detailed list of rules and regulations on thier webh site at www.baxterstateparkauthority.com, including this one:
27. LIQUOR AND DRUGS: General laws of the State pertaining to liquor and drugs apply within the Park. Maine law prohibits drinking of alcoholic beverages in public places.
Lone Wolf
09-21-2007, 06:55
Baxter publishes a very detailed list of rules and regulations on thier webh site at www.baxterstateparkauthority.com, including this one:
a couple years ago this discussion was going on here. i called the headquarters in millinocket and asked the ranger who answered the phone if one was allowed to consume alcohol in the park. she said yes as long as you don't get loud and rowdy and bother folks near you.
SNP, for example: http://www.nps.gov/shen/planyourvisit/alcoholpolicy.htm
Or GSNP: http://www.nps.gov/grsm/planyourvisit/campregs.htm
Lone Wolf
09-21-2007, 07:06
Like most parks, then.
yeah. i guess. one time in SNP a few of us bought beer at loft mtn. campground and hiked on to the next shelter. early that evening a ranger shows up. we had open beers visible on the picnic table. he didn't say a word. just wanted to check our passes.
gold bond
09-21-2007, 09:18
Hello everyone..my name is Gold Bond and..and..and I am a Scofflaw. I don't think I mean to be. I just do not follow every law, everyday, everytime, to the fullest whether it is LNT or state or whatever.
If the speed limit is 55..I usually do 65. If I am not suppose to have an adult beverage in a state park...I probably have. If I wasn't suppose to put a tent in a certain place...I probably did.
At the time I could have most likely and logically defended my reason(s) for doing so but after the fact I usually beat myself up for it. I'm really not a bad person but sometimes I don't do all the right things.
I just get up everyday and pray that I might do my best to do all the right things.
sherrill
09-21-2007, 09:41
Thread related: Yes, I am a scofflaw.
A close friend is a park ranger at a state park here in NC. I've asked her before about the alcohol policies, her reply was that it is on the books by state law to enable them to prosecute if needed. Otherwise, if ya ain't making an ass out of yourself and keep it discrete, they don't care.
I camped illegally at Cedar Cliffs recently (near the Blue Ridge Parkway, just south of Waynesboro.) It was beautiful. I don't feel very guilty about it. I left no trace.
Hello everyone..my name is Gold Bond and..and..and I am a Scofflaw. I don't think I mean to be. I just do not follow every law, everyday, everytime, to the fullest whether it is LNT or state or whatever.
If the speed limit is 55..I usually do 65. If I am not suppose to have an adult beverage in a state park...I probably have. If I wasn't suppose to put a tent in a certain place...I probably did.
At the time I could have most likely and logically defended my reason(s) for doing so but after the fact I usually beat myself up for it. I'm really not a bad person but sometimes I don't do all the right things.
I just get up everyday and pray that I might do my best to do all the right things.
Hello, Gold Bond!
One switchback at a time.
Are we talking about being a scofflaw in real life? I'd rather not get into that! :eek:
pack sniffer
Just as Wolf - 23000 points out below, you don't need to sniff their packs or have a dog available to sniff their packs, you can just ask them are you a scofflaw instead.
Shades of Gray
You don't need to ask them what they are carrying, you can simple ask them are they a slackpacking weenie instead.
Peace,
Wolf
The question asked by this poll could be something right out of a hunter safety training booklet. Maybe we need posters and a SPORT program to rid the A.T. of scofflaws?
Frolicking Dinosaurs
09-22-2007, 18:12
::: Scofflaw Dino contemplates biting recently reattached toes of purple bovine for suggesting posters and a program :::
We wouldn't need either and the purpose of both would be to promote asking the question primarily. Just asking the question should be enough. It is hoped that by asking the question, most people will begin to question themselves, their actions and the impact those actions have on others.;)
Lone Wolf
09-22-2007, 18:42
i condone and promote scofflawing
Would I be correct then to think you show no regard whatsoever for bag and creel limits?
Lone Wolf
09-22-2007, 20:08
Would I be correct then to think you show no regard whatsoever for bag and creel limits?
no. i obey certain regs.
I commend you for respecting game and fish laws. It's admirable that you respect the Commonwealth's wisdom when it comes to managing wildlife for the benefit of all, wildlife included.
So apparently you don't condone or promote being a scofflaw with respect to game and fish laws, regs, rules and standards of behavior or do you think it's proper for other residents and non-residents to steal game and fish from the Commonwealth of Virginia at will?
Lone Wolf
09-22-2007, 23:25
I commend you for respecting game and fish laws. It's admirable that you respect the Commonwealth's wisdom when it comes to managing wildlife for the benefit of all, wildlife included.
So apparently you don't condone or promote being a scofflaw with respect to game and fish laws, regs, rules and standards of behavior or do you think it's proper for other residents and non-residents to steal game and fish from the Commonwealth of Virginia at will?
huh? you're rambling son. lighten the ****** up. not everyone is a goody-two-shoes rule follower like you.
I wouldn't want you to think I refused to reply. My last post was only 3 sentences. That's not rambling. Besides, you know perfectly well exactly what I meant.
You don't seem to want to answer my question. I won't press the issue.
Lone Wolf
09-23-2007, 08:35
do you think it's proper for other residents and non-residents to steal game and fish from the Commonwealth of Virginia at will?
no but there's nothing i can do about folks who do. poaching is not a problem around here plus some folks feed the family by hunting and fishing year round
Some families do the same thing in east TX. Nothing wrong with that.....
no but there's nothing i can do about folks who do. poaching is not a problem around here plus some folks feed the family by hunting and fishing year round
You could encourage discussion about the consequences of violating fish and game laws and you might even consider turning in offenders to the proper authorities.
Someone who does not have enough food to eat could be helped in ways other than condoning their game law violations. Many hunters donate venison to help those in need.
Pennsylvania's SPORT program promotes hunters talking amongst themselves about responsibility and consequences. Is it reasonable to think it will ever eliminate all game law violations? No. Can it help to reduce the amount of game law violations and catch some of the more flagrant offenders? Probably.
It's in the interest of everyone who cares about wildlife to do what they can to see that game and fish laws are respected.
Lone Wolf
09-24-2007, 13:11
going to the 2:25 showing of 3:10 to Yuma then sneak into the 4:35 showing of Stardust
The Weasel
09-24-2007, 13:14
Make sure you use WD's ticket.
TW
saimyoji
09-24-2007, 15:03
Make sure you use WD's ticket.
TW
Doesn't exist.
The Weasel
09-24-2007, 15:22
Doesn't exist.
I know. Like I said.
going to the 2:25 showing of 3:10 to Yuma then sneak into the 4:35 showing of Stardust
Excellent movie! (3:10 to Yuma). PArt of the movie was shot in Ghost Ranch on the CDT
Startdust is a delightful book that I heard the movie completley botches.
Lone Wolf
09-24-2007, 21:24
Excellent movie! (3:10 to Yuma). PArt of the movie was shot in Ghost Ranch on the CDT
Startdust is a delightful book that I heard the movie completley botches.
yup. great movie. didn't sneak into Stardust, went to a chinese buffet instead
minnesotasmith
09-24-2007, 22:53
You can legally hike the entire trail without paying a fee to hike or camp.
Not as a practical matter for most hikers IMO. In the Whites to some degree, and in Baxter in particular, interacting with the local "system" is virtually unavoidable for 100% legal thruhikers.