AMC buys huge tract in 100 Mile Wilderness [Archive]

icemanat95

12-10-2003, 11:23

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!!!

I swear, some folks like hand waving and hand wringing alltogether too much.

Let some things play out a bit first before predicting the end of the world folks.

I would also hate to see a replay of the hut system and Pinkham Notch and Crawford Notch in the 100 Mile Wilderness, especially along the AT corridor (fortunately it doesn't seem like that CAN happen since the AMC will only touch teh AT corridor in a few small spots. There is also enough resistance to that in the MATC and Maine AMC that it probably won't happen. Anyone who knows Bob Cummings knows he would fight such a plan tooth and nail and probably win.

If you want to fight over-development of the area, join the Maine Chapter of the AMC and using the leverage thus gained, add your weight to opposition to overdevelopment.

One thing that will help keep the possibility of overdevelopment down is the simple fact that the 100 mile wilderness is a lot further from traditional yuppie activities like outlet malls and shi-shi restaurants than the Whites are. What draws SO MANY people to the Whites is the fact that they are visually very impressive, and that they are so easily accessible. And that started in the 1860's or so when wilderness tourism essentialoly began IN the White Mountains. Romantic Writers like Thoreau and Whitman and Hawthorne and Cooper created the pressure that lead to the Hut system and summit hotels which used to pepper the mountaintops of the Whites Including Mooslilauke, The Franconia range, Mt. Washington and others. By contrast, the 100 mile wilderness is wilder because it is more remote and because its views both of the mountains and from them are so much less dramatic than those from the Whites. It's a much lower key place so it won't ever attract the visitorship. Probably we are talking about something more like the Mohican Center in New York, That much more closely suits the scale of things in the 100 mile wilderness. I'd imagine the service facilities would be closer to the Upper Goose Pond model than the Huts as well. At least one would hope so.

RagingHampster

12-10-2003, 11:25

Great. The hundred mile "wilderness" but with a $75 hut every eight miles.Sadly I think this isn't going to be far from the truth. I better attempt a thru-hike soon before I have to "illegally" camp on the AT.

rickb

12-10-2003, 11:30

Seems to me, having the AMC buy land in the area is like growing old-- it sucks, but sure is better than the alternative.

steve hiker

12-10-2003, 12:12

(oops, already posted in first post. this is a good article--)

http://www.meepi.org/files03/pa120903.htm

TJ aka Teej

12-10-2003, 14:01

At www.meepi.org (http://www.meepi.org) today, links to newspaper stories in the Portland and Bangor Maine newspapers.

More questions than answers right now. No word from the ATC at all.
The only areas in the 100 Mile that are currently protected from developement/exploitation are the Hermitage, the Gulf Hagas, and the narrow Appalachian Trail corridor.

Bankrobber

12-10-2003, 15:07

This issue raises a few questions in my mind. First of all, considering how AMC is constantly in financial debt, how can it afford to leave the land untouched? It seems that in order to afford the purchase, it will build huts in the Chairbacks.
Also, what is the chance that they bought the land to contribute to a possible North Woods National Park?
We will stay tuned...

Ann

12-10-2003, 15:48

considering how AMC is constantly in financial debt

NO...no...in fact they have a SOLID balance sheet that you'd be shocked to see. Take a little peek for yourself:

http://www.guidestar.org/controller/searchResults.gs?action_gsReport=1&npoId=223306

They have some big financial clout and here is the scary part, just a couple of quotes from a recent news report from this link: http://www.meepi.org/files03/pa120903.htm

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Campsites, shelters and full-service facilities with beds and meals will be provided – the latter so that "families can travel lightly", Graff said. How many cabins or lodges will be constructed is to be determined, but he said they will be within a day’s hike of each other.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
and here is another little gem:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But already, AMC has determined it will build about 50 miles of new hiking trails.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the big punchline:
Maine AMC chapter executive committee member Erin Woodsome writes:

So far, she said, requested information about the project has been withheld from the Maine chapter. And, the local club has not been allowed to be involved in a way that "we can make a difference," Woodsome said.

Stay tuned folks.

icemanat95

12-10-2003, 16:12

Bankrobber

12-10-2003, 16:21

Not accessible to yuppies? I hope you are right. The only people I saw in the Chairbacks were 5 people in Cloud Pond. When I got down to the river right before the Hermitage, at least five people were fording the stream. I saw approximately twenty five people in a half hour between the Hermitage and the Gulf Hagas cut off. They seemed to resemble the folks you see in the Whites...
I can't help but think that ATC is going to build some facilities to court them. Hopefully they will be like Upper Goose Pond and the Mohican Center.
I am glad to hear that they will not likely be able to build huts.

DebW

12-10-2003, 17:13

Think more towards the Mohican Center and Upper Goose Pond.

The Mohican Center and Upper Goose Pond are owned and managed completely differently. Mohican Center is owned by the AMC and managed for the recreational usage of their members. UGP is owned by NPS and managed by the Berkshire Chapter of the AMC (which has little to do with the Boston organization). NPS bought the land around Upper Goose Pond because it is adjacent to and includes part of the trail, and it was the only remaining undeveloped pond in Mass. They had to buy out several homeowners around the pond, and two families still use their cabins, but those will become NPS property eventually. The UGP cabin is managed as an AT shelter, with a small donation requested for use. The caretakers are volunteers. If you were offered food at UGP, it was probably donated to you by the caretaker. Reservations are not accepted, and some caretakers only let thru-hikers sleep in the cabin. So think of UGP as a an enclosed trail shelter which is only open when there is a caretaker present.

Ann

12-10-2003, 19:35

Icemanat95...just a few points:

Again, the AT corridor in this area is essentially protected from AMC overdevelopment.
Well not exactly. The AT corridor runs through the Whites in NH and I would say the AMC and hut system in general, although not directly on the AT corridor, certainly has an impact, I can tell you for certain that an extra 75-90 hikers (from a typical hut) WILL have an impact

I wouldn't count on the ATC rolling over to accept a new hut system interfering with the AT.
The AMC has some big money clout, and, lobbying efforts that unfortunately I don't think the ATC has the potential to compete with. The AMC in this case is the Hulk and would be hard to beat at a war that will potentially be waged with dollars.

I don't think it looks good when Walter Graff, the deputy director of the AMC is talking about cabins and lodges in this area, not to mention the extra 50 miles of trails that will create access to the designer label crowd.
(See above quote from my last post)

IMHO this will have very serious impact on that stretch of trail.

icemanat95

12-10-2003, 21:37

I have to ask, what is wrong with more trails? 50 miles of trails amounts to 5 trails ten mile long each or ten trails of only 5 miles. We aren't talking about roads criss crossing over the area like crazy here. Plus that 50 miles of trails will absorb hikers, keeping them away from the AT or only routing them over it for short distances.

And what's wrong with making this area a little more accessible? Is the 100 mile wilderness to be reserved only for thru-hikers or long distance hikers? If people have no access to an area to see what it has to offer, or only limited access, what incentive do they have to protect it? And if they perceive elitism amongst long distance hikers, how likely are they to continue funding and protecting our trail?

I think sometimes long distance hikers get too tied up in their own elan to realize that the vast amount of backcountry protections are driven not by hard-corps backpackers and long-distance backpackers, but by the very visitors you seem to revile as unworthy. People with the money to fund candidates and thus to get their attention. People who donate significant money to land acquisition programs, not just once, but year after year after year. And the folks who will continue to help protect the land are not folks who never crawl out of the woods, but the children of those yuppies who spent memorable parts of their childhood out in the woods and mountains with their parents.

Your average thru-hiker pays his or her ATC dues (if they bother) for a couple of years and then walks away with the memories, never really bothering to support future trail protection or wilderness protection efforts. But the yuppies, with high paying careers and piles of expendable income, signs checks year after year after year, and usually not just to one organizations, but to many.

Maybe I'm wrong here and the AMC is really bent on pillaging the backcountry for maximum profit, but I really doubt it. I think that they just have a somewhat different idea of what brings about overall wilderness and backcountry protection, and that is promoting a greater love for backcountry environments through education and exposure without the high cost of admission and commitement necessary for hard core backpacking experiences. If more people love them, then more people will fight and pay to protect them.

Bottom line, before we let our chicken little imaginations get away from us here, we should probably gather enough information to draw even a poorly educated conclusion...we don't even have THAT yet and folks are acting like International Paper just decided to carpet bomb the entire region to shortcut the pulping process.

And BTW, The ATC has the National Park Service behind it on issues of trail stewardship and development, that's a whole pile of clout. It also has significant grass-roots lobbying power should it choose to alert and energize it's membership base. Now add in firebrands like Wingfoot who can, if they choose to control themselves, energize significant groups themselves.

And once again, the AT organizers routed the AT over existing trail systems created and managed by the AMC. They basically went to the AMC with their hats in their hands asking permission to route over AMC trails. This is exactly the opposite situation. The AT was there first, and where AMC plans intersect with the AT's interests, there are going to have to be negotiations, and the ATC has prior standing, and that's some pretty good leverage.

So lets let the situation mature a bit more before flying off the handle and preaching the end of the world (or the trail in this case).

Sleepy the Arab

12-11-2003, 00:16

I find this crying about huts being constructed within the Hundred Mile Wilderness kind of funny, considering that when the AT was originally routed through the area, it took advantage of many hunting camps that dotted the reaches of Northern Maine.

However, I hold no illusions about new AMC huts (should they actually be planned/built) being throwbacks to those trail-days of yore. These are not things that should be wanted. "What is wrong with the trail being more accessible?" How much more accessible does it need to be? An auto road up Whitecap would certainly achieve this. I think that when we start to make the "wilderness" more accessible, we take away that which we desire when we go visit it. I have no problem with the AMC in the Whites. They have been decent (enough) stewards. However, I question their motives with this action; they can't be that altruistic.

Mr. Clean

12-11-2003, 08:24

I believe that the hand wringing and worry comes from the AMC's track record lately. I am an AMC member and have adopted a trail under their guidance, and I know that the NH mtns would be in poor shape without them. But we are talking about the 100 mile wilderness here. While maybe not wilderness anymore, it is one of the most remote spots on the AT. Can't we hope that they leave this last wild refuge alone? I also certainly doubt that they are planning any building now, but ten/fifteen years from now anything could be possible.
I am waiting to see what happens, also, but I am worried. Unfortunately, AMC has become a money making machine and the calls I get every month for more money only seems to be supporting peoples views on this. I do give quite a bit to AMC, but insist that it go to trails, such as their trail campaign which they do annually. I will pray they leave the area alone along the AT, hope MATC and Maine AMC have enough weight to pray with me.
I will continue to be a member of AMC, Maine chapter, and MATC, and hope for the best.

Happy Holidays to everybody; lets all go for a hike.

Peaks

12-13-2003, 14:23

I don't know what AMC's long term plans are.

But, facts are, the Highland Center in Crawford Notch is the first major building build by AMC since Mizpah Hut well over 30 years ago. And, since they just completed a major fund raising campaign to pay for that, I don't foresee another in several years. So, I think that the AT corridor is safe for the next decade or so at the least.

If you are familiar with the top of Crawford Notch were the Highland Center is, it blends in much more with the site than the grand hotel ever did, and occupies about 1/3 of the footprint of the old hotel.

For those of you that think the AMC is only the hut system, then think again. Club chapters maintain trail sections in Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, as well as the White Mountains. It does work to preseve waterways and preseve other trail systems, such as the Mid-state trail in Massachusetts. It's lobbying for clean water and clean air, all the issues we care about. In short, it's a multi-facited organization.

If Little Lyford Camps are operated like the Mohegan Center, then it will just be another operator of an existing facility. Everyone concern's are valid, because be don't know the details and inside information. However, I wouldn't worry too much about a hut system through the 100 miles of Maine.

Bottom line is that there is a lot of change happening in the North Woods all across the region. And I'd rather have AMC controlling the land than someone like Marriot Corporation.

steve hiker

12-13-2003, 17:19

I'm going to section hike the 100m-wilderness before the changes take place. Can't do a thru before then. There's a lot of debate over the specifics, but it seems clear the AMC is going to bring more people into the area. More dayhikers and families who'll be able to "travel light" in the area. More trails and connecting trails to AMC facilities.

icemanat95

12-13-2003, 18:58

Icemanat95...just a few points:

Well not exactly. The AT corridor runs through the Whites in NH and I would say the AMC and hut system in general, although not directly on the AT corridor, certainly has an impact, I can tell you for certain that an extra 75-90 hikers (from a typical hut) WILL have an impact

You are missing a point or two that I was trying to make. 1 the AMC pre-dated the AT's presence in the Whites by about 50-60 years and the ATC chose to route over trails and lands controlled by AMC, essentially becoming a tenant to AMC management. I believe that some of the Huts were already in place by that time. I don't recall how many of the old summit hotels remained by the time the AT was being routed through the Whites, but the hotel at the summit of Mt. Washington was certainly still there.

Point two: which came first, the chicken or the egg? In this case the chicken in the hut system and the egg is the hiker population in the Whites. I can say with great confidence that the hiker population came first and the huts were added to accomodate them. The outdoor recreation/tourism industry in America was INVENTED in the White Mountains. Why? Because the White Mountains then, as now, offers dramatic views and outstanding climbing and hiking within a short train ride or drive of the a huge percentage of the population of the United States. The towns around the Whites developed a substantial tourist based economy to support those recreational tourists, and allows them to hike in the best weather and play among the restaurants, inns, boutiques and outlet malls on days when they don't want to hike or ski.

In other words, people come to the White Mountains for the White Mountains, not because the AMC is there. The White Mountains support the Hut system not because the AMC brings people in to use them, but because people come to the White Mountains to hike and climb among the Whites. If the White Mountains weren't so grand, people wouldn't come to hike them regardless of what ammenities the AMC chose to put there.

The 100 Mile Wilderness is NOT so grand and dramatic an environment as the Whites, neither do the nearby communities offer anything like the non-outdoors amenities and facilities as North Conway, Bartlet, Lincoln and Woodstock. Climbing the mountains is not so rewarding for a dayhiker or weekender, offering less grand views and fewer 4000 footers to tick off the list. No matter what the AMC puts up there it'll NEVER attract the 75-90 hikers a day that Lake of the Clouds does or even the 30-40 of Galehead. It's just not that kind of environment and you cannot take a model from the dramatic and accessible Whites and transplant it successfully to the more subtle and more serene 100 mile wilderness. It just won't work.

The AMC has some big money clout, and, lobbying efforts that unfortunately I don't think the ATC has the potential to compete with. The AMC in this case is the Hulk and would be hard to beat at a war that will potentially be waged with dollars.

I don't think it looks good when Walter Graff, the deputy director of the AMC is talking about cabins and lodges in this area, not to mention the extra 50 miles of trails that will create access to the designer label crowd.
(See above quote from my last post)

IMHO this will have very serious impact on that stretch of trail.

The ATC isn't exactly standing out on its own. It has the National Park Service behind it. It has precendent in law that protects the viewshed of the trail. It also has something in the 100 Mile Wilderness that it did not have in the Whites, prior standing. The AT is the earlycomer in the Wilderness. It's interests must be considered when the AMC makes its plans and as an abutter to AMC property, ATC has some legal standing to ensure that the AMC's plans are not inconsistent with the values of the AT. The ATC has also been able to bring together a number of grass roots interests and lobbying to protect its interests in the past and I expect that if the AMC goes off the deep end here, that the ATC will be able to grumble up some similar efforts again.

I am not saying that the AMC won't abuse the area, it might. What I am saying is that the AMC won't be recreating the White Mountain situation in the 100 Mile Wilderness, the area won't attract that sort of visitor base. Will whatever the AMC does increase the visitor base in the wilderness? Yup, unless they thoroughly botch the effort, it cannot do anything but, however, I am very confident that it won't be anywhere near as bad as you think it will be.

Also be aware that from the point of purchasing the property, to planning, going through permitting, developing environmental impact statements for every road improved or built, every site cleared, every building built, etc. dealing with the inevitable lawsuits, etc. There will be years, probably between 5 and 15 before the AMC plan is implemented. During that time, there will be many, many opportunities to thwart the worst plans and modify the heck out of what remains.

Be concerned, but there is no need yet to go off the deep end.

Blue Jay

12-15-2003, 10:05

Very good post Mr. Iceman. The main problem with moderation when opposing a corporation that has only profit on it's mind is that it leads to the current wholesale distruction of the wild areas of this world. The current administration and the AMC have exactly the same goal, maximum profit from nature.

In other words, people come to the White Mountains for the White Mountains, not because the AMC is there.
You are correct, however the AMC attracts thousands to places that would see only a handfull. This will clearly happen to the "Wilderness".

No matter what the AMC puts up there it'll NEVER attract the 75-90 hikers a day that Lake of the Clouds does or even the 30-40 of Galehead.
This I do not believe to be true. The ATC will speed up this attraction.

ATC has some legal standing to ensure that the AMC's plans are not inconsistent with the values of the AT.
The ATC may have SOME legal standing, but against the AMC money machine they have the snow flake in hell chance of stoping anything.

I am not saying that the AMC won't abuse the area, it might.
That is just plain funny, it is clear you know they will.

Will whatever the AMC does increase the visitor base in the wilderness? Yup, unless they thoroughly botch the effort, it cannot do anything but, however, I am very confident that it won't be anywhere near as bad as you think it will be.
I sincerely hope you are correct.

Blue Jay

12-15-2003, 10:21

And I'd rather have AMC controlling the land than someone like Marriot Corporation.

There are only a few differences between the AMC and the Marriot Corporation besides the name. Both are interested only in profit. One or the other may be better at marketing or funding the bottom line, but that does not mean much.

c.coyle

12-15-2003, 10:45

Iceman: "In other words, people come to the White Mountains for the White Mountains, not because the AMC is there."

Blue Jay: "You are correct, however the AMC attracts thousands to places that would see only a handfull. This will clearly happen to the "Wilderness".

Not being a New Englander, I'm ignorant of the history of the AMC. Intuitively, Iceman's comment makes sense to me. Blue Jay, can you give me an example of a place that gets thousands of visitors due solely (or primarily) to the AMC's efforts?

radar

12-15-2003, 20:50

There are only a few differences between the AMC and the Marriot Corporation besides the name. Both are interested only in profit. One or the other may be better at marketing or funding the bottom line, but that does not mean much.

Where is all this *profit* going? The AMC is a non-profit corporation. If they are really making a profit then they must be hiding it from the IRS and their accountants and someone must be enjoying the proceeds. Where is the money going?

Please don't tell me that because the directors of the AMC make over $100,000 the AMC is a profit making organization, it isn't. You can't hire someone for $50k to run a $20 million organization with almost $50 million in assets.

I'm not trying to defend any particular policy of the AMC but criticizing the AMC as a profit-making corporation seems to me to be wildly off the mark if the goal is to critique or affect the *policies* of the AMC (land acquisition, land use, fees, huts, shelters, etc.) or the fiscal management of the AMC.

Rain Man

12-15-2003, 23:52

Where is all this *profit* is going? The AMC is a non-profit corporation. If they are really making a profit then they must be hiding it from the IRS and their accountants and someone must be enjoying the proceeds.

The "only" difference between a for profit and a not for profit corporation is what they do with the profits. Even a non profit has to pay its bills.

As far as hiding profit from the IRS, the IRS is happy for non profits to make a profit. The IRS is only interested, if at all, in where the money goes (as in, it can't go into the pockets of individuals, but has to be spent on charitable purposes).

Clear as mud?

:-?

radar

12-16-2003, 00:54

The "only" difference between a for profit and a not for profit corporation is what they do with the profits. Even a non profit has to pay its bills.

There have been several comments here that the AMC is "in it for the money". I'm asking for someone to please tell me what that means in the context of a non-profit corporation or in the context of the AMC in particular. To me that sort of criticism sounds like an accusation that someone (who?) is getting rich from the revenues associated with the AMC. It doesn't sound like a complaint that the AMC doesn't spend its money wisely. For example they collect fees from shelter users but don't keep up maintenance on the shelters. That would be a valid criticism of how the AMC is using the funds it collects but it really has nothing to do with the AMC making a "profit" or with someone getting rich off that profit.

So either the complaint is that the AMC pays its employees too well or they aren't using their revenue wisely from the perspective of the mission as a charitable organization or there is some fraudulent activity going on. It is not very instructive nor accurate to simply complain that they are "in it for the money".

I'm asking for the folks who are anti-AMC to please clarify their objections. I'm not trying to defend the AMC, but if there are reasonable objections to the AMC's practices I want to hear about them since I am an AMC member (for now).

Blue Jay

12-16-2003, 09:09

Please don't tell me that because the directors of the AMC make over $100,000 the AMC is a profit making organization, it isn't. You can't hire someone for $50k to run a $20 million organization with almost $50 million in assets.

That is exactly what I am telling you. You can hire someone for $50K or FAR LESS to run the AMC. In fact, someone who is dedicated to the protection, not exploitation, of natural resourses would work for almost nothing and in fact do a better job because they would actually be commited to the halt of monied interests from destroying natural areas instead of just simply piling up "50 million in assets".

The AMC is just a small member of the Big Greens, such as the Sierra Club who claim to be environmentalists but do nothing but aquire assets while not only allowing corporate and governmental agencies to reap money from timber sales, mineral rights and recreational activities, but also fool the public into thinking there is a viable environmental movement.

Blue Jay

12-16-2003, 09:21

Blue Jay, can you give me an example of a place that gets thousands of visitors due solely (or primarily) to the AMC's efforts?

Any of the huts in the Whites, the interior ones such as Gailhead or Zeeland more than the others. The vast majority of the customers that go there would NEVER venture into the Whites if there were not a bed and precooked food waiting for them. Sleep on the ground, they'd rather die. They would drive up the Mt. Washington Road or ride the Cog. Take their pictures at the summit and drive back down and go shopping. Franconia, one of the most beautiful places on earth would not be packed all summer long. I'm not even saying remove the huts just stop feeding the horde and take out the beds. Over use would drop at least by a half.

Peaks

12-16-2003, 09:25

Blue Jay,

If you think you can find someone capable of running an organization the size of AMC for less than 50k, then I really think that you are out of touch with reality.

I suggest that anyone who wants to see where all the money goes should get involved with the AMC. Rest assured that the financial committee does not throw money around indescriminately.

smokymtnsteve

12-16-2003, 10:01

Blue jay..I don't know much about the AMC as I am from down south here..

but I do know a good bit about non-profit agencies...so I MUST agree with you...you have to really watch those "non-profit" types....those 6 figure folks are going to "watch out" fpr thier own kind and donors..

the example here in the smokies is that Mt LeConte lodge...
yes the lodge is historical but the new propane tank farm on top is not.
the propane tanks have been added inthe last couple years so that the cabins can be heated to extend the lodges season and $$$$..to heck with what it looks like..lot of the folks who go up to stay would not do it if they had to carry a sleeeping bag top stay warm at night...ETC

keep up the good work Blue Jay ...but it is a dubious battle...

have you ever read "in dubious batttle" by john steinbeck???

Blue Jay

12-16-2003, 11:13

Blue Jay,

If you think you can find someone capable of running an organization the size of AMC for less than 50k, then I really think that you are out of touch with reality.

Peaks, I am extremely surprised that you, an engineer believes that capability and salary are even remotely related. I have worked for many varied industries and scientific facilities. In fact, if there is a relationship, it is that salary and capability are inversely proportional. At a certain level, perhaps triple figures, it becomes just shmoosing, manipulation and networking. That is exactly what the AMC is now dedicated to. A Working Class Director who actually has ethics could turn the AMC into a truly worthwhile organization.

Smoky, of course I like Steinbeck. It would be very hard to appreciate Ed Abby without liking Steinbeck.

radar

12-16-2003, 21:27

Some of the folks who are posting here are their own worst enemies.

If you have a bone to pick about the executive salaries at the AMC, then that is what you should say. Swinging wildly with a rhetorical sword that the AMC is just like any corporation and is out to make a profit simply isn't on point or helpful in actually debating the issue.

That being said I think it is naive to think that a $14 million organization can be run effectively by someone for $50k or less. I found a salary survey at the NonProfit Times: http://www.nptimes.com/Feb03/sr1.html:

True to form, nonprofits with the largest budgets paid executive directors the most in 2002. Nonprofits with a budget size of $50 million or more paid executive directors an average of $214,619 in 2002. Organizations with a budget of less than $500,000 doled out an average $41,000 to executive directors.

There have been a number of other concerns about the type of backcountry experience the AMC might encourage within their new land purchase. The criticism that the AMC is just going to make money on this purchase seems misplaced but that doesn't mean that AMC members and backcountry fans don't have valid concerns. Some more reasoned debate would seem to have a better chance of getting those concerns addressed.

Blue Jay

12-17-2003, 08:37

I have, as yet, not seen a "reasoned debate" on this forum and that includes all of the ones I have not entered into. I am very sure however that "Nonprofit Times" has some fascinating ones, ZZZZZZZZZZZZ. By the way I thought I was being clear about believing the salary of the entire corporate staff (not including those who actually do the work in New Hampshire, New Jersy, etc.) of the AMC is WAY to high.

weary

12-18-2003, 20:55

I have, as yet, not seen a "reasoned debate" on this forum and that includes all of the ones I have not entered into. I am very sure however that "Nonprofit Times" has some fascinating ones, ZZZZZZZZZZZZ. .

I can't really debate salaries. But I think that those who choose to so debate, should at least not go to sleep when others post contrary information.

Weary, who really is just testing whether an attempt to get rid of I Spy and it's impact on the speed of my communications has worked. It didn't. Any suggestions are truly welcome. Just send them to [email protected]

jlb2012

12-19-2003, 10:48

wrt getting rid of spyware - you may wish to check out the thread on another forum : http://www.thebackpacker.com/trailtalk/thread.php?id=27610&q=nav&age=-1

Bluebearee

01-01-2004, 20:08

Any of the huts in the Whites, the interior ones such as Gailhead or Zeeland more than the others. The vast majority of the customers that go there would NEVER venture into the Whites if there were not a bed and precooked food waiting for them. Sleep on the ground, they'd rather die. They would drive up the Mt. Washington Road or ride the Cog. Take their pictures at the summit and drive back down and go shopping. Franconia, one of the most beautiful places on earth would not be packed all summer long. I'm not even saying remove the huts just stop feeding the horde and take out the beds. Over use would drop at least by a half.

I see this mis-represented constantly when the three letters AMC come up.
When I was 10, I went with my parents, my aunt and my cousin to Lakes for the night. This was 1970. It was an experience I will never forget and was my first "backpacking" experience, if you will. I have been back several times to stay in the huts. My camp groups in the 70s used to stay in the huts. Two years ago I went with 9 others in my outdoor club on a 4 day trip from Franconia to Crawford Notch. I do not fit the presumed profile listed above, and neither do any of the people I have travelled to the huts with. I have never driven up the auto road, I have never ridden on the cog. I hike. Sometimes, in order to move through the Whites I employ the use of the huts. Look to Europe. They've had hut systems for eons. No one squawks about it, that's how they enjoy their mountains. Does it make those users less of a hiker?? Am I less of a hiker when I chose to do a trip in this way? I just returned from a 3 day winter traverse of the Bigelows. I swept off a tent platform two nights ago @ Avery Col to set up my tent. Should I have eschewed that comfort and stopped short of Avery Peak instead to camp? The amenity is there. Hikers of all shapes and sizes and incomes will use them. I'd love to put this image of the "typical hut user" to bed, once and for all. It offends me.

BTW, it's Galehead and Zealand, in case the spelling police care.

weary

01-01-2004, 20:58

I see this mis-represented constantly when the three letters AMC come up.
...Hikers of all shapes and sizes and incomes will use them. I'd love to put this image of the "typical hut user" to bed, once and for all. It offends me.
BTW, it's Galehead and Zealand, in case the spelling police care.

I couldn't agree more. I've hiked the Whites for 70 years if my parents were correct, when they insisted I climbed the Imp at age 4. (I don't remember.)

But over the decades I've climbed extensively in the Whites. Around 40 years ago I began doing a winter hike to Carter Notch, and have continued to do so most years ever since.

When I became active with the Maine Chapter, I occasionally stayed overnights at the huts for free on chapter relationships with Joy Street. The first time -- and almost the last time -- I ever paid for hut service was in 1993 while hiking north from Georgia. I stayed at all eight. I enjoyed the experience greatly. But I've rarely been back, since -- maybe twice in a decade.

After years of observing the trails, I'm convinced that the huts represent an infintesimal percentage of White Mountain Hikers.

Weary

Rogue

01-01-2004, 22:29

Ann, actually only one person in the Maine Chapter claims that the full details have been with-held and that one individual is a person with an obvious axe to grind.

Again, the AT corridor in this area is essentially protected from AMC overdevelopment. The AMC property only overlaps the corridor in short areas. At worst you would probably have 1, maybe two AMC facilities and the ATC would be able to fight them. The HUT system FAR predated the AT in the Whites so the ATC has little standing to do anything about them there. The AT builders chose to follow pre-existing routes that included the Huts.

That's a big difference. Now the AMC is moving into an area where the ATC has prior standing. I wouldn't count on the ATC rolling over to accept a new hut system interfering with the AT.

You won't see a new hut system (at least of the fee scale you see in the Whites) anyhow since there just won't be the demand for it. The 100 mile wilderness isn't nearly as accessible to the yuppies as the Whites are, and the AMC isn't going to sink huge amounts of money into a project that they cannot afford.

As I said above, the nature of the area determines the level of attraction to visitors and the level of services it will support. While the region is currently wild(ish) it's no-where near as dramatic as the Whites nor as accessible. You just cannot plan on building a similar level of interest in it to support such a massive capital capaign as the Highland Center at Crawford or the Pinkham Notch facility, or the Huts.

Think more towards the Mohican Center and Upper Goose Pond.

What this does say however is that there will be more intersecting trails in the Wilderness, perhaps making some interesting loop hikes doable.

But why deal with realities when we can shake our hands at the sky and with a quavering voice cry: "The sky is falling!!!!"

People may be worrying too much about the AMC and not enough about people like this:
"The company sold 47,000 acres to Herbert Haynes of Winn and William Gardner of Millinocket. Both men have histories of buying up forest land, stripping off the valuable timber and then selling lots for development. The land around Katahdin Lake, which offers stunning views of Mount Katahdin, would be much in demand for vacation house lots. If those who live, work and recreate in the north woods are concerned about access to the land, they should be much more concerned about purchases by developers than by a conservationist."
Take from this article: http://www.bangornews.com/editorialnews/articles/412847_120803abeeofadifferent_.cfm

I would rather allow AMC to put up anything that helped them recoup their money than land grabbing developers that want to stick homes in the shadow of Katahdin. I really don't believe AMC would closely encroach on the trail area with any revenue gathering operation but, I don't know them either. The bottomline is that developers are destroying our lands for nothing more than greed. It's time we took it back.

TJ aka Teej

01-02-2004, 00:47

Take from this article: http://www.bangornews.com/editorialnews/articles/412847_120803abeeofadifferent_.cfm

.
Not to put too fine a point on it Rouge, but that's not news, it's an editorial opinion about Quimby's purchase. Not a popular one north of Portland.
The deal between IP and the AMC allows continued logging, however. There was no danger of "land grabbing developers" (other than the AMC) buying this particular huge tract though. Just as it was in the case of the Little Lyford Pond sale, the property wasn't put on the open market, it was a "sweetheart deal."

TJ aka Teej

01-02-2004, 01:11

Originally Posted by Bluebearee
I'd love to put this image of the "typical hut user" to bed, once and for all. It offends me.Hi Bluebearee,
While many of us can say 'hey I've stayed, and I'm no Boston yuppie', I'd have to say that most of the Hut users I've encountered aren't typical backpackers. Typical backpackers don't stay in huts. I'll agree with Blue Jay here, that the majority of Hut customers wouldn't go "camping" if they had to sleep in tents and cook their own food. I'll have to disagree that hikers of all incomes use them, they're much too pricey for a typical blue collar family to even consider.

The Old Fhart

01-05-2004, 13:18

One of the problems with this thread is that every one is using terms that mean different things to different people. One term is “wilderness”. The 100 mile “wilderness” isn’t a federally designated Wilderness that has strict government restrictions as to use, etc.. The 100 mile “wilderness” runs through private land that most thru-hikers think of as wild and untamed, at least until they get there and are surprised at the amount of foot and road use. Anyone who has been there knows that it is far from being cut off from the outside world and you can routinely see trucks, boats, float planes, and day hikers in the area. The common name, 100 mile “wilderness”, has caused the A.T. C some concern and Laurie Potteiger winces when she hears the term and would be happier if it were called something, actually anything, else. I had suggested to her that it be called “the 100 mile stretch in Maine with limited verhicular access”. Anyone buying that land is pretty free to do as they please and their ideas for proper use of the land may well be different than our view as thru-hikers.
Another misused term is “AMC”. Most people think that the AMC is one big glob where everyone is overpaid and has more interest in making money than hiking. I have been an AMC New Hampshire Chapter trip leader and instructor in their mountain safety workshops for over 20 years in what amounts to thousand of hours of my time. My total pay for that time is zero, zip, and I’m not unique. The local chapters are volunteer based groups of dedicated hikers who spend unbelievable amounts of time and energy on everything from trail construction to acting as a voice of opposition to some of the AMC headquarters (ironically located at 5 JOY St., Boston) hair-brained schemes. Many of the local chapters find that the AMC headquarters is out of touch with the majority of the membership and we are continually trying to keep them in check. The next time you go through New Hampshire or Maine pay attention to the amount of trail work that the ATC, AMC, and other groups have done before you criticize the entire AMC. The whole trail from Springer to Katahdin is maintained by highly dedicated people, most of whom will never hike the whole trail but who maintain it with little or no thanks from many hikers. I have seen register entries where hikers complain at great length about the condition of the trail. Unfortunately the only ones who will see these entries are the trail maintainers who try to keep their section of the trail in shape. Great way to encourage them to continue with their thankless job.
To put things in perspective, consider this: the summit of Mount Washington, NH, gets up to 250,000 visitors per year. Of these perhaps 60,000 are hikers. Of these hikers perhaps 500 could be some form of long distance hiker. I have nothing against any one who drives or takes the cog railroad to the summit, some of these people would never get there otherwise. I also have nothing against day hikers, hey, I’ve climbed that mountain as day hikes for over 45 years. But if someone were to plan to clearcut an area in the viewshed of the summit, I’m willing to bet that some of those people who rode up or day hiked would object and could have some clout to stop this from happening. If some of the thru-hikers objected that would only amount to a small handful of people. I have mixed feelings about the AMC buying lots of land along the A.T. but I think the best we can hope for is to watch carefully, stay informed, and act with other groups with like interests if there appears to be problems. We don’t live in a vacuum and we can’t act in one either.

weary

01-06-2004, 13:28

Gov. Baldacci yesterday announced the completion of a 329,000 acre land deal, involving the outright purchase of around 50,000 acres, and easements
guaranteeing public access and forbidding development on the rest.

You can read the details at

http://www.bangornews.com/editorialnews/articles/414435_010604westbranchlanddea_medgecomb.cfm

This has been several years in the works and involves $20 million in state and
federal funds (mostly federal) and $10 million raised privately by land trusts.

The land stretches from the lake country north of Baxter Park to the Canadian border, and includes the headwaters of the Penobscot and St. John Rivers, Big Spencer Mountain, west of Baxter, and some of the best wild lakes and streams and hills east of the Rockies.

It is part of the vast changes underway in the Maine woods as the paper
industry sells it's 12 million acres that traditionally have provided the raw
materials for the state's paper mills.

The nature of the Maine woods and of Maine's economic and industrial base is under assault. I can only speculate about how it all will end, but I'm positive that hiker experiences along the trail in Maine will change and not for the better.

I applaud the success of the state and private partnership, as I do the recent AMC purchases. But I still think the best chance to protect the immediate trail environment rests with the Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust, PO Box 325, Yarmouth, ME 04096. You can join for $35 but much larger donations than that are needed.

Weary

weary

01-10-2004, 18:58

Originally Posted by The Old Fhart
I have mixed feelings about the AMC buying lots of land along the A.T. but I think the best we can hope for is to watch carefully, stay informed, and act with other groups with like interests if there appears to be problems. We don’t live in a vacuum and we can’t act in one either.
I know this won't convince the conspiracy theorists and the AMC haters, but the more I talk to AMC leaders about their plans for Maine, the more I'm convinced that TJ's litany of horrors are the product of someone's vivid imagination. No one knows what is being planned because AMC is only now figuring out what to do.

AMC planners, for instance, spent a morning recently figuring out who North Maine Woods, the people that control the gates to their property, are, what they do and whether AMC should join or not. That suggests to me that claims that AMC wants to turn North Maine Woods campsites into recreational vehicle parks are a bit farfetched, or at least premature.

Roger Scholl, an AMC director, who was one of those who voted to allow the Maine acquisition, told a Maine Chapter wilderness discussion Thursday that the idea of a paved road between Brownville Junction and Greenville was total nonsense, that in all the discussion leading up to the land purchase vote the idea had never even been hinted at.

As near as I can tell from lengthy get-togethers with the key AMC people involved the sum total of the AMC planning todate was summed up nicely in the original press release announcing the purchase -- namely that the club plans 50 miles of new trails and some overnight facilities connecting these trails.

The emphasis to date has been on how to limit motorized use of the area, not to pave roads. An especial concern are the many snowmobile trails that traverse the parcel. Bob LeRoy former owner and now AMC LIttle Lyford Pond manager says he "hates" the machines and the noise they make and wants them as far away from the camps as possible. My prediction: AMC will allow a couple of main snowmobile trails through the center of the parcel in an attempt to placate local businesses that depend on the machines, but won't cater to snowmobilers either at Little Lyford or at any other facility it may build.

Also a major AMC concern are the many derelic boats and canoes that crowd the shores of some of the lakes and ponds included in the 37,000 acres. The internal AMC debate is how to encourage their removal without alienating local people unnecessarily.

I know. Some will think I'm being being both naive and hoodwinked by AMC for posting this. But it's clear to me the the detailed plans are entirely up in the air at this point. Wise people who want to influence how this land is used should do less speculating and more time making their views about the kind of development or lack of development, they would prefer, known to the club.

Weary

TJ aka Teej

01-11-2004, 00:16

I'm being being both naive and hoodwinked by AMC Don't be too hard on yourself, Weary. The Straussians in charge of the AMC's push to become a major player in New Hampshire and Maine's "outdoor" tourism industry have made many folks before you feel both naive and hoodwinked.
Take a few minutes to consider the AMC's recent history in New Hampshire the next time you're tempted to believe everything Joy St. wants you to.
And please, take a few extra minutes before posting what you've been told to.

weary

01-11-2004, 10:45

Take a few minutes to consider the AMC's recent history in New Hampshire the next time you're tempted to believe everything Joy St. wants you to.
And please, take a few extra minutes before posting what you've been told to.

Ah, TJ. The difference between us is that I've tried to do some investigating and you haven't, despite your claims to the contrary. So what is AMC's "recent history in New Hampshire." They bought the site of a burned out resort hotel and replaced it with a structure a third the size of the old structure. What were the alternatives? For someone else to by the old hotel site and develop it. I'm not enthralled with the Highland Center. I loved the old hostel. But I'm quite sure I prefer what AMC has built as compared with what would have been built had AMC not bought the area.

It's equally absurd to claim that AMC had a "sweetheart deal" and the land wasn't on the market. IP announced two decades ago that it's lands should be consider a "profit center" separate from the mills. The company even required its woodlands division to compete with other landowners for supplying wood for its mills. That the land was going to be sold has been widely known for more than a year.

Conservation buyers, who are trying to save a few bits and pieces of the Maine woods, before it is all sold for development, aren't particularly happy with the price AMC paid. At more than $380 an acres, AMC paid almost twice as much an acre as some other recent sales.

And no. I haven't been told what to say by AMC. Among the many legitimate gripes about AMC is that they don't know crap about public relations. They would prefer, I'm sure, that I don't write anything. I wasn't invited to their meetings. I invited myself because I wanted some facts to counterbalance some of the silly claims that are being made.

But the central fact is obvious. AMC, even if they should do all the things that TJ has speculated about, would still be a better steward of the land than the likely second choice buyer. It's obvious to me, however, that almost none of TJ's speculations are likely. I do want to influence their development decisions, and I hope others will seek to do so also. You don't do that by making absurd claims. about what you think they want to do. I don't want to give AMC the luxury of "compromising," from positions they never held in the first place.

Weary

Blue Jay

01-12-2004, 09:16

weary

01-12-2004, 11:27

Weary, ... I disagree with almost every thing you say ...

Most of what I have said about AMC and its alleged plans are simple facts. I invited myself to an AMC workshop on the proposed use of the 37,000 acres -- and brought along the Maine Chapter's most severe Joy street critic.

The guy hired by AMC three years ago to investigate the possibility of buying Maine land lead the discussion, mostly asking questions. What should we do about this? What should we do about that? Should we build parking areas at new trail heads for day use? What about boats stored on the pond shores? What should be the role, if any, for the North Maine Woods gatekeepers? How much can we restrict snowmobiles without bringing down the wrath of the surrounding communities?

It's absurd to think, it seems to me, that a room full of some of AMC's top paid leadership people would spend eight hours discussing these mundane matters on a bitter cold day just to fake me into believing that key decisions still haven't been made. (When I left the temperature was still only minus four F. after a day of bright sun.)

I don't have any secret insight into AMC. I know only what I have gleaned over the past three decades as a member, chapter conservation chair and currently chapter newsletter editor.

I joined because I was writing from time to time about mountains and trails and an AMCer convinced me that I ought to be a member, if only to avoid writing things that were not true. I thought of the group as mostly pompous elitists. But that has changed as the membership rules changed. Now anyone with $45 can be a member. Then one needed the signature of four members, or something like that. I forget. But AMC did send its trail crew leader to Maine week after week for the meetings of a tiny group that sought ways to protect Bigelow from development. The creation of the Bigelow Preserve was greatly helped by AMC, even though the group panicked in the final weeks before the referendum and refused to take part.

AMC was a key founder of the Northern Forest Alliance, an alliance of conservation groups devoted to protecting the north woods of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York. Other participants like the Nature Conservancy, the Trust for Public Lands, the Forest Society of Maine ... had been active for several years buying land and easements as it came on the market.

It's my sense that AMC kind of felt it was being left behind by other participants in a forum they had organized, so the club somewhat belatedly joined the buying effort without any real plan for what to do with the land once they owned it -- other than perhaps vague plans for a series of trails, campsites and overnight "huts," since trails, huts, and campsites -- and recruiting members -- is AMC's only real area of expertise.

My job for 40 years required me to separate propaganda from truth. That's my only area of expertise. I'm quite confident I'm not being fooled by a group that is as inept at public relations as AMC.

AMC obviously has no experience in owning and managing large parcels. Most of their holdings are in the 5-20 acre range.

AMC survives and grows because most people like what it does. People like the trails the club builds on state and National Forest lands; they appreciate its effort to protect the air and water; they read and like its books and magazine; they love the huts that enable them to walk the ridges, while being catered to each evening.

The club in my experience has zero talent at faking things, which is probably why they are so bitterly and irrationally disliked by a few. Anyway, my advice remains. If you get a kick out of hating AMC continue to do so. It's pretty harmless. If you want to have a voice in how this new experiment in AMC land ownership turns out, put aside your hatred and get involved.

Weary

warren doyle

01-12-2004, 11:33

Another great thread to read and ponder. Thank you WhiteBlaze.net for providing this service.

In my opinion, I am glad that the AMC is making its presence felt between Monson and Abol Bridge. Although I will never become a member of AMC for philosophical reasons, I do appreciate the institutional humility this organization has when it comes to rules and regulations (which I consider the greatest threat to long distance hiking). The AMC knows that they don't have the moral authority to legally regulate the environmental impact that long distance hikers have which is minimal compared to the AMC. I wish the NPS/USFS would follow their lead in this regard.

In addition, I have always felt it was not right for hikers/backpackers to 'pay' at the gatehouses to gain access to the AT - federal lands paid by our taxes. I also felt it wasn't right that I should pay more than residents of Maine - after all the AT is a NATIONAL scenic trail.
I hope the AMC eliminates all access fees to this particular section of trail for hikers/backpackers. We don't pay to access the trail in the other 1,900 miles (excluding SNP and Baxter State Park), so why should we pay between Monson and Abol Bridge? I also feel it is not right for me to pay for any 'creature comfort' facilities like outhouses and shelters. I would rather have coin-operated outhouses and shelter fees for the actual users rather than 'pay at the gate' to subsidize a service that I will not be using. I feel that the AMC will work to end road/trail access fees. I feel that the North Maine Woods folks operating the gatehouses were anti-hiker and anti-non-Mainers. I am sure the AMC will be less provincial.

Maybe my days of 'circumventing' the gatehouses will be over. I will welcome that.

icemanat95

01-12-2004, 12:30

Weary, although I disagree with almost every thing you say I am glad you post here. It is not easy to find AMC lackeys (no offence, just a simple fact), who swallow their greedy little lies. Two things you are correct about is that another buyer could do worse and we should all donate to land conservancies.

Now I'm a bit ticked.

Normally I just ignore your hysterical garbage B.J., but you just insulted a man who has earned more respect and done more for trail causes in Maine and elsewhere than you will EVER do.

Weary is the real deal, a guy who has put his money, his time and his energy where his mouth and mind are. Weary does more than just put in a couple hours of trail maintenance time each year, he FOUNDED a trail protection organization. More than just piss and moan about conservation in daily life, Weary wrote a book about building more energy efficient homes.

And lest you think I'm just supporting someone who thinks like me, Weary and I have had long arguments on various and sundry political and trail related issues over the years of our online association (probably getting onto 5 to 7 years now). Weary is probably about as liberal in his politics as I am conservative, but there is one thing I KNOW about Weary, even if I don't agree with everything he says or believes I KNOW he has put a lot of thought and real research into it. He is a man of true integrity and decency with a rare ability to look past ideologies and form his opinions and positions based on facts and verifiable information. Most of the handwavers on this thread are bordering on plain reactionary paranoia.

When Weary talks, I listen and closely. I may not end up agreeing with him, but I damned well respect his opinions.

On this subject, taking into account all our prior discussions on similar subjects and the fact that I know Weary has put in the research time, I more than agree with his positions here, I consider them the next best thing to Gospel.

Weary is first rate folks, an iron-plated trusted source. If you want better information, you've gotta do what he does and go to meetings, make phone calls and generally make a pest of yourself to the primary sources.

TJ aka Teej

01-12-2004, 14:52

Ah, TJ. The difference between us is that I've tried to do some investigating and you haven't, despite your claims to the contrary.Because I shared the things I learned that you didn't want known, I'm a liar? That's bordering on plain reactionary paranoia, Weary.

Weary, the truthful difference is that I tend to believe people who have no financial interest in this sweetheart deal. You, despite your claims to the contrary, have taken a political stance and are now little more than a conduit for the misinformation and professional spin produced by the businesses involved.

icemanat95

01-12-2004, 15:20

TJ, the one who has taken a biased political position is you. You are so tied to your ideology of corporate conspiracy and oppression that you can't see through your own b.s. to perceive reality anymore.

When someone confronts you with first hand information that denies your preconceived notions what do you do? You lash out and make personal attacks. Do you spend a lot of time on the "Democratic Underground" board as well?

Blue Jay

01-12-2004, 15:23

Now I'm a bit ticked.

Do I hear violins playing. Then you complain about someone making personal attacks, read your own posts sometime. Don't get me wrong I enjoy your AMC "handwaving".

warren doyle

01-12-2004, 15:27

Does TJ stand for "too judgemental"? (from your favorite bridge-jumper)

TJ aka Teej

01-12-2004, 17:00

[QUOTE=icemanat95]TJ, the one who has taken a biased political position is you. [QUOTE]

You know what, Iceman? You just might be right. I still hold the same opinions on the Maine North Woods that I formed decades ago. I feel that protection and preservation should mean that the woods are protected from exploitation and preserved for future generations. Some people, like you and Weary, feel that the woods should be protected from people like me, and preserved for logging and economic development. It's a shame Weary has compromised his postion to suit his current opinions. He's well aware that we stood on the same ground regarding Baxter Park rules, and opposing the AMC when it proposed 60-80 bed hotels (they called them "huts" at that time too) in Maine's western mountains. I wonder why he opposed them there and then, but supports them here and now. I suppose it's pure Nimbyism, considering his attachment for those mountains, and apparent low regard for the land called the 'Wilderness.' Was there a quid pro quo? Did the AMC give in back then on the promise that they'd be backed now? We'll never know.

And naught for nothing Iceman, but you might be taken more seriously if you'd avoid the silly handwaving sneers like your 'Democratic Underground' one.

TJ aka Teej

01-12-2004, 17:14

Does TJ stand for "too judgemental"? (from your favorite bridge-jumper)
Now Warren, you know that was all about your being bi-polar about respecting rules. You ought not insist that others be law abiding while insisting the law doesn't apply to you. Well maybe you ought not say those things to the same audience, at least. By the way, what was that youth's name, the one that was so badly injured by jumping off that bridge you were encouraging others to leap from? Has he recovered any movement in his limbs?

rickb

01-12-2004, 17:31

While I understand much of what Warren has to say, I am not sure that I find much honor in circumventing the gate at Baxter State Park, if the idea is to avoid paying any fees. Did I understand that correctly? I can't remember if there is even a fee for walk-ins. Or were you talking about charges to use private roads?

If I am not mistaken, the Baxter State Park is entirely supported by use fees and trusts, and was the product not of federal tax dollars but rather of a private donation.

Rick B

warren doyle

01-12-2004, 18:32

Rick,
If you read my post carefully, you will find out that I was talking about the section of trail between Monson and Abol Bridge - not the section of trail in Baxter State Park, which is a another story in itself.
TJ,
I can see why you have agitated other posters on this web community. If you read my post on the history of Gathering bridge jumping carefully you will find out that in the 22 years of this activity, only one jumper suffered an injury, and that was minor (scraped skin on a shin bone). I don't know of any youth who suffered a paralyzing injury from jumping off the Hanover bridge and this incident certainly didn't happen 'on my watch'. To include this unrelated incident on a posting about the Gathering bridge jumps is misleading at best - another piece of litter on the info superhighway.

TJ aka Teej

01-12-2004, 19:55

To include this unrelated incident on a posting about the Gathering bridge jumps is misleading at best - another piece of litter on the info superhighway.Warren, you old web litterer you. You tossed some unrelated-to-this-topic bridge jumping trash out of your window as you did a drive-by on this thread. If you don't want to be reminded of the reckless and illegal imbecility you advocate, perhaps you should stop bringing it up.

rickb

01-13-2004, 10:19

Warren, reading is my strong point. My comprehension skills sometimes come up short, though. :-). I am not very familiar with gates in that part of Maine.

Are the gates you are talking about on paper company roads? If so, you won't find me worrying about a few people circumventing them on some quasi-moralistic basis.

On the otherhand, I would hate to see the AMC or any other group do anything that would bring more people down the roads that cross the so-called 100-mile wilderness. Perhaps I am being naive, but the idea of trailhead parking 1/4 mile up a logging road in that area doesn't sound so good to me. Especially, if it is advertised by way of 10's of thousands of new (and no doubt beautiful) AMC maps. If there are gates now, I wish they would be harder to circumvent and a huge logistical pain in the butt.

I understand that people come down those roads (and perhaps through the gates you mention?) to leave caches, drop off campgroups, go to private camps and such already. But not all that many, right? I say the fewer the better. (Again, I am assuming that you are speaking of gates on those roads, but that may be a false assumption on my part).

The AMC's vision seems, IMHO, focused on making the backcountry more and more accessible. In so many ways that is a good thing. But shouldn't we want some areas along the AT to be a bit harder to get to than others? I am not sure what role gates play now, but if they keep even some people away (perhaps just their spector keeps a few of us from exploring the back roads), I think they may have a place.

But like I say, I am not very familiar with the roads and gates up there. Much less how the AMC could possibly impact on that dynamic. My comments are more theoretical than anything else. In that reagard, anything that makes it harder to get to road crossings in the wilderness (gates, tank-traps, land mines) would be better, IMO.

Rick B

weary

01-13-2004, 12:06

I am not very familiar with gates in that part of Maine.
Rick B

Gates in the Maine woods were originally installed around 30 years ago by a consortium of large landowners who formed a nonprofit corporation to manage camping and visitors to four million acres. That group was centered mostly north of Baxter State Park and did not seriously impact Appalachian Trail use. It was non profit because use of the lands had never before been restricted, except for hunting around active logging operations. The companies thought they needed control, but didn't want to be accused of "profiting" from hunters and fishermen, hence the "non profit" designation. That group built 450 primitive campsites -- many in old gravel pits. Amenities remain marginal: Pit toilets and fire rings from old truck tire rims. The fees are also cheap, $6 the last time I checked.

A few years later as Gulf Hagas became a popular attraction landowners around Katahdin Iron Works and the Jo Mary Lake Country formed a for profit organization in hopes of making some money. They didn't and after a few years gave up running their own gates and hired North Maine Woods to do it for them. As a major landowner, AMC now is part of the KI/Jo Mary organization. AT section hikers have long been unhappy with the arrangement because they are charged the same $6 a night ( somewhat more for those with non resident plates) even though they are walking and camping on the trail, which is owned by either the National Park Service or the State of Maine.

Thru Hikers and long distance hikers aren't affected, except as they have friends or Warren Doyle, or trail businesses deliver them supplies and food.

There are now only three major landowners in the KI/Jo Mary area. AMC, Prentise & Carlyle, and the "Carrier Brothers", The latter are "forest liquidators-developers, who out bid AMC for 30,000 acres south of Whitecap and East of Gulf Hagas.

If AMC backs out, North Maine Woods says it could no longer afford to run the gates, which would be a disaster in my opinion. The gates block passage of ATVs and by requiring people to identify themselves and their vehicles help ensure against vandalism.

I'm curious about how Warren bypasses the KI and Jo Mary gates. A year or so ago, there was a bypass because of a logging operation for those coming in from Greenville, but that strikes me as a long way to go to avoid a minimal fee.

Both North Maine Woods and KI/Jo Mary are marginal operations as near as I can tell. According to an accounting I saw last week, KI/Jo Mary lost a couple of thousand dollars last year, but on average the contract with North Maine Woods is based on a break even budget. If I remember right, the KI/Jo Mary region has around 45 campsites, catering mostly to fishermen and a few hikers splitting the 100-mile-wilderness into sections. The gates close in mid-October because not enough hunters use the area to make the gates worthwhile during the November deer hunting season.

All this may be in transition. As the paper companies and timberland management companies like Prentis and Carlyle sell their holdings to investment companies, fees are almost sure to increase, and more restrictions on public use of the Maine wildlands imposed. For this and other reasons I applaud the AMC purchase and hope they buy more land soon, because it's all for sale to the highest bidder.

Weary

warren doyle

01-14-2004, 15:01

Weary,
Thanks for your great post about the history of the gates and North Maine Woods group. Very informative. Keep up your wonderful posting - your heart seems to be in the right place and for that I respect your opinion.
Since you asked on this public forum how I got around the gates at KI and Mary Jo the past twenty years or so, I will respond knowing my answer will inevitably draw more vitriolic responses from the aggressive, combative, 'protect-the-world from Warren' drivers on this superhighway.

The gate at Katahdin Iron Works
Strategy #1 - arrive late night/early morning (from 11pm-3am); sleep in car until awoken by the first logging truck passing by before dawn; after waiting for the driver to unlock the gate and drive away you do the same while the gatekeeper sleeps in his house. The truck driver is going to get logs for $; the gatekeeper has a good sleep; and I get my right to free access to the trail. It's a win-win-win situation.
Strategy #2 - If you are in three van loads of thirty people, select the three most law-abiding occupants (which is usually posssible) and everyone chip in $1 each to their respective driver. Pull over right before you get to the gatehouse (to the right), 27 people get out and follow a logging road 300 yards and then ford the outlet to the pond (a great team-builder) while the three drivers pay at the gatehouse for three people and then they drive a short distance to pick you all up 200 yards down the road.

For the other gates (near Greenville, Jo-Mary Lake and the one past Antlers Campsite), strategy #1 usually works.

Another way for out-of-staters to save money is to get a couple of old Maine license plates at a flea market and put them on your cars before you get to the gatehouses.

Advice from your friendly, irresponsible, imbecilic, bipolar, bridge-jumping poetry reader who likes to walk on the Appalachian Trail.

Jack Tarlin

01-14-2004, 18:02

You're right, Warren, you're going to get a response:

Entering private property illegally or without permission or knowledge of the owner is both immoral and illegal. Avoiding set user fees that apply to everyone else is nothing more than theft. Assuming these rules and fees don't apply to use is the height of arrogance.

It's really curious, Warren, that in some cases, you vault up on a high horse and lecture us about rules and rule-breaking, and about respect for posted regulations (alcohol use at the Pipestem Gathering is one example), and yet so many of your contributions here at Whiteblaze involve assiduous breaking of rules and laws, and then bragging about this, as tho we're supposed to be impressed---whether it's jumping off a bridge in Vermont, or breaking and entering in order to go thru the Bear Mountain Zoo, etc.

It's apparent to anyone who's spent much time here, Warren, that you only obey the rules and laws you find convenient, and have no trouble at all avoiding the rest.

What you do elsewhere is your business, but on the A.T., where a great deal depends on hikers making an effort to maintain cordial relations with private propety owners and residents; local, state, and federal rangers and law enforcement personnel, etc., it's really pretty sad to see someone of your supposed stature in the hiking community so gleefully bragging about your circumventing of rules, regulation, and laws. I think this is a horrible example for people who are new to the trail; boasting about breaking laws on the trail, encouraging folks to do likewise, and giving detailed information on how best to behave this way does not, in my opinion, contribute anything positive to the Trail community, and is definitely not what new folks need to hear from trail veterans. There have been many cases over the years of hikers no longer being welcome in towns and on the Trail, in many businesses where they were previously welcome, and in places where they were welcome to camp or pass thru. It is self-righteous and thoughtless behavior like yours, Warren, that encourages negative feelings towards hikers---ignoring posted rules and regulations, tresspassing on private property, and stealing goods and services from folks you encounter on the Trail is pretty reprehensible behavior. What if every hiker acted this way? Do you think it would be good for the Trail? By your logic, do you also think it's OK to run out on restaurant tabs in town or to shoplift from Trailside stores? Do you sneak out of hostels without paying or crowd extra folks into motel rooms? Do you steal from donation boxes? What's the difference? In point of fact, there isn't any.

What you're doing when you break laws or avoid paying posted fees is simply wrong, Warren, and it is neither "vitriolic, agressive, or combative" for someone to point this out or comment on it. You can color it any way you want to in order to justify your behavior, but engaging in this sort of activity on the Trail doesn't make you a free spirit or a rebel, Warren. It makes you nothing more than a criminal and a thief, and continuing to engage in this sort of behavior affects other hikers, not that I imagine you care. Breaking rules and laws is nothing to crow about Warren, and if you're proud of behaving like this, or if you think it makes you some sort of bold intrepid soul, you're very much mistaken. Instead, it tells us all a very great deal about you.

steve hiker

01-14-2004, 18:15

Dude. Have a toke and mellow out.

weary

01-14-2004, 21:45

What you're doing when you ... avoid paying posted fees is simply wrong,

Well, I'm opposed to stealing, borrowing from collection plates, and running out on restaurant bills. And I think Warren's efforts probably are too complex and time consuming to warrant many to follow his lead.

But I do understand the frustration. These are public lands, paid for by the taxpayers. I question the legitimacy of having to pay the same fee for sleeping on public lands in a shelter built by volunteers, as do campers on lands owned by the gatekeepers.

I also understand why the system exists. If everyone isn't charged, everyone will be claiming to be camping on public lands and no one would pay.

The gates provide a public service by keeping ATVs out -- except for those dam bandits that sneak in with the logging trucks, or use other subtefuges.

I've paid the fees many times and thought nothing about it. There is one legal way to get around the fees. Just sign up to be a maintainer of trails beyond the gates. People who are going in to work get in free, something I've been doing for the past 20 years.

That's the easy solution. Just sign up with an overseer to keep two or three miles of the trail free of brush and blowdowns and you can get in as easy as a logging truck. No more sleeping in a van all night to fool a sleepy gatekeeper. No rummaging around junk yards for Maine plates. No more polling of van passengers to figure out who looks honest.

I must confess, however that parts of Warren's plan are not totally original. When I was growing up in Maine during the depression, my folks would drop us six kids off in Bath, and have us walk the mile across the Kennebec River to Woolwich, to avoid paying the 10 cent per passenger bridge toll fee.

Those walks -- actually we ran, skipped and jumped mostly -- are some of my most vivid and enjoyable memories of the 30s. So enjoyable, that I've been walking ever since.

Weary

TJ aka Teej

01-14-2004, 22:39

If you are in three van loads of thirty people, select the three most law-abiding occupants (which is usually posssible)
Sign up for the next Doyle Expedition! Learn theft! Learn trespass! Learn how to be despised by Park employees from the Carolinas to Maine! Learn that day-hiking and sleeping in a van is "just as good" as through hiking! Learn that laws don't apply to you because you're *better* than other people!

Lone Wolf

01-14-2004, 22:46

Hey B. Jack. I think exposing yourself and being drunk and passed out in public are against the law too. Glass houses and rocks or some s**t. Get off the pedestal.

The Old Fhart

01-15-2004, 08:54

What amazes me is how, no matter what the subject, Warren Doyle can always switch it to a discussion of how great he is at flagrantly and repeatedly breaking any laws that would require him to be a responsible trail user, and his total disregards for the property rights of others. Baltimore Jack has summarized Warren’s sociopathic egotistical behavior much better than I could so I won’t go into that further. When Weary rhetorically asked: “I'm curious about how Warren bypasses the KI and Jo Mary gates.” I’m sure that wasn’t an invitation for Warren to spew forth, in great detail, how others could also use theft by deception to repeat Warren’s illegal activity. What puzzles me if Warren so disagrees with the way the trail is run why doesn’t he choose the legal option and just stay at home or lobby for change like a law-abiding citizen. It is obvious that nothing anyone says will dissuade Warren from committing these actives and he actually gets off on having people discuss his illegal acts, like Jeffery Dahmer and other serial killers keeping trophies of their crimes to relive their perverted pleasures. Obviously Professor Doyle isn’t a professor of ethics. I’m also sure that L. Wolf would be better served if he left Jack’s personality out of the discussion. Just ask yourself, LW, if you weren’t home and Warren needed a place to stay in Damascus and decided to break into your house and let his 30 hikers stay there and trash the place would you be as quick to say: “Oh it’s just Warren’s quaint ways”. I’m interested in your answer and not a bombastic diatribe.
Back on subject, I previously had posted that I wasn’t sure how I felt about the AMC buying the land. What we should do is stay informed and voice our opinions and act with other groups if it looked like the direction the AMC was taking was not in the best interest of the area and the trail. I welcome input whether or not it agrees with my position because it helps me make an informed decision. To call someone “an AMC lackey” isn’t looking at the veracity of what they have said but rather tries to discredit their view by character assassination. Having been a volunteer instructor and trip leader
In the New Hampshire chapter for over 20 years, I respect Weary’s dedication and opinions even though I’m sure we wouldn’t agree on everything. Let’s keep this as a civil discussion on the AMC’s ownership of this parcel of land, how it affects us, and what we can do to make sure it doesn’t negatively affect the trail.

warren doyle

01-15-2004, 10:10

My, how predictable! Is this was Sesame Street for adults the word for the day would be 'demonization' and the lesson would be entitled 'How to make a mountain out of a molehill.'

smokymtnsteve

01-15-2004, 10:47

I don't know much about gate-fees in Maine..just how much money do you save by going around them??? Is it a lot of money???

The Old Fhart

01-15-2004, 12:28

Warren’s quote:”My, how predictable! Is this was Sesame Street for adults the word for the day would be 'demonization' and the lesson would be entitled 'How to make a mountain out of a molehill.'”
Actually Warren, it is: “My, how predictable! Is this was Sesame Street for adults the word for the day would be 'criminal' and the lesson would be entitled 'How Warren’s lawless activities give thru-hiking a bad name.””
You just don’t get it. Part of Leave No Trace is to figuratively not foul the waters for those who follow. If we want the Appalachian Trail hikers to be viewed as law-abiding citizens we can’t disregard all laws and rules and then brag about the transgressions so that everyone knows how little regard you have for the trail and your fellow hikers. And smokymtnsteve innocent question “I don't know much about gate-fees in Maine..just how much money do you save by going around them??? Is it a lot of money??? “ is only an issue in whether to charge Warren with felony or misdemeanor theft. The size of the fee can’t justify someone committing a crime. Warren’s activities involve questions of immorality and illegality, plain and simple. This is not just another “style” of hiking, it is criminal conduct spread over the entire length of the A.T.. The last person who behaved like this was banned by federal court order from the A.T. for two years and interestingly enough, in his own troubled mind, thought he was doing nothing wrong. Just ask yourself, if every hiker behaved like this what would hiking the A.T. be like? I don’t think anyone would want to go there.

weary

01-15-2004, 12:34

I don't know much about gate-fees in Maine..just how much money do you save by going around them??? Is it a lot of money???

The day use fee at KI/Jo Mary gates most used by Warren are $4 a day per person for residents of Maine and $8 per day per person for non residents. If the van just goes in, drops off hikers and leaves, day fees are the only fee.

As I understand it, if the van stays in the whole party is then charged camping fees of $7 each a night. Day use is free for those under 15 and over 70. Seniors pay $3 a night for camping.

I found the fees an irritation 20 years ago when I was hiking the AT in Maine with my three pre-teen kids in weekend and four day segments, but usually my wife would just drop us off as a day user and meet us later at Monson or Abol Bridge as the case might be.

On one trip I made the "mistake" of complaining about the condition of a side trail. I was told, "perhaps you would like to maintain that trail." I've been at it ever since, though the simple side trail assignment expanded from time to time and for one 7 year stretch had me responsible -- with the help of 20 on-the-ground maintainers -- for the entire first 60 miles of the "wilderness" north of Monson.

On a related post about whether AMC purchase of 37,000 acres is a good thing or not. I think the answer is clear. AMC was the closest thing to a conservation buyer in the bidding. AMC will be a better steward than the developers who were also eyeing the property.

As much as we may prefer it, the status quo is no longer an option for the central and northern Maine forests. Except for a few family owned parcels, Wall Street has decreed that all the forests shall be sold to the highest bidders.

It's clear to me that AMC plans for the lands are still in the formative stages. The club needs to hear fewer wild speculations and more thoughtful comments on how the hiking community, and especially AMC members, would prefer the lands be managed.

Individual donors, foundations and hoped for state and federal funds will buy the lands for AMC. That is not an issue. No amount of facilities will ever return the $14.3 million in capital costs. But as near as I can tell, AMC insists that any development of recreational facilities must pay their own way, i.e. the fees paid by users must pay the cost of staffing and maintaining Little Lyford Pond Camps. Whatever AMC builds for campsites and other overnight facilities must at least break even.

But please understand. Unlike TJ, I claim no secret insights into AMC plans. The above comments are based on many years of observations. I've talked to enough AMC people to know that nothing is written in stone as yet. I know the club is struggling with how best to handle this new experiment in large land ownership. I've seen them in the past close down facilities that don't pay their own way. But that truly is all I know for sure.

Weary

warren doyle

01-15-2004, 12:49

Thanks Weary for answering smokymtnsteve's question for you have shown you know the actual facts the best for an objective interpretation of the history, and current issues, of this section of trail.
Respectful regards from Warren the Wicked.

Jack Tarlin

01-15-2004, 16:58

Wolf---

Thanx again for the kind words, alweays good to hear from my fans. In re. to your last post---

Dunno what you mean by "exposing yourself." If you're referring to mooning the cog, well, yeah, I guess I've done that. In that there's a lot more exposed flesh on any 2 hours of nightly network television these days I don't think this exactly is a capital offense.

Drunk in public? Well, probably, tho this was some time ago. And coming from a noted model of sobriety like yourself, this sort of comment is kinda amusing. Seems I'm not the only one on the Trail who lives in a glass house.

The point you're missing, Wolf, is this: Have a done things I've done in the past and later had cause to regret? Sure, who hasn't?

The difference, Wolf, is that Warren doesn't seem to regret any of the rules or laws he's broken; quite the opposite. He thinks that this makes him something of a trail rebel, tho admittedly an elder one, and he seems to think that this sort of behavior is something to be proud of. Were this not so, why is he always bragging about it?

The difference Wolf, is that my misbehavior was a long time ago, and I publicly acknowledge that I've made mistakes and occasionally acted foolishly. What I DON'T do, Wolf, is boast about this sort of behavior to others, I don't give details over the Internet on how best to avoid rules and law-abiding behavior, and I don't encourage new-comers to the Trail scene to emulate such behavior. I don't think this sort of behavior adds anything positive to the Trail, I don't think it's good for the hiking community, and I find it difficult to defend. You live in a Trail town, Wolf, and you have friends who own or who work in Trail businesses----would you approve of a hiker stealing from them because he finds it inconvenient to pay fees for services that other people don't have a problem with? Do you really think any hiker, regardless of their supposed stature, is entitled to use whatever he wishes, and pay or not pay for whatever he wants? Do you really think the Trail would be a better place if everyone acted like this? Would your town of Damascus be as hiker-friendly as it is every visitor behaved like this?

Instead of making personal attacks on me, which you spend a good deal of time doing, I'd really like to see you address the issue here, and this is it: Putting yourself above rules, regulations, and laws because you think you're "special" and entitled to special treatment is indefensible. Or maybe it isn't----you want to defend this sort of thing, go ahead. But you know and I know that if you caught someone stealing from a trail business in your town, especially one run by a friend, you'd be the first guy to take the thief out back and give him an attitude adjustment. And you'd be right, too. So what's the difference?

Brushy Sage

01-15-2004, 17:17

This dialog reminds me of a story I heard about a young couple who were arguing, and one of their parents brought them to see a rabbi. The rabbi listened to the young man, and said, "you are right." Then he listened to the young woman, and said "you are right." The parent protested and said they couldn't both be right. Said the rabbi to the parent, "you are right too."

smokymtnsteve

01-15-2004, 18:38

Yes thank you for the answer to my question..

those fees seem reasonable to me, and if you are going to use thier road and campsite and there is a fee then you should pay it...why do you needa van there anyway..don't most thruhikers walk this section for free. what is the problem??

steve hiker

01-15-2004, 21:50

:D :o :) :jump :p :cool:

chomp

01-16-2004, 09:58

This land is private. The roads that were built were paid for with private dollars. The gates that were constructed were done so with private dollars. And the land that you have to park your car on, I assume, is private as well. So instead of erecting a giant game and denying access to everyone, they charge a fee and let outdoors people in. The fee might be a little steep, but without THEIR ROADS you wouldn't even be able to access these areas.

And in another wildly predictable move, I completly agree with Jack and Old Fhart on this one. Honestly, I am very suprised that Lone Wolf is backing Warren on this one, except for the fact that I know he loves digging on Jack digging on Warren as much as Jack loves digging on Warren. Lone Wolf - this is theft, pure and simple. I know if someone snuck onto your property uninvited and against your wishes that you would not be so understanding.

Lone Wolf

01-16-2004, 10:06

I don't back Warren. What he does is his gig. I've seen Jack and others allow hikers to take showers in thier motel rooms without paying. That's theft too.

warren doyle

01-16-2004, 11:50

(I ask Weary to correct me if I get any of the facts in the first three paragraphs of this posting wrong since I trust his knowledge, more than my own, about this area)
The road from Rt. 11 passing by Katahdin Iron Works and the Appalachian Trail trail crossing near the Hernitage on its way to Greenville has been there for many decades, including several decades before the gatehouses were erected and fees charged for people to simply drive on the road to access the AT. Its primary purpose was to be the main trunk route for logging trucks to haul the tree harvest to the mills. Prior to the gatehouses, the public was allowed to use the road for free. Signs were posted to notify the recreational drivers to yield to logging trucks at all times and that they were to travel 'at their own risk'. That seemed to work and everyone was happy. The road remained dirt and maintained to accommodate large logging trucks, not passenger vehicles.
Soon after the AT became protected by the federal government and a protected trail corridor was designated, the logging industry whose profits were lessening thought of the idea to charge recreational users to drive on the road. Even after they started to charge fees (that most people opposed initially), they did nothing to improve the road for the recreational driver (i.e., AT hikers, Gulf Hagas day hikers). The 'rules of the road' still applied. The only improvements I saw were minimal and only at roadsite campsites that Apppalachian Trail hikers don't use.
One had to pay a significant amount of money just to pick up a hiker section-hiking north or south or dropping them off to hike north or south. In my opinion, paying $16 to travel on a dirt road (16 miles round trip) while yielding to logging trucks coming towards you or from behind you was unjust. There aren't even any interstates that charge that amount for that distance (even expensive bridges like the George Washington Bridge-NYC don't charge that much).

Here is where I stand:

I do not stand for corporate greed or corporate welfare.

I will not allow anyone who doesn't have the moral authority to determine what I can do or can't do on the Appalachian Trail. I will not respect either the AMC, NPS, USPS regulating my individual impact on the trail as a long distance hiker. Perhaps when they close down the Skyline Drive, Blue Ridge Parkway, Cog Railway, the hut system, Mt. Washington Toll Road, Mt. Washington State Park, Mt. Greylock Road, end clear-cutting on USFS land, etc. I will begin to listen and respect. In truth, I don't mind all the above. What I do mind is when these same folks come down on 'the little guy'. I never did like bullies.

To set the record straight, contrary to what has been implied in recent posts:

1) I always pay my restaurant bills.
2) I never steal from donation boxes.
3) I never steal from stores or people.
4) I respect individual's private property.
5) I always 'earn my keep'.
6) I believe in laws that protect us from each other.

However,
1) I don't believe in paying for services that I don't use.
2) I don't respect all laws that protect an individual from themselves.
3) I question laws that protect nature from us.
4) I question laws that protect us from nature.
5) I like to jump from high places into water (as long as I feel it is safe).
6) I don't feel the Appalachian Trail should be locked up at night anywhere.
7) I don't feel that I should have to pay to walk the Appalachian Trail, or to gain access to it.
8) I have faith that my fellow long distance hikers will more than likely always make the right decision that they feel comfortable with as individuals and I don't have any problem with that, nor do I feel uncomfortable with this faith.

Most importantly though, I love the Appalachian Trail and I enjoy walking on it.

chomp

01-16-2004, 12:08

Prior to the gatehouses, the public was allowed to use the road for free. Signs were posted to notify the recreational drivers to yield to logging trucks at all times and that they were to travel 'at their own risk'. That seemed to work and everyone was happy. The road remained dirt and maintained to accommodate large logging trucks, not passenger vehicles.
Soon after the AT became protected by the federal government and a protected trail corridor was designated, the logging industry whose profits were lessening thought of the idea to charge recreational users to drive on the road. Even after they started to charge fees (that most people opposed initially), they did nothing to improve the road for the recreational driver (i.e., AT hikers, Gulf Hagas day hikers). The 'rules of the road' still applied. The only improvements I saw were minimal and only at roadsite campsites that Apppalachian Trail hikers don't use.
What exactly is your point, here, Warren? This is still private land. So, what, a landowner isn't allowed to change their mind on access policies? Or a new landowner can't change old ones? A lot of things used to be a lot different back in the good ole days. Bottom line - its private property and they can choose to gate their roads, or not. It is THEIR PROPERTY!!

There aren't even any interstates that charge that amount for that distance (even expensive bridges like the George Washington Bridge-NYC don't charge that much).
Sorry, but interstates and bridges and such are PUBLIC property, not private, so that is a bad analogy. Public roads have to be open to the public, private ones do not.

I will not allow anyone who doesn't have the moral authority to determine what I can do or can't do on the Appalachian Trail.

Last I checked, no one is charging you to hike the Appalachian Trail from Monson to Millinocket. You only get changed if you want to access part of the trail in a day hike, or less than the 100 miles all at once. The rest of this (Skyline Drive, Huts, etc..) I totally agree with you on, but that is stuff built on public lands, and not really relative to this debate.

4) I respect individual's private property.

Just not a logging companies private property, huh? And the difference is?? Last time I checked, logging was a struggling industury, so its not like these guys are big corporate moguls. In fact, since the environmentalists have restricted logging so much, and cut into their profits, the fee-system was probably seen as a way to offset some of these losses. Sounds like good ole American capitolism at work here.

1) I don't believe in paying for services that I don't use.

You are using a service.. namely passage on private property AND usage of a private road. More cars on a road = more wear and tear.

6) I don't feel the Appalachian Trail should be locked up at night anywhere.

The AT isn't locked up.. just access to a piece of it... THROUGH PRIVATE PROPERTY.

7) I don't feel that I should have to pay to walk the Appalachian Trail, or to gain access to it.

You don't have to pay to access it... you can hiking the 100 Mile Wilderness by accessing either the Monson or Million Dollar Road Trailheads. If you would like a more CONVIENENT access to this part of the AT, well you might have to pay a few bucks. But you are paying for a convience, not access.

Alligator

01-16-2004, 13:28

So in a nutshell Warren, you feel that anywhere corporate entities OWN the land adjacent to the AT, you have the right to traipse through and ignore any rules and regulations they have placed have on their private property? For the sake of your own convenience? It is a landowner's right to limit access, property rights are an extremely important underpinning of our society. Violating landowners' property rights is a sure way to breed animosity towards hikers. Your attitude is a very poor reflection on the hiking community. Right on Mr. Moral Authority.

weary

01-16-2004, 14:02

Last time I checked, logging was a struggling industury, so its not like these guys are big corporate moguls.

I think IP, one of the three landowners that created the KI/Jo Mary gates, clearly qualifies as a "corporate mogul." I forget the name of the corporation that sold to investors that sold to the timber liquidators/developers, but it clearly was a corporate mogul also.

There are many reasons for the decline of the logging industry in Maine, but environmental regulations are not one of them. Most of the quality logs were cut years ago. What Maine harvests is mostly pulp wood for the paper mills. The paper companies have been harvesting the key paper-making species four or five times faster than they are growing and have employed harvesting techniques that slow the regeneration of a productive forest.

There are many reasons for the decline of Maine's paper industry: Foreign competition is one. Clearing the rain forests of South America, the far east and Africa produces paper-making fiber cheaper than Maine, at least in the short term, and especially if you don't have to pay the long term environmental costs.

But essentially, if you own land in several states and several foreign countries, there is no incentive to maintain a sustainable forest in one of those states. In the absence of regulation, You just use up one forest and then move elsewhere, which is essentially what is happening.

Wall Street's insistence on immediate profits makes this almost mandatory. The manager who gets rewarded with stock options and promotions is not the guy who manages the land for long term productivity, but the guy who maximizes income this quarter.

The lands that are on the market are mostly owned by giant multinational corporations, whose stock is bought and sold on the New York Stock Exchange. The buyers are whoever offers the most money. The land AMC bought would have gone to developers and speculators had the club not stepped in.

Weary

Blue Jay

01-16-2004, 14:23

This thread has become an orgy of sanctimony, artificial saintliness, pretended holiness and hypocritical devoutness (I got a thesaurus for Xmiss).
No one, and I mean no one follows every rule in our anal society. Some people (Warren for one) are open about it, others sneak around, stealth camp and then condemn others. I'm with Lone Wolf on this one. Keep your own house clean.

Blue Jay

01-16-2004, 15:31

One more thing. On the one hand you have giant soulless, immortal corporations who are completely outside of all laws due to the fact they cannot be punished. An individual can be jailed or even executed. A corporation can be fined, like they even care. Sure it would be nice if each year the Supreme Court ordered the most lawless corporation be eliminated. I would love that, but clearly since our government is completely owned by the corporations that will not be happening soon. On the other hand you have Warren, gate crashing. Ohhhh, big crime. Corporations, destroying our way of life or big scary Warren.

Jack Tarlin

01-16-2004, 16:30

Blue Jay--

You're kind of missing the point here: Tip-toeing past gates while the attendant is sleeping in order to save a few dollars is more than a little ridiculous. Breaking and entering by climbing over locked gates (like at the Bear Mountain Zoo) is nothing more than criminal. The fact that most of us, at one time or another, bent or even broke minor laws at some point in our lives does not serve to justify the behavior---it's still wrong.

Plus, I can't help but feel that this is the sort of "thumb your nose at society" behavior that most of us at some point managed to out-grow. For example, some of us probably snuck into movie theaters or stayed for an extra screening that we didn't buy a new ticket for, but we were around twelve years old when we did this; tho we knew it was wrong, in our juvenile mindsets, we probably convinced ourselves it was no big deal. The difference is that Warren is STILL engaging in this sort of juvenalia, even after forty years of presumably knowing better.

To engage in behavior like this when you're middle-aged is more than a little sad; to expect people to admire you for your free-spiritedness in doing so is sadder still; to gleefully boast about it on the Internet or to encourage others to do likewise is even worse. I asked this before, Blue Jay, but never got an answer. Do the folks who feel that this sort of behavior is perfectly OK think the Trail would be better off if EVERYONE acted like this? Would it improve relations between hikers and property or business-owners if behavior like this was universal? Would it likely make folks more or less hiker-friendly if this sort of behavior were to increase? Lastly, what on earth gives anyone the right to think that society's rules and regulations don't apply to them?

P.S. I'm not going to bother responding to Wolf's lates post, i.e my supposedly sneaking folks into motel rooms. Actually, every year that I've hiked I've bitched people out for doing this. I can think of any number of places----Gatlinburg, Atkins, Pearisburg, etc. where I've gone to the hotel owners or managers and asked them if it was OK if people cleaned up in my room; on the occasions when extra people stayed over, we made a habit of asking if it was OK to go "over the limit." The motel owners will corroborate me on this as I've known many of them for several years. Wolf's "defense" of Warren's activities have so far consisted of nothing more than personal attacks on me; nowhere has he given any concrete reason to defend Warren's behavior. And by the way, Wolf, I keep very extensive journals and diaries of where I stay and who I've stayed with. I've done this on all my trips. If you can provide day, time, place, and names of individuals who were present when I engaged in the behavior you're accusing me of, I'll be happy to go thru my journals, and dispute you on this. It wouldn't be hard to do. Wolf, if you want to speak up for a friend, that's great. Loyalty is an admirable thing. But so far, you haven't begun to address the issue at hand, even tho several people have directly asked you how you'd feel if this sort of activity was directed to you or your property, or if it was done to a friend or neighbor. Several folks have observed that if this sort of activity was directed towards YOU, you'd feel very differently. If you want to try and defend this sort of thing, Wolf, feel free. I'd love to hear what you have to say. But merely carping about me instead of providing honest answers doesn't really help your argument.

chomp

01-16-2004, 16:48

To engage in behavior like this when you're middle-aged is more than a little sad; to expect people to admire you for your free-spiritedness in doing so is sadder still; to gleefully boast about it on the Internet or to encourage others to do likewise is even worse.
I think that this is my biggest problem with your post, Warren. Yes, all of us have their faults and all of us do things on occasion that we are not proud of. However, being proud about violating private property, bragging about it on the internet, and then including detailed descriptions for other on how to do the same? That behavior is not a mistake - its a calculated violation of the law. The fact that is comes from one of the most recognizable people involved with the Appalachian Trail, well that makes it even worse.

No, Blue Jay, my house is not "clean" but I don't go around bragging about all the illegal acts that I have done, especially those that give hikers a bad name. In fact, I am downright embarrased about those times and I try not to repeat that kind of behavior.

Now just imagine that you are someone who works for IP reading this board and try to imagine how they might feel about this. Do you think that this thread would give them a good or bad impression about hikers?

The Old Fhart

01-16-2004, 17:29

I'd also like to answer some of Warren's self-serving statements. If you don't read any thing else in my post, please read my response to Warren's point #7, below

1) I don't believe in paying for services that I don't use.
If that is true Warren then why do you use subterfuge to gain access at the gatehouses and then use their services. If you really didn’t believe in paying you wouldn’t “select the three most law-abiding occupants (which is usually posssible) and everyone chip in $1 each to their respective driver.” (your quote). You not only use theft by deception, but, as a leader of your van-supported hikes, get all the participants to break the law as well. And you just admitted you all pay. Does that mean that your belief is only 90% or is this more of you illogical justification to steal. If, for example, someone goes into a store and steals 10 CDs, that is theft. If they go into a store and buys 1 CD but have 9 more hidden under their coat, that is theft as well. Their utterance that “music should be free” doesn’t mean that they can steal anyone else’s property. What you actually are saying is that you should be free to lie and cheat if that allows you to attain your goal. That behavior doesn’t imply a “belief” but criminal behavior and total disregard for the rights of others, pure and simple.

2) I don't respect all laws that protect an individual from themselves.
Self-destructive antisocial behavior isn’t your right. Your disrespect for laws has nothing to do with respect, only hubris and convenience. This is actually part of you idea that illegal bridge jumping is your right, it isn’t.

3)I question laws that protect nature from us.
There is a big difference between questioning a law and breaking a law. If you disagree with a law, lobby to change it, otherwise don’t bother us with your dribble.

4) I question laws that protect us from nature.
That rational caused the Dodo to be wiped out, the American eagle, Bison, Panda, etc., to be placed on the Endangered Species list. Just because you don’t understand the reason behind a law doesn’t mean there isn’t one, only that you can’t understand, or don’t want to understand the rational behind it. People like you who believe they are right and the rest of the world is wrong (or against them) are generally institutionalized.

5) I like to jump from high places into water (as long as I feel it is safe).
Suicide, using crack, bridge jumping, and other individual acts like this are crimes and illegal. To say you are almighty and can decide which laws to break is ludicrous. The fact is that this type of activity is inherently dangerous and the results of a mishap could be death. These are not “victimless crimes”, the cost to society is great, just ask the parents of an accident victim who either have to provide long-term care as the result of a spinal cord injury, or bury a relative. You have only been lucky, not safe or smart. Ask your lawyer if you are unaccountable if, and when, an accident happens.

6) I don't feel the Appalachian Trail should be locked up at night anywhere.
Maybe you feel that way but that doesn’t give you the “right” to break into private property. If you don’t want to go around the zoo near Bear Mountain then do what every other hiker has done-- get there when the zoo is open. Every thru-hiker has to arrange their schedule to get mail drops or get to Iron Master’s mansion when they are will accept hikers, etc., what gives you the right to be so special?
Mount Katahdin in Baxter State Park is “closed” after October 15 each year to casual use and in the summer when conditions are really bad. Your logic would say that you have the right to climb it any time you please and the rules don’t apply to you. It doesn’t take a professor to understand the reasoning behind the parks rules. Any one who breaks these rules and gets into trouble puts the rescue party that has to haul them out at risk. In New Hampshire you would be charged with rescue and other incurred costs and Baxter State Park Authority has done the same.

7) I don't feel that I should have to pay to walk the Appalachian Trail, or to gain access to it.
Chomp covered that one quite well. I’d only say to access the A.T. in Georgia I had to fly or use other transportation to get there. I also used a shuttle service, which I had to pay for. Your logic would say I shouldn’t have to do that. That is pure bull. If you really feel that EVERY hiker shouldn’t have to pay to walk the Appalachian Trail, or to gain access to it, you wouldn’t be charging all your clients on your organized hikes. All these years you have been charging hikers to gain access to the trail yet denying others the same right. How do you justify that, Mr. Doyle? Why is it alright for you to set a rate and charge people to hike the trail with you while you cheat and lie to others who are doing exactly the same thing. Tell me that you have seen the light and are no longer going to charge people on your “Circle of Deception” hikes. I’m sure you’ll come up with some reason why you are special and can charge but the common folks shouldn’t, but there is no justification for your two-faced self-serving behavior. If the money is coming out of your pocket it is a different story, right? Maybe you should have someone explain to you the difference between a righteous and a self-righteous person.

weathercarrot

01-16-2004, 17:43

It is suggested here that while we all break rules from time to time, it's not so bad as long as we regret it and acknowledge the error of our ways. I know I'm repeating myself here, but I find it a bit sad that so many of you continually associate right and wrong with legal and illegal. It's a completely apples and oranges comparison. Even after everything this society attempts to teach us, it still always comes down to our own individual decisions on a case by case basis of how we will navigate what's already been set up in front of us. Like I've said before, the decisions that policy, rule, or law making entities make is not some ultimate reflection of universal morality. In the end we each have to determine what that morality is for oursleves. We are NOT, in the grand scheme of things, a slave to the fleeting "group think" assumptions the policies represent. Those notions were different before and will change again, and I certainly don't think "right" and "wrong" are as fluid as that. There is no magical line seperating the rules we don't regret breaking and rules we do regret. You yourself, Jack, have spent not a small amount of time educating new thru-hikers on the best stealth sites in the Whites, many of which were not legal. So, to use your words, what is the difference? Where do you perceive that line to be? And why do you think you or anyone else is competent enough to be dictating the placement of that line to others? So in responce to everyone who will now say that I'm way off here because we as a species HAVE TO create these blanket assertions to keep us in line, I can only say this: We are all so desperate to cling to the fragile stability that societal structure gives us, and in the process we lose something very fundamental to what life could potentially be.

Jack Tarlin

01-16-2004, 18:57

Weathercarrot--

I respect you immensely, so I'll try and keep this reasonably brief and civil. Well, civil, anyway.

Your recent comments were in error.

I have NEVER publicly (i.e. on the Internet, on hostel bulletin boards, etc.) provided people with a listing of illicit or illegal places where they could camp, partly because I think it's wrong to encourage this sort of thing in such an open-ended fashion and partly because it's a good way to get these sites patrolled or closed. Do I know of lots of out-of-the-way places in the Whites where people can camp at previously-established out-of-the-way campsites, where they can stay for one evening, practice Leave-No-Trace principles, and then leave without doing any damage? Sure I do. I know lots of these places, and over the years, I've shared this knowledge with individuals on a one-to-one basis---I don't freely publish or dis-eminate this knowledge; I don't distribute it to the world at large, without knowing who is receiving this information and whether or not they'll use the information to camp and hike responsibly; I never encourage or educate people on how to stealth camp in wildernes or threatened/fragile areas (i.e. above treeline, etc.).

In short, there is a great difference with occasionally providing other hikers with information that can help them find safe, comfortable, environmentally inoffensive campsites, and in blasting information all over the Internet bragging about how one can best break the law. Also, Weathercarrot, please note, that I never try and defend my activity by claiming I'm a free spirit, that I "won't be caged", or that my actions are somehow a just and moral reaction to the depradations of the corporate world.

There's a very big difference between answering someone's query about alternative campsites, and in providing them with line-by-line instructional manuals on how to avoid user fees, trespass on private property, vault fences, sneak people into vehicles, tiptoe past sleeping watchmen, and so on.
I'm sorry you can't recognize the difference.

Let me provide you with one other example. The Methodist Church in Damascus, Virginia is a private entity that for years has let hikers stay overnight on their property, i.e. "The Place" hostel. Church officials and members have told me that on many occasions, guests ignore the "contribution box" and stay for free; in other words, this "User Fee" is freely ignored annually by scores of folks who somehow feel it doesn't apply to them, and that they're entitled to enjoy this privately owned facility for free. They feel that they're somehow above the requirements and rules that apply to every other hiker. How is this any different from hiding people in your van so you can avoid a user fee? How is this any different from going around a gate or following another paying vehicle through a collection place?

It isn't. One's length of time in the Trail community, one's accumulated mileage, the number of one's completed journeys, whether on foot or with cozy support vehicle------NONE of these things makes any individual hiker exempt from rules and regulations that apply to everyone else. This is especially true when improper behavior absolutely affects how private property owners and business owners may feel about the next hiker that comes down the line.

Warren, to his credit, founded the Appalachian Long-Distance Hiker Association---featured prominently on the ALDHA website (www.aldha.org) is information about ALDHA's long-time "Endangered Services Campaign" which came about precisely because ALDHA felt the need to addresss those members of the thru-hiking community that so assiduously dis-respected private property owners, businessmen, and others. ALDHA felt an eduacational campaign was in order as the problem of dis-respect and rule breaking was becoming widespread, and was worsening each year.

To quote from the ALDHA website:

"People have been getting burned, abused and downright ripped off by that small percentage of hikers who ruin it for others by their behavior.....Let's face it. Without public support there would be no Trail. Agreements with private landowners, arrangements with local, state, and federal government agencies.......will evaporate if the public continues to become disgusted with our worst behavior."

This long-overdue educational campaign got off the ground at the Pipestem, West Virginia hiker Gathering in 1995. I guess Warren missed this meeting somehow, or perhaps he doesn't keep up with the website of the organization that he never tires of telling us that he founded. Or, more likely, he attended this meeting but somehow felt that it didn't apply to him.

The fact of the matter, Weathercarrot, is that this problem has long been recognized by responsible members of the Long-Distance Hiking Community. It is a problem that is getting worse, and one that needs to kept in people's minds. Responsible hiking organizations, such as the ATC and ALDHA have recognized that this a problem and are trying their best to do something about it. And frankly, it doesn't help ALDHA's efforts in this regard when the founder and sometime leader of the organization publicly and repeatedly goes on record not only bragging about his flouting of rules and theft of services, and then compounds this by by publicly giving pointers on how others can do likewise. I also find it astonishing that people of stature and respect in the hiking community such as yourself don't see anything wrong with this. I find it remarkable that Warren, who both founded ALDHA, and has served on it's board for the better part of two decades, is sending us such a mixed message here. Is the Endangered Services Campaign unnecessary, I wonder? Is this problem exagerrated? Or does Mr. Doyle simply feel that
suggestions about proper behavior, and admonishments in the case of improper behavior simply don't apply to him.

Waltzing around gates, vaulting fences, looking over your shoulder for watchmen or rangers so you can best evade them, intentionally refusing to pay public land use fees----- engaging in this sort of behavior because an individual feels that he's above and removed from compliance is PRECISELY the sort of behavior that responsible folks in the hiking community are concerned about, and if Warren Doyle is repeatedly going to go on-line and brag about such actions, under the mistaken belief that it somehow makes him an admirable figure in an "outlaw" sort-of-way-----well, he's wrong, and it's not just me that's saying this. The very organization that Warren started agrees with me as well, and maybe it's long past over-due for more folks in that organization and elsewhere to point this out to him.

Hikerhead

01-16-2004, 20:03

This thread should be required reading for all future long distance hikers and section hikers as well.

The bottom line is, if it's private property, you should respect their rules and wishes.

What access is there now, may not be there tomorrow.

Sure, there's ways to get around most everything. But if the owners feel they're not being respected by people not paying, they have every right to shut down ALL access for hikers. And that means day hikers, section hikers, thru hikers, van assisted hikers... everyone.

And if they do that, who's going to be crying then. Yeah, you had your fun, but what about the one's that are coming behind you.

Pay your fee and be glad that you have access to the trail, or load up and do the whole section without assistance.

And no, I have not hiked that area so I don't have first hand knowledge of the situation. But private property is privage property no matter where it is.

With that said, I like to finish by saying thanks to all major propery owners and hostels for letting us hikers use your facilities and access the trail through your land. Please forgive the few that show no respect.

weathercarrot

01-16-2004, 23:26

The fact of the matter, Weathercarrot, is that this problem has long been recognized by responsible members of the Long-Distance Hiking Community. It is a problem that is getting worse, and one that needs to kept in people's minds. Responsible hiking organizations, such as the ATC and ALDHA have recognized that this a problem and are trying their best to do something about it. And frankly, it doesn't help ALDHA's efforts in this regard when the founder and sometime leader of the organization publicly and repeatedly goes on record not only bragging about his flouting of rules and theft of services, and then compounds this by by publicly giving pointers on how others can do likewise. I also find it astonishing that people of stature and respect in the hiking community such as yourself don't see anything wrong with this.

I didn't actually state whether I thought his actions were wrong or not. That would have been beside the point. I try to exist on this trail and in this world with a bare minimum of negative impact. From my own perspective, the minute that I impose my standards on someone else by condeming their actions with the expectation that they act as I do, I become deeply hypocritical; I am then doing the very thing I don't want others to do to me. Yes, you can fire all sorts of holes in that logic, but it is a consistency that I must go by. Everyone else can and will do it very differently, but I refuse to dictate to others how they should live or define reality, and I'm willing to navigate the complications that arise from that premise.

chief

01-17-2004, 16:11

what a bunch of crap!

Blue Jay

01-20-2004, 09:11

I'd like to say once again, the most important thing is to keep your own house clean. Not only pay the fees but if you can, pay a little more. The example Baltimore Jack used about The Place in Damascus is a very good one. I always pay double (What was it $5?) there because I know many do not pay and they are sooo good to us. I still mourn the loss of the Church Hostel in Manchester Vermont. I would go up there on weekends when I wasn't hiking and clean the place for an hour (we lost it anyway). There will always be people who abuse things, in the grand scheme of things, Warren is not one of them. No wonder the war mongers always win when the good guys beat each other up.

warren doyle

01-23-2004, 17:37

This thread continues to be a great read. Nice to see Weathercarrot enter the fray - I admire his principled lifestyle.
Clearing up some more litter:
1) After reviewing all my posts, I don't interpret any of their content as bragging - only stating facts that I am not ashamed of which, in turn, causes several people to react with frustration and anger.

"Who has hit the most home runs in MLB?" Post from H. Aaron "I have." Followed by post from from B. Ruth "You braggart, Hank!"

2) The circumventing of the gatehouse at Katahdin Iron Works was not 'tiptoeing' by the gatehouse as the gatekeeper slept, it was fording an outlet while the gatekeeper was awake. These three circumventions were by groups of friends, not during the circle expeditions. It seemed fair to pay $24 for three vans to travel 16 miles of dirt roads rather than paying $240 just to day hike on a trail that was public.

3) On Sept. 2, 1975, several Baxter State Park rangers were mobilized to prevent 19 people who walked all the way from Georgia to finish the last 5.2 miles of their AT trek because it was 55 degrees and raining, even after the BSP Supervisor told the expedition organizer a week earlier (in Monson) that he would do all he could to allow us to climb the mountain. What followed was some of the expedition members working within the system to change the rule at Katahdin that one couldn't climb the mountain when it was raining. When 1.5 years of research on backcountry regulations thoughout the USA, along with meetings with the Park administration and board (which took many hours and many miles of traveling - all unpaid), failed to change the policy, acts of civil disobedience came next which helped to change the policy allowing future thru-hikers to climb Katahdin in the rain if they wanted to.

4) The 'Endangered Services Campaign' sponsored by ALDHA started before 1995 during the term of Coordinator Frank Krakjovic (The Merry Slav). It was in reaction to the several hiker hostels closing up because of unruly hiker behavior mostly caused by the consumption of alcohol - the same behavior that will not be welcome at the Appalachian South Folklife Center and Concord College during the 2004 Gathering. I can honestly say that none of my behavior on the AT has ever contributed to diminish services to hikers.
On the other hand, the 1975 Expedition were the first hikers to use the Place in Damascus and I encouraged the church board to apply for certain grants that helped get it started. In 1981, when the trail was rerouted off Walker Mt I met and encouraged Jan and Levi Long to start a hostel for hikers in Bastian. It was a wonderful place but was closed down after repeated hiker behavior mainly caued by drunkenness.

5) The Appalachian Trail Circle Expeditions are about as grassroots as it gets.
The only person who is 'paid' is our support van driver - $3 a day for 127 days. People who know me know that I am one person who definitely isn't in it for the money. The $700-$800 expedition members pay to participant are to cover the costs of insurance/property tax/registration for the support van; gas and repairs of the support van; campground fees; access fees (read my lips) and other expedition related expenses. If the Sierra Club or AMC were to sponsor a supported thru-hike they probably would charge $20,000-25,000 a person.
Also, I have been a strong opponent for low membership fees during my 22 years with ALDHA.

5) Vaulting over fences? I don't think I ever did that. But waltzing around gates? Now there's an idea!

Jack Tarlin

01-23-2004, 18:11

Warren---

You're entirely missing the point here. (Gee, what a surprise). All along the Trail, there are goods and services that hikers can avail themselves of. No one is forced to avail themselves of these things; people decide for themselves what fees, goods, and services they require, they decide whether or not they require these services, and if they do, they pay for them. In a very few cases, there are user fees or service fees that apply to EVERYONE, regardless of the size of their group, the number of times they've been there before, their trail experience or mileage, etc. These are fees and regulations that apply to the public, PERIOD, and it is not for the individual hiker to decide for themselves, as you do, to only pay "what seems fair" to them, and shirking, avoiding, or skipping the rest. It's really remarkable that you refuse to recognize this point----where on earth do you get the idea that you're so special you need only pay for public services that "seem fair" while everyone else takes for granted that these fees and service charges apply to everyone?

You repeatedly refer to posts you don't like as "litter"; I've lost track of how many times you've used this phrase; you either have a limited vocabularly or you think this sort of wordplay is amusing. You want to talk litter or trash, Warren? How's this: Repeatedly going on public Internet sites and bragging about how rules don't apply to you, that you'll go where and and do whatever you damned please, without regard to how others view this behavior, is self-centered, thoughtless, and arrogant, and to try to justify it, as you do, by telling us that you're entitled to decide what rules are "fair" and which ones aren't---well, THIS is worse than litter. It's pure unadulterated bull****, and if you think this viewpoint of your antics is only held by a few folks you think are "angry or frustrated," well, you're wrong. "Digusted" would be a better word----disgusted that you do this, disgusted that you boast of it, disgusted that you encourage others to do likewise, and disgusted that you insist that you're doing nothing wrong. Get over yourself. These fees and regulations apply to everyone; I wish you'd have the maturity and self-respect to acknowledge this, but I'm not exactly holding my breath waiting for you to admit you're wrong.

Lone Wolf

01-23-2004, 18:17

All this cuz you can't drink at ALDHA W.V. Give it a rest. You and the other few angry ones are being childish.

smokymtnsteve

01-23-2004, 19:17

All this cuz you can't drink at ALDHA W.V. Give it a rest. You and the other few angry ones are being childish.

ATMAN?????????

Lone Wolf

01-23-2004, 19:45

What are you, a detective?

smokymtnsteve

01-23-2004, 20:23

:D :jump :datz

TJ aka Teej

01-23-2004, 21:13

The Old Fhart

01-24-2004, 16:12

While this discussion was strayed from the original topic onto how Warren Doyle can break any law or regulation he doesn’t like, I feel it is important that everyone reading this should consider how the blatantly unethical and illegal behavior of this one person affects us all. His continual bragging about breaking and entering, theft of services, bridge jumping, and disregard of the regulations of Baxter State Park, determines how the people reading these posts and property owners next to the trail view us as hikers. ALDHA’s “Endangered Services Campaign” stresses we should be good stewards and neighbors but ALDHA’s founder has made it clear that he believes the rules apply to everyone but him. I ask you to read what the various posters have said and I think you will find, as most did, that this aberrant self-serving behavior cannot continue. Please read the following and decide for yourself.
(Warren’s quotes are in bold italic)
1) After reviewing all my posts, I don't interpret any of their content as bragging - only stating facts that I am not ashamed of which, in turn, causes several people to react with frustration and anger.
"Who has hit the most home runs in MLB?" Post from H. Aaron "I have."
Followed by post from B. Ruth "You braggart, Hank!"
Comparing yourself to Hank is a poor analogy. Hank Aaron was a principled (and humble) man who played by the rules, stood up for his beliefs, and is admired by all. You should compare yourself to Pete Rose who had talent but betrayed the trust the fans placed in him and broke the law for his own selfish interests by betting on sports. One difference between Pete and you is he denied his crimes for years while you gleefully proclaim your criminal behavior every chance you get. You wallow in letting others know what you have done and it shouldn’t come as any surprise that those of us who love the trail find you behavior abhorrent.

(1-16-04)
I respect individual's private property.
I don't believe in paying for services that I don't use.
(1-14-04)
The gate at Katahdin Iron Works
Strategy #1 - arrive late night/early morning (from 11pm-3am); sleep in car until awoken by the first logging truck passing by before dawn; after waiting for the driver to unlock the gate and drive away you do the same while the gatekeeper sleeps in his house. The truck driver is going to get logs for $; the gatekeeper has a good sleep; and I get my right to free access to the trail. It's a win-win-win situation.
Strategy #2 - If you are in three van loads of thirty people, select the three most law-abiding occupants (which is usually possible) and everyone chip in $1 each to their respective driver. Pull over right before you get to the gatehouse (to the right), 27 people get out and follow a logging road 300 yards and then ford the outlet to the pond (a great team-builder) while the three drivers pay at the gatehouse for three people and then they drive a short distance to pick you all up 200 yards down the road.
(1-23-04)
2)The circumventing of the gatehouse at Katahdin Iron Works was not 'tiptoeing' by the gatehouse as the gatekeeper slept, it was fording an outlet while the gatekeeper was awake. These three circumventions were by groups of friends, not during the circle expeditions. It seemed fair to pay $24 for three vans to travel 16 miles of dirt roads rather than paying $240 just to day hike on a trail that was public.
How can you say that you respect a person’s property yet trespass on that same property and cheat the owners out of their set fee to use that property? Whether you tiptoe around, hide in the van, or ford an outlet to a pond, it is still theft of services and you describe this as “a great team-builder”? You admit that you “saved” (read as stole) over $200 on each of three occasions yet state these were not your organized hikes. I find it somewhat hard to believe that on 3 different occasions you traveled up to Maine with 3 van-loads of “friends” for a day trip into KIW and these weren’t your “Circle of Deception” hikes. Does that mean that you believe in paying sometimes (on circle hikes) but not others? It doesn’t really matter because you admit to the crime, it’s the details that you want to argue about now. It’s just that your stories are constantly changing and we’re not sure which lie to believe. In one post you state you sneak around while the gatekeeper sleeps and in the next breath you say you didn’t do that. At least read your old post and try to get your stories straight. But the bottom line is that this theft by deception is unnecessary. No one is denying you access to the A.T.. Just because you’re too lazy to carry enough supplies to get from Monson to Abol Bridge like other hikers doesn’t mean the people who went to great expense to build those access roads should be cheated by you for your convenience. If you choose to use their access roads, that’s your choice. If you don’t like the fee they charge, carry your own stuff and don’t use their services but don’t try to paint your criminal actions as a moral imperative. Honorable people don’t spend their time figuring ways to screw others and then brag about it..

2) On Sept. 2, 1975, several Baxter State Park rangers were mobilized to prevent 19 people who walked all the way from Georgia to finish the last 5.2 miles of their AT trek because it was 55 degrees and raining, even after the BSP Supervisor told the expedition organizer a week earlier (in Monson) that he would do all he could to allow us to climb the mountain. What followed was some of the expedition members working within the system to change the rule at Katahdin that one couldn't climb the mountain when it was raining. When 1.5 years of research on backcountry regulations thoughout the USA, along with meetings with the Park administration and board (which took many hours and many miles of traveling - all unpaid), failed to change the policy, acts of civil disobedience came next which helped to change the policy allowing future thru-hikers to climb Katahdin in the rain if they wanted to.
I can use your point 2), above to fertilize my garden. Anyone who has hiked the trail knows that when you leave Monson there is no one who can guarantee that the weather conditions will be on Katahdin a week from then and only a fool would ask for, or expect, such a guarantee. The day classification is determined in the morning by the ranger at Chimney Pond for that day only. There is no long range forecasting and never has been. You must make this garbage up as you type because some of this is quite simply unbelievable. I have Climbed all the major peaks in Baxter State Park both summer and winter legally as well as working on the summit of Mount Washington for four winters so I know something about adverse weather. Search and rescue parties are put at high risk going after clowns like you who break the rules. The rangers were not preventing you from climbing Katahdin, only denying you access on a day when they determined, by their mandate at the time, that it was unsafe. In 1986 there was a hiker named “The Traveler” who went in to Baxter in the winter illegally and the rangers went in and confiscated his gear and had him thrown in jail. On his thru-hike in 1987 (and later) he went on to cheat Keith Shaw and others up and down the trail, he could be a clone of yours. If you want to enter Baxter, you do it a guest, and have to abide by their rules. I can understand why the rangers weren’t willing to let some arrogant know-it-all with a large group go up Katahdin in bad weather.

I don't feel that I should have to pay to walk the Appalachian Trail, or to gain access to it.

5) The Appalachian Trail Circle Expeditions are about as grassroots as it gets.
The only person who is 'paid' is our support van driver - $3 a day for 127 days. People who know me know that I am one person who definitely isn't in it for the money. The $700-$800 expedition members pay to participant are to cover the costs of insurance/property tax/registration for the support van; gas and repairs of the support van; campground fees; access fees (read my lips) and other expedition related expenses. If the Sierra Club or AMC were to sponsor a supported thru-hike they probably would charge $20,000-25,000 a person.
Also, I have been a strong opponent for low membership fees during my 22 years with ALDHA.(try proponent Warren)
How does your taking money from others to allow them access to the trail differ from someone else who went to great expense to create and maintain roads charging to defray their costs? Whether they are making money or not, or how much they are charging, is immaterial. It is their right and you don’t have to use their services. Actually they are not charging you to access the A.T.. Whether you go in 16 miles or 2 miles you are being charged for admission to their land and use of their roads. They could care less if you went to the A.T. or not but if they catch you and your troup of hikers cheating them, all hikers could be banned from their roads. If you drive to Maine on the interstates you have to pay tolls that are set by the various state’s turnpike authority. You are not able to bargain with them because you think the toll is too high. If you run a tollbooth without paying you will be arrested and charged. Your defense that the toll was too high and because you are Warren Doyle accessing the A.T. you shouldn’t have to pay will be laughed at. Your saying: “I can honestly say that none of my behavior on the AT has ever contributed to diminish services to hikers.” Only means you haven’t been caught, not that your behavior doesn’t threaten services. Just because you claim you aren’t making money on your circle hikes doesn’t belie the fact that you are charging people to access the A.T. You are doing exactly what you demonize them for doing.

Sorry this post has run on so long but I believe that all thru-hikers, section hikers, and casual trail users should speak out about Warren’s hypocritical illegal behavior. His actions endanger everyone’s ability to enjoy the trail. I’m not saying all other hikers are perfect, far from it. It is just that Warren goes out of his way to endanger other hikers and threatens every service we hold dear. I am not demonizing Warren, he does a great job of doing that without any help from others. A true leader leads by positive examples and I find his examples to be all negative and destructive. Sociopathic behavior like his should not be tolerated.

chomp

01-24-2004, 17:28

3) On Sept. 2, 1975, several Baxter State Park rangers were mobilized to prevent 19 people who walked all the way from Georgia to finish the last 5.2 miles of their AT trek because it was 55 degrees and raining, even after the BSP Supervisor told the expedition organizer a week earlier (in Monson) that he would do all he could to allow us to climb the mountain. What followed was some of the expedition members working within the system to change the rule at Katahdin that one couldn't climb the mountain when it was raining. When 1.5 years of research on backcountry regulations thoughout the USA, along with meetings with the Park administration and board (which took many hours and many miles of traveling - all unpaid), failed to change the policy, acts of civil disobedience came next which helped to change the policy allowing future thru-hikers to climb Katahdin in the rain if they wanted to.

...

I can honestly say that none of my behavior on the AT has ever contributed to diminish services to hikers.
Well, I have said quite a bit on this issue, but I do want to point out exactly how 100% wrong you are on this, Warren. A few years ago, there was a big issue up in Baxter SP because of behavior just like this. I did some digging and found this story from 2000:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010422105519/www.bangornews.com/cgi-bin/article.cfm?storynumber=22423

This sounds right on the money, what do you think, Warren?

“AT hikers in particular are not taking class 4 days seriously,” said Caverly. “In fact, they are boasting and laughing about the fact that they can climb regardless of the class day and the park will do nothing about it.”
And here are the results:

Because of the rising number of hikers ignoring the safety rules, park rangers will no longer issue friendly warnings to violators, Caverly said. There will be harsh consequences, such as eviction from the park.
Not to mention, not only are you damaging services by climbing Katahdin on a class IV day, Warren, but in this case you are damaging the trail as well:

Caverly said some hikers are failing to recognize the dangers and negative impacts to the park’s resources. “When class 4 days are ignored, lives and safety are put at risk. This is a serious life-and-death threat. Thawing and freezing causes the alpine zones and the trail surfaces to be very vulnerable to foot traffic. Our soils and vegetation are impacted by inappropriate trampling of alpine trails during this time of rapid freezing and thawing,” he said.
I could go on and on, but I think that Old Fhart did enough of that. Needless to say, I agree with just about everything he said. Especially in relation to the private property issue. The fee is NOT to hike the AT or to access the AT (there are plenty of places to do both) it is to use their land. If you dont like the rules, feel free to buy the land yourself.

In closing, I have this to say. Warren - you might do a lot of good for the trail, but your actions described on this thread have done quite a bit of harm to the AT as well. It is baffling to me that you don't see it, that you can't understand that breaking the law, violating the rules of a State Park or cheating a landowner out of their rights has a negitive effect on the trail and the services provided.

Actually, I don't know why I am addressing you, since I know that somehow you will continue to justify your own actions as benign while chastizing those who like to drink as Destroyers of the Trail. I suppose since there IS a problem with depleting services on the trail, and since none of it can possibly be due to your egotistical and self-serving actions that you have to blame it on something. Might as well be the drinkers, they is an easy target.

So to the rest of the AT community: the only way that we can hope to clean up some of the behavior problems on the AT, alcohol related and not, is to lead by example. Everyone of us makes mistakes, and does things that we are not proud of. For me, drinking at the 2002 Gathering in Pipestem was one of them. I violated the wishes of private landowners who graciously donate their facility to ALDHA.

There were several of us that did, and many of us apologized.. in this forum in fact... and swore not to do something this inconsiderate in the future. We promised that if we did attend the 2004 installment to find an alternate place to enjoy the Gathering and beer, in a place that would not threaten the use of the Folklife center. I am not perfect, and I'd never claim to be.

But we did not post here bragging about skirting the rules at the Center. We did not go on a diatribe about how silly it is for those land owners to ban beer.. something that is legal to buy and enjoy in the company of good friends. We did not post about how others who wanted to drink at the center could just put their been in a paper bag and pour it into a Nalgine bottle. Afterall that is what we did and no one said a word to us! What we did do was admit that we did something wrong and promised not to repeat the mistake in the future.

If only the AT "leaders" had the same kind of initative, we might actually be able to make some headway on this "Endangered Services" campaign.

steve hiker

01-25-2004, 01:54

here dude, have summa this (passing the bong)

Lone Wolf

01-25-2004, 13:06

The drama queens have spoken. :cool:

chomp

01-25-2004, 18:13

The drama queens have spoken. :cool:
Once again, the deep thoughts of Lone Wolf. Talk about "Sound and fury, signifying nothing." Or contributing nothing.. take your pick.

Lone Wolf

01-25-2004, 18:18

Don't you have a wittle winter warmer to attend honey?

smokymtnsteve

01-25-2004, 18:20

like my friend Kermit Pratt used to say..

enough is enough..dammit

funkyfreddy

01-26-2004, 03:15

:confused: Sorry, I've heard some of your names on the trail over the years and know some of you are considered "AT big shots", but this thread has swerved far off it's topic. Anyone trying to learn about the AMC's land purchases now has to wade through page after page of thruhikers bashing each other. Maybe you guys could and should start a new thread entitled "Opinions on Warren Doyle" or something, then all of you could continue your arguments while those of us looking for facts and info on the AMC's plans in Maine might have a chance to restore a rational discussion......

Seriously, can get back on topic and stop the personal "tit for tat"?

screwysquirrel

01-27-2004, 03:16

Yeah, I got on to this thread to find out what the big land deal was and it turned into this untelevised soap opera "As the stomach churns". Atroll, you need to get a thread started here about who did what and when they did it (with documention please, I have very detailed diaries). This is really a Joke! I really enjoy this site. It's very enlighting to all the new people who want to learn and pickup stuff about the AT, then for them to read this thread and learn about how the TRAIL LEGENDS behave on their own hikes and how they respect the way others hike. This is very good. Atroll, you need to change the name and call this the National Hikers Enquirer :bse

Blue Jay

01-27-2004, 08:48

Atroll, you need to change the name and call this the National Hikers Enquirer :bse

Mr. Squirrel you are exactly correct and in fact you clearly represent Michael Jackson's Alien Baby. You clearly prefer boring threads, others do not.

screwysquirrel

01-28-2004, 00:21

Mr. Squirrel you are exactly correct and in fact you clearly represent Michael Jackson's Alien Baby. You clearly prefer boring threads, others do not.
I thought that was your real name! And I do not represent you. :banana :clap

warren doyle

01-28-2004, 17:44

More refuse (last word used out of sensitivity to Jack Tarlin) to pick up:

1)TJ,
As to what happened on 9/2/1975 and why it happened, obviously "to the best of my knowledge, this is untrue" means your knowledge on this isn't too good. I was there, along with eighteen others, you weren't.

2) The Old Fhart,
You turned my Hank Aaron/Babe Ruth analogy into Hank Aaron/Pete Rose? Obviously you didn't get the point. At that is, one who objectively states a true fact shouldn't be labeled a braggart except of course by those people who are obviously suffering from, to paraphrase Freud, 'mileage envy'.
Your "I find it hard to believe...." is in the same category as TJ's 'best knowledge'. The KIW incident that I described did happen with three van loads of 'friends' on one occasion; the other two occasions had two-van and one-van load of friends respectively. None ever occurred during the Circle Expeditions simply because we were all walking the trail and not even near the gatehouse. The support van driver always paid the fee for access as per the regulation. My stories are not constantly changing, only in your mind.

3) Chomp
"Destroyer of the Trail" ? - I think you said that, not I.

From your friendly, bragging, Bozo of a clown trail destroyer,
Warren

PS: I agree with the previous posts that we have gotten off the original thread. I guess I will start a thread on rules and regulations and another on user fees. They should be both thought-provoking.

chomp

01-28-2004, 19:51

3) Chomp
"Destroyer of the Trail" ? - I think you said that, not I.

First, I did not put "Destroyers of the Trail" in quotes, so I was not attributing that as a direct quote to you. That was more of a paraphrase. Second, I find your lack of response to the issues that I raised both frustrating and flattering. Frustrating in the fact that you don't actually answer a tough question or a challenge to your trail philosophy. Flattering in that, apparently I can either make some fantastic arguements, or I am right.

As for getting off topic as some people complained, well all I have to say is that it happens. It happens all the time, and when I feel it is important, I really don't care if a thread gets off topic. In this case, when a well known person deeply involved in the trail starts publicly flaunting the fact that he has trespassed and gives others specific directions on how to do the same... well I see that as pretty important. To not respond to that is the same as to condone... Kind of like what Warren does to my arguments.

warren doyle

01-28-2004, 20:22

Chomp,
Your comparison of the 2000 statement by Buz Caverly to what happened on 9/2/75 is flawed so does not need more of a response from me than this.
So you can continue to be frustrated rather than flattered; however, it's your choice.

Jack Tarlin

01-28-2004, 20:58

Warren---

There's nothing flawed about what Chomp is saying here. I've been in Baxter as a long-distance hiker every year but one since 1995, and I'm here to tell you that there is absolutely a growing problem with thru-hikers breaking Park rules and regulations; ignoring or disrespecting Park employees; and deciding for themselves which long-standing rules and governing edicts apply to them and which can be happily ignored. This problem gets worse and worse each year, and has resulted in a strained and sometimes poisoned atmosphere between hikers and Park employees, all because of the arrogant behavior of a small number of hikers. It is thru-hiker mis-behavior, and NOT overly restrictive Park officialdom have been responsible for the more complicated rules that finishing thru-hikers now have to deal with.

Buzz Caverly has made the administration, maintenance, and care of Baxter State Park his life's work, and he's done an extraordinary job of it. Growing acts of mis-behavior b
y more and more thru-hikers each year has not made his job, or that of his wonderful employees, any easier. More and more thru-hikers each year arrive at the Park with the attitude that they can do what they wish, go where they wish, camp where they wish, pay what they wish, and that rules and relulations that apply to the public at large don't apply to them because they're somehow "special."

Gee, I can't imagine where these hikers got the idea that they were entitled to do whatever the hell they wished at Baxter and elsewhere. Could it possibly be connected to respected folks in the Trail community advocating and defending this sort of "Screw you! I'm special!" behavior? You better believe there's a connection. There's nothing flawed or wrong about what Chomp or others are saying----what IS flawed and wrong is to pretend that there's nothing improper about outrageous behavior that absolutely impacts how other hikers are treated and received.

Warren is correct when he tells us that there are places where once previously amicable relations between hikers and officials has dramatically changed over the years. What he neglects to tell us is that people like him are principally responsible for this. What he further neglects to do is acknowlede that he's done anything wrong. I once again advise him to check out the section of the website (www.aldha.org) at ALDHA, (the organization that he founded and has helped run) that consists of urging hikers NOT to endanger Trail services, businesses, and facilities by engaging in behavior that is disrespectful, antagonistic, or simply criminal. I recently quoted this page for Warren; he either never read it, or chose to ignore it.
Maybe he should take a break from Whiteblaze, and check out the site of the hiker organization that he started.

smokymtnsteve

01-28-2004, 21:03

warren doyle

01-28-2004, 21:18

Jack,
You know little, if anything, of what happened at Baxter State Park on 9/2/75 yet you still choose to equate it with the problems confronting Baxter State Park in the late 1990's?
Also, the implication that people like me have been responsible for the closing down of hiker services is both untrue and mean-spirited (typical). The endangered services campaign started by ALDHA was in response to low-cost, non-commercial hostels being shut down due to hiker behavior mostly centered around alcohol abuse. You would be hard-pressed to find any of that sort of behavior from me, and you know it.
Also if you check my posts on this website, you will find nothing about my advocating future hikers to break the existing rules and regulations in Baxter State Park.
By the way, I like both websites (i.e., WhiteBlaze and ALDHA) so I won't take your parting advice.

TJ aka Teej

01-28-2004, 22:32

As to what happened on 9/2/1975 and why it happened, obviously "to the best of my knowledge, this is untrue" means your knowledge on this isn't too good. I was there, along with eighteen others, you weren't.
Like a fart at a funeral, Warren is hard to ignore.

What you posted is not the truth. There was no such rule. Your story is, politely put, untrue.

"the rule at Katahdin that one couldn't climb the mountain when it was raining. When 1.5 years of research on backcountry regulations thoughout the USA, along with meetings with the Park administration and board (which took many hours and many miles of traveling - all unpaid), failed to change the policy, acts of civil disobedience came next which helped to change the policy allowing future thru-hikers to climb Katahdin in the rain if they wanted to."

chomp

01-28-2004, 23:32

2) The circumventing of the gatehouse at Katahdin Iron Works was not 'tiptoeing' by the gatehouse as the gatekeeper slept, it was fording an outlet while the gatekeeper was awake. These three circumventions were by groups of friends, not during the circle expeditions. It seemed fair to pay $24 for three vans to travel 16 miles of dirt roads rather than paying $240 just to day hike on a trail that was public.

The implication that people like me have been responsible for the closing down of hiker services is both untrue and mean-spirited

The endangered services campaign started by ALDHA was in response to low-cost, non-commercial hostels being shut down due to hiker behavior mostly centered around alcohol abuse.

While I am loathe to carry out this thread any longer, but I think that anyone who is still following this thread, besides those involved, is actually interested in an answer to what the big deal is. I'm sure Warren will dismiss this argument as he has my others with a "you're statement is flawed" or whatever, but I am a glutton for punishment, and I feel that all people can be saved from themselves...

So yes, I grant the fact that the Endangered Services Campaign was started in response to alcohol abuse at hostels. However, is alcohol the problem? I say no. I say the bigger problem (as Jack has pointed out) is that a good number of hikers feel that they can do whatever they want and act however they want. They feel entitled rather than privledged and feel like they can behave however they want.

Predictably, excessive drinking is one of the worst manifastations of this attitude, again, I grant this. But it is one of many. Skipping out on bills, stealing food and supplies, not leaving donations, not cleaning up after yourself... there are many many ways that services and relationships can be damaged. I'm really glad you brought up the alcohol issue again, Warren, because it clearly illustriates your singlemindness on this issue. You seem to think that if all the drinking went away, then so would the problems. Rather, I think that the problems start with the attitudes, and the disrespectful abuse of alcohol follows.

Which brings me back to this...

... seemed fair to pay $24 for three vans to travel 16 miles of dirt roads rather than paying $240 just to day hike on a trail that was public.

You did what YOU wanted to do, Warren. Nevermind that the landowners policy for travel on his road, on his property demanded $240. You decided.. for YOURSELF.. that this was unfair. To me, this is no different than bringing in a six pack to The Place. You know the rules, they are well posted, but you choose to ignore them. You don't think that they are fair, so you do what YOU deem to be fair. Just as you decide for yourself that $24 is a fine payment, someone at The Place decided that 2 or 3 beers is OK, as they are not getting drunk. Both actions are disrespectful, and both are violations of private landowners wishes.

And let me ask you this - how well do you think you would have been received if you had been caught sneaking in all those people? What do you think that would have done to the relationship between AT Hikers and the landowners in that section of trail? Do you think it would have helped, or hurt?

I claim that it is EXACTLY this kind of attitude that is endangering trail services. You actions and attitudes are no different that the people that you are trying to stop, Warren. The only difference is that yours don't involve drinking. And whether or not YOU have DIRECTLY harmed services you the trail is pretty irrevelant. By your actions and by your words, you are condoning this attitude. Make no mistake, with the actions that you have described in this thread, you are part of the problem, at least indirectly.

The Old Fhart

01-29-2004, 01:10

Geez, Warren, I wish you would confine your verbal diarrhea to one thread but now you have started two more to help satisfy your self-adulation need. However I would like to quickly reply to one of your vindictives where you state: (Warren’s quotes in bold italics)
2) The Old Fhart,
You turned my Hank Aaron/Babe Ruth analogy into Hank Aaron/Pete Rose? Obviously you didn't get the point. At that is, one who objectively states a true fact shouldn't be labeled a braggart except of course by those people who are obviously suffering from, to paraphrase Freud, 'mileage envy'.

I’m not sure how I can state this in simple enough terms so that you will understand it but try to follow: I don’t care how many time you hiked the trail, that has nothing to do with the discussion, except in your mind. The reason you should be compared to Pete Rose instead of Hank Aaron is you have chosen to cheat, lie, and betray the people who used to think you were a leader. Your amoral behavior is what the problem is, not the miles. A braggart, would be, for example, someone who goes out of his way to tell others how he is so special that he can break any law or rule because he is above the law and possesses the absolute truth. We can accept the miles, not the BS.

The KIW incident that I described did happen with three van loads of 'friends' on one occasion; the other two occasions had two-van and one-van load of friends respectively. None ever occurred during the Circle Expeditions simply because we were all walking the trail and not even near the gatehouse. The support van driver always paid the fee for access as per the regulation. My stories are not constantly changing, only in your mind.
What is it about my saying that it doesn’t matter whether you were with friends or followers when you broke the law, it is still illegal, that you don’t understand? Read my lips-You broke the law. I don’t care if you were with just Pete Rose or the entire Mormon Tabernacle Choir, you broke the law. And why is it in this latest iteration of your tales that you now state that on your “Circle of Deception” hikes that the support van driver who is your employee, friend, representative, whatever, always paid the fee for access as per the regulation. You admit that others representing you should pay yet you shouldn’t have to? That is hypocritical. If you were morally opposed to the fee you would stand up at the gate and proudly state your so-called belief. Instead you use the coward’s way and sneak around the gate then brag about it later. You can’t justify it by saying that it is ok to cheat them because they are a soulless corporation and not an individual because you, as a so-called professor, work for another type of soulless corporation. Do you screw the school the same way you screw the people who help support the trail?

Chomps reference to the articles about Baxter’s stand on having to enforce the rules because of hiker arrogance is right on target. It is your pattern of illegal and unethical behavior spread over 29 years that helps to threaten the way others view us all as thru-hikers. Your disregard for the safety of others and your amoral behavior is also against the intent and spirit of ALDHA’s Endangered Services Campaign. It is getting to the point that in all of your posts you go down the growing list of names of hikers who point out your errors and you try to make some cute remark or dismiss them without answering any of their questions. A normal person who notices that everyone is against them might see the light and realize what they are doing is wrong. The people who don’t see this are generally institutionalized. My hope is that your friend Freud will help you. I’m sure he would have some interesting comments on your statement: “When I was a child, I never felt it was fair that everyone had to stay inside for recess because of the actions of a few (and I still don't).”
I'm willing to bet that the "few" who spoiled it for all the rest, was you.

Lone Wolf

01-29-2004, 07:28

The fab 4 Doyle haters continue the same old rant. Long flowing diatribes. Will it end or go on and on and on...

warren doyle

01-29-2004, 10:03

Lone Wolf,
Short and well said.
Warren

Jack Tarlin

01-29-2004, 16:32

Oh for heaven's sake, Wolf, this has very little to do with hating Warren or anyone else. I'd be saying the same thing if ANYONE was advocating what he is.

One last time Wolf---I've asked this at least 3 times and have never once gotten a response: You live in a Trail town. You have friends and neighbors who offer services that hikers can voluntarily make use of. In some cases, it's a business, restaurant, outfitter, etc. In other cases, it's a hiker hostel, a church-run hiker sanctuary, a shuttle service. How would YOU feel, Wolf, if you saw a hiker visit one of these services, make full use of these services and facilities, benefit from these services, and then screw these folks by dashing outta town and not paying for them? Would you stand by and let this happen if you witnessed it? Also, would you approve of individual hikers deciding how much they shoud pay for these things, or what percentage they should pay? Are hikers entitled to make the decisions on how much of their bills they're responsible for?

If you saw your friends being screwed, cheated, and robbed, Wolf, I don't think you'd be so blase about this, but maybe I'm wrong. I've asked you 3 times how you'd feel about hikers with attitudes refusing to pay for goods and services in your town, and how you'd feel if you witnessed this sort of behavior to people you knew. So far you haven't answered. I sure hope this doesn't mean you think this sort of behavior is OK.....in fact, I KNOW you wouldn't feel this way if you saw it in Damascus. You wanna defend Warren for whatever incomprehensible reason? Well, that's fine and dandy, but I'm pretty sure if you witnessed this sort of behavior towards people you knew and cared for, you'd be the first person to put an end to it. But it'd sure be nice to hear you admit it.

Lone Wolf

01-29-2004, 16:57

Of course the behavior in towns that you describe is totally unacceptable and I've busted hikers for it too. So yeah, that kinda s**t bothers me. To my knowledge, Warren has never stolen, got drunk at a hostel, walked out on his motel/hostel fee, kept a dog illegally in a motel/hostel, walked out on a restaurant tab or any of the other ***ed up things that hikers do to damage the 'hiker community'. Defending Warren? Naw. Bridge jumping, hiking a mountain against rangers wishes, and circumventing a gate 10 miles from the AT are minor, in my opinion, compared to the ongoing problems happening NOW on the AT. Warren did this stuff years ago. I wouldn't sneak around a gate but he did and got away with it. The only 'people' that got screwed out of $ is a multi-million dollar timber company not a mom and pop operation. I'm not condoning it but it is what it is. Mountains and molehills.

smokymtnsteve

01-29-2004, 17:09

I'm for Law and order..so let me say right here

I HAVE NEVER CAMPED ILLEGALLY AT MT. CAMMERER FIRE LOOK OUT.

and I suggest that nobody else does,even though I think uncle wayne thought about it one time.

:dance

MOWGLI

01-29-2004, 17:09

I am neither defending nor criticizing Warren Doyle's hiking philosophy or his views on paying for accessing the AT in Maine. His opinions differ greatly from mine.

I just want to point out, that as I read it, nowhere does he advocate that others on Whiteblaze do as he does. In fact, concerning avoiding the gate fees in Maine, he provided the information that caused this uproar, in response to a direct question posed by Weary.

weary

01-29-2004, 21:51

In fact, concerning avoiding the gate fees in Maine, he provided the information that caused this uproar, in response to a direct question posed by Weary.

And I asked the question only because a couple of days earlier I had spent a long morning during which North Maine Woods, the contractor for the KI gates, had explained to AMC what the gate program does, how it works, why it exists and how it is from time to time abused.

According to North Maine Woods, the weakness of the system occurs when logging creates alternative routes that permit the gates to be bypassed. I had spent many days, every year for three decades in that area as fisherman, maintainer, hiker and for seven years overseer of trails in the area for MATC.

I couldn't think of a logging operation that allowed a bypass of the KIW gates and was curious if Warren had discovered a bypass I didn't know about.

Sorry about that. I'll be more careful about my questions in the future.

Weary

weary

01-29-2004, 22:28

To bring this debate back to a semblance of pertinence to the original report, let me say that I believe funds to buy an easement on the 37,000 acres of new AMC lands has been approved by the Land For Maine's Future Board.

At least 37,000 acres involving AMC and the Department of Conservation were among the $12 million approved this week for the acquisition or partial acquisition of 93,000 acres state wide. A press release says the money approved exhausts the $50 million bond issue approved by Maine voters several years ago.

A new bond has been proposed by the governor and faces approval at this session of the Legislature, probably to be voted next fall.

I still don't know the details of the easement purchase, but easements acquired under the Land For Maine's Future Program guarantee public pedestrian access, and hunting and fishing.

The devil is in the details, but I think this is probably a good move, and should answer some of the worries that have been posed in this forum.

Weary

TJ aka Teej

01-29-2004, 22:49

... I believe funds to buy an easement on the 37,000 acres of new AMC lands has been approved by the Land For Maine's Future Board.

At least 37,000 acres involving AMC and the Department of Conservation were among the $12 million approved this week for the acquisition or partial acquisition of 93,000 acres state wide.
Weary, what exactly is the Land For Maine's Future Board?
It looks like the AMC is getting money from the State to pay for what they're buying, that can't be right - can it?

newspaper story, with lists of all the other lands involved:
http://www.pressherald.com/news/state/040128land.shtml

thanks,

TJ aka Teej

01-29-2004, 23:03

On Sept. 2, 1975, several Baxter State Park rangers were mobilized to prevent 19 people who walked all the way from Georgia to finish the last 5.2 miles of their AT trek because it was 55 degrees and raining,
On Sept 2, 1975 Millinocket had a high of 72F, a low of 44F with 0.1 inches of precipitation.

TJ aka Teej

01-29-2004, 23:38

I've been in Baxter as a long-distance hiker every year but one since 1995, and I'm here to tell you that there is absolutely a growing problem with thru-hikers breaking Park rules and regulations; ignoring or disrespecting Park employees; and deciding for themselves which long-standing rules and governing edicts apply to them and which can be happily ignored. This problem gets worse and worse each year, and has resulted in a strained and sometimes poisoned atmosphere between hikers and Park employees, all because of the arrogant behavior of a small number of hikers. It is thru-hiker mis-behavior, and NOT overly restrictive Park officialdom have been responsible for the more complicated rules that finishing thru-hikers now have to deal with.
Highlighted by the "blizzard incident", thru-hiker behavior in the recent past has been horrid. Not many hikers know that after the Rangers had rescued dozens of stranded campers and hikers from all over the Park Buzz took *positive* actions toward the thruhikers who had waited outside the Park. Rangers arranged rides into town and back, shuttled hikers to the AT trailhead from Abol Bridge, and arranged to have staff meet hikers coming out of the 100 mile to help them finish thier hikes. They even whipped up info signs and posted them for the hikers they might miss. Since then further bad behavior by thruhikers has lead to the removal of the Daicy Pond lean-tos and locking of the Library, the re-route of the AT past Daicy Pond's campground, the hiring of a trailrunner to keep tabs on thruhikers coming into the Park, and the construction of 'The Birches' long distance hiker's lean-tos well away from other campers. The Ranger at Katahdin Stream has pulled bag after bag of garbarge out of that campsite ever since. He's a wicked nice guy too. You know those daypacks on the Ranger's porch thruhikers use when they summit? He purchased most of those himself.
What's in the wings at Baxter? Expect a reroute soon of the entire AT to the Blueberry Ledges trail that runs from the kiosk to the Birches. No more river walk, no more falls, no more moose ponds. Don't be too surprised to see reservations *required* to be made in advance from Monson in the near future.

TJ aka Teej

02-01-2004, 10:53

On Sept 2, 1975 Millinocket had a high of 72F, a low of 44F with 0.1 inches of precipitation.
I was asked how I know how much it rained on the day Doyle claimed he was stopped from climbing Katahdin because of his claim of a rule against climbing Katahdin in the rain.

Source: Dr Greg Zielinski, Research Professor of Climatology and Maine State Climatologist, Climate Change Institute, University of Maine at Orono.

The Old Fhart

02-01-2004, 11:12

As this thread is still discussing whether rogue hikers breaking rules and regulations affects fellow hikers and the way our trail neighbors view us, I posting this response here as well as in the "Rules and Regulations" thread.

"Let’s face it. Without public support there would be no trail. Agreements with private landowners, arrangements with local, state and federal government agencies, compacts with the public over the stewardship role we all play when we lace up those boots . . . all of that will evaporate if the public continues to become disgusted with our worst behavior.
The trail will wither and vanish without public backing. And without the trail there will be no long-distance hiking community called ALDHA. It’s simply that simple.
Something needs to be done. So, taking a positive approach, with perhaps a little humor, we dubbed our efforts the Endangered Services Campaign. Just as some plants and animals along the trail are endangered, so, too, are some hiker services. Already we’ve lost the pavilion at Shea’s Pine Tree Tavern in Sheffield, Mass., and the O’Lystery Community Pavilion in Ceres, Va. Some businesses no longer welcome us, and some hostels are reconsidering staying open.
We’ve even heard horror stories about thru-hikers kicking other people out of shelters because they believed -- incredibly -- that somehow they were entitled to shelter space solely by virtue of being thru-hikers.
All of these incidents show hiker disrespect for the rights of property owners and other hikers. Present trends will continue to take their toll unless we begin to act responsibly."

Before the rants start, saying that I'm trying to single out any one hiker, that I'm advocating abolishing personal liberties, or that I don't know what I'm talking about because I wasn't there, the above is a quote in the winter ’95-96 issue of The Long Distance Hiker, explaining ALDHA’s Endangered Services Campaign. ALDHA's official position is obey the rules and regulations, be a good neighbor, and respect the property rights of others, individuals, corporations, whatever-plain and simple. Dispite some misinformed hikers stating that the Endangered Services Campaign is only about drinking, that is not true. There are also no grandfathered super hikers or exceptions because of your political leanings. Posting this may seem redundant to some but it has to be repeated because you just don't get it. It isn't just the soulless corporations and lawgivers that are against illegal and unethical behavior, it is the responsible hiking community itself. I'm sorry if a few of you feel that everyone is against you and you are somehow beyond the law, but face reality, only Mister Rogers thinks you're special.

weary

02-02-2004, 12:39

Weary, what exactly is the Land For Maine's Future Board?
It looks like the AMC is getting money from the State to pay for what they're buying, that can't be right - can it?
,

The Land For Maine's Future Board is appointed by the governor and approved by the Legislature to supervise the expenditure of land acquisition bond issues, of which there have been two -- one maybe a decade ago for $35 million and one in 1997 for $50 million.

The general rules were established by a Land Acquisition Priorities Committee appointed by then Gov. Angus King in the mid 90s. That committee, of which I was a member, recommended that non profits be allowed to own land partially funded by the bond issue, as well as state agencies. The recommendation was later incorporated into the law that created the $50 million bond issue.

Since then a number of non profits have acquired lands with the help of the most recent bond issue. These range from the Nature Conservancy which acquired around 40,000 acres south of Baxter State Park, to the Phippsburg Land Trust, which got money to help buy 38 acres on the shore of a wild pond.

The Land For Maine's Future Board has a two-pronged process. It first determines that a project is in the public interest and tentatively awards a portion of the bond issue money on the recommendation of a state agency. That is what happened last week. AMC was granted $1 million of the final $12 million from the 1997 bond issue at the recommendation of the Department of Conservation.

AMC won't get the money until after surveys and appraisals and other legal work is accomplished to the board's satisfaction. It's my understanding that AMC will retain title to the 37,000 acres, but in return for the million dollars must grant an easement guaranteeing public access for hiking, hunting, fishing and other low impact public recreational activities. I don't know who will hold the easement. It could be the Department of Conservation, though there has been some discussion that it may be some other non profit, or possibly even our new Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust.

I talked to AMC officials at the annual AMC meeting, held at a Waltham, Mass hotel Saturday. They said the details of the easement are still being negotiated, but they were happy that their project has the blessing of the Land For Maine's Future board and the Maine Department of Conservation.

The general consensus of AMC people I spoke with seemed to be that nothing on the scale of Pinkham Notch or the new Highland Center in Crawford Notch is possible on the 37,000 acres, for both economic and environmental reasons.

Pinkham Notch and the Highland Center are on major access highways. The 37,000 Maine acres are in the middle of a largely roadless area reachable only by 20 miles of private dirt roads from relatively little-traveled secondary state roads.

A new bond issue is expected to be approved at the session of the Legislature now meeting in Augusta. Gov. Baldacci is recommending a $100 million bond issue. A Democratic Legislative leader has a bill seeking $150 million. Land trusts and environmental groups are planning a rally at 2 p.m. tomorrow (Tuesday) in the State House to promote passage.

Everyone within commuting distance of Augusta are urged to attend. This is a rare window of opportunity to protect some of the special places in Maine. Around 6 million acres have changed hands since 1998, about 28 percent of the land mass of the state. Some have been bought by environmental groups. Most have been acquired by land speculators and for-profit investor.
groups.

Millions more acres are on the market or soon will be.

Weary

warren doyle

02-02-2004, 13:23

I hope this thread can continue to just stick with the AMC land puchase and anything about 'rules and regulations' and 'hiking fees' can be addressed in the other forums from now on.
Since there are some comments still to be answered from this thread, I will respond hopefully for the last time:

1) TJ - Sorry for farting again, but I stand by my statement that in 1975 hikers were prohibited from climbing Katahdin (above timberline) when it was raining during the summer. Your Millinocket weather forecast for 9/2/75 was both informative and objective - a pleasant surprise.

2) The Old Fhart - Sorry, but you would lose your bet.

3) L Wolf - Once again, your knowledge is correct.

4) Mowgli16 - Your 'point out' is true.

5) Weary - I continue to respect your wise objectivity and I hope this thread can get back to its original intent.

Happy trails to all!

Blue Jay

02-02-2004, 13:28

Thank you Weary for this valuable information. Who are the individuals on the Land for Maine's Future Board and which corporations own them?

Jack Tarlin

02-02-2004, 16:40

Oh, Warren, now you make me laugh----you wish this thread would get back to its original intent. Well, I just re-read it; the thread was was right on topic for quite sime time, with over 60 informative and interesting posts. It wasn't til post #67, YOUR post, Warren, in which you provided detailed and complete information on how to avoid gates, gatekeepers, and public fees.

If the post soon took a different turn, and eventually resulted in folks making some very strong statements about you and your behavior, this wouldn't have ever happened if you hadn't decided to go wildly and irresponsibly off-topic by telling folks how to steal. And now you lament about the thread getting back to its "original intent." Honestly, Warren, you have an extraordinary ability to make yourself ridiculous. The thread went off-topic, and away from its original intent because YOU took it there; you evidently felt that posts such as #67 and others would pass without comment, judgment, or admonition. Surprise!

weary

02-02-2004, 17:50

Thank you Weary for this valuable information. Who are the individuals on the Land for Maine's Future Board and which corporations own them?

Ah. The cynics will always be with us. The board is made up of a combination of state Bureaucrats and private individuals. The chair is George LaPoint, who doubles as Commissioner of Marine REsources.

A Roger Milliken is the only name that comes immediately to mind. If you listen to public radio, you probably have heard of the Margaret Milliken Hatch Foundation, which is a major sponsor of news programs. I think Margaret was Roger's great aunt or something.

I don't always agree with the board's choices for funding, but I haven't detected any corporate influence. The bias strikes me as more political than financial. The board makes a great effort to approve purchases in all sections of the state to encourage support at the polls. All bond issues require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature and must be then ratified by the voters. The last bond just squeaked through the Legislature, but was approved by voters almost 3-1.

I've been greatly impressed with the quality of the discussions at the meetings I've attended.

If anyone is truly interested, I'll dig up the other names. My name memory banks are not quite as good as they used to be.

Weary

weary

02-02-2004, 18:02

Who are the individuals on the Land for Maine's Future Board and which corporations own them?

Okay. Here's the list:

Marcia McKeague
Great Northern Paper Inc.
1 Katahdin Avenue
Millinocket, Maine 04462-1398
Carole Dyer
1058 River Road
Bowdoinham, Maine 04008

Linda S. Pagels, Town Manager
Calais Town Office
5 Church St., P O Box 413
Calais, Maine 04619-0413

Warren Balgooyen
256 Oak Hill Road
Norridgewock, Maine 04957

Roger Milliken, Jr.
70 Blanchard Road
Cumberland, Maine 04021

Leon Gorman
P O Box 1027
Yarmouth, Maine 04096

Commissioners

George Lapointe, Chair
Dept Marine Resources
21 State House Station
Augusta Maine 04333

Martha Freeman, Director
State Planning Office
38 State House Station
Augusta Maine 04333

Roland "Danny" Martin, Comissioner
Dept Inland Fisheries & Wildlife
41 State House Station
Augusta Maine 04333

Patrick McGowan, Commissioner
Dept of Conservation
22 State House Station
Augusta Maine 04333

Robert Spear, Comissioner
Dept Agriculture Food & Rural Resources
28 State House Station
Augusta Maine 04333

Staff Members

Tim Glidden, Director
Land for Maine's Future Program
State Planning Office
38 SHS, 184 State Street
Augusta, Maine 04333

Steve Brooke, Senior Planner
Land for Maine's Future Program
Conservation/Recreation
State Planning Office
38 SHS, 184 State Street
Augusta, Maine 04333

R. Collin Therrien, Senior Planner
Land for Maine's Future Program
Farms
State Planning Office
38 SHS, 184 State Street
Augusta, Maine 04333

Jim Connors, Senior Planner
Maine Coastal Program
State Planning Office
38 SHS, 184 State Street
Augusta, Maine 04333

Aline Lachance, Support Staff
Land for Maine's Future Program
State Planning Office
38 SHS, 184 State Street
Augusta, Maine 04333

About

TJ aka Teej

02-02-2004, 20:20

Originally Posted by warren doyle
"On Sept. 2, 1975, several Baxter State Park rangers were mobilized to prevent 19 people who walked all the way from Georgia to finish the last 5.2 miles of their AT trek because it was 55 degrees and raining,"

and;

"I stand by my statement that in 1975 hikers were prohibited from climbing Katahdin (above timberline) when it was raining during the summer."

How can you stand by a statement you didn't make?
There was no rule prohibiting climbing in the rain.
Only one tenth of one inch of rain recorded.
"Several Baxter Park Rangers were mobilized", Warren?
Sure they were.

TJ aka Teej

02-02-2004, 20:31

Marcia McKeague
Great Northern Paper Inc.
"Land for Maine's Future Clearcutting"

weary

02-17-2004, 22:51

Having just returned from another all day meeting with AMC officials discussing how best to manage the 37,000 acres that AMC has purchased around the Appalachian Trail in the area near Gulf Hagas and Katahdin Iron Works, I'm even more convinced that detailed planning is only now getting underway.

I'm certainly more positive than ever that the wilder speculations voiced in this forum when the purchase was announced are wrong. The primary discussion today, for instance, was on ways to minimize the impact of motors on the area, ranging from the relocation and elimination of existing snowmobile trails, the closing of some existing roads, the banning of ATV's and even restrictions on the grooming of cross country ski trails.

I strongly recommend that those with ideas about how best to manage the area should make their views known. There's a shifting team of people engaged in the various phases of the planning.

But I suspect that comments addressed to Deputy Director Walter Graff, 5 Joy Street, Boston, MA 02108 would get to the proper people.

Weary

funkyfreddy

02-18-2004, 03:38

Thanks for the address, Weary. Alas, the thread has taken a productive turn! It might be good if those of us who love hiking in Maine take a bit of time to write and send a letter to the above address, voicing our concerns and perhaps give advice on how best to conserve the trail corridor and the area surrounding it. Keep Maine beautiful! Thanks, Fred

boarstone

04-02-2004, 07:27

weary

04-02-2004, 11:42

Just a note from the K.I. region of the Hundred Mile Wilderness, logging operations are in full "swing". Road into K.I. is clearcut, into High Bridge to Whitecap and backway into the Gulf, is clearcut. Up in Jo-Mary toward Nahkmakanta, clearcut. Sounds suspisious to me, cut it today, sell it tomorrow......

Sadly, that's why the lands are on the market and the logging and paper industries are in serious trouble.

Starting two decades ago, landowners began cutting two or three times more wood than was growing, especially of the species most valuable for lumber and paper making. That convinced me that the industry was no longer practicing forest management, but had reverted to mining the forest. I and a handful of others predicted then and increasingly over the years that the industry was working to get out the last scrap of profit before leaving.

Almost no one with political influence believed us, and most still are grasping at straws of hope.

The big winners on Wall Street are not the companies that work for a sustainable future, but those that show the best prospect for immediate profit. For managers of millions of Maine acres, the chances for promotion and bonuses rests with how well they can improve the immediate profit picture. No one has yet been rewarded for ensuring jobs for Maine forest industy workers in the decades ahead -- or for ensuring long range stock market gains.

I think it significant that the sellers of Maine forest lands are mostly Wall Street Companies and International conglomerates. Family owned lands, which aren't subject to the pressures for quick profit, remain family owned.

The clearcut lands are being sold mostly to speculators, but environmental groups are picking up scraps here and there, such as AMC's 37,000 acre purchase.

A few of us have formed the Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust in an attempt use this brief, probably one time opportuntity to provide buffers to the trail in Maine. Our first major effort is to complete the purchase of MT. Abraham in the cluster of 4,000-footers between Saddleback and Bigelow, atarted by ATC several years ago. We need $300,000 quickly to tie down that critical acquisition. But Abraham will be but phase one of a multi-million dollar effort to widen the trail corridor between Saddleback and Bigelow.

You can help. Our address is MAT Land Trust, PO Box 325, Yarmouth, Maine 04096.

We are a 501 (c) (3) organization, which means that all contributions are tax exempt.

Weary

It

TJ aka Teej

04-02-2004, 13:44

TJ aka Teej

04-02-2004, 14:06

Family owned lands, which aren't subject to the pressures for quick profit, remain family owned.

The clearcut lands are being sold mostly to speculators, but environmental groups are picking up scraps here and there, such as AMC's 37,000 acre purchase.

The AMC's first aquisition in their "transformative" move to "establish a Maine base of operations" was the family owned Little Lyford Pond Camps and surrounding land. A huge part of that purchase had already been clearcut. I'm not sure how much of the 14.2 million dollar Gulf Hagas purchase is being/will be logged, but the AMC has admitted they agreeded to allow logging to continue as a condition of the sale. I flew over this area in June of '00 or '01 - the roads and huge cuts were very disconcerting even back then.

*quotes from meepi.org

weary

04-02-2004, 18:03

The AMC's first aquisition in their "transformative" move to "establish a Maine base of operations" was the family owned Little Lyford Pond Camps and surrounding land. A huge part of that purchase had already been clearcut. I'm not sure how much of the 14.2 million dollar Gulf Hagas purchase is being/will be logged, but the AMC has admitted they agreeded to allow logging to continue as a condition of the sale. I flew over this area in June of '00 or '01 - the roads and huge cuts were very disconcerting even back then.

I'm not quite sure the point TJ is trying to make. But I suppose we should start the discussion with some facts. Little Lyford Pond was not family-owned, but family leased. The camps were privately owned. The land was owned by International Paper. To the extent that the land had been clearcut the clearcutting was done by International Paper Co. I haven't seen it all, but what I have seen of the initial 300 acres doesn't look clearcut to me.

IP, when it made it's decision to sell the 37,000 acres that AMC eventually bought, first offered all the leased properties to leaseholders. I'm not privy to all the details, but I know as a member of the Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust, that we were approached to take an easement on the 300 acre Little Lyford parcel, so I know something of the broad outline of the transaction.

Our trust declined the easement offer, mostly because the parcel doesn't abutt the Appalachian Trail and we thought it would send the wrong signal for our first holding to be something away from the trail. In retrospect, I wish we had accepted, but hindsight is always 20-20.

Whatever. AMC had been looking for land in Maine. It's first choice was land to the east, but Leroy and AMC got together, for reasons I can only speculate about. But I know sporting camps have been a dying business in Maine for decades. Few existing camps, I suspect, have the income needed to buy 300 acres of lake-front property easily.

Anyway. IP's sale to the Leroys and the subsequent sale by Leroy to AMC happened pretty much simultaneously. AMC's purchase of the 37,000 acres surrounding Little Lyford came a few weeks later, after AMC apparently lost a bid for land to the east.

Nor, do I think we need to worry too much about AMC clearcutting the land it has now bought. The club has talked about 10,000 acres being set aside to remain wild and additional land dedicated to providing Appalachian Trail buffers. I understand one of the more responsbile land management companies has been hired to provide a forestry plan.

Weary