Rules and regulations

[warren doyle]

Since September 2, 1975, I have felt the greatest threat to the long distance trail hiking experience is the increasing amount of rules and regulations placed upon the long distance hiker. Whether it is for liability (another general threat to outdoor adventure/freedom) or environmental impact, I question the moral authority of the organizations that have taken the role as legal authority. 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 question the moral authority of the NPS/USFS/State Parks to regulate the environmental impact of long distance hikers (which is minimal compared to other recreational users) when these same organizations have much more impact on the land.

I question how liability has changed the trail experience from pipes being taken out of wonderful springs to the Kennebec River ferry. As an educator, I am concerned about institutional induced fear on the individual.

Just some thoughts to start this thread that inadvertently had its start in the "AMC buys huge tract in 100 mile wilderness" thread in 'Trail News and Updates'.

I am looking forward to my fellow hikers' posts on this matter.

[mdionne]

first off. bitching should not be allowed! nobody wants to hear some yankadink with a bunch of miles under his belt whining about how the rules should revolve around how he hikes. secondly, why are you asking us shouldn't this be brought before the ATC? you can type it up into a proposal and entitle it "the warren doyle memorial trail rules"...(First off there are no rules on the wdmt, crap where you please)...finally, you're on this website way too much! what the hell do you do for a living anyway, and are you hiring? :banana

[Streamweaver]

Man who passed out the bitchy pills??!!! Streamweaver

[shades of blue]

mdionne
The guy gives an opinion and you attack him. If you disagree....do it with the idea, don't disrespect him. Personally, I think some regulations are needed, but I see this guy's point. The over regulation in the GSMNP is going to be a pain in the ass on my long section hikes this summer. I understand the rules, and will abide by them (unhappily). Even though I wouldn't be breaking the spirit of the rules, they are still the rules and I will follow them. Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth.

[steve hiker]

Rules usually are a legitimate product of democracy, but must at times give way to individual conscience and be resisted. The Stalanist and Nazi eras come to mind. In those regines, the attitude that "they are the rules and I will follow them" is the attitude of a person without a will, a political prisoner and a slave.

In our current era in the USA, resistance should be excercised in response to real threats to our freedom, such as with the so-called Patriot Act. This act of Congress effectively authorizes a "secret police" with powers to search and seize property without judicial oversight and in secrecy. That's right, without judicial oversight and in total secrecy. Any person served with a search warrant under the Patriot Act is forbidden to disclose the fact that a search has been authorized, even in court. Originally touted as a tool to fight terrorism, the Justice Department has admitted recently that it now uses the Patriot Act's secret search powers in ordinary criminal investigations having nothing to do with terrorism.

So as a matter of principle, I agree totally with Warren Doyle's assertion that rules must at times be resisted. But I haven't thru-hiked hiked the AT yet, and other than shelter rules in the GSMNP, I'm not aware of any restriction on hiker movement. Warren Doyle, could you be a little more specific?

[Happy]

Mdionne, In my judgement that was a way too aggressive attack on a person with that many trail miles..what are your QUALIFICATIONS? EVERYONE is entitled to their thoughts on an open forum as this.

To be more civil would be appreciated...he has already stated he is an educator and I don't think he would hire YOU! His average post per day is .24 compared to your .19, so I don't believe he is on the forum much more than you. :D

[MedicineMan]

I posted many moons ago the notion that the AT would eventually be loved to death, and now this comment/illation from Mr. Doyle (and others). At that time I proposed to the members here the idea that a thru-hike of the AT might also consist of the ancillary trails such as any number of the over 900 trail miles ofGSMNP or the Tuscarora and Alleghanies-all in an effort to take heat off the AT. Not traditional you say but neither are flip-flops, regardless
I will predict now that we have only seen the tip of the iceberg as far as regulation goes and the AT...consider if it were to be designated a UN Biosphere? There will come a day,sooner not later, when you will find the rules of Baxter State Park applied to even more segments of the AT that are heavily packed, and there will come a time when you will pay a fee to access the trail and with this will come a 'pass' you adhere to your pack or hang from your tent (hammock), and the consequent fines- have you backpacked Yellowstone or Big Bend lately?
We could sit here and map out statistically where, when and by whom the damage is made. Section hikers versus thru-hikers, horses, 4-wheelers or dogs (what about the guy who carried a cat?), and so on, but all it takes is an idealistic politician to suddenly turn hiker and find himself/herself at a shelter in Georgia (or the Smokys) during the Spring race to Katahdin. The AT is at least a National Park (in my minds eye of interpreting the law) and in that sense (if true) already falls under some powerful regulations that could be applied that currently are not.
So now about a poll....how much would you pay to hike a particular section?
How much are you will to shell out to use a plant destroying tent?
How much green to use that white gas stove?
Still using poles? You should be ashamed of the damage you are causing the environment!
Did you know the synthetics you wear are constantly outgassing from the manufacturing process? In New Zealand we learned of the 'fart tax' applied to cow owners, how about a new sin tax-- a syn-tax (an etymologists or semanticists would love this!) for you Thinsulate/Polarguard users.
Then in 2050 the lottery is initiated and 300 lucky winners will be given the opportunity to approach Springer for that long long walk-but hey, they will have to pay too :)

[shades of blue]

Steve Hiker
I will agree that there are times that rules should be broken. Are the rules the forest service and others are making "social concious" rules that need to be broken....I'm not so sure. Most of these rules are made because idiots have abused the land. Sometimes these rules....or the consequences of the rules are the only things that may stem this tide of abuse. It makes it very inconvinient for me......but a little inconvinience I can stand. As for fees.....I don't like them, but our gov't spends it's money else where...sometimes needed and sometimes (alot) wastefully. If we can't convince our gov't to take better care of our enviornment, use fees are going to be necessary.
I don't think the Forest Service people are useless.....I do think they and others are hamstrung by funding.

[rickb]

Political passion is important; nothing wrong with incorporating such passion into those areas of our lives that provide so much meaning.

In truth, however, I doubt event the originator of this thread thinks that regulation is the single biggest threat to the thru hiking experience.

I'd agree that key part of the experience is based on freedom and self-reliance. But haven't the crowds, volume of information spelling out everything in paint-by-numbers fashion, social norms and even (to a small extent) organized expeditions like Warren's done far more to errode some of that "trail experience". Or changed it, anyway. Have regulationsover the past 30 years really changed much of anything? Really?

From where I sit, the existing regulations are simply not a big-deal and, more often than not, serve a good purpose. Nor do I see future reguations as the significant threat to the trail. On the otherhand, I see people get bent out of shape all the time if they are told what to do by anyone who they don't respect. If this discussion gets that far, I would be delighted to talk about the regs in the Whites and why I think they are so important. No matter what you think of the organization which is most closely asssociated with them. People's reactions are weird.

In any case, such a discussion is rather impossible withoug getting into specifics. There are too many straw men. A couple were mentioned, but they are hardly worthy of discussion. That the ATC has helped out the thru hiking community with an optional ferry service is a good thing, IMO. That's not about regs or liabiliy fears (remember, organizations are made up of individuals. I guarantee you that no one at the ATC ever worried about loosing thier house over a drowning or two. They though only of people.)

As for removing pipes from springs, I might agree the reasons are dumb. But the end result is OK by me. I'll save you my a philisophical rant. A hike isn't about making things easier, no matter what approach one takes to get to the other end.

I have had one worry about regulation for years, however. I worry that GSNP will institute more stringent regulations in the future. Not sure if its well founded, but I have read of enough pissing matched between LD hikers who felt entitled to space in bad weather and vacationers who had thier own set of expectations (and reservations for months), that I think it could come to that. But I don't know. I do know that even there I see the "threat" not to be some evil organization, but rather our own behavior as hikers.

Live free or die. But do know what freedom is and what it is not.

Rick B

[smokymtnsteve]

No "vacationers" in the smokies have had thier reservations for months,,,you can only make reservations 30 days ahead of time for shelter spaces inthe smokies...a thru hiker can also plan ahead and get this type permit and shelter reservation.

[Skeemer]

Originally posted by Alligator:

We may not always agree with individual actions of these agencies, but the overall public benefit performed far outweighs the bad.

Every so often someone makes the effort at a thoughtful intelligent response on this forum...and I believe this is a great example. Thanks for speaking out. You said it better than I could.

Everyone has a right to voice thier concerns here and Mr. Doyle has every right to HHOH. One observation I have about educators. They seem to carry their "lectures" on outside the classroom as "authorities" for whatever interests them. They like to "project their values" onto others. Some need to learn a little humility...it would go a long way in helping them make their case. Just my 2 cents.

[warren doyle]

Nice thought-provoking thread so far. One of my goals as an educator is to 'agitate' people to think about issues that are, for the most part, important. Obviously, it doesn't matter to me whether people agree with my own values or not. My sense of fairness/justice is grounded in my actual experience (as Emerson states "We see only as much as we possess."). Other's sense of fairness/justice is based on their actual experiences as well and I respect that.
In response to 'steve hiker' to be a little more specific about restrictions on hiker movement, fortunately there aren't many yet on the long distance trails in the East (as opposed to some trails in the West - i.e., sections of the John Muir Trail; Mt. Whitney). Most restrictions on hiker movement on the Appalachian Trail are indirectly caused by the increasing number of 'designated campsites' which affect how many miles a day one does to camp somewhere 'legally'. This has resulted in a higher frequency of 'stealth camping' among the AT long distance hiking community in recent years.
Restrictions are greater in the two national parks along the trail, the WMNF, and Baxter State Park. I am happy to say that in these four areas, restrictions in hiker movement is less than it was in the late 70's and early 80's.
However, there seems to be always some talk of implementing restrictions on hiker movement when trail usage/management policy makers meet - whether its a permit system controlling the amount of northbounders who can start at any given day from Springer or how many hikers should be on a particular section of trail on any given day.
Fortunately, these restrictions haven't been gotten pass the discussion stage but I strongly feel that we, as long distance hikers, should be aware of any 'backstage' plans in this particular category.
After spending the last two summers out West hiking some of the trails and climbing some of the mountains that I hiked/climbed during the summer of 1979, I was saddened by the number of restrictions that have been implemented over the last 23-24 years. It also gave me a renewed appreciation of the relatively lack of restrictions on the Appalachian Trail and other eastern long distance trails. Although the Appalachian Trail is not the longest continuously marked footpath anymore, it can be the one with the most freedom for the long distance hiker - which I feel is a great and challenging goal.
Happy trails to all!

[Lone Wolf]

"Wherever a man goes, men will pursue and paw him with their dirty institutions..."
EE

[chris]

One problem with implementing restrictions and regulations is enforcement. While it is possible to monitor small areas, on a scale as large as the AT regulations and restrictions will be heeded only if the people using it agree to follow them. The area
is simply too large to put out the kind of enforcement teams needed to give a regulation enough bite to force people to follow them. The number of ridgerunners and rangers required would be tremendous. If the NFS tried to implement something disagreeable, like collecting a fee to pass through, say, the Nantahala, it just wouldn't work. It would not be possible to put a guard at every road crossing to collect the money. With parking passes, they have a chance (as the cars are immobile once they are parked). How could the NFS enforce a ban on CD players in Virginia? They can write the law, but everyone would dismiss it as ludicrous.

On the PCT, there are a few restrictions that I know of. The first is global: You are supposed to have a permit for the wilderness areas you pass through. No problem, the PCT issues it for free. It is actually issued by the Cleveland NF (the first one you hit) and is then good for every other bit of federal land. With the permit, you pay nothing for entrance into the seven national parks that the trail goes through. The others are all local. If you want to climb Whitney, you need to pony up $15 for a permit. Through the Sierras there are some bear restrictions, but these are muddled up by the different forest offices. Maybe five thruhikers a year will actually carry a cannister. There are a few few lakes in the Sierra where there are signs telling you not to camp within 1/4 mile. That is about it.

As far as enforcement goes, it seems to be non-existent. I met 3 backcountry rangers on the entire trip. All on the same day (Desolation Wilderness, by Tahoe). Two asked to see my permit, but not those of the other 3 I was with. There wasn't a ranger anywhere near Mt. Whitney when I went up. Few thruhikers had climbing permits. Without the enforcement aspect, there are few reasons to follow the letter of the law. For example, practicing safe, clean, stealth camping techniques as a preventative for bear problems. But, that isn't legal in some places. But some slob can sit around and fry up a bacon and sardine stew in the middle of a low meadow, dump the leftovers on the ground, and put his remaining beer in a bear cannister and that is legal.

In the end, I think the time and effort put into crafting regulations and then doing a half-assed job of enforcing them would better spent trying to educate hikers to make the right choices. To show them why a regulation really is necessary and how best to comply with it. But, this will never happen. It would require governing bodies to trust their constituents too much.

[The Old Fhart]

Warren’s quotes are in bold italics: ”Restrictions are greater in the two national parks along the trail, the WMNF, and Baxter State Park”.
I’d like to point out firstly that Baxter State Park is not one of our nation parks as Warren wrongly implied but is a unique private area that of land held in trust for the people of Maine. As such the Baxter State Park Authority has the power to administrate the land under the specific mandate left by Gov. Baxter. If you check the Baxter web site they explain it this way:

“He [Gov. Baxter] also stipulated that the sole governing authority regarding the park and management would be a group of 3 public officials namely: the Commissioner of Maine Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, the Director of the Maine State Forest Service, and the Attorney General. The individuals holding these three positions in Maine comprise the Baxter State Park Authority and as such are responsible for protecting the natural resources and upholding the conditions set forth in Governor Baxter’s Deeds of Trust. Park managers also work closely with the BSP Advisory, a committee of 15 citizens dedicated to examining issues and supporting the stewardship of the Authority.”

Buz Caverly has been the long-time director of the park and is more familiar with the needs and strains on the park’s resources than a visitor like Warren. His statements on regulations are valid.

“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.”
“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.
Park officials will revoke privileges for future use of the park. There will be tighter registration at Daicey Pond, Abol and Katahdin Stream campgrounds and there will be special surveillance.
Violators of park regulations and policies will pay for costs incurred as the result of a search, rescue or recovery.”

To say that regulations do not apply to you as a thru-hiker is arrogant and false. When Warren states: “I can honestly say that none of my behavior on the AT has ever contributed to diminish services to hikers”. that is false. Warren’s blatant breaking of the regulations and laws concerning our friends and neighbors along the trail has a very definite and immediate effect on us all. Broadcasting his illegal activity is irresponsible and encourages others to also break the law. Warren’s illegal activities only lead to more and stricter restriction on thru-hikers. Instead of trying to find ways to screw the system, and the rest of us in the process, try to think of how ALDHA’s Endangered Services Campaign should be followed to respect the rules and regulations of the friends and services we have along the trail.

[Lone Wolf]

Hey fart, go back and re-read the bold italics. Warren did not imply that Baxter was a national park. He simply pointed out that Baxter is one of 3 areas on the AT with restrictions.
1. 2 national parks
2. WMNF
3.Baxter state park

[steve hiker]

Warren’s ... Broadcasting his illegal activity is irresponsible and encourages others to also break the law. Warren’s illegal activities only lead to more and stricter restriction on thru-hikers.
I disagree. Any of us has the right to speak his mind freely and to broadcast whatever decision he makes as to respecting or disrespecting certain laws. In fact I would like to see more of this attitude in a day when people are sitting by passively as sheep, as our most basic liberties are being led wholesale to the slaughterhouse.

As a nation we are moving away from a democracy of free people and toward fascism. The remedy is for the public to speak its mind freely and assert its will.

(BTW I'm not commenting on WD's particular viewpoints, just his right to voice them.)

[warren doyle]

I must say Old Fhart that your 'trail name' is most appropriate,
I learned in my school that commas separate different items in a sentence.
I guess we went to different schools.
I am fully aware that Baxter State Park is not a national park and I have known that since at least 1971.
And once again, you weren't at Katahdin Stream Campground during the morning of 9/2/75 but I was. What part of that don't you understand?

Lone Wolf, in the early days of ALDHA we kept track of rules & regulations in four areas that the trail passed through (these areas at the time were more heavily regulated than the vast majority of the trail). The four areas were (and still are):
1) Great Smoky National Park
2) Shenadoah National Park ( please excuse me if I misspelled this)
3) White Mountain National Forest
4) Baxter State Park

Happy trails to all (especially to those who want to be happy and want others to be happy)!

[Rain Man]

Since September 2, 1975, I have felt the greatest threat to the long distance trail hiking experience is the increasing amount of rules and regulations placed upon the long distance hiker. ...

I realize it is just my inexperience and ignorance, but what rules and regulations have been placed on long distance Appalachian Trail hiking over the past three decades?

Rain Man

.

[The Old Fhart]

Thanks L.Wolf for pointing out my misinterpretation of Warren’s somewhat ambiguous quote. I would, however, be more interested in your take on rules and regulations issue and the validity of the various points of view. I’m sure others would be interested in hearing from you as well. Please let us know where you stand.

Steve Hiker, I’m afraid you read something into my post that wasn’t there. I never said that Warren didn’t have the right to voice his opinion, I just said that, in my humble opinion, that his voicing the opinion had a negative effect on us as thru-hikers. I was using my freedom of speech to state that point. I stand by my previous statement that it is “irresponsible and encourages others to also break the law.” That hardly qualifies as a referendum between democracy and fascism. Keep in mind that freedom of speech has its limits. You can’t yell “FIRE!” in a crowded movie theater. With freedom comes responsibility and I encourage all hikers to think about how their actions regarding breaking laws and rules affects us all.

And for hopefully the last time let me state that my objections to breaking laws and regulations in Baxter has nothing to do with 9/2/75 and you, Warren, are the only one fixated on that date. The comments by Buz Caverly are about hiking today and he isn’t wrong. Stop living in the past, What we do NOW affects tomorrow. Those rules and regulations aren’t directed at you alone, as you would like to think.

[steve hiker]

What happened on September 2, 1975?

[TJ aka Teej]

What happened on September 2, 1975?
That's the date that Doyle claims there was a rule at Baxter State Park forbidding climbing the mountain in the rain.

There was no such rule at Baxter in the 70s, or ever.

[Lone Wolf]

I go along with rules and regs. Mostly. I have in the past hiked thru both Nat. Parks without getting a permit. I have "stealth" camped in both Nat. parks and WMNF and Baxter but each time I just layed down under the stars, hurting nothing. I have jumped off the bridge in Hanover. Hardly felonious behavior. I DO obey NO CAMPFIRE rules where applicable. I DO obey hostel rules, such as no alcohol, at least at the few I've stayed in over the years. I don't sneak hikers into my motel room to avoid paying like LOTS of other hikers are fond of doing. That's the kind of s**t that hurts the 'trail community' worse than a stealth camp or a bridge jump. I don't smoke dope on the trail, at home or anywhere. Been in the Smokies shelters with hikers abiding by the 'shelter camping only' rule then proceed to light up a joint breaking the law. Folks just pick and choose the laws, rules and regs they want to abide by. And I like every person on this forum HAS broken a speed limit law somewhere.

[Frosty]

I stand by my previous statement that it is “irresponsible and encourages others to also break the law.” That hardly qualifies as a referendum between democracy and fascism. Keep in mind that freedom of speech has its limits. You can’t yell “FIRE!” in a crowded movie theater. With freedom comes responsibility and I encourage all hikers to think about how their actions regarding breaking laws and rules affects us all.

Why do you and others keep harping on how important it is for hikers to obey all laws? It is't like we are talking about robbery and mayhem. We are talking about setting up a tent in the woods, for crying out loud.

Edward Abbey would be rolling over in his grave if he could read this stuff!

Anyway, comparing our posting opinions in this forum to crying "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater is nonsense. Freedom of speech has a few, very few, limitations. Speaking one's mind in a public forum isn't one of them, even when it affects others. Freedom of speech guarantees us the right to say thinks for the purpose of affecting others. That's why we have the freedom to support war or oppose war, to support abortion or oppose abortion, both of which certainly affects people's lives more than sleeping in the woods without tariff.

Sometimes breaking laws and rules affects all hikers. Tough. Many hostels are closed because or rude and drunken behavior. Tough. There is no law against rude behavior. Just because it may be morally wrong doesn't mean you have to act morally right. I don't like drunken behavior, and I'll say so, but that doesn't mean others have to drink responsibly because not to do so will affect me negatively.

If you are concerned about breaking rules having an effect on the AT, start a crusade on public drunkenness, why don't you? You'll certainly have a more positive effect on the trail than you are by telling us that not to post messages about sleeping in the woods without paying $$ to the State of Maine.

Tom

[The Old Fhart]

Thanks, L. Wolf for the thoughtful reply. I may not agree with every thing you said but your longer reply helps people understand where your coming from.

[The Old Fhart]

Frosty, You wrote: "Why do you and others keep harping on how important it is for hikers to obey all laws? It isn't like we are talking about robbery and mayhem. We are talking about setting up a tent in the woods, for crying out loud."
Actually if we were just talking about setting up a tent in the woods most of us wouldn't be on this thread. We actually are talking about robbery and mayhem. You may not be read the other post where Warren states:
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.
Cheating people out of money time after time is theft. As far as public drunkenness, I have stated I’m against that as well and other posters have said the same thing. However, to keep on the subject of this thread, I am talking about rules and regulations. Does it now change your mind that we are talking about the theft of real (over $200) dollars? As to the yelling “FIRE!” analogy, there are laws that govern aiding and abetting a crime. Warren’s describing how he committed a crime and telling others how to do it is a crime in itself. Ask yourself if you owned a business and someone cheated you out of money or services if you would be as quick to say it is their freedom commit the crime.

[chomp]

It is't like we are talking about robbery and mayhem. Actually, we are talking about robbery and mayhem. At least in my opinion. You are free to make your own. Start with post #67 on this thread:

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3029&page=4&pp=20



Freedom of speech guarantees us the right to say thinks for the purpose of affecting others.
Just because you have the right TO SPEAK doesn't make it RIGHT to speak. I use post #67 as an example here. Does it seem right to you to advertize a way to voilate private property in a public forum?



Sometimes breaking laws and rules affects all hikers. Tough. Many hostels are closed because or rude and drunken behavior. Tough. There is no law against rude behavior.

Quite right, there in in fact not law against rude behavior. And a lot of hostels do not explicitly ban alcohol. The ones that do, however, should not have to deal with this. As hikers, we should respect the wishes of the owners and not violate the rules. That is pretty simple.

But to say "tough" to rude behavior and drunkenness, sorry but I have to side with Warren on this one. Behavior like this ruins the trail for others behind you. I remember stopping at a small bar just off the trail in Mass, I think it was near Great Barrington. Anyway, my friend and I were enjoying a few pints, and we really just wanted to hang out there for the rest of the day. However, the guidebook said that overnights were not allowed and not to ask.

The owner was great, but she told us that she couldn't allow people overnight anymore. The reason is that she almost lost her liquer license. When she allowed people to sleep outback, she had just one rule - if you are going to drink, do it in the bar. However, on a few occasions, people outback would go to town or whatever and start drinking behind the bar. After the thrid group did this, no one was allowed to camp back there again.

And its exactly that kind of stuff that makes the trail not quite as friendly as it could be. Warren's mission is to stop drinking... I would rather take a different approach and push to obidence to property owner's wishes. Either way, if you just say "tough", the pretty soon there won't be very many people who are happy to help the hiking community. All that will be left is the Uncle Jonny types.



telling us that not to post messages about sleeping in the woods without paying $$ to the State of Maine.

Just to clarify, the point about Maine was NOT having to pay for a campsite. To further clarify this issue, I refer you to post #100:

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3029&page=5&pp=20

You can see my response on Post #108, but as Warren mentions several times, I was not there. However, I have yet to hear any real details on what happened that rainy day, or a year and a half later at the "act of civil disobediance."

I hope that this gives you a little background on this discussion, Frosty.

-chomp

[steve hiker]

As to the yelling “FIRE!” analogy, there are laws that govern aiding and abetting a crime. Warren’s describing how he committed a crime and telling others how to do it is a crime in itself.
This part of your post really disgusts me. First, it is factually wrong. Second, it exemplifies the mindset of people who are willing to support their biases by any means including the squelching of speech through fear and intimidation. Let's take each offense you committed in turn.

First, advocating disobediance of the law is not aiding and abetting. It is not a crime, but rather, is protected speech under the First Amendment.

Second, the type of people who would make "subversive" speech illegal are the most dangerous people in society, much more dangerous than common criminals. For they are willing to support a regime the makes political opposition illegal. What do you have in that situation, where you cannot even criticize the government and urge other citizens to disobey its repugnant edicts? A totalitarian state.

[Frosty]

Just because you have the right TO SPEAK doesn't make it RIGHT to speak. chomp

Yes, it does. I believe what I am saying, and even if you do not, it is RIGHT for me to say what I believe. It is not only RIGHT, it is my RESPONSIBILITY.



Does it seem right to you to advertize a way to voilate private property in a public forum?-chomp

Yes, it does seem right to me, as regards this topic. Always Question Authority. Obey legitimate authority. But each person is responsible for his own actions. Responsible to himself, not to authority. YOU must decide when the authority is wrong or immoral.

Blindly following rules is abdicating personal responsibility. One must follow his or her own conscience in this matter. And I believe it is not only our right, but our responsibility to resist unfair rules, be it a Stamp Tax from Britain, or a hiker tax from the State of Maine.

We differ, and that is fine. You are okay with who you are and I am okay with who I am. I won't judge you for the path you've chosen (obey the dictates of all authority), and hopefully you won't judge me for the path I've chosen (resist unfair/immoral authority).

If you feel strongly enough, of course, you could always pay extra to make up for the loss in state revenues caused by us subversives.

Tom

[Jack Tarlin]

Hey Steve---LIGHTEN UP!

And once you've counted to ten and are breathing normally, consider this:

"Civil dis-obediance" has nothing to do with sneaking around caretaker's cabins; climbing over locked fences and committing criminal trespass as well as breaking and entering; and rationalizing why public fees and charges simply don't happen to apply to "special" people.

We're not talking about civil disobediance here. We're talking about willfully violating laws, not out of conviction, but out of convenience. We're talking about theft of services, and the willfull ignoring of personal property rights.
We're talking about committing criminal acts and encouraging others to do likewise. We're talking about a self-described "educator" educating people in how to break the law, how to cheat, and how to defraud.

There are certain people who feel that this sort of behavior is impromper, indefensible, and is bad for the Trail, and potentially impacts a lot of other hikers who later have to depend on these same services and service providers that other folks so happily deceive, defraud, and dis-respect. You evidently don't feel there's anything wrong with this. Sorry, but I suspect you're in the minority here.

[sloetoe]

I am astounded and disappointed that most of those who responded in opposition to WD's post did so without seeming to comprehend the overall message -- that throughhiking is/was in danger of being "legislated away."

And certainly, "hiking" per se is not the subject, but our freedom to engage in activity that interests us, but 'may not be "for"' some others, *is* the subject. "One man's pain is another's pleasure." is *so* true of being stupid enough to walk, on foot, sometimes in *inclement* weather ("Heavens!"), to places where perfectly good roads eventually go.

*Daily*, western society turns toward a paternalistic and rule-mongering diminution of individual liberty. A dilution -- a drowning in a strident sea of "Chaos Avoidance!" A march of Babbitts toward Conformity Hell.

Most those who've posted in opposition to WD's opinion don't seem to realize that society views *them* as the iconoclasts bent on harming social order. And by the time they realize society's opinion and impending legislation of their love -- as History shows so well -- the ship of state has turned it's massive bulk in that wrong direction and *won't* be turned back any time soon. Dang!

The Big Point:
Rules, regulations, laws, etc, are not "just". Only justice is just. Our country was founded on this realization -- Liberty first, let Justice follow -- as a product according to the wisdom of the assembled free. We *have* forgotten this, and replaced it with Rules for Rules' Sake, and we are in peril.

Don't think so? Try having a young son in public school. I see it every day.

Sloetoe
Ga->Me'79

[The Old Fhart]

Steve Hiker, I’m afraid you have got fixated on my “FIRE!” analogy. It is illegal to tell people to bomb churches, kill people, as well as other crimes and this has nothing to do with free speech but forget that and just answer me one question. Warren described how he stole $200 by not paying fees that he was required to pay for using services. Admitting to stealing is a crime. Do you condone that as free speech? Your freedom ends once it becomes a criminal act.

[sloetoe]

Warren described how he stole $200 by not paying fees that he was required to pay for using services. Admitting to stealing is a crime. Do you condone that as free speech? Your freedom ends once it becomes a criminal act.

1) "Stole"? Hardly, and you know it. Weak shot.

2) "Admitting" to some act is not a crime. At least, not on this planet.

3) "Your freedom ends once it becomes a criminal act." How curiously wrong and true at the same time. Being "black" was once a crime, and they certainly had no freedom at time. Till some little old lady decided, allll on her own, that being black was *not* a crime, and "Poof!" just like that, her freedom appeared. Then more and more and more blacks said the same thing, and they *too* got their freedom. "Your freedom ends once it becomes a criminal act." Amazing statement, but maybe it should read "Your freedom ends once you accept it as a criminal act." Yeah, that'll do it.

Sloetoe

[chomp]

Yes, it does. I believe what I am saying, and even if you do not, it is RIGHT for me to say what I believe. It is not only RIGHT, it is my RESPONSIBILITY.
So by this logic, it is right for government officials to divulge all state secrets? It is right for bank robbers to print out flyers detailing how they have had success? It is right for me to tell others how to shoplift and get away with it? Are you OK with all of these examples?



And I believe it is not only our right, but our responsibility to resist unfair rules, be it a Stamp Tax from Britain, or a hiker tax from the State of Maine.
I agree with you on personal responsibility, but remember we are not talking about a hiker tax. We are talking about a fee imposed to passing on private property. This access point is NOT the only way to access trail. In fact, most thru-hikers never see these roads except for the few seconds it takes to cross them. And they are charged no fee.

So if you owned a piece of land and decided you wanted to charge the public for access, would you mind if people who disagreed with you snuck by without paying? Just making sure that we are talking about apples and apples here.


I won't judge you for the path you've chosen (obey the dictates of all authority),

I hardly obey all authority, and I am not the stright-laced person that you are painting here. However, I do have the utmost respect for private property. This is different than authority, this is respecting boundries. If I decided that I wanted to do something with my land.. ANYTHING.. I don't want others telling me I can't and I certainly don't want to have people skulking around without my permission.. if I so decide.

[chomp]

1) "Stole"? Hardly, and you know it. Weak shot.
Dead wrong:



1. A person is guilty of theft if:
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%" border="0"> <tbody><tr> <td width="20">
</td> <td> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%" border="0"> <tbody><tr> <td width="20">
</td> <td>
A. The person obtains services by deception, threat, force or any other means designed to avoid the due payment for the services that the person knows are available only for compensation.
</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody> </table>
You can read the reference here:
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/17-A/title17-Asec357.html

So yes, in maine, this is considered theft. Sorry.

[steve hiker]

"Civil dis-obediance" has nothing to do with sneaking around caretaker's cabins; climbing over locked fences and committing criminal trespass as well as breaking and entering; ... You evidently don't feel there's anything wrong with this.
I was responding to Old Fhart's incorrect statement that its illegal to advocate civil disobedience. Not only is it legal to advocate that certain laws (or all laws) be disobeyed, but in certain instances it is a patriotic duty, in my opinion.

I take no position on whether certain regulations should be evaded. I am merely defending our right of free speech and correcting Old Fhart's erroneous statement.

[The Old Fhart]

Sloetoe and SteveHiker have confused criminal acts with civil disobedience. Let me make it a little simpler so it can be understood.
1) acts of civil disobedience
---a) by Ghandi
---b) by Martin Luther King Jr.
2) criminal acts
---a) shoplifting
---b) Warren’s theft by deception

Any common criminal could claim “acts of civil disobedience” as a defense using Sloetoe’s argument. The reason their crimes are nothing more than crimes is they are done for personal gain and has nothing to do with the common good or a higher ideal. Warren’s theft by deception was done to screw the landowners, pure and simple. There is no way you can claim his illegal acts are improving the trail for the rest of us. Also using Sloetoe’s argument public drunkenness is an act of civil disobedience as well and not a crime.

We go to the woods to live deliberately but that doesn’t mean that laws of common decency stop when we hit the trail. You can’t murder someone on the trail or steal on the trail just because you feel you are an elitist. If you see some nice backpack in an outfitter’s window you can’t break and enter or use theft by deception to get that pack. You have to pay for it like everyone else. To steal it is a crime and reflect badly on all hikers. No way does theft of a backpack qualify as an act of civil disobedience.

[steve hiker]

Sloetoe and SteveHiker have confused criminal acts with civil disobedience.
Wrong again, Old Fhart. Acts of civil disobedience are criminal acts. Advocating civil disobedience is not.

On another note, I find the recent posts in this thread over whether certain acts are illegal to be disappointing. Any idiot can go to the law library and determine if something violates the law. It takes a more mature thinker, however, to decide whether a law should be violated.

I've said enough on this topic. Think I'll light up a joint and relax.

[The Old Fhart]

Steve Hiker,
Again you're missing the point and distorting reality. While some acts of civil disobedience MAY be criminal acts, all criminal acts are certainly not acts of civil disobedience. What you are saying is a dog is an animal therefore all animals are dogs. Try to use a little common sense instead of using your antisocial bias to judge whatever is said. Warren's breaking the law for his own gain is nothing more than a common crime and never will be elevated to an act of civil disobedience.

[chomp]

For everyone who is saying that its OK to obey some laws and not others... for the mature thinkers... here are a few questions.

Do you think that Warrens actions regarding the theft of services in the Katahdin Iron Works areas is Moral, Immoral, or Amoral? Do you think that it Helps, Hurts or is Neutral to the relationship between landowners and long distance hikers? If you were this landowner and you came upon this thread, how would you feel? (yes yes, I know you would never charge hikers that much, etc... but play devils advocate here for a second.) What if you were a landowner near the AT and you read this thread, how would you feel? Would you be more or less likely to open up your land to hikers?

Its not an issue of legal or illegal (tho I think this is clearly illegal, which some people have been arguing against), but rather right or wrong. In this case, i think that it is Illegal, Wrong and Damaging to the trail.

[Frosty]

So if you owned a piece of land and decided you wanted to charge the public for access, would you mind if people who disagreed with you snuck by without paying? Just making sure that we are talking about apples and apples here.

Of course I would mind. But that doesn't mean that the other person should feel morally bound to obey me just because I would mind. Legally, he/she needs to pay me, and if they don't I can take legal action. But that still doesn't mean the other person cannot, and should not, follow the dicates of his/her own mind.

This country was built by people who refused to follow legal authority and who violated private (and public) property. While those acts were of a grander and nobler scale that we are talking about here, the principle is the same.

I truly believe what Thoreau said, that governments only have the authority over you that you grant to them. There may be a hellacious price to pay, but you still needn't (and shouldn't) submit unless you agree.

Tom

[Frosty]

So by this logic, it is right for government officials to divulge all state secrets? It is right for bank robbers to print out flyers detailing how they have had success? It is right for me to tell others how to shoplift and get away with it? Are you OK with all of these examples?.

The second two are easy. It is okay for bank robbers to print out flyers on how they robbed banks. People write books on how they commited murder. It may be morally repugnant to some, including me, but it isn't morally repugnant to them, and it isn't to everyone who reads the stuff. Look in the True Crime section of Barnes & NOble.

It is also okay IMO to tell people how to shoplift and get away with it.

What isn't okay with me is to help some plan specific shoplifting thefts. There one has gone beyond communicating and has entered comspiracy to commit crime. But that is just me. If someone feels a moral need to conspire to commit a crime, then they should do it regardless. What is the greater good? What is the person's motive? Are they willing to pay the price for doing this? Good gray area. Good place for one to exercise personal responsibility.

Your first example is a terrific one. If the official agreed not to diviluge secrets, then it is a clear violation of the law. But so what? Separate moral and legal for a minute.

Generalities are tough. Let's make it specific. In your example, the official is working as a US spy in a foreign country not friendly to us. As part of the person's cover job, he was required not to divulge state secrets, and he signed a paper agreeing not to. He then learns that this government plans to massacre thousands of civilians in an act of terror, including many women and children, some US citizens.

So now, is it right for that person to divulge state secrets? IMO it is.

That is my point. There are no absolutes. Each case must follow the dictates of the conscience of the doer of the deed. Authority does not make it right.

As I said in a different post (maybe even in response to you), some things illegal are obviously okay (divulging state secrets to stop a terror attack, start a new country - the US, to carefully but illegally run red lights to get a bleeding child to a hospital) because WE AGREE WITH THEM. Others (that we do not agree with), we find to be *wrong*. My point is that neither is right or wrong. When we agree or disagree with lawbreaking, we are only reflecting our personal bias on the situation.

Tom (who is wondering how we got so far from talking about hiking)

[The Old Fhart]

What absolutely amazes me in this discussion about rules and regulations is how some hikers feel that once they hit the trailhead that they are now God and can decide which rules apply to them, with total disregard for the law, common decency, or how their actions will affect the hikers who follow. If they tried any of their illegal behaviors in the outside world they would be instantly jailed. Their hubris somehow equates their common criminal behavior with civil disobedience. They try to mask their criminal behavior by using catchy phrases like “person freedom”, “soulless corporation”, or “civil disobedience”.

Warren’s theft by deception at the gate at Katahdin Iron Works is a criminal act that he boasts about every chance he gets. His story that the owners of the land are a soulless corporation or that they are somehow restricting his access to the A.T. is a rationalization. The corporation that owns that land has every right to charge whatever they want for people to use their road on their land. They are not forcing hikers to use their road and they are not obliged to let anyone use it. There obviously are legal ways to access the A.T. without using their land and thousands of hikers have used that section of the A.T. without using the KIW road or resorting to criminal behavior. Graymoor Monastery could also be considered a “soulless corporation” and not an individual using Warren’s warped logic so would it also be ok to screw them by abusing their property and not paying for services they provide if you felt like it? If Warren drove his vans of friends across their lawn because he somehow felt that they were blocking HIS access to the A.T. would that be ok? It isn’t ok in either case. Whether it is a company in the struggling lumber industry or a church that owns the land at Katahdin Iron Works it is still private property and you have to obey their regulations and the law to use it. Don’t like it? Buy the land yourself and let hikers use it for free.

If Warren wants to view his itemized theft ($24 for three vans to travel 16 miles of dirt roads rather than paying $240) as an act of civil disobedience, then when he break the law by sneaking around the gate without paying he should proudly march up to the gatehouse and announce his violation and fight to have the fees changed. The reason he doesn’t do this is he knows he has committed a criminal act to which there is no defense and he would be jailed. He takes the coward’s way out because he knows he has committed this crime for personal gain and to feed his ego’s need to defy authority no matter what the cost to other hikers.

To say that this crime is Warren’s right to personal expression and a guaranteed freedom is pure crap. While I find it abhorrent, a person has the right to burn the American flag if they own one, it is on their land, and the act of burning doesn’t endanger others. It is not their right to burn my American flag on my land or to burn their flag where fires are prohibited. The right to free speech and expression doesn’t give you the “right” to possess child pornography or sell it. No freedom is absolute and, I’m typing it slow this time so everyone can get it, your freedom ends when it restricts my freedom or it endangers others. Warren’s schooling may be different than everyone else’s because no one has ever taught that there is a freedom to cheat and steal. As a so-called professor at a soulless corporation of learning, maybe he should check his schools policy on code of conduct, or ethics.

[Lone Wolf]

Y'all have been whining and crying about Warren's criminal activity for weeks now. Same BS over and over. What are you going to DO about it. Take some ACTION instead of posting your pseudo- intellectual rants. It's unimpressive.

[weary]

Henry Thoreau was part of the underground railroad that shuttled blacks to Canada in blatant violation of the Fugitive Slave Act, the law of the land, duly passed by the US Congress.

Had he been arrested and convicted he would have been a felon. His felony was to actively help to keep property, recognized by both the US Constitution and the laws of a Democratic society, from its owners.

I mention this only because I like to say good things about Henry, who is one of my heroes, and to suggest these issues are not quite as black and white as the sanctimonious among us sometimes suggest.

Weary

[sloetoe]

For everyone who is saying that its OK to obey some laws and not others... for the mature thinkers... here are a few questions.

Do you think that Warrens actions regarding the theft of services in the Katahdin Iron Works areas is Moral, Immoral, or Amoral? Do you think that it Helps, Hurts or is Neutral to the relationship between landowners and long distance hikers? If you were this landowner and you came upon this thread, how would you feel? (yes yes, I know you would never charge hikers that much, etc... but play devils advocate here for a second.) What if you were a landowner near the AT and you read this thread, how would you feel? Would you be more or less likely to open up your land to hikers?

Its not an issue of legal or illegal (tho I think this is clearly illegal, which some people have been arguing against), but rather right or wrong. In this case, i think that it is Illegal, Wrong and Damaging to the trail.

Dang. OK, well, here's my Mea Culpa: I wrote a response *only* to the post of WD that started this thread (and in some respects to the other contemporaneous threads). I was away for a few weeks (hiking! who knew?!), and then had problems in accessing Whiteblaze for a few weeks, and to make a dull story short: I wrote in ignorance of whatever this WD/Katahdin Iron Works/gate-hopping/deception/fee-avoidance thing is all about. I have no idea.

Again, I was writing only in response to the WD post that started this thread -- I see it having little to do with fees and everything to do with imposed restrictions on hiking. I think alot of baggage has been brought in by respondents on all sides.

I don't know about Sept. 2, 1975 (and have yet to read from WD what that allusion is about), but I recall in 1979 that I wouldn't be "allowed" to climb K if it were deemed a "class 5" (I *think*) day. I only had the one day to climb, it was *crappy*[!], I climbed, stared death in the face a *few* times, came down and saw it was a "class 5" day -- they apparently posted the summit conditions soon after I'd left. It was a tremendous adventure, and for me, was a "right" one.

Someone asked about current "restrictions" -- I'll give a couple that may pass right over your heads:
Charlies Bunion -- not "on" the AT anymore because, while it might be "safe" enough for the general public, it apparently doesn't stand the liability scrutiny for AT use. ("Hrmph.")
Albert Mountain -- passed by there the day after Christmas and was astounded to find a FENCE to keep those hardy enough to reach it away from the drop-off. ("Yes, mother, and I won't walk with a sharp stick or play with fire, either.")
WD's example (in the post that started this thread) of springs having pipes removed -- Why??? How 'bout because it implies some sort of "approval" that no one wants to be liable for? ("Modern life!")
I'll give you a fourth one: is there a single puddle, rill, brook, stream, or river, outside the state of Maine, that has not been bridged? Crap. Solutions looking for a problem.

These examples are off the top of my head, and not meant at all to be exhaustive. (Neither, I think, was WD's post.) No mention of theft of services or anything else. But for the record, I respect private property and private property rights, including the right to charge fees for accessing public or private resources. As well, for the record, I do not respect private (and usary!) fees for public facilities, or (unnecessary!) monopoly exercised with government sanction. (I.E., I am not impressed with the AMC's ability to manufacture many dollars of cost to provide a few cents of facility on public lands.)

And so, an admission:
When my sons and I traversed the Whites without paying a penny to the AMC, neither did we use their facilities (positioned to monopolize the best sites for such a traverse) for sleeping. Howsomeever, we took water from the same water sources, and peed in the same woods, and cooked dinner (perhaps) at the same picnic tables. For free. No sleepie. How was that not "theft of service"? What's more, if we had come upon a "for fee" shelter without a caretaker, and faced the choice of "moving on" to an unhardened site (hopefully but not always a rock slab ["hardened", eh?], or sleeping in the shelter -- the marginal act that triggers a $24? $30? fee..... I'd be facing a (to me) big-ass fee for the desire to be as LNT as possible and not bivy on that "hidden" mossy Wolf Mtn ledge in Kinsman.

Dang. That ledge was so comfy, but I know the Labrador moss recorded our passage, and that a leanto floor would not have. And although I didn't have to face that exact choice on our hike, I nevertheless had to weigh it every afternoon, pretty much, as the window for "where are we going to stop?" slowly shrunk.

Our answer was to hurry our hike, through the Whites, through 80-90*F, 80-90% humidity. Phooey. "Swimming" at Lakes of the Clouds doesn't make up for it.

So to respond to Chomp's well-put questions:
Respect of property (public or private) is always LNT.
Respect of private property rights (to charge a fee) is respect to the owner -- a fellow human.
Respect of public institutions -- including franchised rights such as the WMNF/AMC relationship -- is a mixed bag, and must be measured, regularly, openly, and carefully. My rights as a citizen and a taxpayer are incorporate with regard to public land, and stop immediately on private.

Again, this thread implicitly carries with it thoughts from preceeding threads that I haven't read, and I apologize for any error, conflict, or confusion on my part. (Still, I think the purpose of the separate thread was to "separate" the debate...)

Sloetoe

[The Old Fhart]

"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.

[Jester2000]

There seems to be some confusion as to the difference between legal rights and being morally right. So I thought I'd weigh in.

Four categories for your consideration:
Legal, and moral (buying me a tent for my birthday (March 4th!))
Legal, but immoral (buying an SUV you don't need)
Illegal, but moral (nonpayment of taxes because your gov't supports slavery)
Illegal, and immoral (shooting Chomp in the can in GSMNP)

Here's the thing. Only category three falls into the definition of civil disobedience, and you can't just be doing it because it's easier, or cheaper, or more convenient. Let's not cheapen civil disobedience by using it as a justification for selfish behavior.

Bare bones, there's this -- I think we all have at least a vague idea about when we're hurting someone else, be it a property owner, a hiker who will follow us, or the boyfriend of the female hiker we're planning on sleeping with. If you choose that path, be it legal or not, you are being selfish, self-centered and irresponsible.

And do you know what happens when enough people start acting that way? No, no one just says "tough!" Regulations are put in place to keep people from acting like morons.

So. . .(I'm about to address the original question, can ya believe it?!?) if you are concerned about future "over-regulation," then act the way you know you should, even if it conflicts with the way you'd like to act.

PS -- Chomp is not straight-laced. I won't go into details, but right now in Texas I believe he's doing things that are illegal in 23 states.

[warren doyle]

Nice to see folks thinking/talking about more important issues than stove/tent/pack weight (in my opinion).
We will have a general discussion on Rules and Regulations at the 2004 Gathering for those that plan to attend.
If anyone (i.e., Ugh, Chomp) wants more info on what happened at Katahdin Stream CG on 9/2/75, send me your snail mail address and I'll send you the articles about it.
TJ - please call Buz Caverly at BSP and he will tell you about the specific regulation I have referred to (which you continually have trouble accepting its existence).
Frosty; Sloetoe; Steve Hiker - right on!
Jack Tarlin/The Old Fhart - you two sure like to put your words in my mouth.
Once again if this was Sesame Street, the word for the day is 'demonization'.
Happy trails to all!

[Jack Tarlin]

Warren---

Not to belabor this thread any longer than necessary (I've been avoiding it for a few days), please tell us where and how I put words in your mouth; please supply direct quotes. Then I'll happily re-print any number of your posts here at Whiteblaze where it's clear you've done EXACTLY what I've charged you with---purposely avoiding and evading public fees; bragging about it ad nauseum; and providing detailed information on how similarly inclined individuals can emulate your behavior by breaking the law, and by ignoring rules and regulations they feel don't apply to them.

If you're gonna make statements such as the ones you've been making here, Warren, then stand up like a man and acknowledge that you've done so, and don't blame other folks for your troubles or the damage to your much-vaunted reputation. For weeks, you've been relating, and in effect, advocating, behavior that a lot of folks think is just plain wrong, and now you're whining about being mis-quoted or having words put in your mouth. To be frank, Warren, your mouth is so busy spouting nonsense, it'd be a hell of a challenge for anyone to stuff any more words in there, and in fact, there's no need to do so. You make it very clear in your own repeated posts where you stand on obeying rules, regulations, and laws, and you don't need any help from us to express yourself. I don't expect you to acknowledge the potential damage done by your posts and attitides, but I sure wish you'd be mature enough to own up to them.

[The Old Fhart]

(Quotes by Warren are bold/italic)
Jack Tarlin/The Old Fhart - you two sure like to put your words in my mouth
Well maybe the following quotes by you, Warren, will clear matters up.
First, from the “I don’t have to obey any rules because they curb my individual rights” amoral Warren
Since September 2, 1975, I have felt the greatest threat to the long distance trail hiking experience is the increasing amount of rules and regulations placed upon the long distance hiker. Whether it is for liability (another general threat to outdoor adventure/freedom) or environmental impact, I question the moral authority of the organizations that have taken the role as legal authority.

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.


Second, from the “All rules have to be obeyed because it threatens me” sanctimonious Warren
It [The 'Endangered Services Campaign] 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.

1) The two main venues for the 2004 Gathering allow no alcohol.
This will be strictly enforced at the Appalachian South Folklife center. Alcohol consumption on the Concord College campus could jeopardize ALDHA using its campus in the future. We have a had a very beneficial relationship with this campus since 1982. If you care about ALDHA and the Gathering, then you know what you have to do.

2) However, if this simple fact is too disagreeable to you and you are unwilling to change your behaviors for three-four days out of respect for the organization/event, then no one is stopping anyone from organizing an event more to their liking at another location.

I guess the amoral Warren would say that drinking at the Appalachian South Folklife Center and Concord College during the 2004 Gathering could be a hiker’s right and that by drinking they are only violating rules of a soulless corporation and not an individual’s rights so it is ok. Yet out of the other side of his mouth the sanctimonious Warren says that behavior:
1) could jeopardize ALDHA using its campus in the future
2) If you care about ALDHA and the Gathering, then [don’t violate the rules]
3) if this simple fact is too disagreeable to you and you are unwilling to change your behaviors for three-four days out of respect for the organization/event then [go where that behavior is tolerated.]

So just pretend for a moment that the name “the Appalachian South Folklife Center and Concord College “ has been change to “Baxter State Park” or “Katahdin Iron Works gatehouse” and violating their rules:
3) could jeopardize hikers using their lands or services in the future
4) If you care about the A.T. and fellow hikers, then [don’t violate the rules]
3) if this simple fact is too disagreeable to you and you are unwilling to change your behaviors for three-four days out of respect for the A.T./landowners then [go where that behavior is tolerated.]

Warren is frothing at the mouth about violations at the Center because he views those violations as affecting HIM. He doesn’t care about observing the guidelines or spirit of the Endangered Services Campaign because he somehow thinks those rules were aimed at everyone but him. Now I’m sure Warren will either refuse to address the logic of the argument or mention his great schooling but it doesn’t take a Rogue’s Scholar like Warren to see his hypocrisy. I also expect a few pithy comments from Lone Wolf. I only ask that every one else reading these comments give them some serious thought.

Once again if this was Sesame Street, Warren, the word for the day to describe you would certainly be 'hypocrite'.

[Lone Wolf]

Damn fhart, your obsession with Warren is really childish and mentally unhealthy. You better seek counseling. Maybe a break from Whiteblaze is in order. :cool: Oh, is this "pithy"?

[rickb]

This thread is presumably about the Trail, and not just Warren. Right?

Given all the zeal about following the rules and regulations on the AT, I am left wondering what you guys do when you find someone camping illegally in a place like the Whites. Do you say something? Do you look the other way, or do you somehow see that people are held accountable or otherwise exposed?

In the end, no matter what one thinks of Warren's subtrifuges in Maine, I can't see that activity having a deleterious effect on the trail. At worse, the gates would be permanently closed. That would be a good thing.

On the otherhand, I am thinking that if enough hikers hikers don't follow the rules and regulations in GSNP, SNP, the Whites and Baxter then that could have a bad effect on future hikers. I guess I am wondering how you all channel your passions if you see people disregarding camping regulations. To be honest with you, I am the sort who has plenty of opinions on the net, but who at most ends up hrumphing to myself in such situations. You guys, too?

And where are the real problem areas in this regard? Especially those that have to do with the Trail itself, as opposed to off-trail facilities. In the National Parks? Around Huts? In Baxter? At that gate?

Rick B

[The Old Fhart]

L. Wolf,
I'm sorry if you feel that my answering a vindictive Warren directed at me is unhealthy. If you don't want people replying to Warren then perhaps you should direct you anger toward him for asking for it. Your one-sided criticism would make it appear that you are just a front man for him. If you read my previous posting carefully you will see that what I was saying was there is no difference between asking a hiker to behave on the trail and asking one to behave at the Gathering. You can't say one is ok and the other isn't. I can't avoid saying that the person who is asking for compliance in one instance just happens to be the same one who breaks all the rules on the trail. He has set himself up as the example in both cases. My mentioning "him" by name is no different than you mentioning me by name when you gripe about what I say.

[Jack Tarlin]

Rick:

Good post. And no, this discussion is not just about Warren, nor is it just a matter of a few folks with a personal score to settle. I assure you I'd be saying the same things REGARDLESS of who was involved.

To answer your questions, no, this doesn't just involve Maine, the Whites, Baxter, etc. There is an increasing problem every year with a growing number of hikers bending, breaking, and ignoring rules, regulations, requests, and laws, and this has absolutely resulted in a growing number of places re-thinking their previously warm regard towards the long-distance hiking community. And contrary to what Warren would like us to believe, this does not merely involve the use and abuse of alcohol; it also involves the abuse and dis-respect of property owners, business owners, Park and Law enforcement officials, and others.

This is problem that is growing every year, and in that I've thru-hiked every year since 1997, I'm in a fairly unique position to comment on this, as I've witnessed this growing problem first hand. That the problem exists, i.e. hikers picking and choosing which rules apply to them, and which do not---is especially apparent in Maine, but this behavior exists all up and down the Trail.

Responsible hiking organizations such as the Appalachian Long-Distance Hiker's Association have publicly acknowledged and recognized this growing problem, and how it can affect future hikers. Realizing that a problem exists, and is getting worse, ALDHA introduced an educational program directed at the hiking community; this program was created precisely to address this problem, in order to let folks know that hiker services were in fact endangered and threatened by folks who followed their own rules; ALDHA was very concerned that if everyone behaved like this, it would absolutely negatively affect and impact the right of future hikers to enjoy these places and services that have become, as ALDHA so correctly puts it, "endangered."

Rick, this is precisely why it's so dismaying to see such a well-known figure as Warren Doyle publicly boasting of his rule-breaking, and worse, providing detailed information advising others on how they can do likewise. It'd be irresponsible for ANYONE to be doing these things; it is worse when it's done by a trail "celebrity", especially considering Warren's connections to ALDHA. If the founder of ALDHA, who has served on its board for 20 years and chaired many of its annual gatherings, publicly disavows and ignores the counsel and educational efforts of the organization (i.e. the Endangered Services Campaign)----if ALDHA's founder and elder statesman obviously cares so little about addressing this problem, its seriousness, and the need to behave correctly while on the Trail, well why should anyone else care about the problem? What we've got here is a failure in leadership at the very least.

Lone Wolf recently asked what can be done about this problem instead of merely complaining about it here. Well for starters, maybe we can suggest to the folks who sit on the Board at ALDHA that they read some of Warren's posts here at Whiteblaze, so they can see for themselves just how much he respects the Endangered Services Campaign, and how well he represents ALDHA when speaking on a public Forum. Does the rest of the ALDHA board feel as he does? Do they approve of his comments? Do they agree that there's nothing wrong with his behavior? I'd like to think they don't. Will they do anything about it? I rather think not; Warren has been allowed to treat ALDHA as his toy and plaything for years now (witness his disgusting political speech to a captive audience at the 2001 Gathering, for which he was never admonished or reprimanded by ALDHA).

In closing Rick, I'm tired of this whole discussion, and how long it's been going on. I'm sure other folks feel likewise. But when someone comes on a public Forum like Whiteblaze, whose purpose is to exchange useful information, commentary, and advice---when someone comes on the site and repeatedly makes posts that belittle and minimize lawbreaking and responsible public behavior; when one who describes himself as an "educator" seems to think that there's nothing wrong in educating folks on how they can follow his example and ignore rules and break the law----when someone does this, Rick, and when someone does it repeatedly, continually, and shamelessly, well he's gonna get called out on it. And it's ridiculous to see him today whining and carping about being mis-interpreted and mis-quoted. I have neither the time nor inclination to go back in time and re-produce his previously published comments and statements; I could easily do this, but I really have better things to do. But there's no question that he's damned himself with his own words; if he thinks he's being spoken of un-kindly or un-fairly, and if he thinks his "good name" is being impugned here, he's got nobody to blame but himself. This whole extended dialogue would never have begun if this sage educator hadn't decided to give a free, public lecture on how to break laws, avoid public responsibilities, and screw people. If he doesn't like the reaction of his audience, then perhaps he should think twice before saying such things.

To sum up your post, Rick: Yeah, this is a problem that is NOT limited to a few places on the Appalachian Trail, and it's a problem that impacts more and more hikers each year as they encounter more and more folks who are less-disposed to view thru-hikers in a friendly and favorable light. This problem is growing, and until Trail elders and well-known figures such as Mr. Doyle acknowledge that what they're doing is wrong, well, the problem is only going to get worse.

And with that, I'll get back to my 2004 Maildrop/Re-Supply Article, which is really the type of thing I'd rather spend time on, as opposed to this extraordinarily thread, whose longevity astounds me. Tho I frequently dis-agree with what Lone Wolf has to say here, I just as frequently applaud his brevity, so here are (hopefully) my last words on the subject for awhile:

1. Public fees are just that----public.
2. Rules, Regulations, and Laws apply to everybody.
3. Breaking or ignoring these public obligations has a definite negative
impact on the Trail.
4. Responsible hikers and hiking organizations recognize that there's a
problem and are trying to do something about it
5. Giving people pointers and advice on how they can break the law and
defraud people is incredibly irresponsible, and indefensible.
6. People that repeatedly boast of their refusal to obey standards of
behavior that apply to everyone have absolutely no right to EVER
comment on the behavior, or alleged mis-behavior of others. To berate
folks on Sunday about their misdeeds, and to then spend Monday,
Tuesday, and Wednesday crowing about your own is the height of
hypocrisy.
7. If you use a service along the Trail, well, pay for it. In full. Without
whining, bitching, and moaning about corporate greed, or the fairness
of the service fee, or anything else. Pay your share, stop crying about
it, refrain from arguing that you're "special" and don't have to pay it,
and for heaven's sake, stop trying to rationalize or excuse your behavior
as being anything other than what it is-----thoughtless, arrogant,
conceited, immoral, and frequently illegal.
8. Lastly, I wish people would remember that a lot of folks here on
Whiteblaze are new to the world of the Trail---the last thing these folks
need to hear from respected Trail elders is how to cheat, rob, and dis-
respect the people they meet on their trip. I find it astounding that any-
one can seriously try to defend such behavior, and I want to make it very
clear to the new folks that this is NOT the way to behave out there,
regardless of what anyone might say.

[warren doyle]

I will use the thread under 'Trail News and Updates' entitled
"AMC buys huge tract in 100 mile wilderness" to respond. My responses will be in between the ***.

1/12/04 post #54 Warren Doyle
1/14 post #67 Warren Doyle

1/16 post #68 Jack Tarlin
"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."

A)***I have not 'crowed' about breaking rules and laws. I am neither proud nor ashamed of my behavior; and, I don't consider myself a bold intrepid soul. So I am not mistaken but your interpretation of how and why I think is.****

1/15 post #79 Jack Tarlin
"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."

B)***see A above****

"I don't encourage new-comers to the Trail to emulate such behavior."

C)***Neither do I.****


1/16 post #85 Warren Doyle
1/16 post #89 & 90 Blue Jay

1/16 post #91 Jack Tarlin
"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."

D) ***see A and C above****

1/16 post #94 Weathercarrot

1/16 post #95 Jack Tarlin

E) ***I disagree with you equating not putting a donation in the box at the Place in Damascus to my KIW behavior. I have always put a donation in that box and I have freely contributed my time and knowledge to every Trail Days since the second one.****

F) ***The implications contained in the paragraph starting with "This long overdue educational campaign..." are false and misleading.***

"publicly and repeatedly goes on record not only bragging about his flouting of rules and theft of services, and then compounds this by publicly giving pointers on how others can do likewise..."

"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..."

G)***see A and C above. If anyone is repeating themselves it is you Mr. Tarlin. Also outlaw is in quotes which might imply I said that word, which I didn't do***

1/16 #97 Weathercarrot
1/20 #99 Blue Jay

1/23 #101 Jack Tarlin

"Repeatedly going on a public Internet site and bragging about how rules don't apply to you, that you'll go where and do whatever you damned please, without regard to how others view this behavior....and to try to justify it, as you do, by telling us that you are entitled to decide what rules are "fair" and which ones aren't... disgusted that you do this, disgusted that you boast of it, digusted that you encourage others to do likewise, and disgusted that you insist that you are doing nothing wrong."

H)***see A , C, and G above. Damned is not in my vocabulary; and, when did I insist I was doing nothing wrong?****

1/23 post #102 Lone Wolf

1/28 post #121 Jack Tarlin

I)****You implied that I said "Screw you! I'm special!" by putting this in quotes. I have never said that or even thought that.*****

J)****You implied that I either didn't read the Endangered Services page on the ALDHA website or I chose to ignore it. Neither of this implications are true - I was involved in the early stages of its formulation****

"What he neglects to tell us is that people like him are principally responsible for this."

K)***This is a false statement and smells like 'demonization'.****

1/28 post #123 Warren Doyle

1/29 post #127 Lone Wolf

1/29 post #129 Jack Tarlin

L)**** you equate my behavior at KIW to Lone Wolf seeing his Damascus friends "being screwed, cheated, and robbed". I don't agree with this comparison.****

1/29 post #130 Lone Wolf
1/29 post #132 Mowgli16
1/29 post #133 Weary

2/2 today 15:40 Jack Tarlin
"by telling folks how to steal"
"you evidently felt that posts such as #67 would pass without comment, judgement, or admonition. Surprise."

M)****see A, B, G above. Sorry Jack. I am not surprised at the reaction to my post #67. That fact, if you read carefully, is contained in that post.****

My case is closed.

[Jack Tarlin]

Quoth Warren: "My case is closed."

Quoth Jack: "You have no case. I stand by my earlier post from today. You still don't seem to think you've done anything wrong, so there's not much more I can say here, it'd be a waste of time and breath. Final comment: The next time you steal services, defraud someone on the Trail, or weasel out of paying a publicly posted fee, I hope you get caught doing so. Your trial judge might take a less-enlightened view of your activities than some of the folks here. Have a nice day."

[warren doyle]

You have a nice day too Jack!

[TJ aka Teej]

J)****You implied that I either didn't read the Endangered Services page on the ALDHA website or I chose to ignore it. Neither of this implications are true - I was involved in the early stages of its formulation****
From the newsletter:"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."

Warren, please read the above, begin to act responsibly, and stop ignoring ALDHA's Endangered Services campaign.

[weary]

I really think this conversation has become silly. Warren Doyle is not a villian. Nor is he God. He's just another hiker explaining his thoughts and practices in response to questions, albeit, a bit better known than most of us.

There is not a one of us, who has not stretched the rules from time to time. I know I have. Back in the 70s when snowmobiles were given free range of this supposedly "forever wild" park, but hikers were being hassled about hiking in the rain, my practice was simply to climb the mountain, before any notices were posted. It always worked. Only rarely did anyone pay any attention.

My one serious run in with the rangers came when my youngest was five. He had backpacked into Chimney Pond every year since the age of three -- walking the entire distance with no help other than an occasional boost over big boulders, even carrying his own pack.

His bedtime stories the winter before he turned five in March mostly dealt with "this year you will be old enough climb the mountain."

Well, we went through the gates. They handed us the new rules. The minimum age for climbing the mountain had been changed to six. He could legally have climbed virtually any other mountain in the world -- just not Katahdin.

I didn't have the heart to tell him, "sorry, you have to wait another year." So we left early and acsended via the Hamlin Ridge Trail, where we thought few rangers would be around. I wasn't particularly worried. The 5-year-old was a natural climber. He made all the right moves. It was the 6-year-old, I was most worried about.

We reached the summit, only to discover, both a ranger and a smart-assed teenager. "That kid isn't six, the teen, told the Ranger," pointing at me, my wife, and three kids.

Well, almost immediately it began to shower. We decided discretion required an escape down the Saddle Trail. The ranger made a point of merging in with us. How old are you little boy, he asked my middle son. "I'm six, but my brother is only five," he replied proudly.

The Ranger stopped at our campsite that evening and gave me a written warning. "Do that again," he wrote, "and you will be taken to court in Dover-Foxcroft."

I was working for the newspaper at the time. I had written numerous stories quoting people opposed to snowmobiles in the park and critical of the loose rules for machines, but stringent rules for walkers.

The one time after six attempts I summitted Katahdin in the winter, I looked down and saw three rangers racing snowmobiles in circles on Chimney Pond, something I duly reported to my readers.

That winter I covered a hearing on still more stringent rules for climbing Baxter. The chair of the Baxter Park Authority, who held the position by virtue of being also Maine's Attorney General, made a point of explaining to the crowd, while looking directly at me, why rules were needed.

"Why, just last summer," he said. "One irresponsible parent brought a five-year-old to the summit of Katahdin in a rain storm."

Weary

[U-BOLT]

I just returned from a psychology workshop where I presented this thread as a case study. The objective was to identify the causal elements responsible for obsessive compulsive argumentative behavior exhibited herein. After examining the dialogue including posts through Sunday, our group concluded that the neuroses exhibited by the most frequent posters to this thread are most likely caused by:

1. Not enough tail

2. Not enough trail

3. Some combination of the above

[A-Train]

I just returned from a psychology workshop where I presented this thread as a case study. The objective was to identify the causal elements responsible for obsessive compulsive argumentative behavior exhibited herein. After examining the dialogue including posts through Sunday, our group concluded that the neuroses exhibited by the most frequent posters to this thread are most likely caused by:

1. Not enough tail

2. Not enough trail

3. Some combination of the above


AHAHA. funny stuff, but try way TOO MUCH trail for these guys I believe

[U-BOLT]

AHAHA. funny stuff, but try way TOO MUCH trail for these guys I believe
Ah, well that nails it. Cause #1


:cool:

[rickb]

What I come away from this thread wondering has less to do with Warren, than where exactly thru hikers are breaking rules and regulations on the Trail in such a way that they are likely to impact on others' experiences. The experiences of either those around them, or of those who will follow them.

Again, I am speaking of breaking rules and regulations on the AT itself, not at hostels and such. I understand very well that hiker behavior has caused some hostels to close, and created tensions at others. But what of on the trail? Apart from some very enlightening comments regarding thru hikers' relationships with the powers at Baxter, I have heard virtually nothing about other areas where rule breaking is a problem.

I have been away from many parts of the AT for a long time. Is this more than a tempest in a teapot? Again, I am speaking of on the Trail itself. If it is a real problem, I am wondering where exactly.

For example, have thru hiker's illegal camping choices got the authorities in SNP contemplating draconian counter measures?

Or, are thu-hiker interpretations of who is deserving of a bunk space in the Smokies, or under what conditions they are permitted to pitch a tent, a source of tension with authorities.

Perhaps thu hikers are camping illegally within 1/4 mile of an AMC Hut in such numbers that the dynamics of camping in that region are likely to change forever? Or perhaps they are not staying in shelters/designated sites like the stretch between Gorham and Maine? Is that a real problem?

Or even, that thru hikers building illegal fires, sawing down wood and trashing places in ways that will lead to closure of camping spots?

I doubt gate jumping going to lead to undercover sting operations. But pot smoking?

Just wondering. Perhaps there are people in this thread who can help me connect the dots.

Rick B

[Lone Wolf]

Rick, there is no major problem with rules/regs being broken on the AT itself. The MAJORITY of infractions occur in towns/hostels.

[warren doyle]

Weary - a wonderful story to share. I hope to compare notes with you face-to-face some day.

Rick Boudrie- great insight and questions. Yes, it is just a 'tempest in a teapot'. I don't know of any hiker behavior on the trail that has caused more restrictions on hiker movement on the trail, except for the recent changes in long distance hiker camping in Baxter State Park due to some folks pushing the Oct. 15th 'deadline'. From what I have seen, it is hiker behavior in closed quarters (i.e., hostels/motels) that has caused most of the uproar. It is a fact that this behavior is mostly from 'partiers' on the trail, and alcohol is usually involved.
Also, in my observations over the years, there is a higher % of 'partiers' in the last bunch of northbounders who have caused the October frustration by the Baxter State Park management.
In truth, the most frustration experienced by local and corporate landowners (not hostel keepers) has not been caused by individual long distance hikers but by the use/abuse of eminent domain by the government with the support of the ATC central office and local hiking clubs.
I experienced this frustration quite often from the mid-70's to the mid-80's. The best example of this is the Buck Mt. area just north of Rt. 19E where individual hikers have born the brunt of government policy.
I hope this helps to connect the dots.

U-Bolt - I'm glad this thread is being used for other useful purposes, but speaking for myself, the causal element analysis is off. I have just the right amount of both.

[Rain Man]

I hope this helps to connect the dots.

Well, I did ask about connecting some dots. Maybe I missed the answer, This was in this thread, although last month now. Anyway, I sincerely wanted to know about the rules and regulations, so I'll repost, if that's okay. If I missed an answer directed to me in the morass, I apologize.



Originally Posted by warren doyle
Since September 2, 1975, I have felt the greatest threat to the long distance trail hiking experience is the increasing amount of rules and regulations placed upon the long distance hiker. ...

Towit I asked the following:

"I realize it is just my inexperience and ignorance, but what rules and regulations have been placed on long distance Appalachian Trail hiking over the past three decades?"

Rain Man

[The Old Fhart]

Rain Man,
Don’t feel bad if you can’t get an answer. He keeps mentioning this magic date of 9/2/75 that only has meaning in his mind and no relevance to what is happening on the trail today. The question of whether ALDHA's Endangered Services Campaign applies to all has been asked in posts #48 and #60 above and receives no answer. In WD’s post #50 he says there will be a discussion on Rules and Regulations at the Gathering but refuses to comment on the legitimate question I raised in post #52 above. That post basically says: how can he so piously lecture others to respect his rules regarding conduct at the Gathering at the Appalachian South Folklife Center and Concord College, which he feels affects him, when he breaks all the rules on the trail because he feels those rules just affect others. Reminding him of the rules is like shining a light on cockroaches; they fear the light and scatter, leaving their dropping behind for you to clean up.

[Rain Man]

Rain Man,
Don’t feel bad if you can’t get an answer. ...

Well, I don't know about all the personality clashes, but I did ask an honest question about the "increasing rules and regulations" that were mentioned.

Since I'm currently section hiking off and on and my daughter hits the AT next month, I wanted to know what new rules and regulations we should be aware of, especially if they are a great threat.

If I don't get an answer, that will be answer enough.

Rain Man

.

[The Old Fhart]

Rain Man,
I'm sorry you didn't get a reply so I'll try to answer your question. Countless hikers use the trail every year without any real problem with the regulations. If you read ALDHA's Companion and the ThruHiker's Handbook they will tell you most of what you need to know. The rules are generally common sense like staying on the trail, don't cut across switchbacks, no dogs in the Smokies, don't camp in certain areas that are trying to recover from previous abuse, that sort of thing. You basically don't have to pay to hike the A.T. other than paying for your stay at hostels, paying for meals and services you receive, etc.. Every one has some rule they complain about but the only hikers that have problems are the ones that go out of their way to break all the rules. You will have more problems trying to keep on schedule, getting to the Post Office before it closes, or deciding what to eat for supper. The trail is a reflection of your self. If you see problems everywhere, you'll certainly find them. If you view this trip as a great experience and treat the people you meet on and off the trail with respect, you will have a great time with few, if any, problems. I can't give you a lot of information because that would fill volumes, and the information exists already. Try your library, the ATC bookstore, or talk to anyone you know who has hiked the trail in part, or whole, and you will find regulations aren't a problem. Good luck.

[weary]

I did ask an honest question about the "increasing rules and regulations" that were mentioned.


You are pretty much on your own while on the trail. There are restrictions on camping in the Smokies, the Whites, and in Baxter State Park, and in a few scattered locations elsewhere.

In the Smokies you have to camp in the shelters or near the shelters if the shelters are full.

In the Whites you can't camp above timberline or within a quarter mile of a road or developed facility (mostly the AMC huts), or too close to lakes and streams.

In Baxter you have to camp at a designated site in a designated campground, and you can't camp at all between October 15 and sometime in December or January, depending on the whims of the park officials.

Baxter is also the only place that imposes a restriction on when one can climb a mountain, but I sense the restrictions are less stringent now than they were 30 years ago. Elsewhere you have to use your common sense about what weather to choose for walking.

Baxter's excuse is that rescue is more difficult in the relatively remote park, in contrast to, say, the Presidential Range which has AMC crews available to help.

I tend to believe the policy is a product of a flaw in Gov. Baxter's knowledge of human nature. The governor bought the park and gave it to the "people of Maine," after the Legislature failed to do so. In an attempt to divorce the park from political favoritism and intrigue he designated three Bureaucrats to serve as the park policy makers -- the Attorney General, and Commissioners of Forestry and Inland Fisheries and Wildlife -- neglecting to consider that these three people already had fulltime jobs. Their "management" of the park tends mostly to minimize bothersome problems such as having people getting stuck on the knife edge in storms and dying.

I know, this is to some extent an unfair assessment. From time to time the Baxter Park Authority rises above such petty matters and tries to the best of their knowledge to implement Gov. Baxter's desire for a "forever wild" Park.

One difficulty is that generations can go by before one is likely to find any of the three with any real knowledge about how to manage a wilderness with 70 million people living within a day's drive away.

I attribute the fact that Baxter remains an absolutely fabulous place to visit and explore to the wisdom of the veteran director, Buzz Caverly. I say this even though I thought his selection a quarter century ago was probably a mistake. I was wrong. I now worry about what may happen when he leaves.

Weary

[Skeemer]

Originally Posted by The Old Farht
The trail is a reflection of your self. If you see problems everywhere, you'll certainly find them. If you view this trip as a great experience and treat the people you meet on and off the trail with respect, you will have a great time with few, if any, problems.

...a lot of truth in this statement

[TJ aka Teej]

Since I'm currently section hiking off and on and my daughter hits the AT next month, I wanted to know what new rules and regulations we should be aware of, especially if they are a great threat.
Baxter's regulations have to do with the fact it's a controlled access State Park. Some that deal with Thruhikers are:
No dogs.
To use the Long Distance Hiker's Lean-tos and tent platform you must have hiked in from Monson. There are only twelve spots available, first come, with a sign up sheet 9 miles south on the AT just beyone the Abol Bridge Store. A TrailRunner patrols the A.T. as it enters the Park, mostly dealing with dogs, bikes, and people trying to sneak-camp. Last it was an '02 Thruhiker named PopTart.
To climb Katahdin the Trail must be open. In Spring, the Trail will not be open until trail work is done and a Ranger has OK'd it after personal inspection. It's been open for Memorial Day Weekend for several years in a row. In Fall the Trail might close due to ice and snow above treeline. When the Trail is closed, it is now closed at the Trailhead - not at treeline as before.
Overnight camping season ends October 15th. If you camp at the base of the mountain, you have a 10.4 mile climb. If you have to camp outside the Park, you have 20+ mile trek. Get there while camping is allowed.
Flip-Floppers and MEGAs can not stay at the Birches, they must make reservations elsewhere.
Vendors, like people who run van supported group hikes, need to register and pay a fee.
Baxter Park rules are State Laws, by the way.
The regulations are all reasonable and justified. The Ranger who died on a rescue was a friend of the Park Director, and a member of the small close knit 'family' of Baxter folk. It's understandable that Baxter Park thinks one Ranger death is one too many.

[weary]

The regulations are all reasonable and justified. The Ranger who died on a rescue was a friend of the Park Director, and a member of the small close knit 'family' of Baxter folk. It's understandable that Baxter Park thinks one Ranger death is one too many.

Of course the death of a ranger is a tragedy. Of course a death of a rescuer is "one too many."

But that doesn't make regulations "reasonable and justified."

Death is part of mountaineering. People who climb in severe conditions should recognize the dangers. Managers of public parks need to use judgment and not allow rescuers to take unreasonable chances -- certainly they should not order rescuers to take unreasonable chances.

That is the solution to avoiding ranger deaths. Not closing off mountains to protect the unprepared.

By TJ's reasoning -- that regulations are needed to protect people from any possibility of requiring a dangerous rescue -- the guy who died in the Whites last month would still be alive, because regulations would have prevented him from being in the hills. Scores of other victims of White Mountain hikes would still be alive, or by now have died of old age -- or boredom -- because if the same rules that prevail in Baxter had been in force in the White Mountain National Forest, they would not have been allowed to hike.

If Baxter rules prevailed on the rest of the AT, January starts would be prohibited without hikers first demonstrating to a team of bureaucrats that they were skilled in winter mountaineering.

Had the same regulations prevailed in the Whites, where many rescuers have died, tens of thousands would have lived diminished lives. They would have been denied the chance to challenge themselves against the forces of nature -- the adventures that made their lives fullfilling would have been denied.

Katahdin is the most regulated mountain in the world. It should not be. The regulations are not "all reasonable and justified."

Government regulations that protect the park environment are legitimate. REgulations that prohibit the use of the park by those seeking a challenge are illegitmate.

Rangers should be trained to provide information for the unwary. They should advise, not prohibit.

Weary

[warren doyle]

Right on Weary!

Rain Man - this cockaroach apologizes for his tardy response to your question. Seems like everytime he appears, people want to squash it.

Outside of the aforementioned stiffening of the rules at Baxter State Park, the other rule changes over the past 10-15 years are as follows:

1) There are more 'designated campsites' than ever before. Whether you camp in a designated area or not is ultimately your choice - the central question is "How much impact do I have on the land on this particular evening as opposed to the impact this authority (agency; organization) has?"

2) There are limits to the size of overnight groups in wilderness areas. The central question is "What constitutes a group?"

3) Small mom @ pop operations serving hikers (i.e., hostels; diners) can no longer leave their business cards in shelters. The central question is "How is this different than the ATC presence in the most recent LL Bean catalog?"

For the most part, it still is an unregulated experience thank goodness.

Oh, Oh! Gotta Go. Here comes those guys with the flashlights again! Please excuse my droppings - but you know, we all have them.

[rickb]

2) There are limits to the size of overnight groups in wilderness areas. The central question is "What constitutes a group?"

On this one I'd suggest the central question is whether or not groups of more than 10 hikers camping in wilderness areas are likely to have a negative impact on the environment and/or backcountry experience of others using the wilderness area, and how that impact can best be mitigated.
_____

One regulation that Warren forgot was that college and commercial groups in some areas (like the WMNF) need to get an outfitters permit. How much are they Warren? :-)

As for the ranger who died at Baxter 40 years ago, that was indeed a tragedy.

[Rain Man]

Rain Man - this cockaroach apologizes for his tardy response to your question.

Warren, you're forgiven... thanks for the info. That helps me understand somewhat.

Rain Man

.

[The Old Fhart]

Finally a reply from Warren on what the “greatest threat to the long distance trail hiking experience” since 9/2/75 is (rules and regulations), and, after reading them, they don’t sound that bad, and may be improvements.
1) “There are more 'designated campsites' than ever before.”
Looks like supporters of the trail are trying to help hikers rather than hurt them. Anyone who is looking for a campsite can check the guidebook/handbook, and know where a good place to camp is without searching all night.
2) “There are limits to the size of overnight groups in wilderness areas.”
Actually, Warren, that includes day groups as well. Anyone who has run into these huge school groups from the Whites through much of Maine, or believes in LNT, applauds that change. And organized groups whether they charge money or not have to have outfitter licenses. A “group” is 10 hikers or less, and that is including the leader(s). As a volunteer trip leader in NHAMC for almost 25 years, I have one. Groups accepting money, profit making or not, may have to pay a fee
3) “Small mom @ pop operations serving hikers (i.e., hostels; diners) can no longer leave their business cards in shelters. The central question is "How is this different than the ATC presence in the most recent LL Bean catalog?"”
If there is a good place near the trail the grapevine, the Companion, or theThruhiker’s Handbook, do a pretty fair job of covering services. Also check the register and you’ll find references to great meals previous hikers have had. This non-posting policy, supported by ALDHA , ATC, and LNT, is probably a reaction to abuses I have seen where piles of leaflets and/or ads are left all over some shelters. Threat category-very low to non-existant.
The second part of 3) is baffling and bizarre. How does the LLBean catalog (National Geographic, Outside, or Backpacker) mentioning the A.T. in their publication have anything to do with advertising on the trail? LLBean isn’t leaving catalogs on the trail and, on the contrary, LLBean has constructed shelters and maintained parts of the A.T. in Maine. Check the soulless corporate sponsor list of hiking organizations and you will probably find LLBean’s name. Put them under “friends of the trail”.

Bottom line is these “threats” are big only if you are small. Would I prefer to be the only one on the trail and have no rules and regulations? That would come at the cost of no support, no trail maintenance, no shelters, no hiking friends. These so-called threats are making a mountain out of a molehill.

[Peaks]

One reason for the restrictions on climbing Katahdin in bad weather is that it is a very remote area. Most of the AT does not have the exposure that Katahdin has. And most of the AT is not nearly as remote as Baxter State Park.

For that section that does have the exposure similiar to Katahdin, namely the White Mountains, there is a large organized rescue squad that can haul those out who get into trouble. And it takes a huge crew to carry someone out. I can understand why the Rangers don't want to deal with it.

In some ways, it's another example of "endangered services campaign." The actions of a very few, namely a few inexperienced climbers who did get into trouble, who ruined it for those who are experienced and do use good judgement about when to climb and when not to climb, or when to turn back.

Also, there is a big difference in trail management between a state park, national forest, and national park.

[weary]

One reason for the restrictions on climbing Katahdin in bad weather is that it is a very remote area. Most of the AT does not have the exposure that Katahdin has. And most of the AT is not nearly as remote as Baxter State Park. Also, there is a big difference in trail management between a state park, national forest, and national park.

That certainly is the excuse. But is there another mountain where the rules are as paternalistic as those for climbing Katahdin? I've never heard of one. Certainly there are more remote mountains with equally irresponsible hikers.

And why should there be "a big difference in trail management between a state park, national forest and national park?" If in fact there is.

Baxter Park is not an ordinary state park as Baxter managers are fond of telling us. It is a unique park, created by one man, who imposed specific instructions that it should be managed to be "forever wild."

I can't think of a better place to impose minimal regulations governing hiker behavior than a forever wild park.

Some years ago I was part of a party that had hoped to be the first to do a traverse of the mountain in winter. Our plan was to take the Appalachian Trail
to the summit and descend the other other side of the mountain to Chimney Pond and eventually Roaring Brook.

A whiteout on the Katahdin tableland forced us to turn back on our first attempt. We regrouped two weeks later for a second try -- only to be stopped at the gate because we didn't have medical certificates and no where in our packs was the required ax (no, not an ice axe, but a wood chopping ax) that the regulations said had to be carried by anyone going above the tree line in winter.

We were forced to abandon the attempt. We climbed Whitecap instead, a somewhat lower but even more remote summit.

Weary

[Doctari]

I just read this entire post for the first time. Shortly after a friend sent this to me, read it & see how "regulations" can go awry:

>Operator: "Thank you for calling Pizza Hut. May I have your order?

Customer: "Hi, I'd like to make an order."

Operator: "May I have your NIDN first, sir?"

Customer: "My National ID Number, yeah, hold on, eh, it's 6102049998- 45-54610."

Operator: "Thank you, Mr. Sheehan. I see you live at 1742 Meadowland
Drive, and the phone number's 494-2366. Your office number over at
Lincoln Insurance is 745-2302 and your cell number's 266-2566. Which
number are you calling from, sir?"

Customer: "Huh? I'm at home. Where d'ya get all this information?"

Operator: "We're wired into the system, sir."

Customer: (Sighs) "Oh, well, I'd like to order a couple of your All- Meat Special pizzas..."

Operator: "I don't think that's a good idea, sir."

Customer: "Whaddya mean?"

Operator: "Sir, your medical records indicate that you've got very
high blood pressure and extremely high cholesterol. Your National
Health Care provider won't allow such an unhealthy choice."

Customer: "Damn. What do you recommend, then?"

Operator: "You might try our low-fat Soybean Yogurt Pizza. I'm sure
you'll like it."

Customer: "What makes you think I'd like something like that?"

Operator: "Well, you checked out 'Gourmet Soybean Recipes' from your
local library last week, sir. That's why I made the suggestion."

Customer: "All right, all right. Give me two family-sized ones,
then. What's the damage?"

Operator: "That should be plenty for you, your wife and your four
kids, sir. The 'damage,' as you put it, heh, heh, comes to $49.99."

Customer: "Lemme give you my credit card number."

Operator: "I'm sorry sir, but I'm afraid you'll have to pay in cash.
Your credit card balance is over its limit."

Customer: "I'll run over to the ATM and get some cash before your
driver gets here."

Operator: "That won't work either, sir. Your checking account's
overdrawn."

Customer: "Never mind. Just send the pizzas. I'll have the cash ready.
How long will it take?"

Operator: "We're running a little behind, sir. It'll be about 45
minutes, sir. If you're in a hurry you might want to pick 'em up
while you're out getting the cash, but carrying pizzas on a
motorcycle can be a little awkward."

Customer: "How the hell do you know I'm riding a bike?"

Operator: "It says here you're in arrears on your car payments, so
your car got repo'ed. But your Harley's paid up, so I just assumed
that you'd be using it."

Customer: "@#%/$@&?#!"

Operator: "I'd advise watching your language, sir. You've already
got a July 2006 conviction for cussing out a cop."

Customer: (Speechless)

Operator: "Will there be anything else, sir?"

Customer: "No, nothing. Oh, yeah, don't forget the two free liters of
Coke your ad says I get with the pizzas."

Operator: "I'm sorry sir, but our ad's exclusionary clause prevents
us from offering free soda to diabetics."<

Imagine this on the AT :datz
Impossible??? Do you really think that, or are you just in denial. Right now, Law enforcement can find me within about 300 ft by my cell phone signal, impossible as little as 15 - 20 years ago. What's next?

Doctari.

[The Old Fhart]

I would like to make some comments about the Rules and Regulations as they relate to Baxter. First, as a hiker who has legally climbed Baxter Peak, Hamlin, North & South Brother, Fort, and Coe in the winter, I can say that some of the winter regulations are strict but not unreasonable. The group I led to Baxter in winter included a member of the Austrian Alpine Club, a hiker finishing his 100 highest peaks in New England in winter, and several other very capable and experienced hikers. However, if there is a problem, experience will not replace the required gear that you might choose not to bring to save weight, etc..

To say that death is part of mountaineering is not correct, death is part of mountaineering gone wrong. Just replace “mountaineering” with “skydiving” and a diver wouldn’t jump without his chute and say “death is part of skydiving”. And no reasonable person would allow such a person to jump. You have to go through training and adhere to accepted and required safety standards before they will let you jump. Rules and Regulations are necessary to protect us from you. We like to live life on the edge, that isn’t a problem. What is a problem is when we cross that line because of arrogance, hubris, ignorance, whatever, and unnecessarily and irresponsibly put ourselves, and others, at risk.

Rescue parties are experienced hikers and mountaineers and they try to save people using their best judgement but there are times things go wrong. Albert Dow was killed by a freak avalanche on a rescue on Mount Washington in an area that was considered “safe”. The Jeremy Haas/Derrick Tinkham tragedy on Mount Washington was caused by Haas’ disregard for rules and the safety of his companion resulting in Tinkham’s death and near tragedy for the rescuers led by Rick Wilcox who has stood on Everest. Climbers now have the term “getting haased” which means "to be left out in the cold to die while your more experienced partner takes off down to safety." Firemen and policemen routinely put themselves at risk to save and protect others but to say they shouldn’t go out if there is danger is missing the point.

The point is that by feeling that the rules and regulations don’t apply to you and putting others at risk isn’t just a danger to you, it’s a danger to rescuers and impacts the people who follow you and now have to adhere to stricter rules resulting from your callowness. The abuse by thru hikers has cost us Daicey Pond in Baxter and brought stricter enforcement of the climbing rules on Katahdin. (Check Chomp’s reference: http://web.archive.org/web/20010422...orynumber=22423 ). That is why ALDHA’s Endangered Services Campaign says “Just because you live like an animal does not mean you have to act like one.” Like it or not, laws and rules don’t cease to exist just because you are on the A.T..

[weary]

[QUOTE=Like it or not, laws and rules don’t cease to exist just because you are on the A.T..

No. Of course not. But, wise people protest unwise rules and regulations. Freedom includes the freedom to take risks. Rather than rules, we need an end to the expectation of rescue. Better an occasional death, than having big brother regulating our every move, in the guise of protecting us from ourselves, while in fact keeping us from being ourselves.

The mortality of humans still remains at 100 percent, though the transition may be less noticeable for those who have only half lived.

Weary

[Blue Jay]

Wow, Weary was I wrong about you. I apologize for doubting you.

[sloetoe]

Given all the zeal about following the rules and regulations on the AT, I am left wondering what you guys do when you find someone camping illegally in a place like the Whites. Do you say something? Do you look the other way, or do you somehow see that people are held accountable or otherwise exposed? Rick B

### Count on Rick to set such a "contributing?[!]" example. (Great question(s), RB)

### OK, so, there we were, my sons and I, in hot '02, having finished our Killington->Pinkham hike a few days early and (as I promised them) now playing "tourist" along the Kanc.

We'd seen a movie in No'th Conway and were coming back to camp way "late", and of course all the usual USFS campgrounds were full. We pretty much figured that, and so we incorporated Stealth Manuever #32, and headed to a trailhead parking lot still pretty close to the Jigger Johnson/Bear Notch Road area. The trail actually starts *across* the Swift River, so the parking lot is close to the river's bank.

This is now about 11:00pm at night, and *pitch* dark. We (my two 8 year olds and I) got out our flashlights, "town" shoes (Waldies for me), and bivy sacs, and waded into the hip deep flow. 50 yards downstream -- out of sight of the trailhead but not out of sound -- we walked out on a gravel bed and bedded down for the night.

In the morning, I was up with the sun. I went back to the car and did some chores, including straightening out the inside of the car. (You know how chaotic a car can get, especially going from one type of activity to another.) Before heading back to the gravel bank with some [cold] breakfast items, I took the garbage bag I'd collected from the car and circled the parking lot, pulling some pretty ancient trash out of the weeds. I knotted it put the bag beside our car -- the only one in the lot -- and waded back into the river.

When the boys woke up, we had breakfast and then played (as males must do) with the rocks that'd comprised our bed. The boys began heaving them like fastballs into the opposite bank, which hung above the river by a good 5 feet, and a "whap, whap, whap" echoed in the quiet morning.

At some point, and without much warning, we hear a bunch of crackling brush and an "Oomph!" or two on the bank in back of us, and we turn to see a ranger pop up out of the tall schubs, obviously wondering how to make it down to the gravel bank.

With a couple of suggestions, he makes it down to us and we greet, and to make a long story a mite smaller, he informs us that he was here to "catch" us, having heard the "whap-whap-whap" from the trailhead. He expected a party of "Ya-hoos" destroying the woods with axes and woodcraft, and instead finds a father and his two young boys with "mountaineering gear", looking at our "camp" and saying to the three of us "Well, it's obvious you know what you're doing." Having learned that we had just completed Killington->Pinkham, he looks at the boys and shakes their hands, saying "I'm really impressed." (This from a guy in uniform, it made a nice kind of impression, you know?)

Now, he knew we were breaking the law, and he knew *we* knew we were breaking the law, but his basic comment was "Congratulations" on our hike and "Glad you're enjoying yourself." And then he left.

Now, in my mind, that ranger wasn't being "nice", but was being "moral." He could have ticketed us for camping ON a river. He could have ticketed us for camping NEAR a trailhead. Hell, he could have ticketed the CAR for lack of a parking sticker-thing. Instead, he says "Safe travels!" I hope he did that reflecting on the full-up campgrounds, our LNT site, and the (obvious, I guess) litter patrol done around the parking lot.

Rick asks what I'd do?
I'd be like that Ranger....

sloetoe
(who also speaks up to the non-LNT,
including a month ago at the Springer/FS42 parking lot[!])

[Sand Crab]

[QUOTE=
The mortality of humans still remains at 100 percent.......

Weary

Believe it or not Weary, there are those who would argue this point. According to some "experts", there are as many people living today as have lived throughout all previous time (though where they get their census figures is beyond me). Based on the assumption that their figures are correct, only half the people who ever lived have died, giving a mortality rate of only 50%. I've been kind of banking on their expertise. ;)

[TJ aka Teej]

REgulations that prohibit the use of the park by those seeking a challenge are illegitmate.


Lots of challenging uses are allowed. Rock climbing remote cliffs is allowed, technical mountaineering is allowed, winter expeditions are allowed, backcountry bushwhacking is allowed, even climbing in the rain is allowed. Climbing into a November blizzard in Tevas wrapped in a blanket isn't. Basejumping off the Knife Edge isn't. Snowmobiling to Baxter Peak isn't (even though it's been done).

Which of the regulations I posted about previously do you disagree with, Weary? You want to hike in from Abol Bridge on October 16th with a dog and be allowed to be the thirteenth person at the Birches? To you that's a "challenge"?

[TJ aka Teej]

I can't think of a better place to impose minimal regulations governing hiker behavior than a forever wild park.


How would allowing thruhikers to hike camp anywhere, anytime, and in anyway keep the Park 'Forever Wild'?

[TJ aka Teej]

Oh, Oh! Gotta Go. Here comes those guys with the flashlights again!
What guys? The Doyle Expedition sneaking into Baxter at midnight again?

[weary]

Lots of challenging uses are allowed. Rock climbing remote cliffs is allowed, technical mountaineering is allowed, winter expeditions are allowed, backcountry bushwhacking is allowed, even climbing in the rain is allowed. Climbing into a November blizzard in Tevas wrapped in a blanket isn't. Basejumping off the Knife Edge isn't. Snowmobiling to Baxter Peak isn't (even though it's been done).

Which of the regulations I posted about previously do you disagree with, Weary? You want to hike in from Abol Bridge on October 16th with a dog and be allowed to be the thirteenth person at the Birches? To you that's a "challenge"?

Ah. TJ, you with the incredible ability to convert the important to the trivial. I don't care about regulations that don't matter, one way or the other. I care about regulations that say, because the least prepared can't safely climb, therefore nobody can climb.

I care about regulations that say government has the power to say what is safe for me. I care about regulations that say I can't camp in the park on October 16, but, if I jump through enough hoops that the park has imposed, but has shown no evidence of understanding, I can climb on Dec. 15.

I object to regulations that said (10 years ago, at least. I haven't checked since.) that I must carry a chopping ax above timberline, two decades at least after everyone else in the world realized that that was both a foolish and destructive to the environment requirement, both above and below timberline.

I object to regulations that require -- or did -- that I have a "leader" before I can climb in winter, and an assistant leader.

TJ. Our dispute is not over the details of the Baxter requirements. But whether such decisions over individual choices that in no way affect the environment of Gov. Baxter's beloved park, should be imposed by politically-chosen bureaucrats.

Weary, who replies with sadness, realizing, perhaps, for the first time just how far we have fallen from the idea of individual initiative, and individual responsibility.

It's almost enough to convince me to abandon my liberalism. But then I remember no government in the history of the Republic has curtailed individual liberties, as severely as has our present administration, an administration that claims to be conservative, but is in fact the most radical administration in modern times.

[TJ aka Teej]

TJ. Our dispute is not over the details of the Baxter requirements. But whether such decisions over individual choices that in no way affect the environment of Gov. Baxter's beloved park, should be imposed by politically-chosen bureaucrats.

Weary, who replies with sadness, realizing, perhaps, for the first time just how far we have fallen from the idea of individual initiative, and individual responsibility.


"Individual choices"? Some would say "reckless behaviour."
"In no way affect"? Everything has an affect.
"Politically-chosen bureaucrats"? There's another kind?
"Individual initiative"? To camp/hike anywhere at any time in any manner?
"Individual responsibility"? As an individual, I know it's responsible to follow the Baxter Park regulations. They are reasonable and justified.
I look forward to hearing more of The Director's 'Wilder Within' philosophy. Let's hope that recent thruhiker behaviour hasn't poisoned the well future thruhikers will need to drink from. I hope if any future thrus are reading this they'll take the initative to show personal responsibility while guests in Baxter's glorious gift. The way things are going, in a few years they'll need to make reservations in Monson and will hike straight to the Birches from Abol Bridge on a re-routed A.T. But what do you and Warren care? You had yours, so screw the next guy, right?

[The Old Fhart]

Some of Weary's quotes:
“………………..wise people protest unwise rules and regulations.”
“I object to regulations that require -- or did -- that I have a "leader" before I can climb in winter, and an assistant leader.”
I guess I don’t understand why you object to someone preventing you from engaging in a high-risk activity on their land until you prove you meet the requirements that every one else must meet. Could it be that you had tried to go into Baxter in winter without meeting the requirements and were, of course, stopped? :
“We regrouped two weeks later for a second try -- only to be stopped at the gate because we didn't have medical certificates and no where in our packs was the required ax (no, not an ice axe, but a wood chopping ax) that the regulations said had to be carried by anyone going above the tree line in winter.

The accepted winter rules at Baxter are strict but every winter a lot of hikers manage to meet the requirements and climb without incidence. Maybe I believe the rules to be fair because I was the leader of my winter group and we took pains to meet all the requirements and had a great trip. A winter trip to Baxter is not a spur of the moment event, there are forms to fill out attesting to your ability and physical condition, itinerary approval to make sure that what you are planning is reasonable, etc.. If you show up at the gate without the prerequisite papers on file you will be turned away. No great surprise there and no unfairness except on the part of your group for trying to get in without the approval you obviously knew you needed to have way ahead of time.

“But is there another mountain where the rules are as paternalistic as those for climbing Katahdin?”
I’m sure that any one reading a book on Everest would agree that the rules and regulations to climb that mountain are just a wee bit more complex and the entrance fee is substantially higher. It could take years to get into the queue and cost millions to meet the fees and get the necessary gear and team together. There are countless other examples as well.

I don’t understand why any of your self-caused problems are an abridgement of you inherent “rights”. You can’t drive a car on the public road unless you apply for a driver’s license and fill out all the forms, pay all the necessary fees, and have an inspected auto with all the safety equipment. To say that you don’t need windshield wipers because you don’t drive when it’s raining, or you don’t need a muffler because you are deaf would be as ridiculous as your feeling you don’t need responsible leaders or required safety gear in Baxter. If, for some reason, you feel that those rules are unfair to you, you have the right to complain but that is different than ignoring or breaking the rules and laws. At that point it is a violation or a crime, not a protest. The one point I agree with you on is mortality is 100% but and that some people could lead a ½ live because some thoughtless person has caused an accident to shorten it. I realize that there are many people who live lives of quiet desperation but that is their choice and you cannot play God and help make them a statistic through some irresponsible act. I suggest you read post #83 again.

[Blue Jay]

I now know why we have turned into slaves and blindly follow all regulations any two bit bureaucrat comes up with. I actually believe that Old Fart would carry a wood ax up a mountain, or would wear a Bozo nose if that was what was written. On a side note, some of you would enjoy the movie "Rabbit Proof Fence" to see the true effect of blind obedience.

[weary]

TJ and others

As I've said several times, I don't object to regulations designed to protect the land. I object to regulations designed to protect me from getting hurt or killed. That's no one's business but mine.

If I ever get into trouble in winter, I certainly would find it nice if someone would rescue me. But they have no obligation to do so. And absolutely should not do so at the risk to their own life.

No other mountain in the east has the restrictions of Katahdin. No one has offered a valid explanation as to why Katahdin should be different. And no, the fact that it is remote is not a valid reason. There must be a thousand peaks in the west that are more remote and further from rescue crews, without similar regulations.

There's a plowed road 15 trail miles from the summit. Rangers on snowmobile regularly patrol within about a mile of the summit. (over my and Gov. Baxter's objections, by the way. It is no more legitimate for rangers to use snow machines in a wilderness park than for them to use ATV's in the summer.)

Hiker safety should be a matter for education, not regulation, on Katahdin, just as it is on every other mountain, including Everest, TJ.

Weary

[Peaks]

If you are from Maine, then sounds like something to discuss with your state legistators.

[chomp]

Before I start, I'd like to say that I too feel that the regulations are way over the top at Baxter. However, despite my feelings on this, I think that their regulations should be followed closely.


TJ and others
If I ever get into trouble in winter, I certainly would find it nice if someone would rescue me. But they have no obligation to do so. And absolutely should not do so at the risk to their own life.

TJ - I totally agree with this, but unfortunately this is not the case at Baxter. The difference between Baxter and most of the other "major" mountains in the country is that Buzz and company WILL come and rescue you... no matter what the conditions. You can agree or disagree with this policy, but there it is. Baxter rangers will come and try to rescue you in horrible conditions, and put their own lives on the line moreso than any other rescue organization.

Because of this, they have strict regulations on when you can and can't climb the mountain and what kind of gear you are required to have. Again, I might not agree with this policy, but if you KNOW that they will come rescue you, that changes the rules. It then becomes your responsibility to be more cautious and carry more gear that you normally would. Because in Baxter, you are not just playing with your own live, you are risking the lives of others as well.

[warren doyle]

This continues to be a great read. I'm glad that this discussion has finally gotten off the "AMC buys land in 100-mile wilderness" thread.

I have some responses to some previous postings:

#74 by TJ - Actually, if a northbounder wants to summit Katahdin without staying in Baxter State Park with its increased rules and regulations, they can dayhike in from outside the park boundary near the Abol Bridge CG. It would be an 18.9 mile day (not 20+ mile as you posted) which would be about 15.1 miles to the summit, followed by a 3.8 mile descent to Abol CG via the Abol Trail.
The first 4.5 miles from Abol Bridge is easy footing for night-hiking, the next 6.5 miles or so is not that hard either. This 11-mile section can be traversed by any northbounder at a minimum 2 mph pace (5.5 hours). The remaining four miles to the summit will be at a slower pace but shouldn't exceed four hours. Weather permitting - a one to two hour celebration on the summit is followed by a three hour descent to the perimeter road at Abol CG. You can either can picked up there if the driver of your car wants to pay $8 for the privilege of driving about six miles on a bumpy, dirt road or you can find a ride out by one of the many day hikers (in season) and have your friends wait for you outside the gatehouse at the pleasant Togue Pond beach area.
All this would constitute a fourteen hour day (approximately) which is doable if one doesn't want to pay to stay in a shelter or be in a more regulated atmosphere the last night they spend on their pilgrimage.

#77 rickboudrie - I enjoy your thoughtful posts. In answer to your question, my answer is another question - What/Who is an outfitter?

#78 Rain Man - Thank you for your understanding and kind response. I appreciate it.

#79 The Old Fhart - You interpret the 'designated campsites' that I mentioned in my post #76 as a help to the long distance hiker. I see them as a hindrance.
Did I say anything about 'threats' in my #76 post? No I didn't. Regardless of that fact, that was your interpretation.

#81 Weary - another great example to back your reasoning
#82 Doctari - thanks for joining this thread
#86 Sloetoe - ditto

#90 TJ - To set the record straight:
1) It is not called the 'Doyle Expedition'. It is called the Appalachian Trail Circle Expedition. I am one of the members of it.
2) "sneaking into Baxter at midnight again". As far as I know, there is nothing illegal about night-hiking (especially below timberline) in, or into, Baxter State Park during the May to mid-October season. So, in my opinion, the word 'sneaking' is inappropriate in this context.

#91 Weary - I truly hope you don't become Weary and stop posting.

#92 TJ you state "But what do you and Warren care? You had yours, so screw the next guy,right?" Speaking for myself, your interpretation of how I think/feel is pretty distorted from how I think/feel. I just have to refer again to a past post where I asked you a question whether 'TJ' meant 'too judgemental'.

#94 Blue Jay - keeps those wings flapping because I feel it is better to fly than to fhart.

Happy trails to all living things (even my fellow cockaroaches)!

[Jaybird]

if you dont adhere to the rules...you screw it up for all hikers!

i dont like taxes...but i still pay up...

if i didnt....Uncle Sam would be putting me up in a nice, spiffy jail cell! ;)




see ya'll UP the trail

[Lone Wolf]

Do you ever drive over the speed limit?

[chomp]

Do you ever drive over the speed limit? A better analogy would be "Have you ever speeded excessivly?" or "Have you ever driven drunk?"

When you break a rule or a law, you run the risk of consequences. If I choose to speed, I am only risking personal consequences - i.e. a speeding ticket. If you were to speed excessivly, or drive drunk then you are risking personal consequences as well as consequences to other people. At some point, you start effecting more people than yourself.

Same with the rule, regulations and laws on the AT. Personally, I don't give a crap what anyone else does as long as is doesn't effect me. But if hikers sneaking in to the KIW property gets the gates closed, and I can no longer use that access point to hike Gulf Hagas, I am gonna be pissed. Easy access to a great hiking area could be denied to me because of actions of a few.

So yea, there are a bunch of crappy laws and rules. And yea, the price at the KIW gate is too much money for the typical AT hiker. But you know what? Suck it up and pay the price, so that you don't ruin things for the rest of us. If you want things to change, like the rules at Baxter, then try to change them without breaking them. Pissing off the Baxter people will do nothing except make them less friendly towards other AT hikers.

Think about more than yourself.

[Lone Wolf]

If you choose to speed, You're NOT just risking personal consequences. Speeding in a school zone can and has gotten children killed.

The KIW gate will NEVER be closed because a few hikers chose/choose to sneak around it. Warren is probably the only one to do it and that was years ago. 99% of people using that gate are logging trucks, hunters, fishermen, car campers, private camp owners, boaters, etc. It's a non-issue.

[weary]

If you are from Maine, then sounds like something to discuss with your state legistators.

I've fought this battle for at least 30 years -- and actually with some minor success. I sense the rules are being enforced with more common sense now than in the past.

The Legislature rarely interferes with the park administration. Gov. Baxter chose how he wanted his park run, and chose which state officials that he wanted to have ultimate authority. Since Baxter bought the park and left enough money to operate it, few politicians are willing to tamper with his wishes.

Aside from the unnecessary and overly restrictive rules, which are a pet peeve of mine, the more important tragedy is that park decisions essentially are being made based on interpretations of Gov. Baxter's numerous and sometimes conflicting directives, letters and public statements made over his long lifetime.

One guaranteed way to destroy the good governor's vision for a "forever wild" park is to restrict its management for all time to the understanding and knowledge of wilderness management as it existed 70 years ago.

Weary

[warren doyle]

I agree with your second paragraph completely.

[chomp]

Speeding in a school zone can and has gotten children killed.
Absolutely.. even more so the case of speeding in a construction zone. But doing 70 in a 65 has virtually no effect. My point is (as you pointed out) it depends on what rule you want to break. Be aware of the situtation.



The KIW gate will NEVER be closed because a few hikers chose/choose to sneak around it.
Thats just not true - you cannot predict the future.



Warren is probably the only one to do it and that was years ago. First off, I never mentioned anyone specifically. Second, you are probably right. Warren PROBABLY didn't get caught and he PROBABLY didn't do any dammage to the hiker/landowner relationship.

But since you brought up Warren, not only did he sneak in, but posted about sneaking in, and then posted instructions how to sneak in. Do you think that those actions might increase the number of people trying to sneak in? And don't you think that the more people that try to sneak in, the more likely it is that someone will get caught?

[chomp]

I agree with your second paragraph completely.
Always thinking about yourself, Warren. I'll grant you that you probably managed to sneak by the gate and not get caught. And I'll grant you that you probably didn't damage the relationship between hikers and landowners.. PROBABLY.

However, your posting on this topic is completly irresponsible and reprehensable. You not only did you bring to light an action that would have better been buried in the closet, but you gave detailed instruction for others to break the same law.

Now, if you don't think that more people will try to sneak around that gate, you are naive. If you don't think that increases the odds of someone getting caught, again - naive. And if you don't think that after a few hikers are caught sneaking around the gate that the relationship between hikers and the landowners will be damaged... well, you are in denial.

But then, you would have to be in denial to do these things, and then post about them, and still feel like you are not hurting the trail that you claim to love. This is a VERY logical argument, and I invite anyone to present a logical response.

[Lone Wolf]

Do I think Warren's posting on how to sneak in will increase the number of folks trying to sneak in? Nope. Most folks haven't the balls to try such a stunt. :D It is now and always will be a non-issue.

[chomp]

Nope. Most folks haven't the balls to try such a stunt. :D
Come one, Lone Wolf, you can do better than that. What we have here is an assumption, not an argument. And you know what happens when you assume...

[Lone Wolf]

You're blowing this whole thing WAAAYYY out of proportion. If Earl had done it this whole thread wouldn't exist. It's only cuz a few of you loathe Warren Doyle. Jealousy perhaps? :D

[chomp]

If Earl had done it this whole thread wouldn't exist.
Earl would never have done such a thing - he was too honest of a person. "It is now and always will be a non-issue."

[Lone Wolf]

Like you knew Earl. :rolleyes:

[warren doyle]

#107 response - By the way, Lone Wolf, did I ever tell you how I almost lost 'em climbing over the old iron gate at the Bear Mountain Zoo in 1989?

[Lone Wolf]

No. But I have this visual...

[chomp]

#107 response - By the way, Lone Wolf, did I ever tell you how I almost lost 'em climbing over the old iron gate at the Bear Mountain Zoo in 1989?
Being an educator, Warren, I expected a better response from you. And I thought you went around that gate, anyway?

[Lone Wolf]

:D :rolleyes: :D :rolleyes: Life ain't that serious.

[The Old Fhart]

BlueJay’s quote: “I actually believe that Old Fart (actually, that is Fhart, BlewJay) would carry a wood ax up a mountain, or would wear a Bozo nose if that was what was written.”

Did I carry an ax up the mountain-yup, guilty as charged. But you forgot to mention the saw, sleeping bag, avalanche wands, snowshoes, sunglasses, extra food, stove, etc.. I didn’t wear a Bozo nose because that is reserved for clowns who don’t follow the rules and are surprised when they are turned away at the gate or jailed for illegal entry.

Check your Campmor catalog and you will find camp axes (sometimes called “hatchets”) that weigh under 2 pounds, folding camp saws are under a pound. Funny thing about climbing above treeline is that you have to go through the forest to get there. Granted you would probably have little use for the saw and ax above treeline but the climb to treeline, (hence it the name treeline), you go through where there are trees in case you missed that salient point. You probably could use an ax and saw in the trees but not the iceaxe. Using your faulty logic you don’t need iceaxe or crampons in the woods so they can be left as well. Just because you don’t need the iceaxe or crampons then doesn’t mean you they aren’t an absolute necessity above treeline on the icy slopes.

I know you’d like to think of everyone carrying a woodsman’s ax but that’s just you lack of understanding of the rules. Did I need a sleeping bag for a day trip? No, that is what is called safety gear and responsible winter hikers, whether they be hiking in Baxter or climbing in NY state carry safety gear. A camp ax is a group item, one per party so that added about an extra 5 oz. Per person to my group. If you want to make a stink about carrying a few oz. and have your entry to Baxter revoked because of a small detail, that is just plan stupid or you have some serious issues with authority.

If you think that rules are put there to taunt you, and it is you duty to break them, why don’t you and Warren comment on why everyone should obey his rules at the WV gathering yet all rules on the A.T. should be broken? Saying because it affect me it is wrong but if it affects everyone BUT me it my right and duty to disobey is lunacy.

[TJ aka Teej]

Before I start, I'd like to say that I too feel that the regulations are way over the top at Baxter. However, despite my feelings on this, I think that their regulations should be followed closely.

TJ and others As I've said several times, I don't object to regulations designed to protect the land. I object to regulations designed to protect me from getting hurt or killed. That's no one's business but mine. If I ever get into trouble in winter, I certainly would find it nice if someone would rescue me. But they have no obligation to do so. And absolutely should not do so at the risk to their own life.Weary
TJ - I totally agree with this, but unfortunately this is not the case at Baxter. The difference between Baxter and most of the other "major" mountains in the country is that Buzz and company WILL come and rescue you... no matter what the conditions. You can agree or disagree with this policy, but there it is. Baxter rangers will come and try to rescue you in horrible conditions, and put their own lives on the line moreso than any other rescue organization.

Because of this, they have strict regulations on when you can and can't climb the mountain and what kind of gear you are required to have. Again, I might not agree with this policy, but if you KNOW that they will come rescue you, that changes the rules. It then becomes your responsibility to be more cautious and carry more gear that you normally would. Because in Baxter, you are not just playing with your own live, you are risking the lives of others as well.Weary's comments are as usual elegant, but in this case wrong. Chomp is correct when he says Baxter Park considers it their obligation to face the risks involved in doing rescues. To minimize the need for rescues they must educate visitors and regulate climbing inside the Park. Due to the behavior of a few, these regulations have become tighter and increasingly enforced. It's not just AT hikers or winter users, this summer the Katahdin Stream Rangers were doing three or four rescues a *week* of day hikers. These hikers pass a visitor center where well informed Rangers will help them plan their hikes. These hikers are handed rules and regulations when they enter the Park. These hikers park next to a huge information board displaying the equipment they need to climb the mountain, water, food, footwear etc. They sign out at the trailhead where another sign cautions them about start times, water, weather conditions. And still they ignore the attempts at infoming them. You'd hope that ATers and winter users would be a "better" class of Park guest, and thankfully most are. It's a shame that a few are using this forum to advocate behavior that further endangers the testy relationship between BSP and AT hikers.

[TJ aka Teej]

#74 by TJ - Actually, if a northbounder wants to summit Katahdin without staying in Baxter State Park with its increased rules and regulations, they can dayhike in from outside the park boundary near the Abol Bridge CG. It would be an 18.9 mile day (not 20+ mile as you posted)


2) "sneaking into Baxter at midnight again". As far as I know, there is nothing illegal about night-hiking (especially below timberline) in, or into, Baxter State Park during the May to mid-October season. So, in my opinion, the word 'sneaking' is inappropriate in this context.

#92 TJ you state "But what do you and Warren care? You had yours, so screw the next guy,right?" Speaking for myself, your interpretation of how I think/feel is pretty distorted from how I think/feel.
Abol Bridge parking area to Baxter Peak is 15.0 via the AT. Baxter Peak to Katahdin Stream Campground is 5.2. It's 20+ and you're still miles away from the rental van.

When your intent is to avoid the permit needed by commercial vendors, it's sneaking.

I'm not interpreting how you think/feel. Your actions speak much clearer than your words.

But since you brought up distortion - You've typed here that rules you agree with must be honored by everyone else. You've also typed here that people have the right to ignore rules they don't agree with. Make up your mind, Warren.

[rickb]

Well, at least the Rangers aren't requiring a stress test before a climb. Here is a not-so-up-to-date list of fatalities in the park.

http://www.katahdinoutdoors.com/bsp/fatalities.html

I think I may have to give up bacon. And fishing too, for that matter.

Speaking of regulations, seems to me that it used to be that one was prohibitted from climbing Katahdin wearing sneakers (not sure, am I right about that?), and "proper footwear" is still required. What would happen if I elect to climb up in my New Balance (oh so cutting edge), or if mywife climbs up in her fashionable Reboks (hey they work just fine). Anyone know? That is a serious question, BTW.

Anyway, I am in the camp of folks who finds it OK to complain about things without having to write legislators (I find the net a good outlet), but find most of Baxter's rules worthy of respect. I love the one about not being able to use a cell phone in the Park except for emergencies. Like with Weary rounding his 5-year old's age up a year, I might be tempted to leave my heavy boots in the car, though. Tempted, but since I like to avoid conflict in real life, I'd probably suffer with my 3 pounders. But do I have to?

FWIW, when I hear that rangers are rescuing people 3 - 4 times a week I scratch my head. I regret that there are probably a whole lot of people who have been cheated out of a night in the woods and an IV drip. As a Ranger, I would feel compelled to help everyone, though. Unless I dind't have anyway of knowing who was where, but I'll keep my mouth shut on that. Do they continue make you sign in and out before climbing Katahdin?

Anyway, I am thinking that Baxter may be the most paternalistic place to climb a mountain like Weary says. Even on Everest I suspect that the rules and regulations have far more to do with money and politics than out of any concern for people. I suppose I will have to go look up what paternalism means, dang it. I could be wrong about that.

Also, while it really doesn't apply to any argument, I did bristle at one reference to "their park". Even though the referece was 100% correct. I immediately recalled what a Ranger said to me at Rocky Mountain National Park when I told him He had a magnificant Park. "No", he said "You have a magnificent Park". I liked that a lot.

OK, enough bombast. What do they think of sneakers up there now?

Rick B

[The Old Fhart]

Rickboudrie,
I sure people climb Katahdin in footwear that isn't approved, I've seen them. But I think you have answered your own question by saying that it probably isn't worth taking the chance. The rangers can't stop everyone who breaks the rules but it might just be your luck to be there when they decide to crack down. Why have your hiked ruined to try to save a few ounces and be denied access to the park. I'd rather hike in Limmers than loafers even though I hate the extra weight of a real hiking boot. A lot of the lightweight hiking boots would meet the standards and don't weigh much more than track shoes. The extra ankle support and cushioning from rocks is a plus. Also you have the peace of mind that you aren't contributing to the problems that breaking the rules could have on future hikers.

[Lone Wolf]

I can see it now, an official ranger on duty 24hrs. at the park boundry checking to see if thru-hikers are wearing or hiding sneakers for the hike up Katahdin. Oh brother :rolleyes:

[chomp]

Speaking of regulations, seems to me that it used to be that one was prohibitted from climbing Katahdin wearing sneakers (not sure, am I right about that?), and "proper footwear" is still required.


I can see it now, an official ranger on duty 24hrs. at the park boundry checking to see if thru-hikers are wearing or hiding sneakers for the hike up Katahdin. Oh brother :rolleyes:
Woah, woah... Baxter says NOTHING about sneakers in their rules or regulations:

http://www.baxterstateparkauthority.com/rules/allrules.html

If you look, they just say that you must have appropriate footware. If you hiked from GA to ME in sneakers, especially through the Whites, you would have a pretty good argument that what you were wearing was "appropriate."

And FWIW - I have hiked in Limmers and in trail runners, and I think that Limmers are much more dangerous than a pair of NB 806's. I have turned my ankle several times in my trail runners, but its always mild. I turned my ankle once in my Limmers and I was off my feet for 4 days. The problem is the distance that your foot is from the ground - the more elevated your foot, the more leverage you have when you turn your foot.

To get the idea, imagine wearing a pair of platform shoes on a trail, and turning you ankle. BTW - this is also one of the arguments for hiking barefoot... its impossible to turn an ankle hiking barefoot. (and no, I dont hike barefoot)

Oh, and for the record, I have hiked in Baxter on several occasions with trail running sneakers and no one has said anything to me.

[Lone Wolf]

I wonder what percentage of hikers break rule #27? I admit I have.

[Jack Tarlin]

After a few days away, I see that folks are still defending their right to make their own rules.

A few quick comments: Wolf said "99% of the people using that gate are logging trucks, hunters, fishermen, car campers, private car campers, boaters, etc."

Yeah, that pretty well covers it. But Wolf is missing the entire point----whatever purpose these folks are using the gate for, they recognize that there's a cost invovled and they pay it, and they do so without whining, complaining, or bitching about it. What on earth is so special about Warren that he's absolved from paying his way like anyone else? Wolf, merely because 99% of the folks that use a service pay for it does not now, and never will justify 1% of the users from screwing the service provider thru theft of the service. You can call this a "non-issue" if you like. Theft is theft and it's still wrong.

And Weary made the comment "I don't care about regulations that don't matter." Well, excuse me, but what if everyone visiting a Park or hiking the Trail held this philosophy? Weary's argument could be made by folks who object to signs prohibiting campfires, or prohibiting camping in certain areas for environmental reasons, or prohibiting camping in an over-used area so that it can eventually recover. When individuals take it upon themselves to decide which rules matter, which ones don't, and which ones don't apply to them, then this is a short road to chaos. Let's subsitute the phrase "laws" or "criminal statutes" for the word "rules"----does Weary or anyone else believe individuals should only obey certain laws and dis-regard others? Does he believe that certain criminal statutes don't apply to him because they "don't matter?"

I doubt it. The argument that some are trying to make here is that they feel entitled to make up rules as they go along, and are only required to obey the ones that suit them, because they're somehow "special" and entitled to behave any way they please. This is the argument that these folks have been making here for some time. I'm not buying it.

[Lone Wolf]

Same old argument Jack but you LOVE to be right in the middle of it. You can't stand not to be. BTW I called the KIW gatehouse and informed them to be on the lookout for gate circumventers this coming season. They'll be installing motion sensors to catch these felons!

[Blue Jay]

And Weary made the comment "I don't care about regulations that don't matter." Well, excuse me, but what if everyone visiting a Park or hiking the Trail held this philosophy? Weary's argument could be made by folks who object to signs prohibiting campfires, or prohibiting camping in certain areas for environmental reasons, or prohibiting camping in an over-used area so that it can eventually recover.

No that is exactly what he did NOT say. He said "I don't object to regulations designed to protect the land. I object to regulations designed to protect me from getting hurt or killed. That's no business but mine." You ARE very good at putting words in people's mouths.

[weary]

[QUOTE=Jack Tarlin]And Weary made the comment "I don't care about regulations that don't matter." Well, excuse me, but what if everyone visiting a Park or hiking the Trail held this philosophy? Weary's argument could be made by folks who object to signs prohibiting campfires, or prohibiting camping in certain areas for environmental reasons, or prohibiting camping in an over-used area so that it can eventually recover. When individuals take it upon themselves to decide which rules matter, which ones don't, and which ones don't apply to them, then this is a short road to chaos. Let's subsitute the phrase "laws" or "criminal statutes" for the word "rules"----does Weary or anyone else believe individuals should only obey certain laws and dis-regard others? Does he believe that certain criminal statutes don't apply to him because they "don't matter?"

Ah. Jack. I've never even hinted that I don't obey rules that are enforced, though I admit that after a dozen winter trips into the park I stopped carrying a wood-cutting ax and a certificate from my doctor because no one had ever asked to see such details before.

My contention is that wise people protest unwise rules, if only to prevent even unwiser rules from being imposed. And, if truth be known, to educate rangers and park administrators. Back when I was pioneering winter Baxter backpacking I sensed I knew more than the entire park staff combined.

That may even be true today, though I haven't tested the contention lately, having moved on to other challenges that are a bit less physical.

Weary

[Jack Tarlin]

Weary....if I misinterpreted your words, I apologize. And I agree with you when you say that people who find rules and regulations to be unwise or objectionable should protest them.

Protest them, yes. Work with officials to make better ones? Absolutley. But for some folks to feel they can simply obey whichever ones they wish and ignore the rest is simply wrong, and that is what certain folks have been arguing and defending here.

And Wolf----I'm amused that you feel that I can't stand not being in the thick of this discussion. I couldn't help but note that til my comment of a few minutes ago, I'd been away from this thread for three days dealing with more important matters; during that time, you've felt the need to post to this thread 10 times! If there's anyone who can't stand not being in the thick of this discussion, it doesn't appear to be me; I've been staying away from this one for days. And to get back to my question, Wolf, which you ignored: Just because 99% of people choose to obey a rule, regulation, or law, how on earth does this justify the behavor of the 1% who deliberately choose to ignore it?

[chomp]

And to get back to my question, Wolf, which you ignored:
Don't even bother trying, Jack. I just posted an argument earlier, and asked for a serious, logical response to my argument. You can read the whole post here:

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showpost.php?p=32312&postcount=106



...This is a VERY logical argument, and I invite anyone to present a logical response.
Here is what I got for well-thought out, logical responses.


Do I think Warren's posting on how to sneak in will increase the number of folks trying to sneak in? Nope. Most folks haven't the balls to try such a stunt. :D It is now and always will be a non-issue.

You're blowing this whole thing WAAAYYY out of proportion. If Earl had done it this whole thread wouldn't exist. It's only cuz a few of you loathe Warren Doyle. Jealousy perhaps? :D

#107 response - By the way, Lone Wolf, did I ever tell you how I almost lost 'em climbing over the old iron gate at the Bear Mountain Zoo in 1989?

:D :rolleyes: :D :rolleyes: Life ain't that serious.
Impressive, guys, man did you convince me! Convinced me that unless things go your way, you couldn't be bothered. Oh, and by the way, you started this thread, Warren:

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showpost.php?p=31076&postcount=1



I am looking forward to my fellow hikers' posts on this matter.
Apparently that should have read "...looking forward to goofing on anyone that disagrees with me."

Re-read my post #106 and give me a well-though out response, or just admit that you don't care what anyone else thinks.

[TJ aka Teej]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt1 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Jack Tarlin

And Weary made the comment "I don't care about regulations that don't matter."
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

"No that is exactly what he did NOT say. He said "I don't object to regulations designed to protect the land. I object to regulations designed to protect me from getting hurt or killed. That's no business but mine." You ARE very good at putting words in people's mouths."

BlueJay, Weary did type it:
"I don't care about regulations that don't matter, one way or the other."
Back about 30 posts.

[rickb]

Lucky Jack's logic is hard to impeach. Warren Doyle should be flogged around the fleet.

I would have accepted the wisdom of this approach earlier were I not a bit of a rogue myself. You see, I once fed some Gray Jays in Baxter State Park. True, my out stretched hand was empty of all sustanance, but that matters little. (Can you see I am still in denial?)

Will the Trail be better off once Warren tastes the cat? I hope so, but fear it may not be. For its those lubbers out on shore that really seem to be the problem. For though they break no law, it is their slovenly drunken behavior that really brings disservice to the AT, and if there is any disservice Warren does, it is surely exclusivley to himself.

Stephen Maturin

(aka Rick B in a particularly Walter Mittyesque moment)

Edit: Having forgotton who I am, its time for me to stop posting in this and similar threads. Had fun though. Hope I don't break my promise :clap

[weary]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt1 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Jack Tarlin

And Weary made the comment "I don't care about regulations that don't matter."
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

"No that is exactly what he did NOT say. He said "I don't object to regulations designed to protect the land. I object to regulations designed to protect me from getting hurt or killed. That's no business but mine." You ARE very good at putting words in people's mouths."

BlueJay, Weary did type it:
"I don't care about regulations that don't matter, one way or the other."
Back about 30 posts.

Okay. We need some background. TJ had posted a list of what I considered to be mostly inconsequential regulations and demanded to know which I objected to.

I replied, "Ah. TJ, you with the incredible ability to convert the important to the trivial. I don't care about regulations that don't matter, one way or the other. I care about regulations that say, because the least prepared can't safely climb, therefore nobody can climb.

I care about regulations that say government has the power to say what is safe for me. I care about regulations that say I can't camp in the park on October 16, but, if I jump through enough hoops that the park has imposed, but has shown no evidence of understanding, I can climb on Dec. 15...."

In neither that post, nor in any other have I argued for breaking the rules. If it's a regulation that "matters," i.e. has some significance to hikers and that imposes unwarranted control over hiker freedom, I think it important that hikers speak out and let their views be known.

But I don't go around looking for nitpicking things to object to. If a regulation doesn't matter to me one way or the other, which was true for most of those that TJ queried me about, I just do what it requires, regardless of how silly the regulation may be.

Weary

[The Old Fhart]

Weary's quotes in bold:
Post #127 Ah. Jack. I've never even hinted that I don't obey rules that are enforced, though I admit that after a dozen winter trips into the park I stopped carrying a wood-cutting ax and a certificate from my doctor because no one had ever asked to see such details before.

Post #81 We regrouped two weeks later for a second try -- only to be stopped at the gate because we didn't have medical certificates and no where in our packs was the required ax (no, not an ice axe, but a wood chopping ax) that the regulations said had to be carried by anyone going above the tree line in winter.

Please explain how both of your unedited quotes above can be true. Also from my winter experiences in Baxter and reading the rules for winter use that I have in front of me, no one has ever had to have the medical certificate with them. These are kept on file at the office. The fact that you have an “AX” to grind seems to be clouding (that’s putting it nicely) you account of the situation. If you had chosen to carry that ax and not be confrontational you wouldn’t be making up conflicting stories to justify you loathing of the rules. I doubt that carrying a 2 pound hand ax or a imaginary piece of paper would kill you but it is easy to see where not having the required safety gear could. You have insisted several times that you have a “right” to die and I won’t get into that debate but, if you choose to die, please do it in your own house instead of choosing to do it on the trail where it will involve and endanger others.

Your two quotes above are like Warren piously demanding the rules at his WV Gathering be religiously obeyed because they affect him but zealously insisting that he can break any rule he pleases on the A.T. because those rules affect others and don’t apply to him. I’ve asked him to explain that several times without an answer. Both of you bring up obtuse totally unrelated stuff like Warren in post #76 claiming that LLBean having pictures of the A.T. in their spring catalog is a problem or like advertising on the trail. Maybe he wants journals mentioning the trail curtailed as well. What LLBean’s catalog (with great A.T. pictures) has to do with rules and regulations is anyone’s guess. It seems you two need someone to help you get your facts and stories straight.

[smokymtnsteve]

"The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time."

"Hierarchical institutions are like giant bulldozers--obedient to the whim of any fool who takes the controls."

the words of ed abbey

[weary]

Weary's quotes in bold:
Post #127 Ah. Jack. I've never even hinted that I don't obey rules that are enforced, though I admit that after a dozen winter trips into the park I stopped carrying a wood-cutting ax and a certificate from my doctor because no one had ever asked to see such details before.

Post #81 We regrouped two weeks later for a second try -- only to be stopped at the gate because we didn't have medical certificates and no where in our packs was the required ax (no, not an ice axe, but a wood chopping ax) that the regulations said had to be carried by anyone going above the tree line in winter.

Please explain how both of your unedited quotes above can be true.
.

My first winter trip to Baxter was New Years Eve 1970. I hiked in on the Appalachian Trail with a group from the Sierra Club. Our hike was organized by a group protesting the use of snowmobiles, which then were allowed everywhere in the park. The leaders wanted to demonstrate that it was possible to enjoy the park in winter on foot -- not as the snowmobilers claimed only by machine. I went along as a newspaper reporter.

Over the next few years I did a dozen or more winter trips with mostly with the same group, though we were no longer protesting, just exploring the park. I was with the first group to walk the length of the park in winter -- from Matagammon to South Branch Ponds, Russell Pond, Roaring Brook and finally Tougue Pond gate.

We explored Little North West Basin, climbed the ice falls there, spent numerous weekends and longer at Chimney Pond, ascended the Saddle, Hamlin Ridge and Chimney Trails, escaped on blustery day down the cathedral Trail. (the Chimney was a route not a trail). I was on the tableland a half dozen times, on the summit once.

I was not the leader of any of these trips. I filled out my form as a trip member, but I wasn't in charge of the gear, which wasn't questioned by anyone when we went through the gates, until the one trip I mentioned previously, when they stopped us, searched for the missing ax, and noticed the absence of medical certificates.

I did develop a totally undeserved reputation as a winter mountaineer. I was just going along because it was great fun and the winter mountaineers were willing to drag me along for whatever reason. You'll have to ask them.

It was obvious to me, however, that the park officials were fumbling along. No one had any real conception of what was needed. That's why no one ever checked our credentials. All of us, even me, knew more than they did about winter dangers. The first winter ascent had occurred only five years or so earlier. That group had spent two or three days just getting up the Hunt Trail.

We followed in their tracks a few years later, but made the tableland by 10 a.m. after leaving Katahdin Stream a couple of hours before sunrise.

I hope this properly answers your query. If not let me know and I can add more details.

Weary

[Lone Wolf]

**********

[Jack Tarlin]

Wolf, your arguments are getting pretty ridiculous at this point.....do I have drinking buddies? Sure I do. Just like many of your Trail friends, who as we all know, are well-known pictures of sobriety. For you, Wolf, at this point in the game, to pretend to be an ardent member of Warren's Trail Temperance and Improvement Society, for the sole purpose of scoring weak debating points against me....well that's plain silly.


Almost as silly as this thread is getting.......I'm outta here.

[MOWGLI]

Your two quotes above are like Warren piously demanding the rules at his WV Gathering be religiously obeyed because they affect him but zealously insisting that he can break any rule he pleases on the A.T. because those rules affect others and don’t apply to him.

Is this all about alcohol?

http://www.aldha.org/drinking.htm

http://gallery.backcountry.net/gathering03-billville/aag

Mr Fhart, let it go please. How about we talk about hiking?

[Lone Wolf]

Jack, I deleted my last post. Sorry about the name calling.

[BiteBlaze]

Mr Fhart, let it go please.
Fart cannot let it go. The gas in this thread is the only thing keeping him alive.

[The Old Fhart]

MOWGLI16 asks: “Is this all about alcohol?“

Actually, no. If you read my posts you will find that I have said that we should respect the no drinking policy at the campground for the Gathering in WV and the other people from Billville have pledged the same. That is the considerate thing to do and I’m sure that you will find they live up to that pledge. Having a drink at Storr’s Pond in Hanover isn’t illegal or immoral and I have had a beer there. Please don’t imply that this is about alcohol and alcohol alone.

Read my posts and you will find I am talking about rules and regulations, which is the topic of this thread. What I have stressed is that we should embrace ALDHA’s Endangered Services Campaign that you also referenced. Part of that reads:
"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."

The Campaign isn’t about alcohol but all hiking behaviors including alcohol abuse. Bringing up Warren piously demanding the rules at his WV Gathering be religiously obeyed because they affect him but zealously insisting that he can break any rule he pleases on the A.T. because those rules affect others and don’t apply to him is to point out the double-standard he uses. I have never said anyone should drink at the Gathering in WV as a “personal freedom” or a “right” that others have claimed when they cheat the A.T.’s neighbors or break into Baxter.

If you’re against alcohol abuse on the trail I’ll agree to that position with no problem but I don’t expect others to be self-righteous and complain about illegal drinking when they disregard every other rule regarding trail use and decency. Please be fair and state that you also support the entire Endangered Services Campaign as well and aren’t just supporting part of it.

[BiteBlaze]

NO! Fart cannot have the last word.

Rules are for fools. Hike your own hike.

[chomp]

NO! Fart cannot have the last word.

Neither can you, BiteBlaze. I don't mind a differing opinion, and I dont mind breaking rules either. I would, however, like to see a well-formed contrary argument. Basic rules are what keep society together. You want to break some of the rules metioned here? Fine - provide a reason why it is good to do so. I'm listening.

[micromega]

Having read every posting on this thread and taken the time to sit back and think it over, here's my thoughts on the subject.

First, on a purely objective level, I feel this thread degenerated somewhat from the original statement made by Warren Doyle, for whatever reasons. "Since September 2, 1975, I have felt the greatest threat to the long distance trail hiking experience is the increasing amount of rules and regulations placed upon the long distance hiker." That statement is true. The potential for regulations like those at Baxter popping up all along the trail does exist, and should that happen, long distance hiking will become an ordeal. Who wants to jump through hoops from Springer Mountain to Katahdin?

Second, and STILL on an objective level, I agree with Warren Doyle for questioning authority on this matter. Rugged individualism and questioning authority are part of the foundation upon which America was built. This is not to say I condone any illegal activities, but that the process of (and ability to) question authority serves to restrain that authority, which is invaluable.

I'm not going to try to speak for Warren or anyone else. This is the problem as I see it: thru-hikers have a negligible impact (for the most part and with a few notable exceptions) upon the trail. I don't think most rules that are in place are there specifically for thru-hikers, but rather for the great masses that pour into the popular parks on a daily basis. And those rules, which are to help parks like Baxter and GSMNP cope with crowds, are restrictive to thru-hikers.

But the solution to this does not and cannot lie in selective obedience to the rules. Like it or not, we are all ambassadors to the trail. Our behavior reflects upon the trail. It is paramount to foster goodwill and good relations, not only with people and communities along the trail, but also with the organizations and agencies that oversee the land upon which the trail passes. And that will be difficult to achieve if we present an image of cowboys who pick and choose at which rules to follow. As much as it galls me to say this, I think the best course of action is to always follow the rules, to be model hikers in the eyes of the law. And to work to change the system from within. Prove that we are willing to work with the system, and try to get the system to work with us. Easy? No, likely not. But wilfull disobedience isn't going to effect postive change.

I would like to see some thoughts (especially from Warren Doyle, since he brought the subject up), on what he would do differently. I mean, suppose you were in charge of Baxter, and operating under all the fiscal, legal, environmental obligations they have to, etc., how would you do it differently? And still preserve the place for the enjoyment of future generations?

I was somewhat surprised, for all the wrangling over the rights and wrongs of the subject, that nobody really brought up any attempts to offer a potential solution to the problem. And FWIW, blind and unswerving obedience isn't a good long-term solution. C'mon folks, we seem to have quite a few intelligent minds here. Any thoughts? At the risk of painting a bullseye upon my own back, I'll offer a suggestion. I'd like to see a situation where thru-hikers and section hikers are recognized by the agencies and organizations that oversee the trail corridor as a separate class of visitor. As such, it would be possible for a whole different set of rules to apply to a thru hiker than to an 'ordinary' visitor. I think this would increase the rules on thru-hikers only slightly while potentially relaxing many other rules. And perhaps as important, would increase the awareness of responsibility among thru-hikers, as those would be the ones to suffer the most if irresponsibility and selective obedience leads to an end of the experiment.

I do not know how feasible this idea would be. I am aware it wouldn't be easy to implement. But I do not think it is any more unlikely than the whole concept of the trail was when it was first proposed. Or any less worthwhile. It seems to be a natural outgrowth of the trail.

[azchipka]

TJ and others

As I've said several times, I don't object to regulations designed to protect the land. I object to regulations designed to protect me from getting hurt or killed. That's no one's business but mine.

If I ever get into trouble in winter, I certainly would find it nice if someone would rescue me. But they have no obligation to do so. And absolutely should not do so at the risk to their own life.


Well it is in fact someone elses business then your own. Being you are on state (people of maine) / federal owned land, the park service is expected to provide a certain amoutn of safty and notification of danagers, and take efforts to limit the danager to you. If you are hurt the park service is obligated to rescue you. About 5 years ago a women dumped hot coffee on her self and sued mcdonalds because it was hot. Someone cuts through your yard and is bitten by your dog and you dont have up to dat erabbies tags your dog will be put down. Welcome to america, if you are hurt and the park service does nothing and you die your family can sue and win. As a ranger and certified emt if i stop and help you and dont have the correct equipment and as such you die, even if off duty, I and the park can be sued. So based on what your saying if your 18 year old son (saying you had one wanted to hike into deadly area) who had never step foot on a mountain before wanted to go into a area it was highly likely he would be seriously hurt or killed because he didnt know what he was doing but thought he did because he read a book on winter camping, the park service should just wave at him and say have fun dont die. Ya right the press would have a field day with that.


No other mountain in the east has the restrictions of Katahdin. No one has offered a valid explanation as to why Katahdin should be different. And no, the fact that it is remote is not a valid reason. There must be a thousand peaks in the west that are more remote and further from rescue crews, without similar regulations.

First off your right there is no other areas on the east coast. Head over to wyoming in the grand tetons or yellowstone, and you will find the restrictions to be just as heavey. The difference is in wyoming we will even say where it is and isnt ok for you to walk. And at Devils tower no you cant rock climb with out a permit, equipment inspection, a partner, and proof you are experianced in rock climbing. Why you ask well cause its dangerous. In regards to other peaks in the west most of them do in fact have similar regulations, the difference is the ones ouitside of national parks are handled only by the forest service and volunteers and a small number of federal park rangers, due to limited budget, so its harder to enforce it at every peak, that and well if you get killed at 15,000' by the time any one figures out your missing the press will have moved on to something else. You die at 5,000' you get found before the press is bored.



There's a plowed road 15 trail miles from the summit. Rangers on snowmobile regularly patrol within about a mile of the summit. (over my and Gov. Baxter's objections, by the way. It is no more legitimate for rangers to use snow machines in a wilderness park than for them to use ATV's in the summer.)

The rangers are out there making sure the 18 year old who knows nothing about winter camping isnt dying somewhere on the mountain. Simply put its the same reason you can snowmobile in yellowstone in the winter but cant drive a 4 wheeler around in the summer. ICE IS HARD AND MELTS AWAY, dirt does not melt away and is often soft.



Hiker safety should be a matter for education, not regulation, on Katahdin, just as it is on every other mountain, including Everest, TJ.

We all know that you shouldnt drive drunk or shoot at something moving in the bushes when hunting but for some reason people still drive drunk and hunters still get killed by other hunters who thought the other hunter was a deer. Should we not have laws against shooting another hunter?



I can honestly say that none of my behavior on the AT has ever contributed to diminish services to hikers.


If this is in fact true can you explain to all of us why many places along the trail have closed there doors to through hikers, why hostels have closed down due to disresptful hikers, and most recent why have rangers from the mid west been requested to joing the rangers patroling the AT during the midwest pre-season. YOUR behavior may not be the reason but you are not 100% of the hiking population.

Warren you should also be aware that the AT is still the longest fully marked trail in the US. The PCT is not fully marked and the CDT is not even finished at this time. Yes there are lines on a map for both of them, but if you send any time on either of them you will find that they are in facted marked in any way even close to the way the AT is. In fact it is not possible to "White Blaze" either of these trails because in many locations there is no trail to blaze except the one you decide to hike. As for why restrictions are enforced at a greater level on the AT then the CDT and PCT well its simple, 60+ people dont start either of those trail on April 1st.


(the below comments are just general and not directed at any one specific)

If every hiker on the trail had good LNT morals, and responsible then there would not be a need for all the restrictions but when it comes down to it there are still roaming frat party hiking groups, people still feed the bears, people still cause forest fires, people still knife there names in trees, and people still go potty in the water. As long as that keeps happening you will keep seeing more and more restrictions put on the trails use to protect the trail for the future hikers.

If you dont like how things are here in the US do something to make it better, instead of just talking about how you dont like the way thinsg are. Or you could always move to another country where it is completely against the law to leave the town you live in with out a permit.

[weary]

Well it is in fact someone elses business then your own. Being you are on state (people of maine) / federal owned land, the park service is expected to provide a certain amoutn of safty and notification of danagers, and take efforts to limit the danager to you. If you are hurt the park service is obligated to rescue you. About 5 years ago a women dumped hot coffee on her self and sued mcdonalds because it was hot. Someone cuts through your yard and is bitten by your dog and you dont have up to dat erabbies tags your dog will be put down. Welcome to america, if you are hurt and the park service does nothing and you die your family can sue and win. As a ranger and certified emt if i stop and help you and dont have the correct equipment and as such you die, even if off duty, I and the park can be sued. So based on what your saying if your 18 year old son (saying you had one wanted to hike into deadly area) who had never step foot on a mountain before wanted to go into a area it was highly likely he would be seriously hurt or killed because he didnt know what he was doing but thought he did because he read a book on winter camping, the park service should just wave at him and say have fun dont die. Ya right the press would have a field day with that.
.

As far as Maine goes, azchipka worries about law suits are unfounded. People die all the time while recreating on state and private lands. No one has ever collected a dime, except occasionally from insurance companies that find it cheaper to pay tiny negotiated amounts than to bother with the hassle of a law suit.

Maine, like most state's has laws that prohibit anyone winning a law suit while recreating on private or public lands. One has to set up a trap to deliberately hurt someone to be liable. I'm no lawyer. I only know what lawyers tell me. They tell me that the risk of law suits is virtually nil.

Almost no law suits are ever even filed in Maine, because the law also says that if you lose, you have to pay the legal costs of the agency or private party being sued. The assumption under Maine law is that no bridge, no trail, no shelter, no climatic condition is ever safe and that people expose themselves at that own risk.

Though Maine has the strongest landowner protection laws in the nation, it's my understanding the general rule applies virtually everywheres.

The National Park Service owns most of the trail corridor in Maine. People are hurt all the time on the trail. The NPS has never yet rescued anyone from danger, warned anyone about danger on the Appalachian Trail in Maine, or been sued by anyone hurt on the trail in Maine. The nearest ranger is stationed in Harpers Ferry, 1,150 trail miles away.

People use the trails at their own risk. That is how it is, and that is how it should be.

Weary

[Alligator]

...The nearest ranger is stationed in Harpers Ferry, 1,150 trail miles away.

Weary
There are national park service rangers stationed in Acadia National Park, which is much closer.

[weary]

There are national park service rangers stationed in Acadia National Park, which is much closer.

Wow. I'm sure glad you told me. But do they play any significant role in managing the Appalachian Trail in Maine? Do they conduct AT search and rescue missions? Do they interact with AT hikers to keep them from doing foolish things? The answers are no.

The trail just sort of exists in Maine. MATC organizes the day to day maintenance, and hires ridgerunners at critical locations in an attempt to minimize damage to the trail environment and to minimize the need for trail rescues -- which are mostly the responsibility of state fish and game wardens.

I see no evidence that concern about law suits figure in any of this. Nor, I suspect, does anyone else have such evidence. I've participated in hours of discussion about the need and cost of ridgerunners and shelter caretakers, but worry about law suits for some reason never once was mentioned.

I've watched the rule making at Baxter State Park for 40 years. Baxter has the most stringent climbing regulations of any mountain in the east. In all this time I don't ever recall law suits being mentioned.

I'm sorry to be so blunt. But the trail has enough legitimate problems, without dreaming up imaginary problems.

Weary

Weary

[rickb]

"As for why restrictions are enforced at a greater level on the AT then the CDT and PCT well its simple, 60+ people dont start either of those trail on April 1st."

Perhaps someone with more contemporary experience in Georgia can shed some light on this comment.

Does anyone know of any case where a thru hiker has been fined, or otherwise sanctioned the authorities?

RIck B

[MOWGLI]

There are national park service rangers stationed in Acadia National Park, which is much closer.

There is one National Park Service Ranger for the entire 2170+ mile Appalachian Trail. His name is Bob Gray. His is AKA The Lone Ranger because he is the only one.

BTW, if you have not had the pleaure of meeting Bob, I hope that you have an opportunity some day. He is a very nice fellow.

[Frosty]

Well it is in fact someone elses business then your own ... So based on what your saying if your 18 year old son (saying you had one wanted to hike into deadly area) who had never step foot on a mountain before wanted to go into a area it was highly likely he would be seriously hurt or killed because he didnt know what he was doing but thought he did because he read a book on winter camping, the park service should just wave at him and say have fun dont die ... Should we not have laws against shooting another hunter? ...

So if I sleep in the woods after paying $12 it's okay, but if I sleep in the same place on the same night without paying $12, it's the same as shooting people?

Mightn't this be a bit of a reach?

How about if I promised to go right to sleep and NOT shoot anyone, cross my heart. Would it be okay then?

[The Old Fhart]

Originally Posted by weary
...The nearest ranger is stationed in Harpers Ferry, 1,150 trail miles away.

I’m afraid that unless you are being very restrictive about what a ranger is and limiting it to NPS, then that statement is meant to be misleading. I’m sure you are aware that the A.T. goes through National Forest where their rangers have jurisdiction as well. The WMNF (White Mountain National Forest), for instance, has district rangers stationed at the Ammonoosuc Ranger Station, Bethlehem, NH ; Androscoggin Ranger Station, Gorham, NH; Evan's Notch Ranger Station, Bethel, ME; Pemigewasset Ranger Station, Plymouth, NH; and Saco Ranger Station, Conway, NH.

Besides having the district rangers, there are backcountry rangers and a number of thru hikers have probably met them patrolling sections of the Appalachian Trail in NH. These backcountry rangers have the authority to fine violators on the A.T. and it does happen. They have also rendered assistance to hikers in trouble. Personally knowing a few of the backcountry rangers, I have a little knowledge in this area and have heard some of their stories regarding violations of rules and regulations or hikers they have had to assist.

[MOWGLI]

In 2000, I know someone who was fined in Shenandoah NP for camping in an area that was outside of the designated guidelines. People do get fined for breaking rules. It doesn't happen too often however. I think I saw less than 10 Rangers of any kind (USDA Forest Service, NPS, or State) during my thru-hike in 2000.

[Rain Man]

I see no evidence that concern about law suits figure in any of this. ...

I'm sorry to be so blunt. But the trail has enough legitimate problems, without dreaming up imaginary problems.

The insurance industry, those champions of truth, justice, and virtue, have made it a national pasttime imagining the evils of little guys having independent courts to protect them from impersonal conglomerates.

Thus, it's easy for those who don't know any better, to have excessive fears of imaginary lawsuits, like some have excessive fears of bears or whatever.

I guess "hype" is another national pasttime established by those other champions of virtue, the entertainment/news media.

Rain Man

:dance

.

[weary]

[B]I’m afraid that unless you are being very restrictive about what a ranger is and limiting it to NPS, then that statement is meant to be misleading.

We were talking about the fear of law suits prompting stringent regulations designed to keep hikers from injuring themselves and the role of rangers in enforcing rules so as not to be sued.

There are no rangers enforcing any such rules in Maine -- except in Baxter State park and even there, the fear of lawsuits has nothing to do with either the rules or the enforcement.

In that context, the statement was not misleading. The National Park Service owns much of the trail in Maine. No NPS rangers enforce regulations, real or imagined, in Maine. The nearest ranger whose responsibility is the trail corridor in Maine is located in Harpers Ferry.

There are indeed forest service rangers in New Hampshire who enforce forest service rules in that state and park rangers in Virginia enforcing Shenandoah rules.

Weary

[The Old Fhart]

Weary,
I wish you would say what you mean and not continually reinterpret what you say with each new post. Please explain how these 3 exact quotes from you can all be true.
1)“The nearest ranger is stationed in Harpers Ferry, 1,150 trail miles away”
2)“The nearest ranger whose responsibility is the trail corridor in Maine is located in Harpers Ferry”
3)“There are no rangers enforcing any such rules in Maine -- except in Baxter State park”.

Even after you admit there are rangers in Baxter, you complain when I mention that are indeed rangers in the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) that have enforced the rules and regulations on the A.T.. I suspect that you are more likely to see a backcountry ranger from the WMNF or from BSP in the northeast than one from the NPS stationed in Harpers Ferry. The problem with a lot of news reporters is that they don’t “report” the news until they have edited it to fit their own agendas. You have done just that by continually redefining what you will accept as a real ranger who enforces rules.

When you say: “We were talking about the fear of law suits prompting stringent regulations designed to keep hikers from injuring themselves and the role of rangers in enforcing rules so as not to be sued.” What you really mean is that is your slant on how irresponsible hikers has led to stricter regulations and the rangers are diligently doing their job by enforcing the rules. Your reaction to the rules is based on your breaking the winter rules in Baxter and being denied access. You still have an ax to grind with Baxter and you will never forget it.

[warren doyle]

Micromega (post #144), after 13 days of thread silence, your posting is thoughtful and deserves an A+ in my opinion (you can go to the head of the class and join Weary).
You ask, how would I do it differently?
I see the long distance trail as others would see an institution or place - a hospital is for physical healing and it fosters an atmosphere to help that process; a monastery/retreat center is for spiritual healing/awareness/betterment and it promotes an atmosphere to attain that goal - so does a classroom (for learning), a church (for worship), and a library (for study/research). I believe a long distance trail/hike is for individual freedom, challenge, adventure and reflection. Because of these objectives, a long distance trail/hike should be free of societal constraints/conventions that are based on fear and the need to manage and control. I would 'regulate' long distance hikers only as a last resort; only after I exhausted all methods of user 'education'. (I managed a 470-acre regional park in northern Virginia for over eleven years. We really tried to never put up a sign that said 'no' or 'prohibited' on it. This approach seemed to work since we had the least vandalism of all the parks in the system).
If I were managing Baxter State Park.... I would have a separate policy for long distance hikers (especially northbounders). I would have a free designated campsite at Pine Point eleven miles from the summit to serve as the last night for northbounders and the first night for southbounders. I would be sure that all long distance hikers would be aware of this. There would be no fees, no reservations, no limits. In my 'Letter from Piscataquis County Jail' (1978), I state that it is a shame that the eternal 'mightiest mountain' has temporarily been put into a state park by a mere mortal state politician. A shame that the end of a noble and free pilgrimage to the holy mountain is so constrained by the frailities of the human condition.

And now on to two other recent posts:

#145 Azchipku (Wilderness Ranger)
I feel you are going to feel differently after you've completed your thru-hike, which I hope you do! However, if you don't feel any differently, may I suggest you go back and stay in the mountains that you came from? For someone who hasn't even walked the AT yet, you seem to know a great deal about it and you also have provided a stereotypical 'ranger mentality' that a majority of thru-hikers abhor.

#149 Rick B.
I'm afraid to say that I have been fined or sanctioned by the authorities. I don't want to be accused of bragging and/or being called a cockaroach or compared to Jeffrey Dahmer.

[Jack Tarlin]

First off, there already IS a separate policy for thru-hikers, and a separate place to stay.

Secondly, where is it written that thru-hikers are absolved from fees, regulations, etc? What on earth makes us so special; we represent a small fraction of the folks who use Baxter and the Maine State Park system each year. What is so singular and special about us that we shouldn't have to pay our fair share of fees and expenses in order to ensure that these places continue to exist?

And speaking of which, Warren's comments about Percival Baxter, calling him a "mere mortal state politician" are simply ignorant. Without this "mere mortal state politician" there would BE no Baxter State Park, and it islikely that all of this immediate area, including Baxter Peak (Katahdin) would have long since been developed, despoiled, and ruined. Governor Baxter's vision in spending many years and untold thousands of dollars in purchasing land in Maine resulted in the creation of the Park that surrounds and protects Katahdin from pillage, destruction, and commercial development. To describe Baxter as a "mere politician" is one of the more ignorant things I've heard lately, but then, consider the source.

In short, enough with the thru-hiker elitism and feelings of self-entitlement. It costs a few lousy bucks to stay overnight and enjoy Baxter State Park; to complain about this is petty, mean-spirited, whiny, and childish. It's a very small price to pay to enjoy such a beautiful spot, and it leads us back to the original point---where is it written that thru-hikers are so special that they're absolved from paying their way like anyone else?s Enough with the elitism, folks. We're not that special or entitled, we're merely out there longer. Getting a separate place to stay is one thing, at least in this isolated case (There's a similar "thru-hiker only" shelter at Amicalola Falls State Park back in Georgia). But separate facilities in a few isolated instances is one thing.....expecting that we should get things for free that other people are charged a few dollars for is the height of conceit and arrogance.

[warren doyle]

Good evening Jack,
If an outside observer read our two posts they probably would have several questions:
So who is the one who is whiny?
Who is complaining?
Who is petty?
Who is childish?
Who is mean-spirited?
Who is arrogant?
The answers to these questions would indeed be interesting.
From your ignorant source,
Warren

[rickb]

Thoreau, Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, Warren Doyle...

So many questions; so much to ponder.

Did Piscataquis County take your boot laces, Warren? Did you stay long enough for the baloney sandwich?

Rick B

[azchipka]

internte went screwy and posted message 3 times

[azchipka]

internte went screwy and posted message 3 times

[azchipka]

#145 Azchipku (Wilderness Ranger)
I feel you are going to feel differently after you've completed your thru-hike, which I hope you do! However, if yo don't feel any differently, may I suggest you go back and stay in the mountains that you came from? For someone who hasn't even walked the AT yet, you seem to know a great deal about it and you also have provided a stereotypical 'ranger mentality' that a majority of thru-hikers abhor.

Feel differently about what the At being the longest blazed trail in the us, no dont see that happening considering thats not a thought its a fact. In regards to think that hikers should follow the rules even if they dont like them, no i think ill still feel the same about that to. That there should be restrictions on when people are allowed to hike and having to provide evidence that they are experianced enough to do what they intend. I dont see my thought on this changing the 5+ search and rescue assignments per month i have to take part in pretty much cover why i think we shouldnt just let people go into dangerous places.

I know alot about the trail because my home town where i grow up is in Vermont and the At pass's through the property owned by my family.I have hiked the At from the Mass / Vt border to the north end a total of 5 times now. So ya I think that gives me a bit of knowledge of the trail and the area in new england.

If you consider the sterotypical ranger mentailty to be hike your own hike have fun but follow the rules, yes you are correct. If majority of the thru-hikers abhor this it is normaly because they have some issue with following the rules that have been set down for use of the trail.Whats funny about your sense of the majority is it seems to be a bit off. As i have never heard any subjects around the cowboy tv in regards to the normal "ranger mentaily" being abhored, perhaps you have just had some bad experiances with rangers; well no more then every person who has gotten a speeding ticket complains about traffic stops. If you work in any division of law enforcement no matter what division you learn to expect that your presence will be frowned upon by some even if you are just sitting down to have a drink.

It continues to amaze me that people have a problem paying a $12.00 fee. Heres an idea instead of complaining about the fees you have to pay along the trail for us of USFS areas and NPS areas go to www.nps.gov and purchase a golden access pass. This will allow you unlimited entrance at not only national parks, but also at sites managed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U. S. Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. For a total of $65.00 a year. Thats what like $0.18 a day?

[The Old Fhart]

Sometimes it is difficult to tell which Warren is talking. First in post #157 we have the “do your own thing” Warren who says”
"....a long distance trail/hike should be free of societal constraints/conventions that are based on fear and the need to manage and control."
"There would be no fees, no reservations, no limits."

This is exactly opposite the “pious” Warren who in post #43 of the “Gathering 2004” thread says we MUST obey all rules at the Gathering in W VA, because the lais-sez faire behavior that the “do your own thing” Warren advocates on the trail:
1) could jeopardize ALDHA using its campus in the future
2) If you care about ALDHA and the Gathering, then [don’t violate the rules]
3) if this simple fact is too disagreeable to you and you are unwilling to change your behaviors for three-four days out of respect for the organization/event then [go where that behavior is tolerated.]

You can’t have it both ways, Warren. How is whatever behavior that affects you at the Gathering in your back yard wrong yet your illegal behavior on the trail and screwing everyone else, ok? Everybody reading your posts is coming to the conclusion that the biggest threat to long distance hiking since 9-2-1975 is you, Warren. The stricter regulations that result from your illegal activities has affected all hikers. Your sociopathic attitude even extends to screwing members of your “Circle of Dream” hikes where you charge money for other hikers to gain access to the A.T. (which you say should be free). I’d like you to explain the quote one of your own group members attributes to you; that you told them: "You may have been the fastest group I've had, but you're also the stupidest. You haven't learned anything." I understand this was just before you deserted your group on Mt Katahdin to fend for themselves.

So to answer your questions in your post #159:
Who is complaining?
Who is petty?
Who is childish?
Who is mean-spirited?
Who is arrogant?
All you have to do, Warren is look in the mirror. Your actions speak for themselves. By the way, the remark comparing you to a cockroach has to be removed, the cockroaches complained.

[azchipka]

"You may have been the fastest group I've had, but you're also the stupidest. You haven't learned anything."

Warren what is it that gives you the right to pass judgement on other hikers on the trail? Perhaps this is where the "ranger mentality" that you where talking about kicks in. Everyone on the trail has there own ways of completing the trail, you have zero right to call any group of hiker "stupid", some even get in a a little over there head and need help formt the more experianced, but if that was the case which I do not know, any good person would have stayed with the group to help them out instead of leaving them to fend for themselves on Mt Katahdin. Then again perhaps this is why I am a ranger and you well you are you. Im curious do make any efforts to support the trail or just find ways to get around the costs that are involved with running it. Or is this perhaps why you support rules being followed in one place but not another.

Oh ya and in regards to your comment about people disliking rangers on the trail, you may want to look around you before placing a comment on a open forum, in the last 12 hours i have recieved 8 emails saying your post was completely off and the rangers, ridge runners, and trail patrols on the AT are a great part of the trail.

Want less enforcement stop making comments in public forums admiting to violating park rules and regs. Parks hear enough people saying that they get away with skipping out on fees and camp where they arnt supposed to and of course they are going to do something about it.

[Frosty]

Warren's comments about Percival Baxter, calling him a "mere mortal state politician" are simply ignorant.

Holy Moly!

I didn't know Baxter was immortal! I thought he died a long time ago!

[warren doyle]

Azchipka/The Old Fhart:

First, I never said the statement (or something even close to it) during the 2000 Appalachain Trail Circle Expedition. I also didn't 'desert the group on Katahdin to fend for themselves'. Were any of you there at the time?

The Old Fhart: Thank you for giving me another answer to my five questions.
As to the Gathering 2004, I am just conveying the rules of the Appalachian South Folklife Center and Concord College, and the steering committee of ALDHA supports a no-alcohol policy for these two 2004 Gathering sites. I did not make these rules at ASFC and CC, but I do agree with them. I also support ALDHA's position on this subject. As to looking in the mirror, I should do it more often (i.e., bad hair; stuff stuck in my teeth; etc.) but when I do I pretty much like what I see. And thanks for the update on the cockaroaches; there is nothing worse than a cockaroach with a sociopathic attitude.

Azchipka: Thanks for the info on your trail experience. Your five hikes from Williamstown to Katahdin will definitely help you succeed in your upcoming thru-hike. Contrary to what you posted, I like the AT ridgerunner (trail patrol) program because by and large these folks are trained, and interested, in educating rather than enforcing regulations. I think they have been a constructive addition to the trail. However, based on my experience/observation, the majority of rangers I have met on or near the trail are more interested in being enforcers than educators. I am glad there is not many of them in the eastern mountains. Finally, thank you for posting the website for the golden access pass. This is a good government program.

[chomp]

As to the Gathering 2004, I am just conveying the rules of the Appalachian South Folklife Center and Concord College, and the steering committee of ALDHA supports a no-alcohol policy for these two 2004 Gathering sites. I did not make these rules at ASFC and CC, but I do agree with them. I also support ALDHA's position on this subject.
So you would have no problems then with people that broke these rules because they felt unfair then? I mean, you choose to break rules that you feel are unfair and should be changed. So if someone decides that banning a legal substance from a campgroud is just plain silly, and that the rule shouldn't apply to them, well that is OK then... right?

[max patch]

Your sociopathic attitude even extends to screwing members of your “Circle of Dream” hikes where you charge money for other hikers to gain access to the A.T. (which you say should be free).

While I certainly don't agree with much of what Warren has to say on this debate, and I have absolutely no interest in ever participating on one of his Expeditions (and to be honest I can't imagine a worse way to hike the trail), comparing his fee for van support services to trail access fess is an apples to oranges comparison for things which have absolutely nothing in common with each other.

[warren doyle]

Good morning Chomp,

I, and others, have problems with people who have attended several previous Gatherings in West Virginia who have prevented other people from sleeping by being overly noisy at the campfire late into the night. Based on my observations, and others including Gathering evaluations, much of the noise is correlated with alcohol consumption and is perceived as a problem. I, and others including the present Folklife Center director, had an additional problem at the last Gathering in Pipestem (2002) when several trash cans near the campfire area were left filled with empty alcohol containers, along with several others strewn on the ground (Monday afternoon after almost everyone left). This was the last straw (understandably) so the simple solution is no alcohol at the folklife center (it has had this policy long before the first Gtahering in 1982). Concord College has allowed us to use their splendid facility for almost free for fifteen years. The Gathering is an integral part of ALDHA which has helped more than hurt other hikers. There is a good reason why Concord College has its alcohol policy and there is a good collective reason why people who attend the Gathering should respect this.

I neither understand, nor agree with, the rationale comparing my personal actions at Katahdin Iron Works with North Maine Woods to the no alcohol policy at the 2004 Gathering sites. And I don't think I ever will.

Once again, if this is a big issue with people, there are other opportunties for folks to get together (i.e., Damascus Trail Days; Winter Warm-up; etc.).

[rickb]

Since this thread clearly has more to do with Warren Doyle and what some think of him, than the Trail itself, I thought I would post this link.

http://www.aldha.org/doyle.htm

Some might find it interesting.

Rick B

[warren doyle]

Good morning Rick B.,

Question #1 answer: Piscataquis County did not take my shoelaces. I guess I appeared too rational. Even the inmates thought I was a lawyer.

Question #2 answer: I was going to fast during my 24-hour stay (to not be a burden to the county taxpayers who didn't have anything to do with the rules at Baxter State Park) but they said they had to give me my meals anyway and if I didn't eat it they would have to throw it away. So I felt a cockaroach wants to survive more than a maggot so I ate... but with some regret. I can't recall whether it was a baloney sandwich or not though. Sorry.

[azchipka]

Azchipka/The Old Fhart:
Azchipka: Thanks for the info on your trail experience. Your five hikes from Williamstown to Katahdin will definitely help you succeed in your upcoming thru-hike. Contrary to what you posted, I like the AT ridgerunner (trail patrol) program because by and large these folks are trained, and interested, in educating rather than enforcing regulations. I think they have been a constructive addition to the trail. However, based on my experience/observation, the majority of rangers I have met on or near the trail are more interested in being enforcers than educators. I am glad there is not many of them in the eastern mountains. Finally, thank you for posting the website for the golden access pass. This is a good government program.

The ridgerunner program is a great one indeed but there is a big difference. The bulk of trail patrols (ridgerunners) are vol. based. All the rangers you will meet on the trail are for the most part Law Enforcement Officers and not the kind you find at most places inside the park which are interperp rangers, thats what the ridgerunners are there for. You need to look at the rangers on the trail in the manner that we are out there and have a job to do just like the ridgerunners have theres. The rangers job is to be enforcers although many will go the extra mile and act as educators as well but that is not the reason they have been placed on the trail. Just as when you get pulled over for speeding the cop in most cases (i have never seen it happen) will not explain to you why speeding is dangerous, nor do they often care if your speed odometer (sp?) is 20 miles off and that is why you where doing 80.

As a thru-hiker it is your duty to know and follow the guidelines set in place for use of the trail. The LE Rangers duty is to enforce the rules and guidelines set for the trail. As far as I go i fall in the middle and also take the time to do education but will say right off if i dont like the looks of things or feel uncomfortable about the scene at the time, i will not bother with the edcation portion, simply because it is not my job and it is not why I have been placed at the location.

Everyone needs to come to the understanding that as a ranger even if you dont like the rules it is part of you job to make sure they are being followed. Do i agree with the need for experianced people to hold permits for an activity that they do on a normal basis, no. Will I confront people that do not hold a permit, with out a doubt, does it matter to me how experianced they are or that i personal think they should be able to go with out a permit, not in the least. If you dont want to have to carry a permit then go become a ranger and you will no longer need one. Hey thats one of the reasons I did it, do I still get permits even though I dont need to have one, i'll admit sometimes nobut most of time I do, because part of the reason there are permits is so the rangers can have a over all head count of who is where in the event of an emergancy. Example? Forest fire breaks out something that is completely outside of your control and it starts 50 miles from you. The rangers need to know who is where so proper rescue efforts can be made to get everyone out saftely, oh wait but in addition to the 50 people with permits there are 5 people with out who get trapped with fire on all sides of them. 3 of these people die in the blaze, why? They died in the blaze because they where unwilling to make a 5 minute stop at a ranger station pay $12 for a group permit. I am willing to bet that the now widowed wife, wishs every day her husband and two sons had been holding a permit, as if they had we would have known to look for them.

If you avoid the permit and the money involved with it you are not just saving money and breaking the law, you are also putting your life on the line. Things happen, sometimes things that have nothing to do with you that will put your life in danger while in the wilderness.

If you still insist on avoiding the fees then at least make sure someone knows where you will be and that you will not be checking in with the park service. This way if something does happen they can call and make sure the park knows where you are. Be aware though in this case if something like a fire where to break out, you would be paying the park for search and rescue where if you had a permit you would not.

[chomp]

I neither understand, nor agree with, the rationale comparing my personal actions at Katahdin Iron Works with North Maine Woods to the no alcohol policy at the 2004 Gathering sites. And I don't think I ever will.
Morning Warren -

Well, this is the crux of the problem now isn't it? The only difference between people breaking the no alcohol policy at Pipestem and you tresspassing on KIW property without paying is... YOU. You agree with the no alcohol policy, so that rule should be followed. You don't agree with the fee to access KIW logging roads, so that rule should NOT be followed.

Going with that logic, I *could* argue this; Banning a legal substance at a campground is just plain silly. Afterall, its not like I am smoking pot or dropping acid. I'm just enjoying a few beers with a few friends, and there is no way that that can harm the trail or ALDHA. And drinking beers is LEGAL. Now, breaking into someones property to gain access to the trail... well, that is just wrong. Not only are you breaking the law, but if someone was ever caught, that would really dammage the relationship between hikers and the landowners.

DO you see my point at ALL, Warren? You consistantly argue that rules and laws which YOU deam inappropriate or wrong can be violated. Something about using you conscience and your social responsibility or whatever. Bottom line - you ignore and violate rules and laws that you do not agree with. While you might not encourage others to do the same, you will not discourage them and will even provide them with details about how to break these rules (bridge jump, zoo tresspass, KIW tresspass).

Yet, at the same time, you expect people to FOLLOW rules and laws that you agree with. If a rule or law is important to you, you expect it to be followed and you get upset when others do not follow them... or even don't AGREE with you. Hence this discussion.

Sorry, Warren, you can't have it both ways. If you want to try to set rules for your organization then you in turn need to follow the rules of other organizations and even the government. Otherwise your arguments hold no worth.

I certainly have no interest following rules set forth by someone who has no respect for rules. If you want to be a "moral compass" then you need to act like one... all the time. Does this make any sense to you... at all?

[TJ aka Teej]

..suppose you were in charge of Baxter, and operating under all the fiscal, legal, environmental obligations they have to, etc., how would you do it differently? And still preserve the place for the enjoyment of future generations?
I'd remove all the rental cabins. I'd route the AT back through Daicey Pond Campground and through the woods instead of along the perimeter road. I'd cut a trail from Katahdin Stream Campground to the Abol Slide Trail. I'd put lean-tos on the shore of Daicey Pond, and set aside some proportionately for arriving GAMErs. (One in August, three in September, two in October, maybe) I'd restore the old lean-to half way up the Hunt Trail and add tent platforms, and set them site aside for AT hikers in September and October, requiring AT hikers to reserve these in Monson. I'd also let MEGAs, IATers, and flip floppers stay at the Birches. I'd also increase the camping fees for AT hikers to help pay for an additional AT-Only Ranger and the caretaker at the Hunt Trail lean-to.
I would ban all commercial users like Moose Safaris, Doyle Expeditions, and paid shuttlers. And I would put strict limits on the summer camps and school outtings that climb in large groups.
I'd also end the 'scientific' logging operation, ban bikes, extend the no-hunting zone, make Sandy Stream Campground hike-in only, and gate the perimeter road above Dwelly Pond to stop drive through touring.

[rickb]

"can't recall whether it was a baloney sandwich or not though. Sorry."

A great deal of history is lost forever for lack of documentation. Entire civilizations, forgotten. I am thankfull that you were not deprived of pen and pad in your cell.

Ironic, is it not, that the mighty bear was (is?) also jailed along the AT-- in the very place where some would identify CRIME as a man skipping over a fence, with joy in his heart. Even as the bear rots exactly there, on the same ground, for being what he is, a bear. The parallels are so clear, they need not be drawn by me, in this post.

Perhaps future generations can learn from your dark hours, Warren. Perhaps one day, I will pass though a metal detector at the National AT Museum and see a copy of a letter that spoke of what more we, as a nation and, (more importantly) we as individuals should strive to become. A letter written on in a small cell in the shadow of a great mountain.

Until that day dawns, any chance we could see a copy of the letter posted in this forum? Not so much for my sake, for my soul was lost when I stepped off the Trail right into B-School. But for others-- that they might learn. And escape thier own prisions, wherever they may be.

Rick B

[Blue Jay]

Now that was a baloney sandwich.

[weary]

Weary,
I wish you would say what you mean and not continually reinterpret what you say with each new post. Please explain how these 3 exact quotes from you can all be true.
1)“The nearest ranger is stationed in Harpers Ferry, 1,150 trail miles away”
2)“The nearest ranger whose responsibility is the trail corridor in Maine is located in Harpers Ferry”
3)“There are no rangers enforcing any such rules in Maine -- except in Baxter State park”.

Even after you admit there are rangers in Baxter, you complain when I mention that are indeed rangers in the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) that have enforced the rules and regulations on the A.T.. I suspect that you are more likely to see a backcountry ranger from the WMNF or from BSP in the northeast than one from the NPS stationed in Harpers Ferry. The problem with a lot of news reporters is that they don’t “report” the news until they have edited it to fit their own agendas. You have done just that by continually redefining what you will accept as a real ranger who enforces rules.

When you say: “We were talking about the fear of law suits prompting stringent regulations designed to keep hikers from injuring themselves and the role of rangers in enforcing rules so as not to be sued.” What you really mean is that is your slant on how irresponsible hikers has led to stricter regulations and the rangers are diligently doing their job by enforcing the rules. Your reaction to the rules is based on your breaking the winter rules in Baxter and being denied access. You still have an ax to grind with Baxter and you will never forget it.

Thanks. I needed a good chuckle this morning. It's been a long time since I read a post with so many false assumptions. I'll mention only one. I have no ax to grind with Baxter. I think director Buzz Caverly is doing a magnificent job -- but not a perfect one. I think Gov. Baxter made a mistake when he assigned three bureucrats from other busy agencies, who by the nature of their careers are unlikely to have any knowledge of how best to administer a wilderness, to run his magnificent gift. I think Buzz has over the years assembled a great ranger force. I think some of the rules are unnecessary and overly restrictive.

But only once did I deliberately break the rules. That was 30 years ago when I didn't have the heart to tell my 5-year-old that he couldn't climb the mountain that summer afterall, because over the winter the minimum age had been changed to six.

I was given a written warning for the violation by a Baxter Park ranger and told that if I did it again I would be given a summons to appear in court. Rather than holding a grudge, I've had a few chuckles over the incident over the years. We had taken a round about route to the summit in hopes of not seeing a ranger. Unfortunately one was waiting at Baxter Peak, just as it started to rain. He fell in with us on the trip down the Saddle to Chimney Pond.

"How old are you, little boy," the ranger asked my middle son.

"I'm six," he replied proudly, "but my brother's only five."

A post script. I learned just last week that one of the park authority members, who was unhappy over my reporting of other park matters, had urged the ranger be fired for not immediately arresting me.

What caused his ire? Who knows? But earlier he had arranged an illegal swap of park cutting rights that would have allowed a paper company to harvest the park's 28,000 acre northern "scientific forestry" area without even having to pay stumpage for the wood.

After I and another environmental reporter wrote about the plan, others filed a court suit and the court ordered the harvesting halted.

I tend to think that my violation of the rules was less serious than the park authority itself giving away a million dollars worth of assets of a park that had been donated "to the people of State of Maine." But I'll leave that judgment to others.

Weary

[TJ aka Teej]

Sorry, Warren, you can't have it both ways. If you want to try to set rules for your organization then you in turn need to follow the rules of other organizations and even the government. Otherwise your arguments hold no worth.
That's been pointed out to Warren several times on this forum.

[TJ aka Teej]

"You may have been the fastest group I've had, but you're also the stupidest. You haven't learned anything."
I've heard this from folks at Baxter. The above is from a hiker who met the Doyles on the Tableland and posted to the at-l? or the ATML? Or from Fallingwater's journal maybe?
Anyone have the links?

[chomp]

I've heard this from folks at Baxter. The above is from a hiker who met the Doyles on the Tableland and posted to the at-l? or the ATML? Or from Fallingwater's journal maybe?
Anyone have the links?
http://www.backcountry.net/arch/at/0012/msg00342.html

[TJ aka Teej]

http://www.backcountry.net/arch/at/0012/msg00342.html
Interseting thread. Soon to be dismissed as 'litter on the information superhighway" by Warren, no doubt.

"I had a chance to visit with AB at
The Cabin in Andover and he told me the same story about being abandoned on
K. At Katahdin they entered BSP just after midnight and hiked to Katahdin
Stream in the dark, then went right on up to the peak. AB said that they
had to sneak into Baxter because Warren won't apply for the required group
entry permit. Anyway, at Thoreau Springs Warren made the comment you heard
about, then descended quickly (I think he must have summitted already). He
had a ride out of the park already arranged. The group had to get back to
their van, at Abol Bridge, and then arrange to return the van to the rental
firm, then get home, all on their own.

This year Warren had some curious "group" thing going on, a sort of pledge
between members of the group to stay together, support each other, etc. AB
says that was pretty good up to the point where Warren started to break his
own rules. Of course there was always an appropriate excuse for Warren's
straying, but no excuse was good enough for the others, including AB. This
bothered AB quite a lot until he got to the point that he realized it was
ruining his trip. At that point he decided to focus on himself and not let
Warren's antics bother him.

The other thing from this year: after PA I was kind of following in Doyle's
footsteps for a week or two, and no one was happy with their experience of
the slackpack tour. At Port Clinton the other thruhikers were upset at the
way Doyle took over the shelter space, thinking he was bossy and arrogant.
At Delaware Water Gap he's managed to alienate Pastor Nichols. Other places
don't like the fact that he's running a business on the trail.

btw, in the White's there's now a requirement that anyone leading a group
have a guide permit. I have one in order to bring AMC groups into the
Whites as a volunteer leader. A profit making enterprise has to pay a
percentage $$ for each group that uses the Whites. This is probably why
Warren wants to keep a low profile as he goes through WMNF."

[warren doyle]

Weary post #178 - I continue to enjoy your thoughful responses in this thread.

Chomp post #174 - Again, I think we disagree on the 'crux of the problem'.
And I'm okay on that.

I don't "set rules for your organization".

And when did I state that I aspired to be a "moral compass"?

Now the latter two sentences don't make sense to me.


Rickboudrie #176 - Ask and you shall receive, even from a sociopathic cockaroach. I'll post the 'letter' (actually in the form of a poem) here within a few weeks.

Happy trails to all!

[warren doyle]

You are right TJ!
I will dismiss it, as I have in the past, as another piece of litter on the info superhighway.

[chomp]

I don't "set rules for your organization".

Wow, talk about taking a quote out of context! Come on, Warren, you can do MUC better than that. My original quote was:



If you want to try to set rules for your organization then you in turn need to follow the rules of other organizations and even the government. Otherwise your arguments hold no worth.

The "your" refers to YOUR organization, Warren - ALDHA. And don't tell me that ALDHA isn't your organization, because it essentially is.

The moral compass comment was a paraphrase.

But if you feel that you can ignore rules and laws at will because you only follow rules that you feel are "just" then you HAVE NO RIGHT to expect that others are going to follow your rules.

As as you dont' agree with paper company landowner rights, I don't feel that your rules, or ALDHA's, are just. Therefore, I will follow my conscience and do whatever I feel is just. Because my conscience and your conscience do not agree is of no relevance. I will be OK with my decisions to violate whatever rules I deem to be silly, and that is all that matters.

[The Old Fhart]

Chomp wrote: “…..as you dont' agree with paper company landowner rights” about the KIW gate.

Things have changed. If I understand it correctly after talking to an AMC regional director who is a friend of mine, the AMC now has the gate at Katahdin Iron Works as a result of their land purchase and are contracting the gate duties out. So you can no longer claim to be screwing a lumber company who is a "soulless corporation" but sneaking past the gate but rather you’d be screwing a outdoor non-profit organization that is possibly trying to protect the area.

I hope this clears up who the victim of any theft will be from now on in this situation.

[TJ aka Teej]

...another piece of litter on the info superhighway.
Here's your chance to clean it up, Warren. What is your version of the events reported by a member of your group and by the hikers who met them? After you respond, I'll let you know how the incident was related to me by a Park Ranger.

[weary]

Chomp wrote: “…..as you dont' agree with paper company landowner rights” about the KIW gate.

Things have changed. If I understand it correctly after talking to an AMC regional director who is a friend of mine, the AMC now has the gate at Katahdin Iron Works as a result of their land purchase and are contracting the gate duties out. So you can no longer claim to be screwing a lumber company who is a "soulless corporation" but sneaking past the gate but rather you’d be screwing a outdoor non-profit organization that is possibly trying to protect the area.

I hope this clears up who the victim of any theft will be from now on in this situation.

The gate remains as it always has. The major landowners in the area protected by the gate three decades ago organized a for profit organization that set up the gate. AMC is now one of three major landowners, and will share in any profits. However, AMC is not the majority landowner nor even the largest. Nor does it own the gate location. AMC is a non profit. The other organizations are commercial enterprises.

However, there is no profit to be divided. When the landowners tried to run the gate by themselves they lost money. They now contract out the management of the gate to North Maine Woods, which is a non profit corporation. North Maine Wood's is paid what the estimated income is from the access fees and overnight camping fees.

Should AMC opt out of the arrangement, the gate, however, will simply be abandoned, since there would not be enough income to support a gate attendent and campsite maintenance without AMC's participation. Though I hate to pay the fees, especially since I rarely use the campsites, but camp on the public Appalachian Trail, I hope the gate remains.

I support the gate remaining, mostly because the gate keeps ATVs out during the five months that it is manned.

Weary

[weary]

Morning Warren -

If you want to try to set rules for your organization then you in turn need to follow the rules of other organizations and even the government. Otherwise your arguments hold no worth....

I certainly have no interest following rules set forth by someone who has no respect for rules. If you want to be a "moral compass" then you need to act like one... all the time. Does this make any sense to you... at all?

This debate is increasingly more theory than reality. Breaking of laws, even by juries, is one way to get unwise regulations repealed.

As one legal text argues:

"When a jury acquits a defendent even though he or she clearly appears to be guilty, the acquittal conveys significant information about community attitudes and provides a guideline for future prosecutorial discretion...Because of the high acquittal rate in prohibition cases in the 1920s and early 1930s, prohibition laws could not be enforced. The repeal of these laws is traceable to the refusal of juries to convict those accused of alcohol traffic."
-- Sheflin and Van Dyke, "Law and Contemorary Problems," 43, No. 4, 1980

My advice, however is to obey the rules of the hosts of the Gathering, not for any ethical reasons, but because it is a useful place for the Gathering, and violations may mean that it won't be available in the future. Having said this, should I happen to attend, I may still, quietly and discreetly, unseen by anyone, sip a bit of Wild Turkey from time to time.

Weary

[Blue Jay]

Damn Weary, the Iceman was right about you. You are the man. I love reading your stuff, actually this entire thread. Warren, you've got to stop leading with your chin. :datz

[The Old Fhart]

Weary wrote: ”This debate is increasingly more theory than reality. Breaking of laws, even by juries, is one way to get unwise regulations repealed.”
Finally a statement that makes sense! But for it to be true then the conditions have to be met. Does going to a store and stealing an apple every day get the store owner to give apples away? Obvious not. The price on every item in the store goes up and security increases because theft will never be elevated to a crime of conscience and isn’t committed with the intent of changing laws. If not stopped the store could close and none of us, even ones who pay for their apples, will have the benefits of the store. Someone committing a crimes of theft such as illegal entry or theft by deception does it for the purpose of avoiding paying a legitimate fee for those services or to stroke their egos. The criminal has no illusions of their crime making the world a better place for any one except themselves.

Breaking the rules at the Gathering won’t make any one welcome there and screwing everyone up and down the entire length of the trail won’t make any us welcome there either. You can not say that every regulation that protects your interests is “just” while every regulation that protects the rest of us from you is “unjust”. Neither one of these acts is just, fair, or legal. Neither one warrents jeopardizing the tenuous relationships that allows us to further enjoy the outdoors

[rickb]

"This debate is increasingly more theory than reality. Breaking of laws, even by juries, is one way to get unwise regulations repealed"

Jury nullification isn't breaking the law, its a fundamental right within the law. An absolute right. Even when judge suggests otherwise with his instructions.

Less theory, more reality: Buy a grey tent not a yellow one. Blends in amost anywhere in the country, 12 months a year.

Rick B

(Looking forward to Warren's poem, and to any additional insight which he can provide reagarding his incarceration. I assume that as a matter of principle he didn't pay any fine and admitted no guilt, but stronger men than he have been broken in the gulag.)

[Jack Tarlin]

Every now and again, like once in a blue moon, Warren actually addresses direct and simple questions.....for example, he recently was kind enough to reply to a direct question when he acknowledged that at least 50% of his trail miles came about either as a speed-hiker, day-hiker, slackpacker, or with some other sort of automotive support. His honesty and promtness on this occasion were commendable; it answered a question that many folks were curious about, and it helps put things in perspective the next time he starts boasting about his trail mileage.

Let's try again, with a simple question and see what happens: Mr. Doyle, you've been asked repeatedly why you feel that rules and regulations and fees that apply to everyone else on the Trail do not apply to you. Please tell us in your own words:

1.Why do you feel this way?
2. What makes you and your presence on the Trail so special?
3. Everyone else pays for the services they opt to use, and they also
acknowledge that in a very few, ultra high-use areaa, a small service fee is charged to help ensure that the road, campsite, shelter, or Park in question stays open and operating. Nobody else spends such an extraordinary ammount of time whining and bitching about why they should be absolved from paying these fees. So where do you get off continuing to argue that this is the case?

You recently spoke of Governor Baxter as a "mere mortal." This also applies to you, but if you want to tell us all why you're so special and that none of these rules should apply to you, I'm sure we'd love to hear your explanation.

[smokymtnsteve]

It continues to amaze me that people have a problem paying a $12.00 fee. Heres an idea instead of complaining about the fees you have to pay along the trail for us of USFS areas and NPS areas go to www.nps.gov and purchase a golden access pass. This will allow you unlimited entrance at not only national parks, but also at sites managed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U. S. Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. For a total of $65.00 a year. Thats what like $0.18 a day?


Are you REALLY a ranger???

..because you cannot purchase a GOLDEN ACCESS PASS..

they are NOT for sale.

you need to check in with NPS rules.

[mdionne]

i was the first person to reply to this thread and here's what i said:


first off. bitching should not be allowed! nobody wants to hear some yankadink with a bunch of miles under his belt whining about how the rules should revolve around how he hikes. secondly, why are you asking us shouldn't this be brought before the ATC? you can type it up into a proposal and entitle it "the warren doyle memorial trail rules"...(First off there are no rules on the wdmt, crap where you please)...finally, you're on this website way too much! what the hell do you do for a living anyway, and are you hiring? :banana

shouldn't this argument have come to an end 193 replies ago? :-?

[Rain Man]

shouldn't this argument have come to an end 193 replies ago? :-?

Ain't THAT the truth!!! This thread is pitiful.

Rain Man

.

[Alligator]

Are you REALLY a ranger???

..because you cannot purchase a GOLDEN ACCESS PASS..

they are NOT for sale.

you need to check in with NPS rules.

Easy there smokymtnsteve, we can all tell that azchipka's typing is a little challenged :cool: , but methinks he was referring to the golden eagle pass.

While folks are discussing the rangers, here is a sample of the types of activities that are take place on public lands. Steve, you might find the Smoky Mountains section interesting. This is an old one, I get them every week but don't always keep them. Sometimes they are a real hoot. I believe that the AT may run through some of Region 8 and I know it is in Region 9.

Subject: LEI Weekly Report - All Employees


USDA - FOREST SERVICE
LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INVESTIGATIONS
WEEKLY REPORT FOR THE WEEK OF
May 26 – June 1, 2002

(This weekly report has been prepared to enhance internal communications within the Forest Service on the activities and accomplishments of the LEI program. It should be forwarded to all interested Forest Service employees. This and back issues are also available electronically on the Intranet web page, fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/lei/. It is assembled and distributed by the Washington Office, LEI, Pat Henderson, e-mail: [email protected])

REGION 1

Idaho Panhandle NF’s – On 5/21, the Paul and Marie Jayo cattle trespass case went to trial. Their permit on the Priest Lake RD expired in December 2000, but they continued to allow their cattle to roam on the Forest and repeatedly ignored FS written requests to remove them. Their cattle caused a public safety hazard by roaming several miles and entering onto the highway causing vehicle accidents. Paul Jayo pleaded guilty to failing to remove cattle when directed to do so by an FS employee, and Marie Jayo pleaded guilty to allowing cattle to enter or be upon NFS lands without authorization. Other counts were dismissed as part of the plea agreement. The judge accepted their guilty pleas and sentenced each of them to pay a $5,000 fine, with $2,500 suspended for each during their length of probation; serve 3 years probation during which they cannot violate any state, local, or federal law and are held to other standard terms of probation; to preclude and exclude all livestock from the Forest including livestock owned or under the care, custody, or control of the defendants or anyone affiliated with maintenance or control of Jayo land; and to install fences by 11/1 to prevent cows from entering the Forest.

REGION 3

Gila NF - On 5/18, LEO’s and an SA were working fire closures on the Forest and contacted several forest visitors in violation of forest closures. Eight citations for marijuana use were issued and two ounces of marijuana and a set of scales were seized.

Tonto NF – The Forest has closed almost 80% of approximately 3 million acres due to fire severity. Three LEO’s detailed to fire severity issued over 70 violation notices since arriving on the Forest the week before Memorial Day. During Memorial Day weekend, over 90 citations were issued for closure/fire related violations. LEO’s were involved in 18 arrests at Roosevelt Lake over the Memorial Day weekend, and had to use pepper-spray on two individuals involved in a fight. Phoenix area media interviewed LEO’s several times over the weekend. The communities are grateful for their presence and one citizen called the Payson LEO to thank him and the rest of the FS employees, FPO’s, engines, etc. for all the work they did over the weekend.

LEO’s on the Mesa RD assisted Maricopa County SD with a drowning victim on the Lower Salt River. An LEO witnessed another individual fall approximately 100 feet from the rocks above the Lower Salt River. That person was evacuated by helicopter.

Lincoln NF - An LEO and Otero County SD deputies apprehended a suspect who stole a fire engine and chainsaws from the Penasco Fire. The man was apprehended and arrested 20 miles away from the fire driving towards Alamogordo. He claimed to own the engine. Charges of stealing a motor vehicle and theft of government property are pending.

REGION 5

Sequoia NF – On 5/18, an LEO stopped a car coming out of a suspicious location in the Millwood Flat area on the Hume Lake RD. The LEO noticed the 21 year-old driver was very nervous. There was no obvious reason for his behavior, no signs of intoxication, and no visible weapons. The LEO asked the driver why he was so nervous, and he said, “I don’t like being stopped by cops.” After obtaining verbal consent to search his person and his car, the LEO located a hunting rifle in the trunk inside a rifle case. The driver, the car, and the rifle all came back clear. With no legal reason to hold the individual, the LEO ended the contact. The following night the 21 year-old shot and killed a deputy during a traffic stop. A weeklong manhunt ensued, and the driver was eventually killed during a gun battle with local law enforcement.

Stanislaus NF - On 5/26, the Forest received a report that 15 juveniles and young adults had an FS bulldozer several miles from the Forest in Valley Springs, CA. A check of the Forest’s bulldozers revealed that none were missing. An LEO, CHP and Calaveras County SD determined that 15 people had stolen a bulldozer from private land nearby, driven the bulldozer down a paved road, and awakened the residents in the predawn hours. They were using the bulldozer in an attempt to pull their truck out of a ditch in an area where they were having a party. All 15 people were arrested. It was determined that the stolen bulldozer was from the Plumas NF and that it was being used during the daytime by an FS operator who was attending the fire bulldozer school at the CDF academy. The bulldozer was parked at night on private land where practice fuel breaks were being built.

Shasta Trininity NF - Memorial Day weekend at Shasta Lake has become a gathering place for thousands of college students from numerous states and a large number of recreationists. After numerous years of “out of control” numbers of people and activities on both land and water, this year’s Memorial Day at Shasta Lake was managed differently due to the cooperation of 10 agencies, 11 marina owners, and a concessionaire. More than 95 people from different law enforcement agencies worked under the joint incident command of LEI and Shasta County SD. Thirty-nine arrests were made, 216 citations issued, and innumerable written and verbal warnings were given. Twenty-three kegs and 157 cases of beer were confiscated. About 240 houseboats were rented and the SD boating officers were busy enforcing regulations, presenting boating safety messages, and keeping the boats a minimum of 10 feet apart to prevent them from tying up together. About 20 houseboats were confiscated and returned to the marinas for violations primarily involving overcrowding. Locals and visitors alike noticed the increased law enforcement presence and the number of accidents was reduced from past years. LEO’s from the Klamath NF and a canine officer from the Angeles NF assisted in the operation.

REGION 6

Gifford Pinchot NF - On 4/6, an LEO and a State Wildlife Officer observed a camp next to the road on the Cowlitz Valley RD. They saw a large "Bong" sitting on the ground next to one of the campers. After receiving permission to search, two marijuana pipes, two baggies of marijuana, a large bag of mushrooms, nine different types of pills, a reddish crystal substance, a baggie of bindle bags and a scale were seized. The four people in camp were between the ages of 17 and 20. Felony drug charges are pending.
Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF – On 5/27, an LEO and K-9 were requested to assist Washington SP in a narcotics search of a vehicle stopped on Highway 101. During the K-9 search of the vehicle, approximately 4-1/2 pounds of packaged methamphetamine were detected in the vehicle. Acetone, coffee filters, blender and a large bottle of MSN (items used in manufacturing methamphetamine) were also found.
Mt. Hood NF – LEO’s and Clackamas County SD deputies responded to the Sunset Grove tree stand in the Eagle Timber Sale, where protesters had been protesting the Eagle Timber Sale on the Clackamas River RD. It was reported that a protester had fallen 150 feet to the ground from the tree stand, while attempting to ascend up the tree. When they arrived, the LEO’s and paramedics found the victim deceased. LEO’s secured the scene for the Clackamas County Medical Examiner. Portland High Angle Rescue personnel and an FS employee assisted at the scene. The Eagle Timber Sale had been cancelled earlier that week, although protesters from the Cascadia Forest Alliance refused to believe it.
LEO’s and Clackamas County SD deputies responded to a city park in Estacada where FS employees located a pipe bomb on the side of a hiking trail during their afternoon walk. The Clackamas County Bomb Unit responded and neutralized the bomb. Because of the close proximity of the Clackamas RD office to the trail and park, LEO’s conducted a precautionary search of the office, but nothing was found.
Siuslaw NF – On 5/11, FPO’s and LEO’s assisted Douglas County SD and Lower Umpqua EMS on the rescue of an injured hiker in the Tahkenitch high dunes of the Oregon Dunes NRA. Rescuers hiked in one and half miles to help a woman with a back injury.
On 5/16, LEO’s were dispatched to assist in the search for a suspect in a homicide, kidnapping and wounding of a police officer. The wounded Coos County SD deputy regularly patrols the Oregon Dunes NRA. The deputy and Oregon SP officers had been sent to investigate a 911 call from a woman who had escaped her captor bindings only to find her male companion dead of multiple gunshot wounds. LEI and numerous agencies assisted Coos County SD in the search for the homicide suspect.
Willamette NF – LEO’s assisted in the investigation and arrest of a nineteen year-old for felony assault with a deadly weapon on the Detroit RD. The man became upset when a friend shot him with a paint ball gun. He pulled out a .22 pistol, fired once, missed his target and struck a 13 year-old girl.

REGION 8

Daniel Boone NF - LEO’s experienced one of the busiest Memorial Day weekends they can remember. LEI personnel issued 272 violation notices, 34 warnings and eight arrests for ATV, drugs, litter, etc.

LEO’s on the Stanton RD assisted in a cooperative checkpoint that netted 19 drug arrests, 1 DUI arrest, 41 seatbelt violations, and 51 violations for other infractions. A total of 171 vehicles came through the checkpoint. Eleven violation notices were issued at eight campsites that contained illegal drugs in plain view. LEO’s set up an operation in an area that had been experiencing illegal ATV/ORV use and issued 75 violation notices in approximately three hours.

LEO’s investigated two accidents on the Morehead RD over the weekend. One man, under the influence of alcohol, wrecked while riding his bicycle at an FS campground and lacerated his femoral artery. Quick response by medical personnel was the key to saving the subject’s life. The other accident involved horse that spooked and reared, lost his balance and fell backward onto the rider. The rider was transported to the local hospital complaining of back and pelvic pain.

Four men riding quad racers approached a traffic checkpoint on the London RD. When directed by LEO’s to stop, the men turned and fled. Once they turned onto an FSR that led to an unimproved road, the LEO’s knew the only way to apprehend the fleeing men was to outsmart them. After driving over eight miles around to the other end of the road, LEO’s encountered the surprised men. The LEO’s were asked how they had located them and, as fate would have it, a helicopter came over about that time. An LEO pointed to it. One of the men stated that he’d “seen it on TV,” you couldn’t outrun a helicopter.

The K-9 unit on the Stearns RD assisted the SD with a vehicle stop. The K-9 searched the vehicle and alerted on drinking straws located in the driver’s pocketbook. The straws were found to contain crushed Oxycontin. The woman was arrested and transported to the county jail.

On 5/24, Dennis and Susan Sullivan were sentenced in Federal Court for a methamphetamine lab they had operated on the Stanton RD. An LEO found the Sullivans operating the lab last fall while he was checking fee demo passes. KYSP also responded and dismantled the lab. Dennis Sullivan was sentenced to serve 21 months, with three years supervised probation. Susan Sullivan was sentenced to serve 12 months plus one day and two years supervised probation. The judge for this case stated that he was most bothered by their actions because they had the methamphetamine lab in the National Park (Forest) and that people should be able to use the National Park without walking up on a methamphetamine lab.

Land Between the Lakes NRA – On 5/19, an LEO responded to a call from an FPO that two people had been verbally abusive with him when he addressed a littering violation. One of the people had an outstanding Federal warrant for failing to pay a citation issued in August 2000, and was arrested.

On 5/24, LEO’s responded to an OHV area to a report of an unconscious woman. They contacted EMS and a life flight was dispatched. The woman, who had difficulty breathing, was administered CPR by a by-stander and resumed breathing. The first LEO unit on the scene found the patient non-alert, but responsive to pain and verbal stimuli. The patient regained consciousness and refused any further treatment or transport to a medical facility. The cause of illness was thought to be a combination of alcohol and prescription drugs.

An LEO responded to an area near an FS campground to a report of a horse that was dragged behind a trailer and in need of veterinarian care. The LEO determined that the horse, still attached to the trailer by a lead, came out of the back of the trailer when the trailer was traveling up a hill. A veterinarian was contacted and made a determination to dispatch the horse.

An LEO responded to an OHV area on a call regarding medical aid. The LEO found an 18 month-old male infant who had fallen into a campfire. The infant had sustained third-degree burns to his left palm, second-degree burns to his left forearm, and first-degree burns to his right palm. EMS was dispatched and the infant was transported to a Children’s Hospital Burn Unit in Nashville, TN.

On 5/12, LEO’s received a complaint of shots fired in an FS campground. LEO’s found three vehicles in the area. During a consent search for weapons, LEO’s discovered a marijuana joint in one of the vehicles and additional marijuana at the site. LEO’s issued multiple citations.

On 5/15, an LEO found a burned tire and two burned car radios in a fire pit in a campground. Additional units arrived, and they obtained consent to search a van in the area. A small amount of marijuana and paraphernalia and a propane bottle inside a large green duffle bag were found. The valve of the propane bottle had a homemade attachment on it. One person confessed to stealing anhydrous ammonia and selling it to another man. Two people were arrested for failure to pay an established fee and littering. State and federal felony charges are pending.

On 5/16, as an LEO attempted to stop a vehicle, it fled toward a shoreline, stopping just one foot from the edge of the water. The LEO questioned the two occupants and found marijuana and evidence of false identification information for both individuals in the vehicle. One of the suspects had multiple warrants for numerous misdemeanors and felonies. The LEO arrested and transported him to the County Jail where he was held for extradition to Tennessee and Indiana.

On 5/18, LEO’s were dispatched to investigate a complaint of people fighting in a FS campground. They saw nine people standing around two parked cars at the campground and one man covered in blood in the back seat of a car. Witnesses stated that the man and his son had words, and that the son had gotten mad at his father and hit him, causing his father to lose consciousness. The LEO arrested the father and the son for alcohol intoxication and disorderly conduct and transported them to a county jail. Once at the jail, the father stated that he wanted to go to the doctor. He was taken to a medical center and was diagnosed with a broken eye socket, cheekbone and jaw and severe bleeding inside his head. He was hospitalized for observation. The investigation is ongoing and assault charges are pending.

NF’s in Alabama – LEI personnel assisted state and local drug task forces in cannabis eradication operations in three counties in and around the Talladega NF. Over 11,000 plants were eradicated, including 4,652 plants from NFS lands. State officials made two arrests and filed several warrants in conjunction with the seizures.

On 5/19, LEI and Marion County SD personnel investigated an incident where a visitor was shooting at his personal vehicle in an FS campground. Deputies arrested him, and he later died while in custody. The cause of his death is unknown.

Osceola NF – An 8 year-old girl was reportedly bitten by an 11-foot alligator while visiting Ocean Pond. US F&WS officers responded and removed the alligator from the area.

REGION 10

Outreach Announcement – The Region will soon be advertising a vacancy for a GS-1802-5/7/9 LEO, stationed on the Chugach NF in Cordova, AK. For more information, contact Patrol Captain Barry Maijala, at (907) 743-9578.

NPS NEWS

Great Smoky Mountains NP (NC/TN) - On 5/19, a ranger came upon a van on the Gatlinburg bypass with its muffler dragging and shooting sparks along the roadway. The ranger called in the van's plate, then stopped it and quickly advised the driver of his dragging muffler. The passenger jumped out of the van and hastily repaired the muffler. The ranger then cleared from the stop and left the area. Dispatch contacted the ranger just after he'd cleared and told him that the van was stolen. He turned around, relocated the van, and followed it northbound on the spur, intending to pull it over. The van did not stop, however, until just before Pigeon Forge and at the end of the spur. The ranger made his approach from the passenger side, surprising the two men in the vehicle. He took the passenger out of the van, handcuffed him, and put him in his cruiser without incident. By that time, a Pigeon Forge police officer had arrived as backup and assisted him in handcuffing and arresting the driver. Criminal history checks confirmed that the van was stolen and revealed that both men were fugitives from justice from North Carolina on the charges of burglary and forced entry while using a handgun. The check also revealed that the passenger was a convicted felon and had served a prison sentence for a violent crime involving a firearm. A search of the van revealed a .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol with two loaded magazines under the passenger seat and a TEC-DC9 9mm machine gun type pistol with a silencer and two loaded magazines on the seat behind the driver’s compartment. The TEC-9 pistol turned out to be stolen as well. Both men have been arraigned in federal court on charges of being fugitives in possession of firearms; in addition, the driver was charged with possession of a stolen vehicle and the passenger with being a felon in possession of a firearm. Charges concerning the stolen firearm and possible illegal firearms charges will be pursued through assistance from ATF.

BLM NEWS

Phoenix, AZ - On 5/21, a law enforcement ranger located a pickup truck parked off-road in a closed area on Public Land. Upon checking the registration, the vehicle was found to be stolen out of California. A man suddenly sat up in the vehicle. The ranger requested immediate backup, drew his duty handgun, pointed it at the suspect, and told the suspect to show his hands. The suspect was cooperative at first, then ignored the ranger's commands and sped off. A pursuit began on Public Land at that point, with the suspect losing control of his vehicle several times and nearly driving off into a quarry. The ranger followed the suspect from Public Land onto a paved road, ultimately on two Interstates, and into several neighborhoods. The suspect reached speeds up to 85 mph in a populated area and drove through several construction sites at a high rate of speed. He drove over several construction signs and made contact with a truck at a stop sign. Thirty minutes into the pursuit, the first local PD unit caught up to assist. The chase included 25 police units from local, county, and State law enforcement, with a group of five police and news media helicopters through Phoenix, Glendale, and Peoria. Local police used spike strips to slow the suspect vehicle down. The pursuit ended after 98 minutes at the suspect's girlfriend's house. The suspect vehicle had lost all the tires. The suspect was apprehended by the BLM ranger and local officers after attempting to flee on foot. The suspect faces both state and federal charges. The suspect had just completed four months in jail for aggravated DUI.

[Tha Wookie]

I am not a with the Park Service per se, but I do a lot of contract work with research projects. Warren's arguement, in fact, is not a new one (please review Mountains without Handrails, by J. L. Sax, 1980). However, his experience must be respected when considering the amount and types of regulatory changes. A lot has happened over the years. The 2 national parks have enstated a designated camping policy for the well-travelled AT in there jurisdiction. The Grand Canyon has become heavily regulated. Many National Parks charge $20 for admission. Liability concerns have even prompted trail managers to install pipes and and even advertisements for water filters at springs. Change is occuring, and like Mr. Doyle, I think it is a good thing to question it.
I deal with this issue a lot while working on my trail impact research. It is very complicated. Land managers are faced with increasing numbers of visitors causing more impacts that can degrade future visitor's experience. Congress has create a dual mandate for NPS managers: 1)maintain the natural integrity of the park 2)maintain high quality park experiences. Sometimes, these mandates can conflict when 1)the trails are heavily impacted and create unsafe or distracting conditions 2) Heavy-handed management actions steal away the quality of the wilderness experience.
The good news is that at the research world has more-or-less "gotten over" the heavy-handed regulations-period of the last 20 years, and has shifted to a more educational (Leave No Trace, inc.; Warren Doyle) and less obvious impact management impacts (Like designing switchbacks properly instead of posting signs at every eroded short-cut) approach.
There have been times when managers were completely overwhelmed with surges in use (1920's, auto-boom; 1970's backpacking boom) and they reacted with tight regulations, not just because it was the easiest route, but because they had not the knowledge to do otherwise. A similar situation is occurring in Ausrtralia's outdoor boom. They, in my opinion, are reacting a bit heavyihandedly due mostly to a slight state of panic.
It is unfortunate that thru-hikers must feel like criminals for camping whenever it gets dark in the Shennendoahs. I was looking over my shoulder when I broke the law several times on my thru-hike. But how much more would my experience have been tainted by the prolific presence of campsites and other related impacts (like TP everywhere, fire rings with trash in them, ect.)? Perhaps in such high-traffic areas, those regulations, though loosely enforced as experienced hikers know, are accaptable.
In a contrasting statement, how would the PCT desert have been without all the motor-cross impacts carving through the trail north of Antelope Valley? Of course, I prefer that they ban them entirely, because it degrades my experience. But what about the bikers experience, who can no longer go legally to the PCT corridor?
I know what I prefer, and that is little regulation and low impact. Is that achievable? I think so. But it will take more than LNT. We need an additional tool of education for this to occur. Perhaps the proliferation of the many new trails is part of the answer. Maybe we should work to "advertise" alternatives to reduce traffic and impacts. But how do you match the name ot the AT? This is truly a complicated subject, and one very worthy of discussion.

[azchipka]

Are you REALLY a ranger???
..because you cannot purchase a GOLDEN ACCESS PASS..
they are NOT for sale.
you need to check in with NPS rules.

Smoky,

Yes I am really a ranger. You are correct I can not purchase a golden eagle pass being i am not the correct age to obtain the golden access pass. No where in my post did i note that i had one. Although i guess I should have included in the post in order to get a golden pass you must be 62 years of age. Other wise you can obtain a standard entrance pass which is $50 and covers all the national parks (although this wont help you up in maine. There is also a difference between the one you are talking about "Golden Access" and the one i was referring to which is the Golden Age Pass". You can get them at any park entrance gate or online at www.nps.gov ( cant remember where but i know its in the buy park pass section somewhere).
Although i will note that i know there are at least 2 people hiking the AT this year that can get the golden access pass.

Smokey in regards to my mistaken information. I work back country not at a entrance station, we dont sell pass's at 13,000' all that often so sorry for saying Golden Access instead of golden age. :datz

[azchipka]

Easy there smokymtnsteve, we can all tell that azchipka's typing is a little challenged :cool: , but methinks he was referring to the golden eagle pass.

Thanks for the support Alligator, yes as im sure we can all tell by now im a bit keyboard impared at times.

[smokymtnsteve]

try again, NO ONE can purchase a golden access pass.

they are not sold, they are FREE.

<<<
Golden Access Passport

(for citizens or permanent residents of the United States who are blind or permanently disabled)
The Golden Access Passport is a lifetime entrance pass to national parks, as well as sites managed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U. S. Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. The Golden Access Passport admits the pass signee and any accompanying passengers in a private* vehicle if a park has a per vehicle entrance fee. Where a per person entrance fee is charged, the Golden Access Passport admits the pass signee, spouse, and children.

The Golden Access Passport also provides a 50% discount on federal use fees charged for facilities and services such as camping, swimming, parking, boat launching, and tours. In some cases where use fees are charged, only the pass signee will be given the 50% price reduction. The Passport is nontransferable and does NOT cover or reduce special recreation permit fees or fees charged by concessioners.

A Golden Access Passport must be obtained IN PERSON at a federal area where an entrance fee is charged. It is available only to citizens or permanent residents of the United States who are medically determined to be blind or permanently disabled. You may obtain a Golden Access Passport by showing proof of medically determined permanent disability, or eligibility for receiving benefits under federal law.>>>

[smokymtnsteve]

yes you can buy a golden eagle aschipka as there is no age requirement on purchasing a golden eagle.

there is NO age requirement/limit on golden access pass. and they are NOT for sale ..no body can buy one.

try again.

[Frosty]

yes you can buy a golden eagle aschipka as there is no age requirement on purchasing a golden eagle.

there is NO age requirement/limit on golden access pass. and they are NOT for sale ..no body can buy one.

try again.

Thus illustrates one of the problems with Rangers: getting straight information from them. I've spoken to some who were very knowledgable and a pleasure to spend time with, but also some who were so laughably off-the-wall or flat-out wrong in what they were saying that I wondered how the ever got the job to begin with.

Personally I prefer Rangers who use common sense when enforcing rules, knowing as they do that some rules were intended to control RVs and that hikers do not violate the purpose or intent of the rule when they stealth (LNT) camp. (Explain to me again what harm was done if you can't tell the next day where I had camped the night before?)

Others, like the one who posts here, say that they don't like the rules, don't believe in them, but what can they do? It's their job. They put on a brown uniform and like so many people, follow orders blindly and without question. ("Sure I marched thousands of people in the gas and torture chambers, but I'm not responsible for that. I was told to do it by someone in authority." Oh, okay.)

Ah, well. As with information passed out here and elsewhere, Caveat Emptor. Sometimes free information is worth every penny you pay for it.

[Blue Jay]

Excuse me Mr. Frosty, but it's Extreme Wilderness Ranger Adventure Team, to you mortals.

[azchipka]

yes you can buy a golden eagle aschipka as there is no age requirement on purchasing a golden eagle.

there is NO age requirement/limit on golden access pass. and they are NOT for sale ..no body can buy one.

try again.

Please explain this to me then. Considering in order to get a golden eagle pass you must add it to a golden access or golden age pass, how is it that you think i have the ability to buy one. I am not over 62 which means i can not get a golden access pass, and im not disabled in any way and as such can not get a golden access pass. So since I dont have the ability to have a golden pass of any type it is not possible to have a golden eagle pass.

My last post wasnt talking about the golden access it was talking about the golden age which does have a age requirement of 62. Which although you dont "buy" there is a one time processing fee. Which in my mind basicly means your buying it.

Let me get down on my knees and beg for your forgivness on having the two different types of pass's confused. As i already said i dont deal with selling pass's. True even though I do not deal with selling pass's i should know the details better, but since this summer will only be my second season I have not put everything to memory that does not relate to my assigned tasks.

Im thinking we should make a new forum for bickering at one another and we can all go there instead.

[smokymtnsteve]

you can add it to Any National park pass..

thank you for playing... Please try again

[jlb2012]

wrt the three types of "golden" passes see site : https://buy.nationalparks.org/golden.asp for notes on what and where

[smokymtnsteve]

Golden Eagle

For an additional $15, a Golden Eagle hologram may be purchased and affixed to a National Parks Pass to cover entrance fees at not only national parks, but also at sites managed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U. S. Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. The Golden Eagle holograms are available at National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management fee stations. The Golden Eagle admits the pass signee and any accompanying passengers in a private* vehicle if a park has a per vehicle entrance fee. Where a per person entrance fee is charged, the Golden Eagle admits the pass signee, spouse, children and parents. The Golden Eagle is nontransferable and does NOT cover or reduce use fees such as charges for camping, parking, tours, and concessions. It is valid for entrance fees only. The Golden Eagle hologram is valid until the expiration of the National Parks Pass to which it is affixed.

[smokymtnsteve]

Please explain this to me then. Considering in order to get a golden eagle pass you must add it to a golden access or golden age pass, how is it that you think i have the ability to buy one. I am not over 62 which means i can not get a golden access pass, and im not disabled in any way and as such can not get a golden access pass. So since I dont have the ability to have a golden pass of any type it is not possible to have a golden eagle pass.

My last post wasnt talking about the golden access it was talking about the golden age which does have a age requirement of 62. Which although you dont "buy" there is a one time processing fee. Which in my mind basicly means your buying it.

Let me get down on my knees and beg for your forgivness on having the two different types of pass's confused. As i already said i dont deal with selling pass's. True even though I do not deal with selling pass's i should know the details better, but since this summer will only be my second season I have not put everything to memory that does not relate to my assigned tasks.

Im thinking we should make a new forum for bickering at one another and we can all go there instead.



I am not PAID to explain and teach regulations to "park rangers"

a golden eagle hologram can be attached to any
National park pass ... https://buy.nationalparks.org/

have you ever heard of LNT ETHICS???...ethics are not nescessarly law..

Be careful and considerate with Fire..

please discourage the use of fire and encourage the use of stoves ..
it is the ethical thing to do.

Ethics..the GREATER "LAW"

Ok off your knees...I forgive you ..you know not what you say

[azchipka]

Golden Eagle

For an additional $15, a Golden Eagle hologram may be purchased and affixed to a National Parks Pass to cover entrance fees at not only national parks, but also at sites managed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U. S. Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. The Golden Eagle holograms are available at National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management fee stations. The Golden Eagle admits the pass signee and any accompanying passengers in a private* vehicle if a park has a per vehicle entrance fee. Where a per person entrance fee is charged, the Golden Eagle admits the pass signee, spouse, children and parents. The Golden Eagle is nontransferable and does NOT cover or reduce use fees such as charges for camping, parking, tours, and concessions. It is valid for entrance fees only. The Golden Eagle hologram is valid until the expiration of the National Parks Pass to which it is affixed.

So we are back to what i said in the first place that you can get a pass for $65.00 that will cover your entrace fees to nps and usfs sites which breaks down to $0.18 a day? Sorry if i didnt use the proper terms but are we all at the agreement that you can in fact get a "Golden Eagle" pass (not a "Golden Access Eagle" which is what i had said instead of "Golden Eagle") in the post that started this whole rant about the pass's? Now that this is settled and everyone is in agreement I assume who can end the whole bickering about pass's and move on simply by saying thos who would like more information on purchasing park pass's can visit here (https://buy.nationalparks.org/default.asp?ref=nps) or contact the NPS pass office at 1-888-GOPARKS.

[Rain Man]

Now that this is settled and everyone is in agreement I assume who can end the whole bickering ... and move on ....

What?! ... truth, justice, and the American way stop the bickermeisters?

NEVER!!!! LOL

:dance

.

[chomp]

What?! ... truth, justice, and the American way stop the bickermeisters?

I noticed that Warren hasn't chimed in on this thread lately. Oh wait, that's right, Warren would never pay for access to anything.

[azchipka]

I noticed that Warren hasn't chimed in on this thread lately. Oh wait, that's right, Warren would never pay for access to anything.

See we can agree on something

[Lone Wolf]

Y'all are ***n silly! :D

[azchipka]

Y'all are ***n silly! :D I think we all need to get together and toast warren for makign a topic that got over 200 replies

[smokymtnsteve]

I think we all need to get together and toast warren for makign a topic that got over 200 replies
]

TOAST???? with alkyhol??

we would have to check out the local rules, laws and customs.

Lone Wolf would be the source for knowledge such as this... ;)

[Frosty]

Excuse me Mr. Frosty, but it's Extreme Wilderness Ranger Adventure Team, to you mortals.

How could I be so numb!

[Lone Wolf]

I ain't no drunk. I'm a drinker with a hiking problem! :jump

[Alligator]

Others, like the one who posts here, say that they don't like the rules, don't believe in them, but what can they do? It's their job. They put on a brown uniform and like so many people, follow orders blindly and without question. ("Sure I marched thousands of people in the gas and torture chambers, but I'm not responsible for that. I was told to do it by someone in authority." Oh, okay.)

Ah, well. As with information passed out here and elsewhere, Caveat Emptor. Sometimes free information is worth every penny you pay for it.

Your comparison of our nation's rangers to Nazi concentration camp guards is insulting to the many dedicated individuals who often place their lives on the line for the many recreational users of our public lands. These folks are shot at by drug smugglers, illegal alien runners, and convicts in hiding, they interdict drunk drivers and crystal meth manufacturers, and yes, rescue stranded/injured hikers. These folks deserve some measure of respect (a lot IMHO) and certainly do not deserve to be compared as you did.

As I posted earlier, I read weekly about the goings on in our public lands. The amount of criminal activity is startling. While I still feel completely safe on the AT, I will be much more alert in more high use public areas such as campgrounds and forest service roads.

[The Old Fhart]

Frosty wrote in post #203: “Personally I prefer Rangers who use common sense when enforcing rules, knowing as they do that some rules were intended to control RVs and that hikers do not violate the purpose or intent of the rule when they stealth (LNT) camp."
“……………follow orders blindly and without question. (I’m not quoting what followed which was in extremely poor taste, I suggest that Frosty visit Strawberry Banke in his own back yard and learn more of the Jewish community in his city.)

What your post basically says is you agree with rangers enforcing rules against others but not against you. They are blindly following orders if the enforcement affect you. Can I ask if your only contact with rangers has been confrontational because the caught you violating some rule or regulation?
I personally know people who were or still are rangers in the WMNF (the Whites) and if you would like to discuss their knowledge I sure that could be arranged.

We are not just talking about you camping illegally, which seems to be your main interest, but all rules and regulations. Just because you don’t understand their mandate to enforce rules, doesn’t mean they don’t understand, or that they are blind robots just following orders. They are no different than a state police officer who could stop almost every car on the road for speeding but chooses to only stop the ones who are really violating laws. Generally if a ranger stops you they aren’t automatically giving you a ticket or fine. But if the attitude you display here is any indication, you are inviting them to enforce the law more strictly. Just try telling a trouper that they should be catching real criminal instead of stopping you and see what happens.

Bottom line is that if you want to be treated with respect, treat others the same way. Having an elitist thru hiker attitude is only asking for trouble

[Blue Jay]

Frosty wrote in post #203: “Personally I prefer Rangers who use common sense when enforcing rules, knowing as they do that some rules were intended to control RVs and that hikers do not violate the purpose or intent of the rule when they stealth (LNT) camp."
“……………follow orders blindly and without question. (I’m not quoting what followed which was in extremely poor taste, I suggest that Frosty visit Strawberry Banke in his own back yard and learn more of the Jewish community in his city.)

What your post basically says is you agree with rangers enforcing rules against others but not against you.

That is clearly NOT what his "post basically said". In fact you clearly have no idea what anyone says. You just blindly spout your absolute law and order philosophy over and over.

[smokymtnsteve]

I too prefer common sense which is quite uncommon.


but the machine marchs on

[TJ aka Teej]

I noticed that Warren hasn't chimed in on this thread lately.
He was asked some direct questions.

[max patch]

He was asked some direct questions.

He's been gone 27 hours as I type this. Perhaps he has a life outside of this message board.

[The Old Fhart]

Blue Jay said of me in post #221: That is clearly NOT what his "post basically said".
“You just blindly spout your absolute law and order philosophy over and over.”

I’m sorry you have a problem with understanding basic english but if you reread (or just read) what I said in my post #220, I never said anything about absolutes. What I said is: “Generally if a ranger stops you they aren’t automatically giving you a ticket or fine.- that is true. Rangers are not all dummies who blindly enforce rules as Frosty stated-that is true. I said: “Bottom line is that if you want to be treated with respect, treat others the same way”-that is true. Having an elitist thru hiker attitude is only asking for trouble-that is also true. I only said that for hikers to expect to be excluded from the rules while expecting the rules to be applied to RVs which is exactly what Frosty said, is completely ludicrous. He clearly asked for preferential treatment over RVs. What everyone should realize is that thru hikers are not an elite class of hiker or special in any way.

Could you please quote anything in my post #220 that says you must obey all rules? You won’t find any such statement because there is none and it is you that is trying to distort what I said. On the other hand it seems that there are hikers who go out of their way to break every rule and regulation and then complain that “the man” is out to get them. I say that to expect to be excluded from the rules while expecting the rules to be applied to others is hypocritical. You have a right to question rules but if your answer is always the same, break the rules, no mater what the consequences, that indicates a basic personality problem on your part.

[rickb]

Everyone deserves respect.

Remember, the typical guy who cuts timber for your morning newspaper risks his life to a far greater degree than the average law enforcement officer. In some places, so does the girl at the 7-11 who sells it to you.

I know the uniformed WMNF Ranger who asked my wife to produce her trash bag for inspection when she left the Pemi expected respect (seems there was an ongoing litter problem at the time).

OK, most everyone deserves respect.

Rick B

[warren doyle]

This thread continues to be a fascinating read.

Max Patch (post #224) - I do have a life outside of this message board. In the almost 47 hours I have been off-line, my life has been comprised of:

approximately sixteen hours of 'professional' responsibilities (i.e.,educating college students & fourth graders)

approximately ten hours of 'father' responsibilities (i.e. helping my 20-year-old daughter move some belongings; assisting my 18 y.o. son Forest with his FAFSA application for college and engaging in some meaningful conversations with him)

approximately four hours of 'son' responsibilities (i.e., transporting my 85 y.o. father, who lives with us, to go see his grandaughter and helping him with his upcoming trip to Florida)

approximately ten hours of 'husband' responsibilities (i.e., supporting my wife by traveling to watch her play in a junior college basketball tournament and dancing)

approximately seven hours of sleep

All in all, about what one would expect from a cockaroach possessed with a sociopathic attitude, a criminal mind and about 26,000 miles of walking on the Appalachian Trail.

TJ (post #223) - Contrary to your statement, I do answer many direct questions on this website. I usually only like to answer the same question once. Some people just don't like my answers. I will continue to make an effort to answer all direct questions if they are not redundant and as my time permits (see above).

mdionne (post #2, #195)

"...finally, you're on this website way too much"
Happy's post (#6) answered your statement adequately for the past, present and future.

"What do you do for a living anyway?"
(see answer above)

" and are you hiring?"
To echo Happy's analysis (#6)and judging from the tone of your post #2, I would imagine that either I wouldn't want you as an employee or that you wouldn't want me as an employer. However, I do apologize for my belated response to your two questions.


Blue Jay (post #190)
I lead with my heart and mind, and my chin happens to be between the two. I consider my chin to be of less importance than the other two. What is of the most importance though is the people, who I love, admire and/or respect the most, think my heart and mind are in the right place.

[chomp]

I will continue to make an effort to answer all direct questions if they are not redundant and as my time permits (see above).

OK, Warren, here are a couple of simple, direct questions.

Do you expect others to follow the rules that you or ALDHA set for others (ex. no drinking @ Pipestem, Endangered Services Campaign, etc..)?

Do you agree that YOU violate rules and laws that you deem to be unnecessary (KIW gate, Bear Mountain Zoo, Hanover Bridge, etc..)?

Do think that your very public reluctance to follow rules set by others hurts your authority to set rules for others?

How do you feel about those people that violate the rules that are set by ALDHA? How do you feel about people who violate the Endangered Services Campaign?

Do you respect the people that break these rules, or do you look down on them for behaving poorly?


and here is the biggie...

How do you think that people feel about you for violating rules that they agree with but that you do not?

I know that you have repeated again and again that you don't think that the comparison between the Endangered Services Campaign and the KIW gate is a poor one. I just wanted to give it another shot from a different angle. And no, Lone Wolf, this isn't about Warren bashing either. This is about the art of debating and about following logic.

[Frosty]

OK, Warren, here are a couple of simple, direct questions.

here is the biggie...

How do you think that people feel about you for violating rules that they agree with but that you do not?

Asking someone what he thinks about what others feel regarding an unspecified set on rules might not be quite so simple. It certainly insn't direct, in my opinion.

Anytime you get into what people feel, the answer is never simple because people's feelings are complicated, never mind asking how someone feels about someone else's feelings. My 2 cents. We may differ on this feeling.

I do hope, though, Warren, that you answer all the simple and direct questions asked of you (i.e., a simple and direct quesiton being one that can be completely answered in a couple of words).

[azchipka]

OK, Warren, here are a couple of simple, direct questions.

Do you agree that YOU violate rules and laws that you deem to be unnecessary (KIW gate, Bear Mountain Zoo, Hanover Bridge, etc..)?

and here is the biggie...

How do you think that people feel about you for violating rules that they agree with but that you do not?



I have to agree with frosty on that last question not being a good one but for a completely different reason. Before the question of how other people feel can be answered he first needs to agree that he violates rules.

[Blue Jay]

I have to agree with frosty on that last question not being a good one but for a completely different reason. Before the question of how other people feel can be answered he first needs to agree that he violates rules.

I'd be willing to bet that even you, Ranger Danger, violate a rule here or there. Warren has already confessed to all of the vicious crimes of which he has been accused of by this Inqusision. Granted he confessed prior to the inqusition, but he (like Galaleo) was just trying to save the Pope some time.

[chomp]

Asking someone what he thinks about what others feel regarding an unspecified set on rules might not be quite so simple. It certainly insn't direct, in my opinion.

Wow - I don't mean to rag on anyone here, but I thought my post was a LOT more clear than that. The final question isn't so much a question than a conclusion.

In the second to last question, I asked Warren what HE thought about people that broke rules that were important to HIM. Does he respect them? Does he look down on them? etc... Assuming that he has SOME sort of distain for people who break rules that he feels important (which is an assumption on my part) - now move onto the final question.

The whole point of this little Q&A is that whoever HE feels about people that break rules that are important to HIM - well, thats exactly how other people feel about Warren for breaking rules.

If I were to post "When I stop at The Place I am going to drink a six pack no matter what anyone tells me.." that will elicit a certain response in warren and others who feel that the Endangered Services program is an important one. Well, that SAME response is elicited in others (like myself) when Warren boldly claims "I snuck past the KIW gate without paying and will continue to do so, no matter what anyone says."

[Ankle Bone]

Boy, am I going to hate that I decided to post this, but what the hey. All things considered, I hope that I never become a “trail legend”. I’m amazed at how some legends create these press-release statements for their web page or other media that talks about how knowledgeable and wonderful they are relative to the AT. Then, you find out what they are really like when you start reading their posts and hearing first-hand accounts of some of their actions, opinions, and values. I guess I was just naïve enough to believe all that was written about them, mostly by them. Both Wingfoot and Warren Doyle, once legends in my mind, have fallen way down on my list now that I have been able to get to know them via their posts and their treatment of others on their web pages and other public pages.

Not all is lost. I can still read “Walking with Spring” and remind myself during each hike, “Hey, maybe Earl walked this same path.” Or, “Maybe Earl saw this same vista on that first thru-hike.” Never met him, so his legend is probably safe. And for what it’s worth, I haven’t lost hope on all of the living. Baltimore Jack and Lone Wolf still impress me as two guys who have learned to do their own thing, have actually done some real backpacking, try to provide honest opinions and advice, and do not take themselves too seriously in the process. It’s the folks who think they’re bigger than the AT that disappoint me. Warren, IMHO, you could use a strong dose of humility.

[The Old Fhart]

Ankle Bone,
After your post I'd suggest you put on your flak jacket, hunker down, and wait for the incoming! While you're waiting if you want a really good book to read, I'd suggest "Walking on the Happy Side of Misery" by Model T. I hiked with him and he's a great guy. That book will also get you feeling good about the trail and thru hikers once again. Good luck.

[chomp]

10 Million Steps is another great book, by Nimbillwill Nomad. Epic journey.

[Ankle Bone]

Yes, Model T's book is an excellent read. Another example of a guy who hasn't proclaimed himself a legend. If he is one, it's trhu his actions, not self-promotion.

Anyway, I've got my jacket on and will lay low....................

[Jack Tarlin]

Warren tells us that "This thread continues to be fascinating reading."

Evidently so, or this thread wouldn't have 200 posts on it. Nevertheless, I'm impressed at Warren's adroitness in dodging the issue---for around the ninth time---by avoiding very simple direct questions. In his extended post,he went out of his way to address concerns by five other recent posters. He very cleverly, and obviously deliberately avoided my questions to him, and it's obvious he has no interest in addressing them.

Oh, he did blather something about not liking to repeat himself in his posts. Well, that's fine, except for the fact that he's NEVER adressed these questions openly and completely, and it's a pity, as the questions involved are fairly elementary ones.

But instead of answering, he's evading. He's been asked innumerable times why he feels that he's absolved from obeying rules and regulations that other hikers deal with regularly without making a bit of complaint. He's been asked many times why he feels that he and he alone is special to the point of being immune to these simple rules. And he 's been asked many times why he thinks anyone should take him seriously when he hectors people on proper behavior when he's stated in his own words on countless occcasions that he couldn't give a rat's ass about rules and that he only follows the ones he finds convenient.

Most folks are probably getting bored with this dialogue---I know I am. But considering Mr. Doyle's alleged lofty stature in the long-distance hiking community, this is a matter worthy of discussion. But let the record state that Mr. Doyle has chosen to run away from this issue, and one is led to believe that for once, the loquacious Mr. Doyle simply has nothing to say......after all, what COULD he say? But lastly, I have to admire his dodging and evasion skills; when he tires of becoming the Trail's most noteworthy slackpacker and day-hiker, perhaps he'll find a career in politics.

And on that note, I'm going hiking.

[warren doyle]

For chomp (post 228)

Q #1 - Do you expect others to follow the rules that you or ALDHA set for others (ex. no drinking at Pipestem, Endangered Services Campaign, etc..)?
A #1 - I have set no rules for other hikers and as far as I know ALDHA has set no rules for other hikers. Again, as I posted several times before, the no- alcohol 'rule' is a policy of the Appalachian South Folklife Center and Concord College. I always have been a respectful guest in someone else's 'home'. Once again, the Endangered Services Campaign was/is educational rather than regulatory and formulated out of a concern of hostels being closed down because of hiker behavior that, for the most part, was alcohol-related.

Q #2 - Do you agree that YOU violate rules and laws that you deem to be unnecessary (KIW gate; Bear Mountain Zoo; Hanover Bridge; etc..)?
A #2 - I do agree that I violate rules and laws that I feel are unjust and which interfere with my free movement along, and free access to, the Appalachian Trail. And as I have posted before, I do question and sometimes ignore laws that 1) are made to protect myself from myself; 2) are made to protect nature from people; and, 3) are made to protect people from nature.

Q#3 - Do you think that your very public reluctance to follow rules set by others hurts your authority to set rules for others?
A#3 - I imagine that if I did set rules for others it would hurt my authority. But I don't set rules for others (see A #1).

Q#4 - How do you feel about those people that violate the rules that are set by ALDHA?
A#4 - ALDHA doesn't set rules (see A #1) so I have no feelings about this.

Q#5 - How do you feel about people who violate the Endangered Services Campaign?
A#5 - I wouldn't say violate. But I do feel bad that several hostels have been closed to all hikers because of the actions of a few.

Q#6 - Do you respect the people that break the rules, or do you look down on them for behaving poorly?
A #6 - I guess it depends on what rules you are talking about. I admire Thoreau, Gandhi, Paul Robeson, Rosa Parks, Willard Uphaus, the Boston Tea Party folks, the Overmountain men, Don West, Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King, Edward Abbey......I define poor behavior as behavior that causes pain, or hurt, or inconvenience to people who don't deserve to be treated that way or to be exposed to it (i.e., the golden rule). Using this personal definition of poor behavior, I don't respect people behaving poorly.

Q#7 - How do you think that people feel about you for violating rules that they agree with but that you do not?
A#7 - The answer is obvious in a percentage of postings by a percentage of people on various threads. I think they feel one or more of the following: angry, accusatory, sincerely concerned, upset, afraid, threatened, agitated, challenged, uncomfortable, envious, shook up, smug, incredulous, hateful, attacked. The other part of my answer to this question is I also know that it is obvious there is a percentage of postings by a percentage of people on various threads that don't feel this way.

Those are my answers to your seven simple, direct questions.

[weary]

Honest and wise folks will recognize from his answers that Warren is a very wise and very articulate hiker and a very valuable human being.

Weary

[azchipka]

Blue Jay,

Of course i have, im pretty sure all of have, its just most of us dont run around publicly promoting others to do it.

Please tell me we are not now comparing the rules of the trail to those that involved Thoreau, Gandhi, Paul Robeson, Rosa Parks, Willard Uphaus, the Boston Tea Party folks, the Overmountain men, Don West, Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King, and Edward Abbey. :datz

Why cant we all just get along.

[azchipka]

Honest and wise folks will recognize from his answers that Warren is a very wise and very articulate hiker and a very valuable human being.

Weary

Let me be the first to jump on the fence from the warren attacking side and say based on th posts and answers I do recognize from his answers that is is a wise and articulate hike. Although nothing in his responses to those questions make him a valuable human being, just asme seeing warren as wise and articulate does not make me honest or wise.

We all have our own battles that we decide to fight and for warren his is feeling like he shouldnt have to help support the southern most portition of the AT via money, I my mind and this is just in mine but if Warren is making up for his lack of support for the park in other ways, that do not benefit him but are designed to benefit the park then so be it skip the gates and avoid the rangers but be ready to deal with the results of your actions when the time comes and you get caught.

What bothers me about this whole thing, and i may very well be wrong since i have never spoken to anyone in that park about it but I know in wyoming people who vol a certain amount of time to the park are given free entrance is that not the case out there?

[MOWGLI]

...that even you, Ranger Danger...

Blue Jay, thanks for the laugh. That's the funniest thing I've read here in months.

Hey AZCHIPKA, this is a much better trail name than Digital Ranger.

[TJ aka Teej]

Honest and wise folks will recognize from his answers that Warren is a very wise and very articulate hiker and a very valuable human being.

What should honest and wise folks recognize from all the questions that Warren has ignored or dodged?

[TJ aka Teej]

I define poor behavior as behavior that causes pain, or hurt, or inconvenience to people who don't deserve to be treated that way or to be exposed to it (i.e., the golden rule). Using this personal definition of poor behavior, I don't respect people behaving poorly.
Just weeks after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11th, 2001 you read out a "poem" at the ALDHA Gathering that caused a great deal of pain and hurt to people who did not deserve to be treated that way or exposed to it.
Will you now finally apologize for your poor behavior?

[The Old Fhart]

I don’t think Chomp was prepared for Warren’s answers to his questions in post #228 and the whole situation remind me of Bill Clinton’s “I never had sex with that woman” statement.” where Clinton played word games to evade the intent of the questions. Well, hopefully once the blue dress Warren stained has been entered into evidence, we can get some real answers.

Warren wrote: “I have set no rules for other hikers and as far as I know ALDHA has set no rules for other hikers. Again, as I posted several times before, the no- alcohol 'rule' is a policy of the Appalachian South Folklife Center and Concord College. I always have been a respectful guest in someone else's 'home'. Once again, the Endangered Services Campaign was/is educational rather than regulatory and formulated out of a concern of hostels being closed down because of hiker behavior that, for the most part, was alcohol-related.”
So there isn’t any confusion as to what the Endangered Services Campaign actually says and Warren’s reference is misleading stating it is mainly alcohol related, here is a exact quote:
“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."

So call them what you will, rules, guidelines, suggestions, policy, or common sense, they are not unreasonable and neither is the no-drinking policy on the property of the hosts of the gathering in West Virginia. Warren has basically said that drinking at the Appalachian South Folklife Center and Concord College during the 2004 Gathering would be like disrespecting someone else’s ‘home’ and that sort of behavior:
1) could jeopardize ALDHA using its campus in the future
2) If you care about ALDHA and the Gathering, then [don’t violate the rules]
3) if this simple fact is too disagreeable to you and you are unwilling to change your behaviors for three-four days out of respect for the organization/event then [go where that behavior is tolerated.]

Seeing everyone seems to agree on that point, just pretend for a moment that the name “the Appalachian South Folklife Center and Concord College “ or “home” has been change to “Baxter State Park” or “Katahdin Iron Works gatehouse” and violating their rules:
1) could jeopardize hikers using their lands or services in the future
2) If you care about the A.T. and fellow hikers, then [don’t violate the rules]
3) if this simple fact is too disagreeable to you and you are unwilling to change your behaviors for four-six months out of respect for the A.T./landowners then [go where that behavior is tolerated.]

Once again, I apologize for using the word ‘rule’ in regards to the KIW gate, actually it is a law. Theft of services by deception is exactly what it is. When Warren goes into detail of how to sneak around the gate to “save” over $200, what he actually has done is stolen money from the non-profit group that runs the gate. Is it his right to free access to the A.T.? Absolutely, and there are plenty of free access points. However if someone’s ‘house’ is between Warren and the A.T. he has no right to waltz, or contra dance, through their house. To do so violates the spirit of Aldha’s Endangered Services Campaign, violates laws, shows disrespect for the property of others, and is what I’d expect from Warren.

Imagine two farmers. One farmer has an apple orchard and the other, farmer Warren, has an orange grove. Warren wants apples so he simple goes across the fence and helps himself, even getting enough for his circle of friends. The other farmer complains but Warren says he can’t take any of his oranges in return because they belong to Warren and that makes it different somehow. And before you reply, I know that Warren and others are going to say it isn’t the same thing at all: that I’m comparing apples to oranges…………………

[Ankle Bone]

Honest and wise folks will recognize from his posts that The Old Phart is a very wise and very articulate hiker. And of course, we are all valuable in our own way.

[The Old Fhart]

Ankle Bone,
That is funny! Just when I thought you were becoming Weary of this thread. However, as I grow older I am not as much of an "articulate hiker" in the physical sense as I used to be. Thanks.

[TJ aka Teej]

I apologize for using the word ‘rule’ in regards to the KIW gate, actually it is a law.
Naught for nothing, but I've found that few hikers know that
the rules at Baxter Park are actually State Laws.

[Ankle Bone]

Ankle Bone,
That is funny! Just when I thought you were becoming Weary of this thread. However, as I grow older I am not as much of an "articulate hiker" in the physical sense as I used to be. Thanks.

Thanks! Sorry about missplelling your handle.

[weary]

What should honest and wise folks recognize from all the questions that Warren has ignored or dodged?

That he is wise.

Weary

[Ankle Bone]

And if you are also wise, you should be able to note the fine clothes that the Emperor is now wearing......