PDA

View Full Version : Rescue on Katahdin



SavageLlama
06-08-2004, 14:45
Check out this story published today..


Rescue under way on Mount Katahdin

June 8, 2004
Bangor Daily News (http://javascript<b></b>:NewWindow(%20'FIISrcDetails','?from=article&ids=bngr');void(0);) (Maine)

BAXTER STATE PARK - An injured man and his hiking party remained on Mount Katahdin on Monday night while rescuers attempted to reach the group after they called for help with a cell phone at 3 p.m., according to park director Buzz Caverly.
The man, whose name was not released, should recover from a shoulder injury he suffered after falling off a rock face on the Hunt Trail - part of the Appalachian Trail - approximately 3,000 feet up the mountain, Caverly said.

A pack the man was wearing may have acted as padding and prevented a more serious injury, he said. Fog and cloud cover prohibited the use of a helicopter to reach the party, so 30 rescuers climbed the mountain Monday afternoon in hopes of descending by daylight today, Caverly said.

Caverly would not say whether the man's party, which included his daughter, were from Maine.

Earlier this spring, a hiking group from Quebec became stranded on the mountain for two nights in whiteout conditions, Caverly said, but managed to hike down on their own.

"It's awful early to have these incidents occur this soon" in the season, he said.

torch
06-08-2004, 14:48
Isn't cell phone use prohibited in Baxter?

Lone Wolf
06-08-2004, 14:53
30 rescuers for a shoulder injury? He's screwed for having the cell phone. Big fines. :)

jersey joe
06-08-2004, 16:23
Seriously, 30 rescuers? Was there an army platoon in the area with nothing better to do???

I'm not a big fan of cell phones either but carrying a cell phone in this case may have saved this guy's life. I'm surprised there is actually cell service on Baxter! Can you hear me now?

TJ aka Teej
06-08-2004, 23:10
30 rescuers for a shoulder injury?

And from just up on the Hunt Spur? When the guy still had two good legs?

TJ aka Teej
06-09-2004, 10:50
Katahdin climber released from hospital

BAXTER STATE PARK (AP) -- A 56-year-old New Jersey man is out of the hospital after being carried down Mount Katahdin on a stretcher following a fall from a rock face.

Park rangers spent 12 hours rescuing Vincent Jones, who dislocated both of his shoulders in the Monday afternoon accident on the Hunt Trail, at an elevation of 3,000 feet.

About 50 people, including volunteers from a nearby campground and a white-water rafting company, took part in the rescue. Because of the weather and mechanical issues, there was no attempt at a helicopter rescue.

SavageLlama
06-09-2004, 14:32
Today's article in the local Maine paper..

Injured Baxter hiker rescued N.J. man, 3 others were on Katahdin

June 9, 2004
Bangor Daily News (http://javascript<b></b>:NewWindow(%20'FIISrcDetails','?from=article&ids=bngr');void(0);)
Page 1

BAXTER STATE PARK - A New Jersey man was treated at a local hospital and then released Tuesday after falling from a rock face on Mount Katahdin on Monday and dislocating both shoulders.
Vincent Jones, 56, was taken to Millinocket Regional Hospital at 6 a.m. Tuesday after park rangers spent 12 hours rescuing him and two others from 3,000 feet high on the Hunt Trail, according to park naturalist Jean Hoekwater.

Jones fell six feet onto his back at 12:40 p.m. Monday and became stuck when the pack he was wearing caught between some boulders, Hoekwater said. Jones was immobilized and in severe pain after strain from the pack's arm straps dislocated his shoulders, according to a report by Chief Ranger Chris Drew.

Other hikers called park staff by cell phone shortly after Jones fell, but weather conditions and mechanical issues prevented a helicopter rescue, Hoekwater said.

"Sometimes people think [a helicopter rescue] is a fairly routine thing," she said Tuesday.

Rescuers were forced to hike up the mountain, administer first aid and then carry Jones back down on a stretcher, Hoekwater said.

Darkness and the difficult terrain of the Hunt Trail - which is part of the Appalachian Trail - slowed rescuers' descent while they lowered Jones over boulder fields, Hoekwater said.

"It takes quite a few people," she said. "It's always very hard and very slow."

Approximately 50 people, including volunteers from a nearby campground and a white-water rafting outfit, took part in the rescue effort, she said.

"We were very fortunate that everything went as smoothly as it did," Hoekwater said. "It's a tough trail."

Dirigo, Lincoln, Mount Desert Island and Sunrise search and rescue teams assisted park rangers in the rescue, setting up a base camp at Katahdin Stream Campground, Hoekwater said. Jones, his daughter Alpine Jones and a friend had left from the campground Monday morning, she said.

Jones apparently was dressed adequately and prepared for the hike, though recent rain contributed to slippery conditions on the mountain, Hoekwater said.

"Even the most experienced hikers have a misstep or a misfortune," she said.

Pencil Pusher
06-09-2004, 16:53
It's not surprising, the number of rescuers involved, given this updated news. Since the idea of first aid/rescue is to prevent further injury, carrying a litter through a boulder field is quite people/manpower intensive. Basically a static human chain on both sides with maybe a rope to the litter in scramble areas. Never been there, so don't know. I have helped carry a person down and it is quite the experience. Very slow and tedious, at least based on my previous expectations/thoughts.
Geez, both shoulders dislocated? No wonder the guy couldn't move. Is there still criticism for the use of a cell phone in this case?

Alligator
06-09-2004, 21:13
...
Geez, both shoulders dislocated? No wonder the guy couldn't move. Is there still criticism for the use of a cell phone in this case?
Yeah, fine him. He wasn't supposed to have it in the park. The guy is from Jersey, he'll understand.

cabalot
06-09-2004, 22:35
what is it a fine to use a cell phone in the park?

Lone Wolf
06-09-2004, 22:55
******* stupid rule.

Pencil Pusher
06-10-2004, 01:19
http://www.baxterstateparkauthority.com/rules/allrules.html (http://www.baxterstateparkauthority.com/rules/allrules.html)

BAXTER STATE PARK RULES AND REGULATIONS 1998


Summary: These rules, adopted by the Baxter State Park Authority (the "Authority") pursuant to 12 M.R.S.A. Sec. 903, govern the use of Baxter State Park (the "Park") by the public. No provision of these rules applies to law enforcement or administrative personnel in the course of their official duties. Any delegation of authority to the Director under these rules includes delegation to the Director's designee. In addition to any specific provision contained in these rules, the Director may restrict public uses or activities within the Park as necessary to preserve or protect the Park or to assure the safety of Park users.

25. AUDIO DEVICES: Audio devices such as radios, televisions, cassette players, or cellular telephones may not be operated within the Park.

http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/12/title12sec903.html (http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/12/title12sec903.html)

<TABLE cellSpacing=4 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD bgColor=#f2e3df>Title 12: CONSERVATION (http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/12/title12ch0sec0.html)
Part 2: FORESTS, PARKS, LAKES AND RIVERS
Chapter 211: STATE PARKS (http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/12/title12ch211sec0.html)
Subchapter 3: BAXTER STATE PARK

§903. Rules and regulations (CONTAINS TEXT WITH VARYING EFFECTIVE DATES)</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#f2eee8>
(WHOLE SECTION TEXT EFFECTIVE UNTIL 7/1/04)


The Baxter State Park Authority may in a manner consistent with the Maine Administrative Procedure Act, establish such rules and regulations as it deems necessary for the protection and safety of the public or for the proper observance of the conditions and restrictions expressed in the deeds of trust of the park to the State. [1977, c. 694, § 237 (rpr).]

Whoever violates any of the rules and regulations of said park authority, promulgated in conformity with this section, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $100 and costs or by imprisonment for not more than 30 days, or by both. [1973, c. 201 (amd).]
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


-----------------------
Stupid rule. Nevertheless, I think this case falls outside the intentions of that rule. If a fine is levied, what if the cell phone call was to report a park employee being raped. Would they issue a fine then? Both are emergencies...

hiker dude
06-10-2004, 05:29
Rape, if you were being raped, you think I should call someone huh? NYC, and stay there. You don't get it. They don't want Your NYC cell towers with the flashy lights all over Baxter next. Its the price you pay when you leave NYC.

Pencil Pusher
06-10-2004, 07:20
Ah yes, never underestimate the power of idiots in large groups.

Alligator
06-10-2004, 07:24
If you don't like the rules of the park, and you're from out of state, too bad. The gift of the park was a gift to the people of the state of Maine. The rules come with that gift. If you are a resident and you don't like the rules, make your voice heard to the park governing body.

"Seldom has a more generous gift been presented to a people than has been given by Percival Proctor Baxter to the State of Maine. It is incumbent upon them, the recipients, to preserve the trust impressed upon them, to ensure for themselves and for future generations the fullest use of Baxter State Park consistent with the desires of the donor."

Statement of Purpose: 105th Maine Legislature, 1971

Lone Wolf
06-10-2004, 07:27
Close all roads and require people to walk in.

c.coyle
06-10-2004, 07:28
... NYC, and stay there. You don't get it. They don't want Your NYC cell towers with the flashy lights all over Baxter next. Its the price you pay when you leave NYC.

Hmmm. I see you're in the Poconos. Would the fact that you folks have become the 6th borough of NYC have anything to do with your hostility? :-?

Alligator
06-10-2004, 07:42
I didn't know you were a Mainer LW. Perhaps you could move to Maine and make your opinion worth something. Sort of like the advice you give to out of towners regarding Trail Days.

Lone Wolf
06-10-2004, 07:52
Oh quiet down your piehole! A cell phone hurts nothing. :rolleyes: And they should tear down all the nice little leantos and as folks walk in they'll have to provide their own shelter. And get rid of those stupid little day packs that thruy hikkers use to carry their cupcakes and champagne to the top. Earl didn't need no stinkin day pack! :D I love being on top when some dude breaks out a cigar in celebration and some whiny leftie starts bitchin about air quality and such. Ban cigars!

Pencil Pusher
06-10-2004, 07:58
Seeing what the penailties are, I wouldn't hesitate to use the cell phone in an emergency. Better to get the help you need and worry about a petty fine later.

Lone Wolf
06-10-2004, 08:02
Like carrying a handgun and using it to save yours or someone else's life. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. :)

Pencil Pusher
06-10-2004, 08:03
Wow, I was thinking of using that exact phrase too! Glad to see it lives strongly throughout America, LW!

Lone Wolf
06-10-2004, 08:06
Well you Know how us gun-totin, right wing extremists tend to be.

Alligator
06-10-2004, 08:07
Wow, I was thinking of using that exact phrase too! Glad to see it lives strongly throughout America, LW!
I'm sure you were Jack. Couldn't imagine it otherwise. :rolleyes:

Pencil Pusher
06-10-2004, 08:15
I'm sure you were Jack. Couldn't imagine it otherwise. :rolleyes:No worries, soon enough you'll be calling me a screaming liberal.:p

gravityman
06-10-2004, 10:45
[center][
25. AUDIO DEVICES: Audio devices such as radios, televisions, cassette players, or cellular telephones may not be operated within the Park.

[-----------------------
Stupid rule. Nevertheless, I think this case falls outside the intentions of that rule. If a fine is levied, what if the cell phone call was to report a park employee being raped. Would they issue a fine then? Both are emergencies...

Trust me, this is NOT a stupid rule! You have no idea. On top of a 14er out here in colorado on a nice weekend you can't hang out on top for more than 15 minutes without someone standing next to you yapping into their cell phone "Yeah, I'm at the top. Yes, it's amazingly beautiful. Okay, I'll get some milk on the way home. Hey, do you want to watch Survivor tonight? Who do you think will win. I'm hoping that..."

It's the most annoying thing that I have EVER heard! On long's I have to listen to some guy call everyone he ever knew and say "Hi, I'm calling from 14,xxx feet and" BLAH BLAH BLAH. Wow, it's annoying.

You don't want that on Baxter.

Gravity Man

The Scribe
06-10-2004, 11:03
Rember back to pay phones? If you walked by someone on a pay phone, they would lower thei r voice and turn their back to you most of the time to protect their own privacy?

A lost art.

I really don't care who you think is going to win Survivor or what the biopsy results revealed, or that you are seeing another woman/man.

pcm

mmills316
06-10-2004, 14:35
Rember back to pay phones? If you walked by someone on a pay phone, they would lower their voice and turn their back to you most of the time to protect their own privacy?

That is soooo true!! It seems that with the loss of the phone cord that the inhibition to share private details on the cell phone have been lost.

c.coyle
06-10-2004, 21:13
1. Grab cellphone
2. Turn off
3. Throw in pack
4. Go hiking
5. If emergency, call for help
6. Repeat steps 2 through 4

wolfgang82
06-10-2004, 22:39
Trust me, this is NOT a stupid rule! You have no idea. On top of a 14er out here in colorado on a nice weekend you can't hang out on top for more than 15 minutes without someone standing next to you yapping into their cell phone "Yeah, I'm at the top. Yes, it's amazingly beautiful. Okay, I'll get some milk on the way home. Hey, do you want to watch Survivor tonight? Who do you think will win. I'm hoping that..."

It's the most annoying thing that I have EVER heard! On long's I have to listen to some guy call everyone he ever knew and say "Hi, I'm calling from 14,xxx feet and" BLAH BLAH BLAH. Wow, it's annoying.

You don't want that on Baxter.

Gravity Man I don't think that the majority here feel that this is a stupid rule. In my daily life they annoy me to death as well but have become necessary in the course of family and business. I'll bet the factory rep for the manufacturer of the boots you walk in carries one.But...
Anyone who feels that this guy who sustained a serious injury and called for help should be fined , is a sadistic extremist with too much time on their hands. Their ancestors were likely tossing rotten veggies at the poor puritan who got caught belching in public and they took picnic baskets to the hangin'.
The great story here is thirty plus people showing up and helping out a fellow man, and not why anyone was being inconvenienced or some sacred ground was being violated.
The fine for being stupid in a no stupid zone is $101.00 isn't it?
Wolfgang82

Lone Wolf
06-11-2004, 00:23
Wolfgang makes the most sense of all posters. *** wilderness experiences.

Pencil Pusher
06-11-2004, 03:24
I suppose if the rule included (except for use in an emergency) then it wouldn't be a stupid rule and we could all live happily ever after. Though my guess is this is much ado about nothing. The Baxter folks are probably happy the dude made it down and could care less about the rule in this instance.

Bankrobber
06-11-2004, 12:05
I agree with something Lone Wolf said earlier. Baxter should only allow park officials to drive in. Everyone else should walk. Imagine the wilderness it would be then!

jbwood5
06-12-2004, 07:31
Federal law permits the use of radio wireless communication for emergencies involving the safety of life or protection of property, even when such use would otherwise be illegal. Federal law would supercede any local or State Park regulations. If you want to research this, go to any library that has the Federal Code of Regulations (CFR 47).

TJ aka Teej
06-12-2004, 09:00
Federal law would supercede any local or State Park regulations.

Hi jb,
All Baxter Park rules are state laws, a unique situation concerning state parks as far as I know. Does that still make them secondary to Federal law? BTW, the Park did not enforce the no cell phone rule violation in this case.

jbwood5
06-12-2004, 09:46
TJ, For many years I worked in the wireless industry and in every case that I know of, Federal Laws (i.e. the FCC Rules and Regulations), superceded any local or state regulations. Keep in mind that we are talking about saving life or property in this situation, so the law seems sensible.

If a person carrying a cell phone in Baxter spotted a forest fire and called the authorities, that person should also be immune from prosecution or fines called for under the Baxter regulations. Carrying a phone that is turned off is not illegal but using it for non-emergency purposes would be. I agree with that philosphy since indiscrimate use infringes on others rights to enjoy the wilderness in privacy and peace.

rumbler
06-12-2004, 10:06
I agree with something Lone Wolf said earlier. Baxter should only allow park officials to drive in. Everyone else should walk. Imagine the wilderness it would be then!

It would be empty. Of course, with so few people walking in (and walking out after their summits, by the way) we would need far fewer park rangers, fewer trails, fewer resources. Making it very easy (easier?) for park and wildland budgets to be cut further.

If we exclusively want the solitary wilderness experience, which definitionally means avoiding 99.5% of the taxpayers who support those parks, then we had best be prepared as a hiking community to cover the expenses of preserving and operating lands ourselves. Because if we make every park, peak or view so remote that John Q. Public never has the real possibility of visiting state and national parks, then John Q. Public is going to have real difficulty supporting parks at the voting polls, which is what ultimately will drive government's interest in managing those parks.

Having decided to leave our cars behind (at least at the trailhead if not at our garage) it is easy to make spot-on comments about the folks visiting the Smokies via their cars. But sadly it is that 45-minute summer stop at Newfound Gap that is the only experience which demonstrates to many voters why supporting our parklands are so important. And while it may strike us as a very shallow exploration of what parklands have to offer, reducing access will turn that shallow experience into no experience for the great majority of park visitors.

We might very well find that restricting access to parklands ultimately would become a lesson in "Beware of what you ask for".

Two Speed
06-12-2004, 11:04
We seem to have diverged from the original post somewhat. In that spirit, I'm gonna add my $0.02.

Reading the summary of the rules regarding audio devices that Pencil Pusher provided for us, the possession of the audio device doesn't appear to violate the state law. Use of the audio device does. Most law can be superseded by threat to life or health. Unnecessary delay of rescue and/or treatment after serious injury is almost always a poor idea.

From what I'm seeing, I surmise that the Baxter State Park rangers chose not to prosecute because the threat to health was evident and the use of the cell phone was prudent. In other words, the poor slob that took the fall had already had both shoulders dislocated and there was no point in dope slapping someone who was already in a good deal of pain and hadn't flagrantly broken the law.

Personally, I think law enforcement should know when to apply the letter of the law and when to allow common sense to prevail. It would appear that the Baxter State Park rangers have that sense of judgment, and, for what a Georgia Cracker's support is worth in Maine, they have my support and admiration for the compassionate and sensible exercise of their enforcement authority.

Bankrobber
06-12-2004, 15:47
Rumbler,
I understand your concern that without any public access to nature, the voters will no longer care about wilderness. Some areas do need to remain open to the public. Skyline Drive, Mount Washington, etc... However, the public does not always demand protection for easily accessible places. How many opponents of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge have been there or plan on going? How are there more National Parks in Alaska (most of them largely inaccessible), than anywhere in the Lower 48. Baxter State Park was intended to remain wild. This is best achieved by keeping cars out, and forcing people to walk the 4 or 5 miles along the Blueberry Ledges trail to reach the base of the mountain. Now I am not a citizen of the state of Maine, so I no say. If I were a Maine resident, I would move to have cars banned.
In conclusion, people like the idea of having wilderness there just as much as they like easy access to it. When a place is designated as a wilderness, it should be kept that way.

smokymtnsteve
06-12-2004, 15:57
having car access is also very costly...maintenance of roads, trafffic enforcement, etc..is a huge cost for national/state parks. providing parking lots the list goes on...cars out of the parks would result in huge cost savings and a need for less budget. or aleast a different budget direction.

the words of abbey

""Parks are for people" is the public-relations slogan, which decoded means that the parks are for people-in-automobiles"

PRAISE BE TO ABBEY

the sarcastic ole cuss..this is a line from his Polemic "industrail tourism" from his book "Desert Solitaire", buy a copy, steal a copy , let me send you a copy,
but read this account about our national parks.

Bankrobber
06-12-2004, 23:34
I second SmokeyMtnSteve. Desert Solitaire is a must read, as is "Down the River." His prediction on what would happen to the National Parks if cars were allowed has become true.

firefly
06-15-2004, 10:23
My 2 cents....(been involved in search and rescue for years)

Many people involved in search and rescue are volunteers who help out because they love the outdoors and care for people. Search and rescue can be very dangerous to the participants. Accurate information about the location of and the condition of the victim lowers the risk for death and injury to the rescue personell. Knowing this I do several things when I go into the woods. I ALWAYS carry a map of the area and I keep up with where I am at on the trail..I pay attention to where roads are in case I have to bailout. I ALWAYS leave a "flight plan" with someone at home detailing where I am parking...where I am hiking...when I am expected home..and who to call if I do not showup (the local phone numbers are found on the map I purchased :) I personally carry a cell phone BUT it stays cutoff inside my pack. I do all of these things because I assume responsibility for my own safety AND the safety of those who will come looking for me if I do not show up. With a map I hopefully can take care of myself if a problem arises..If I get hurt and cannot save myself at least they will know where to look when I don't show up. I know cellphones do not work everywhere but sometimes they do make a difference. In the case of this hiker it sounds like another hiker stopped to help and made the call from their cellphone. Rescue personell then knew exactly where to go and what they needed to do to extract the victim. Carring a stretcher on an easy trail is tough...carring a stretcher on a rough trail over boulders is awful.

warren doyle
06-15-2004, 10:49
Sorry to hear about that man hurting himself. It must have been tough for his daughter to see him in so much pain. Reminded me of a climb of the K I did with my two teenage children in August 1998, when we came across a father who had just died of a heart attack while climbing the Cathedral Ridge and seeing his two adult daughters giving him CPR even after 30 minutes after his attack. The sound of the wind on the ridge was punctuated by the gurgling of fluid within him as my children saw a moving mixture of death/grief/hope in real life for the first time, ironically after seeing 'Saving Private Ryan' in Hanover the day before.
A memorable climb.
I only hope that this incident does not influence Caverly and company to reinstitute the old rule saying that people cannot climb Katahdin if it is raining during the summer months. This rule, since changed, prevented several northbounders from completing their journeys in the 1970's.

Pencil Pusher
06-15-2004, 16:01
I'm sure you were Jack. Couldn't imagine it otherwise. :rolleyes:See, what'd I tell ya'? I'm a verified bleeding heart liberal from LW himself: http://whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5011&page=1&pp=20
:welcome

Alligator
06-15-2004, 16:19
Seattle? That's like playing a homeschooler from Idaho. Pick a red state next time. The "free solo on acid post", very typical of you. And, of course, the banana. I know you must miss the wider smilie selections.

I have to admit though, I do not who Bear Scared is.

Pencil Pusher
06-15-2004, 16:30
Oh, I only wish the "free solo on acid" was a quote of mine. That is a classic around these parts. Yeah, I don't know why, but that dancing banana tickles me most of the time and you're spot on, I do miss not having a wider smiley section. Like one to 'roll eyes', though my second favorite is the guy bashing his head with a bat.

Who ever Bear Scared is, he does have a good sense of humor. Which makes it harder to pinpoint who that name belongs to. Alas, such is the case with these websites, people often choose multiple personalities.

I'll bet you never realized how easy it is to be vegetarian? Much easier than you might've thought.

TJ aka Teej
06-15-2004, 18:36
Reminded me of a climb of the K I did with my two teenage children in August 1999, when we came across a father who had just died of a heart attack
----
I only hope that this incident does not influence Caverly and company to reinstitute the old rule saying that people cannot climb Katahdin if it is raining during the summer months. This rule, since changed, prevented several northbounders from completing their journeys in the 1970's.

No one died on the Cathedral Trail on Katahdin in August 1999.
How could a rule that never existed be reinstated?

Alligator
06-15-2004, 19:24
That 1999 keeps tripping people up. I doubt Warren would falsify seeing a man's death to push a point, so I think he may have meant 1998, which was the summer that Saving Private Ryan was released. A man did die of an apparent heart attack on August 13 on the "third Cathedral" on Katahdin.

Katahdin Fatalities (http://www.katahdinoutdoors.com/bsp/fatalities.html)

weary
06-16-2004, 00:16
That 1999 keeps tripping people up. I doubt Warren would falsify seeing a man's death to push a point, so I think he may have meant 1998, which was the summer that Saving Private Ryan was released. A man did die of an apparent heart attack on August 13 on the "third Cathedral" on Katahdin.

Katahdin Fatalities (http://www.katahdinoutdoors.com/bsp/fatalities.html)

The Cathedral Trail is the shortest route from Chimney Pond to the summit of Katahdin. It's not really a difficult trail, but it does involve some non technical rock scrambling.

One February I descended via the Cathedral, when wind forced us off the table land a few hundred yards from the summit. It's an easier trail in winter -- at least in winters with a lot of snow storms. Repeated snow slides create a nice incline plane over the rocks. We just roped up and worked our way down the steep slope -- hoping that another slide wouldn't wipe us out.

A slide did just that to a college group a week after a different winter trip on Katahdin.

As for TJ's comment. Rules change periodically as the politicians Gov. Baxter decreed should manage his park change. In fact they change so frequently, that from time to time individual rangers make their own rules un beknownst to the park directors.

And despite the rules, deaths occur. Katahdin is a rugged mountain. Thousands attempt it without proper preparation. I quite often have been one of those. The first time was 1964. I was camping in what was then an overflow campground on the road to Roaring Brook with my wife, mother and 11-month-old daughter.

I'd been having some strange chest pains so I had my wife drive me to Katahdin Stream. I figured I'd climb the mountain as a test to see if I had heart trouble. I told her to meet me at Roaring Brook at 4 p.m.

It was my first time in Baxter Park. Despite low cut street shoes and a worn out tweed sports jacket for weather protection, I climbed the Hunt Trail (AT) to Baxter Peak and down the Saddle Trail to Chimney Pond and eventually Roaring Brook. I was on time, but no one else was. I had walked an additional 5 miles towards our campsite before my wife finally showed up with the car.

Weary

trailangelmary
06-16-2004, 02:51
:bse Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah. A hiker was rescued that was probably in a lot of pain. Whatever it took, we should all be thankful for the manpower of volunteers and the cell phone that God gave us the intelligence to create!

warren doyle
06-16-2004, 08:54
Oops!
Thank you to Weary and Alligator for your kind, compassionate responses to my post. Alligator you were right. It was 1998, not 1999 as I originally posted. I will edit that post to reflect this.
Weary, you are correct. TJ continues to question my credibility of a fact (as if he was there!). There was a rule at BSP during the 1970's that prohibited folks from climbing above timberline in the summer months when it was raining. The 19 members of the 1975 Appalachian Trail Expedition were prevented from walking the last 5.2 miles of trail by Buz Caverly and several rangers at Katahdin Stream CG on Sept. 2. Weather at the base of the mountain at the time (around 9am) 55 degrees and a drizzle.
I guess TJ really doesn't like to admit when he is wrong, which he seems to be quite often concerning both our posts. He also has a propensity to misinterpret our words in a rather unusual way.

TJ aka Teej
06-16-2004, 10:08
Oops!
TJ continues to question my credibility of a fact (as if he was there!). There was a rule at BSP during the 1970's that prohibited folks from climbing above timberline in the summer months when it was raining. The 19 members of the 1975 Appalachian Trail Expedition were prevented from walking the last 5.2 miles of trail by Buz Caverly and several rangers at Katahdin Stream CG on Sept. 2. Weather at the base of the mountain at the time (around 9am) 55 degrees and a drizzle.
I guess TJ really doesn't like to admit when he is wrong, which he seems to be quite often concerning both our posts.

You were wrong about boats being available for hikers at the Kennebec prior to 1985, Warren. (as if you were there!) Did you admit you were wrong after several hikers educated you on the history of the Caratunk crossing?

As far your claim that there was a rule forbidding climbing Katahdin in the rain in the late seventies, you are still wrong. (I was there every summer.) Certainly none of the guides from that time (which I still have) list your "rule." Perhaps it's some embellishment to a story you've been telling for years and you're embarrassed to have been caught embellishing? Perhaps you were kicked out of the Park for some other reason you'd rather not talk about? Liquor? Pot? Illegal camping? 'Buzz and several rangers' were manning a trailhead in the drizzle to enforce an unwritten rule about hiking above treeline in the rain? I bet that sure makes for a nifty campfire tale, Warren.

warren doyle
06-16-2004, 10:47
TJ:

1)There have always been boats 'available' (but not always present) at the Kennebec crossing near Caratunk before the establishment of the present MATC/ATC ferry service in the mid-1980's. However, a northbounder had to call ahead (not just show up at a certain time during the established ferry-service season) to be able to secure this ferry service that was done by private individuals. I will still maintain the fact, that the MAJORITY of northbounders/southbounders during the 1970's and the first half of the 1980's forded the river rather than calling ahead to be ferried across.
As to 'being there': I forded the Kennebec in 1973; 1974; about four times in 1975; 1976; two times in 1977; 1978; 1979; two times in 1980; 1982; 1984; and, about seven more times since the ferry service was established.

2) As to the 9/2/1975 incident. It happened. Talk to Mr. Caverly. If not, I eventually will post the article about it on this site. Don't check the Maine AT guidebooks. Go to the BSP HQ and pull up the rule&regulations for the year of 1975. As to your inferences to liquor and pot, I resent it since I'm straight (and always have been). And...in 1975 we were not illegally camped.

With your interpretative ability, may I suggest you migrate south and join the current 'political spin' team in DC?

The Old Fhart
06-16-2004, 11:02
Warren Doyle-“ There was a rule at BSP during the 1970's that prohibited folks from climbing above timberline in the summer months when it was raining. The 19 members of the 1975 Appalachian Trail Expedition were prevented from walking the last 5.2 miles of trail by Buz Caverly and several rangers at Katahdin Stream CG on Sept. 2.”

First, it is immaterial whether there was such a rule or not. It isn’t unusual, even now, for hikers to be “prevented” from hiking Katahdin when the rangers decide the weather is bad. No one is going to guarantee that you can climb any specific day. I’ve climbed there many times, including legal trips in winter. There have been times when the mountain was “closed” and I had to wait and climb another day, big deal. Lots of hikers experience delays without viewing enforcement of the rules as a plot against them. If a whole group of rangers converged to prevent you from climbing on that magic date of 9-2-75 (and all of us, except you, weren’t there), there had to be a reason. If some pompous hiker announces “I’m going to climb Katahdin, no matter what you say”, I’m sure you would get that response from the rangers. If I recall you said in another thread that “the BSP Supervisor told the expedition organizer a week earlier (in Monson) that he would do all he could to allow us to climb the mountain.” No right-thinking person would take that statement as a guarantee, if that statement was really ever made.

The above scenario isn’t any different than having the post offices closed for Reagan’s funeral. I’m sure that if you called before his death and asked: “is the p.o. going to be open on that day?”, the answer would have been yes. Unfortunately the world can’t revolve around you so you have to make allowances for the unexpected. Grow up. It is interesting that you still hold a grudge over this alleged event after almost 30 years and continually dredge up that same old story. How big was that fish, Warren? Did you say 100 rangers! Plus a S.W.A.T. team! Get over it.

warren doyle
06-16-2004, 11:29
TOF - Perhaps a comparison to Long John Silver's would have been more appropriate if you were accusing me of a 'fish story'.
I will continually to dredge up this same old true story in response to people who say/imply that it didn't happen just as I would expect miner's widows to do if the coal company insisted that an underground explosion didn't happen or native Americans to do if the government said Wounded Knee never happened.
You can be sure that if the same thing happened to you, TOF or TJ, I would never doubt/or question the veracity of your statement until I checked official sources - BSP records (incident report- Labor Day weekend 1975).
It might have not been a big deal for you TOF, but I talked to two northbounders in the first half of the 1970's that could not climb the K in late August/early Sept because of rain and after waiting a few days had to return home to start school/job responsibilites. It was a big deal to them and to us (1975 Expedition). I'm glad we don't have any more of these incidents happening that I know of.
And, by the way, I am growing up (learning-wise) every day and enjoying the journey,

Jack Tarlin
06-16-2004, 11:37
Interesting thread.

A few comments: There are rules governing one's visit to Baxter State Park, as there are rules for every other State Park I've ever heard of or visited.

Baxter's rules, for the most part, are based on two principal goals: One is to ensure the integrity of the Park, to prevent over-use and development, and to keep things as simplified and un-citified as possible. This is why there are stringent rules regarding the number of visitors, cars, campsites, electronic devices, etc.

Their second priority, in addition to environmental concerns and retaining the Park's integrity, is to ensure a safe and happy environment for Park visitors, as well as Park employees.

Park rules and regulations are freely posted and distributed. Everyone who enters the Park is aware of these rules, and it is expected that visitors know about the specific rules and codes of behaviors that are expected. People who express no knowledge of these rules have nobody to blame for their ignorance.

While personally, I feel that some leeway should be given to "emergency" situations, on a case-by-case basis, the reality is that there are probably folks who feel that phoning home to the wife to remind her to water the back lawn constitues an emergency. In other words, once you permit some bending of the rules, there's no end to it. Therefore, I tend to side with Park officials on this one.

The special rules at Baxter are there for very specific reasons, and most of them are there thanks to Buzz Caverly, the long-time Park adminstrator who has made the preservation of Baxter his life's work.

These rules are in place for a reason, and visitors should make every effort to obey and respect them.

People who find this too onerous, difficult, or inconvenient, should probably go elsewhere, but merely dis-agreeing or disliking a rule, whether it's a prohibition on phones, a restriction on where you can camp, a set user fee--
disagreeing with these policies does not give one carte blanche to dis-regard or ignore them, and anyone who does so should be prepared to accept the consequences.

There's no secret about the rules and regulations that are expected of visitors to Baxter State Park. Therefore, folks who choose to dis-regard these few requests constituting their behavior in the Park do so at their own risk and should stop whining about it. People who knowingly break rules or laws have essentially forfeited the right to bitch about the consequences.

If you set yourself above the law, then don't go crying when the law comes calling.

The Old Fhart
06-16-2004, 14:07
Warren Doyle-“ I will continually to dredge up this same old true story in response to people who say/imply that it didn't happen……….”
Your claim of people bringing up the 9-2-75 incident is actually responses to YOUR bringing it up in post #43 where you said: “I only hope that this incident does not influence Caverly and company to reinstitute the old rule saying that people cannot climb Katahdin if it is raining during the summer months. This rule, since changed, prevented several northbounders from completing their journeys in the 1970's.“ No one had even mentioned that piece of ancient history till then. So like a toddler who pokes another then cries to the teacher when the other pokes back. This isn’t the first time you’ve used this tactic to brag about what you did on 9-2-75. Give it a rest.

Apparently you missed the point of my post(once again). I said: “First, it is immaterial whether there was such a rule or not. It isn’t unusual, even now, for hikers to be “prevented” from hiking Katahdin when the rangers decide the weather is bad.” BSP rule #17. CLIMBING OR MOUNTAIN HIKING: Climbing or mountain hiking may be restricted at the discretion of the Director. I have no doubt that you were turned back or “prevented” from climbing Katahdin. on 9-2-75, so what. I do find it amusing you compare not being able to climb Katahdin on a particular day to mine disasters and Wonded Knee. So your vacation plans hit a small snag, it happens all the time but it is only a “tragedy” for you, to others, an inconvenience they can work around. The BSP rules at the time were a matter of public record and because you were ignorant of them, chose to ignore them, or thought they didn’t apply to you, is your own fault. Don’t blame Baxter for your mistakes.


Warren Doyle-“ I'm glad we don't have any more of these incidents happening that I know of.
On my 1998 thru hike I talked to a jogger I met on the trail north of Duncannon. He told me in 1997 he had done all but the final 5.2 miles of the A.T. because of really bad weather and his ride waited for three days and couldn’t wait any longer. To credit your antics 30 years ago in Baxter with allowing other hikers to complete the trail displays hubris, and lack of knowledge; it happens all the time. Well, now that you know, add this little fact to your “growing up (learning-wise) every day” inventory. I also never said it wasn’t a big deal to me to have to turn back because of weather, whatever. It is simply a fact a hiker has to live with.

As to your calling Baxter and “the BSP Supervisor told the expedition organizer a week earlier (in Monson) that he would do all he could to allow us to climb the mountain.”, I find it amazing that a person of your intelligence would call, get that statement, and take that as an absolute guarantee to climb the mountain, whenever you want, under any conditions. Anyone who has hiked knows how unpredictable the weather is. Anyone who is hiking the A.T. should certainly know the effects of weather (and the rules in Baxter). I didn’t have to be there to understand the ridiculousness of your interpretation. I just doubt that a statement was made guaranteeing your “right” to climb. I can’t picture anyone being so naïve to think that.

wolfgang82
06-16-2004, 14:40
To the "Old Fhart" and Mr. Doyle. Please kiss and make up. It's getting a little old.

TJ aka Teej
06-16-2004, 16:33
4 29 2004, Warren saying I was wrong about boats at Caratunk:

TJ,
Boats available at the Caratunk crossing for many pre-1986 AT hikers? I guess this is yet another example of an interpretation (statement of a fact) of one who was not there during this period of time (YOU) as opposed to someone who was (ME).

6 16 2004, Warren changes his story:

TJ:

1)There have always been boats 'available' (but not always present) at the Kennebec crossing near Caratunk before the establishment of the present MATC/ATC ferry service in the mid-1980's.

"Stick with the truth, it's the easiest story to remember." ~ anon.

warren doyle
06-17-2004, 11:13
Wolfgang,

Sorry, I don't think I could ever kiss TOF unless I was on 'Fear Factor". However, I have promised him a Little Debbie brownie because of a rare, compassionate, logical posting he had in response to one of my posts. It's called 'classical conditioning' although he and TJ seem to already 'salivate' whenever they see my name on "Today's Posts".

weary
06-17-2004, 11:33
To the "Old Fhart" and Mr. Doyle. Please kiss and make up. It's getting a little old.

I'll second the motion and ask for an amendment to add TJ to the kissing party.

It serves no purpose to question anyone's tale about trail experiences, unless we happened to have been part of the same trip and present when the questionable incident occurred.

As for Baxter Park rules. I applaud rules that seek to prevent damage to the park environment. I protest and from time to time seek to circumvent rules that seek only to keep me from getting into dangerous circumstances. Before TJ jumps on me as a lawbreaker, my technique is to simply start hiking before the rangers get around to posting there daily rules about whether hiking is to be allowed or not. Danger is a part of wildness. To talk of danger-free wilderness is to reveal a total misunderstanding of wilderness.

But I also know my limitations. I have never forded the Kennebec because I've forded enough streams to know that I probably would end up with a wet pack or something worse.

I've never seen boats on the shore of the Kennebec. But I'm sure that at times boats have been left on the shore of the Kennebec near the AT crossing. It's an old Maine tradition. On lands purchased by the National Park Service, these boats are illegal. Among the problems MATC has faced in its responsibility for these lands is what to do about the hundreds of boats that clog the shores of some of the lakes, ponds and streams. A similar problem faces AMC on the 37,000 acres it has purchased in the so called "100-mile-wilderness."

It's a dilemma. Some boats are obviously litter. Some obviously are still being used. And there are many where it's impossible to tell.

Weary

warren doyle
06-17-2004, 11:59
Nice post Weary. I'll give you a handshake and a hug (but no kiss!) whenever we meet. Unfortunately, TJ hasn't earned even a Little Debbie yet, let alone a kiss. But I am an optimist (about the Little Debbie that is). However, at this point, I may nominate him for the 'Rush Limbaugh' award given out by Whiteblaze.net.

In all my fording of the Kennebec before the ferry service was established, I never once saw a boat 'available' (i.e., being right there where the trail entered the river) for a hiker to use whenever he/she got there. The 'availibility' of boats was only after a hiker telephoned ahead and made arrangements which the MINORITY of northbounders did.
Since the establishment of the ferry service, the MAJORITY of northbounders/southbounders are utilizing this service which is both reliable and 'available' thanks to the funding of the MATC/ATC and dependable, reliable people like Steve Longley.
I feel comfortable in being in the MINORITY (yet again!) and will continue to embrace, and/or 'high five!', any of my fellow pilgrims who feel the flow of these waters. Some of my most inspirational moments for humanity have come from this crossing. If Katahdin is my 'holy mountain' then the Kennebec is my 'holy river'.

The Old Fhart
06-17-2004, 13:05
(post #58) Wolfgang, Sorry, I also don't think I could ever kiss Warren unless I was on “Fear Factor" as well.

Warren, as to reference to logic, it seems that you like to contra dance around logic whenever it is presented to show that you are wrong. Could you please acknowledge that you are not correct about hikers no longer being turned back because of foul weather on Katahdin after something you did in the 1970s as you said “ I'm glad we don't have any more of these incidents happening that I know of. The rule still exist that says: BSP rule #17. CLIMBING OR MOUNTAIN HIKING: Climbing or mountain hiking may be restricted at the discretion of the Director. I also pointed out that “On my 1998 thru hike I talked to a jogger I met on the trail north of Duncannon. He told me in 1997 he had done all but the final 5.2 miles of the A.T. because of really bad weather and his ride waited for three days and couldn’t wait any longer.” You now know this still happens but obviously these facts don’t fit in with your inventive story so you choose to not answer. Hikers still are turned back in spite of anything you may have done. Maybe my 'classical conditioning' won’t let me ignore your bending the facts.

You also imply that I said you never were stopped from climbing Katahdin but ignore that I said: “I have no doubt that you were turned back or “prevented” from climbing Katahdin. on 9-2-75, so what.” It would be logical for you to at least admit that I never said I doubted your being stopped unless you are intentionally trying to discredit what I have actually said. I just doubt that, as you said, Buz Caverly and several rangers, basically all the workers in Baxter, would come to stop a group of hikers from climbing. That defies logic. Let’s take a poll to see how many people would actually believe such a story, whether it happened or not.

You also ignore to answer why previously you said you called Baxter and “the BSP Supervisor told the expedition organizer a week earlier (in Monson) that he would do all he could to allow us to climb the mountain.” and took that statement as an absolute guarantee that you could climb the mountain, whenever you want, under any conditions. I still can’t picture anyone being so naïve to think that.

And finally, I don’t 'salivate' when I read your posts, it is actually ROFLOL. At my age it isn’t salivating I have to worry about when I hear a good side-splitting story like you tell.

warren doyle
06-17-2004, 14:29
TOF - If you don't believe me, why don't you e-mail Buz at Baxter State Park so you can't believe him too!
Then I will be happy to talk more about this.
From your friendly agitator in the southern Appalachians.

Keep this up and I might have to reconsider that Little Debbie offer.

The Old Fhart
06-17-2004, 15:22
Warren-"TOF - If you don't believe me, why don't you e-mail Buz at Baxter State Park so you can't believe him too!"

Geez, Warren, What about my saying "I believe you were stopped" don't you comprehend? I believe If I wasted my time to call or e-mail Buzz he would also tell me you were stopped. What is your point? I am saying I believe you were stopped for a 4th time (posts #54,57,63,now). You won't even acknowledge that people are still stopped despite whatever you claim to have done. You were stopped, get over it, that was almost 30 years ago and it is you who keeps bringing it up.

To make a grandiose claim that your actions have somehow changed Baxter's policy on stopping people when the rules and feedback from real hikers tells a different story is the real problem. If you are too embarassed to fess up to misrepresenting that people are still stopped, I'd understand. Just don't say you won't answer questions because you are claiming I said something I never said. Anyone reading the posts can see your refusal to answer has nothing to do with my believing you on the point of being stopped. Start using your so-called logic and quit salivating every time you see the word STOP

warren doyle
06-17-2004, 16:13
Buz Caverly, accompanied by several rangers, prevented the 19-member 1975 Appalachian Trail Circle Expedition from climbing the mountain during the morning of September 2, 1975. This incident occurred in Katahdin Stream Campground. This happened on the 110th and final day of the longest/largest voluntary long distance trail trek in modern American history (and the most successful - 100% completion rate).
This was no 'vacation plans hitting a small snag' as you stated.
Once again, I suggest you call Buz before you continue to misinterpret and reinvent a personal history that was not yours.
I would never doubt you if you told me what day you were born, who your mother and father were, where you lived, what you loved and/or what were some of the greatest injustices in your life.
What exactly is your agenda here?

TJ aka Teej
06-17-2004, 18:57
The 'availibility' of boats was only after a hiker telephoned ahead and made arrangements which the MINORITY of northbounders did.

After you claimed there were never any boats, and that all hikers before the drowning forded, you were kindly provided facts by several hikers to help you learn more about the history of the Caratunk crossing.
The above comment indicates you didn't learn your lesson, Warren.

TJ aka Teej
06-17-2004, 19:03
Buz [sic] Caverly, accompanied by several rangers...

---

...before you continue to misinterpret and reinvent a personal history that was not yours.


The only person allowed to misinterpret and reinvent a personal history is that person himself?
How very Wingfoot of you, Warren.

TJ aka Teej
06-17-2004, 19:34
Before TJ jumps on me as a lawbreaker, my technique is to simply start hiking before the rangers get around to posting there daily rules about whether hiking is to be allowed or not.

If the trail was closed the day before, it's closed at the trailhead until the Ranger opens it again. It doesn't 'open' itself at midnight. Like Weary, I start up the Hunt Trail long before 7AM when the Ranger posts the weather report and Class day at the trailhead. Which is OK by the Park rules if the trail was not closed the day before.

In the 70s, and up to a few years ago, trails were closed at treeline. A posse of rangers stationed at the Katahdin Stream Campground trailhead in the drizzle to turn back hikers because of a rule that prohibited climbing in the rain? That's crazy talk.

Jack Tarlin
06-17-2004, 20:48
Warren:

You describe your alleged 1975 "expedition" as "the longest/largest voluntary long-distance trek in modern American history."

Ridiculous.

This was a group slackpacking vacation----you hauled a bunch of suburbanites around in a van for four months while they day-hiked. While they were pretending to be thru-hiking, they were in fact on a series of extended day-hikes, not having the onerous burden of carrying their own stuff or taking care of their own destiny. Their "backpacking" consisted of the horrible tribulation of hauling a fannypack with a tangerine and a soda pop in it.

For you to speak of this as some epic moment in American adventure history is pitiful.

Oh, and you speak of a "voluntary" long-distance trail trek. As opposed to What? An involuntary one? You mean people are forced to thru-hike against their will?

Please explain, Warren. This is news to me.

In any case, Warren, lay off the hyperbole. Squiring people around while they slackpack is not exactly up there with Jim Bridger, Kit Carson, or Lewis and Clark. You took money from folks to drive 'em around so they wouldn't have to backpack. Period.

To describe this as some monumental event in contemporary history is nothing less than ridiculous. Get over yourself.

SavageLlama
06-17-2004, 21:12
Warren:
You took money from folks to drive 'em around so they wouldn't have to backpack. Period.

To describe this as some monumental event in contemporary history is nothing less than ridiculous. Get over yourself.


http://www.randomforum.com/forums/images/smilies/laughing777.gifhttp://www.randomforum.com/forums/images/smilies/laughing777.gifhttp://www.randomforum.com/forums/images/smilies/laughing777.gifhttp://www.randomforum.com/forums/images/smilies/laughing777.gif

Lone Wolf
06-17-2004, 23:15
Jack, you have major issues. With Warren. Your posts ooze hatred and contempt. Why does he bother you so much? You slackpack all the time.

The Old Fhart
06-18-2004, 08:10
Post #66
Warren:” Once again, I suggest you call Buz before you continue to misinterpret and reinvent a personal history that was not yours.“
Warren, is there something wrong with your ability to comprehend simple statements? I’ll say it now for a 5th time, I don’t question you were stopped. Why do you keep insisting I call Buzz to verify something I already agree to? Is it the same reason you can’t get his name right? The name is “Buzz”, not “Buz” as you continually misspell it. I didn’t have to be there, nor do I have to reinvent anything, I agree with the FACT of your being stopped-have you got that yet?

My simple agenda is to get you to support your implication that something you may have done got rules at Baxter changed so people can now climb in foul weather. “ I'm glad we don't have any more of these incidents happening that I know of.” You imply a connection between “something” you did and people not being stopped after 1975 but you won’t say what. Rules still exists today such as: BSP rule #17. CLIMBING OR MOUNTAIN HIKING: Climbing or mountain hiking may be restricted at the discretion of the Director. I’ve mentioned in previous posts I also have been stopped because of weather. I mentioned the jogger I met in PA who had been “stopped” from finishing the A.T. in 1997 in bad weather. If there are still multiple cases of people getting stopped then how can you insinuate you did anything to change, or help change, the rules? That is the question.

Now I know you are going to tell me once again to call “Buz” because you can’t think of anything pertinent to say but if you can’t answer the simple question, don’t bother wasting bandwidth with one of your stock irrelevant “you weren’t there” replies. Your equivocation is paramount to taking the fifth. If you got the rules changed, be proud of that and tell us all about it.

Jack Tarlin
06-18-2004, 09:57
Geez, Wolf. lighten up this morning.

All my post did was to point out how ridiculous Warren's description of his 1975 van adventure really was.....read his description of the event, Wolf. Those are HIS words, not mine. You'd think he was describing something from Ernest Shackleton's memoirs, and not the reality, which was freighting a bunch of people around the Eastern seaboard who were afraid to actually backpack.

And as to your comments about my words oozing contempt....well, that's a laugh, too, Wolf. Your commentary here is usually terse, rude, unkind, and deliberately provacative and inflammatory. You're fairly well known for it; instead of being constructive, the majority of your posts are there only to criticize others.

But Gosh, Wolf, sorry if I offended your tender sensibilities.

Fact is, Waren's description of his excellent slackpacking adventure was ludicrous, especially when he tried to elevate into the pantheon of modern-day exploration and adventure. There's nothing particularly adventuresome about hauling a bunch of city folks around the woods and meeting them several times a day at parking lots and highway road crossings. My good- ness, what a hair-raising experience! Thrills, chills, suspense, danger! Oooh, will we make it to the support vehicle in time for cocoa? What drama!!

Maybe this is your idea of high adventure, Wolf. It ain't mine. If Warren wants to self-promote his extensive dayhiking experience as some sort of bold and historic adventuous untertaking, that's fine.....but if he does it here, he's gonna get called on it. The 1975 "expedition" was hardly historic.

weary
06-18-2004, 16:10
Warren:

You describe your alleged 1975 "expedition" as "the longest/largest voluntary long-distance trek in modern American history."

Ridiculous.

This was a group slackpacking vacation----you hauled a bunch of suburbanites around in a van for four months while they day-hiked. While they were pretending to be thru-hiking, they were in fact on a series of extended day-hikes, not having the onerous burden of carrying their own stuff or taking care of their own destiny. Their "backpacking" consisted of the horrible tribulation of hauling a fannypack with a tangerine and a soda pop in it.....

Hey, Jack. How many people do you know who have day hiked 20 miles or so every day for four months, rain or shine? It's not traditional thru hiking. But neither does it involve all the blue and yellow blazing many more traditional types call thru hiking. And it's surely unusual. How many groups do you know that have started together and ended together with no drop outs?

Only those without sin, should cast those first stones. As someone who has observed these things for five plus decades anyone who has walked every inch of this trail strikes me as pretty unusual, regardless of how. Let's just carry our pebbles from Springer to K, deposit same on the summit cairn, and share in the joy that we all feel from having experienced this magnificent trail.

Weary

Twofiddy
06-19-2004, 22:01
http://www.baxterstateparkauthority.com/rules/allrules.html (http://www.baxterstateparkauthority.com/rules/allrules.html)

BAXTER STATE PARK RULES AND REGULATIONS 1998


Summary: These rules, adopted by the Baxter State Park Authority (the "Authority") pursuant to 12 M.R.S.A. Sec. 903, govern the use of Baxter State Park (the "Park") by the public. No provision of these rules applies to law enforcement or administrative personnel in the course of their official duties. Any delegation of authority to the Director under these rules includes delegation to the Director's designee. In addition to any specific provision contained in these rules, the Director may restrict public uses or activities within the Park as necessary to preserve or protect the Park or to assure the safety of Park users.

25. AUDIO DEVICES: Audio devices such as radios, televisions, cassette players, or cellular telephones may not be operated within the Park.

http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/12/title12sec903.html (http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/12/title12sec903.html)

<TABLE cellSpacing=4 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD bgColor=#f2e3df>Title 12: CONSERVATION (http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/12/title12ch0sec0.html)
Part 2: FORESTS, PARKS, LAKES AND RIVERS
Chapter 211: STATE PARKS (http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/12/title12ch211sec0.html)
Subchapter 3: BAXTER STATE PARK

§903. Rules and regulations (CONTAINS TEXT WITH VARYING EFFECTIVE DATES)</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#f2eee8>
(WHOLE SECTION TEXT EFFECTIVE UNTIL 7/1/04)


The Baxter State Park Authority may in a manner consistent with the Maine Administrative Procedure Act, establish such rules and regulations as it deems necessary for the protection and safety of the public or for the proper observance of the conditions and restrictions expressed in the deeds of trust of the park to the State. [1977, c. 694, § 237 (rpr).]

Whoever violates any of the rules and regulations of said park authority, promulgated in conformity with this section, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $100 and costs or by imprisonment for not more than 30 days, or by both. [1973, c. 201 (amd).]
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


-----------------------
Stupid rule. Nevertheless, I think this case falls outside the intentions of that rule. If a fine is levied, what if the cell phone call was to report a park employee being raped. Would they issue a fine then? Both are emergencies...


AMERICANS HAVE A RIGHT TO COMMUNICATIONS!! There is an act, I am not sure what act it is, but it states something to the tune that a regular phone company is responsible for installing phone service to any and all locations if some one desires. Electric is also like that.

Cellular phone use is another one of these things that needs to be added to this law. Every single inch of the US needs to have cell service. Dont confuse me by thinking that I agree that ever hill top needs a cell tower but cellular service needs improved. Infact, my grandfather is prescribed a cell phone now by his heart Dr. because it controls his pace maker fibulator (sp) and it controls other electronics that are assisting his heart beat!! He has a right by law to carry a phone for his health. I have a right to carry one too. As soon as I fall and get hurt in BAXTER I am going to call my Dr. and get a scrip written that prescribes me a need for a cell phone at all times for my health and then report my injury.

BAXTER STATE PARK LAWS!! WHAT A JOKE!!

Twofiddy
06-19-2004, 22:09
ANYONE WANT TO START A FUSS ABOUT SOMETHING!


Take your GM car into the park and call ON STAR to get your GM unlocked.

Tell them that you are in a remote section of the Main Wilderness near Mt Katahdin and that you dropped your keys today while hiking on the highest mountain in Maine.

Tell them that you need your car unlocked.... when they call you back... make sure to give them your name and all your info and get them to make a commercial out of it!!

Then we got something started here!!! :clap

weary
06-20-2004, 09:48
Take your GM car into the park and call ON STAR to get your GM unlocked.
Tell them that you are in a remote section of the Main Wilderness near Mt Katahdin and that you dropped your keys today while hiking on the highest mountain in Maine. Tell them that you need your car unlocked.... when they call you back... make sure to give them your name and all your info and get them to make a commercial out of it!!
Then we got something started here!!! :clap

Twofiddy. Why do you hate the idea of an occasional pocket of wildness and remoteness in this country so much? You can carry your cell phone through 99.999 percent of this nation.

Cell phone prohibition at the request of the donor in one tiny, 200,000 acre park that he bought and paid for surely doesn't warrant such ire. My suggestion is that those who have such an unreasonable fear of wildness should simply stay out of Baxter Park.

But if you remain determined to experience Katahdin, perhaps counseling or psychiatric treatment could help you overcome your phobia.

Weary

warren doyle
07-19-2004, 19:59
(In response to Jack Tarlin's previous two posts on this thread)

For the record:

The 1975 UCONN Appalachian Trail Expedition was the first group of more than two people to walk the entire Appalachian Trail together in one hiking season.
The majority of the 19 members were undergraduates (or recent graduates) of the University of Connecticut. Ages ranged from 17-28 y.o. About 66% were males and 33% were females. Most were from working class or middle class backgrounds going to a state school because their families could afford the low tuition. They mostly were from towns and rural areas in CT - none from the city as Jack Tarlin wrote (of course he wasn't there but you wouldn't know that from his posts would you?)
No one was paid on this expedition (the support van driver who used her own vehicle was 'paid' $3 a day to cover her food expenses).
This endeavor was as grassroots/folk as it gets.
There was drama and courage shown throughout our journey of cooperation and commitment. The circle we formed on Springer was unbroken at Katahdin
The support van, when it did meet us, met us once at the end of the day.
All 19 people who started finished 109 days after starting from Springer. Everyone walked the whole way helping each other reach their dream. No one was left behind. It was a mixture of day hiking and lightweight backpacking and I was one of the hikers. Everyone cooked their own meals and I can't recall anyone ever receiving 'cocoa' unless they made it themselves or shared some with their fellow hikers.
It is the longest, largest. most successful (in terms of completion rate) voluntary trek on a long-distance trail in modern American history.
Several members of this first expedition went on to form the core of the first groups to walk the PCT in 1977 and the CDT in the early-mid 1980's.
These are the facts of which I am proud about.

It is part of long distance hiking history just like your seven thru-hikes in seven years is Jack. What you did was a singular and unusual event worthy of note. I congratulated you in the past on this and I will now congratulate you again.

'And that's the rest of the story.'

Hikerhead
07-19-2004, 20:34
Cell phone prohibition at the request of the donor in one tiny, 200,000 acre park that he bought and paid for surely doesn't warrant such ire. My suggestion is that those who have such an unreasonable fear of wildness should simply stay out of Baxter Park.
Weary

I'm not starting a pissing contest here, but who made the rule outlawing cell phones? I know it wasn't Baxter. Or did he outlaw any electronics of any kind and in later years that meant cell phones? :-?

TJ aka Teej
07-19-2004, 20:53
I'm not starting a pissing contest here, but who made the rule outlawing cell phones? I know it wasn't Baxter. Or did he outlaw any electronics of any kind and in later years that meant cell phones? :-?

The rule banning "audio devices" dates at least to the 50s. The words 'cell phone' were added a few years ago by the Park Director after an incident where a fatigued visitor demanded a helo evac from the Hunt Spur.

Hikerhead
07-19-2004, 21:12
Thanks. Just wondering.....does this law also mean no radios or cell phone use while in your car/truck also? If so, do they inforce it?

Pencil Pusher
07-20-2004, 00:10
Thanks. Just wondering.....does this law also mean no radios or cell phone use while in your car/truck also? If so, do they inforce it?
Here's the law:
25. AUDIO DEVICES: Audio devices such as radios, televisions, cassette players, or cellular telephones may not be operated within the Park.

I don't know if they enforce it, but whether it's in your car, on your unicycle, or while hiking... well, what do you think?

Tim Seaver
07-20-2004, 10:42
I asked at park headquarters in Millinocket if it was OK to carry a cellphone for emergency use only, and they said that it would be fine, provided it was turned off, and only used in a REAL emergency. Despite what BJ states, I think it's pretty clear what constitutes an "emergency".

The Old Fhart
07-20-2004, 12:03
Warren Doyle, post #79-“The 1975 UCONN Appalachian Trail Expedition was the first group of more than two people to walk the entire Appalachian Trail together in one hiking season.”
Two of Warren’s favorite mantras that he continually drones whenever someone raises a point of fact about his posts are: [you]“misinterpret and reinvent a personal history that was not yours” and “you weren’t there”. If he really believes those phrases and apply that same logic on his own posts, he would have to accept, at face value, the story of the group of six scouts that thru hiked the entire A.T. in 1936. You can read the articles in the ALDHA newsletter and the ATN at: http://www.aldha.org/newsletr/sum00.pdf or http://www.appalachiantrail.org/about/pubs/atn/archive/ATN01Mar.pdf.

So apparently the 1975 thru hike Warren continually brings up and he claims was “the first group of more than two people to walk the entire Appalachian Trail together in one hiking season”, isn’t the first at all. Will he change the statement to read: “The 1975 UCONN Appalachian Trail Expedition was the first group of more than SIX people…………….”? Should I call “Buz” to see what he says or will Warren leave this question unanswered like he did with my last question in post #73?

Jack Tarlin
07-20-2004, 21:01
Thank for the clarifications, Warren.

I stand corrected. The folks apparently weren't from the city, they weren't met at every crossroad, and I evidently over-estimated the Expedition's cocoa consumption.

This doesn't alter the fact that we're still talking about a group slackpacking trip; for the most part, people were walking sections of the Trail while a vehicle hauled nearly all of their stuff. Needless to say, being free of the burden of actually backpacking and carrying their own gear, it's no surprise that the "success" rate was so high. I know folks whose maiden aunts with bad hips could probably thru-hike if they Brysoned it most of the way; it's a wonder how invigorated you can feel at the end of the day if you're lucky enough to have a van and driver at your beck and call.

In other words, I simply don't think this group slackaramathon is quite the historically significant event that Warren evidently thinks it is. I thought his original description of this trip as being so monumentally memorable was windy and overblown, and I still think so. And the fact that, as Warren reminds us, I wasn't there, doesn't change this.

And once again, Warren speaks of this being the "largest, longest, most succesful voluntary trek on a long-distance trail in modern American history." As opposed to what, I wonder. An involuntary trek on a long-distance hiking Trail? Are people being forced against their will to go on long-distance hikes?
This is news to me. I'm really at a loss to understand what Warren is talking about here.

I can't help but also add that the ATC has for many years disapproved of "large group" activities on the Trail and suggests that groups be limited to ten or less, but I'm sure this is merely another suggested code of behavior that Warren feels free to ignore.

Also, I see that Warren kindly volunteered the information that about 66% of the folks on this "Expedition" were male and 33% female. This would lead one to speculate about the gender identity of that last 1%, but then again, maybe there are some things we're better off not knowing.

And finally, it's gracious of Warren to congratulate me on my travels, and it's nice of him to do so, but I can't help but point out that a crucial difference between his travels and mine (other than the fact that I actually carried my own pack nearly all of the time) is that I don't operate under the delusion that my hikes were of any real epochal significance, at least not when discussing "modern American history." My hikes were wonderful and they enriched my life, but I'm not such an egotist to think that they be considered historically significant---I wouldn't be so presumptous to make that contention here, and were I to do so, it wouldn't surprise me if people felt my contention was conceited and overblown. I think Myron Avery's and Earl Shaffer's hikes were historically significant. I'm not so sure about anyone else's.

Ridge
11-25-2004, 15:35
http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=3897&messageid=1100659595


Crazy, Just Crazy...

cshir003
12-03-2004, 13:42
the way I see it, the guy pays a hundred bucks for a team of rescuers to come get him off the mountain because the other peopler in his group were either uncapable or unwilling to get help on their own.