the down side of Scott Jurek's record AT hike-- Baxter state park condemnation

[CalebJ]

There is no official organization that recognizes speed records of the AT. We as hikers are the ones that recognize the records. Scott willfully broke the rules. He does not deserve to hold the AT speed record. We as hikers need to revoke his title for the wellfare of the AT.

That ranks highly among the stupidest posts I've ever read. Of all the things BSP cited him for, the only creditable charge was for a bottle of champagne. Let him pay his fine and move on. Along the way to setting the record he was an ambassador for the trail, taking the time to talk to everyone he passed on the way and even gave away a pair of shoes to a hiker in need. Are you without sin? I'm certainly not. Put down your stones and go home!

[Coffee]

There is no official organization that recognizes speed records of the AT. We as hikers are the ones that recognize the records. Scott willfully broke the rules. He does not deserve to hold the AT speed record. We as hikers need to revoke his title for the wellfare of the AT.

He broke the record. The physical accomplishment stands for itself. Broken rules OTHER THAN short cutting the trail or taking performance enhancing drugs in no way diminish the physical achievement. Sometimes you have to be able to compartmentalize and celebrate one action while being critical of another.

[pknight212]

pknight
1. Who gives a **** if he is the first? You think because everybody breaks the rules it is ok? This is exactly why BSP is about give the AT the boot. yeah he is not the first that is the problem, and he is not the first to be cited for it either

2. In their comments it is noted that the Canadians broke into appropriate sized groups for their movements. A group picture from KSC does not suggest otherwise. Also contrary to whatever jokes folks down here might imagine, Canadian soldiers are quite professional; I know that firsthand.

3. It's a commercial use issue.

" Surely BSP knew of what was coming with Scott's endeavor and could've taken some more proactive steps" So you think it's their problem to get ready to cater to a thru hiker's needs. Surely Scott knew he was coming and him and his team could have prepared to follow the rules.

Read my post again. I never said it was okay to break the rules and if you knew Scott, I'm sure he'd be the first to say "I was responsible, I screwed up, I'll pay the fine." I said that the punitive and very public way that this was handled was a disgrace.

I wasn't misleading at all with my post about the Canadians. I don't give a **** what group sizes they broke into, they were assembled at least at one point inside the park for that photo with way more than twelve people or whatever the hell the 'approved' number is. The photographic evidence that the park itself provided is more than enough to cite them. So they're some sort of army hotshots? Big deal. They kill people for a living, so I guess it's okay (okay, given that they're Canadians, that's probably inaccurate). Scott had way less than 12 as part of his official 'entourage' - in all the video footage I've seen of his trip prior to the summit, it hasn't been any more than a half dozen actually. Is it really his fault if other curious onlookers are inspired and decide to hang out with him at the summit?

Stop being obtuse. Nobody has to 'cater' to anybody's needs, but surely they could've reached out to Scott long before the summit and reminded him of what the policies were, rather than waiting around smugly up top for him to break rules, snapping a few photos, some of which were quite misleading, then publicly shaming him on the internets later. Baxter mucked this up in a major way.

The bottom line is that Scott's actions both on the AT and in general have inspired countless individuals to get outside and be active in their own way. This whole thing is way bigger than the ramblings of some disgruntled park official. A few stubborn naysayers are like scraps of dirt on the bottom of his shoe. It's unfortunate that BSP is so against his activities and objectives and that they seem to be quite unfriendly to the thru-hiker community in general from what I've surmised. Moving the AT out of there may not be such a bad thing.

[imscotty]

Also, the truth is that if you close the AT to that Park, that park will barely be visited ever again.

Tear Drop,

I believe this is absolutely untrue, I would say just the opposite. Remove the AT form BSP, and I am sure it will still be running at capacity during the busy season. BSP does not need us. We need to be polite and respectful guests.

[Dogwood]

"Stop being obtuse."

Careful who you say that to. You could wind up losing your job, privledges and placed into solitary confinement.

[SteelCut]

"Stop being obtuse."

Careful who you say that to. You could wind up losing your job, privledges and placed into solitary confinement.

Ironic that movie was set in Maine.

[Dogwood]

That didn't escape me Steel Cut. That's why I thought it all the more appropriate.

[SteelCut]

That didn't escape me Steel Cut. That's why I thought it all the more appropriate.

That's what I figured

[Donde]

I wasn't misleading at all with my post about the Canadians. I don't give a **** what group sizes they broke into, they were assembled at least at one point inside the park for that photo with way more than twelve people or whatever the hell the 'approved' number is. The photographic evidence that the park itself provided is more than enough to cite them. So they're some sort of army hotshots? Big deal. They kill people for a living, so I guess it's okay (okay, given that they're Canadians, that's probably inaccurate).

No it is not enough to cite them, they are not on trail. They are in the KS campground area by the look of it, and it stands to reason the BSP staff has a little more info on this than we do. Also yeah Canadian soldiers do kill people; there is this war thing they have been in for the last 14 years or so, but I wouldn't expect Americans to be aware of that.

As for BSP making this so public what choice did they have? It was already publicized; they can't very well have everybody see the pics and vids and go oh cool me and my 14 closest friends should grab a bottle and go do that. It is interesting to me that everybody except Scott is making excuses for him (good on him for that), for BSP this is about alot more than just him.

[squeezebox]

That ranks highly among the stupidest posts I've ever read. Of all the things BSP cited him for, the only creditable charge was for a bottle of champagne. Let him pay his fine and move on. Along the way to setting the record he was an ambassador for the trail, taking the time to talk to everyone he passed on the way and even gave away a pair of shoes to a hiker in need. Are you without sin? I'm certainly not. Put down your stones and go home!

No! The stupid award goes to Scott and his sponsers.

[TJ aka Teej]

if you knew Scott, I'm sure he'd be the first to say "I was responsible, I screwed up, I'll pay the fine."

Evidently not.

[BirdBrain]

Evidently not.

Agreed. It beyond logic that people would ascribe wonderful attributes that fly in the face of obvious facts. His group was told what not to do ahead of time, but did it anyways and has not responded when asked about it. Some how this turns into if you knew Scott, I'm sure he'd be the first to say "I was responsible, I screwed up, I'll pay the fine. What delusional groupie speak.

[egilbe]

1. A Pyrrhic victory is a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat. Someone who wins a Pyrrhic victory has been victorious in some way; however, the heavy toll negates any sense of achievement or profit (another term for this would be "hollow victory").
   
   I propose changing this to a Jurek victory if Baxter closes off the AT

[Another Kevin]

I wasn't misleading at all with my post about the Canadians. I don't give a **** what group sizes they broke into, they were assembled at least at one point inside the park for that photo with way more than twelve people or whatever the hell the 'approved' number is. The photographic evidence that the park itself provided is more than enough to cite them.

Now you're simply being ridiculous. The group picture was taken at one of the campgrounds, where large groups are allowed by permit. And in fact the article that was associated with the picture praised them for breaking into groups of no more than ten and maintaining separation of more than a mile among the groups. The picture is not from the summit of Katahdin, or indeed anywhere in the backcountry, it was taken near a road where large groups are lawful.

[BirdBrain]

To me, it was about saying Look at all these Clif Bars I ate!
A carefully crafted advertizement for his longtime employer.

When will the commercial be made? We need some deep voice proudly saying, "Clif Bar. Proud sponsors of Scott Jurek, the man that forever changed the AT." I am certain that will help sales. Good job Clif Bar.

[rickb]

Now you're simply being ridiculous. The group picture was taken at one of the campgrounds, where large groups are allowed by permit. And in fact the article that was associated with the picture praised them for breaking into groups of no more than ten and maintaining separation of more than a mile among the groups. The picture is not from the summit of Katahdin, or indeed anywhere in the backcountry, it was taken near a road where large groups are lawful.

I commend Baxter for welcoming Canadian Soldiers into the park to do some of their Training. I think it terrific that some said they would return again when not on duty.

Of course they did not violate the rule that they not hike in groups of 13 or more -- that is, without 1 mile separating members of a larger group. As professional soldiers doing training in a foreign country I would expect nothing less.

That Jurek Inc's ad hoc group did not do as well as the Soldiers scoping out the rules is unfortunate.

What I can't understand is why BPS did not provide more detail in their shaming of Jurek-- ie that the party size violation was for having 2 people over the 12 person limit, for informing that his littering violation was for spilled champagne, and his public drinking summons was for a short pull off a celebratory Champagne bottle.

[egilbe]

I commend Baxter for welcoming Canadian Soldiers into the park to do some of their Training. I think it terrific that some said they would return again when not on duty.

Of course they did not violate the rule that they not hike in groups of 13 or more -- that is, without 1 mile separating members of a larger group. As professional soldiers doing training in a foreign country I would expect nothing less.

That Jurek Inc's ad hoc group did not do as well as the Soldiers scoping out the rules is unfortunate.

What I can't understand is why BPS did not provide more detail in their shaming of Jurek-- ie that the party size violation was for having 2 people over the 12 person limit, for informing that his littering violation was for spilled champagne, and his public drinking summons was for a short pull off a celebratory Champagne bottle.

Were they violations or not? Was he warned beforehand and agreed to it, or not? Where is the line drawn? A cliff bar wrapper is easier to clean up and less damaging to the environment than spilled champagne. Once you start allowing one more person in a group party, is two where you draw the line? Three? It was a blatant violation and disrespect of the rules and the environment which he publicly plastered all over Facebook. AT through hikers are already skating on thin ice with the Park Authority and they are keeping their violations on the down-low and not publicly, and with corporate sponsorship, flaunting their disrespect and disregarding everything Percival Baxter wanted for the park. He should be ashamed of himself and he should be issuing an apology for his actions.

[Traveler]

I commend Baxter for welcoming Canadian Soldiers into the park to do some of their Training. I think it terrific that some said they would return again when not on duty.

Of course they did not violate the rule that they not hike in groups of 13 or more -- that is, without 1 mile separating members of a larger group. As professional soldiers doing training in a foreign country I would expect nothing less.

That Jurek Inc's ad hoc group did not do as well as the Soldiers scoping out the rules is unfortunate.

What I can't understand is why BPS did not provide more detail in their shaming of Jurek-- ie that the party size violation was for having 2 people over the 12 person limit, for informing that his littering violation was for spilled champagne, and his public drinking summons was for a short pull off a celebratory Champagne bottle.

Ignorance of rules in parks is really a lame excuse, especially given there were support personnel (aren't they supposed to provide that information for the runner along with other details in upcoming miles?)

The Shaming of Jurek.... sounds like a movie. TV guide synopsis might read;

"An aging runner makes a last effort for greatness only to be punished by thugs in uniform as he defies Park rules in front of rangers"

[fiddlehead]

Reading this thread leaves a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach.
Nit picking, do-gooders are making me sick.
All the hate.
For what?
Because he ran instead of hiked?

Or because he is a famous runner and not a famous hiker?
Makes me sick!

[Malto]

Reading this thread leaves a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach.
Nit picking, do-gooders are making me sick.
All the hate.
For what?
Because he ran instead of hiked?

Or because he is a famous runner and not a famous hiker?
Makes me sick!

amen. I think this thread has more than run its course along with the rest of the Scott threads. Forums should bring people together not pit them against each other.