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

[Another Kevin]

Let's not forget that BSP was created with the explicit mission of being a wilderness preserve, not a playground for hikers and campers. That's why there are so many strict rules and limitations on the numbers of visitors.

Some people (not just here, in the US more generally) have that attitude that "public" lands are there for the public to do whatever they want so long as they're not actively destroying things. The reality is that large groups of people displace wildlife and have a negative effect on the wilderness experience for other hikers, not to mention waste and trampling issues around campsites.

The population of the US and the number of hikers is many times larger than it was when the AT was first created. What was okay for the trail a generation or even a few years ago may not be okay today given the higher usage. BSP seems to be working to address this issue. ATC is doing the same with their experimental (and optional--for now) permit system.

I expect that the experience of thru-hiking will be very different 10 years from now, and that is not necessarily a bad thing.

The nature of what we consider 'wilderness' has changed significantly in the time the Trail has been around, and the Trail itself has been one catalyst for the change. Remember that when it was first laid out, it did indeed have hundreds of miles of roadwalk, and where it was off-road, it was often on the dirt roads left behind by recent clearcuts, walking through the fireweed and alder thickets of early-succession meadow in newly logged land. It was pretty ugly, and surely not wilderness by any stretch of the imagination. Big pieces of the Poconos, Harriman and the Taconics were industrial wastelands: the Trail is essentially on brownfield there, although nearly a century of abandonment has allowed Nature to reclaim much. Nowadays, our eyes tend to pass over the ruins of industry in the nearly-mature second-growth forest, and we call it 'wilderness' again.

Ir is the experience of wilderness through the National Parks, and through the trails, that has made the public aware that the wilderness has a value, rather than being 'waste' land that is worthless unless developed. If people don't have the ability directly to experience it, they will not learn its value, and they will join the growing chorus in Washington that think that the Government simply needs to sell off our public lands to the highest bidder.

We do love the wilderness to death. It's a delicate balancing act. Putting it on a pedestal where the public has no access will surely kill it. Requiring hard-to-attain credentials before one is granted access will be hardly any better, and making access expensive might even make things worse (a populist politician could then denounce the public lands as rich men's playgrounds).

We somehow need a tiered system of access, with KoA and Jellystone Park at one end, and backcountry permits for multiday bushwhacks at the other. Perhaps BSP belongs higher on that scale than it is. There still needs to be a broadly-accessible path of entry, where those who want to find out for themselves what wilderness is like have a place to do so, without needing first to prove themselves worthy. None of us is worthy, and setting a test is likely to weed out those of us who would be the best advocates - because those individuals are the ones who are already aware that we cannot be worthy, and will stay away.

For all the misbehaviour of A-T hikers, nobody returns from a long hike still believing that time and money spent on preserving the wilderness is time and money wasted. That's at least something. And it's a baby that we must not throw out with the bathwater.

I don't think there are good answers. I expect that in the next few years things will get very ugly.

[LoneStranger]

Those of you saying this isn't just about Scott are correct. His well publicized flaunting of the rules he dang well should have researched has put a spotlight on the issue, but other than the commercial issue he and his entourage didn't do anything a lot of other thru hikers haven't done before. Littering, spewing champagne around the summit, over sized groups monopolizing the summit and overwhelming it with their own personal celebrations at the expense of all others are semi-regular occurrences on Baxter Peak these days. Just like you shouldn't have to be told not to spit in a church you shouldn't have to be told not to desecrate a sacred mountain peak. The lack of a sign saying "Don't be an idiot!" doesn't give anyone an excuse to say they weren't told.

The folks who thought that they were more important than the mountain have each done their part to get things where they are today. I have met some very nice folks on top of that mountain. People quietly weeping at the emotions of finishing their trek, but with a huge smile on their face...people whispering in awe of being there at that place they had worked so hard to be. It gives me chills years later to remember sharing those moments with them. I've also met some of the folks who give thru hikers a bad name. Those are the folks who will be to blame for whatever restrictions the future may hold, not Scott.

[TJ aka Teej]

BTW, just out of curiosity, does anyone know of how many times per year that BSP issues fines for various rule infractions?

During the regular season, amongst regular users, very seldom.
During high season for nobos, amongst that user group, daily.

[TJ aka Teej]

This should be seen as a challenge for the class of '15. Either your behavior saves the Katahdin terminus, or your behavior is the final straw, and the AT ends at the Park boundary.

[Dogwood]

The AT is a continuous trail but what is to be experienced, preserved, and accepted applies not just to the entire scheme of the AT but NOW as one travels its length as one enters and exits through various boundaries. What some ATers, no matter how they travel, have a difficult time recognizing, digesting, and adhering to is what was acceptable in GA is NOT acceptable in GSM or S NPs or the White Mountains or BSP or on private land. These attitudes are in evidence the trail(s) and in the quality of the comments here on WB. This is NOT just a AT/BSP issue! Friction occurs elsewhere along the AT among ATers and these other governing authorities. There are mental adjustments as to what is to be experienced, preserved, and accepted NOW. That has to happen! It will, either by voluntary means, initiated and policed by those within the AT community, or it WILL be enforced upon this community.

I recognize this same attitude increasing on the JMT and PCT. For example, F it I'm going to get away by not carrying a bear canister while hiking through areas where this rule is in effect.

What I believe is the root cause of these attitudes is humanities disconnection with each other, the environment, Nature, and everything else. As we see ourselves separate from everything else we do as we please seeking our own unbridled desires regardless of the impact our actions have on everything else.

[BirdBrain]

And this is why I said Scott needed to say something. So many people talk of how special seeing Katahdin is. Then they piss on the rules and say its Baxter's fault because the rules aren't posted right. Grow up. We know the rules. People don't care. Instead of a picture of it in his hand, he should have been giving it the finger. Not that he is going to say anything now, but it is too late now. Close it down Baxter. The thru's think they own the place. They can't be taught. It ain't in them. Close it down.

[Alligator]

Scott Jurek was issued three citations. It does not mean he is guilty of the offenses. Yes it was probably real champagne, although the label is not showing the front of the bottle. What was the litter and what were the circumstances regarding the group attendees? I read an eyewitness account saying there were less than 12 people in his group with him when he arrived.

On the BSP FB page, the media is cited as violating their commercial media permit by filming within 500' of Baxter Peak. That means the media had a permit given by the park, BSP gave them a commercial media permit. They don't have to do that, but they were apparently ok with it everywhere else along the trail. The BSP site states that any specific conditions will be noted on the permit. Their blank media permit that I found does not say no filming within 500' of the peak so I don't know how this is stipulated exactly. Would be helpful to see the actual granted permit. As far as Scott and his crew go, they were probably aware that the media had a permit but may not have known about the summit conditional clause. I can't find anything about a 500' rule when I search for one on the park site or elsewhere. It's not at all shocking that the media overstepped their bounds. BSP is not against commercial media as there is a list of at least ten permits issued for a period of just a few months on their website including LL Bean, Nature Valley, and Al Jezeera America. The tone there is a little harsh in my view if they are against commercialization. I can certainly understand being unhappy if the media crew violated the rule though, particularly if it was explicitly verbally stated and/or clearly written. But I don't know the circumstances of that.

Should of dumped a cooler of Gatorade on his head. That would have been more challenging.

[Another Kevin]

This should be seen as a challenge for the class of '15. Either your behavior saves the Katahdin terminus, or your behavior is the final straw, and the AT ends at the Park boundary.

Alas, the people reading this site are, for the most part, the ones whose behaviour you're trying to curb. You're preaching to the choir here.

Unless the behaviour that will save the Katahdin terminus is staying away altogether. In which case, for my part, I've already agreed to do so. I recognize that my presence there can do nothing of great enough value to justify the damage that my boots would leave.

[jersey joe]

Scott Jurek was issued three citations. It does not mean he is guilty of the offenses. Yes it was probably real champagne, although the label is not showing the front of the bottle. What was the litter and what were the circumstances regarding the group attendees? I read an eyewitness account saying there were less than 12 people in his group with him when he arrived.

On the BSP FB page, the media is cited as violating their commercial media permit by filming within 500' of Baxter Peak. That means the media had a permit given by the park, BSP gave them a commercial media permit. They don't have to do that, but they were apparently ok with it everywhere else along the trail. The BSP site states that any specific conditions will be noted on the permit. Their blank media permit that I found does not say no filming within 500' of the peak so I don't know how this is stipulated exactly. Would be helpful to see the actual granted permit. As far as Scott and his crew go, they were probably aware that the media had a permit but may not have known about the summit conditional clause. I can't find anything about a 500' rule when I search for one on the park site or elsewhere. It's not at all shocking that the media overstepped their bounds. BSP is not against commercial media as there is a list of at least ten permits issued for a period of just a few months on their website including LL Bean, Nature Valley, and Al Jezeera America. The tone there is a little harsh in my view if they are against commercialization. I can certainly understand being unhappy if the media crew violated the rule though, particularly if it was explicitly verbally stated and/or clearly written. But I don't know the circumstances of that.

Should of dumped a cooler of Gatorade on his head. That would have been more challenging.

Well said Gator.

Just read the comments underneath the Baxter facebook post and you'll see how out of touch they really are.

https://www.facebook.com/baxterstate...82502611969384

[Another Kevin]

Scott Jurek was issued three citations. It does not mean he is guilty of the offenses. Yes it was probably real champagne, although the label is not showing the front of the bottle. What was the litter and what were the circumstances regarding the group attendees? I read an eyewitness account saying there were less than 12 people in his group with him when he arrived.

On the BSP FB page, the media is cited as violating their commercial media permit by filming within 500' of Baxter Peak. That means the media had a permit given by the park, BSP gave them a commercial media permit. They don't have to do that, but they were apparently ok with it everywhere else along the trail. The BSP site states that any specific conditions will be noted on the permit. Their blank media permit that I found does not say no filming within 500' of the peak so I don't know how this is stipulated exactly. Would be helpful to see the actual granted permit. As far as Scott and his crew go, they were probably aware that the media had a permit but may not have known about the summit conditional clause. I can't find anything about a 500' rule when I search for one on the park site or elsewhere. It's not at all shocking that the media overstepped their bounds. BSP is not against commercial media as there is a list of at least ten permits issued for a period of just a few months on their website including LL Bean, Nature Valley, and Al Jezeera America. The tone there is a little harsh in my view if they are against commercialization. I can certainly understand being unhappy if the media crew violated the rule though, particularly if it was explicitly verbally stated and/or clearly written. But I don't know the circumstances of that.

Should of dumped a cooler of Gatorade on his head. That would have been more challenging.

I've already observed: virtually every other sport holds a competitor responsible for the behaviour of his fans. (The idea is that the fans will self-police if they know that their misbehaviour can cost their team the game or their athlete the title.) Holding Mr Jurek responsible for the behaviour of the bystanders is in keeping with that custom. It may not be 'fair,' exactly, but it may be fairer than any reasonable alternative.

And, as I said before, the littering could have been simply the sprayed champagne. I wouldn't be astonished to learn that 'improper disposal of food waste' or 'improper disposal of greywater' falls under 'littering' in the code - and spraying wine onto the alpine environment is surely improper disposal.

Any bets they'll go after anyone who posted a phonecam video of Mr Jurek on YouTube? (Or go after Jurek for not somehow stopping it?) There's already court precedent that posting to YouTube is 'commercial filming' because YT adds advertising to the posts. That's the reasoning behind the FAA saying you can't put drone footage there - it causes the drone flight, even after the fact, to become 'commercial aviation.' I'd imagine that the same reasoning would hold for filming the top of Katahdin and posting the result - it's commercial filming without a permit.

I actually am seriously surprised that they didn't add a whole stack of 'disorderly conduct' charges. This restraint seems to indicate either that they are unimaginative, or that they are trying to make an example of this incident without going out of their way to make Mr Jurek's life a living hell. A creative prosecutor with a compliant judge could figure out ways to keep Mr Jurek in a courtroom for years for this one indiscretion.

[Doza13]

I gotta say, I don't exactly come away with a rosy opinion of the people who run BSP. After reading that Facebook statement, they need better PR, and better management. Fine the guy and move on. No need for the soap box.

[Dogwood]

Should of dumped a cooler of Gatorade on his head. That would have been more challenging.

LOL. Hmm? A stale champagne smell with broken green glass to cut myself on or sticky sugary Cool Blue or Tropical Punch Gatorade puddles to step into and sit down on.

[Another Kevin]

Well said Gator.

Just read the comments underneath the Baxter facebook post and you'll see how out of touch they really are.

https://www.facebook.com/baxterstate...82502611969384

If you're talking about the commenters, well, I have no idea how to keep fools from being fools on the Internet.

If you're talking about the Baxter State Park Authority, they've no obligation to be in touch. Their house, their rules.

[Doza13]

Their house, their rules.

If they really feel this way, then we've identified the problem!

[BirdBrain]

God I hope Baxter reads this stuff. Please guys, let's have a few more people tell Baxter that they are the problem. The sooner Baxter realizes that there will always be hikers that don't care about Baxter's "silly vision", the sooner they will give up trying. Do you guys go into random homes and dump alcohol on their rug. You are in a special place. Some people don't know what common sense is. I think the question of if Scott is a good ambassador for the trail has been answered. I think if thru's can be reasoned with is also being answered. Shame on anyone that thinks Baxter is at fault for calling out this bad advertising for the vision of their property.

[Dogwood]

It's painfully obvious where this is headed when there are those who refuse to accept that ATers need to bend to BSP "House Rules" rather than expecting BSP over and over and over to bend to their many varying self promoting activities. This is the crux of the problems between BSP and ATers AND IF IT CONTINUES WILL RESULT IN INCREASING FRICTION ON OTHER AREAS OF THE AT OUTSIDE OF BSP!

[BirdBrain]

It's painfully obvious where this is headed when there are those who refuse to accept that ATers need to bend to BSP "House Rules" rather than expecting BSP over and over and over to bend to their many varying self promoting activities. This is the crux of the problems between BSP and ATers AND IF IT CONTINUES WILL RESULT IN INCREASING FRICTION ON OTHER AREAS OF THE AT OUTSIDE OF BSP!

My last comment in this thread is AMEN Dogwood. The trail is worth whatever silly rule any steward or authority comes up with.

[BirdBrain]

It's painfully obvious where this is headed when there are those who refuse to accept that ATers need to bend to BSP "House Rules" rather than expecting BSP over and over and over to bend to their many varying self promoting activities. This is the crux of the problems between BSP and ATers AND IF IT CONTINUES WILL RESULT IN INCREASING FRICTION ON OTHER AREAS OF THE AT OUTSIDE OF BSP!

My last comment in this thread is AMEN Dogwood. The trail is worth whatever silly rule any steward or authority comes up with.

[LoneStranger]

If they really feel this way, then we've identified the problem!

If you really feel this way, then we definitely have identified the problem.

[Doza13]

If you really feel this way, then we definitely have identified the problem.

Ah yeah, I always welcome unilateral decisions made by government entities with little or no oversight.