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

[Alligator]

Here's the list of commercial media permits http://www.baxterstateparkauthority....mitsIssued.pdf

No rules broken in this picture http://blog.llbean.com/2014/10/trail...lachian-trail/

Wanna buy gloves, mitts, or a parka? http://www.llbean.com/llb/search/?fr...=baxter&init=1

The park name is used to sell a coat but the park is critical of Scott's logos? They are all outdoor products.

[jersey joe]

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.

I agree with you, it's their park and they can be as out of touch as they want.
I was pointing out that the overwhelming perception is that they look bad and petty by doing this.

[Doza13]

I'd love to hear that Janet Mills has to say about this statement.

[Alligator]

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.

It was more of a joke, but the once every five years or so that someone actually breaks the record and celebrates with some liquid on the well worn summit is hardly a big environmental issue. It does rain up there. I've been up there in the rain. These are customary responses to celebrate sporting events and it is outside.

I didn't say anything about broken glass that wouldn't be cool at all. Is glass not allowed in the park?

[Another Kevin]

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

Get your facts straight.

BSPA is actually a private organization, although its board of directors is entirely composed of Maine government officials acting ex officio. It receives no taxpayer support, and is entirely separate from Maine's state park system, despite its name. It started out as Governor Baxter's personal estate. In effect, it's private land, lent to the state for a specific purpose.

Nobody's tax dollars bought it. It was a gift, with conditions attached. The decisions that you deride were made by Governor Baxter and expressly communicated when he made the deed of gift to the State of Maine.

In effect, it's private land, whose owner delegated its management to certain State officials.

[redseal]

Maybe it was this guy who brought the alcohol? Who knows?

http://levelrenner.com/2015/07/14/ju...t-record-push/

[Nooga]

Bypass BSP and take the trail to Canada.....better yet all the way to Cap Gaspe

[TJ aka Teej]

"They represent three percent of our use and about twenty percent of our effort," Park Director Jensen Bissell told NEWS CENTER.

http://www.wlbz2.com/story/life/2015/07/16/jurek-given-three-tickets-by-baxter-park-rangers/30239067/

[Another Kevin]

It was more of a joke, but the once every five years or so that someone actually breaks the record and celebrates with some liquid on the well worn summit is hardly a big environmental issue. It does rain up there. I've been up there in the rain. These are customary responses to celebrate sporting events and it is outside.

Conceded. But you know as well as I do that the underlying issue is that BSPA does not want the A-T in the park. The resentment goes back decades - at least as far as Warren Doyle's arrest in 1973 for climbing Katahdin with an oversized group on a closed trail. For the last year or so, they're finally lining up the evidence in support of a formal case to expel it. (Not that they need a formal case. They're the landowner and can erase the trail easement with the stroke of a pen. To the best of my knowledge, no easement-in-perpetuity was ever obtained in BSP.) This is just one more incident that they will use in the parade of horribles justifying that action.

If they do take that drastic step - and it seriously appears they might - there will be really ugly fallout. I see other private and state authorities deciding to follow suit. The Trail is not well received along much of its length. And I see a possible Federal backlash, condemning easements for the Trail. Such a taking might or might not fly, but would further deepen the resentments however it sorts out in the courtroom. And tough cases make bad law.

As I said, it's a train wreck in slow motion. This incident is just one flying bolt from the wrecked locomotive.

[Doza13]

Are you seriously suggesting that a park held in a trust and run by the State AG, Maine Fish Game and Wildlife, and the Maine Forest Service is somehow equivalent to being privately held? It's a trust run by the State, funded by said trust, sales of gear, use fees and forest products.

Governor Baxter was long in the ground when said rules you worship were mandated.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with a State run trust. However, it’s immune to oversight and clearly has a "my way or highway" mentality about it that rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Are they seriously suggesting that what happened is really problematic, or really using this event as a public stunt and shaming session? Did Jurek stealth camp? Did he "tag" property? Did he cause any lasting damage to the trail or facilities? Far more serious issues that aren't being addressed here.

[Don H]

When the previous letter came out from Baxter many people here (myself included) said the answer was to issue fines and punish the rule breakers.
Rules were broken, fines were issued and I have no problem with that.

However it seems that BSP has taken the issue public to make their case that the AT does not work in BSP.

[TJ aka Teej]

Are they seriously suggesting that what happened is really problematic,

Yes.

Did he cause any lasting damage

Yet to be seen.

[imscotty]

Wow, TSHHTF, this is what I was afraid would happen,

First let me comment on the Transgressions.

Sounds like they obtained a Media Permit and were presumably given a restriction not to film on the Peak. If this is true and they ignored it, shame on them. They should be fined. BSP has preserving the wilderness experience at the forefront of their mission, and apparently this is where they set the boundary on commercial use. I do not hold SJ culpable for this one, he probably did not know. The media crew appear to be a separate entity.

The Park rules on alcohol and group size are pretty well known and easy to find by anyone who looks. I have to believe most in his support group knew this and chose to ignore it. Scott had plenty on his hands, but when preparing for an event like this, it is his responsibility to learn and to live within the rules. The citations and negative publicity may be a blip for him, but I am afraid that the AT community will be living with the consequences for some time.

The littering! If you watch the SJ interview at the top of Katahdin, at some point he drops something on the ground. I think it was the cork from the champagne bottle. My heart dropped when I saw it happen, I was hoping he picked it up after the interview, my guess is that he did not. This may be the reason for the littering citation. Honestly, I have no tolerance for this, if this did in fact occur, I wish they could add a couple of zeros to that citation.

Not trying to beat up on Scott. But this was a poorly planned finish to an amazing achievement.

[Coffee]

It is disappointing to see that Scott Jurek violated the no alcohol rule and, if his party size was greater than permitted, that was also a mistake. The fact is that BSP has its rules in order to follow a mandate set by the landowner who made the park possible. A donation such as this can come with whatever restrictions the donor wants, whether we think them reasonable or not. People visiting the park have to adhere to the restrictions. I was pretty sure that Jurek and his team scoped all of this out ahead of time and coordinated with BSP. Too bad that appears to not be the case.

But I disagree that any "asterisk" whatsoever should accompany his record. His physical performance is what it is, whether the rules were violated or not. That doesn't make it right. But it is not as if the guy was caught on steroids or anything like that.

I suppose the simple way to get around this for future FKT attempts is to go southbound since Springer Mountain doesn't have similar restrictions.

[Alligator]

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.

If he has not broken the law, they can't fine him. It remains to be seen whether he arranged for everybody to be there and exceed the group limit. Some people may have been there without his knowledge and he therefore should not be legally accountable for them. Especially if he did try to keep his personal group size under 12.

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.

We don't know what the littering charge referred to. It could have been they lost the cork or forgot a cup. Personally I wouldn't expect that Scott could spell his name at that point but if he left litter he left litter and should be fined for it if he did.

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.

BSP has specific media permit rules located here http://www.baxterstateparkauthority....diaPolicy2.pdf.

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.

No, com'n.
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legi...Asec501-A.html

§501-A. Disorderly conduct

1. A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if:
A. In a public place, the person intentionally or recklessly causes annoyance to others by intentionally:
(1) Making loud and unreasonable noises;

(2) Activating a device, or exposing a substance, that releases noxious and offensive odors; or

(3) Engaging in fighting, without being licensed or privileged to do so; [2007, c. 144, §3 (NEW).]


B. In a public or private place, the person knowingly accosts, insults, taunts or challenges any person with offensive, derisive or annoying words, or by gestures or other physical conduct, that would in fact have a direct tendency to cause a violent response by an ordinary person in the situation of the person so accosted, insulted, taunted or challenged; [2007, c. 144, §3 (NEW).]

C. In a private place, the person makes loud and unreasonable noise that can be heard by another person, who may be a law enforcement officer, as unreasonable noise in a public place or in another private place, after having been ordered by a law enforcement officer to cease the noise; or [2007, c. 144, §3 (NEW).]

D. In a private or public place on or near property where a funeral, burial or memorial service is being held, the person knowingly accosts, insults, taunts or challenges any person in mourning and in attendance at the funeral, burial or memorial service with unwanted, obtrusive communications by way of offensive, derisive or annoying words, or by gestures or other physical conduct, that would in fact have a direct tendency to cause a violent response by an ordinary person in mourning and in attendance at a funeral, burial or memorial service. [2007, c. 144, §3 (NEW).]

[ 2007, c. 144, §3 (NEW) .]

2. As used in this section, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following terms have the following meanings.
A. "Public place" means a place to which the public at large or a substantial group has access, including but not limited to:
(1) Public ways as defined in section 505;

(2) Schools and government-owned custodial facilities; and

(3) The lobbies, hallways, lavatories, toilets and basement portions of apartment houses, hotels, public buildings and transportation terminals. [2007,c. 144, §3 (NEW).]


B. "Private place" means any place that is not a public place. [2007, c. 144, §3 (NEW).]

[ 2007, c. 144, §3 (NEW) .]

3. Disorderly conduct is a Class E crime.
[ 2007, c. 144, §3 (NEW) .]

[imscotty]

That being said, there is nothing wrong with a State run trust. However, it’s immune to oversight and clearly has a "my way or highway" mentality about it that rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Are they seriously suggesting that what happened is really problematic, or really using this event as a public stunt and shaming session? Did Jurek stealth camp? Did he "tag" property? Did he cause any lasting damage to the trail or facilities? Far more serious issues that aren't being addressed here.

To those who view BSP as the problem... You are the problem. They were interested to preserve this park for the wildlife, for the wilderness experience, for the people of MAINE. Have you been reading the posts from our Maine friends here on Whiteblaze? My guess is there comments are representative of what many Maineiacs think. If the AT community cannot respect the people of Maine and wilderness and their rules, then you can get the hell out. Don't piss down my back and tell me it is raining!

[Wyoming]

The issue here is really what rights and freedoms are involved. And responsibility.

What seems to be missing in many of these posts here and on the FB page linked is that what one does has consequences - always. What Scott and company have done is not much different in kind or scale than what others have done -this is true. But none of any of it should be happening. You don't actually have the right to do it. BSP is not out of line in any way here and it is clear, to anyone who wants to set down their ego for a second, that they are in a step by step fashion slowly reaching their limits and warning that that point is coming. Scott and companies misbehavior is just another very visible poke in the eye. We are going to get what we collectively deserve because we have allowed those acting inappropriately to continue their bad behavior.

With freedom and rights comes responsibility. A fact often not yet learned by the young or deliberately ignored by those who try very hard to think that 'individual' rights are all that matter. Those fools very frequently fail to understand that their rights END when they negatively impact anyone else's rights. Or their society's rights. Rights have boundaries and those who are responsible citizens restrain themselves from destroying the rights of others. Then again some folks are just outlaws and should be treated as such.

The respect that thru hikers have for the trail is much less than it used to be - that is certain and it is seen in their daily behavior. The respect the general citizen has today for his society and being responsible for its well being is a small fraction of what it seemed like it was when I was young. It's all that lawyer BS present in some of the posts about what or what is not 'legal' and what one should be able to get away with. It is not about what you can get away with, it is about what you can do right and that makes it better for everyone.

[Doza13]

I don't see how calling other people who disagree with you "the problem" is at all contributing to this conversation.

[BirdBrain]

To those who view BSP as the problem... You are the problem. They were interested to preserve this park for the wildlife, for the wilderness experience, for the people of MAINE. Have you been reading the posts from our Maine friends here on Whiteblaze? My guess is there comments are representative of what many Maineiacs think. If the AT community cannot respect the people of Maine and wilderness and their rules, then you can get the hell out. Don't piss down my back and tell me it is raining!

Sorry. Had to say AMEN again. We love our park. We love Governor Baxter. We love the rangers of Baxter. We love Katahdin. We are not going to shed a tear when the AT stops in a bog. Don't like the rules of our park? Stay out.

[Just Bill]

I don't see how calling other people who disagree with you "the problem" is at all contributing to this conversation.

Unfortunately both sides could state their position better.

BSP is handling this poorly overall.
In reaction some are handling their position poorly overall.

The simple position is that Baxter should be viewed as a private residence open to the public.
It is more akin to the Biltmore Estate than it is to a government run piece of property.
However rather than one man's monument to his own wealth and success, this is a monument to the beauty of nature.
In this private estate the position is the preservation of the natural monument that exists there.

While it would be better to see everything killed with kindness, that doesn't always happen.
In Baxter we are guests with no rights attached and are admitted only at the grace of the host.

The problem is that just because the rest of the trail doesn't enforce or require model behavior from it's guests does not give any the right to demand it from BSP simply because they allow the trail to pass there.

The deeper problem is that the entire AT corridor should be viewed this way.