Agree. Let K be a blue blaze. Enough already.Originally Posted by Pedaling Fool
In life Rules get broken all the time, sometimes unknowingly and by accident, sometimes on purpose. The bigger issue here seems to be the cavalier attitude that has been taken by many in the hiking/running community, until that changes expect no helping hand from BSP...it's so much easier for them to say NO vs accmodate, just take responsibility and hope it's not to late. To my way of thinking nothing's happened here that can't be fixed, it takes a village. Get on board.
No need for moving the trail, lets not throw the baby out with the bath water, just straighten up and fly right. Besides, that's not our decision to make, never was...let this sink in and the rest becomes pretty clear, were guests with one entitlements, so act like it.
It is not. Because drinking in public is forbidden in the entire state of Maine. The park is not an exception.
Most other sports hold the competitors responsible for the behaviour of their fans, presuming that fans will do a better job of policing themselves if they know that their misbehaviour can make their team lose. (There have been rumours of 'false flag' operations being mounted by fans in certain sports to make their disfavoured teams lose, so this approach is also a double-edged sword.)
Even the champagne sprayed about is improper disposal of food waste and greywater.
I always know where I am. I'm right here.
Good for the BSP officials. They issued summons to the media throngs too. Don't kid yourselves fanboys and fangirls - this attempt was never about the AT or hiking at all. It was all about SJ. The AT was merely a recognizable-enough trail running venue to attract a nice sponsorship package - nothing more. I have much more respect for those folks that are plodding their way along the AT and manage to finish before October 15th without the luxury of a well-funded logistics group, corporate sponsorships, and support teams available for one's every need at every road crossing.
Sorry, No entitlements
It's not a cavalier attitude or an entitlement issue. I don't have issue with BSP issuing a fine, it's their double standard and threats I don't like. Fine just get the AT out of their. It's not me throwing the baby out with the bathwater, it's them, so go ahead.
They are using this issue, plain and simple. They are using it, just look at previous correspondence about their problems with thru-hikers.
Wow, I am embarrassed for Baxter and the state of Maine.
While I'm a huge fan of "play on words" and that's a clever one worthy of best post of the day, as "just bill" pointed out in one his post the other day (and I'm paraphrasing here) let's not saddle Sj with all that has happened, this latest event was just a catalyst to a already growing bigger problem that existed prior...just my 2 cents.
BTW, just out of curiosity, does anyone know of how many times per year that BSP issues fines for various rule infractions?
That's my take on it as well. I still believe BSP , at least until recently, did not truly mind a champagne toast on the summit. Otherwise there would be a lot of fines sent to people in the past five years due to Faceboook.
But, and I've used this analogy before, it is much like the red solo cups makes the discreet beer at a tailgate party pre-game magically invisible to law officials [1] Keep it discreet? No issues. Make it obvious that those red solo cups do not have Cocoa Cola in them...funny how officials will no longer pretend your red solo cup is invisible.
If the rules are publicly flouted (intentional or not), officials really can't tolerate.
And when the rules start to become publicly flouted, then the officials start becoming very strict. What was discreetly tolerated is no longer.
I don't think the issue is even Scott per se.
It is what kind of trail experience is wanted, preserved, and accepted.
I am not going to get into the mess of if an FKT is respecting what the trail experience is about.
What I do know is that the experience some people are having is different from the traditional use of the trails. Social media, FKTs, being connected while on the journey so much, the social aspect becoming the experience itself...
All things change and go through a metamorphosis.. But some people will cheer the change; others will be against the change.
And these opposing views are very much colliding in a dramatic and public fashion.
And, in the end, what kind of trail experience will there be?
[1] "Tailgaters who use cups or other visible means to be discreet will typically have no issue. Those with large gatherings and visible alcohol will typically be addressed by our officers.”
Last edited by Mags; 07-16-2015 at 13:28.
Paul "Mags" Magnanti
http://pmags.com
Twitter: @pmagsco
Facebook: pmagsblog
The true harvest of my life is intangible...a little stardust caught,a portion of the rainbow I have clutched -Thoreau
Only about 60% of the A-T is on Federal land.
If BSP boots the A-T, expect a couple of dozen other jurisdictions to follow suit - if only because the landowners chafe at Federal management (even if hiker behaviour were impeccable, some of the landowners would leap at any excuse to get Uncle Sam out of their back pockets).
New York could boot it from Greenwood Lake to the Hudson, plus Hudson Highands and Fahnestock, with the stroke of a pen. Mount Riga Corporation could toss it off the Bear Mountain easement, which effectively loses the Race Cliffs and Everett as well for lack of access. Heck, the State of Massachusetts could practically toss it out of the Taconics altogether.
If the A-T remains a continuous trail, it is likely, in the worst-case scenario of everyone jumping on Baxter's bandwagon, to have about 800 miles of roadwalk in the coming years as various state and private jurisdictions expel it..
The landowners are fed up with it. And rightly so.
I'm starting to believe that the best way to advocate for it is to urge everyone - well- and ill-behaved alike - to hike elsewhere. We have simply worn out our welcome, and some of the fences just can't be mended.
I always know where I am. I'm right here.
i purposely didn't single out any individual. A use I don't think that's helpful right now. But there very much is a cavalier attitude going on the last few days, namely the "no big deal" comments. If this singles anyone out, well, there it is...and dats what's up.
That's a good point and we have only ourselves to blame, not Scott Jurek. People don't accept personal responsibility very well, but they are sure quick to blame someone else, especially if that someone does something that they despise.
it truly is a fragile and symbiotic relationship, just like the trail under foot.
and on that note we are in total agreement. It's so much esker to just say "yeah, I eft up" but some don't like to admit, that's a huge character flaw, luckily it can be fixed though.
It was not a big deal in the big picture, but I think you do have a point in that we (SJ supporters) should be more careful with out words. It was a little too "in your face" with the alcohol, not that SJ meant it that way, but still... And that's why I understand that BSP had to fine him, that's cool from my perspective.
However, they did go too far in their subtle attack on him, given all the other infractions that they seem to ignore, other than complain about them in correspondence, such as the link below.
http://www.baxterstateparkauthority....%20scanned.pdf
I'm going to go cool off for a bit and gather my thoughts...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...neration-like/
There is nothing social about "social media". The disconnection and inability to perform basic human interaction is present in many facets in "generation like".
I am the eldest of over 20 grandchildren and the countless cousins in our family, and witness the differences firsthand.
A long hike heals this divide in some aspects.
In others, it has affected my generation as well. Might even know a few hikers who should know better caught up in the media blitz.
I know that the current hikers come from a place of solitude and disconnection, and the healing they experience is the reward of genuine interaction with their peers face to face, and obtaining a true sense of community which they then staunchly defend.
It is hard to tell a person who has come so far, that they have further to go, that despite the progress they've made; they missed the point.
That while the hike has restored the connection with humanity, they need another 2200 miles to restore their connection with our home.
It is not a fundamental lack of respect, or morals. It is simple ignorance.
I feel it is wrong to write them off entirely from one of the few remaining things that gives hope.
Me too, I'm tired of beating a dead horse, and I think I've made my position pretty clear in at least one of the oottles of posts over the last couple days, I also could care less and don't mind loosing.It was not a big deal in the big picture, but I think you do have a point in that we (SJ supporters) should be more careful with out words. It was a little too "in your face" with the alcohol, not that SJ meant it that way, but still... And that's why I understand that BSP had to fine him, that's cool from my perspective.
However, they did go too far in their subtle attack on him, given all the other infractions that they seem to ignore, other than complain about them in correspondence, such as the link below.
http://www.baxterstateparkauthority....%20scanned.pdf
I'm going to go cool off for a bit and gather my thoughts...
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote