3% vs. 20%

[Mags]

(*shakes head sadly*)

sighs loudly in agreement with Kevin.

[Cobble]

Its a fee based park. Why not up the fee for the birches (with 12 slots) and build 3 more shelters (+18 slots) or simply level out some woods for tents. Ummm stop using the radio to get hikers rides... The logistics are straightforward. The problems are easily solved.

Anyone who argues that the car campers are better and lower impact than thru-hikers has got to be kidding.

The real issue is Baxter doesn't like not having CONTROL. While the numbers keep going up... the paying customers and citizens resent more and more climbing Katahdin to be embarrassed cuz they are "only" day hikers.

Its the AMC White Mountains issue all over again. Thru Hikers make others look bad. (Note: paying customers)

[rickb]

Does it really matter Rick? There are issues which need to be corrected.

Yes, It does.

The special stresses that thru hikers create in BSP are real, and should be addressed. I congratulate you and the ATC for your efforts in that regard.

I also respect the special mandate that was given to the stewards of Baxter State Park. They have been resolute in their efforts to protect the park, and I respect them for that.

Despite the fact that the park frequently reaches capacity (note the Facebook advisories on the Day Use Parking Reservations) they are not creating more spots. Why?

Simple: To limit the number of hikers on the trails.

Now, at the same time they are effectively turning away traditional park users by design, the Park is forced to take in thru hikers in whatever numbers may come. How could that not be a source of agita?

Buy why is that important to discussion of thru hiker -- and Scott Jurek's -- behavior?

A clue can be found in the increasing number of times the Park's director is quoted to say things like

"[QUOTE]The formal federal designation and authority of the Appalachian Trial does not extend into Baxter State Park. The AT within the Park is hosted at the consideration of the Baxter State Park Authority. The Authority is currently considering the increasing pressures, impacts and conflicts that the Appalachian Trail brings to the Park and if a continued relationship is in the best interests of Baxter State Park.

Really? The Federal Designation of the AT does not extend into BSP? That is ridiculous of course, but those words are not repeated (again and again) out of ignorance, but rather by design.

I believe that design is to lay the groundwork for the day that the Park announces the number of thu hikers entering Baxter is simply too great, and they put up a virtual fence-- as they have already done for those enterin by car -- once a specific number is reached.

Working to mitigate specific thru hiker issues is laudable, but so long as the park leadership maintains that the Federally designated trail ends at its border and suggests that thru hikers are consuming 20% of their resources (if indeed that is the cases), or making other gross exaggerations as they did with Jurek, I think it is reasonable to believe they are actively working to create a specific narrative-- whether not they say so or not.

And this narative will include a chapter about how they met with the ATC and the rest, but alas-- no matter how hard they tried.....

Focusing on thru hiker behavior is great for the mid-level folks on both sides, but the core issue for those who really shape the future of the AT and Park will remain the absolute number of hikers, and the park's willingness to accept them.

And exaggerated claims, statements and characterization are all part of set up.

Just one person's opinion.

[Cobble]

Well said Rick. Hikers need to behave, but hiker behaviour seems more of an excuse than the cause of what Baxter is talking about.

[tdoczi]

Its the AMC White Mountains issue all over again. Thru Hikers make others look bad. (Note: paying customers)

lol you're funny. while there are "good" and "bad" hikers everywhere, the "good" hikers in the whites can hike circles around most thru hikers. the thrus make them look bad? try the other way around. once again, a thru (or any other variant of AT focused hiker) makes himself look totally ignorant to the larger world around them.

[squeezebox]

RickB
you have not said anything about the misbehavior of some of the thru hikers. As if you claim it does not exist. BSP consistantly says that is the problem, numbers does not seem to be their complaint, very much. Sounds like you are making up your own story because you don't want to believe what is really going on.
Just follow the rules and it shouldn't be a problem anymore.

[Sly]

I believe that design is to lay the groundwork for the day that the Park announces the number of thu hikers entering Baxter is simply too great, and they put up a virtual fence-- as they have already done for those enterin by car -- once a specific number is reached.

Ummm, that day has come. The limit is, and has been, 12 hikers per day entering the park via Abol bridge (1 night only). In the near term making new space isn't going to happen unless BSPA relents and outside funds are obtained. Otherwise, one need a reservation just like the car campers.

[MuddyWaters]

Ummm, that day has come. The limit is, and has been, 12 hikers per day entering the park via Abol bridge (1 night only). In the near term making new space isn't going to happen unless BSPA relents and outside funds are obtained. Otherwise, one need a reservation just like the car campers.

They can handle more, limited by availability of nearby campgrounds like KS and Abol.
But, thru hikers have no way of knowing in advance if there are, because they dont make reservations.
They are expecting to be catered to.

There really is no legitimate reason thru hikers cannot make reservations for camping space, and summit days, by Monson. Plan conservatively.

[Heliotrope]

Overnight visitors to BSP typically obtain reservations months in advance. They are informed of park rules ahead of time and consider themselves lucky to get to camp there. There is also a strict limit on how many cars can enter the park ona given day. When I want to climb Katahdin I arrive at the gate by 6:00 AM to make sure I can get in. Thru hikers enter the park through an ungated entry, the AT. My impression is that thru hikers feel they have a right to be there. BSP really is a special place with very pristine trials and a very uncrowded feel in a part of the world where the impact is typically high - the white mountains for instance. When I first visited Maine I was turned away at the gate to BSP because the park was full. I was pissed. How could a wild place be full? Now that I live here I get it. I think thru hikers are used to doing their thing whenever and wherever for 2000 miles.

[Cobble]

Heliotrope that's what these other guys are saying. Baxter says its hiker behaviour BUT hiker behaviour has been there all along. Furthermore Baxter's solutions are numbers focused not behaviour focused which is telling.

We surely can all agree that far too many thru hikers gain an air of entitlement on the trail [**cough** Hiker feeds **cough**. Free handouts **cough**]. Excuse me, got something in my throat. That certainly is a discussion that needs much attention.

But if the ATC goes into negotiations armed to debate and address hiker behavior when the REAL issues are numbers and control... Everybody loses. Baxter is SAYING behavior, but people here are questioning that is the REAL issue at hand.

(Squeezebox Rick didn't addresss it at all...he didn't deny or discount it. Please be careful of accusing Rick by what he didn't say. I'm sure he's as equally disgusted as the rest of us of real abuses by thru hikers in Baxter and elsewhere. Though I'm equally sure you didn't mean anything bad towards Rick by what you said either. So I hope everyone's cool.)

[handlebar]

This from Muddy Walters is certainly true:

"There really is no legitimate reason thru hikers cannot make reservations for camping space, and summit days, by Monson. Plan conservatively."

By the time thru hikers or those hiking long sections nobo reach Monson, they can reasonably predict their arrival at Katahdin Stream.

It seems to me this can be encouraged by posting plenty of information in trail towns, hostels, etc. from the Whites north as well as in trail guides. A similar notice should be posted on BSP's website. The ATC can contact publishers of trail guides to encourage adding this information. This can take the form of a notice in a very large (1" high type face) posted where thru hikers, section hikers, and 100 mile wilderness hikers would be bound to see it multiple times BEFORE reaching the gate to the park on the trail. The notices must be blunt consisting of simple, short declarative sentences with lots of white space similar to the following:

"You must reserve a campsite or shelter place in Baxter State Park at the Birches campsite, Katahdin Stream or at another BSP campsite.

Reserve your site from Monson by calling: (nnn)-nnn-nnnn between the hours of xAM and xPM.

All spaces may be filled for your desired date. You may need to reserve a later date. You may wish to take an extra zero in Monson. You may wish to carry extra provisions to allow you to slow your hike thru the Hundred Mile Wilderness.

Do NOT plan to meet family at Katahdin Stream to join you in your summit. They may not be able to obtain a parking permit or gain entry to the park.

Baxter State Park enforces a quota on the number of cars permitted to enter the park each day. If a family member or friend will be driving you from the park, DO make sure he/she arrives at the Baxter State Park gate when it opens so they can be assured of gaining access.

Baxter State Park prohibits Alcoholic Beverages and Illegal Drugs including Marijuana.

You must hike to the summit of Baxter Peak in groups of 12 or less.

Please be respectful of other park users. Etc.

Please respect these rules. There is a risk that Baxter State Park will close Katahdin as the terminus of the AT if there areviolations of these rules. Don't spoil things for future generations of thru hikers.

There is a $nnn fine for violations of Baxter State Park's rules."


Similar language can be provided for southbound thru hikers who will need to reserve a campground in BSP prior to entering the park.

It's sad that this needs to be dumbed down for the tiny percentage of offenders, but that is the case.

I also see no reason why thru hikers should not pay a fee when making their reservation to help defray the "burden on the Baxter State Park". BSP takes phone reservations from car campers charging a fee, why not thru-hikers.

When I hiked the CDT, I had to make reservations for Yellowstone from several days south. It was not an unreasonable burden. One CDT thru hiker who failed to make a reservation was fined.

Most nobos reach BSP late in the summer season, after school starts and family vacation time is over (that date has crept forward so now it's mid-August in most of the country). The pressure for some of the campsites in Katahdin Stream, KS, (in addition to Birches) is reduced after Labor Day. Indeed, when our cohort reached KS on Oct 2, 2005, there were plenty of spaces open in the shelters open at KS. I suspect this is generally the case after Labor Day. In 2006, in the interval between two sessions of Maine Trail Crew, I was able to make reservations in July only one day in advance for a weekend campsite at Abol Slide CG.

That said, I truly believe that BSP is singling out thru hikers. In my experience, section hikers (in this case those hiking the 100 mile wilderness) and day hikers (those driving in to summit Katahdin) are a greater burden on resources and just as likely or even more likely to ignore rules. Case in point: while working on ATC's Sweat Crew last week, two hiking parties passed our work site with dogs that were not on a leash. Neither were thru or section hikers and it was evident that neither dog was a service dog. (We radioed their descriptions and direction of travel in the hope they would be cited.)

[Sly]

...

I also see no reason why thru hikers should not pay a fee when making their reservation to help defray the "burden on the Baxter State Park". BSP takes phone reservations from car campers charging a fee, why not thru-hikers.

....

That said, I truly believe that BSP is singling out thru hikers. In my experience, section hikers (in this case those hiking the 100 mile wilderness) and day hikers (those driving in to summit Katahdin) are a greater burden on resources and just as likely or even more likely to ignore rules

All thru-hikers that overnight in the park pay a fee, whether it's $10 walk-in at the Birches, or $30 for a reservation at a lean-to or tentsite at KSC (4-6).

Anyone that starts at Monson and hkes the 100 mile wilderness is considered an AT thru-hiker and also eligible to stay at the Birches.

[Sly]

A lot of people seem to be picking and choosing what they think the problems are. Take the letter in it's entirety. It's not only sheer numbers and a potential growing problem, but hiker behavior. All areas need to be addressed.

In no particular order.

• numbers
• grouping
• illegal camping
• fee avoidance
• alcohol
• littering
• excessive partying
• dogs
• etc

[handlebar]

....

I believe that design is to lay the groundwork for the day that the Park announces the number of thu hikers entering Baxter is simply too great, and they put up a virtual fence-- as they have already done for those entering by car -- once a specific number is reached.

Working to mitigate specific thru hiker issues is laudable, but so long as the park leadership maintains that the Federally designated trail ends at its border and suggests that thru hikers are consuming 20% of their resources (if indeed that is the cases) .... I think it is reasonable to believe they are actively working to create a specific narrative-- whether not they say so or not.

And this narrative will include a chapter about how they met with the ATC and the rest, but alas-- no matter how hard they tried.....

Focusing on thru hiker behavior is great for the mid-level folks on both sides, but the core issue for those who really shape the future of the AT and Park will remain the absolute number of hikers, and the park's willingness to accept them.

And exaggerated claims, statements and characterization are all part of set up.

Just one person's opinion.

(I edited out the references to Jurek's stunt as being irrelevant to the issue of thru hiking. Jurek was NOT a thru hiker. He was a self-centered egotist challenging himself on a trail run. Good for him that he set a new record, but I won't be impressed by any of his product endorsements, nor do I buy for a minute that the whole show at the summit wasn't planned for that purpose. The focus on Fastest Known Times in traversing long trails is inappropriate. Baxter State Park was correct to issue summons, though spilling champagne as littering is a bit far fetched.)

Much as it saddens me, I believe that rickb has a point here. I don't think any mitigation the ATC or ALDHA implements will deter BSP's management from a goal to end the summit of Katahdin as the northern terminus of the Appalachian Trail. If BSP were serious about mitigating the issues they would have already taken actions such as modifying their website as I indicate above. The information is included on BSP's web site, but the wording is not direct. For example, in the FAQ, answering the question, "Can I bring my dog?", the website rambles on about how Gov. Baxter loved his succession of Irish Setters, instead of simply saying, "No. Dogs are not permitted withing Baxter State Park." Simple declarative sentence.

Even more disconcerting and ominous is this paragraph in Jensen Bissell's Facebook post:

"An additional discouraging observation. The Appalachian Trail provided the challenge and backdrop for this event and consequently, provided the conduit for this event to land in Baxter Park. The profile of the AT is large enough to attract the corporate sponsorship necessary to support and carry such an event. The AT is apparently comfortable with the fit of this type of event in its mission. The formal federal designation and authority of the Appalachian Trial does not extend into Baxter State Park. The AT within the Park is hosted at the consideration of the Baxter State Park Authority. The Authority is currently considering the increasing pressures, impacts and conflicts that the Appalachian Trail brings to the Park and if a continued relationship is in the best interests of Baxter State Park."

The fact that the ATC has disclaimed that "it is comfortable with this type of event in its mission" and that the ATC received zero dollars from the sponsors will be overlooked IMHO.

So RickB, I believe your observation of an upcoming fait d'accompli at least in the mind of Jensen Bissell is accurate.

[ericmcdaniel]

Doesn't AWOL's Guide (which 99% of thru hikers I met carry) actually have all of this information about needing a reservation, needing to arrange a ride out of the park, etc. in it already?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Mags]

Doesn't AWOL's Guide (which 99% of thru hikers I met carry) actually have all of this information about needing a reservation, needing to arrange a ride out of the park, etc. in it already?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

People don't read "directions". Many people want to do what they want to do...then expect someone else to help them when their lack of preparation bites them in the *ss.

Be it for software, planning a vacation, putting together furniture or calling Baxter State Park.

I am not disagreeing with you..just an observation I have seen over the years.

[squeezebox]

In support of Scott "spilling" the "champagne"
The bottle(s) were hiked up the mountain so the "champagne" must have been warm when it reached the summit. Also it was shaken up the entire trip to the summit, causing a great deal of aggitation. The cork was popped instead of being slowly and gently released, further bruising the "champagne". And last but not least it was not from the champagne region of France, so it really wasn't champagne.
Of course he threw it out, who in their right mind would not have?
My next post will be about why the testosterone poisoned thru hikers are justified in their behavior, and deserve pitty and treatment from us, after all it is a disease not a choice.

[rizutto61]

I have never been to Baxter Park but plan to next summer. Can't the park somehow do permits like GSMNP does to create revenue to have a thru hiker post ect. Possibly make more "spots" (not familiar with the park-more room somewhere?) for camping. Maybe a pay phone with a book for transportation to towns when finished. If the ATC is serious with working with them possibly have a thru hiker ambassador who works with the Baxter guy they hire with permit money. Strictly enforce the rules, at the same time try to educate hikers before they make mistakes. Not to rehash but Jurek didn't have any intention of littering, crowding or disrespecting the trail. Many don't who may have a beer up there. There is nothing we can do to change the idiots who don't care but let's hope they are a very small minority.

[Alligator]

Yes, It does.

The special stresses that thru hikers create in BSP are real, and should be addressed. I congratulate you and the ATC for your efforts in that regard.

I also respect the special mandate that was given to the stewards of Baxter State Park. They have been resolute in their efforts to protect the park, and I respect them for that.

Despite the fact that the park frequently reaches capacity (note the Facebook advisories on the Day Use Parking Reservations) they are not creating more spots. Why?

Simple: To limit the number of hikers on the trails.

Now, at the same time they are effectively turning away traditional park users by design, the Park is forced to take in thru hikers in whatever numbers may come. How could that not be a source of agita?

Buy why is that important to discussion of thru hiker -- and Scott Jurek's -- behavior?

A clue can be found in the increasing number of times the Park's director is quoted to say things like



Really? The Federal Designation of the AT does not extend into BSP? That is ridiculous of course, but those words are not repeated (again and again) out of ignorance, but rather by design.

I believe that design is to lay the groundwork for the day that the Park announces the number of thu hikers entering Baxter is simply too great, and they put up a virtual fence-- as they have already done for those enterin by car -- once a specific number is reached.

Working to mitigate specific thru hiker issues is laudable, but so long as the park leadership maintains that the Federally designated trail ends at its border and suggests that thru hikers are consuming 20% of their resources (if indeed that is the cases), or making other gross exaggerations as they did with Jurek, I think it is reasonable to believe they are actively working to create a specific narrative-- whether not they say so or not.

And this narative will include a chapter about how they met with the ATC and the rest, but alas-- no matter how hard they tried.....

Focusing on thru hiker behavior is great for the mid-level folks on both sides, but the core issue for those who really shape the future of the AT and Park will remain the absolute number of hikers, and the park's willingness to accept them.

And exaggerated claims, statements and characterization are all part of set up.

Just one person's opinion.

I share your opinion.

The numbers do matter. Those are important facts upon which people are basing their perception of the problem. If the numbers aren't accurate the perception is not accurate. People have been using the 3 and 20 percent statement repeatedly. It would be nice to know what the 20% is based on. Offhand I'd think the 3% number is based on something, usually percentages that don't end in 5 or 0 have some factual basis. Percentages ending in 5 or 0 though suggest rounding or estimation of some sort, as well as any percentage that is easily converted from a fraction. That's what I find 75% of the time anyway.

[Marta]

When NOBO CDT hikers reach Glacier, they have to stop in East Glacier and negotiate backcountry permits to get them through the final 85 miles of the trail. It seems like Baxter SP needs an analogous system for metering out entry permits for AT NOBOs. Most NOBOs should be able to summit Katahdin and exit Baxter without camping at the Birches, if they launch their last day from Abol Bridge.

As an AT SOBO, I went through the whole process to get a campsite at Katadin Stream the night before I started. I was nervous about the process, but it all worked out.

The July 3d while I was on Katahdin, there was one other SOBO starting, a handful of NOBOs finishing, and a zoo-ful of day hikers, including one with a dog running around loose. I'm not going to hazard a guess at what the percentages of thru-hiker problems v. day-hiker problems are, but when you have a multi-faceted problem, it's smart to try to pick the low-hanging fruit first. Day-hikers and car campers don't have a nice, organized group representing them. I'm glad ALDHA and the ATC are there to negotiate on behalf of long-distance hikers. I hope some tweaks to the process can be put in place to make it work better for everyone.