Rerouting the AT? Lead article in NYT

[nsherry61]

It is surely pointless to add yet another opinion to this discussion, but alas, I have no self discipline:

Scott Jerek is being held responsible because other people thought he was exciting and either followed his group to the top or met them there. Scott's immediate group was not larger than the rules. If the park wants to limit spectators when a big moment is occurring in the park, I would suggest the park needs to manage the crowds, and not blame the famous guy for attracting them.

Citing Scott for opening his champagne is like a cop making a big deal out of a celebrity going 5 MPH over the speed limit while the same cop is watching all the non-celebrities speed by at more than 5 MPH over the speed limit.

In the first case, Scott was not legally responsible for the the number of people on Katahdin. In the second case, yeah, he broke the law, probably knowingly, but come on Mr. Bissell, grow up, get a life and do some constructive managing of the park to make it better, not just more restrictive.

Finally, if Mr Bissell really thinks that preserving the wilderness experience of his park is a priority, then he should remove its Park status and redesignate it as a wilderness area and start restricting access accordingly including managed timber harvest etc.

The highpoint of any state in the lower 48 is never going to be a wilderness, especially in Katahdin's case. If the top of Katahdin is supposed to be a wilderness, remove the overly large and ugly sign.

I'm sorry, the hypocrisy and ridiculousness of the Mr. Bissell in this case is just too much!

[Tundracamper]

I wonder how much of the park traffic is directly AND indirectly related to the AT terminus. Just because folks don't hike the AT, I bet many still go to see it. Change the AT, and I bet park traffics drops significantly. Then they ask for more state funding to keep it open!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lone Wolf]

It is surely pointless to add yet another opinion to this discussion, but alas, I have no self discipline:

Scott Jerek is being held responsible because other people thought he was exciting and either followed his group to the top or met them there. Scott's immediate group was not larger than the rules. If the park wants to limit spectators when a big moment is occurring in the park, I would suggest the park needs to manage the crowds, and not blame the famous guy for attracting them.

Citing Scott for opening his champagne is like a cop making a big deal out of a celebrity going 5 MPH over the speed limit while the same cop is watching all the non-celebrities speed by at more than 5 MPH over the speed limit.

In the first case, Scott was not legally responsible for the the number of people on Katahdin. In the second case, yeah, he broke the law, probably knowingly, but come on Mr. Bissell, grow up, get a life and do some constructive managing of the park to make it better, not just more restrictive.

Finally, if Mr Bissell really thinks that preserving the wilderness experience of his park is a priority, then he should remove its Park status and redesignate it as a wilderness area and start restricting access accordingly including managed timber harvest etc.

The highpoint of any state in the lower 48 is never going to be a wilderness, especially in Katahdin's case. If the top of Katahdin is supposed to be a wilderness, remove the overly large and ugly sign.

I'm sorry, the hypocrisy and ridiculousness of the Mr. Bissell in this case is just too much!

best post yet. no more discussion needed.

[Another Kevin]

Finally, if Mr Bissell really thinks that preserving the wilderness experience of his park is a priority, then he should remove its Park status and redesignate it as a wilderness area and start restricting access accordingly including managed timber harvest etc.

That's precisely what he wants to do. (It's designated 'forever wild' by Baxter's will. Since it isn't Federal property, a Federal 'Wilderness Area' designation would not apply. Some fraction of the Park is what the Feds would call 'wild forest', with managed timber harvest coexisting with recreational access.)

New York's high point, Mount Marcy, is in State-designated wilderness. The summit still gets crowded, but it's quite a long walk in. Longer than I'd do as a day trip. But designated wilderness doesn't have to mean 'all human access excluded.' If it did, we probably wouldn't have any: out of sight, out of mind, and the wilderness would soon be sold off.

[tdoczi]

I wonder how much of the park traffic is directly AND indirectly related to the AT terminus. Just because folks don't hike the AT, I bet many still go to see it. Change the AT, and I bet park traffics drops significantly. Then they ask for more state funding to keep it open!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

you probably think the AT is why everyone goes to the whites, shenandoah, the smokies, etc too, dont you? typical sort of break with reality so many of us AT centric folk have, and that, to me, is the core of the problem. the trail needs baxter infinitely more than baxter needs the trail, too many of us can't accept that.

[MuddyWaters]

Given the negative attitudes expressed toward BSP and Bissell it seems its only a matter of time.

Someone please point out something Bissell has done, not in BSPs interest according to its charter.

The problem, is the ATC, and their acceptance of what the AT is turning into. It is inconsistent with preserving a hint of wilderness experience. A circus,a free for all, an overcrowded spectacle. While hordes of unemployed kids party their way north, taxpaying hikers have to avoid them to have an even acceptable time, which largely means avoiding the best hiking seasons of the year.

What a pity the NPS is ok with it.

My conclusion, is that ATC wants as many people as possible to use the trail. Possibly that is equated to money which can be used to protect it. There are programs which promote the AT to....grade school children.

The question is. With unbridled use, will there be anything left worth protecting?.

[misprof]

We could keep going around and around about this without anything constructive coming from it. A trail up to Katahdin will most likely stay Whether it will be part of the AT is the question. Are their constructive things we, the AT community, can do to be an asset to BSP rather than a liability? If it is true that we are using a disproportionate amount of their resources then perhaps we need to change that so that we don't. We should follow the rules that the State of Maine has set down, regardless of who we are. We should not only be self-sufficient and self-policing but helpful as well. I know the Maine AT club does a lot but I am thinking as individuals and a whole we can do much to erase the image of a drug taking, rule breaking, dependent hiker that Baxter is painting us as.

[pknight212]

Mr. Almy, the district attorney, said he was prosecuting Mr. Jurek’s case because “the park is a sacred place and he was disrespectful.”

Are we maybe embellishing just a tad? It's not like Jesus wept atop Katahdin (because if he did, he'd be cited for littering ).

[MuddyWaters]

Meanwhile, Mr. Jurek has hired a lawyer, Walter McKee of Augusta, and is fighting the citations, which each carry a $200 fine. A judge has given Mr. McKee and the prosecutor, R. Christopher Almy, the district attorney of Penobscot County, until Sept. 9 to resolve the matter; otherwise, it could go to trial.


In 2009-2010, BSP decriminalized its citations. They are just civil fines. The only thing a trial can do is ask him to pay, which as a CO resident, he doesnt have to, they have no jurisdiction and cant be extradited. He just cant go back to maine and get arrested, he could be put in jail.

No doubt he will spend more than the tickets, to not pay the tickets. Or should i say, his sponsors will, because for him it would be a dumb financial decision.

He wants to clear his name of all wrongdoing, which is doubtful. He should have just apologized, paid it, and put it behind him IMO.

[squeezebox]

I think Scott is possibly threatening his career as a professional athlete. What company would want to associate with a lawless rule breaker, although many companies may try to be lawless. I don't see folks like Cliff Bars wanting that image. Also if Scott pursues this petty court case what event promoter would want him for fear that Scott might sue them if he doesn't get his way.
Too late for him to clean it up now.

[Offshore]

I think Scott is possibly threatening his career as a professional athlete. What company would want to associate with a lawless rule breaker, although many companies may try to be lawless. I don't see folks like Cliff Bars wanting that image. Also if Scott pursues this petty court case what event promoter would want him for fear that Scott might sue them if he doesn't get his way.
Too late for him to clean it up now.

At 41, his career as a professional athlete is pretty much over anyway. The AT stunt was probably close to being his swan song if it actually wasn't. He'll probably wind up writing a book or two and then fade into obscurity. It happens to the best NFL and MLB players, so what makes anyone think it will be different for Jurek who is involved in a pretty niche activity with far less earnings potential?. Don't kid yourself - as long as sponsors can make money on an association with an athlete, they'll look the other way when it comes to most misbehavior. But the reality is that there are any number of younger guys out there lining up for Jurek's sponsorships. His sponsors will eventually drop him for someone newer and fresher.

[Starchild]

Scott should man up any pay his fine and get on with his life and let this crap blow over, after all he is not a god, he's just another hiker.

He is also not guilty of any charges unless proven in a court of law. He has the right to not incriminate himself - he has no obligation to do so or admit any guilt, it is up to the state to prove their case. Just because one is issued a citation does not mean you are morally obligated to pay it if you did the act. Moral obligations are not legal ones and the state can not enforce morality, though they try (and fail).

[Busky2]

How should I put this.....? Big whoop for his morals! A law was broken and I don't care what his morals are, be them what they are or are not. You admit your guilt because you are in the RULE OF LAW and then grow up and stop being a crybaby then pay your fine.

[nsherry61]

I say: "Let's just move the end of the AT to the Canadian border like the PCT and the CDT" Put effort into building more good trail along the IAT from Katahdin north, instead of fighting Baxter. Maybe if the official terminus were moved to the Canadian border, at least enough partying would be reduced on Katahdin to allow Baxter to think it is manageable.

[Traveler]

I say: "Let's just move the end of the AT to the Canadian border like the PCT and the CDT" Put effort into building more good trail along the IAT from Katahdin north, instead of fighting Baxter. Maybe if the official terminus were moved to the Canadian border, at least enough partying would be reduced on Katahdin to allow Baxter to think it is manageable.

Fighting Baxter? What are we fighting with them about? Are we fighting them because we shouldn't be held to the same rules as other Park users? Seems a shallow fight as opposed to looking into our own tribe and caution folks about trying to behave themselves (a difficult job for some of course) for the few hours they are actually in the Park.

[full conditions]

It is surely pointless to add yet another opinion to this discussion, but alas, I have no self discipline:

Scott Jerek is being held responsible because other people thought he was exciting and either followed his group to the top or met them there. Scott's immediate group was not larger than the rules. If the park wants to limit spectators when a big moment is occurring in the park, I would suggest the park needs to manage the crowds, and not blame the famous guy for attracting them.

Citing Scott for opening his champagne is like a cop making a big deal out of a celebrity going 5 MPH over the speed limit while the same cop is watching all the non-celebrities speed by at more than 5 MPH over the speed limit.

In the first case, Scott was not legally responsible for the the number of people on Katahdin. In the second case, yeah, he broke the law, probably knowingly, but come on Mr. Bissell, grow up, get a life and do some constructive managing of the park to make it better, not just more restrictive.

Finally, if Mr Bissell really thinks that preserving the wilderness experience of his park is a priority, then he should remove its Park status and redesignate it as a wilderness area and start restricting access accordingly including managed timber harvest etc.

The highpoint of any state in the lower 48 is never going to be a wilderness, especially in Katahdin's case. If the top of Katahdin is supposed to be a wilderness, remove the overly large and ugly sign.

I'm sorry, the hypocrisy and ridiculousness of the Mr. Bissell in this case is just too much!

While I largely agree with you and dont want to derail yet another perfectly good Scott Jurek thread, I got to say I climbed Granite Peak in Montana a few years ago and.....it was pretty much wilderness. A canister on top with a register. Thats it.

[rafe]

Finally, if Mr Bissell really thinks that preserving the wilderness experience of his park is a priority, then he should remove its Park status and redesignate it as a wilderness area and start restricting access accordingly including managed timber harvest etc.

The highpoint of any state in the lower 48 is never going to be a wilderness, especially in Katahdin's case. If the top of Katahdin is supposed to be a wilderness, remove the overly large and ugly sign.

I'm guessing this is another post from someone who's never actually been to Baxter?

Arguing that Baxter isn't a "perfect" wilderness is a bit silly. Given the hiking and camping traffic it supports, it's in far better shape than many other heavily-traveled beauty spots on the AT. That's partly due to its remoteness, but also because it's always been limited-access and heavily regulated.

[MuddyWaters]

He is also not guilty of any charges unless proven in a court of law. He has the right to not incriminate himself - he has no obligation to do so or admit any guilt, it is up to the state to prove their case. Just because one is issued a citation does not mean you are morally obligated to pay it if you did the act. Moral obligations are not legal ones and the state can not enforce morality, though they try (and fail).

Every time I went to court to argue a speeding ticket, they took the cops side.

Of course my only defense was to hope the cop didnt show, and then If he did Id say I didnt know what the speed limit was. It never worked.

[Traveler]

He is also not guilty of any charges unless proven in a court of law. He has the right to not incriminate himself - he has no obligation to do so or admit any guilt, it is up to the state to prove their case. Just because one is issued a citation does not mean you are morally obligated to pay it if you did the act. Moral obligations are not legal ones and the state can not enforce morality, though they try (and fail).

They mystery of why pay far more to fight a few citations with a face value of $200 collectively or hire an attorney and go the full route is best understood in context with the publicity a protracted fight will bring. Its show business at its best!

[RED-DOG]

I am still hoping for a alternate northern terminus.