Rerouting the AT? Lead article in NYT
just more jurek bashing by that pompous park director
Shame on park director Bissel for continuing his perverse attack on Scott Jureck's reputation and not dropping all charges already.Originally Posted by John B
While much of this article was a rehash, it was good to hear that Scott will be fighting them in court.
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.“I’m a man of integrity,” Mr. Jurek said in a telephone interview from his home in Boulder, Colo., when asked why he was contesting the charges.
bissell WILL lose in court. HIS rangers allowed the champagne. it's gonna make him look like more of an ass than he already is
Prognostications often run aground in this stuff.
The court will hash out who broke what rules. Though Jureck claims ignorance of the rules, unfortunately its not a legal excuse or pardon. That Baxter is upset with thru hiker behaviors is well known, Jureck is the flashpoint because he is well known and brings the notoriety to a level that makes a target with commercial pursuits.
All we have is two people repeating their version of events, neither may be accurate.
FWIW, I wanted to go on record as saying that I thought this NYT article was better written than many (too many) similar articles published in the popular media, and not only for the information it provided but for its balanced tone. I even thought th photos of Katahdin -- the steep section with rebar -- were good.
Bissell's quote at the end struck me as odd, however:
Can that really be true? Were there really 200 people at the Summit to see Jureck finish? Have there ever been 200 people at the summit all at the same time?It’s hard,” Mr. Bissell said, “when 200 people are there at the summit, to say this is a wilderness experience.”
Given the quality of the rest of the article, I don't think that can be dismissed as a misquote.
"Shortly afterward, Mr. Jurek struck back with his own blog post, casting himself as a wilderness advocate and saying he hoped he had inspired others to test their limits."
Whether or not you think Bissell's response was appropriate, Jurek can't cast himself as a wilderness advocate and inspiration to others and then go ahead and flaunt park rules - whether or not he agreed with them. The indisputable fact is that rules were in place. If Jurek didn't like them, he had three options: 1 - stay out of the park, 2 - get on the BSP board and change them, or 3 - break them (but don't complain about BSP raining on his photo-op by enforcing them.) Jurek's claim of ignorance is a last desperate defense. I find it hard to believe (see - SJ is forcing me to test my limits!) that with a commercially sponsored event complete with support crew, publicists, etc., no one bothered to read a page or two of park rules beforehand. Maybe someone should have taken a couple of minutes from counting energy bar wrappers for the press release to read the BSP rule sheet. I predict the "but everyone else is doing it" defense is up next - and ask anyone pulled over for speeding how well that works.
Can anybody here or anyone elsewhere "deny" the claim that Jurek, Pharr et al aren't commercializing the AT for their own profit? If they could or would have easily done this without the sponsors (profit motive), or the entourages or the rule breaking then they should have. Absent the alternatives being impossible (they are not) these Trail Profiteers are more burdensome to the hiking community than they an asset.
Oh boy, another Scott Jurek thread
No, not really
Really good points here. Personally, I view these FKTs to be as meaningless as most baseball statistics.
"Commercializing" is one of those buzz word that carries a lot of emotion but does not really say all that much. And calling out these good people as "Trail Profiteers" is beyond the pale.
Would anyone say that Alfred Hitchcock commercialized the Mount Rushmore when he filmed "North by North West"?
Or that Ron Tipton commerialized the AT when he accepted a fair salary for his work to help protect it? Or that Bissell commercialized the Park because he made more money off it on the day Jureck sumitted than he did?
Of course not.
Jureck was and is a runner first. That good and honorable companies provide him with financial support so that they can be associed with people of his caliber is a ripple in a large pond-- and in the end a good thing.
People who are looking to condemn Jurek for commercializing the AT do not have my respect. And yea, I know that matters little. But when a bunch of them gang up together to attack a good man's good name, the rest of us would do well to challenge them.
Of course some of those condemn them most loudly do so from the shadows of total anonymity. Pathetic.
Wasn't this beaten to death several times already? A court case? this is getting even more stupid !!
Follow the rules and everybody is happy.
With the influx of Nobos finishing how have things been in Baxter lately.
by that logic, if i can get one low level police officer to tell me its ok to steal a car or commit armed robbery, then i'm not legally responsible for my actions, right? i dont think so. rules broken are rules broken, some low level pleab cant grant permission to break them, even if he tries.
furthermore, i, as do many others, at my job have a certain ability to turn the other way and "allow" people to break rules on occasion. the understanding, sometimes implied, sometimes clearly stated by me (depending on how dense the person i'm dealing with seems to be) is that if they are caught breaking said rule by someone other than me, they are NOT to use "well so and so said it was ok" as an excuse. this is what SJ is doing and to me is the most inexcusable part of his behavior. he was told by a ranger it was against the rules but that said ranger would look the other way if he kept it quiet. he failed to keep it quiet, then threw the ranger who agreed to look the other way under the bus. not cool. not cool at all.
- Agreed, "profiteer" is too strong a word.
- Hitchcock used Rushmore in a commercial endeavor, as did Jurek use the AT (although I believe Rushmore was used more of a backdrop rather than a on-location set as the AT was used by Jurek). So yes, both were used for personal gain, unless you buy SJ's statement that he wanted to "inspire" - which I don't.
- Ron Tipton works for the long-term good of the AT as an employee of the ATC. The ATC does not exist for the good of Ron Tipton. (There are very good reasons to have paid professional staff in the higher positions in non-profits.) Jurek works for Jurek, used the AT for his own gain, and then moved on.
- Bissell's whole argument is not to commercialize BSP. His argument all along has been that AT hikers use a disproportionate amount of resources. I'd think the last thing he'd want is more AT hikers "inspired" by Jurek's actions to violate BSP rules and Maine laws.
- I notice you have no personally identifiable information in your profile, so you besmirch Tipton and Bissell anonymously yourself. Your hypocritical complaining about anonymous attacks on Jurek is just that - hypocritical.
Bottom line is that Jurek either knowingly or unknowingly (doesn't matter which) flouted the rules. Is he a bad guy? I don't know him, so I can't judge him. I can, however, judge his actions that appear in countless videos and photographs from his summit. Unless he is able to produce a signed document showing that BSP waived their littering and group size rules (they can't waive Maine state alcohol laws), then he's in the wrong.
Last edited by Offshore; 08-30-2015 at 11:35.
Are you suggesting anyone with an opinion that does not shine well upon professionally supported athletes be accompanied by name, address, and phone numbers?
I don't believe that this new mantra will be a successful one.The conservancy, which is promoting the Redford movie on its website, counters that the trail can still handle more people. “We believe the A.T. can accommodate more people if they can be educated to use the trail responsibly,” said Laurie Potteiger, a spokeswoman for the conservancy.
The trouble I have with campfires are the folks that carry a bottle in one hand and a Bible in the other.
You never know which one is talking.
SSN and mother's maiden name too, while we're at it...
Red Panda reported she was #355 to arrive a few days ago. Not sure if that is only GAME hikers or included HMW hikers who are also considered thru hikers for park purposes. So, that's not a real big number yet but we still have all of September to go and part of October so that number could at least double. I know a lot of thru hikers have been passing through Gorham in the last couple of weeks. Hopefully they have been behaving themselves.
Follow slogoen on Instagram.
There is another option that Mr. Jurek could have chosen; Limit his party to under 12, and leave the champagne for an after summit celebration, outside of the park. I wonder if he would have gotten a fine if he had celebrated with milk, like they do at Indy?
The best thing the hiking community can do is to educate and police ourselves with LNT, flip flop hike options, and listen to the recommendations of the ATC, to lighten our impact on the AT, and it's resources. I am sure that there will be some new guidelines in place for next year, after all of this publicity.
“Every path but your own is the path of fate. Keep on your own track, then.” Thoreau.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
