Baxter state park

[Leanthree]

Baxter isn't suddenly having an issue... The problem has been there and Baxter has been dealing with it. Just because we on WB have not heard about every ticket, does not mean they have not been dealing with the issue. The reality is that it is not EVERY thru-hiker that is the issue (or lots of tickets would have been issued and we would have heard about it). It is far more likely that those who have been popped for various offenses have slunk off because they know they are guilty.

The problem is that there are more hikers every year. Every year there are more issues. The numbers are not decreasing... It was one thing when there were only hundreds of people hiking the trail each year. At some point a line does have to be drawn. Why? Because people today do not seem to understand the word "no." If a host asks you not to do something, shouldn't you (as the guest) stop the behavior?

Rather than sit here and point fingers, isn't it time we do something about the behaviors (the drinking & drugging on Katahdin, the asking for rides, the stealth camping, etc) so they are a non-issue? Isn't it time for the hiking community to set an example of the behaviors that should be exhibited by those who are experienced and have respect for the outdoors?

What the heck is wrong with taking responsibility for making sure the trail remains the way we want it to be? It's a pretty simple question.

Because there is no one way that any particular "we" want the trail to be. Some people want fewer hikers, some want more. Some want more culture: things like hostels, shuttles, trail magic, etc. While others want to reduce services and make the trail harder to complete and more like west hiking. Some want to knock down the shelters and some want more shelters. In this particular case, one "we" thru hikers want things one way and one "we" Baxter SP officials want it another.

To me, it is 100% reasonable to have champagne at the top of a mountain. That is against Baxter State Park rules, and the rules lay out some sort of punishment for doing so. It is therefore also 100% reasonable to me for someone to drink champaign at the top of Katahden and get fined for it. That doesn't make the champaigne drinker a bad person and that doesn't make the ranger issuing the fine a bad person. I don't see why everyone can't just all follow the rules and stop whining that someone broke them. Just fine them and move on. Let the recipient of the fine either pay it or fight it given reasonable due process. If the fine isn't big enough to stop bad behavior then get more rangers or higher fines. That goes for stealth camping, or anything else that is against the rules. This really isn't hard.

If too many people are entering the park then make a rule about that. Plenty of places have permits, then make a rule to handle situations where people don't have permits and enforce them. If there aren't too many people entering the park, then quit complaining about all the people.

This all seems like a failure of Baxter State Park to enforce their own rules or to have the correct rules in place. Make reasonable rules and enforce them. Maybe in addition to fines you can have a lifetime ban as punishment. None of this is the ATC's fault, nor can the ATC fix any of these supposed problems. Even if Abol Bridge becomes the official AT end point according to the ATC I am sure as hell going up K immediately after my AT hike ends.

[squeezebox]

for years BSP officials turned a blind eye to the alcohol thing. now all of a sudden it's way taboo. they should have enforced rules with zero tolerance from day 1. they're the whiners

you're right
So what do think you or we can do about it, except now we are expected to follow the rules.

[rickb]

One concern of mine is the Park's repeated statements about hikers bringing animals into the park under the protection of ADA rules -- when some of those hikers may not actually qualify.

I don't know where this falls on the decision makers list of concerns, but given talk of channeling Baxter I think this might be very high up-- and potentially what is actually driving much of this-- even though the decision makers are not articulating this aloud. Because they can't.

Percivile Baxter was famous for his love of dogs. Every schoolboy and girl in the state has heard the story of how he had flags across the state lowered to half staff when his beloved pet died. And yet Governor Baxter was beyond firm in his resolve that dogs not be allowed in his Park.

The ADA and Fedeal Law has trumped those explicit desires, and the folk at Baxter know that is one force they cannot resist.

The thing is, a small but significant number of AT hikers do travel with service animals. This is no surprise, of course-- in part because of the special restorative nature of hiking the Trail.

But singling out the AT as the primary source of ILLEGAL service animals -- based on anectodtal evidence like when they wrote in their annual report a hiker was heard to have pulled on over in the park in Monson-- does those people who rely on their service animals a disservice.

If animals in the park disturb the decision makers, they should challenge those breaking the established rules with the full weight of the State's Power.

My concern is that in channeling Governor Baxter and his desire to keep dogs out of his park, they may be creating a pretext that hurts those who have a right to be there with their animals, including some of those our country owes a very great debt.

[rickb]

Baxter isn't suddenly having an issue... The problem has been there and Baxter has been dealing with it. Just because we on WB have not heard about every ticket, does not mean they have not been dealing with the issue. The reality is that it is not EVERY thru-hiker that is the issue (or lots of tickets would have been issued and we would have heard about it). It is far more likely that those who have been popped for various offenses have slunk off because they know they are guilty.

FYI, The park publishes a list of every ticket issued in its annual report. I have posted the list of tickets for alcohol violation before and it is exceedingly short-- about 1/2 dozen or so for the most recent year published. Moreover, all of these were written a campground not normally frequented by thruhikers, and quite possible all for a single event (based o. Issue date).

[tdoczi]

To me, it is 100% reasonable to have champagne at the top of a mountain. That is against Baxter State Park rules, and the rules lay out some sort of punishment for doing so. It is therefore also 100% reasonable to me for someone to drink champaign at the top of Katahden and get fined for it. That doesn't make the champaigne drinker a bad person and that doesn't make the ranger issuing the fine a bad person.

wow, thats exactly that the attitude thats the problem, i've never heard it stated quite so clearly. BSP doesnt want to deal with giving out all those tickets and the impact of them and has suggested their solution might be to not let the AT end in their park anymore. is that 100% reasonable?

[peakbagger]

[QUOTE=Don H;2009014]"Hikers who follow the rules at Baxter are always welcome."
Peakbagger, as a hiker who did follow the rules I'm getting the feeling that AT hikers in general are not welcome. Consider some of the comments from Baxter including a petty complaint about a hiker in Millinocket begging for money, among other cmments painting all hikers with the same brush.

The problem is that a lot of the chat and vilification on the internet is being made from afar and the 90% that are having no issues dont make it an issue, thus you hear about the 10% that have issues with the rules. I actually spent two afternoons hanging out at the park entrance at roaring brook and I didn't see any evidence of hikers not being welcome. I did see a lot of attempts at showing what the rules were, interpretations of the rules for those who decided that they didn't have to apply to them and explanations of what would happen if they elected to ignore the rules. On the two days I was there the Birches were not full. The staff does go out of their way to accommodate thru hikers but its a constrained resource, once all the camping spots are full they are full and the rules of the park require that every overnight camper has to stay in an official campsite. As for issues with large groups of AT hikers wanting to summit at the same time, there are group size limits that apply. As for conduct on the summit, contrary to popular belief there is something called common courtesy and some folks go way beyond what should be extended to others. I personally have seen thru hikers drunk/stoned at the summit stumbling back down the tablelands from the summit.

I think its reasonable that hikers entering the park have a plan on where to stay and how to get home and shouldn't have an expectation that the park staff is going to be their personal chauffeur, unfortunately a minority of folks have a sense of entitlement that they deserve special treatment as they voluntarily elected to hike the AT. What makes it worse is that the response of the majority is to cry about it on social media.

[mtntopper]

wow, thats exactly that the attitude thats the problem, i've never heard it stated quite so clearly. BSP doesnt want to deal with giving out all those tickets and the impact of them and has suggested their solution might be to not let the AT end in their park anymore. is that 100% reasonable?

Yes it is 100% reasonable. Either follow the rules or stay out of the park. That is also 100% reasonable. NPS ask the same when hiking the tail. Camp in the proper areas. Use bear canisters where posted. Don't build fires where prohibited. No different than what BSP is asking. Just follow the rules whatever they are.

[tdoczi]

Yes it is 100% reasonable. Either follow the rules or stay out of the park. That is also 100% reasonable. NPS ask the same when hiking the tail. Camp in the proper areas. Use bear canisters where posted. Don't build fires where prohibited. No different than what BSP is asking. Just follow the rules whatever they are.

i think if one were to go to ME right now, find the remaining thrus and take a very simple survey, one question "BSP does not allow alcohol, are you planning on knowingly breaking this rule?" i think you will find near 100% will answer "yes." those who arent ging to drink at the summit probably wouldnt have one way or the other because that isnt their thing. but a thru who wants to but upon hearing the rules decides that they need to follow the rules instead of breaking them? good luck finding one. and if you think i'm wrong then i think you need to spend some more time in the woods with these folks. meeting ones in ME this year who were nearly done and getting a sense of their attitude about it was quite the experience.

[rickb]

The day-to-day managerial issues are important, but not the root problem.

An anti-AT narrative is being created for a reason.

The narrative is powerful.

The park's superintendent has painted a picture of a summit with 200 people on it (really?) and thru hikers begging on the streets of Monson. He has explicitly stated that the Act of Congress which establishes the terminus at Katahdin is NOT something he needs consider-- since the AT's official designation ends at the park's boundary.

If the ATC, and more importantly the NPS, concentrate on just the articulated issues regarding thru hiker behavior and assumed unsustainability in terms of thru hikers numbers, they will be doing he AT a grave disservice.

They say the trail is all about people. Not sure I agree with that, but it is a truism that every organization is.

[Don H]

Peakbagger, When I was in Baxter in 2011 my interaction with the staff was all positive. The rangers were great! The feeling of not being welcome, IMO comes from the park administration in their comments and writings. It's become quite apparent that they (the park administration) would be happy if thru-hikers never set foot in the park again.

On the other hand we, the AT hikers have not done what we need to do to help solve the problem. One of the things the MATC and ATC seem to be doing, from reports I've heard, is education along the trail. I think this will help. I know I had no idea that large groups and alcohol were not allowed until the Jurek situation. I don't recall even seeing rules posted at Abol or at the campsite in Baxter.

[tdoczi]

I know I had no idea that large groups and alcohol were not allowed until the Jurek situation. I don't recall even seeing rules posted at Abol or at the campsite in Baxter.

so youve never read the entries concerning BSP in any of the who knows how many guidebooks dealing with the subject there are? maybe you havent, but i think most people read stuff like that and it just doesnt register. then later when asked theyll say they never heard anything about it. i deal with this kind of thing at my job constantly, i can tell a room full of people the rules and expectations and 25 minutes later one of them will say no one told them.

[Traveler]

Dudejuststarted must've not read my post.

It was immaterial to the complaint.

[rickb]

so youve never read the entries concerning BSP in any of the who knows how many guidebooks dealing with the subject there are? maybe you havent, but i think most people read stuff like that and it just doesnt register. then later when asked theyll say they never heard anything about it. i deal with this kind of thing at my job constantly, i can tell a room full of people the rules and expectations and 25 minutes later one of them will say no one told them.

Your point about warnings not registering is well made.

One thing that helps is sharing them in the most direct and unambiguous way possible.

Did you see the picture included in the OPs article that warns thru hikers against excessive celebration?

image.jpg

Why no mention of a zero tolerance policy on alcohol incliding beer and campaign toasts? Or climbing on the sign? or crowding around the sign for more than 5 minutes or so? Or congregating in ad hoc groups around the sign.

Is that sort of stuff posted on the sign that has been cropped out on this photo?

[tdoczi]

Your point about warnings not registering is well made.

One thing that helps is sharing them in the most direct and unambiguous way possible.

Did you see the picture included in the OPs article that warns thru hikers against excessive celebration?

image.jpg

Why no mention of a zero tolerance policy on alcohol incliding beer and campaign toasts? Or climbing on the sign? or crowding around the sign for more than 5 minutes or so? Or congregating in ad hoc groups around the sign.

Is that sort of stuff posted on the sign that has been cropped out on this photo?

you think people read (or care about) whats on signs? i have a saying "the sign is always there for everyone else."

[HighLiner]

I completed the 100 mile wilderness and climbed Katadhin last year after 15 years of section hiking. That last trip was carefully planned and included reservations at one of the Katadhin Stream lean-to's. It was an amazing adventure I will never forget. Yeah, filling out the climbing permit and registering was a little much, but those were the rules; I politely followed them. The trail is just a path. Why can't a camp over site person, similar to what's in place at many of the White Mountain AT campsites, be hired by the ATC to manage the hikers at a campsite of adequate size and location? That individual could fulfill the role of completing the permit applications and would help instill a sense of ATC ownership. My personal observation is the Baxter employees are simply annoyed at the endless caravan of hikers. If this was implemented I doubt Baxter would notice the traffic, the impact, or the people.

[Traveler]

Whats reasonable to 90% of people is to follow the rules BSP has established and all but illiterates are able to see along the way to Katahdin. To the 10% these rules are not reasonable and all kinds of straw man arguments are used to avoid them like "They don't give tickets to everyone", or "I didn't know the rules", and other juvenile "he did it and didn't get caught" nonsense.

Even if everyone coming in from the AT were to follow all the rules, the sheer number of people entering from the trail is growing. Their impact will eventually need to be reduced via some kind of metering system. Until then, if we can get the kids and those acting like kids to calm down, respect the rules of the property, and behave as adults they claim to be, the impact will be lessened to the point there can be more reasoned approaches.

Though I would hope that could happen, given what I see I doubt our community is capable of it.

[Water Rat]

I am fully aware that people choose not to read signs. I am fully aware that the "community" is made up of many, many individuals who want different things.

I am also aware that the way to get what you want is not to knowingly break rules and then whine about it and say, "that's the way it's always been."

If we act like the adults we are supposed to be, then the issue is not as "in your face" for Baxter. If we then abide by the rules and create helpful solutions (which, some are working on), then they will be far more willing to keep working with us to come up with a solution that will work for both sides.

[bamboo bob]

I don't make the rules and I don't break the rules. Baxter is a State Park for Mainers. When Abol bridge becomes the AT terminus that little store will sell a lot of beer.

[Casey & Gina]

To me, it is 100% reasonable to have champagne at the top of a mountain. That is against Baxter State Park rules, and the rules lay out some sort of punishment for doing so. It is therefore also 100% reasonable to me for someone to drink champaign at the top of Katahden and get fined for it. That doesn't make the champaigne drinker a bad person and that doesn't make the ranger issuing the fine a bad person. I don't see why everyone can't just all follow the rules and stop whining that someone broke them. Just fine them and move on. Let the recipient of the fine either pay it or fight it given reasonable due process. If the fine isn't big enough to stop bad behavior then get more rangers or higher fines. That goes for stealth camping, or anything else that is against the rules. This really isn't hard.

I agree. It is completely reasonable to do whatever you like as long as you accept the consequences for doing so if you choose to. The only reason Jurek got so much attention was because of the crowd following him. Very few people try to set a speed record running the AT, so it's to be expected that people will crowd around when it happens. He chose to do this and gain publicity, and chose to violate a known rule at the summit. So a consequence was perfectly reasonable.

Another hiker may have known the rule, but discretely packed up the same bottle of champagne, found a private spot, and had himself a drink at the summit, without any attention or fine. People do this all the time in all different environments, and it only becomes an issue if they draw attention to themselves or otherwise create a disturbance. Rules are created generally not with the expectation that 100% of people will follow them, but to prevent the further consequences that happen if everyone feels unrestricted in doing so. A policeman will not generally issue a citation to a homeless man sitting in a discrete place drinking a beer out of can kept hidden in a paper bag and taking care of his waste properly, but get a group of 10 together or have him tossing his empty bottles on the ground or brandishing his bottle out for all to see or acting belligerent, and it becomes a different story.

Jurek chose to violate the rules belligerently in front of a crowd, he deserved a consequence. Doing so will encourage others to do so, and increase the overall detriment to the park. A high-visibility disregard of the rules deserves a high-visibility consequence being issued. That doesn't make him bad but this sort of behavior can be expected to not be tolerated, and he - as a high-visibility personality - should strive to set a better example for others. The only problem is Baxter blaming it on ATC and trying to make it their problem, and criticizing all AT hikers as a whole, which is ridiculous and sends completely the wrong message (I imagine now some are pissed and will have the cash for the fine budgeted just to do the same action blatantly). ATC's purpose is not to monitor hiker activity to a micro-managerial level. If there is a trail it will be used in all sorts of ways. If there is a big mountain in the middle of a wilderness, it will also be used in all sorts of ways. It is the responsibility of the state park to set and enforce rules they see fit. If they cannot successfully enforce them, the rules are unreasonable and/or the consequences are not severe enough.

[tdoczi]

Whats reasonable to 90% of people is to follow the rules BSP has established and all but illiterates are able to see along the way to Katahdin. To the 10% these rules are not reasonable and all kinds of straw man arguments are used to avoid them like "They don't give tickets to everyone", or "I didn't know the rules", and other juvenile "he did it and didn't get caught" nonsense.

i think continuing to put forth this notion that its a small group of people causing trouble isn't helpful. if you take the BSP rules about no drinking and no camping limits and ask thrus in ME who are about to finish the AT how much they care about those rules (if they are even aware of them) you'd see those numbers are likely flipped. that some of them don't break the rules is coincidence. ie, you can't exceed the camping limit for the birches if its not full, and you cant break the alcohol rules if you dont drink alcohol. the attitude of way more than a small percentage of thrus is "after all this time and distance spent hiking i'm going to do what i want." thats undeniable and that is the root of the problem, i think.