Supporting Trail Organizations

[Coffee]

I think the AT should be rerouted out of BSP just so every other thread on here doesn't keep going off on a BSP tangent...

+1

Anyone who wants to do a side trip into BSP AND is willing to respect the regulations in place to honor the wishes of the land OWNER who donated BSP can still do so. A man owned a piece of land and gave it away for the benefit of the people to use within the restrictions imposed by the gift. Respect his wishes.

[Datto]

The Appalachian Trail is a National Treasure. I see no differently than Mount Rushmore or the Lincoln Memorial or The Alamo. Once the northern terminus of the Appalachian Trail arrived at the ideal place -- Katahdin -- the world changed for Baxter State Park (regardless of what existed prior).

The problem is Bissell. If Bissell had his way he'd lop off the top 300 feet of the Eiffel Tower because it was too hard to maintain. Besides, the Eiffel tower may be in a flight path and someone had to climb up to the top and put a beacon up there that uses a whole bunch of electricity every month, month after month. On-going expenses and all. Plus, if you removed the top 300 feet, not so many ingrate tourists would keep showing up at ground level looking agape towards the top. Let's just get those Frenchies to lop off the top of the Eiffel tower. It's too much trouble. And about that smiler lady painting -- you know I little WD-40 and you could clean that thing up a bit and make the colors come up way better than now. Start at the frame and work your way in. Pretty soon, it'll be even better than a paint-by-number scene. And let's get that guy Teddy Roosevelt off of Mount Rushmore. He's not near in the class of the other guys up there. Let's get someone else up there on Mount Rushmore. Someone more fitting. James Watt for instance. Now there's a guy who saw the big picture.

Bissell is anti-AT. He's anti-hiker. Bissell IS the Anti-Hiker.

The problem is, even if you defeat Bissell today, there's a chance some other pea-brained paper pusher with his fly down could arrive into Bissells position fifteen years from now also wanting to make himself famous with his cronies. Wanting to be the guy known for kicking the AT out of Baxter. That's the long-term risk.

This is why the Federal Government needs to step up to the plate and come down on Bissell et al with both boots to prevent Bissell and his cronies from lopping off the top of the Appalachian Trail and moving the AT out to some other lesser place in the new proposed National Park. Bissell's aim. He's already laying the groundwork and Bissell actually thinks he can get that done.


Datto

[Coffee]

How exactly does the Federal Government go into a park given by a private citizen to his state for purposes that he alone had a right to dictate? I have a real problem with the idea that the Federal Government has any role whatsoever in dictating the policies of BSP. That doesn't mean I agree necessarily with BSP's approach to the AT but it is their park, and AT hikers are their guests, so they can do what they want.

[Traveler]

The problem is, even if you defeat Bissell today, there's a chance some other pea-brained paper pusher with his fly down could arrive into Bissells position fifteen years from now also wanting to make himself famous with his cronies.

Datto

Perhaps you should put in for the job....

[egilbe]

The Appalachian Trail is a National Treasure. I see no differently than Mount Rushmore or the Lincoln Memorial or The Alamo. Once the northern terminus of the Appalachian Trail arrived at the ideal place -- Katahdin -- the world changed for Baxter State Park (regardless of what existed prior).

The problem is Bissell. If Bissell had his way he'd lop off the top 300 feet of the Eiffel Tower because it was too hard to maintain. Besides, the Eiffel tower may be in a flight path and someone had to climb up to the top and put a beacon up there that uses a whole bunch of electricity every month, month after month. On-going expenses and all. Plus, if you removed the top 300 feet, not so many ingrate tourists would keep showing up at ground level looking agape towards the top. Let's just get those Frenchies to lop off the top of the Eiffel tower. It's too much trouble. And about that smiler lady painting -- you know I little WD-40 and you could clean that thing up a bit and make the colors come up way better than now. Start at the frame and work your way in. Pretty soon, it'll be even better than a paint-by-number scene. And let's get that guy Teddy Roosevelt off of Mount Rushmore. He's not near in the class of the other guys up there. Let's get someone else up there on Mount Rushmore. Someone more fitting. James Watt for instance. Now there's a guy who saw the big picture.

Bissell is anti-AT. He's anti-hiker. Bissell IS the Anti-Hiker.

The problem is, even if you defeat Bissell today, there's a chance some other pea-brained paper pusher with his fly down could arrive into Bissells position fifteen years from now also wanting to make himself famous with his cronies. Wanting to be the guy known for kicking the AT out of Baxter. That's the long-term risk.

This is why the Federal Government needs to step up to the plate and come down on Bissell et al with both boots to prevent Bissell and his cronies from lopping off the top of the Appalachian Trail and moving the AT out to some other lesser place in the new proposed National Park. Bissell's aim. He's already laying the groundwork and Bissell actually thinks he can get that done.


Datto

They sure do spend a lot of time building new hiking trails for an organization that it anti-hiker Maybe you should do some more research rather than babble on so incoherently.

[LIhikers]

I would give $1,000 to the trail or hiker organization that succeeds in having some body of the Federal Goverment take newly gained assured control (via eminent domain or other similar means) of the stretch of the Appalachian Trail that traverses Baxter State Park. This to keep any bonehead park director or any state official from continued bandying about the idea of removing the AT from Baxter.

I would give $500 to the trail or hiker organization that dethrones Bissell The Clown from his post as park director of Baxter State Park during the first half of calendar year 2016 and relaces him in the same post with someone who has hiked the entire length of the Appalachian Trail.


Datto

And would you replace the Superintendents of all the parks that the AT goes through with a specially picked thru hiker?

[Datto]

Perhaps you should put in for the job....

Is Bissell resigning? A couple of days ago I went out on my back porch to give Bissell the Chauncey Gardner treatment with my TV remote control. So great when all these high tech gadgets around here finally start working. I'm going to give Shirley McLaine a call and see if she has time for a fun weekend. Hope she picks up this time.


Datto

[Traveler]

Is Bissell resigning? A couple of days ago I went out on my back porch to give Bissell the Chauncey Gardner treatment with my TV remote control. So great when all these high tech gadgets around here finally start working. I'm going to give Shirley McLaine a call and see if she has time for a fun weekend. Hope she picks up this time.

Datto

I'm not sure he is, but I think you'd be rather qualified given your estimation of what the position requires.

[Datto]

I'm not sure he is, but I think you'd be rather qualified given your estimation of what the position requires.

Bissell can do whatever he wants outside of the AT within Baxter State Park as long as his actions don't detract from the Appalachian Trail. The citizens of Maine can decide on those matters outside of the Appalachian Trail.

I'm only interested in what happens with the tract that composes the Appalachian Trail as it winds through Baxter to Katahdin and any acions or plans by others that might detract from or damage the Appalachian Trail within Baxter. Those are the issues where the citizens of the other 49 states and territories also have a definitive say so. This in order to keep someone like Bissell and his cronies (or any ninny in the future) from deliberately damaging a National Treasure such as the Appalachian Trail.


Datto

[4eyedbuzzard]

The Appalachian Trail is a National Treasure. . .

Baxter is a Maine treasure.

This is why the Federal Government needs to step up to the plate and come down on Bissell et al with both boots... Datto

The federal government doesn't have any legal authority to do so.

How exactly does the Federal Government go into a park given by a private citizen to his state for purposes that he alone had a right to dictate? I have a real problem with the idea that the Federal Government has any role whatsoever in dictating the policies of BSP. That doesn't mean I agree necessarily with BSP's approach to the AT but it is their park, and AT hikers are their guests, so they can do what they want.

This^^^

They sure do spend a lot of time building new hiking trails for an organization that it anti-hiker Maybe you should do some more research rather than babble on so incoherently.

And this^^^

Bissell can do whatever he wants outside of the AT within Baxter State Park as long as his actions don't detract from the Appalachian Trail. The citizens of Maine can decide on those matters outside of the Appalachian Trail...I'm only interested in what happens with the tract that composes the Appalachian Trail as it winds through Baxter to Katahdin and any acions or plans by others that might detract from or damage the Appalachian Trail within Baxter. Those are the issues where the citizens of the other 49 states and territories also have a definitive say so.
Datto

Neither the citizens of Maine, nor the other 49 states and territories have any legal standing regarding Baxter, or ANY trails that run through it. This is not uncommon - the ATC has very little power other than enlisting federal and state agencies to secure the trail corridor either by agreement or outright purchase. The land that is Baxter State Park was purchased and donated with detailed restrictions spelled out in various trusts, by a private individual, Percival Baxter. It receives no taxpayer funds, and is governed separately from other Maine State Parks. The Commissioner of Maine Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, the Director of the Maine State Forest Service and the Attorney General comprise the Baxter State Park Authority. They are responsible for making sure the intent of the trust is followed. And they are Bissell's bosses. He doesn't make the big policy decisions - they do. The AT exists in Baxter only by their permission.

Baxter's primary purpose is that it is to be preserved as a wilderness park - not that it exist as a host corridor for the AT. A very small percentage of those who use the park are AT thru-hikers. From http://www.baxterstateparkauthority.com/hiking/at.htm "Percival Baxter clearly stated his goal was to place preservation of natural resources as a priority over the recreational use of his park. Our regulations are designed to support this goal." As an AT hiker, you are a guest in their house. Common guest courtesy requires that hikers learn what the house rules are and then follow them.

And that's just the way it is.

[rickb]

The federal government doesn't have any legal authority to do so. > snip <The AT exists in Baxter only by their permission.

This may be what the Catholic Church thought right up until the moment the NPS confiscated their lands at the Greymoor Monastery.

The NPS legal theory on that one rested on the assumption that an act of congress gave it the absolute authority to make the taking.

Now, as a practical matter the practical considerations are far different where the trail traverses Baxter State Park.

But make no mistake about it-- the AT was created by an act of congress that explicitly defined its northern terminus as Katahdin.

[Uriah]

...But if you give ONE trail organization $250, then the overhead might be closer to 2-4% of the donation amount. Much more of the donation in aggregate actually goes to the trail, not to overhead...

This is a good point, Coffee and a great opening post; it engenders much thought.

It makes me wonder about the many environmental/conservation organizations and how to go about choosing which one(s) to support, when you can't afford to support them all. Should they all just combine forces?! (Purely a rhetorical question, here...) It sure seems like they'd gather more of a voice if they were to, a voice that probably needs to heard sooner rather than later.

Anyway, as a low-budget guy (by choice: less work, less tax obligation, more time for play), I tend to support the trails and not always the organizations supporting them. Through maintenance, writing about their wonders, and so forth...

[4eyedbuzzard]

This may be what the Catholic Church thought right up until the moment the NPS confiscated their lands at the Greymoor Monastery.

The NPS legal theory on that one rested on the assumption that an act of congress gave it the absolute authority to make the taking.

Now, as a practical matter the practical considerations are far different where the trail traverses Baxter State Park.

But make no mistake about it-- the AT was created by an act of congress that explicitly defined its northern terminus as Katahdin.

I would submit that the Greymoor situation hardly compares given the small parcel of land involved, private ownership, and that it was ultimately settled before going to court anyway - but even then it dragged on for 15 years. Not a result we want to see here. While Baxter might violate the National Trails Act by actually CLOSING the AT (which they won't do), what they can do is restrict and complicate thru-hiker activity by a lot of methods that wouldn't be easily challenged: usage/backcountry fees, advance reservations, limiting summit permits, closing entry to the park due to capacity, camping regulations, seasonal closures, etc. Which wouldn't be a big leap given what the feds themselves have done in GSMNP and other National Parks, and in limiting the number of permits issued for the PCT. If the feds can limit park capacities, and limit thru-hiker permits on a National Scenic Trail (PCT), they would be hard pressed to come up with an argument against Baxter's right to do so as well, given the number of hikers using the park.

All Baxter wants is that hikers BEHAVE as spelled out in their rules. They don't want media events, spectacle, excessive celebration, commercialization, high visibility partying, etc. The issue has been brewing long before the Jurek incident. But it isn't the rules that have changed over the years. It's the hikers and their behavior. It's supposed to be a wilderness, and the expected behavior is supposed to be low key and respectful in that sense, and without any sense of entitlement. Baxter's rules are definitely old-fashioned when compared to today's societal norms. But that's what they want. And they are going to play hardball to keep it that way.

[TexasBob]

The Appalachian Trail is a National Treasure. I see no differently than Mount Rushmore or the Lincoln Memorial or The Alamo.

Seriously? The AT is a footpath. The Alamo was a pivotal battle in a war for independence and the establishment of a sovereign country. I think you need to get some perspective.

[Datto]

Neither the citizens of Maine, nor the other 49 states and territories have any legal standing regarding Baxter, or ANY trails that run through it.The AT exists in Baxter only by their permission.

Vigorous debate is necessary.

Just to be clear -- the problem isn't with Baxter State Park. The parts I have seen are beautiful. The problem is with Bissell and his cronies and whomever may come after Bissell and his ilk. Bissell is a menace to the Appalachian Trail and threatens to deliberately damage a National Treasure just so he can gain fame with his cronies and feel elevated by his power trip -- that is where the Federal Government must become involved regardless of individual wishes or laws or previous agreements or endorsements or trusts.


Datto

[Traveler]

Vigorous debate is necessary.

Just to be clear -- the problem isn't with Baxter State Park. The parts I have seen are beautiful. The problem is with Bissell and his cronies and whomever may come after Bissell and his ilk. Bissell is a menace to the Appalachian Trail and threatens to deliberately damage a National Treasure just so he can gain fame with his cronies and feel elevated by his power trip -- that is where the Federal Government must become involved regardless of individual wishes or laws or previous agreements or endorsements or trusts.

Datto

Perhaps rather than chest thumping and hurling invectives, getting involved at a closer level may be of value. Actually understanding what the issue is and how the Park is set up may be a great start and could lead to your helping arrive at a workable solution. Something to consider.

[Lone Wolf]

the AT in baxter ain't gonna be moved

[Dogwood]

REALLY??? Another BSP rant thread far far removed from the topic of the thread of SUPPORTING TRAIL ORGANIZATIONS through charity, volunteering, and donating something from ourselves. There already are more threads than I can recall going off into the deep end of BSP/AT relations. Go to those threads and pursue this BSP crap further.

[Datto]

thumping and hurling

Ahh, thumping and hurling. Those were the days.


Datto

[Coffee]

If a mod wants to move this to straight forward and close it that would be fine with me as the op. My question was definitely answered and this BSP is ridiculous.