Baxter State Park Thru-hiker Limits

[rickb]

When the total number of thru-hiker passes are used it appears as though thru-hikers will have to get in line for one of the limited day passes. I believe the way this works (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that you line up at the gate early in the morning to get in and that the number of people allowed in is limited. Wouldn't this then put thru-hikers in direct competition for these limited passes with the local day hikers?

Keep in mind that the Thru Hiker limits would not kick in until September or October -- the very months when the overall number of hikers climbing Katahdin is at its lowest.

In other words, this scheme is designed so that it would reduce the numbers of hikers on Katahdin at the very time total usage is at its lowest.

Think about that.

Thier new program might achieve BSP's real objective, but it certainly does not achieve their stated one.

[rickb]

Whitecap mtn. would be a nice terminus

In all seriousness, the new National Monument would be a terrific place for the Trail to end. Specifically, at the same spot where the IAT begins.

It would raise the profile of those lands tremendously, and put them one step closer to becoming a National Park.

Interested thru hikers could easily (?) request reservations at Traditional Campgrounds within BSP (their Cabins are great!) to have some extended celebration time, including a loop over the Knife Edge -- which is sadly dismissed by so many since it is not part of the official Trail.

[rickb]

do you have a link to your data source?

Here, starting on page 122:

http://www.baxterstateparkauthority....023%202014.pdf

[LoneStranger]

In all seriousness, the new National Monument would be a terrific place for the Trail to end. Specifically, at the same spot where the IAT begins.

It would raise the profile of those lands tremendously, and put them one step closer to becoming a National Park.

Interested thru hikers could easily (?) request reservations at Traditional Campgrounds within BSP (their Cabins are great!) to have some extended celebration time, including a loop over the Knife Edge -- which is sadly dismissed by so many since it is not part of the official Trail.

That would be hilarious. If you've ever been to that spot you know just how anticlimactic it would be to hike 2k+ miles to reach a flat spot on an old logging road.

IMG_4815a.JPG

That is the view looking towards BSP at the spot you are talking about. The logging road that starts the IAT leads to another until eventually you cross Wass Stream a bit past the LT and finally start walking on actual trail again. This land was heavily logged in the past and despite the regrowth it is not a very natural environment. Some good berries in there though

If you're going to send folks on a 3 mile road walk down the Golden Road to hook up with a new section of AT leading about 10 miles to that spot as the new route you might as well send them up Deasey to finish there with a great view of Katahdin so they can at least see what they've missed.

[rickb]

Next time you head up that way, you might find that it has moved farther south-- if all goes according to plan.

[LoneStranger]

Oh I have to admit I haven't been keeping up on plans for the land now that it has become .gov property. Are they hoping to cut new trail or use the roads still? That road walk section just doesn't compare to the actual forest trails in the area.

[blue indian]

This makes me sad...

[TJ aka Teej]

Next time you head up that way, you might find that it has moved farther south-- if all goes according to plan.

I was there in late October. Took the same pic LS took.

[peakbagger]

Since the IAT is "persona non grata" in BSP the IAT start point is at the mercy of BSP if there is interest in connecting it to the AT. There had been discussion about routing the IAT south of the park boundary at one point but I haven't seen much on that proposal of late. The "truce" that has been in place up until now effectively ignores the unofficial IAT route down the Knife Edge and Helon Taylor to the Katahdin lake trail through the park. I don't see BSP allowing a new entrance/exit out of BSP onto the monument lands as it effectively means BSP will then have to manage anther access point, something that they have already indicated they are not interested in doing. The original proposed IAT route out via the old Wassataquoik tote road would run through the monument lands to intersect the existing IAT cutting the overall length of the IAT that runs through the monument which I expect is not something the monument would be interested in doing.
The alternative would be for the unofficial IAT route to run northeast through the park via Pogy Notch and South Pond out through the Trout Brook region before leaving BSP through the North Gate. This would by pass the new monument in its entirety, which I expect would not go well with the monument.

The current IAT start point is really just a consequence of a commercial operation having some rights to access to Katahdin Lake through the park. I believe the IAT has left it where it is hoping that at some point they may get permission to operate in the park but given the AT issues I don't expect that is going to happen.

Prior to the park owning Katahdin Lake, the Katahdin Lake trail was an inconvenient vestige of Baxter having to piece together different parcels and rights to create the park. I believe at one point that the Katahdin lake camps used this trail in the winter with snowmachines through BSP?. This was before the lawsuit on park access by snowmachines that I believe now limit machines to only the perimeter road (with the exception of the BSP rangers who can go anywhere).

[Don H]

Keep in mind that the Thru Hiker limits would not kick in until September or October -- the very months when the overall number of hikers climbing Katahdin is at its lowest.

In other words, this scheme is designed so that it would reduce the numbers of hikers on Katahdin at the very time total usage is at its lowest.

Think about that.

Thier new program might achieve BSP's real objective, but it certainly does not achieve their stated one.

Your 2013 numbers of all hikers climbing K via the AT showed peak numbers in July and August.

Consider that the total numbers of hikers of all categories has steadily increased over the last several years.
And that increasing numbers of earlier start date NOBOs will likely have them arriving at BSP earlier.
And the ATC encouraging alternate thru-hikes will cause in increase in Flip-Flops hikers arriving earlier.
And that since hikers "self declare" their hike and that once one classification of hiker pass is sold out hikers will chose an alternative pass.

Even though there is a slight increase in passes over last years hiker numbers I would not be surprised to see the passes gone by mid-August.

[LoneStranger]

There are a network of old roads they could use to extend the IAT farther south, but without a bridge over the East Branch extending to Route 11 in the Grindstone area would require a pretty serious swim. An easier route would be to swing further to the east in the direction of Stacyville since there is an existing bridge I believe in that direction.

Either of these would put the IAT southern terminus quite a bit farther away from the current AT while creating easier access via a vehicle. Maybe the ATC can paint a blaze on a shuttle bus floor and make that the official route around BSP so the trail can terminate at the spot where the IAT starts

[rickb]

Your 2013 numbers of all hikers climbing K via the AT showed peak numbers in July and August.

Consider that the total numbers of hikers of all categories has steadily increased over the last several years.
And that increasing numbers of earlier start date NOBOs will likely have them arriving at BSP earlier.
And the ATC encouraging alternate thru-hikes will cause in increase in Flip-Flops hikers arriving earlier.
And that since hikers "self declare" their hike and that once one classification of hiker pass is sold out hikers will chose an alternative pass.

Even though there is a slight increase in passes over last years hiker numbers I would not be surprised to see the passes gone by mid-August.

I think sometime in September is far more likely-- but your's is a good question.

I don't have good states on when each catagory of hiker climbs Katahdin, but if you look at the Kennebeck Ferry data, one can get a some idea. Surely BSP know, right?

My takeaway from that data I posted is that crowds on the Hunt Trail (AT) are far less likely in September and October than in July and August.

The BSP plan would -- by design -- throttle Thru Hiker entries in the slowest months, I think. Why on the world would that make sense?

But it is even nuttier than that. Their "cap" actually encourages hikers to end their thru hikes hikes earlier. That is to say, at tims when the Hunt Trail sees greater than average traffic.

If they are truely concerned about the numbers of hikers on the mountain on any given day, why would they come up with something like this?

On a side note, I retract my idea about ending the AT at the National Monument-- for all the wise reasons others have posted. Better to just make sure that the AT terminus remains where Congress dictated it to be, and make sure that anyone who spends the time and effort to walk there, can.

[LoneStranger]

Pretty sure their concern isn't just how many people are on the mountain. They've already addressed overall trail crowding via the introduction of the DUPR and the limits that creates. They are also concerned about the number of thru hikers arriving without reservations and expecting to find a spot at The Birches waiting for them. Spreading the arrival dates out makes good sense in terms of resolving that issue since earlier in the season The Birches is lightly used until the crowds start pulling in. There simply is not unlimited capacity to accommodate unexpected arrivals so saying that everyone who arrives should be given access runs into that reality.

My thought would be to get the state to expand their Abol campground by a fair bit and run a shuttle between there and KSC. Thru hikers could hike into KSC and shuttle back to Abol if The Birches was full, then return the next morning via shuttle and finish their hike. BSP may not want that shuttle on their roads, but I'd wager they'd accept that long before they'd agree to expand capacity inside the park.

[FreeGoldRush]

My thought would be to get the state to expand their Abol campground by a fair bit and run a shuttle between there and KSC. Thru hikers could hike into KSC and shuttle back to Abol if The Birches was full, then return the next morning via shuttle and finish their hike. BSP may not want that shuttle on their roads, but I'd wager they'd accept that long before they'd agree to expand capacity inside the park.

This sounds reasonable. What is the argument against it?

[MuddyWaters]

Ive read the appalachian trail section of the national scenic trails act a few times.

Not once, does it mention the right of anyone to thru-hike or have special concessions made for ability to do so....

It would seem simple to eliminate the Birches, route AT in the Togue pond gate, and treat AT hikers just like everyone else. Fairly.

Couple miles road walks, ksc reservations well in advance, climb the hunt trail to hearts content. Or dont.

The time is coming when gsmnp wont take the thruhiker load as well

[Engine]

...If they are truely concerned about the numbers of hikers on the mountain on any given day, why would they come up with something like this?

In my opinion, it simply comes down to BSP not having fully realized the likely ramifications of their seemingly arbitrary solution. Is it really arbitrary, or aimed more at getting the attention of the ATC in order to stimulate real solutions? Who knows. But, I don't fault BSP for taking a proactive stance, I'm just not in favor of their methods.

[burger]

Ive read the appalachian trail section of the national scenic trails act a few times.

Not once, does it mention the right of anyone to thru-hike or have special concessions made for ability to do so....

Shhhh! You're going to ruin the sense of entitlement that most people here (plus of a lot of hikers on the AT) have!

[LongBlaze2019]

I hate to say it but......
I think it's time to move the Northern terminal.
Instead of both sides being stubborn and not trying to understand each other and come to a workable solution while long distance hikers get stuck in the middle of the mess. Just move it and when it's all said and done BSP and the AT conservancy can move on, and hikers can keep on hiking.

[peakbagger]

What the new policy seems to do is to continue to give thruhikers preferential treatment until the permit limit is reached and then treats them like anyone else who trys to visit the park without reservations. North bounders actually walk a short distance on the abandoned state road that runs to the Togue Pond Gate road. I think I measured it once and its around 6 miles to the gate house. Once at the gate house, the park staff will work with the thru hiker like anyone else that shows up at the gate without reservations to find a space in the park for them to stay. Practically there is no trail paralleling the road to KSC so any thru hiker on foot is going to have a very dusty potentially dangerous walk along the narrow curvy park road with no shoulder if they do get a reservation. There really is no real option to dayhike to the summit from the gatehouse without a ride or a place to camp as the mileage to KSC is around 8 miles from the Togue Pond gate one way.

[rickb]

What the new policy seems to do is to continue to give thruhikers preferential treatment until the permit limit is reached and then treats them like anyone else who trys to visit the park without reservations. North bounders actually walk a short distance on the abandoned state road that runs to the Togue Pond Gate road. I think I measured it once and its around 6 miles to the gate house. Once at the gate house, the park staff will work with the thru hiker like anyone else that shows up at the gate without reservations to find a space in the park for them to stay. Practically there is no trail paralleling the road to KSC so any thru hiker on foot is going to have a very dusty potentially dangerous walk along the narrow curvy park road with no shoulder if they do get a reservation. There really is no real option to dayhike to the summit from the gatehouse without a ride or a place to camp as the mileage to KSC is around 8 miles from the Togue Pond gate one way.

Are SOBO Thru hikers getting preferential treatment?

How about flip-floppers and section hikers starting their leg with a climb up Katahdin?

Why the quota on them -- just to make a point?

Should AT Hikers be encouraged to put in KSCG reservations like everyone else and compete with families for the limited number of camping sites? That would not be a good thing at all!