Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 138
  1. #61
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06-18-2010
    Location
    NJ
    Age
    43
    Posts
    3,133
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Last Call View Post
    So many elitists attitudes....reminds me of the ol' "Get off my lawn" grumpy old geezer....just imagine if all state parks were as restrictive as the vaunted Baxter, wouldn't that be a hoot?
    one could just as easily call the attitude that the rules shouldnt apply to you and you can do as you please elitist.

  2. #62
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06-18-2010
    Location
    NJ
    Age
    43
    Posts
    3,133
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeGoldRush View Post
    Even if we believe it is unsafe to take a child under 6 up the mountain, we have to understand that we might be wrong. It's not our place to make that decision for every other parent on the trail.
    that i actually agree with. but the AT doesnt make the rules cause it's the AT and you don't get ignore rules you don't like because you hiked all the way there from GA

  3. #63
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06-18-2010
    Location
    NJ
    Age
    43
    Posts
    3,133
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by soilman View Post
    If you have hiked up Katahdin I think you can appreciate why this rule is in place. I think it would be very difficult for a small child to climb most of these trails. I am 6'1" and wonder how some shorter folks are able to get up and down in some places.
    i once witnessed an adult carry a small child sitting on his shoulders up the mist trail in yosemite NP. not something i would attempt or advise others to do, but that doesnt mean i think anyone should have told them they can't do it.

    i have to be honest, of all the BSP rules i've heard discussed this one veers the furthest from a genuine effort at conservation and closest to just restrictive busy bodying.

    the cut off line is also kind of curious.... a 5 year old cant do it but a 6 year old can? do rangers who have doubts as to a child's age ask them for ID?

  4. #64
    Registered User
    Join Date
    04-21-2008
    Location
    Bangor, Maine
    Posts
    172

    Default

    What a bunch of misinformed entitled lazy whiners we have here. BAXTER STATE PARK IS NOT A STATE PARK! YOU DO NOT GET TO PLAY THE THIS LAND IS MY LAND CARD. LOOK IT UP. EDUCATE YOURSELF A SMIDGE BEFORE YOU WHINE ABOUT HOW ITS NOT FAIR. THE AT IS A GUEST OF BAXTER PARK. IT CAN BE KICKED OUT IF IT BECOMES UNDESIRABLE. BAXTER OWES YOU NOTHING. YOU AND YOUR 1-6 YEAR OLD BRAT ARE NOT SPECIAL DESPITE WHAT YOUR FAMILY TELLS YOU. THATS JUST THE WAY IT IS.

  5. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Last Call View Post
    Shouldn't the A.T. have privileges that trump Baxter State Parks rules?
    A good way to think about this is to consider Baxter private property.
    The AT, federal property, ends at the boundary.
    So, no.
    Teej

    "[ATers] represent three percent of our use and about twenty percent of our effort," retired Baxter Park Director Jensen Bissell.

  6. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeGoldRush View Post
    It's their park? This sort of thinking boggles my mind. I'm not sure where it comes from.
    It comes from the man who donated the land to the people of Maine, with strict conditions of use.
    The Deeds of Trust are iron clad.
    Teej

    "[ATers] represent three percent of our use and about twenty percent of our effort," retired Baxter Park Director Jensen Bissell.

  7. #67
    Wanna-be hiker trash
    Join Date
    03-05-2010
    Location
    Connecticut
    Age
    37
    Posts
    6,838
    Images
    78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by putts View Post
    What a bunch of misinformed entitled lazy whiners we have here. BAXTER STATE PARK IS NOT A STATE PARK! YOU DO NOT GET TO PLAY THE THIS LAND IS MY LAND CARD. LOOK IT UP. EDUCATE YOURSELF A SMIDGE BEFORE YOU WHINE ABOUT HOW ITS NOT FAIR. THE AT IS A GUEST OF BAXTER PARK. IT CAN BE KICKED OUT IF IT BECOMES UNDESIRABLE. BAXTER OWES YOU NOTHING. YOU AND YOUR 1-6 YEAR OLD BRAT ARE NOT SPECIAL DESPITE WHAT YOUR FAMILY TELLS YOU. THATS JUST THE WAY IT IS.
    Was that meant to be Billy Mays capslock or Lee Ermey capslock?
    Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

  8. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TJ aka Teej View Post
    It comes from the man who donated the land to the people of Maine, with strict conditions of use.
    The Deeds of Trust are iron clad.
    exactly the park authority is legally bound to run the park in accordance with the deeds of trust - that is the only thing that matters to them. thus "they" will run the park the way "they" see fit

  9. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SoaknWet View Post
    You will find no deeds with Native Americans on it because there is No such persons. They were the First People, Native People or just the People! It was never America till the invaders named it that!
    the matter of land ownership is settled law the tribes-first peoples- whatever settled with Maine and the federal govt back in 1980.

  10. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lone Wolf View Post
    the northern terminus should be at Whitecap
    this is possibly the stupidest thing i have read on the internet in weeks congrats.

    i understand your thing is to try and make inflammatory statements to get a rise out of people, but this idea is only a good idea to somebody that enjoys cutting their nose off to spite their face. Not only because of baxter but you would skip a bunch of good hiking between whitecap and abol bridge.

  11. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by putts View Post
    What a bunch of misinformed entitled lazy whiners we have here. BAXTER STATE PARK IS NOT A STATE PARK! YOU DO NOT GET TO PLAY THE THIS LAND IS MY LAND CARD. LOOK IT UP. EDUCATE YOURSELF A SMIDGE BEFORE YOU WHINE ABOUT HOW ITS NOT FAIR. THE AT IS A GUEST OF BAXTER PARK. IT CAN BE KICKED OUT IF IT BECOMES UNDESIRABLE. BAXTER OWES YOU NOTHING. YOU AND YOUR 1-6 YEAR OLD BRAT ARE NOT SPECIAL DESPITE WHAT YOUR FAMILY TELLS YOU. THATS JUST THE WAY IT IS.
    the park is not going to kick out the AT that is silly talk - there is a damn good case that doing so would violate the deeds the park authority is legally bound to honor. But there is nothing stopping the park from removing any and all special privileges the long distance hikers now enjoy

  12. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Last Call View Post
    Well I, for 1, wouldn't want to see the disappointment in that child's eyes when he is told by the ranger that he couldn't summit after hiking 2,185 miles.....
    so there is no responsibility on the parents to not even let it get that far...its no secret, the rules are easy to find, it has been in place for decades. at some point its mom and dad who should be doing the adult thing and respecting a place in which they are a guest.

  13. #73

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by D2maine View Post
    this is possibly the stupidest thing i have read on the internet in weeks congrats.

    i understand your thing is to try and make inflammatory statements to get a rise out of people, but this idea is only a good idea to somebody that enjoys cutting their nose off to spite their face. Not only because of baxter but you would skip a bunch of good hiking between whitecap and abol bridge.
    Itís not a stupid idea at all. It would solve a lot of problems.
    And I have to say, LW deserves a little more respect. He has a vast amount of experience on the AT and is a great source of knowledge. If he didnít keep forgetting the damn smiley face, his replies wouldnít seem so terse.

  14. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Traffic Jam View Post
    It’s not a stupid idea at all. It would solve a lot of problems.
    And I have to say, LW deserves a little more respect. He has a vast amount of experience on the AT and is a great source of knowledge. If he didn’t keep forgetting the damn smiley face, his replies wouldn’t seem so terse.
    its a solution in search of a problem, it is quite possibly the worst location logistically to end the trail, it skips some of the best parts of the 100 mile, it skips baxter which is the jewel of the AT. Respect lol why its just walking...

  15. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by D2maine View Post
    lol why its just walking...
    nah...’it’s just the internet’ works much better in this context.

  16. #76

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by D2maine View Post
    lol why its just walking...
    nah...íitís just the internetí works much better in this context.

  17. #77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Traffic Jam View Post
    nah...’it’s just the internet’ works much better in this context.

    Quote Originally Posted by Traffic Jam View Post
    nah...’it’s just the internet’ works much better in this context.
    lol you can say that again

  18. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by D2maine View Post
    the park is not going to kick out the AT that is silly talk - there is a damn good case that doing so would violate the deeds the park authority is legally bound to honor.
    The Deeds of Trust direct that not one square inch ever comes under control of the Federal government.
    The Park hosts the AT. The AT doesn't have say in any Park matter.
    As the Director's letter to the ATC stated, the AT could easily end at the boundary.
    Doing so wouldn't 'violate' the Deeds, there's a strong argument that doing so would actually enforce them.
    Teej

    "[ATers] represent three percent of our use and about twenty percent of our effort," retired Baxter Park Director Jensen Bissell.

  19. #79
    Registered User
    Join Date
    10-27-2003
    Location
    northern whites
    Posts
    3,850

    Default

    Not sure the under six rule is specifically a Deeds of Trust issue, other than the BSP commission is delegated the right to make the rules in BSP. I don't think Percival Baxter cast the age 6 rule in stone. Far more likely that the BSP commission put in a common sense rule which is their right in managing the park. There are always exceptions like the girl who did the NH 4000s at age 6, but the vast majority of children age 6 are not in the condition to do it on their own and potentially put their parents at risk if they are carrying the kid.
    Last edited by peakbagger; 07-26-2018 at 19:03.

  20. #80
    ME => GA 19AT3 rickb's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-12-2002
    Location
    Marlboro, MA
    Posts
    6,844
    Journal Entries
    1
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TJ aka Teej View Post
    It comes from the man who donated the land to the people of Maine, with strict conditions of use.
    The Deeds of Trust are iron clad.


    The Deeds of Trust do not mention 6 year old children.


    Also, please recall that the AT was established by an Act of Congress to have Baxter Peak as its Northern terminous.

    Is an an an act of Congress Subordinate to the Deeds of Trust?

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
++ New Posts ++

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •