WhiteBlaze Pages
A Complete Appalachian Trail Guidebook.
$10 for printed copy(paperback). $6 for interactive PDF. $2 for printable PDF.
Read more here WhiteBlaze Pages Store

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 138
  1. #101

    Default

    Per Wikipedia...
    “Sole governance is provided by the Baxter State Park Authority, consisting of the Maine Attorney General, the Maine Commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and the Director of the Maine Forest Service.”

    Aren’t the salaries of all three of those individuals paid by tax dollars? Sounds like the Park Authority works for the citizens of the State of Maine. So, I would think the “their” in “their park” is the citizens, not the Park Authority.

  2. #102
    Registered User
    Join Date
    08-18-2017
    Location
    On the Trail
    Posts
    394

    Default

    the park authority i believe is an unpaid thing, yes in their primary job the work for the state but as part of the park authority they are bound by law to run the park in accordance with the terms laid out by baxter in the deeds. there is no wiggle room for them and that was carefully crafted by baxter and approved repeatedly by successive state government sessions to make sure his gift was managed in accordance with his wishes.

  3. #103
    Registered User
    Join Date
    08-18-2017
    Location
    On the Trail
    Posts
    394

    Default

    to expound on my last post here are the words of the current attorney general of the state member of the authority and possible future govenor
    speaking directly on her thoughts about the park and her stewardship of it.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GvL...QUSDdsypp/view

  4. #104

    Default

    "While Baxter State Park bears the name “State” it is separately administered, free from any connection with the larger State Park system (Bureau of Parks and Lands/Dept. of Conservation). The Baxter State Park Authority, a three person authority consisting of the Attorney General, the Director of the Maine Forest Service and the Commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, has full power in the control and management of the Park and in the exercise of all Trust obligations."
    Teej

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

  5. #105
    -
    Join Date
    08-14-2005
    Location
    Fort Madison, IA
    Age
    58
    Posts
    1,645

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tundracamper View Post
    Per Wikipedia...
    “Sole governance is provided by the Baxter State Park Authority, consisting of the Maine Attorney General, the Maine Commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and the Director of the Maine Forest Service.”

    Aren’t the salaries of all three of those individuals paid by tax dollars? Sounds like the Park Authority works for the citizens of the State of Maine. So, I would think the “their” in “their park” is the citizens, not the Park Authority.
    yes citizens of the state of maine - which most distance hikers are not - in theory could non residents could be barred from the park

  6. #106
    ME => GA 19AT3 rickb's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-12-2002
    Location
    Marlboro, MA
    Posts
    7,126
    Journal Entries
    1
    Images
    1

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by George View Post
    yes citizens of the state of maine - which most distance hikers are not - in theory could non residents could be barred from the park
    While that is intuitively logical and could be argued in a federal court, that kind of BLANKET exclusion would almost certainly be prohibited.

    Can you imagine a country where the Mayor of New York could declare Central Park open only to Reaidents of the city? Or where the state’s Governor could legally close the Adirondaks to all out-of-state visitors?

    Not in America.

    That’s not to say it couldn’t b attempted, just as some snooty towns have tried doing this with their public beaches. just that it would be allowed to stand.

    Never underestimate the power of the Feds.

  7. #107
    Registered User
    Join Date
    01-03-2010
    Location
    Windham, Maine
    Age
    54
    Posts
    1,166

    Default

    Well, Maine residents DO get priority during reservations....or at least used to before online reservations...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Let me go

  8. #108
    ME => GA 19AT3 rickb's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-12-2002
    Location
    Marlboro, MA
    Posts
    7,126
    Journal Entries
    1
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T.S.Kobzol View Post
    Well, Maine residents DO get priority during reservations....or at least used to before online reservations...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Yes, they still do.

    That is perfecty acceptable within the Public Use Doctrine.

    The park will never exclude out of state residents, even if they could (which they can’t). BSP has consistently operated at the very highest standard, been inclusive and a fabulous operation. A bit of bluster from some aside, I have no doubt they will Continue on in that tradition, and as a long-standing friend to the AT.

  9. #109

    Default

    So then it was in Baxter’s original wishes that children under six be prohibited? I doubt that.

  10. #110
    Registered User
    Join Date
    08-18-2017
    Location
    On the Trail
    Posts
    394

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tundracamper View Post
    So then it was in Baxter’s original wishes that children under six be prohibited? I doubt that.
    lest see if you can figure out under which part of these objectives the park is going to feel the no 6yr olds above tree line rule falls

    The mission of Baxter State Park can be expressed in six primary objectives:

    1.To protect the natural resources of the Park for their intrinsic value and for the enjoyment of present and future generations.
    2.To provide various appropriate recreational opportunities to Park visitors.
    3.To conduct exemplary sustainable forest management operations within the 29,537 acre Scientific Forest Management Area of the Park.
    4.To maintain the facilities, infrastructure and data systems of the Park.
    5.To provide for the safety of Park staff and visitors.
    6.To manage and protect the fiscal integrity and independence of the Park for current and future generations.

  11. #111
    Registered User egilbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-18-2014
    Location
    Lewiston and Biddeford, Maine
    Age
    59
    Posts
    2,643

    Default

    1, 2 and 5


    How'd I do?

  12. #112
    ME => GA 19AT3 rickb's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-12-2002
    Location
    Marlboro, MA
    Posts
    7,126
    Journal Entries
    1
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by D2maine View Post
    4.To maintain the facilities, infrastructure and data systems of the Park.
    I new Gov Baxter was prescient, but for him to have foreseen the need to maintain data systems with in the Park is beyond amazing!

    (D2maine adnd Egible are differnt people, right?)

  13. #113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tundracamper View Post
    Per Wikipedia...
    “Sole governance is provided by the Baxter State Park Authority, consisting of the Maine Attorney General, the Maine Commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and the Director of the Maine Forest Service.”
    Aren’t the salaries of all three of those individuals paid by tax dollars? Sounds like the Park Authority works for the citizens of the State of Maine. So, I would think the “their” in “their park” is the citizens, not the Park Authority.
    Since there seems to be a great deal of confusion about BSP, coupled with a remarkable inability or lack of desire to do some very simple research, I offer the following:

    Yes, the State does pay the salaries of the politically appointed positions cited and this function is included in their respective job descriptions. The Baxter Land Trust specifically defines the beneficiaries of the park for the "citizens of Maine", which the aforementioned office holders are considered the best way to ensure the tenets of the Baxter Trust guide park management and provide transparency to the pubic.

    BSP is funded through a variety of means, none of them involving State tax payers. Entry and camping fees along with revenues from wood products harvested from park land (per Trust conditions) provide nearly half the revenue required to fund park operations. Additional revenues come from Baxter trust funds set up to fund park maintenance in perpetuity. Independent trusts established by private citizens and groups also provide significant revenue for various park needs. Sponsor groups like "Friends of Baxter State Park" provide revenues and volunteer help that defrays park costs and direct donations to the park by individuals also represents a significant amount annually.

    BSP, though it has State Park in it's name, is a separate entity from the Maine State Park system and is not part of the Maine State Park system. BSP has its own employees that perform maintenance services and provide law enforcement (Rangers). Rangers do participate in State training for law enforcement and also have access to State Pension Plan participation (if the employee desires it). BSP sponsors the appropriate financial requirements of these employees to the State for training and pension inclusion. The State Forest Service Game Wardens provide additional coverage and protections for wildlife in the park, who are not BSP employees. Before the hollering starts about the park paying for their services, Game Wardens are not employees of private land owners in the State who rely on help from Wardens to enforce game laws, illegal trespass, and other regulations outside of local law enforcement venue.

    Succinctly, this is an extremely rare deed, if not a singular deed of land in terms of it's size, beauty, isolation, and management structure. As such, the tenets of Baxter's trust are meticulously followed to insure this area remains as wild as possible. If people have grievance with rules like the children under 6 above timberline, no pets allowed in the park, or alcohol prohibitions, they are welcome to write to the BSP Authority to express their displeasure, or if get onto a meeting agenda in attempt to modify the rule.

  14. #114
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06-18-2010
    Location
    NJ
    Age
    45
    Posts
    3,133
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by D2maine View Post
    lest see if you can figure out under which part of these objectives the park is going to feel the no 6yr olds above tree line rule falls

    The mission of Baxter State Park can be expressed in six primary objectives:

    1.To protect the natural resources of the Park for their intrinsic value and for the enjoyment of present and future generations.
    2.To provide various appropriate recreational opportunities to Park visitors.
    3.To conduct exemplary sustainable forest management operations within the 29,537 acre Scientific Forest Management Area of the Park.
    4.To maintain the facilities, infrastructure and data systems of the Park.
    5.To provide for the safety of Park staff and visitors.
    6.To manage and protect the fiscal integrity and independence of the Park for current and future generations.
    why isnt the rule something more like "no children under 48 inches tall above treeline." ?

    sorry, this is a bizarre rule. i respect their right to have it and don't for a second encourage or condone violating it, but i really don't agree with it.

  15. #115
    -
    Join Date
    08-14-2005
    Location
    Fort Madison, IA
    Age
    58
    Posts
    1,645

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by D2maine View Post
    lest see if you can figure out under which part of these objectives the park is going to feel the no 6yr olds above tree line rule falls

    The mission of Baxter State Park can be expressed in six primary objectives:

    1.To protect the natural resources of the Park for their intrinsic value and for the enjoyment of present and future generations.
    2.To provide various appropriate recreational opportunities to Park visitors.
    3.To conduct exemplary sustainable forest management operations within the 29,537 acre Scientific Forest Management Area of the Park.
    4.To maintain the facilities, infrastructure and data systems of the Park.
    5.To provide for the safety of Park staff and visitors.
    6.To manage and protect the fiscal integrity and independence of the Park for current and future generations.
    to me # 6 would be the primary as rescues cost $$ - so try to minimize the risk - but as I said before, then should there not be other limiting factors / prohibitions

  16. #116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by George View Post
    to me # 6 would be the primary as rescues cost $$ - so try to minimize the risk - but as I said before, then should there not be other limiting factors / prohibitions
    There are PLENTY of examples of teenagers being less responsible than a parent and 5 year old traveling together. The "no children under 6 rule" seems a bit much if they are allowing teenagers unaccompanied by responsible adults.

  17. #117
    Registered User
    Join Date
    01-03-2010
    Location
    Windham, Maine
    Age
    54
    Posts
    1,166

    Default

    You must be this tall to go on this ride




    Quote Originally Posted by tdoczi View Post
    why isnt the rule something more like "no children under 48 inches tall above treeline." ?

    sorry, this is a bizarre rule. i respect their right to have it and don't for a second encourage or condone violating it, but i really don't agree with it.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Let me go

  18. #118
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06-18-2010
    Location
    NJ
    Age
    45
    Posts
    3,133
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T.S.Kobzol View Post
    You must be this tall to go on this ride
    if it is really about safety that is the correct way to handle it and the only way in which it is enforceable.

    the way it is stated now seems more like someone just doesnt want little kids on top of the mountain.

  19. #119
    Registered User
    Join Date
    08-08-2012
    Location
    Taghkanic, New York, United States
    Posts
    3,144
    Journal Entries
    11

    Default

    1.To protect the natural resources of the Park for their intrinsic value and for the enjoyment of present and future generations.
    2.To provide various appropriate recreational opportunities to Park visitors.
    3.To conduct exemplary sustainable forest management operations within the 29,537 acre Scientific Forest Management Area of the Park.
    4.To maintain the facilities, infrastructure and data systems of the Park.
    5.To provide for the safety of Park staff and visitors.
    6.To manage and protect the fiscal integrity and independence of the Park for current and future generations

    1- The age restriction would seem to go against their first objective, denying parts fo the park to what is effectively the future generation.

    Also note the emphasis, as stated, is not on protecting the natural resources, but the reason of doing so, which is enjoyment of people.



  20. #120
    Registered User
    Join Date
    07-21-2014
    Location
    Bar Harbor, Maine
    Posts
    608

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Starchild View Post
    1.To protect the natural resources of the Park for their intrinsic value and for the enjoyment of present and future generations.
    2.To provide various appropriate recreational opportunities to Park visitors.
    3.To conduct exemplary sustainable forest management operations within the 29,537 acre Scientific Forest Management Area of the Park.
    4.To maintain the facilities, infrastructure and data systems of the Park.
    5.To provide for the safety of Park staff and visitors.
    6.To manage and protect the fiscal integrity and independence of the Park for current and future generations

    1- The age restriction would seem to go against their first objective, denying parts fo the park to what is effectively the future generation.

    Also note the emphasis, as stated, is not on protecting the natural resources, but the reason of doing so, which is enjoyment of people.


    Nah. I do not know the numbers. But the bodies of dead children have been carried from the summit. Leave the arrogance aside and respect the potential power of this, The Greatest Mountain.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 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
  •