Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 44
  1. #21
    ME => GA 19AT3 rickb's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-12-2002
    Location
    Marlboro, MA
    Posts
    7,028
    Journal Entries
    1
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Traveler View Post
    Encouraging or championing breaking of the rules at BSP (or other parks and places) is not only repugnant, but against forum policy.
    By and large the posts in this thread — like most posts in other threads — have NOT been encouraging or championing breaking of rules at BSP.

    Rather, the posts have been about challenging the notion that these existing rules are well founded and cannot be changed — either as general policy or in specific situations.

    That iis neither repugnant or against forum policy.

  2. #22
    ME => GA 19AT3 rickb's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-12-2002
    Location
    Marlboro, MA
    Posts
    7,028
    Journal Entries
    1
    Images
    1

    Default

    To be clear, everything else aside carrying an infant/toddler up Katahdin (and any rocky trail or stream crossing) is a scary proposition for me personally. At a minimum, I would think a parent would want to have the kid in a bike helmet.

    I can see how it would be difficult for an individual to sign off with a waiver to a safety policy that has been in place for a long time. Were I the individual doing so, I would be err stressed out about the whole thing.

    Who wouldn’t?

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rickb View Post
    By and large the posts in this thread — like most posts in other threads — have NOT been encouraging or championing breaking of rules at BSP.

    Rather, the posts have been about challenging the notion that these existing rules are well founded and cannot be changed — either as general policy or in specific situations.

    That iis neither repugnant or against forum policy.
    Thank you for being a grown up Rick.

  4. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RuthN View Post
    I highly doubt Rainier dreams of summiting Katahdin.
    Ruth, I've actually met Rainier and his family. While I'm not prepared to speak on their behalf their YouTube catalog makes their familial desire pretty clear. How'd you like to be literally attached to your family for six months and 2,200 miles then left behind while they leave to finish together? That's crappy! And grown ups suggesting it isn't is crappy too. Clearly THEY dream of finishing together - hence the name: "Fight For Together!".

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Traveler View Post
    I don't believe there is a special "authority" designation for someone who fully understands the regulatory landscape of BSP or other parks and places from educating someone who is ignorant of them. Rule and Regulations of BSP are easily found and written in plain language for easy comprehension. The characterization of a "strained relationship" with BSP and the ATC is not TJ's but one that has been of concern to both organizations and hikers alike for a number of years, culminating in a recent letter from BSP to ATC regarding thru hiker issues.

    If you need to quibble with rules, perhaps sending some questions to BSP about rules you disagree with will help you navigate these waters as opposed to casting aspersions toward those who are trying to help you understand them. Encouraging or championing breaking of the rules at BSP (or other parks and places) is not only repugnant, but against forum policy.
    The chat history here reveals "quibbling" is what ya'll are pretty much into. Thanks for raising the specter of policy again and insulting my intelligence, but still no word on who this TeeJ is. Funny he gets awful noisy when kids hike, but silent when asked who he is. In so far as "aspersions" are concerned I haven't actually cast any - I just don't believe Teej is empowered to speak for Baxter as he is, in all likelihood, not in the employ of BSP. His trumpeting of BSP policy coupled with his quasi-credentials presented on his WB facepage thingy is either BSP talking to us or we are meant to think so. I'm not so sure which, so I'm asking. Is Baxter talking to us here? (Adding further "strain" to its relationships!) Or, is Baxter being -as I suspect - misrepresented here? If so then why? Because grumpy old (I'm 62) virtual hikers states away hate it when kids do amazing things with their families? We can do better.

  6. #26

    Default

    da00940154f5685773958de358300266--tourist-sites-state-parks.jpg Children in cutoffs that came all the way from Yonkers will not be admitted into the CSP pool. No exceptions. Don't ask. Go back to Yonkers and cry if you want to it's your party.

    (Read in officious sounding stern man's voice.) "At CSP kids in cutoffs from Yonkers represent less than 6.7% of our swimmers, but 88% of our cannonballers!"

  7. #27

    Default

    I’d walk up to that sign, spit in its general direction, go home and think what a great hike it was...boo whoo.

  8. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rockit Mann View Post
    The chat history here reveals "quibbling" is what ya'll are pretty much into. Thanks for raising the specter of policy again and insulting my intelligence, but still no word on who this TeeJ is. Funny he gets awful noisy when kids hike, but silent when asked who he is. In so far as "aspersions" are concerned I haven't actually cast any - I just don't believe Teej is empowered to speak for Baxter as he is, in all likelihood, not in the employ of BSP. His trumpeting of BSP policy coupled with his quasi-credentials presented on his WB facepage thingy is either BSP talking to us or we are meant to think so. I'm not so sure which, so I'm asking. Is Baxter talking to us here? (Adding further "strain" to its relationships!) Or, is Baxter being -as I suspect - misrepresented here? If so then why? Because grumpy old (I'm 62) virtual hikers states away hate it when kids do amazing things with their families? We can do better.
    Wow. Well thats nice word salad and I can see something has you upset, but not real sure what. Was it because someone with experience weighed in on the issue and posted something about BSP rules? You have a disagreement with the rules in general or specific ones? Your concern that BSP being misrepresented somehow? My issue was based on your showing photos of people with infants at Katahdin summit inferring its ok to bring them there, which is where I got the drift you were endorsing doing an end run around established park rules, apologies if you were not.

    Since you are clearly very agitated about this issue, I suggest you correspond directly with the park authority "baxterstatepark.org" and direct your complaint to them instead of those who are merely echoing rules of park use in the forum. That same site will provide a download of park rules and regulations, permits, and other information you may find useful if you ever opt to travel there and take a look around.

    If your beef is with someone who has experience with the park and knows a lot about it, perhaps PM is the place to take this inquisition.

  9. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rickb View Post
    By and large the posts in this thread — like most posts in other threads — have NOT been encouraging or championing breaking of rules at BSP.

    Rather, the posts have been about challenging the notion that these existing rules are well founded and cannot be changed — either as general policy or in specific situations.

    That iis neither repugnant or against forum policy.
    The photos of infants at the summit appeared to be used as an inference that rules can and should be broken. I have seen photos used to promote the "rules without thought should be ignored" concept like inferring its ok for supervised teens to drink beer at lawn parties using photos. Thats where I thought the direction was going.

    So far as challenging the notion, have you taken any further steps to inquire at the BSP site? Could be its a rule that allows exceptions.

  10. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rockit Mann View Post
    Attachment 43344 Attachment 43345 Attachment 43343 Attachment 43346 Attachment 43347 prec-e-dent noun 1. An earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or GUIDE to be CONSIDERED in subsequent similar circumstances.

    I'm not sorry. I happen to think that kids should be allowed to have amazing adventures outdoors and we as adults should challenge them to do so - not discourage them from doing so.
    Are the children in these pictures under six years old? Source of info on ages?

  11. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rockit Mann View Post
    Attachment 43344 Attachment 43345 Attachment 43343 Attachment 43346 Attachment 43347 prec-e-dent noun 1. An earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or GUIDE to be CONSIDERED in subsequent similar circumstances.

    I'm not sorry. I happen to think that kids should be allowed to have amazing adventures outdoors and we as adults should challenge them to do so - not discourage them from doing so.
    The kids in picture 5 were 9 and 8, so the rules would have allowed them on the mountain.
    https://kallinfamily.com/

  12. #32
    ME => GA 19AT3 rickb's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-12-2002
    Location
    Marlboro, MA
    Posts
    7,028
    Journal Entries
    1
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Traveler View Post
    So far as challenging the notion, have you taken any further steps to inquire at the BSP site? Could be its a rule that allows exceptions.
    No, I have not. Why would I?

    The child’s motherhas made such inquires, however. That seems much more appropriate.

    I would think that as a rule — not a law — that the Park Super would have wide latitude in deciding on how/if to implement it.

  13. #33
    ME => GA 19AT3 rickb's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-12-2002
    Location
    Marlboro, MA
    Posts
    7,028
    Journal Entries
    1
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gpburdelljr View Post
    The kids in picture 5 were 9 and 8, so the rules would have allowed them on the mountain.
    https://kallinfamily.com/

    If the Park knew one kid was 5 and allowed him to summit, that suggests that the rule is not set in stone.


    Probably an an easier decision to allow a 5 year up (either with formal permission or with a wink and a nod) than a toddler in an baby carrier though.

  14. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gpburdelljr View Post
    The kids in picture 5 were 9 and 8, so the rules would have allowed them on the mountain.
    https://kallinfamily.com/
    Quote Originally Posted by rickb View Post
    If the Park knew one kid was 5 and allowed him to summit, that suggests that the rule is not set in stone.


    Probably an an easier decision to allow a 5 year up (either with formal permission or with a wink and a nod) than a toddler in an baby carrier though.
    You misread my comment. The two kids in picture number 5, of post number 4, were 8 and 9 years old. I recognized the picture from a trail journal. I don’t know who the kids in the other summit photos are, and no one has confirmed if any of the kids in post number 4 were less than 6 years old.

  15. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Traveler View Post
    Wow. Well thats nice word salad and I can see something has you upset, but not real sure what. Was it because someone with experience weighed in on the issue and posted something about BSP rules? You have a disagreement with the rules in general or specific ones? Your concern that BSP being misrepresented somehow? My issue was based on your showing photos of people with infants at Katahdin summit inferring its ok to bring them there, which is where I got the drift you were endorsing doing an end run around established park rules, apologies if you were not.

    Since you are clearly very agitated about this issue, I suggest you correspond directly with the park authority "baxterstatepark.org" and direct your complaint to them instead of those who are merely echoing rules of park use in the forum. That same site will provide a download of park rules and regulations, permits, and other information you may find useful if you ever opt to travel there and take a look around.

    If your beef is with someone who has experience with the park and knows a lot about it, perhaps PM is the place to take this inquisition.
    Ugh. No beef - no salad fella. Rules is rules and should be followed but the stupid or just flat mean ones warrant review and prolly changin'. We do it all the time - with laws too which are different BTW. Chill out man it's Sunday. Still no word on who TeeJ works for hey? Still waitin'.

  16. #36
    Registered User egilbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-18-2014
    Location
    Lewiston and Biddeford, Maine
    Age
    58
    Posts
    2,643

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rockit Mann View Post
    Ugh. No beef - no salad fella. Rules is rules and should be followed but the stupid or just flat mean ones warrant review and prolly changin'. We do it all the time - with laws too which are different BTW. Chill out man it's Sunday. Still no word on who TeeJ works for hey? Still waitin'.

    Does it really matter for whom he works? I'm pretty sure its not BSP since he lives 5 hours from the park. From his Facebook postings, I would say he has a bigger influence with KWW, but I could be wrong.

  17. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rockit Mann View Post
    Really? If no one stopped them then they were what? Allowed.
    Hope you're never on a jury for a rape trial. Lol.

  18. #38
    Registered User soilman's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-29-2010
    Location
    Chillicothe, OH
    Age
    66
    Posts
    559

    Default

    I am all in for kids experiencing the outdoors. My daughter went on an overnight 100 mile bicycle ride when she was 1. I took her cross country skiing when she was 2. She went on her first overnight backpacking trip when she was 3. Like it or not, there are all kinds of laws and rules protecting children. There are laws in most states that require young children to ride in a car confined to a car seat or booster seat. Childhood immunization, smoke free cars, etc. I don't know the history of the age requirement on Katahdin. Maybe it was put into place when 9 year old Donn Fendler became lost on Katahdin for 8 days?
    More walking, less talking.

  19. #39

    Default

    Maybe Rainier should skip K and summit Rainier.

  20. #40

    Default

    Did this kid hike the distance from GA to current location or was he/she carried by a parent or other family member(s)?

    Does this kid have the physical ability to climb to the summit of Katahdin on his/her own?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
++ New Posts ++

Posting Permissions

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