WhiteBlaze Pages 2024
A Complete Appalachian Trail Guidebook.
AVAILABLE NOW. $4 for interactive PDF(smartphone version)
Read more here WhiteBlaze Pages Store

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 54
  1. #21
    Registered User egilbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-18-2014
    Location
    Lewiston and Biddeford, Maine
    Age
    61
    Posts
    2,643

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tdoczi View Post
    it never stops being funny when people think that BSP (or the whites, or SNP or GSMNP or any number of other places along the trail) needs the AT more than the AT needs it.

    if there were ever a successful boycott odds are no one would notice. the few who did would likely throw a party to celebrate it.
    I'm thinking of throwing a party to encourage people to boycott Baxter. Hard to keep an area forever wild when one has to bow to the wishes of people from away who have no idea the reason the park exists.

  2. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    11-01-2014
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Age
    62
    Posts
    2,500

    Default

    Maybe we should start a movement to boycott the AT. I think the AT would beinifit from a few less hikers as well.
    I'm not lost. I'm exploring.

  3. #23

    Default

    Baxter Park has a terrible reputation - according to a few people who've never been there.
    Teej

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

  4. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    11-01-2014
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Age
    62
    Posts
    2,500

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TJ aka Teej View Post
    Baxter Park has a terrible reputation - according to a few people who've never been there.
    I will report that my only direct experience with Baxter was an exceedingly nice and exceptionally helpful woman that I talked to on the phone a few days ago. She was probably the most pleasant and helpful phone assistance I've had from anyone for anything in years!
    I'm not lost. I'm exploring.

  5. #25

    Default

    I don't profess to know all of the inside issues between the ATC and BSP (under Jensen Bissell), but my experience in BSP was unsurpassed on any trail. The rangers approached me several times in a friendly and helpful manner and were very encouraging of AT thru hikers. The short hike up the Hunt Trail is an epic finish to a long journey, one that I think about virtually every day. Anyone that forgoes this experience to make some silly political statement is being a fool. I respect BSP's charter and wish the ATC would work more closely with them to re-establish the partnership. Hopefully new leadership in both organizations will mend some fences.

  6. #26
    Registered User
    Join Date
    04-21-2008
    Location
    Bangor, Maine
    Posts
    179

    Default

    I'm all for your boycott. But I'm just curious, are there specific demands? More special treatment than what is already shown to long-distance hikers? Another campsite exclusively for them? No capacity restrictions? No age restrictions above treeline?

    I'm not on social media, so I'm not in the "in circle" of AT hiker rights activists. So I am serious in asking anyone who knows.

  7. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rockit Mann View Post
    The parks charter is preserve the wilderness, not to let everyone enjoy it.

    Now you are starting to get it. The primary tenet of the trust is "forever wild", which means wilderness over people when decisions of park populations, regulations, and use have to be made. It's a unique place in the US, with it comes unique circumstances some people in our instant gratification society take a while to digest

  8. #28

    Default

    So is the boycott real or just chatter? Google turned up nothing.

  9. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Traveler View Post
    [/LEFT]
    Now you are starting to get it. The primary tenet of the trust is "forever wild", which means wilderness over people when decisions of park populations, regulations, and use have to be made.
    Not so fast. Baxter's initial gift to the state was two parcels totaling 5,960 acres. This includes Katahdin. In the deed Baxter writes his intentions of "public park" and "recreational purposes" before stating any other intent. I'm reading this directly for the original documents.

  10. #30

    Default

    This one quote from Baxter should clear up much of the nonsense and untruths written here about BSP:

    "In all the deeds from me to the State the phrases 'natural wild state' and 'as a sanctuary for wild beast and birds' have been used. By these I do not intend that the Park forever shall be a region unvisited and neglected by man. I seek to provide against commercial exploitation, against hunting, trapping and killing, against lumbering, hotels, advertising, hot-dog stands, motor vehicles, horse-drawn vehicles and other vehicles, air-craft, and the trappings of unpleasant civilization. Nor is the Park to be kept exclusively for professional mountain climbers, it is for everybody."

    He clearly intended for all hikers of all ages (everybody!) to be able to walk through this area.

    The people who are blaming Baxter and his trust for the arrogant, exclusionary behavior at BSP are just off the charts ridiculous. He was very clear that he wanted commercial activity kept out, and EVERYBODY allowed in.

    Now if there is a reasonable and logical reason to exclude people then that is a reasonable discussion to have. But don't act like our hands are tied because of one man named Baxter.

  11. #31
    Registered User egilbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-18-2014
    Location
    Lewiston and Biddeford, Maine
    Age
    61
    Posts
    2,643

    Default

    How does one keep Baxter Park forever wild and creating f a Santa Monica freeway to appease the fat tourists from Georgia

  12. #32
    Registered User
    Join Date
    11-01-2014
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Age
    62
    Posts
    2,500

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeGoldRush View Post
    . . . "In all the deeds . . . I seek to provide against . . . motor vehicles, horse-drawn vehicles and other vehicles, air-craft, and the trappings of unpleasant civilization. . .
    Oops. What happened? I see roads and car camping sites along with lean-tos and cabins for rent inside the park?! I expected to see parking around the perimeter of the park and nothing but trails inside.

    It must be that park managers have decided to follow their interpretation of the spirit of the deeds and overlooked the letter of them to truly make it accessible to everyone including those that are not avid back-country foot travelers or paddlers. It looks to me like the deeds leave some conflicting priorities and thus park managers have no choice but the weigh the different and conflicting priorities of the deeds in the decision making. Personally, it looks to me like the managers grew up in a car oriented culture and have interpreted with irresponsible biases toward the access side and not the wild side, ignoring the "providing against . . . motor vehicles" clause. But then, I also haven't read all the deeds.

    I think it would be interesting if Baxter were such a park where motorized vehicles were not permitted at all. Denali AK is a much larger and much wilder park where private vehicles are not allowed on the one road into the park past park headquarters (except with special permits).
    I'm not lost. I'm exploring.

  13. #33

    Default

    Well said, nsherry61. To be most consistent with Mr. Baxter's own words they would remove all roads, structures, and electric power. Maintain trails for foot travel only. And above all, allow access to EVERYBODY. That means that if someone wants to quietly walk in simply to enjoy the experience of being there, then they are welcomed. No limits on thru hikers, age, etc.

    It is also clear that the State owns the park. People have said here that it should be viewed as a private entity because of the trust. That's nonsense. If the State really wants to operate it as Mr. Baxter wanted then it's not complicated. But it is a public entity (as Baxter said he wanted) and it is run by the State.

  14. #34
    AT 11,000 Miler
    Join Date
    01-06-2003
    Location
    Dayton, OH
    Posts
    403
    Images
    1

    Default

    I think a 2019 KATAHDIN SUMMIT & BSP BOYCOTT is an awesome idea! How do I donate to this cause?

    I'm thinking an appropriate finishing point for the boycotters is the Abol Bridge Campground Store. They can drink all of the beer, wine and champagne they want, gather in groups larger than 12 people, make noise and litter on the restaurant floor. We can build a pile of rocks in the parking lot and call it "Little K" for them to summit.

    As for the demands of the boycotters? I'm guessing it will be along the lines of "My mommy and daddy always said I was special, I want BSP to think I'm special too!"

  15. #35
    GSMNP 900 Miler
    Join Date
    02-25-2007
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Age
    57
    Posts
    4,861
    Journal Entries
    1
    Images
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nsherry61 View Post
    Oops. What happened? I see roads and car camping sites along with lean-tos and cabins for rent inside the park?! I expected to see parking around the perimeter of the park and nothing but trails inside.
    Not to pick on nsherry61... but this seems to be a perfect example of where people seem to be passing along incomplete statements that others pick up on, pass along themselves, leading others to jump to conclusions that are completely false.

    To put it simply... the deeding of Baxter State Park is NOT simple.

    Everyone seems to talk about "The Deed"... but there was no "the deed". The creation of Baxter State Park was a multi-step process, and the land grant was not one simple all encompassing deed.
    With just a little bit of research... here is an example of what I have learned:

    The 1st parcel of land deeded to the state said "...that no roads or ways for motor vehicles shall hereafter ever be constructed thereon or therein...".

    It would seem that people are passing this information on without the full context. As such, others read these incomplete statements and suddenly jump to the conclusion that Baxter's wish was for there to be "no roads" in Baxter State park and that the State of Maine has simply decided to ignore his wishes to do what they want.

    But those words were only used in the deeding of the 1st parcel. It was NOT included in the deed for parcel #2 and #3 (and perhaps in none of the remaining parcels).

    I'm guessing that that 1st parcel was likely Mt. Katahdin. Has the Baxter State Park paved a road to the top of Mt. Katahdin? Have they created a trail that you can drive a horse drawn carriage to the top of Mt. Katahdin? Of course not.


    I guess, over-all, what I'm saying is that most you arguing that things in Baxter State Park should be "this way" or "that way" don't really have a clue about the full story of the creation nor the maintenance of Baxter State Park. It would seem you're simply choosing to take the partial truths and statements that fit with what your desire for the park should be and trying to tell the park what they should be doing.

    Rather than complaining and arguing about what rules and regulations Baxter State Park puts in place in their efforts to fulfill Baxter's vision for this land, they should instead simply be thankful to the foresight and generosity of Baxter, and visit the park in a manor consistent with those rules and regulations.

  16. #36
    Registered User egilbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-18-2014
    Location
    Lewiston and Biddeford, Maine
    Age
    61
    Posts
    2,643

    Default

    It started off so we'll, too.

    The trust is, I think, 32 separate deeds with each deed having it's own conditions and stipulations. Hence, why there is a tote road, which was a logging road, pre-dating the trust. It was grandfathered in. There is also a section of the park where hunting and trapping is allowed, another section where logging and it's effects are studied. Those exclusions to the "forever wild" wording is spelled out explicitly in the trust. Did anyone actually read the article linked?

  17. #37
    Registered User egilbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-18-2014
    Location
    Lewiston and Biddeford, Maine
    Age
    61
    Posts
    2,643

    Default

    It started off so we'll, too.

    The trust is, I think, 32 separate deeds with each deed having it's own conditions and stipulations. Hence, why there is a tote road, which was a logging road, pre-dating the trust. It was grandfathered in. There is also a section of the park where hunting and trapping is allowed, another section where logging and it's effects are studied. Those exclusions to the "forever wild" wording is spelled out explicitly in the trust. Did anyone actually read the article linked?

  18. #38
    ME => GA 19AT3 rickb's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-12-2002
    Location
    Marlboro, MA
    Posts
    7,145
    Journal Entries
    1
    Images
    1

    Default

    BSP is a great place, and run by some very dedicated people.

    The park serves the needs of a wide range of users, in different ways.

    This is a a beautiful thing.

    Some users will discover the park provides amazing rustic cabins with gas lanterns, cut firewood and canoes that families have enjoyed for generations (many at the very same spot and dates) at very affordable prices.

    Other users will find rustic car camping oportunities, or backcountry bunkhouses. Still others will find group camping areas, and many more will find day hiking oportunities and special interpretive programs.

    Thru hikers needs are accomodated as well, by and large, but in still different ways— right down to loaner day packs by friendly staff. Various user groups use the Park differnently, and the park recognizes this by their actions. All should be grateful for this jewel of a park.

    The park has a manadate not only to provide a refuge for bird and beast, but to ensure used to the fullest extent but in the right unspoiled manner.

    So so far so good!

    That the park and it stewards are concerned about crowds on Katahdin is wholly appropriate.

    Not sure why focus seems to be on capping thru hikers arriving at end of season, rather than managing the numbers on early August weekends, though.

    Last edited by rickb; 08-20-2018 at 21:00.

  19. #39
    Registered User
    Join Date
    08-18-2017
    Location
    On the Trail
    Posts
    397

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rickb View Post
    BSP is a great place, and run by some very dedicated people.

    The park serves the needs of a wide range of users, in different ways.

    This is a a beautiful thing.

    Some users will discover the park provided amazing rustic cabins with gas lanterns, cut firewood and canoes that families have enjoyed for generations (same at the very same spot and dates) at very affordable prices.

    Other users will find rustic car camping oportunities, or backcountry bunkhouses. Still others will find group camping areas, and many more will find day hiking oportunities.

    Thru hikers needs are accomodated as well, by and large, but on still differnt ways— right down to loaner day packs by friendly staff. Various user groups use the Park differnently, and the park recognizes this by their action.

    The park has a manadate not only to provide a refuge for bird and beast, but to ensure used to the fullest extent but in the right unspoiled manner.

    So so far so good!

    That the park and it stewards are concerned about crowds on Katahdin is wholly appropriate.

    Not sure why focus seems to be on capping thru hikers arriving at end of season, rather than managing the numbers on early August weekends, though.

    you are free to ask them and report back or you could look at what the park has said about the subject and form an opinion

    in the end i think it boils down to the park is not designed or managed for the unlimited growth model of the AT and it looks like they decided to cap long distance hiker numbers before it got out of control.

    My only argument in what they did is why use sobos in the capped numbers, they have to enter the park like everybody else and thus do not receive any special privilege other than a loaner day pack that i know of.

  20. #40
    ME => GA 19AT3 rickb's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-12-2002
    Location
    Marlboro, MA
    Posts
    7,145
    Journal Entries
    1
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by D2maine View Post
    My only argument in what they did is why use sobos in the capped numbers, they have to enter the park like everybody else and thus do not receive any special privilege other than a loaner day pack that i know of.
    Very good point.

    Do you have any theories why they would do such a thing?

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
  •