No children under 6 allowed above timberline in Baxter Sate Park.

[Tundracamper]

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.

[D2maine]

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.

[D2maine]

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

[TJ aka Teej]

"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."

[George]

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

[rickb]

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.

[T.S.Kobzol]

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rickb]

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.

[Tundracamper]

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

[D2maine]

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.

[egilbe]

1, 2 and 5


How'd I do?

[rickb]

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?)

[Traveler]

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.

[tdoczi]

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.

[George]

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

[FreeGoldRush]

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.

[T.S.Kobzol]

You must be this tall to go on this ride

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

[tdoczi]

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.

[Starchild]

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.

[Heliotrope]

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