the down side of Scott Jurek's record AT hike-- Baxter state park condemnation

[Doza13]

I think everybody should follow the park rules as well. I am not absolving him, I was giving him the benefit of the doubt as that's the way the system works. He was not proven guilty of anything. The park's response was vindictive the more I think about it. BSP LEO gives Scott 3 citations. It's not picked up in the news and they were unhappy about it and took to that wonderful place to vent sour grapes--Facebook. That's an uncommon thing BTW for law enforcement to do. They usually go with the allegedly's and stick to the facts and they generally don't try to pillory the individual outright before they get to see the judge. It's that whole innocent before proven guilty thing. Not seeming to be the case here in how they are treating it. Yeah they are trying to get the AT out of the park. A few months back I wrote that I thought the park was not handling their interaction with the ATC with reasonable bearing. Same again here IMO.

Great take. BSP's sour grapes and attempt to use facebook to push an agenda just strikes me as poor judgment, and really what I have issue with. I have no problem with the 3 tickets. He broke the rules.

[egilbe]

Great take. BSP's sour grapes and attempt to use facebook to push an agenda just strikes me as poor judgment, and really what I have issue with. I have no problem with the 3 tickets. He broke the rules.

Will you have a problem with no access to BSP?

[tdoczi]

The trails that the AT follows through the Whites, pre-dates the AT. They were there first. The AT is just using pre-existing trails so they are marked accordingly. The solution to not being able to follow the AT through the White mountains is to buy a map.

agree 100%, and if (unlikely, but speaking hypothetically) the AT through the whites ceased to exist those trails would still be there and thered be no perceptible change in the number of people who hiked them. but search these boards and youll find recurring whining about how the AT through the whites is too hard to follow, speculation as to whos fault it is (whether its amc or the usfs that isnt doing their job right) theoretical "solutions" to the "problem", and on and on. what most of these people miss is that no one in involved in the operation of the WMNF has to do diddly to accommodate the AT and further, that there is very little incentive for them to do so. they would continue on just fine without the AT running across their land.

the same applies to BSP.

[Coffee]

I BSP going to remove the trail currently designated as at AT that reaches the current northern terminus? Obviously not. Nothing is going to stop thru hikers from using BSP in the future as long as they play by the rules. If there are new rules in place that BSP feels are needed to fulfill their mandate, they can put those rules in place. Hikers will still be able to do exactly the same hike they do today regardless of whether the AT "officially" ends at the park boundary or not.

Publicly calling someone out on Facebook may be poor form but it doesn't change the fact that park rules were violated. As someone who repeatedly wrote that the idea that Jurek & crew had not cleared things with BSP in advance was ridiculous, I have to say that I'm disappointed that what I thought was obvious protocol wasn't followed.

[TrailRunnerGuy]

A few minutes on SJ's FB page:

"Really gotta hand it to Jenny. I packed out ALL my trash on the AT and she sorted through everything, picked out all the Clif Bar wrappers and pouches, saved them until she could send them to TerraCycle to be recycled. Over the course of 46 days, she sent four packages of wrappers (1400+). If you haven't heard of TerraCycle, check them out! You can print a prepaid label, it's that easy. Let's keep our trail waste out of landfills!"

A picture of wrappers in boxes is included.

I'd say he did better than most on the AT. Clearly he wasn't perfect, and I figured the champagne was going to be an issue.

I bet if he'd have just touched the sign and turned around and walked back down the hill, he'd have been criticized by some for belittling JPD's record as not worthy of celebration for beating.

I don't know much about BSP, but maybe they wouldn't spend 20% of their resources on the 3% thru-hikers (or whatever the numbers are) if they didn't follow thru-hikers up the hill looking for them to do something, anything, wrong. BSP looks like idiots, IMO, for their post.

[Sly]

Quibble time.

I am not 100% sure about this, but I believe that professional WMNF crews are responsible for marking the AT where it passes over the Presidentials.

The AMC does a tremendous amount of Trail work on and off the AT in the Whites, of course.

I just think that any work they do above treeline in the Presidentials would be in a supporting role to the National Forest Service which I believe has primary responsibility for that stretch.

Happy to be corrected if I am wrong.

Quibbling is fine, the point is the AT through the WMNF isn't going anywhere. That's it's poorly marked through there is secondary.

[CalebJ]

That's the confusing part, Coffee. In one sentence BSP refers to a media permit existing (so they apparently did clear -something-) and in the next claims that Jurek, et al didn't respect a rule about not filming 500 meters from Katahdin. From what I've seen, the people that have looked up the permit structure haven't found any reference in the permit to that rule. Did Jurek/his crew/other groups like Runners World that showed up even know that the rule existed?

The alcohol issue is an obvious legitimate citation, assuming that it was clearly posted. The rest just seems like BSP acting like bullies and publicly airing their laundry.

[Coffee]

That's the confusing part, Coffee. In one sentence BSP refers to a media permit existing (so they apparently did clear -something-) and in the next claims that Jurek, et al didn't respect a rule about not filming 500 meters from Katahdin. From what I've seen, the people that have looked up the permit structure haven't found any reference in the permit to that rule. Did Jurek/his crew/other groups like Runners World that showed up even know that the rule existed?

The alcohol issue is an obvious legitimate citation, assuming that it was clearly posted. The rest just seems like BSP acting like bullies and publicly airing their laundry.

Yes, it is confusing. I'm hoping Jurek tells his side of the story at some point, hopefully admitting that the alcohol was a violation and taking ownership/responsibility for that. He is a role model for many of us and we need to hear his side of this.

[tdoczi]

Quibbling is fine, the point is the AT through the WMNF isn't going anywhere. That's it's poorly marked through there is secondary.

and i was by no means saying or implying it was going anywhere. its just another example of people thinking the AT is more important than it is.

[ExNihilo]

Can someone explain in simple terms why Scott's record should have an asterisk? It appears to me that he completed the hike legitimately and in record time. An asterisk is generally denoting an exception, if you feel there is one, please state specifically what it is (i.e. what FKT guideline he violated) and not pontificate (like anyone on WB would do such a thing). I am not trying to stoke any flames, only trying to understand.

[Coffee]

Only reasons for an "asterisk" is if he deviated from the AT at some point or used performance enhancing drugs. There's no evidence of either. Violating a law or regulation is bad form but doesn't take away from the physical accomplishment. I'm not sure how anyone could argue otherwise.

[BirdBrain]

Can someone explain in simple terms why Scott's record should have an asterisk? It appears to me that he completed the hike legitimately and in record time. An asterisk is generally denoting an exception, if you feel there is one, please state specifically what it is (i.e. what FKT guideline he violated) and not pontificate (like anyone on WB would do such a thing). I am not trying to stoke any flames, only trying to understand.

I do not believe he deserves an asterisk. His accomplishment was legit and incredible. I do not believe he cheated. But if someone really wanted to be petty and look for a technicality, where is the proof that he ever made it to the Katahdin Cairn?

Ya', I am done trying to make logical points. Few seem interested in a resolution.

[Sly]

SJ has been cited by BSP. Assuming he pays the fines what other possible resolution is there? Of course, he may go to court and argue group size, and littering (if he picked up the cork), but what else is there?

[Alligator]

That's the confusing part, Coffee. In one sentence BSP refers to a media permit existing (so they apparently did clear -something-) and in the next claims that Jurek, et al didn't respect a rule about not filming 500 meters from Katahdin. From what I've seen, the people that have looked up the permit structure haven't found any reference in the permit to that rule. Did Jurek/his crew/other groups like Runners World that showed up even know that the rule existed?

The alcohol issue is an obvious legitimate citation, assuming that it was clearly posted. The rest just seems like BSP acting like bullies and publicly airing their laundry.

Here is an actual permit granted, but not SJ's. It is not complete as it does not have all the information provided by the permittee. http://www.baxterstateparkauthority....ontent8_21.pdf

In case I didn't post these previously,
the media permit http://www.baxterstateparkauthority....EDIAPERMIT.pdf
and some of the rules http://www.baxterstateparkauthority....diaPolicy2.pdf

[imscotty]

That's the confusing part, Coffee. In one sentence BSP refers to a media permit existing (so they apparently did clear -something-) and in the next claims that Jurek, et al didn't respect a rule about not filming 500 meters from Katahdin. From what I've seen, the people that have looked up the permit structure haven't found any reference in the permit to that rule. Did Jurek/his crew/other groups like Runners World that showed up even know that the rule existed?

The alcohol issue is an obvious legitimate citation, assuming that it was clearly posted. The rest just seems like BSP acting like bullies and publicly airing their laundry.

My presumption is that the 500' restriction was a special added clause in recognition that this event would draw a crowd and in an attempt to keep that crowd from monopolizing the summit. BSP officials have a legitimate concern about thru-hike celebrations impinging on the summit experience for other hikers. I do not know if there were any day hikers or others who were waiting that day to 'touch the sign' or whatever, but I was surprised at the length of time the interview went on for in that location.

[imscotty]

Can someone explain in simple terms why Scott's record should have an asterisk? It appears to me that he completed the hike legitimately and in record time. An asterisk is generally denoting an exception, if you feel there is one, please state specifically what it is (i.e. what FKT guideline he violated) and not pontificate (like anyone on WB would do such a thing). I am not trying to stoke any flames, only trying to understand.

It shouldn't. I think the original asterisk comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek. He hiked it in record time, end to end.

[Sly]

I do not know if there were any day hikers or others who were waiting that day to 'touch the sign' or whatever, but I was surprised at the length of time the interview went on for in that location.

Yeah, that part surprised me too. Of course, it wouldn't have stopped me from touching the sign, with a little look and a wave to the camera

[Lauriep]

I wanted to share some information on behalf of ATC for those who wonder what our role is and what we have been doing to address the concerns Baxter State Park has raised.

The Appalachian Trail Conservancy (ATC--the lead non-profit agency responsible for management of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, in partnership with the National Park Service, approximately 80 federal, state, and local agencies, and 6000 volunteers in 31 local trail maintaining clubs) has been working with Baxter State Park to address and to find solutions to the growing concerns the park has had with A.T. users. A long-planned meeting is being held in Millinocket next week and will include representatives from ATC's New England region, ATC HQ, the Maine Appalachian Trail Club, Friends of Baxter State Park, and ALDHA (the Appalachian Long Distance Hikers Association). Other stakeholders have also been invited.

The timing of this face-to-face meeting is fortuitous, as more dialog is certainly needed, as well as more education of trail users, especially thru-hikers reaching Baxter State Park. However, the statement that "the AT is apparently comfortable with the fit of this type of event in its mission," is not accurate. Competitive events, commercial use, fundraising, and large-group use are discouraged by ATC, and with our support, are often against the regulations of local agencies along the A.T. However, different agencies along the A.T. have widely differing regulations and policies. ATC always asks hikers to follow the regulations of the land-owning agency, and wherever they are, to follow Leave No Trace practices. Unfortunately, enforcement of regulations and policies in many areas outside of Baxter State Parks is challenging as there are several hundred unrestricted access points.There is also only one ranger exclusively devoted to the A.T., although seasonal "ridgerunners" and volunteers often work with local law enforcement.

A trailwide A.T. policy was developed and passed earlier this year by ATC that formalizes our position on these topics, but policy takes time to share and implement. We share similar goals of resource protection and safeguarding the user experience that Baxter does. Our policies can be found on our website here: http://www.appalachiantrail.org/what...ement-policies.

ATC already has a number of new initiatives underway or in development that promote Leave No Trace, responsible thru-hiker education online and on the ground, and initiatives that disperse thru-hikers more evenly along the Trail. We have also been developing materials and plans to better educate hikers about Baxter policies and regulations. We look forward to meeting with Baxter State Park next week so together we can safeguard both the Appalachian Trail and Katahdin and honor our intended uses.

Laurie P.
ATC

[Dogwood]

Great take. BSP's sour grapes and attempt to use facebook to push an agenda just strikes me as poor judgment, and really what I have issue with. I have no problem with the 3 tickets. He broke the rules.

For BSP, with somewhat limited resources, using Facebook media to get a targeted message across to potentially a large audience could also be viewed as a smart public relations play.

[Dogwood]

Thanks Laurie.

"ATC already has a number of new initiatives underway or in development that promote Leave No Trace, responsible thru-hiker education online and on the ground,.... We have also been developing materials and plans to better educate hikers about Baxter policies and regulations."


I, for one, am extremely eager for the ATC to share how they are MEANINGFULLY developing and promoting responsible thru-hiker education on the ground. I would surely like to notice these new initiatives making a meaningful impact on this group as a whole.