Appalachian Trail record-setter says Baxter State Park officials 'vilifying' him - Pr

[Another Kevin]

Contrary to your assertion, Scott and company were not notified by the Rangers of the rules, they were told in advance by the rangers that their conduct was okay. Park employees at the summit evidently joined in applauding and celebrating Scott's achievement, As I'm sure you would have had you been there, And as I certainly would have had I've been there. What he did was awesome and worthy of celebration. But no, Baxter employees did not notify Scott and company and then fairly enforce the rules. It was more of a bait and switch which, had it been done to you, would likely have made you furious as it would any reasonable person. To pretend otherwise is dishonest.

I have many reservations about how BSP handled the issue procedurally.

The reported conversation with the rangers before the ascent gives the appearance of a waiver granted and then arbitrarily rescinded without notice.

The citation for excessive party size appears to be founded upon the crowd of well-wishers who attached themselves to Mr Jurek's entourage. Holding him strictly liable for those raises the question of how far his duty to control party size extends. Is he required to ask politely that they leave? Make a stronger attempt to drive them away? Abandon the attempt to ascend if they will not disperse? Or merely accept guilt for the fact that a famous person attracts a crowd? Nevertheless, administrative violations such as this frequently are strict-liability. But for him, the crowd would not have gathered; no mens rea is required. It would certainly have been an intersting publicity message had Mr Jurek turned around once well-wishers had failed to disperse and sworn out a complaint against them at the next opportunity. Is it true that nothing less would have satisfied the law in this case?

The citation for littering, I'll accept. Spraying champagne is improper disposal of wastewater/food waste above treeline. It is possible to open a bottle in celebration without indulging in a symbolic orgasm at the moment of victory. I know; I've been in parties that have had a discreet toast upon achieving a goal. (Perhaps the most memorable was that John Burroughs's granddaughter shared a sip of champagne with me when she successfully reënacted his ascent of Slide Mountain.)

The citation for public drinking - given that permission was sought and apparently granted - was petty, but it is unclear what the legal standing might be if the ranger was acting ultra vires in granting permission. In any case, with discretion it could surely have been avoided. It is very difficult to get a conviction for public drinking when the bottle is enclosed in a paper bag, the drink is hidden by the ubiquitous red plastic cup, the participants are not obviously intoxicated, and consent to search is not obtained. The courts look dimly on fishing expeditions.

If Mr Jurek was cited personally for infractions committed by the media crew, that is ridiculous. Respondeat superior does not apply. Even if Mr Jurek received an indirect benefit of publicity from their actions, they were not in his employ or acting under his direction. They worked for their respective magazines, broadcasters, publishers. The law here, nevertheless, permits very narrow interpretations of commercial activity. The FAA has held that posting drone video to YouTube retroactively makes the drone flight 'commercial aviation' by virtue of the advertising attached to the video. It is possible that under this type of interpretation, Mr Jurek's party was in violation of the 'no commercial photography' rule simply by failing to take action to ensure that their celebratory snapshots with camera phones were not shared with the media. [1] Did Mr Jurek obtain permission to display the Clif Bar logo on his headband? [2]

The most disturbing procedural point, to me, is that Mr Bissell's office issued multiple press releases regarding the citations prior to Mr Jurek's even being arraigned, much less convicted. You're an attorney - what would you say about a prosecutor who insists on trying his case in the media so as to make a tangentially related political point?

In any case, the public conduct of Mr Bissell damages public support for the point that he claims to wish to advance: that the sheer number of A-T hikers has strained his resources beyond the breaking point. I'm making the charitable interpretation that the strain had simply driven him to his personal breaking point - that this is indeed a bid to leverage a well-publicized and sponsored event to call attention to his plight.

As petty as that move might be, it does actually support the idea that the plight is real. The narrative that Mr Bissell is advancing is that A-T users are too numerous for the park to hope to accommodate, and that a comprehensive reappraisal of the relationship between the park and the A-T (either by relocating the trail, or by enacting severe restrictions on the number of its users) is long overdue.

I think that those who pillory Jurek - and equally, those who pillory Bissell - are in fact trying to deny that broader reality. The Trail has been loved to death, and maybe if they heap all the blame on the one individual who stepped a short way over the line in a very public setting, they can postpone the inevitable for one season longer. If we sacrifice Jurek for transgressing so visibly, perhaps our own transgressions will be tolerated for another little while. That's not going to get to the heart of the problem, and we'll be back here with another 'perp walk' next season.



[1] I've been told that the 'no commercial activity in wilderness areas', even interpreted this aggressively, has withstood First Amendment scrutiny. People have been cited ex post facto for selling photographs for which they had no commercial intentions at the time they were taken. While I don't have citations at the moment for the case law on this, it disturbs me, because I have myself come as close to the boundaries of the law - including the use of a model in the photo shoot. A vacation shot of my daughter wound up being sold as a stock photo of a healthy young woman atop a mountain attached to an article on the benefits of hiking that appeared in the sort of magazine that graces HMO waiting rooms. Nobody has attempted to come after me for it.

[2] Incidentally, the Adirondack Park draws a much brighter line about this sort of thing. They simply forbid any activity with commercial sponsorship without prior clearance. The fact that Jurek was open about his commercial sponsors would already have made the event unlawful ipso facto. The current circus would be entirely unnecessary. It remains unclear how strictly the prohibition could be interpreted. I do not know whether, for instance, I might be required to obscure manufacturers' logos on my clothing and gear even though I have no relationship with the manufacturers apart from being their customer. I suspect that a clever prosecutor could advance the argument that I get the advantage of a lower price in return for offering publicity for the manufacturer, rendering my activity commercial. IOC has attempted to advance such an argument against spectators of the Olympic Games whose clothing showed the trademarks of vendors who were not sponsors of the Games. I suspect that the argument might be accepted if an administrative law judge got out on the wrong side of the bed that morning, while the prosecutor had an unrelated point to make to the public.

[Driver8]

The most disturbing procedural point, to me, is that Mr Bissell's office issued multiple press releases regarding the citations prior to Mr Jurek's even being arraigned, much less convicted. You're an attorney - what would you say about a prosecutor who insists on trying his case in the media so as to make a tangentially related political point?

I'd say he exposes himself to the risk of a defamation suit, personally, and that he endangers the court case for the citations.

[Grampie]

You have hit the nail on the head. BSP they got the publicity they were looking for. They saw a problem, brought it to the attention of the pubic and now I hope they will solve it.
I thing BSP problems are the problems of the ATC and they are the ones who have to lead the fight.

Jurek wasnt targetted

His activity was

They would have closely watched and ticketed any other high profile activity

Such things, whether they break rules or not, are not what wilderness areas are about.

They dont belong in BSP
They dont belong in national parks
They dont even belong, imo, on a national scenic trail

When its high enough profile that magazines, and video crews start intruding, its gone too far.

Commercial media permits need to be denied completely , by BSP, NPS, and ATC for this crap.

[Hoofit]

I see no reason why the park should not limit the number of hikers going up to the summit each day in order to prevent unnessecary erosion!
I also fail to see why the park hands out day packs .......if a pack can be carried for over 2,000 miles, then it can surely be carried to the top of one more mountain.Unless the thought is that the larger packs are being taken off more often on green areas and are part of the erosion problem?
I see no need for anyone to take 12 crew members with them? 1 or 2 extra people to film and document what was an extraordinary achievement.Why 12?
The only good thing to come out of all this is a heightened awareness for the protection of Mother Nature, something that benefits the whole trail, not just Baxter State Park.
It is also about time that authorities stop blaming thru hikers for their troubles.....it is a percentage of the less informed hikers that make more mistakes and that is, more often than not, the day trippers, not those that prepare for months on end and manage to go the distance. I sometimes wonder if there is a little jealousy thrown in towards thru hikers due to the fact that they have found a way to take so much time off!
If more rules are needed to protect the park, so be it.
Numbers seem to be the main problem so deal with the quantity, not the quality , as most hikers treat Mother Nature with respect or they wouldn't be out there in the first place.

[Another Kevin]

I'd say he exposes himself to the risk of a defamation suit, personally, and that he endangers the court case for the citations.

And by the way, I understand that the usual disclaimer affixes to your comments: you are a lawyer, but you are not my lawyer and your political commentary is not legal advice.

[Another Kevin]

I also fail to see why the park hands out day packs .......if a pack can be carried for over 2,000 miles, then it can surely be carried to the top of one more mountain.Unless the thought is that the larger packs are being taken off more often on green areas and are part of the erosion problem?

The handing out of day packs started out as a way to improve hiker safety and mitigate illegal camping in the subalpine and alpine regions. The hike up Katahdin is more strenuous than most hikers expect. If memory serves, it's fully five thousand feet of elevation gain from Abol Stream to the summit. No other climb on the A-T has even nearly that ascent without respite. Even the long climb out of the Nantahala gorge offers legal places to spend the night. A few climbs in the Whites and Mahoosucs approach the technical difficulty of Katahdin, but they are over much sooner. Hikers without campsite reservations were having real difficulty getting up and down in daylight, and so either resorted to unauthorized camping or else got in trouble trying to night-hike in the challenging terrain. The loaner day packs were a way to mitigate the effect. A hiker with a light pack can travel faster and is more likely to get out in time, and a hiker without a full complement of gear is less likely to say, "to heck with it, I'm stopping here," in a place where it's unlawful and damaging to camp.

I see no need for anyone to take 12 crew members with them? 1 or 2 extra people to film and document what was an extraordinary achievement.Why 12?

Both Jurek and the rangers agree that the excess people did not start with Jurek's party. A large crowd of well-wishers and media people attached themselves to his entourage. He was held responsible, in effect, for not ordering them to disperse, or even for ordering them to disperse without effect.

Numbers seem to be the main problem so deal with the quantity, not the quality , as most hikers treat Mother Nature with respect or they wouldn't be out there in the first place.

That is the key fact that most commenters here are denying. Bissell is claiming that even if we behave in an exemplary fashion, we are simply too numerous to accommodate. He is advancing the narrative that the numbers are so great that the only way to deal with them is to restrict them severely. Either not everyone who is capable of hiking from Springer to Abol Bridge can be granted the opportunity to ascend Katahdin, or the Trail itself must be removed from the park. And it has come close to a situation where some must forgo it voluntarily, or else all will be denied it.

We are all seeking creative solutions to stave off the risk that the only way to protect the Greatest Mountain may be to exclude us from it. Such solutions may simply not exist.

[CalebJ]

I also fail to see why the park hands out day packs .......if a pack can be carried for over 2,000 miles, then it can surely be carried to the top of one more mountain.Unless the thought is that the larger packs are being taken off more often on green areas and are part of the erosion problem?

I believe this is done to discourage summit camping.

I see no need for anyone to take 12 crew members with them? 1 or 2 extra people to film and document what was an extraordinary achievement.Why 12?

As far as I know, it was his regular crew (Jenny, Luis) plus a few friends that joined them for the finish. They weren't all 'crewing' for him.

[squeezebox]

It's my understanding that BSP contacted Scott and his crew well before they entered BSP, like days before. They knew the rules before they entered BSP. Everyone knows there are rules associated with parks, learn the rules before engaging in questionable behavior. No excuses for the misbehavior, particularly for someone who claims to be a pro. Pros have a different, higher level of responsability.
Again the only thing that really counts now is how to keep the AT in BSP.

[jdx1177]

It's my understanding that BSP contacted Scott and his crew well before they entered BSP, like days before. .

I was not aware of this, is there a source where this info can be cited.

[rickb]

I believe this is done to discourage summit camping.

Lets get real, and recognize this for what it really was-- a simple kindness extended to thru hikers by the people on the front lines at BSP.

Apart from all that we have been discussing -- a lot of it driven by the notion that BSP is considering ejecting the AT from the park, how could that not get one's hackles up? -- we should not forget that the front line park employees and volunteers at KSCG and throughout the park really care about the safety, well-being and experience of those hiking Katahdin.

They really do care that you have enough water to stay well-hydrated. They want you to carry sufficient clothes and a light not only to be safe, but so that you better enjoy your trip. They care about visitors as individuals.

The daypack offer is something that was 99% driven by good will. I can't prove that, but I know it to be true.

Lets is not look a gift horse in the mouth.

My guess is that all of us who have been to Baxter -- no matter what our opinions on recent matters -- have been the recipients of all kinds of goodwill within the park. I am not of the mind to start a thread on that, but I will reflect on it a bit.

[Hoofit]

I believe this is done to discourage summit camping.


As far as I know, it was his regular crew (Jenny, Luis) plus a few friends that joined them for the finish. They weren't all 'crewing' for him.

Surely a really heavy fine would discourage the camping.....if 1,000 dollars is not enough of a penalty. Everyone has their price. Stiffer penalties needed it seems if the few bad apples can't be trusted to respect the rules.

[TJ aka Teej]

The daypack offer is something that was 99% driven by good will. I can't prove that, but I know it to be true.

Purchased personally by the KSC Ranger when the AT responsibility was moved from Daicey to KSC.
Nothing to do with discouraging camping, just a kindness toward thrus.

[TJ aka Teej]

I was not aware of this, is there a source where this info can be cited.

Portland Press Herald, quote by Dentico of the BSPA, iirc. Jurek's party was denied a helicopter, given just one media pass, cautioned about group size, alcohol, etc. Jurek's lies about being told the booze was OK, and the oversized group was OK, are pathetic. They make him look small and petulant.

[Rain Man]

Surely a really heavy fine would discourage the camping.....

Actually, that's a false premise. It's not the severity of the punishment that discourages violation. Rather, it's the certainty of punishment.

[Driver8]

And by the way, I understand that the usual disclaimer affixes to your comments: you are a lawyer, but you are not my lawyer and your political commentary is not legal advice.

Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball. ...

[Offshore]

I guess that would also apply to JPD and her Blueridge Hiking Company, book, and other business endeavors; for that matter, and with the exception of sponsors and financial benefit, it would seem to hold true for all hikers. I mean, when I hike, I'm not trying to advance humanity's greater good. Are you?

No, I'm not doing it as a business transaction for financial gain joined by a publicity crew, support crew, and a sponsor van - are you? The other difference is that I also respect the land and follow the rules of the parks and state forests though which I pass. I even manage to do this without the help of an advance crew. As far as JPD goes, I care as little about her as I do about Jurek. If she did the same thing as Jurek did on the summit, my reaction would be the exact same. But apparently she didn't so there's no need to cue her apologists.

[Hoofit]

It's the year 2016 and after a movie detailing the exploits of two fellas tackling the AT becomes a Blockbuster, BSP decides to use Drones to monitor the summit of Mt.Katahdin.
aaaahhhhhhhh!
god help us!

[Driver8]

Portland Press Herald, quote by Dentico of the BSPA, iirc. Jurek's party was denied a helicopter, given just one media pass, cautioned about group size, alcohol, etc. Jurek's lies about being told the booze was OK, and the oversized group was OK, are pathetic. They make him look small and petulant.

Jurek didn't say he was told the alcohol was ok. He reported what Aron Ralston told him about Aron's conversation with the rangers. Aron might not be telling the truth, but how do you figure Scott's lying? Does it make you feel better to say that?

Are you disgusted that Mr. Bissell falsely told the public that Jurek hiked down from the summit with his citations, when he has photographic evidence of them handing him the citation in an area with cars, trees and park benches? Do you think that's the summit? Or does that sound, at best, like Bissell is spreading misinformation as a result of poor communication with park staff?

[BirdBrain]

I'd say he exposes himself to the risk of a defamation suit, personally, and that he endangers the court case for the citations.

I believe you are correct. It is why I stated early on that there would be no apology. For what it is worth, I have never called for an apology. I thought it would be wise for him to say something... anything truthful early on... way before Bissell did anything. It has become increasingly apparent who Scott is. I have PM'ed a couple people a while ago stating that I expect a defamation suit. It would be in line with what I have seen from Scott. Having worked in a union shop for 35 years, I am all too familiar with offenders crucifying authorities over technicalities. There is no room for authorities to be less than perfect while the guilty get to do most anything because of a technicality... and unless a person is an idiot, they can see obvious violations here. I have seen numerous people that don't deserve their job, that not only retain their job, but get back pay because a piece of paper was filed wrong. That process emboldens the guilty and demoralizes the authority. There is nothing good that can come from such an attitude. But a "hooray for me and to hell with you person" does not care about such things. I expect the suit. I never expected Scott to have to pay a dime, with or without the suit. I do not believe Baxter is interested in collecting fines. They are interested in BSP. But hey... screw Baxter......

[Dogwood]

Originally Posted by Hoofit
I also fail to see why the park hands out day packs .......if a pack can be carried for over 2,000 miles, then it can surely be carried to the top of one more mountain.Unless the thought is that the larger packs are being taken off more often on green areas and are part of the erosion problem?



The handing out of day packs started out as a way to improve hiker safety and mitigate illegal camping in the subalpine and alpine regions. The hike up Katahdin is more strenuous than most hikers expect. If memory serves, it's fully five thousand feet of elevation gain from Abol Stream to the summit. No other climb on the A-T has even nearly that ascent without respite. Even the long climb out of the Nantahala gorge offers legal places to spend the night. A few climbs in the Whites and Mahoosucs approach the technical difficulty of Katahdin, but they are over much sooner. Hikers without campsite reservations were having real difficulty getting up and down in daylight, and so either resorted to unauthorized camping or else got in trouble trying to night-hike in the challenging terrain. The loaner day packs were a way to mitigate the effect. A hiker with a light pack can travel faster and is more likely to get out in time, and a hiker without a full complement of gear is less likely to say, "to heck with it, I'm stopping here," in a place where it's unlawful and damaging to camp.

I posed your exact question Hoofit as a AT NOBO thru hiker to two BSP Rangers. I was told just as AK stated the reasons. I also was told it was a service offered to hikers with large packs such as has been traditional for long distance(LD) hikers like AT thru-hikers. Here again it can be noted how BSP has sought to accommodate AT LD hikers. It's a service offered for safety reasons as there are pinch points that funnel trail users of all ages, backgrounds and capabilities into narrow STEEP sometimes precipitous areas requiring hand over hand usage to make safe forward progress. It cuts down on erosion and destruction of fragile alpine areas as well by removing the temptation to illegally camp. Hence also why there are additional control and regulations in the permitting quota process.


Originally Posted by Hoofit
I see no need for anyone to take 12 crew members with them? 1 or 2 extra people to film and document what was an extraordinary achievement.Why 12?



Both Jurek and the rangers agree that the excess people did not start with Jurek's party. A large crowd of well-wishers and media people attached themselves to his entourage. He was held responsible, in effect, for not ordering them to disperse, or even for ordering them to disperse without effect.


This control measure reduces erosion, further addresses the need for safety as described above, and further protects this WILDERNESS environment. This is a wilderness atmosphere. That is the way BSP officials will keep it according to the CLEAR desires of Percival Baxter. What BSP officials WILL avoid is turning this WILDERNESS environment into something resembling the chain of humans in a circus like festival like highly impacting human centric event as it has become on Mt Evererst, as it was and to some extent still is, on Half Dome and Mt Whitney, etc.
Some folks should re align their human centric attitudes with what a WILDERNESS area is?

What BSP, Percival Baxter, and Mr Bissell fight for, while exhibiting a great amount of patience and willingness to accommodate all the park's possible entrants, is the same thing John Muir, Aldo Leopold, and Henry David Thoreau fought for.

There is a mistaken assumption of some AT hikers, especially AT thru hikers and wanna be known as AT thru-hikers, and some in the thru-hiking community as whole - that the AT and AT thru-hiking culture/thru-hiking community exists outside of controls and regulations. That's very far from the reality. They further cultivate this nonsense by balking about controls and regulations and by endlessly debating the minutiae of these controls and regs. You can't complete a AT hike/ thru-hike while being considerate of others and the environment without exhibiting a good amount of self control and ceding to regulations.