Jensen Bissell's Lament

[greenmtnboy]

Some conduct is so offensive that people get banned from Baxter State for the duration, like Ward Leonard, the guy who hiked the trail 3X in one year, but probably has not set foot again there after the banning. I venture to say that the more adventurous and strong hikers have a much higher chance of running afoul of rules than the passive and careful hikers.

[rafe]

Some conduct is so offensive that people get banned from Baxter State for the duration, like Ward Leonard, the guy who hiked the trail 3X in one year, but probably has not set foot again there after the banning. I venture to say that the more adventurous and strong hikers have a much higher chance of running afoul of rules than the passive and careful hikers.

Ward was banned because he acted in a threatening manner to other hikers in the park (technically, that can also be classified as assault.) Scott ran afoul of BSP because he's such a shameless publicity hound.

Plenty of other speedy and adventurous hikers have managed to avoid antagonizing BSP staff.

[greenmtnboy]

Ward was banned because he acted in a threatening manner to other hikers in the park (technically, that can also be classified as assault.) Scott ran afoul of BSP because he's such a shameless publicity hound.

Plenty of other speedy and adventurous hikers have managed to avoid antagonizing BSP staff.

I thought Ward was banned for sexually harassing a BSP ranger. At any rate the guy was unmanageable, I hope he got the help he needed. Keith Shaw in Monson had some things to say about him....

[JohnHuth]

I'm posting parts of an e-mail from my son about his thoughts on the BSP situation. He finished his thru-hike in late July and I asked him about his impressions -

"One important point, on which the article briefly touches, is that Baxter State Park is not managed like any other state or national park in the country. National parks are established to preserve an area so it can be visited and enjoyed by future generations in addition to the current. Baxter's mission, on the other hand, is to preserve the park in a state of wilderness. That's why Baxter doesn't have any concession stands or paved roads, has very few permanent structures, and limits the number of visitors each day. To me that sounds like the ideal environment in which to finish a hike. The celebrations of the party crowd of thru-hikers, however, fly in the face of the mission that the rangers are trying to uphold. When you have a lot of people coming through the park at the same time, continuously, over a series of consecutive days, who all feel entitled to flaunt the park's regulation and mission, it's going to build up lots of ill will.

This entitlement is another issue that seems to have been becoming more common along the trail. At the least, the increased usage has led to more frequent examples of it. I wouldn't say most or even many, but a number of thru-hikers seem to feel that, because they are undertaking an impressive feat, they should receive special treatment along the way. This leads them to flaunt local regulations, practice poor leave no trace (almost everyone I hiked with found an unburied turd somewhere along our trip), and behave obnoxiously in town. Even though these hikers represent a minority of those on the trail, they still sour the experience for the communities and organizations that usually otherwise love having the AT pass near them. Reaching the northern terminus of the trail just seems to dial up this sense of entitlement in many, thus concentrating violations.


The Scott Jurek thing is an interesting case. Clearly he accomplished something impressive, and that merits celebration. He may or may not have received special permission from one of the park rangers for his mountaintop celebration. If he did, however, then the message had not reached all of the other rangers. In my personal opinion, I mostly feel Jurek missed a big opportunity as a high profile thru-"hiker" to model good behavior for all of the people who look up to him."

[egilbe]

I'm posting parts of an e-mail from my son about his thoughts on the BSP situation. He finished his thru-hike in late July and I asked him about his impressions -

"One important point, on which the article briefly touches, is that Baxter State Park is not managed like any other state or national park in the country. National parks are established to preserve an area so it can be visited and enjoyed by future generations in addition to the current. Baxter's mission, on the other hand, is to preserve the park in a state of wilderness. That's why Baxter doesn't have any concession stands or paved roads, has very few permanent structures, and limits the number of visitors each day. To me that sounds like the ideal environment in which to finish a hike. The celebrations of the party crowd of thru-hikers, however, fly in the face of the mission that the rangers are trying to uphold. When you have a lot of people coming through the park at the same time, continuously, over a series of consecutive days, who all feel entitled to flaunt the park's regulation and mission, it's going to build up lots of ill will.

This entitlement is another issue that seems to have been becoming more common along the trail. At the least, the increased usage has led to more frequent examples of it. I wouldn't say most or even many, but a number of thru-hikers seem to feel that, because they are undertaking an impressive feat, they should receive special treatment along the way. This leads them to flaunt local regulations, practice poor leave no trace (almost everyone I hiked with found an unburied turd somewhere along our trip), and behave obnoxiously in town. Even though these hikers represent a minority of those on the trail, they still sour the experience for the communities and organizations that usually otherwise love having the AT pass near them. Reaching the northern terminus of the trail just seems to dial up this sense of entitlement in many, thus concentrating violations.


The Scott Jurek thing is an interesting case. Clearly he accomplished something impressive, and that merits celebration. He may or may not have received special permission from one of the park rangers for his mountaintop celebration. If he did, however, then the message had not reached all of the other rangers. In my personal opinion, I mostly feel Jurek missed a big opportunity as a high profile thru-"hiker" to model good behavior for all of the people who look up to him."

Your son gets it.

[rafe]

I thought Ward was banned for sexually harassing a BSP ranger. At any rate the guy was unmanageable, I hope he got the help he needed. Keith Shaw in Monson had some things to say about him....

Or what the entire class of '89 and '90 thought of him. But that's a topic for another day.

[BirdBrain]

I'm posting parts of an e-mail from my son about his thoughts on the BSP situation. He finished his thru-hike in late July and I asked him about his impressions -

"One important point, on which the article briefly touches, is that Baxter State Park is not managed like any other state or national park in the country. National parks are established to preserve an area so it can be visited and enjoyed by future generations in addition to the current. Baxter's mission, on the other hand, is to preserve the park in a state of wilderness. That's why Baxter doesn't have any concession stands or paved roads, has very few permanent structures, and limits the number of visitors each day. To me that sounds like the ideal environment in which to finish a hike. The celebrations of the party crowd of thru-hikers, however, fly in the face of the mission that the rangers are trying to uphold. When you have a lot of people coming through the park at the same time, continuously, over a series of consecutive days, who all feel entitled to flaunt the park's regulation and mission, it's going to build up lots of ill will.

This entitlement is another issue that seems to have been becoming more common along the trail. At the least, the increased usage has led to more frequent examples of it. I wouldn't say most or even many, but a number of thru-hikers seem to feel that, because they are undertaking an impressive feat, they should receive special treatment along the way. This leads them to flaunt local regulations, practice poor leave no trace (almost everyone I hiked with found an unburied turd somewhere along our trip), and behave obnoxiously in town. Even though these hikers represent a minority of those on the trail, they still sour the experience for the communities and organizations that usually otherwise love having the AT pass near them. Reaching the northern terminus of the trail just seems to dial up this sense of entitlement in many, thus concentrating violations.


The Scott Jurek thing is an interesting case. Clearly he accomplished something impressive, and that merits celebration. He may or may not have received special permission from one of the park rangers for his mountaintop celebration. If he did, however, then the message had not reached all of the other rangers. In my personal opinion, I mostly feel Jurek missed a big opportunity as a high profile thru-"hiker" to model good behavior for all of the people who look up to him."

Your son is right on every count. Most hikers, if not the vast majority, are not the issue. The problem childs do a lot of damage, to the trail and reputation of the hiker. Given that they represent the minority, it ought to be easy to squelch them. I don't mean stop the behavior entirely. That can never be done. However, we ought to be able to drive them into the shadows. Scott is a poster child for many causes. His trek was amazing and captivating. He knew thousands were watching him. His will and endurance can be used to illustrate what can be done if we don't give up. He is a great example for the vegan diet. His legal battles are a banner for all those that think that the rules are stupid. Most people don't want to fight against such things. Scott will pay (more likely Cliff Bar) many times over to fight violations that have been documented on video. What an example.

You have reason to be proud of your son. Your son is 100 times the man Scott ever thought of being. It is likely he would not agree with that. Most humble people follow the rules. JPD cried and looked for hugs at her finish. Scott flexed his muscles and sucked in the praise at his finish. Your son sent a reflective letter to his mother at his finish. We need more humble people and less rock stars. Your son gives me hope. Being on the trail gives me hope. Being in here can be discouraging. Thank you for sharing that email.

[JustaTouron]

The only thing BSP has wrong is whether they have final say on the AT entering the park. The only thing BSP can do is claim that such an easement is a taking under the 5th amendment and sue for just compensation.

As for 3% vs 20%. Maybe those numbers are wrong, maybe it is 4% that demand 10%. Doesn't really matter. What does matter is in the opinion of BSP is AT hikers consume a disproportion amount of resources.

Keep in mind, the folks who run BSP are not urbanites who think bugs are gross and hikers are smelly, they don't have an anti-hiker bias. Their dislike of AT hikers was earned by AT hikers.

Food for thought. If it was just BSP and everyone else loved AT hikers, I would say the problem was BSP. If it was just AMC who would rather not have AT hikers, I would say it was the AMC, if it was just the SNP who had a problem with AT hikers, I would say it was SNP. If it was just one laundromat in CT who banned hikers, I would say it was the laundromat. But at some point you got stop saying it is not us its them and realize, its us.

Some solutions, ones that probably wouldn't be popular with ATC/Whiteblaze:

Require reservation. For MEGA normal BSP system. For GAME must make reservations in Monson for white Birches, unreasonable to expect a hiker to know exact day they when they start in GA, but by the time you get to Monson you should know your hiking speed and how long it will take to get the end. If too many people arrive north at once, some folks will have to cool their heels in Monson for a few days until space opens up.

Rather than say no communication is available and then relent and use the radios to help out hikers get rides. Charge $25 for radio service. That will motivate some hikers to deal with the issue in advance and reduce demand and if not, $25 will compensate BSP for resource use.

Raise the rates on White Birches so thru hikers are not getting a discount.

Enforce the rule more and issue more tickets. Many have speculated why BSP is so adamant about collecting this fine and many claim it is just mean spirited. Here is my speculation -- to send a message to future hikers. If Scott Jurek doesn't have to pay this fine, the message is clear there is no reason to follow the rules. If I was Bissel my goal would be that next year there be several threads on White Blaze warning hikers with the following message, "Do what you want for most of the hike but either skip BSP or follow the rules." My goal would be that there be a thread from a hiker complaining that accidentally dropping a candy wrapper cost her $100. Another thread complaining that being caught illegally camping resulted in being woken up at 2 am and needing to walk 5 miles handcuffed in the dark to be driven to the jail and pay a $500 fine. And another thread complaining that everywhere else that they got caught illegally drinking or smoking weed the LOE just told them to pour out the beer or snuff out the pot, but at BSP I was arrested and changed. Here is why. Once BSP gets a repuation for being no nonsense, people will either skip it, or follow the rules.

[squeezebox]

Bissell is a bureaucrat. He apparently does his job fairly well.
Part of Jurek's job is to gain publicity for himself. He did that pretty well. Just in the wrong way.

[rafe]

Bissell is a bureaucrat. He apparently does his job fairly well.
Part of Jurek's job is to gain publicity for himself. He did that pretty well. Just in the wrong way.

Why attribute the worst possible motives to what he did? Some good has already come of this. ATC and BSP need to keep talking and thinking of solutions. In my opinion, it's up to ATC to make appease Baxter, not the other way around. Baxter is playing a stronger hand here.

PS, just curious, have you been there?

[BirdBrain]

The only thing BSP has wrong is whether they have final say on the AT entering the park. The only thing BSP can do is claim that such an easement is a taking under the 5th amendment and sue for just compensation.

Excellent post. I wonder about your first point though. People that command respect hold differing opinions as to has the power. I believe BSP has the authority to secure their borders and require all to reserve in the same manner. Technically, that would not change the terminus. However, it would likely have the same effect. I believe all parties would get sick of the hoops they would have to jump through and eventually agree to part ways. Regardless of predictions, I believe many, that hope to remain lawless, hang their hat on the hopes that BSP is powerless to stop this trend. I believe that hope emboldens them to be arrogant. I wish the ATC would make a clear statement that would neuter such an attitude. BSP could, but it would not be believed by those that want to make their own rules.

[Traveler]

If everyone simply followed the rules, there would be no issues with thru hikers at BSP.

[JustaTouron]

Excellent post. I wonder about your first point though. People that command respect hold differing opinions as to has the power.

Reason why the ATC hasn't raised that point, and nor BSP is neither wants to go there. The last thing BSP wants is a ruling that the ATC has an easement. Last thing the ATC wants is a ruling saying that using BSP is a taking and that in order to continue to use it the ATC needs to pay BSP $X or end the usage. Because if the latter occurs the current congress is not approving the funding to pay the easement.

[MuddyWaters]

If everyone simply followed the rules, there would be no issues with thru hikers at BSP.

Yes there would.
The number of AT hiker has increased 10 fold in last 30 yrs.

Its not possible.for them to handle what the future holds, regardless.

The trails act never foresaw overcrowding issues. ATC needs to think ahead , not 1 yr like they are, but 10 yrs, and 20 yrs.

Permits and limits are inevitable.

[JustaTouron]

To clarify my point. If the Feds or your state wants to build a highway where your house sits, there is nothing you can do to stop them. But under the 5th amendment they are required to pay you. If the Feds want the ATC to thru BSP or for that matter if the Feds wanted to take over BSP and make it a national park or even an air force base, BSP couldn't stop them, just demand money.

Being the feds haven't paid BSP explicitly for such an easement, there is an open issue of who currently has the power.

[BirdBrain]

Yes there would.
The number of AT hiker has increased 10 fold in last 30 yrs.

Its not possible.for them to handle what the future holds, regardless.

The trails act never foresaw overcrowding issues. ATC needs to think ahead , not 1 yr like they are, but 10 yrs, and 20 yrs.

Permits and limits are inevitable.

The 3%, and by extension the rising percentage, has been named as an issue. As a person who has a deep heritage in Maine, I see no issue with that number rising to 50%. Thru's are people too. If all things were equal (no deference for thru's and no disproportionate burden created by thru's), those numbers would not mean anything. The rising numbers are only relevant because of the problems created by thru's and because they have special treatment. If everyone played by the same rules, BSP would have no valid reasons to single thru's out for anything. The numbers mean something because of the attitude, actions, and deference given to thru's. Thru's are squandering a good thing. They get special treatment and (some) are taking a dump on the special treatment.

[BirdBrain]

To clarify my point. If the Feds or your state wants to build a highway where your house sits, there is nothing you can do to stop them. But under the 5th amendment they are required to pay you. If the Feds want the ATC to thru BSP or for that matter if the Feds wanted to take over BSP and make it a national park or even an air force base, BSP couldn't stop them, just demand money.

Being the feds haven't paid BSP explicitly for such an easement, there is an open issue of who currently has the power.

And if my grandmother had wheels she would be a trolley car. Sorry. I couldn't help myself. Yes, the feds could do all kinds of things. There is no reason to think they would. They certainly won't on the basis of entitled vacationers wanting to party on Baxter. As it stands now, Baxter holds the power. Yes, the feds could change the rules. I see no profit in it for them. They do not do things that do not profit them.

[Traveler]

Yes there would.
The number of AT hiker has increased 10 fold in last 30 yrs.

Its not possible.for them to handle what the future holds, regardless.

The trails act never foresaw overcrowding issues. ATC needs to think ahead , not 1 yr like they are, but 10 yrs, and 20 yrs.

Permits and limits are inevitable.

And there will undoubtedly be a process to deal with peak time thru pressures that should be followed then too. I do agree there will need to be a permit system of some sort.

You bring up a good point about long term planning. I presumed, perhaps incorrectly, the ATC has a master plan of some type that uses common business principles to forecast trail needs of various types like shelter replacements/rehabilitation, privies, and trail use stress, and hiker numbers. Given there are other places along the trail that will become problematic with uncontrolled use/growth, like the GSMNP. I couldn't guess why an organization that has a wealth of volunteer talent wouldn't be doing this. Reactive management is fine for small issues on a year to year basis, but predictive management is needed to be able to see beyond the next several years.

[JustaTouron]

And if my grandmother had wheels she would be a trolley car. Sorry. I couldn't help myself. Yes, the feds could do all kinds of things. There is no reason to think they would. They certainly won't on the basis of entitled vacationers wanting to party on Baxter. As it stands now, Baxter holds the power. Yes, the feds could change the rules. I see no profit in it for them. They do not do things that do not profit them.

The ATC's strongest argument on why your grandmother is in fact already a trolley car is that being Baxter didn't assert a demand for money in 1968 as a taking it is now too late to assert the demand and that ATC has a valid easement on BSP. And it is a strong argument. BSP also has a strong argument. I don't know which way a court would rule. Nor does anyone else. And unlike Brady and Goodell neither BSP nor ATC wants to roll the dice. I predict they will continue to poster each claiming that they have the final say but continue to compromise so neither party feels a need to take it to court.

[BirdBrain]

The ATC's strongest argument on why your grandmother is in fact already a trolley car is that being Baxter didn't assert a demand for money in 1968 as a taking it is now too late to assert the demand and that ATC has a valid easement on BSP. And it is a strong argument. BSP also has a strong argument. I don't know which way a court would rule. Nor does anyone else. And unlike Brady and Goodell neither BSP nor ATC wants to roll the dice. I predict they will continue to poster each claiming that they have the final say but continue to compromise so neither party feels a need to take it to court.

Nice analysis. I agree that the ATC and BSP are a bit more mature than the NFL. I think they want peace. Most of us want peace. Most people are reasonable.