And then there is the Helon Taylor, Dudley, Cathedral, Saddle, and Hamlin.Originally Posted by rickb
In the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years. - Abraham Lincoln
That's only counting those who bother to register. I've seen people walk by the clipboard without bothering to sign in.
Once you start to grasp the sheer numbers of hikers going up all the various trails, the 3% consuming 20% starts to become clear. The 3% is only an issue because of the problem they present. If they grow to 10% they will consume more than half the effort of the park. There is a solution. We have the knowledge. We are the experienced. There is no reason that the 3% could not become 2% of the park's effort. I believe if we put our hearts to it we could actually have a net positive effect. Why not? We are not the ones with training wheels on.
Last edited by BirdBrain; 07-22-2015 at 21:07.
In the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years. - Abraham Lincoln
cuz it ain't mandatory, a law, a requirement
Several entitled thrus went up during the closure.
Teej
"[ATers] represent three percent of our use and about twenty percent of our effort," retired Baxter Park Director Jensen Bissell.
Asking Baxter to do more isn't an option. And it's a misconception that they don't enforce rules, kick folks out, roust stealth campers, etc.
There's plenty of camping out at Abol. The private campground just built 8 bunkhouses, Abol Pines fits over 80 easy, and there's lots of legal area to pitch a tent. An AMC type shuttle inside the Park would be cool, certainly would make current car-drop hikes (DoubleTop, up-and-overs of Katahdin) easier.
The Kiosk sign-up system sucks. Quite often one hiker races ahead from Hurd Brook to sign up all their friends - and fights and arguments break out. Bless that trail-runner, wicked hard job. The reason it's 'long distance' and not 'thru-hikers' is that when the lean-tos were at Daicey there'd be fights about purity - "He shouldn't get to stay! He skipped 10 miles two months ago!" And that chit still happens.
Monitor access to the Hunt? How? Placing a Ranger at the trailhead 24/7? Even if you put in a turnstile, you can still 'whack around it through the blueberry patches and moose yard.
The meeting today will have probably little impact on the outcome. This'll be up to the Class of '15. They have the opportunity to save it, or end it.
Teej
"[ATers] represent three percent of our use and about twenty percent of our effort," retired Baxter Park Director Jensen Bissell.
One of the reasons I came up with the shuttle concept was to effectively cut out the need for the Birches. Let private/public entities at Abol Bridge deal with the camping issue and put the shuttles in place to allow thru hikers to complete their hike while minimizing the BSP staff time chasing around trying to fit in overnighters. I expect a cell repeater would be installed fairly quickly.
I wouldn't post the employee at the turnstile, I would have them head up the Hunt trail possibly as far up at the bridge across the stream but the best approach is have the location be somewhat random. This staff member would also act to turn back hikers without adequate gear. I agree its an additional BSP function. Years ago the rangers were far more active in meeting hikers near the trailheads but due to their other responsibilities this isn't happening. No need for 24/7 its pretty predictable when the majority of thru hikers are going to be heading up.
I have far less faith that thru hikers will self manage their way to deal with the park concerns. My feeling is that the carrot and stick approach needs to be put in place. Put systems in place that make it easy to complete the hike and have enforcement in place to deal with those who decide they don't need to follow the rules.
I would argue that the traffic in Baxter attributed to thru-hikers is much more than 3%.
I know when I thru hiked I had 7 people meet me in BSP. I'm sure many do this and bring non-thrus with them.
Also I've been back to BSP twice since thru hiking with larger groups. I wouldn't have ever visited BSP if I hadn't thru-hiked.
So, yeah, i'm sure the percentage of visitors caused by thru-hikers is still on the smaller side, but I don't buy into the 3% number being used.
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"
If that is an issue simply stop providing the extra services they do - let the hikers make their own arrangements like everyone else does?
I've really come around to the thinking that BSP is just not the place to end the AT. I'm liking some of the ideas I've read in the various threads.
Of course BSP has every right to manage and regulate the park as they see fit, to preserve it's wilderness.
So it almost seems obvious that as thru hiking increases this is only going to be more and more of an issue. If accommodating more people, whether thru hikers or not, goes directly against the core mission of the park, then it is not reasonable to ask them to change.
So my vote is to keep the AT as it exists now to the summit of katahdin, but extend it to the other side of BSP to join the IAT. I'm only assuming this is physically doable, I have no first hand knowledge of that area.
Then the decision to either make that the official terminus or use the IAT route to the Canadian border and make the official terminus there, which would be my preference.
Also no camping in BSP for thru hikers, they must pass completely through in one day.
I agree, stop the free pack with goodies and terminus to another location in Maine. Saves the environment in BSP.
I was one of the "50". Although I can't say that my knowledge is complete, the only people I know that summited during the closure started climbing the morning of the closure, and as such had no knowledge of the mountain closure. These people were not entitled thrus (I met a few along the way, so I know what I'm talking about), and given the weather conditions of their hike I'm sure they would have preferred the five day delay and the blue-bird sky that us "50" experienced.
The summit party on Oct 8, 2008 was loud, and there was alcohol and pot consumption (no minors were present as far as I remember and can tell from my pictures). The rangers asked us all to lower our voices, but otherwise allowed these activities to continue. When confronted with the noise complaint, the party died down, everyone was respectful. No $200 citations were issued.
Were there too many people on the summit? Probably. I can't judge how durable the surface was since it was mostly snow covered, but I remember the summit essentially being a pile of rocks, fairly durable. Regardless, the rangers made no effort to stop that many people from being on the summit by stopping us at the campground or by asking us to make our summit visit short. I saw no signs at the trailhead mentioning any rules and the ranger we spoke to at the campground made no mention either, so I had no idea that we "50" had collectively broken any rules let alone the same rules that Jurek was charged with breaking.
Did Jurek deserve getting three citations and a public tongue lashing by Bissell? I would have to say no. Bissell should be ashamed of his FB attack post (in part because of the copyright infringement, he had no right to repost those images), committing a few misdemeanors like this is no reason to have your name drug through the mud. The spraying of champagne is the only thing that Jurek did that bothers me even a little since the very next rain would have washed away any evidence. What does bother me is how BSP has unevenly applied their overly strict rules. If Jurek really deserved any of those citations, why did no one else in his party receive a ticket when they were all equally guilty? Why were we "50" allowed to summit together, and why did the rangers choose to ignore the alcohol and pot consumption (I have a couple pictures of me holding a Long Trail Ale at the summit sign, should I have received a ticket)?
To casually suggest "its only a pile of rocks" at the top of Katahdin ignores the special environment that summit is and other alpine areas are. Pouring booze on this environment is not good form, regardless of the celebratory need and/or posturing for photos. The next rain will take the ingredients of the booze and spread it to other areas not initially impacted by the spill, I'm sure you can understand downstream contact and its impact it may have on fragile alpine lichens and other fragile life forms. Having been there a few times I have yet to run across behavior that callous to the alpine environment. Most of the time people are in hushed voices and hyper-sensitive to their impact of the summit and areas leading to it. Some respect that environment, some have no clue what the environment is, others really have no interest but their own.
Imagine what the summit would be like (or the park overall) without the rules that have long existed there, which some flout as being immaterial or "overly strict". There are a very few who feel their "freedom" is limited by rules, though when asked what specifically are "overly strict" are not able to answer in specifics. Not surprisingly, these individuals find LNT is a silly concept which leads to the "entitled" title among some observers. Its these rules that have managed to keep BSP in a fairly natural state over the years. The issue of who gets a ticket and who doesn't is an issue of discretion of Rangers, much as its the discretion of the traffic police officer to not give you a ticket for going 69 in a 55 and providing a warning.
The issues of AT thru's at BSP are long standing and increasing, albeit the Park Superintendent could go about the awareness differently, that fact remains. Bottom line is, all visitors are asked to do is understand the rules BSP has clearly available to everyone who is interested in going into the Park, and follow them. When that happens there are few issues. If that is too difficult for people due to the literacy requirement or not being able to limit their behavior accordingly, its probably better they find other places to be.
Given that alcohol is a rather volatile liquid, I doubt that it could do much damage before it vaporizes away. Any unfermented sugars might actually help the fungus portion of the lichen symbiosis, given that is exactly what the cyanobacterial symbiote provides in the relationship. The CO2 that creates the bubbly is already in gaseous form and should enter the atmosphere rapidly. Aromatic hydrocarbons (that grape smell) are very volatile (how else would you smell it?) and as such probably completely evaporate before the alcohol. Are there other ingredients that we need to worry about? I guess what I am saying is that I very much doubt that a little spilled bubbly can do any immediate or lasting harm, although I agree that it was poor form to purposefully spray it about the summit.
However, this is just conjecture on both of our parts. I just got done running a fairly thorough search of the scientific literature on this subject and found that no one has done any science to better understand the effects of having champagne, beer, or other fluids (like urine) spilled on lichen or other alpine flora. If you know of a paper that can clarify these issues, I would be happy to read it (even if it is behind a paywall), but as far as I can tell it doesn't exist.
As far as overly strict rules:
No public consumption of alcohol. I assume this means no tipping one back around an approved campfire either. How many tickets do they write for this offence?
No children under the age of 6 above timberline. A responsible adult taking their kid for a hike should not need to worry about staying below treeline, especially if the weather is good.
No person may operate a vehicle in excess of 20 miles per hour, or the posted speed limit, whichever is less. Wait, if the speed limit is 30, we still are limited to 20? That makes sense.
Always nice to see an old thread come back to life.
It's very disappointing to see the ATC going all in for Walk in the Woods. I hope they're at least getting compensation for advertising and promotion.
The AT actually ends at the Park boundary - there is no AT corridor inside Baxter.
I've made my thoughts known to BSP folks - end all special considerations for ATers. Transition the Birches to a site available for all users by reservation as a hike in site. If ATers wish to stay in the Park they can by following the same reservation system all other users comply with. Discontinue the Abol Bridge trail runner, end the free daypacks, remove the AT register from the Ranger's porch, remove all AT designations from signage, and stop handing out ATC 2000 miler paperwork.
Teej
"[ATers] represent three percent of our use and about twenty percent of our effort," retired Baxter Park Director Jensen Bissell.
This comment (and most of TJ's others) seems pretty in line with the cold, mean, generally unpleasant attitude I experienced from a majority (but obviously not all) Mainers.
The whole "if you don't like it, get out" attitude is strong up there. It's kind of hilarious that all the grumpy Mainers are the ones calling Thru-Hikers entitled.
Maybe you guys need more sunshine. You probably have seasonal affective disorder, or some sort of brain chemical imbalance from eating too many ocean cockroaches.
Mainers cause WAY more damage to their own wild lands than any thru hiker... So logically, to make the greatest difference in the condition of BSP, make it hard to get to... Close all the roads and make everyone hike in. I bet you'll see a huge drop in trail impact when the car campers and day hikers can't haul in cases of beer and bags of trash.
If you really cared about the park you'd probably be concerned about the 97% of its visitors who trash the place.
This statement is factually incorrect.
This statement is factually incorrect.
When it didn't work, the southern terminus was changed. If it isn't working, why not change the northern terminus?
Yes, it has been traditional to end at Katahdin. Traditions can change. While making the northern terminus into a less remarkable hill has some emotional down-side, it isn't all negative. A less remarkable northern terminus will reduce the appeal of NOBO route, possibly increasing SOBO treks, and spreading out the bubble.
If Baxter doesn't want the AT, move the AT. Who wants to hike where he's not welcome?
Agreed. If everyone did what they were told and respected the law whether they agreed or disagreed with it, then the trail and the world would be a better place. The rules are there for a reason.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote