Potential Solutions to the BSP issues

[peakbagger]

Much as folks like to complain about things here is my contribution to alleviating the BSP thru hiker issues during peak periods that could be implemented quickly . Feel free to make constructive comments and I expect the minority will makes fools of themselves posting non productive comments.


The biggest issues on that BSP stated are

-Group sizes in excess of 12
-Thru hikers showing up with no reservation making staff spend resources fitting them in
-rowdy behavior in side the park impacting other guests at night
-illegal camping in the park without reservation
-staff time dealing with thru hiker special requests

My solution can not solve all of them but my theory is let someone make buck

First assumption, if BSP more aggressively enforces the regulations and ships a few folks home without the ability to summit, that will cut down on the rules breakers. The access to Hunt trail is pretty easy to monitor and it wouldn't be that difficult to assign a resource to cull out those in the park illegally. Yes this eats up BSP resources in the short term but even if the endpoint is moved outside the park they will still have to deal with folks wanting to climb the mountain out of tradition. All one needs to do is issue a hiking pass to those with legit reservations or who entered the gate as day use folks. This step is not mandatory and a policy change to the park but it not a substantial expansion to the processes in place.

Here is my what I believe is workable solution for those without reservation, not ideal, but most likely acceptable to 90% of the thru hikers.

The solution - Have a shuttle firm set up at Abol Bridge, they would need a locked trailer and place for folks to wait, I expect Abol Bridge Store wouldn't mind the business. There is no limit in the number of people who can drive into the park in a vehicle but practical limitations due to vehicle size probably limits it to 16 in a stretch van but due to group size limitations 12 would be ideal. The shuttle firm establishes an early morning pick up point at Abol Bridge, money gets exchanged, Day packs are thrown in for those who want them and their packs are locked in the trailer otherwise the hiker takes their pack (One reason not to cram the van full) The van then drives the hikers over to the Togue Pond gate and arrives when the gate opens. Then its on to KSC. He then drops them off at KSC. Dropping off hikers at KSC is currently legal and is already being done by the AT Lodge and many other groups camping in the park. The thru hikers climb the mountain and then hike out of the park back to Abol Bridge and drop off the day pack and get their pack back. The shuttle could probably get two trips in the morning with one van (24 hikers total ). After the two morning trips , the driver would do shuttles to Millinocket to a facility like the AT Lodge until late afternoon or to Medway for the 7:40 PM bus pickup. He would then do a trip to Roaring Brook to pick up folks who went over the top to Roaring Brook (if they prearranged it). In the evening the shuttle would shuttle folks back into town to the AT lodge or some other accommodations. I expect at some point the camping options at Abol Bridge will need to be expanded either on the BPL site or profit site, there is developed campground on the way between Abol Bridge and the park gate for those who want showers and more amenities that also could be incorporated into the plan.

Nothing in this plan is that different than current park practices, shuttles already travel in and out of the park hauling hikers. The enforcement aspect is unfortunately something that BSP has to deal with as even if the AT is moved out of the park folks will still want to climb Katahdin. The issuance of day hiker permits and monitoring of the Hunt Trail is probably in the cards anyhow and it wouldn't be a significant expansion of the DUPR and Reservation Permits system to incorporate day hiker passes.

What does this accomplish ?

It keeps thru hikers without reservations out of the park once the Birches are full, BSP staff will still need to enforce access as they have the enforcement ability but I expect it will not take long for the news to be filtered down the trail that getting fined and banned from the park is bad way to end a thru hike. By monitoring access to the Hunt Trail (the AT) even folks who sneak in are still busted. As folks who have tried to bushwhack in this area will know, off trail hiking is not something easy to do so bypassing the trail head or some checkpoint a few minutes up it is difficult.

It limits group size by default to the capacity of the van.

The park doesn't need to scramble to find spots for thru hikers without reservations.

Folks who want to party can party outside the park

Shuttles out to Medway and Millinocket are part of the plan and hikers who want to go over the knifes edge to Roaring Brook have the option if they make arrangements, thus the rangers don't need to deal with this

I think there is enough revenue to cover expenses and make a profit for the shuttler. If ATC wants to run it as a non profit partially supported by donations so be it.

Downsides

It costs money, many folks are out of cash by the end of the hike but the reality is that they will be paying for a couple of nights in the park if they can get a slot. If they have no money currently they can sneak into the park and take their chances and possibly get busted and banned but that's the real world. This service could be paid in advance and thus could be budgeted for.

It does break up a strictly Northbounder route slightly by doing a short flip. For those purists, that's what reservations are for.


So besides the entitled folks who believe that they are special cases and that the world should revolve around them, what fundamental flaws are in this plan?

[Walkintom]

The biggest flaw I see with this plan is that people generally don't like other people dictating to them.

Thruhikes are becoming more popular, not less. With continual advances in technology and gear, the set of people who are able to complete them is becoming more inclusive, not less.

Pressures on the trail resources are going to continue to escalate. The mission of BSP runs counter to the changing culture of thruhikers. That's an arguable point, but I mean ALL thruhikers, not just the ones discussing such things on forums like this.

BSP is probably, imo, not the best place for the AT terminus going forward.

That solves the root of the issue rather than trying to band-aid it with fixes that certain people will always find oppressive and therefore attempt to circumvent. Those types of people are, inevitably, inclusive of some of those who cause the most and biggest problems.

[peakbagger]

I acknowledge your flaw but also realize that PCT thru hikers are having to deal with being dictated to on the John Muir Trail this year. The land managers have been actively managing this trail for years and the mandatory thru hiker registration just makes it easier to manage.

The "tragedy of the commons" applies to all free unmanaged resources, if common resources arent managed by some entity, then the resource is degraded to the point where its no longer a resource.

So your solution is just move the terminus? My proposal is a way of attempting to manage the resource before shutting it down which is what moving the terminus does.

Thanks for some rational input

[illabelle]

I like your thinking, PB, and applaud you for attempting to come up with a solution that can be implemented by the AT community without waiting on the machinery of government, or reacting after BSP closes the park.

Not having been there, I wonder what the thru-hiker traffic is like at Abol, whether it's easy enough to concentrate them into a couple of van-loads each morning. It seems reasonable enough once people get used to the idea. After all, they learn the Kennebec ferry schedule.

The thing that worries me about your proposal is, if this could be done profitably, why hasn't it already been done? Maybe it's been tried, and there were other obstacles you didn't address?

[BirdBrain]

I do not believe Baxter is enjoying the thought of being the heavy. I do not believe they are used to this issue. Most people that visit are respectful and obey the rules. This is becoming an issue because of thru's. Thru's are the ones that need to change. I am not arguing your points. I just wish we would recognize that we are the problem, not Baxter. We need to come up with a plan that culls the trouble before it hits Abol Bridge. I don't agree that Baxter becoming better policemen is the ideal solution.

[Coffee]

I like the ideas proposed, although not being familiar with BSP, I'm not sure about the logistics. In general, however, people on message boards prefer to pontificate and complain rather than consider creative solutions. A few days ago I started a thread about the ATC possibly extending the official AT from the Gulf to Canada, with BSP bypassed, but the comments were mainly along the lines of "you can already do that hike" which misses the entire point of changes to official trail designations.

[Another Kevin]

I'm afraid of what happens when they simply run out of slots. I suspect that with a BSP-specific permit system, we may get to where it comes down to how long a hiker is able to wait. Imagine arriving at Abol Stream and being told that the next available van ride is three weeks away (or even worse, that it's booked solid for the rest of the season). That's close to the situation for some of our more popular National Parks already.

I could be reading the tea leaves wrong about Bissell's letter. He states in black and white that the exploding numbers are too much to handle, even if hiker behaviour were examplary. But then all the examples he uses to back it up are founded upon out poor behaviour. I'm willing to take him at his word that the numbers are too great.

[BirdBrain]

So besides the entitled folks who believe that they are special cases and that the world should revolve around them, what fundamental flaws are in this plan?

Let me rephrase. I like the constructive thinking. Increasing numbers is an issue. If we were all friends of Baxter, a happy conversation would be happening between the ATC, MATC, and Baxter. Solutions similar to yours would be on the table. It is the above group that makes the conversation not a happy one. No matter where the trail goes, the presence of that last group will cause problems. The solution is to find a way to exclude that last group, to remove them, to not tolerate them, to kick them out, to make them so uncomfortable that they would not want to be anywhere near the trail. They are already feeling some pressure. That is why you get comments that equal let's move the trail where I can do the things Baxter does not want me to. Now I will put this thread on ignore so don't get frustrated while can kickers proclaim me negative.

Edit: I should note that perfection or the lack thereof is not the issue. We all err. We all cause damage through ignorance as we learn. Intent is the issue. When someone is told to not be part of a group larger than 12, not take alcohol to the peak, and not film within 500, but do it anyways... that is intent. Malicious intent is the problem, not rookie mistakes made by well meaning pilgrims. There is room for mistakes. Intentional violations should be met with no mercy.

[peakbagger]

I liken Abol Bridge to similar to the Kennebec River Crossing. Hikers have to arrive at the crossing to meet the ferryman in a certain time window and if they know what the time window is that can plan on that. The traditional thru hiker approach is stay at Hurd Brook, then hike out to Abol Bridge and hike up to Birches for a leisurely afternoon before getting up in the AM to climb the mountain. In theory they get up on the summit early and if they time it right may be able to hitch or get a shuttle to the AT lodge in Millinocket (or other accommodations) and then get a ride to catch the bus in Medway in the AM. Timing wise with this proposal a hiker needs to be camped out at the BPL site at Abol in order to catch a shuttle in the early AM. The problem is that the Birches slots appear to fill up in the early AM by folks who missed out the day before. There apparently is now a BSP employee at the trailhead to the park that attempts to locate spots in the park once the Birches is full. Inevitably folks are apparently told to camp at the BPL site near Abol Bridge and wait until the next day. This backup apparently is pretty consistent. BSP is having issues that some folks are impatient and elect to head into the park after the BSP employee leaves and stealth camp in the park or some just try to head all the way to the Birches and hope they don't get caught. Even worse is if there is a bad weather day on the mountain. The trails will be closed up the mountain some days and then the thru hikers in the Birches will stay another night thus preventing any additional thru hikers in the park making the backup worse. With 10 to 20 thru hikers a day I expect it is manageable but with groups of 30 or 40 thru hikers plus section hikers and folks who are doing the wilderness I expect the system has to change.

I will be up at the park in about 6 weeks and will do a bit of research at Abol Bridge on the day I drive up.

[Starchild]

Hiking/backpacking in general used to be for few people, this is changing in a big way, I thank partly the gift of the internet for this and I do feel this is how it was intended to be (by the creator, Source, Ma Nature, whatever that entity should be or what you may wish to call it). It was always meant to be our common inheritance, not just the private domain for a select few.

As such I do feel that the management, and mission statement as is current at Baxtor and LNT is flawed as we are suppose to be there, and also be part of nature, to be one with nature. (LNT, for all its good is very anti-human 'in oneness' with nature, it is more of isolating humans from nature)

Baxter stands as the old model which is falling and failing to meet the needs of the people accessing their inheritance a connection of humans with nature, those needs will only increase, IMHO Baxter will eventually need to change, or be recognized for what it is, a stronghold holdout (by intimidation and force) denying the people their inheritance.

The AT represents the new model, where everyone is welcome, we get taught and mentored on our journey, we make mistakes, we help each other and learn on our way, free from fear, but just cared for by others which we also care for.

IMHO, and as I see it the AT will prevail because the new model will prevail, so in that it does not matter what Baxter does at all. Move the AT or not, let Baxter do what it can and will, if they don't want us it is not important, they can not stem the growing tide, I do believe many there do know this, but hoping they can avoid what is coming and has come.

The Native Americans knew what they were talking about when they called Katahdin it's name, the greatest mountain. No other mountain I know of has a trailhead on earth that requires 500,000 vertical feet to travel from the start of the trail to the mountain top terminus. I do believe the first people were given this name as a foreshadowing of the Northern Anchor of the AT, what is becoming a American Pilgrimage, a journey experience where nature, self and community blends together for a greater overall experience. As such I see it very much that Baxter opposing the people but very possibly the Great Spirit.

[peakbagger]

So what exactly does the prior post this contribute to this thread ?

[Coffee]

Baxter stands as the old model which is falling and failing to meet the needs of the people accessing their inheritance a connection of humans with nature, those needs will only increase, IMHO Baxter will eventually need to change, or be recognized for what it is, a stronghold holdout (by intimidation and force) denying the people their inheritance.

The people's "inheritance" with respect to BSP was dictated by the man who left the property to the people. If we don't like his terms, we can opt out of participating. The AT probably should be rerouted to a new and exciting destination - the Canadian border. Then BSP will be a side trip for those who have the willingness to plan ahead and adhere to the terms of the "inheritance".

[rickb]

Re-routing the AT inside the park to the shorter trail between ABCG outside of the Park to KSCG would have many of the same benefits as your proposal, but with far fewer complications.

I predict this will happen sooner than later.

The core issue remains, however: The sheer numbers of hikers walking into the park, and their likely exponential increase in the years to come.

The AT is not moving, but access to it may be severely restricted because of these numbers.

Not to minimize the other complaints, but best to alway remember that the REAL issue behind the voiced complaints is the NUMBER of hikers going up Katahdin. If all traveled as lightly through the park as Thoreau and Muir, it would help-- but not enough to address BSP's real concern.

Sheer numbers.

Only two ways to address that long term-- reduce the number or distribution of hikers going up Katahdin, or accept the numbers coming.

[Starchild]

So what exactly does the prior post this contribute to this thread ?

Baxter's view may not matter, they can do what they wish, and set up shuttles as suggested, ultimately the people's inheritance to the land will prevail.

Coffee[/COLOR]]The people's "inheritance" with respect to BSP was dictated by the man who left the property to the people. If we don't like his terms, we can opt out of participating.

The People's inheritance is from the Great Spirit, not from the former governor. The former is eternal, the later temporary.

[bill1980]

Somehow I suspect the Great Spirit will not involve him or herself here, and we will have to deal with BSP with the more concrete examples and suggestions expressed by other contributors in this thread.

That being said, are there other locations that could possibly be the terminus without going to the Canadian border? Obviously, Katahdin is the iconic terminus, one that can't be duplicated, but there may have to be another choice.

[Coffee]

When I die, I'd prefer if the executors of my will follow my will rather than consult the Great Spirit when it comes to disposing of my assets.

[Donde]

Following the rules is the solution.

[Dogwood]

I actually understood what you were conveying Starchild but that does not mean I agree with all you said. Whether MT Katahdin was given as an inheritance by the eternal Great Spirit or whether it was by the temporary Govenor Percival Baxter both bestowed it conditionally

[Starchild]

When I die, I'd prefer if the executors of my will follow my will rather than consult the Great Spirit when it comes to disposing of my assets.

Do what you will with your assets and let the Great Spirit will do what he/she will with his/her's. I'm fine with that.

[Coffee]

All I'm suggesting is that Baxter's wishes should be paramount when BSP officials determine policy. To do otherwise seems disrespectful to say the least.