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

[BirdBrain]

At some point someone is going to have to determine the definition of commercialization of the trail and select ways to control and limit that commercialization. Some in authority may conclude that a "no broken windows" doctrine is best. That means enforce all regulations with no exceptions.
AT hiker behavior has changed dramatically over the years. Those aren't all old Boy Scouts and veterans out there anymore enjoying nature and some peace and quite. Portions of the trail have simply become urbanized.

I find that locks only keep the honest out and a neighborhood attitude is a better deterrent. I went into this discussion expecting peer pressure to utterly humiliate the dishonest and irresponsible. It has been quite an education. I, instead, conclude that the trail experience is in deep trouble. And to prove my point, wait for the proverbial "drama queen" or "oh brother" comment. There is a larger segment than I had thought that don't give a rat's arse about anything but their own self absorbed world and feel they should always be the final say as to what should be done anywhere. As I walk through these groomed paths, I stand in awe of God's creation and those that provide such trails. To me it is a reasonable attitude to seek on my own what those that provide the trails want me to do while on said trails. I am a guest on any spot I walk that is not my property. It is my job to know what to do there. It is not up to some authority to spank me if I am a naughty boy. Any other attitude is childish, boorish, and destructive... but alas, fast becoming the norm.

[Traveler]

I find that locks only keep the honest out and a neighborhood attitude is a better deterrent. I went into this discussion expecting peer pressure to utterly humiliate the dishonest and irresponsible. It has been quite an education. I, instead, conclude that the trail experience is in deep trouble. And to prove my point, wait for the proverbial "drama queen" or "oh brother" comment. There is a larger segment than I had thought that don't give a rat's arse about anything but their own self absorbed world and feel they should always be the final say as to what should be done anywhere. As I walk through these groomed paths, I stand in awe of God's creation and those that provide such trails. To me it is a reasonable attitude to seek on my own what those that provide the trails want me to do while on said trails. I am a guest on any spot I walk that is not my property. It is my job to know what to do there. It is not up to some authority to spank me if I am a naughty boy. Any other attitude is childish, boorish, and destructive... but alas, fast becoming the norm.

You are really the only one who determines what your trail experience will be like. You have to take the trail as it comes, not bemoan how it should be at any given time.

That said, I like your concept and attitude that you are a guest along a given trail is probably the best guideline. Being a guest has certain responsibilities that would compel most people to behave accordingly.

[BirdBrain]

You are really the only one who determines what your trail experience will be like. You have to take the trail as it comes, not bemoan how it should be at any given time.

That said, I like your concept and attitude that you are a guest along a given trail is probably the best guideline. Being a guest has certain responsibilities that would compel most people to behave accordingly.

The lens has been focused on people. It blows my mind that people cannot see what is important... the trail. People's focus reveals what is important to them... and it ain't the trail. Their focus betrays their intent. I know people think I am blindly defending BSP and beating on Scott. I would be doing the same thing about any other self absorbed person in any area. This just happens to be where the greatest threat is at the moment and no one person is more important than the experience that is at risk regardless of how great anyone thinks that person is. It is our job to comply... period.

[Another Kevin]

You are really the only one who determines what your trail experience will be like. You have to take the trail as it comes, not bemoan how it should be at any given time.

That said, I like your concept and attitude that you are a guest along a given trail is probably the best guideline. Being a guest has certain responsibilities that would compel most people to behave accordingly.

A host has responsibilities to invited guests. The Trail does not have the same responsibilities to us. We are not invited guests. We are tolerated trespassers.

[rickb]

The lens has been focused on people. It blows my mind that people cannot see what is important... the trail. People's focus reveals what is important to them... and it ain't the trail. Their focus betrays their intent.

The irony in that statement is that the main thing the trail stewards are looking to protect is the human experience.

That is to say they are looking to protect an aesthetic for people to enjoy.

Nothing wrong with that.

Bit it is a different goal than protecting ecosystems for their own sake, and the sake of something much larger than our quite enjoyment of them.

[BirdBrain]

The irony in that statement is that the main thing the trail stewards are looking to protect is the human experience.

That is to say they are looking to protect an aesthetic for people to enjoy.

Nothing wrong with that.

Bit it is a different goal than protecting ecosystems for their own sake, and the sake of something much larger than our quite enjoyment of them.

I fully agree with that distinction and accept that as a clarification. The human experience will have an impact. If it was just for the environment, we would be completely excluded. It is for our enjoyment. And we should be mindful of our impact and any rule along the way.

[rickb]

I fully agree with that distinction and accept that as a clarification. The human experience will have an impact. If it was just for the environment, we would be completely excluded. It is for our enjoyment. And we should be mindful of our impact and any rule along the way.

You miss the point.

Baxter's concerns regarding thru hikers (and others) on Katahdin are all about protecting the human experience of those who are lucky enough to enjoy the mountains.

Not so much about protecting the mountain for its own sake.

[Pedaling Fool]

This thread just keeps going and going...

There is another thread on a trashed out shelter, with pics. That's the problem with the AT, too many people not taking care of the trail (note, not too many people, but too many who just don't care). Yet, some are still hung up on Scott....

[BirdBrain]

You miss the point.

Baxter's concerns regarding thru hikers (and others) on Katahdin are all about protecting the human experience of those who are lucky enough to enjoy the mountains.

Not so much about protecting the mountain for its own sake.

I do not think I have missed your point. I know myself enough to know that it is possible though. I can be thick. I think we differ on onus and importance. The trail is there for our enjoyment, but not our consumption. Many self absorb entitled people think they have a right to that path. That path crosses much land that is owned by entities and/or people that allow access for no other reason but the goodness of their heart. The "I have a right" crowd trample that kindness under foot. Yes it is there for us. However there is a limit to their largesse. Those that don't grasp that fact will have that truth thrust upon them at the expense of those that do grasp that thought. It is a privilege, not a right. And it should be treated as such with a humility that is beyond many that use it.