Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 138
  1. #41
    Registered User
    Join Date
    01-03-2010
    Location
    Windham, Maine
    Age
    53
    Posts
    1,166

    Default

    TJ will probably chime in but I think climbing Katahdin via Hunt Trail is not a place for little kids. In many places it is nearly vertical with rod iron handholds. The handholds may have been built for adults and not very short people. Plenty of places for little kids to trip and fall. Then once you make it to the Table Land you could get immediately hit by high winds. Suddenly you are above the tree line at a place where wind has the opportunity to accelerate. Turning around and descending on this trail could be even harder for little kids. Added to the complexity BSP is remote. It's not the same as hiking Mt.Washington with several bailout points and a quick return to the convenience of civilization, electricity and waiting ambulance.

    Now that I have said that ... my first son climbed Katahdin with me via Pamola Peak, Knife Edge when he was around 7. I had a few safety items with me (rope) and he had the experience of doing the Presi a year earlier and probably 30 peaks under his belt.
    Last edited by T.S.Kobzol; 07-26-2018 at 09:00.
    Let me go

  2. #42
    Registered User
    Join Date
    08-08-2012
    Location
    Taghkanic, New York, United States
    Posts
    3,097
    Journal Entries
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TJ aka Teej View Post
    If only every visitor to Baxter was as well informed as you!
    If that were the case the dozens of families who show up every season wanting to take junior above timberline wouldn't show up wanting to take junior above timberline.
    Tell me, tell us, how would you get the info out to people who show up claiming they had no idea about Rule 2.2?
    I would like to add age restrictions in traveling through the wildernesses, and for that matter going above treeline, is highly unusual and I can see how many would not know this, nor have any reason to even consider to research it. I known in the whites and the Adrondacks, each have many hikes about treeline children are welcome, actually I can't think of anywhere besides Baxter which restricts it. In that I do get the info on rescues for the Adirondacks and can't recall it ever coming up. So yes I would say that Baxter needs to really point out rule 2.2 as it won't be expected.

  3. #43
    Registered User Last Call's Avatar
    Join Date
    09-03-2013
    Location
    Olive Branch, MS
    Posts
    408

    Default

    Shouldn't the A.T. have privileges that trump Baxter State Parks rules? And what is "Rule 2.2"? Any "rule" they arbitrarily made over 40 years ago should certainly be revisited with the modern technology we have nowadays....
    Let's head for the roundhouse; they can't corner us there!

  4. #44
    GSMNP 900 Miler
    Join Date
    02-25-2007
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Age
    53
    Posts
    4,605
    Journal Entries
    1
    Images
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Last Call View Post
    Shouldn't the A.T. have privileges that trump Baxter State Parks rules?
    Why? Sure the ATC is a national entity, but you have to consider that Baxter is ALLOWING the ATC to include it's park as a part of the AT.
    I believe there's has already been some scuttlebutt of Baxter considering removing itself as a part of the AT because of the rapid growth use of the AT has seen in say the last decade and the impact it's having on the state park.

  5. #45
    Registered User
    Join Date
    08-08-2012
    Location
    Taghkanic, New York, United States
    Posts
    3,097
    Journal Entries
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Last Call View Post
    Shouldn't the A.T. have privileges that trump Baxter State Parks rules? And what is "Rule 2.2"? Any "rule" they arbitrarily made over 40 years ago should certainly be revisited with the modern technology we have nowadays....
    There is a permit process in which it appears that AT hikers do get consideration. Also AT thru and LD hikers do have privileges which the general public does not, staying at the Birches.

  6. #46
    Registered User
    Join Date
    08-18-2017
    Location
    On the Trail
    Posts
    385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Last Call View Post
    Shouldn't the A.T. have privileges that trump Baxter State Parks rules? And what is "Rule 2.2"? Any "rule" they arbitrarily made over 40 years ago should certainly be revisited with the modern technology we have nowadays....
    No Baxter hosts the trail local rules apply just like every other place the trail passes through property not owned by the park service. As to revisiting the rule that is not going to happen no way no how, itís their park donít like it donít hike it


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by D2maine View Post
    No Baxter hosts the trail ... itís their park...
    It's their park? This sort of thinking boggles my mind. I'm not sure where it comes from.

  8. #48
    Registered User Last Call's Avatar
    Join Date
    09-03-2013
    Location
    Olive Branch, MS
    Posts
    408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeGoldRush View Post
    It's their park? This sort of thinking boggles my mind. I'm not sure where it comes from.
    I agree 100%....
    Let's head for the roundhouse; they can't corner us there!

  9. #49
    Registered User
    Join Date
    08-18-2017
    Location
    On the Trail
    Posts
    385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeGoldRush View Post
    It's their park? This sort of thinking boggles my mind. I'm not sure where it comes from.
    Are you saying that Baxter is owned by anybody other than the state of Maine. Itís a wilderness preserve first and a hiking paradise 2nd and that will never change - so yep itís their park and will be run their way


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. #50
    Registered User Last Call's Avatar
    Join Date
    09-03-2013
    Location
    Olive Branch, MS
    Posts
    408

    Default

    It would be interesting to see the "ownership" history of "their" park....is there a deed somewhere from the Native Americans?
    Let's head for the roundhouse; they can't corner us there!

  11. #51
    Registered User
    Join Date
    08-18-2017
    Location
    On the Trail
    Posts
    385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Last Call View Post
    It would be interesting to see the "ownership" history of "their" park....is there a deed somewhere from the Native Americans?
    LOL the moment when there is no question the discussion has run off the rails

  12. #52
    Registered User
    Join Date
    07-21-2014
    Location
    Bar Harbor, Maine
    Posts
    602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Last Call View Post
    Shouldn't the A.T. have privileges that trump Baxter State Parks rules? And what is "Rule 2.2"? Any "rule" they arbitrarily made over 40 years ago should certainly be revisited with the modern technology we have nowadays....
    Nope. Baxter is a land trust set aside by Percival Baxter as a gift to the people of Maine. It is to remain forever wild and undeveloped. The AT can be relocated from the park if the impact is seen as not in accord with the vision set forth when it was established.

    Think of your visit as a privilege into a pristine, unspoiled and gorgeous area. The rules that govern use of these lands help retain itsí pristine and untrampled beauty.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  13. #53
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06-18-2010
    Location
    NJ
    Age
    44
    Posts
    3,133
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Last Call View Post
    Shouldn't the A.T. have privileges that trump Baxter State Parks rules?
    people who just don't get what the AT is and isn't and what the areas such as baxter, WMNF, GSMNP etc, that the AT runs through but is not the center of, are will just always be with us i guess.

  14. #54
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06-18-2010
    Location
    NJ
    Age
    44
    Posts
    3,133
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Last Call View Post
    I agree 100%....
    this sort of thinking boggles MY mind.

  15. #55
    Registered User Last Call's Avatar
    Join Date
    09-03-2013
    Location
    Olive Branch, MS
    Posts
    408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tdoczi View Post
    this sort of thinking boggles MY mind.
    So many elitists attitudes....reminds me of the ol' "Get off my lawn" grumpy old geezer....just imagine if all state parks were as restrictive as the vaunted Baxter, wouldn't that be a hoot?
    Let's head for the roundhouse; they can't corner us there!

  16. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heliotrope View Post
    Think of your visit as a privilege...
    Not a chance, but I appreciate your point of view.

    Even if we believe it is unsafe to take a child under 6 up the mountain, we have to understand that we might be wrong. It's not our place to make that decision for every other parent on the trail.

  17. #57
    Registered User Last Call's Avatar
    Join Date
    09-03-2013
    Location
    Olive Branch, MS
    Posts
    408

    Default

    Well I, for 1, wouldn't want to see the disappointment in that child's eyes when he is told by the ranger that he couldn't summit after hiking 2,185 miles.....
    Let's head for the roundhouse; they can't corner us there!

  18. #58
    Registered User
    Join Date
    11-20-2002
    Location
    Damascus, Virginia
    Age
    61
    Posts
    31,206

    Default

    the northern terminus should be at Whitecap

  19. #59
    Registered User SoaknWet's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-14-2017
    Location
    Washington,Pa
    Age
    71
    Posts
    151

    Default

    You will find no deeds with Native Americans on it because there is No such persons. They were the First People, Native People or just the People! It was never America till the invaders named it that!

  20. #60
    Registered User soilman's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-29-2010
    Location
    Chillicothe, OH
    Age
    66
    Posts
    559

    Default

    If you have hiked up Katahdin I think you can appreciate why this rule is in place. I think it would be very difficult for a small child to climb most of these trails. I am 6'1" and wonder how some shorter folks are able to get up and down in some places.
    More walking, less talking.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
++ New Posts ++

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •