RumiDude
Trail Wise!
Marmota olympus
Posts: 2,361
|
Post by RumiDude on Mar 6, 2016 11:30:07 GMT -8
If I had my way I'd close dozens of roads I know about that serve no real purpose: 441 thru the GSMNP, Cades Cove, road up to Clingmans Dome, the road up to the top of Grandfather Mt, the Cherohala Skyway, Shenandoah's Skyline Drive, the road up to Mt Washington and the cog railway, the hundreds of jeep roads up to hundreds of peaks in the mountains of TN and NC; and the roads in Baxter. I understand the sentiment, but it doesn't take into account others who are different. These places are for all and sometimes that means putting a road in to accommodate them. Rumi
|
|
|
Post by Jester 2000 on Mar 6, 2016 11:30:25 GMT -8
I find it kind of amusing that when one suggests that the solution to bad hiker behavior in Baxter is simply enforcing the rules for everyone regardless of their mode of transportation, the response is that the Park doesn't have the money or manpower. And yet this latest response seems to involve an added layer of regulation that will be enforced by . . . whom? The Park Authority that doesn't have the money or manpower to enforce existing rules? Makes sense. The Northern Terminus Of The Appalachian Trail: A Modest Proposal
|
|
|
Post by tipiwalter on Mar 6, 2016 11:32:36 GMT -8
There's a golf course in Yellowstone? Speaking of Donny Trump and how he forced reluctant people in Scotland to accept his grand golf course there. What's to stop him if elected to declare imminent domain in Yellowstone and set up another golf course with country club?? I have no perception that he is an environmentalist in the least. Will he be eager to designate more wilderness areas? Will he support less fracking on public land? Will he support the roadless area conservation rule?
|
|
RumiDude
Trail Wise!
Marmota olympus
Posts: 2,361
|
Post by RumiDude on Mar 6, 2016 11:49:54 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2016 13:22:55 GMT -8
Close these roads (the Yellowstone comes to mind) and then worry about on-foot overcrowding. It's a comically easy solution: Put parking lots at West Yellowstone, Gardiner, Silver Gate, East Entrance and South Entrance. Voila! All interior travel must happen on foot and NO SNOWMOBILES. By comically easy I mean the decision to build these roads . . . Closing such roads is even easier: Decide to do it and move on. Who's in charge of highway construction? So again you are saying that closing roads that millions of people use is "even easier" than "comically easy." Yet, like anyone else, you still use the very roads you claim are so darn easy to close. And you've said at least twice in this thread that only after the roads are closed should hikers be expected to follow rules like LNT Principles. There is indeed something very comical here, TipiWalter, but you obviously don't see what it is.
|
|
Westy
Trail Wise!
Diagnosed w/Post-Trail Transition Syndrome
Posts: 1,962
|
Post by Westy on Mar 6, 2016 14:00:57 GMT -8
Does the AT have some sort of national park or national monument status that the park service could implement such rules or does it fall to some other agency I'm not aware of? It's designated as a National Scenic Trail. Essentially there is no specific owner, but a conglomeration of Federal, State and local agencies. Thus Baxter State Park marks and maintains the trail but has oversight on regulation policies in accordance with National Trails System Act (a) The Secretary of the Interior, or the Secretary of Agriculture where lands administered by him are involved, may establish and designate national recreation trails, with the consent of the Federal agency, State, or political subdivision having jurisdiction over the lands involved, upon finding that-- (i) such trails are reasonably accessible to urban areas, and, or (ii) such trails meet the criteria established in this Act and such supplementary criteria as he may prescribe..
|
|
|
Post by tipiwalter on Mar 6, 2016 14:33:03 GMT -8
So again you are saying that closing roads that millions of people use is "even easier" than "comically easy." Yet, like anyone else, you still use the very roads you claim are so darn easy to close. Millions of people use these roads because . . . duh . . . these roads are there and exist. Some engineer or politician decided to cut a road into a valley or around a mountain and then the rolling couch potatoes come for a visit. "It's our birthright!!" we howl as we demand motored access to remote spots. Just because I may use these roads doesn't mean they couldn't be closed. I gave earlier examples. And expressed my willingness to lose rolling access and walk in from a further distance. Makes sense to me. It's weird to get so much apparent road-loving or road-ordaining posts on a backpacking forum. As if roads are a vital component to the backcountry or backpacking experience. Couldn't we just have a few less roads? Is this such blasphemy? I could understand the Car apologists here if I was posting on a Transportation forum like DOT-Maine or entering a discussion on the best RV campgrounds. Instead I keep thinking this is a forum on Backpacking where most members would be encouraging more hiking and less driving. And let's talk about LNT thruhikers blighting the top of Katahdin and spoiling LNT policy. Let's talk about LNT policy in the whole of Baxter SP then. In my view, what LNT principles apply to thruhikers in Baxter should also apply to all other human usage in the park. And so I pick on the 40 foot RVs and the lake motorboats and the winter snowmobiles---all allowed in the park. And yet the park police are focused and hypnotized by backpackers causing LNT violations on top of Katahdin?
|
|
|
Post by High Sierra Fan on Mar 6, 2016 15:20:57 GMT -8
Since the actual topic has zero to do with motor vehicles?
Do.
Not.
Feed.
The.
Troll.
IMHO.
Scottish golf courses? W. T. H.
|
|
reuben
Trail Wise!
Gonna need more Camels at the next refugio...
Posts: 11,214
|
Post by reuben on Mar 6, 2016 15:31:40 GMT -8
What? Don't feed the troll? Are you kidding? Tipi v Travis? This is free entertainment!
|
|
|
Post by Jester 2000 on Mar 6, 2016 15:59:47 GMT -8
Since the actual topic has zero to do with motor vehicles? Do. Not. Feed. The. Troll. IMHO. Scottish golf courses? W. T. H. The topic doesn't have anything to do with motor vehicles. Or at least it shouldn't. And yet I'm struck by the fact that BSPA seems to make an artificial distinction between people who walk into the park and people who drive into it. According to them, AT Hikers are not part of their mandate, but "members of the public" are. Which suggests that somehow AT hikers aren't members of the public. As far as behavior goes, I stayed at Katahdin Stream campground last year rather than the Birches, and every vehicle there had far more alcohol than a hiker could carry. Those who drove into the Park seemed to be drinking and smoking weed no more or less than the long distance hikers I saw up there. And as far as numbers go, we're told that Baxter has a "fixed capacity" model, and yet in 2002 there were 8,600+ more Gate visitors than there were in 2014. Why, I have to wonder, do they speak of the capacity being "fixed" only when we're referring to hikers? So, yeah, motor vehicles really shouldn't be part of the discussion. But I have to wonder why there's a distinction on the part of the Park between people who use them and people who don't?
|
|
|
Post by absarokanaut on Mar 6, 2016 16:21:15 GMT -8
Man I missed this place. I'm cracking a beer with Reuben.
|
|
|
Post by High Sierra Fan on Mar 6, 2016 16:25:52 GMT -8
For the purposes of trail resource impact hikers are the users of interest. And that specific corridor is where it's focused given that currently being the hosted route of the AT with that section of the parks trails experiencing the jump from hundreds to two thousand or so users.
|
|
|
Post by tipiwalter on Mar 6, 2016 17:04:03 GMT -8
And yet I'm struck by the fact that BSPA seems to make an artificial distinction between people who walk into the park and people who drive into it. My point all along, you just said it in much fewer words.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2016 20:34:48 GMT -8
Jester2000 wrote:As I recall, the Baxter State Park Authority (BSPA) objected to the behavior of the crowd accompanying Scott Jurek — regardless of how members of that crowd got there. The majority may have driven. They sure didn't hike the length of the AT to get there.
Jester2000 wrote:That's very poor logic on your part. Was Scott Jurek an AT hiker? Not exactly. He may have been an AT user. But he was more of an AT trail runner / speed walker who slept in a van with his wife.
But back to actual AT hikers and users. They comprise a mere 3% of visitors to Baxter State Park. So they comprise a mere 3% of "members of the public." So as far as I can see, the BSPA is saying that their mandate does not provide that 3% of the public get 90% of public consideration. No big special privileges. Is that what you and TipiWalter are complaining about?
Jester2000 wrote:The state laws of Maine and of Baxter State Park are against public consumption of alcohol — not against how much alcohol is in your backpack, in your tent, or in your car.
Jester2000 wrote:That's quite an assumption for having provided no evidence that your assumption is true. I realize that you rarely participate here except to link to your blog, but if you had read the previous thread on this, you'd see that the BSPA has been trying for years to get numbers in line with their charter — without offending even that small 3% that are AT users. Unfortunately, Scott Jurek pushed them a bit too far. And sure enough, the 3% are offended.
But just because 3% may be making 95% of the noise about this, does not mean that the 3% are the only ones who matter.
Jester2000 wrote:Again, that is an assumption on your part that you have done absolutely nothing to validate. Do you drive to the trailhead? How did Jurek's boisterous crowd get to Katahdin? I'd bet they drove part way. Heh?
|
|
RumiDude
Trail Wise!
Marmota olympus
Posts: 2,361
|
Post by RumiDude on Mar 6, 2016 22:02:23 GMT -8
In my opinion, this is nothing but Jensen Bissell attempting to eventually remove the AT from Baxter park. The whole affair surrounding Scott Jurek is bogus. The pettiness of Jensen Bissell is evident in the charges for which Scott Jurek was cited. And besides, that is all in the past. The issue of trying to limit AT thru and section hikers is unrelated to any issues Jensen Bissell may have had with Scott Jurek.
Rumi
|
|