Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2016 22:23:10 GMT -8
I see no reason not to remove the AT from Baxter State Park. Might be better for everyone concerned.
|
|
|
Post by Jester 2000 on Mar 7, 2016 0:01:45 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? I'm not sure why you're obsessing over Scott Jurek. One person who the Park decided to make an example of by virtue of his high profile has little to do with the overall problems in the Park. But in any case, ONE out of three of Jurek's citations was for the number of people accompanying him, and they would not have been there (and he would not have been cited for his behavior) if he had not been what the Park considers an AT thru-hiker. How fast he got there or where he slept doesn't really factors into whether or not the Park considers someone a thru-hiker, so I won't bother making the distinction either. When I refer to the Park's attitude towards AT hikers as not being "members of the public," I am referencing their letter to ATC and NPS, wherein they state that hikers are, and I quote, "a user group not defined in our Trust mission." As "members of the public" are a user group defined in their trust mission, I can only conclude from their language that they don't consider AT hikers "members of the public," which in my opinion is sort of weird and arbitrary. How someone gets into the Park, in my opinion, shouldn't single them out for extra attention positively or negatively. As for what percentage of public consideration hikers need or want, I'm not even sure if I know what that means. From my point of view, the best thing to do would be to treat all users equally, regardless of how they enter the park. I would even suggest dismantling The Birches, just as they did back in 2001 to the Shelters at Daicey Pond. But frankly, Park employees would tell you that having The Birches actually makes their job easier, so I doubt that would happen. I guess I didn't make myself clear about alcohol use by Gate visitors, or possibly it's an argument you don't actually want to address, but I'll say it again: having stayed at Katahdin Stream Campground rather than the Birches, I saw many, many car campers drinking alcohol in public both in the campground and on top of Katahdin, as well as using other drugs. In terms of their fixed capacity model, I'm not making an assumption: I'm again referring to their actual statements in their letter to ATC and NPS, wherin they say, "BSP operates under a fixed capacity model." And yet, as I noted, they've managed to accomodate more than 8,600+ Gate visitors more than they did in 2014, and I use that only as a recent high point number -- it's been higher other years as well. So if the capacity is "fixed" they can only mean that at any given time there are only so many camp spots, cabins, and parking spaces for visitors, and this is also true for AT hikers -- 12 spots at The Birches, or reserve a regular camping spot. Having to fill out a registration card even if you're not staying overnight in the Park has nothing to do with their "Fixed Model," and everything to do with limiting who can hike and when, which is not something they're doing with Gate Visitors. Personally, I'm not offended by what the Park is doing. I think they're grappling with a very real problem, but I think they're making it more complicated than it needs to be. And I certainly don't think that only the 3% of users who are on the AT are the only ones who matter, and in fact I would do less to accomodate them rather than more. As for my presence on this site, you're right -- I rarely post on it. But I do read threads often and find them useful, informative, and occasionally funny. And then from time to time you come across the occasional tool, but that's the sort of thing you have to learn to live with online. Amiright?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2016 3:46:10 GMT -8
Oh, we're going to get big complaints about our verbosity on this one. Jester2000 wrote:Scott Jurek make himself an example — not merely of high profile but of low behavior. The article in the opening post used him as an example because the BSPA's attempts to rein in behavior on Katahdin became public with his poor behavior. And considering the focus on long-trail culture in your blog, I'm not exactly the one who blazed the trail of obsessions here. Jester2000 wrote:Most land managers limit group size. Baxter SP is not exceptional in that regard. Jurek intently sought the sort of publicity that gathered a larger group around him. So again, Jurek and his long-trail-crown groupies made themselves the example. The Park merely followed suit — whatever its reasons or prejudices. Jester2000 wrote:That's your poor logic again. To not name a user-group specifically does not imply that the user-group is not included in a larger group of "the public." That's a fairly basic principle of sociology. Jester2000 wrote:It's not merely a question of how they enter the park. It's a question of how they get to Katahdin and to the heart of the backcountry. Land managers do not allow people to drive into the backcountry. That's why it is called backcountry. So how can you treat vehicle drivers equal to walkers in an area that does not allow vehicles? Jester2000 wrote:And did you report them? Did they pose for photographs to be splashed across the news media? I don't drink or use illegal drugs, so I have no reason to avoid the subject. (If I did want to smoke a joint, the last place I'd stay would be in a public campground in a state park. Must have been pretty poor weed.) But there is a difference in where you shake your bottle of champagne and spray the contents on the ground. Spraying alcoholic beverages onto the ground in the backcountry on Katahdin isn't the same as spraying on the ground in a car campground. But anywhere you spray it, if the infraction is not reported (i.e. by someone like you), it doesn't have the same chance of being cited with a ticket. Did the people you witnessed in the car campground pose for photos in broad daylight while breaking the law? Or is that something reserved for the hoopla on Katahdin? Jester2000 wrote:Is the model fixed or the number fixed? If so, what is the fixed number? Not enough information. It would seem there is a simple remedy though. No room in the campground? Then hike in and hike back out on the same day — similar to what "gate visitors" are required to do. And if a guy or gal on foot doesn't have the energy to do that, what's he or she doing there in the first place? There is no rule that says that all hikers must get all tuckered out chasing some silly "crown" up Katahdin. Jester2000 wrote:Not doing with gate visitors? Where do you get your information? The official rules of Baxter SP say, "1.3. All persons entering the Park by road or trail must register their entrance at the first opportunity at a staffed gatehouse or self-registration station." Even so, gate visitors are not driving up to Katahdin. I have no sympathy with the complaint. All wilderness areas in my region require hiker registration, camping or not. Big deal. Jester2000 wrote:Then seriously, maybe Baxter SP could make everything more simple by just moving the AT out of the Park. It seriously might be best for everyone. If hiking were nothing more than crowns and peak bagging, it would not mean crap to me. I see no other reason to leave the AT in Baxter SP.
|
|
|
Post by High Sierra Fan on Mar 7, 2016 9:35:20 GMT -8
I see no reason not to remove the AT from Baxter State Park. Might be better for everyone concerned. The relocation of the southern terminus to Springer Mountain from it's previous location is precedent for that. As to a corridor that get's over used and the resource damaged? Plenty of precedent for the management agency to react: The Mt. Whitney Zone: a quota lottery restricting daily numbers, carry out your fecal matter in a bag.. instituted by the National Forest Service as people overwhelmed, and damaged, the corridor to the summit of Whitney. The Half Dome Cables: a quota lottery to limit the daily visitor volume instituted for the Half Dome Cables. The John Muir Trail within Yosemite: instituting an "exit quota" restricting the number of people traveling the JMT within the park via controlling the number per day separate but within the established trailhead quotas. Both of those efforts by the national park service.
|
|
|
Post by Jester 2000 on Mar 7, 2016 10:00:51 GMT -8
Oh, we're going to get big complaints about our verbosity on this one. We're definitely being a bit wordy here. Hopefully we don't get cited for it. :( Scott Jurek make himself an example — not merely of high profile but of low behavior. The article in the opening post used him as an example because the BSPA's attempts to rein in behavior on Katahdin became public with his poor behavior. And considering the focus on long-trail culture in your blog, I'm not exactly the one who blazed the trail of obsessions here. Most land managers limit group size. Baxter SP is not exceptional in that regard. Jurek intently sought the sort of publicity that gathered a larger group around him. So again, Jurek and his long-trail-crown groupies made themselves the example. The Park merely followed suit — whatever its reasons or prejudices. For me, the issue isn't whether or not Jurek broke the rules -- he definitely broke one rule (alcohol consumption). The other two charges were dropped, and in the case of group size, it was because they weren't going to be able to prove that the people who came in through the Gate to climb at the same time as him were part of his "group." It was going to be a messy argument to make, as was whether or not spilling liquid on the ground constituted "littering." So Jurek pled guilty to drinking, and when he did, was assessed a fine that Penobscot County District Attorney R. Christopher Almy admitted was $300 greater than a public drinking summons would typically carry under state law. Saying that someone was singled out or made an example of doesn't mean to suggest that the person in question didn't do what they were accused of or that they shouldn't be held responsible for it. It suggests that the reasononing behind tagging him and not others on the mountain was an effort to take advantage of his high profile to send a message, which I think is actually not the worst plan in the world. Unfortunately, because the Park has built a reputation over the past 15 years of NOT enforcing their own rules, the whole thing sort of blew up in their faces in terms of the actual view of hikers about the citations. Hikers looked at what happened with Jurek and made the same distinction the Park did -- he's high profile, big social media presence, sponsored, on a timed hike that allows the park to have Rangers on top of Katahdin to meet him -- and determined that because they themselves were not any of those things, they wouldn't have a problem even if they broke the rules. And they were right. And here I'll address a claim you made in the previous thread on the subject, which I did not read at the time because, funny enough, I was busy thru-hiking the AT. BSPA has most definitely "looked the other way" concerning alcohol in years past, regardless of what they are required to do about it. From my first thru-hike of the AT in 2000 to my second one last year and all of the times in between that I've been in the Park and summitted Katahdin, the Park has never made an attempt to enforce their own rules. I know literally thousands of thru-hikers. None of them has ever been cited. I personally know hundreds from last year. Same thing. That's your poor logic again. To not name a user-group specifically does not imply that the user-group is not included in a larger group of "the public." That's a fairly basic principle of sociology. I think your logic here would make more sense if the point of the letter was to say that AT hikers were to be treated not as a sub-group but just as regular members of the public. That's not the point of that part of the letter, which I'm presuming you've read. The point of that part of the letter is to single out hikers as a distinct user group and point out that the Park has no obligation to allow them in Baxter at all. Land managers do not allow people to drive into the backcountry. That's why it is called backcountry. So how can you treat vehicle drivers equal to walkers in an area that does not allow vehicles? The Land Managers in Baxter allow people to enter the park at the Gate and drive into Baxter to the Hunt Trail trailhead, where they park. AT hikers walk about 9 miles into the Park and arrive at the Hunt Trail trailhead, and from that point on for the 10 mile roundtrip both types of people are doing the exact same thing. And they should be treated equally while they're doing it. Did they pose for photographs to be splashed across the news media? Here, by the way, you've struck on the actual problem, as far as I'm concerned. Baxter's policy of salutory neglect has erroded not because people are breaking rules, but because the rule-breakers are letting everyone know about it. It's the lack of discretion they actually have a problem with. This was not an issue prior to the existence of social media. I'd also point out here that you may be unaware of the fact that all sorts of people celebrate on top of Katahdin, for various reasons, and many of them do so publicly with alcohol. It's usually the final climb for the Maine 4000 footers, and is often the final climb for the New England Fifty Finest and the New England 100 Highest Peaks. And being the highest mountain in Maine, people who are just hiking it by itself celebrate on top too. I've never reported anyone, because I only report behavior that bothers me. It would seem there is a simple remedy though. No room in the campground? Then hike in and hike back out on the same day You're right -- this IS the simple solution, and plenty of thru-hikers already do this. And many reserve spots in places other than The Birches in order to avoid uncertainty about having a place to stay. The difference here is that even if not staying in the Park, thru-hikers will have to register to hike, which is not true of all of the passengers in a vehicle that enters at the Gate. Gate visitors are not driving up to Katahdin. I have no sympathy with the complaint. All wilderness areas in my region require hiker registration, camping or not. Big deal. But Gate visitors DO climb Katahdin, and yet will not have to register to do so. I agree with you that hiker registration isn't a big deal -- when everyone has to do it. That's not the case here. Hikers who enter the Park via the Gate will not have to register, despite the fact that up to 300 of them could be accomodated at the Hunt trailhead parking lot, when you take into account the number of spots and the maximum group size allowed. And that's not the only trail that goes up Katahdin, nor the only Trailhead parking lot. As for where I get my information from: I get it from being there. I've entered the Park many times by road. The driver of a vehicle has always had to register. The passengers in the vehicle have never had to. PS -- thanks for checking out my blog. If you spend any time on it you'll notice that making fun of hiker attitudes is the focus of more articles than anything else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2016 10:24:06 GMT -8
As for where I get my information from: I get it from being there. I've entered the Park many times by road. The driver of a vehicle has always had to register. The passengers in the vehicle have never had to. I've never carried passengers in my backpack — excluding possibly a stowaway bug or two — so I'm not surprised that neither backpackers nor drivers are required to register passengers. And there is nothing exceptional among land managers about that, as far as I can see. As far as arguing from personal experience, you cannot be everywhere all the time. Even well-designed scientific research can not quite do that. So there is a big question of sampling size in your experience. I'm skeptical, but regardless, I still don't see what the problem is. I don't see how Baxter SP is doing anything that other land managers don't do. Life is not perfectly fair. Oh well. I've never celebrated with whoops and hollers and open consumption on any high point (and I've been to a few) so if that has been a tradition on Katahdin, I have no sympathy for those who get caught. Fair or not, they had a choice and they made it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2016 10:28:53 GMT -8
I see no reason not to remove the AT from Baxter State Park. Might be better for everyone concerned. The relocation of the southern terminus to Springer Mountain from it's previous location is precedent for that. As to a corridor that get's over used and the resource damaged? Plenty of precedent for the management agency to react: The Mt. Whitney Zone: a quota lottery restricting daily numbers, carry out your fecal matter in a bag.. instituted by the National Forest Service as people overwhelmed, and damaged, the corridor to the summit of Whitney. The Half Dome Cables: a quota lottery to limit the daily visitor volume instituted for the Half Dome Cables. The John Muir Trail within Yosemite: instituting an "exit quota" restricting the number of people traveling the JMT within the park via controlling the number per day separate but within the established trailhead quotas. Both of those efforts by the national park service. ^Exactly. And I could probably name a few examples also. But that is something that makes sense to me. Those decisions are important for the conservation and preservation of many areas. If it affects me, I adapt. I don't see any sense in complaining about the need to take those measures. In fact, I can think of other areas where such quotas may be needed.
|
|
Westy
Trail Wise!
Diagnosed w/Post-Trail Transition Syndrome
Posts: 1,962
|
Post by Westy on Mar 7, 2016 10:38:00 GMT -8
Those decisions are important for the conservation and preservation of many areas. If it affects me, I adapt. I don't see any sense in complaining about the need to take those measures. Ditto!
|
|
|
Post by Jester 2000 on Mar 7, 2016 10:59:36 GMT -8
Not doing with gate visitors? Where do you get your information? The official rules of Baxter SP say, "1.3. All persons entering the Park by road or trail must register their entrance at the first opportunity at a staffed gatehouse or self-registration station." Even so, gate visitors are not driving up to Katahdin. I have no sympathy with the complaint. All wilderness areas in my region require hiker registration, camping or not. Big deal. I've never carried passengers in my backpack — excluding possibly a stowaway bug or two — so I'm not surprised that neither backpackers nor drivers required to register passengers. And there is nothing exceptional among land managers about that, as far as I can see. In the one case you state that all hikers are required to registered near you, and in the second you seem to suggest that hikers don't have to register as long as they're passengers and not drivers. And here I would again argue that it doesn't really matter how one gets to the trailhead; a hiker is a hiker once they step foot on the Hunt Trail, and they should all be treated the same and have the same requirements. I'm not really a fan of anecdotal evidence either, by the way. But sometimes it can help clarify the difference between the online perception of what goes on (or is supposed to go on) and what actually happens on the ground. I've been around the trail, Maine, and thru-hikers for 15 years and have been visiting the Park since Buzz Caverly was the head honcho there. I wouldn't say that any of that makes my opinions more valid. But it's possible that it does make my opinions better informed than people who are relying solely on online information. Just as an aside, Land Managers in Yellowstone, Glacier, and RMNP don't treat CDT thru-hikers differently than they treat people who enter the Park in cars and want to hike in the backcountry. All are subject to the same rules and regulations. So I think in that respect BSPA is doing something differently than other land managers. And limiting it just to the AT, they are also doing something differently than the managers of GSMNP, Maryland State Parks, PA State Gamelands, and other units the AT passes through that actually enforce their own rules. Life is, indeed, not fair. Thnaks for engaging in the discussion, by the way. I've enjoyed it.
|
|
|
Post by tipiwalter on Mar 7, 2016 11:08:04 GMT -8
High Sierra Fan mentions overused corridors and the reaction of management agencies to restrict usage. He mentions Mt Whitney but fails to mention the 12 mile Whitney Portal road which gets hikers and backpackers closer to the mountain than they might need to be. Close this portal road and see what happens to the numbers. He mentions Half Dome but a cursory look shows nearby roads and/or development offering close access to the rock---(hit satellite view)--- linkHe mentions the JMT thru Yosemite, a park which has a major highway thru it called 150. See--- www.yosemite.ca.us/maps/yosemite_national_park_map.jpgThe red lines are roads. There are a lot of roads in Yosemite. And the JMT actually passes thru Tuolumne Meadows with a road crossing and a visitor's center etc. Any efforts made to close these roads by the managing agencies???
|
|
|
Post by Jester 2000 on Mar 7, 2016 11:09:44 GMT -8
The relocation of the southern terminus to Springer Mountain from it's previous location is precedent for that. As to a corridor that get's over used and the resource damaged? Plenty of precedent for the management agency to react: The Mt. Whitney Zone: a quota lottery restricting daily numbers, carry out your fecal matter in a bag.. instituted by the National Forest Service as people overwhelmed, and damaged, the corridor to the summit of Whitney. The Half Dome Cables: a quota lottery to limit the daily visitor volume instituted for the Half Dome Cables. The John Muir Trail within Yosemite: instituting an "exit quota" restricting the number of people traveling the JMT within the park via controlling the number per day separate but within the established trailhead quotas. Both of those efforts by the national park service. ^Exactly. And I could probably name a few examples also. But that is something that makes sense to me. Those decisions are important for the conservation and preservation of many areas. If it affects me, I adapt. I don't see any sense in complaining about the need to take those measures. In fact, I can think of other areas where such quotas may be needed. I suppose it's a precedent for a terminus having been moved before. But in the case of Mount Oglethorpe, the move was due to private property issues, particularly the chicken farms. So I think this is a slightly different case. Frankly, as I've already stated, I have no issue with quotas, lotteries, permits, specific LNT requirements, and the like, as long as it's applied across the board. Sometimes it's necessary. But to suggest that the system is being overwhelmed by 3% of the users of the Park and rules are being put into place that only apply to that 3%? I return to my point of view that if applying the rules to everyone and enforcing them hasn't been tried (and it hasn't), then moving up to the next level of restriction (and only applying it to some people) doesn't make any sense.
|
|
reuben
Trail Wise!
Gonna need more Camels at the next refugio...
Posts: 11,215
Member is Online
|
Post by reuben on Mar 7, 2016 11:10:43 GMT -8
And Jester makes it a 3 way cage match. I thought Tipi dropped out after slipping Travis' jabs, but he's back! And pulling HSF into the match. I'm lovin' it. DC, we're gonna need more beer and peanuts.
|
|
BlueBear
Trail Wise!
@GoBlueHiker
Posts: 3,224
|
Post by BlueBear on Mar 7, 2016 11:10:58 GMT -8
High Sierra Fan mentions overused corridors and the reaction of management agencies to restrict usage. He mentions Mt Whitney but fails to mention the 12 mile Whitney Portal road which gets hikers and backpackers closer to the mountain than they might need to be. Close this portal road and see what happens to the numbers. He mentions Half Dome but a cursory look shows nearby roads and/or development offering close access to the rock--- www.google.com/maps/@37.7361436,-119.547061,3166m/data=!3m1!1e3 He mentions the JMT thru Yosemite, a park which has a major highway thru it called 150. See--- www.yosemite.ca.us/maps/yosemite_national_park_map.jpgThe red lines are roads. There are a lot of roads in Yosemite. And the JMT actually passes thru Tuolumne Meadows with a road crossing and a visitor's center etc. Any efforts made to close these roads by the managing agencies??? Permits are required for going up Half-dome. The presence of a road doesn't negate the legal need for such a permit. And for the most part, that works. Similarly for any overnight camping on the trails near Toulumne Meadows. I'm unsure exactly what point you were trying to make there.
|
|
|
Post by Jester 2000 on Mar 7, 2016 11:12:19 GMT -8
he red lines are roads. There are a lot of roads in Yosemite. And the JMT actually passes thru Tuolumne Meadows with a road crossing and a visitor's center etc. Any efforts made to close these roads by the managing agencies??? I can only get so upset at roads before I choke on my own hypocrisy. Or maybe what I'm choking on is the food I bought at the store at Tuolumne that was brought to me on the road. Hard to say.
|
|
|
Post by Jester 2000 on Mar 7, 2016 11:15:54 GMT -8
And Jester makes it a 3 way cage match. I thought Tipi dropped out after slipping Travis' jabs, but he's back! And pulling HSF into the match. I'm lovin' it. DC, we're gonna need more beer and peanuts. The whole thing would probably be more interesting if we were more pithy. Or more pithy if we were more interesting.
|
|