jay
Trail Wise!
Posts: 152
|
Post by jay on Aug 30, 2015 13:55:07 GMT -8
Great analogy, BlueBear.
|
|
|
Post by rwtb123 on Aug 30, 2015 14:17:58 GMT -8
Personally,I think original article is overblown.Backpacking 15-20 miles per day day after day is no walk in the park.Most thru-hikers when they get to the shelter at the end of the day are too tired to do much of anything and in particular party.Granted some at the beginning will tend to view the thru-hike as a rolling party but those inevitably do not make it very far before they quit.And the AT trail community does a good job of policing itself by word of mouth.The few bad apples become well know fast up and down the trail.What I found interesting is that while the number of thruhikers has increased the percentage that complete the trail has increased as well.Could be more services along the trail,more knowledge,lighter gear,whatever. I still think it is good thing more people are attempting and completing thruhikes.And during the day actually hiking you will only periodically see other hikers as most thruhikers like to hike alone or with perhaps one or two others that maintain similar pace so tend to be well spaced out after the first week or two.And if the thruhiker in the article wanted solitude it is pretty obvious he should avoid the shelters where other thruhikers will be and at times packed pretty tight(so definitely not for everyone).I didn't even read the Jurek article but if the crime is drinking champagne after a thruhike/run just fine him and be done with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2015 18:49:39 GMT -8
I didn't even read the Jurek article but if the crime is drinking champagne after a thruhike/run just fine him and be done with it. The charge against Jurek (for which there is video evidence) is public consumption of an alcoholic beverage in a location where it is clearly prohibited. The solution is for Jurek to pay the fine, quit making excuses, and quit blaming those who enforce the rules. He made himself the example. Now he is complaining that those who enforce the rules supposedly "made an example" of someone (evidently he himself) who opening and flagrantly disrespected and disobeyed the same rules. Jurek had a golden opportunity — as someone with commercial backing, many admirers, and much publicity. He had a golden opportunity to show all those people that the rules of the trail matter more than his own ego. He made himself into that widely-publicized example. If he now wants to be "done with it," he can pay the fines, quit making excuses, and admit he was wrong. Jurek has a golden opportunity once more to set a good example for all other through-hikers who succeed in topping Katahdin at the end of a long ordeal. Each of them has just as much reason to celebrate as he does — and maybe even more. Either he takes this opportunity to become the good example he failed to become the first time, or, by his own choice, he becomes again the poor example he was earlier. He sought the publicity. Now, once more, he uses that publicity for good or ill. The matter will be "done with" when he is done with it — done with making excuses for his poor decision earlier.
|
|
|
Post by rwtb123 on Aug 30, 2015 19:08:18 GMT -8
Actually,I didn't read that either because I don't care about trail joggers and speed records.But as long as there has been internet I have seen pictures of hikers celebrating completion of their thruhike atop Mt Katahdin.If that particular state park now has issues I'm sure the trail could easily be rerouted to end somewhere else say Bar Harbor where everyone would be happy.
|
|
balzaccom
Trail Wise!
Waiting for spring...
Posts: 4,534
|
Post by balzaccom on Aug 30, 2015 19:49:51 GMT -8
Nioely put, Travis.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2015 19:54:11 GMT -8
Actually,I didn't read that either because I don't care about trail joggers and speed records.But as long as there has been internet I have seen pictures of hikers celebrating completion of their thruhike atop Mt Katahdin.If that particular state park now has issues I'm sure the trail could easily be rerouted to end somewhere else say Bar Harbor where everyone would be happy. Clearly, the AT Conservancy and a large portion of other through-hikers do not want the trail re-routed. And they claim the AT experience would not be the same, or even comparable, without the final climb to Katahdin. According to the articles, the land manager at Katahdin, Baxter State Park, has been in recurrent communications with the AT Conservancy over the misbehavior on top the mountain. This is nowhere near the first time that behavior has run amuck, and it is not the first time the land manager has complained to the AT Conservancy. Because of the circumstances under which Baxter State Park was formed, the administrators of that Park are legally bound to curtail the rampant breaking of rules at Katahdin. They are not free by law to ignore the restrictions that Jurek himself flagrantly ignored. Either they must correct the problem, or they must restrict traffic from the AT from ending in the Park. They are not free to legally do otherwise. And they have been trying to do that long before this incident. Now the AT Conservancy could be between a rock and a hard place. Either they strongly promote an improvement in behavior at the Mountain, or the trail could be re-routed. The AT Conservancy clearly does not want that. And IF you had read the articles, you would see that a lot of people will clearly NOT be happy with any re-routing of the trail near Katahdin. There are far broader implications to this controversy that merely trail-runners, long trails, and speed records. If all hikers with reason to celebrate are free to disrespect the rules, we will all have some serious problems all across the country. If you don't understand that, you may wish to read the article that is in fact the topic of this thread. No offense intended, but: You know, it's not easy to comment on something you decline to read.
|
|
|
Post by swimswithtrout on Aug 30, 2015 19:57:57 GMT -8
I thought it was about this..... "If you build it, they will come". Creating "long trails" and then having all of the media focused on it only promotes this type of display. It's no different than the Super Bowl team popping a few corks of Champagne in their locker room.
|
|
BigLoad
Trail Wise!
Pancakes!
Posts: 12,946
|
Post by BigLoad on Aug 30, 2015 20:00:23 GMT -8
I think he's just upset because nobody gave him a medal. That's how it goes when you hike for the fame instead of the fun.
|
|
|
Post by rwtb123 on Aug 30, 2015 21:23:12 GMT -8
The Bar Harbor reroute was a joke though Pickle Gulch might be more appropriate.The original article was about of hikers behaving badly with examples and the original poster asked if we thought this was overblown or not.I refuted the example of Jurek because it was a runner, his posse and the media behaving badly after Jurek had finished the trail.Now if you want to start a new thread on runners behaving badly and even it's effect on the AT and thruhikers go ahead but I am not interested in debating that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2015 21:50:02 GMT -8
The Bar Harbor reroute was a joke though Pickle Gulch might be more appropriate.The original article was about of hikers behaving badly with examples and the original poster asked if we thought this was overblown or not.I refuted the example of Jurek because it was a runner, his posse and the media behaving badly after Jurek had finished the trail.Now if you want to start a new thread on runners behaving badly and even it's effect on the AT and thruhikers go ahead but I am not interested in debating that. I thought you said you had not even read the original article. Now you claim you have? The original article was about several things: bad behavior by hikers, bad behavior by Jurek (not just his "posse"), bad behavior on Ketahdin . . . and so on. You did not refute anything.
|
|
|
Post by rwtb123 on Aug 30, 2015 23:12:16 GMT -8
I didn't read the second linked article specifically about Jurek though I admit initially I only skimmed the part about Jurek in the original article.As I said before hikers have long celebrated completion of their thruhike atop Katahdin to the point it has become almost an obligatory photo.I would guess officials looked the other way until Jurek forced their hand by flaunting the group size rule as well(thruhikers are in smaller groups and more discreet)and in particular involving the media in the whole thing.I am sure the trail will continue to start in Springer and end at Katahdin though with perhaps some rule tightening which wouldn't be the end of the world.But the article painted thruhiking the AT as a rolling party with bad apples left and right and the situation only set to get worse which couldn't be further from the truth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2015 3:24:53 GMT -8
As I said before hikers have long celebrated completion of their thruhike atop Katahdin to the point it has become almost an obligatory photo. The controversy is not about "celebrating" and "obligatory photos." The controversy is about the open display and consumption of alcoholic beverages on top Katahdin — as well as group size, etc. Yes, you missed the point before and you have missed the point again. I would guess officials looked the other way . . . Multiple sources indicate that you are wrong. And despite the fact that you have been told that, you have chosen to not read those other sources. You prefer your "guess" to the evidence. But the evidence suggests that Baxter State Park trustees have been trying to control the problem and trying to enlist multiple trail associations in getting the situation under control. The rules against alcohol on Katahdin etc. are not just state-park rules that the trustees of the park are free to ignore or that the people of Maine are free to alter. It is a legal restriction placed upon the trustees and the park by the former owner, who donated the land for the park — under covenanted restrictions. Those covenanted restrictions are legally binding to the extent that the trustees can be subjected to a civil suit if they don't curtail the behavior. The published reports that you have chosen to not read indicate that the trustees have taken the situation very seriously and have attempted to curtail the behavior long before Jurek decided to shirk his own legal obligations and to compound the problem. The topic is not just about through-hikers — whether they are mostly law abiding or not. The topic is also about any trail users or visitors to Katahdin who are openly breaking the rules and rebelling against land-manager regulations. That is why this problem has wide application across the country. If crowds and make-believe heroes can trample wilderness rules on a whim, and get away with it, the future of wilderness in this country is dire.. . . until Jurek forced their hand by flaunting the group size rule as well (thruhikers are in smaller groups and more discreet) and in particular involving the media in the whole thing. Yeah, I get that. That is what you believe, and maybe you are right — but that does not resolve the multiple problems that are the topic of the article in the opening post, the same article mentioned in the title of this thread, and the article that is bolstered by other articles linked in the thread. I am sure the trail will continue to start in Springer and end at Katahdin though with perhaps some rule tightening which wouldn't be the end of the world. I don't believe that you are sure at all. That's what you and a lot of other people evidently want to believe. But the legal restrictions on the trustees of Baxter State Park say otherwise. As the articles indicate, visitation to Katahdin is poised to increase — and the trustees of the park are legally bound to do something about it. That means either re-routing the AT or restricting how many people can finish it on Katahdin. Whether the AT Conservancy, other trail associations, and through-hikers take the problem seriously or not, the trustees are liable to civil suit if they do not correct the problem. In the end, it does not matter whether hikers are mostly innocent or not. Baxter State Park trustees are legally bound to curtail visitation and behavior to preserve the park's covenanted restrictions. It is not a question of merely hiker guilt or innocence. The restrictions may reroute the AT or make other changes no matter how innocent hikers are. Jurek had, and has, a golden opportunity to do something to help. Either he takes responsibility for his actions or he leaves a horrible legacy to be remembered — by both the innocent and the guilty. As far as I am concerned, his behavior on Katahdin says as much or more about the man than any speed record on the AT.
|
|
|
Post by rwtb123 on Aug 31, 2015 3:36:13 GMT -8
You're going to have to find someone else to continue this discussion with I answered the original posters question about whether I thought the article's portrayal of thruhikers was overblown or not and have no desire to get dragged into discussion of other issues...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2015 3:55:07 GMT -8
The opening poster raised other issues also when he asked, "does anyone here see this as a growing problem"?
The answer is: Yes, it has wide application in this country to our entire notion of "wilderness" and land conservation. Wilderness does not have a lot of rules, but the rules it does have are very important.
|
|
|
Post by rwtb123 on Aug 31, 2015 4:27:42 GMT -8
The thing is I don't disagree with any of that.I was ignoring Jurek because I was tired of reading about publicity seeking speed records.I agree he was wrong and should be punished.And if the state park feels they need to tighten the rules or at least the enforcement then by all means do so.
|
|