[at-l] Re: AT Shelters at Katahdin REMOVED

[RoksnRoots@aol.com (RoksnRoots@aol.com)]

In a message dated 10/31/01 9:44:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
Snodrog5@aol.com writes:


> The two small AT shelters at Daicey Pond are gone. First step in Baxter's 
> big 
> plans for dealing with the Thru-hiking 'special interest group.' 

   *** Why don't they replace them with 2 10 person shelters? I'm sure ATC 
would offer to build them. 

  > are cutting a new trail-preliminarily called the Blueberry 
> Ledges Trail-       that will cut four miles off the distance from Abol 
> Bridge to Katahdin Stream 
> Campground where the AT Shelters will be relocated. I know there's an old 
> tote road that connects with the old Grassy Pond Trail, and I bet that's 
> the 
> new route. "That won't be a reroute of the AT," Ranger X says, "we can't do 
> that."

   ***The existing trail was routed to include all the land features it was 
designed to incorporate. To make an overture intended as a hint to remove 
these features is kind of insensitive and even downright backwards. Surely 
the Park isn't redesigning the concept of AT to suit a bureaucracy? What sin 
has the AT committed besides functioning well at what it was intended for? 
The trail is probably meant to give the rangers more leverage to turn hikers 
back to Abol at their "discretion".

 Ranger X also is of the opinion that Thruhikers are a 'special 

> interest' group expecting the Park to accommodate them even when there's no 
> room. "We can't do that, if we let them in when the Park is full, we'd 
> couldn't close it to anyone, could we?" Ranger X is of the opinion that the 
> 12 hiker limit will be strictly enforced, no more 'extra spots just for 
> them 
> at the group camping areas'.

    *** I don't see where the pressure is to not squeeze in 10 more people on 
a multi thousand acre mountain of vast open space? The Park is going to have 
reconcile that the AT necessarily terminates on the prevailing land feature 
known as Mt. Katahdin. People heading to that goal come up the Trail and are 
forced to climb it to culminate a grand adventure. Is that a devious 
intention? 
    I have dealt with a Park authority before with the AT and found them to 
be overly restrictive where it wasn't really necessary. They tend to deal 
with the Trail as just another user knocking on their door and tend to go 
right to the rule book without considering the broader consideration the 
Trail necessarily entails. This is just another sign of the times when the AT 
is treated like an unwanted guest by the hosts it partnered with for years. 
   A "special interest group" is a corporation seeking to turn an otherwise 
unfavorable scenario to their favor (like oil drilling in pristine 
wilderness). It's a travesty bordering on contempt to apply this disparaging 
terminology to those wanting to use what Baxter bought the land for in the 
first place. I wonder what Baxter would think of it?
    This seems to be inside manipulation of the system for political purposes 
with upset managers taking advantage of their authority. Park employees tend 
to see the problem in a myopic, insider way where the mundane chore of 
dealing with daily procedures and oversight becomes a burden. The glorious 
aspect of the Trail then gets overlooked.  If the profile of AT users has 
changed and abuses need to be curtailed, OK, but let's not take draconian 
measures that only serve to comfort Park authorities at huge expense to the 
Trail. I think the Trail community should be involved. It appears Park 
members are referring to a preferred negative stereotype of AT user.
    If officials would do the same for projects like Saddleback coming up on 
the ridges to bring machinery, development, and thousands of people to the 
ridgetop the situation would be much better improved. I can't imagine how a 
few extra AT hikers would impose such a tremendous burden. In fact, with the 
popularity of the Trail today, I would expect a public referendum to expand 
the AT hiker quota at Baxter would pass. Silly and unnecessary vindictiveness 
I think...
 
>  Of 
> course dozens of thruhikers bootlegged into the Park, dodging Rangers, 
> stealth camping, night hiking, and so on. 


    *** I can't endorse this -but I really don't blame them either...






--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---