AT Finish may be moved from Katahdin

[chumley]

Maine's Baxter State Park may force the Appalachian Trail to reroute the finish line to avoid the park and Katahdin Peak.

The AT attracts a large number of users and is ruining the wilderness experience the park is trying to preserve.

Summit beers are illegal in the park as are groups over 12. Apparently AT hikers regularly violate these and other park rules.

Recent speed champion Scott Jurek was cited for three violations after completing his AT run including littering, alcohol consumption, and excessive group size.

Because Jurek also had corporate sponsorships for his run, including taking and publishing photos with corporate logos, Baxter State Park believes he was exploiting the park for personal financial gain.

The AT is expecting a surge of hikers after the release of a Robert Redford movie this fall that highlights the trail. This is based on the increased interest in the PCT after last year's Wild. The AT is promoting the movie, but Baxter is concerned about the effects it will have.

Full details on all this in a detailed NYT article. Read it here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/us/as ... t-end.html

[The_Eagle]

Robert Redford movie this fall

Actually comes out next week -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOF2LIAp9bw

[chumley]

@The Eagle Well apparently the NYT thinks next week is fall. They should come to AZ next week and see if their opinion changes.

[Tough_Boots]

I have a feeling that no matter where the "official" northern terminus is-- the end of the AT will always be Katahdin. Though I do agree with Bissell's thoughts on the "commercialization of the wilderness".

Also, people who think they are privileged to act in ways detrimental to nature because they have accomplished some type of personal goal need to be given citations and made examples out of.

[FOTG]

people who think they are privileged to act in ways detrimental to nature because they have accomplished some type of personal goal need to be given citations and made examples out of

Somewhat of a hard line stance, but I think I agree with you on this one, could also help in other parks being plagued by stuff like this..why couldn't the guy just walk off the trail and grab a beer in town to celebrate like everyone else?

[CannondaleKid]

why couldn't the guy just walk off the trail and grab a beer in town to celebrate like everyone else?

'Cuz it was all about him... and his $ponsor$

[Tough_Boots]

why couldn't the guy just walk off the trail and grab a beer in town to celebrate like everyone else?

and he did it right in front of the ranger... you pretty much have to cite someone for being so blatant.

[rcorfman]

and he did it right in front of the ranger... you pretty much have to cite someone for being so blatant.

Well, maybe not so blatant after all: Jurek's response.

[chumley]

We were not aware of any rules against alcohol and I own that—I should have been better informed.

One citation in the books.

“I even told one of the rangers, ‘I think you are singling me [out]. Are you giving tickets to anyone else or is this to make an example of me?’” said Jurek, who believes that based on park rules, others in his party should have been ticketed as well.

I tried this once when I got pulled over for speeding. Apparently it doesn't matter that other cars were also speeding! (Two citations in the books).

Jurek told Newswire the summons for littering came because of champagne spray. He said he was careful to pack out all of his trash, including the cork, before he hiked down.

He didn't deny spraying champagne at all. He deflected. That's three citations in the books.

I admire him for making excuses. I would have done exactly the same thing. But the fact is that in his response he actually admits to having done each of the three things for which he was cited. If you've ever argued anything in court, you know the judge doesn't care about the rest of it.

But public opinion might. And that's who he's playing to.

[Tough_Boots]

I would imagine the truth somewhere lies within a mixture of both sides' stories. I would argue that a commercially sponsored event has a responsibility to know the regulations of the area rather than waiting to be told the rules. I also find it funny that he breaks the speed record and his wife claims:

Scott carried out every scrap of trash, every square of used toilet paper, every wrapper he found on the trail that wasn't his. Scott continually moved downed trees and branches that had fallen on the trail.

We all know that's not true. Like I said above, I don't mind them making him an example. If he's using their park to promote his running career, then why shouldn't they use him to promote their issues? It sound like they haven't even fined him yet and I'd be surprised if they actually do. Let the sponsors pay the fines if it goes that far.