No, pet dogs are not allowed in Baxter State Park.

[ChrisB]

I understand the premise and the mission to uphold that. I've been once and climbed what I wanted to climb. That being said, I prefer places less regulated.

Sierra,

For me regulation is a double-edged sword: It can enhance and improve the outdoor experience. It can get in the way of my plans, goals and aspirations.

In Baxter's case, I've come to appreciate their effort to provide a quality outdoor experience by firmly setting limits. The latest example is a permit system that tries to manage the increasing number (3,000+) of AT hikers and the impact they have on "regular" folks climbing Baxter Peak. Trail head parking limits are another example.

On the other hand, I think park management has relaxed regulation of winter use significantly. Fat tire bikes are now OK on some trails and roads, No more mandatory gear inspection-ranger consultations, and rolling reservation system makes it easier to get in and do cool stuff. Technical climbing is a hell of a lot easier to than it used to be also.

Present park management is allocating significant resources to trail work (Abol, Northern Peaks, Traveler Loop) and infrastructure projects (bridges, culverts, cabins) rather than letting the park revert to a "wild" condition as was previously the caae.

Two unique facts about Baxter are:

1. It gets NO funding from the State of Maine. It lives and dies according to the fees it collects and the management of its endowment.

2. It prioritizes indigenous wildlife and flora ahead of human visitors when making short- and long-term management decisions.

While I occasionally get aggravated over some administrivia the park imposes, I'm glad it's not the free-for-all I see in most other New England outdoor venues.

Occasionally inconvenient, but always immensely rewarding; It's a trade off I gladly accept.

cb

NOTE: StinkyFeet - My sincere apologies if I misread your post containing quotes. My dumb!

 

[Mike P.]

If you have the ability to go out west or abroad, it's great. If you are mostly bound to staying in the east, my experience is that there is Katahdin and there is every other peak. Mitchell and Clingman or Guyot have views because of cliffs or towers. Some of the regulation helps keep it special. There is plenty of local wildlife that might be impacted by a pet let loose OR impact your pet and campsite if that wildlife chases your pet back to you and your site.

Daytrip mentioned that there seems to be a lot of vitriol regarding the topic. I've learned long ago to avoid dog discussions. Dogs are great, owners/partners are people and there are all kinds of people...........

 

[Grey J]

That's it! Day Trip's earlier post nailed it. The service dog was on a day off but he is still a service dog therefore he is allowed in the park. It makes perfect sense. Like the guy who meets another guy on the trail and wants to pet his dog. "Does your dog bite?" he asks. "No" the other man replies. When the first guy bends down to pet the dog, it bites his hand. "I thought you said your dog doesn't bite!" he exclaims resentfully. "My dog doesn't bite, but that's not my dog."

 

[sierra]

I still don't understand how the dog got in there - ? The person seemed to brag about getting the dog into the park which makes it look like there was some kind of fraud involved - ?

I'm not sure where there is any confusion. As the OP said like 5 times, service dog's are allowed. Cole is a service dog.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I'm sure that is not what is being implied. Although some simple Googling will show that people with Service Dogs have a broad range of rights covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The owner of a Service Dog merely has to state the dog is just that a "Service Dog". Any other inquiry into an owner of a Service Dog is against the law.

They are allowed to ask:

Q7. What questions can a covered entity's employees ask to determine if a dog is a service animal?
A. In situations where it is not obvious that the dog is a service animal, staff may ask only two specific questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability? and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform? Staff are not allowed to request any documentation for the dog, require that the dog demonstrate its task, or inquire about the nature of the person's disability.

DEFINITION OF A SERVICE ANIMAL. A. Under the ADA, a service animal is defined as a dog that has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability. The task(s) performed by the dog must be directly related to the person's disability.

Source: https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html

Draw from this your own conclusions about the validity of said service (asserted by sierra) animal and said individual taking him into Baxter State Park.

I can imagine Randy Pierce and one of his dogs climbing Katahdin, and I believe that would be well within the provisions of the law.

I know that puppy raisers bring puppies into places while raising them to become service dogs. I am speaking primarily of indoor sporting events my son has participated in and the family of a teammate of his has been raising puppies for years and brings them to indoor venues. Whether this is legal or simply accepted I cannot say. I also know of a diabetic teammate who has a trained service animal for that reason.

Tim

 

[skiguy]

They are allowed to ask:

Q7. What questions can a covered entity's employees ask to determine if a dog is a service animal?
A. In situations where it is not obvious that the dog is a service animal, staff may ask only two specific questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability? and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform? Staff are not allowed to request any documentation for the dog, require that the dog demonstrate its task, or inquire about the nature of the person's disability.

DEFINITION OF A SERVICE ANIMAL. A. Under the ADA, a service animal is defined as a dog that has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability. The task(s) performed by the dog must be directly related to the person's disability.

Source: https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html

Draw from this your own conclusions about the validity of said service (asserted by sierra) animal and said individual taking him into Baxter State Park.

I can imagine Randy Pierce and one of his dogs climbing Katahdin, and I believe that would be well within the provisions of the law.

I know that puppy raisers bring puppies into places while raising them to become service dogs. I am speaking primarily of indoor sporting events my son has participated in and the family of a teammate of his has been raising puppies for years and brings them to indoor venues. Whether this is legal or simply accepted I cannot say. I also know of a diabetic teammate who has a trained service animal for that reason.

Tim

Thankyou for the link as it continues the discussion. Always important to know all the rules.

 

[Driver8]

Claiming there is some negotiation, some interview process to apply for, some special exception to be granted, is misinformation.
Service dogs are allowed.
Pets are not.

Are you suggesting Baxter's rangers didn't allow Cole into the park and that he was illegally brought in, without their approval? Are you suggesting that Alton is lying when she says, more or less, that she begged and pleaded for Cole to be let in, and BSP relented? Her story seems pretty credible to me.

She may have succeeded in cajoling BSP into letting Superpup in where other owners of non-on-duty service dogs might have failed. If so, your complaint is with BSP, is it not?

 

[peakbagger]

To date I haven't seen any formal response from BSP. IMHO, the "begged & pleaded" is far more likely a dramatic justification for a far simpler solution, lying about the dogs status. As far as I can see and much to the frustration of many, the Service Dog category comes down to a self affirmation by the owner that the dog is or isn't a Service Dog. There is an entire industry that has sprung up around the ambiguity. With the exception of the two questions there is no way that the status can be challenged and to do so brings instant threats of litigation. There have been attempts to clarify this issue but to date the legal systems seem to be weighed heavily towards allowing the abuse of the service dog category by individuals who want special treatment for their pets. Thus you have a dog owner that appears to be immensely bonded to her companion animal who has shown a very distinct flair for publicity in the past who has a high motivation to answer yes to a question that cannot readily be challenged and is easy to obfuscate with terms like therapy dog or emotional support animal.

 

[DayTrip]

They are allowed to ask:

Q7. What questions can a covered entity's employees ask to determine if a dog is a service animal?
A. In situations where it is not obvious that the dog is a service animal, staff may ask only two specific questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability? and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform? Staff are not allowed to request any documentation for the dog, require that the dog demonstrate its task, or inquire about the nature of the person's disability.

DEFINITION OF A SERVICE ANIMAL. A. Under the ADA, a service animal is defined as a dog that has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability. The task(s) performed by the dog must be directly related to the person's disability.

Source: https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html

Draw from this your own conclusions about the validity of said service (asserted by sierra) animal and said individual taking him into Baxter State Park.

I can imagine Randy Pierce and one of his dogs climbing Katahdin, and I believe that would be well within the provisions of the law.

I know that puppy raisers bring puppies into places while raising them to become service dogs. I am speaking primarily of indoor sporting events my son has participated in and the family of a teammate of his has been raising puppies for years and brings them to indoor venues. Whether this is legal or simply accepted I cannot say. I also know of a diabetic teammate who has a trained service animal for that reason.

Tim

Good information. I am surprised that you are not allowed to ask for documentation though. Doesn't that essentially open the door for anybody to bring any dog and just say it's a service dog? Seems like that would essentially render this law useless. All you'd have to say is that my dog detects low blood sugar for me. Without registration documents or some sort of certification to validate how does this law accomplish anything? Did I miss something reading this??

 

[DayTrip]

I still don't understand how the dog got in there - ? The person seemed to brag about getting the dog into the park which makes it look like there was some kind of fraud involved - ?

Did it seem like bragging to you? That really wasn't my impression. She went out of her way to elaborate on what she did to get approval for entry, the rules, etc. I think bragging about gaming the system would have had a different tone to it. Her group also does a lot of hikes, lists, etc with lots of rules for completion that they obviously follow so I got the impression they made a good faith effort to get the dog legitimately into the park. Why post bragging about it of it was not legal? Just my opinion obviously. I don't know any of these people personally so I could be totally wrong.

 

[DayTrip]

Daytrip mentioned that there seems to be a lot of vitriol regarding the topic. I've learned long ago to avoid dog discussions. Dogs are great, owners/partners are people and there are all kinds of people...........

I didn't take this as a "dog/no dog" post. The OP seems to be very irate about the seemingly false statement about the dog owner and the process for gaining entry. I don't know anyone personally on this forum so maybe it is a "no dog" post but that wasn't how I interpreted it.

 

[ChrisB]

I didn't take this as a "dog/no dog" post. The OP seems to be very irate about the seemingly false statement about the dog owner and the process for gaining entry.

I guess until the owner clarifies what actually went down at the gate we really don't know how the dog was portrayed to park staff.

But, if it was a service dog, not performing a service at the time of the hike, it should not have been taken into the park, period.

No different than me borrowing granny's handicap placard for a trip to the supermarket ....

And a disservice to those who really need and deserve special consideration.

Hey, if someone would do that, how do we know they REALLY made all the summits on a list?? haha

cb

 

[Hikes with Hannah]

To date I haven't seen any formal response from BSP. IMHO, the "begged & pleaded" is far more likely a dramatic justification for a far simpler solution, lying about the dogs status. As far as I can see and much to the frustration of many, the Service Dog category comes down to a self affirmation by the owner that the dog is or isn't a Service Dog. There is an entire industry that has sprung up around the ambiguity. With the exception of the two questions there is no way that the status can be challenged and to do so brings instant threats of litigation. There have been attempts to clarify this issue but to date the legal systems seem to be weighed heavily towards allowing the abuse of the service dog category by individuals who want special treatment for their pets. Thus you have a dog owner that appears to be immensely bonded to her companion animal who has shown a very distinct flair for publicity in the past who has a high motivation to answer yes to a question that cannot readily be challenged and is easy to obfuscate with terms like therapy dog or emotional support animal.

Agreed - lack of formal legislation has led to gray areas and problems for the people that truly need a service animal. Also I've never seen people who have an honest service dog (and a true need for them) flaunting pictures of the "special privileges" their dog gets on social media - those dogs have a job to do but are not (and should not be) treated like celebrities by their owners.

 

[jfb]

Just want to clear something up regarding recent social media posts and photos of a hiker and her dog on Baxter Peak. Only service dogs are allowed in the Park, There is no "interview process," no "applying", no "special exception," no "legitimate reason." Either the dog is a service animal, or not. Pets are not allowed.

How does Baxter Park determine if a dog is a service animal or a pet?

 

[TJ aka Teej]

Her story seems pretty credible to me.

Baxter is a Wildlife Preserve.You think you can just talk your way around "no pets"?

She may have succeeded in cajoling BSP into letting Superpup in where other owners of non-on-duty service dogs might have failed.

No one "cajoles" Baxter into dropping the "no pets" rule.

 

[RichS]

Baxter is a Wildlife Preserve.You think you can just talk your way around "no pets"?

No one "cajoles" Baxter into dropping the "no pets" rule.

I see three interpretations here.
(1) We live in a world of black-and-white rules. Rule enforcers are infallible. The original claim is fake news or alternative facts.
(2) Some people have legitimate reasons to bend the rules and reasonable rule enforcers are reasonably persuaded. No animals or people or park resources were harmed.
(3) The original claim is that of a braggart who gamed the system, taking advantage of fallible rule enforcers. Plenty of blame to go around.

Without first-person testimony from the parties involved, all is speculation. I prefer to think that people are good (1 and 2) and reasonable (2 and 3).

 

[Driver8]

Thus you have a dog owner that appears to be immensely bonded to her companion animal who has shown a very distinct flair for publicity in the past who has a high motivation to answer yes to a question that cannot readily be challenged and is easy to obfuscate with terms like therapy dog or emotional support animal.

That could be true, but I'm disinclined conclusively to draw that inference on the evidence presented. Were I to talk with Alton face to face about it, I might better be able to assess. Something tells me Gov. Baxter himself, presented with the force of nature that she be, would let her bring Cole with her to hike in the park. Hard to turn back to determined a spirit.

 

[Tom_Murphy]

Something tells me Gov. Baxter himself, presented with the force of nature that she be, would let her bring Cole with her to hike in the park. Hard to turn back to determined a spirit.

It is so fascinating to me that we have the same source material and, in good faith, reach opposite conclusions. IMO Gov. Baxter' charter prioritizes the flora and fauna over human enjoyment of the park. So I don't think he would have said ok.

I agree it is difficult to prevent determined people from abusing rules and regulations.

I also agree that we should give her the benefit of the doubt as to whether or not her dog was trained to provide a service for her for a disability she has. I am inclined to doubt it, based on everything I have read, including her FB posts, she wanted to do this hike with her dog and gamed the system.

The analogy of handicapped parking permits is spot on.

 

[expat]

Alton's website states about Cole: "He is a certified therapy and emotional support animal." It's not out of the realm of consideration that Baxter officials did ask the two questions that they are allowed to ask (paraphrased here), 1) is this a service dog? and 2) what service is it trained to provide? Both questions could be answered honestly to gain admittance, and that's the limit of the requirements. Whether Alton is the person who uses the services that the dog is trained for is not part of the legal questions, nor is "will you be using the services that your dog is trained for while you are in BSP?"

It seems to me that this is a case where the dog was allowed in correctly, based on current law, but we don't know whether it was ethical for Alton to use the law in that way.

 

[injektilo]

Hmm... While I'd like to give her the benefit of the doubt, her website says that the dog is a certified therapy and emotional support animal and that she is a mental health clinician. It doesn't require much brain power to reach the conclusion that the dog is likely used FOR her profession. I'm very skeptical SHE required it to climb Katahdin. As stated above, this seems akin to using your grandparent's handicap sign so you can park closer to the store. I own a dog but don't care for them on the trails and I'm glad that BSP has the policy it does regarding them. If someone has a true need for a service dog, fine. A quick look at her website though...