jfb
Active member
Sometimes, those folks who are assigned to implement policies make mistakes.
No, pet dogs are not allowed in Baxter State Park.
- Thread starter TJ aka Teej
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
Sometimes, those folks who are assigned to implement policies make mistakes.
Becca M
Active member
Ed'n Lauky
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,802
- Reaction score
- 168
DayTrip
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 13, 2013
- Messages
- 4,014
- Reaction score
- 254
That's a pretty telling article. Sounds like her motto is "I do whatever I want and I don't care what you think or if it's legal". I think my thoughts on this thread have turned 180 degrees.
jfb
Active member
If you spend a few years rock climbing, you may develop the same attitude she has.
I'm going to step in with my two cents. I'm a Facebook friend of Alton's but have never met her in person. My dog, Toby is a Therapy Dog. She has gone through the training and passed the exam, and has a registered number with Therapy Dog International. As such, I take her to the local library where we have to present her credentials that include her photo, almost like a driver's license.
I'm personally appalled by the people who fake their way into restaurants, onto planes, and other venues where people confront owners or officials who are afraid to challenge the assertions. There is a cottage industry about the abuse written about in national publications. I've shared a row on a plane with a couple who I was convinced wanted to bring their dog across the country and my wife has experienced the same thing.
Are we positive? Can we prove a deception? Do we want to risk embarrassing someone who has a true need?
I have no idea whether the person being talked about here is in fact in need of a service animal. But she really isn't here to defend herself.
Nor would anyone here want to have to explain in personal terms why they need such an animal.
Until then, it's easy for us to take our outrage over the scams being done with fake claims. In the meantime, I guess I give her the benefit of the doubt.
I'm personally appalled by the people who fake their way into restaurants, onto planes, and other venues where people confront owners or officials who are afraid to challenge the assertions. There is a cottage industry about the abuse written about in national publications. I've shared a row on a plane with a couple who I was convinced wanted to bring their dog across the country and my wife has experienced the same thing.
Are we positive? Can we prove a deception? Do we want to risk embarrassing someone who has a true need?
I have no idea whether the person being talked about here is in fact in need of a service animal. But she really isn't here to defend herself.
Nor would anyone here want to have to explain in personal terms why they need such an animal.
Until then, it's easy for us to take our outrage over the scams being done with fake claims. In the meantime, I guess I give her the benefit of the doubt.
Last edited:
buddy
Member
Some people who are afraid of dogs or just do not like dogs for what ever reason, choose to hike in places where dogs are not permitted. There are many more places to hike where dogs are permitted than not. Is it really asking to much to respect the park rules out of respect for others enjoyment and emotional well being they derive from hiking in a dog free area. The Wanderwoman post pretty much sums up what's going on, for better or worse depending on your outlook about dogs on the trail. I hike with a my dog all the time but I understand that many people do not like dogs. I have been bitten on the trail by a dog that the owner just assured me was friendly, I still love dogs but I can absolutely understand why others might not.
I guess another way to look at it is that many laws are only enforced when it needs to be usually after a complaint or flagrant violations, like the New Hampshire fire works laws and speeding laws.
If her dog meets the service dog requirements to allow entry into Baxter Park, all is good, if not, it's a willful violation of others rights and the intent of the rule and the good will of the park employee. In the unlikely event that something bad happened with her dog while in the park, and her dog does not meet the service dog requirements, it's the park employees butt on the line, probably not hers.
I guess another way to look at it is that many laws are only enforced when it needs to be usually after a complaint or flagrant violations, like the New Hampshire fire works laws and speeding laws.
If her dog meets the service dog requirements to allow entry into Baxter Park, all is good, if not, it's a willful violation of others rights and the intent of the rule and the good will of the park employee. In the unlikely event that something bad happened with her dog while in the park, and her dog does not meet the service dog requirements, it's the park employees butt on the line, probably not hers.
peakbagger
In Rembrance , July 2024
I expect that if the Baxter State Park staff elected to make an exception to the rules, then the BSP commission has a big problem with the staff as they elected to ignore the Deeds of Trust. Percival Baxter was a major dog lover but he was also a lawyer and politician that distrusted lawyers and politicians and the long term manipulations he went through to cast the Deeds of Trust in a manner to make it difficult to be circumvented is part of the history of the park. On the rare occasions where the staff elected to go against the Deeds outside groups have sued to park for violating the intent. The BSP commission is allowed to interpret the deeds but they are not allowed to change them. They have weighed in on rare occasions where situations and technologies not envisioned or clarified by Baxter can impact the park.
The past issues I am aware over the years are
There was an attempt at one point to substantially upgrade the park roads, ultimately after litigation the park had to back off from the attempt as it was established that Baxter's intent was not to improve the roads. In cases were the deeds are quiet on a particular issue, then the courts establish Baxters most likely intent based on his writings and past speeches. There was a major academic task completed several years ago that collected and indexed every source of Percival Baxter's written correspondence related to the park as well as any speeches so these have now become part of the secondary source of establishment of intent
Access to the park to native american tribes, I am very weak on the details but I believe the during the era that Baxter prepared the deeds there may not have been consideration included covering special access to park. In this case the BSP commission may have had more latitude if the intent was weak or nonexistent and has put in place special policies to allow special access to the park to native tribes.
The snowmobile case was the biggest issue, snowmobiles were in existence and in use by park personnel as a tool but Baxter did not comment on recreational use. There was litigation and the courts finally approved the current compromise as Baxter's intent was deemed not clear.
A few years ago some individuals decided to parasail from the summit. The rules did not cover this nor did the deeds and the one individual that challenged the fine won in court and the case dismissed. Subsequently the commission added prohibition on similar equipment.
Unfortunately even Baxter could not put in place rules directly contrary to federal law and thus the ADA requires access to legitimate service animals so the park has to allow access despite that its clearly against the Deeds. Thus my contention is that the park staff did not willingly allow a contravention of the Deeds of Trust as they don't have that authority including the park director. Any staff is composed of individuals and a large portion of the staff are seasonal employees who most likely were fairly early in their term of employment. They may have had some minimal training on park rules but conceivably a persistent individual with knowledge of the service dog regulations could have deliberately confused the various categories of animals to convince the specific employee the dog fell under ADA. This is reportedly attempted all the time by individuals with companion animals.
Sadly this now means that the staff is going to get hit with endless attempts by individuals that will want to claim an exemption where none is allowed.
The past issues I am aware over the years are
There was an attempt at one point to substantially upgrade the park roads, ultimately after litigation the park had to back off from the attempt as it was established that Baxter's intent was not to improve the roads. In cases were the deeds are quiet on a particular issue, then the courts establish Baxters most likely intent based on his writings and past speeches. There was a major academic task completed several years ago that collected and indexed every source of Percival Baxter's written correspondence related to the park as well as any speeches so these have now become part of the secondary source of establishment of intent
Access to the park to native american tribes, I am very weak on the details but I believe the during the era that Baxter prepared the deeds there may not have been consideration included covering special access to park. In this case the BSP commission may have had more latitude if the intent was weak or nonexistent and has put in place special policies to allow special access to the park to native tribes.
The snowmobile case was the biggest issue, snowmobiles were in existence and in use by park personnel as a tool but Baxter did not comment on recreational use. There was litigation and the courts finally approved the current compromise as Baxter's intent was deemed not clear.
A few years ago some individuals decided to parasail from the summit. The rules did not cover this nor did the deeds and the one individual that challenged the fine won in court and the case dismissed. Subsequently the commission added prohibition on similar equipment.
Unfortunately even Baxter could not put in place rules directly contrary to federal law and thus the ADA requires access to legitimate service animals so the park has to allow access despite that its clearly against the Deeds. Thus my contention is that the park staff did not willingly allow a contravention of the Deeds of Trust as they don't have that authority including the park director. Any staff is composed of individuals and a large portion of the staff are seasonal employees who most likely were fairly early in their term of employment. They may have had some minimal training on park rules but conceivably a persistent individual with knowledge of the service dog regulations could have deliberately confused the various categories of animals to convince the specific employee the dog fell under ADA. This is reportedly attempted all the time by individuals with companion animals.
Sadly this now means that the staff is going to get hit with endless attempts by individuals that will want to claim an exemption where none is allowed.
Last edited:
buddy
Member
I'm not a rock climber but I would be interested in what hassle's rock climbers encounter while doing their thing. Perhaps in a separate post we could explore those issues and allow the uninformed to become informed. Care to take a stab at it jfb, I'm sincerely curious.
jfb
Active member
I was not referring to hassles that rock climbers might encounter while doing their thing, (although parking can be an issue) but rather the attitude rock climbers can develop about deciding what is safe to do and what is not. They can make their own decisions about things like bringing a dog up a steep trail.
Here's an example of a restriction that rock climbers frequently see: http://gunksclimbers.org/gunks-news/2017-peregrine-falcon-climbing-closure/
Last edited:
Really here.. This women admits to breaking the rules and in her mind thinks it's ok. Get a grip folks and stop condoning this behavior. Sorry but the Moderators have no ground until they accept her membership so she might be able to defend herself here on this board. Otherwise they should take a look in the mirror at the double standard they seem to adhere to.
Then the Moderator's should refrain from making comments about there opinions without putting their moderator's hat on.
This might be the opposite of what you meant to say...
DayTrip
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 13, 2013
- Messages
- 4,014
- Reaction score
- 254
She has been asked this question on Facebook multiple times (where she has a major presence) and her only reply was "tenacity and a legitimate reason". She has not said much on the subject since her initial posts and photo album.
jfb
Active member
You're correct. She seems to care about safety, but does not care if it's illegal. She even seems to prefer doing something illegal.
I feel like we talk about Baxter and the subversion of rules every year. Thru-hikers abusing the system, talk of wanting to change the end-point. Popping champagne at the summit, the negative press than ensued.
When rules are broken or bent, then those who follow have to pay the consequences often with stricter enforcement.
(Ed, yes, he sent his dog along with others for the Smokies and a few other places while he completed it. But, he was not going to "finish" without her. And, while he asked, he knew what the answer would be and didn't put up too much of a fuss. He brought her ashes with him a year or two later and finished with her then).
When rules are broken or bent, then those who follow have to pay the consequences often with stricter enforcement.
(Ed, yes, he sent his dog along with others for the Smokies and a few other places while he completed it. But, he was not going to "finish" without her. And, while he asked, he knew what the answer would be and didn't put up too much of a fuss. He brought her ashes with him a year or two later and finished with her then).
You are correct.."I meant to say without taking their Moderators hat off". I also think I have misinterpreted the Moderator from NY's comment as being spoken as a Moderator rather than a board member. Although I disagree with his comment about giving her the benifit of the doubt. The information posted by the Women in her blog about the Precipice Trail clearly points to a pattern of behavior that is unacceptable and undermines her credibility regarding her entry to Baxter. Also exacerbated by the fact that she blows her horn about her illegal behavior.
TCD
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 2,087
- Reaction score
- 161
Well I have been reading this thread. I think it has nothing to do with either dogs or rock climbers, so why don't we leave them out of it.
I think it has to do with an unfortunate trend that is growing in our society. A narcissist often comes along who wants to show off how smart they are, and that rules (that are written to benefit most people) do not apply to them. And the unfortunate trend is that a lot of folks "celebrate" this behavior and lionize the narcissist. Perhaps they want to emulate, but are not quite enough of a show-off? Or maybe they don't have the resources to pay the fine or whatever, so they are more cautious? So they express their frustration by fawning over how smart and clever the rule-breaker is.
Lots of laws are frustrating, like speed limits. I can go 100 mph in the 35 zone, and if I get away without doing any damage to anything or anyone, then I can proudly say "I welcome you to let me know how I affected anyone else on the [road] in a negative way." That doesn't make it right.
I think it has to do with an unfortunate trend that is growing in our society. A narcissist often comes along who wants to show off how smart they are, and that rules (that are written to benefit most people) do not apply to them. And the unfortunate trend is that a lot of folks "celebrate" this behavior and lionize the narcissist. Perhaps they want to emulate, but are not quite enough of a show-off? Or maybe they don't have the resources to pay the fine or whatever, so they are more cautious? So they express their frustration by fawning over how smart and clever the rule-breaker is.
Lots of laws are frustrating, like speed limits. I can go 100 mph in the 35 zone, and if I get away without doing any damage to anything or anyone, then I can proudly say "I welcome you to let me know how I affected anyone else on the [road] in a negative way." That doesn't make it right.
Similar threads
