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

[TJsName]

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 don't think most people like to see others flaunt the rules that they themselves are following. It's like someone cutting a line in grade school. It's clearly unfair to the rest of the group.

However, I don't advocate for blind obedience. One should consider the spirit and the letter of a law or rule to try and understand it's goal. A 'rules is rules' mentality strikes me as willfully ignorant and is on the other end of the spectrum of 'rules don't apply to me'. From what I can tell here, the person in question likely follows most rules and is a productive member of society, and is likely in the middle on that spectrum, just like most of us.

A narcissistic behavior is different than being a narcissist. One would have to spend some time with the individual to make that kind of diagnosis. Narcissists are not typically described by anyone as nice, caring people. They are typically unable to consider others feelings (as opposed to a willful disregard). It's a disorder that impacts one's life.

To me, the post about Acadia looks more like hubris. People often overestimate their ability and underestimate risks. When those combine with something out of one's control (e.g., weather), disaster can strike. When one does something repeatedly with no consequences, the objective risk doesn't change, but the perception of risk may diminish. This is how very skilled people sometimes perish doing seemingly simple things. Arguing that something is safe because nothing happened is to ignore the big picture.

Laws and rules are often written about the big picture, which to an individual may seem burdensome. As for dogs on the precipice trail, I think it's fair to say that if dogs were allowed, the odds of a negative incident go up significantly. People not committed to their dog's safety and the safety of others would make poor choices. As a result, no dogs are allowed.

To me, the rule is reasonable, and following it is part of living in civil society. That said, I wouldn't care if they removed the rule and just put up a "Beware of falling dogs" sign.

 

[Raven]

I'll leave my opinions on all of this off the table.

I will say I stood open mouthed and wide eyed at a few pictures I saw on this hiker's blog. Sometimes it's fun to dial the view back a ways and simply take a minute to laugh at life from a totally objective viewpoint.

I'm not going to judge it, vilify it, nor will I condone it, but I had one hell of a good laugh from it.

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

(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).

That's a sweet story.

 

[Driver8]

Unfortunately even Baxter could not put in place rules directly contrary to federal law and thus the ADA requires access to legitimate service 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.

You're not saying it's unfortunate that the ADA requires state facilities such as BSP reasonably to accommodate individuals with disabilities, I'm sure, peakbagger. I agree if you mean that it's unfortunate that ADA and regs issued pursuant to it might allow some to game the system for access by non-essential service animals.

I'd bet there won't be a flood of service animal requests at the park, though there might be a notable uptick. Ebb and flow ...

 

[Tom Rankin]

You're not saying it's unfortunate that the ADA requires state facilities such as BSP reasonably to accommodate individuals with disabilities, I'm sure, peakbagger. I agree if you mean that it's unfortunate that ADA and regs issues pursuant to it might allow some to game the system for access by non-essential service animals.

I'd bet there won't be a flood of service animal requests at the park, though there might be a notable uptick. Ebb and flow ...

I won't speak for peakbagger or Mr. Baxter, but there are some accommodations that most [all ?] people would agree are UNreasonable, such as paving a road to the top of Mt. Everest.

But then the question comes in, where do you draw the line? There are ramps leading up to some of the huts in the Whites now (long story). There is some debate in Pennsylvania now about making fire towers accessible!

Obviously, different people have different 'lines' they want to draw...

 

[Driver8]

I won't speak for peakbagger or Mr. Baxter, but there are some accommodations that most [all ?] people would agree are UNreasonable, such as paving a road to the top of Mt. Everest.

But then the question comes in, where do you draw the line? There are ramps leading up to some of the huts in the Whites now (long story). There is some debate in Pennsylvania now about making fire towers accessible!

Obviously, different people have different 'lines' they want to draw...

For sure. You'd like to think that a rule of common sense would apply, but one person's common sense often is the next's nonsense.

 

[Becca M]

OK, so, I've been thinking about the no dog rules and other rules of various institutions..... now to revive this topic

Kind of to change course a bit, BUT, you know how the WMNF rules are that you cannot camp/build fires/etc within 200' of certain trails/bodies of water:

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5363715.pdf

SO, it's pretty clear most of the best camping spots are illegal, right? And yet, if you bushwhack along ALMOST any stream in or near the Pemi & Sandwich Range Wildernesses, THAT's where you find camping and fire ring evidence!!!! Those DEFINITELY are the best spots - I have been mentally collecting those spots for years!!!! I have also seen a LOT of people camping/making fires in those places!!!!

I have to say, I know the rules and I have to admit, I have not always followed them (nor do I intend to), SO, although I was thinking how it's so disrespectful to violate Baxter's rules, I've also been disrespectful and probably will continue to be!!!! I would hazard a guess from the number of people doing it that I am not alone!!!!

I am beginning to think, well, perhaps the dog thing and the camping thing are like speed limits: as long as you stay under 10 mph over, you're OK!!!!

Mea culpa - I take back *most* accusing things I've said of others!!!

 

[skiguy]

OK, so, I've been thinking about the no dog rules and other rules of various institutions..... now to revive this topic

Kind of to change course a bit, BUT, you know how the WMNF rules are that you cannot camp/build fires/etc within 200' of certain trails/bodies of water:

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5363715.pdf

SO, it's pretty clear most of the best camping spots are illegal, right? And yet, if you bushwhack along ALMOST any stream in or near the Pemi & Sandwich Range Wildernesses, THAT's where you find camping and fire ring evidence!!!! Those DEFINITELY are the best spots - I have been mentally collecting those spots for years!!!! I have also seen a LOT of people camping/making fires in those places!!!!

I have to say, I know the rules and I have to admit, I have not always followed them (nor do I intend to), SO, although I was thinking how it's so disrespectful to violate Baxter's rules, I've also been disrespectful and probably will continue to be!!!! I would hazard a guess from the number of people doing it that I am not alone!!!!

I am beginning to think, well, perhaps the dog thing and the camping thing are like speed limits: as long as you stay under 10 mph over, you're OK!!!!

Mea culpa - I take back *most* accusing things I've said of others!!!

Unfortunate not to mention disappointing that you seem to be rationalizing IMO a serious subject. Sorry but I totally disagree. I have and always will follow the rules. Mostly out of respect for others and realize I am not entitled to disrupt the next persons experience. Just because someone else broke a rule does not make it OK to follow in suit.

 

[egilbe]

I absolutely despise fire rings. I make the effort to dismantle any I see. Stealth camping, to me, means i wont find any evidence that you were there.

 

[Becca M]

Well, I have never used a fire ring, created one, nor set a fire in such an area,,,, NOR would I dismantle one (could dismantling one be considered destroying a historic artifact?). The reality is, people are going to use the forest, whether it fits with rules we agree with or not.....

 

[TJsName]

Well, I have never used a fire ring, created one, nor set a fire in such an area,,,, NOR would I dismantle one (could dismantling one be considered destroying a historic artifact?). The reality is, people are going to use the forest, whether it fits with rules we agree with or not.....

This is a common argument in the, 'Why do we bother to have rules?' debate'. The first question is, are people aware of the rule? While 'ignorantia legis' is not a legal defense, it's often a reasonable explanation. When it comes to the back country campingrules , sadly lots of people are unaware of all the rules. Some of those people who follow the rules if they knew them, so education is important.

The next question is, if they are aware of the rule, do they understand why it exists? Is it fore safety? For preservation? Is it antiquated? Once someone understands the rule, they can decide for themselves if they agree with it or not. They can also become aware of the penalties for breaking the rule (fines, jail, injury, etc.), and the risk of being assessed a penalty. With that information they decide if they'll follow the rule (or to what degree they will). Following a law could be viewed as a moral choice, but we've seen time and again in this country where people from across the political spectrum have openly violated laws they believe are immoral.

Someone who advocates for complete obedience to all rules may not have all of these considerations and may think that 'rules are rules', or 'Befehl ist Befehl'. I'll always encourage thoughtful consideration, despite the fact that I tend to follow rules, as most rules to seem to have good reason for being. Some rules are debatable, and fall into areas where philosophy, morality, and the law intertwine and arguments for and against are numerous, be it dogs, campfires, or any of the other contentious issues that crop up from time to time.

For the sake of moderation, I think additional topics (like the campfire issue, or backpacking rules in general) should go in a new thread.

 

[Becca M]

re: TJsName - good ideas - lots to think about!!!!

 

[Raven]

TJ makes some well reasoned points. Nice work.

To add to it, I see laws/rules/regulations/mandates in three categories:

1. Rules which I follow. These rules lead us to a more fair society, do not unjustly elevate one group or individual in society above another, and are written and expected to be followed by all. These laws move the human condition to a more positive place and do no harm to the Earth. For example: the rules which prohibit the dumping of oil into waterways. They protect the very water people need for life and the environment and exceptions are not made based on perceived power or wealth.

2. Rules which I ignore. These are simply unhelpful, poorly written, or outdated blue laws. They're generally not hurting anyone either way and those who write them did not do well. Try again. Example: If two trains meet on a track in Kansas, neither can proceed until one has passed. Well done folks. Now we're all stuck. Pay no attention here. Don't waste your energy fighting it.

3. Laws which require active, public, and loud civil disobedience. Without this, women would not vote and blacks would be in the back of the bus. These were laws once folks. Take care that they don't come back. These were laws to which many turned a blind eye with the phrase, "rules are rules." Currently some states are looking to enact laws allowing for legal vehicular manslaughter of peaceful protesters on road ways (source: National Geographic).

"One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." (MLK)

"Civil Disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state becomes lawless and corrupt" (Gandhi)

"Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them?" (Thoreau).

Or I can look to my clan's crest on my wall and be reminded that when other peaceful, reasonable avenues fail, it is time to "bide and fecht!"....stand and fight!

I think the BSP dog rules are reasonable, fair, and helpful. I follow them and agree with them. But never blindly.

Freedom begins between the ears.

 

[peakbagger]

I think if we go back to the public statements attributed to the person who started this issue at baxter, her approach is "no dog" rules in general such as the Baxter rules are in her opinion either category 2 or 3. I don't think there has been any clarity supplied to date on what exactly transpired for her to obtain "special permission" for what apparently was a non service animal. Until that happens its down to either a BSP employee electing to ignore the regulations of the park or the dog owner deliberately misrepresenting that her dog was a service animal instead of some other category. Given the background on the individual IMHO its the latter but expect others will choose the former.

Like it or not the Baxter rules are not laws enacted by a legislature in a traditional sense, they are an agreement by the State of Maine that they will defend the Deeds of Trust in exchange for the gift of the Park and its endowment to the people. The rules are an administrative mechanism put in place to manage the park to comply with the Deeds. The BSP commission has the right to interpret and pass administrative rules to enforce the Deeds and in some cases add clarification for circumstances that Baxter did not anticipate but they fundamentally are not allowed to change the Deeds. In some cases Baxter was not specific but he was quite specific even though he was dog lover that pets were not allowed in the park. I expect it would be an interesting legal case to break the control of the Deeds of Trust over the park as Baxter spent decades and multiple legislative sessions setting it up that the state would defend the Deeds.

 

[jfb]

And yet, if you bushwhack along ALMOST any stream in or near the Pemi & Sandwich Range Wildernesses, THAT's where you find camping and fire ring evidence!!!! Those DEFINITELY are the best spots - I have been mentally collecting those spots for years!!!! I have also seen a LOT of people camping/making fires in those places!!!!

When I look at the rules, they seem to prohibit camping and fires within 200 feet of trails and only a few streams. Are you sure the spots you mention are illegal?

 

[JoshandBaron]

When I look at the rules, they seem to prohibit camping and fires within 200 feet of trails and only a few streams. Are you sure the spots you mention are illegal?

FWIW, the blanket 200 foot from trail rule only applies to trails in the Pemi, Dry River, and Great Gulf. The Sandwich Range, Caribou, and Wild River do not have any 200 foot rules. None of them have blanket regulations prohibiting camping on water bodies, just specific streams and ponds.

 

[alexmtn]

FWIW, the blanket 200 foot from trail rule only applies to trails in the Pemi, Dry River, and Great Gulf. The Sandwich Range, Caribou, and Wild River do not have any 200 foot rules. None of them have blanket regulations prohibiting camping on water bodies, just specific streams and ponds.

If you're an especially inquiring mind, you can find the official WMNF backcountry camping rules here.

Alex

 

[Becca M]

ooops - I guess I haven't camped within 200' of the specified streams/trails/bodies of water, nor have others I've met there - I was just assuming within 200' of anything fun was not legit!!!!

 

[egilbe]

ooops - I guess I haven't camped within 200' of the specified streams/trails/bodies of water, nor have others I've met there - I was just assuming within 200' of anything fun was not legit!!!!

Any trails with camping restrictions are usually pretty well marked with the FPA signs. Several trails that as soon as your are past the FPA, you can find a stealth site on a brook. There is a really nice one on the Wild River trail that I remember. 40 feet the other way, is illegal.

 

[JoshandBaron]

Any trails with camping restrictions are usually pretty well marked with the FPA signs. Several trails that as soon as your are past the FPA, you can find a stealth site on a brook. There is a really nice one on the Wild River trail that I remember. 40 feet the other way, is illegal.

Those *******s marked my favorite Wild River site as a reveg area last year! Finding that out at 1am isn't a fun way to start a trip.