Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 141

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

  1. #76
    Senior Member DayTrip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Woodstock, CT
    Posts
    3,100
    Quote Originally Posted by jfb View Post
    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/...mbing-closure/
    Safe vs Unsafe is a totally different issue than Legal vs Illegal.
    “Sometimes when you’ve lost something in your life that matters, the only thing left to do is go and find it.” Renan Ozturk

  2. #77
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Stamford, VT
    Posts
    1,454
    Quote Originally Posted by DayTrip View Post
    Safe vs Unsafe is a totally different issue than Legal vs Illegal.
    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.

  3. #78
    Senior Member dug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Xanadu
    Posts
    1,976
    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).

  4. #79
    Senior Member skiguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    2,907
    Quote Originally Posted by TJsName View Post
    This might be the opposite of what you meant to say...
    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.
    "I'm getting up and going to work everyday and I am stoked. That does not suck!"__Shane McConkey

  5. #80
    Senior Member TCD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,972
    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.

  6. #81
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,541
    Quote Originally Posted by TCD View Post
    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.

  7. #82
    Senior Member Raven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    NH Seacoast
    Posts
    1,696
    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.
    Humankind has not woven the web of life.
    We are but one thread within it.
    Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.
    All things are bound together.
    All things connect.
    ~ Chief Seattle, 1854 ~

  8. #83
    Senior Member Ed'n Lauky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blairsville GA ......... Avatar-- On top of Starr King Mt.
    Posts
    1,801
    Quote Originally Posted by dug View Post


    (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.
    I used to look at my dog and think 'If you were a little smarter you could tell me what your were thinking', and he'd look at me like he was saying 'If you were a little smarter I wouldn't have to'. Fred Jungclaus

    Some of our greatest historical and artistic treasures we place with curators in museums; others we take for walks. Roger Caras

    100/100 NEHH with Duffy
    48/48 NH 4000 Winter Ed with Duffy and Lauky
    48 X 4 including 1 winter Lauky
    48 X 6 Ed
    12 X 12 Belknaps with Lauky

  9. #84
    Senior Member Driver8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    West Hartford, CT (Photo: Sages Ravine, Salisbury, CT)
    Posts
    779
    Quote Originally Posted by peakbagger View Post
    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 ...
    Last edited by Driver8; 07-12-2017 at 02:36 AM.
    NH4K: 21/48; N.E.4K: 25/67; NEHH: 28/100; NEFF: 14/50; Northeast 4K: 27/115

    https://www.facebook.com/Arkie.in.CT
    http://www.panoramio.com/user/5078936?show=all

  10. #85
    Senior Member Tom Rankin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Bloomville, New York
    Posts
    6,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Driver8 View Post
    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...
    Tom Rankin
    Web Master - NY Forest Fire Lookout Association
    Volunteer - Balsam Lake Mountain
    Past President - Catskill 3500 Club
    CEO - Views and Brews

  11. #86
    Senior Member Driver8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    West Hartford, CT (Photo: Sages Ravine, Salisbury, CT)
    Posts
    779
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Rankin View Post
    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.
    NH4K: 21/48; N.E.4K: 25/67; NEHH: 28/100; NEFF: 14/50; Northeast 4K: 27/115

    https://www.facebook.com/Arkie.in.CT
    http://www.panoramio.com/user/5078936?show=all

  12. #87
    Senior Member Becca M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pelham & Bristol, NH
    Posts
    864
    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...rdb5363715.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!!!
    Yay for winter!!!!!

  13. #88
    Senior Member skiguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    2,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Becca M View Post
    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...rdb5363715.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.
    "I'm getting up and going to work everyday and I am stoked. That does not suck!"__Shane McConkey

  14. #89
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Lewiston, and Biddeford Maine
    Posts
    797
    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.

  15. #90
    Senior Member Becca M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pelham & Bristol, NH
    Posts
    864
    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.....
    Last edited by Becca M; 07-16-2017 at 08:38 PM.
    Yay for winter!!!!!

Similar Threads

  1. Baxter and Hamlin Peaks - Baxter State Park - 9/15/13
    By TelemarkMike in forum Trip Reports
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-26-2013, 12:35 PM
  2. Better map for Baxter State Park
    By TDawg in forum Q&A - New England
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-03-2012, 05:14 PM
  3. Baxter State Park - 8/31 to 9/2
    By peakbagger in forum Trip Reports
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-11-2011, 05:13 AM
  4. New sign - No dogs allowed?
    By Flatlander_SG in forum Q&A - New England
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 02-09-2007, 01:52 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •