whats to debate? its against park rules and he shouldn't have done it. if i remember correctly alcohol on the summit was specifically mentioned in the bsp letter to the atc.
2,000 miler
Welcome to the AppalachianTrailCafe.net!
Take a moment and register and then join the conversation
Take a moment and register and then join the conversation
Record Attempts?
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
-
-
Also, there is this awesome interview with JPD. She has some great comments.
blueridgeoutdoors.com/newswire/hold-the-record-lightly/ -
And here are the final numbers, as I have them
Date
Day
Location
Total Miles
Daily Miles
Miles/Day (Cumm)
5/27
0
Springer 5:56 AM
5/27
1
Unicoi Gap
52.9
52.9
52.9
5/28
2
Rock Gap
106.0
53.1
53.0
5/29
3
Yellow Creek Gap
158.3
52.3
52.8
5/30
4
Newfound Gap
207.3
49.0
51.8
5/31
5
Lemon Gap
260.0
52.7
52.0
6/1
6
Devil Fork Gap
309.9
49.9
51.7
6/2
7
Irwin
343.0
33.1
49.0
6/3
8
Carver's Gap
379.0
36.0
47.4
6/4
9
Dennis Cove Road
418.5
39.5
46.5
6/5
10
Damascus
469.1
50.6
46.9
6/6
11
Fox Creek
510.2
41.1
46.4
6/7
12
VA 625
562.4
52.2
46.9
6/8
13
Dismal Falls
610.5
48.1
47.0
6/9
14
VA 613
662.0
51.5
47.3
6/10
15
VA 311
708.0
46.0
47.2
6/11
16
Jennings Creek Rd
756.0
48.0
47.3
6/12
17
US 60
806.4
50.4
47.4
6/13
18
Humpback Gap
855.1
48.7
47.5
6/14
19
Skyline Drive MP 66.7
905.8
50.7
47.7
6/15
20
Hogwallow Gap
960.0
54.2
48.0
6/16
21
WV 9 Keys Gap
1017.1
57.1
48.4
6/17
22
PA 16
1066.9
49.8
48.5
6/18
23
PA 174 Boiling Springs
1121.3
54.4
48.8
6/19
24
Green Point School Rd
1180.6
59.3
49.2
6/20
25
Eckville Shelter
1232.3
51.7
49.3
6/21
26
PA 33 Wind Gap
1277.8
45.5
49.1
6/22
27
NJ 23
1336.1
58.3
49.5
6/23
28
Arden Valley Rd
1384.1
48.0
49.4
6/24
29
Grape Hollow Rd
1435.3
51.2
49.5
6/25
30
Mt Easter Rd
1485.0
49.7
49.5
6/26
31
Beartown Mtn Rd
1535.1
50.1
49.5
6/27
32
Bascom Lodge
1586.3
51.2
49.6
6/28
33
Stratton Arlington Rd
1633.6
47.3
49.5
6/29
34
VT 103
1683.5
49.9
49.5
6/30
35
Joe Ranger Rd
1733.9
50.4
49.5
7/1
36
NH 25A
1780.6
46.7
49.5
7/2
37
Galehead Hut
1829.1
48.5
49.4
7/3
38
Mizpah Spring Hut
1850.2
21.1
48.7
7/4
39
Imp Shelter
1882.9
32.7
48.3
7/5
40
Full Goose Shelter
1912.3
29.4
47.8
7/6
41
Base of Elephant Mtn (South)
1946.8
34.5
47.5
7/7
42
Spaulding Mountain Lean To
1987.5
40.7
47.3
7/8
43
Carrying Place Rd / Scott Rd
2029.8
42.3
47.2
7/9
44
ME 15
2074.7
44.9
47.2
7/10
45
1 mile NE of Mountain View Pond
2124.3
49.6
47.2
7/11
46
Abol Bridge
2174.1
49.8
47.3
7/12
46.339
Katahdin 2:04 PM
2189.2
15.1
46.6
46 days, 8 hrs, 8 min
2189.2
Total Miles
-
maybe it was non alcoholic.either way it's not a good idea to call more attention to it.it was a very public celebration.if bsp had a problem with it I'm sure they're already aware of it.its all good
-
hikerboy wrote:
maybe it was non alcoholic.either way it's not a good idea to call more attention to it.it was a very public celebration.if bsp had a problem with it I'm sure they're already aware of it.
I rooted for Scott, but this probably wasn't the best choice for capping off his adventure. Someone from his camp should have said, "Hey - Let's save the party until we are firmly on the ground." If for no other reason than for PR purposes. Eat healthy, workout and you can set records! But, wait - You will need to drink alcohol to or your journey is not complete! That kind of sends mixed messages in itself. There is a time and a place for things, this just wasn't the time, or place. Doesn't mean I'm not happy for the guy. Just means I think his camp should have thought that one through a bit better. Scott most likely was not in the best shape to make safe choices at that point.
I have no idea if Scott chose to drink, or not... But, had he consumed any alcohol, and then fallen on his way down, what would that choice have done for the AT crowd in BSP (not to mention poor Scott!)? Not trying to debate the point - Just throwing that perspective out there. Drinking up on Katahdin is not a wise choice. Drinking on Katahdin with very little sleep would be an even bigger recipe for disaster.There's no reason to become alarmed, and we hope you'll enjoy the rest of your flight. By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane? -
it may have been non alcoholic.its all good
-
as i see it, it was a very public celebration on instagram, facebook and a number of runner sites. im sure bsp officials were aware of the attempt, especially with the brouhaha that accompanied scott up the mountain, and if bsp had a problem with the uncorking of a champagne bottle, theyre probably already aware of it.
to call additional attention to it doesnt help the at community at all.the deed was already done,and can't be undone. so what purpose does highlighting it serve?its all good -
To keep the next AT hiker (and the one after that and the one after that) from making the same choice with an alcoholic beverage. It is quite clear that there are those who think they are special and are above the rules. Not saying that toward Scott specifically, but it is obvious that there are many in the trail community who think rules do not apply to them. Like it or not, that picture of Scott with a champagne bottle (even if he chose not to drink) was not a wise choice as an ambassador for the trail.
hikerboy wrote:
as i see it, it was a very public celebration on instagram, facebook and a number of runner sites. im sure bsp officials were aware of the attempt, especially with the brouhaha that accompanied scott up the mountain, and if bsp had a problem with the uncorking of a champagne bottle, theyre probably already aware of it.
to call additional attention to it doesnt help the at community at all.the deed was already done,and can't be undone. so what purpose does highlighting it serve?
It can either be written off as "oh, his hike was special so he deserves this," or it can be used to keep the next person from making the same choice. Because every AT hiker is gonna think their hike is special - The park will not feel the same way about it. Since there are a lot of new people being introduced to the AT with the movies coming out and FKT attempts, it makes sense to point out to them that this is something you should not do.
At some point, Baxter is going to say "enough is enough." In policing our own, it shows that the community is trying to do something about it, so that the park doesn't have to.There's no reason to become alarmed, and we hope you'll enjoy the rest of your flight. By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane? -
this was my thought exactly.
WaterRat wrote:
To keep the next AT hiker (and the one after that and the one after that) from making the same choice with an alcoholic beverage. It is quite clear that there are those who think they are special and are above the rules. Not saying that toward Scott specifically, but it is obvious that there are many in the trail community who think rules do not apply to them. Like it or not, that picture of Scott with a champagne bottle (even if he chose not to drink) was not a wise choice as an ambassador for the trail.hikerboy wrote:
as i see it, it was a very public celebration on instagram, facebook and a number of runner sites. im sure bsp officials were aware of the attempt, especially with the brouhaha that accompanied scott up the mountain, and if bsp had a problem with the uncorking of a champagne bottle, theyre probably already aware of it.
to call additional attention to it doesnt help the at community at all.the deed was already done,and can't be undone. so what purpose does highlighting it serve?
It can either be written off as "oh, his hike was special so he deserves this," or it can be used to keep the next person from making the same choice. Because every AT hiker is gonna think their hike is special - The park will not feel the same way about it. Since there are a lot of new people being introduced to the AT with the movies coming out and FKT attempts, it makes sense to point out to them that this is something you should not do.
At some point, Baxter is going to say "enough is enough." In policing our own, it shows that the community is trying to do something about it, so that the park doesn't have to.
-
this isnt "policing one's own"; its calling additional attention to the event, whether alcohol was involved or not.the way i see it, its someone yelling" hey look!! another thru hiker breaking the rules!! please reroute the trail !!" so if you want to see the park close to at hikers , write a letter to baxter to call even more attention to it.
socks wrote:
this was my thought exactly.WaterRat wrote:
To keep the next AT hiker (and the one after that and the one after that) from making the same choice with an alcoholic beverage. It is quite clear that there are those who think they are special and are above the rules. Not saying that toward Scott specifically, but it is obvious that there are many in the trail community who think rules do not apply to them. Like it or not, that picture of Scott with a champagne bottle (even if he chose not to drink) was not a wise choice as an ambassador for the trail.It can either be written off as "oh, his hike was special so he deserves this," or it can be used to keep the next person from making the same choice. Because every AT hiker is gonna think their hike is special - The park will not feel the same way about it. Since there are a lot of new people being introduced to the AT with the movies coming out and FKT attempts, it makes sense to point out to them that this is something you should not do.hikerboy wrote:
as i see it, it was a very public celebration on instagram, facebook and a number of runner sites. im sure bsp officials were aware of the attempt, especially with the brouhaha that accompanied scott up the mountain, and if bsp had a problem with the uncorking of a champagne bottle, theyre probably already aware of it.
to call additional attention to it doesnt help the at community at all.the deed was already done,and can't be undone. so what purpose does highlighting it serve?
At some point, Baxter is going to say "enough is enough." In policing our own, it shows that the community is trying to do something about it, so that the park doesn't have to.
its all good -
much ado over nothin'. there are no signs in baxter when a hiker enters on foot telling you no alcohol allowed. it's BSPs fault if rules are being broken
-
ignorance of the law is no excuse
Da Wolf wrote:
much ado over nothin'. there are no signs in baxter when a hiker enters on foot telling you no alcohol allowed. it's BSPs fault if rules are being broken
2,000 miler -
I hardly think the park is paying any attention to my words and I highly doubt a letter from me is what would generate a re-route of the trail. I am not that powerful of a person.
hikerboy wrote:
this isnt "policing one's own"; its calling additional attention to the event, whether alcohol was involved or not.the way i see it, its someone yelling" hey look!! another thru hiker breaking the rules!! please reroute the trail !!" so if you want to see the park close to at hikers , write a letter to baxter to call even more attention to it.socks wrote:
this was my thought exactly.WaterRat wrote:
To keep the next AT hiker (and the one after that and the one after that) from making the same choice with an alcoholic beverage. It is quite clear that there are those who think they are special and are above the rules. Not saying that toward Scott specifically, but it is obvious that there are many in the trail community who think rules do not apply to them. Like it or not, that picture of Scott with a champagne bottle (even if he chose not to drink) was not a wise choice as an ambassador for the trail.It can either be written off as "oh, his hike was special so he deserves this," or it can be used to keep the next person from making the same choice. Because every AT hiker is gonna think their hike is special - The park will not feel the same way about it. Since there are a lot of new people being introduced to the AT with the movies coming out and FKT attempts, it makes sense to point out to them that this is something you should not do.hikerboy wrote:
as i see it, it was a very public celebration on instagram, facebook and a number of runner sites. im sure bsp officials were aware of the attempt, especially with the brouhaha that accompanied scott up the mountain, and if bsp had a problem with the uncorking of a champagne bottle, theyre probably already aware of it.
to call additional attention to it doesnt help the at community at all.the deed was already done,and can't be undone. so what purpose does highlighting it serve?
At some point, Baxter is going to say "enough is enough." In policing our own, it shows that the community is trying to do something about it, so that the park doesn't have to.
A picture is worth a thousand words and that picture of Scott with the champagne, next to the Katahdin sign? Well, that picture is everywhere. That picture is what a lot of new AT hikers will see and will plan to do when they reach the top of Katahdin - Just like Scott! That picture is what the park will have to deal with, not me.
In an attempt to keep the trail in the park, I am merely trying to keep the next person from thinking it is a good idea. But, if the AT community wants to believe that everything is fine within the park and everything is okay and long as it isn't mentioned, then maybe it deserves to lose Katahdin from the trail.There's no reason to become alarmed, and we hope you'll enjoy the rest of your flight. By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane? -
that picture is all over the internet. it even made usatoday and ya can't much more mainstream than that. baxter state park is well aware of what happened; discussing it on this or any other website is not going to tell anything them they don't already know.
hikerboy wrote:
this isnt "policing one's own"; its calling additional attention to the event, whether alcohol was involved or not.the way i see it, its someone yelling" hey look!! another thru hiker breaking the rules!! please reroute the trail !!" so if you want to see the park close to at hikers , write a letter to baxter to call even more attention to it.socks wrote:
this was my thought exactly.WaterRat wrote:
To keep the next AT hiker (and the one after that and the one after that) from making the same choice with an alcoholic beverage. It is quite clear that there are those who think they are special and are above the rules. Not saying that toward Scott specifically, but it is obvious that there are many in the trail community who think rules do not apply to them. Like it or not, that picture of Scott with a champagne bottle (even if he chose not to drink) was not a wise choice as an ambassador for the trail.It can either be written off as "oh, his hike was special so he deserves this," or it can be used to keep the next person from making the same choice. Because every AT hiker is gonna think their hike is special - The park will not feel the same way about it. Since there are a lot of new people being introduced to the AT with the movies coming out and FKT attempts, it makes sense to point out to them that this is something you should not do.hikerboy wrote:
as i see it, it was a very public celebration on instagram, facebook and a number of runner sites. im sure bsp officials were aware of the attempt, especially with the brouhaha that accompanied scott up the mountain, and if bsp had a problem with the uncorking of a champagne bottle, theyre probably already aware of it.
to call additional attention to it doesnt help the at community at all.the deed was already done,and can't be undone. so what purpose does highlighting it serve?
At some point, Baxter is going to say "enough is enough." In policing our own, it shows that the community is trying to do something about it, so that the park doesn't have to.
but maybe, just maybe, discussing it will tell next years hikers -- who have seen the photo -- that drinking on the summit is a violation of bsp rules and if it continues just may result in us losing katahdin as the a.t. terminus.2,000 miler -
Ya mean like this. As Max said, it's all over the net, calling it what it is is just as important to calling it what it isn't, it isn't ok...It's also out of our hands.
-
ugh!, I meant this...not that.
hikerboy wrote:
now theres a new debate regarding his popping a champagne bottle at the summit
-
bullshit. if baxter thinks it's a problem they should post a big sign saying NO ALCOHOL at the park boundry
max.patch wrote:
ignorance of the law is no excuseDa Wolf wrote:
much ado over nothin'. there are no signs in baxter when a hiker enters on foot telling you no alcohol allowed. it's BSPs fault if rules are being broken
-
springer is in a national forest. there's tons of alcohol there every spring for 200 miles north with all the damn angels doing their damn magic
Dmax wrote:
looks like southbound is the better way to go. Springer doesn't have this rule yet, do they?
Since the AT is federal land, is alcohol banned on the whole AT?
-
...follow the rules, if ya can't, at least keep it on the down low. I don't begrudge someone a beer or champagne for a job well done, but it's not our call.
-
what are you complaining about. you played trail angel this spring passing out beer at gooch gap.
Da Wolf wrote:
springer is in a national forest. there's tons of alcohol there every spring for 200 miles north with all the damn angels doing their damn magicDmax wrote:
looks like southbound is the better way to go. Springer doesn't have this rule yet, do they?
Since the AT is federal land, is alcohol banned on the whole AT?
2,000 miler -
no. trail devil. i didn't FEED fat people that didn't need food. i didn't go to gooch with the intention of giving out beer. but once i offered, them hikers were happy as hell. they didn't want food.
max.patch wrote:
what are you complaining about. you played trail angel this spring passing out beer at gooch gap.Da Wolf wrote:
springer is in a national forest. there's tons of alcohol there every spring for 200 miles north with all the damn angels doing their damn magicDmax wrote:
looks like southbound is the better way to go. Springer doesn't have this rule yet, do they?
Since the AT is federal land, is alcohol banned on the whole AT?
-
I think saw a sign somewhere that alcohol was prohibited on the AT. Man did I break that one.
"Dazed and Confused"
Recycle, re-use, re-purpose
Plant a tree
Take a kid hiking
Make a difference -
Scott's a pu$$y.
I had 2 bottles of champagne on Katahdin and I carried them both.Resident Australian, proving being a grumpy old man is not just an American trait. -
This has to be one of the dumbest arguments here in a while....RIAP
-
The only thing I can add to this discussion is that the Sparkling wine was definitely from France. The chances of it being non alcoholic are slim to none.
Trebor wrote:
This has to be one of the dumbest arguments here in a while....
Sometimes you will never know the value of a moment until it becomes a memory.
Dr. Seuss
-
At least it wasnt muscadine or scuppernog. They are the only wines worse then Champagne.Sometimes you will never know the value of a moment until it becomes a memory.
Dr. Seuss -
i seriously doubt he drank so much as a dropits all good
-
Bad choice...shoulda had a V8.
Rasty wrote:
The only thing I can add to this discussion is that the Sparkling wine was definitely from France. The chances of it being non alcoholic are slim to none.Trebor wrote:
This has to be one of the dumbest arguments here in a while....
I may grow old but I'll never grow up. -
max.patch wrote:
ignorance of the law is no excuseDa Wolf wrote:
much ado over nothin'. there are no signs in baxter when a hiker enters on foot telling you no alcohol allowed. it's BSPs fault if rules are being broken
Oh SNAP... Time for a big 'ol bowl of popcorn...1 Fish, 2 Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish... -
Do you melt extra butter for your popcorn?
Toli wrote:
Oh SNAP... Time for a big 'ol bowl of popcorn...max.patch wrote:
ignorance of the law is no excuseDa Wolf wrote:
much ado over nothin'. there are no signs in baxter when a hiker enters on foot telling you no alcohol allowed. it's BSPs fault if rules are being brokenChanges Daily→ ♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫ ♪♫♪♫♪♫ ← Don't blame me. It's That Lonesome Guitar. -
max.patch wrote:
what are you complaining about. you played trail angel this spring passing out beer at gooch gap.Da Wolf wrote:
springer is in a national forest. there's tons of alcohol there every spring for 200 miles north with all the damn angels doing their damn magicDmax wrote:
looks like southbound is the better way to go. Springer doesn't have this rule yet, do they?Since the AT is federal land, is alcohol banned on the whole AT?
Make that wit "Movie Theater Butter"...1 Fish, 2 Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish... -
.......................................
-
runnersworld.com/trail-racing/…il-thru-hike-speed-record he almost quit
Da Wolf wrote:
yup. bad callRasty wrote:
oopsDa Wolf wrote:
this record attempt will be over soon
-
well that settles that
Da Wolf wrote:
.......................................
its all good -
did you really have to edit that comment? Kinda hard to mess that one up
Da Wolf wrote:
.......................................
RIAP -
"I had been shredded to the core. I didn’t know how much more I could give,” Jurek said. “This trail has a way of doing that to you. You find strength that you never thought you had. That’s why I do this stuff. At the other end of that deepest darkest place, there’s an ease and joy on the other side."
wow.its all good -
He finds joy his way.
Mine involves sirloin.Resident Australian, proving being a grumpy old man is not just an American trait. -
I'm real partial to scallops.
OzJacko wrote:
He finds joy his way.Mine involves sirloin.Changes Daily→ ♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫ ♪♫♪♫♪♫ ← Don't blame me. It's That Lonesome Guitar. -
surf-n-turf fer me.
milkman wrote:
I'm real partial to scallops.OzJacko wrote:
He finds joy his way.Mine involves sirloin.
-
Share