What? No Kids Allowed Above Treeline?!

Last fall, Dave and I and our 3-year-old son headed to Baxter State Park here in Maine. Mount Katahdin is probably my favorite mountain, and I’ve been eager to take my son up it. But, when we checked in at the campground, the ranger informed us that no kids under 6 were allowed above treeline anywhere in Baxter.

I was quite shocked and surprised. I’d never heard of such a rule, and here it was at one of my favorite places.

I wanted to cite my son’s hiking and backpacking resume. My kid went on his first hike in Maine at a month old, has backpacked in the Uintas of Utah, and hiked in New Hampshire’s Presidentials, and he wasn’t allowed to go to the top of Mount Katahdin—the highest point in his native state? Seems so.

With the ranger’s help we chose a different hike, but I was disappointed. I’m all for being prepared (and doubly or triply so with kids), but I was surprised to be prevented from choosing which hike we were allowed (and more than prepared) to do.

The rule is arguably well intentioned. I’d agree that many kids under 6 probably shouldn’t be hiking up Katahdin. After coming home I even spoke to the park’s director about it, who was quite nice ad sounded like he acknowledged my points as valid and said they’d be revising their rules this year (and perhaps this one as well). So there is some hope.

I’m wondering if anyone else has ever come across a rule like this? Any thoughts?

Here’s the rule:

CLIMBING OR MOUNTAIN HIKING: Climbing or mountain hiking may be restricted at the discretion of the Director. Park users must be reasonably prepared and equipped, and must take reasonable precautions against endangering themselves or others. Hikers must wear appropriate footwear and clothing, and must carry a working flashlight. No children under the age of six (6) years are allowed above timberline. Registration of technical rock/ice climbers is required. The Baxter State Park Authority may request reimbursement of search and rescue costs in cases of reckless hikers.

I'm not of a fan of RULES that are designed to protect you from yourself. You are an individual and responsible for yourself. That's just one more right someone decided to take from you.

Yes, I have seen rules like this in a number of places, most after Young Son was older than the cutoff. But I also see the gear rules (and mandatory gear checks) for all ages that you quote. I have also run into one place where they have an "advisory" maximum age (70, in a state where all the ski resorts have the "senior" lift ticket starting at age 80 ... go figure). However, every place where I have run into the required gear check seems to use it as a screening tool to discourage the astounding number of people who show up in cold stormy weather in T-shirt and shorts, wearing flipflops, rather than a serious prohibition (I actually have seen this on Mt Washington, which has no screening). Then again, there are the bureaucrats who believe "a rule is a rule ... no exceptions!"

Despite mikekey's comment (with which I agree, being a libertarian and anarchist at heart, like the majority of climbers), the land managers have had to put in such rules to protect themselves against the sensationalist media and torts lawyers. Remember that all climbing gear has the sewn-in label or hang tag that starts with "WARNING! Climbing is dangerous...you could DIE!" and ski lift tickets warn of "natural and manmade hazards... serious injury..." When (not "if") people go in "fat, dumb, and happy" (to quote the old aviator's mantra) and get themselves in deep trouble, the "public" expects that the "authorities" will save them (especially now, with cell phones, Epirbs, and other electronic widgets to call for help and GPSRs to let the ranger know where to bring the helicopter), and when someone dies (especially a child), there is condemnation in the media for the "government" for letting the tragedy happen.

Alicia, it's more the attempt to protect against the law suits and outcry than actual concern for the public's safety (I hate to say this, but I have been seeing this develop for too many years, going all the way back to the accident in the Tetons in the 1970s). Even a release form doesn't seem to help. The "government" MUST protect us against ourselves. If something happens, well, we better enact more laws and write more regulations. Gee, you don't really expect people to be responsible, do you?

I should note that one of the things I put right up front in the courses I teach to adult Scout leaders and would-be backpackers is that you should be prepared, in case of emergency, to rescue yourself, because it is highly likely to take hours, days, or even weeks before outside help can arrive. I DO expect people to be self-responsible. Unfortunately, most are not.

That's very interesting. Are they citing any particular incident(s) that prompted this, or is it more of a complaint kind of thing from someone without kids?

Seems like there are parks doing opposite things as well. Here in PA they have just revised the swimming regulations in some state parks to allow "free swimming" - that is, you can swim when no life guards are on duty. This includes some time before and after the regular "swimming season"

It may sound like they are doing less to restrict and protect visitors to the state parks, but it makes for a more natural experience while there. There are no life guards in the back country either.

Alicia, Something must have prompted that rule and I would be curious to find out what. It could be a particular incident or just someone's personal opinion as to whether or not kids should be allowed on the mountain above a certain level.

The rules could be an attempt to ward off lawsuits in the event of an accident, as Bill suggested, but they could also be an attempt to limit SAR costs. It would be interesting to find out how this came about.

Maine may be one of the few states with a "reckless hiker" statute. I will ask on VFTT and see what I can find out.

f_klock - the reason I heard for getting rid of life guards was to save money. The state is assuming that, in the absence of life guards, parents will be more responsible and keep an eye on their kids. I see a disaster waiting to happen this summer in my home state.

Alicia - the regulations seem absurd - my family and a friend of ours climbed Mt. Evans in Colorado with our four year old son and nine month old daughter (this was, I'll admit, 18 years ago!) - and experienced no such prejudice. I will admit to being a bit "knackered" after carrying my son "piggyback" the last few hundred feet to the top, my buddy had our daughter in a carrier on his back, she slept most of the way. Other folks we met thought it was quite normal for us to have our children with us.

That said, I have to agree with Bill_S's comments as to why they enact rules like this - I also share his (and others) feelings towards these rules and those who impose them.

If freedom really ain't nothin but nothin left to lose, pretty soon, we'll be free.

Yes, I was really interested to find out where this rule came from too (was it just a generally perceived risk or in response to an actual incident) and asked the director about that.

Seems it was a little of both. He wasn’t the director at the time, but apparently the rule was established in the early 1970s in response to an incident where parents brought an infant up Katahdin, against the recommendation of a ranger at the bottom. I believe some sort of disagreement then ensued up high (apparently noticeable by others), but don’t believe anyone was hurt or that any type of rescue was enacted either. I don’t know details like the conditions at the time. It's pretty vague.

The director told me that the general principle of the rule was developed at the request of rangers and search and rescuers, who would have to rescue two people, instead of one, when small children are involved above treeline.

He’s right that you have to be prepared to take care not only of yourself, but your child, but I consider that the responsibility of the parents or leader and part of normal trip planning and decision making.

While I have the utmost respect for S&R people and what they do, I don’t like a blanket rule that bars someone (regardless of skill level and preparation) from a certain trail or peak based solely on a factor like age.

Would I take my preschooler up above treeline in winter in New England? Nope. But, I’d argue that our properly outfitted, fed, and hydrated son, ready to set off on a clear fall day with his fairly experienced parents (who were prepared to carry him in the kid carrier at any and all points) was better prepared than many day trippers. Ultimately it comes down to an individual knowing the level of risk he/she and every member of their group is willing to take on.

An advisory gear checklist concept doesn’t bother me, especially if it’s covering basics like having a light. I think, like Bill mentioned, it would discourage the unprepared and hopefully cause them to reevaluate their preparation. I think strong recommendations and advisories about gear and preparation, when appropriate, can be useful. Although if they get overused people can tune them out.

I’m also okay with reckless hiker rules that allow search and rescuers to recover costs from negligent people.

As Bill mentioned, in the Whites there are usually signs at trailheads warning about going above treeline and being prepared and so on. But no one is there to stop you or give you a go ahead. It’s still ultimately your decision and your responsibility.

After talking to the Baxter State Park director this fall, I got the feeling this rule (among others) would be reconsidered this year when the rules get a good looking over (Baxter operates separately from other Maine state parks, since it was set up as a wilderness area by Percival Baxter). He practically said he agreed with all of my points. Or maybe he was just trying to appease me; we’ll have to wait and see.

Baxter also has this age-based rule:

MINORS: All groups of five (5) or more persons under 16 years of age must be accompanied by at least one responsible person, of at least 18 years of age, for each five (5) minors.

Your son has a better resume than me! Lucky little guy.

Yes, I tell him how lucky he is every day! Ha ha...

Alicia, I got some interesting answers back on VFTT-if you go to the site and look in the NE forum, you'll see my post.

http://www.viewsfromthetop.com

Funny thing, I live in LA, haven't been anywhere near NE since the early 70's (and that was only a short trip to Providence and Boston). I joined the site to ask skiing questions and now I probably know more about hiking around the area than some folks who live there. Ah, the Internet.

Thanks, Tom. That was an interesting discussion on the topic, especially about the 4-person winter rule, which I admit has kept Dave and I from heading up to Baxter (sans children) in winter (yet). I think it can be a conundrum: are two or three experienced people safer than four, if you had to add one or two of those people to meet the four-man rule (but that’s probably for another thread).

Generally I love Baxter, even with its rules, often even because of its rules (no dogs, no cell phones, no radios in campgrounds, etc...). It is a remote park (and far more in winter than fall) and I'm very glad it exists and that it is intended to be more of a wilderness experience.

But, I guess when a rule suddenly applied to something I wanted to do it felt a lot different. I’d hate to see anything happen to a kid anywhere, but I still don't like or agree with the no kids above treeline rule. I'd rather have it be a very strongly worded recommendation on why it may not be appropriate or safe, but leave it up to experienced parents to decide in the end.

I’d like to think that most parents would be prepared to go back down with their kid if conditions became beyond anyone’s comfort or ability level.

I think I’m just going to have to wait and hope the rule changes this year.

Alicia, From what I read, Baxter is a donated park and can set its own rules. I don't know of too many other parks like that, but there must be a few. Here in CA, the donated parks I know of are just run by the state park system like any other park. There may be special rules for them, but I'm not aware of any.

You're right, Tom.

Baxter's rules are set by the Baxter State Park Authority, which exists to ensure that the Park "Shall forever be kept and remain in the Natural Wild State", to provide recreational opportunities to the public in accordance with trust provisions, to operate and maintain the Park for the use and enjoyment of Maine’s people. According to the donor’s wishes; the Park will be managed as a sanctuary for beasts and birds and "Katahdin in all its glory forever shall remain the mountain of the People of Maine."