View Full Version : What is the right number of shelters for the AT?
In the last 10 years the number of hikers using the AT has gone up dramaticaly. The US population has more that doubled since the trail was built. Each year the shelters get more and more overcrowded. We have about 250 shelters right now. From talking to thru-hikers every spring they say we need twice as many and twice as big. What is the long range plan that the ATC has? or is it up to the clubs?
I'm guessing "0" is the right amount of shelters for the AT. This would dramatically reduce the number of people on the trail and address the overcrowding issue. Just my $0.02.
I'd like to see an easy to get to trash can every 75 miles or so.. does that count?
I like shelters for one reason... people tend to congregate there which makes the campsite selection easier for those of us who avoid them.
But I'm glad a lot of people are hiking.....
Furlough
05-12-2011, 10:48
In the last 10 years the number of hikers using the AT has gone up dramaticaly. The US population has more that doubled since the trail was built. Each year the shelters get more and more overcrowded. We have about 250 shelters right now. From talking to thru-hikers every spring they say we need twice as many and twice as big. What is the long range plan that the ATC has? or is it up to the clubs?
Zero. But maintaining the access to a water source at the "old" shelter site may be worthwhile.
Personally, I'd love to see more privies at camping areas, but not more shelters. Shelters are wonderful in a storm, but in a true emergency hikers would be happy to hide out in a 2-seater.
Going back to the smaller, dirt floor shelters would help make the shelters less attractive to large groups. In an emergency, they would do just fine for large groups, as long as there's standing room for everyone who needs it.
In all my hiking I can say I've enjoyed numerous shelters but only needed one. Having it there was life-saving, but any type of shelter that could have withstood the elements would have worked, albeit not as comfortably. But let's be honest, I wasn't exactly comfortable that day!
I've also made good use of roof-only shelters during inclement weather, and made careful notes on where to seek refuge if needed even it the structure wasn't an official shelter.
The shelter/designated campsite system serves as a safety feature, and has certainly helped hikers in certain areas. The trick is keeping them from being a crutch for the unprepared that can actually lead to more accidents and injuries. I think one of the keys to doing this is making them safe refuges when needed, a good place to set up a tent near when not needed, but not an attractive place to stay when not needed.
brian039
05-12-2011, 11:51
The number of shelters is just fine as it is. I never ran into a problem. I'd rather see resourses going towards something more worthwhile.
Two Speed
05-12-2011, 12:05
I'm guessing "0" is the right amount of shelters for the AT. . . I'll second that.
88BlueGT
05-12-2011, 12:35
Thought the number of people hiking on the AT was going down, I'm 99% positive I just read some report in a thread a few weeks ago... but whatever. We don't need more/bigger shelters, we need people to move on and camp somewhere else.
I'd prefer not to see a shelter every 5 miles on the trail that's the size of a small house.
hikinfool36
05-12-2011, 14:00
I have gone to many shelters through out my hiking life and to this day I have not stayed in one. I do like the water close by and using a privy is a whole lot better than taking a long walk into the woods. But I don't like the crowds and the noise and the mice. I found that I have more room in my little tent than some of the shelter with only a few hikers in it. No, don't build more shelters, work on finding better water sources, like in PA.
Tipi Walter
05-12-2011, 14:12
In the last 10 years the number of hikers using the AT has gone up dramaticaly. The US population has more that doubled since the trail was built. Each year the shelters get more and more overcrowded. We have about 250 shelters right now. From talking to thru-hikers every spring they say we need twice as many and twice as big. What is the long range plan that the ATC has? or is it up to the clubs?
When I was born in 1950, the world population was 2 billion, now it is 7 billion. No wonder we're all going nuts. If thruhikers say we need 500 shelters on the AT, well, it makes sense as they can't bear to carry more than 3 or 4 days worth of food and seem to live for the next hot shower, AYCE buffet and town visit. What do they know about keeping things primitive? I say we should tear down the shelters we have---the forest service closes roads all the time, so it could be done---and do everything in our power to make the trail more remote in whatever way we can. Thin out the shelter-addicted tourists.
Shelters are part of the AT/LT culture. Bitch all you want- not that I disagree- but they are not going away. Building new shelters tend to galvinize trail clubs as its much more fun than mundane trail maintenence. Its something you can hang your hat on for decades. Been there- done that.
The other thing is if you are getting money you have to justify it. You can't justify a big budget if you don't spend big. Spend it or lose it so to speak. Putting in a new shelter can cost more than building a new house.
Tipi Walter
05-12-2011, 14:29
Shelters are part of the AT/LT culture. Bitch all you want- not that I disagree- but they are not going away. Building new shelters tend to galvinize trail clubs as its much more fun than mundane trail maintenence. Its something you can hang your hat on for decades. Been there- done that.
The other thing is if you are getting money you have to justify it. You can't justify a big budget if you don't spend big. Spend it or lose it so to speak. Putting in a new shelter can cost more than building a new house.
It's all about human choice and the choices trail clubs have to make. Believe it or not, and this may be news for the trail clubs, but there IS a backcountry principle called Leave No Trace.
It's all about human choice and the choices trail clubs have to make. Believe it or not, and this may be news for the trail clubs, but there IS a backcountry principle called Leave No Trace.
That would be news to many hikers as well! :eek:
It would cost taxpayers millions to get rid of all the shelters.:(
We have choices too- don't stay at them or hike a trail that doesn't have them....;)
Tipi Walter
05-12-2011, 15:05
That would be news to many hikers as well! :eek:
It would cost taxpayers millions to get rid of all the shelters.:(
We have choices too- don't stay at them or hike a trail that doesn't have them....;)
And it would cost taxpayers millions to build more.
And it would cost taxpayers millions to build more.
I don't think thats going to happen- they would have to rebuild all of them for that to be the case.:-?
Most of the new shelters are replacing old ones. I wish they wouldn't- but they do/will. Shelters are part of the AT and that is not going to change. :eek:
It would be interesting to find out how many new Shelters have been built (not remodeled) over the last 20 years, my guess is around 20.:)
The_Truth
05-12-2011, 15:28
Better shelters less often but maintain access to water every 10 miles or so?
Shelters and designated campsites are first for the purpose of concentrating use and providing some sort of more-or-less "durable" surface. I agree, we would have many fewer hikers if there were not shelters, but in popular areas ( like the Riga Plateau, in my neck of the woods) the trail would be a mess of ill-maintained and poorly chosen campsites. We saw what happened in the 60's when the "backpacking boom" started and heretofore small, contained sites turned into slums with piles of trash and feces. For better or worse--until the AT becomes less popular--I think we are going to have to endure the current strategy of visitor management.
Speaking directly to the topic, and from a local perspective, we have enough shelters in Mass, and are unlikely to build more.
Cosmo
I agree, we would have many fewer hikers if there were not shelters, but in popular areas ( like the Riga Plateau, in my neck of the woods) the trail would be a mess of ill-maintained and poorly chosen campsites.
More and more I am finding campsites that are not visible from the trail.
It's kind of fun trying to spy an area that is likely good for camping but you can't really see it.
About a mile north of Sam's Gap I saw a rise about 35-40 yards off the trail and thought, "I bet that would be a good place to camp." - I cut off the trail and when I got there saw that someone had camped there a long time ago. Pretty neat.
aaronthebugbuffet
05-12-2011, 16:23
More and more I am finding campsites that are not visible from the trail.
It's kind of fun trying to spy an area that is likely good for camping but you can't really see it.
About a mile north of Sam's Gap I saw a rise about 35-40 yards off the trail and thought, "I bet that would be a good place to camp." - I cut off the trail and when I got there saw that someone had camped there a long time ago. Pretty neat.
Love doing that.
It's also cool to look at a topo map hours before you decide to camp and pick a couple of spots that may be camp appropriate.
I've always thought they should tear down the shelters but maybe it keeps the impact to concentrated areas. Keeps high impact groups from building fire rings everywhere and trampling everything down.
harryfred
05-12-2011, 16:29
I have hiked barely 1/4 of the AT. When I first started I stayed in shelters a lot, now, rarely, but I still some times like the option. I'd like to see more designated tent sites, with privies, picnic tables, bear poles, and fire rings. I like tent pads/platforms. Some shelters could use better tenting around them.
WingedMonkey
05-12-2011, 17:05
I have hiked barely 1/4 of the AT. When I first started I stayed in shelters a lot, now, rarely, but I still some times like the option. I'd like to see more designated tent sites, with privies, picnic tables, bear poles, and fire rings. I like tent pads/platforms. Some shelters could use better tenting around them.
Might as well add a roof and call it a shelter.
;)
hikerboy57
05-12-2011, 17:46
I think we probably have more than enough shelters, and regardless, you'd still have overcrowding down south in the early spring and up north late august/sept. Most shelters are no more than a dayhike away from the nearest highway, so I think adding more shelters would not only not alleviate crowds during peak times, but encourage a lot more overnight partiers.Or do a SOBO. as Blissful always says, less crowds.
Tipi Walter
05-12-2011, 20:37
More and more I am finding campsites that are not visible from the trail.
It's kind of fun trying to spy an area that is likely good for camping but you can't really see it.
Love doing that.
It's also cool to look at a topo map hours before you decide to camp and pick a couple of spots that may be camp appropriate.
I've always thought they should tear down the shelters but maybe it keeps the impact to concentrated areas. Keeps high impact groups from building fire rings everywhere and trampling everything down.
You guys have a good point as the AT shelters focus the impact, leaving 95% of the rest of the trail open to millions of campsites rarely used.
Hikes in Rain
05-13-2011, 06:35
About a mile north of Sam's Gap I saw a rise about 35-40 yards off the trail and thought, "I bet that would be a good place to camp." - I cut off the trail and when I got there saw that someone had camped there a long time ago. Pretty neat.
I'll be passing that way later next week, and depending on how things go, may be wanting to camp somewhere in that area. Maybe I'll see if I can find that site. Thanks for the heads up! :)
I'll be passing that way later next week, and depending on how things go, may be wanting to camp somewhere in that area. Maybe I'll see if I can find that site. Thanks for the heads up! :)
There are many excellent campsites all the way from Sam's Gap until 2 miles north of Spivey's Gap and then they're aren't any more for the next 4 miles or so until you get to the shelter because you're slabbing around the side of a mountain.
It's easy walking, flat and all but it's like groundhog day. The mountain is always on your left and you're continually turning to your left, crossing a little seep, then turning to your right - over and over - probably 10 times....
Low Gap, about 1.5 miles north of Street Gap is a great place - there's a good spring a stones throw from where you'd pitch a tent.
More and more I am finding campsites that are not visible from the trail.
It's kind of fun trying to spy an area that is likely good for camping but you can't really see it.
About a mile north of Sam's Gap I saw a rise about 35-40 yards off the trail and thought, "I bet that would be a good place to camp." - I cut off the trail and when I got there saw that someone had camped there a long time ago. Pretty neat.
i find rarely used campsites at the tops of water falls a lot. not for sleep walkers though.
In the last 10 years the number of hikers using the AT has gone up dramaticaly. The US population has more that doubled since the trail was built. Each year the shelters get more and more overcrowded. We have about 250 shelters right now. From talking to thru-hikers every spring they say we need twice as many and twice as big. What is the long range plan that the ATC has? or is it up to the clubs?
Actually the number of hikers has gone down dramatically. ATC used to estimate 4 million hikers a year. Now it estimates around 2 million. The number of reported thru hikers hit its peak in 2000. I forget the figures, but the number of reported 2000 milers has slumped from 608 in 2003 to 562 in 2009, according to the ATC website.
But one would have to triple, maybe quadruple, the number of shelters to ensure that there is always an empty spot when a passing hiker needs space. Everyone now should carry some kind of emergency shelter. Even during off seasons, one can not be sure that space will be available. I once found a full shelter on Bigelow in Maine in mid-November.
My recommendation would be to gradually phase out shelters, and let everyone carry and use their own shelter. Privies and decent campsites should still be provided to avoid sprawl, but the era of shelters is ending, or should be ending.
More valuable than shelters would be the provision of a picnic like shelter over a camp table.
We need none. Bring a tent.
Don't allow any garbage to be carried in.
Stir Fry
05-19-2011, 07:43
If people actualy practriced LNT. No shelters would be great. Not the case if it were you would not see a campsite ever fue miles or less. So for me shelters should be in areas that would be away from the trail and keep use to one area ant designated points. I like the smokies where you have to use certin camp sites or shelters. No bear spots and fire pits every place there is a flat spot.
Focus should be on sustainability, conservation of biodiverse natural habitats, and cohabitation of humans with biodiverse natural habitats.
Leave No Trace is misdirected, insufficient, and outdated.
Shelters are ok, if done properly, but not a one size fits all solution.
Human solutions should also be diverse.
Lemni Skate
05-19-2011, 08:15
Are we really saying we want fewer people to use the trail? Are we that selfish? I mean, if you're really looking for solitude simply hike almost ANY OTHER TRAIL in the country. A lot of people really seem to like the shelters, so I have no problems with them.
The trail wasn't built with thru-hiking in mind. It was for day trippers and two or three nights out. 2000 milers have no claim of ownership.
Do we need to educate people to take better care of the resources? Of course, but trying to make the trail get less use is not the way to go.
Rain Man
05-19-2011, 08:20
... Each year the shelters get more and more overcrowded. ... What is the long range plan that the ATC has?...
Hey Moldy in Smithville. Come on over the Nashville for some of our meets some time.
As far as "more and more overcrowded," that has not been my experience. I've spent nights alone in or at shelters. So, I think your premise is false. Just sayin'.
What is the long range plan that the ATC has? Ask them. I believe in going straight to the horse's mouth.
Hope to see you around some time!
Rain:sunMan
.
john gault
05-19-2011, 08:22
Are we really saying we want fewer people to use the trail? Are we that selfish?
Only the elitist LNT'ers are saying that. Ohh, the environment is soooo fragile and a delicate balance of nature:rolleyes:
Religious fanatics really annoy me:D
The shelter system as it is seems to be good and I think it should be maintained. For better or worse, shelters provide sort of a safety net for hikers as needed. Granted, they're used probably more than intended, but that's just the way it is. Maybe discontinue use of some that are closer to roads?
The fact is, as mentioned previously, having "some hikers" congregate around the shelters ends up being a benefit to most of the folks that are inclined to complain about the shelters.
rambunny
05-19-2011, 09:38
Save $ Take every other one out!
Only the elitist LNT'ers are saying that. Ohh, the environment is soooo fragile and a delicate balance of nature:rolleyes:
.....
Perhaps. But I've never noticed any such thing. But neither do I see many hard core LNT'ers. I hear a lot of people complain about too many people on the trails. But most of the complainers seem to simply ignore the whole concept of LNT as just another impossible rule that somebody has dreamed up. They don't seem to make the connection between crowded shelters and LNT. LNT does bear a resemblance to religion in that it is something that people think must be important, so they pay lip service to the concept without really attempting to understand what it's all about.
What is the right number of shelters for the AT?
47 1/2
hikerboy57
05-19-2011, 17:20
43
...........
max patch
05-19-2011, 17:25
More valuable than shelters would be the provision of a picnic like shelter over a camp table.
I agree, but something tells me the shelter people would then use the picnic tables as sleeping areas, which means they are going to sweat, fornicate, and masterbate where we are supposed to be eating.
Skidsteer
05-19-2011, 17:52
42
........
With towels. Don't forget towels.
I agree, but something tells me the shelter people would then use the picnic tables as sleeping areas, which means they are going to sweat, fornicate, and masterbate where we are supposed to be eating.
Lots of towels.
hikerboy57
05-19-2011, 18:05
is that why the william o brien shelter was stocked with hand lotion?