So to REALLY minimize risk to hikers, we should eliminate shelters, picnic tables, and maybe privys. What should the regulations be on popular campsites with good water and a view?
No camping! Views and water are even more attractive than the things you suggest eliminating.
Any more questions?
Great! Now that you've mentioned it.... I've found that places that have banned camping have never done it because it was a lousy place to camp. Now I can go back to stealthing there in my hammock in perfect safety.
Originally Posted by kayak karl
All five of the thru hikers murdered along the AT were killed at shelters.
There are very very few problems, just people online trying to scare people.
If as some would like us to believe shelters are inherently unsafe, then why advise travelling in groups?
Have you now stopped talking to yourself?
That's my dog, Echo. He's a fine young dog.
In all seriousness, in all my years of backpacking, I always find that the farther away from the car, the more likely I would find peace and quiet. The "long distance footpath that lacks shelters and hostels" that you speak of is really pretty easy to define, yet it sounds like you can't identify quite what you mean.
That's my dog, Echo. He's a fine young dog.
There are shifty wierdoes (A train's great phrase) out west. They just don't make it that far in country. That whole concept of really carrying water bothers them.
Go buy the Golite UL 12 gauge shotgun and strap it to yer pack. Blast it in the air a couple of times at each shelter every night. You'll be ok....
try telling that to the dead folks families and friends
no scare tactics. it is simply prudent to be on your guard at all times, whether it is in your own neighborhood or on the trail
Shelters and picnic tables and privies concentrate problems in one area, which is a good thing, but also be a good reason to avoid such areas.
I can understand your reasoning on this, but when you really stop to think about it, to me it sort of defeats the whole purpose of the hike. I think if I am going to be out there hiking, and I see an interesting, convenient, or nice place to stop and rest or to camp, it would sort of be a letdown to have to think, "well this would have been a nice place to have stopped, but for my own safety, I must push on"
I don't avoid shelters for safety reasons. I also like shelters. I like the hand-craftedness, and the more human scale of architecture. They are best appreciated in the off-season though, when completely desolate. Even if they are only occupied by one other person that just doesn't work for me. After 24-48 hours alone I am ready for people and I would enjoy stopping to chat, but I wouldn't stay overnight at a shelter if it was occupied, or there was a good chance of it becoming so. In winter, mid-week, empty except for shelter mice, that would be the best time for sure.
We don't have shelters up here, but there are a few places on the Fundy Footpath with remote campsites with a firepit and a privy and afew improvised items. They are best mid week and off-season. The Fundy Trail Parkway doesn't allow overnight camping, but is closed in the winter and the lookout platforms make fun places to stealth camp in winter. Often in the woods also, you can find natural campsites, with rocks or trees that almost seem like they were put there for a reason. Those are great spots to find and to return to.
I think busy trails like the AT need things like shelters and privies and picnic tables and such, and the trail itself of course, in order to concentrate human impact in a manageable way. It works to a certain degree. It also concentrates problems like creepy people and dangerous people, but I avoid them mostly to avoid regular people like me.
When I hike with my daughter it is different. If we come across a campsite with another family with kids, or even a friendly couple without kids, we would probably stay. Most people on the Fundy Footpath tend to move on though. It is remote enough that it tends to attract people that prefer to enjoy the wilderness uninterupted, and it is a short enough trail 2-5 days, that you can go it alone without getting too snaley. My daughter is a real social butterfly though, so it is good to bump into others when I hike with her.
Fewer creeps up here, but probably only because there are fewer people. The per capita creeps is probably the same. The ATVers and off-roaders that like to hang about Martin Head and destroy the footpath in several places tend to be very territorial and tribal and unfriendly to hikers, so they are best avoided also, but they are generally not dangerous or creepy. They tend to lighten up if you approach them in a friendly manner, and take an interest in their ATV. I've scored the odd beer that way.
I think shelters are a factor, but probably just a small factor. If there were no shelters there still would be places that would be popular to camp, even if there were no designated spots, which is hard to imagine.
The lack of shelters would make it harder on the homeless, but I think the biggest attraction for these types are "people", i.e. begging. But there is also the predatory factor with other types. And some are just trying to find a place to fit-in.
But in the end it's all the publicity which is really the attractant, not shelters. I know you don't see TV commercials and such advertising the AT, but when you mention "Appalachian Trail" most are familar, at least, with the title, but almost none are familar with the other East coast trails.
Having said all that, say we had two ATs that were separated by, say 10 miles. And were very similar, except one had shelters and the other did not, but everything else equal. Then I'd bet that the AT with the shelters would see more of the non-hiker types.
Agree w/Mr. Gault here. The AT is probably just the most densely 'populated' trail in the country.
I've hiked other places and not seen a SOUL...
...that being said, one of them was a short trail in KY that did have quasi-shelters.
And the Finger Lakes Trail has many shelters, campsites, and privies along its route and I've not heard much about the creep factor on that trail...probably because it is simply not as popular as the AT.
The SHT in Minnesota passes along campgrounds, is mostly routed alongside a major (for the area) road, has established campsites (but no shelters) some with little tables and benches, and all have privies but I haven't heard/seen any problems on that trail either, again, it's just not as crowded as the AT.
An aside, I know that many on WB despise the shelters on the AT and seem to hate well tread establishment of the AT itself. In that case, why not hike on another trail? Some trails are only routes in and of themselves, seems some would be happier on those trails than complaining about privies and shelters on the AT.
Tilly (who happily sleeps in shelters when it is raining.)
I think the trail with shelters would also be more popular with most hiker types.
I, like many, would take the trail less traveled, but most hikers would not.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
