Opinion Poll

[HikerMom58]

I think it is a tasteless act. Of course, I also think that trail shelters are tasteless and would love to see them removed altogether. Just my opinion.

Sent from my Galaxy Note 2 using Tapatalk 2

RCBear... why do you feel the shelters are tasteless? Do you feel they are helpful at all while hiking the trail? JW...

As far as defacing them, I feel I would want to respect the wishes of the builder & respect the trail itself. It is all about respect.

[RCBear]

RCBear... why do you feel the shelters are tasteless? Do you feel they are helpful at all while hiking the trail? JW...

As far as defacing them, I feel I would want to respect the wishes of the builder & respect the trail itself. It is all about respect.

In my opinion, besides the mere belief that any man made structure when I hike/backpack takes away from experience (which is on me of course), I feel that shelters on the trail breed nastiness, just like the privys do. They obviously are a help to those that don't carry their own shelter, but if they weren't there, that would change that anyway. AND...if they weren't there, we wouldn't have 10 pages of posts on the topic of defacing them. If you build it, the nastiness will come of course.

Sent from my Galaxy Note 2 using Tapatalk 2

[bfayer]

In my opinion, besides the mere belief that any man made structure when I hike/backpack takes away from experience (which is on me of course), I feel that shelters on the trail breed nastiness, just like the privys do. They obviously are a help to those that don't carry their own shelter, but if they weren't there, that would change that anyway. AND...if they weren't there, we wouldn't have 10 pages of posts on the topic of defacing them. If you build it, the nastiness will come of course.

Sent from my Galaxy Note 2 using Tapatalk 2

Shelters are the lesser of two evils. It is far better to concentrate the blight to a fixed location. No disrespect intended to hikers on the AT, but if there were no shelters the hikers like locusts would strip an area clean, and then move on and strip the next area and strip it too. People are social creatures and will congregate with or without shelters. I believe we are better off with. Most are far enough off the trail that if someone does not want to see it they don't need to. Blue blazes are not mandatory.

[mak1277]

Shelters are the lesser of two evils. It is far better to concentrate the blight to a fixed location. No disrespect intended to hikers on the AT, but if there were no shelters the hikers like locusts would strip an area clean, and then move on and strip the next area and strip it too. People are social creatures and will congregate with or without shelters. I believe we are better off with. Most are far enough off the trail that if someone does not want to see it they don't need to. Blue blazes are not mandatory.

On the other hand, if you could magically wipe away the shelters, wouldn't that also reduce the number of hikers on the AT (because you'd be forced to have more backcountry skills to do a through, less party time at shelters, etc.), and consequently reduce the impact? PCT, CDT don't have shelters and they seem to be doing fine controlling the locusts/hikers, no?

[RCBear]

Shelters are the lesser of two evils. It is far better to concentrate the blight to a fixed location. No disrespect intended to hikers on the AT, but if there were no shelters the hikers like locusts would strip an area clean, and then move on and strip the next area and strip it too. People are social creatures and will congregate with or without shelters. I believe we are better off with. Most are far enough off the trail that if someone does not want to see it they don't need to. Blue blazes are not mandatory.

i'm not going to disagree that they don't provide some merit in the fact that there are so many who travel the AT. but...perhaps if they didn't exist, those that felt like carrying and dealing with the hassle of managing their own shelter would stick to day hikes. I don't see why you still couldn't mandate that setting up camp must be in the same areas as where shelters currently exist. and you're right, with or without them, there are going to be nasty folk that will leave their large footprints behind, which will still end up being cleaned up by the same folk that tend to the shelters. It's just my 2 cents. I'm not a crazy ranter about it, i just don't care for them.

[HikerMom58]

In my opinion, besides the mere belief that any man made structure when I hike/backpack takes away from experience (which is on me of course), I feel that shelters on the trail breed nastiness, just like the privys do. They obviously are a help to those that don't carry their own shelter, but if they weren't there, that would change that anyway. AND...if they weren't there, we wouldn't have 10 pages of posts on the topic of defacing them. If you build it, the nastiness will come of course.

Sent from my Galaxy Note 2 using Tapatalk 2

Ha ha!! You are funny!! True dat! I agree with ya... they can get nasty.

I always carry my own shelter & I like to sleep my tent, not the shelter. I like the shelters b/c they provide a "shelter" from the elements etc... There's other reasons too.

I've only seen a few shelters that were really ugly due to the graffiti, I'm prob. just lucky.

Nice to "see" you RCBear... tell that other bear "hi" too.

[SouthMark]

What amazes me is that there are some who "think that it is ok".

[HikerMom58]

What amazes me is that there are some who "think that it is ok".

I "accept it", as a reality, but still do not "think it is ok". I don't find it as "upsetting" as some people do.... does that make sense? lol

[SouthMark]

I "accept it", as a reality, but still do not "think it is ok". I don't find it as "upsetting" as some people do.... does that make sense? lol

Well I would hang around and debate it but I am headed out to one of our state parks to tag some of the picnic pavilions.

[SouthMark]

Well I would hang around and debate it but I am headed out to one of our state parks to tag some of the picnic pavilions.

Whoops, I meant to add a smiley face.

[RCBear]

Ha ha!! You are funny!! True dat! I agree with ya... they can get nasty.

I always carry my own shelter & I like to sleep my tent, not the shelter. I like the shelters b/c they provide a "shelter" from the elements etc... There's other reasons too.

I've only seen a few shelters that were really ugly due to the graffiti, I'm prob. just lucky.


Nice to "see" you RCBear... tell that other bear "hi" too.

Hey Shmaybix, I will let the "gizzybear" know you said hello. we are going to be heading out for a long weekender down around the Withlacoochee River in North Central Florida next weekend. I will probably have changed my trail name to "gatorbait" after that

[squeezebox]

I kinda get the impression that graffiti is illegal anywhere, inc. trains, subways, AT, anywhere

[bfayer]

I kinda get the impression that graffiti is illegal anywhere, inc. trains, subways, AT, anywhere

Apparently just because its illegal does not mean it immoral, as long as you don't know who owns the train that is

I just know its not mine so I don't believe I have the right to redecorate at will.

[mak1277]

Apparently just because its illegal does not mean it immoral, as long as you don't know who owns the train that is

I just know its not mine so I don't believe I have the right to redecorate at will.

Don't mistake what I was saying. If there is some entity that actually owns the shelters, then I agree they shouldn't be defaced. But if there is NOT an entity that owns them, then people who want to decorate them with graffiti have every right to do so...as much right as you have to sleep in them or fart in them or cook in them, etc.

The issue is not ignorance as to the owner...the issue is if there is an owner at all. Again...I'm just waiting for someone to educate me on whether there's an entity that owns the shelters. If it's the Nat'l Park Service, then you'd have to abide by their rules throughout.

[Coffee]

If it's the Nat'l Park Service, then you'd have to abide by their rules throughout.

http://www.nps.gov/appa/index.htm

[mak1277]

http://www.nps.gov/appa/index.htm

OK, thanks. Works for me. I no longer think it's ok to deface the shelters.

I appreciate everyone humoring me over the last two days where I've been intensely bored at work. Taking the minority side of this debate has been much more fun than doing my job!

[Airman]

If not ok, then why is all the shelters loaded with writing all over them?

[JAK]

DEFINITELY NOT OK,
which means if you do it, you should be aware that it is not ok, so there better be a really compelling reason, like you are an amazing artist and they will be able to cut out your carving of a shelter mouse peeing on a sleeping thru-hike for at least $1,000,000 and support train maintainers for several years to come.

[hobbs]

NOT OK!! Iam suprised at some of the dialog..

[full conditions]

It's definitely not OK. While I'm not an enormous fan of shelters, I dont generally advocate defacing everything I'm not a fan of - and, besides the obvious ethical breakdown involved, graffiti dosent improve the shelter experience.