Shelters - A good thing or a bad thing for the AT?

[Slo-go'en]

It's amazing how many people run to the shelter as soon as it starts to rain.

It rains a lot on the AT. Until recently tents weighed a ton. Hence the AT shelter system. Even though they can be over crowded at some times of the year along some sections of the trail, that is no reason to eliminate them. Their still really nice to have.

[rafe]

firesign asked a question on the internet. folks are replying. unwad your britches. sheesh

Seems to me the folks most in need of chillin are those who need to heap abuse on shelter users as opposed to or in addition to the shelters themselves.

[TD55]

I have always found shelters to be easy places to find lost and abandoned equipment, places of barter and trade, opportunities to socialize and get updates about the trail that could be helpful in the days ahead, preparing a meal in a large fire pit, a place with a water supply and perhaps a place to camp or spend the night, especially during inclement weather. I have also found them to be easy places to say to heck with all that stuff and hike on by. Just depends on the needs or mood at the time you reach one of those shelters.

[mattjv89]

firesign asked a question on the internet. folks are replying. unwad your britches. sheesh

Firesign's question was about the impact of removing vs keeping shelters. It wasn't "in 500 words or more demonstrate your superiority to shelter users, extra credit for photo proof." My britches are plenty straight, just adjusting to post trail life I suppose. You get so used to people being kind to each other and forget all about how petty and nasty they can be. Better re-up on cash lickety split and get back out there. Maybe I'll meet some nice people at a shelter I'm tented near


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tipi Walter]

If the shelter dwellers were scattered along the edges of the trail like hobos, the visual scar of their tents and the aftermath of their stays would be horrible.

Those who elect to camp along the AT should have the courage to do so out of site of the AT, and not think they are gracing those that pass by with a view of their $800 blight.

Strong words for mere tent camping. I've seen alot of backpackers camping on trails in the last 40 years and have never in that time used the word "horrible" to describe their camps. And I've camped thousands of nights at such camps and never left a "horrible aftermath." Or looked at a tent and called it "a blight".

Every night a backpacker sleeps out in some ways makes that person "homeless" since he or she is relying on a carried shelter for his home. So go ahead and call all backpackers hobos then, if such a concept pushes your buttons. Thousands of backpackers spend thousands of nights living outdoors in tents or tarps or hammocks in this great land and you will see them off the trail when you hike past.

Some people suffer from what I call Gypsy Hysteria. It afflicts a large part of American society. To those afflicted, they cannot tolerate "Unauthorized sleeping" in our national forests and along the AT. This translates as desiring to see all overnight backpacking campers either setting up at designated pre-approved spots, getting a motel room, or staying in or next to a rat box trail shelter.

When these people see someone "freely camping", they call them hobos. Odd. Really such campers are just hikers and backpackers setting up camp but the anti-gypsy types bristle up and want a solution.

Firesign's question was about the impact of removing vs keeping shelters. It wasn't "in 500 words or more demonstrate your superiority to shelter users, extra credit for photo proof." My britches are plenty straight, just adjusting to post trail life I suppose. You get so used to people being kind to each other and forget all about how petty and nasty they can be. Better re-up on cash lickety split and get back out there. Maybe I'll meet some nice people at a shelter I'm tented near


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or maybe you'll pull a 3 week expedition backpacking trip into a wilderness area and not see a single shelter the whole time.

[middle to middle]

One cold rainy day I recall being very happy to come across a shelter with big piles of wood stacked.

[The Old Chief]

Strong words for mere tent camping. I've seen alot of backpackers camping on trails in the last 40 years and have never in that time used the word "horrible" to describe their camps. And I've camped thousands of nights at such camps and never left a "horrible aftermath." Or looked at a tent and called it "a blight".

Every night a backpacker sleeps out in some ways makes that person "homeless" since he or she is relying on a carried shelter for his home. So go ahead and call all backpackers hobos then, if such a concept pushes your buttons. Thousands of backpackers spend thousands of nights living outdoors in tents or tarps or hammocks in this great land and you will see them off the trail when you hike past.

Some people suffer from what I call Gypsy Hysteria. It afflicts a large part of American society. To those afflicted, they cannot tolerate "Unauthorized sleeping" in our national forests and along the AT. This translates as desiring to see all overnight backpacking campers either setting up at designated pre-approved spots, getting a motel room, or staying in or next to a rat box trail shelter.

When these people see someone "freely camping", they call them hobos. Odd. Really such campers are just hikers and backpackers setting up camp but the anti-gypsy types bristle up and want a solution.



Or maybe you'll pull a 3 week expedition backpacking trip into a wilderness area and not see a single shelter the whole time.

Talk about pushing buttons!! What's that old saying: If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

[rickb]

My guess is that few if any of backpackers who elect to pitch their tent immediately adjacent to popular trails consider the impact on the wilderness aesthetic, and on others' experiences

And that's the problem.

Thankfully in the more popular wilderness areas I tend to walk in most, that problem is addressed through regulations which require backcountry campers to camp at least 200 feet from established trails.

That helps some-- but no small number of campers ignore those rules and subject others with the blight of their tents just about anywhere they darn well please.

I suspect this is sometimes because they don't realize just how far 200' really is. One trick I learned is to visualize the length of a trailer (think 18-wheeler trailer) , and walk its length into the woods 4 times.

Others are simply as blind to their impact on others around them as a parent can be with a crying baby.

This thread is specific to shelters, however. To my way of thinking numbers matter. If one comes across a trail side tent every 5 miles, so what? But how about one every mile? Or even more.

Eliminating shelters or hardened tentsites would enourage that kind of blight because most hikers are simply scared ****less to walk out of site of the trail. Sad, huh?

[Country Roads]

Shelters are great things. Helps the bears know where to find food. Seriously though, the shelter areas do concentrate the impact on a smaller area. They are a godsend on a stormy day. Most people today are pretty tech savvy, but have no clue how to leave no trace and keep a clean camp. Fortunately, most do learn within the first few weeks.

[Deacon]

Shelters are great things. Helps the bears know where to find food. Seriously though, the shelter areas do concentrate the impact on a smaller area. They are a godsend on a stormy day. Most people today are pretty tech savvy, but have no clue how to leave no trace and keep a clean camp. Fortunately, most do learn within the first few weeks.

Thank you for adding balance to all the naysayers.

[daddytwosticks]

Maybe we shout start a new thread...Tarps and Tents: A Good Thing or Bad Thing For the AT.

[Traveler]

Maybe we shout start a new thread...Tarps and Tents: A Good Thing or Bad Thing For the AT.

Probably a simple topic, getting them out of sight of the trail they are a non-issue, as most LNT pursuits are.

[Starchild]

Shelters are great things. Helps the bears know where to find food. ...

Wildlife management is easier when the sites of bear encounters are known, and closable. Bears also will try to avoid human areas unless stressed to investigate. So a static location of a shelter is a benefit here over random camping.

Additionally 'they' can construct bear cables/poles/boxes to help reduce the chance of a bear getting the food, LNT (trail management/implementation), make it easy for people to do the right thing, construct things in such a way that there is overall less impact considering use of them.

[Starchild]

There a lot of very dense people and those in denial as usual on this site. Shelters are for those hikers who can't deal with self reliance. They are for the party goers and those who find the need to socialize with their fellow pseudo back packers. Those who want the shelter concept deconstructed are simply wanting a trail and experience that we are accustomed to, that being having the pleasure or an experience unadorned by structures of "comfort" or socialization. The AT is nearly destroyed by those who don't or can't "just walk", and be self reliant upon themselves. Not really surprised given the state of our present society.

I think you should check the mirror when you say people are in denial. It's not that they can't deal with being self reliant, it is that they come to the AT for other reasons then you do. They don't come to the AT to be self reliant, it is not why they are here. They may have other places for that, or perhaps don't care to be, or for some perhaps are incapable. that's OK.

A big part of the AT to me was the journey experience. It is a throwback in time to travel before modern modes of travel. Where people would travel town to town over long distances on foot, stopping and exchanging with other travelers and locals along the way. Learning about trail conditions and other information, such as news, from other people instead of the TV or internet. Sometimes trading or sharing resources as needed. It is being part of a connected community that is based primarily on person to person communication and contact.

[Another Kevin]

I think you should check the mirror when you say people are in denial. It's not that they can't deal with being self reliant, it is that they come to the AT for other reasons then you do. They don't come to the AT to be self reliant, it is not why they are here. They may have other places for that, or perhaps don't care to be, or for some perhaps are incapable. that's OK.

A big part of the AT to me was the journey experience. It is a throwback in time to travel before modern modes of travel. Where people would travel town to town over long distances on foot, stopping and exchanging with other travelers and locals along the way. Learning about trail conditions and other information, such as news, from other people instead of the TV or internet. Sometimes trading or sharing resources as needed. It is being part of a connected community that is based primarily on person to person communication and contact.

You know, against my better judgment, I find myself agreeing with you. With the caveat that the experience you describe includes a large measure of self-reliance. If you're going to be traveling in that way, you have to be prepared to "go it alone," because while chance may give you wonderful companions, your luck can also run the other way. It's wonderful being part of a community, but you need to stay safe.

Alas, there are a lot of people who come to the trail unprepared, wind up sponging off others, and appear to think that they still have nothing to learn - no "I'll surely be better prepared next time!" They just waltz in expecting the magic to happen. That's different from trading information, helping one another out with gear malfunctions or even the occasional lapse of "OMG, where's my spoon?" And in peak AT hiking season, there seems to be someone like that at every other shelter. I can surely understand where Tipi Walter and the others are coming from when they say that eliminating the shelters might eliminate such behaviour. I'm not sure I agree - I think that it would merely replace the unprepared moochers with tent-equipped but otherwise unprepared moochers.

It's just the non-learners that get to me. I'm really totally OK with beginners who make beginners' mistakes. Most of the AT in summer is a trail for beginners, and you have to start somewhere. I'm fine with the shelters being there, and I'm for the most part happy I don't have to use them.

In my experience, the shelters elsewhere are much less of a problem. I've been to spots in the Catskills and Adirondacks where half a dozen tent pads were in use and the shelter was vacant, except for people hanging out and possibly sharing a fire. I sleep in the shelters occasionally, but generally when I do, I have one to myself.

And the less communal experiences are still out there for those who want them. There are still some astonishing places, even within an hour or so of your home in Taghkanic. Outside the developed areas, New York is beautiful - and savage. The AT hikers never really get an idea of this, since the New York portion of the trail is carefully carved out from suburbia. If I want to get away for a weekend, be self-reliant, and see nobody, I've no trouble finding a place to do it.

Let me know if you ever want to try a walk (literally) on the wild side. I don't bushwhack solo, and I'm always hard up for hiking partners.

[Tipi Walter]

Thankfully in the more popular wilderness areas I tend to walk in most, that problem is addressed through regulations which require backcountry campers to camp at least 200 feet from established trails.

That helps some-- but no small number of campers ignore those rules and subject others with the blight of their tents just about anywhere they darn well please.

I suspect this is sometimes because they don't realize just how far 200' really is. One trick I learned is to visualize the length of a trailer (think 18-wheeler trailer) , and walk its length into the woods 4 times.

Others are simply as blind to their impact on others around them as a parent can be with a crying baby.

This thread is specific to shelters, however. To my way of thinking numbers matter. If one comes across a trail side tent every 5 miles, so what? But how about one every mile? Or even more.

Eliminating shelters or hardened tentsites would enourage that kind of blight because most hikers are simply scared ****less to walk out of site of the trail. Sad, huh?

Let's flesh out some of Rickb's comments.

** Point 1: "regulations which require backcountry campers to camp at least 200 feet from established trails.

This one is just stump wrong. There's no 200 foot regulation. The LNT website has no mention of it in their guidelines---he's confusing camping next to creeks and lakes with camping next to trails. For more info see---

https://lnt.org/learn/7-principles

The only mention is "Camp away from trails." Nothing about 200 feet.


Even the Forest Service says the same thing---

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/co...243&width=full


For a specific wilderness area like Citico Creek wilderness, the forest service says nothing about camping 200 feet from a trail. In fact, they link to the above LNT principles.

http://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/wildView?WID=123&tab=Area%20Management

[rafe]

200 feet is specifically mentioned in the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) camping rules:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_...rdb5363715.pdf

[tdoczi]

200 feet is specifically mentioned in the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) camping rules:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_...rdb5363715.pdf

as it is stated for many other specific places as well. thats the problem with thinking one's (admittedly great) knowledge obtained in a very localized area is universally applicable.

that said, arent there places where the reg is actually you must camp WITHIN 200 feet of the trail? i want to say in parts of PA. theres all sorts of craziness dealing with land being in different jurisdictions right next to each other that have totally opposite seeming rules.

[Tipi Walter]

But in the LNT guidelines they do say: Use existing campsites. If these established campsites are by a trail then it would be better to use them and not carve a new one 50 feet from the trail. Amen, pass the GU gels and larabars.

I've seen a lot of tent campsites on my various backpacking trips and here's proof in picture form---

http://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/keyword/random%20tents/

And might as well include some examples so you can decide for yourself if these constitute a blight or produce a horrible aftermath.



A terrible blight on the BMT in the Rock Quarry---not mine but some random tent.



A cluster of disturbing tents right on the Hangover Mt trail. Graphic Warning! Look away!!



WHAT WAS HE THINKING!!! Setting up right on the Fodderstack trail in the Citico wilderness.



Are these guys nuts!!???? Setting up next to the Bob Bald trail.



Completely ignorant backpackers without a clue setting up camp right on the BMT in Cold Spring Gap.



A random clueless weekender setting up right on the Big Frog Mt trail in Big Frog wilderness.

[Lone Wolf]

i've set up right on the AT many times. no biggie