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

[firesign]

With the increasing numbers of hikers on the AT, would it be better to remove the shelters to promote dispersed camping like on the PCT?

[Lone Wolf]

yes. shelters are dumps

[saltysack]

Rat traps & hobo houses


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rickb]

With the increasing numbers of hikers on the AT, would it be better to remove the shelters to promote dispersed camping like on the PCT?

In my opinion, no.



Most AT hikers are afraid to walk more than a few feet into the woods to camp and won't-- no matter what
Some sections (entire states) prohibit camping except at designated sites
In the sections requiring you camp 200' from the AT most are incapable of judging that distance anyway.


A better solution would be to build more -- perhaps many more in some areas -- or better still build designated campsites with hardened pads, a privy and perhaps a communal cooking area.

Some of these sites could be dry. The current expectation is that every site has water near it, but that need not be the case-- hikers can adapt given how much info is available to them. These sites could all be located down spur trails so that anyone not interested in stopping would not even know they were there.

[illabelle]

The general consensus is that the shelters minimize the environmental impact by concentrating it in one area. Dispersed camping still happens in many areas.

[peakbagger]

Dispersed camping is not going to fly in many areas of the AT. The alternative that you missed is designated tentsites. Unfortunately throw 50 plus people a night at a acre or so of land durin mud season the area can really get pounded into mud pit unless its hardened.

[MuddyWaters]

Houses in the woods for people scared to camp. Literally.

Funny how trails without shelters thrive, without the problems .

Once they were a convenience. Now they are detrimental to the trail .

[rickb]

5000 people all starting at a single trail head over the course of about 80 days requires shelters or hardened camping spots with privies.

[1234]

5000 people all starting at a single trail head over the course of about 80 days requires shelters or hardened camping spots with privies.

YES AGREE WITH THIS!

I love the hardened camp spots. Maryland shelters have tent platforms with picnic tables, great flat spots for camping. They are used! I also think MORE shelters in Georgia WITH smoldering privy's. I also think privy's about 2 hours our of every town like Hot Springs to handle the huge eating in town. Shelters keep rookies alive, all you old hardened hikers have little need for them but the average joe is just not prepared to handle inclement weather.

If you do not like them them do not use them and stop whining, most hikers like them, as they stay full or at least they accumulate a group. Without them the forest would look like a campground with EVERY flat spot over used.

[Uncle Joe]

The general consensus is that the shelters minimize the environmental impact by concentrating it in one area. Dispersed camping still happens in many areas.

Bingo! Trails without shelters aren't likely as busy as the AT. Better to have the mess concentrated than dispersed. I've been doing section hiking here in GA this year, well after thru-hiking season, and with only 1 exception the shelters are clear and clean. A testament to the volunteers.

[Starchild]

Besides the concentration of use, shelters also are one of the features that are common, though not ubiquitous, in the Eastern US and especially more so as one goes north. In Canada there are fully enclosed shelters along certain trails. So the shelters themselves may be more a function of our climate, particularly rain, as to why we have them and other trails such as the PCT does not, it seems to be how eastern hiking and traveling evolved, many of the shelters predating adopting of LNT.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't consider getting rid of them, just that there use predates land impact reasons and those reasons are still valid today and one should also consider the original intent usage.

On my own thru I learned that I would rather be in my own tent, however at the same time appreciated them for shelter from particularly rain.

Also I do need to ask, is there a sour grapes aspect to this issue, not particularly from the OP, but the general tendency to make the trail harder or less appealing in a attempt to discourage usage, so perhaps a ulterior motive as well which is not to the benefit of the trail but just to the personal benefit of those who would rather have less people enjoying it.

[firesign]

Also I do need to ask, is there a sour grapes aspect to this issue, not particularly from the OP, but the general tendency to make the trail harder or less appealing in a attempt to discourage usage, so perhaps a ulterior motive as well which is not to the benefit of the trail but just to the personal benefit of those who would rather have less people enjoying it.


I only used shelters when I had to because that was the rules so their presence or absence never affected me. I am more interested in the dispersed camping to spread people out more along the trail. I do appreciate the requirements for privies in the first couple of hundred miles of the trail but not necessarily shelters. More campsites near water sources would IMO reduce impact especially as annual numbers increase.

[life scout]

Shelters provide access to the trail system for non hikers. Day hikers and family outings into the great outdoors is what the trail is all about. The benefits of shelters as common areas promote the original social media site "The camp fire".
As well as being a base location for Search and Rescue, emergency medical treatment, and protection from the elements.

[Slo-go'en]

Why should they be removed just because there's an overabundance of people at certain times of the year? The rest of the time they stand mostly empty. In the "off season" they are nice to have. In the busy season a lucky few get to use the shelters, the rest have to tent. Big deal.

Dispersed camping is not practical along long stretches of the AT. The ridge line is too narrow, too rocky, too steep, too densely forested, too environmentally sensitive. As it is there's a shelter located in a practical camping spot about every 10 miles. More people can fit in a shelter then could fit in the same area then if they all had to tent, so it's more efficient use of space too.

[rafe]

I'll echo what others have said about shelters being mostly empty and pleasant in the off-season.

That said, I'm always prepared to tent, even if it's only a dozen feet away from the shelter. For whatever reason, and at a moment's notice.

[Stubby]

attempt to discourage usage

Perhaps so... as I read the thoughts about hardened pads, bigger shelters, hardened sections of the trail, more privies, more shelters, I was aghast... "no no no" I thought. "What's next? Pave the trail? Electric hookups? Vending machines? Please don't turn the AT into glorified car camping!"

But, if nothing is done but maintaining current sites more or less as-is, the wilderness along the trail that we so enjoy will become very degraded. In part, because some hikers just don't get LNT, and there is no effective way to enforce LNT on hikers. But in large part its just the ever-increasing volume of hikers. More hikers means more tent footprints, more cat-holes, more walking off the trail for privacy to dig a cat-hole, increased number of tent pads, [unfortunately] more fire rings, etc etc etc.

I don't have a solution... I don't like the options I see.

I considered something like some sort of training requirement to hike on the trail... one that teaches everyone the rules about LNT, and trail manners... maybe a certification on something. But, apart from whether that is really even a good idea, it is definitely not a feasible idea... the trail is far to accessible, no feasible way to limit who hikes the trail, if that were even desireable.

I'm at a loss. I guess that it has me thinking I need to complete my section hike in the next few years, while the AT is still the AT I know and love.

[Starchild]

...
But, if nothing is done but maintaining current sites more or less as-is, the wilderness along the trail that we so enjoy will become very degraded. In part, because some hikers just don't get LNT, and there is no effective way to enforce LNT on hikers. But in large part its just the ever-increasing volume of hikers. More hikers means more tent footprints, more cat-holes, more walking off the trail for privacy to dig a cat-hole, increased number of tent pads, [unfortunately] more fire rings, etc etc etc.

I don't have a solution... I don't like the options I see. .....

I have and am practicing a potential solution, one that I believe in, mentoring. I take groups of hiker, most are newly discovering hiking, onto the trail and lead by example. Many are looking for what to do out there and really just don't know. The mentoring is unofficial, it just what happens naturally. It is the way I believe we are really suppose to learn, it is the ideal for humanity. In this and over the miles I do go over LNT, it's strengths and shortcomings, even conduct LNT workshops. But beyond that I like to demonstrate respect for each other, the wildlife and the earth, from that much more then LNT can be derived. More importantly it gives them a sense of ownership.

The great influx of hikers as I see it was really a failing of the hiking clubs to reach the next generation of hikers, therefor breaking the cycle of mentoring and respect, so yes many are going out there without that quality, but I do believe that we will get back to a much more respectful place over time as they learn the ways that mother nature ultimately teaches including the triad that most hiking groups eventually come to, expressed by one club as recreation, conservation and education and another the same 3 protection, enjoyment, and understanding, and I see the more modern meetup groups naturally gravitating towards these aw well.

But the main part of that is respect which must be mutual, and it is the mutual respect, we must respect them and where they are, if they are ever to respect us.

[Stubby]

These sites could all be located down spur trails so that anyone not interested in stopping would not even know they were there.

Good idea. creatively gets some of the high-impact activity off the trail itself.

So, perhaps replace some of the old shelters that are basically right on the trail (like Jerry Cabin) with ones that are further off (like Woods Hole and Whitley Gap)

And yes, while water is a nice to have at the shelter, I can adapt - a large platypus can be filled up and carried a few miles when you know its a dry camp, not an issue.

[Stubby]

I take groups of hiker, most are newly discovering hiking, onto the trail and lead by example. Many are looking for what to do out there and really just don't know. The mentoring is unofficial, it just what happens naturally.
That's awesome! I'd enjoying doing that, too. I'll look for hiking clubs near me, been thinking about finding one for a while anyway. Be part of the solution...

[Starchild]

Good idea. creatively gets some of the high-impact activity off the trail itself.

So, perhaps replace some of the old shelters that are basically right on the trail (like Jerry Cabin) with ones that are further off (like Woods Hole and Whitley Gap)

And yes, while water is a nice to have at the shelter, I can adapt - a large platypus can be filled up and carried a few miles when you know its a dry camp, not an issue.

The issue with no-water shelters is people tend to avoid them if practical. Having them off of a spur trail is a balancing act, want them to go and it should be close, the further it is off trail the less usage, especially for things like lunch stops. If you build a shelter, ideally it is for people to use, not to hide off in a place where people don't want to go.

Make shelters too unappealing hard to get to and you may create a lot more hardened camp sites in places with water and easier to set up camp were people want to camp.

[Starchild]

That's awesome! I'd enjoying doing that, too. I'll look for hiking clubs near me, been thinking about finding one for a while anyway. Be part of the solution...

I would suggest trying out clubs and also meetup, they are quite different, the clubs are usually the experienced wise hikers while the meetup are the active new hikers. the clubs is a great source to build your own self up while meetup is a place to share with others to help build them up.

[Berserker]

Tear them all down! In all seriousness, I don't totally get the love for shelters. Yeah I've hung in a few when it's raining and they are convenient, but ultimately most of them are nasty and rodent infested. I'd be all in favor of more nice tenting (i.e. hardened pads). As for impact, I'm always amused when people get their panties in a wad over this. Is a bunch of people camping in the woods really causing a huge impact? I mean I see plenty of mileage of untouched terrain when I'm walking to where a few more tent areas wouldn't detract. And as for impact what about all the other crazy stuff going on the world with pollution and wars and stuff...yeah, a few extra tent sites doesn't seem like a big deal now huh? :D

[hikernutcasey]

Put me in the camp of doing away with them. I do like the idea of having hardened tent sites, a privy and a communal cooking area. That idea makes the most sense to me. Put them in areas where shelters are where you most likely have a water source and privy already. The shelter sites are good ideas, just not the shelters themselves.

[SteelCut]

I too am in the camp (no pun intended) of removing them in favor of hardened sites and privies.

[Sarcasm the elf]

Shelters give hikers on internet message boards something to feel outraged about. This alone is reason enough to keep them.

I don't care for shelters personally, however I fail to see how my dislike of shelters should in any way detract from the enjoyment that others get from their use.

[Stubby]

... while meetup is a place to share with others to help build them up.

This term is new to me. What is a meetup, and how do I find one?

[Stubby]

The issue with no-water shelters is people tend to avoid them if practical. Having them off of a spur trail is a balancing act, want them to go and it should be close, the further it is off trail the less usage, especially for things like lunch stops. If you build a shelter, ideally it is for people to use, not to hide off in a place where people don't want to go.

Make shelters too unappealing hard to get to and you may create a lot more hardened camp sites in places with water and easier to set up camp were people want to camp.

Yeah, after spending a minute to think about it, people who want shelters are going to want close water. The water is probably the biggest attraction to get them to go down a spur. I don't think it needs to be far... 200 yards is enough, quarter mile is probably a max.

Add a privy and some bear cables, and some tent and hammock sites... Maybe we do need a few more, at least on the lower sections for the spring wave.

[Bronk]

Build more hostels in towns and then tear down the shelters. Most AT hikers these days would prefer to spend most of their nights in town anyway...they are only sorry they can't slackpack the whole trail.

[rafe]

Build more hostels in towns and then tear down the shelters. Most AT hikers these days would prefer to spend most of their nights in town anyway...they are only sorry they can't slackpack the whole trail.

I just love the way threads like this allow folks to vent their anger and cast aspersions on the rest of the hiking community. Based on amazing powers of mind-reading, they actually know what most AT thru hikers would prefer. Very impressive.

[Starchild]

This term is new to me. What is a meetup, and how do I find one?

meetup.com

Enter your zip code and the word 'hiking' and see what comes up in your area.

[Traveler]

This is really a non-issue. If you use them, use them, if you don't, don't. There are obvious benefits to them during all four seasons of the year and obvious downsides especially .

But, I do agree with Elf in that they provide venting fodder and can be very entertaining.

Carry on!

[ddanko2]

MOST everyone that are “against” shelters use them in the rain. Where would all these vehemently anti-shelter people go if they didn’t have the shelters to utilize in the rain?!

If you don’t like them, stay away from them. There’s a place for ‘em on the AT, plain and simple. HYOH, and use other trails if you don’t like ‘em.

[daddytwosticks]

Shelters give hikers on internet message boards something to feel outraged about. This alone is reason enough to keep them.

I don't care for shelters personally, however I fail to see how my dislike of shelters should in any way detract from the enjoyment that others get from their use.
Best post yet! Agree 100%. Pass the popcorn please. :)

[imscotty]

I am glad there are some trails with Shelters. For many people staying in a shelter is their first introduction to overnight camping. I want more people to enjoy the outdoors, to enjoy overnight hikes. I selfishly want other people to love the outdoors and wilderness because because I think it makes the world a better place and also they will want to protect these places too.

I am glad there are trails without shelters and other amenities. Places where you can enjoy the outdoors in a purer state. Places where there tend to be fewer hikers and you can quietly commune with nature. Places where the natural surroundings have not been degraded by too many visitors.

But the OP asked if shelters are a good or a bad thing for the AT. To that I have to say I think there has been good and bad. I am glad that so many people enjoy the AT, but I also think it would be better if some of this use was redirected to some of the lesser used trails.


5000 people all starting at a single trail head over the course of about 80 days requires shelters or hardened camping spots with privies.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Perhaps if there were fewer shelters on the AT, we would not have 5000 through hikers lining up on Springer every year. Perhaps the idea of a long distance hike would be a little less attractive, perhaps the AT would have fewer of its current problems, perhaps some other trails would see a little more use.

Just thinking out loud here. I understand that certain environmentally sensitive or popular areas would be better off with 'hardened' campsites. However, I would like to see the ATC experiment with removing shelters in some segments of the trail. This may help diminish, and should help disperse 'the hiker herd.' Do we really need to provide backcountry 'training wheels' for hikers from one end of the AT to another? Perhaps removing some shelters would alleviate some of the problems on the AT and provide a more diverse experience for those who seek to know nature.

[rafe]

Shelters have a lot to do with the trail community. Its social life. To some, that community is important, and a part of the reason they're out hiking. For others, not so much. In most cases, you can have the social life without staying in the shelter, if that suits you better. Most shelters have tent sites nearby. Believe it or not, one can have too much solitude. Every now and then I appreciate a like-minded human to talk to. ;)

[Starchild]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Perhaps if there were fewer shelters on the AT, we would not have 5000 through hikers lining up on Springer every year. Perhaps the idea of a long distance hike would be a little less attractive, perhaps the AT would have fewer of its current problems, perhaps some other trails would see a little more use.

Just thinking out loud here. I understand that certain environmentally sensitive or popular areas would be better off with 'hardened' campsites. However, I would like to see the ATC experiment with removing shelters in some segments of the trail. This may help diminish, and should help disperse 'the hiker herd.' Do we really need to provide backcountry 'training wheels' for hikers from one end of the AT to another? Perhaps removing some shelters would alleviate some of the problems on the AT and provide a more diverse experience for those who seek to know nature.
Would love that section to be the Smokie Mountains, no dogs no shelters just the wilderness that they seek such a designation of.

[winger]

Tear down the wimp shelters ASAP.

[misprof]

5000 people all starting at a single trail head over the course of about 80 days requires shelters or hardened camping spots with privies.
That is not even counting the section hikers or the weekend warrior crowd. I wish there were more shelters not because I am afraid or a whimp. I sleep better on the ground. They do however, concentrate the crowd and lessen the impact.
Shelters along trails is not just an AT thing. You have them in Europe and New Zealand as huts. The 3 sided kind is unique to US from what I understand. Some of the reasons for them is ease for hikers but also to minimize impact on delicate areas. Could one of the reasons that they have become nasty, mouse invested, things is that the hikers who use them do not practice LNT? I have walked into shelters that had trash in it, under it, and the fire rings were filled with people's half burnt papers and food wrappers. All of that trash gives the lovely vermin food. The shelter system would work better if people actually cleaned up after themselves. I will stop ranting now.

[Grinch]

What ever happened to LNT? Seriously the shelters would be fine but I think that complacency and unwillingness to use good sense about food away from shelters. Don't hang your food in the shelter it's suppose to be away from camp and secure from animals. As it stands now ,my opinion, the shelters are not usable for this fact. Hang your food, it doesn't matter how tired you are at end of day. This is the only solution. Nuff said!

[lemon b]

I have a tendency to agree with Lone Wolf on this one. However, I must admit that when on hikes going over 500 miles I do enjoy running up on pre built Shelters when I'm cold, wet, and bone tired. Perhaps the problem is too many shelters. What we currently have on the AT is too many hikers. Being a long time I hiker I feel that it is all good that many others are now involved. What we really need and it maybe too late given all the laws is more Long Distance trails. Sure wish there was another BMT type trail farther North. Funny how those in power can find all kinds of money for rockets and bombs and social programs but we still don not have anything like the old CCC at work making trails. Nothing like a long distance hike to develop real character in people. Know i'm singing to the choir, but the basic problem is not enough trails. Also, I agree that central camping areas do keep the mess we make isolated. In the 70's and 80's I know many of us were guilty of making messes with our fire pits. In my home State of Mass I do not even recall there being a single Shelter back in the 70's. But the trail as a whole was much more messy with lots of firepit type camping areas.

[Lone Wolf]

the GA section is 70 miles or so. it has 12 shelters. it doesn't need 12 shelters. it doesn't need any shelters

[Deacon]

I don't understand why people on this site have such a disdain for shelters. I for one, happen to enjoy shelters. It is so much easier to pack and get going in the morning.

It is true some shelters are rodent infested, but I've found that those are the older one built directly on the ground, like the ones you find in NC and Tennessee. The worst I've experienced is Cold Spring just south of the NOC. The floor boards are nearly laying on the ground giving mice a lot of cover.

When you get up into Virginia, the shelters are mostly built up off the ground. I found them fairly clean, and personally never found one there with mice.

Let's give shelters a break.

[Starchild]

...What we really need and it maybe too late given all the laws is more Long Distance trails. .....

There are a lot more LD trails then there used to be, the Great Eastern Trail, the Mountain to Sea trail etc. I do feel that is what a lot of people are missing. The AT is basically a entry trail for a lot of hikers, it draws people there first, those who would like more solitude have many options opening to them. As the shelters concentrate the impact and keep it contained and allows a degree of management and control, the AT itself likewise is serving this same purpose on a larger scale and doing a great job of it.

[JPTC08]

Just think back when you decided to hike the AT. You didn't hike it because it had shelters, you hike it because you wanted to hike. Shelters are not going to promote or deter people from hiking. As the AT becomes more popular, more people will try to hike it. The only way to do this responsibly is to concentrate the impact of those hiking, by way of more shelters/tent sites.

[Tipi Walter]

yes. shelters are dumps


Rat traps & hobo houses


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Houses in the woods for people scared to camp. Literally.

Funny how trails without shelters thrive, without the problems .

Once they were a convenience. Now they are detrimental to the trail .

My feelings exactly.


Tear them all down! In all seriousness, I don't totally get the love for shelters. Yeah I've hung in a few when it's raining and they are convenient, but ultimately most of them are nasty and rodent infested. I'd be all in favor of more nice tenting (i.e. hardened pads). As for impact, I'm always amused when people get their panties in a wad over this. Is a bunch of people camping in the woods really causing a huge impact? I mean I see plenty of mileage of untouched terrain when I'm walking to where a few more tent areas wouldn't detract. And as for impact what about all the other crazy stuff going on the world with pollution and wars and stuff...yeah, a few extra tent sites doesn't seem like a big deal now huh? :D

You are right, there are thousands of campsites along the AT and plenty of untouched terrain.


Build more hostels in towns and then tear down the shelters. Most AT hikers these days would prefer to spend most of their nights in town anyway...they are only sorry they can't slackpack the whole trail.

Another excellent point.


MOST everyone that are “against” shelters use them in the rain. Where would all these vehemently anti-shelter people go if they didn’t have the shelters to utilize in the rain?!

If you don’t like them, stay away from them. There’s a place for ‘em on the AT, plain and simple. HYOH, and use other trails if you don’t like ‘em.



I'm totally against AT shelters and never use them in the rain. I prefer my Hilleberg tent and to get as far away from shelters as possible, in all weather conditions and especially rainstorms and blizzards. Not only do we shelter-haters stay away from them, we go further and voice our dislike vehemently whenever we can.


What ever happened to LNT? Seriously the shelters would be fine but I think that complacency and unwillingness to use good sense about food away from shelters. Don't hang your food in the shelter it's suppose to be away from camp and secure from animals. As it stands now ,my opinion, the shelters are not usable for this fact. Hang your food, it doesn't matter how tired you are at end of day. This is the only solution. Nuff said!

Actually, if you want to talk about LNT then you need to form a plan to remove ALL SHELTERS as these rat-box buildings leave the biggest trace on the environment. Putting up a permanent shelter is not practicing LNT.


the GA section is 70 miles or so. it has 12 shelters. it doesn't need 12 shelters. it doesn't need any shelters

We agree on this.

A SHELTER SCREED
I wrote this rant on AT box shelters on a recent backpacking trip and put it in my trip report---

THE CONSTANT RAT BOX SHELTER SYSTEM
AT backpackers are for the most part on a forced march from town to town in order to keep their food loads light and on a 5 day resupply cycle. They always have an out when something bad happens like long cold rains or arctic blasts or wet gear or no food. And the constant rat box shelter system erases any feel of a wilderness trip as you see America's natural world as from the Eisenhower Foot Trail Interstate System, never knowing who is gonna rush to a shelter along with you to take advantage of a building stuck in the middle of nowhere.

SLEEPING WITH STRANGE MEN
No wonder the AT is so popular---people love buildings and people are lazy and want to use these shelters instead of taking the time and effort to set up tents or tarps or hammocks. And then you are trying to sleep crotch to crotch and butt to butt with complete strangers and probably smokers, dopers and drunks. What man would go on a backpacking trip and sleep next to other strange men in the middle of a million acre forest? Spread out, people! I'm not even comfy when my tent is within 30 feet of another person's tent and so the AT boxes seem a terrible idea like urban squatters sleeping on a highway under a bridge abutment. Let's huddle together by a smoking stinky trash strewn fire next to the shelter and pass a joint around and pull out the whiskey flask and talk about how great we are to be thruhikers.

HEPATITIS BOX
The only good thing about these AT carports is they lure in and congregate the idiots whereby I can disperse camp a mile away and avoid the lunacy. No one will camp nearby because they're in a mad ant-rush to get to the hepatitis box and see "old friends" and keep tabs on fellow hikers in the trail register and chitchat with birds of a feather as they fart and snore together thru the night. You actually want to see a blizzard hit and cover up their bags with wet snow, and you actually want to see muddy hikers with muddy dogs come in at 2am and wake everybody up demanding a spot on the floor with the dogs getting everyone filthy.

BOX DEPENDENT
The shelter residents actually have the gall to say the shelter has rules like no dogs and yet they are idiots as the shelter is a wide open piss tank available to anyone for any activity. If you're dumb enough to use them on your backpacking trip and too lazy to set up your own shelter then you have nothing to say for yourself in defense of your space while in one of these rat boxes. Because once you air a single complaint you are advertising your unwillingness to rely on your own shelter system. You willingly have allowed yourself to be box dependent and this choice negates any indignation you may have with fellow occupants in the same box. You're all in the same boiling pot of sewage and slowly cooking in a rat box induced retardation.

Once dependent on these mud homes people get prickly as if shelters have rules and they develop a strong sense of entitlement to these open sores. "No dogs! No tents inside! No smoking! No room except for me and my friends!! No noise after 9pm!! Full up, sleep in the rain!!! I was here first!! Here, take a hit! I'm a thruhiker, you're not so make room for me! I've been on the trail for 4 months and will now take your questions! We are high mileage experts, now you may ask your questions! Gotta catch up with my friends Turd Blossom and Semen Tank!!!"

Anyway, that's my take on it and may be my final and most mature opinion on the matter.

[Tipi Walter]

And regards Berserker and his comment of hikers having plenty of untouched terrain to camp on---here is proof from my photo album of a recent backpacking trip on the AT---

https://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/Backpacking2006/With-Amy-Willow-On-The/i-JBPtncw/0/M/57-1%20%20Staika%20tent%20near%20Walker%20Gap%20on%20 the%20AT%20%20d1-M.jpg
This is south of Fontana just above Walker Gap on the AT.


https://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/Backpacking2006/With-Amy-Willow-On-The/i-2TJqdXm/0/M/57-12%20%20I%20make%20it%20to%20Brown%20Fork%20Gap%20 where%20there%20is%20water-M.jpg
This is several hundred yards below Brown Fork shelter in a little gap with water nearby.


https://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/Backpacking2011/Tipi-Walter-In-Mt-Rogers/i-cCp4nqZ/0/M/TRIP%20123%20012-M.jpg
This is a nice camp north of the South Holston footbridge and close to a running creek.


https://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/Backpacking2011/Tipi-Walter-In-Mt-Rogers/i-fkR7PMx/0/M/TRIP%20123%20036-M.jpg
Way north of Trimpi Shelter there is this campsite close to the old Raccoon Branch shelter (now dismantled) and it has a water spring nearby. And it's close to the AT.


https://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/Backpacking2011/Tipi-Walter-In-Mt-Rogers/i-7Tm2Km5/0/M/TRIP%20123%20166-M.jpg
This camp is right on the AT on Wilburn Ridge in Mt Rogers and excellent.


https://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/Backpacking2011/Tipi-Walter-In-Mt-Rogers/i-WwTQzVf/0/M/TRIP%20123%20238-M.jpg
This is a nice campsite a mile north of Wise Shelter in Mt Rogers area.

[rafe]

The vast majority of AT shelters are off the main trail, and except for the Smokies, you're not required to use them. So what's the gripe, exactly?

[Tipi Walter]

MORE EXAMPLES OF DISPERSED (SHELTER-HATING) CAMPING---

https://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/Backpacking2011/Tipi-Walter-In-Mt-Rogers/i-3DK7smC/0/M/TRIP%20123%20262-M.jpg
This is on Stone Mt above Scales in Mt Rogers and within sight of the AT.


https://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/Backpacking2011/Tipi-Walter-In-Mt-Rogers/i-47KVpJs/0/M/TRIP%20123%20289-M.jpg
This is on Wilburn Ridge in Mt Rogers and in a big gap between two pink granite peaks. The AT is visible on the right and my tent is on the left barely visible.


https://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/Backpacking2011/Tipi-Walter-In-Mt-Rogers/i-745rSZJ/0/M/TRIP%20123%20315-M.jpg
When the AT leaves Old Orchard shelter heading south, it reaches the trail jct with Pine Mountain trail and there's a nice campsite right at this jct.


https://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/Backpacking2011/Tipi-Walter-In-Mt-Rogers/i-wZ7r8TR/0/M/TRIP%20123%20337-M.jpg
On the other side of Hurricane Mt I find this never-used campsite right off the AT and close to a creek.


https://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/Backpacking2011/Tipi-Walter-In-Mt-Rogers/i-CZ6WFHR/0/M/TRIP%20123%20351-M.jpg
This camp is on a mountaintop south of Trimpi Shelter with the AT clearly visible.

https://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/Backpacking2011/Tipi-Walter-In-Mt-Rogers/i-sMVKqQz/0/M/TRIP%20123%20395-M.jpg
This campsite is a flat place I cleared and is located several miles south of Partnership Shelter on the AT.

[Tipi Walter]

FINAL EXAMPLES---

https://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/Backpacking2012/Tipi-Walter-Grayson-Highlands/i-jgZnT6S/0/M/TRI%20132%20007-M.jpg
On another trip I leave the Mt Rogers NRA parking lot and head south on the AT and find this nice rocky campsite several miles in.


https://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/Backpacking2012/Tipi-Walter-Grayson-Highlands/i-59XCbq6/0/M/TRI%20132%20042-M.jpg
This campsite is on top of Hurricane Mt and a couple miles south of Hurricane Shelter and proves the point that a backpacker can get water at a shelter and then hike a mile or two and find a spot to camp.


https://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/Backpacking2012/Tipi-Walter-Grayson-Highlands/i-xSfxMB7/0/M/TRI%20132%20230-M.jpg
This campsite is located 7 miles from Partnership shelter going south and a few miles north of the South Holston crossing.


https://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/Backpacking2012/Tipi-Walter-Grayson-Highlands/i-XTxP7S7/0/M/TRI%20132%20376-M.jpg
I like this pic cuz it shows AT backpackers rushing to get to Partnership Shelter a half mile away but I'm camped comfortably away from the shelter and have my own creek water and my own privacy.

[rafe]

I like this pic cuz it shows AT backpackers rushing to get to Partnership Shelter a half mile away but I'm camped comfortably away from the shelter and have my own creek water and my own privacy.

You're such a manly man, Tipi. Will you marry me?

[Deacon]

I saw a guy cut up his vegetables for his stew right on the shelter floor. Didn't seem to bother him.

By far, the dirtiest part of any shelter is the register. Imagine all the grimey hands that leave their ---- whatever on the paper.

[English Stu]

I like a decent nights sleep so have only slept in a few but I find they are something to aim for and the company welcomed. Platforms at the same locations would work.
I was pleased to be in them on three occasions when the rain was very heavy. I recall a rain spin from Hurricane Ivan in 2004 and I think a tropical storm later that year. Also a Hurricane/tropical rain spin in Maine, 2010 I think. A friend of mine and a group ski on the trail in Maine and use them so they have their uses.

[Starchild]

...


Actually, if you want to talk about LNT then you need to form a plan to remove ALL SHELTERS as these rat-box buildings leave the biggest trace on the environment. Putting up a permanent shelter is not practicing LNT.

....

Actually LNT on the 'LNT trainer level' touches on this, and more I understand on the 'LNT master educator level' does indeed support shelters, hardened campsites, blazes and trails and their maintenance as part of LNT practices. LNT is multi level and just not for backcountry, there are many variations and allowances for different activities, hiking vs hunting vs geocaching for example. After education of how to properly manage the trails and getting the proper permissions and guidance, one can do thing LNT allows that would not at the entry level that most people know as LNT.

[Slo-go'en]

FINAL EXAMPLES---
like this pic cuz it shows AT backpackers rushing to get to Partnership Shelter a half mile away but I'm camped comfortably away from the shelter and have my own creek water and my own privacy.

That's all well and good up to about Partnerships Shelter, but get farther north and nice campsites like the ones Tipi is picturing become few and far between and in New England non-existant.

[Tipi Walter]

Actually LNT on the 'LNT trainer level' touches on this, and more I understand on the 'LNT master educator level' does indeed support shelters, hardened campsites, blazes and trails and their maintenance as part of LNT practices. LNT is multi level and just not for backcountry, there are many variations and allowances for different activities, hiking vs hunting vs geocaching for example. After education of how to properly manage the trails and getting the proper permissions and guidance, one can do thing LNT allows that would not at the entry level that most people know as LNT.

It's peculiar that Leave No Trace has evolved to Leave A Trace. The LNT policy wonks are probably trying desperately to figure out how to include AT box shelters and even gopro personal drones or bicycles or ATVs or all else. You call it "multi-level", a fancy way of watering down the LNT guidelines.


That's all well and good up to about Partnerships Shelter, but get farther north and nice campsites like the ones Tipi is picturing become few and far between and in New England non-existant.

I found the same ample campsites further north and hiked the 100 mile Shenandoah section twice and camped wherever I found a decent spot. Even found spots by the trail when going into Front Royal. Set up one night in a windstorm on Mary's Rock. Just didn't have a camera at the time to take pics.

And my example-pics only highlight a short 40 mile section of the AT---and I only used a fraction of the available off-trail campsites in that 40 miles. Imagine the number of campsites between Springer Mt and the Smokies? Or between the Smokies and Front Royal?

[Traveler]

The vast majority of backpackers on the AT do not know about, or if they do, will not employ LNT practices. So, to advocate the removal of shelters is to advocate for the alternative. Poorly made and close to the trail cat holes, if they are even dug, making for aromatic July days. Campsites that are fairly well suited for LNT eventually denuded, eroded, packed down, and litter strewn. Illegal fires in areas where open fires are prohibited and scars of fire rings where they are allowed. The frat party types will find these sites and expand them for their nightly parties, which will be found by frat types the following night. The list is pretty long.

Or, keep the shelters in place as a means to funnel impact of the vast majority of folks into a relatively small area and allow the balance of those who practice the disciplines of LNT to the forests. Shelters do actually have some benefits throughout the year, from storm refuge, emergency operations, and meeting points, though have some negative aspects during the high traffic season.

On balance, I would prefer the consolidated impact.

[Tipi Walter]

The vast majority of backpackers on the AT do not know about, or if they do, will not employ LNT practices. So, to advocate the removal of shelters is to advocate for the alternative. Poorly made and close to the trail cat holes, if they are even dug, making for aromatic July days. Campsites that are fairly well suited for LNT eventually denuded, eroded, packed down, and litter strewn. Illegal fires in areas where open fires are prohibited and scars of fire rings where they are allowed. The frat party types will find these sites and expand them for their nightly parties, which will be found by frat types the following night. The list is pretty long.

Or, keep the shelters in place as a means to funnel impact of the vast majority of folks into a relatively small area and allow the balance of those who practice the disciplines of LNT to the forests. Shelters do actually have some benefits throughout the year, from storm refuge, emergency operations, and meeting points, though have some negative aspects during the high traffic season.

On balance, I would prefer the consolidated impact.

I just don't see it. Mt Rogers gets heavily used by backpackers and its non-AT trails are used by thousands a year and do not have any of the stuff you mention. And fire rings are only unsightly when they get to giant proportions but these can be fixed quickly and easily by scattering the rocks and cleaning off the site. I encountered just such a fire ring on my recent Snowbird backpacking trip and set up camp next to Middle Falls on Snowbird Creek. See---

https://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/Backpack-2015-Trips-161/SNOWBIRD-PRETRIP/i-v7hRCPF/0/M/TRIP%20167%20104-M.jpg
Here is the Middle Falls campsite before I spent a few minutes clearing it.


https://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/Backpack-2015-Trips-161/SNOWBIRD-PRETRIP/i-qwkwbnw/0/M/TRIP%20167%20242-M.jpg
Here it is after a little scrubbing.

[Tipi Walter]

And plus, it's the Horseback riders which do the most damage by far in the Mt Rogers backcountry.

[Lnj]

One positive for shelters.... They give the people you want to be away from a place to go. If they are gone, then those people may be camping near you now. It gives those who want to camp more of a selection of great campsites to use with much less competition. It's the old saying when someone doesn't like the dinner you made... "Good, more for me!" So let the shelters gather the masses, so we can move on down the trail a bit in peace.

[Berserker]

A SHELTER SCREED
I wrote this rant on AT box shelters on a recent backpacking trip and put it in my trip report---

THE CONSTANT RAT BOX SHELTER SYSTEM
AT backpackers are for the most part on a forced march from town to town in order to keep their food loads light and on a 5 day resupply cycle. They always have an out when something bad happens like long cold rains or arctic blasts or wet gear or no food. And the constant rat box shelter system erases any feel of a wilderness trip as you see America's natural world as from the Eisenhower Foot Trail Interstate System, never knowing who is gonna rush to a shelter along with you to take advantage of a building stuck in the middle of nowhere.

SLEEPING WITH STRANGE MEN
No wonder the AT is so popular---people love buildings and people are lazy and want to use these shelters instead of taking the time and effort to set up tents or tarps or hammocks. And then you are trying to sleep crotch to crotch and butt to butt with complete strangers and probably smokers, dopers and drunks. What man would go on a backpacking trip and sleep next to other strange men in the middle of a million acre forest? Spread out, people! I'm not even comfy when my tent is within 30 feet of another person's tent and so the AT boxes seem a terrible idea like urban squatters sleeping on a highway under a bridge abutment. Let's huddle together by a smoking stinky trash strewn fire next to the shelter and pass a joint around and pull out the whiskey flask and talk about how great we are to be thruhikers.

HEPATITIS BOX
The only good thing about these AT carports is they lure in and congregate the idiots whereby I can disperse camp a mile away and avoid the lunacy. No one will camp nearby because they're in a mad ant-rush to get to the hepatitis box and see "old friends" and keep tabs on fellow hikers in the trail register and chitchat with birds of a feather as they fart and snore together thru the night. You actually want to see a blizzard hit and cover up their bags with wet snow, and you actually want to see muddy hikers with muddy dogs come in at 2am and wake everybody up demanding a spot on the floor with the dogs getting everyone filthy.

BOX DEPENDENT
The shelter residents actually have the gall to say the shelter has rules like no dogs and yet they are idiots as the shelter is a wide open piss tank available to anyone for any activity. If you're dumb enough to use them on your backpacking trip and too lazy to set up your own shelter then you have nothing to say for yourself in defense of your space while in one of these rat boxes. Because once you air a single complaint you are advertising your unwillingness to rely on your own shelter system. You willingly have allowed yourself to be box dependent and this choice negates any indignation you may have with fellow occupants in the same box. You're all in the same boiling pot of sewage and slowly cooking in a rat box induced retardation.

Once dependent on these mud homes people get prickly as if shelters have rules and they develop a strong sense of entitlement to these open sores. "No dogs! No tents inside! No smoking! No room except for me and my friends!! No noise after 9pm!! Full up, sleep in the rain!!! I was here first!! Here, take a hit! I'm a thruhiker, you're not so make room for me! I've been on the trail for 4 months and will now take your questions! We are high mileage experts, now you may ask your questions! Gotta catch up with my friends Turd Blossom and Semen Tank!!!"

Anyway, that's my take on it and may be my final and most mature opinion on the matter.
This rant was fantastic...loved it. I probably drew the attention of my co-workers as I laughed uncontrollably in my cube. Some of the best stuff I've seen on WB in a while.

[Berserker]

The vast majority of backpackers on the AT do not know about, or if they do, will not employ LNT practices. So, to advocate the removal of shelters is to advocate for the alternative. Poorly made and close to the trail cat holes, if they are even dug, making for aromatic July days. Campsites that are fairly well suited for LNT eventually denuded, eroded, packed down, and litter strewn. Illegal fires in areas where open fires are prohibited and scars of fire rings where they are allowed. The frat party types will find these sites and expand them for their nightly parties, which will be found by frat types the following night. The list is pretty long.

Or, keep the shelters in place as a means to funnel impact of the vast majority of folks into a relatively small area and allow the balance of those who practice the disciplines of LNT to the forests. Shelters do actually have some benefits throughout the year, from storm refuge, emergency operations, and meeting points, though have some negative aspects during the high traffic season.

On balance, I would prefer the consolidated impact.
It looks like you live in CT. CT is a good example of one of the states that has very nicely laid out dispersed preexisting tent sites. They're spaced close enough along the trail that there's room for everyone, yet they are far enough apart and most of them off trail so as not to detract from the scenery. They also have privies at most of them (from my recollection anyway). All the sites I stopped at were in very good condition too. So if the shelter sites were converted to tent sites in CT there would be plenty of decent places to camp.

Like I said before, I don't really care either way personally (shelters vs. no shelters) as it's each individual's choice where to camp (and I normally tent), but for the sake of discussion the AT in CT has good examples of nice preexisting tent sites that illustrate how a shelter-less system could work for the whole trail.

[The Old Chief]

Don't know what all the animosity toward these shelters is all about. You are not mandated to stay in or around them except in the Smokies. Stay away from the Smokies. Problem solved. Of the 12 shelters in Georgia only 1 is on the trail, two are located at least 100 yds from the trail and the others are never going to be seen from the trail. How in the world can Whitley Gap Shelter impact in a negative way your hike of the AT in Georgia. Try the AT in most of Virginia in March and April and you will find empty, clean, rat-free shelters every day. Still don't want to use them--fine, nobody is going to force you to stay. What would some of you have to whine and gripe about if they were all removed? You could probably start an effective campaign to rid the AT of hiking poles and tents that weighed less than 4 pounds--true abominations on the trail.

[Grinch]

If you want to be technical about LNT then there shouldn't be a trail. I did not use the shelters when I hiked Georgia in spring. I carry a nalgene shower bottle set up cause I think it's unacceptable to let your hygiene go or let alone destroy my down gear. The shelters are there and I don't have a problem with that. They are iconic now on the trail. My point is if you are going to use one have and show some respect for the volunteers who made and/or maintain the shelters and trails. Whether the rodents are further north doesn't matter when spread of filth born diseases(norovirus most recently) come with nobos. Don't eat or keep your food in or around the shelters is how the existing shelter problem gets fixed. I shouldn't even have to mention litter but yet I see drink bottles, candy wrappers, foil, foil in fires, plastic in fires on and on and on. From my experience the vast majority of people on the trail seem not to care about it at all. Just another thing our self entitled society expects and takes for granted. Truth be told the only way I can be sure that the disrespect stops is if no one goes and I have it all to myself! Hahahahah! Hike on!

[Grinch]

About the litter I saw more darn hiking pole circles on the trail than anything else! Takes these things off and throw them in the trash!

[rickb]

E
FINAL EXAMPLES---


https://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/Backpacking2012/Tipi-Walter-Grayson-Highlands/i-XTxP7S7/0/M/TRI%20132%20376-M.jpg
I like this pic cuz it shows AT backpackers rushing to get to Partnership Shelter a half mile away but I'm camped comfortably away from the shelter and have my own creek water and my own privacy.

This picture from Tipi Walter says it all.

Even the most experienced and capable hikers will often make their camps very near the footpath.

While they may think their tent is a thing of beauty, in reality it is a visual scar-- whether bright red, yellow or a much preferable green one like this example.

Like the scars we carry on our own bodies, one or two here and there are not a big deal-- and in their own way may add character and tell a story.

But do we really want them all over our face?

Shelters and hardened tent sites ar needed for those people who would otherwise select a camping spot like this one.

[MoeTCrow]

I've taken a few first timers out and a shelter has been a destination. Not all hikes are thru and even then some folks just want the feeling of going to something they can reach in a day or so. I don't normally sleep in them but I've hiked to a bunch...

[saltysack]

This rant was fantastic...loved it. I probably drew the attention of my co-workers as I laughed uncontrollably in my cube. Some of the best stuff I've seen on WB in a while.

Damn I missed that one...Spot on!!! Perfect! I just got back from JMT.....high use trail with no shelters and I didn't see any LNT problems. In fact I encountered very lil human waste or garbage. I always pick up what I see....I actually saved a Nalgene and reunited it with its owner a day later[emoji1]...the only tp flowers I saw were just before and after mt W. Actually walked up on an old fat man using his wag bag..I'm scarred for life!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[josesanders18]

What do you think

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

[Sarcasm the elf]

What do you think

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

I think spam-bot...

[josesanders18]

I think spam-bot...
Spam bot my ass

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

[Sarcasm the elf]

Spam bot my ass

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

Good, just checking, we had a bunch recently.


In that case welcome :welcome

[josesanders18]

I like the lean toos just to get out of the rain

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

[josesanders18]

Good, just checking.


In that case welcome :welcome
[emoji14]

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

[Another Kevin]

When a trail is as heavily used as the A-T, concentrating the impact is the only way to handle it.

That said, I have a mild distaste for shelters, and mostly hike on other trails that are less heavily used.

Of my last two dozen nights on backpacking trips, I count 16 tent, 7 shelter, 1 motel.

The shelter nights mostly have stories.

1 - A hellacious thunderstorm broke just as I arrived, and I didn't fancy pitching when the ground was already running with water. It just so happened that I knew the three other guys in the shelter from one of the on-line hiking forums. A hammocker came in during the night because wind-borne debris had wrecked his tarp. He was pretty miserable with all his wet gear. The rest of the guys built a huge fire. I had to sleep the rest of the night on top of my bag, it got that warm in the shelter with the fire going.

2 - I was hiking with another guy in winter. He wanted to use the shelter. I didn't argue. They aren't bad in winter, although my tent is warmer.

3 - I was feeling ill and decided to set up in the shelter. Woke up at about 0400 feverish and coughing my head off, had the unenviable experience of puking in a cat hole, and hiked out to a town once the sun was up. I had the shelter to myself.

4/5 - Just lazy. No real excuse. If there'd been a good tent site by the shelter I'd have used it. I had the shelter to myself both times, and it was "shoulder season" - spatters of sleet, but no snow on the ground yet. No bugs, no rodents, no crowds, no trash, no paper flowers, most of the reasons to avoid the shelters just weren't there.

6 - It was a COLD winter night. I had my tent all pitched and my food stowed, but had brought the rest of my pack and my sleeping bag to the shelter to stay warm while chatting with the guys there. I fell asleep in the shelter and never made it back to my tent. That was the night I got into a fistfight with a raccoon who wanted my pack.

7 - I'd just sprained a knee, more than a day's walk from a road, and really, really didn't want to have to get up and down off the ground. The shelter platform was a lot easier on my abused body.

Several of the times I tented were within hollering distance of an unoccupied shelter.

[Tipi Walter]

E

This picture from Tipi Walter says it all.

Even the most experienced and capable hikers will often make their camps very near the footpath.

While they may think their tent is a thing of beauty, in reality it is a visual scar-- whether bright red, yellow or a much preferable green one like this example.

Like the scars we carry on our own bodies, one or two here and there are not a big deal-- and in their own way may add character and tell a story.

But do we really want them all over our face?

Shelters and hardened tent sites ar needed for those people who would otherwise select a camping spot like this one.

A tent by the trail is a scar? A visible scar? Body scars are permanent, a tent is not therefore a tent is not a scar on the landscape. Shelters on the other hand are permanent scars on the landscape. I personally have no problem seeing backpackers camping next to a trail I am hiking. I'm passing thru and they are a blip on the landscape.

These are permanent scars---

https://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/Backpacking2012/Tipi-Walter-Grayson-Highlands/i-g3xbLsk/0/M/TRI%20132%20375-M.jpg
The Partnership shelter right on the AT---and right on the trail. Disturbed by the scar of a temporary tent on the trail? How about a permanent building???

https://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/Backpacking2011/Tipi-Walter-In-Mt-Rogers/i-pnTcsC3/0/M/TRIP%20123%20327-M.jpg
Here is Old Orchard shelter right on the AT---no escaping this scar on the landscape. And unlike my tent, it will be there tomorrow and the next.


https://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/Backpacking2011/Tipi-Walter-In-Mt-Rogers/i-JSbKvpL/0/M/TRIP%20123%20182-M.jpg
Thomas Knob shelter right on the AT---talk about a scar in your face.


https://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/Backpacking2006/With-Amy-Willow-On-The/i-9zw7zdh/0/M/57-9%20%20Backpackers%20at%20the%20shelter-M.jpg
Cable Gap shelter and yes once again---right on the trail. Temporary?? Nope.

[The Old Chief]

If shelters are permanent structures and permanent structures are scars on the AT then by all means let's tear down all permanent structures on the AT. Let's start at Partnership Shelter. Tear it down, remove the dumpsters in the paved parking lot just North of the shelter and tear down park headquarters. Hot Springs, Damascus, Mountain Crossings? You guys will be history. All seriousness aside, if permanent structures are your problem you should never hike the AT.

[ekeverette]

I hate shelters, but I just hiked 100 miles thru the SNP, and if they had not been there I would have frozen to death....... It was miserable out there!!!! But sure was glad to see that shelter at days end.... EVEREADY

[Another Kevin]

I hate shelters, but I just hiked 100 miles thru the SNP, and if they had not been there I would have frozen to death....... It was miserable out there!!!! But sure was glad to see that shelter at days end.... EVEREADY

Hmmm. I tend to plan not to use shelters in cold weather. My tent is warmer, unless there's someone else tending a fire all night. (That someone won't be me, I bring gear adequate to keep me warm without one, and I'd rather get a good night's sleep.)

[Tipi Walter]

Hmmm. I tend to plan not to use shelters in cold weather. My tent is warmer, unless there's someone else tending a fire all night. (That someone won't be me, I bring gear adequate to keep me warm without one, and I'd rather get a good night's sleep.)

You got that right. It's funny to hear backpackers complain about cold weather and using box shelters to survive. Are they unwilling to carry the necessary gear to survive a winter without depending on these box shelters? Apparently not. Reminds me of a story of a guy getting caught on the AT in the snow in the Smokies and breaking his leg and not having a tent to hole up in and so instead sits off the trail for a day or two.

Reminds me of the 3 guys from South Carolina who went in on January 2 and planned to reach a shelter but got flummoxed and stopped by snow and had no tents. Why? Reliance on the rat-box shelters. See---

http://www.smokymountainnews.com/news/item/12325-a-winter-rescue-rangers-trek-into-frigid-snowy-darkness-to-save-hikers

[Tipi Walter]

If you're going out in the winter, please carry your own dang shelter and don't rely on the Boxes.

https://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/Backpacking2010/With-Hootyhoo-in-a-Bob-Bald/i-VJ538D4/0/M/TRIP%20106%20113-M.jpg


https://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/Backpacking2011/Tipi-Walter-Citico-Snow/i-LZQh3wH/0/M/TRIP%20118%20178-M.jpg

[ekeverette]

I do use my tent, all the time, but it was raining torrential..... I mean coming down. I was in that mini hurricane last week.

[winger]

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.

[The Old Chief]

Let me see. So far, hikers who use shelters are wimps, lazy, idiots, dense, in denial, pseudo backpackers, and can't deal with self-reliance. Come on guys, you can do much better than that. Hurl some real insults at those shelter users. You'll feel so much better about your perfection and impeccable hiking skills.

[Sarcasm the elf]

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.

That's an odd perspective seeing that many of the shelters on the trail predate the A.T. itself. I also fail to see how the A.T. has been nearly destroyed by anything.

[Sarcasm the elf]

Let me see. So far, hikers who use shelters are wimps, lazy, idiots, dense, in denial, pseudo backpackers, and can't deal with self-reliance. Come on guys, you can do much better than that. Hurl some real insults at those shelter users. You'll feel so much better about your perfection and impeccable hiking skills.

One time I stayed in a shelter and was forced to socialize with other human beings, it was terrible.

[rickb]

That's an odd perspective seeing that many of the shelters on the trail predate the A.T. itself. I also fail to see how the A.T. has been nearly destroyed by anything.

Shelters are marked on map, located miles apart, and often down a side trail.

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.

[Lone Wolf]

One time I stayed in a shelter and was forced to socialize with other human beings, it was terrible.

for me it was terrible once. 8 of 10 were smokers and us 2 asked them to please go outside to smoke. it was a shelter in the smokys and was raining heavily. i was cussed. i packed up and left rather than beat the crap outa the addict

[Starchild]

It's peculiar that Leave No Trace has evolved to Leave A Trace. The LNT policy wonks are probably trying desperately to figure out how to include AT box shelters and even gopro personal drones or bicycles or ATVs or all else. You call it "multi-level", a fancy way of watering down the LNT guidelines.



It's worse then watering down LNT. It is that you are a idiot (well person without understanding) and should not be allowed to interact with nature because you will do it wrong, you need to be a apart from it as practical (this is the basic LNT), unless we train you, watch over you, and guide you, and approve, then you can actually make some interactions with nature, add a human element to nature, as humans are not part of nature except as we authorize it. Once you reach this level you can start designing things for the untrained masses so that they will be contained in places where their impact will be minimized.

[Starchild]

E

This picture from Tipi Walter says it all.

Even the most experienced and capable hikers will often make their camps very near the footpath.

While they may think their tent is a thing of beauty, in reality it is a visual scar-- whether bright red, yellow or a much preferable green one like this example.

Like the scars we carry on our own bodies, one or two here and there are not a big deal-- and in their own way may add character and tell a story.

But do we really want them all over our face?

Shelters and hardened tent sites ar needed for those people who would otherwise select a camping spot like this one.
What I noticed about this 'campsite' is it is not one. It is OK as a quicky camp if one is running out of time as things happen.

(on edit: according to LNT guidelines)

[The Old Chief]

One time I stayed in a shelter and was forced to socialize with other human beings, it was terrible.

Don't hold it in. Talk about it and tell it all. You'll feel better and maybe learn from others how to "just walk."

[rocketsocks]

What I noticed about this 'campsite' is it is not one. It is OK as a quicky camp if one is running out of time as things happen.
Campsites are where the tent is.

[mattjv89]

Truly astonishing the amount of resentment that people harbor over a simple three sided box in the woods. My experience has been that this is a debate that doesn't exist outside of the Internet. People who want to stay in shelters stay in them, people who don't stay elsewhere and folks get along. Nobody stops by the shelters to hurl insults at those who stay in them, and people who use shelters are typically far better company than the degenerate scum they're being portrayed as here. I doubt very much that most of you posting paragraph long rants about shelter users would say any of that to somebody's face on the trail. Everyone grows a foot behind the keyboard. If simply being near a shelter causes you to be consumed with such hatred consider hiking one of the hundreds of other trails in the country that have none of them. Sheesh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sarcasm the elf]

Campsites are where the tent is.

"Home is where the house is." :D

[rocketsocks]

"Home is where the house is." :DYogi and me agree.

[greentick]

...Funny how those in power can find all kinds of money for rockets and bombs and social programs but we still don not have anything like the old CCC at work making trails. ....

Rockets and bombs fall under "provide for the common defense" I suppose. Social programs on the other hand...

I think a new CCC would be a good idea. You could parallel it to the military, why not serve your country in a different capacity? The pay of course would suck like the military but food, lodging and healthcare could be covered as well as a GI bill equivalent waiting for you after your "enlistment." The NPS would have plenty of labor. Cut the social programs and folks would be lining up.....right??? Some good ole fashioned labor/work for your living? It could work and if the unemployment/foodstamps/welfare etc were cut folks might be ready for some labor. There could be a "basic training" and after that folks that just wanted to pick up trash for 3-4yrs could move onto their first assignment. People that were more motivated/had desire could be taught "advanced skills" maybe heavy equipment, construction, electrical, plumbing etc. Leadership potential could be given add'l training and made team leaders, squad leaders, platoon leader equivalents. Would be a good way to get some creds for you resume as well. I chose to join the Army and I feel it set me up for success in life. There is no reason a CCC couldn't do the same for others. (except that Americans are pretty lazy, but hunger is usually a great motivator)

[illabelle]

Truly astonishing the amount of resentment that people harbor over a simple three sided box in the woods. My experience has been that this is a debate that doesn't exist outside of the Internet. People who want to stay in shelters stay in them, people who don't stay elsewhere and folks get along. Nobody stops by the shelters to hurl insults at those who stay in them, and people who use shelters are typically far better company than the degenerate scum they're being portrayed as here. I doubt very much that most of you posting paragraph long rants about shelter users would say any of that to somebody's face on the trail. Everyone grows a foot behind the keyboard. If simply being near a shelter causes you to be consumed with such hatred consider hiking one of the hundreds of other trails in the country that have none of them. Sheesh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Awesome post. +1 +1

[Lone Wolf]

With the increasing numbers of hikers on the AT, would it be better to remove the shelters to promote dispersed camping like on the PCT?


Truly astonishing the amount of resentment that people harbor over a simple three sided box in the woods. My experience has been that this is a debate that doesn't exist outside of the Internet. People who want to stay in shelters stay in them, people who don't stay elsewhere and folks get along. Nobody stops by the shelters to hurl insults at those who stay in them, and people who use shelters are typically far better company than the degenerate scum they're being portrayed as here. I doubt very much that most of you posting paragraph long rants about shelter users would say any of that to somebody's face on the trail. Everyone grows a foot behind the keyboard. If simply being near a shelter causes you to be consumed with such hatred consider hiking one of the hundreds of other trails in the country that have none of them. Sheesh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

[tdoczi]

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 use the shelters because it allows me to get more hiking done, often. simple as that. i dont socialize hardly (i have no problem sitting near a group of people not talking to them) the supposed mice infestations dont bother me, etc. i'm simply not interested in camping. if that makes those of who are "expert" campers somehow superior then fine, you win, you're better than me. i don't much care. i camp when it makes sense to as far as my hike plans are concerned and otherwise use the shelters. if for some reason all the shelters were removed i'd get over it and use my tent

[adamkrz]

I love them, I use them when empty and in the off season - and I also put my tiny tent in the corner, Nothing like the sound of sleet hitting the metal roof.

As far as them being dumps - nope - the one's I use in Ct. Mass and Vermont are all pretty nice, I do often remove trash from around them but overall well kept.

In hiking season I do tent 100 percent of the time..

[Traveler]

Quite a revealing thread!

[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:cool:

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:cool:

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[emoji41]


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[emoji41]


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/conf/landmanagement/resourcemanagement/?cid=fsm9_029243&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











(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_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5363715.pdf

[tdoczi]

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

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5363715.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.


https://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/Backpacking2002-2004/The-64-Bag-Nights-of-2004/i-kc66HLn/0/M/37%20%20BMTA%20Camp%20on%20the%20B%20Mac%20at%20th e%20Rock%20Quarry-M.jpg
A terrible blight on the BMT in the Rock Quarry---not mine but some random tent.


https://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/Backpacking2005/Backpacking-With-Kurt-Peterson/i-WdHVbxp/0/M/46-31%20%20chapel%20hill%20groups%2035th%20annual%20g et%20together%20by%20the%20hangover-M.jpg
A cluster of disturbing tents right on the Hangover Mt trail. Graphic Warning! Look away!!


https://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/Backpacking2009/In-The-Citico-With-Hootyhoo/i-pxSDkBb/0/M/trip%2090%20013-M.jpg
WHAT WAS HE THINKING!!! Setting up right on the Fodderstack trail in the Citico wilderness.


https://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/Backpacking2009/The-Longest-Trip-at-23-Days/i-qXMmWSQ/0/M/TRIP%20102%20%20OCTOBER-NOV%202009%20093-M.jpg
Are these guys nuts!!???? Setting up next to the Bob Bald trail.


https://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/Backpacking2010/With-Hootyhoo-in-a-Bob-Bald/i-VhR4gSn/0/M/TRIP%20106%20149-M.jpg
Completely ignorant backpackers without a clue setting up camp right on the BMT in Cold Spring Gap.


https://tipiwalter.smugmug.com/Backpacking2013-1/18-Days-in-the-Cohutta/i-fM2J2xw/0/M/TRIP%20142%20458-M.jpg
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

[rafe]

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

I'll bet most of us have at one point or another.

[rickb]

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/conf/landmanagement/resourcemanagement/?cid=fsm9_029243&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

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



I believe that my post clearly referenced restrictions put in place for those Wilderness Areas I hike in most.

The rules are clear and unambiguous:

32199322003220132202

Obviously the rules are not across the board, and vary significantly by region.

But again, I think we should bring this discussion back to the original topic-- the value of shelters and hardened campsites.

You see a single tent is much like a single turd-- inconsequential and easy to move past without so much a second thought. The problem is when you come a whole lot of them left by those that preceded you on the Trail.

And that is where shelters help. Since the vast majority (95% +) of those who tent do so within site of the AT, best to give them a spot to congregate-- in a pile (metaphorically speaking).

[shakey_snake]

I agree with rickb, most shelters are a pile of ****. :P

[Starchild]

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.

I am usually organizing hikes for one of our local meetup groups on the weekends, are you free any days during the week?

[Blue Mountain Edward]

Shelters are a good thing and have saved hikers from many cold wet nights. But some supervision is necessary to keep bums from staying for a week whatever the reason. If you hike tentless planning to stay in shelters everyday you are a dummy.

[Slo-go'en]

If you hike tentless planning to stay in shelters everyday you are a dummy. That kinda depends on when and where. Of course, it's still prudent to have a tent or some kind of personal shelter with you. When I SOBO's through northern VA last May, I spent more nights in shelters then in my tent. And since so many people do prefer to tent, often a shelter will be almost empty even with 20 people about. Except if it's raining...

[Another Kevin]

I am usually organizing hikes for one of our local meetup groups on the weekends, are you free any days during the week?

Not usually, but once in a while I get to blow off a day. We'll manage to get together sometime.

[shelterbuilder]

I might as well throw a little gasoline on this fire. For me - and for many who actually try to manage the A.T. - shelters are a resource-management tool. By providing a place for people to congregate (for an hour, for a meal, or for overnight), they will draw a certain number of folks to that area. While the area itself may become degraded over time, the rest of the resources remain relatively untrammeled. Could we dispense with shelters IF everyone practiced LNT? Probably. Can we reasonably expect that, in the near future, everyone WILL practice LNT? Hardly! So, unless we (the members of the hiking community) are willing to help to educate our fellow hikers regarding LNT, shelters are probably here to stay - at least for the foreseeable future. (I've had a hand in building 3 shelters on BMECC's section of the trail. Do I use shelters? Sometimes - it depends on the trip, the weather, the other people who are using it when I get there.) After the Rausch Gap Shelter reconstruction project was finished, we got a letter from the parents of a SOBO who spent a very grateful - and a very dry and safe - night in the shelter while Hurricane Sandy passed overhead. I make no apologies for building shelters, and those who use them owe no apologies to anyone.) HYOH.

[shelb]

Even with the shelters, unofficial campsites are evident along the trail. It is better to focus the impact in areas where it can be controlled.

[tflaris]

We are new to hiking the AT and we found the shelters to be beneficial as for a daily distance planning.

They usually had water nearby and bear cables.

Being inexperienced where you were allowed to stealth camp we just stay at the shelters but pitched our own tent for privacy nearby on the areas that looked like they had been used like tent pads

We really enjoyed the social aspect of the shelters and meeting people and listening to their stories.

We hiked in and hiked out our trash but did notice how some people would use the camp fires to burn their trash.


"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed that is the only thing that ever has."
- Margaret Mead, Anthropologist