cooking/eating near shelter

[BrentF]

Looking to hike in GSMP during March. This is not my first time at a shelter, but just wanted to know everyone's thoughts on eating/cooking in the proximity of a shelter. Last fall while hiking from Max Patch to Hot Springs I tented, but the shelters looked like a waffle house with all the cooking/eating going on.

[chknfngrs]

Gotta eat, right?

[Christoph]

Most everyone that stays at or around the shelters (and this is just from my personal experience) take advantage of the picnic tables or the ledge on the side of the shelter to eat. Just make sure everyone cleans up their mess when they're done.

[Sarcasm the elf]

The food I eat in the shelters is far healthier than waffle house.

[peakbagger]

Probably not a great idea for wildlife control but the reality is folks cook and eat in and in front of the shelters. Eventually a bear gets habituated and then they close the shelter. There is old famous photo somewhere of hikers feeding bears through the chain link fences that used to close in the front of shelters. At least one rare shelter in the mid Atlantic (north of Bears Den? )has a separate covered eating pavilions with picnic tables and campfire ring separate from the shelter. I always like the concept but expect during the bubble it becomes an overflow shelter.

[ldsailor]

Some of the newer shelters have an eating area away from the actual structure. In the White Mountains, shelters and campsites have designated "dining" areas, which are usually where the bear boxes for food storage are located.

Strictly speaking, you probably shouldn't eat near a shelter because of food smells and food dropping both of which can attract animals. My guess is that is why there are so many mice around shelters - they are first attracted to the smells of dropped food as well as actual food smells when hikers are eating. Having said all that, many shelters have picnic tables right at the shelter and even those that don't, hikers still will eat near the shelters. I observed some will do that even when designated dining areas are available.

A couple of years ago I came upon a crowded shelter. About 100 yards off in a clearing were a couple of bears milling around. Everyone was cooking and eating at the shelter. I went right by the shelter, pitched a tent and stayed far away.

[Slo-go'en]

If it's raining or otherwise crappy weather, everyone cooks and eats in the shelter. I don't remember if any GSMNP huts are equipped with picnic tables. I can't recall seeing any.

[johnacraft]

I don't remember if any GSMNP huts are equipped with picnic tables.

There is a narrow ledge table and bench built into the support for the new roofline applied to most of the shelters, and some of them also have a ledge under a side eave.

Mollies Ridge has everything to the side, no roof extension.

Davenport Gap shelter has a much smaller extension out front and to the side, and if I remember correctly, it still had the chain link fence last time I was there.

[carouselambra]

One thing I do at any campsite is if there is any chance of any food spilling while transferring to a container (Ex: my morning powdered drink mix into a Gatorade bottle), I do it over a fire ring so that hopefully if anything spills the smell has a chance to be burned away with the next fire.

[TNhiker]

be prepared for mice at all the GSMNP shelters (and a lot of campsites as well)..........



they are the product of bad food handling/storage...

[HooKooDooKu]

Unfortunately, in GSMNP, there seems to always be "that one person"...
Even though there are signs in the shelter saying things along the lines of not eating/cooking in the shelter, I still see people all the time with their food on the sleeping platforms.

I do not recall exactly what the signs say in the GSMNP shelters, and even though it looks like some of the shelters have cook tables off to the side of the shelter, the typical etiquette is that everyone cooks and eats at the tables (with the seats) under the extensions mentioned above.

[TNhiker]

the typical etiquette is that everyone cooks and eats at the tables (with the seats) under the extensions mentioned above.



and to be honest------the space between these seats/table and the platforms are generally about 4 to 6 feet........

so there's really not much separation of food and shelter areas......

[Puddlefish]

Lots of people eat near shelters, a horrifying portion eat very sloppily near shelters. There's probably a pound or more of food bits hitting the ground every single day at each shelter.

[bayview]

Solve the mouse problem, put a cat at each shelter.

[MuddyWaters]

Looking to hike in GSMP during March. This is not my first time at a shelter, but just wanted to know everyone's thoughts on eating/cooking in the proximity of a shelter. Last fall while hiking from Max Patch to Hot Springs I tented, but the shelters looked like a waffle house with all the cooking/eating going on.
That is what shelters are for.

Thats also why bears get attracted to them .

[swisscross]

Eat at a shelter, camp elsewhere.

[TwoSpirits]

Solve the mouse problem, put a cat at each shelter.But that's what the snakes are for ;)

[rmitchell]

Eat at a shelter, camp elsewhere.

The OP is asking about GSMNP. Camping elsewhere is not a option on the AT within the park.

[Slo-go'en]

Rule of thumb:

If there is a designated cooking and eating area, use it.
If not, around the fire pit is a popular area.
If it's raining, do what you need to do. Just try not to spill anything.

[evyck da fleet]

Dinner (and breakfast) are usually made on the ledge of a shelter by thru and section hikers whether they stay at that shelter or move to the next. Not much you can do when you’re required to stay there except rely on strength in hiker numbers and that someone is more afraid of bears:)

[Sarcasm the elf]

But that's what the snakes are for ;)

To get rid of the cats?

[Dogwood]

Looking to hike in GSMP during March. This is not my first time at a shelter, but just wanted to know everyone's thoughts on eating/cooking in the proximity of a shelter. Last fall while hiking from Max Patch to Hot Springs I tented, but the shelters looked like a waffle house with all the cooking/eating going on.

I've become more mindful of not eating and cooking in any of the AT GSMNP shelters...even when it's raining or snowing. It causes problems that have been stated here.

[gonegonzo]

I never eat where I sleep . That's why I carry a tent and shy away from others habits that clash with mine . There's good people staying at shelters of course but trying to correct their habits just doesn't get it . Besides the mice , squirrels , racoons and bears
are already tuned into the free meals at shelter areas .

[HooKooDooKu]

I never eat where I sleep . That's why I carry a tent and shy away from others habits that clash with mine ...
To repeat what has already been said... the OP is talking about GSMNP where there is no other legal place to camp along the AT except at the shelters... and tent camping near the shelters is illegal.

Of course there is an exception for those hiking on an AT thru permit when shelters are full, but the OPs post seems to imply he will not be hiking on a Thru permit. And while we're at it, tarp and hammock campers fall under the same rules as tent camping in GSMNP.

[illabelle]

It's kinda silly for any of us to think that we can avoid food-seeking animals by eating and sleeping in different places. Let's say I decide to stop at this cool little spot for supper and then hike another mile or two to the shelter to sleep. Or maybe I'm going to stop by the shelter to fix supper and then hike on to a camping spot beyond. What about all the other hikers out there? Did one of them eat supper in my camping spot? Will one of them set up camp where I just had my supper?

Let's face it. EVERY comfy looking log or boulder on or near the trail has served as a place to sit and eat. EVERY flat clear bit of ground on or near the trail has been camped on. Possibly that same day. Maybe an hour ago. Animals associate the trail with humans and food. Doesn't matter if I set up my tent beside the trail in an inhospitable patch of briers or on a pile of boulders. Mr Skunk, Mr Bear, and Ms Mouse won't pass me by because they've never found food crumbs in that spot before. If they pass me by, it's because they fear me.

[Sarcasm the elf]

It’s alright, I’ve got a bear canister. :rolleyes:
44754

[Gambit McCrae]

The shelter(s) will be covered in both people and meals of the past. People treat the shelters like a kitchen and I am sure the wildlife especially in GSMNP due to shelter restraints are so used to those areas (shelter sites) being saturated with food smells that it is probably a navigational scent mark for them. Even if folks do not cook directly in the shelter, the ol worn down picanic tables directly outside from the shelter are used everyday to boil ramen and mountain house meals. the scent is there. Tenting is wonderful.


I don't think there is as much if any emphasis on the AT of eat before you get to camp like there is in Grizzly country.

[Dogwood]

It's kinda silly for any of us to think that we can avoid food-seeking animals by eating and sleeping in different places. Let's say I decide to stop at this cool little spot for supper and then hike another mile or two to the shelter to sleep. Or maybe I'm going to stop by the shelter to fix supper and then hike on to a camping spot beyond. What about all the other hikers out there? Did one of them eat supper in my camping spot? Will one of them set up camp where I just had my supper?
I used to reason the same. My diverse observed experiences and correction by those who have vast more understanding have led me to recognize otherwise. When I did it I was trying to excuse my impact. We cook, eat and sleep in the same location within 5 ft of all these tasks out of human centric comfort and convenience... out of habit. :) There's nothing stating I know of in GSMNP policies that state we have to always cook and eat at or in AT shelters when hiking the AT or where we sleep elsewhere in GSMNP. Am I wrong...again?

We can decrease the magnitude of and possibly avoid negative wildlife/human encounters as wildlife is re-habituated if we incorporated to a greater extent not eating where we immediately sleep and greater mindfulness of food protection.

Too often in various cultures we associate food with rest or sleep. We so often unwarily take to the trail our at home habits - eating while watching TV(I can still do this:confused:) or on the computer(me) or in bed or bringing food into the BR or while lying on the couch. I often eat while standing or while continuing to work or while moving. At work I stand while doing CAD rather than sitting. I've replaced a sit down chair with a ergonomic high rise adjustable stool. Here are some culture's habit(Indians, Chinese, some Italians, etc: work(for backpackers that means hiking), eat, take a walk after eating. This habit can offer many benefits than being lethargic or stationary immediately after eating.

Why do many U.S citizens fall into such a stupor after eating? We eat too large a meal before resting or requires resting and we eat many of the wrong foods meaning food at the wrong times like right before "bed"... products of a culture utterly absorbed in consumption and sugar. We also tend to make dinner the largest meal of the day and fall into a B'fast, lunch, and dinner habit which we can also bring to the trail. It's been advised by several savvy experienced hikers here on WB to break away from the 3 squares mindset on trail. IMHO, it's great trail advise that also can have health benefits in off trail life.

Gnoshing smaller amts(snacks) continually during the day, eating less sugar, making early in the day and early afternoon the largest caloric intake but still metering it out to not severely spike blood sugar and preemptively avoid severe energy roller coasting, avoiding junk food addictions, perhaps eating all day smaller amts(half handfuls at time) while often on the move, being mindful of off trail habits impacting on trail habits, etc can change on trail diary habits leading to not requiring such a huge heavy "dinner" meal. When getting to where we sleep we're not so depleted and famished. The day's agenda can be: get up and hike, gnosh maybe a bit, eat a bit later, eat continually but smaller amts, hike while gnoshing, hike, while gnoshing, gnosh stopped at teh overlook, hike, hike while gnoshing, eat, brush teeth and clean up lightly to keep smells in one spot, a few more miles, than sleep - New trail habits that can impact off trail at home dietary habits combining both lifestyles to compliment each and having positive affects not only on ourselves but possibly others aware of a larger whole. Maybe, fewer negative wildlife encounters as a benefit.


We dont need to sleep where we eat all the time. We don't need to associate food with rest and slumber and being necessarily prone or even sitting out of habit. :-?

Rant over.

[Dogwood]

Here were some ancillary benefits of not always sleeping where I eat: 1) I learned that I didn't need to camp near water. Dry camping skills were developed and incorporated into the skill set. This provided significant benefits on AZT, HDT, GET, LHR, GC NP, DV NP, JT NP, and PCT hikes to name a few. It also meant my AT backpacking no longer needed to center around AT shelter CS's or water. 2) I no longer experienced teh magnitude of negative wildlife issues unnaturally habituated to human food 3) It meant greater awareness of more mindful water logistics 3) I better learned how to read maps 4) It developed water finding ability and capturing it in a wider range of environments 5) I developed and adhered more to the intent of LNT ethics meaning for me I was being more mindful of otjhres, not hiking with a self absorbed mindset


All this snowballs and is interconnected having impacts on so many aspects. These are just some of the consequences from not always needing to or being in the habit of eating where I sleep.

[illabelle]

I used to reason the same...

Not sure you understood my post. Or maybe I was unclear.

It doesn't do any good for me to keep my sleeping place pristine by eating elsewhere if you or some other hiker used that spot to eat before I got there. The food smells and crumbs you may have left behind will attract wildlife to my "pristine" camping spot.

(Not talking about GSMNP, by the way, since rules require use of shelters for sleeping.)

[Tipi Walter]

It's kinda silly for any of us to think that we can avoid food-seeking animals by eating and sleeping in different places. Let's say I decide to stop at this cool little spot for supper and then hike another mile or two to the shelter to sleep. Or maybe I'm going to stop by the shelter to fix supper and then hike on to a camping spot beyond. What about all the other hikers out there? Did one of them eat supper in my camping spot? Will one of them set up camp where I just had my supper?

Let's face it. EVERY comfy looking log or boulder on or near the trail has served as a place to sit and eat. EVERY flat clear bit of ground on or near the trail has been camped on. Possibly that same day. Maybe an hour ago. Animals associate the trail with humans and food. Doesn't matter if I set up my tent beside the trail in an inhospitable patch of briers or on a pile of boulders. Mr Skunk, Mr Bear, and Ms Mouse won't pass me by because they've never found food crumbs in that spot before. If they pass me by, it's because they fear me.

This is right in so many ways. Bears are predators and WE are the prey if they are so inclined to eat us. Remember, we are walking cheese sticks to a bear. And what happens when we cook up a pound of food and place it inside our stomachs? Won't a hungry bear want that bag of food which is now inside the tent??? (Inside us). Or heck just eat us from our tents??

Just being out in the woods opens a human up to bear predation. Bears put the "wild" in what's left of wilderness.

[HooKooDooKu]

This is right in so many ways. Bears are predators and WE are the prey if they are so inclined to eat us. Remember, we are walking cheese sticks to a bear. And what happens when we cook up a pound of food and place it inside our stomachs? Won't a hungry bear want that bag of food which is now inside the tent??? (Inside us). Or heck just eat us from our tents??

Just being out in the woods opens a human up to bear predation. Bears put the "wild" in what's left of wilderness.
Fortunately, most bears in the South East do not consider people "AS" food. Yes, there have been a few predatory attacks, but those have been rare.

GSMNP also tries to prevent bears from learning people are a source of food by including bear cables at every campsite. If everyone followed the rules for food storage and protection, there would be few problems with people/bear interactions in GSMNP. But again, because in every relatively crowded location, there's always that one that one person that either doesn't take the time to learn the rules, or thinks the rules do not apply to them. As a result, every summer, campsites in GSMNP get closed (usually about a month at a time) as the park service tries to prevent bears from learning people are a source of food.

[soilman]

I would hazard a guess that most hikers who shelter in the GSMNP are not thru hikers. I would further guess that most are inexperienced or infrequent backpackers. These types tend to hike shorter distances and arrive at the shelter early in the day. Therefor they will end up cooking and eating at the shelter. I have also run into day hikers who use the shelters for lunch stops. I think it would be a monumental task to change this kind of behavior.

[TNhiker]

I would hazard a guess that most hikers who shelter in the GSMNP are not thru hikers.



except in the bubble, where there might be 10-12 non thru hikers and 40 thru hikers either in the shelter or camping around it or using it as a place to cook/hang out....

[soilman]

except in the bubble, where there might be 10-12 non thru hikers and 40 thru hikers either in the shelter or camping around it or using it as a place to cook/hang out....

True, but over the course of a year most shelter users are not thru hikers.

[MuddyWaters]

It's kinda silly for any of us to think that we can avoid food-seeking animals by eating and sleeping in different places. Let's say I decide to stop at this cool little spot for supper and then hike another mile or two to the shelter to sleep. Or maybe I'm going to stop by the shelter to fix supper and then hike on to a camping spot beyond. What about all the other hikers out there? Did one of them eat supper in my camping spot? Will one of them set up camp where I just had my supper?

Let's face it. EVERY comfy looking log or boulder on or near the trail has served as a place to sit and eat. EVERY flat clear bit of ground on or near the trail has been camped on. Possibly that same day. Maybe an hour ago. Animals associate the trail with humans and food. Doesn't matter if I set up my tent beside the trail in an inhospitable patch of briers or on a pile of boulders. Mr Skunk, Mr Bear, and Ms Mouse won't pass me by because they've never found food crumbs in that spot before. If they pass me by, it's because they fear me.

Try looking under rocks in well used camp areas
Youll frequently find everything from food trash to last night's dinner

Water virtually never plays a role in where I camp. If I'm less than 5 miles from a reliable water source it's not even a consideration. Well I like to fill up on water first thing in the morning before I start hiking that's just so I don't have to stop later. But I can cover that first 5 miles and always do with even taking a sip.

It's actually the technique I use for long dry stretches most of the time. I've covered 25 miles on one liter of water. Hike 15 on one liter, get up the next morning and hike 10 with none while it was still cool.

[Dogwood]

Not sure you understood my post. Or maybe I was unclear.

It doesn't do any good for me to keep my sleeping place pristine by eating elsewhere if you or some other hiker used that spot to eat before I got there. The food smells and crumbs you may have left behind will attract wildlife to my "pristine" camping spot.

(Not talking about GSMNP, by the way, since rules require use of shelters for sleeping.)

I understood your post. You were clear.

Let me be clear. I respectfully disagree. :)

It's not just about you but what you do certainly can and does impact yourself.

Again, my thinking was precisely as yours...at one time...to excuse the impacts of my own actions...to kick the can down the road. It puts other's behavior on trial while ignoring our own. I excused what I was doing, continuing to eat and cook where others and myself slept sometimes leaving crumbs and food smells behind in highly human impacted areas. I did it initially because that's what others were observed doing or I knew others had done(sound familiar?). It's also what I was once habituated to do at home. It impacted not only myself and others at the time but impacted those who came after me. They did it so I'll do it; this way I don't have to change; I don't need introspection...was my mentality. I could continue adding to how and why it became a highly impacted area. Follow the herd. Be a sheeple. It continued a behavior that is problematic for not only myself, but other humans, and wildlife. It may even impact flora, water quality, and other aspects.

Consider changing your sentence to not one in which you are being impacted by others - victimized - and consider how your behavior impacts on others as the perpetrator/victimizer...a situation we don't like to often see ourselves. Maybe, because it entails being uncomfortably personally accountable? :-? That's what LNT principles is intended... to be mindful of more than ourselves. None of us are islands. We are not alienated, backpacking in a bubble, only responsible to self, responsible only for what happens to us as individuals or our cadre but not responsible for the impacts we have on others.


It also matters what we each do because just as I learned in observing others eating in the immediate vicinity of where I and others slept, causing problems, ignoring them out of some ignorance, often until I personally experienced them myself(sound familiar?), when others see us doing something different it provides an example for others to learn. It provides opportunities to lead by example, be an innovator, act like an ambassador rather than with a herd mentality..to initiate new behaviors, new paradigms.


Several of us doing PCT LASHes and thrus started realizing this in 08. What we started doing was eating where we or others didn't sleep but still socializing in groups of about 8-12 with each of us of different backgrounds, religions, non religious, ethnicities, ages, genders, socio-economic persuasions, races, of U.S. and foreign descent, etc. We would find places to enjoy a sunset or the late afternoon together. When we did sleep we had already eaten. We tended to hike later and learned to night hike more competently. We had less negative impact on wildlife and others. We learned better water logistics in the process. We learned and incorporated different approaches widening our adaptability than opting for the same cookie cutter imposing approaches again and again no matter what trail, region, agenda, or season. We expanded comfort zones in the process. We became more conscience of our impacts beyond just ourselves too. We learned to impose ourselves less on others and the trail. It was able for all of us because we are open. I will never forget those "trail" lessons that stay with me today after 10 yrs. They paralleled nicely into being applied to off trail life. ;):sun:jump

[Traffic Jam]

It makes me laugh when a thru hiker stops to make dinner at a shelter, enjoying sitting on a bench and socializing. Then they move on to sleep elsewhere. So...you don’t eat and sleep in the same place but you eat where others sleep? What moralizing pricks. :)

[TNhiker]

True, but over the course of a year most shelter users are not thru hikers.



i would tend to think----when the numbers are really broken down-----that over the course of the year, thru hikers make up the majority of shelter users (or camping nearby)....

figure from march to beginning of June----there's always NOBOthru hikers coming through the Park........and then SOBO users, which are not as many as the NOBO, but still count them in...

For non thruhikers----the shelters hold 10-13 or so................

and figure there could (potentially) be 20-50 thruhikers a night for many nights during the thru hiker season.........

[HooKooDooKu]

It makes me laugh when a thru hiker stops to make dinner at a shelter, enjoying sitting on a bench and socializing. Then they move on to sleep elsewhere. So...you don’t eat and sleep in the same place but you eat where others sleep? What moralizing pricks. :)
But again, keep the context of the OP in mind... we're talking about GSMNP where there's only about a dozen places you can camp in about a 75 mile stretch. It doesn't matter where you stop to eat, you're going to be sleeping where others before you have been eating.

[MuddyWaters]

It makes me laugh when a thru hiker stops to make dinner at a shelter, enjoying sitting on a bench and socializing. Then they move on to sleep elsewhere. So...you don’t eat and sleep in the same place but you eat where others sleep? What moralizing pricks. :)
I eat at 4:30 p.m..
In the summertime I may not stop hiking till 7:30.
Five or six more miles.
Got nothing to do with not sleeping where you eat really for me. Got to do with eating where it's convenient to eat.

Sometimes thru-hikers don't stop hiking until 9 p.m. or later. I've had them come in to places im at at 11:30 p.m. not everyone stops hiking when they eat.

Shelters are for eating.

If you don't like it don't sleep there

[Traffic Jam]

I eat at 4:30 p.m..
In the summertime I may not stop hiking till 7:30.
Five or six more miles.
Got nothing to do with not sleeping where you eat really for me. Got to do with eating where it's convenient to eat.

Sometimes thru-hikers don't stop hiking until 9 p.m. or later. I've had them come in to places im at at 11:30 p.m. not everyone stops hiking when they eat.

Shelters are for eating.

If you don't like it don't sleep there

They can stop anywhere, they don’t have to stop at a shelter to eat. If they cared so much about LNT/critters/eating where you sleep...they wouldn’t do it.

[Dogwood]

It makes me laugh when a thru hiker stops to make dinner at a shelter, enjoying sitting on a bench and socializing. Then they move on to sleep elsewhere. So...you don’t eat and sleep in the same place but you eat where others sleep? What moralizing pricks. :)

LOL.. You just made me a fan.

If they are motivated doing it to out of personally avoiding negative wildlife encounters I never got that self righteous shart either.

[MuddyWaters]

They can stop anywhere, they don’t have to stop at a shelter to eat. If they cared so much about LNT/critters/eating where you sleep...they wouldn’t do it.


Picnic tables and flat surfaces are nice for sitting and cooking and eating.
Thats what they are there for.
Not up to you or any one else to decide how they should be used.
If you dont like how they are used, avoid them.

Mice might be attracted to crumbs, larger animals are looking for more.

[Traffic Jam]

Picnic tables and flat surfaces are nice for sitting and cooking and eating.
Thats what they are there for.
Not up to you or any one else to decide how they should be used.
If you dont like how they are used, avoid them.

Mice might be attracted to crumbs, larger animals are looking for more.
Exactly! Don’t preach to me about eating where I sleep while sitting down at my table and eating your dinner! ;)

[Dogwood]

...GSMNP also tries to prevent bears from learning people are a source of food by including bear cables at every campsite. If everyone followed the rules for food storage and protection, there would be few problems with people/bear interactions in GSMNP. ...As a result, every summer, campsites in GSMNP get closed (usually about a month at a time) as the park service tries to prevent bears from learning people are a source of food.


Excellent pt. And, where are the cables typically located? The cables are NOT typically located in the immediate vicinity of where people sleep. Why? Is it not for safer food protection which involves food odors and hence food particles? Established CS's created by the park involve some separation between the immediate sleeping areas or shelters and where food is stored. They are also cable systems with food hung in the air so that separation is enhanced. This is often the case in wildlife/human prone problem areas in front country CG's in NP's Y at Tuolumne Meadows and YV at the Backpacker's CG, Glacier NP at CG's, and in SEKI where food lockers are located away from immediate sleeping areas. Food is stored in a location separated from where people immediately sleep. If that is the goal to separate that which attracts wildlife from gaining unnatural habits than might it behoove us to not cook and eat in shelters?

Here's how this was discerned. I increasingly witnessed GSMNP Rangers and several experienced backpackers, even some conscientious Newbs, at GSMNP AT shelter areas cooking and eating within the immediate vicinity of the bear cables instead of in the/their immediate sleeping areas. They were NOT cooking and eating WITHIN THE SHELTER...even if there existed a picnic table or supposed convenient cooking shelf. I witnessed this when it was raining. I asked these folks who were more aware then myself about this. They all told me it makes sense to keep wildlife wild and scents, cooking, food bits, cookware and other "smellables" separated from the immediate sleeping area. I was told by NP Rangers too although this isn't an established park rule and the different NP's dont all fully recognize or have this magnitude of concern to unanimously make it a rule it was still good practice. I now recognize this as generally a good practice. I was also told that in some cases the cables and possibly shelters were relocated in part to increase that separation distance.


BTW, I remember the first few times I witnessed this at GSMNP and asked about it. Admittedly, I was ignorantly defensive especially not wanting to cook and eat outside the AT shelter at the bear cables when it was raining. That was too uncomfortable and inconvenient for myself. I chided Rangers "then why build a cooking shelf in shelters and why have a picnic table in front of the shelter?" Rangers and others have told me what I've shared here, "I can't control the behavior of everyone else as much as I can control my own but I may manifest a change in others when others observe my own behavior.

They were correct!

As an aside I recognize these "better" habits having a high similarity to other "better" habits such as washing cookware not in water sources perhaps in a provided gray water area or proper disposal of wastes. It habituates us to being mindful of more than ourselves, something that can be sorely absent among members of the hiking community.


But again, keep the context of the OP in mind... we're talking about GSMNP where there's only about a dozen places you can camp in about a 75 mile stretch. It doesn't matter where you stop to eat, you're going to be sleeping where others before you have been eating.


Possibly but the magnitude is lessened and less concentrated when dispersed over 75 miles. That's one reason why mice are not observed tip toeing along the AT between AT GSMNP shelters of the magnitude that is often witnessed within the shelter. Shelters already can be wildlife magnets because they offer shelter. Mice are not unlike humans in that we gravitate towards not wanting to travel too far from where we live for"groceries." It's also one of the reasons why bears can make GSMNP AT shelters a regular part of their foraging rounds to a greater magnitude than on the AT between the shelters. BTW, its's been conveyed there have been problem GSMNP bears that made multiple ATshelters apart of their rounds traveling on the AT between the shelters. It's also a component to why maybe more snakes are observed at AT shelters than between shelters. The also want to be nearer to food sources. Will humans rise up to their supposed more evolved status or behave like the lower beasts which we often refer as 'wildlife', lower life forms, problem wildlife, breaking and more mindful of the consequences of this habit?


There's a correlation folks with how we behave and how wildlife behaves...and what humanity experiences. We're connected. How do we as humans want to experience that connection? Will we care enough to act with the conviction of our heart?

[Slumgum]

As an aside I recognize these "better" habits having a high similarity to other "better" habits such as washing cookware not in water sources perhaps in a provided gray water area or proper disposal of wastes. It habituates us to being mindful of more than ourselves, something that can be sorely absent among members of the hiking community.

Holy smokes ... how true this is! I was at a ski hut on the AT in Vermont on a rainy night and a hiker rolled in late that night and decided to fry shallots and garlic to add to his meal. Perhaps this could be a strategy to keep bears away from shelters. I know it almost made me provide vomit to the aromas he created. To make matters worse he decided to burn incense afterwards. Talk about a lack of consideration!

While I agree, changing our own behavior can influence the behavior of others, in the case of bear control it is probably too little, too late. I live in the Blue Ridge mountains of Virginia. I have had major problems with bears that show no fear of humans. The game warden has issued kill permits to me because he can find no issues with the way we live that might be attracting bears: no feeding of pets outdoors, no barbecue grills, no bird feeders, etc. We follow all the rules. But as has been recently proven, bears range over a huge territory. Bears have learned from other experiences that my house/outbuildings could be a source of food. They get positive reinforcement with almost every contact they make with humans not just at shelters on the A.T.
While PETA members may disagree, until we develop strategies to provide bears with negative reinforcement regarding contact with humans, they will continue to be threats and not just to hikers.

Like Dogwood, I will do my best to follow all recommendations to minimize the possibility of bears raiding shelters. But if I am out near the bear cables cooking in the rain, I really don't expect those cooking in the shelter to take notice. More likely, if they do notice, they will be snickering at me.

[TNhiker]

And, where are the cables typically located? The cables are NOT typically located in the immediate vicinity of where people sleep





sadly, this is not the case in all of the campsites......

sometimes the cables are located right in the middle of the camping area...

i have also seen people sleeping directly under the cable systems.........

there should be more separation but some places it doesnt happen for various reasons...

[soilman]

i would tend to think----when the numbers are really broken down-----that over the course of the year, thru hikers make up the majority of shelter users (or camping nearby)....

figure from march to beginning of June----there's always NOBOthru hikers coming through the Park........and then SOBO users, which are not as many as the NOBO, but still count them in...

For non thruhikers----the shelters hold 10-13 or so................

and figure there could (potentially) be 20-50 thruhikers a night for many nights during the thru hiker season.........

The latest numbers I could find were from 2009. For the 12 shelters on the AT there were 18988 camp nights. There were 5229 thru hiker camp nights. So for that year non-thru hikers outnumbered thru hikers by more than 3 times.






https://tnlandforms.us/gsmnp/campstats.html

[HooKooDooKu]

The latest numbers I could find were from 2009. For the 12 shelters on the AT there were 18988 camp nights. There were 5229 thru hiker camp nights. So for that year non-thru hikers outnumbered thru hikers by more than 3 times.






https://tnlandforms.us/gsmnp/campstats.html






Care to expand on where you're getting your numbers from?

The only thing I could immediately find on GSMNP usage on the web site you reference is a graph showing back country usage by month. The graph for 2014 seem to show about 85,000 camper nights for the whole year (which would include AT thru hikers I expect).

The page also has a link to an ATC webpage. There they show that about 2,500 started in GA in 2014 and about 850 completed the whole trail (counting all starting points).

So if you assume 2,500 AT thru hikers made it to/thru GSMNP, they likely averaged 5 nights for a total of 12,500 AT Thru Hiker Nights.

So that leaves about 75,000 camper nights for regular permit holders. But that's for the whole park. With almost 100 campsites, I think it's fair to say only about 25% of those reservations were for AT shelter locations. So that is a total of 5,000 hiker nights for regular permit holders.
As a cross check, there's only an average 12 spots per shelter for non-thru hikers. Multiply that by 12 sites times 365 days a year and you get a maximum possible number of regular hiker nights along the AT of about 52,000. So if you assumed 100% utilization on the weekends during the 7 busy months shown on the graph, you get about 4,000 hiker nights.

BTW: If you use the more recent numbers the ATC publishes, the number of AT thru hiker nights in GSMNP might be about 15,000, while I doubt regular hiker utilization has increased by the same percentage.


CONCLUSION:
AT thru hikers utilize about 12,000 camping nights in GSMNP along the AT, while general hikers utilize about 4,000 camping nights in GSMNP along the AT.
AT Thru hikers out number regular hikers 3x.


If you disagree with my conclusion, I welcome any corrections by my assumptions, estimations, and quite possible mistakes in arithmetic in these "back of the napkin calculations".

[soilman]

HooKooDooKu, here is the link that was imbedded in the other link I posted. It contains a list of camper nights by campsite and night.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1O73F1xG7PInfJrhKB5QguZ3CDrRuGJ6uqFsoknL7FOM/edit#gid=0

If we use your assumption that 100% of the hikers leaving GA (2500) and make it thru GSMNP, that gives 12,500 thru hiker camp nights. That is still less than the almost 19000 camp nites in 2009 for the 12 AT shelters. Even if we assume 15000 thru hiker nights based on latest assumptions, that is still less than the 18988 camp nights in 2009.

[johnacraft]

If we use your assumption that 100% of the hikers leaving GA (2500) and make it thru GSMNP

0% attrition rate is easy to disprove - there have already been a few dropouts reported in 2019.


What is the actual attrition rate? Anecdotally (observations by Georgia AT Club volunteers, Mountain Crossings employees, shuttle providers, etc.) a believable estimate of the attrition rate in Georgia seems to be about 25-30%. I would expect that to increase on the way to Fontana.

From the spreadsheet you posted, regular backcountry permits for the AT locations (shelters plus 113) is approximately 28% of all permits. The 5,229 thru-hiker permits are ~8%. But that's anyone claiming to start and end at least 50 miles from the park, and over twice the number of Amicalola registrants.

If cooking and eating at shelters in GSMNP is as ill-advised as some posters seem to assume, I don't think the NPS / USFS employees and trail club volunteers that design, construct, and maintain the shelters would include tables and seating. If injury to hikers by wildlife is the standard, the existing shelters are pretty safe. (Each of us has our own opinion about non-human shelter inhabitants.)

Just one hiker's opinion, but leaving out rodent control, a guideline that makes excellent sense in brown / Grizzly bear territory doesn't necessarily apply to GSMNP.

[HooKooDooKu]

HooKooDooKu, here is the link that was imbedded in the other link I posted. It contains a list of camper nights by campsite and night.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1O73F1xG7PInfJrhKB5QguZ3CDrRuGJ6uqFsoknL7FOM/edit#gid=0

Thanks for the link to the additional data... and I think the data (as labeled) is flawed.

The data claims "5229 Camp Nights by Thru-Hikers".
But I'm guessing that all of that data comes from permit information.
For General Backpackers, the permit data includes what campsites were used which nights and how many campers.
But the AT Thru permit doesn't include such details, and so I suspect the "5229" represents the number of AT Thru Hiker permits and NOT the number of nights those campers actually spent in GSMNP. After all, if you assume each AT Thru hiker spent 5 nights in GSMNP, that means only about 1,000 AT Thru hikers went thru GSMNP in a year when about that many completed the whole trail.

As for the General Backpacker permits, if you add the 13 sites along the AT (Icewater, Spence, Cosby, MtCollins, Pecks, Derrick, Double Spring, Mollys Ridge, Siler, Davenport, 113) you get a total of 19,586 hiker nights.

So IMHO, the correct way to interpret that spread sheet would be to say AT Thru Hikers spent about 26,000 Hiker Nights compared to less than 20,000 General Backpackers.


But that was 2009 data.
In the last decade, AT Thru hikers have increase about 3 fold.
I doubt such an increase has occurred for General Hikers.

To gauge General Back Packers...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/254012/number-of-visitors-to-the-great-smoky-mountains-national-park/
... the above web page indicates the visitor count to GSMNP has risen by about 26% in the last decade. That's very roughly in line with the graph shown on the TNLandForms page that suggests perhaps a 20% increase in back country use between 2008 to 2014.


So if we assume a 3 fold increase in Thru hikers and a 30% increase in general backpackers, the 2009 numbers becomes 78,000 AT Thru Hiker Nights v 26,000 General Backpacker Nights (a 3:1 ratio).

[HooKooDooKu]

0% attrition rate is easy to disprove - there have already been a few dropouts reported in 2019.
That is absolutely correct.

But you have to also consider that at least some of those dropouts will be offset by SOBO and FilpFlop hikers.
However, when I was making my calculations, I didn't have any attrition rate information on hand.
Given the attrition rate details you provide, I would redo the numbers and guess that perhaps 65% of GA starters make it thru GSMNP.
But even if you adjust it down to 50%, that still leaves AT Thru hikers out numbering general backpackers by 2x in GSMNP along the AT.

[TNhiker]

But that was 2009 data.
In the last decade, AT Thru hikers have increase about 3 fold.



also-------pre 2011 data is based on the old reservation/permit system......

things have changed and hopefully current data is more accurate.......


pre 2011-----one backpacker could put in a reservation for 8 spots, if they wanted to try to limit people at shelter and/or try to have shelter for themselves.....meaning, there could be 7 empty spots....

trust me---this was done (and done by the group who was suing the park over the new reservation system).......


hopefully, data is more accurate after the new reservation system went into place.......

[Dogwood]

...If cooking and eating at shelters in GSMNP is as ill-advised as some posters seem to assume, I don't think the NPS / USFS employees and trail club volunteers that design, construct, and maintain the shelters would include tables and seating. If injury to hikers by wildlife is the standard, the existing shelters are pretty safe. (Each of us has our own opinion about non-human shelter inhabitants.)

Just one hiker's opinion, but leaving out rodent control, a guideline that makes excellent sense in brown / Grizzly bear territory doesn't necessarily apply to GSMNP.

More kicking the can down the road.

GSMNP AT shelters and some AT shelters and a few AT established highly human impacted CS's outside of GSMNP have black bear and other wildlife problems. That is clear! Just because it's does not involve brown/Grizzly bear issues doesn't mean there is not a human behavioral problem, resulting in and contributing to serious wildlife/human encounters. If we can reason together there are problems, can we as humans do something about it based on how we as humans behave...instead of ignoring the human species impacts? Can humans as a species not be so human centric or individually centric...only responsible to self?


Do you really want to argue its's an assumption cooking and eating inside or directly at sleeping areas attracts wildlife and habituates unnatural wildlife behavior to these areas. Are we really going to deny this? We, us, you, me drop food bits. We, us you, me make food messes. Cookware boils over creating lasting odors and further human food droppings. Look around your food preparation and eating areas at home. Look under your kitchen table, under couch seat cushions, on living room coffee tables, on your kitchen floor and kitchen counters, on your stove top, in your oven, around your computer,... What do you notice? Honestly answer! Is it pristine? Look around AT shelters. Look under cooking areas and picnic tables and mess trapezes Notice any similarities of what you found at home? We bring our at home food habits to the trail... and it causes problems not just individually but for others. NO?

Exactly as you reasoned "if cooking and eating at shelters in GSMNP is as ill-advised as some posters seem to assume, I don't think the NPS / USFS employees and trail club volunteers that design, construct, and maintain the shelters would include tables and seating" I once did. This was already admitted when I chided Rangers saying "then why build a cooking shelf in shelters and why have a picnic table in front of the shelter?" I used it to excuse reflecting on my impacts. I was defensive. Are you doing the same?

I was told by wildlife biologists and various others involved directly with addressing negative human/wildlife issues it does cause problems constructing food prep and eating areas in or immediately adjacent to shelter sleeping areas but it may also decrease other potential problems. It was also communicated those problems were less severe in magnitude when the AT exponential usage was not as it has been recently which is when these designs were less problematic.

So, do we take these details into account reflecting on individual behavior and eliciting changes proactively or continue being part of the problem?


Consider the conscience behavior of WB Posters like Another Kevin(doesn't myopically gravitate to the AT and is humble considerate of his impacts), Tipi Walter(same as AK, and who is conscious of providing value not only for himself but others in cleaning up other people's left behind trash hauling it out and doing trail maintenance at his own expense and initiative), HKDK and TN hiker(who are conscious not only of themselves but others in avoiding adding their impacts to the GSMNP AT choosing instead to mainly hike elsewhere when hiking in GSMNP), Slumgum(who stated "I will do my best to follow all recommendations to minimize the possibility of bears raiding shelters), all the trail club trail maintainers that take it on themselves to add value not just for themselves but for others too rather than be utterly self serving), and many others here on WB and elsewhere who intimately understand AND ACT cooperatively aware of a larger whole.

This is how the AT is able to exist...through the cooperative efforts of many who will act beyond being responsible only to self.

[TNhiker]

We, us you, me make food messes.




this reminds me of the one and only time (so far) that i was planning on staying at overmountain shelter...

when i got there----there was probably a dozen people already set up for the night (it was still early afternoon)...

i was debating upon setting up my sleeping gear on one of the platforms on the lower level......

the guy on the other platform kept pointing out the mouses that were running back and forth while we were talking...

before i set my stuff up---another group came in and started cooking their meals on the platform i had wanted .....

and low and behold----dude spills his pot (not the smoking kind) with all his noodles and it made a huge puddle of water and noodles all over the platform...

needless to say---i decided to move on........

and glad i did, as on the trail going back to the AT, another group of 18 was coming into the shelter to spend the night.....

[4eyedbuzzard]

There are an estimated 1500 bears in GSMNP. And 10 million plus visitors every year. Granted, most people don't make it into the back country, but plenty do. I doubt there are many bears left that don't associate us humans with food at least to some degree. It's inevitable. No matter how careful, we leave bits and odors everywhere. Our cloths and packs smells like our food. Even with plastic bags. Obviously, the bears don't view us as prey or even reliable food sources to any great extent, or there would be carnage in the woods as the bears feasted on a human flesh smorgasbord or bluff-charged hikers daily into surrendering their packs. BUT, they know we are there. AND, they know we have food. They smell us and our food from miles away. Their nose is like our eyes - but with binoculars. Thankfully, the bears for the most part just don't seem to like the risk/reward of coming after us for our food, or as prey. I'm not saying not to practice good housekeeping in bear country, and obviously keeping them from being successful by hanging or bear-boxing food caches is a good strategy, but let's just be thankful that most bears are pretty timid when it comes to humans. I'm not sure how much separation between cooking/eating areas would be required to truly fool a bear (if that's even possible), but it's probably farther than most people want to walk at the end of the day.

[rickb]

There are an estimated 1500 bears in GSMNP. And 10 million plus visitors every year. Granted, most people don't make it into the back country, but plenty do. I doubt there are many bears left that don't associate us humans with food at least to some degree. It's inevitable. No matter how careful, we leave bits and odors everywhere. Our cloths and packs smells like our food. Even with plastic bags. Obviously, the bears don't view us as prey or even reliable food sources to any great extent, or there would be carnage in the woods as the bears feasted on a human flesh smorgasbord or bluff-charged hikers daily into surrendering their packs. BUT, they know we are there. AND, they know we have food.

The latest Sierra Club magazine had an article that compared a bear’s intelligence to that of a great ape.

Worth a read, I think. On line version here.

https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2019-2-march-april/feature/does-bear-think-woods

[jimmyjam]

I'm another that likes to eat at the shelter and then hike on to a "stealth" spot and set up my tarp and hang my food and smellables away from my camp site. So far, never seen a bear at night. Been bothered by some browsing deer in the SNP, but that's it.

[HooKooDooKu]

I'm another that likes to eat at the shelter and then hike on to a "stealth" spot and set up my tarp and hang my food and smellables away from my camp site. So far, never seen a bear at night. Been bothered by some browsing deer in the SNP, but that's it.
Keep in mind this thread is about GSMNP and what you are describing is illegal there.. Camping is only allowed at designated campsites, and there are no designated campsite along the AT (other than the old shelter spot known as campsite 113) and campsites off the AT are usually miles (and thousands of feet in elevation drop) from the AT ridge line.

[MuddyWaters]

Keep in mind this thread is about GSMNP and what you are describing is illegal there.. Camping is only allowed at designated campsites, and there are no designated campsite along the AT (other than the old shelter spot known as campsite 113) and campsites off the AT are usually miles (and thousands of feet in elevation drop) from the AT ridge line.

Actually I'm not sure that according to the first post, that it is about gsmnp exclusively.....

As well, gsmnp really is no different than the rest of much of the southern AT except that you need reservations, and they have more consistent bear cables.

[4eyedbuzzard]

The latest Sierra Club magazine had an article that compared a bear’s intelligence to that of a great ape.

Worth a read, I think. On line version here.

https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2019-2-march-april/feature/does-bear-think-woods

Thanks for posting that link. Interesting stuff.

[HooKooDooKu]

Actually I'm not sure that according to the first post, that it is about gsmnp exclusively.....

As well, gsmnp really is no different than the rest of much of the southern AT except that you need reservations, and they have more consistent bear cables.
I believe that GSMNP has the HUGE distinction that you can only camp at designated campsites.
I don't recall any discussions saying that such a restriction exists along any other long section (>25 miles) of the AT.

So with only 13 designated campsites for everyone to share along about a 75 mile stretch, just about any definition of "stealth camping" is going to be illegal.

While discussions on food/sleeping areas are generic to camping, this thread has mostly focused on GSMNP (since that's where the OP said he would be in March). As such, I'm just wanting to make sure everyone reading this thread understands the rules that are somewhat unique (along the AT) to GSMNP.

[TNhiker]

Actually I'm not sure that according to the first post, that it is about gsmnp exclusively.....




while this is in the "general" forum----OP was "Looking to hike in GSMP during March. This is not my first time at a shelter, but just wanted to know everyone's thoughts on eating/cooking in the proximity of a shelter."



so.....sounds kinda like it started out that way....

granted, with the course of internet discussion-----its been all over the place.....