Thoughts on Shelters

[Jack Tarlin]

I was recently discussing this issue with some friends who maintain trails, belong to local Trail clubs, and work for Trail organizations.

So I'll pose the same questions to you guys at Whiteblaze.

We frequently hear about the Trail being over-used, getting overwhelmed, and being "loved to death." This situation will no doubt get worse if and when the Walk in the Woods moviE released, introducing millions more folks to the Trail.

So here are the questions:

In order to lessen impact/usage of the Trail, do you think we need MORE shelters, LARGER shelters, BETTER shelters?

Or do you think it'd be better if there were FEWER of them, i.e. do you think that if people had fewer amenities, would this DECREASE trail use? Would removing shelters lessen problems (over-use, litter, etc.?) or increase them?

In brief, what do you guys think? Should there be more shelters to accomodate the expected increase of hikers (especially in the south), or would the Trail be better served by forcing overnight A.T. users to be more self-sufficient? In short, would the Trail be better off without them?

(And before I get angry letters about old folks, or people with kids, or people introducing their friends to the backcountry, and other folks who "need" shelters to be there, I'm NOT advocating or suggesting the abolition or removal of all shelters. I'm merely wondering what people think about removing SOME of them, or limiting construction of new ones.

I think this could be a reeally informative thread and look forward to seeing other people's thoughts on this.

[The Solemates]

or would the Trail be better served by forcing overnight A.T. users to be more self-sufficient?


this is kind of where we stand on this issue.

[Ender]

Honestly, I think that whatever it takes to get more people out into the woods is probably worth it, because I feel most people could really benefit from some hiking and the introspection that comes with hiking. So if that means more shelters, fine. I don't have to stay at them if I don't want to. And if that means more trail maintenance, well, that's a bummer, but I think it's worth it. Besides, more hikers should equal more volunteers... maybe not an equal ratio, but still... I'd be willing to do some more trail work. What little I've done I've enjoyed.

Now, if the question is, do I want to see more shelters? Well, no, not really, but I like the idea of getting more people out into the woods... maybe get more federal funding in the process too...

Just my thoughts... :sun

[Ender]

And I also want to say, great idea for a thread Jack! I'm curious to see what other people think as well. :sun

[Rain Man]

Jack,

I'm just asking, based on what I've read, didn't the Great Smoky Mountain National Park already go through this and came down on the side of keeping impact limited to shelter areas?

If I recall, otherwise they wound up with toilet paper "flower fields" all over. Until they put in privies and prohibited people from tenting just wherever they wanted.

Anyway, if I'm understanding the GSMNP's experience with excessive (?) use, and how they solved (?) the problem, and if that experience translates to the ret of the AT, can we learn from that experiment and is it a success or failure?

If there were no shelters, would there be tent platforms to limit the harmful impact on the ground? Or would everyone be required to use hammocks perhaps, a la Neo?

Good question, Jack. Looking forward to a reasoned discussion from folks.

Rain:sunMan

.

[Jack Tarlin]

Interesting point, but when an area already has tons of use (for example Great Smoky Mountain National Park, which is aleady the nation's most visited Nat'l Park) or the White Mountains of New Hampshire (which gets as many vistors between Memorial Day and Labor Day as GSMNP gets all year), do you STILL think getting more people into the woods is still worth it? Isn't there a point where it's OK to say "Geez, enough is enough, at least in THIS location!"? And you're right, you don't have to stay at new shelters. But other folks will stay, meaning more people, more problems, more manpower needed, more volunteers, more maintenace, etc. Can you think of any area or park that hasn't had cutbacks in staff or financing.......can you think of any area that wouldn't LOVE to have more funding, staffing, etc? If you get all of these new folks into the woods, who's gonna pay for the facilites they'll need or they damage they may do? Seems to me, the Parks, maintainers, local trail clubs, etc. are already strained to the max as far as funding, staffing, etc. How does getting more folks into the woods benefit the existing situation in many areas? And are the benefits worth it?

[Cookerhiker]

Good discussion topic. Trying to keep the response in the context of the questions - shelters vis-a-vis trail impact/overuse - I don't think reducing the number of shelters will necessarily result in less hikers or users out there because I believe the reason the Trail is so popular and heavily used is its familiarity, reputation, fame. At least I believe that's the case with respect to long-distant hikers. Along these lines, the reason other long-distant trails aren't as popular e.g. Allegheny Trail - aren't because of little/no shelters but they simply don't have the vaunted reputation of the AT.

On the other hand, having less shelters may decrease the local, 1-2 night usage and parties. I would say that these users' impacts are more on the shelters themselves than the Trail per se.

Also as Jack only too well knows, the AMC huts probably engender much usage but that's a topic (and has been) for a different (and volatile) thread.

The only place I can think of where more shelters might be desirable (aside from one more in NY east of the Hudson) is in Georgia because of the heavy spring usage. I'd advocate more rather than bigger to spread out the impact.

[Ridge]

Turn the Shelters into picnic tables and Privies, use the old shelter area as tent sites. Most all other major trails don't have them or have very few shelters. However, the rats and snakes might think different.

[Alligator]

I prefer a system where there are padded campsites. While I gravitate to shelters, it is more so because that's where the water is and likely campsites. If no one is in the shelter I'll stay there, otherwise I pick a spot away from the shelter. They're a nice place to get out of the rain, but I don't think any more are needed. In some places though, shelters have been built where tent sites would be problematic. So these serve a useful purpose. I suppose you could put platforms in.

Foremost, I would rather a set up of maybe one group tenting area with several semi-private sites. The group area could serve as overflow. A covered picnic table would be nice instead of a whole shelter, but not really necessary.

[Jack Tarlin]

Admittedly, "minimizing impact" is a valid argument, i.e. whether it's the Smokies, the Whites, or anywhere else it may at first seem sensible to have a relatively small number of permanent, hardened, ultra high-use sites, instead of dozens of "guerilla" sites all over the place where trash and waste might be left, unsafe fires built, etc. But the reverse argument is this: Without so many of these comfortable hardened places, wouldn't a lot of problems be solved by the very fact that fewer folks would visit these areas if it required more self-sufficiency on their part? Or to put it another way, how many folks would stay at home and not create ANY problems at all if the shelters weren't there?

We all acknowledge there are problems generated in high-use areas. I think we all can agree that educating more folks on proper behavior (packing out trash, protecting water sources, practicing proper sanitation, limiting fires, etc.) is a good idea. But if a lot of the problems we're discussing are the result of too many visitors and limited funding/staff to take care of them or minimize the damage they do, then isn't it sensible to consider ways to simply lesson their numbers in high use areas?

Seems to me fewer people in fragile areas means fewer problems. If you really want to minimize human impact on high-use areas, maybe we should start my minimizing the number of humans who visit them. And the fewer or more spartan the amenities, the fewer the visitors.

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

:clap for Baltimore Jack for this interesting and excellent question.

While I don't favor shelters in general, I do think that building more shelters for fewer users per shelter in areas of heavy use would be wise. The reasons:

Would spread people out more which would tend to lessen the impact on sites used
Would spread out the potential food sources for bear / mouse problems
Would give tourons and serious hikers more options to avoid each other when they clashI also feel that some shelters in areas that require you to use the shelter system should be closed to others during the thru-hiking season to lessen the impact. I know this isn't going to be a popular stance, but living near the Smokies for the past 25 years and seeing the impact that the March - April hiking season has on the area around shelters, I feel we have an obligation to endure some hassles to preserve natural resources by forcing leisure and section hikers to backpack when the thru-hikers are not in the area.

[Alligator]

This discussion would benefit greatly from some solid estimates of:
Cost of shelter (time and manpower)
Upkeep costs (again time and manpower)
Average life span

vs.

similar estimates for padded sites, platform sites.

[Jack Tarlin]

Sorry. Gotta disagree.

Thru or other long-distance hikers represent less than a tenth of one per cent of the folks who use the A.T. annually.

National Parks belong to everyone.

Thru-hikers are pampered enough without being given exclusive lodging places.

Unless of course, they are willing to PAY for the construction and maintenance of these exclusive facilities.

Which I assure you, they aren't.

Oh, and building more shelters would "spread out" potential food sources for bears and other wildlife? Well yeah, I guess. It would spread out these sources.....and offer additional ones, so where's the benefit?

[Alligator]

...
I also feel that some shelters in areas that require you to use the shelter system should be closed to others during the thru-hiking season to lessen the impact. I know this isn't going to be a popular stance, but living near the Smokies for the past 25 years and seeing the impact that the March - April hiking season has on the area around shelters, I feel we have an obligation to endure some hassles to preserve natural resources by forcing leisure and section hikers to backpack when the thru-hikers are not in the area.I respectfully, but totally disagree with that. I don't think that any user group should have a complete denial of access.

[Lone Wolf]

No more new shelters. And tear down quite a few existing ones like that ridiculous Peter's Mtn. shelter. No need for such big shelters.

[SGT Rock]

Just a thought or two on this. If you use the Smokies as an example, yes they do limit camping to specific places, but not all of them are shelters. People who only hike the AT through the Smokies may not know that it is not just a series of shelter - and I belive they have even torn down one of the shelters and made it into the only camsite on the AT authorized for camping.

My point is you can still limit the places people stay without adding shelters. I have a few camps in the Smokies I love to go to and I don't miss the shelters one bit. So I don't think you need more shelters, but if you want to protect a certain area along the trail it would be nice to have some designated camping areas that do provide the three things you really want: water, space, and some privacy.

[Ridge]

There is an average of 1 shelter per every 7-8 miles of trail. The LAST thing we need is MORE shelters. If you don't remove all the shelters, then take down half and use the material to build super shelters and have them spread out 14-16 miles apart.

[Ridge]

Also, The hunters who set up hunt camps in the shelters won't like the idea of removing shelters.

[Cookerhiker]

No more new shelters. And tear down quite a few existing ones like that ridiculous Peter's Mtn. shelter. No need for such big shelters.

Wolf, you talking Peters Mountain in PA (don't think there is a shelter on Peters Mt., VA)? The one where the wind blows in? All the hikers I know of complain about the wind there. I stayed there in mid-November and would have been much warmer in my tent.

But's so nice and big:o And the water source is only .8 mile steep downhill.

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

While I realize that thru hikers make up a tiny percentage of the total users in the Smokies, during March and April they make up 60+% of the people using shelters located along the AT. These shelters are overflowing during that period. I'm not suggesting that shelters other than those on the AT be closed to non-thrus during the period, but I honestly feel that the level of damage caused by the mandate to use the shelter system on the AT thru the Smokies coupled with the extremely heavy use justifies giving the majority of users (in this case the thru-hikers) priority during the peak season along the AT thru the Smokies.

My thoughts regarding spreading out the food sources - every year the heavily used sites along the AT have bear / mouse problems as do many of the more heavily used shelters / backcountry campsites not on the AT in the Smokies. Sites with less use tend not to have these problems on an on-going basis because of their sporatic use during the bears' feeding season (in other words, they can't be relied on to provide a meal). In theory, having more shelters should result in less use per shelter and thus make all shelters unreliable places to obtain a meal. I realize that some shelters will still have problems, but I believe hikers could avoid such problems by selecting less popular shelters.

[kyhipo]

well just getting back from my section hike south of the smokeys,I would say that the shelters were great! considering i hit moonsoon weather the 1st 2 days and loved it.Why I think their located just in the right locations,we could eleminate some easly,because they are pretty close at times,but what about our slower hikers?and also the shelters have pretty good areas around them for water and tenting,which i prefer!I dont need them but I do enjoy them for some strange reason.I can hike around them,personallyI do alot to avoid people.ky

[Alligator]

I really enjoyed the setup in Glacier National Park. Designated campsites, designated eating spots, separate from sleeping, and a privy. All somewhat spread out. There was a permit system, but I am not calling for that.

So I agree with Sgt Rock. If you need to limit impact, then a camping in designated sites policy can work.

[Ridge]

..............I realize that some shelters will still have problems, but I believe hikers could avoid such problems by selecting less popular shelters.

How does one tell if a particular shelter is popular or less popular that particular night? Not too many hikers want to hike another 7-8 miles to another shelter hoping it may be less popular.

You could put shelters every mile and you'd still have groups piling into one shelter. You need fewer shelters or none at all.

[Jack Tarlin]

You're right. Hikers could avoid problems by avoiding the more popular shelters.

They could avoid even more problems by avoiding ALL shelters and not just the more popular ones.

And you're right again, that shelters "will still have problems."

So, here's a few thoughts on that:

Fewer shelters = fewer problems.
Fewer people = fewer problems.

If too many people is the primary problem, then doesn't decreasing their number seem to be a primary solution?

[Ridge]

Also, Fewer Shelters = Fewer People, IMHO

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

I didn't realize that creating legal backcountry camping areas in lui of shelters was to be an option for this discussion.

Given the campground option, I'd favor tearing down all shelters and providing backcountry campgrounds with a privy and maybe a picnic table, bear cable system and fire ring in heavy use areas. I would also favor doing away with the ban on camping away from shelters / established camp grounds with some regulation - like no more than four to a party camping away from the shelter together.

[SGT Rock]

Something to think of is would you put in privies in these designated campsites. That is something I have debated myself. I have one stretch of trail on my section of the BMT that is heavily used at times, and there are limited spots for digging cat holes. I have gone both ways on my thoughts on this, and currently I am against putting in a privy.

[Alligator]

Something to think of is would you put in privies in these designated campsites. That is something I have debated myself. I have one stretch of trail on my section of the BMT that is heavily used at times, and there are limited spots for digging cat holes. I have gone both ways on my thoughts on this, and currently I am against putting in a privy.I'm for concentrating it in one spot.

[max patch]

Something to think of is would you put in privies in these designated campsites. That is something I have debated myself. I have one stretch of trail on my section of the BMT that is heavily used at times, and there are limited spots for digging cat holes. I have gone both ways on my thoughts on this, and currently I am against putting in a privy.

Why?

Sounds like a privy would be ideal in such a spot.

[Singe03]

This is a hard one to wrap my mind around, everytime I think I have settled on the idea that spreading the impact is better than concentrating it or vice versa I change my mind again.

I see the AT as a victim of it's own fame, it is the trail that nearly everyone has heard of and when they start thinking of an adventure of that sort, it is where they gravitate. It is also in the most populated area of the US and is the most easily accessable for the most people. It is by far the easiest long trail to plan a hike on due to the wealth of information. I just do not see day hiker and section hiker useage falling off significantly regardless of the shelter situation. I'm not sure how much impact thru hikers have, trusting Baltimore Jack's knowledge, I assume it is very minimal and thrus should not really be a consideration in such decisions.

Not really on Jack's topic but I'll throw it out anyway.

The best hope I see is to promote the use of alternatives and try to move away from the idea of a single Appalachian Trail. Look for alternative paths like the BMT and legitimize them through the ATC allowing and encouraging a more ala-carte approach to hiking in the Appalachian Trail corridor. An Appalachian Lowlands route with heavy woods and the occasional waterfall may draw thrus and section hikers off the ridge, such a route with no shelters and a few nicely designed campsites could help take some stress off the current route and hopefully be relatively low maintenence.

I understand most of the area is already a network of more or less maintained trails anyway, I'm sure there are people who read this forum or get mentioned on a regular basis (Lone Wolf ?, Pirate? Mala?) who could probabily do a good bit of Springer to Katahdin without ever setting foot on the legitimate, white blazed, AT if they chose to do so.

Of course it would increase stress on the trail clubs, who have enough on their plate and too little in the way of resources already, but it is a notion I've never seen entertained.

[Jack Tarlin]

Right. And since you think it's such a good idea, and evidently live close by, perhaps you'll help build it, instead of merely approving the idea.

I'm sure Rock would be happy to have your help.

[Amigi'sLastStand]

I am all for charging fees to hike. It's not that hard to enforce. We do this in Florida on the FSNT. Sure you can hike in more readily accessible areas without paying, but dont get caught camping without one, it was a $95 fine last I heard. The fee and fines provides valuable funds for upkeep of the trail and helps pay the rangers. Wanna lower the number of ppl, charge em a fee.
I am not for taking down the shelters. If anything expand the camping areas to lessen the impact at the shelter sites and the rest of the trail. Wanna see it go to crap? Tear down the shelters and let ppl stay wherever they want. It'll be a dump in no time. I live on a trail system like this in NJ. No shelters, one camping area for 60+ miles of trails. Every nice stop you find is filled with garbage. Ppl make fire rings whereever they want.
The AT is for everyone. Everytime we have this discussion, I hear, "I dont use em, tear em down." Just because some dont use them, doesnt mean others dont like them. The elitist attitude of I dont use it, you dont need it is BS. I think some of these ppl wish the AT was closed down completely except, of course, to the self appointed AT oligarchy.

[Ridge]

Trying to enforce a fee would be like trying to fine people for all the litter you see on the trail in NJ. Won't work. Or, would be like making all dog hikers to leash their dog, 1% will the other 99% will not.

[generoll]

While shelters are nice when the weather turns foul, I can see the viewpoint of those who would reduce or eliminate them all together. Picnic tables, bear cables, and privies at designated camping spots would be a better use of limited resources in my view. The numbered campsites in the Smokies are a prime example of having designated campsites. Admittedly they lack picnic tables and privies, but having the bear cables go a long way towards reducing the animal/food equation.

Any discussion like this is bound to be more subjective then factual, but I can see where thinking you'll have a shelter to spend the night might encourage more poorly prepared hikers to venture out. there've also been some reports of squatters setting up housekeeping in shelters and trying to discourage others from staying. The evidence for this is basically anecdotal, but still theoretically possible.

As for privies, I think that the 'mouldering privy' that the GATC has begun to build makes a lot of sense. I've hiked some of the trails along Slickrock Creek which may be what Sgt. Rock is refering to and some of those campsites do not lend themselves well to cat holes. I'm thinking specifically of the trail junction between Slickrock Creek and I believe it's Yellowhammer lead. You are right by the creek and any cathole dug 200' from the river is going to be dug at a 45 degree angle and good luck squatting there without something to hang on to.

The AT has shelters and will likely always have shelters. In my opinion we should learn from the AT and future new trails like the BMT or the Cumberland Trail should consider establishing campsites with privies, firepits, and bear cables. Leave the shelters to the AT.

[Amigi'sLastStand]

Why not, it works elsewhere? Every try fishing without a license?

[Alligator]

...If anything expand the camping areas to lessen the impact at the shelter sites and the rest of the trail. Wanna see it go to crap? Tear down the shelters and let ppl stay wherever they want. It'll be a dump in no time. I live on a trail system like this in NJ. No shelters, one camping area for 60+ miles of trails. Every nice stop you find is filled with garbage. Ppl make fire rings whereever they want.
The trail system going to crap upon tearing down the shelters does not necessarily follow. There are plenty of counter examples in non-permitted wilderness areas where this has not happened.

I use them, I like them, but if they are a resource drain, nix 'em. I think you do need centralized camping areas though to concentrate impact. The level of use is too high to have dispersed camping. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that designated campsites can roughly have as much draw as a shelter, if there is water, a privy, a picnic table, an established fire ring, and semi-private tent pads. I always look for shelters that have tent sites available.

[bulldog49]

Keep the privies but tear down the shelters. I think shelters detract from the wilderness experience and serve as a magnet for folks who wouldn't otherwise be there.

[Jack Tarlin]

Generoll--

Improper use of shelters (squatters etc.) is NOT merely anecdotal. I've witnessed it, and it happens almost every year. There is, in fact, someone "living" in the David Lesser shelter just south of Harpers Ferry even as we speak, or was a few days ago anyway. So yeah, this happens.

Shelters are also magnets for partiers, troublemakers, thieves, as well as collecting garbage, becoming magnets for problem animals, etc. It's no coincidence that the most frequently named "trouble" spots on the Trail, such as Apple House in North Carolina or Governor Clement in Vermont, are shelters. This is also not anecdotal.

Fewer shelters equals fewer people equals fewer problems.

At the very least, if we can't get rid of them, we can decrease their numbers. Instead of building any more new ones, I'd like to see more "improved" campsites as well as more maintenance of existing structures and sites (more patrols by local club members and maintainers, more ridgerunners, more permanent caretakers at highly-used sites such as in Vermont, etc., even if these means more fee sites). Folks who balk at paying a small fee at a few select places have an easy remedy at hand.....they can spend the night elsewhere.

[SGT Rock]

Just a concern that a privy would only end up a trash pit as well as send the wrong message. I regularly pack trash out of this area already and it annoys me to no end that someone wouldn't take the time or effort to pack out some trash a mere 2.5 miles (give or take). The spot (the one I want them to move away from) has a small creek that joins a larger one (Slickrock Creek) and the place stays wet - so it gets worn down fast and tears up the trail and creek bank - the small creek next to it is turning into a ditch. IMO the site isn't even a very good campsite - last time I was there the fire ring in this spot was full of seeping ground water and trash. I can only imagine if someone was to cat-hole around there what it does to the water in that immediate area. I feel if I put a privy there it would only encourage more camping in the place where I feel there should be less.

If a backpacker would only walk a few hundred more yards there are some excellent established campsites that are nice and dry that are still right next to Slickrock Creek with better chances to cat hole safely and I would rather them spread that way for camping. These sites even have some deep water holes near them you could swim in and have a good time with lots of space off trail for tenting.

Finally my other thought is I prefer a back country feel myself, I don't like a lot of shelters, privies, etc on the trail. I was hoping the BMT could stay mostly like that. Right now I think there is only something like 2 shelters in close to 400 miles of trail.

But for some reason I have not figured, large parties of hikers like to set up for days on this one site. At one point I saw a party of Boy Scouts that was probably about 30+ people in this one small plot of land. I have no idea what they did with their waste. Maybe the answer would be to put a privy at the OTHER nicer area to encourage people to stay there if I was to ever go to the trouble of putting a privy in.

[solace]

Well put by many.. good topic. My first thought... NO NEW SHELTERS, period! The AT has enough for its purpose. While Benton McKay's vision many years ago never fully came to be i.e. ( AT being a "community" of work camps, ect.) It did become more than many of us envisioned it to be... The new shelters that have been added the last 10 years almost spoiled many hikers.. some areas, esp GA/NC have far too many I feel. Yes, the #'s are big in March/April down south... but there are plenty of low impact areas throughout for the tenters. More shelters may encourage more hikers, but perhaps more homeless & weekend warriors as well, which i assure you.. the AT does not need! For any thru/section hiker to have thier "own" rights to a shelter is silly, this is everyones trail, 24/7 And Jack is right, the more shelters, the more man power needed, $, ect! We have far to few as it is. It's just best I feel to take care of what we have now, esp the shelters, after all.. those mice need a home like all of us :)

[Singe03]

Folks who balk at paying a small fee at a few select places have an easy remedy at hand.....they can spend the night elsewhere.

Baltimore Jack, I do not object to paying small fees to stay anywhere, especially if it was a decent campsite with a care-taker (would have to be someone to collect the fees). I'd welcome it in quite a few places as long as it was an option and not the law of the land. However the idea causes me a degree of concern about something like the AMC spreading throughout the trail and the option becoming pay a "small" fee of 50-70 bucks, camp illegally and risk a fine or go WAY off the trail to camp legally.

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

Has anyone ever challenged the AMC's handling of the housing situation in the Whites?

[Lone Wolf]

What's to challenge?

[Jack Tarlin]

Singe--

I agree with you a hundred per cent. I was referring to places like the handful of spots in Vermont where the Green Mountain Club (an excellent organization by the way) has put in caretakers to oversee some very highly used sites (Stratton Pond, etc.)

Every year the trail registers in Vermont are full of mean-spirited entries by whiny jerks who are outraged over the user fees (which are something like 6 bucks or less). Yet these folks don't seem to have problems buying five dollar designer beers at the Inn at Long Trail or in Hanover.

I was certainly NOT referring to the AMC's operations in New Hampshire which have been discussed here at length. Happily, the 50-dollar plus fees of the AMC's huts are few in number, and except for the regrettable plan to put some similar places near the Trail in Maine, I don't think these excessive user-fee locations will become a widespread problem.

I'm off to Duncannon to get ready for the hiker weekend, so I'll be off-line for a bit; will check in from the Doyle computer later. Hoping to see some of you there, and thanks for all the comments so far on this thread. Some very good stuff here, and very insightful.

[Jack Tarlin]

F. Dinosaurs---

As to the AMC, they have a long-term lease and aren't going away anytime soon.

The best way to "challenge" them is to not patronize them. Nobody is forced to stay there.

As to the club's concentrating their efforts on more caretaker campsites or other overnight options that would serve people of more limited means, don't hold your breath waiting for this to happen. This is obviously not a high priority for them.

[SGT Rock]

To add to some of the other ideas, I am against paying fees to hike. I figure I pay taxes and that already and those lands are preserved for my use and the generations after me. I would hate to see a fee system start and then creep up because once you induce profit to anything government run it can get to the point it is ridiculous. Who needs to pay to take your kids out to the trail? A network of permits and fees would be as insane on a thru-hike. Naw, I would rather have fees for some services like boat ramps, camp sites with facilities fishing licenses, hunting licenses, and other things like that. But don't make it cost to just walk in the woods. Some things need to stay free - because we don't need people that then decide if you can turn a profit from charging for that to find a way to privatize it next to increase profits and "help" the government - this sort of logic is killing the Army in some ways. This sort of thing is leading to dumb sponsorship already in racing and football - ridiculous ideas like football games turning into the "I can't believe it's not butter! Bowl"

As to a network of trails. I am for the idea. But I am sure guys like Weary, Rocks and Roots, and probably some others will tell you that we need help building and maintaining the trails already out there. Hikers need to kick in and do things like PAY for a trail guide or trail maps, and then get out and do some LABOR on trails.

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

After doing some checking, it seems the charges are similar to what other backcountry lodges charge for similar services so I withdraw my statement that there is anything to challenge. The AMC charges $8 for shelters / backcountry sites with caretakers and nothing for those without caretakers.

[Ridge]

Just a concern that a privy would only end up a trash pit...............

I had to think on this one a bit. You are right, would end up a trash pit. But, whats wrong with litter in a deep hole that can be covered and privy relocated, just one big cat hole. I know its an attractive place to put litter, but probably those who pack out will still do so and the pigs will still put trash in a fire ring or on the ground. But if we can get the torrents of TP and Crap off the trail sides and into a pit, I'm all for it, especially if the smell will be piped up and away. I'm all for removing shelters, but the AT maintenance clubs love them and this will never happen, and putting a privy and tables (built from the old shelter, remainder used as fire wood) as well as campsites. This is similar to some long trails and trails in large NP's.


You would think AT maintenance clubs would dislike the shelters. They dislike cleaning up trash and crap from around and inside the shelters. But, they use these shelters too, for all kinds of functions. And, nothing is more exciting than to go and build a new shelter, they live for this kind of stuff.

[SGT Rock]

You would think AT maintenance clubs would dislike the shelters. They dislike cleaning up trash and crap from around and inside the shelters. But, they use these shelters too, for all kinds of functions. And, nothing is more exciting than to go and build a new shelter, they live for this kind of stuff.

Well not this maintainer. I would rather build some trail by digging side hill than haul a bunch of lumber in to build a shelter that will only end up covered with trash and graffiti. I would rather put in a bridge across Slickrock Creek and build a privy and a picnic table with overhead cover.

But you know, some ******* would sleep on the table and act like it is no problem that no one else gets to use it.

[Lone Wolf]

I had to think on this one a bit. You are right, would end up a trash pit. But, whats wrong with litter in a deep hole that can be covered and privy relocated, just one big cat hole. I know its an attractive place to put litter, but probably those who pack out will still do so and the pigs will still put trash in a fire ring or on the ground. But if we can get the torrents of TP and Crap off the trail sides and into a pit, I'm all for it, especially if the smell will be piped up and away. I'm all for removing shelters, but the AT maintenance clubs love them and this will never happen, and putting a privy and tables (built from the old shelter, remainder used as fire wood) as well as campsites. This is similar to some long trails and trails in large NP's.


You would think AT maintenance clubs would dislike the shelters. They dislike cleaning up trash and crap from around and inside the shelters. But, they use these shelters too, for all kinds of functions. And, nothing is more exciting than to go and build a new shelter, they live for this kind of stuff.You're so right. The new one north of 19E in Tenn. is a good example of a shelter not needed.

[Alligator]

...
But you know, some ******* would sleep on the table and act like it is no problem that no one else gets to use it.It's obviously a picnic table, if someone chose not to comply I would have no recourse but to exercise countermeasures :jump .

[TOW]

Turn the Shelters into picnic tables and Privies, use the old shelter area as tent sites. Most all other major trails don't have them or have very few shelters. However, the rats and snakes might think different.I think that's a good idea and kinda what I was thinking......

[Tim Rich]

Greetings,

There may be places along the trail that would benefit from additional shelters, but I can't think of one. I would say no more shelters, but upgrades in capacity as they require replacement. Some recent shelter placements have been on hillsides to prevent the creep of tentsites and earth compaction. Campsites developed on hillsides with platforms serve the same purpose.

Privies are a must at areas developed for concentrated use. Without them, you experience area degradation similar to that of campsite sprawl.

Take Care,

Tim

[TOW]

You're right. Hikers could avoid problems by avoiding the more popular shelters.

They could avoid even more problems by avoiding ALL shelters and not just the more popular ones.

And you're right again, that shelters "will still have problems."

So, here's a few thoughts on that:

Fewer shelters = fewer problems.
Fewer people = fewer problems.

If too many people is the primary problem, then doesn't decreasing their number seem to be a primary solution?good point, to slow down the impact on the trail i truly think that fewer shelters would limit the trail use to those who are seriously out there to do the sport of hiking 2,167 + miles, give or take....

[Nightwalker]

I'll bet that the Rock Gap shelter in NC is a problem for the local LEOs. It's only 1/10 mile from a parking lot.

[Nightwalker]

It's obviously a picnic table, if someone chose not to comply I would have no recourse but to exercise countermeasures :jump .
Cook on their stomach?:eek:

[Alligator]

Cook on their stomach?:eek:A little lower:eek: .

[generoll]

Sgt. Rock:

I agree about the spot you mentioned. I've been guilty of camping there just upstream of where the small feeder stream comes into slickrock. Right where the trail comes down. Dunno why I didn't hike a few yards farther to nicer and drier places. Next time I will.

I do however like the idea of privies and bear ropes. Take a look at your fellow hikers and see how many (few) actually carry anything that you could reasonably dig a cathole with. The reality is that too many think that 'just one more pile of ****' won't hurt. If wishes were horses then beggars would ride and if every hiker were truly considerate then we wouldn't need privies. The reality is that all too many hikers are quite content to just take a dump wherever it pleases them and then assume that because the covered it with leaves it's o.k.. I don't know that the verdict is in yet on the mouldering prvies that the GATC is building, but the idea looks good and might be a good solution, at least for the (relatively) warmer southern trails. I really don't think that bear cables need any defense. They seem to sensible as to not need an advocate.

[weary]

Since one can ever be sure of a place in a shelter, everyone has to carry some kind of emergency shelter anyway. That in my mind makes shelters an anachronism. They were built originally to avoid having to carry a tent.

Therefore, I oppose new shelter construction or serious reconstruction. As far as existing shelters, I see no reason to tear them down until they are beyond serious repair.

More useful, however, to most hikers would be picnic shelters, tables and privies, coupled with tent pads of some sort.

In my opinion no campsite, shelter or other overnight facility should be built without also building a privy. To do so is to simply create an unhealthy, obnoxious mess.

Existing shelters or campsites where soils prevent privy construction, (very rare) should be closed. If we can find suitable privy sites in rocky, glacial scarred Maine, they are available in the Smokies, despite contentions by bureaucrats to the contrary.

Weary

[Peaks]

Well, I've been away for several days, and I'd like to add my 2 cents worth.

First, let's look at some history. In the beginning, before the days of nylon, tents were heavy. So, shelters made it possible to backpack with out a tent. Good idea!

Second, look at the trend in the White Mountain National Forest. Off the AT, numerous shelters have been removed. Many of the former shelter sites have been converted to tentsites.

Third, caretakers are there because people are pigs. They are only at heavily used sites. I'll gladly pay my fee because I know the site isn't going to be a s*** hole. By the way, AMC claims that they loose money on the caretaker sites. It's subsidized by the hut fees.

Fourth, shelters have grown more grandier over the years. Just compare the baseball bat shelters in Maine, the "Earl Schaffer" shelter in PA, or the Peru Peak shelter in Vermont with many of the more recently built shelters.

Fifth, shelters cost money to build, and maintain.

Finally, nothing beats a shelter with a good roof on a rainy night.

So, my preference is to reduce the number of shelters along the AT. Maybe instead spacing them every 7 to 8 miles, space them 12 to 15 miles. In high use areas, there should be designated tentsites with privies to concentrate impact. And, I do consider the entire AT to qualify as a high use area.

[Footslogger]

All I can say is thank goodness for the shelters in Maine ...

We're out here right now, hiking from Rangeley to Pinkham Notch (southbound). Shelters at Sabbath Pond and Bemis Mountain were a welcome sight in this weather. Hiked past Hall Mountain Shelter this morning and just passed through but thought to myself that it could have been a lifesaver to a southbounder who had just dropped down off of Mooday Mountain, through Sawyer Notch and then needed a place to pitch camp.

Dunno ...in 2003 I stayed in more shelters than I otherwise might have because of all the rain. I think they serve a purpose. Sure ...they are mice infested and damp at times but HEY, when the rain is coming down and you need to drop a pack, cook some dinner and get a decent night's sleep out of the weather they are a great sight for sore eyes.

Re-living the dream ...

'Slogger

[Rain Man]

...More shelters may encourage more hikers, but perhaps more homeless & weekend warriors as well, which i assure you.. the AT does not need! ...

YIKES!!! I'm almost purely a "weekend warrior" so far. Well, maybe _long_ weekends, mostly.

As long as we're tearing down shelters to reduce the number of folks using the AT, should we also tear down WhiteBlaze? Just curious if anyone sees a parallel. If shelters and WhiteBlaze go, what else should go?

I really didn't even know this was going to be a thread about reducing the number of hikers. I thought it was to be about reducing impact by the hikers out there. I must have read the original post entirely wrongly.

Rain:sunMan

.

[Skidsteer]

Do you think it'd be better if there were FEWER of them, i.e. do you think that if people had fewer amenities, would this DECREASE trail use? Would removing shelters lessen problems (over-use, litter, etc.?) or increase them?

Hard to predict the outcome, but I certainly think it's worth a try. At the least, stop building more and pay attention to what happens as a result.



would the Trail be better served by forcing overnight A.T. users to be more self-sufficient?

Yes, in my opinion.

Great discussion topic, Jack.

[Lone Wolf]

All I can say is thank goodness for the shelters in Maine ...

We're out here right now, hiking from Rangeley to Pinkham Notch (southbound). Shelters at Sabbath Pond and Bemis Mountain were a welcome sight in this weather. Hiked past Hall Mountain Shelter this morning and just passed through but thought to myself that it could have been a lifesaver to a southbounder who had just dropped down off of Mooday Mountain, through Sawyer Notch and then needed a place to pitch camp.

Dunno ...in 2003 I stayed in more shelters than I otherwise might have because of all the rain. I think they serve a purpose. Sure ...they are mice infested and damp at times but HEY, when the rain is coming down and you need to drop a pack, cook some dinner and get a decent night's sleep out of the weather they are a great sight for sore eyes.

Re-living the dream ...

'SloggerGood reason not to have them. Keep folks from relying on them. I set my tent up in the rain, why can't everyone else?

[Ridge]

Good reason not to have them. Keep folks from relying on them. I set my tent up in the rain, why can't everyone else?


I'll AMEN that :-?

[Frosty]

I can only imagine if someone was to cat-hole around there what it does to the water in that immediate area. I feel if I put a privy there it would only encourage more camping in the place where I feel there should be less.So don't put the privy there. Figure out where you want hikers to camp, put a privy and picnic table there, and clear a space for tents. That's were most of them will camp, even if thwey have to walk a quarter mile for water.

[Lone Wolf]

So don't put the privy there. Figure out where you want hikers to camp, put a privy and picnic table there, and clear a space for tents. That's were most of them will camp, even if thwey have to walk a quarter mile for water.
Why a picnic table at campsites? Just sit on your ass or lay on your belly like I do outside your tent and chow down. Keep it real simple.

[Skidsteer]

Good reason not to have them. Keep folks from relying on them. I set my tent up in the rain, why can't everyone else?

Here's what I wonder:

What if everybody (thrus, sections, weekenders, etc.) knew that hiking the A.T meant setting up camp in the rain, snow, ice, etc. because there were no shelters or few shelters on the Trail. My thought is many folks would stay home and save themselves the inconvenience......and lessen the impact on the A.T.

[Lone Wolf]

Here's what I wonder:

What if everybody(thrus, sections, weekenders, etc.) knew that hiking the A.T meant setting up camp in the rain, snow, ice, etc. because there were no shelters or few shelters on the A.T.? My theory is many folks would stay home and save themselves the inconvenience.
Exactly. A no-brainer. Most hikers don't want to suffer. Even a little. I like to.

[Ridge]

I wonder if any of the powers at the ATC read any of our well thought out threads? If they did they'd learn how to really make the trail purrrrrrr.

[Singe03]

I don't think anyone has brought up these points yet-

Aren't shelters part of what makes the AT special? Part of the whole AT 'experience'?

I knew the shelters existed but I planned on living out of my tent most nights when I was planning to hike. I wound up using the shelters alot more than I originally planned because of the amount of rain in 2003, they were convienient and most importantly, dry. However if they were not there, I'd have tented someplace, just like I originally planned, just like I did on any number of nights whether it was nice or nasty out. Part of the AT experience? Nah, no more than roadside rest stops are part of the Interstate experience.

[Ridge]

.............Is the AT really that crowded that we must take action to reduce the masses? Seriously, I'm asking becuase I don't know. Is the trail much more popular now than in any previous time; requiring action?


I think the quality of newer hikers has gone to hell in a hand basket. This doesn't mean they are younger just newer. The shelters have become magnets to all kind of abusiveness. The situation has gotten a helluva lot worse than it was in the 70's, the first time I hiked portions of the AT and stayed in shelters.

[ed bell]

I think the quality of newer hikers has gone to hell in a hand basket. Backpackers in general or aspiring AT thru hikers? Considering that quite a few aspiring thru hikers are totally new to backpacking coupled with the high concentration of hikers on the Southern end of the trail equals problems. People group together and negative behavior becomes accepted.

[rickb]

In those areas where there is sufficient land, how about moving all the shelters a 1/2 mile or more away from the AT? That way everyone will be happy.

Those who don't like shelters will be happy that won't feel the press of the masses as they walk down the AT, and the thru hikers who prefer a roof will be delighted with the added bonus that they get a few more miles of paradise to enjoy.

The best scenario might be sighting these shelters in such a way that a minimum elevation change of 500 feet is involved. This would cut down on the number of local who might arrive to party.

[neo]

I was recently discussing this issue with some friends who maintain trails, belong to local Trail clubs, and work for Trail organizations.

So I'll pose the same questions to you guys at Whiteblaze.

We frequently hear about the Trail being over-used, getting overwhelmed, and being "loved to death." This situation will no doubt get worse if and when the Walk in the Woods moviE released, introducing millions more folks to the Trail.

So here are the questions:

In order to lessen impact/usage of the Trail, do you think we need MORE shelters, LARGER shelters, BETTER shelters?

Or do you think it'd be better if there were FEWER of them, i.e. do you think that if people had fewer amenities, would this DECREASE trail use? Would removing shelters lessen problems (over-use, litter, etc.?) or increase them?

In brief, what do you guys think? Should there be more shelters to accomodate the expected increase of hikers (especially in the south), or would the Trail be better served by forcing overnight A.T. users to be more self-sufficient? In short, would the Trail be better off without them?

(And before I get angry letters about old folks, or people with kids, or people introducing their friends to the backcountry, and other folks who "need" shelters to be there, I'm NOT advocating or suggesting the abolition or removal of all shelters. I'm merely wondering what people think about removing SOME of them, or limiting construction of new ones.

I think this could be a reeally informative thread and look forward to seeing other people's thoughts on this.

:D shelters suck:cool: neo

[mweinstone]

long,hard,and with teeth

[mweinstone]

no one, not one single bastard was using leave no trace . even the cleanest hikers i met this year were so so so impacting.the shelters could be fine but for the humans.

[map man]

Here is a partial solution to damage we are doing to the AT through poor habits or overuse, though not a complete solution: move all shelters, campsights, or tentsights that are supposed to be dedicated to the AT and are near roads to AT LEAST a mile away from the nearest road, and preferably further.

I don't have enough first hand experience on the AT to feel like I can give an informed answer to Jack's basic question about whether the AT would be better off with fewer shelters. But I do know from other places I've hiked that camping facilities supposed to be dedicated to hikers that are near roads end up getting a lot of use from nonhikers, and nonhikers are often more likely to trash the trail and its environs than hikers are.

[Ridge]

I got it. Lets HIDE the AT.

[Dust]

No more shelters. They'd only attract Redford fans who would otherwise sleep in Gatlinberg if they had to sleep on the cold ground like some animal.

[ffstenger]

I'm sure that my humble opinion will not alter the status of shelters on the AT, but here it is anyway. I think that for good or bad, shelters ARE part of the AT experience. I think they DO help localize impact. For me they are like a way-point, and keep me oriented to my progress down the trail. I plan to stay at them when it fits into my plan for the days hike, other days I just pass them by. I very much enjoy them at the end of a long rainy day. I like to meet up with other hikers at the end of the day at shelters.
Most shelters only hold 6-8 hikers, some more than that, I think that the number and size of shelters should remain the same. Even if this movie thing changes the number of AT users, I think it will be a short-term thing and after a year or 2, people will forget the movie and trail use will return to "normal" I myself would not want to alter the trail experience for future users based on only how I feel..... Show-me

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

FFstenger makes a good point about the shelter locations being a way to orient yourself - especially in areas with few road crossings or intersections with other trails. Having a fairly decent idea of where you are could be important when looking for a less than obvious water source or planning not to be on top of an exposed mountain on a stormy night.

[SGT Rock]

Yes but you could orient yourself with a good sign at a road crossing, and you could meet others at an established campsite.

I thought about it some last night, and I think I would rather just have a good place to sit and make some food with adequate space for a tent or hammock and a private place to crap. If I do anything on my section maybe it would be to make an old fashioned straddle trench and supply a shovel with a pile of dirt and a sign with instructions on how to use it. If the problem is people not knowing how to **** in the woods, giving them a privy will not solve the problem. Giving them a responsible way to solve the issue may be a mo' better idea.

And I also think I will just use some logs to build me a bench where I like to camp. I figure if I am already hauling all those tools in there, might as well make myself a nice place to sit.

Hey Generoll, thanks for considering moving to the other campsite. I plan to go up there toward the end of this month with my boys. Maybe I will see you and/or some other WhiteBlazers out there.

[weary]

Here is a partial solution to damage we are doing to the AT through poor habits or overuse, though not a complete solution: move all shelters, campsights, or tentsights that are supposed to be dedicated to the AT and are near roads to AT LEAST a mile away from the nearest road, and preferably further. ......
Maine began doing this some time ago, and completed the job several years ago. It helped, but did not solve the problem of sloppy and uncaring long distance hikers.

The moves made it more difficult for us weekend hikers. I used to stay at the Grafton Notch chelter after work on a Friday and be ready for an early start Saturday a.m. Since the shelter was moved half way through the baldpates, I would face a three mile drive Saturday morning before hitting the trail.

With the opening of the Cabin, it's a bit easier. I tend to stay there and therefore face only a 45 minute drive.

Weary

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

In keeping with Alligator's earlier point
....I don't think that any user group should have a complete denial of access.Perhaps a compromise is in order that addresses problem of trash / misuse of shelters / campsites near crossings. Have a caretaker hike in daily / a few times a week. These would likely need to be fee sites if a daily caretaker was involved.

[SGT Rock]

Hell, if someone would pay me to be a caretaker at a shelter in the Smokies, it would be on the top of my list for retirement jobs.

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

If I were not impaired and didn't have infirmed parents, 9 grown kids, 18 grandkids and 5 great-grandkids, I'd be interested in caretaking. As is, just keeping up with birthdays, weddings, graduations, etc. is a full-time job.

[hammock engineer]

I may have missed this in the eariler posts, I am lazy and only read the last page or 2. I haven't researched the CDT or PCT as much as the AT since they are not in my imedate future to hike. But from what I read so far there are little or no shelters on these trails. Even without shelters hiking on them is up. So wouldn't that lead you to belive that the same would happen on the AT. With or without shelters I think that people will still be out there hiking.

[mdionne]

me thinks the trail is going to get more populated along with everything else.

the only positive benefit i can think of by converting all shelters to tenting is that the critters will learn to go to tents and force people to hang food bags.

even with tenting only, people will still tend to camp near water sources, making the impact greatest there. which makes me lean toward keeping shelters and maybe adding a shelf in order to double the capacity of the existing ones (people wouldn't be able to stand up, but they might be able to sit upright). i've done this to the top of my truck shell so i can store stuff above and sleep below.

composting privies should be the only type of privies on the trail.

people caught littering should be shot on site!:D

[mdionne]

If I were not impaired and didn't have infirmed parents, 9 grown kids, 18 grandkids and 5 great-grandkids, I'd be interested in caretaking. As is, just keeping up with birthdays, weddings, graduations, etc. is a full-time job.


9 kids??? i guess now we know were the "frolicking" comes from in your name:D

[Frosty]

Every year the trail registers in Vermont are full of mean-spirited entries by whiny jerks who are outraged over the user fees (which are something like 6 bucks or less). Yet these folks don't seem to have problems buying five dollar designer beers at the Inn at Long Trail or in Hanover.The same atttitude is prevalent concerning National Forest parking fees. Twenty bucks a year. People carp endlessly on it, ignoring the fact that 20 bucks over the hiking season is about a buck a weekend. Compare that buck to the cost of gasoline to get there, food purchased after a hike, drinks, even tolls are more than a buck a weekend fro those driving to the Whites from Massachusetts. It is less than a single post-hike cold drink, including a bottle of water at a convenience store.

Compare the amount spent on clothing and gear, and $20 a year to park isn't very significant.

The need for fees is even more apparent in the area you note. Because some hikers are not knowledgable or worse, are pigs, caretaker services are needed in popular areas. Caretakers cost money, and why should that money come from a state's general fund. Charge at the source of the service.

But the thinking is that the National Forests are public lands and therefore there should be no fees associated with it, and access should be universal.

Well, just becuase the lands are owned by the government does not mean access is free and universal. You cannot go into any building owned by the governmwent at your whim. Museums and other attractions charge entrance fees. Yeah, you pay taxes, but the taxes don't cover this use of publicly owned land. States own park lands and routinely charge to get into the parks. You must generally pay to park near a public beach, and as far as you "owning" it because it is tax-supported, try walking into the FBI Builiding and saying I pay taxes and therefore should have access.

I'm not a fan of Maine's collecting of fees, or NH's no pets policy in state parks, even on trails, but they certainly have the right to collect fees or enforce pet policies.

There are good reasons for avoiding the AMC huts that have nothing to do with money, though I have used them for family outings that worked well (if costly).

[neo]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Footslogger
All I can say is thank goodness for the shelters in Maine ...

We're out here right now, hiking from Rangeley to Pinkham Notch (southbound). Shelters at Sabbath Pond and Bemis Mountain were a welcome sight in this weather. Hiked past Hall Mountain Shelter this morning and just passed through but thought to myself that it could have been a lifesaver to a southbounder who had just dropped down off of Mooday Mountain, through Sawyer Notch and then needed a place to pitch camp.

Dunno ...in 2003 I stayed in more shelters than I otherwise might have because of all the rain. I think they serve a purpose. Sure ...they are mice infested and damp at times but HEY, when the rain is coming down and you need to drop a pack, cook some dinner and get a decent night's sleep out of the weather they are a great sight for sore eyes.

Re-living the dream ...

'Slogger
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


Good reason not to have them. Keep folks from relying on them. I set my tent up in the rain, why can't everyone else?

:D thats right i hang my tarp and hammock in the rain also,:cool: neo

[SGT Rock]

A tarp in the rain is a great way to sleep, I love the sound it makes - like a lullaby. The sound of rain on a tin rook, well you can keep that. They always make the storm sound twice as bad as it really is.

[weary]

....I'm not a fan of Maine's collecting of fees, or NH's no pets policy in state parks, even on trails, but they certainly have the right to collect fees or enforce pet policies. ......).
There are no fees collected in Maine on portions of the trail managed by the Maine Appalachian Trail Club that I've heard about.

From the beginning in the 1930s, AMC has been responsible for the trail south of Grafton Notch. I know AMC seasonally charges fees at Speck Pond at the base of Old Speck. Are there other AMC caretakers through the Mahoosuc? There were not the last time I hiked that section.

The only other Maine fees are at the Baxter Park campgrounds, at which hikers are charged the same as all other campers in the park.

Weary

[1234]

MORE shelters, LARGER shelters, BETTER shelters? YES ! YES why not build more, and build bigger and build a mouse proof one, Gosh, gooch gap shelter is a model, it is on a slope so nobody can camp to close and it has tent sites nearby and a privy, and close water and cables even a covered picnik table? I think. I neve get this overuse stuff, I seldom ever encounter anyone at shelters outside of thru hiker season, once they passed through the only people I see are all in the National Parks complaining about all the rules???? Gosh there are a lot more miles outside of those parks. Lets face it, most of the shelters are dumps, plywood boxes that stink inside. I like the spacing of 8 to 10 miles apart, the ones that are 16 miles apart just, well just make my feet hurt to much at the end of the day. I am slow and steady and never in a hurry. I want to get to a shelter early and have time to clean up and cook before it gets dark. I have even run into hunters that stay in shelters and one said I am the first hiker he ever seen and he had been staying in the shelter for the past 5 hunting seasons. Hey make em' nice. If staying in them is not for you, great,then don't, but do not take the privilege away from me. Come on now how many thru hikers actually work on the trail or a shelter? Most do not even live near enough to do so if they wanted to. Keep it free, keep it volunteer. AND MOST OF ALL BYPASS the AMC section Altogether.

[mtnbums2000]

tear em all down and trust me after most so called backpackers spend a few days hiking in rain and setting up their own shelter in the rain they will never ever even think about backpacking again...

[Footslogger]

Good reason not to have them. Keep folks from relying on them. I set my tent up in the rain, why can't everyone else?
===============================
Says You ....

'Slogger

[Ridge]

tear em all down and trust me after most so called backpackers spend a few days hiking in rain and setting up their own shelter in the rain they will never ever even think about backpacking again...

I agree. IMHO the shelters make a thru-hike easier for those who use them and can put up with the shelter life.

[neo]

tear em all down and trust me after most so called backpackers spend a few days hiking in rain and setting up their own shelter in the rain they will never ever even think about backpacking again...
:) you got the right ideal,real hikers dont need no shelters:cool: neo

[Doctari]

For me it's a love / hate relationship. Some of my fondest memories are nights spent in a shelter. Some of my worst memories are nights spent in a shelter. As I have mentioned afore, I SNORE, so now try to avoid shelters, partly in fear of my life. :rolleyes:

I vote against tearing down the current shetlers & against building new ones. Build more privy's, YES. Not for me so much, but so I don't have to look at the TP flower fields created by those who either don't know better, or don't care.

Since discovering that I don't "need" shelters, I: sleep better, hike further (Or less, depending), the 2 times I got hypothermia was partly to blame on my mindset to get to the next shelter, no matter what! Since I have discontinued staying in em, I hike as far or as little as I want/can then set up camp.

I do like cooking in a shelter, visiting for a few, then moving on for a mile or so & set up, away from the mice, snoring, talking, smoking, farting, etc. And, as I (Literally) stop breating around Cannabus smoke, I have yet another reason to not shelter.


Doctari.

[Lone Wolf]

===============================
Says You ....

'Slogger
Just admit your weakness.:)

[neo]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Footslogger
===============================
Says You ....

'Slogger
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


Just admit your weakness.:)

:D shelters are for p_s_y's :cool: neo

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

I didn't realize the thread had migrated to hiking with cats.

[Dust]

MORE shelters, LARGER shelters, BETTER shelters? YES !

If you notice, more and more hikers are carrying portable computers or Ipods or GPS and other gadgets today. It seems like at least half the thru-hikers post live reports from the trail on the internet these days.

Thus if you build any more shelters in national parks the NPS will be met with demands to install fiber optic cable in them so the tourist or techno-hiker can update his online trail journal complete with pics of him standing in the EXACT SPOT that Paul Newman was in in the movie. And they will all be wheelchair accessible too, with a paved access trail from the nearest road.

[Lone Wolf]

The AT is already ***ed. No movie is gonna hurt it any worse.

[Spock]

This spring the concern was dropping usage.
Regardless, if use is expected to increase, it is well to note that park managers have found it is better to concentrate human impact where it can be managed. So, concentrate the majority of use. That means attractive shelter/camping areas.

Diffuse impact is OK if everyone follows LNT principles, but we all know they don't. And when you find poop everywhere you try to dig a cat hole, you know there is a problem. And that is the case in heavily used AT sections. On the other hand, I don't like rules against camping in other than designated areas as in the Whites.

IMHO, the better approach is to have attractive (in the true sense of the word) shelters and camping areas with sanitary facilities and well designed, developed water sources. A well designed shelter/camping area will attract use and let more experienced (and, we can hope, more conscientious) hikers rough it.

[Ridge]

......IMHO, the better approach is to have attractive (in the true sense of the word) shelters and camping areas with sanitary facilities and well designed, developed water sources. A well designed shelter/camping area will attract use and let more experienced (and, we can hope, more conscientious) hikers rough it.


UHHHhhhh...Beam me up Spock, there's no intelligent hikers down here. Captain out.

[A-Train]

I don't think anyone has brought up these points yet-


Aren't shelters part of what makes the AT special? Part of the whole AT 'experience'?



Are more people being outside (on the AT or other) and hiking, camping, etc. inherently a bad thing?

Larger pool of people to maintain, give money, protect the trails, become involved, VOTE, etc.

Is the AT really that crowded that we must take action to reduce the masses? Seriously, I'm asking becuase I don't know. Is the trail much more popular now than in any previous time; requiring action?

Have to agree here. I understand the points that shelters encourage people and that results in garbage, problems, etc. BUT, shelters do make the AT unique. Almost every other long trail is devoid of them. It changes the dynamic of hiking. Some people might not care, but to many others it's important. Ask 10 hikers what their favorite part of the AT was, and I guarantee 7 will say "the people" or the friends they made. This is mainly fostered by shelters. I experienced a much different dynamic out west on the PCT. No shelters meant people spread out and more solitude. THis was definately nice some nights, but there are definately times when a small group of folks can make a trip more enjoyable.

Last summer I spent about 100 nights on the trail in New Jersey as a ridgerunner. There were many night when the shelters and surrounding areas were almost empty, and I spent a hand full of nights alone. This is in summer, within 75 miles of places like New York City, Philly and an overcrowded NJ state. The trail isn't as crowded as people may think. In fact, the spot where I had the overwhelming amount of people each night (non-thru-hikers) was at the Backpackers Site 3.5 miles north of the Delaware Water Gap (where there is no shelter). There was routinely 20-30+ people there on a weekend night and 5-10 on weekdays. The other 7-8 shelters in the state saw nowhere near this traffic. Also consider this is Bear country, so more folks are likely to camp at or near shelters than in other states on the AT.

I'm not so sure it's shelters that are drawing people out and are the source of problems. Then again, I'm not in favor of building any new shelters. I love my tent, just not when it rains incessantly

[kyhipo]

on my treck last week down in the NOC area the veryfirst shelter I encountered was full!it was raining but I left at 7pm and decided to hike a ways.I talked with a younger man when i first arrived at the shelter who presented me with a smile and a good attitude.He then informs me that their were thru hikers or long distant hikers in the shelter,it was packed witth their junk,they gave me the we dont want anymore glare!I just smiled and said to myself I dont want any company myself:-? .I like the shelters but I most certainly dont rely on them.I think the AT could most certainly do with out some of them.I know on the pct their are very few!and while i was out hiking on it I must confess It felt alot more primative.Their are good pionts to them and negative points.ky

[Ender]

tear em all down and trust me after most so called backpackers spend a few days hiking in rain and setting up their own shelter in the rain they will never ever even think about backpacking again...

I don't think that this is a good thing. I think the goal should be to get more people into the out-of-doors, not less. The more people who love the outdoors, the more support the outdoors will get.

And if that means leaving a bunch of shelters on one trail so the newer hikers can ease their way into the "sport" of hiking, I'm OK with that.

Just my opinion though.

[neo]

If you notice, more and more hikers are carrying portable computers or Ipods or GPS and other gadgets today. It seems like at least half the thru-hikers post live reports from the trail on the internet these days.

Thus if you build any more shelters in national parks the NPS will be met with demands to install fiber optic cable in them so the tourist or techno-hiker can update his online trail journal complete with pics of him standing in the EXACT SPOT that Paul Newman was in in the movie. And they will all be wheelchair accessible too, with a paved access trail from the nearest road.

:D what does this have to do with shelters:cool: neo

[neo]

this is the ultimate shelter,it goes were i go:cool: neo

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/showimage.php?i=11598&c=577


http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/showimage.php?i=4050&catid=member&imageuser=3462


http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/showimage.php?i=7105&catid=member&imageuser=3462

[neo]

WHO NEEDS THEM:cool: NEO

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=16021

[Peaks]

Hell, if someone would pay me to be a caretaker at a shelter in the Smokies, it would be on the top of my list for retirement jobs.

Would you consider the Green Mountains or the White Mountains?

[kyhipo]

Would you consider the Green Mountains or the White Mountains?boy thats a tough one!greeen mts for me:D ky

[generoll]

By the way Rock, if you ever DO decide to put a bridge across Slickrock at that crossing above Lower Falls, count me in. That's been a wet crossing ever since that old tree got washed away or whatever happened to it.

Which of course has not the slightest thing to do with shelters.

[LIhikers]

When my wife and I started backpacking we would plan our hiking by the distance between shelters even though we always carried a tent. We knew that a lot of the shelters were near a water source and there would most likely be other people there in case we needed some kind of help. As we became more experienced, and confident in our abilities, the shelters became less important. Now we're just as likely to stop between shelters as we are to stop at them. Instead of picking a daily mileage to hike so we can finish the day at a shelter, now we hike as far as we feel like and if there's a shelter nearby we might use it.

Maybe the thing to do would be have shelters available in national and state parks so there is a place for the inexperienced to get the experience they need to be more self reliant and independent. And then have areas along the trail where camping is allowed and other areas where it is not allowed.

[SGT Rock]

Naw the Green Mountains are too far to commute from Tennessee.

I'm looking at 2 or 3 August for a trip to Slickrock.

[dperry]

. . .the ATC seems to think that shelters are a good idea:

http://www.appalachiantrail.org/site/c.jkLXJ8MQKtH/b.789299/k.F8E4/Camping_and_Shelters.htm

(Scroll down to the section titled, "So, why stay at a shelter?")


Is the AT really that crowded that we must take action to reduce the masses? Seriously, I'm asking becuase I don't know. Is the trail much more popular now than in any previous time; requiring action?<!-- / message -->

Well, I did the math already here: http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?p=213543#post213543

and came up with 4.4 people/mi./day. Of course, if you cut out certain sections (S and GSM NP's, Bear Mountain, Katahdin, the Whites, etc.), and you skip weekends between April and October and thru-hiker season, the figure drops considerably. :D As A-Train points out, even areas close to civilization can be pretty empty during the week. I don't think it's so much an issue of limiting the masses so much as it is making sure that their impact doesn't get too spread out.

I do agree that it would be wise to move shelters away from roads when possible. (This might also make the spacing a little more section-hiker friendly in the Mid-Atlantic states, where you have to stay in designated spots.) Weary's idea of campsites with privies and cooking shelters is also a good one. As a test, the ATC might pick a couple of shelters that are worn out and have them replaced with that sort of campground. The new campground they put in at Annapolis Rocks, which is similarly designed, seems to be working pretty well.

[Ridge]

If you're going to have cooking shelters, might as well keep the shelters already there. If hikers will set up tents in the shelters we have now, do you think for one moment they wouldn't set one under a "cooking shelter?

[mweinstone]

the urine soaked ground and fecal covered surfaces of our shelters combined with the privy comprimized water shed and the spagetti water covered flora make a trip to an appalachian trail sheelter an insult to a dead environ.on a lighter note,.. theres no beter place to burn one in a rainstorm.

[mtnbums2000]

I don't think that this is a good thing. I think the goal should be to get more people into the out-of-doors, not less. The more people who love the outdoors, the more support the outdoors will get.

And if that means leaving a bunch of shelters on one trail so the newer hikers can ease their way into the "sport" of hiking, I'm OK with that.

Just my opinion though.

I agree with you about trying to get more people to love the outdoors and to support the outdoors...but why make backpacking easy for new comers? If it's easy for them then it will be just as easy for them to leave their trash time and time again.

My point is to do away with the shelters and in time the people who trash the shelter areas will not enjoy having to set up their shelter in the rain day after day and they will stop backpacking. And in turn that will eleminate some of the trash from the trail. Now I'm not an expert on the subject but I have done extensive backpacking on both the A.T and the PCT and there is a big problem with trash at shelters. I realize that the AT is used way more than the PCT and that's taken into consideration. But I believe doing away with alot of the shelters will lower the trash impact in those areas. Now I know alot of people will say, "yea and that will spread the impact out over other areas on the trail". I say, "no eventually hikers that rely on shelters will stop backpacking all together". And even though that sounds negative it's not at all. Most (not all) backpackers that use shelters more often than tenting are the ones trashing the shelters and the area around the shelters. I've hiked many of miles during the thru-hiking season and it's mind blowing what some backpackers leave in and around the shelters. Alot of it comes from in-experienced backpackers in the early stages of a thru-hike but anyone with common sense has heard "pack it in, pack it out".

IMO shelters are just like cities.. TRASHY. I very seldom even stop at a shelter un-less it's to get water or use a privy or in most cases to pack out someone elses trash. I think backcountry campgrounds with a NF Ranger monitoring them would be a great idea on the AT. Even a free permit system to be able to hike in the NF (similiar to NP's rules and regulations) could help lessen impact on the trail. Make a backpacker go and get a backpacker permit and have them listen to a spill about the do's and don't's in the backcountry. Education is the key and too many people hit the AT with-out any education at all cause they have the freedom to just drive up to the trailhead and take off hiking. So maybe a free permit system could be a starting point.

[Ridge]

The casual hiker, or one-time hiker won't bother with any of the rules. Neither will they care about LNT, after all "Like, don't they have people coming thru and picking up trash" or "doesn't the Gov. have people keeping it clean". Hikers that litter are PIGS, this includes those who throw down the butts. As I've said earlier, tear down the shelters, use the wood to build privies, hope the littering pigs will still use the fire pits to toss cans and bottles instead of filling up the privy. Don't put any kind of shelter back up. I know the smokers of pot and tobacco will be inconvenienced on rainy days, but you'll adapt.

[generoll]

i don't think that it's realistic to expect people to tear down shelter. the stated price to build a shelter is somewhere around 100k. now that's an inflated value used by the organizations to calculate the assumed value of volunteer labor and is used sometimes to help in their fundraising activities, but still that's some serious cash. no one is going to tear down a structure with a stated value of 100k or more. the shelters are there and will remain. those who object to shelters can take the BMT alternative in the southern appalachians and hardly have a shelter to ever worry about. fewer people too. might run into a few more dogs though :0.

I think what we can do is to encourage our trail organizations to create more formal campsites near water and with amenities such as preconstructed fire rings and at least a circle of logs for seats as well as cleared and leveled tent pads.

one very good way to offer such encouragement is to get involved in those organizations. join them and the volunteer some labor. believe me, a days labor once a year is worth more to them in real terms the a years subscription. then you'll really have the right to bitch if things don't go your way. might even get listened to.

[Ramble~On]

I don't think we need more shelters I think we need more trails....
I think we need more public lands, forests, swamps and lakes...you name it.
Benton's original idea is more needed now than ever before. The corridor is shrinking and more and more often the views from the mountains are that of urban sprawl....viewed through a fossil fuel haze.
The Smokies are a prime example of overuse......but rather than "over used" I think the majority of the problem is "how" they are used....Leave No Trace isn't something that most users of the park aren't aware of....and that spills over onto the AT..... If people were more aware of ethics such as Leave No Trace the "impact" would be less obvious but still there.
If there were more trails there would be more options...and I'm not talking about more long distance trails but more of a network of trails.
If in 2006 this topic seems important to us imagine 2056.
Wide open spaces, woods, forests and any area remotely close to a "wilderness" will be worth far more than they are today and today they are already beyond priceless.
So...more shelters may need to be built but not on the AT...perhaps if there were shelters on some of the side trails that would spread use...and if the trail and other outdoor recreation areas are getting more use perhaps local, state and Fed. officials should push for more lands to be set aside, efforts be made to clean up what has been overused and begin an educational campaign to bring things such as Leave No Trace into every household.

[rambunny]

Good thread Jack-i feel that we need to remove a few myself,i.e. groups that form that go shelter to shelter tend to delay environmental darwinism.
Alright quit throwing your Crocks at me! But we all know of people who are miserable and spread that poison around that if they had to have a wilderness experience instead of shelter to shelter to town wouldn't be out there. I don't believe more shelters would foster the true intent of The Trail.

[neo]

:) rain or shine,this is more comfortable than any shelter,more privacy:cool: neo


http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/showimage.php?i=11901&catid=member&imageuser=3462

[neo]

I got it. Lets HIDE the AT.

:D then i can stealth hike the AT :cool: neo

[Lilred]

You're so right. The new one north of 19E in Tenn. is a good example of a shelter not needed.

This shelter is built upon a new theory. Build shelters where there are no available campsites. When the shelter is full, others must move on. Reduces the number of people, thus the impact to the area. Notice this shelter is built on a hillside. I was at this shelter just a week or two after completion and there is not a level piece of ground anywhere near it. Very nicely designed, sleeps 14.

I'm not sure if it's needed or not, there is a hostel at 19E. Perhaps that's the answer, less shelters, more hostels.

[Lilred]

The old Carter shelter in NC is a prime example of a shelter that can be torn down. I'm sure there's a few others like it. Use the lumber to build covered cooking areas and see how many people will throw up a tent instead of going to the new shelter.

Get rid of all shelters within 2 miles of a road. Turn them into covered cooking campsites. May reduce weekend local partiers.

Stop building mega shelters, they are nice, but encourage, and can get over run by, large groups.

I'm not for removing any shelter that is in fine working condition. I'd just like to see us strive for less. Less is more..........

[SGT Rock]

. . .the ATC seems to think that shelters are a good idea:

http://www.appalachiantrail.org/site/c.jkLXJ8MQKtH/b.789299/k.F8E4/Camping_and_Shelters.htm

(Scroll down to the section titled, "So, why stay at a shelter?").

Read it. Same thing could be accomplished with designated camp sites. And with a designated camp site you could avoid some of the drawbacks they list:



Shelters can be grimy and rodent-infested when hikers don't clean up after themselves, and they may be crowded. You or your camping partners must carry a tent, in case a shelter is not available. Remember that shelters require considerable volunteer effort to build and maintain.

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

::: Gets out can opener and a can of worms :::
After looking over the ATC web site, it seems the organization is really out-of-touch with what many thru and section hikers consider important services on the trail. As Sgt Rock notes, designated campsites would accomplish the same reduction of environmental impact as shelters. Providing both shelters and designated campsites would also accomplish this. Perhaps locating campsites between shelters would be one way to please most people and to curtail environmental damage. Making sure to include places ideal for the hangers would include another segment of the hiking community that is largely without formal facilities at this time.

[Ridge]

The AT probably has more shelters on it than all the other trails in the US combined. Just think what a problem it would be if you had cabins like the trails in Australia, or New Zealand has instead of shelters. Blood Mtn cabin can be an example what would happen. Many new thru-hike attempts are calculated using shelter to shelter, to town, to hostel, and back to shelter method. Take'em down let'em get a little wilderness experience.

[chelko]

I have been following this thread since the beginning and I have never seen such a bunch of crybabies stomp their feet and throw a temper tantrum over something like shelters before. Wheather you think they should go or stay, the reality is that they are here and probably will be for the remainder of our lifetime. No one is ever forced to stay in a shelter, so if you are a shelter hater, hike on. If you find them convienient, then do your part and help keep them clean, even if it means picking up someone else's trash. It really disturbs me that some of you would be of the mindset to try and force people off the trail by removing shelters and hoping that those who use them won't return. Everyone's wilderness experience is going to be different, it is not our place to dictate what that experience should be. How would you hammock hangers feel if people protested your style of camping because it could potentialy damage trees. Backpacker are like every other group in our society, there are good ones and bad ones, ones that pitch in and ones that bitch in. Which one will you be.

[Ridge]

[quote=........., ones that pitch in and ones that bitch in. Which one will you be.[/quote]


I can tell which group you're in!!

[mtnbums2000]

I have been following this thread since the beginning and I have never seen such a bunch of crybabies stomp their feet and throw a temper tantrum over something like shelters before. Wheather you think they should go or stay, the reality is that they are here and probably will be for the remainder of our lifetime. No one is ever forced to stay in a shelter, so if you are a shelter hater, hike on. If you find them convienient, then do your part and help keep them clean, even if it means picking up someone else's trash. It really disturbs me that some of you would be of the mindset to try and force people off the trail by removing shelters and hoping that those who use them won't return. Everyone's wilderness experience is going to be different, it is not our place to dictate what that experience should be. How would you hammock hangers feel if people protested your style of camping because it could potentialy damage trees. Backpacker are like every other group in our society, there are good ones and bad ones, ones that pitch in and ones that bitch in. Which one will you be.
the one bitch slapping the person that I catch leaving their trash at or around the shelter...

[Lone Wolf]

I'm the on that could give a s**t about trash and such at shelter areas. I never pack out other pigs trash.

[Skidsteer]

I'm the on that could give a s**t about trash and such at shelter areas. I never pack out other pigs trash.

I'd be the one behind Wolf trying(with little effect, I'm sure)to give him a guilt trip just for s**ts and giggles. :D

[Lone Wolf]

I'd be the one behind Wolf trying(with little effect, I'm sure)to give him a guilt trip just for s**ts and giggles. :D
Dude, I feel absolutely no guilt about not packing out trash from a shelter site/area. Matter of fact I leave my trash at them cuz some do-gooder will pack it out! They're dumps. They're filthy and vermin infested. They are a false sense of security for 95% of all hikers.

[neo]

Dude, I feel absolutely no guilt about not packing out trash from a shelter site/area. Matter of fact I leave my trash at them cuz some do-gooder will pack it out! They're dumps. They're filthy and vermin infested. They are a false sense of security for 95% of all hikers.

:D your are 100% correct lw,shelters suck,real hikers dont need shelters:cool: neo

[Skidsteer]

Dude, I feel absolutely no guilt about not packing out trash from a shelter site/area. Matter of fact I leave my trash at them cuz some do-gooder will pack it out! They're dumps. They're filthy and vermin infested. They are a false sense of security for 95% of all hikers.

Key phrases being:


'with little effect, I'm sure and
just for s**ts and giggles. :D

I wasn't tryin' to convert you, Wolf. I don't sleep in shelters either.

[rickb]

Hey Neon,

Real hikers don't need a town resupply every three days and a cushy B&B every five. Knor for that matter slackpaking hubs to hike out of. Hell, they dont even need a paint-by-numbers guidebook and hootananies.

Hell, they dont even need hammocks.

Not that I'd ever suggest that.

Rick B

[Lone Wolf]

Key phrases being:

and

I wasn't tryin' to convert you, Wolf. I don't sleep in shelters either.
I know.:D I don't really leave trash at them either.

[Lone Wolf]

Hey Neon,

Real hikers don't need a town resupply every three days and a cushy B&B every five. Knor for that matter slackpaking hubs to hike out of. Hell, they dont even need a paint-by-numbers guidebook and hootananies.

Hell, they dont even need hammocks.

Not that I'd ever suggest that.

Rick B
Hostels for the most part, suck too. Usually not a good place to get rest.

[Sly]

I like an occasional shelter (when there's no one around) I say, keep them!

[Skidsteer]

I know.:D I don't really leave trash at them either.

So you'd let me bum a few pages from the shelter register if I was fresh out of TP? :D

[Lone Wolf]

Damn right! Registers are trash. LNT and all that! They, like bibles, don't belong.

[Ridge]

Hostels for the most part, suck too. Usually not a good place to get rest.

I've never stayed at a hostel, only been in a few. From the looks of some, the best thing going for them is that the rats are better fed.

[Sly]

So Ridge, which hostels have you seen rats? Which are you complaining about?

[Skidsteer]

Damn right! Registers are trash. LNT and all that! They, like bibles, don't belong.

Right. Plenty of bibles in hotel rooms for those that want them. Some dude named Gideon is leavin' 'em in there. ;)

[ed bell]

In brief, what do you guys think? Should there be more shelters to accomodate the expected increase of hikers (especially in the south), or would the Trail be better served by forcing overnight A.T. users to be more self-sufficient? In short, would the Trail be better off without them? I would say keep the current shelters in place while encouraging backpackers and Ga>Me hikers to try new alternatives like the BMT. I have often wondered what the members of the GATC have observed in regards to the aftermath of March and April. Like I have heard from other hikers before: Other than those two months, the AT in Georgia is not overcrowded.

[1234]

Well go ahead and keep the trail all to yourself and a never allow outsiders in and ya know, who will need the shelters just stop at the next bunch of condos. If you do not keep people interested in the trail they will build condos all over it. Oh, maybe even timeshares wow! I had a brain &&%$&^ timeshare use of shelters, only regestered users can stay. If it were not for the shelters each nice flat camping spot would become a big mud sore on the earth just like slaughter gap on blood mt. Even a lot of folks that never stay in a shelter socialize there then retire to there own camp. They are the ones that think it rained during the night but it was only the shelter rats releaving themselves next to there tent.

[Blissful]

Hotels every five days. A good tent the rest of the time.

That's roughin' it! :)

[Mountain Man]

I would say keep the current shelters in place while encouraging backpackers and Ga>Me hikers to try new alternatives like the BMT. I have often wondered what the members of the GATC have observed in regards to the aftermath of March and April. Like I have heard from other hikers before: Other than those two months, the AT in Georgia is not overcrowded.

Well the aftermath of March and April ain't a pretty site. I'm sure a lot of folks thinks it gets exagerated as for as trash and gear but just this year I've seen myself hundreds of pounds of trash come off the trail and from shelters from one person picking it up. I've also seen everything this year you would need to outfit yourself except a pack. Of course some of the gear was not too good but some was very expensie gear.
As for the shelters I'm not all that crazy about sleeping in them but I do at times. I like my tent better. The trend now as has already been stated is to build or when replacing shelters to build them on a hill to discourage putting tents all over the place around shelters. At Gooch Mt. we also put tent pads to keep them in the same places. What I'd like to see more of is tent pads instead of more Shelters like on the south side of Blood Mt. which were put in on the hill side to keep hikers from setting up all over the place. It will lessen the impact on the forest but I'm sure the trash problem will be the same so the rodents/mice will probably be there too.

[dperry]

Read it. Same thing could be accomplished with designated camp sites. And with a designated camp site you could avoid some of the drawbacks they list:

Again, for what it's worth. I don't take what the ATC says as gospel, but it is interesting none the less. And you're right, much the same could be accomplished with properly designed campsites. It may be, however, that the ability to sleep in a protected space is a draw for people to use those particular sites.

[Ridge]

So Ridge, which hostels have you seen rats? Which are you complaining about?

I'm not complaining, just stating the one's I have been in, a while back, didn't look a lot better than some shelters. The hostels could now be cleaned up, but so could some of the shelters.

[Ridge]

VA Dept of Health

Hantavirus on the AT


This report describes the first known case of Hantavirus in the mid-Atlantic states. The patient’s infection probably was acquired along the Appalachian Trail in Virginia.


http://www.vdh.virginia.gov/epi/dzee/otherzoonosis/mmwr_1993.asp


A lot of hikers may not be aware of this happening, this report will refresh memories.

[mtnbums2000]

VA Dept of Health

Hantavirus on the AT


This report describes the first known case of Hantavirus in the mid-Atlantic states. The patient’s infection probably was acquired along the Appalachian Trail in Virginia.


http://www.vdh.virginia.gov/epi/dzee/otherzoonosis/mmwr_1993.asp


A lot of hikers may not be aware of this happening, this report will refresh memories.

yup just another good reason to not sleep in shelters...

[Amigi'sLastStand]

VA Dept of Health

Hantavirus on the AT


This report describes the first known case of Hantavirus in the mid-Atlantic states. The patient’s infection probably was acquired along the Appalachian Trail in Virginia.


http://www.vdh.virginia.gov/epi/dzee/otherzoonosis/mmwr_1993.asp


A lot of hikers may not be aware of this happening, this report will refresh memories.

Oh, Christ. Another freak out story. Thanks for the info, Ridge, but this is not really a concern. Hanta is SO HARD TO CONTRACT that I'd worry more about ribovirus or nairovirus or tospovirus. Ever even heard of those? I doubt it. They surround us all day every day. The body through evolution has developed good defenses against these. And a little Purell here goes a long way.

Hanta almost always comes from rodents. The virus is found in their saliva and droppings. The problem of hanta arises when mice's extrement has dried and turned to powder. Then someone comes along and sweeps out the shelter. Or it can come from a bite, so no petting the mice.

I think this gentleman who contracted it did not practice basic sanitation. Wash your hands, wash your pots with soap, clean your prep and cooking area, so on and so on.

Hanta was a serious threat when I was in S. America. The mice and rats were so bad, we had to burn down building because the infestations got so bad.:eek: I never got hanta but ppl I worked with did. It is can be very deadly if not treated. But the risk on the AT is so small, I dont know what to say, just put it out of your mind.

Practice good sanitation and hang your food. If the shelter is full of droppings, I wouldnt sleep there anyway, even if I didnt know about hanta. I dont wanna sleep is mice crap. How bout you?:-? :cool:

Side note. This virus has been cultivated in bioweapons labs the world over. Its been called Ethiopian Anthrax ( no offense to any Ethiopians here ). Tribes in Africa will sweep up mouse droppings and sneak into rival villages and drop it into their well or toss it onto crops. When purified, it makes a nasty weapon that even the most destitute counties can afford to make. But it is not a worry on the AT, or really anywhere, IMHO. Just wash your hands!

[SGT Rock]

Again, for what it's worth. I don't take what the ATC says as gospel, but it is interesting none the less. And you're right, much the same could be accomplished with properly designed campsites. It may be, however, that the ability to sleep in a protected space is a draw for people to use those particular sites.

Good point.

But personally, as a trail maintainer, I am not out to make anyones sleeping experience more cushy. I figure it is the hiker's responsibility to pack whatever they feel they need to be comfy. :D

Now about some of the other comments (not yours dperry) - is it a sign of our culture that we say "Give me a shelter or I may not come hike your stinky, muddy, trail :p "?

I mean that is what some of these arguments about giving folks shelters so they will keep on coming boil down to. Seems like that is saying your trail ain't good enough for me unless you go to all the trouble to make me more comfortable. Talk about whining and stomping your feet to get what you want - you would have people spend valuable trail dollars on supplies, spend valuable maintenance time on construction and maintenance, just so you can save 5 minutes to put up a tent or tarp and 1-4 pounds of pack weight, the ratio seems VERY selfish for those hikers demanding shelters. It also makes AT hikers sound like a bunch of narcissistic spoiled sissies. I thought these were supposed to be rugged thru-hikers dangit! :eek:

If it were up to me, I would let shelters go extinct. Stop maintaining them. If a hiker thinks they need it so badly, then they can tote the repair supplies and tools with them on their hike - wouldn't that be a sight! Then we would see how much people could do without them - my guess is they would all be gone in 10 years (except maybe Blood Mountain).

Give a man a shelter and he is dry for a day, teach a man to live without a shelter and he can stay dry on the whole trail.:-?

[Ramble~On]

By the way Rock, if you ever DO decide to put a bridge across Slickrock at that crossing above Lower Falls, count me in. That's been a wet crossing ever since that old tree got washed away or whatever happened to it.

Which of course has not the slightest thing to do with shelters.

I really....REALLY hope that Slickrock never gets a bridge...that is one wilderness area that still maintains a sense of wilderness about it...no bridges, blazes....I was there the day they put signs at every crossing.
I wish the signs weren't there but local search and rescue were taxed to the hilt to have to keep going in looking for lost people. I understand the need for the bridges higher up on the Calderwood side of the Slickrock Creek Trail...but I really hope they never put bridges anywhere along Slickrock Creek.

[rickb]

A thought just poped into my head as I head out the door.

Were it not for shelters, I would not have married the Woman I did-- we met at the Ethan Pond Shelter in 1990.

My experience speaks to a larger truth, I think. While thru hikers may have a sense of familiarity that would bring them together without them, many hikers need a bit of help. For me and my wife that help was a 3-sided building on a rainy day. I stayed there and she tented, but it was quite simply a good meeting ground.

In my observation (mostly in the Whites) tentsites don't have the same effect on people. Seems to me that many people just stick to thier own little area. Now that communal fire pits are gone byu the wayside, there isn't even that draw. Picnc tables? Might help a bit, but it sure wouldn't have done much for my life that rainy day 16 years ago.

If a thru hiker is looking for solitude, shelters don't help. If one is heading up the trail in a pack and stopping so very frequently to gathering points off trail, they probably are not so important. But that just one way of enjoying the trail.

Not sure about you guys, but if I see a man, family, woman, couple, Scout troop through hiker or whomever sitting alone at a vista, I'll nod my head and say hellow-- I am not going to sit right down next to them and break out the gorp (remember, I am not talking as a thu-hiker meeting up with others in that extended family). On the otherhand, if they are at a shelter, my pack is probably coming off, and a whole other dynamic may result.

Move them off trail wherever possible, but they are part of the AT experience for many moire than just thrus. And in many more seasons than spring and summer, too...

[mdionne]

Good point.

But personally, as a trail maintainer, I am not out to make anyones sleeping experience more cushy. I figure it is the hiker's responsibility to pack whatever they feel they need to be comfy. :D

Now about some of the other comments (not yours dperry) - is it a sign of our culture that we say "Give me a shelter or I may not come hike your stinky, muddy, trail :p "?

I mean that is what some of these arguments about giving folks shelters so they will keep on coming boil down to. Seems like that is saying your trail ain't good enough for me unless you go to all the trouble to make me more comfortable. Talk about whining and stomping your feet to get what you want - you would have people spend valuable trail dollars on supplies, spend valuable maintenance time on construction and maintenance, just so you can save 5 minutes to put up a tent or tarp and 1-4 pounds of pack weight, the ratio seems VERY selfish for those hikers demanding shelters. It also makes AT hikers sound like a bunch of narcissistic spoiled sissies. I thought these were supposed to be rugged thru-hikers dangit! :eek:

If it were up to me, I would let shelters go extinct. Stop maintaining them. If a hiker thinks they need it so badly, then they can tote the repair supplies and tools with them on their hike - wouldn't that be a sight! Then we would see how much people could do without them - my guess is they would all be gone in 10 years (except maybe Blood Mountain).

Give a man a shelter and he is dry for a day, teach a man to live without a shelter and he can stay dry on the whole trail.:-?

i don't think it's an argument of being comfortable or not. it's a question of impact. my thoughts were and still are to put a shelf in the shelters doubling the capacity. it would be less "cushy" and the impact is less on the surrounding area. the trail is only going to get more populated along with everything else. (again this reminds me of the smokies shelter removal incident, which, maybe we should learn from).

[Rain Man]

...It also makes AT hikers sound like a bunch of narcissistic spoiled sissies. I thought these were supposed to be rugged thru-hikers dangit! :eek:

Hey SGT Rock! Does it make any difference that Earl Shaffer wrote how much he appreciated shelters at the end of long wet cold days?

I happen to be re-reading "Walking With Spring" and admiring the guy's manhood (no sissy there), and reading what he says about a good shelter, juxtaposed to what I'm reading at the same time on here by folks who (apparently) think Earl was a soft wuss.

Does his example give any pause to the proposition that any hiker wishing for a warm, dry shelter is a wimp? Or is Earl's historic example just irrelevant today?

You keep your head down and come home safe and sound.

Rain:sunMan

.

[Singe03]

Appreciating a shelter and needing them to make the trip are entirely different things. I very much doubt a lack of shelters would have stopped Earl Shaffer from completing his trip. I think the objection comes not from people finding a shelter desirable, but from the dependence on them and the damage that takes place around them.

Personally I'd miss them to a degree for the "roof in the rain" factor, but I'd rather see well laid out camp sites with bear cables.

I think LoneWolf mentioned Gooch Mountain Shelter... I loved it, in fact raved about it in my journal (just a book, not online), I happily tented on the pad furthest from the shelter thinking the design was the best idea ever. Keep the general idea, lose the big wooden box and you have what I consider ideal.

[SGT Rock]

i don't think it's an argument of being comfortable or not. it's a question of impact. my thoughts were and still are to put a shelf in the shelters doubling the capacity. it would be less "cushy" and the impact is less on the surrounding area. the trail is only going to get more populated along with everything else. (again this reminds me of the smokies shelter removal incident, which, maybe we should learn from).

What shelter removal incident?

[Sly]

Oh, Christ. Another freak out story.
Not that shelter cleanliness has improved, but that report is from 1993 with no direct connection to the AT. Just to be safe, it's said, if you sweep out a shelter to wait an hour or so before inhabiting for the dust to settle instead of breathing the airborne particles.

[mdionne]

What shelter removal incident?

reread post 5, am i missing something here?

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

Echoing Rainman's words to Rock to keep his head down and come home safe.

As others have noted, shelters are here to stay on the AT, but are pretty much lacking on all other trails - a convincing sign that they are not viewed as a positive thing by most trail maintenance organizations. Perhaps in years to come as the Great Eastern Trail (http://www.greateasterntrail.org/) becomes a reality, hiking that trail will replace hiking the AT as the great eastern challenge and the AT will be left to tourons and thru's / section hikers who need / want shelters on their hike.

[SGT Rock]

Hey SGT Rock! Does it make any difference that Earl Shaffer wrote how much he appreciated shelters at the end of long wet cold days?

I happen to be re-reading "Walking With Spring" and admiring the guy's manhood (no sissy there), and reading what he says about a good shelter, juxtaposed to what I'm reading at the same time on here by folks who (apparently) think Earl was a soft wuss.

Does his example give any pause to the proposition that any hiker wishing for a warm, dry shelter is a wimp? Or is Earl's historic example just irrelevant today?

You keep your head down and come home safe and sound.

.

No, Earl was a hiker and spent many nights under a poncho draped over a pole. And while I think I remember him saying he appreciated a shelter, he never said he would only hike if there was shelters. I can enjoy a shelter every once in a while, but I don't see a need for them.

On the other hand we have seen some people post on here that we should increase shelter space or else we will lose hikers, and one person even went so far as to say that we people are selfish for not wanting to build and maintain shelters. :rolleyes:

I just wanted to point out which is the more selfish position. Which do you think is more selfish: wanting to stop spending time and effort to make someone comfy? Or wanting people to spend lots of time and money (when both are limited) so some hikers can save themselves the little effort it takes to carry and put up their own shelter?:confused:

In my way of looking, someone demanding more shelters and shelter space is missing all that goes into the building and care. And even when people spend that time and effort, many people abuse and misuse them. Sounds like spoiled children not taking care of what is given to them.:-?

Naw, I think Earl would do it without shelters, and I think a lot of other people would to if given the chance. Just my opinion though.:cool:

And my ass is down with my head on a swivel. Patrol to Al Dora tommorrow, now that is a scarry thought. Last time I was there I got shot at (again).

[SGT Rock]

reread post 5, am i missing something here?

Re-read post #5. I think you are not reading it correctly. Rain man asked a question, he did not make a statement. The Smokies doesn't limit camping to just shelters, this is a false belief by people that stick to the AT in the Smokies since (until recently) they only had shelters on the AT and no camp sites. They have designated campsites all over the back country in the Smokies, I use them more than I use shelters in the Smokies.

And yes they have torn down shelters recently - even one on the AT, and replaced them with designated campsites. Seems that a designated campsite is just as good as a shelter without all the work. This program is working well for them apparently.

This has been my recommendation all along.

[bulldog49]

A thought just poped into my head as I head out the door.

Were it not for shelters, I would not have married the Woman I did-- we met at the Ethan Pond Shelter in 1990.

My experience speaks to a larger truth, I think. While thru hikers may have a sense of familiarity that would bring them together without them, many hikers need a bit of help. For me and my wife that help was a 3-sided building on a rainy day. I stayed there and she tented, but it was quite simply a good meeting ground.

In my observation (mostly in the Whites) tentsites don't have the same effect on people. Seems to me that many people just stick to thier own little area. Now that communal fire pits are gone byu the wayside, there isn't even that draw. Picnc tables? Might help a bit, but it sure wouldn't have done much for my life that rainy day 16 years ago.

If a thru hiker is looking for solitude, shelters don't help. If one is heading up the trail in a pack and stopping so very frequently to gathering points off trail, they probably are not so important. But that just one way of enjoying the trail.

Not sure about you guys, but if I see a man, family, woman, couple, Scout troop through hiker or whomever sitting alone at a vista, I'll nod my head and say hellow-- I am not going to sit right down next to them and break out the gorp (remember, I am not talking as a thu-hiker meeting up with others in that extended family). On the otherhand, if they are at a shelter, my pack is probably coming off, and a whole other dynamic may result.

Move them off trail wherever possible, but they are part of the AT experience for many moire than just thrus. And in many more seasons than spring and summer, too...

I say if you want to meet women or socialize with others, go to a bar. I go into the wilderness to get away from it all and while I enjoy meeting others and chatting along the trail, I like to camp in relative solitude. To me, shelters are the antithesis (sp?) of what hiking is about.

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

It is hard to meet hiker babes in a bar. It might be possible in trail towns, but nearly 100% of females you meet at a shelter will be at least minimally acquainted with hiking.

[Lone Wolf]

It is hard to meet hiker babes in a bar. It might be possible in trail towns, but nearly 100% of females you meet at a shelter will be at least minimally acquainted with hiking.
But a lot of them don't want to be aquainted with hiking men.:)

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

But a lot of them don't want to be aquainted with hiking men.:)I've heard this, but being female have no direct experience. As an older lady who is a on the fluffy side, I haven't been hit on by most of the hiking community in years. The male dino that hikes with me probably discourages this as well.

[SGT Rock]

Well how about a little harmless flirting ;)

[Ridge]

But a lot of them don't want to be aquainted with hiking men.:)


I'm still laughing, best damn hiking humor I've heard in a long time which also happens to be the truth.

[Singe03]

The male dino that hikes with me probably discourages this as well.

Male dinos have a reputation for stomping on things that annoy them by flirting with nearby female dinos...

[Ridge]

Male dinos have a reputation for stomping on things that annoy them by flirting with nearby female dinos...

I wouldn't be reaching into a big steaming pile of Dino Dung like the folks on Jurassic Park 3 did either. Probably wouldn't find a cell phone anyway.

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

Good point. The male dino eats a lot of things, but he's never eaten a cell phone.

[mdionne]

Re-read post #5. I think you are not reading it correctly. Rain man asked a question, he did not make a statement. The Smokies doesn't limit camping to just shelters, this is a false belief by people that stick to the AT in the Smokies since (until recently) they only had shelters on the AT and no camp sites. They have designated campsites all over the back country in the Smokies, I use them more than I use shelters in the Smokies.

And yes they have torn down shelters recently - even one on the AT, and replaced them with designated campsites. Seems that a designated campsite is just as good as a shelter without all the work. This program is working well for them apparently.

This has been my recommendation all along.

Thanks for clearing the air for me, I must've misread post 5 twice.:o

...Like I said, Down with the shelters!!!:D

[rickb]

Shelter your down!

[mweinstone]

bob peoples is building one in his yard at kinncora. they make tenting more nessesary for some who cant climb the rope ladder.thereby reducing ground stomp /death.

[neo]

most of the people that have been murdered on the AT were murdered in shelters,that another great great reason to stealth camp:cool: neo

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/06-96/06-05-96/a08wn038.htm

[rickb]

Good point, Neo.

[Amigi'sLastStand]

Most ppl murdered are murdered in their homes. Tear your house down.

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

You know, a lot of murders happen in bars. Tear 'em down

[bulldog49]

More people die in hospitals than anywhere else. :-?

[neo]

Most ppl murdered are murdered in their homes. Tear your house down.

i am only refering to murders on the AT:cool: NEO

[neo]

More people die in hospitals than anywhere else. :-?

am only refering to murders on the AT:cool: NEO

[Amigi'sLastStand]

am only refering to murders on the AT:cool: NEO
Just busting your chops.:D ;)

[the goat]

most of the people that have been murdered on the AT were murdered in shelters,that another great great reason to stealth camp:cool: neo

for someone who's so down on shelters, how come you don't feel the same way about hostels? you never miss the opportunity to talk trash a/b a shelter, but from your posts, it seems that you've stayed at almost every hostel.:confused: don't the same ideals apply to both? crowded, noisy, taking away from the "trail experience"?

[Ridge]

I'm not up on the murders in shelters, haven't seen anything on it, but I'd suspect the mice. I do know those two women killed in SNP were indeed not in a shelter. I believe those where the last murders on the AT. Feel free to correct me and to educate me on the shelter murders.

[bearbag hanger]

I do not believe reducing or increasing the number of shelters will have any impact on the number of people hiking the AT.

If there are to be more shelters, then they should be smaller, say four to six people types rather than the large 12+ people shelters. But, with one shelter every 8 to 9 miles, more shelters would seem a little overkill. Knocking down half the shelters wouldn't, in my opinion, reduce the number of hikers. It might make them better hikers.

I personally dislike staying in shelters, they are noisy, have too many mosquitoes and mice, the floors are too hard, etc. I also really, really hate being REQUIRED to stay in a shelter, as you are along most of the AT trail in the Smokies or on some parts of the Long Trail. If there is a chance we will be required to stay in shelters all along the AT, then I say tear them all down.

IMHO, knocking some or all shelters down will not reduce the number of people using the trail. If it did reduce the number of thru hikers, it still wouldn't help the trail much, we are such a small minority of the users of the trail.

[Teatime]

On several occasions I've used shelters to dry out after spending the night in my tent during heavy rain. On my last section, I ran into a couple of ladies doing just that. It had rained 2 out of the last 3 nights, heavy, drenching rains. Their stuff was all soaked. What a relief for them that, thanks to Bob Peoples, they had the nice dry shelter to spend the night in and try to dry out. On one of those rainy nights, one T-storm after another came rolling through and I was glad to have the cover of the Overmountain Shelter. I don't always use them but it's nice to know they are there if you need them. If you are going to remove any shelter, I recommend the ones closest to road crossings. I agree that these shelters are magnets for all sorts of riff-raff and should go.
Also, I agree with the post about the community aspect of shelter life. Some of my most pleasant memories on the A.T. involve folks I've eaten with and socialized with at shelters.

[neo]

I'm not up on the murders in shelters, haven't seen anything on it, but I'd suspect the mice. I do know those two women killed in SNP were indeed not in a shelter. I believe those where the last murders on the AT. Feel free to correct me and to educate me on the shelter murders.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/06-96/06-05-96/a08wn038.htm


here ya go:cool: neo

[the goat]

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/06-96/06-05-96/a08wn038.htm


here ya go:cool: neo

these murders weren't anywhere near a shelter:confused: .

guess you should have read the article before posting the link, huh?

[c.coyle]

No more new shelters. And tear down quite a few existing ones like that ridiculous Peter's Mtn. shelter. No need for such big shelters.

You just absolutely hate that shelter. :D

I have a more basic question:

What was the reason for shelters in the first place? Somebody long ago thought they were needed. Why? I'm guessing it wasn't to encourage socialization among hikers.

[c.coyle]

More people die in hospitals than anywhere else. :-?

... Ergo, hospitals cause death.

99% of people killed in auto accidents have brushed their teeth within 12 hours of death. Ergo ...

[wilconow]

these murders weren't anywhere near a shelter:confused: .

guess you should have read the article before posting the link, huh?

he may have been referring to the last few paragraphs:


In 1988, a man frightened two women off the trail and shot them in Michaux State Forest in south-central Pennsylvania. One woman survived and the other died. Stephen Roy Carr was sentenced to life in prison without parole in the shootings.
Two years later, hikers were warned to stay off the trail in Pennsylvania after a man and his fiancee were shot to death as they slept in a remote shelter along the trail in Perry County, Pa. Paul David Crews of LaRue, S.C., is awaiting execution in Pennsylvania for those two slayings.
In May 1981, a man and a woman from Ellsworth, Maine, who were hiking from Georgia to Maine, were killed in a remote cabin near Pearisburg, Va. Randall Lee Smith, who pleaded guilty to lesser charges in the deaths, is up for parole in Virginia in September.
A Wisconsin woman was hacked to death by a hiker with a hatchet in Tennessee in April 1975; her attacker died in prison. A 26-year-old man was killed at a shelter in Georgia in May 1974.
In 1990, hikers were warned not to venture off a 14-mile stretch of the trail in Tennessee after booby traps were set and suspicious fires were started along the trail.

[the goat]

he may have been referring to the last few paragraphs:

i stand corrected. guess i shoulda read the end of the article, huh?:o

[Skyline]

I've written this in other threads in recent years, but this one specifically asks the question so I'll repeat it here:

It is unreasonable to expect any of the AT clubs to tear down shelters that its volunteers spent hundreds of hours constructing, and on which hard-to-come-by funds were spent. But it would be a good policy that--in most cases--when a shelter . . .

•becomes so rundown it can no longer be used

•a trail relo bypasses a shelter by a considerable distance

•is badly vandalized or burned down

•is located so close to a road that it invites extreme partying

. . . these shelters should probably be eliminated, and not replaced with new shelters.

Instead of building replacement shelters, or new shelters where they never existed before, I would instead construct a "campus" of 6 to 10 sidehill tentsites. Sidehill so as to eliminate the ghetto effect of a dozen tents crowded into one place, and the deteriorating ground conditions that creates. These sites would be single sites, some large enough to accommodate a typical 4-man backpacking tent, dispersed enough so each site is independent of the others. As a tent would be positioned, if you were sleeping in it, the sites would be level left-to-right, reasonably free of rocks, and with about a 1-2% grade head to foot. They would have erosion control features on three sides (rocks or logs, drainage ditches). Surrounding vegetation would be cut back just enough so as not to encroach upon the site, but not so much as to invite neighboring tents closeby.

These camping areas would optimally have a picnic table, fire ring, privy, and water source. In bear-prone areas, maybe a bear pole or pulley system. In other words, what many typical shelter areas have, minus the shelter structure itself.

Constructing--and maintaining--what I just described would take a fraction of the labor and money as would a shelter. The money saved could be put to better use, and many clubs with a dearth of volunteer resources could use the volunteers they have in better ways. Hikers would begin to be more self-sufficient, and know they cannot always depend on a shelter being available, as they must "endure" on most trails other than the AT. All good.

[weary]

....What was the reason for shelters in the first place? Somebody long ago thought they were needed. Why? I'm guessing it wasn't to encourage socialization among hikers.
The so called Adirondack shelter has a long history -- both as an emergency shelter and in the lore of outdoor life.

Most early guides to outdoor adventure that I've seen make mention of the three-sided shelters on which the early AT shelters were modeled.

Also Benton MacKaye's early writings talked of hiker villages, populated by refugees from the crowded cities. I suspect shelters were simply a part of the thinking of early trail pioneers.

Later long distance trails don't have shelters, probably because by the time they were conceived the AT experience had long since shown that shelters are an expensive, unnecessary attractive nuisance.

Having said this, I remain a fan of shelters. I enjoy the ability to get out of the rain and to chat with fellow hikers. I'm not for eliminating any shelters in good condtion. I just wouldn't replace them once they deteriorate beyond econonical repair

[jimmy b]

I like shelters and think that they benefit hikers and backpackers. They motivated me when I hiked the AT because I didn't have to carry a tent, plus the privy at many shelters, plus the location to water supply, plus the time spent with other hikers. Many states had different shelters, some had picnic tables, some didn't always have privies, some were just amazing. I think most of the shelters averaged distances of ten to fifteen miles apart, a perfect distance for backpackers. I think not adding too many more, maybe replacing a few would be nice.

I am in Colorado now and I like to backpack, I haven't stayed in one shelter. I have'nt seen one. I also do volunteer trail work here and the work is focused on restoration and erosion control due to the environment. I prefer the Appalchian Mountains myself.

Jimmy

[Rain Man]

... Ergo, hospitals cause death. ...

Actually, that is quite true. Many studies have proven it.

Rain:sunMan

.

[Rain Man]

More for those who think folks who appreciate a good shelter are wimps, wusses, and ought to stay home on a couch. I'm still re-reading Walking With Spring. In Chapter 6 Earl reaches the Shenandoah National Park where a Ranger gives him trail information. Here's what Earl writes:

"He said the shelters would be plentiful, a welcome change from the scarcity since New River."

I've stayed in shelters, tents, and have cowboy-camped on the AT. I'm not taking sides in this debate, except when anyone seems to imply that someone who stays in a shelter isn't a real hiker and doesn't deserve to be on the AT.

Rain:sunMan

.

[bulldog49]

Actually, that is quite true. Many studies have proven it.

Rain:sunMan

.


At least that's what all the ambulance chasers want you to believe. :eek:

[Jack Tarlin]

Glad to see the thread's still alive and encouraging some good posts.

Quick thoughts to the hysteric:

I never said, or advocated removal of all shelters, nor have I ever stated a wish to keep new-comers from discovering the Trail.

What I put forth was this: In that the Trail is, in many places, overused, and in that a lot of the damage is done by casual users (short-timers, weekenders, etc)., isn't it time we started thinking about making the Trail a bit tougher for casual users? Seems to me that if people knew they had to be more self-sufficient as far as where they stayed; carrying their own shelters, etc., isn't it more reasonable to assume they'd be more responsible once they were out there? After all, it's kinda hard to leave unwanted gear and accumulated trash in ashelter or fire ring if one encountered fewer of them).And yes, I know that not all long-distance hikers are innocent of this sort of thing, and yes, I know that irresponsible slobs will leave stuff anywhere, but isn't it likely that they are LESS apt to do so if they knew they'd have to be more responsible for themselves once they were out there?

And while I'm not trying to keep people from discovering the joys of the Trail or the backcountry, it's an incontestable fact that the Traill is heavily used, and parts of the Trail are ridiculously over-used. Doesn't it make more sense, therefore, to make these areas LESS attractive to casual users? I know for a fact that the White Mountains, which sees sees more visitors (mostly between Memorial and Labor Days) than any National Park, would surely have LESS visitors if folks knew that they'd have to rough it once they were out there?

I absolutely welcome the idea of more people discoving the Trail. I'm merely putting forth this idea: Doesn't it make sense that once they're out there, that they have to be more self-reliant, and doesn't this self-reliance encourage them to be more in tune with sensible camping practices, leaving less trash, not messing up water sources, etc?

Or to put it another way......what are the tangible benefits of building MORE shelters and making it softer and easier for folks? Does anyone really think this is a wise thing?

Seems to me, that excepting a few areas, the Trail would be better served by having FEWER amenities, and that people should be encouraged to get better educated, learn more, be better prepared, carry necessary gear, and in general, be better suited to a backcountry visit than they are now.

And what's so wrong with having fewer people visiting areas that are already ridiculously over-used?

Nobody's preventing anyone from going there. All that is being suggested is that theyact better once they are out there, and making things softer and easier for them doesn't seem to me to be the best way to go.

[Amigi'sLastStand]

I got it!!! Minefields and punji sticks. That's how we make the trail less attractive to casual users. We could pass out secret maps only to those deemed worthy of hiking the trail. And why stop there. We should write letters to our congressman and tell them no one is allowed on the AT anymore unless they are a member of the WhiteBlaze Appalachian Neophytes Keen on Eradicating Refuse and Shelters, or WANKERS for short. I mean casual hikers and weekenders have no place on the trail. We should dictate who gets to go, and how they get to experience it, right? I mean this is Nazi Germany, right?

The AT is over used due to its proximity to humanity and no other reason. Tearing down the shelters may stop the partyers, but that is about it. Increasing the number of alternate trails and accepting that as parts of the AT and pieces of a thru, is the only way to lessen the effect on a global scale. Localized issues can be dealt with by better education of CICO ( not LNT ), wiser choices as to where to place tent pads, increasing ranger patrols and empowering rigderunners and caretakers to report abuses to the authorities.
And the whole issue can be dealt with by a fee to hike the AT. Ppl understand only two things, a smack to the head and money. Wanna be on the AT, where's your permit? We do this in Fl and it works. I dont know about any of you, but my first $80 ticket for fishing without a license taught me.
The resistence to this idea I have read seems to come from that pedantic emotion of I dont care what you do, just dont do it to me. What's wrong with paying a fee to hike the AT? Believe me, charge a fee, and less people will hike and it will be fair for all. Those that do will be much more motivated to continue and to not abuse the AT. The money generated can be put back into the AT. As it is now, it's only scant tax dollars and volunteers who keep it up. And that my friends, is a formula for failure.
No knock, of course, to any of the honorable volunteers who bust their asses and do a great job, but it isnt enough. Pay to play.

[Ridge]

............ charge a fee, and less people will hike and it will be fair for all. Those that do will be much more motivated to continue and to not abuse the AT. The money generated can be put back into the AT. As it is now, it's only scant tax dollars and volunteers who keep it up. And that my friends, is a formula for failure.
No knock, of course, to any of the honorable volunteers who bust their asses and do a great job, but it isnt enough. Pay to play.


I'm not opposed to a permit scheme, maybe a daily, quarterly, yearly setup, but the problem will be in the distribution of the funds over the 2200 miles. The fighting will then be over money. If fees where used to provide more secure parking areas and useful things related to the trail instead of spending money on a stupid survey or advertising project I'd be all for it.

[Jack Tarlin]

Amigi----

When last I checked, there were around ninety thousand places to access the A.T., either by foot or car.

Please tell us how you plan to enforce a user fee on a Trail almost 2000 miles long.

And pray tell us, who is going to enforce this? Who's gonna check to see that all 3 to 4 million annual users have paid their fee?

There's no money RIGHT NOW to pay ridgerunners, rangers, Park police, etc., so where in hell are we going to find the money to pay the folks who will issue permits, collect fees, police fee evaders, etc.?

I agree with you that in many places in the backcountry, there's nothing wrong with charging a user fee. But on most of the A.T., I don't see this as a very reasonable option.

If an area is admittedly over-used, then it seems that the most sensible thing to do is make the area LESS attractive for new visitors, and the best way to do this is to cut down on amenities for them. And despite the histrionics of your post, nobody is denying casual visitors or weekenders the chance to enjoy the Trail. All we're saying is that they should be more self-sufficient and knowledgable when they arrive, and they should expect fewer frills once they are out there.

And removing shelters will not merley discourage partiers. It'll discourage all sorts of other folks, too. For example, of the scores of thousands of folks who stay at the AMC huts each year, how many of them wouldn't be in the Whites at all if they had to hump a pack, treat their water, bury their waste, and pack out their trash?

Probably a whole lot fewer. The AMC, for example, spends thousands of dollars every year printing glossy brochures encouraging untold numbers of folks to visit an area that is already ridiculously overused.

Instead of enticing folks with ads, and pampering them with amenities and goodies once they've arrived, what is so terribly wrong with saying this: The area would be better off with fewer visitors, period.

More fees to pay for increased visitor use is one option.

Encouraging fewer visitors (or at least a moratorium on increasing their numbers) sems to be a better one.

[weary]

I'm not opposed to a permit scheme, maybe a daily, quarterly, yearly setup, but the problem will be in the distribution of the funds over the 2200 miles. The fighting will then be over money. If fees where used to provide more secure parking areas and useful things related to the trail instead of spending money on a stupid survey or advertising project I'd be all for it.
The problem with fees for hiking is that along most of the trail, they would cost more to collect than would be collected. Only in heavily used areas like the Whites are fees economically feasible -- and then only at a few campites.

[c.coyle]

Actually, that is quite true. Many studies have proven it.

Rain:sunMan

.

Of course, almost all people admitted to hospitals are in less than optimal health. That may have something to do with it.

Conversely, would we be healthier overall without hospitals?

[Ridge]

The problem with fees for hiking is that along most of the trail, they would cost more to collect than would be collected. Only in heavily used areas like the Whites are fees economically feasible -- and then only at a few campites.

Maybe, the USFS and parks has law enforcement in place, it would be added duty, but probably not too bad. They'd have to check cars for parking permits etc. The permit system might help locate folks if needed. I'm one that don't won't to be located, but I'd play along if hiking the AT.

[Nean]

The problem with fees for hiking is that along most of the trail, they would cost more to collect than would be collected. Only in heavily used areas like the Whites are fees economically feasible -- and then only at a few campites.

Don't you think WDs $$ would make such a venture feisible?! :rolleyes: :D
In the last 17 years I've been amazed at how much easier (relos, switchbacks) and better maintained the trail has become. The shelters seem to be getting newer and bigger as well. I've always maintained that without the shelters the AT would be used much less (and less trash too!) but the ATC, it seems, wants and is happy with them. I've come to accept (and clean) them.:o :(

[Lone Wolf]

Don't you think WDs $$ would make such a venture feisible?! :rolleyes: :D
In the last 17 years I've been amazed at how much easier (relos, switchbacks) and better maintained the trail has become. The shelters seem to be getting newer and bigger as well. I've always maintained that without the shelters the AT would be used much less (and less trash too!) but the ATC, it seems, wants and is happy with them. I've come to accept (and clean) them.:o :(
You gotta kiss big ass by building big shelters. $$$ talks. PATC shelters are rediculous.

[Darwin again]

I'll whack the hornet's nest once...

How about fees for sections of the AT, or a pay-one-price permit for the whole thing (user's choice), PLUS let the shelters go through attrition.
Fees would be collected by the ATC and used for whatever they use fees for.

Or not. Some of the nicest shelters on the AT are in Pennsylvania. Nice shelters are, admittedly, a treat, but luxus shelters are not required to hike the trail. Shelters do seem to attract weekend beer partiers, trash, rodents, animals, and general foulness. I don't consider the AMC huts to be AT shelters; they're another issue all thogether. I didn't use AMC huts when I hiked the Whites and I don't use AT shelters anymore, as a rule.

Sections of the longer western trails require permits, don't they? Do any long trails have permit requirements? Is that a good way to limit impact? Does it work? Money isn't always the answer...

[Rain Man]

Conversely, would we be healthier overall without hospitals?

That's a question very few people want to delve into!

Especially the "anti-ambulance-chaser" crowd. LOL

Rain:sunMan


.

[fiddlehead]

Originally Posted by c.coyle
Conversely, would we be healthier overall without hospitals?



That's a question very few people want to delve into!

Especially the "anti-ambulance-chaser" crowd. LOL

Rain:sunMan


.
Hey, I'm not scared! I will give you a few examples of hospitals and doctors doing less than honorable practices simply to make more money:
My Mother was on 22 different pills every day and complaining of: diarreah, nausea, pain in her stomach, etc. The gastric doctor made her go thru about 4 big tests where they had to knock her out and put tubes down her everytime. I asked him: Didn't he think it may be from all these pills shes taking? he replied: "we'll have to run all these tests first before we can know that" and then the clincher: "don't worry, medicare is paying for it" these tests averaged about $1700 each. turns out, we got her off all of the pills except one and she is now fine.
Situation no. 2: my Thai Mother in law has never been to a doctor in her life: she is 70 years old (she thinks, she is not sure) and very healthy. she does have a bad knee from working the sugar cane fields though.
Situation no. 3: i recently started getting hives on the palms of my hands. I went to a hospital here in Thailand (International hospital) and they prescribed steroids and cortisone for me. I thought that was odd and wouldn't cure me, just cover the pain, so i went to 2 other hospitals and saw dermatologists and they all said that was the proper treatment. Then i talked to my neighbor who is into homeopathic medicine and she gave me some homeopathic medicine, i took it for about 2 weeks, and guess what? the hives are gone. It was a CURE, not a coverup!
So, my point is: Doctors don't necessarily try to CURE you anymore, they just want to run tests and charge big bucks for it.
Anyway, of course hospitals are good for some things. But keep your mind educated and open. You may be getting ripped off. Big time!
Exercise, eating properly, living without pollution, less stress, less TV, less alcohol and drugs. These are just a few of the things that will make you more healthy. Are your hospitals tilling you this?
OK, like i said, i'm not scared. Feedback? bring it on!

[SGT Rock]

I'll whack the hornet's nest once...

How about fees for sections of the AT, or a pay-one-price permit for the whole thing (user's choice), PLUS let the shelters go through attrition.
Fees would be collected by the ATC and used for whatever they use fees for....

Actually you can do that now if you want to - buy the maps of the AT. :eek:

Your money goes to support the trail and you get a set of maps when you do this that help keep you safe during your hike! What a deal!:cool:

If you want even more you can get a Data Book or the Companion. ;)

And if you really want to pay for the use of the trail they even have a membership program and accept donations above and beyond that. I have done all of the above, and repeat most of them every year. So see, there is a way to pay for use of the trail.:-?

The problem with even buying some maps to help pay for use of the trail and be safe with them, is every year a lot of people try to even scrimp on that. Try to charge people to hike and you end up with a bunch of "illegal" hikers. Naw, keep paying for it voluntary, but encourage paying for it.

[max patch]

How about fees for sections of the AT, or a pay-one-price permit for the whole thing

I already paid to hike the trail. Its called taxes. Govt takes over 50% of my income already....no way in h*ll I'm paying a "user fee" on top of that.

[Singe03]

You really think the tiny fraction of your personal taxes that actually go to conservation efforts help enough to cover the costs associated with the impact of your hiking? Even if you are among the most careful LNTers? I doubt the amount any single individual paid in taxes, that went to the AT, would cover the cost of emptying a garbage can in the Shenandoahs.

A well designed plan of reasonable user fees would help greatly. The fact is that such a program, even with mostly voluntary compliance and very minimal enforcement could do wonders if that money was funneled towards the right organizations. I think there are enough of us who would pay a reasonable "thru-hiker" fee, especially if it provided some benefit down the road (like a pass to certain caretaker supported campgrounds).

[weary]

You really think the tiny fraction of your personal taxes that actually go to conservation efforts help enough to cover the costs associated with the impact of your hiking? Even if you are among the most careful LNTers? I doubt the amount any single individual paid in taxes, that went to the AT, would cover the cost of emptying a garbage can in the Shenandoahs.

A well designed plan of reasonable user fees would help greatly. The fact is that such a program, even with mostly voluntary compliance and very minimal enforcement could do wonders if that money was funneled towards the right organizations. I think there are enough of us who would pay a reasonable "thru-hiker" fee, especially if it provided some benefit down the road (like a pass to certain caretaker supported campgrounds).
There are around 33 maintaining organzations, all of which have legal contracts requiring them to maintain the trail to proper standards. All need money from users -- some more than most.

Maine ATC has 600 members who pay $15 a year each -- a total of $9,000.

Our annual budget this year is $150.000. We spend hundreds of hours each year begging for money -- hours that could go into maintenance. Because Maine is a small state user fees won't work. We don't have enough use of our 275 miles of trails to make it worth while to collect fees.

We already have a volunteer system in place. Everyone who signs a card at the MATC register boxes gets a request to donate. A few actually do so.

This system, however, is open to everyone. Just open

www.matc.org

and click on the donate button.

Weary

[Lilred]

Put in donation boxes at the most popular trailheads, similar to what Cades Cove has in the Smokies. EAch hiking club puts up their own donation boxes and keeps the money for their maintenance.

[generoll]

a major problem with user fees is that they end up just being dumped into the pot with all the other money the gov't collects. no way congress is going to let you the individual decide where your money goes by leaving the money where it's collected. the fees that are collected by the nat'l parks all go into the general revenue. then congress decides how much to alot to each park. a user fee would just be more money for congress to use for pork. like the proposed road along Lake Fontana from Bryson City.

[Mr. Clean]

I gotta say that I like the shelters. If I feel in a chatty mood, I can stop at one; if not, I'll just move on. And that's the beauty of it all. As for shelters attracting crowds and people who may not ordinarily hike, yeah, of course they do. But, this may be a good thing in the long run. The more people who get out there and see the beauty of the woods, the more people will donate and work towards it's preservation. For those who don't like crowds, you'll really only see them on weekends; plan your Town stops accordingly. I certainly wouldn't build more shelters, but think that we should keep most of the ones that we have. And really, do we see that many people out while we're hiking? Couldn't we stand to see a few more people if there's a chance they will help donate money or time? Just my thoughts on the subject.

[Darwin again]

And if you really want to pay for the use of the trail they even have a membership program and accept donations above and beyond that. I have done all of the above, and repeat most of them every year. So see, there is a way to pay for use of the trail.

Agreed, Rock. I plunk down my yearly ATC fee and I've bought a set of maps. I probably wouldn't buy new maps every year, though. ;)

An AT user fee would probably be gobbled up by the cost of enforcement alone, assuming enforcement was a component of the fee plan. If the fee was collected by the ATC, then maybe the denero could be distributed to the various trail maintenance orgs according to need? I dunno. I wouldn't want to pay to hike, but I would if I had to, because I'd still want to hike and help maintain and sustain the Trail.

Incentive to pay a 'voluntary' hiking fee? Maybe discounts at participating businesses along the trail?

If a fee were voluntary, I have a feeling there would be plenty of people who would volunteer not to pay it...

Donation boxes along the trail, maybe at outfitters and hostels who would agree to host them, might help to make the need more visible to hikers.

The again, since the vast majority of AT users are not thrus or thru-attempters, a weekly, monthly or yearly pass might just fly. Then I'd be worried that the money would just go into a huge government black hole instead of directly helping the Trail.

I hate the idea of fees for using public lands, in general, but when impact becomes such that controls and/or maintenance are required, the money has to come from somewhere.

Or maybe thru and thru-attempters would be exepmt from the fee? I don't know. If people want to do a thing bad enough, they'll pay...:-?

[Amigi'sLastStand]

Jack, I am no expert on this, but you are in a good position to find out how Fl makes it work on the FNST. I am not saying charge a fee for every person who steps foot on the trail for a day hike, just those who plan on overniting. But to say it cant be done is ridiculous. No one needs to be hired to collect fees. The permit could be sold in the same place fishing permits are sold. There could be a permit for National trail or a just one permit for them all.

I just have a problem with the attitude that we need to limit or curtail ppl from experiencing the AT. I know each and everyone of us has gained from hiking. Why should we take that priviledge from others?

I also thing there is a flaw in the theory that overnite hikers are the cause of the majority of problems ( refuse, vandalism, graffitti, etc. ). At least in my two next necks of the woods, it's not.

[SGT Rock]

Jack, I am no expert on this, but you are in a good position to find out how Fl makes it work on the FNST. I am not saying charge a fee for every person who steps foot on the trail for a day hike, just those who plan on overniting. But to say it cant be done is ridiculous. No one needs to be hired to collect fees. The permit could be sold in the same place fishing permits are sold. There could be a permit for National trail or a just one permit for them all.

I just have a problem with the attitude that we need to limit or curtail ppl from experiencing the AT. I know each and everyone of us has gained from hiking. Why should we take that priviledge from others?

I also thing there is a flaw in the theory that overnite hikers are the cause of the majority of problems ( refuse, vandalism, graffitti, etc. ). At least in my two next necks of the woods, it's not.

Too easy to say and not easy to do. With all the possibilies of getting on the trail in so many places, it would be hard to control at points of access. This means you need to have people that can enforce it on the trail - and the ATC cannot magically give itself the power to do this. That would take a change in the law. But then the revenue would be controled by congress since it is a national trail system - this means that the chance of the money actually making it directly back is slim to none (see what happened to the Old Soldier's home as an example of how they can screw up a good thing) and they would have to create a body of some sort to go around enforcing it.

It isn't as simple as printing permits and taking money for them.

Join the ATC when you thru-hike though and you do contribute, you do get a discount on thier stuff, and you do pay for the use of the trail.

[SGT Rock]

Hey all,

I split the political stuff off this thread so we can stay on the topic and related issues. If you want to rant and get mad about government, the war, budgets, George Bush, or whatever, go over there please and stop making more work for me.

I need some sleep.

[celt]

I already paid to hike the trail. Its called taxes. Govt takes over 50% of my income already....no way in h*ll I'm paying a "user fee" on top of that.
I'm not an expert on how the Gov't spends our taxes but I thought be discussed if there are others who think shelters and trails should be free because we are tax payers. Certainly not every club that maintains the trail and facilities uses tax monies to do it and at least in the case of the USFS managed lands budget sizes haven't kept pace with the increased use of trails and facilities. Also isn't it true that with income tax 50% of the money collected come from the top 5% of the tax payers? How much of our tax money is being used to support the AT and how much does the average AT user actually contibute to the pile?

[Darwin again]

I went looking for a clear description of just what the poop is regarding trail funding and jurisdictions and agencies. Rather unclear. Yes, it's the federal government, in cahoots with local trail clubs and the ATC, but that's a fairly vague, if still correct description of the process.

It's a barely comprehensible morass.

Here's the clearest explanation I found: http://www.nps.gov/nts/nts_faq.html
Does anyone have a better one? Or a better source?

I would like to know the exact route of, say, some tax dollars, as they wind their way from a federal tax return payment check, into the government money pit, then out again through what agency, under what laws and which groups finally get it and in what amount.

Maybe someone from the ATC understands this process?
Like, is there one senator who chairs some committee who traffic-cops the entire process? Maybe a house or senate transportation committee?
Knowledge is power.

[MedicineMan]

The ultimate solution is to promote other trails, simple, and to actively help or support the western AT alternative....hey its still in the Appalachians and it can still get you to Maine....also it would be real nice if the ATC would give 2000miler or thru-hiker status to those who choose the alternatives like the Benton MacKaye trail. Jack is right about the movie ---if it is done--- the influx will be tremendous....can any of us picture what 5000 starters between March 1 and March15 would do to places along the trail?
It may be something the 'elders' like Jack might consider, picture Jack or Lone Wolf or Nean or Warren (and this list could go on obviously) at the shelter on Springer announcing/inviting those there to join them on the MacKaye trail to Davenport Gap....
The protection the AT gets (or should) by being a National Park can eventually will cause limits on how many can start...think that can't happen? think the NPS wouldnt put someone on each road crossing for the first 30 miles in GA? OK probably they wont but if the right dignitary gets pissed any number of regulations could land on future hikers.

[Alligator]

I went looking for a clear description of just what the poop is regarding trail funding and jurisdictions and agencies. Rather unclear. Yes, it's the federal government, in cahoots with local trail clubs and the ATC, but that's a fairly vague, if still correct description of the process.

It's a barely comprehensible morass.

Here's the clearest explanation I found: http://www.nps.gov/nts/nts_faq.html
Does anyone have a better one? Or a better source?

I would like to know the exact route of, say, some tax dollars, as they wind their way from a federal tax return payment check, into the government money pit, then out again through what agency, under what laws and which groups finally get it and in what amount.

Maybe someone from the ATC understands this process?
Like, is there one senator who chairs some committee who traffic-cops the entire process? Maybe a house or senate transportation committee?
Knowledge is power.The AT falls under the jurisdiction of the NPS, which is in the Dept. of the Interior. Funding for the NPS is therefore in Interior's budget, which is one of the large (13) appropriations bills. I do not offhand know the particular committees in the House and Senate which oversee NPS. Additionally, monies may be allocated specifically for the AT as an earmark to most any bill. I think money is then transferred from the NPS to ATC, but I don't know the particulars from there.

[stranger]

No comment on the political debate, that's what I do for a living and I come here to forget about work...

I think there are entirely too many shelters along the AT. I have been hiking on the AT since I was a child, 4-5 years old, and have done mulitple long distance hikes ranging from 90-800 miles over the years. What I have noticed is the following:

Most hikers, and thruhikers, flock to shelters. They depend on them. Most hikers I've met over the years depend on them and only carry personal shelters as back-ups, regardless of how long the've been out there.

I would like to see the removal of all the older shelters and a halt on building any new shelters. I think this would have an impact on the amount of people using the trail. I believe one of the reasons the AT has so much use is because the trail is absolutely simple to hike logistically. Everything is completely laid out for you...A path, white blazes, clearly marked intersections, good signs, hundreds of bridges over water, hundreds of shelters, excellent guidebooks, plenty of towns for resupply etc...All you really have to to is walk.

I like shelters as much as anyone after 20 miles in the rain, but I think there are too many on the trail, and they take away from the wilderness experience for me. I would rather set up a wet tent in the rain, and take down that same wet tent in the rain the next day, than to see another colorful tent colony down some side trail.

The shelters attract most hikers, if they are not there they cannot attract hordes of hikers. People might actually spread out a bit and hopefully leave nothing but footprints, but that's unlikely.

It's a no win situation in the end I guess.

[Singe03]

The ultimate solution is to promote other trails, simple, and to actively help or support the western AT alternative....hey its still in the Appalachians and it can still get you to Maine....also it would be real nice if the ATC would give 2000miler or thru-hiker status to those who choose the alternatives like the Benton MacKaye trail.

I totally agree with this, to the point that I think it is the only realistic solution. The problem I see is that if removing the shelters has the desired effect of reducing traffic overall, each set of feet potentially represents a vote and a voice (in an ideal world). I'd fear too much reduction in traffic would result in less interest, fewer letters and eventually even less money going to DOI and thus parks and trails.

When this thread started, I agreed with Baltimore Jack, less shelters would result in fewer hikers and be good for the trail, after much thought, I must respectfully disagree at this point. We need more people out hiking and we need to get those people speaking up, writing congressmen, voting for environmentally sound candidates and hopefully working towards finding points of agreement with other environmentally conscious groups and leaving certain other pet issues of the radical right and left at the door and agreeing to live and let live.

It comes down to the fact that we need numbers and the visibility and voices that comes with those numbers, reducing the number of people who get out on the AT and other trails by making them less hospitable, no matter how good for AT, is bad for hikers in general.

The problem is, where will those hikers go?

I have to think the solution lies in the idea of an Appalachian Trail System again, with multiple "legitimate" routes to spread the load in the hope of making the AT less of a victim of it's own fame. Personally I'd love to do the BMT on my next hike but I want it to be a legitimate thru, which means sticking to the white blazes.

[MedicineMan]

Therein lies the problem....its just a trail, just dirt, rocks, streams to cross and there are hundreds of other trails with the same, but something is different with the AT (or why do we keep coming here)...the mystique, the aura, the history.....on last weeks section hike in the morning i would say to myself 'today i'm hiking in the footsteps of___________' dedicating that days walk to someone important in my life, or someone famous who has walked before me....until a nuclear holocaust they (us/we) will keep breeding and more offspring will eventually discover that mystique and want some of it....the Appalachian Trail System (new terminology for me but I like it) is not something we are suddenly stumbling on....ask Mowgli, seems like the AHS has been working on this for some time....I think Sgt. Rock has openly stated that he is strongly considering the BMT alternative on his thru, so at least to him it is legitimate.....maybe our efforts should be to aggrandize the legitimacy of the alternate trails. I think in MacKaye's early writings he considered the AT to be a backbone of many connector trails..........and in this vain I recently wrote the ATC asking them to produce another award, actually several of them....the 500 miler away, the 1000 miler award, the 1500 miler.....one would think they could look into the future and see the 'SYSTEM' of which you speak and credit that as well.....

[Heater]

Hell, they dont even need a paint-by-numbers guidebook and hootananies.


I need hootananies. :banana :banana :banana :banana

[mingo]

While I realize that thru hikers make up a tiny percentage of the total users in the Smokies, during March and April they make up 60+% of the people using shelters located along the AT. These shelters are overflowing during that period. I'm not suggesting that shelters other than those on the AT be closed to non-thrus during the period, but I honestly feel that the level of damage caused by the mandate to use the shelter system on the AT thru the Smokies coupled with the extremely heavy use justifies giving the majority of users (in this case the thru-hikers) priority during the peak season along the AT thru the Smokies.

i think rangers ought to sit down there at fontana and limit the number of thru-hikers going through the smokies each day since they are the ones who are causing the overcrowding.

as for shelters generally along the trail, i agree with those who think they ought to tear down some of them and space them out more. the trail community should stop whatever efforts it's making to encourage more hikers. peaceful serenity is what we should prize. the AMC huts are an outrage. i just returned from doing the tour du mont blanc. there are a bunch of what they call refuges along that thing just like AMC huts. they help attract gobs of people to walk on the TMB every season. tour outfits drag people up there on group trips, hauling all their luggage in vans from town to town. granted, the AT isn't so scenic as the Alps and so isn't quite the tourist magnet but it could certainly become more crowded if more amenities are provided. imagine if the Smoky Mountain Hiking Club decided to put a bunch of Leconte Lodges or AMC-like huts all along the trail through the Smokies.

[generoll]

I'm not convinced that day hikers are the culprits for any overcrowding in the Smokies. There are so many other options in the Smokies that when I hike there I never take the AT in order to avoid the thruhikers and the thru hiker attitude that sometimes accompanies them. It seems that many are in favor of regulations, as long as the regulations favor them. I'd say we're at about the best balance that we can ever hope to achieve. A little common sense might remove the need for more regulations.

[SGT Rock]

....I think Sgt. Rock has openly stated that he is strongly considering the BMT alternative on his thru, so at least to him it is legitimate.....maybe our efforts should be to aggrandize the legitimacy of the alternate trails. I think in MacKaye's early writings he considered the AT to be a backbone of many connector trails..........and in this vain I recently wrote the ATC asking them to produce another award, actually several of them....the 500 miler away, the 1000 miler award, the 1500 miler.....one would think they could look into the future and see the 'SYSTEM' of which you speak and credit that as well.....

I have and I recently posted a couple of questions for folks experienced with the rest of the BMT on the BMT forum. I am shooting for a 6 April 2008 start date. http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=16159

To add to my position, I think a trail system with a trail corridor along the Appalachians is a great idea. I personally don't need anyone to legitimize my hike; not the ATC nor any other hikers. I hike my own hike, and figure everyone else can hike their way. If someone wanted to do what I am doing, I would hope it is for their own reason.

BUT, recognition such as the ATC 2,000 miler recognition is a tool to reward positive behavior. Just like people aspire to the Ranger Tab in the Army, hikers aspire to the Thru-Hiker certificate and patch. If the ATC is worried about stress and overcrowding, they could simply open up what they define as a legitimate thru-hike so hikers would look at these alternate trails as a possible addition to their hike and still feel they are "making the grade" so to speak. Not just a wink and a nod with the honor system.

As to my 2,000 miler certificate, I would actually still qualify when I reach Kahtadin because I have hiked almost all those miles between Davenport Gap and Springer already. I figure when I get home from Iraq I will knock out the last few I am missing in the Smokies while I do some training and shake down hikes. So either way I go when I thru-hike I'll qualify anyway.

As to the trail system, I agree that he envisioned a trail system, but I don't think he ever envisioned a system to recognized hiking the whole thing or planned for anyone to hike the whole thing. The AT in many ways does not meet his vision. So instead of trying to figure original intent in his writing, we should figure out what is needed and best serves the trail now.

[Skyline]

No comment on the political debate, that's what I do for a living and I come here to forget about work...

I think there are entirely too many shelters along the AT. I have been hiking on the AT since I was a child, 4-5 years old, and have done mulitple long distance hikes ranging from 90-800 miles over the years. What I have noticed is the following:

Most hikers, and thruhikers, flock to shelters. They depend on them. Most hikers I've met over the years depend on them and only carry personal shelters as back-ups, regardless of how long the've been out there.

I would like to see the removal of all the older shelters and a halt on building any new shelters. I think this would have an impact on the amount of people using the trail. I believe one of the reasons the AT has so much use is because the trail is absolutely simple to hike logistically. Everything is completely laid out for you...A path, white blazes, clearly marked intersections, good signs, hundreds of bridges over water, hundreds of shelters, excellent guidebooks, plenty of towns for resupply etc...All you really have to to is walk.

I like shelters as much as anyone after 20 miles in the rain, but I think there are too many on the trail, and they take away from the wilderness experience for me. I would rather set up a wet tent in the rain, and take down that same wet tent in the rain the next day, than to see another colorful tent colony down some side trail.

The shelters attract most hikers, if they are not there they cannot attract hordes of hikers. People might actually spread out a bit and hopefully leave nothing but footprints, but that's unlikely.

It's a no win situation in the end I guess.


You make some good points. The answer is for AT hikers to be more self-sufficient--to carry portable shelters (tents, tarps, hammocks, bivys) that they are prepared to use every night if they must, not just as a backup when a shelter is full. Sure, it's not pleasant to set up or take down in the rain, but practice makes it less painful. It can't be THAT bad, because hikers of almost every other long distance trail--where there are few or no shelters--do it all the time.

I disagree, however, that the answer is not in "tent colonies down some side trail." Good backcountry management dictates that usage be concentrated, not dispersed to individual tentsites all over the trail. Nothing wrong with camping off by yourself, and I'm not promoting a prohibition of that, but it's better to encourage folks to camp in one general area. For more specifics, see my post #203 on page 11 of this thread.

By establishing a "campus," or "colony" if you prefer, of tentsites that are user-friendly and attractive not too far off-trail, but not too close to road crossings, you can also include amenities as you would find at a current-day shelter area like a picnic table, privy (extremely important to concentrate usage here, and a privy is light years better than the minefields you find some places in the Smokies), a fire ring where permitted by law, and in some places perhaps a bear pole or pulley system. These would also be likely to be located near a water source. The only thing missing would be the shelter structure itself.

The key is that these be individual sidehill tentsites, at least 100 feet from each other--not a big flat area that will encourage a ghetto of tents set up close to each other in what will quickly degenerate into a mudpit from overuse. Examples of good sidehill tentsites are described in the aforementioned post and can be found at the rehabbed Annapolis Rocks camping area, and adjacent to some SNP hut areas. The ATC magazine did a big feature on this philosophy--and particularly sidehill tentsites--a couple years ago.

I've been a proponent--thusfar with no results--of adding campuses of tentsites as described here and in post #203 approximately halfway in between the current overnight huts along the AT in SNP. Due to political shenanigans a generation ago, we lost about half our overnight huts and they are spaced apart in an illogical fashion now. Rather than re-establish shelters, I think the tentsite campuses make good sense. I even know where they could possibly be located. They would cost a fraction of the time and money to establish as even one new shelter, and maintenance would not be as intense.

[weary]

I went looking for a clear description of just what the poop is regarding trail funding and jurisdictions and agencies. Rather unclear. Yes, it's the federal government, in cahoots with local trail clubs and the ATC, but that's a fairly vague, if still correct description of the process.
It's a barely comprehensible morass.....
Here's what I know from years of working on the trail, years of interest in the trail and years of being a director of MATC.

The trail from the beginning has been a volunteer effort. When the continuous footpath began disappearing in the 50s and early 60s as private owners of the route withdrew permission, ATC and trail groups persuaded Congress to appropriate money to buy the trail corridor. The clubs in turn promised to continue their maintenance of the footpath.

As a result, the 250,000 acre Appalachian Trail, serving 4-5 million people annually is the biggest bargain for taxpayers in the national parks system.

Congress, however, has appropriated money for supervision of the trail and for capital improvements to the footpath. One of the reasons for the ATC reorganization a few years ago was it's excessive reliance on federal funding. Several key ATC positions like the trails supervision were totally funded by the Park Service. I sense the reorganization has not been the success proponents had hoped, but I really don't know.

But essentially we are dealing with contractural arrangements. The Park Service contracts with and pays ATC for being responsible for the maintenance of the trail. Local maintaining clubs contract with ATC to carry out the on the ground maintenance.

Park Service (taxpayer) money goes mostly towards capital projects such as major trail reconstruction, rather than routine removal of blowdowns and the cutting of trailside brush. That's all done by volunteers and with money raised by local clubs.

MATC, for instance, is required to prepare a six year work schedule with estimates of the cost of such things as trail reconstruction and relocation, and the building of rock steps and other major work. The cost is mostly the hiring of trained leaders. Volunteers are still used for much of the hands on work, though a decrease in volunteers in recent years has forced Maine to rely more and more on youth job programs like the Maine Conservation Corps.

I don't have the MATC budget in front of me, but if I remember rightly, we get around $25,000 towards our annual budget of $150,000 from ATC which gets it from the National Park Service.

Essentially, what I'm saying is that taxpayers contribute very little to the total cost of the Appalachian Trail. Those who argue against fees and against contributing because they "pay taxes," don't understand the system and the compromises that made a continuous trail possible 40 years ago.

Weary

[SGT Rock]

To add to what Weary said,

I cannot see how any hiker, from a section hiker to Thru-Hiker, can begrudge a simple membership fee to the ATC. The trail is provide to them (the hikers) mostly by people that work for free on their personal time. Some even pay for their own tools, provide their own transportation and meals, and even give extra money to keep the trail going. For all that they (the hikers) get a great trail for free basically. And if they want to keep that tradition alive, a little money and putting themselves on the membership rolls only helps the Federal Government realize it is still something that holds worth for folks. As is often told to me when AUSA membership drives go around, Senators and Congressmen have no problems counting and the more voters on membership rolls means more people that can be for or against them.

[Skyline]

And to add to what Sgt Rock said:

1) It's equally important to join and be active in the local maintaining clubs. Even if you don't reside in one's geographic region--just pick one (or more) that impressed you while hiking.

2) Not as an alternative to joining ATC and local clubs--but in addition to--wherever you see a sign-in sheet along the trail, sign in! These sheets are used, among other things, in the compilation of statistics which are shared with governmental partners. They wind up in congressional reports and can wind up in media reports. By signing in, you raise your hand for the Trail. Same thing goes for getting backcountry permits in places like GSMNP and SNP.

[Darwin again]

Thanks for that post, weary. That helps clear it up a bit for me.

[Mr. Clean]

Please join ATC and your local maintaining club. In addition to some great newsletters, you are contributing to the trail.

[MedicineMan]

and thanks Weary for the details of how the system works....also, there is nothing that says you only have to belong to just one trail maintaining club.

[GreyGoose]

From what I've read, seen and heard I would more than likely avoid the shelters and pitch a tent off the trail a bit. Of course, I've never set one foot on the AT but if I did, I'd probably avoid the shelters because I'd be concerned about snoring, loud music/partying, mice running over my face, etc. I don't mind meeting people and chatting when I'm walking but when I get ready to go to sleep, I like my privacy.

- Regards, GG

[Moxie00]

Jack, I speak only for Maine. As you well know it is difficult and often impossible to just get off the trail and camp in many parts of Maine. Once when darkness caught me in the 100 mile wilderness I set my small tent up in the middle of the trail as it was the only level place not clogged by brush, rocks and roots. I would like to have a few small shelters built in difficult places to camp. For example Eddy Pond, near the old road would be a great place for a small shelter. Either Crocker Col or a spot between N. and S. Crocker would be another good place and there is water if you know where to find it. The Sidney Tappan campsite could stand a small shelter and another spot might be right after Nesuntabunt Mountain near Crescent Lake. Alot of hikers come out of the 100 mile and get to Abol Store and go crazy on beer, cold soda and hot sandwiches and cold ice cream. They fill up, spend too much time, and have trouble making it into Baxter Park at a reasonable time. They can camp at Abol but a small shelter or even a tenting area at Nesowadnehunk Stream, just before the park boundery would be a welcome place to crash.