Structure Creep

[kevin]

I was looking through the current issue of "Journeys" and there is an article on Structure Creep. For those that haven't seen it, the article discusses a trend towards larger and more modern shelters leading to larger groups around the shelters each night and a lessening of the wilderness experience.

I thought it might be interesting to open up the topic for discussion here. I know some like the shelters and some hate them, but what are your thoughts on "structure creep". Is it a problem? Do you like more modern shelters (plexiglass for a little extra light, etc.)?

While I typically stay near shelters and enjoy having a few people around to chat with in the evening, I prefer to set up my tent nearby for a more peaceful nights sleep. I know there are several issues (spreading vs concentrating the impact, etc.) to consider, but I'd much prefer a smaller structure with space for tents over a larger shelter.

[MOWGLI]

A discussion here is a great idea. But what would really be helpful is to send Jeff Marion, the author of the piece, your comments in an email. That's what he and the ATC are looking for. Feedback from the hiking community. I think these were my comments;

Future shelters should hold no more than 8-12 occupants, not contain lofts, be built from natural locally available materials whenever possible, and be at least .1 miles from the trail, and not visible from the trail.

In a nutshell, simpler is better. By "future", I mean if a shelter is torn down and replaced. I am not advocating building more shelters.

[Footslogger]

I read that article too and one thought came to mind. Rather than a full 3 walled shelter what might be less obtrusive and harbor fewer rhodents would be a simple "pavillion" (roof on 4 posts) design.

All I ever wanted out of a shelter during my thru was a roof to block the rain.

But in all likelihood, the best replacement of the older shelters would be NO shelter at all. Maybe a little ground leveling in some of the more established campsites would help (for those of us who don't carry a hammock all the time).

'Slogger

[Hammerhead]

Although I haven't done my thru-hike yet, I don't plan on using shelters at all but I do agree with Mowgli.

[Ender]

I've often thought that instead of having shelters for sleeping, just having pavillions for packing/unpacking gear, cooking and eating, etc... and having tentsites nearby. I like the convenience of staying dry in the rain while eating/packing, but don't like staying in shelters at night. Best of both worlds in my opinion.

Just a thought...

[SGT Rock]

Yes the Shelters are getting way too dang fancy, like it is a contest to see who can one-up the last grand shelter.

I like the general rules that Mowgli has posted.

[generoll]

I tend to agree with Jeff on shelters. Personally, I'd prefer a covered picnic table for cooking and eating. Some of the areas that have shelters don't really lend themselves to tent camping. The Cold Spring shelter north of Burningtown Gap comes to mind. The shelter is right by the trail and along a fairly steep ridge. Having a shelter there makes sense from the standpoint of providing a stopping place. Other areas that are more level might be better served by having picnic tables, bear cables, and in the south at least the mouldering privies like the GATC has placed at their shelters.

[MOWGLI]

Personally, I'd prefer a covered picnic table for cooking and eating.


Me too. The Nantahala style shelters (Woods Hole, Standing Indian (http://www.maconcommunity.org/nhc/PICS/indian2.jpg)) are my favorite design.

[Footslogger]

Holy cow ...after I mentioned the pavillion style shelter in my initial post I thought I'd end up getting lambasted. Surprised to see so many other hikers who would also prefer a simple roof. Maybe we're on to something here ??

'Slogger

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

I like Mowgli's suggestion as to numbers and 'Sloggers pavillion idea - perhaps a combo of the two - an open pavillion with a table beneath a sleeping loft enclosed somewhat by the roof area. I'm thinking a hole in the sleeping floor / pavillion roof with a simple ladder - the sort of thing seen in pioneer cabins. It would meet the needs of both those who wanted to sleep in shelters and those who just want a covered area for food prep / packing & unpacking in rain without requiring all that much extra space or materials.

[SGT Rock]

I read that article too and one thought came to mind. Rather than a full 3 walled shelter what might be less obtrusive and harbor fewer rhodents would be a simple "pavillion" (roof on 4 posts) design.

All I ever wanted out of a shelter during my thru was a roof to block the rain.

But in all likelihood, the best replacement of the older shelters would be NO shelter at all. Maybe a little ground leveling in some of the more established campsites would help (for those of us who don't carry a hammock all the time).

'Slogger

Good idea!


Holy cow ...after I mentioned the pavillion style shelter in my initial post I thought I'd end up getting lambasted. Surprised to see so many other hikers who would also prefer a simple roof. Maybe we're on to something here ??

'Slogger

You want lambasted: Where is the picnic table!!!!

There, you happy now?

[Mouse]

The trouble with a roof-only shelter is that blowing rain would make most or all of it unusable for sleeping in bad weather.

[SGT Rock]

Now the mice are complaining.:-?

That is what tents are for.:eek:

[MOWGLI]

The trouble with a roof-only shelter is that blowing rain would make most or all of it unusable for sleeping in bad weather.

Site selection could minimize this problem. Most storms come from a predictable direction. If you use the topography of the land and situate the shelter in the best direction considering the prevailing winds, these types of problems will be few & far between. Most shelters would probably end up facing east - and the sunrise. Of course in New England, that would spell bad news during a Nor'easter.

Anyway, Jeff Marion's article discussed the idea that shelters allow hikers to insulate themselves from the very things that they are out there to experience.
Should there be tarps on the front of shelters to keep out the wind & rain? Some say yes. Some say no. What do you all think?

[Lone Wolf]

No more new shelters. If one needs to be torn down, don't replace it. get rid of all picnic tables and fire pits at shelters.

[Alligator]

I too would rather see a downsizing to just a roof and picnic table with dispersed (but nearby) tent sites, including one central fire ring. That way if you want to have a fire, you are not keeping anyone in the immediate vicinity up like rings in the front of a shelter do. Make it no fires except at the central ring and no sleeping in the pavilion. If you don't have adequate shelter, tough cookies.

[wpbucher]

I read the "Journeys" article. I hiked 10 miles on the AT in MD last Friday. I passed two shelters: Ensign Cowall (recently built) and Pine Knob (constructed by CCC in 30s). Both are log construction.
Thoughts on each shelter:
Ensign Cowall - bright, spacious. Contains a loft and plexiglas windows above loft.
Pine Knob - dark, cramped.

Both shelters offer a roof over your head and a space of hardwood to sleep. Perhaps this should be the goal

I don't understand why someone would prefer dark/cramped to light/spacious.

I agree that more/better campsites would be a plus.

Seems to me that a loft is the most efficient use of space....and when it is pouring rain...EVERYBODY...wants in the shelter. So why not try to maximize capacity for a given footprint?

I agree that there should be some guidelines for shelter construction.

If you enclose three side of the pavillion it would block the rain...oh wait...that's a shelter.

[SGT Rock]

I too would rather see a downsizing to just a roof and picnic table with dispersed (but nearby) tent sites, including one central fire ring. That way if you want to have a fire, you are not keeping anyone in the immediate vicinity up like rings in the front of a shelter do. Make it no fires except at the central ring and no sleeping in the pavilion. If you don't have adequate shelter, tough cookies.


That sounds reasonable.

And no to tarps on the front.

[Dances with Mice]

Such heartless people, throwing shelter mice out into the cold. Heartless!

Seriously, I like the pavilion idea myself. But people are going to gather somewhere at night, whether there's a structure there or not. Sleeping shelters reduce the number of tentsites needed by about 10 or 12 and that's significant. In GA we've tried several strategies - shelters with designated tentsites (Gooch & Springer), overflow shelters (Springer-Stover) and tentsites only (Slaughter). And still areas like the old, or geologic, Slaughter Gap get blasted so bad that the Trail eventually had to be relo'd.

Anyway, the point is that shelters aren't the problem. A bunch of people gathering in one spot night after night is the problem. And there's no way to solve that, the best you can hope for is to mitigate and control the impact. Sleeping shelters are a tool for reducing environmental damage.

[Alligator]

I don't think there should be fixed tarps on current shelters, but have no problem if one is needed due to blowing rain or high wind. Otherwise, the structure is wasted if it doesn't provide shelter. It's already there, why not make good use of it? I always have a tarp though, it's what I use solo three season. And unless I have the shelter to myself, I tarp in the woods.

[Alligator]

Such heartless people, throwing shelter mice out into the cold. Heartless!

Seriously, I like the pavilion idea myself. But people are going to gather somewhere at night, whether there's a structure there or not. Sleeping shelters reduce the number of tentsites needed by about 10 or 12 and that's significant. In GA we've tried several strategies - shelters with designated tentsites (Gooch & Springer), overflow shelters (Springer-Stover) and tentsites only (Slaughter). And still areas like the old, or geologic, Slaughter Gap get blasted so bad the Trail has to be relo'd.

Anyway, the point is that shelters aren't the problem. A bunch of people gathering in one spot night after night is the problem. And there's no way to solve that, the best you can hope for is to mitigate and control the impact. Sleeping shelters are a tool for reducing environmental damage.GA has high use though because it's the start of the trail. There might be lower usage levels at which a camping area without sleeping shelter might work.

I haven't read the article yet though, I'll have to take a look at it.

[Footslogger]

[quote=SGT Rock;277940
You want lambasted: Where is the picnic table!!!!

There, you happy now?[/quote]
=================================

Well ...I'm not a big fan of the picnic table along the trail so the lambasting was well deserved !!

In my experience they become dumpsites for cookpot spillage and food crumbs as well as occasional sources of fire when stove fuel is inadvertantly spilled and then accidentally flames. Besides, after the first 4 - 5 hikers sit and spread out their stuff there generally isn't any room for others at the table anyway. I'm perfectly content to sit on my piece of Z-rest and eat a meal.

The whole thing for me (and maybe I'm jaded from the 2003 "wet year" experience) is being able to get out of the rain. As someone else mentioned before, the pavillion roof would allow you to drop your pack and get organized. Personally, I would probably set up my tent near (but not under) the pavillion and then just use the roof as a cover for cooking and unpacking/packing.

'Slogger

[jlb2012]

I like the idea of the pavilion especially if the uprights are very solid and 12 to 14 feet apart - the perfect place to hang a hammock ;)

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

Anyway, the point is that shelters aren't the problem. A bunch of people gathering in one spot night after night is the problem. And there's no way to solve that, the best you can hope for is to mitigate and control the impact. Sleeping shelters are a tool for reducing environmental damage.This is where I was going with the suggestion in post #10. Give the tenters and the shelter lovers a common place to gather to minimize impact. BTW, L. Wolf, if it were not for the environmental impact, I'd be right there with you on tearing down the shelters.

[Kerosene]

I'll chime in with my support for pavillions over lean-tos or cabins. The blowing rain issue could be mitigated somewhat with a slanting roof. In general I'd rather see these sites used for cooking/eating/water/socializing with camping relegated to other areas (not necessarily immediately surrounding the pavillion either). My tolerance for sleeping in shelters seems to be decreasing the older I get, but I do appreciate a roof to prepare a meal under and someplace to sit. That said, a lack of shelters wouldn't keep me from backpacking.

[Footslogger]

That said, a lack of shelters wouldn't keep me from backpacking.

===============================

Ditto !!

'Slogger

[Paul Bunyan]

I personally enjoy the shelters. The rodent problem can be a pain, but hey, we cant have everything.

[Rainbow]

Shelters need to deal with two realities: there are more and more people on the trail, and nearly everybody wants to get into a shelter when it's pouring rain. Putting as many people as possible into more spacious shelters will continue to keep to a minimum the impact on the surrounding area of tents. And having a shelter that includes an overhang for the picnic table makes it possible for many people to cook together in the pouring rain and also offers another sleeping space, which I've seen done on more than one occasion. I am always aware that I am but one of many using the trail and I always try to minimize my impact by staying on the trail and by sleeping in shelters. In "the good old days" I might have walked off trail quite a bit and done more stealth camping, but these days I'm always thinking in terms of 10,000 people walking in my footsteps doing exactly what I'm doing.

[Paul Bunyan]

I agree, i mean if the shelters are there and set up, why not use them?

[Alligator]

Shelters need to deal with two realities: there are more and more people on the trail, and nearly everybody wants to get into a shelter when it's pouring rain. ...General readings I have seen do not point to more and more people on the trail--backpacking numbers have been falling I think.

[SGT Rock]

And to add to that, there are a lot of trails, none of them have the shelter concentration of the AT - and they still work fine. People do not try to crowd 20 people into the same camp area on those trails - people go where they want here and there and the impact is minimal by the low numbers camping in places.

But set up a shelter and it becomes a magnet for lots and lots of people.

If there were no shelters, then people have to decide where to camp. :D

Pavilions sound nice, but then again, the solution may be to simply let shelters go extinct as they die.

[Johnny Swank]

Jeff's a sharp dude, and I'm glad he's got the ear of the ATC.

I'm fine with retrofitting the old shelters with plexiglass roof panels to get some light. It's not a choice between new=light or old=dark.

I'd live in some of the newer shelters if I could. They're a damn sight nicer than the student-ghetto places I've lived in, and, IMO, WAY overbuilt. It's beyond rediculous the design/size/ammenities that some of the newer ones have now. You might as well stay at home.

[Footslogger]

[quote=SGT Rock;278041]And to add to that, there are a lot of trails, none of them have the shelter concentration of the AT - and they still work fine. People do not try to crowd 20 people into the same camp area on those trails - people go where they want here and there and the impact is minimal by the low numbers camping in places.
================================================

It's mostly about water availability in my experience. Shelters or no shelters, hikers are naturally going to cluster more around water sources at night. The current popularity of shelters is due in large part because they tend to be located near water.

'Slogger

[SGT Rock]

That is true sometimes, but then again some shelters require a walk for water while up the trail a little way is a great water source and campsite. I think the actually problem is this: That is where the guides give good info about water - plus there is that handy shelter there.

So while there is usually a water source at a shelter, it isn't always the only place for water or a good campsite. There are a lot less campsites mentioned in guidebooks than there are shelters, but my experience is there are a lot more actual good places to camp than there are shelters.

I can remember quite a few instances of this. Blood Mountain Shelter is a good example of a shelter not even close to water, while there is water down in the gap. I went to a shelter once in VA based on the recommendation for good water, passed a couple of good tent sites with water to get there, only to find myself at the end of a long day miles from the water I had passed and miles to go to the next (listed) water with a dried up spring in front of the shelter.

There are lots of good places to camp with water where there is no shelter (thank goodness) but the thing is most of the big long distance guides list the shelters so people can plan to get to them, but only occasionally mention where water and campsites can be found together. So based on what I can tell, a lot of hikers plan for shelters because that is where the information about water is generally found - other places they have to fend for themselves.

It just is the way it is. If there were no shelters, the guides would probably pay more attention to the decent campsites. But that could have it's own problems.

[Ender]

The trouble with a roof-only shelter is that blowing rain would make most or all of it unusable for sleeping in bad weather.

I think the point of the pavilion is that it's not really for sleeping, just for getting out of the worst of the rain while you cook/eat/pack. Sleeping would be in tents.

[rswanson]

So what is everyone's major issue with the shelters? Is it that it ruins the aesthetics of the trail? I don't see an issue, even though I will agree that dirty, mud-caked plexiglass is ugly. But if I don't like a shelter, I don't have to stay in it.

[Footslogger]

So what is everyone's major issue with the shelters? Is it that it ruins the aesthetics of the trail? I don't see an issue, even though I will agree that dirty, mud-caked plexiglass is ugly. But if I don't like a shelter, I don't have to stay in it.
=========================================

I think the issue is that some of the older shelters are being replaced with larger and more modern structures ...concern being that the whole shelter thing might be getting out of control. A shelter is just that ...a shelter. Little by little the shelters are becoming more like "cabins"

'Slogger

[LostInSpace]

If you want a picnic table and a fire pit, go to an RV park.

At most, have tenting platforms where it is impossible to erect a tent of bare ground, but I'm not sure I entirely support those either ... maybe if there is no ground for erecting a tent within five miles.

Learn to dry camp. It isn't always necessary to camp close to water. Do what you need to do that requires water where there is water. You don't need a shelter so you can sleep nearby. You don't really need a pavilion either. Go down the trail to camp. The only structures that are needed are privies.

Rather than expend the effort on maintaining shelters, expend it on providing more locations for tents where they don't exists. The cost should be less, the benefit of less impact than completely dispersed camping is retained, and yet there is not the excessive concentration that shelters seem to encourage.

[Brrrb Oregon]

Being from the West, my first thought about the thread (after realizing that Shelter Creep wasn't a person), was "Shelters? You're a through-hiker, and you need shelters?" They normally aren't an option on the PCT.

But you guys are right... the wilderness can take only so many visits by even "leave no trace" camping. The AT is far more populated on any given night than the PCT. As someone has pointed out, shelters are likely a necessary evil, lest the AT be loved to death.

I would think that open vs. closed would depend on elevation and prevailing weather. If blizzard conditions are a possibility at times, real shelter from the elements could literally be a life-saver. If the conditions are often wet but rarely include blowing snow or extreme cold, something with more ventillation would allow stuff to dry better. More open is probably less welcoming to rodents, too. If you put up pavilions with rings for attaching tarps, people would figure out how to jerry-rig something when conditions were windy, too....if the people who put up the rings think a little bit before installing them. IOW, the design can imply that people coming are likely to have a tarp and a little twine at their disposal....it ought to try to foresee what gear people are actually likely to bring and how they're likely to try to use it. (Step ladder? Oh, none of them have a step ladder? Hmmm....I suppose not, do they?)

[rswanson]

I think the issue is that some of the older shelters are being replaced with larger and more modern structures ...concern being that the whole shelter thing might be getting out of control. A shelter is just that ...a shelter. Little by little the shelters are becoming more like "cabins"

'Slogger
I see that concern is being voiced. I guess I'm leaning towards the 'so what?' camp. Are folks concerned that it's going to get out of hand to the point that newer shelters are going to have electrical and plumbing runs installed and the wilderness feel of the trail is going to be destroyed? I never really feel like I'm that far removed from civilization on the AT anyway and that's not due to 'modernized' shelters or supposedly crowded trails. It's due to the fact that I hike across a road or behind someone's house several times a day. Some days it seems you are never out of earshot of roadnoise.

Excepting a few stretches of the trail, there isn't much isolation or solitude on the AT and I think most hikers are aware of the AT's reputation for being a far more 'social' trail than the PCT or CDT. I think that's as much a function of the trail traversing such a densely populated part of the country as it is anything else.

[knicksin2010]

When I woke up on June 26 in rausch gap shelter and saw gear floating away along with a drowned squirl, I was quite happy to be in a dry shelter. If there's a tent that will keep you dry when it's set up in a flood please let me know, until then I'm a fan of simple shelters that keep out the wind and rain, and elevate you above flood waters.

[MOWGLI]

rswanson:

The question is being raised by the ATC. If you haven't read the article in question, I highly recommend it. ATC wants to hear opinions from the hiker community about structures along the trail.

Personally, my favorite shelters along the way are some of the oldest. The baseball bat shelters in Maine have character. They are small too.

Here was my .02 (verbatim) that I provided to Jeff Marion;

"I’m of the opinion that shelters should be limited to between 8-12 occupants. They should contain no more than one fire ring and one picnic table. I would prefer that they be setback off the trail at least .1 miles, so they are not visible from the actual trail. I would eliminate loft designs wherever possible, and strive for simpler structures that blend into the environment, and utilize fewer resources. Ideally, shelters should be constructed from local materials wherever possible."

[Brrrb Oregon]

I see that concern is being voiced. I guess I'm leaning towards the 'so what?' camp. Are folks concerned that it's going to get out of hand to the point that newer shelters are going to have electrical and plumbing runs installed and the wilderness feel of the trail is going to be destroyed? I never really feel like I'm that far removed from civilization on the AT anyway and that's not due to 'modernized' shelters or supposedly crowded trails. It's due to the fact that I hike across a road or behind someone's house several times a day. Some days it seems you are never out of earshot of roadnoise.

Excepting a few stretches of the trail, there isn't much isolation or solitude on the AT and I think most hikers are aware of the AT's reputation for being a far more 'social' trail than the PCT or CDT. I think that's as much a function of the trail traversing such a densely populated part of the country as it is anything else.

There does get to be a point where having some arrangements for septic and other waste disposal gets to be a public health issue. Enteric infections and rodent infestations aren't exactly idyllic.

[Footslogger]

[quote=LostInSpace;278132]
At most, have tenting platforms where it is impossible to erect a tent of bare ground, but I'm not sure I entirely support those either ... maybe if there is no ground for erecting a tent within five miles.
======================================

I have to agree that with the exception of being elevated and away from wet ground, the tent platforms don't offer much and are not a very good use of space. My tent is not free standing and getting it set up on a tent platform is quite the trick. Ran into that this past year hiking between Rangeley and Gorham a couple times. For all the money/time/effort that went into hauling materials and building those platforms it seems like simply leveling some ground in places that are designated campsites might be the better way to go.

'Slogger

[Mouse]

Another point with tent platforms is that they rarely can hold more than one tent. That means 6-8 platforms are needed to replace even a small shelter and they are nearly as large. So a platform only site would have a larger overall footprint than the shelter it replaces.

[Bluebearee]

I know I'm biased (I read the article too and agreed with some of it), but I like the consistent designs of our MATC shelters, 3 sided which I find essential to keep out the rain and simple with some plexiglass in the roof for extra light & one sleeping platform for ~8-10 hikers.

I sure did notice the proliferation of bigger and better during my hike, I think the best example of this dichotomy is Peters Mt shelter next to the old Earl Shaffer. Multi-level structures like Peters Mt, Plumorchard Gap and Bryant Ridge are beautiful, but overkill, IMHO.

I'm just looking for basic shelter when I'm out, based on the traditional Adirondack style lean-to as I experienced on the NPT this Fall. I don't need a picnic table but they are a nice place to cook and write/read. It was a total surprise to find them down south, since we generally don't have them in the Northeast.

[Alligator]

If you want a picnic table and a fire pit, go to an RV park.

Having one fire ring prevents rings from forming at every tent site. The picnic table is for recognizing that the AT has a social interaction aspect. Lot's of people rate the social interaction high on the AT experience. Believe me, I'd rather see the whole trail under wilderness regs, but given the usage levels, impact reduction is necessary.

[Ender]

When I woke up on June 26 in rausch gap shelter and saw gear floating away along with a drowned squirl, I was quite happy to be in a dry shelter. If there's a tent that will keep you dry when it's set up in a flood please let me know, until then I'm a fan of simple shelters that keep out the wind and rain, and elevate you above flood waters.


I'm surprised neo didn't chime in with this one... a hammock! :p

Seriously though, proper site selection while tenting would eliminate that concern.

[MOWGLI]

I'm just looking for basic shelter when I'm out, based on the traditional Adirondack style lean-to as I experienced on the NPT this Fall.


Great trail, eh? I did the northernmost 50 miles with my daughter in late July. Fall sounds less buggy. We'll be back.

[MOWGLI]

I'm not sure I understand the no loft recoomendation mowgli.

Maybe I'm thinking of something different?




The type of loft I'm referring to is the type at Partnership Shelter, Ed Garvey, Deep Gap or Thomas Knob. There you have to climb a ladder into a 2nd story sleeping area.

[Lone Wolf]

The type of loft I'm referring to is the type at Partnership Shelter, Ed Garvey, Deep Gap or Thomas Knob. There you have to climb a ladder into a 2nd story sleeping area.

What a dumb design Partnership is. They spent thousands of $$ to build it, put in running water (hot and cold), a huge privy and a chinsy ladder to the second floor. Stairs wouldn't have added too much to the cost.

[Footslogger]

[quote=L. Wolf;278174]What a dumb design Partnership is.
=============================

Best thing about Partnership Shelter is the pizza !!

'Slogger

[Hammerhead]

When I woke up on June 26 in rausch gap shelter and saw gear floating away along with a drowned squirl, I was quite happy to be in a dry shelter. If there's a tent that will keep you dry when it's set up in a flood please let me know, until then I'm a fan of simple shelters that keep out the wind and rain, and elevate you above flood waters.


Go with a hammock and get off the ground completely. :D

[rswanson]

I guess I'm just not getting it. If an individual doesn't like a shelter then he or she doesn't have to stay there. In most areas there are other options, right?

And what's the difference between an enclosed shelter and an open air pavilion? It's still a structure built next to the trail. What difference does it really make if it has walls or not? If a hiker feels that there are too many conveniences at a particular shelter site then I think that individual could just move on. I think that a lot of this comes down to one considers to be 'roughing it'. It's important to remember that this is an opinion and not everyone is going to look at this the same way. Also keep in mind that the AT isn't just for thru's. Almost everyone on the trail is out there for only few days and many of those hikers welcome the conveniences of the more elaborate shelters.

Myself, I'm torn. I love the some of the shelters in the SNP with their marvelous tent sites. They're masterfully designed to have a very low profile, with the focus on those tent sites, not the shelter itself. But at the same time, when I came across the Quarry Gap shelter in PA, I was totally impressed with how much work went into that site. It was like a little garden right on the trail. I think some of you would consider it well overdone but I sure didn't mind hanging my hat there for a night. But if I had minded the carefully manicured shelter area I had to do no more than hike around the next bend to a less civilized spot.

[Ender]

I think a lot of it boils down to how trail maintaining money is being spent. A lot of the new shelters are overblown, overpriced monstrosities, that require a fair degree of upkeep. The money would be much better spent on trail maintenance, privy maintenance, acquiring more property to protect the trail corridor, trail education and wilderness programs, etc...

[Peaks]

In the old days, tents were heavy, and made out of canvas, rather than nylon. So, shelters certainly were welcome because you didn't need to carry a heavy tent.

But now, with lightweight tents, shelters are not as necessary. So, why not reduce them and provide established campsites instead. And the pavillion idea is good also.

[rswanson]

I think a lot of it boils down to how trail maintaining money is being spent. A lot of the new shelters are overblown, overpriced monstrosities, that require a fair degree of upkeep. The money would be much better spent on trail maintenance, privy maintenance, acquiring more property to protect the trail corridor, trail education and wilderness programs, etc...
That makes good sense. I'll but that.


But now, with lightweight tents, shelters are not as necessary. So, why not reduce them and provide established campsites instead. And the pavillion idea is good also.
Again, how is a pavilion any better than an enclosed shelter? And, as others have already stated, you have less of a footprint and enviromental impact by concentrating 8 people in a shelter than spreading them out over 8 tent sites.

[Alligator]

That makes good sense. I'll but that.


Again, how is a pavilion any better than an enclosed shelter? And, as others have already stated, you have less of a footprint and enviromental impact by concentrating 8 people in a shelter than spreading them out over 8 tent sites.Shelters may encourage more travelers then tent sites do. No hard figures here, but there is some component of hikers that would probably not hike without the shelter system. This number is likely small.

You can spread people out some though with tent sites, maybe creating branches. Also, if a tent area becomes severely denuded, or even before, you can close and move the sites some. That's hard to do with a shelter. Just some thoughts, not absolutes.

My support of a pavilion is a compromise that I came to when this was discussed previously in a thread started by Baltimore Jack. I look it as a draw to get people to tent in the area. With no draws, pavilion, water, fire ring, everyone will disperse. Then impacts don't get concentrated and potentially the high number of users will be too much for dispersed camping.

From that previous thread, shelters are a large cost in materials and labor also, but this has been mentioned.

[Footslogger]

Again, how is a pavilion any better than an enclosed shelter? And, as others have already stated, you have less of a footprint and enviromental impact by concentrating 8 people in a shelter than spreading them out over 8 tent sites.
=================================

Well ...in the end it might not work out this way, but to me at least a pavillion style would change the way shelters are currently being used. Rather than representing a place to roll out your gear and sleep they would offer a place to congregate for dinner and a welcome break from inclement weather. I think it would encourage the use of tents and lower the reliance or dependance on the "shelter" as a place to sleep.

I'm not discounting your point regarding environmental impact. I'm just commenting on the differences between how the current shelter and a pavillion style structure could/would be used.

'Slogger

[Ender]

Here's a thought... if a pavillion is built to do so, it could be fairly easily moved to a new site if the existing site becomes degraded with overuse and needs time to regrow.

The more I think about it, the more I'm liking the idea of the pavillions.

[generoll]

I use a shelter when they are available and tend to plan each days hike on the next shelter or campsite with water. The writer who mentioned the way our trail dollars are spent was right on the money, in my opinion. I don't have a problem with several tent sites and think that it would be best if folks camped in designated areas. The convenience of a picnic table is always appreciated and a table is no more likely to be 'hogged' then is a shelter. If a pavilion was created, putting a picnic table in the middle of it would certainly help to discourage people from pitching a tent under the pavilion. As for hammocks strung from post to post, that's why sharp knives were invented:D .

If memory serves, there is a note in the Gooch Gap shelter indicating that the cost of constructing that shelter was around $100,000. I know that there a various creative ways of assigning the value of donated time and materials, but that's the cost of a fairly decent home. Shelters are here and will remain, but I'm not sure that I can be overly sympathetic to requests for donations when that kind of money is spent on one shelter.

Just kind of rambling on here with random thoughts, but I'd prefer more campsites and/or smaller shelters then luxury condos.

[rswanson]

Shelters may encourage more travelers then tent sites do.
I'm not sure I follow this line of thought. Is this, in effect, a way to control traffic on the AT? Are advocates of this plan indicating they don't want as many people hiking the trail? If so, that's too elitist for my liking. I say more the merrier. If I want solitude there are plenty of other places to hike.

However, I strongly agree with the financial aspect of this issue. I'd much rather see future shelters be of simpler construction and have more funds available for trail maintenece, etc., versus $100,000 shelters. I'm pretty sure that would be supported almost unanimous in the hiking community.

[rswanson]

Well ...in the end it might not work out this way, but to me at least a pavillion style would change the way shelters are currently being used. Rather than representing a place to roll out your gear and sleep they would offer a place to congregate for dinner and a welcome break from inclement weather. I think it would encourage the use of tents and lower the reliance or dependance on the "shelter" as a place to sleep.
Slogger,
You've thru-hiked and I haven't so I'm sure you have a more informed view of this than I...but I have to ask, what's wrong with the way that shelters are currently being used? Aside from local yokels using shelters as party spots and the like, what are the negative impacts of shelters as the primary mode of housing on the trail? Is it just that? That they're too much like 'houses' and not enough like 'roughing it' in the eyes of dedicated hikers? I may be mistaken but that's what I'm getting out of this discussion.

[Footslogger]

Slogger,
You've thru-hiked and I haven't so I'm sure you have a more informed view of this than I...but I have to ask, what's wrong with the way that shelters are currently being used? Aside from local yokels using shelters as party spots and the like, what are the negative impacts of shelters as the primary mode of housing on the trail? Is it just that? That they're too much like 'houses' and not enough like 'roughing it' in the eyes of dedicated hikers? I may be mistaken but that's what I'm getting out of this discussion.
================================

Nothing's WRONG with the way that current shelters are used per se. After all ...some/many of them appear like cabins when you approach the area. But here's one observation I'll share with you from experience, that is an inherent characteristic of the current shelter. As hikers arrive in the late afternoon/early evening they stake out their "spot" and arrange their matress/sleeping bag and other stuff. Early in that process there is plenty of room so hikers tend to allow generous room on either side of their "spot". But then ...the 5th, 6th or god forbid the 8th hiker shows up and attempts to enter the EIGHT PERSON shelter. Guess what happens.

But hey, it's a first come, first serve system ...right ?? I'm a relatively easy paced hiker so I was generally that 8th hiker AND it was typically RAINING CATS AND DOGS (at least in 2003). What I really wanted was the opportunity to get out of the rain, drop my gear and change out of my wet clothes. Needless to say, a FULL shelter most often doesn't lend itself to that need.

Don't get me wrong. I stayed in many a shelter ...many more than I otherwise would have due to the rain. But, in retrospect, what I most often would have rather had was a temporary roof over my head under which to get dry and organized. From that point I could select a spot and set up my tent for the night without disturbing anyone else who was already inside the shelter AND without getting the rest of my gear/clothing soaked.

That's where the idea of the pavillion came from. It'll most likely never happen but it would be my vote rather than replacing any of the current shelters as they fall into disrepair and collapse.

'Slogger

[rswanson]

But hey, it's a first come, first serve system ...right ?? I'm a relatively easy paced hiker so I was generally that 8th hiker AND it was typically RAINING CATS AND DOGS (at least in 2003). What I really wanted was the opportunity to get out of the rain, drop my gear and change out of my wet clothes. Needless to say, a FULL shelter most often doesn't lend itself to that need.
Well, it seems to me the solution is self-evident...you need to hike faster! Either that, or we need to make the shelters even bigger...we need to spend 200K on the suckers.

Just kidding, of course! That makes some sense. I think a potential rememdy for this may already be out there. Some of the shelters I've seen in PA have two smaller shelters with a covered pavilion area between them. That's not a particularly small footprint but it seems to be a design that addresses the issues you raise. I believe those shelters are among the older ones, at least in that area, so maybe the more recent shelter designers have somewhat outsmarted themselves as they changed to larger single construction.

[Cookerhiker]

Well I've always liked shelters and having stayed in some of the fancy ones (William Penn, Deep Gap, Fontana Hilton), I admit to enjoying their amenities and many times have appreciated staying under a dry roof in pouring rain or driving snow. But I've been happy enough with the simple structures as long as the roof was intact. And regarding pavilions, last winter I camped at Silver Hill, CT in the tent while cooking & eating on at the pavilion's table. Perhaps this setup should be the model for the future.

Everyone's raised some valid concerns about "shelter creep" including increased costs for construction & maintenance, effect on Trail experience, and whether they draw partiers and other non-hikers. I do a fair amount of off-season hiking when the shelters are extremely uncrowded (likely vacant). Much of the discussion seems to focus on the thru-hiking experience; any decisions on shelters should consider off-season use as well.

I've gotten quite used to dry camping so availability of water isn't an issue for me.

I guess the one thing that annoyed about the Journeys article when I first read it and still sticks to me is that there are far more important issues for the ATC to tackle and give space to in the magazine than alleged "shelter creep."

[Footslogger]

[quote=rswanson;278331]Well, it seems to me the solution is self-evident...you need to hike faster! Either that, or we need to make the shelters even bigger...we need to spend 200K on the suckers.
============================

Glad you were kidding ...cuz neither of those 2 things are gonna happen !! One thing I may consider though on my future thru-hikes is only hiking a half day. Then I'll be the first one to the shelter and can spread all my stuff out.

But seriously though, I don't sleep well in shelters anyway. So, with the exception of offering me a break from the weather the shelters are pretty low on my priority list. It just so happens they tend to have been built near (an sometimes NEAR is a relative term) a reliable water source.

'Slogger

[Johnny Swank]

Are folks concerned that it's going to get out of hand to the point that newer shelters are going to have electrical and plumbing runs installed and the wilderness feel of the trail is going to be destroyed?

That's already happening. (See:Partnership Shelter, Fontana Dam)

Benton Mackaye had some thoughts on this. Might be a good idea to brush up on the founder of the Appalachian Trail. http://www.wilderdom.com/vignettes/Appalachian.htm

[kevin]

Don't get me wrong. I stayed in many a shelter ...many more than I otherwise would have due to the rain. But, in retrospect, what I most often would have rather had was a temporary roof over my head under which to get dry and organized. From that point I could select a spot and set up my tent for the night without disturbing anyone else who was already inside the shelter AND without getting the rest of my gear/clothing soaked.

That's where the idea of the pavillion came from. It'll most likely never happen but it would be my vote rather than replacing any of the current shelters as they fall into disrepair and collapse.

'Slogger

I think this does a great job of making the argument for the pavillion approach. While I have spent a few nights in shelters (still not sure how anyone gets a good nights sleep in a shelter with multiple people tossing and turning through the night), I can't say I'd miss them for the purposes of sleeping in. However, as a place to keep things dry while cooking or packing/unpacking they are very convenient. Its a lot easier to do those things when there aren't 4-5 people that are turned in for the day taking up most of the space.

[rswanson]

But seriously though, I don't sleep well in shelters anyway. So, with the exception of offering me a break from the weather the shelters are pretty low on my priority list. It just so happens they tend to have been built near (an sometimes NEAR is a relative term) a reliable water source.

'Slogger
I hear that. When I'm hiking with my wife, which is about 50% of the time, I can't get her to sleep in one of those 'dirty, spider and mouse infested, creepy shelters', even if it were pouring acid rain. So I'm usually tenting, anyway.

[kevin]

Seriously, I like the pavilion idea myself. But people are going to gather somewhere at night, whether there's a structure there or not. Sleeping shelters reduce the number of tentsites needed by about 10 or 12 and that's significant. In GA we've tried several strategies - shelters with designated tentsites (Gooch & Springer), overflow shelters (Springer-Stover) and tentsites only (Slaughter). And still areas like the old, or geologic, Slaughter Gap get blasted so bad that the Trail eventually had to be relo'd.

The shelters with designated campsites are great. However, I can see (especially in GA during the Spring) how it can be problematic to have enough tentsites to handle the crowd. Turning the shelter into a non-sleeping pavilion would obviously make this worse as far as space, but (and I think someone else mentioned this as well) I wonder if this would be as much of a problem further up the trail when the crowds get spread out a bit. Personally, I would love this setup if there was a way to do without running into the space problems of 20 tents going up.

[Skidsteer]

....Anyway, the point is that shelters aren't the problem. A bunch of people gathering in one spot night after night is the problem. And there's no way to solve that, the best you can hope for is to mitigate and control the impact. Sleeping shelters are a tool for reducing environmental damage.

The way to solve it is to instigate a February to May sheltermouse-stocking project similar to the GA DNR program to stock trout streams.

Once a week (twice weekly for ridiculously over-used shelters and tent sites) a GATC volunteer hikes in with a jumbo-sized Ursack of surplus lab mice(you know; the kind of mouse that lab techs take home to their children for pets)and 'stocks' the shelter.

Withhold food for two days prior to release and every fourth week dump a ten foot King snake just for grins.

That should spread the herd out some and Mountain Crossings wouldn't be able to keep enough tents in stock.


Who knows? Maybe hikers will be forced to relearn quaint old customs like selecting a good campsite.

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

Maybe hikers will be forced to relearn quaint old customs like selecting a good campsite.First, I'm LMAO at your stocking suggestions....

As for the quoted comment: Shhhhh.... we don't want the masses discovering our little secret.

[Appalachian Tater]

There's no such thing as a non-sleeping pavillion unless you have someone in a uniform to enforce it. Hikers will take over the pavillion and sleep on the picnic table. I got really PO'd about that one time in Virginia. Some guys came in, set up tents on and around the table, stayed up all night drinking, loud, then slept late, so no one could cook or eat in the pavillion.

Yes, I woke them up (early and grumpy) and ate my breakfast on the table just to make a point.

[Paul Bunyan]

Hey, theres something i have always wondered. What does ROFL mean?

[rickb]

Swinging from the ceiling crying?

[Paul Bunyan]

ROFL? Thats more like SFTCC

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

Hey, theres something i have always wondered. What does ROFL mean?Rolling on the floor laughing

[Paul Bunyan]

;)Ohh, ok. hey. I left you a present over on the scout thread;)

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

I saw that... you are so good, you're bad.

[Paul Bunyan]

I'll take that as a compliment..........I think.......

[Paul Bunyan]

Just dont let Mathewski see it. ;)

[Alligator]

I'm not sure I follow this line of thought. Is this, in effect, a way to control traffic on the AT? Are advocates of this plan indicating they don't want as many people hiking the trail? If so, that's too elitist for my liking. I say more the merrier. If I want solitude there are plenty of other places to hike.

However, I strongly agree with the financial aspect of this issue. I'd much rather see future shelters be of simpler construction and have more funds available for trail maintenece, etc., versus $100,000 shelters. I'm pretty sure that would be supported almost unanimous in the hiking community.I don't think it's elitist to expect a backpacker to carry adequate shelter as opposed to needing to build bigger and larger shelters to accomodate those without that don't have it. Backpacking has a strong self-sufficiency aspect. Again though, I believe that this is a really small number.

[Spirit Walker]

One of the points made in the article is that the shelter system can cut hikers off from the nature they supposedly go out to enjoy. Instead of being surrounded by the forest, open to the wildlife, the sounds and smells of the natural world, in a shelter you are focused on three walls and the people inside. You barely see the view outside, between the people, the fire pit and the hanging gear. It makes for a very different experience. Shelters cater to the inexperienced who are scared of being outdoors and feel more comfortable surrounded by walls, a floor, tables, windows, etc. It's more like car camping than wilderness camping. Aside from times of serious rain, most thruhikers end up using shelters less and less as time passes and they gain experience and become more comfortable with the natural world. With experience you learn to pick a good campsite - with or without water - so you can enjoy the nature you came out to experience.

On the PCT there are only a couple of shelters and they are not used by many hikers. You socialize in town or if you happen to meet another hiker at the end of the day who is stopping when you do. It's enough.

If I want people, I go to the Gathering. On the trail, I seek solitude and immersion in nature. I won't find that in the shelters.

Another good point in the article is that the more people that stay in a shelter, the less sleep people get. It's hard enough in a small shelter - 20 people snoring, snorting, farting, tossing and turning, getting up to go to the privy, waking up early, going to bed late . . . Why bother.

[MedicineMan]

i've heard around some campfires and read somewhere in an article that there are some who want to increase the numbers of shelters so that they are roughly 5 miles a part, the goal is to increase the number of concentrated damage and decrease the scattered campsites, also they want to entice more people to the trail thinking that with shelters closer together the new users would carry less weight and be more apt to hike more.

[SGT Rock]

That's already happening. (See:Partnership Shelter, Fontana Dam)

Benton Mackaye had some thoughts on this. Might be a good idea to brush up on the founder of the Appalachian Trail. http://www.wilderdom.com/vignettes/Appalachian.htm


Good link, but there is always a problem with trying to determine original intent on anything - but in this case I'll say it about the trail.

When you plan something, there are 8 steps to making a good plan. Number 8 is supervise and refine. This means that no plan is perfect and will need to change as it is executed "Fight the Enemy, not the Plan" as we say in the Army. Or as one of Murphy's laws of combat states: "No plan survives initial contact with the enemy." Because if you stick with the plan and it doesn't fit the situation it is executed in, you will loose. Building and maintaining the AT is the same thing...

In this case the AT had to adapt from the initial plan into what it is now to meet what was actually achievable and to what makes best sense at the time for the health of the trail and the environment's, animals, communities, and hikers. And what the AT is now and can be in the future to continue along the best course it can will have to adapt as usage changes.

Just my $0.02.

[Blue Jay]

It's not like it's hard to avoid shelters and no one is asking any of you to build or maintain one. Many of them are not even visible from the trail. Stay away, more room for me.

[SGT Rock]

I don't think just "not using" them is the whole issue. It is the costs is both money and work hours that are spent to build and maintain bigger and bigger shelters. And the impact the bigger and bigger shelters have on the environment around them.

Edit....

Here is something else that has bothered me about these SUPER SHELTERS for a while and I haven't thought to voice it - the hypocrisy of view-shed impact.

I admit I don't know everything or all the rules about the AT and the national scenic trails act or what past litigation has happened, but...

If I were a developer that had problems with the ATC trying to block some construction project based on the "Viewing Impact" or impact to the environment from sewage or whatever, I would go get some pictures of these SUPER SHELTERS and the land-mines of poop & toilet paper and trash around some of the more trashed out shelters and use that as evidence to show the ATC won't even protect the trail from construction or poor sanitation practices. The shelters are sort of hypocritical when you think of them in that sort of light.

[generoll]

a good point. "View shed" is one of the issues being raised by the ATC in its efforts to block the construction of a windfarm. Just goes to show that every issue has multiple facets to it and the 'best' solution, if there is one, will be discovered by just the kind of reasoned debate that the article and the original poster was hoping to generate.

[Kerosene]

I'd trade shelters for covered eating areas equipped with a butane canister-powered mini-dryer to dry out my SmartWools! :banana

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

In re: the veiw-shed issue: I do think locating shelters off the trail itself far enough to be out of view is an excellent idea.

In Re: shelter vrs pavillion: In the spirit of HYOH, I don't want to see the shelters completely gone. However, I think they should be simply shelter and mouldering privies. Things like electricity & running hot / cold water are not part of the wilderness experience.

As to size: I still feel after reading others' ideas that having a sleeping loft for 6 to 12 people above a pavillion would meet both the needs of those who simply want a dry place to cook and pack / unpack while giving those who want to sleep in an enclosed environment the option of doing so without adding a lot of costs or a larger footprint. As some have noted, when it is pouring, everyone wants in the shelter - By using the tarps most will have with them, the pavillion area could become a second large covered dry sleeping area in really bad weather.

[Rain Man]

Hey, theres something i have always wondered. What does ROFL mean?

Enjoy!--

http://www.netlingo.com/emailsh.cfm

http://www.phish.net/faq/abbreviations.html

http://a-z-dictionaries.com/Online_acronyms.html

You can just Google "Internet abbreviations" and throw in a few you're looking for. You'll hit lots of lists like these.

Rain:sunMan
.

[Footslogger]

[quote=Frolicking Dinosaurs;278651]In re: the veiw-shed issue: I do think locating shelters off the trail itself far enough to be out of view is an excellent idea.
=====================================

An "aside" from the view-shed issue ...but shelters that are a considerable distance from the trail "tend" (and I emphasize the word TEND) to be visited less by distance hikers.

Just ask those who have walked from Springer to Katahdin (or vice versa). At first the idea of 1/2 mile walk to a shelter doesn't seem out of question. However ...as hikers get further and further along a hiker "tends" to need a pretty good reason to hike 1/2 mile off trail, especially knowing that they have to walk ANOTHER half mile to get back to the trail. Add to that the fact that a side trail to a shelter generally involves a downhill/uphill combination. Sound funny ?? ...well I wish I had a nickel for every time I heard a conversation about the distance to a shelter from the trail.

Now some may disagree with the above ...but in my experience the shelters that are the farthest away from the trail will "tend" to get less use.

'Slogger

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

Perhaps the shelters could be more like .1 to .3 miles off the trail but located where a natural barrier like a hill, large boulder, etc. would hide them from view.

[Alligator]

I don't think the large shelters affecting viewsheds would get much traction. I am rarely able to see the shelters from a distance. This could be because of being on the trail, but usually tree cover makes it very difficult to see them. Even on poor sites mature trees will average about 40-50 ft tall. I wouldn't personally try this argument--large shelters impact viewsheds. I think it could backfire.

[generoll]

I think the idea was not how shelter effect the "view-shed", but rather the fact that the ATC has raised this issue in their opposition to windfarms. It's kinda like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder. You can't complain that someone elses construction takes away from the wilderness experience and then turn around and exempt your own. Or rather you can, it just smacks a bit of hypocrisy.

[Tha Wookie]

That's already happening. (See:Partnership Shelter, Fontana Dam)

Benton Mackaye had some thoughts on this. Might be a good idea to brush up on the founder of the Appalachian Trail. http://www.wilderdom.com/vignettes/Appalachian.htm


You're absolutely right. A historical perspective is required to fully understand the current shelter situation. Shelters are in the original design on the AT for good reasons.

I wonder: How many of you would have hiked on the AT without shelters? I mean, what if they never existed? What purpose do they serve? How many people would be displaced by a shelterless trail? How many avoid the AT because of shelters?

If you recall Mr. MacKaye's original 4-step plan for the AT, shelters were integral for his social vision of the AT.

While I do agree with Dr. Marion's work and recommendations, I think the root of the problem is that we the trail advocates, managers, and researchers, have effectively abandoned the AT plan. Sprawl happens when there is poor planning. Same with creep.

We have yet to reach the AT plan's maturity, which includes the establishment of farm food camps off-trail. We have donors wanting to build giant shelters, workers who will work, hikers that don't want to go into town every three days and would rather work on a farm to experience America instead of a gas station, and an amazingly forward-thinking AT plan that tells us how to put it all together.

What farm food camps would do is provide a buffer of development away from the "wild" trail corridor, and give more appropriate places for more "deluxe" shelters to be realized in a gradiant of wildness, from town ---> farm camp--->small off-trail shelters -----> primitive, "wild" experiences on the trail tread.

Farm camps would realease the pressure off the AT considerably, and move the AT in the direction as the origninal model of secondary society that was originally attended.

Creep is a serious issue to face. Dr. Marion has clearly faced the issue and I thank him for all of the work he has put in for this issue to be presented.

I hope that the ATC considers pro-active steps to alleviating this and other trail problems by listening to the wisdom of Benton. There's not one among us with his vision. Look at far he's taken us. Let's simplify the trail and make the user experience more sustainable (less dependent on town subsidies) with the establishment of three experimental food farms along the AT, which push the develpment out to the fringes of the AT corridor and keep its heart simple, wild, and pure.

[MOWGLI]

I don't think the large shelters affecting viewsheds would get much traction. I am rarely able to see the shelters from a distance.

The Horns Pond Lean-tos in Maine are a good example of shelters and a view shed. When you climb north out of the Horns Pond area to gain the summit of South Horn, you can look back and see the lean-tos in the clearing. Because they used green metal roofing materials, the structures blend in quite well, and can be difficult to see unless you know what you're looking for. I have a slide transparency of the shelters from the top of South Horn. If anyone has a digital image of that view, I'd appreciate it if you could post it in the gallery.

[Tha Wookie]

sorry... duplicate post.

[Alligator]

I think the idea was not how shelter effect the "view-shed", but rather the fact that the ATC has raised this issue in their opposition to windfarms. It's kinda like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder. You can't complain that someone elses construction takes away from the wilderness experience and then turn around and exempt your own. Or rather you can, it just smacks a bit of hypocrisy.I'm very relaxed when it comes to windfarms Gene. But, there's a big difference between a 200 ft. windmill that you can see for miles. While some of the newer shelters are large, you still can't see them. Using a viewshed argument means you have to be able to see the structure, not how it compares to a windmill. Most shelters are situated in places you can't see them well anyway.

I don't think it is a strong argument to use and instead feel it would be wasted on shelters. If someone uses it now, and it fails, later on when it's used again, perhaps legitimately with windmills, there will be bad feeling about the viewshed argument.

It's just a strategy concern. Don't waste your best weapons on small problems.

[Footslogger]

[quote=Alligator;278701]I'm very relaxed when it comes to windfarms Gene. But, there's a big difference between a 200 ft. windmill that you can see for miles.
================================

Maybe I'm jaded because windfarms are a common oddity out here in Wyoming. That said ...I agree with Alligator that there really isn't much similarity between windfarms and shelters.

Granted, this ain't the AT out here and in some places your vision is unobstructed for miles and miles. Given the density of trees and vegitation along the trail the majority of shelters are pretty well concealed and tend to blend in.

I just don't think we need MORE Of them ...and certainly NOT any larger or more elaborate ones.

'Slogger

[rswanson]

One of the points made in the article is that the shelter system can cut hikers off from the nature they supposedly go out to enjoy. Instead of being surrounded by the forest, open to the wildlife, the sounds and smells of the natural world, in a shelter you are focused on three walls and the people inside. You barely see the view outside, between the people, the fire pit and the hanging gear. It makes for a very different experience. Shelters cater to the inexperienced who are scared of being outdoors and feel more comfortable surrounded by walls, a floor, tables, windows, etc. It's more like car camping than wilderness camping. Aside from times of serious rain, most thruhikers end up using shelters less and less as time passes and they gain experience and become more comfortable with the natural world. With experience you learn to pick a good campsite - with or without water - so you can enjoy the nature you came out to experience.
This is exactly what I was referring to earlier. A statement like 'the shelter cuts hikers off from nature they are supposed to enjoy' is an opinion. Who are you, am I, or is anyone else to tell a hiker what he is or isn't supposed to enjoy? It's up to the individual to determine what's enjoyable or not. If, as an individual,you feel cut off from nature in a shelter simply pitch your tent. If you don't like the crowd at the shelter, then move on. It's no more complicated than that. And let's not forget that if someone feels more comfortable in a shelter than in a tent, then the trail is there for them, too...not just for thru's or those who wouldn't think of spending their precious weekend in the woods inside a walled box that resembles the one they just left.

Now if we're talking about the practical effects of $$$ spent on shelters or the lack of space for other latecomers to a shelter site, those are entirely different matters. But lets not let some 'hiker machismo' affect this important matter.

[halftime]

A historical perspective is required to fully understand the current shelter situation. Shelters are in the original design on the AT for good reasons.

Creep is a serious issue to face. Dr. Marion has clearly faced the issue and I thank him for all of the work he has put in for this issue to be presented.

I hope that the ATC considers pro-active steps to alleviating this and other trail problems by listening to the wisdom of Benton. There's not one among us with his vision. Look at far he's taken us. Let's simplify the trail and make the user experience more sustainable (less dependent on town subsidies)

Much of Benton's vision is preservation. Over development along the trail corridor is certainly a threat to this. I like the idea of keeping the trail corridor (outside of towns) as natural as possible (even if corridor is narrow in places). This could be done by routinely opening and closing some areas to primative camping, while maintaining shelters that are accessible to hikers but are off the main trail.

[saimyoji]

I've got it: caves.

[Footslogger]

I've got it: caves.

=================================

Well ...that would certainly take care of the overhead protection from inclement weather.

Plus, with animals taking up refuge in the caves it would add to the overall wilderness experience.

Let's start diggin ...

'Slogger

[MOWGLI]

It's up to the individual to determine what's enjoyable or not.

Yes, but we are dependant upon the ATC to help maintain the trail and the built environment along the trail, so that we can have a positive experience without doing harm to the natural environment.

What this is supposed to be all about is providing feedback to the ATC so they, in partnership with the maintaining clubs, can help to develop some guidelines so that the AT experience (which most of us cherish) can be safeguarded for future generations.

[LostInSpace]

Although a shelter may not be visible from the AT, it is often visible from the water source or the side trail to the water source. Consequently, the shelter may still have a visual impact on those hikers that prefer to avoid seeing them.

[halftime]

I've got it: caves.

I know this is intended as a joke, but you could be on to something. Earth Sheltered Structures can provide less visual impact, better protection from a harsh environment and great energy efficiency. http://www.earthshelters.com/

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

While earthen shelters would solve the visual and protection problems, my guess is they would be extremely difficult for trail maintainers to build without eathmoving equipment.

[generoll]

Check me out on this, but if we are refering to the original concept that Benton Mackaye had, wasn't he proposing a series of self sustaining 'communes' along the trail? Seems to me that I read or heard that his idea was for the development of these communities as an antidote to the mind numbing effects of society as he viewed it. A place to come for spiritual refreshment and rejuvenation. My point is that the trail as it is today may not be exactly what BM originally had in mind. Rock made the point that a plan has to be constantly reviewed and modified as necessary to accomodate the changes in the environment, if I understood him correctly. That being so, what was doesn't necessarily have to be what is or is to become.

I'd like to point out that I am not anti-shelter. I do think that some of them are a bit more grandiose then they need to be. I also think that more money should be spent on developing more and better campsites along the trail and assuming that we aren't going to be able to enlarge the pie, I'd like to see shelters take a smaller slice so more might be left for campsites.

[generoll]

Sorry, should have read Wookies post. I see that most of what I said was already addressed in the article regarding BM.

[Kevin A. Boyce]

Maybe the ATC should float the idea of building a pavillion in place of a shelter that needs to be overhauled or replaced as a test program.

Do a few of these, see what how the user community reacts, see about enviromental impacts, and see what the cost comparison are... It might be an interesting study to gauge what future structures are actually needed.

Is what is needed just a place to gather/cook/dry-out (pavillion) or sleeping should sleeping be needed as well (shelter)? I am sure there are areas that are limited to tenting options, but looking at Silver Hill (CT); which has a pavillion, or Shenandoah Camping and Denning Hill (NY); both of which a pavillion is a more sound option then a full on shelter, alternatives should be sought... If any stucture should be built.

[Kevin A. Boyce]

That should read 'areas that are limited in their tenting options... due to ground conditions, regulations, etc...

[quote=Kevin A. Boyce;278756]I am sure there are areas that are limited to tenting options, quote]

[halftime]

While earthen shelters would solve the visual and protection problems, my guess is they would be extremely difficult for trail maintainers to build without earthmoving equipment.

You are right, this is not really a practicle thing to do every ten miles along the trail.

But building them might not require as much heavy equipment as you would think. One of my college classes built an earth sheltered structure in a wilderness area. The structure was a 1/2 dome shell covered with earth. Dome was formed with a big balloon like bladder filled with water. Water was pumped from a nearby creek. Concrete was mixed on site. Was built in a ravine-like area along a hillside so covering with earth only required backing a dump truck up to the side of a hill and a lot of shoveling. Do need the ability to access the site by truck but probobly no different than what is needed to build a conventional shelter.

Not advocating that these replace existing shelters. Per my earlier post I believe there should be fewer shelters and they should be off the trail coridor. If built in the right place and circumstance, a shelter of this type could be a practicle and sustainable option.

[Tipi Walter]

This is exactly what I was referring to earlier. A statement like 'the shelter cuts hikers off from nature they are supposed to enjoy' is an opinion. Who are you, am I, or is anyone else to tell a hiker what he is or isn't supposed to enjoy? It's up to the individual to determine what's enjoyable or not. If, as an individual,you feel cut off from nature in a shelter simply pitch your tent. If you don't like the crowd at the shelter, then move on. It's no more complicated than that. And let's not forget that if someone feels more comfortable in a shelter than in a tent, then the trail is there for them, too...not just for thru's or those who wouldn't think of spending their precious weekend in the woods inside a walled box that resembles the one they just left.

Now if we're talking about the practical effects of $$$ spent on shelters or the lack of space for other latecomers to a shelter site, those are entirely different matters. But lets not let some 'hiker machismo' affect this important matter.

Why is it then that our culture's concept of the most pristine natural locations are designated Wilderness Areas in which is forbidden any manmade structures, logging, chainsaws, bicycles, etc? There is a common concept that the best outdoors is that outdoors that is not disfigured by any human imprint. Impossible, of course, as the noise polluting jets constantly invade the silence, but there's an attempt by society to protect what's left.

The AT also needs protection, especially now as sprawl inches closer. The idea of Wilderness was decided by individuals to be a place without human interference and a single individual therefore could not build a shelter or a road or drive an ATV thru it. What if you, as an individual, decided that the best AT experience for you would be to follow the trail on the back of an ATV?

For the most part the AT is not a bonafide Wilderness Area and as such allows shelters, but should we not always push to get the AT more wild and less developed, less human?

[jmaclennan]

We have yet to reach the AT plan's maturity, which includes the establishment of farm food camps off-trail. We have donors wanting to build giant shelters, workers who will work, hikers that don't want to go into town every three days and would rather work on a farm to experience America instead of a gas station, and an amazingly forward-thinking AT plan that tells us how to put it all together.

What farm food camps would do is provide a buffer of development away from the "wild" trail corridor, and give more appropriate places for more "deluxe" shelters to be realized in a gradiant of wildness, from town ---> farm camp--->small off-trail shelters -----> primitive, "wild" experiences on the trail tread.

Farm camps would realease the pressure off the AT considerably, and move the AT in the direction as the origninal model of secondary society that was originally attended.

from what i can gather, you seem to be just the right person to get this sort of thing going. if i had the money, i'd do it myself. i don't know how much land Rusty's got, but i heard his place was up for sale not too long ago.

consensus seems to be: same number, if not fewer shelters; no more supershelters; hopefully they are not visible from the trail (or from the path to the water source); made of natural/local building materials; experiment with pavillions. sounds good to me. let's do it.

[Deerleg]

Just read Jeff Marion’s article on Structure Creep and knew I would find a nice big thread here on WB (and I read all 117 posts). A few more quotes from the article and my 2 cents:
“Shelters are a traditional feature of the AT and they will remain so.”
9 times out of 10 I’m off in the woods, but on a few cold windy snowy nights the shelter was the safety margin I chose to rely on. Many hikers from neophyte to expert have been grateful a shelter was near at hand.
“…it appears in some cases that some shelters are being redesigned to serve popular tastes … Whose tastes should we serve: thru-hikers, section hikers, weekenders, or club members?” I think the answer is, if we want broad support and to encourage more people to enjoy the trail, we have to continue to serve them all.
“…should we alter facility sizes and amenities to match changing desires over time?’ Yes. Lots of good ideas above. More smaller shelters, O.K. on bigger shelters, pavilions. I don’t think there can be a “standard” shelter, but more of a targeted approach striking the best balance for the usage of a given area. It is daunting. As individuals it’s going to be tough to get it right all the time, but we can decide if the shelter fits our hike or not. Many of the posts above have expressed our different perceptions of what is needed based on our own experiences and Dr Marion’s article seems to imply his own short giving’s: “Large AT shelters with non-primitive materials and amenities, combined with the people they attract, have a powerful capacity to separate and distract me from intimate and meaningful contact with nature.” I’ve felt that way too, so I simply moved on and let the shelter serve the wants, needs of others.

[DawnTreader]

Aside from times of serious rain, most thruhikers end up using shelters less and less as time passes and they gain experience and become more comfortable with the natural world. With experience you learn to pick a good campsite - with or without water - so you can enjoy the nature you came out to experience.

Most Thru hikers are shelter rats, most begin their hike with dillusions of solitude, a good tent or hammock, and the vision of nightly stealth sites and a oneness with nature. Most I have met quickly scrap this idea because most have pushed to hard during the day, and turn to the shelter for a lazy alternative. Few set up camp on a daily basis. This is what I have observed.

[Ender]

I had the exact opposite experience for myself. I started out using shelters, but the further north I got the more and more I just used my own tent. By the end, the few times I used the shelter were when I was the only person in the campsite.

But I agree, a lot of thru's seem to only want to use shelters.

[generoll]

This is probably the wrong place to post this, but has anyone heard about a new shelter going in between Silers Bald and Wayah Bald? If I am hearing correctly, a new shelter is to be put in place somewhere near Winespring. Not a bad site for one, I camped there last Spring. Just wondered if anyone else had heard this.

[Lone Wolf]

Haven't heard it. But it's not needed.

[Jim Adams]

1.The AT is not wilderness and hasn't been for a long time! It is a path through the countryside. True wilderness is a place that you do not cross roads, you do not see other people regularly and certainly not crowds, you do not have the ability to hitch a ride to eat in a resturant every other day and you don't have structures every 7--10 miles be they shelters or pavillions. In 1990 I carried 9 days of food to make it thru the 100 mile wilderness. In 2002 several hikers slack packed the whole 100 mile wilderness.
2. That said, I am in favor of shelters because I do like the social aspect as I cook and eat and it keeps the crowds located in a small area and away from my nightly campsites.
3. By putting a wall on just the primary windward side of the pavillion it would keep the openess of the structure and yet block horizontal rain and snow most of the time. By putting more campsites near a pavillion, you are actually impacting a larger area than the shelter does.
4. I almost always tarp however a wet tarp weighs too much and can make other gear wet, therefore if it is raining, I will attempt to stay in a shelter everytime.
5. I live in an area with ALOT of coal fired power plants. I see how inefficient they are and what they emmit. There is also a small (11 units) wind farm on the ridge closest to the Laurel Highlands Hiking Trail and is visable from the trail. DO NOT WORRY ABOUT SEEING THE SHELTERS FROM THE TRAIL! With the backward thinking of fighting wind farms you wont see the distant ridges in the near future due to smog. You will however be able to see the towns thru the woods due to the acid rain.
6. These are just my opinions however I have spent alot of time in the wilderness and the AT is just the woods on the edge of town.

[Rain Man]

This is probably the wrong place to post this, but has anyone heard about a new shelter going in between Silers Bald and Wayah Bald? If I am hearing correctly, a new shelter is to be put in place somewhere near Winespring.

I wrote the Nantahala Hiking Club and got this reply today--

"Yes, NHC is building a new shelter about 1 mile north on the AT. It is approximately 0.5 miles north of the AT-Bartram junction. We have the site for the shelter, privy and three tent pads completed. Hopefully it will be completed shortly if the weather allows."

ADDENDUM--
The location is "1 mile north on the AT from Wayah Bald Tower. The name is not firm, but will probably be the Wayah Bald Shelter."

Rain:sunMan
.

[generoll]

According to your quote, the shelter will go in .5 miles north of the Bartram/AT junction. That's just a bit past Winespring if memory and the map serves.