View Full Version : Do trails without shelters/hostels attract fewer creeps?
All the recent creep/weirdo alert threads make me wonder:
Would a long distance footpath that lacks shelters and hostels attract fewer creeps, or would the creep percentage be the same and there are just fewer of them because there are fewer hikers in general on it?
Let's hear your thoughts.
M1 Thumb
06-03-2010, 16:45
......
......
Let's hear your thoughts.
Well that's just like whacking a big ole hornets nest with stick.
trailangelbronco
06-03-2010, 16:47
Yes, they do. Also, trails which begin in remote areas also attract less weirdo's.
If, by creeps you mean people without Backpacking equipment, food, shelter, sleeping gear, or cars.
Gotta love hiking in Idaho....
Rocket Jones
06-03-2010, 17:33
Gotta love hiking in Idaho....
And here I thought it was all the militias thinning the herd. ;)
The AT is always gonna attract the most shifty weirdos. It's the most well-known, easily accesible, close to roads/towns/civilization, features the most hikers, has tons of shelters to set up in, etc.
I've never met a strange person on the PCT, LT, NPT or any other trail, but there have been a few people who gave me the willies on the AT:)
Yes
The following errors occurred with your submission:
The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.
max patch
06-03-2010, 17:43
As do the forums.
Sierra Echo
06-03-2010, 18:04
I am a weirdo! :D
Seems like most of the murders discovered on the AT have been at or around shelters.
Of course that could just be because those places are checked on a regular basis. :eek:
I got to think fewer shelters, fewer miscreants.
Seems like most of the murders discovered on the AT have been at or around shelters.
Of course that could just be because those places are checked on a regular basis. :eek:
I got to think fewer shelters, fewer miscreants.
Agreed.
I would think that shelters near road crossings/access would be your highest percentage of creepiness quotient. The further from town, road, population, the less the likelihood of looming lechery. Don't camp in town.
Ranc0r
.
How much violent crime was there on the A.T., say, before about 1970 when the publicity and user levels increased?
BigFoot2002
06-03-2010, 20:39
Would violence be less likely to happen at a shared campsite?
Might depend upon what you mean by a shared campsite and less likely than where?
stranger
06-03-2010, 20:48
Having shelters on trails attract hikers/people who might not otherwise be there, there is no question about that. Does anyone actually think there is no correlation between hundreds of shelters along the AT and the amount of use the trail gets??
Sure, it's along the east coast...but so is the Benton MacKaye Trail, the Tuscarora Trail, the Allegheny Trail, etc...and those trails see very few hikers in comparison.
Everytime you hear about something negative, whether it be a bear problem, partying hikers, a shifty hiker, homeless person, etc...it's almost always at a shelter...why? Because shelters attract people.
Take away the shelters and you would certainly have less of this, however, because the AT is now so popular, it probably wouldn't make a huge dent, but it certainly would help in my opinion.
Shelters are great for good tent sites, reliable water and privy's...but as far as sleeping inside them, no thanks.
Shelters are supposed to attract people!
BigFoot2002
06-03-2010, 20:55
I f shelters are removed, should popular campsites be provided with picnic tables and/or privys?
Sierra Echo
06-03-2010, 20:56
Look at Gary Hilton. (The guy who killed Meredith Emerson). He drove to trailheads in his van.
One thing that always puzzeled me about that case was he said a lot of times they heard rescuers calling her name. But she didn't answer. THAT is the time to speak up. I knew Meredith. She lived on my old mail route. She was a wonderful person.
kayak karl
06-03-2010, 21:04
Seems like most of the murders discovered on the AT have been at or around shelters.
Of course that could just be because those places are checked on a regular basis. :eek:
I got to think fewer shelters, fewer miscreants.
i might be wrong, but i thought the problems were at the trail heads??? not the shelters????
If shelters are removed, should popular campsites be provided with picnic tables and/or privys?
Picnic tables belong in picnic areas, not in the backcountry. Privys are a resource management tool, not an amenity, and they attract people too.
I might be wrong, but I thought the problems were at the trail heads, not the shelters?
Problems occur wherever people congregate. Privies built to accomodate more than one person at a time are just asking for trouble.
BigFoot2002
06-03-2010, 21:15
So to REALLY minimize risk to hikers, we should eliminate shelters, picnic tables, and maybe privys. What should the regulations be on popular campsites with good water and a view?
No camping! Views and water are even more attractive than the things you suggest eliminating.
BigFoot2002
06-03-2010, 21:25
Great! Now that you've mentioned it.... I've found that places that have banned camping have never done it because it was a lousy place to camp. Now I can go back to stealthing there in my hammock in perfect safety.
i might be wrong, but i thought the problems were at the trail heads??? not the shelters????
All five of the thru hikers murdered along the AT were killed at shelters.
Blue Jay
06-03-2010, 23:20
i might be wrong, but i thought the problems were at the trail heads??? not the shelters????
There are very very few problems, just people online trying to scare people.
If as some would like us to believe shelters are inherently unsafe, then why advise travelling in groups?
Any more questions?
If as some would like us to believe shelters are inherently unsafe, then why advise travelling in groups?Have you now stopped talking to yourself?
In all seriousness, in all my years of backpacking, I always find that the farther away from the car, the more likely I would find peace and quiet. The "long distance footpath that lacks shelters and hostels" that you speak of is really pretty easy to define, yet it sounds like you can't identify quite what you mean.
There are shifty wierdoes (A train's great phrase) out west. They just don't make it that far in country. That whole concept of really carrying water bothers them.
trailangelbronco
06-04-2010, 01:52
Go buy the Golite UL 12 gauge shotgun and strap it to yer pack. Blast it in the air a couple of times at each shelter every night. You'll be ok....
chrome://click2call/content/FONcall_icon.png[/IMG] (javascript:void(1))
Call with FONcall™
1019913 (javascript:void(1))
Connecting...
Connected!
Error: could not place call
bug? (javascript:void(1))
]There are very very few problems, just people online trying to scare people.
try telling that to the dead folks families and friends
no scare tactics. it is simply prudent to be on your guard at all times, whether it is in your own neighborhood or on the trail
Shelters and picnic tables and privies concentrate problems in one area, which is a good thing, but also be a good reason to avoid such areas.
Shelters and picnic tables and privies concentrate problems in one area, which is a good thing, but also be a good reason to avoid such areas.I can understand your reasoning on this, but when you really stop to think about it, to me it sort of defeats the whole purpose of the hike. I think if I am going to be out there hiking, and I see an interesting, convenient, or nice place to stop and rest or to camp, it would sort of be a letdown to have to think, "well this would have been a nice place to have stopped, but for my own safety, I must push on":-?
I don't avoid shelters for safety reasons. I also like shelters. I like the hand-craftedness, and the more human scale of architecture. They are best appreciated in the off-season though, when completely desolate. Even if they are only occupied by one other person that just doesn't work for me. After 24-48 hours alone I am ready for people and I would enjoy stopping to chat, but I wouldn't stay overnight at a shelter if it was occupied, or there was a good chance of it becoming so. In winter, mid-week, empty except for shelter mice, that would be the best time for sure.
We don't have shelters up here, but there are a few places on the Fundy Footpath with remote campsites with a firepit and a privy and afew improvised items. They are best mid week and off-season. The Fundy Trail Parkway doesn't allow overnight camping, but is closed in the winter and the lookout platforms make fun places to stealth camp in winter. Often in the woods also, you can find natural campsites, with rocks or trees that almost seem like they were put there for a reason. Those are great spots to find and to return to.
I think busy trails like the AT need things like shelters and privies and picnic tables and such, and the trail itself of course, in order to concentrate human impact in a manageable way. It works to a certain degree. It also concentrates problems like creepy people and dangerous people, but I avoid them mostly to avoid regular people like me.
When I hike with my daughter it is different. If we come across a campsite with another family with kids, or even a friendly couple without kids, we would probably stay. Most people on the Fundy Footpath tend to move on though. It is remote enough that it tends to attract people that prefer to enjoy the wilderness uninterupted, and it is a short enough trail 2-5 days, that you can go it alone without getting too snaley. My daughter is a real social butterfly though, so it is good to bump into others when I hike with her.
Fewer creeps up here, but probably only because there are fewer people. The per capita creeps is probably the same. The ATVers and off-roaders that like to hang about Martin Head and destroy the footpath in several places tend to be very territorial and tribal and unfriendly to hikers, so they are best avoided also, but they are generally not dangerous or creepy. They tend to lighten up if you approach them in a friendly manner, and take an interest in their ATV. I've scored the odd beer that way.
Pedaling Fool
06-04-2010, 10:12
I think shelters are a factor, but probably just a small factor. If there were no shelters there still would be places that would be popular to camp, even if there were no designated spots, which is hard to imagine.
The lack of shelters would make it harder on the homeless, but I think the biggest attraction for these types are "people", i.e. begging. But there is also the predatory factor with other types. And some are just trying to find a place to fit-in.
But in the end it's all the publicity which is really the attractant, not shelters. I know you don't see TV commercials and such advertising the AT, but when you mention "Appalachian Trail" most are familar, at least, with the title, but almost none are familar with the other East coast trails.
Pedaling Fool
06-04-2010, 10:19
I think shelters are a factor, but probably just a small factor. If there were no shelters there still would be places that would be popular to camp, even if there were no designated spots, which is hard to imagine.
The lack of shelters would make it harder on the homeless, but I think the biggest attraction for these types are "people", i.e. begging. But there is also the predatory factor with other types. And some are just trying to find a place to fit-in.
But in the end it's all the publicity which is really the attractant, not shelters. I know you don't see TV commercials and such advertising the AT, but when you mention "Appalachian Trail" most are familar, at least, with the title, but almost none are familar with the other East coast trails.
Having said all that, say we had two ATs that were separated by, say 10 miles. And were very similar, except one had shelters and the other did not, but everything else equal. Then I'd bet that the AT with the shelters would see more of the non-hiker types.
Agree w/Mr. Gault here. The AT is probably just the most densely 'populated' trail in the country.
I've hiked other places and not seen a SOUL...
...that being said, one of them was a short trail in KY that did have quasi-shelters.
And the Finger Lakes Trail has many shelters, campsites, and privies along its route and I've not heard much about the creep factor on that trail...probably because it is simply not as popular as the AT.
The SHT in Minnesota passes along campgrounds, is mostly routed alongside a major (for the area) road, has established campsites (but no shelters) some with little tables and benches, and all have privies but I haven't heard/seen any problems on that trail either, again, it's just not as crowded as the AT.
An aside, I know that many on WB despise the shelters on the AT and seem to hate well tread establishment of the AT itself. In that case, why not hike on another trail? Some trails are only routes in and of themselves, seems some would be happier on those trails than complaining about privies and shelters on the AT.
Tilly (who happily sleeps in shelters when it is raining.)
I think the trail with shelters would also be more popular with most hiker types.
I, like many, would take the trail less traveled, but most hikers would not.
Pedaling Fool
06-04-2010, 10:48
I think the trail with shelters would also be more popular with most hiker types.
I, like many, would take the trail less traveled, but most hikers would not.
I agree, I was just giving a hypothetical "all-things-equal" scenario. In reality the AT with the shelters would get more traffic, period.
Go buy the Golite UL 12 gauge shotgun and strap it to yer pack. Blast it in the air a couple of times at each shelter every night. You'll be ok....
You know, with the 30% off sale they are having, I did go look for this. ;):D
Jack Tarlin
06-04-2010, 11:37
With 3-4 million visitors a year, a trail like the A.T. is obviously going to attract a certain percentage of odd or even questionable people, and the fact that so much of the Trail is easily road accessible only exacerbates this: Most folks that are looking to make trouble in the backcountry don't like to go too far from their cars.
On the other hand, we should remember that hikers on the A.T. are always looking out for other hikers, and if they see someone who clearly is out of his element or stands out as really unusual, this will be commented on, hikers will know about it, there may be register entries telling other folks about the potential problem, and in extreme cases, hikers might even phone in or report unusual incidents or people (and they should do this more often!)
More isolated, less travelled trails attract fewer visitors, but on the other hand, hikers on these Trails DON'T have a lot of other folks to rely on; they can't necessarily be sure that other folks will be coming along soon, etc. Their chances of running into problems with other humans is less than on a really busy Trail, but on the other hand, you're further away from help; there are less peole around if you find yourself in an emergency situation; there are fewer trail crossings and other pathways, i.e. getting out of the woods in a hurry or finding medical/law enforcement assistance will probably take longer, etc. And in more isolated, less populous areas, chances are good that hone reception is poorer, too.
In other words, you might be less at risk in less travelled places simply because fewer people go there, but on the other hand, if you DO find yourself in a jam, you may find yourself wishing you were in an area or on a Trail where other people (and the possibility of assistance from others) was likelier to be encountered.
I think it's kind of an even proposition. The same high use that potentially brings problems to Trails like the A.T. also brings benefits, one of which is a greater chance of your emergency situation being resolved by other folks who are nearby, or by the simple fact that getting off the Trail and back to civilization/assistance is usually not that hard to do.
Statistically speaking, per person-day spent on the trail, how does the AT stack up to other trails, or other activities such as driving a car, or life in general. Any studies?
Jack Tarlin
06-04-2010, 12:07
In terms of accidents, crimes, serious injuries, etc., I suspect that the A.T. statistically is safer than one's own home, school, or workplace. Speaking for myself and where I live, there are more reported crimes and acts of random violence on the Dartmouth College campus on any given weekend than there are on the A.T. in any given month.
The A.T. is a very safe place.
Shutterbug
06-04-2010, 12:11
All the recent creep/weirdo alert threads make me wonder:
Would a long distance footpath that lacks shelters and hostels attract fewer creeps, or would the creep percentage be the same and there are just fewer of them because there are fewer hikers in general on it?
Let's hear your thoughts.
Based on my own experience, I would say that the number one factor is proximity to roads. Most of the "creepy" kind don't venture too far from a road access.
Once one gets 1/2 mile from a road, then I have not noticed a difference between the AT and other trails.
A few years ago, when I was hiking the Colorado Trail (no shelters), I hadn't seen another person for hours. I was miles away from the closest road and came up on a small clearing. A creepy kid was sitting on a log smoking pot. He seemed strange in several different ways.
Last fall, I was on the PCT in the Goat Rocks Wilderness (no shelters) and came up on a guy who said he was a "goat hunter." He was "creepy" and had a big gun. I decided that goat hunting and hiking didn't mix well and got out of there.
It would be my observation that there is more loitering on trails with shelters, but there are creeps where ever you go.
I suspect it would be a very safe place also, but I would like to know what the numbers are compared to life in general. In the simplest terms, if we just looked at death rate, and compared it to the general population, how would it compare? I would expect it would be better, even after accounting for demographics, ambulatory population, and pre-existing conditions. Another great Phd research topic for someone. :)
Jack Tarlin
06-04-2010, 12:27
That the rural outdoors is healthier and safer than the towns and cities where most Americans live is hardly such a surprise that it needs a PhD dissertation to prove this. Some of us have suspected this to be the case for a long time. :rolleyes:
That the rural outdoors is healthier and safer than the towns and cities where most Americans live is hardly such a surprise.....Some of us have suspected this to be the case for a long time. :rolleyes:
Totally agree Jack. It is also counter culture and radical to suggest one can be healthier and safer in the rural outdoors. The rural outdoors is supposed to be scary, unpredictable, and very dangerous!
MANY groups and persons would rather have us be in MANY other places than in the great outdoors!
Sierra Echo
06-04-2010, 20:17
Oh who cares where people would rather have us!
Cookerhiker
06-04-2010, 21:41
Shelters may attract weirdos, partiers, and other alleged "undesirables," but the other side of the coin is the safety-in-numbers idea; at least if you're hiking "in season," there are fellow "legitimate" hikers to help ward off or dissipate any threats from said weirdos. Now if you're hiking off-season, you many not have the comfort of company but you're probably less likely to encounter threatening weirdos - perhaps just some homeless or anti-social types.
I've shared shelters with homeless and other non-hiker types on the AT without incident. However just last September in the Medicine Bow area of Wyoming, we had our wits scared to death by a guy who approached us at a BLM campsite. Needless to say, no one else was there and the guy was very threatening to me. His drunken state made him more dangerous and he repeatedly asked me about money and griped about losing his job. It seemed like what he really wanted was a sympathetic listener. At one point, he grabbed me by the collar. But shortly thereafter, he apologized and broke down crying. He kept shaking my hand. Yet he also insisted that I take his jacket and when I demurred, he threatened me again. I stayed calm and he finally drifted off to another campsite at which time we hightailed it out of there, leaving tent, gear, everything. We called 911 and the sheriff responded promptly. Turns out the guy got on his motorcycle (probably in pursuit of us) and wrecked it. The sheriff found him walking on the road in a dazed state and called in a deputy. The guy ended up resisting arrest (even biting the deputy) so they had a serious charge to stick him with. Not surprisingly, he had a record. A very troubled individual.
So now we're more likely to camp in a Forest Service or NP campground with people around, at least when camping in areas accessible to vehicles.
Wise Old Owl
06-05-2010, 09:31
Go buy the Golite UL 12 gauge shotgun and strap it to yer pack. Blast it in the air a couple of times at each shelter every night. You'll be ok....
You just defined a new type of trail creep.... :eek:
I've hiked the entire Colorado Trail, all but the last 28 miles of the Pinhoti Trail, and 2/3's of the Benton Mackaye Trail. The only creepy wierdo I ran into out there was me. :eek:
stranger
06-15-2010, 02:32
The post was asking if trails without shelters attract less creeps than trails with shelters...I don't think anyone debates the fact that the AT is a very safe place.
If shelters are removed, should popular campsites be provided with picnic tables and/or privys?Picnic tables belong in picnic areas, not in the backcountry. Privys are a resource management tool, not an amenity, and they attract people too.You got me curious about the definition of amenity. Thanks.
I think you could argue that privys are amenities, according to definition 1, and perhaps definition 2 and 3 also. They could also be architecturally pleasing, even as landscape architecture, depending on how they are done. My personal favourite treatment of this particular amenity in the backcountry is as an open throne on a slightly raised platform, or dias. In high traffic areas, maybe a different treatment.
Seriously though, there should be nothing unnatural or unpleasant about human architecture on a wilderness trail, if it is done right, on a human scale, using natural materials and human hands. These things, if done right, should be pleasing to the eye, and to the soul. Some might be built to last thousands of years. Others might be more biodegradeable. However long they are built to last, their aesthetic values should actually increase over time, as they become increasingly a natural part of the topography. Whether you choose to take an eastern approach, or a more western approach, is partly a question of how many of these things there should be out there, as well as how elaborately they should be. If done right, they will be both part of the beauty, and at least complimentary to the wild, if not an integrated part of it.
"Beauty will save the world." - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
"In Wildness is the preservation of the World." - Henry David Thoreau
a·men·i·ty (-mn-t, -mn-)
n. pl. a·men·i·ties
1. The quality of being pleasant or attractive; agreeableness.
2. Something that contributes to physical or material comfort.
3. A feature that increases attractiveness or value, especially of a piece of real estate or a geographic location.
4. amenities Social courtesies.
[Middle English amenite, from Old French, from Latin amoenits, from amoenus, pleasant.]
Synonyms: amenity, comfort, convenience, facility
These nouns denote something that increases physical ease or facilitates work: an apartment with amenities like air conditioning; a suite with all the comforts of home; a kitchen with every convenience; a school with excellent facilities.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.