View Full Version : Why have So Many New England Shelters Burned Down?
Last month it was Ore Hill Shelter, NH. A few months before that it was Tucker-Johnson Shelter, VT. And a few years before that it was Lost Pond Shelter, VT (twice). Are these shelters being burned down on purpose? By accident? And are the perps hikers, hunters or just vandals?
I have no idea who may have done the deed, but it's probably pretty safe to state that if these shelters had been simple tent platforms it probably wouldn't have happened.
Should they be replaced with new shelters? That's my question.
4eyedbuzzard
12-21-2011, 17:48
Massholes.Sometimes, but not always. We aren't immune to breeding a fair share of our own local retards. It's almost never serious hikers or outdoors people though, usually just idiots out for a one or two day drunk/drug party in the woods. Same type of people who go off hunting drunk, shoot at movement, etc. No sense of responsibility or respect.
Tipi Walter
12-21-2011, 18:00
What the heck would these motards do if they didn't have a "carport" rat box shelter to cluster around?? Probably find a dead-end turn-around and sit by their trucks.
Pedaling Fool
12-21-2011, 18:44
Are these shelters being completely burned down? Any one got pics or a good description of the damage?
Wise Old Owl
12-21-2011, 19:00
Sort of why we don't have many covered bridges in Pennsylvania - from the 50's on its been drunken disillusioned teens finding fun in destruction.
Not so hard to figure out... surprised you asked the question.
Sometimes, but not always. We aren't immune to breeding a fair share of our own local retards.
You've met some of my kinfolk.
Chaco Taco
12-21-2011, 19:09
Are these shelters being completely burned down? Any one got pics or a good description of the damage?
AMC reported it being "destroyed"
http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain/conditions/
Lost Pond shelter may have been malicious.
Frankly, if you think about all the scorch marks from stoves, and candles that are burnt down to puddles, it's amazing we don't loose more of them. For those of us who remember the Whisperlite days, you know every shelter has been the scene of at least one fireball from a newbie trying to light his stove for the first time.
Cosmo
rocketsocks
12-22-2011, 13:29
It's a sign,end of days,thee apocalypse,sun spots,El Nemo.................Fire Bug!
restless
12-22-2011, 13:58
Get rid of 'em all!!!
Lone Wolf
12-22-2011, 14:01
Get rid of 'em all!!!that would be awesome
Massholes.
Sometimes, but not always. We aren't immune to breeding a fair share of our own local retards. .
Sometimes but not always? Common sense says it's most likely locals. I guess that's something they don't instill up north.
Get rid of 'em all!!!
that would be awesome
Yeah and since most shelters are near water the sources the entire are around them would trashed into oblivion
Lone Wolf
12-22-2011, 14:26
Yeah and since most shelters are near water the sources the entire are around them would trashed into oblivionthey already are hoss
they already are hoss
Do you seriously think taking down the shelters would improve the area? If so you're not giving it much thought.
Lone Wolf
12-22-2011, 14:35
Do you seriously think taking down the shelters would improve the area? yup. sure do
restless
12-22-2011, 21:11
Get rid of 'em all!!! My comment wasn't some off the wall comment by some know nothing hiker. Admittedly, there are people on here with more experience than I, but I feel that having worked and hiked on trails for the past 15 years has given me a fair amount of insight. In places, there are fewer problems with shelters than at others. Generally, these are located in areas that don't see as high a concentration of day and overnight use. But other areas are so severely impacted that it would take a generation or more for the land to recover from the abuse. The shelters in Georgia, the Smokies, Mt. Rogers NRA, the Whites and to a lesser extent the Shenadoahs all see a tremendous amount of use. Trash is left in the fire pits, discarded food and gear is left in the shelters, problem animals are more prevalent and diseases transmitted by rodents is much more likely. I don't lay all the blame on thru hikers, but they take some amount of responsibility. True, most of the trash is left by day users, weekend warriors and by those who may not even be hiking (i.e.-hunters, and locals who drive up and walk in). But I have seen long distance hikers and thru hikers leave burned trash in the fire rings and I know that they have brought up beer from town and left the cans there believing it to be the shelter caretakers responsibility to carry it out. With a few exceptions, this doesn't happen. The maintaining clubs are stretched thin with an aging core group of volunteers and most shelters are lucky to see a caretaker once a month.
By removing the shelters, hikers will be forced to camp in dispersed areas. Rather than having upwards of 50 people camping at a shelter site, smaller groups would camp in more frequent but smaller sites. The chances of those sites being used repeatedly to the extent that the area around shelters are is minimal. Many backcountry surveys have been done and in most cases, it is proven to be better for the ecosystem if people are encouraged to use low impact, dispersed camping techniques. It won't eliminate in every situation the trash problem-that is another can of worms that is for another discussion-but it would prevent an area from becoming over impacted due to overuse. It might also to help reduce the number of hikers each year, thus the annual impact from thru hikers. One only need look at other discussions on this site questioning the need to carry a tent.
Removing the shelters is only one of the problems. Until every hiker-day,overnight,section and thru, become familiar with Leave No Trace techniques and practices them as religiously as they do in decreasing their pack weight, the AT will continue to be impacted in certain areas. I venture to say that although we say we adhere to LNT principles, our practice falls way too short every time.
Every place on the AT suffers from impact. Some impacts falls within expected and acceptable levels. Having a footpath through the woods will always create some sort of impact; the trailbed itself is a non natural feature. But there are areas on the AT that do suffer, and show extensive signs of overuse and the shelters and their surrounding environs are the primary culprit.
Ok. I've had my say. Now, go ahead and rip me a new one if you so choose.
Lone Wolf
12-22-2011, 21:21
Ok. I've had my say. Now, go ahead and rip me a new one if you so choose.oh he will even though you've done more maintaining and trail building by accident than he and i will ever do on purpose. georgia shelter areas are disgusting
Rather than having upwards of 50 people camping at a shelter site, smaller groups would camp in more frequent but smaller sites. The chances of those sites being used repeatedly to the extent that the area around shelters are is minimal. Many backcountry surveys have been done and in most cases, it is proven to be better for the ecosystem if people are encouraged to use low impact, dispersed camping techniques. It won't eliminate in every situation the trash problem-that is another can of worms that is for another discussion-but it would prevent an area from becoming over impacted due to overuse.
Ok. I've had my say. Now, go ahead and rip me a new one if you so choose.
Generally AT hikers stay near water sources with flat areas for camping, which most of the shelters have. Would they be more likely to disperse without the shelter sytem? Yeah, but they'd not only be camping at sterilized areas sans shelter, they'd be more likely to impact casual water sources along the trail. The question is do you want 250 areas with high impact camping or 500 areas with fire rings at each personal camp area?
oh he will even though you've done more maintaining and trail building by accident than he and i will ever do on purpose. georgia shelter areas are disgusting
Hahaha.... I'm not ripping him at all.
Removing the shelters isn't going to clean up the areas. People are going to need someplace to say. Why not concentrate the impact to certain areas?
Seems to me your are oddman out. MOST hikers on the AT perfer to stay in the wonderful shelters. If you do not like them do not stay in them or maintain them. You may stop crying over them. If you do not like the AT then hike elsewhere, there are plenty more trails around the forest. Why do yo want to spread your dislike to everyone else, we do not need to hear it, it seems kind of silly to not like something you do not have to stay at or even visit. You may even walk past most and not even slip in for a visit. I like them, I think they are cool, I think someone worked real hard building them. I respect there hard work and enjoy to use what they did. You do not need to destroy something just on account of you not liking it. Others have a very different opinion.
Do you seriously think taking down the shelters would improve the area? If so you're not giving it much thought.
Sly is almost right. Those of us who have been maintaining trails for any length of time know that shelters concentrate use. The alternative is sprawl and impossible to clean trash scattered every wheres. Decades ago I argued against concentrated camping areas. But I've become wiser. Shelters themselves are not essential. But you need tent platforms, perhaps a picnic table, and a water source to concentrate hikers.
Shelters themselves at such places, however, is increasingly an anachronism. Modern crowds are such that everyone needs to carry their own shelter these days to ensure a dry place to sleep. We might as well use the shelter we all carry -- or should carry. However, despite Lone Wolf contentions to the contrary, shelters are certainly convenient. When I walked a couple of thousand miles a few years ago, I found myself using a shelter whenever there was space.
Sly is almost right. Those of us who have been maintaining trails for any length of time know that shelters concentrate use. The alternative is sprawl and impossible to clean trash scattered every wheres. Decades ago I argued against concentrated camping areas. But I've become wiser. Shelters themselves are not essential. But you need tent platforms, perhaps a picnic table, and a water source to concentrate hikers.
Thanks Weary. While tent platforms may be an alternative consider how many would be needed, spread through the woods. No doubt each would end up having trails leading to and fro and its own fire ring.
Many of the old disgusting shelters have been replaced or renovated and are really nice. For example the shelters in the Smokies.
restless
12-22-2011, 23:50
The truth of the matter is that we are dealing with suppose and what if's. Shelters are not going to be removed; they have become too much a part of the trail culture. My sole purpose in taking this stance is to get people to think about the impact that we as hikers create. Perhaps we could rethink things in regard to why and where we stay while on the trail. At what point does the trail become unsustainable due to overuse? We can shout all we want that it will never happen, but look at how the numbers of trail users have increased in just the past 35 years alone. At some point, we as hikers will have to accept that trail use will just continue to increase and there is always a possibility that the AT could exceed it's sustainable carrying capacity. The shelters aren't going away, but how will we deal with an area that becomes impacted if 100 people per night decide to camp in the same location?
Seems to me your are oddman out. MOST hikers on the AT perfer to stay in the wonderful shelters. If you do not like them do not stay in them or maintain them. You may stop crying over them. If you do not like the AT then hike elsewhere, there are plenty more trails around the forest. Why do yo want to spread your dislike to everyone else, we do not need to hear it, it seems kind of silly to not like something you do not have to stay at or even visit. You may even walk past most and not even slip in for a visit. I like them, I think they are cool, I think someone worked real hard building them. I respect there hard work and enjoy to use what they did. You do not need to destroy something just on account of you not liking it. Others have a very different opinion.
I generally do not stay at the shelters for the exact reasons I listed earlier; I'm not crying over their existence, it wouldn't break my heart to see them disappear either. I don't maintain them either because of the abuse I see them receive. I do hike other trails other than the AT as well; the AT is not the only trail that will take me to a summit or along a stream. But I think that 15 years of being a professional trail builder has, if nothing else, given me the right to state my opinion on things when I see a problem. My solution may or may not be the right one, but it is my opinion. I also respect the hard work that goes into building a shelter and the upkeep thereof. I also have never destroyed one or assisted in its destruction.
Just out of curiousity, 1234, how many hours have you spent maintaining the trail?
In 2000 the number of thru-hikers peaked with a reported 3000 starting. Since then until 2007 the numbers dropped to a low of 1125. The next couple years showed modest gains until this year with a spike to 1700.
Of course that's not counting day hikers and section hikers but over 2181 miles that's no very many people. Of course, the southern portion of trail gets the most use, but still I wouldn't be overly concerned with the number of over nighters just yet..
GMC and AMC maintainers charge for the use of some shelters in VT and NH. All of a sudden alot of hikers decide shelters are no longer necessary.
I wonder if tent and hammock technology would increase if we didn't have an established shelter system along the AT? You know the whole "necessity breeds innovation" thing.
Of course, there's only so many ways you can throw fabric over a frame.
hikerboy57
12-23-2011, 08:13
GMC and AMC maintainers charge for the use of some shelters in VT and NH. All of a sudden alot of hikers decide shelters are no longer necessary.they also charge for the tentsites.the shelters arent going anywhere, its part of the original vision of the AT, which, again, was never made with the intention of thru hiking.there is a social aspect to the AT and the shelters are a center of information, a daily destination point, and ive met some really great people there. without them or designated sites, would those of you who thrued had the same experiences, formed the same bonds, if you werent meeting up, time after time?I prefer sleeping in my tent, but i dont get to meet anyone inside there.
in addition, the AT is just a corridor of wildness, sometimes very narrow one, so its good to try to limit the impact to designated sites.
Blue Jay
12-23-2011, 16:11
Seems to me your are oddman out. MOST hikers on the AT perfer to stay in the wonderful shelters. If you do not like them do not stay in them or maintain them. You may stop crying over them. If you do not like the AT then hike elsewhere, there are plenty more trails around the forest. Why do yo want to spread your dislike to everyone else, we do not need to hear it, it seems kind of silly to not like something you do not have to stay at or even visit. You may even walk past most and not even slip in for a visit. I like them, I think they are cool, I think someone worked real hard building them. I respect there hard work and enjoy to use what they did. You do not need to destroy something just on account of you not liking it. Others have a very different opinion.
I really like this post. People have worked hard to build shelters only to have cyberhikers advertize for their distruction.
restless
12-23-2011, 16:15
I really like this post. People have worked hard to build shelters only to have cyberhikers advertize for their distruction. Cyberhiker huh? I've spent 15 years basically getting paid to hike. Not to mention the miles that I"ve done just for fun. Bluejay, don't make judgements about people you don't know.
hikerboy57
12-23-2011, 16:21
restless, just as you've said,there are other trails to hike, and i think a lot of people here get confused when it comes to LNT as it applies to the AT. as i posted earlier, the AT is a somewhat narrow corridor, and in many cases "dispersed camping " is close to impposible, considering the number of hikers using the AT.out west, or in the daks where the wilderness is not so restricted, maybe sunflower seeds are ok, maybe putting nails in trees is okay. but given the size of the AT and limited availability for practical tentsites, LNT is much more important.
Pedaling Fool
12-23-2011, 16:43
Last month it was Ore Hill Shelter, NH. A few months before that it was Tucker-Johnson Shelter, VT. And a few years before that it was Lost Pond Shelter, VT (twice). Are these shelters being burned down on purpose? By accident? And are the perps hikers, hunters or just vandals?Anyone know the status of these shelters? I know the ATC says that Ore Hill shelter is "burned down", but I'm just curious just how burned down it is. Just seems like it would take a lot to burn one of these shelters down.
I didn't see anything on the other two shelters: http://www.appalachiantrail.org/hiking/trail-updates
Once a shelter starts burning what's going to stop the fire? Since none of the fires seem accidental, it's not like anyone is going to get there in time to save the structure.
Blue Jay
12-23-2011, 18:55
Cyberhiker huh? I've spent 15 years basically getting paid to hike. Not to mention the miles that I"ve done just for fun. Bluejay, don't make judgements about people you don't know.
Unless I missed a post you are not calling for the destruction of shelters, only that you ignore them. I was clearly not talking about you.
Pedaling Fool
12-23-2011, 21:55
Once a shelter starts burning what's going to stop the fire?Loss of heat. Fire needs three things to burn, Oxygen, Fuel, Heat. Anyone that likes campfires knows that if you get one going and place a big log (solid wood -- not a porous piece of crap) on top of a bunch of smaller ones, it'll start the big one burning, but unless you keep adding smaller ones the fire will go out without completely burning the large one.
Since none of the fires seem accidental, it's not like anyone is going to get there in time to save the structure.I agree that they probably a result of arson. I'm just curious how severly burned they are/were (to say they're "burned down" really is not descriptive). As we all know verbal/written descriptions can be very misleading.
But I'm simply curious, got many more questions, but not worth asking if no one knows the basic details beyond what's already been posted on the ATC's website.
The solution may lie in self policing, remembering that one gets more bees with honey. A shelter is a nice break from the elements, also central overnight areas do prevent a bunch of messy firepits along the trail. Here in Ma the overall trail is much cleaner the last few years. There was a time when Lee thru Mt Greylock was a total mess. Trash, writing. All that has much improved. There are always going to be slobs, now there seem to be fewer. Plus obviously more people are paying attention to maintainence.