Shelters Only for Thru-Hikers?

[George]

Reminds me of a famous FKTer attempter a few yrs ago I shared Icewater Springs Shelter who went on bragging about his SUL 5 lb kit that included consumables and 40 MPD avgs. He said he was going for an unsupported FKT. He only had 1.5 days food at 17 oz/day for all of GSMNP for a Fontana Dam to Standing Bear segment. Was almost out of food already at Icewater, was shivering uncontrollably inside his 50* UL quilt wearing all his clothes with only a WR UL shell and a MB Thermawrap vest and a pr of UL GL nylon running shorts. It got to 28* that night with rain most of the day that late in the afternoon turned to ivy rain/sleet. He came in drenched and iced up. All he had left to eat was half a energy bar and maybe 25 M&M's. He said it was enough. Finally, someone offered and he accepted, a dry shirt and jacket to stop the close to hypodermic shivering. Someone also offered some hot food to which he also accepted. The famous FKTer was going cookless. Finally, some one(um me and another person) asked "so you're going unsupported, huh?"

Wisely, he abandoned his FKT "unsupported" attempt after having been reminded of previous events. Later, when I caught up to him further into it, he said he changed it in his personal best pseudo unsupported FKT. What the f#$k? Pseudo Unsupported FKT? Let's get real.

obviously it is all on a sliding scale (there is no rule making/ sanctioning body) - true self support would be hunt / gather / grow your own food

IMO someone "unsupported" who obtains anything from other hikers (and does not return equal or better) is a fake and likely a bum - a fair price for a MH meal that someone carried on their back for 50 miles should be maybe 40$

of course that is not what will be paid if anything

the beauty of being a "speedy" bum is you always have a new set of chumps to bum from

[EuroPacker]

All you need are United Airline staff monitoring the shelter occupancy and the problem is solved

That's good.

[Booker]

I'm a section hiker, started at age 65, working on the New England section and probably won't get beyond that (bad back). But I digress. I've stayed at shelters a few times and pitched my new lovely ultra tent on the ground more times than that. I've never sensed any animosity from thru-hikers about sleeping at the shelter. They've been friendly, welcoming, encouraging, everything one could want in good company. Part of the reason I love hiking the AT is because of the company at the end of a long day of solo hiking. I've learned a lot from thru-hikers who care to share their tips with me. I've even shared a few tips myself. I realize I could visit with folks and then retire to my tent. But it would seem an odd rule to me to have these firm divisions of hikers with different rules. I really love you all, you thru-hikers. Section and weekend hikers too.

[Marta]

There's some folks on here mocking this post and laughing at it but I'm actually in agreement with Starchild. I'm not saying I endorse Thru hiker favoritism, but I am saying it exists and it's real. People often talk about the hikers themselves being entitled but it is more comprehensive and more broad than some 20-something kid feeling entitled.

It starts with AWOLS guide listing Thru hiker specials. Then there's trail magic. You are living in a fantasy world if you think feeds and magic are for everyone. That's just to silence the masses. Go look at the Class of 2017 Facebook page and back in Feb-Apr, pack sniffers who will never spend a day hiking the trail themselves were tripping over themselves trying to find out where the bubble would be to provide magic to the Thru hikers.

Sir-PacksAlot even had separate prices between Thru hikers and everyone else before getting blasted on social media. I've had well known trail angels in PA& NJ tell me they charge Thru hikers a lower price than section hikers for shuttles.

On my attempt this year, I personally witnessed a group of ladies at Woody Gap tell section hikers their food was for Thru hikers only. Further up the trail in NC, one group hemmed and hawed when a section hiker asked if he could partake. He had been hiking with us from the start so before the group said anything we started tossing cans of coke at him to drink.

Ending Thru hiker entitlement starts with ending feeds, reduced rate services, discouraging pack sniffers handing out food, etc. Starchild's post may be on the exaggeration side but there is more truth in her post than not.

As for shelter entitlement, first come first served. I have no problem telling a Thru hiker to pound sand when demanding space just as I have told the same thing to a section hiker.

Point of fact: No one is a thru-hiker until they're through. Most of the folks who are calling themselves thru-hikers will actually end up being section hikers, so they should be a bit less arrogant and more modest until they have walked the walk the whole way.

As far as "trail magic" being put out there for thru-hikers only, that just seems rude. It's like going through a classroom announcing a party, and then pointedly telling a bunch of the kids that they aren't actually invited because they aren't cool enough.

[Ethesis]

Point of fact: No one is a thru-hiker until they're through. Most of the folks who are calling themselves thru-hikers will actually end up being section hikers, so they should be a bit less arrogant and more modest until they have walked the walk the whole way.

As far as "trail magic" being put out there for thru-hikers only, that just seems rude. It's like going through a classroom announcing a party, and then pointedly telling a bunch of the kids that they aren't actually invited because they aren't cool enough.

Ive had people chase me down the trail and force food on me when I bought into the “only for through hikers” insisting they wanted me to have it.

Im pretty sure they wanted me to take it.

[Marta]

Ive had people chase me down the trail and force food on me when I bought into the “only for through hikers” insisting they wanted me to have it.

Im pretty sure they wanted me to take it.

You think, lol? I hope it was something you liked.

[petedelisio]

Use to be in my travels, the shelters were not built for "thru hikers". And many "thru hikers" felt they should leave the shelters to the youth groups etc first...

But first come first serve and make room it's raining just goes without saying... Who the heck do people think they are that they feel they deserve special treatment.

Some Local hiking groups put a lot of time, energy and often money in and on the trails. A lot more than most thru hikers.

[somers515]

I read a review of a local hike the other day, and one reviewer scolded non-thru hikers for using shelters during the season.

Here is the quote:
Side note... if you are backpacking this loop in summer. Please leave the shelters for AT Thru Hikers, I noticed too many "weekenders" using the shelters to sleep in. poor form.

I'd never heard of this unwritten rule before, and IMO if somebody had the gall to question my use of a shelter in-season as a section hiker, I'd tell them where to shove their opinion. But that's me.

I can see not filling up an entire shelter with your youth/boy scout/church group etc..., but for individual hikers...come on.

Curious what you all think.

This is the first post on this thread quoted. My initial read of this is that the reviewer wasn't a thru-hiker - i.e. no one was asking for special treatment for themselves. Perhaps this is like a Rorschach ink blot test and how you feel about thru hikers is revealed by who you think the reviewer is.

Also a thru hiker is someone who intends to thru hike. Kinda like the legal definition of domicile, where you reside or intend to return to. It's your honest intention that matters in the common usage of this word. Yes I know certain parks have different definitions of thru hikers but to seriously say there are no thru hikers until they complete the hike is a little silly.

Finally it's been my admittedly limited experience that 99% of hikers, including thru hikers, appear to be good and helpful people. I understand it's fun to slam the 1% though so carry on whiteblaze! : )

[Mr Strict]

this never ends well when i interject this into these discussions-

it depends on the definition of "thru hiker."

while not often spoken off, printed, cited or i imagine enforced, in some places, most notably SNP, there is in fact a rule that basically says someone who parks their car, hikes a mile or two into the woods to a nearby shelter with the intention of staying there a night or two and then turning around and hiking back to their car is technically not allowed to do so. the shelters are intended for people who are "hiking through."

i don't think many people understand the reasoning behind this rule or agree with it in the least, even those amongst us who would never do something like this, but as someone who has more than once come across groups of people who have commandeered a shelter that was within an easy mile or two of a road and turned it into their own private weekend vacation getaway (and yes, ive had such people pretty much directly tell me that the shelter was "theirs" and i couldnt stay at it.) i understand fully and agree with such rules. the shelters are for people doing end to end hikes. not for lazy quasi car campers.

i sense perhaps a similar rule is in place wherever this was and one or more people grossly misunderstood or misapplied it.

U can’t technically be a “thru-hiker” until you start and finish the AT in less than one calendar year. Until then, everyone is considered a “section hiker”. I didn’t make the rules.

[rickb]

U can’t technically be a “thru-hiker” until you start and finish the AT in less than one calendar year. Until then, everyone is considered a “section hiker”. I didn’t make the rules.

The instant you finish a thru hike, you are no longer a thru hiker.

You are a former thru hiker.

Ergo, thru hikers do not exist (if your definition holds).

[tdoczi]

The instant you finish a thru hike, you are no longer a thru hiker.

You are a former thru hiker.

Ergo, thru hikers do not exist (if your definition holds).

i still say a "thru hiker" is just a person who is "hiking through"

that this warped at some point somehow into "person attempting to hike the whole trail" is just one of many examples of how we collectively like to forget (or willfully ignore) what words really mean in favor of what we think they mean.

[rocketsocks]

i still say a "thru hiker" is just a person who is "hiking through"

that this warped at some point somehow into "person attempting to hike the whole trail" is just one of many examples of how we collectively like to forget (or willfully ignore) what words really mean in favor of what we think they mean.

sometimes words or phrases have more than one meaning...

Unchecked ego equals poor forum.

[Traveler]

The instant you finish a thru hike, you are no longer a thru hiker.

You are a former thru hiker.

Ergo, thru hikers do not exist (if your definition holds).

As a fun point of consideration, when reaching terminus at either end of the AT, one still has to walk out. For that hike out, if its on the AT, they can state they are a thru hiker. So thru hikers may exist, but they may be time stamped in a philosophical sense.

[Odd Man Out]

i still say a "thru hiker" is just a person who is "hiking through" ...

Also, no one stays at a shelter permanently. Therefore everyone is a thru hiker.

...Ergo, thru hikers do not exist (if your definition holds).

Therefore no one is a thru hiker.

Thus we have proven that all people thru hikers and not thru hikers at the same time. This is actually quite a reasonable conclusion based on quantum theory, since it is only once a particle is observed that its properties are fixed. So until you observe the hiker, he/she is both a thru hiker and not a thru hiker. It's just like Schrödinger's cat. If you put a hiker in a box, he/she will be both alive and dead at the same time, until you open the box. So the obvious solution is to not open the box.

[Mr Strict]

then if your senses are taken away, you cant prove that anything exists.

[tdoczi]

Also, no one stays at a shelter permanently. Therefore everyone is a thru hiker.



Therefore no one is a thru hiker.

Thus we have proven that all people thru hikers and not thru hikers at the same time. This is actually quite a reasonable conclusion based on quantum theory, since it is only once a particle is observed that its properties are fixed. So until you observe the hiker, he/she is both a thru hiker and not a thru hiker. It's just like Schrödinger's cat. If you put a hiker in a box, he/she will be both alive and dead at the same time, until you open the box. So the obvious solution is to not open the box.

actually in my statement "hiking through" is in contrast to "hiking to a point, turning around and hiking back to the start. or i suppose in a loop that ends where it began.

[tdoczi]

sometimes words or phrases have more than one meaning...

it generally ends up that way because we, for one reason or another, start using them to mean different things.

it would be more helpful to invent new words. therefore i move that "through hiker" go back to meaning "hiking through" and person who is attempting to hike the whole trail will henceforth be a.... hikeldumpty.

i look forward to the first thread discuss an attempt to set a FKT for a hikeldumpty

[Mr Strict]

The Appalachian Trail Conservancy ATC (which is the generally accepted authority of the AT) only recognizes someone to be a "thru-hiker" when they start and finish the AT within 12 months. Otherwise you are a "section hiker". In fact, if you finish the entire AT, without leaving the trail, in 12 months and one day, you are considered a "section hiker". Likewise, if you hike sections of the AT and go home in between for a week at a time but finish in less than 12 months, you would be a "thru-hiker" (this only considers the AT, you will have to figure out the definition for other tails)

[tdoczi]

The Appalachian Trail Conservancy ATC (which is the generally accepted authority of the AT) only recognizes someone to be a "thru-hiker" when they start and finish the AT within 12 months. Otherwise you are a "section hiker". In fact, if you finish the entire AT, without leaving the trail, in 12 months and one day, you are considered a "section hiker". Likewise, if you hike sections of the AT and go home in between for a week at a time but finish in less than 12 months, you would be a "thru-hiker" (this only considers the AT, you will have to figure out the definition for other tails)

actually im 98% sure all they recognize is people who have finished the trail and they (wisely) do not wade into differentiating the myriad different ways in which people do so.

well, thats mostly true. they seem to differentiate their photos by type of hike. this is probably a bad idea.

they also i think, at different points, like the kennebec, count "thru hikers" (this may technically not be the ATC doing it). of course at the kennebec there is really no way of knowing whether someone will become a thru hiker. by my definition of the word a "through hiker" is anyone who doesnt ride the ferry once in each direction in close succession. but thats probably not what they mean.

so i guess its really about what someone choses to identify themselves as (coming dangerously close to political discussion here). therefore, i will just tell people from now on that i am through hiking when i do a unidirectional hiking trip. by my meaning of the word that is what i am doing. who is anyone else to argue with my choice of what a word means or if it should apply to me, right?

how this will factor into the argument about who gets preferential treatment at UGPC i wont venture to guess at this juncture.

[Mr Strict]

I give up...