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) 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.

[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.