Abolish Shelters?

[smokymtnsteve]

wilderness has "always" had cabins and habitations ...or you built your own,,cut down some trees and built a cabin...READ Jack London

Indian camps,,,,, never in the history of the USA and not for thousands of years before the USA has thier ever been pristine wilderness...why you can find artifacts of these past inhabitants...a lot of the time it is thier garbage that we find..pottery shards and other broken discarded items they just threw all thier garbage in a heap ...moving from cabin to cabin is a time honored way of "wilderness"travel ...

lumber camps ..trapping camps..herders camps..hunting camps lodges...read Horace Kephart..

shelters are here to stay.....they always been there and always will anything else is artifically unnatural...aberrant behavior

[chris]

I've been in pristine wilderness in North America. That means that no other humans, ever. Not hard to find, just hard to get to.

[Mountain climber]

While I have never stayed in a shelter myself, I have found this thread interesting reading.

[MOWGLI]

Another twist on this subject. Do the exploits of long distance backpackers, and more specifically, AT thru-hikers, lead to overcrowding and overuse of the AT? There are so many trails out there. Why is the AT so darn popular? Is it the romantic notion of heading off into the woods for a 2170+ mile walk? As I'm sure many of you are aware, that idea is VERY appealing to a large segment of society, wiith most folks saying "well, I could never do that...".

So, I ask you, why this fascination with the AT? It's just another trail, isn't it?

Little Bear
GA-ME 2000

[Lone Wolf]

Marketing. Books, magazines, videos, television.

[Mountain climber]

When I was in my teens my mother read something about Granny Gatewood in the paper and after reading about it she thought I would be a good one to consider hiking the trail. That was 35 years ago and I have always had the trail in the back of my mind. I hope that when I retire I will still be healthy enough to do a NOBO thru-hike.
To answer your question. This was the first long distance trail in the USA and now it is also the most famous. Because of being the original long distance trail it makes the trip that much more rewarding.
There are always those that after completing the AT they go on and try for the Triple Crown. But the AT will always be the trail that most long distance trail hikers strive to do.

[Peaks]

To quote Dave Field, thru-hikers are a "critical minority" on the AT.

If there is overuse, it's the weekenders, and in some cases, the day trippers. Stand on top of Washington over Columbus Day Weekend and figure out the ratio of thru-hikers to others.

[Lone Wolf]

Vermont's Long Trail is the oldest continuous hiking trail in U.S., not the AT.

[Alligator]

The AT is older than the other long distance trails and complete. It's also easier. Both translate into many more people finishing and spreading the word. Population density is high around the trail, so there are many users.

[Weeknd]

Originally posted by TNJED
So, I ask you, why this fascination with the AT? It's just another trail, isn't it?
Little Bear
GA-ME 2000 [/B]

Well, I have to weigh in on this one. The AT is not just another trail to some of us. I believe that is what you were implying anyway, but I feel compelled to answer your question.

The AT for me is the ultimate trail. Its the first trail I ever took a multiday trip on. Its a trail that I have returned to over decades and the excitement, thrill and wonder haven't faded. It never feels old even though I've been to the same parts several times over many years. I have a dream of one day hiking the whole thing. It's been in my mind from when I was a young scout hiking up Standing Indian for the first time....It is hard to explain, but the AT is a marvelous "place"...an adventure every step and a wonder on every hilltop. (And I've only hiked it in the south, I'm saving the north and K for the big hike one day )

As for shelters, there are some wonderful comments. I say keep 'em. I've never personally stayed in one either because of crowding or I wanted to camp somewhere else. But I do like stopping at them and have enjoyed the company of some interesting folks around them. I think that they concentrate the impact. One group of people camped in a location can do a lot of damage if they don't practice LNT.

[Spirit Walker]

One thought - the overuse on the AT is in part because of the shelters. A lot of folks who are not comfortable with camping or living outdorrs or who may be not equipped to camp go to the AT because the shelters make it seem more civilized and less threatening to those who have little experience. You aren't sleeping in the woods, you are goign to a nice protected little house with lots of other people where you won't get wet and you won't have to worry about wild animals (except mice and skunks), etc. I like the idea of developed campsites, where there is an outhouse and tent pads, but you have to be prepared to sleep out and deal with nature directly. It would cut down on numbers a lot. And it would prepare people better for hiking other trails that aren't as civilized. But at the same time it would concentrate use and reduce impact. But chances are it would lead to requiring people to camp in designated areas, which would not be good for those of us who like to have some flexibility as to where we camp.

Oh well, there are a lot of other trails, thanks be.

[Doctari]

I am so torn on this. Tearing down some (like the hole in the smokies) seem a good Idea at the time, but the reports I have heard about the area now suggest that may have not been such a great thing to do.
I use the shelters, but on a limited basis for several reasons: I snore, others snore, I get up very early some times, etc. But there are many times when the sight of a sturdy shelter to spend the night in makes my day.
My usual MO is to have dinner at the shelter, then hike another mile or so & set up the tent. So I get the best of both worlds: companionship, a nice place to cook din din that is (usually) near water, a chance to use the privy, then I get to camp at my own private camp site. I am not a Ultra lighter, so my tent is good to sleep in anytime. I don't NEED the shelters, I just like them. On my second secton hike, had the brown fork shelter not been there I would have been in serious trouble due to Hypothermia, but There was a place with other hikers, and I didn't have to set up my tent which would have been nearly impossible in my condition, I barely maneged to get out my sleeping bag & into it, with help.
Also: I agree with most of the other comments, both pro and con. But when it comes down to it, I guess my vote is: Leave the shelters, they do serve a purpose and to remove them may cause more harm than good.

Doctari.

[Peaks]

In the event you have not noticed, many shelters today are no longer right on the AT. In some cases, the trail has been relocated around the shelters. In other cases, the shelters have been built down a short side trail. I assume all to discourage day use of shelters.

In addition, the shelters that used to be very close to roads have been removed and replaced with shelters that are further away from the roads.

[TedB]

I say keep the shelters for what they contribute to the trail experience.

Shelters can make for strange bed fellows. One cold rainy night I arrived at a shelter with a group of "hood's in the woods" (anyone know the PC term?). I got to hear all about life in juvenile detention centers. Sound like a rough night? Not at all. They were an outstanding group. I could really tell the leaders were making a difference in these kids' lives. They were amazed to hear I had walked there from Georgia, and one girl declared she too was going to hike the AT some day.

Quite, restful nights in secluded campsites are great, but I'll remember that crowded night in a shelter as one of the more memorable experiences I take home from my hike.

[Kerosene]

I ended up staying with two such groups (educational rehabilitation?) from the same institution on my trip last month. The first group was younger, SOBO, rolled in well after dark and were so exhausted that they just set up their tents and went to sleep. I left before most of them awoke, but their counselors were nice.

The very next night I stayed with the older, NOBO kids from this "academy" who were extremely well behaved. I got on fine with their counselors who even told me how to get into their unlocked van at a later road crossing so I could raid their extra food that was on ice (Mmmm...bagels and cream cheese!).

I tend to make use of shelters during my fall section hikes since they're usually not too crowded. My biggest frustration is with heavy snorers that are able to punch through my earplugs.

[Skyline]

Tear 'em down? Bad idea IMO. It's far better to CONCENTRATE use and leave the majority of the Trail undisturbed than to encourage scores of campsites/fire rings/piles of crap. Didn't mean to step on Jack's thoughts, only reinforce them.

I approach this from a unique perspective, as an overseer of a shelter in SNP. They are a good thing for many hikers, tho I don't stay in them--not even my own. I prefer to tent.

IMO shelters should have not only a modest shelter structure but also:

•at least one privy
•a place to cook/eat separate from the sleeping area
•a method to keep food separate from the shelter (bear pole, pulley system, bear box, etc.) and NO mouse hangers in the shelter itself
•a firepit near the shelter
•a second firepit away from the shelter
•enough hardened/identifiable tentsites to accommodate most peak crowds

If someone dislikes shelters, at MOST places along the A.T. they don't HAVE to stay in them. But having the ability to "primitive-camp" while at the same time having access to privies, firepits, cooking areas, etc. not TOO far away is desirable from a trail management point of view, and as a convenience for hikers.

Of the amenities listed above, I am mostly a proponent of developing more and ample tentsites within a couple hundred yards of shelters--enough to accommodate peak crowds. I don't think the answer is in building bigger mega-shelters, but in developing more and better tentsites nearby but not right next door. And if these shelters/tentsite groupings were not RIGHT on the Trail, and definitely not that close to road crossings, it would be ideal.

By "developing" tentsites, I mean making each desirable and easy to use, while being easy to find even in high summer. Sloped ever so slightly so your head is a little higher than your feet. Level left to right. As free as possible of rocks that impede tent stakes. Void of dead or leaning trees or loose branches that could come crashing down on campers. Water/erosion control systems appropriate to each site. A mix of small and large sites to accommodate different types and sizes of tents or tarps. A couple additional sites that might be best suited for hammocks.

(BTW I am not promoting the idea that any authority should LIMIT tenting to such improved, designated tentsites. Camping in true primitive settings far away from shelters, if done with LNT in mind, is very cool. I'm only saying that in lieu of mega-shelters or more shelters, tentsites nearby are a better idea.)

As we are finding at Pass Mt. Hut in Shenandoah, bringing the tentsites established by the Park in 2000 up to the aforementioned standards is a LOT of hard work--especially getting them level left to right and removing all those rocks just below the soil (start digging and they seem to multiply like rabbits!). But well worth it IMO. Of the eight we have sited, two are now up to par and we're working on a third. Over time, they all should be very user-friendly.

[cabalot]

i wish the rangers or local authorities would stop in at these shelters that are close to roads and have become party spots for the local teenagers that leave the shelters trashed and urinated on.
i have fishing liscences in 4 states and have never been checked. every day i see A-holes keeping every undersized 4" fish they catch. we need some enforsement to deter this crap.

[Kozmic Zian]

Right on mntman777! I'm tired of those 18.4lb. pack wearin, non stove carryin, hot water moochin, tennis shoe wearin, non tent carryin, ounce coutin, hydration system usin, 23.2 mile a day HIKIN, cell phone carryin, skinny-ass, umbrella usin, needin to get to a shelter, whinin wannabe BACKPACKER, HIKERS!

Choices.............

[Lone Wolf]

Yes choices....... and a sense of humor

[MOWGLI]

The AT for me is the ultimate trail. Its the first trail I ever took a multiday trip on. Its a trail that I have returned to over decades and the excitement, thrill and wonder haven't faded. It never feels old even though I've been to the same parts several times over many years.

I would highly recommend that some of you who have hiked the AT, or who intend to hike the AT, hike a long distance trail that does not have any shelters. What do I mean by long distance trail? Any trail that takes 5 or more days to complete. After all, an AT thru-hike is just a series of 3-5 day section hikes, all strung together.

Yesterday while helping to build the Benton Mackaye Trail extension in Eastern Tennessee, the VP of the Benton MacKaye Trail Assoc told me that they have no intention of building any more shelters on their trail. In 2005 when the trail extension is complete, this 180+ mile trail will have only one shelter. That shelter is located in a residential community, and is about 200 yards from a road.

Hiking a trail with no shelters forces you to hone your camping/backpacking skills, and increases the need for Leave-No-Trace practices. It also changes the backpacking experience radically.

I encouraged the BMTA to consider designating some camping areas. There are few designated camping areas today. That will need to change when the trail is contiguous between Springer Mountain and Davenport Gap in Great Smoky Mountain NP, as the trail will undoubtedly become more attractive to long distance hikers.