Abolish Shelters?

[Kozmic Zian]

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.

Thank you Mr. Maintainer for the vision on Shelter Necessities and tenting sites. It's easy to see, if one goes buy this maintainers shelter, he know's what he's talkin' about.

[Kozmic Zian]

There are a couple of sides to this. While I personally shun them myself, the fact is, a lot of folks gravitate to them, and also gravitate to the spots where they are sited, as there is almost always good camping and good water at shelter sites.
Tearing down the shelters would force a lot of folks to carve out new campsites all over the trail, and not only at shelter sites. The new campsites would spring up all over the place, including many places where people simply shouldn't camp. For example, the main reason that there are so many campsites between Catawba and Troutville, Virginia is partly cuz this is a such a high-use area, but it's also to discourage folks from camping at such places as McAfee Knob and Tinker Cliff.
Another consideration is that not everyone in the woods is as savvy, or theoretically savvy as thru-hikers when it comes to responsible behavior, Leave No Trace Principles, etc. If the shelters were removed, it doesn't mean folks would stop using the Trail for hiking/camping trips. It merely means they'd be tenting or tarping all over the place, and not always responsibly---instead of, for example, all of them crapping in one place, they'd be poohing indiscrimately all over creation; instead of having one fire pit, hundreds of new campsites would result in hundreds of new fires, with resultant damage and risk. Also, as it's safe to assume that there will always be a certain percentage of folks who DON'T behave responsibly, and leave garbage behind, it's better that they do so at shelters which tend to be closer to roads, and are subject to periodic inspection, cleaning, and maintenance, whether by ridgerunners or volunteer trail crews. In short, centralizing end-of-day locations, and having established campsites and shelters probably results in damage being centralized and easier to police, and it prevents people doing all sorts of other damage in newly established campsites.

To sum up: I absolutely feel folks are better off avoiding shelters for lots of reasons, but I think it'd be a mistake to get rid of them.

Hear, hear! Well stated indeed, Jack Tarlin.

[Kozmic Zian]

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.

Thank you Mr. Maintainer for the vision on Shelter Necessities and tenting sites. It's easy to see, if one goes buy this maintainers shelter, he know's what he's talkin' about.

[weary]

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. 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.

I suspect in 20 years most maintaining clubs will have stopped replacing shelters as they deterriorate. Since space can't be guaranteed, everyone has to carry their own shelter, making their construction somewhat silly. Far more useful for most hikers would be picnic shelters to provide protection from heavy rains while setting up tents or tarps.

Organized camping areas, with latrines will always be needed, to reduce health and environmental problems and sprawl. Raised earthen tent platforms are useful to minimize the impact on the surrounding landscape. Wood tent platforms are useful, where soils make earthen tent sites unfeasible, but poses maintenance problems, and many hikers dislike sleeping on them.

Weary

[Kozmic Zian]

You know, I had sugested to me that one thing they could do would be to take the signs down. The signs that indicate which way and where the shelters are and just put that info in the Guide Book, a new book, maybe produced by the NPS or ATC....WF would'nt like it much, that would show where the huts and shelters are. Then the hiker trash comin' in from the trail heads could'nt find them....Sure would cut down on the traffic and ditirius around the shelters. Not too bad an idea..............................KZ@

[Skeemer]

Some really excellent thoughtful resposes so far...in my opinion.

My first reaction to taking the signs down was "no way." Maybe because during my shakedown hike a few years ago I needed every sign (even while carrying the guide) to keep me from getting lost... and I still hiked out the wrong way once when leaving a shelter. But then, one could argue it would make you a "better hiker" in that you would have to pay more attention to where you are on the Trail. How many times have you hiked along thinking the shelter must be right around the corner when it turned out to be another hour down the Trail? Also, we have to remember that the Trail is there for everyone...not just the long distance hiker.

What would be next...take off every other white blaze? In the Adirondacks they took the cansiters off the 46 High Peaks...I guess to "return it to the "natural state" as much as possible. With the canisters I knew I had reached the peaks. I enjoyed reading the registers/logs just as I did on the AT. Most on the forum over there believe it was a mistake to remove them.

In this wet year I appreciated the shelters so much (when I wasn't in a hostel or motel). Having an overhang to cook under, places to hang your food and privies were much appreciated by this hiker. And I agree, it does help save the wilderness by concentrating the the overnight camping to as few places as possible.

I suppose the "real purists" who want to "live in the woods" would like to see nothing but a 6 inch wide path from GA>ME and nothing else.

After we remove the shelters we'd have to go after the Trail towns.

[Kozmic Zian]

[QUOTE =]Naw....I agree with you Skeemer! What I'm saying is when there's a shelter that get abused by locals near a trailhead or what....maybe they could take a few signs down and produce a guide that would show where these mystery huts are. They already make the ageis from roads as inconspicuous as possible...sometimes you can't find the trail from a road it's so subtle where it enters. You know, hikers don't abuse....it's the few who ruin it for the many.
Maybe its best to just leave it like it is....just something to contemplate.[/QUOTE] KZ@

[jojo0425]

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!

Gosh, I hope others have more tolerance for you. I'm sure you're just kidding and you welcome any and all to the trail, regardless of race, gender, creed or pack weight.

If you don't want to share your hot water with a lite-hiker, then don't. You're not obligated to do so and perhaps that hiker won't go so lite next time.

As far as shelters...they do provide a central location for everyone to camp, trample on, poop near and what not. I gotta say, I'd rather have one location beaten down every 10 miles or so than an entire forest! If there weren't shelters and just designated campsites, you'd still have the same problem of congregation of the masses in one location. So either way...

Shelters are not the evil...people are.

The best way to solve the problem of over use and crowding is to stop hiking, all together, have a quota system. After so many hikers annually, the trail closes down, no more visitors allowed! How does that sound? Of course that's not feasible...so why can't we all just get along?!

[Lone Wolf]

Too many folks take too much stuff on this forum too seriously. Just havin a little fun JoJo. I was only being half serious.

[jojo0425]

Well, I did say, "I'm sure you're just kidding", and if you read my response, you would have seen, so was I.
Written words never convey the entire message as you cannot hear tonal changes in my voice, see me smile or laugh or judge my body language.

So, I understand your joke and like I said...I'm sure you don't judge people by their pack size...does size really matter anyway?

[waldo]

Shelters ..... the love-hate relationship in what us thru hikers call home .... anyway shelters along the AT are an endangared structure, in the sense of comparing to other long distance trails. I, myself, find much comfort in the shelters, and would be incredibly disappointed if they were diminished. Being a SOBO thru hiker, I spent many, many nights alone, however, I would have spent twice as many nights alone if I didnt have the wonderful company that the shelters provide. The comfort of walking 20-25 miles to a shelter with the hope of having someone to share dinner with, or converse in a bit of small talk as the sun sets was a much needed satisfaction, and had a huge impact on me being successful in completing my thru hike. Also, by staying at the shelters, instead of stealthing, I was usually guaranteed a water source, and I wouldnt have to lug an extra 3 liters of water for miles before I wanted to stop for the night ..... to sum up - shelters along the AT are one reason the AT brings about such a heart whelming experience to those who adventure the ardeous trail ... think about the trail journals! Everyone loves to write their two sense in them .... where would these cherised works of art be without shelters??? I say keep the shelters, dont build new ones, but maintain the ones already built ... and if you don't like the snorring or company .... there are plenty of trees, rivers, lakes, and mountains to set up camp ..... and as always happy trails

Waldo ME-GA'03