Why have So Many New England Shelters Burned Down?

[Sly]

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?

[1234]

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.

[weary]

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]

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]

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?

[Sly]

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..

[Jeff]

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.

[Spokes]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Sly]

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]

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]

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.

[lemon b]

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.