Shelters - A good thing or a bad thing for the AT?
With the increasing numbers of hikers on the AT, would it be better to remove the shelters to promote dispersed camping like on the PCT?
yes. shelters are dumps
Rat traps & hobo houses
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In my opinion, no.Originally Posted by firesign
- Most AT hikers are afraid to walk more than a few feet into the woods to camp and won't-- no matter what
- Some sections (entire states) prohibit camping except at designated sites
- In the sections requiring you camp 200' from the AT most are incapable of judging that distance anyway.
A better solution would be to build more -- perhaps many more in some areas -- or better still build designated campsites with hardened pads, a privy and perhaps a communal cooking area.
Some of these sites could be dry. The current expectation is that every site has water near it, but that need not be the case-- hikers can adapt given how much info is available to them. These sites could all be located down spur trails so that anyone not interested in stopping would not even know they were there.
Last edited by rickb; 10-01-2015 at 06:18.
The general consensus is that the shelters minimize the environmental impact by concentrating it in one area. Dispersed camping still happens in many areas.
Dispersed camping is not going to fly in many areas of the AT. The alternative that you missed is designated tentsites. Unfortunately throw 50 plus people a night at a acre or so of land durin mud season the area can really get pounded into mud pit unless its hardened.
Houses in the woods for people scared to camp. Literally.
Funny how trails without shelters thrive, without the problems .
Once they were a convenience. Now they are detrimental to the trail .
5000 people all starting at a single trail head over the course of about 80 days requires shelters or hardened camping spots with privies.
YES AGREE WITH THIS!
I love the hardened camp spots. Maryland shelters have tent platforms with picnic tables, great flat spots for camping. They are used! I also think MORE shelters in Georgia WITH smoldering privy's. I also think privy's about 2 hours our of every town like Hot Springs to handle the huge eating in town. Shelters keep rookies alive, all you old hardened hikers have little need for them but the average joe is just not prepared to handle inclement weather.
If you do not like them them do not use them and stop whining, most hikers like them, as they stay full or at least they accumulate a group. Without them the forest would look like a campground with EVERY flat spot over used.
Bingo! Trails without shelters aren't likely as busy as the AT. Better to have the mess concentrated than dispersed. I've been doing section hiking here in GA this year, well after thru-hiking season, and with only 1 exception the shelters are clear and clean. A testament to the volunteers.
Besides the concentration of use, shelters also are one of the features that are common, though not ubiquitous, in the Eastern US and especially more so as one goes north. In Canada there are fully enclosed shelters along certain trails. So the shelters themselves may be more a function of our climate, particularly rain, as to why we have them and other trails such as the PCT does not, it seems to be how eastern hiking and traveling evolved, many of the shelters predating adopting of LNT.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't consider getting rid of them, just that there use predates land impact reasons and those reasons are still valid today and one should also consider the original intent usage.
On my own thru I learned that I would rather be in my own tent, however at the same time appreciated them for shelter from particularly rain.
Also I do need to ask, is there a sour grapes aspect to this issue, not particularly from the OP, but the general tendency to make the trail harder or less appealing in a attempt to discourage usage, so perhaps a ulterior motive as well which is not to the benefit of the trail but just to the personal benefit of those who would rather have less people enjoying it.
I only used shelters when I had to because that was the rules so their presence or absence never affected me. I am more interested in the dispersed camping to spread people out more along the trail. I do appreciate the requirements for privies in the first couple of hundred miles of the trail but not necessarily shelters. More campsites near water sources would IMO reduce impact especially as annual numbers increase.
Shelters provide access to the trail system for non hikers. Day hikers and family outings into the great outdoors is what the trail is all about. The benefits of shelters as common areas promote the original social media site "The camp fire".
As well as being a base location for Search and Rescue, emergency medical treatment, and protection from the elements.
Why should they be removed just because there's an overabundance of people at certain times of the year? The rest of the time they stand mostly empty. In the "off season" they are nice to have. In the busy season a lucky few get to use the shelters, the rest have to tent. Big deal.
Dispersed camping is not practical along long stretches of the AT. The ridge line is too narrow, too rocky, too steep, too densely forested, too environmentally sensitive. As it is there's a shelter located in a practical camping spot about every 10 miles. More people can fit in a shelter then could fit in the same area then if they all had to tent, so it's more efficient use of space too.
Follow slogoen on Instagram.
I'll echo what others have said about shelters being mostly empty and pleasant in the off-season.
That said, I'm always prepared to tent, even if it's only a dozen feet away from the shelter. For whatever reason, and at a moment's notice.
Perhaps so... as I read the thoughts about hardened pads, bigger shelters, hardened sections of the trail, more privies, more shelters, I was aghast... "no no no" I thought. "What's next? Pave the trail? Electric hookups? Vending machines? Please don't turn the AT into glorified car camping!"
But, if nothing is done but maintaining current sites more or less as-is, the wilderness along the trail that we so enjoy will become very degraded. In part, because some hikers just don't get LNT, and there is no effective way to enforce LNT on hikers. But in large part its just the ever-increasing volume of hikers. More hikers means more tent footprints, more cat-holes, more walking off the trail for privacy to dig a cat-hole, increased number of tent pads, [unfortunately] more fire rings, etc etc etc.
I don't have a solution... I don't like the options I see.
I considered something like some sort of training requirement to hike on the trail... one that teaches everyone the rules about LNT, and trail manners... maybe a certification on something. But, apart from whether that is really even a good idea, it is definitely not a feasible idea... the trail is far to accessible, no feasible way to limit who hikes the trail, if that were even desireable.
I'm at a loss. I guess that it has me thinking I need to complete my section hike in the next few years, while the AT is still the AT I know and love.
I have and am practicing a potential solution, one that I believe in, mentoring. I take groups of hiker, most are newly discovering hiking, onto the trail and lead by example. Many are looking for what to do out there and really just don't know. The mentoring is unofficial, it just what happens naturally. It is the way I believe we are really suppose to learn, it is the ideal for humanity. In this and over the miles I do go over LNT, it's strengths and shortcomings, even conduct LNT workshops. But beyond that I like to demonstrate respect for each other, the wildlife and the earth, from that much more then LNT can be derived. More importantly it gives them a sense of ownership.
The great influx of hikers as I see it was really a failing of the hiking clubs to reach the next generation of hikers, therefor breaking the cycle of mentoring and respect, so yes many are going out there without that quality, but I do believe that we will get back to a much more respectful place over time as they learn the ways that mother nature ultimately teaches including the triad that most hiking groups eventually come to, expressed by one club as recreation, conservation and education and another the same 3 protection, enjoyment, and understanding, and I see the more modern meetup groups naturally gravitating towards these aw well.
But the main part of that is respect which must be mutual, and it is the mutual respect, we must respect them and where they are, if they are ever to respect us.
Good idea. creatively gets some of the high-impact activity off the trail itself.
So, perhaps replace some of the old shelters that are basically right on the trail (like Jerry Cabin) with ones that are further off (like Woods Hole and Whitley Gap)
And yes, while water is a nice to have at the shelter, I can adapt - a large platypus can be filled up and carried a few miles when you know its a dry camp, not an issue.
That's awesome! I'd enjoying doing that, too. I'll look for hiking clubs near me, been thinking about finding one for a while anyway. Be part of the solution...
The issue with no-water shelters is people tend to avoid them if practical. Having them off of a spur trail is a balancing act, want them to go and it should be close, the further it is off trail the less usage, especially for things like lunch stops. If you build a shelter, ideally it is for people to use, not to hide off in a place where people don't want to go.
Make shelters too unappealing hard to get to and you may create a lot more hardened camp sites in places with water and easier to set up camp were people want to camp.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
