PATC Cabins

[LittleRock]

On my recent section hike through Shenandoah I encountered several PATC cabins. I believe there are seven in Shenandoah and it looks like there are more on other parts of the trail maintained by the PATC. I didn't stop at all of them, but the ones where I did stop it was pretty much the same: nice cabin about the same size as a hiker hut, sleeps 6-8, near a spring, with privy and picnic tables nearby, and open space that would be good for tenting.

They're definitely not a secret - they're labeled on the map, and they were all on clearly marked side trails within a few tenths of a mile from the AT. In fact, at least two were visible from the AT. The ones I stopped at were all locked, which wasn't a big deal, but the big deal was that they all had "NO CAMPING" signs. This really irritated me - enough to warrant starting a thread.

I understand that the PATC maintains the trail, they own the cabins, and they have the right to keep hikers out. But to assert that they have the right to keep hikers from camping nearby - in what would otherwise be a perfectly legal (and ideal since they're near water sources) tenting sites is ludicrous. In fact, IMO it's really against the spirit of LNT since it encourages hikers to clear new tent spaces elsewhere rather than using areas that have already been cleared.

The other thing I noticed at the cabins where I stopped is that they were all unoccupied, while the hiker huts were near or at capacity (including tent sites) pretty much every night. The huts aren't always ideally spaced, and while stealth camping is legal in Shenandoah, there aren't a whole lot of established tent sites near the trail. This often leaves hikers with the choice of a 13 mile day vs a 26 mile day.

Perhaps the intent is to get more hikers to pay to use the park camping facilities, but that clearly wasn't happening. Most of the hikers I saw laughed at the idea of paying even $20 to get a tent site at one of the campgrounds. So bottom line is that if they just allowed camping near the PATC cabins, it would reduce the impact on the trail and especially at the huts, and allow hikers to have better options in terms of planning daily mileage.

[chknfngrs]

Good points, I’ve rented PATC cabins a plenty and have never seen anyone abusing that rule. I have heard of people sleeping under awnings or porches of unoccupied PATC cabins. They are primarily a weekend destination, not so much in the mid week. You should reach out to PATC With your valid input!

[moldy]

Those things just like the hut's in the White's rub me the wrong way. One of the problems for me is that they are setting on Government property. They are operated by a top heavy trail club that operates as a non-profit. They make lots of money off these things. This club feels entitled to make up just about all the rules they want. It's shameful. They figure that they earn this entitlement because they maintain the trail. The only 2 clubs that cash in like this is the AMC and PATC. the others do not. Money and power.

[chiefiepoo]

IDK, you can join PATC and be an eligible member to rent. They do use the cabins for support while doing trail maintenance . If I was a member , and had paid to rent for a weekend with family, Id be put out if i suddenly had a few unanticipated neighbors. Kind of like the C&O canal where you can rent a lock keepers house but are not supposed to camp near them. As for SNP, on my trips through there, it was easy to find a suitable campsite if staying at a shelter was not your choice.

[chiefiepoo]

Some good info here,
https://www.patc.net/PATC/Cabins/Cabins.aspx

[Teacher & Snacktime]

I've rented PATC cabins, and frankly, I wouldn't be overly thrilled to have people I didn't invite camping on the doorstep or the grounds I paid for. These are not for open public use, but for the use of those who rent them. The PATC owns them and the allotted grounds surrounding them, and regardless of their place in the park they are still private and not public property.

[Greenlight]

Those things just like the hut's in the White's rub me the wrong way. One of the problems for me is that they are setting on Government property. They are operated by a top heavy trail club that operates as a non-profit. They make lots of money off these things. This club feels entitled to make up just about all the rules they want. It's shameful. They figure that they earn this entitlement because they maintain the trail. The only 2 clubs that cash in like this is the AMC and PATC. the others do not. Money and power.

Cabin rental is a perk of membership and I’m not sure how top heavy the organization is...I applied and signed up to maintain trails in northern Shenandoah and that group has no leadership right now and hasn’t answered my emails in over two months. Neither PATC nor the northern herb group. And I don’t know how much of a money maker it is, as they’re only popular to rent on weekends when the weather is nice. I get your point, just not sure how culpable they are. I doubt that they are nazis about it if someone camped out on the porch on a Wednesday in February. They’re not shelters, they’re private property.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[LittleRock]

Those things just like the hut's in the White's rub me the wrong way. One of the problems for me is that they are setting on Government property. They are operated by a top heavy trail club that operates as a non-profit. They make lots of money off these things. This club feels entitled to make up just about all the rules they want. It's shameful. They figure that they earn this entitlement because they maintain the trail. The only 2 clubs that cash in like this is the AMC and PATC. the others do not. Money and power.

I tend to agree - how exactly does a private nonprofit organization get away with monopolizing and renting out cabins on public park service land, just because they maintain the trail? It has the smell of a backroom deal made with local politicians.

Same with the AMC - haven't made it up to that part of the trail yet but already planning to skip all the huts. Once I learned just how much of their resources go into things like lobbying the EPA for stricter environmental regulations, and not maintaining the trail and huts, I was completely turned off by them.

Anyway, my point was that they are attempting to keep hikers from camping in what would otherwise be prime tent sites in Shenandoah, while using those areas to generate revenue.

[peakbagger]

Not sure on PATC but frequently the cabins were private inholdings there prior to SNPs existence. Generally the approach to cleaning up inholdings when a national park is created to is to make a deal with the holder to transfer the title to the NPS and allow the continued use by a private party under a special use permit. Generally the NP puts in a restricted use area around these facilities to reduce conflicts with the public as otherwise sprawl tends to occur just outside the special use. I find the Upper Goose Pond in Mass alternative where volunteers run the cabin and supervise nearby campsites as well as the waste disposal options far preferable than holding a resource for occasional weekend use.

In the whites, some but not all of the huts predated the WMNF and at least one, Madison is still on a private inholding, others were built later under special use permits subject to renewal. In the case of the AMC huts, the club had to do a fairly extensive impact study about 20 years ago justifying the huts relative to a base case of removing them or making them self service. The NF ultimately ruled that AMC huts as run currently is the best option for managing an area that otherwise would get overwhelmed if not actively managed. Note the NF has far more latitude with special use permits as its managed under a multiple use basis compared to a national park which tends to be preservationist management.

Note that huts aren't the only special use, there are several private ski areas using National Forest Land that pay a pittance to trash a mountainside.

[BlackCloud]

Uh, wow. I'm not a PATC member, but let's introduce some facts:

*All PATC-run cabins on government property are available for rent to the general public for a below-market fee;
*All cabins on government property are the property of the U.S. government;
*All cabins in SHEN were constructed in the 1930s by the CCC;
*The NPS regulates the PATC as a concessionaire like any other organization that offers any type of service on NPS land;
*It is NPS regulation that you not camp w/in a certain distance of a historic structure;
*Any adult may join the PATC to rent out a cabin located on private property;
*The PATC maintains more of the AT than any other organization;
*Only the PATC secretary draws a salary - no one is making a profit (not that there is anything wrong with that anyhow);

Did I miss any other false and uninformed statements?

[full conditions]

Uh, wow. I'm not a PATC member, but let's introduce some facts:

*All PATC-run cabins on government property are available for rent to the general public for a below-market fee;
*All cabins on government property are the property of the U.S. government;
*All cabins in SHEN were constructed in the 1930s by the CCC;
*The NPS regulates the PATC as a concessionaire like any other organization that offers any type of service on NPS land;
*It is NPS regulation that you not camp w/in a certain distance of a historic structure;
*Any adult may join the PATC to rent out a cabin located on private property;
*The PATC maintains more of the AT than any other organization;
*Only the PATC secretary draws a salary - no one is making a profit (not that there is anything wrong with that anyhow);

Did I miss any other false and uninformed statements?

I would like to add that for most PATC cabins you do not have to be a member to rent (although PATC members get a discount) and reserving one is pretty darn easy. My friends and I rented the Bear's Den Cabin over spring break during April and it was all of 30.00 buck a night and split four ways made for a pretty inexpensive week - I dont think anyone's getting rich off of these cabin rentals.

[Brother Blood]

A few points. Unlike the AMC, the PATC does not charge hikers to sleep in shelters or primitive sites. One cabin is located in a shelter area (Rock Spring), so I'm not sure what the difference is between camping at the cabin, and the tent sites right there. Also, unlike the Smokies and the Whites, primitive camping is allowed almost anywhere, the PATC is not trying to force hikers to pony up $10 a night to sleep at "legal" campsite.
If you compare the financials of the PATC to those of the AMC, you'll see that they should not be grouped in the same category.

[LittleRock]

One cabin is located in a shelter area (Rock Spring), so I'm not sure what the difference is between camping at the cabin, and the tent sites right there.

YES - exactly. Maybe I didn't articulate very well, but all I was really trying to say was that the PATC should make the other cabins in Shenandoah like this one. Set up some tent pads and concentrate use in an area that already has been developed and has a privy rather than encourage them to spread out and disturb new areas. I seriously doubt having AT hikers camping 200 ft away is going to ruin anyone's cabin rental experience.

[peakbagger]

A few points. Unlike the AMC, the PATC does not charge hikers to sleep in shelters or primitive sites. One cabin is located in a shelter area (Rock Spring), so I'm not sure what the difference is between camping at the cabin, and the tent sites right there. Also, unlike the Smokies and the Whites, primitive camping is allowed almost anywhere, the PATC is not trying to force hikers to pony up $10 a night to sleep at "legal" campsite.
If you compare the financials of the PATC to those of the AMC, you'll see that they should not be grouped in the same category.

Although I am not a fan of the AMC the reality is there are very few spots in the whites were someone can not technically primitive camp with the exception of 1/4 of mile around developed facilities and above treeline. The main reason camping is a PITA is that the AT in the whites is mostly on a steep ridgeline surrounded by high elevation dense spruce and fir with poor options for setting up a tent or even a hammock. AMC is just charging money to camp at the established campsites for a caretaker to manage the crowds and shovel and compost crap out of the outhouse.

[Greenlight]

Everyone wants a nice place to crash at the end of the day, and seeing a lock on the door of a nice cabin or hut can get the blood boiling, especially carb-depleted blood. But if it is a trade of, giving the AT clubs a perk here and there, I'm willing to concede it to them because of how great they are at keeping the trail maintained. If they didn't do what they do, we wouldn't be able to do what we love to do. The AT would be gone inside of five years. It'd be covered in deadfall and overgrown with understory. Kudos to the PATC and all of the other clubs out there.

[rickb]

AMC is just charging money to camp at the established campsites for a caretaker to manage the crowds and shovel and compost crap out of the outhouse.

It might be worth noting that the $10 fee collected by the AMC covers only about 50% of the operating cost to staff and care for the Caretaker sites.

The balance is largely covered by member dues, and monies paid by people staying in the Huts.

I suspect that few thru hikers appreciate the fact that they are not paying their “fair share” when they hand over their sawbuck, much less ever thank those who are subsidizing their stay.

[rickb]

Same with the AMC - haven't made it up to that part of the trail yet but already planning to skip all the huts. Once I learned just how much of their resources go into things like lobbying the EPA for stricter environmental regulations, and not maintaining the trail and huts, I was completely turned off by them.
.

As a matter of law a 501(c)(3) organization like the AMC would loose its tax exempt status if it spent a significant percentage of its resources (you can google up the exact number set by the IRS, its very low) on lobbying.

As a mater of fact, the AMC does not exceed that low threshold.

The Sierra Club, it is not.

[The Snowman]

The AMC does not charge for shelters or campsites along the AT. There is a charge for caretaker sites in the white mts but that's a small number of the total sites it maintains in NJ CT and Mass

[LittleRock]

Sorry really didn't mean to turn this thread into a debate over the benevolence of trail clubs. For the most part, they have done an excellent job maintaining the trail on the parts I've been on, and I always make sure to thank any trail maintainers I run into, including one PATC volunteer I met on my Shenandoah hike.

[BlackCloud]

I realized I must amend my prior post. Only 4 of the 6 PATC-maintained cabins in SHEN were constructed by the CCC. The other two were built and lived in by people before they were forcibly removed by the government for the creation of the park.