Tear down the Stan Murray shelter and use the wood to build a picnic pavilion at the Overmountain site.
Tear down the Stan Murray shelter and use the wood to build a picnic pavilion at the Overmountain site.
It's all good in the woods.
Comment submitted.
The Barn was part of our AT Finale. Here's a picture from that trip while we descended into the valley, just as it came into view:
From Tennessee Eastman Hiking & Canoeing Club own site:
"Arguably the most unique shelter on the entire Appalachian Trail with a great view looking down into Roaring Creek Valley. A classic wooden two-story barn built in the 1970s to meet the need of a local farm." (end quote)
My understanding is they want to replace it with a covered picnic area. I hope they keep the roof because the roof is just beautiful.
Last edited by gpburdelljr; 01-25-2023 at 14:04.
I joined the session. Was a presentation going over the same stuff as the video, with typed in Q&A. The main person and decision maker seemed kind exasperated that several comments were asking about building a new shelter, and she frequently responded with a comment that shelters were just from the 70’s and 80’s and that’s not the way people hike today. Funny, sure seems like they fill up for something that’s not popular.
Good presentation. The local club has tried to maintain it for years, 100s of manhours, new roof, new sidings, new decking, etc. Amazing amount of work for such a small volunteer club with so much more to take care of.
How on earth did their decision that the structure was too far gone to save got twisted into "the ATC is tearing down the barn because they hate hikers"?
Teej
"[ATers] represent three percent of our use and about twenty percent of our effort," retired Baxter Park Director Jensen Bissell.
I don’t think it is twisted to that, but it does seem like there is a presumption that there is no reason to have a shelter there at all. Underlying that were comments by Jennifer to the effect that shelters were part of backpacking in the 70’s and 80’s, when gear was heavier. Is it true that shelters are not essential? Yes, but neither is the trail itself. However both appear to be pretty popular. On rainy days and nights, especially the shelters.
I was glad to hear they are considering a moldering privy, hopefully they consult with the MATC to build one up to those standards.
I don’t see the point of the pavilion; will just add to the party crowd magnet and won’t serve hikers. If resources are constrained there are certainly better ways of using them than that.
"the ATC is tearing down the barn because they hate hikers"
I didn't see the presentation or comments, was this point of view brought up there? Because I certainly don't see it anywhere in this thread.
So shelters are from the 70s and 80s but pavilions are the new 2000s way to hike the trail right? Because we have so many pavilions at camp areas along the AT?
What a joke, I hope someone called her out on that. Sounds like somebody that doesn't hike to me. I'm all for tearing down this unsafe barn but I also see no point in the pavilion. Someone said a spot to cook dinner out of the rain - so it doesn't even sound like it will be meant to camp under. I'm not trying to say there needs to be a shelter either, I just see no sense in the pavilion.
NoDoz
nobo 2018 March 10th - October 19th
-
I'm just one too many mornings and 1,000 miles behind
I also attended the meeting, and keep in touch with my TEHCC colleagues.
The summary was the barn is planned to be demo'ed. No date planned.
Due to the rocky landscape the privy may be projected not to be renewed after this pit. Partiers would routinely throw their beer bottles in the pit.
There is no specific plan for the Barns replacement. But a picnic pavilion is being considered. But no specific plans or designs have been made. As the the barn is within 2 miles of a road, it attracted a lot of the wrong crowd. Thus was one of the main reasons another shelter at the site was difficult to decide against it. As for myself, I was curious on the pavilion idea and design, and the privy.
Plus a new shelter would have to follow todays standards and requirements which are more strict than they were in the 80s.
Besides every hiker should be carrying a tent.
Last edited by Tennessee Viking; 01-26-2023 at 15:13.
''Tennessee Viking'
Mountains to Sea Trail Hiker & Maintainer
Former TEHCC (AT) Maintainer
Certainly would be foolish to hike without a tent. But that doesn’t make using the shelter less attractive. No condensation, no put up and take down, no extra water weight to carry if it rains. I know some folk don’t want to have anything to do with them. But they sure fill up on rainy nights, and not just in the 1970’s and 80’s.
The virtual meeting went well. Presenters included USFS, ATC and TEHCC. It was more in-depth than the video but followed the same topics, including history, structural integrity, and the proposals. The main proposal is to decommission the shelter and pit privy. The camping area will remain with a new picnic pavilion (proposed), approximately 12'x12'. Stan Murray Shelter is nearby. If a recorded version becomes available I will update.
In addition to the general condition of Overmountain Shelter, managing and maintaining it has become increasingly difficult partly due to its proximity to a road. It is easily accessible by partiers. ATC standards would have a shelter at least 2 miles from a road. For more info and insight about ATC's Shelter and Campsite guidance: https://appalachiantrail.org/wp-cont...sites-2007.pdf
While visiting the Overmountain privy offers a nice view, it is simply a deep pit with a toilet and platform over it. We (TEHCC) have moved it at least 6 times in over 20 years. Moldering privies have been replacing pit privies on the AT but they might not work well at this elevation. For everything you ever needed to know about privies on the AT: https://appalachiantrail.org/wp-cont...ugust-2014.pdf
The comment period is open until 2/11/23 and can be accessed here: https://cara.fs2c.usda.gov/Public//C...?Project=63432 The reading room for viewing comments is here: https://cara.fs2c.usda.gov/Public//R...?Project=63432 There are many good comments.
Of course, Public Health and Safety is paramount. As more info becomes available I'll update.
See you on the trail,
mt squid
Instead of wasting money on a pavilion that will attract the same party crowd people are worried about try this... tear down the barn and leave it as is for camping. Put the money into making Stan Murray bigger which will 1. accommodate more hikers 2. offer better protection from the elements and 3. eliminate the party crowd problem. I did throw that in the suggestion box.
NoDoz
nobo 2018 March 10th - October 19th
-
I'm just one too many mornings and 1,000 miles behind
EXCELLENT points!!!
"Is it true that shelters are not essential? Yes, but neither is the trail itself."
"I was glad to hear they are considering a moldering privy, hopefully they consult with the MATC to build one up to those standards."
Especially this one. "I don’t see the point of the pavilion; will just add to the party crowd magnet and won’t serve hikers. If resources are constrained there are certainly better ways of using them than that."
Glad to see some common sense still exists on this site.
There is not much "historical" about this shelter outside of the historical tradition of the AT building and maintaining shelters and camping areas along the AT. I support the use of shelters and composting/moldering privies especially in high use areas of the trail. Periodically we read about people getting stuck in life threatening rain and snow storm events who managed to get to a shelter and were able to survive the storm(s). The advantage of composting/moldering privy in high traffic areas pretty much speaks for itself as any maintainer can tell you or if one has ever had to tippy toe through TP blooms from poorly understood practices.
I think if this shelter has reached it's useful life and is unsafe as photos and videos clearly indicate, it needs to be removed or it will continue to deteriorate and collapse under snow weight and/or high winds, or worse fall victim to vandals. The liability of someone getting hurt in a structure failure is just too great to ignore so the NFS and local Chapter have to reach that decision, presumably with our help.
Due to the location, I don't believe the shelter and privy should be replaced there, as pointed out a pavilion with covered table(s) will ensure it remains an attraction to party people and vandals. Moving the shelter a mile or so down or up trail makes more sense if a replacement shelter is desired. In fact, the Stan Murray shelter expansion probably represents the best idea, leaving the current Overmountain site as view point. Reducing the AT shelter count by one, but expanding the usefulness of nearby shelters to handle the traffic makes a lot of sense and has been done before along the AT. From a maintenance management perspective that may be the best decision overall.
Cost and logistics are a consideration, without a nearby road, carrying materials in for a shelter and privy can be challenging, though that may be mitigated by finding trees near the new site to use for shelter construction perhaps. There are no rules in how long it takes to build a shelter (or expand an existing one), work parties can be created through the local Chapter, though it's understandably a difficult assignment. For that reason I would agree with whatever decision the Chapter makes on this since they are the ones who will build and maintain it.
Costs will be a significant issue, but the ATC Chapters have faced these before and have a number of different funding development avenues from grants to bake sales. While I am a little skittish about naming rights, corporate donors may respond well to participating in the finances needed for this project and does make sense in an issue such as this.
It's always sad to lose one of these shelters, especially if one hikes that trail section a lot and has come to appreciate it's location. Conversely, there is now the opportunity to create a better shelter removed from the road and a structure better built for the designed use.
Comments section is getting some action, see link from Mt Squid’s original post. Please make yourself heard if you feel strongly one way or the other.
How about use the wood and build a new shelter right on the spot with photographs inside of the old place.
Whether you think you can, or think you can't--you're right--Henry Ford; The Journey Is The Destination
Saving the wood cracks me up. Sometimes wood could be salvageable but it was poorly built to begin and isn't built from any sought after wood or anything. The wood that is structurally still good to use will be warped/twisted/split ect and will end up being a bigger hassle to clean it and try to rework with it. There wont be near enough usable wood to build anything on it's own either. This is like when we do a deck and they want to save the framing, we end up using 1/4 of the new wood we would of needed anyway to fix it up and ends up taking 3 times as long as just tearing it down and rebuilding... for like 10 joists, the box and ledger board that we're saving.
NoDoz
nobo 2018 March 10th - October 19th
-
I'm just one too many mornings and 1,000 miles behind
According to my 2017 guide book, the Stan Murray water source is unreliable. If a new shelter was built, maybe it could be 2 1/2 miles north of Overmountain near the piped spring. I do not remember the area well enough to know whether there is room for a shelter and privy (or is the spot in TN?) If the site is suitable, it would break up a 20 mile stretch between shelters and possibly reduce the need for the Applehouse tentsite so close to a road.
Hot water, hot ramen, burning alcohol, all in my lap
It is 3/4 of a mile from a dead gravel road. On the Standing Bear to Damascus section there are 24 shelters, 8 of which are with 2 miles of a road crossing the AT. Roaring Fork shelter is about as close to Max Patch Road as Overmountain is to its road.
I don’t mind if one wants to argue in a straightforward manner that we shouldn’t have shelters on the trail. I would disagree, but that’s just part of social engagement. I can imagine this is a party spot, it’s got a seductive view. Good sober or not. But it is disingenuous to suggest that shelters within 2 miles of a road should be removed at the end of their serviceable life. Heck, a new roof was put on Davenport Gap in 2019, within .9 of a road, and quite accessible.
I understand arguments to retain some sort of shelter at this location are romantic in nature. Built on fond memories etc. Isn’t that the nature of the entire trail though? Wasn’t Percival Baxter romantic in his vision to preserve Katahdin and the lands surrounding? And thank goodness. I’d never argue Overmountain is at that level, but it clearly does arouse some heartfelt feelings.
FWIW, I believe in putting my money where my mouth is. I sent TEHCC an email offering to match donations to build a new shelter there. Obviously I hope they take me up on it.