[at-l] RE: Shelters: plus or minus?

At 08:07 AM 11/15/00 -0800, Ronald Moak wrote:

>exist. Some retrofitted, others left as historical features.
>
>We used shelters in '77 on occasions. Primarily when it was rainy or for
>social interactions. As you stated, for the most part hiker interactions,
>were few and far between. So we had little reason to us shelters most of the
>time. Their small cramped dirty conditions were less than inviting on a nice
>summers evening.

I could not agree with you more!  I am no shelter rat for sure! To be 
perfectly honest,
I also agree on the idea that shelters dilute the wilderness
experience.  I think abandoning hard walls is almost a must to really getting
'in the woods'.  Of course that can be taken even further.  Once you try 
tarping...
stripping away those nylon walls ..really opening up yourself to the great 
outtie,
that's almost a rush!!!!  What is it about even 1.1oz silnylon that changes 
the
experience?  For me, it's a biggie. Somehow..by surrendering those walls I
no longer have a nylon home but I feel so much more_at_home.....that the woods
are my home.  Now if it would only not rain.....<g>. (just kidding)  But 
even the
rain is preferable to a sleeping neighbor drooling on my back LOL!

Unfortuneatly, I think we run into the problem of what the AT is all about....
Won't pretend to be a historian but I think it was conceived to travel from 
camp to
camp ala the huts.  The hiker would only need his/her clothes to more along 
the Trail.
The idea, to attract city folks for short periods of time.  That hasn't 
happened and
a later view headed towards immersing the user in wilderness.  That's 
getting hard.

Most recently it seems to be valued for it's social aspects...the chance to 
hike with or meet
up with like souls.   And beyond that a 2000 mile party scene <sigh>.
The idea of 'mini cities' seems to align with the original concept but 
counter the
wilderness experience.  Really a quandary, but I stick by my post 
especially the part
about especially in GA.  More and more prospective thrus are totally 
newbee...keep'em
corralled for a while.


>snipp
>
>  My experience
>has been that when hiking on their own, few people build fires at the end of
>the day. I know I don't. Yet when we're with groups, the campfire takes on
>new meaning. Then we are more likely to use fire, as much for it's social
>aspects as for warmth.

This is sooo funny cause one of the first posts I ever made here, oh so 
long ago,
got me in an argument with Dan Bruce about campfires...I was pro...lol.  I 
still see them
as a part of the experience, especially in groups and that's why I say," 
especially in GA"
again.  Never been there, but from everything I've read, there is a lot of 
smoke on that water <g>.
But that need for fire seems to either evaporate with time or tiredness long
before they hit up here in PA.

I'd say to just leave it up to the Maintaining Clubs who know their 
section, the use and the
needs best but nowI'm curious as to what was meant by the clubs build them 
cause they can't
help it.  Don't understand...
* From the AT-L |  Need help? http://www.backcountry.net/faq.html  *

==============================================================================
To:            "List AT" <at-l@backcountry.net>