Old Garfield Shelter

[Waumbek]

Does anyone know why the shelter was moved to the present site, and when? I dimly recall something about a fouled water supply, but I may be confusing that with another shelter.
Ed

The new Garfield Ridge site was built in 1971 and was part of the initiative to educate the public that began with the 1970 rebuilding of the Liberty Springs site, the most used and abused of AMC facilities, according to Robert Proudman, supervisor of the AMC Trail Crew. The Liberty shelter (located at the now over grown clearing) was removed from the site and replaced with tent platforms--and, more importantly in Proudman's view, with the "kingpin" of the new program, the fulltime caretaker to educate the public and to protect the backcountry.


The old Garfield pond site was discontinued because it "was showing heavy wear; indiscriminate campsites dotted the area; the shelter was old and inadequate; and Elizabeth Spring, the water source, had stopped flowing." The problem, Proudman continues, was the "masses of trampers," forty to fifty people a night, many of them not carrying tents and ignorant about backcountry stewardship. The new site consisted of a 12-person shelter, seven tent platforms, and a toilet. In keeping with the new ethic, a fulltime caretaker was also provided for this site. The caretaker's tent was deliberately located between the shelter and the water supply to enable the caretaker to educate people about using the water supply properly.

Proudman, who has a long history of conservation, trail maintenance, design and supervision for AMC, ATC, etc., wrote this in the '70-'71 Appalachia.

 

[RoySwkr]

>The Liberty
>shelter (located at the now almost grown over clearing) was removed
>from the site and replaced with tent platforms

The AMC/USFS still hasn't figured out that removing shelters just makes
the other shelters more overused

> The [[Garfield]]
>caretaker's tent was deliberately located between the shelter and the
>water supply to enable the caretaker to educate people about using the
>water supply properly.

But if I remember correctly, the water source is at the main trail, so
hikers use it before they ever see the caretaker?

-rs

 

[Waumbek]

The AMC/USFS still hasn't figured out that removing shelters just makes
the other shelters more overused

--Might be the case if you could prove that hikers decide not to go to Liberty because there's no shelter there but to go to Garfield instead. Seems improbable


But if I remember correctly, the water source is at the main trail, so
hikers use it before they ever see the caretaker?

--No. I have always headed into a shelter immediately to secure a space and then gone back out for water, especially if it's a short distance like Garfield's water supply.

 

[skiguy]

The AMC/USFS still hasn't figured out that removing shelters just makes
the other shelters more overused

--Might be the case if you could prove that hikers decide not to go to Liberty because there's no shelter there but to go to Garfield instead. Seems improbable

As an interesting side note I have spoken with a longtime seasoned Hiker of the Whites about this thread. He said that it was his understanding that the closed trail from the Garfield Trail to the Garfield Ridge Trail that accessed the cutoff for the removed Garfield Pond Shelter was done to cut down on the traffic to that shelter. The Philosophy was that many Hikers were going to Garfield Pond Shelter, bypassing the Summit of Garfield and just overusing the site. I guess the same philosophy was instituted at IMP as there use to be a cutoff from the Stoney Brook Trail directly to that shelter without having to go to the col south of Moriah. In summary the idea was to make it harder to get to these campsites and therefore hopefully deter overuse.

 

[RoySwkr]

I guess the same philosophy was instituted at IMP as there use to be a cutoff from the Stoney Brook Trail directly to that shelter without having to go to the col south of Moriah. In summary the idea was to make it harder to get to these campsites and therefore hopefully deter overuse.

That is exactly the case. Shelters that are too easy to get to tend to attract more litter and vandalism because more people find it easy to get there. Look at the Long Trail Guide from 1960 and note where the shelters are compared to now, many have been moved farther from roads.

>Might be the case if you could prove that hikers decide not to go to
>Liberty because there's no shelter there but to go to Garfield
>instead. Seems improbable

Thru-hikers and peakbaggers will go to a particular spot regardless, but
people who want to hike to a shelter will go where shelters are - at one
time an appendix of the White Mountain Guide listed them. There is a huge
demand for this type of recreation - over 200 shelters in the Adirondacks
even after the high ones were removed. Fishermen will not like the new
Garfield shelter location.

> I have always headed into a shelter immediately to secure a
>space and then gone back out for water, especially if it's a short
>distance like Garfield's water supply.

But hut-walkers and day hikers will probably never visit the shelter or
caretaker but just grab water.