">
2 Iconic Appalachian Trail Shelters Slated for Demolition, Says NPS
Two beloved Appalachian Trail shelters in Pennsylvania — 501 Shelter at FarOut northbound mile marker 1196 and Eckville Shelter at mile marker 1235 — are set to be demolished by the National Park Service (NPS) by the end of 2026. Members of the hiking community have expressed dismay at the news.
501 and Eckville are unique in several ways. Unlike most AT shelters, both are fully enclosed bunkhouses maintained by caretakers, offering backpackers small luxuries like solar showers and, in the case of Eckille, flush toilets. In a time-honored AT tradition, hikers could even order a pizza for delivery at 501 shelter.
To gain some insight into why these two historic, fully functional shelters are slated for destruction, we spoke with Dave Bailey, the president of the Blue Mountain Eagle Climbing Club (BMECC). BMECC manages about 65 miles of trail in Pennsylvania, including Eckville and 501.
Eckville Shelter and caretaker house, photo courtesy of John Humphries
More To Come?
According to Bailey, NPS has been talking about removing these shelters for years but hasn’t had the funding to make it happen. He suggested that their demolition is part of a bigger project and other shelters and structures along the AT will be removed in the future.
How can this happen? The AT has been administered by the NPS since 1968, when the National Scenic Trails Act was passed. Yet in practice, much of the day-to-day management of the trail is handled by regional trail clubs under the umbrella of the Appalachian Trail Conservancy (ATC). So even though Eckville and 501 are managed by the BMECC, both are still technically NPS property.
To further complicate matters, both shelters are adjacent to roads — a relic of a time when much of the nascent AT was still along roads, before a natural corridor through the forest from Georgia to Maine had been fully established. The ATC’s guidelines for shelter site planning state that all shelters must be at least two miles from any road.
And although Eckville and 501 have always had caretakers, the NPS views their tenancy as volunteer work for the hiking club. Caretakers aren’t NPS employees, so their positions aren’t protected or benefited.
Eckville Shelter: A Storied History
The first caretakers at Eckville Shelter were a pair of former AT and PCT thru-hikers, Cindy Ross and her husband Todd Gladfelter, who oversaw the shelter from 1983 to 1986. Caretaking allowed the couple to stay connected to the trail community while they worked on building their log cabin home in a nearby town.
The house at Eckville shelter was formerly a horse barn and is well over 100 years old. During the couple’s time at Eckville, the structure was not insulated and had no running water or electricity. Ross recalls nights so cold her pee bottle would freeze, putting an end to any interest she may have ever had in winter camping.
A news clipping from the Reading Eagle featuring Ross’s and Gladfenlter’s caretaking efforts at Eckville Shelter. Photo courtesy of Cindy Ross
When their tenure ended, three-time AT thru-hiker Mick Charowsky took up residence and has been the caretaker of Eckville ever since. Soon after he moved in, the BMECC raised money and funded improvements to the caretaker house, adding running water, electricity, heat, and insulation to the building.
In his nearly 40 years at Eckville, Charowsky has hosted thousands of hikers. He has trail stories that predate the internet and is the keeper of every trail register from the shelter dating back to the 1980s. If you mention a friend, parent, or even grandparent who passed through Eckville, he will retrieve the corresponding register to find their entry.
The removal of these two shelters will mean not only the elimination of two viable overnight lodging options for AT hikers, but also the loss of a piece of cherished AT culture and the displacement of Charowsky and 501 Shelter caretaker Tyler Fisk.
Featured image: Jen Brown
This website contains affiliate links, which means The Trek may receive a percentage of any product or service you purchase using the links in the articles or advertisements. The buyer pays the same price as they would otherwise, and your purchase helps to support The Trek's ongoing goal to serve you quality backpacking advice and information. Thanks for your support!
To learn more, please visit the About This Site page.
Comments 14
Hey Hummingbird,
Thanks for sharing this update! I led the Spring Cleaning at Eckville Shelter (as a BMECC volunteer) a few weeks ago and joined 5 other enthusiastic local volunteers in helping ready the bunkroom, bathroom, and campsite for 2025 AT hikers. If this is our last year (or second to last year) hosting hikers at Eckville, we want to make it a great one, but obviously we hope to be able to continue serving our fellow hikers for years to come.
Although you’ve highlighted our local BMECC-supported shelters here in PA, word on the street (on the trail?) is that this initiative is more far-reaching and our two beloved local shelters aren’t the only ones that may soon be eliminated. I certainly understand that our partners at the NPS are under unprecedented stress, but I hope that our volunteer-supported service to the first and most popular National Scenic Trail may be allowed to continue.
I didn’t spend the night at either fully enclosed shelter during my thru-hike because I was blessed with beautiful, benevolent weather, but I surely appreciated the late-season, drought-year potable water and would gratefully have spent a night if a storm were lashing the exposed PA AT ridge walk.
Basically they are trying to establish less freedom for a place that is supposed to be more outside the governing control. It won’t work. The people and hikers won’t allow it and never stick to federal laws. Besides keeping the trail and places clean and respect to each other, we don’t follow any rules but our own as it’s always been on the at. Tear down whatever and make things harder, but you can’t tear us down and take away who we are:)
Some of my best memories of the trail are staying at these shelters. If they are still functional and volunteers don’t mind keeping a watch on them then leave them alone!
Americans just want to destroy the past.
Reading about this ruined my day.
So what is their plan? Are they going to replace any of these shelters or just keep removing them?
So we can defund NPS for paid rangers, but there is plenty of NPS funding for demolition? What happened to Government Efficiency?
What a crock! As a lifelong citizen of Berks county the removal of either, or both, of these shelters would be nothing short of a travesty. Leave them alone and grandfather them into whatever plans are in the offing.
This is terrible news. I wonder what the shelter costs to keep open? Demolishing seems a bit drastic, expensive, and unnecessary. Just throw a pad lock on the doors if the budget is so tight.
I have fond memories of both shelters from my thru hike. Hummingbirds at the Eckville shelter, and hearing the rain fall on the big skylight at the 501. It’ll be a real shame to see them go.
As a former USNPS Resource Management Law Enforcement Ranger I can say that destruction of iconic places to naturalize parks shouldn’t always be a priority. This is one such case. The Park Superintendent should be requested to reopen the park Management Plan and find a way to fit it in. I bring that up because many of the public are fully unaware that many National Parks, Seashores, etc.have special housing for use by dignitaries such as Congressional Representatives and Senators. Those are upkept and I am sure still budgeted for for decades.
I stayed at both the 501 and Eckville shelters at the end of September 2017. I remember both fondly. I was so happy to get to the 501 shelter with its shower. It felt so good to get the grime of hiking off me for at least one night. I had the company of two other hikers at the Eckville shelter. They were interesting and I enjoyed my stay at the shelter immensely.
I don’t understand the logic of tearing down these unique shelters. Many volunteers help with shelters throughout the AT. If the two subject shelters still have volunteers willing to maintain them, leave them alone. Must we tear things down just because we can? Is it really the function of those who manage the AT to take away memories both past and future from the hikers? These are unique shelters, as unique as Overmountain Shelter, which also got torn down and not replaced. We need to consider the memories these unique places create for hikers and forego their wanton destruction just because you can.
My daughter and I have stayed at both of them. It’s such BS that the NPS wants to demolish them. The caretakers are not NPS employees so they can crap all over them as they like. Why isn’t the ATC standing up for them and keeping the shelters?
I got an anti-shelter vibe from the ATC folk when the Overmountain shelter needed work. One person told me shelters aren’t really needed any
…longer, because gear is so much lighter nowadays. That may be true, but neither is the trail itself “necessary” it’s just a nice feature of a wealthy society—-made nicer by virtue of having shelters.
I very rarely stay in a shelter preferring my tent. However I do know understand the frustration this brings to many. As we all know things are ever changing and, reality is when the AT first came into being there were no shelters. There really isn’t a ‘need’ they are ‘nice’ for those who want them.
Somebody help me understand what benefit is achieved by removing shelters.
When it’s pouring rain and too windy to set up the tent, I want a shelter now!