Kameron Posted June 17, 2021 Share Posted June 17, 2021 Linking to a TAY thread, but likely of interest to many of you here: https://turns-all-year.com/forum/index/random-tracks/53982-proposed-backcountry-huts-off-mt-baker-highway Generally, I'm in favor of huts. Huts in Canada are incredible and really open up the mountains. I've also used the Wallowa huts and thought it was fun. I don't think they ruin the Wilderness experience for me. Besides, the Cascades at large are vast and offer many other places to get into the wilderness, whereas the 542 corridor is small with the easy-access spots overcrowded. We definitely need to be looking at ways to make more areas accessible to spread people out. I am really excited in particular about Anderson/Watson and Twin Sisters areas. These are hard to get to without a snowmobile, so having huts and shuttle system will be cool. Heliotrope is also hard to get to in Winter without a sled, so I like the idea of having one there, although I mostly go to that area in Fall and Spring. The part about the proposal (as I could see on the video) that seems odd to me is the Artist's Point hut: This area is easy to access and also overcrowded. I don't see why this hut is helpful, since private parties or guided groups can tent camp in the area without too much effort. Also, I am concerned that Twins access will not be improved for public backcountry users under this proposal and could even become worse. See more comments below. I am concerned about the cost of these huts. I would like to be able to use them without paying for a guide. These should be accessible to the public backcountry community at large, not just users who are willing to pay >$100 per day for a guided experience. The snowmobile access is a nice feature for Anderson/Watson, Heliotrope, and N Twin zones for those of us who don't want to own sleds, but I think it should be optional for hut users like it is in the Wallowas. Regarding the N Twin hut: Access to the area is complicated by the fact that a logging company controls who can access the road. This past year Baker Mtn Guides had a special deal with Weyerhauser that allowed them exclusive snowmobile access. I don't mind the guide company offering snowmobile access up this road and running a hut. However, access to this area differs greatly from the other hut zones which are open to everybody. The Twin Sisters range, on the other hand, is only accessible to people who either pay exorbitant fees to the timber company for a key to the gate or users that ignore the rules and pass through that land illegally. Weyerhauser's sale of this land is an opportunity to open a dialog with the new owner and try and open up access to more backcountry users. The Twin Sisters range is an incredible area for skiing right next to Bellingham. If there was a public trailhead in the area, it could take pressure off the main ski areas of the 542 corridor. However, these public access needs may be in conflict with the interests of the guide company that wants to offer an exclusive, untracked experience in the area. I say we should be looking at ways to make a deal with the timber company to open the gate at the MF Nooksack and have designated parking for winter backcountry users who just want to pass through these private lands and access the amazing skiing in the wilderness beyond. The guides can coexist peacefully with public backcountry users. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kameron Posted April 3 Author Share Posted April 3 New version of proposal surfaces: https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/USDAFS/2024/04/03/file_attachments/2836295/20240403-Temporary Winter Shelters-Public_Scoping_Letter_DRSigned.pdf 2 weeks until the public meeting in Sedro-Wooley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 On 6/17/2021 at 11:16 AM, Kameron said: I am concerned about the cost of these huts. I would like to be able to use them without paying for a guide. These should be accessible to the public backcountry community at large, not just users who are willing to pay >$100 per day for a guided experience. The snowmobile access is a nice feature for Anderson/Watson, Heliotrope, and N Twin zones for those of us who don't want to own sleds, but I think it should be optional for hut users like it is in the Wallowas. In the USFS proposal, it looks like all four huts are being proposed by commercial ventures. I'd like to know what access the public would have (if any) aside from hiring the guides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
genepires Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 On 4/4/2024 at 9:47 AM, Bronco said: In the USFS proposal, it looks like all four huts are being proposed by commercial ventures. I'd like to know what access the public would have (if any) aside from hiring the guides. Conflicted on this. if the structure was completely paid for by the guide service then i can see that they have control over it. but then it is also on public land. But then if some jackass leaves the door open in the winter and the inside fill up with snow. in the description "provide temporary winter shelters for the recreating public (both commercially guided and unguided). Three of the shelters would provide reservable overnighting facilities operated by three private commercial entities. One of the shelters would provide a free warming shelter day-use for the general public. All of these shelters would provide safe locations for the recreating public during the winter season." it doesnt say who is paying for it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kameron Posted April 8 Author Share Posted April 8 The snowmobile hut up Canyon creek is paid for by the club. The other 3 are paid for by the guide companies/businesses running them. That cost would be covered by use fees, some of which would be bundled into guided ski day fees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
genepires Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 19 hours ago, Kameron said: The snowmobile hut up Canyon creek is paid for by the club. The other 3 are paid for by the guide companies/businesses running them. That cost would be covered by use fees, some of which would be bundled into guided ski day fees. well that makes it a moral conundrum. bought with private funds but sits on public land. seems like it could go either way. would be cool if let unlocked and accessible when not occupied by the guide services. or of fee required, it would be fairly cheap like the Canadian BC hut systems, but I think the alpine club runs those so the motivation is different. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choada_Boy Posted Thursday at 07:50 PM Share Posted Thursday at 07:50 PM Keep the gate locked. No huts. No snowmobiles. Gonna have to earn your turns, or the place will be over-run, and the seclusion, so close to Bellingham, will be ruined. Imagine the shitshow up there if you could drive to the start of the switchbacks? Totally lame... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kameron Posted Friday at 05:40 PM Author Share Posted Friday at 05:40 PM 21 hours ago, Choada_Boy said: Keep the gate locked. No huts. No snowmobiles. Gonna have to earn your turns, or the place will be over-run, and the seclusion, so close to Bellingham, will be ruined. Imagine the shitshow up there if you could drive to the start of the switchbacks? Totally lame... Old timers tell me that back in the day it was unlocked. Back before ski touring or climbing was very popular... shit, it's listed in the Burgdorfer ski guidebook. I don't think the Hampton company has any interest in opening up that gate to anybody that's non-paying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonG Posted Friday at 09:20 PM Share Posted Friday at 09:20 PM Yeah, those gates in the Twin Sisters were unlocked into the 90s but the public definitely ruined that privilege long ago, unfortunately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted Sunday at 07:08 PM Share Posted Sunday at 07:08 PM On 4/12/2024 at 2:20 PM, JasonG said: ... but the public definitely ruined that privilege long ago, unfortunately. Not being smarmy: what did the public do to ruin that privilege? I don't see that area getting trashed or abused... But I also 100% respect Hampton's right/interest in closing the place. Fires are real and cost $$$. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted Sunday at 07:08 PM Share Posted Sunday at 07:08 PM (edited) BTW, access from the other side (coming in Hampton/Sierra Pacific land from much farther south on Mosquito Lake Rd) is getting attention as a more legitimate access point under the auspice of visiting the DNR Daley Prairie Nature Area Preserve. Its 3-4 times longer but all bike-able. https://www.dnr.wa.gov/dailey-prairie-natural-area-preserve https://www.gaiagps.com/map/?loc=12.1/-122.0436/48.7031&pubLink=HvWt3tXDN4hxcctmlr5OsnYq&trackId=52e0a40a-30fe-4eb5-8baa-692cb581c84c Edited Sunday at 07:13 PM by max Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonG Posted yesterday at 02:14 AM Share Posted yesterday at 02:14 AM 9 hours ago, max said: Not being smarmy: what did the public do to ruin that privilege? I don't see that area getting trashed or abused... I am not 100% certain of the exact instances behind the Twin Sisters gates, but I suspect the usual- timber theft, dumping, fires, shooting, long-term camping, general mayhem, etc. These days it's much easier for the timber companies to gate their ownerships than deal with the shenanigans. But, gates do get vandalized all the time and aren't cheap to maintain either, but still probably cheaper than the alternative. I work a bit in the timber mgmt. landscape and I fully understand why the timber companies lock people out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geosean Posted 7 hours ago Share Posted 7 hours ago Wow, "reservable overnighting facilities operated by three private commercial entities" is exceedingly vague about who gets to use it. I feel like if you're going to allow any kind of development on public land it should be publicly accessible. The way I understood it last time was that the huts were going to be for private guided groups. I don't want more access for the rich pay to play crowd at the expense of any portion of the public trust. Cheap public huts like in Canada... maybe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.