Zoran Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Explore Magazine published report on Intrawest plan to build huts there. Can anybody can give more info/comment about that? http://www.explore-mag.com/magazine.htm Regards, Zoran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 I first heard talk of that about a year ago. Â Right now there's one hut below Fissel. I've heard talk of either 2 more on the route of the Spearhead or one at Wedge Pass just north of the Spearhead range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snoboy Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 I think there is a place for a hut to hut in the Coast Range. It could be awesome. Â That place is NOT a provincial park if they are operated by a private company. Â I can't wait 'til our provincial election... though sadly I think we will get these bastards back. Â Who needs huts on the Spearhead anyways? That's like a day trip... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulB Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 In the article I read about this (might have been in Explore), it seemed clear that while Intrawest said that they were interested in building some huts, it wasn't going to be in the immediate future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordop Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 Yeah, you all read the same article and it was purely speculative. As far as I am concerned (which 'aint a hell of a lot, to tell you the blunt truth of the matter), the more huts the better. As the sledhead crowd has aptly demonstrated, you hafta stake your turf, cause the dicks in Victoria aint gonna do it for ya. I have a big problem with the Kitsilano Birkenstock crowd wanting to protect wilderness as a complete no-trespassing area as if it were the crystalization of our collective guilt for the Industrial Revolution. If we want to sell BC to its citizens as a pristine wilderness area, we must have the faciltites to ensure they can access it. Fuck, I wanna see huts all over the place. The model whereby we demarcate wilderness as void of humans is the most pathetic ANTI-environmental idea. /Rant out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graupel Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 If we want to sell BC to its citizens as a pristine wilderness area, we must have the faciltites to ensure they can access it. Â There's an oxymoron. You sure you don't set policy for Bush? Â Save the Forest by paving it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordop Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 (edited) Oh christ man Okay, let me spell this one out for you here . . . You have giant wilderness/park areas but no one ever goes there because it's a mess of canyons, icefields, etc. Hey, I love that shit, but most folks don't. Is a society truly appreciative of wilderness and responsive to threats to it if it is always kept at arm's length? Fuck no. Do you think if we promoted self-powered travel with huts and trails then folks would be more likely to stand up for the idea of wilderness? Gee, that might just work   Edited June 4, 2021 by jordop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 Jordo  The american environmentalists dislike of structures like huts is fucking lame. Washington State could use some huts in the mountains; the wild areas of BC are much much bigger.  If you want people to support parks and wild lands you need to get them out in it. Huts help in that respect. The also help consolidate the human footprint in a popular area. Instead of having 30 freeform campsites and folks shitting everywhere you can have one hut and an outhouse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 parks don't need huts. what needs huts is the big expanses of non-park area. Â public huts, not private huts like the guide company huts in the selkirks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordop Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 (edited) Â Â Edited June 4, 2021 by jordop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 looks like a sausage fest to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stemalot Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 word...Jordop. Â same idea as having a freaking zoo...like bring the safari or polar bear to the mass so people care and want to protect the animals. well, we can't bring the wilderness to the people in a nice compact way, so create access points for people to visit the "wilderness". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 The also help consolidate the human footprint in a popular area. Instead of having 30 freeform campsites and folks shitting everywhere you can have one hut and an outhouse. There are a few huts in US National Parks, mostly grandfathered in because of NPS stupidity. Ostrander in Yose, Pear Lake in Sequoia (both winter only) are cheap and cool. The 2 in Glacier are a fucking fortune, and sound like something Intrawest would do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomtom Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 Then there's that hut at Camp Muir. 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.