Mountain Huts - what's the deal?

[dalius]

I'm continually amazed at how we are seriously lacking in the hut department here in the US. They are all over Europe and the Canadians seem to be constantly putting up new ones. There are a bunch in Garibaldi Prov. Park, a bunch more up in the Denny Lakes area, I imagine probably a shitload in the interior, and I just read they are putting up a new super-delux one in the Tanatalus range.

 

These things are great - you don't have to lug in your tent and can enjoy a few more creature comforts when out in the mountains. In the Alps, you don't have to bring anything - you show up, pay the fee, and you've got a hot meal and a bunk! So my question is - why the hell don't we have any? Is it the fact that Canadians have a more socialist government/attitude and are more into communal wealth such as huts? Is the way our government set up simply not allow it?

 

Discuss.

[goatboy]

From the 1964 Wilderness Act, available at:

 

http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=legisAct&error=404

 

 

"A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this chapter an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. "

 

Translation: We define and manage wilderness differently than these other countries do. I like the fact that there are no huts in our wilderness areas. I also confess that I enjoy going to places like New Zealand where they do have hut systems.

[AlpineK]

There are a lot of environmental groups that hate the idea. There was a big controversy over the replacement of a historic 3 sided shelter in the Olympics. I believe the environmental groups carried the day and now there is no shelter where there had been one for years.

 

It's really too bad. In my view a hut in a popular area would concentrate the human use, so instead of there being 50 tent platforms and poop everywhere it would all be confined to one spot.

 

I support environmental causes, but IMO the groups have a bias towards keeping everybody out. After all humans come from outer space and aren't a part of nature.

[Jim]

I spent a month in the Dolomites last summer, some of it going hut to hut. It's very different over there. While enjoyable and different, I would not like to see something similar over here. There is no wilderness over there.

 

I like the Canadian model better, with simpler huts, and facilities for cooking. Especially ski trips this is great and better than trying to dry your damp clothes in the sleeping bag. The Colorado huts, the few Sierra Club huts around Tahoe are good examples, as are the Idaho yurts. So there are some around, just not in the Cascades unless you like those roadside ones in the Methow or the Mt. Tahoma things.

[cj001f]

It's really too bad. In my view a hut in a popular area would concentrate the human use, so instead of there being 50 tent platforms and poop everywhere it would all be confined to one spot.

We're much more likely to end up with something like T del Paine. A big hut with showers serving meals to fat yuppies surrounded by a bunch of squalid, overpriced, tent sites - but those tent sites are 100x nicer than the even shittier, more squalid, rodent invested hell hole down the way.

 

Hut's have their place, but the upkeep requires either dedicated volunteers or a substantial base of fee paying users. From my experience the US backcountry community outside of maybe Colorado (10th mountain) doesn't have those requirements. The Sierra Club huts are not profitable. European huts run ~€35 for club members ~€45 for nonmembers, too rich for the blood of us wankers, and they'd bitch about the communal meals. NZ huts are state subsidized.

[AlpineK]

I'm not down with the euro model, or the one you describe in Argentina. The Canadian hut system is more what I'd like to see. They seem to make it work, I don't know why we couldn't.

[mattp]

I agree with Mr. K here. I think a hut in a place like Boston Basin or Colchuck Lake would make a lot of sense. Apart from the Wilderness Act, most of our government land managers seem to dislike the idea of huts and they have been steadily removing old cabins from non-wilderness areas, too. Part of this may reflect budgets: I think attractions like huts and even hot springs or crags represent a potential need for more policing, maintenance, and other expenses that are not defined as a primary mission for agencies with a general focus on two sides of the triangle of resource extraction, preservation, and recreation. There is little funding even for trails, let alone huts.

 

I also agree that many of the conservation groups seem to be too preservation oriented, but perhaps they have to be this way because the organized and aggressive recreational groups are mostly motorized recreational users who pose what is probably rightfully seen as a greater threat than simple hiking and climbing.

 

However, in many of these groups there are consituencies arguing that wilderness and resource preservation will get more support if more people are able to bond with nature.

[cj001f]

Part of this may reflect budgets: I think attractions like huts and even hot springs or crags represent a potential need for more policing, maintenance, and other expenses that are not defined as a primary mission for agencies with a general focus on two sides of the triangle of resource extraction, preservation, and recreation. There is little funding even for trails, let alone huts.

I think it reflects bore basic economic principles - they aren't profitable (at least Sierra Club, Yosemite and Sequoia huts aren't). They aren't profitable because they aren't full - there aren't enough users spending enough nights in the backcountry anymore. All of the hut systems I'm familiar with Chile, Argentina, New Zealand, Europe have groups of users who spend much more time in the backcountry 3-7 day excursions vs. a weekend.

 

I'd like to see them, I just don't see anygroup in the PNW willing to step up. The Mounties and Mazamas are exiting the lodging business; any NPS structure would be concessioned out.

[still_climbin]

A problem with building huts at places like Boston Basin or Colchuck Lake is that they would likely become magnets for even more people, increasing stress on the landscape. Maybe the model should be to allow huts at places that inherently limit crowds due to approach difficulty or remotness. Camp Muir is an example.

[stinkyclimber]

The "Canadian approach" is actually much less systematic than it appears:

 

- Most of the huts on the coast in Canada are built by volunteer groups (ACC, VOC, etc.) on Crown land (i.e. public land, not parks), or are illegal. The coastal huts tend to be use-by-donation and first-come, first-served. Half are outside park boundaries, and the ones in Garibaldi (a provincial, not national park) were mostly built by volunteers and are mostly still maintained by vollies too (the exception being the two huts on Diamond Dread, and the picnic shelters on Garibaldi Lake).

 

- The huts in the Rockies (i.e. on the Wapta) were also, in the main, built by the ACC and are maintained by Parks Canada or the ACC depending on what year you are talking about (they are always changing who does what out there). The parks out there are national parks which are much more bureaucractic than provincial parks. These huts are by-reservation only.

 

- The huts in the Columbia's tend to be private, run by commercial backcountry operators.

 

If there is a common thread running thru these, it is that huts in Canada are:

- built and maintained by volunteers and donations

- built on public land, mostly outside of Parks or they were built before the parks became the bureaucratic monstrosities that they are now

- simple shelters with limited amenities

 

The challenge, it seems to me, in the WA Cascades is that most of the prime alpine terrain is in national parks and/or is very close to road where a hut isn't really such a good idea (just go to Cerise Creek hut). I don't know WA that well, so I may be way off here...

[KaskadskyjKozak]

A problem with building huts at places like Boston Basin or Colchuck Lake is that they would likely become magnets for even more people, increasing stress on the landscape. Maybe the model should be to allow huts at places that inherently limit crowds due to approach difficulty or remotness. Camp Muir is an example.

 

You have to get a permit to camp in Boston Basin as it is. Usage is limited already. Ditto for Colchuck lake.

[dalius]

I agree that we shouldn't strive to go as far as the European model - it's too much. The Canadian model is much more desireable. So why can't we get there?

 

The Canadian huts are for the large part built and maintained by volunteer organizations. Why can't we do that? We don't need the government to be in charge of maintaining these things. People say they aren't profitable, but that's not the point. The volunteer organizations aren't there to make money from these things. The money that comes in goes 100% to maintenance/repair and that's it.

 

It seems to me that the Canadians just seem more organized and supportive of these things. For some reason it is a lot easier for their non-profit organizations to get the clearance from the govt. to build the huts. So what would happen if a US NPO proposed to build and maintain a hut on some Nat.Forest land? Would the environmental groups rise up against it? Would there be just too much resistance in the government? I admit I'm far from a bureaucracy buff and I can't begin to understand how the govt. would handle a situation like this.

 

Maybe building in wilderness isn't possible based the wildnerness act, but there must be a lot of desireable hut locations out there that aren't in wilderness areas (but maybe on the edge of wilderness areas, like the new Tantalus hut - 100m from the provincial park). What about stuff just on the border of North Cascades NP, Mt. Rainier NP, alpine lakes wilderness, glacier peak wilderness? If you put them far enough away from a road, then overuse and abuse wouldn't be a problem.

 

Maybe for some reason the time has not come yet for us to be able to erect huts in the cascades, but I definetely think they'd be nice and I know I'd volunteer my time to their construction.

[cj001f]

People say they aren't profitable, but that's not the point. The volunteer organizations aren't there to make money from these things. The money that comes in goes 100% to maintenance/repair and that's it.

The 2 ski huts I frequent, the Ostrander Hut in Yosemite NP and the Pear Lake Hut in Sequoia NP are both run by volunteer organisations. They, like the Sierra Club huts, are finding that the $20/night fee charged is no longer enough to cover maintenance, repair, scheduling and the caretaker necessary to make sure the building is in decent shape, and that they cannot raise enough capital through donations to subsidize the huts. The only large network of huts in the US (10th mountain) is $28 a night. That's more than what you people want to spend, and there's only so long you can run something at a loss.

 

While people here seem to be opposed, the "European" model of hut providing sleeping and profitable food & booze is probably more sustainable. At least it's looking that way in the Columbia's of Canada. And showers are a heck of alot more civilized

 

You may find this story of the friends hut interesting:

http://www.wildsnow.com/articles/lous_backcountry/9-2/friends-hut.html

[dalius]

Were those huts that you mention the NPs built before they became NPs? I can't see anyone getting a go ahead to build a hut within the boundaries of washington's NPs. How come those huts are in the red while the Coast Range huts seem to manage? They don't charge $30 a night and they still get by.

 

The European model may be more sustainable, but can you really see a for-profit hut getting built in the cascades? The reason it probably works in Europe is because people have been living in those mountains for thousands of years (versus our measly 100 years) and there were no wilderness areas to speak of. Maybe in a few centuries we'll see it happen here, but I wouldn't expect to see that anytime soon, nor do I want to.

[PaulB]

How come those huts are in the red while the Coast Range huts seem to manage? They don't charge $30 a night and they still get by.

If you were to compare the user fees collected to the yearly expenses, I'm sure that all of the huts in the Coast Range would be in the red. They "get by" because the groups involved (BC Parks, ACC, VOC, Flavelle family, etc.) budget/contribute funds above and beyond whatever user fees are collected.

[cj001f]

Were those huts that you mention the NPs built before they became NPs?

No, but they were built in a different era of the NPS. The Ostrander was the first in what was envisioned to be a series of ski huts streching across the Yosemite backcountry.

[crazyjizzy]

I think a hut in a place like Boston Basin or Colchuck Lake would make a lot of sense.

 

That is a dumb fucking idea. Huts are fine in the wet low-land valleys, such as the Suiatle valley, with heavy rain and heavy trees. The historical locations in ONP, and Mount Baker are also OK. But Colchuch Lake or Boston Basin? You must have your head way up your wilderness rotohammering ass.

[mattp]

Why would you want a "mountain hut" in a low-land valley?

 

I can understand the appeal of the old Chalet in the Quinault, and I've enjoyed a weekend at the Ross Lake Resort, but a mountain hut really has to be in an alpine area or a subalpine area to be a mountain hut. And, in my opinion, it should be in a location where there is good skiing and climbing nearby, and a place that is easily and safely reached in a half-day or so from the car. I thought of those two locations as places where I might actually prefer camping restricted more than it currently is, but they are places where people might go and see real mountains without being real mountain climbers, and climbers would benefit as well. I'd probably only vote for one or two such facilities in the entire North Cascades area, but I think it might be a plus to have that one or two.

 

Maybe you have a bug or maybe something else up your you-know-what if you couldn't see how somebody might enjoy such a thing somewhere - if not in one of those two particular locations.

[crazyjizzy]

Why would you want a "mountain hut" in a low-land valley?

 

Maybe I don't want any "mountain" huts.

I can understand the appeal of the old Chalet in the Quinault, and I've enjoyed a weekend at the Ross Lake Resort, but a mountain hut really has to be in an alpine area or a subalpine area to be a mountain hut. And, in my opinion, it should be in a location where there is good skiing and climbing nearby, and a place that is easily and safely reached in a half-day or so from the car. I thought of those two locations as places where I might actually prefer camping restricted more than it currently is, but they are places where people might go and see real mountains without being real mountain climbers,

Like the Cascades need a bunch of huts, you can walk across the range in a day. How is Boston Basin not accessible now? Colchuck Lake is enough of a zoo, without a dirty fucking lowland hut.

 

Maybe you have a bug or maybe something else up your you-know-what if you couldn't see how somebody might enjoy such a thing somewhere - if not in one of those two particular locations.

 

It is a dumb idea, and you're a dumb ass.

[dalius]

So not everybody thinks we should have alpine huts in the cascades. So be it. It's a multi-hued world. But a lot of people support the idea.

 

The idea of a hut in an alpine setting is way more appealing than one in the lowlands. You gotta be able to ski into these things and have them close to alpine climbing to be desireable. I see the problem as twofold:

 

1-Finding a desireable location that is not within the boundaries of a National Park or Wilderness Area.

 

2-Finding an organization that is willing to build/maintain it. Sounds like this may be the real problem because charging $10/day means operating in the red and charging more means nobody will use it. (unless it's a deluxe European version)

 

It seems like all the ones in the coast range are built in memorium of dead climbers/skiers. Who can we immortalize with a hut?

[catbirdseat]

Great way to have a discussion, Jizzy. Just say it's dumb because you don't like the idea and don't offer any reasons or alternative idea. Then go and attack the other guy.

[chris]

New Zealand has a different perspective and a different approach. Huts are seen to minimize impact by concentrated the majority of the impact in a small area. Instead of ten campsites spread out over the edges of a meadow, there is a hut that sleeps 20 people. The cost for reserving the hut is typically a few dollars more per day than the normal camping permit, which makes users consider the weight of the tent versus extra cost. Most people opt for the hut.

 

There is a lot of parnerships between the government and private organizations - many of the most popular huts were built by climbing, skiing, and hiking clubs - these clubs manage, maintain, and post wardens on popular weekends and holidays. In some cases the huts have been built by the clubs and turned over to the DOC for management, in other cases the DOC partially funded the construction.

 

The Department of Conservation (NZ's only national land management agency, a result of 1970's government consolidation), has built and managed a huge number of huts as well. Newer huts are prefabricated insulated aluminium panel construction, helicoptered in, with outhouses. Some huts are closed for the winter.

 

Warden's are typically responsible for two-four huts, and spend two weeks on, two weeks off (alternating with another Warden) hiking from hut to hut, checking on conditions, permits, and repairs. This is a super popular job with college students, teachers, and retiree's.

 

Huts are located with 20km of every trailhead. I'm guessing about half again have another hut located a day's hike further in, and half again have a third. Huts sizes vary from sleeping three to thirty, with some of the club huts being able to pack 50+ on a crowded weekend. It can be a very quiet or a very social experience, all depending on where you go. All hut reservations can be made from DOC offices in local communities, even for the club-managed huts.

 

Personally, I would like to see this approach adopted here in the states outside of wilderness areas. I believe this is the greatest compromise, and protects our limited resource the best.

[chris]

A problem with building huts at places like Boston Basin or Colchuck Lake is that they would likely become magnets for even more people, increasing stress on the landscape. Maybe the model should be to allow huts at places that inherently limit crowds due to approach difficulty or remotness. Camp Muir is an example.

 

You have to get a permit to camp in Boston Basin as it is. Usage is limited already. Ditto for Colchuck lake.

 

Usage is limited because of the square meter impact that multiple parties, with their own tents and sense of privacy, demand. If a hut could be built in the same place, and sleeps the same number of people as the current quota allows (or a few more), the overall impact on the landscape would still be less. Huts are not like highways - building them does not mean they automatically encourage use.

[mattp]

I think the user above who referred to Cerise Creek assumed that the hut DOES draw increased use, and that may well be so. I am sure there are people out there who would not be willing to camp out - especially in the winter - who are drawn to the hut.

[cj001f]

Huts are not like highways - building them does not mean they automatically encourage use.

Unless some massive network springs up overnight they will - they are a more desirable service, as shown by this thread...