Mountain Huts - what's the deal?

[AlpineK]

Ok lets put some more cards on the table.

 

Jizzy has spent a few nights at the Tantulus hut and loved it he also tried to climb Mt Kenya where he stayed at a couple huts.

 

I submit that CJZ is a NIMBY motherfucker.

[jhamaker]

There is so little wilderness left. I like winter because it extends the feeling and sence of wilderness. Huts are good in moderation and when one is feeling sociable, but don't overdo it. I echo NV when I say: the Americas have something irreplaceable that Europe has destroyed - wilderness. If you feel like a hut/lodge trip, there are plenty enough already.

[G-spotter]

huts should be far enough away from the road that you have to fly in

[crazyjizzy]

Ok lets put some more cards on the table.

 

Jizzy has spent a few nights at the Tantulus hut and loved it he also tried to climb Mt Kenya where he stayed at a couple huts.

 

I submit that CJZ is a NIMBY motherfucker.

 

I have also been to Hooters, I read the paper, and I use coins. That does not mean I want a Hooters franchise in Matt Perkins Boston Basin hotel, that I want a huge copper mine at Image Lake, or I want to clear-cut Mount Rainier National Park.

 

I submit that AlpineK is one dumb cock-sucker.

[AlpineK]

Once again you blow things way out of proportion. We're talking about a simple hut with bunks foamies and maybe a coleman stove, with an outhouse nearby.

 

Would you support the plan if the hut had a private room that you could rent by the hour after you'd been out roping goats?

[EWolfe]

You build them, next thing you know some hippies are smoking pot in 'em and ruining your wilderness experience anyway.

 

If the motivation and finances exist, let 'em at it!

If it bothers you, go out further! There's plenty of wilderness out there!

[G-spotter]

what about building little benches and sleeping platforms in the caves under boulders, like they do in kiwi land?

[crazyjizzy]

Dalius said

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…………

 

Discuss

 

So lets discuss this shit, and make matt pee happy. I believe most arguments for huts in Washington are based on lazy and selfish goals.

They are all over Europe and the Canadians seem to be constantly putting up new ones.

What is appropriate one place is not always appropriate someplace else. The population density of the US is much higher than in NZ or Canada.

 

 

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, are you advocating hotels in the wilderness (or Wilderness)? Too lazy to carry your shit to Boston Basin?

 

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.

That is correct. But would more effort into more hardened campsites result in more landscape protection for far less money? And without the hypocrisy of a hut? Who would want to bunk in a hut at Boston Basin, with people arriving late at night, and leaving at all hours?

 

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

How does putting a building up allow for more people to bond with nature. If “Helihiking” was allowed to occur in NCNP more people could “bond”. How about if the 4 x 4’ers were allowed to bond by driving over Cascade Pass? This is a specious, selfish, and hypocritical statement. It implies that a building inside a designated wilderness is OK because it is for “us”.

 

Continuing this hypocritical shit, dalius wants to get all cutsie cutsie with the rules:

Maybe building in wilderness isn't possible based the wilderness act, but there must be a lot of desirable 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.

So, he is saying (again) that playing fast and loose with the spirit of the law is OK, because it is us. Climbers were the ones who saved NCNP. There is patented land in the Cascade Pass, Thunder Creek, and Ptarmigan Traverse areas. In the past, tourist helicopters have landed here, causing much hue and cry. I could buy a piece of patented land, follow land use rules, pass the UBC and IBC, and build a Hooters. Trask and his pals could fly in on helicopters, bringing in lots of fuel for all of my generators. People miles away would love my sound system. It’s all legal. My point here, is that those who would support a hut squeezed onto the edge of a Wilderness, would have no moral standing to oppose the JoBerg Hooters that give me and Trask so much joy.

 

These statements are I believe fine examples why huts a not needed in the Cascades

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………… places where people might go and see real mountains without being real mountain climbers, and climbers would benefit as well.

Only a half-day hike from the car? Not a real climber? Where is the need? Can’t real climbers carry a tent? Can’t hikers go to Boston Basin?

 

I think a well placed hut would be appreciated by many people and would not constitute an assault on nature if properly implemented. There are a lot of mountains in Washington. Would it be the worst thing in the world if two of them had a popular hut facility above timberline (there is currently one in place on Mount Rainier).

It seems as though a hut would be hypocritical, as well as an assault on the Wilderness act, or in the very least an assault on it spirit.

 

How about this logic:

Re: Colchuck Lake

Does the fact that some of those or even most of those who visit a place now like it just as it is entitle them to say it should never change? Probably not.

I’m not a laywer, but isn’t that the wish of the Wilderness Act, and by extension, the people of the USA?

Or this example of lack of brains:

If the motivation and finances exist, let 'em at it!

If it bothers you, go out further! There's plenty of wilderness out there!

The fact is, there isn’t a whole lot of wilderness out there in Washington, much less enough for a wilderness user group to be destroying it.

 

Then Matt Perkins accuses me of anonymously calling him a dumbshit. This is a disingenuous accusation. It is based on the premise that Matt Perkins is not a dumbshit, and does not know who “Crazyjizzy” is. In fact, he has called me at my house several times regarding my posts about Infinite Bliss. He is attempting to show he is a victim of anonymous name-calling. This is not true. Matt Perkins is a lawyer, and highly trained at disingenuously altering facts. I did call him a dumbshit, but to solicit sympathy in this fashion is playing fast and loose with the truth.

 

AlpineK accuses me of hypocrisy, and being a motherfucker.

 

Ok lets put some more cards on the table.

 

Jizzy has spent a few nights at the Tantulus hut and loved it he also tried to climb Mt Kenya where he stayed at a couple huts.

 

I submit that CJZ is a NIMBY motherfucker.

I have also been to Hooters, I read the paper, and I use coins. That does not mean I want a Hooters franchise in Matt Perkins Boston Basin hotel, that I want a huge copper mine at Image Lake, or I want to clear-cut Mount Rainier National Park.

 

I submit that AlpineK is one dumb cock-sucker.

 

I stated earlier that I do think that there are spots in the cascades where a hut would be OK. But not in the high alpine. But I do respect AlpineK’s ability to fight, and to name call without getting his panties in a bunch

[EWolfe]

I am taking my toys and going over to NWClimbers to play.

 

[G-spotter]

I notice that you carefully do not address or rebut Kurt's allegations about your mom, though

[EWolfe]

I am taking my toys and going over to NWClimbers to play.

 

 

Whoops! Wrong forum!

 

[k.rose]

Perkins you are getting soft! Crazyjizzie seems to be the most rational one in this discussion. Meanwhile I'm getting kinda old too, and I'd sure like to climb that Stanley - Burgner route on Prussik suppose we can get the Forest Service to build me a road up there so I can enjoy the wilderness too?

[cj001f]

huts interfere with some peoples perception of wilderness - tp strewn everywhere and 50 tent sites are more noisome.

 

Crazyjizzie seems to be the most rational one in this discussion.

jizzy's a nimby 'hardcore'

[Fairweather]

The environment in the following places would beneift greatly with huts:

Baker(Coleman/Deming)

Sahale

Hanaggen Pass (that campground is tramped to hell)

Snow Lake

Various spots on Ross Lake every 10-15 miles

Glacier Peak

Wonderland Trail every 10-15 miles

Yellow Aster Butte tent area (trampled to hell)

Ptarmigan Ridge(Baker, end of 3rd ridge)

Denny Lakes

Mt. Olympus

Pine and Cedar Lakes (Chuckanut)

Many others.

 

I don't agree with all of these sites. In fact, I would strongly disagree with most. But a natural stone/timber structure w/toilet facilities somewhere near Lunch Counter on Mount Adams would make the place more desirable, environmentally sound - and sanitary. The status quo has left the place a sewer. As it stands now, camping there should be banned. Ditto all of my comments for Heliotrope Ridge on Baker.

[dalius]

Here we go. All quotes of jizzy...

So lets discuss this shit, and make matt pee happy. I believe most arguments for huts in Washington are based on lazy and selfish goals.

Hiking out to the mountains and setting up a tent is also a selfish goal. Climbing a mountain is just about the most selfish thing that you could do.

What is appropriate one place is not always appropriate someplace else. The population density of the US is much higher than in NZ or Canada.

So what are you arguing for here, huts or no huts? Some would argue that since the population density is higher, a few well placed huts would mitigate impact. But you would just whine that these people are stupid

So, are you advocating hotels in the wilderness (or Wilderness)? Too lazy to carry your shit to Boston Basin?

You're just so right on today, Jizz! I totally think that we should pave all trails and build hotels, motels, and a Hooters high up in the alpine! While we're at it, could you be my bitch and carry up my stuff for me? I don't want to throw out my back carrying that heavy pack.

That is correct. But would more effort into more hardened campsites result in more landscape protection for far less money? And without the hypocrisy of a hut? Who would want to bunk in a hut at Boston Basin, with people arriving late at night, and leaving at all hours?

Far less money? I imagine definetely not. But it sounds like there are some areas that would benefit from concentrating use (campspots). I don't think the huts in the Coast Range (the ones that got me thinking about this whole bit anyway) were built to concentrate use anyway.

How does putting a building up allow for more people to bond with nature. If “Helihiking” was allowed to occur in NCNP more people could “bond”. How about if the 4 x 4’ers were allowed to bond by driving over Cascade Pass? This is a specious, selfish, and hypocritical statement. It implies that a building inside a designated wilderness is OK because it is for “us”.

I never advocated for building in a wilderness area.

So, he is saying (again) that playing fast and loose with the spirit of the law is OK, because it is us. Climbers were the ones who saved NCNP. There is patented land in the Cascade Pass, Thunder Creek, and Ptarmigan Traverse areas. In the past, tourist helicopters have landed here, causing much hue and cry. I could buy a piece of patented land, follow land use rules, pass the UBC and IBC, and build a Hooters. Trask and his pals could fly in on helicopters, bringing in lots of fuel for all of my generators. People miles away would love my sound system. It’s all legal. My point here, is that those who would support a hut squeezed onto the edge of a Wilderness, would have no moral standing to oppose the JoBerg Hooters that give me and Trask so much joy.

Wow- You've got me pegged again, Jizz! I totally want to build a Hooters at Cascade Pass, and one on the Ptarmigan Traverse as well! Right along side those monster Hotels I want to build. How did you guess that? There's a huge difference between building a simple hut with wood bunks/cookstove near a wilderness area and building some of thesyour hotels and Hooters in a wilderness area like you metioned. I don't see it as a slippery slope as you do.

It seems as though a hut would be hypocritical, as well as an assault on the Wilderness act, or in the very least an assault on it spirit.

Again, I never advocated for building in a wilderness area.

Then Matt Perkins accuses me of anonymously calling him a dumbshit.

Which you did. You originally contributed nothing to this thread except getting your panties all stuck up your ass and jumping up and down and ranting and raving. Instead of having a discussion, you had nothing better to contribute than calling people idiots. I thought people stopped doing that in highschool (or are you still in highschool?).

I have also been to Hooters, I read the paper, and I use coins. That does not mean I want a Hooters franchise in Matt Perkins Boston Basin hotel, that I want a huge copper mine at Image Lake, or I want to clear-cut Mount Rainier National Park.

Your logic amazes me. Obviously somebody was just pointing out that you've stayed at many huts elsewhere in the mountains and enjoyed them, so why not in your own beloved cascades? Sounds like hypocricy to me.

I stated earlier that I do think that there are spots in the cascades where a hut would be OK. But not in the high alpine.

Fair enough. That's about the most constructive thing you stated this whole thread. So why are the lowlands acceptable to you and not the alpine? Is it personal (i.e. maybe you only go to the alpine and don't care about the lowlands anyway, so go ahead and build huts there) or due to some environmental reasons?

[AlpineK]

Jizzy, as per usual you have your head up your ass.

 

In the first place I agree that there is a higher population density here than in BC. That means that there is going to be more pressure on whatever recreational areas we do have. More pressure means more use, and that means more abuse. We as users should try and promote things that minimize our impact on the natural resources that we use.

 

My view is that a hut in a highly used area would minimize the impact that all of us have on the resource. In general I would say that the potential for abuse is greatest in alpine regions. The soil is thinner, the growing season shorter, and the higher up you go the more uv rays there are that kill the microbes that facilitate the decomposition of human waste. If we concentrate the footprint of the area we're fucking up and we take measures to do things like haul out human waste we've greatly reduced our impact on the areas we love to visit.

 

Secondly one of your biggest fuckups in logic is to state that being for a hut is the same as being for a strip mine or a Hooters bar in the alpine. Just how do you figure that. You do a lot of construction; therefore you must be aware that citys have these things called zoning regulations. It's alright for somebody to build a new house down the street from me, but it wouldn't be alright for somebody to build a Hooters, or a cement plant in that same location. Huts on the Canadian model are far from a development equivalent to a strip mall or a hotel. I think if you carefully read the thread nobody is advocating a grid of huts in the Cascades. The biggest number stated is 2, but lets say it's 7...that still leaves a lot of wild land out there.

 

You also fail to distinguish between impacts. For example a helicopter's impact is primarily noise; whereas a hut without a generator (which is what we're talking about) has an impact that is primarily visual. True the hut will attract more people, but once again you vastly overstate your case by equating the increase in numbers to what a road over Cascade Pass would do.

 

Lastly wilderness needs to be wild, but there need to be people who will actively support and defend our natural areas from real development. What you want is somewhere inbetween the zero human use of the ecofreaks and a road with a McDonalds at Cascade pass and outlet malls down Thunder Creek.

 

In conclusion I'd like to say that apart from a couple huts I'd like to see CJZ gang raped by the Borax 20 mule team.

 

[mattp]

You're right there, Mr. K. There are a lot of mountains in Washington and if two of them had huts on them, it would be worthwhile even from a strictly preservationist standpoint if that led to more active political support for wilderness preservation. As you note, even seven huts might be OK. (I acknowledge all of us are blindly speculating about what the impact might be - either in terms of comparative physical/biolocial impact or in terms of political repercussions impact but I could tell you as somebody already has about how a particular hut experience was HUGE in my early climbing/backpacking career).

 

I've been accused of being "soft," as if that has something to do with the discussion here. Let me say: I am not shy about saying I AM soft. Hell, I usually carry TWO ridgrest pads! However, while I enjoy visiting huts and I like the hut "scene" once in a while, I primarily visit places without huts and I generally favor non-standard destinations over those in "Fifty Classic Climbs" or "Select Climbs" or whatever. I fully understand the sentiment of those who might say "why should there be a hut in my favorite basin.

[crazyjizzy]

Here we go. All quotes of jizzy...

So lets discuss this shit, and make matt pee happy. I believe most arguments for huts in Washington are based on lazy and selfish goals.

Hiking out to the mountains and setting up a tent is also a selfish goal. Climbing a mountain is just about the most selfish thing that you could do.

Only if you affect others to their, or the environments detriment

What is appropriate one place is not always appropriate someplace else. The population density of the US is much higher than in NZ or Canada.

So what are you arguing for here, huts or no huts? Some would argue that since the population density is higher, a few well placed huts would mitigate impact. But you would just whine that these people are stupid

I am making the arguement that new huts are not appropriate in the central and northern Cascades

So, are you advocating hotels in the wilderness (or Wilderness)? Too lazy to carry your shit to Boston Basin?

You're just so right on today, Jizz! I totally think that we should pave all trails and build hotels, motels, and a Hooters high up in the alpine! While we're at it, could you be my bitch and carry up my stuff for me? I don't want to throw out my back carrying that heavy pack.

Oh, fuck yourself. You were the one who effusively wrote about how huts in Europe serve food

That is correct. But would more effort into more hardened campsites result in more landscape protection for far less money? And without the hypocrisy of a hut? Who would want to bunk in a hut at Boston Basin, with people arriving late at night, and leaving at all hours?

Far less money? I imagine definetely not. But it sounds like there are some areas that would benefit from concentrating use (campspots). I don't think the huts in the Coast Range (the ones that got me thinking about this whole bit anyway) were built to concentrate use anyway.

I am sure that several hardened campsites are much cheaper than the EIS for a hut, much less than the hut itself. There is no comparison to the Canadain Huts. Those in the Bugs etc, are more akin to the high use areas of Camp Four and Snells Field. These are in places that a person could go to for several weeks. Other huts are of historical age. Other huts are in very desolate areas, as a bit of help to access via air.

How does putting a building up allow for more people to bond with nature. If “Helihiking” was allowed to occur in NCNP more people could “bond”. How about if the 4 x 4’ers were allowed to bond by driving over Cascade Pass? This is a specious, selfish, and hypocritical statement. It implies that a building inside a designated wilderness is OK because it is for “us”.

I never advocated for building in a wilderness area.

Correct, Matt Perkins did. I was responding to several posts, by several posters

So, he is saying (again) that playing fast and loose with the spirit of the law is OK, because it is us. Climbers were the ones who saved NCNP. There is patented land in the Cascade Pass, Thunder Creek, and Ptarmigan Traverse areas. In the past, tourist helicopters have landed here, causing much hue and cry. I could buy a piece of patented land, follow land use rules, pass the UBC and IBC, and build a Hooters. Trask and his pals could fly in on helicopters, bringing in lots of fuel for all of my generators. People miles away would love my sound system. It’s all legal. My point here, is that those who would support a hut squeezed onto the edge of a Wilderness, would have no moral standing to oppose the JoBerg Hooters that give me and Trask so much joy.

Wow- You've got me pegged again, Jizz! I totally want to build a Hooters at Cascade Pass, and one on the Ptarmigan Traverse as well! Right along side those monster Hotels I want to build. How did you guess that? There's a huge difference between building a simple hut with wood bunks/cookstove near a wilderness area and building some of thesyour hotels and Hooters in a wilderness area like you metioned. I don't see it as a slippery slope as you do.

Where would your hypothetical hut be? Could people approach it with helicopters? Why not?

It seems as though a hut would be hypocritical, as well as an assault on the Wilderness act, or in the very least an assault on it spirit.

Again, I never advocated for building in a wilderness area.

See my earlier response

Then Matt Perkins accuses me of anonymously calling him a dumbshit.

Which you did. You originally contributed nothing to this thread except getting your panties all stuck up your ass and jumping up and down and ranting and raving. Instead of having a discussion, you had nothing better to contribute than calling people idiots. I thought people stopped doing that in highschool (or are you still in highschool?). Matt Perkins is a disingenous person. He is stretching the truth to say I am anonymous. How did he call me at my house if he didn't know who I am. Who are you? Are you really who you say? This whole "anonymous" thing is really a specious arguement when used against most long time posters.

I have also been to Hooters, I read the paper, and I use coins. That does not mean I want a Hooters franchise in Matt Perkins Boston Basin hotel, that I want a huge copper mine at Image Lake, or I want to clear-cut Mount Rainier National Park.

Your logic amazes me. Obviously somebody was just pointing out that you've stayed at many huts elsewhere in the mountains and enjoyed them, so why not in your own beloved cascades? Sounds like hypocricy to me. People are all about hypocracy, and what is appropriate

I stated earlier that I do think that there are spots in the cascades where a hut would be OK. But not in the high alpine.

Fair enough. That's about the most constructive thing you stated this whole thread. So why are the lowlands acceptable to you and not the alpine? Is it personal (i.e. maybe you only go to the alpine and don't care about the lowlands anyway, so go ahead and build huts there) or due to some environmental reasons?

[Skeezix]

If you want a hut experience in the N. Cascades I suggest Hidden Lakes Lookout. Good spring skiing, excellent bouldering, and views to die for.

[mattp]

Nothing disingenuous about it, Mark. You and many others on this board who post under a screen name that has no relationship to their real name and provide no real contact information in their user profile. Some argue that everybody knows who they are but strangely they get extremely angry when anybody outs them by saying something like "crazy jizzy: that's Mark McKillop."

 

Don't get me wrong: it is your right to post under a screen name. But don't go out of your way to attack me or anybody else BY NAME if you don't have the guts to sign your full name to every post where you do so. And if you DO attack somebody using their real name, don't complain if they use yours.

 

By the way: Mark McKillop has made sure my name is all over this thread. I am Matt Perkins.

[Off_White]

Matt's got a point there Mr. Uberator sir.

 

My name really is Off White. Heh, go figure.

[Dechristo]

My name's really Saddam Bin Hitler

[catbirdseat]

And all this time I thought it was your favorite color.

[John_Scurlock]

Nothing disingenuous about it, Mark. You and many others on this board who post under a screen name that has no relationship to their real name and provide no real contact information in their user profile. Some argue that everybody knows who they are but strangely they get extremely angry when anybody outs them by saying something like "crazy jizzy: that's Mark McKillop."

 

Don't get me wrong: it is your right to post under a screen name. But don't go out of your way to attack me or anybody else BY NAME if you don't have the guts to sign your full name to every post where you do so. And if you DO attack somebody using their real name, don't complain if they use yours.

 

By the way: Mark McKillop has made sure my name is all over this thread. I am Matt Perkins.

 

Consider the following - USFS & NCNP budgets are being slashed to the bone. There is little money for trail or road maintenance. Campgrounds are being closed, staff levels are falling. Morale is low, and folks see the direction things are going... How do I know these things? Because my spouse is a 27 yr FS environmental analyst, now recently retired; and I have a front row seat with my friends at NCNP. Couple this with all the previously mentioned 'wilderness' issues,and I will go out on a limb and say there will never be a publicly financed 'hut' (in the Canadian or European sense) in the NCs.

 

Matt, I agree completely. Folks have to have the courage to stand up and take responsibility for their opinions & posts. Reminds me of an episode last yr where someone (not from cc.com) posted derogatory remarks on my website, then got mad when I 'outed' him!!

[timy]

WOW that was alota name callin and inflamitory statments.

I agree with Mat if yer gonna call some one names put yer real name on the post. But then what do I know!

The one thing I know the most of is nothing.