| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
slabbyd
Member
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Posts: 293 | TRs | Pics
|
|
slabbyd
Member
|
 Fri Jun 18, 2021 4:19 pm |
|
|
I think a vast majority of backcountry recreators would find a MTTA style system far preferable to a handful of very expensive privately owned huts. Its a shame no has organized such an effort for the area. Placing these huts in an area already overwhelmed with users is going to cause conflict. My impression is that the snowmobile community is very much against this. These people are going to have to take an Uber to trailhead unless they want their cars razed to the ground.
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9512 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Fri Jun 18, 2021 8:46 pm |
|
|
| slabbyd wrote: | | These people are going to have to take an Uber to trailhead unless they want their cars razed to the ground. |
I don't think that is a fair assessment of sledheads. The vast majority of sledheads I've encountered IRL are decent folks. They will gripe when a Subaru squeezes into the space between their trailer and the truck behind in a sno-park, but that's legit since space is left for loading sleds on to the trailer, not for Nordic Nerds.
 philfort
philfort |
| Back to top |
|
|
Brian R
Member
Joined: 10 Feb 2018
Posts: 501 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Brian R
Member
|
Fri Jun 18, 2021 8:47 pm |
|
|
| Randito wrote: | | My experience in British Columbia and Alberta ski huts has been excellent. My experience in Oregon huts in the Wallows has also been good.
Here in Washington I've used the MTTA huts and the Scottish lakes Cabins -- both have been nice.
One thing I've observed in BC ski huts is that there area around the ski huts get recoganized as off-limits to snowmobile and helicopter users. So I think hut systems have the potential to limit razzer/chopper activity in the area around the huts.
I do think the huts shouldn't be exclusively for use by guided clients -- I'll be interested to see what the USFS proposes as a reservation system that balances the needs of non-guided groups and guided groups. |
I'll agree with you on this one. The Euro/Canada back-country model is, in most ways, superior to the way we do things here in the USA. Particularly the hut system--mostly public and modest cost. Concentrates use and manages degradation. Accommodates guiding for those less inclined to work things out on their own--and individuals who just want to get out there. The wilderness system used to work here--but the pressure from all sides is rendering it unmanageable. I think Aldo Leupold described his Wilderness Ethic, in part, as "a place where people of limited means can recreate cheaply." What on Earth would he think of Glamping for hundreds of dollars per night?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brian R
Member
Joined: 10 Feb 2018
Posts: 501 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Brian R
Member
|
Fri Jun 18, 2021 9:06 pm |
|
|
| Kim Brown wrote: | | Brian R wrote: | | Re "Why." Just click the Aspire link above, read. If you're ok with it, we're not on the same page.
|
Glanced at it. The rent is for the hut and furnishings, not the land, and it's not mandatory. You don't have to use it. What problem should I be seeing?
If you have something to say, say it. It helps the conversation! |
Well, for starters, that glamping setup is taking at least two of the very limited camp sites available to the public at Mowich Lake. Forgive me, but I'd rather see families or people of ordinary means camping there. Now they can't--because the sites are going to the highest commercial bidder on behalf of well-funded clients. Don;t misunderstand, I'm pro-capitalism. A borderline fundy, even. But commercial enterprises that don't provide a public benefit of any kind just don't belong in national parks/wilderness areas. Wilderness provides a kind of "escape valve" from the stress of competing in the day-to-day capitalist economy. Let's keep capitalism and wilderness separate. That was kind of the original idea.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
D. Inscho
Not bored yet...
Joined: 28 Feb 2010
Posts: 973 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellingham,WA |
|
D. Inscho
Not bored yet...
|
Wed Jun 23, 2021 7:17 am |
|
|
| philfort wrote: | | The WA Cascades have practically infinite pristine nearly-inaccessible winter ski destinations, and very few hut options. Huge contrast to British Columbia, which has lots of great ski huts. |
The proposal bears little resemblance to the BC system, especially with regard to cost.
"The WA Cascades have practically infinite pristine nearly-inaccessible winter ski destinations"
The reason the areas are "pristine" is because of dispersed usage by resourceful and capable people.
Commercial exploitation of our public lands results in: Concentrated impacts to wildlife and resources;
Encourages user groups whose only qualification for access is a fat wallet and an over-sized sense of entitlement (think Everest).
http://david-inscho.smugmug.com/
The key to a successful trip is to do the planning during work hours. -- John Muir
“My most memorable hikes can be classified as 'Shortcuts that Backfired'.” --Ed Abbey
http://david-inscho.smugmug.com/
The key to a successful trip is to do the planning during work hours. -- John Muir
“My most memorable hikes can be classified as 'Shortcuts that Backfired'.” --Ed Abbey
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kim Brown
Member
Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 6899 | TRs | Pics
|
| Brian R wrote: | | Well, for starters, that glamping setup is taking at least two of the very limited camp sites available to the public at Mowich Lake. |
Your picture and discussion doesn't match the proposal, which is winter use, and which is what my comments are based upon. Like you, I object to the summer use, but that's a different subject.
"..living on the east side of the Sierra world be ideal - except for harsher winters and the chance of apocalyptic fires burning the whole area."
Bosterson, NWHiker's marketing expert
"..living on the east side of the Sierra world be ideal - except for harsher winters and the chance of apocalyptic fires burning the whole area."
Bosterson, NWHiker's marketing expert
|
| Back to top |
|
|
altasnob
Member
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 1406 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma |
|
altasnob
Member
|
Wed Jun 23, 2021 8:12 am |
|
|
| D. Inscho wrote: | | The proposal bears little resemblance to the BC system |
To add on this, Canada doesn't have a "wilderness" land designation like the US, or at least not as much as the US and not near the population centers. On Crown Land, pretty much anything goes (snowmobile, heli skiing companies). Provincial and National Parks have roads and luxury lodges you can heli into (check out Assiniboine lodge for one of the more spectacular ones). The protected areas in Canada that are completely off limits to structures are generally far away from population centers. Plus, Canada's population density is significantly smaller than the US.
Canada is fun to visit, as is Europe, but America's wilderness lands are what sets us apart from these countries and is one of our greatest attributes. The proposed huts appear to all be in parking lots, outside the wilderness. But people using them will be recreating in the adjacent wilderness lands. All of the proposed huts appear geared towards people (either commercial or private parties) who have snowmobiles so that they can snowmobile up miles of unplowed roads to reach the hut. Sure you can hike in if you want, but most users are going to be snowmobiling in.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
altasnob
Member
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 1406 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma |
|
altasnob
Member
|
Wed Jun 23, 2021 8:12 am |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiliki
Member
Joined: 07 Apr 2003
Posts: 2324 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle |
|
kiliki
Member
|
Wed Jun 23, 2021 8:17 am |
|
|
Only $600/$800 per night, plus tax, plus $60 pp for shuttle if you want it, with a 3 night minimum.
I wonder how they will keep these from being illegally used or vandalized. Maybe access is too difficult for that, as opposed to, say, fire lookouts?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
D. Inscho
Not bored yet...
Joined: 28 Feb 2010
Posts: 973 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellingham,WA |
|
D. Inscho
Not bored yet...
|
Wed Jun 23, 2021 8:28 am |
|
|
| kiliki wrote: | | Maybe access is too difficult for that, as opposed to, say, fire lookouts? |
 Depends on what "access" means; difficulty of approach, or the weight of the tools you need to break in.
http://david-inscho.smugmug.com/
The key to a successful trip is to do the planning during work hours. -- John Muir
“My most memorable hikes can be classified as 'Shortcuts that Backfired'.” --Ed Abbey
http://david-inscho.smugmug.com/
The key to a successful trip is to do the planning during work hours. -- John Muir
“My most memorable hikes can be classified as 'Shortcuts that Backfired'.” --Ed Abbey
|
| Back to top |
|
|
philfort
Member
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 443 | TRs | Pics
Location: seattle |
|
philfort
Member
|
Wed Jun 23, 2021 9:07 am |
|
|
Wow, this sounds almost identical to the other three. Temporary winter shelters on public land next to the wilderness boundary, about the same cost, snowmo shuttle, etc....
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coldrain108
Thundering Herd
Joined: 05 Aug 2010
Posts: 1858 | TRs | Pics
Location: somewhere over the rainbow |
| altasnob wrote: | | To add on this, Canada doesn't have a "wilderness" land designation like the US, or at least not as much as the US and not near the population centers. |
And BC alone is larger than CA,OR and WA combined with vastly less population. "Inaccessible" has real meaning up there, down here even the most remote wilderness is but a quick hop step and jump from civilization (comparatively speaking). There is no need to make our wilderness spaces smaller by adding easy access just because people don't want to work that hard to get out there. None of it is inaccessible.
Since I have no expectations of forgiveness, I don't do it in the first place. That loop hole needs to be closed to everyone.
Since I have no expectations of forgiveness, I don't do it in the first place. That loop hole needs to be closed to everyone.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
altasnob
Member
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 1406 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma |
|
altasnob
Member
|
Wed Jun 23, 2021 9:59 am |
|
|
| philfort wrote: | |
Wow, this sounds almost identical to the other three. Temporary winter shelters on public land next to the wilderness boundary, about the same cost, snowmo shuttle, etc.... |
I actually assumed the huts were on private land, because I know there are lots of random little pockets of private land up the Teanaway. But I think you are right, the huts appear to be on National Forest land. They are at a location you can drive to in the summer with high clearance vehicle. I am surprised this is happening without more public comment. I heard the snowmobilers that frequent the area in the winter are pissed they will be having to share this area with commercially guided skiers.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
philfort
Member
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 443 | TRs | Pics
Location: seattle |
|
philfort
Member
|
Wed Jun 23, 2021 11:12 am |
|
|
| altasnob wrote: | | I heard the snowmobilers that frequent the area in the winter are pissed they will be having to share this area with commercially guided skiers. |
I'd imagine so, a continual winter presence there will probably make it harder for them to get away with illegal incursions into the wilderness areas. I know that's an issue nearby near Ingall's Peak, and I'd assume it's the same in this location.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fourteen410
Member
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 2628 | TRs | Pics
|
$800/night for a temporary hut is insane. Of all places for huts, Van Epps Pass never would have crossed my mind.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
