[philfort]

Yeah, that's like double the cost of the 8 person Scottish Lakes huts (which probably have better amenities). I wonder if they'll be able to fill slots.

[altasnob]

I assume $800 a night is the price for the entire, 8 person, hut? I bet this place is booked solid for the next several years already. Demand for backcountry huts is like demand for freeways. Even if you build more, the demand doesn't go down any.

[slabbyd]

So when you book your stay in the Twin Sisters Hut (situated at 3200' max) 8 months in advance what's the chance you're skiing powder vs watching your dreams wash away? No thanks. But agreed that if this comes to fruition it will be permanently booked up. (Curiously the Twin Sisters are not FS land, at least not where there are navigable roads. Its all private or patches of DNR)

[altasnob]

Ya, for a North Twin hut, they would have to work with the private land owner for access, who I assume would gladly allow snowmobile access up the logging roads for a fee (I think they are already doing this for guiding companies). The hut could be on Forest Service land as it goes private property, National Forest for a small sliver, and then wilderness. And yes, this hut would likely be low elevation but Mt. Baker ski area base is at 3,500 ft and North Twin summit 6,644 ft. I've always wondered how mid winter conditions would be in the Twin Sisters. They are as exposed as any mountain in the Cascades, but probably don't benefit from the Frasier River outflow that helps keep Baker Ski area snowing despite the low elevation.

[John Morrow]

Perhaps this is in another thread, but this one is permitted and scheduled to begin operations this winter. Lots of snowmobiling in the area outside of wilderness. That community is likely not happy.... I am reserving judgement, just providing info to the thread. https://www.bcadventureguides.com/trip/fortune-creek-hut/

[Kim Brown]

Ah, thanks John. I am sorry for the community. Side note: Louise Marshall (of Signpost Magazine, morphed into WTA) tried to rally funds from Signposters to purchase much of Van Epps Pass when it was clear it wouldn't be included in the plans for ALW. I have never seen Van Epps Pass, but it must be nice; if nothing else, a gateway, which is probably what she saw in it.

[DadFly]

Once they get a foothold it will expand. And expand again, etc. There are no private companies out there building more wilderness or wild places or natural eco systems. Our natural eco systems are already diminished and shrinking everywhere. It is worrisome that no one here knows of any opportunity for public comment. Getting a private concession on public lands without public input takes power, money and careful coordination. This suggests the ability to expand unfettered.

[John Morrow]

[Kim Brown]

Here are current & recent past SOPA (Schedule of Proposed Actions) entries on OK-WEN's site: I found a few outfitter projects in the archived Projects page. archives projects page: I don't see this particular project here, but as John says, it does take monitoring. Current and Recent SOPA reports come out once a month. Each forest has their own SOPA page, under the Land & Resource Management, and Projects and Policies page. It's not hard to click on it. I had subscribed to the MBS feed time and again over the years. You (me, at least) occasionally fall off the listserv, so you have to manually go to the website. Outfitter plans might also be in the Access & Travel Management Plan for the various watersheds; not sure.

[Kim Brown]

Here's one from 2012 that lists some snowmobile and ski guide services. These things seem to 10 year permits, so any up for renewal would be a public comment. Not sure how new locations are chosen. that's the big question. Posted this just for reference.

[rubywrangler]

This came up in a google search: https://m.facebook.com/WSSAUS/posts/10164811859215641. Appears the WSSA is planning to file an injunction if the FS does not rescind the permit for Fortune Creek huts. This comment was added to the fb post last week:

[kiliki]

[altasnob]

I'm pretty indifferent on the huts, but don't like it if the FS did in fact violate notice and comment rules. These huts are right on the wilderness boundary and the customers will be recreating in the wilderness. Even if the huts are only in the winter, you still need to use the roads either in the summer (high clearance vehicle) or winter (snowmobile) to bring every thing in and out. If the FS can fast track a project like this, think of the precedent it would set? With all that said, backcountry skiing has exploded in popularity in Washington in recent years and if you are going to put huts anywhere in WA, the Fortune Creek huts seem to be in a good location. Close enough to the population centers but far enough away that it feels different than the typical places people ski next to the resorts. It's East side of the Cascades so colder, better snow. It's an area that doesn't get skied in the winter without using a snowmobile for access. There is already a road right to the hut location. There's also a history of snowmobiles illegally entering the wilderness in this area, so it's not like the snowmobiles have been great at complying with the rules (yes, it's just a few bad apples). So if the huts end up here, I am ok with it, but only if the FS has complied with all their own rules.

[Kim Brown]

[Kim Brown]