| Author |
Topic |
Burnaby, BC
Canada
1293 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2012 : 6:37 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dru
Zymurgy's first law of evolving system dynamics: once a can of worms is opened, a larger can will be required to contain all the worms.
Would that be exponential tails, assuming inelastic and spherical worms and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or power law, assuming worms are self-organizing? |
|
|
Vancouver, BC
Canada
874 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2012 : 6:55 PM
|
Steventy:
Your last point is one I agree with completely - F*CKING MICE!!! I never hated any species before (OK, maybe BC Liberals). But now I believe a quick death is too good for them. I could go on, but I will spare the reader's delicate digestion.
And, the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to cabins as it does to everything else. No maintenance => derelict pile of rubble, very quickly.
But I cannot agree with hoarding nuggets of information, like rock-routes, trails, or cabins. There aren't enough habitable public cabins within weekend range of Vancouver (judging by the crowds at the few known cabins). Regrettably, BC Parks interepts this as an opportunity for extortion. But an alternate scenario would be to publish the locations of enough cabins that most people can find weekend destinations (without having to pay some greedy parkee).
I am speculating, but I think most hikers would appreciate a chance to contribute to the trails and cabins that they use. At the very least, the unwashed masses (ex me) can be harnessed to carry supplies, cut firewood, and/or build and repair. And in the best case, there are untappped skills out there - roofing, carpentry, plumbing, etc. But in any case if the weekend goal is exersize, it is hard to beat carrying an extra chainsaw next to your lunch. Imagine if every hiker carried one 2x4 once per year. Unfortunately cabin maintainers seldom publish their maintenance and upgrade plans, probably from fear of publicising the cabin's existence and location.
A strategy based on secrecy is doomed to fail in this information age. But perhaps we are moving from a pre-internet model of restricted information, to a new paradigm where lots of anonymous people contribute toward a shared goal.
|
Edited by - weedWhacker on 02/12/2012 7:43 PM |
|
|
Vancouver, BC
Canada
1321 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2012 : 7:19 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dru
Zymurgy's first law of evolving system dynamics: once a can of worms is opened, a larger can will be required to contain all the worms.
|
|
|
Whistler, BC
Canada
53 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2012 : 12:40 AM
|
Steventy has some good points
I think the concern isn't people who get out in the area and stumble upon it, nor people who are going to the effort to find the clues on the web needed to locate it. The concern (for me anyways) is the idiots who are going to say "That looks like such a great place to go party, let me just dial xxxx,yyyy into my GPS and let's go!". If the cabin gets trashed too often, then the maintainers will abandon it and it'll go to ruin.
There's something to be said for how people in general treat something that they consider special, vs. something that's very easy to obtain.
Keeping these huts off the web really isn't elitist, it's just a desire to protect a resource. The poster who said Cheesedoff doesn't have the right to complain on his first post on the otherhand is a fine example of an elitist.
All that said, it is correct that this cabin has been on the web for years. I myself found out about that cabin on the interweb years ago. I saw a post on TGR (I'm a more frequent user over there) by shirk (I think), recognized the area, started Googling, and found a site that had a very basic GPS map up (just contour lines, the Duffy lake rd, and dots indicating locations). Even then it took some engaging of the grey mater to put it all together. The lack of information available, and the fact the place is reasonably well maintained told me it was being kept on the down low, which is why I in turn kept it on the d/l.
Just my $0.02
Edit: Also wanted to say that this was otherwise a very nice TR! |
Edited by - Good News Bear on 02/13/2012 01:16 AM |
|
|
521 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2012 : 07:37 AM
|
quote:
Steventy has some good points
I think the concern isn't people who get out in the area and stumble upon it, nor people who are going to the effort to find the clues on the web needed to locate it. The concern (for me anyways) is the idiots who are going to say "That looks like such a great place to go party, let me just dial xxxx,yyyy into my GPS and let's go!". If the cabin gets trashed too often, then the maintainers will abandon it and it'll go to ruin.
There's something to be said for how people in general treat something that they consider special, vs. something that's very easy to obtain.
Well said! I've known about the cabin for years and it's been good to see that it's seen usage from responsible back country travellers and not those that are out there to party and trash the place. Good reason for keeping it under the radar so to speak. |
|
|
Vancouver, BC
Canada
1009 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2012 : 10:14 AM
|
quote:
There aren't enough habitable public cabins within weekend range of Vancouver (judging by the crowds at the few known cabins).
That may be your opinion but its not mine, I appreciate just keeping the wilderness wild.
|
|
|
Whistler, BC
Canada
42 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2012 : 11:52 PM
|
Although I'd prefer most hut info was by word of mouth, at the very least you don't have to put a GPS track to it.
If you really want to blab, mention the hut and mention the area, but at least don't put a GPS track co-ordinates so anyone can wander in with zero effort, research or involvement in the community.
Two weekends ago Beeker hut had 25 people there. It was insane to the point that people couldn't sleep because there was always someone up to go to the washroom shining their headlamp around and tripping over people. If people post info like this all over the place then the huts are just going to be so overrun that no one is having fun, and the care takers give up on the place.
How do we keep the traffic at these places to a reasonable volume? You can't charge money or take reservations like a pricey ACC hut. The best way to restrict access is to make it take a little effort to figure things out, so only the people who really want it will get there.
I understand that a lot of weekend warriors don't have time to go wandering around in the mountains hoping to find huts, but the motives here aren't too keep the weekend warriors out. It's to restrict access to only the people that really want to be there. If you really want to go, ask your friends or go for a walk in the area. It's really not hard to find these places if you put any effort it. |
Edited by - dandurston on 02/14/2012 11:54 PM |
|
|
Whistler, BC
Canada
1174 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 07:36 AM
|
dandurstan remarks...
quote:
How do we keep the traffic at these places to a reasonable volume? You can't charge money or take reservations like a pricey ACC hut. The best way to restrict access is to make it take a little effort to figure things out, so only the people who really want it will get there.
I'm assuming that by "pricey" ACC hut", you're not referring to the Wendy Thompson Hut, which, after 13 years of operation is still $12/night for non-members and $10/night for members?
It is, as you are probably aware, a legal hut that took three years to get all approvals. The trails are gazetted and take many hours of volunteer labour each year. The human waste is flown out for treatment and each year there is significant upkeep and caretaking costs. Since it is not possible to drive to this hut on a FSR, many of these materials must be flown in.
This does not count the replacement camping stoves, kerosene heaters, white gas lamps, etc. that require regular maintenance due to heavy usage and occasional abusage. Oh, and toss in two times in the past year when we had materials and cash stolen from the hut.
The hut, like the Flavelle Hut across the main valley, makes ends meet and provides a reasonable place for people to stay. The reservation system was put into place in the second year of operation because we were receiving an overwhelming number of complaints regarding overcrowding. It's taken a while, but our members and members of the public appreciate knowing that they have a place to put their heads once they've made the trek in to the hut.
And all that's for the price of a Dinky Dog after five p.m. in Whis. Seems like a reasonable deal considering the benefits.
|
|
|
Whistler, BC
Canada
42 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 10:09 AM
|
I was referring more to the $25/night huts (Tantalus/Lake Lovely Water Hut and the Jim Haberl Hut) and also in the back of my mind is how pricey the upcoming Spearhead huts are likely to be. I'm not saying these huts are a rip off, I just think it's cool when people can work together to maintain a free hut.
Controlling access to keep recreation at a level that the facilities and environment can handle is a huge outdoor recreation management issue. You could do it through price (ie. $150 to hike the West Coast Trail) so only the rich can come, or you could do it through effort, so only the people that really want to come will come. 'Effort' could entail needing to book way in advance (ie. the Wendy hut) or it could entail needing to do a little research/chatting/thinking to plan a visit.
These non-approved huts don't have any way to manage usage levels aside from the last option....requiring a little effort put it to learn about it. People who do put in the effort are likely to appreciate the hut more, take better care of it and perhaps help maintain it etc. The goal isn't to keep specific groups out (ie. 'meccies', 'weekend warriors' or 'city folk'), it's just to keep the place from being completely over-run by requiring a little effort or ambition on the part of the interested visitor. |
Edited by - dandurston on 02/15/2012 10:11 AM |
|
|
Burnaby, BC
Canada
1293 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 10:15 AM
|
| Are the upcoming Spearhead huts ACC? If so, is it Vancouver or Whistler Section? |
|
|
Whistler, BC
Canada
1174 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 11:45 AM
|
tu
quote:
Are the upcoming Spearhead huts ACC? If so, is it Vancouver or Whistler Section?
The current proposal would be to have them managed by the Whistler Section of the ACC as a non-profit. The Spearhead Huts Collective (see http://www.spearheadhuts.org/) is composed of the Whistler and Vancouver Sections of the ACC, the BCMC, and two memorial groups.
The plan is to have not only the huts self-sustaining, but the trail network (for summer access), the environmental management, safety infrastructure, etc. as part of the self-sustaining system. We recognize that BC Parks has no ability to do this as it is currently funded, but a great many folks are getting out and there is an undeniable impact on the environment (join us on a late May Spearhead tour for a good chance to look at the detritus).
No fee structure has been set, as we are still in planning stages and understanding the costs that go along with such a system. As the goal is to have the huts be self-sustaining, the fees will be set at a rate that allows for long-term maintenance of the legacy system. |
|
|
Burnaby, BC
Canada
1293 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 12:03 PM
|
| Thanks - hope all goes well with the proposal. I though dandurston was indirectly referring to the slight difference in emphasis between the two Sections, so was curious. |
|
|
271 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 12:21 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by sandy
Maybe the post wasn't politically correct, but these huts can get seriously over-used and then turn into wrecked party palaces. There are dozens of these trespass cabins scattered throughout the Kootenays, and their staying in reasonable shape does rely on them being not well known by all and sundry. Once they get known, particularly if they are easy to get to, the volunteers who maintain them can't keep up with the maintenance and they get trashed. The volunteers also get burn-out from doing a whole lot of work for a bunch of people who do nothing. I don't think people realize how difficult it is to maintain cabins that are a long bushwack into when you have to carry in chainsaws, lumber, equipment, etc. all on your back. I'd be keeping them relatively quiet.
QFT.
This hut cannot accommodate a lot of use. If it becomes to much for the volunteers to maintain it, it will no longer be around for anyone.
The overcrowding issue is why I would never consider staying in a duffey hut over the weekend. If I did, I would definitely bring a tent.
|
|
|
Whistler, BC
Canada
1174 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 12:32 PM
|
quote:
Thanks - hope all goes well with the proposal. I though dandurston was indirectly referring to the slight difference in emphasis between the two Sections, so was curious.
We do have differences in our membership, but on the whole we have more shared values. The Vancouver Section has done a terrific job of building and maintaining two very fine huts in the corridor. The Lake Lovelywater Hut is over 40 years old...
On the Spearhead initiative, we are all on the same page. The goal is not extravagance, but solid, dependable, maintainable, environmentally responsible, safe designs. There will quite likely be those most beloved of backcountry beds, the bunk beds. There will quite likely be dorm rooms. We'd like to focus the use and ameliorate the impact on the Spearhead. |
|
|
Whistler, BC
Canada
42 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 5:05 PM
|
| Is there any truth to the rumour that they're considering having a full time care taker live/work at each hut on the Spearhead? |
|
|
Vancouver, BC
Canada
1009 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 5:19 PM
|
Wow, you would think that a few poopers would be far better for the spearhead than dorm style huts up there...
|
|
|
Vancouver, BC
Canada
1321 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 9:22 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by J Mace
Wow, you would think that a few poopers would be far better for the spearhead than dorm style huts up there...
Certainly an option that should be considered considering the impact to be mitigated... a lot of the resistance to the huts I come across has to do with the thought that the purpose of the huts is to create this elite-class experience mostly taken up/reserved in advance by guiding services. Of course, this isn't the plan the hut committee has, but in my opinion more work needs to be done to bring more of the public and backcountry community on board. |
|
|
Richmond, BC
Canada
2440 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 10:09 PM
|
quote:
I just think it's cool when people can work together to maintain a free hut.
Totally agree
These Huts are a privilege and not a right. If you want the privilege to use them and to spread the gospel of same, then work hard and pitch in to take care of them when you are there and take care of the DAMN cabins. If you envibe in the evening and enjoy the ammenities then clean the DAMN place up in morning befor you leave. There are places in the Arctic in better shape after over 100 years than some shelters after 30 years. Sorry to rag, but it's all about Stewardship. No matter how many people visit, If everyone pitches in, then we have huts that will last. Just change the thinking pattern, promote others to think likewise and discourage misuse where possible. If you see someone not pulling their weight, reinforce the outcomes if they don't help out but do it in a positive manner.
I've seen large groups work dilligently to maintain the hut environments during their stay and some visitors leave it up to others to clean up their mess. Gearhead's post is far from being the first to advertise this local and it won't be the last. It's just a matter of policing and stewardship.
Sorry I'll shut up now |
|
|
Richmond, B.C
Canada
288 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2012 : 2:26 PM
|
| Seems pretty interesting that those that know of these huts, don't want other people to know where they are, as if they hold more claim to them than anyone else. |
|
|
Whistler, BC
Canada
53 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2012 : 10:44 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Seegs
Seems pretty interesting that those that know of these huts, don't want other people to know where they are, as if they hold more claim to them than anyone else.
You have missed the point entirely. It's not that people don't want anyone else to know, it's that people don't want the info publicly available. There is a difference.
The rational has been explained in this thread already, you should try reading it. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
This Ain't Elfin Lakes - Cayoosh Creek Hut
