PNW Ski Huts

What about using some of the current forest service lookouts as ski huts?

The Cascades Ski Hut Assoc (or whatever) would take on the responsibility of winterizing these structures, managing access (keys etc), stocking firewood (or kerosene / propane) , and installing privies. Granite Mt and Thorp Mt would make pretty ideal huts wouldn't they? Alpine Lookout, Mt Pilchuck, Evergreen .. they all have great ski terrain and many are the right distance from civilization.

I was specifically thinking a hut system from Crystal to White Pass or even from Snoqualmie to White Pass might be possible.  You could possibly use the PCT to access points of interest for hut placement as well.  Also, the traffic would be generated to the specific ski resorts, so they might be willing to help?  Just an idea.  No snomos though.

You might be interested in this quote from Joseph Hazard, written in 1954:

www.alpenglow.org/ski-history/notes/peri...ml#mtneer-a-1954-p16

The Mountaineer Annual, 1954, p. 16, Hazard, Joseph T., "Let's Use the Cascade Crest Trail"

Describes the origins of the Crest Trail. The author proposed the trail in 1926, inspired by the Apalachian Trail. Happy Fisher of the Mt Baker Club and the author engaged other clubs in the cause and won the support of Fred Cleator, recreation planner in the U.S. Forest Service. Surveying was done in 1935 and trail construction began. As of 1952, "The Forest Service is constructing rustic log and rock shelters at key points along the trail." The article describes the Washington portion of the trail in seven units. Of particular interest is this prediction for the section from Snoqualmie Pass to Chinook Pass:

"Some day this some sixty miles of convenient divide and pass country will be an open road for 'ski mountaineering'-when trail markers are elevated high enough to clear winter snows, and when there are plenty of shelters for the worn and weary."

I really like the Jove peak area idea. There is a lake west northwest of Jove that looks like it might have some good sites. The Teanaway would be nice too, but the snowmobile use in that area is already huge. Keeping them out of the hut would be pretty hard. I don't know of much 'biling in the Jove area. I could be wrong, but I haven't seen any tracks.

You want the hut remote and quite I think, but not so remote that building it becomes even more difficult than it already would be. If it takes a full day to reach the cabin bringing in building materials will be really hard. I doubt the non-profit hut association will be able to afford to chopper in sacks of concrete.

I think the hut should be for winter use and I would suggest a location not served by a hiking trail in the summer. How does everyone else feel about when it should be accessible?

As far as locations, I think we have 2 options.

1) We go for a more destination type approach and put a hut in a location that provides prime turning potential from the front steps (Jove etc)

AND/OR

2) we go for a touring approach with muliple huts creating a network. The Cascade Crest Trail idea is perfect for that. Where you do a hut-to-hut tour on lighter gear. Of course there is the potential to select locations that also provide prime turning potential.

It may not be an either or question of location but something to consider when chosing a location - what is the ultimate vision for a hut - the access to terrain or the creation of a small network?

There is precedent for creating a trail network - such as the Washington Water Trails / Cascadia Marine and Lakes to Locks trails for paddlers and other non-powered craft (Sail). They have dedicated campsites for free public use. The DNR supports several of those sites and I believe they even have public funding.

While the WWTA dosn't have huts, the precedent may be something we should look into. which ever approach we decide to go with.

I think the hut should be for winter use and I would suggest a location not served by a hiking trail in the summer.  How does everyone else feel about when it should be accessible?

I was specifically thinking a hut system from Crystal to White Pass or even from Snoqualmie to White Pass might be possible.  You could possibly use the PCT to access points of interest for hut placement as well.  Also, the traffic would be generated to the specific ski resorts, so they might be willing to help?  Just an idea.  No snomos though.

These are two somewhat divergent ideas but they emphasis what will probably be one of the most difficult parts of getting a hut or hut systems in place.  On one hand it probably has more appeal to the forest service if it is accessible by many different types of users.  On the other hand there is a much smaller impact on local environment if it's only accessed in the winter by human powered users.  

I would be less likely to ski into a hut for a weekend if I knew the area was going to be overrun with snowmobiles so the two uses don't really go  together.  On the other hand, it would sure be nice to be able to ride a sled into a cabin with enough food for a few days rather than having to carry it.  Are the two types of use somehow compatible?

Mjolner, you're going to have to schedule a real meeting to discuss this soon or else this TAY thread may run over three pages.

As far as locations, I think we have 2 options.
1) We go for a more destination type approach and put a hut in a location that provides prime turning potential from the front steps (Jove etc)
AND/OR
2) we go for a touring approach with multiple huts creating a network. The Cascade Crest Trail idea is perfect for that. Where you do a hut-to-hut tour on lighter gear. Of course there is the potential to select locations that also provide prime turning potential.
It may not be an either or question of location but something to consider when choosing a location - what is the ultimate vision for a hut - the access to terrain or the creation of a small network?

I would suggest option one for two reasons.  First is that going through the process of building one hut sounds like a huge undertaking to me and the prospect of building three, four, five seems beyond daunting to me.  Second, I think the red tape and hoop jumping would be less on a single project than a network.  It might be possible to have the network vision in our pockets when we present and build one. We could be thinking about a larger vision.  If the first goes smoothly enough we could come back with a second proposal for the next three huts or whatever.