Home > Forum > Categories > Random Tracks > New non-motorised snoparks

New non-motorised snoparks

  • samthaman
  • User
  • User
More
13 years 10 months ago #204852 by samthaman
Replied by samthaman on topic Re: New non-motorised snoparks

I would certainly like more huts. Roadside huts would be nice and definitely be OK from a Wilderness standpoint. The only possible problem I see is vandalism. Maybe something a mile or so away from the road would be ideal. Far enough away to discourage vandals, but still outside the Wilderness. Of course, areas inside protected areas (inside National Park gates, for example) would be OK, even next to the road. Maybe a hut at Sunrise would be OK. Ski the road and then ski from there (although I don't know what the avalanche danger is like on that road).


I was mentally picturing a hut that would be open once the road is closed, IE only open once the snow keeps the lazy vandal crowd away, and that could be boarded up and locked once the summer rolls around and people can drive right too it... not ideal, but it seems like a somewhat clever way to potentially end-run a lot of regulatory hurdles.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • RossB
  • User
  • User
More
13 years 10 months ago #204858 by RossB
Replied by RossB on topic Re: New non-motorised snoparks
Well, I see advantages and disadvantages to putting huts at the trailhead. On the one hand, it is easy to repair and board up. But I think the danger of vandalism, even if boarded up, is real. The new bathrooms they put in are really solid, but I've already seen bullet holes in them. In the grand scheme of things maybe that doesn't matter (maybe a few bullet holes are the only damage that will occur) and maybe if they are up a trail a quarter mile it would still be a problem (who knows, it might be worse), but that would be my concern.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Jonn-E
  • User
  • User
More
13 years 10 months ago #204861 by Jonn-E
Replied by Jonn-E on topic Re: New non-motorised snoparks
Part of the allure of a hut is the amazing natural setting they are in, almost exclusively at altitude. I don't see a hut deep in the trees at the end of a 3 mile road ski as having that appeal (especially when the same road can be snowmobiled).

And the vandalism/squatting would be bad in the summer.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • samthaman
  • User
  • User
More
13 years 10 months ago #204865 by samthaman
Replied by samthaman on topic Re: New non-motorised snoparks

Part of the allure of a hut is the amazing natural setting they are in, almost exclusively at altitude.  I don't see a hut deep in the trees at the end of a 3 mile road ski as having that appeal (especially when the same road can be snowmobiled).

And the vandalism/squatting would be bad in the summer.


In the case of that Hannegan pass rd that services both Ruth and Nooksack cirque, it's closed at the start of the road for most of the winter for use as a non-motorized snopark, but I get your point.

Perhaps further south in the passes, there would be great places for huts that are both in the alpine and close enough to a road, but I'm really struggling to think of anyplace near Baker that has that winning combination.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • snowbank
  • User
  • User
More
13 years 10 months ago #204867 by snowbank
Replied by snowbank on topic Re: New non-motorised snoparks
I have been following this thread. I really like the idea.

I saw this TGR article on something similar in BC:
www.tetongravity.com/blogs/A-Lift-Free-S...n-Evelyn-5938349.htm

It helped make it more real for me. One thing that is vague is whether they do any kind of avalanche control work. My preference would a minimalist avalanche control: limit blasting to times when there is a deep weak layer. Basically like what MBSA did on Shukshan Arm a few weeks ago.

It would be fun to think about putting together a proposal if there was a solid location.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.