Category Archives: Economics of huts

Hut Systems in USA

Hut Systems in USA: Situation and Outlook 2020

By Laurel Bradley and Sam Demas, Fall 2020

[Excerpt from: Hut to Hut USA: the complete guide for hikers, bikers and skiers

Mountaineers Books, 2021]

This overview of hut systems in USA today reflects six years of research. The information presented is based on the sixteen featured hut systems and ten others, and is current as of late 2020. See charts Sixteen Featured Hut Systems at a Glance and Ten Other Hut Systems for the data supporting this snapshot of US huts. While there are many other huts in USA, these twenty-six hut systems come closest to meeting our definition of a hut system, which focuses on supporting multi-day hut-to-hut traverses.  This overview paints the first broad stroke picture of hut systems in the USA, briefly summarizing: where they are located, who uses them and how, amenities and service models, architecture, and business models.  It also outlines some of the challenges they face and points out some key trends. 

While the audience for this overview is the general outdoor recreation public, we believe it will be of interest to hut specialists as well.

Aquarius Huts in SW Utah were opened after we completed our research for the book
and are not included in this overview.

LOCATION AND GEOGRAPHY

Hut systems, concentrated in the West and the Northeast, are almost all located in mountainous regions rich in scenery and recreational activities. Colorado, with more than six hut systems, is the epicenter. Many American huts were established to shelter cross-country skiers, and hut systems crop up in such winter playgrounds as the Vail, Breckenridge, and Aspen area in Colorado; Sun Valley in Idaho; and west-central Maine.

You can’t have huts without trails. Almost every US hut system is located on an existing, signed trail network maintained by a land management agency or a local non-profit. Hut system managers and community volunteers help with trail maintenance; local snowmobile clubs may help groom trails. On average, the distance between huts is 6 to 8 miles. Long-distance trails, which are central to the European hut-to-hut experience, play almost no role in American hut life. The eight AMC huts on the Appalachian Trail in the White Mountains of New Hampshire and four of the Porcupine Mountains cabins on the North Country Trail are the exceptions.

US hut systems, with a few exceptions, are situated on federal lands—managed by the USFS, the Bureau of Land Management, and the National Park Service—and on state lands. The largest number of US hut systems permitted on federal land is on USFS lands. US huts attract nature because of proximity to wild places and wilderness areas in particular.  The huts themselves are never in federally designated wilderness areas; the Wilderness Act of 1964, with very few exceptions, man- made structures, road, and use of motorized vehicles and tools. In some hut systems public lands are mixed with private holdings including conservation trusts, timber company leases and tribal territories.

MODES OF TRAVEL AND EXTENT OF TRAILS 

Hut Systems in USA
Biking hut-to-hut
in Alaska

The very first US hut systems catered to hikers. The next wave, established between the 1960s and 1980s, mostly accommodated skiers. Since the 1990s, hut systems have begun to diversify modes of travel on their trails in a move to increase revenues in the former off-seasons. Today, about two-thirds of the nation’s twenty-six hut systems support more than one mode of hut-to-hut travel. Bicycling is on the rise, even in winter, with the advent of fat-tire bikes. The newest hut systems, including American Prairie Reserve and Adirondack Hamlets to Huts, have embraced multiple modes from the outset. The Adirondack Hamlets to Huts routes incorporate paddling and hiking; the system is also open to e-bikes. As American Prairie Reserve adds huts and connecting routes, paddling will join the list of modalities along with hiking and biking. While our sixteen featured itineraries cover nearly 600 miles, all the US hut systems add up to approximately 1870 miles, not all of which support traverses.

RESERVATION FORMATS

Huts around the world, notably in Europe and New Zealand, are rented mostly by the bunk, meaning that you share the hut with folks you don’t know. With exclusive-use rentals, you rent all the beds in the hut, whether you use them or not. In the US, about half the huts are shared, and the other half are primarily exclusive use. Two of the three systems in the eastern US are by the bunk. The two systems in the Midwest are exclusive use. Sixty-two percent of the systems in the West rent the entire hut, cabin, or yurt to a single party. The largest hut systems—the AMC and the Tenth Mountain Division Hut Association—follow Europe and New Zealand, inviting visitors to share space and to connect socially. These two systems combined have more than one- third of the total hut beds: 417 in the thirty-four huts in the Tenth Mountain Division  Hut Association and 414 in the AMC’s eight huts in the White Mountains.

HUT USERS

While huts as a recreational option are not well known in the US, every hut system we visited is very popular, with 70 to 80 percent occupancy typical during the high season. Friends and families gather in huts for sustained togetherness. Visitors to each system tend to be fairly local, traveling within their state or region, and some make it an annual event. By contrast, in Europe and New Zealand, huts draw huge numbers of international tourists.

Hut-to-hut traverses are great for vacation getaways and long weekends. Logbook entries testify to the popularity of marking special occasions including birthdays and anniversaries. All across the country, we encountered women’s groups enjoying the pleasure of each other’s company away from the distractions of daily life. America’s huts are generally family friendly but require parents to match their children’s strength, skill level, and capacity for communal living to the demands of the traverse and accommodations. The two AMC huts with access trails under 3 miles swarm with parents and children; kids grab upper bunks, reveling in a sleep-play arrangement resembling a jungle gym, and spill off front porches to nearby lakes, streams, and waterfalls. Most hut systems offer reduced rates for children. Other users include youth, school, and church groups, outdoor clubs, and hut-based education and therapeutic programs.

Hut users, especially at the larger huts rented by the bunk with shared cooking and common areas, are a cooperative and communal bunch. At the Tenth Mountain Division Hut Association huts, you might find a few friend groups consisting of two or three couples, another couple on their own, an extended family group celebrating a significant birthday, and a party of young men. In the AMC huts, which accommodate between thirty-six and ninety-two hikers, overnighters strike a balance between respecting the privacy of others and engaging with fellow travelers in games and conversations during, and after meals.

Exclusive-use huts, with capacities ranging from two to twelve, are perfect for existing groups including families, friends, and groups bonded by their mutual love of hiking, skiing, or biking and the great outdoors. In our case, since we are just two, we invite along friends, family, and acquaintances to share the adventure and cozy spaces.

AMENITIES AND SIZE

On the most basic level, the hut is an enclosed shelter with a roof, a floor, a heat source, basic furniture for eating and sleeping, a logbook, a water source, and a toilet facility. Huts are further defined by their amenities, size, and capacity. What comes with the hut? How much does the visitor have to carry, and how much work is required to ensure a comfortable night? How many will share the hut, and how will capacity shape the experience?

In the US, huts are predominantly self-service, with notable full-service exceptions being the AMC huts and the Yosemite High Sierra Camps—the oldest systems. We developed a shorthand code for hut amenity levels: basic, self-service, self-service+, and full service. We were surprised to find that every hut in the US has more amenities than almost every DOC hut in New Zealand, the hut capital of the world. Nearly all self-service huts in the US incorporate one or more gas burners or a stove in the kitchen area, and plastic-covered mattresses on the bunks. Kitchens come fully equipped with pots and pans, dishes and utensils, and some kind of dishwashing tubs. Contrast this to New Zealand, where only Great Walks huts have gas cookers and hikers carry their own dishes and utensils. US operators add extra touches such as playing cards, puzzles, and small libraries. Increasingly, huts have solar lighting fixtures and a charging station. Wood-fired saunas are a welcome, if uncommon, feature. The only US hut systems offering showers are the Yosemite High Sierra Camps and Maine Huts and Trails.

Hut Systems in USA
Interior Mount Tahoma Yurt

Most American hut-to-hut travelers, like backpackers, carry their own food, clothing, and more. Some hut systems provide sleeping bags and pillows; others supply only pillows. The self-service+ huts—the San Juan Hut System for bikers and the Three Sisters Backcountry huts—provide stocked pantries, allowing visitors to carry very little weight en route. This compares directly with some huts in Norway, where overnight visitors pay for pantry provisions on the honor system. A few US traverses require users to carry just about everything with them. In Alaska, the backcountry cabins are very basic; while log structures on both state and federal land are spacious and well built, the interiors have counters but no cookstoves or utensils, and the bunks are bare sheets of plywood. Hikers, bikers, and skiers carry everything except a tent; in winter, you might also need to haul firewood on a sled.

Hut Systems in USA
Outhouse, Peter Grubb hut, Sierra Club. Donner Pass Area.

Compared with Europe, where huts typically house forty to eighty people, American huts are small. While the AMC huts are built roughly on the scale of European huts, the US national average is about fourteen beds per hut across all 166 huts. Several owners have speculated in informal shoptalk that economies of scale begin at about fourteen beds per hut; small-capacity huts are expensive to operate.

Huts in the American West tend to be small, with an average of twelve beds; mountaineering huts in Alaska can accommodate as few as four, while the yurts in backcountry ski systems in the Lower 48 usually hold between six and twelve. The Tenth Mountain Division Hut Association, the nation’s largest, has an average of twelve beds per hut.

America’s full-service hut systems serve between thirty-five and one hundred guests; these include the AMC’s White Mountains huts and Maine lodge-to-lodge system, and also the Yosemite High Sierra Camps. They offer hot meals, bedding, and some house-keeping; the facilities are more spacious and may comprise several structures including separate bunk- and bathhouses. At the Maine lodges, visitors can opt for shared accommodations in the bunkhouse or a private cabin shared with their trail companions. The five backcountry Yosemite High Sierra Camps welcome visitors with an array of mostly seasonal structures including a dozen or more platform tents, toilet and shower enclosures, and the stone-and-canvas dining hall. The small tents, with capacity for two to six, offer some privacy in these encampments serving between thirty-two and sixty guests. 

ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN

Architecturally, huts in the US range from large to small, primitive to elaborate. Maine Huts and Trails offers beautifully designed lodges made of wood and stone with spacious, light-filled public rooms and indoor toilets. Typically, Colorado’s Tenth Mountain Division Hut Association huts are sturdy log or wood-frame structures, topped by a peaked gable, with a detached outhouse nearby. The San Juan Huts are simple, roofed, rectangular plywood boxes. 

The Three Sisters Backcountry huts are also small wooden structures, built with frames crafted from welded metal to allow for disassembly and seasonal removal (no longer required) and embellished with custom-welded decorative flourishes. Systems generally aim for design consistency across  multiple sites, in part to simplify maintenance. Surprisingly, rainwater collection from roofs—used extensively in New Zealand—is not widespread in the US. Solar energy is employed for lighting in most US hut systems.

Yurts, common in western hut systems, combine coated canvas walls with steel or wooden interior supports. Yurts come in twelve-, sixteen-, twenty-, and thirty-foot- diameter models. These round buildings fit harmoniously into almost any setting. Yurts, popular in some of the snowiest landscapes, are often elevated on a wooden deck, which also provides welcome Firewood and the propane tank are sometimes stored under the deck. Wall tents are used by Sun Valley Mountain Huts.

Huts aim to minimize human impact on wild places (see Environmental impact of huts: finally a scientific study!). Building footprints are modest and interior organization compact and functional. Most combine bunks and cooking and living areas into a single room. In the two-story huts, the sleeping quarters are usually upstairs. Look for special features: a mudroom provides welcome space to change out of heavy boots and wet rain gear; a covered walkway makes for a dry passage between the hut and the outhouse or fire-wood depot. Even in the Alaska backcountry cabins, remarkably consistent in design and materials, we found fanciful flourishes in the interior woodwork. Backcountry construction is a niche market. Some systems receive donations to cover the cost of hut construction (often memorial huts) and require maintenance endowments.

BUSINESS MODELS AND PRACTICES

Hut systems in the US are run by a variety of nonprofits, government entities, and small private businesses, with the exception of Yosemite High Sierra Camps, which is run by a large corporation. Overall, eight of the twenty-six traditional hut systems are privately operated business enterprises, twelve are nonprofits, and four are government operated. There is no dominant model, and this mix reflects ongoing experimentation in an evolving business sector.

Regional not-for-profits, including the Tenth Mountain Division Hut Association, Summit Huts System, and Alfred A. Braun Hut System in Colorado; the Mount Tahoma Trails Association in Washington; American Prairie Reserve in Montana; and Maine Huts and Trails, are a uniquely American structure for supporting hut-to-hut enterprises. This category includes some clubs— the AMC, the American Alpine Club, and the Mountaineering Club of Alaska. The charitable model taps into generous donations of money and time from passionate users and keeps operations focused not only on practical management issues but also on the larger mission. All four hut systems in the Northeast operate as nonprofits. 

By contrast, for-profit hut systems dominate in the American West (seven of the eleven systems), and they are all run by small family businesses, with the exception of the Yosemite High Sierra Camps, which is operated by Aramark, a corporate concessionaire. The mom-and-pop shops rose out of the 1980s boom in Nordic skiing and backcountry adventure. Several of these small businesses are on their second or third owners. These operations demonstrate that, with favorable terrain, solid management, hard work, and good luck, a hut-to-hut operation can support a family, especially when owners are firmly committed to the area and an outdoor lifestyle.

Government support for US huts is critical. Twenty of the twenty-six hut systems are sited on public lands (federal and state) and operate as permitted concessions. Equally important, the trails connecting most of these huts are built and managed by state and federal government agencies. Interestingly, since more than 90 percent of trail maintenance in the US is performed by volunteers, volunteers contribute a significant amount of labor to hut systems.

With few exceptions, including in Alaska, Hawaii, and Michigan, government agencies do not operate hut systems in the US. In Alaska, hundreds of backcountry cabins—a few with multi-day traverse potential—are not only situated on state and federal lands but also administered by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, US Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management. Cabins in Michigan’s Porcupine Mountains are operated by the state park. In national parks, hut systems exist as a concession in Yosemite and are operated by the National Park Service in Haleakala.

A new business model is emerging with Adirondack Hamlets to Huts (AHH), which is both public and private. AHH is not a hut system in the brick-and-mortar sense, but rather an entity that promotes this scenic region by connecting visitors who hike, bike, paddle, snowshoe, or ski with a network of existing routes and lodgings (motels, camps, and inns). AHH acts as coordinator and publicist, encouraging participation in European-style village-to-village journeys in upstate New York. The initiative has been partially funded by the state, aspiring to draw a few of the millions of annual international visitors to New York City and Niagara Falls farther north to this six-million- acre park. This model, using huts and trails to drive economic development, has broad appeal and also drives several hut-to-hut initiatives currently under development.

CHALLENGES

Most hut systems are doing well financially, as demand far outstrips supply. Marketing costs are virtually nonexistent, as systems rely on word of mouth and social media. That said, the costs and complications of setting up and operating a new hut system are considerable. While US hut operations are—across all types—financially viable, systems can fail and must adapt to harsh fiscal realities. Cascade Huts in Oregon, founded in 2007, has posted “closed until further notice” on Facebook. Maine Huts and Trails (MHT), also established in 2007 as a regional nonprofit, took on the task of constructing and maintaining most of the trails. In 2019, citing difficulties in attracting seasonal help and the high cost of building and trail maintenance, MHT shifted from a full-service to a self-service model of operations and now relies on volunteer staff during busy weekends.

Establishing a new hut system requires permits and negotiations with federal or state agencies, money, and a building plan.  Current owners and managers cite interactions with agency officials and bureaucratic procedures as their greatest frustration. High turnover in district offices makes it difficult for the USFS to establish long- term, productive working relationships. New systems must successfully undergo site and building plan review, and the National Environmental Policy Act requires an environmental impact statement or, in cases with less potential impact, an environmental assessment for actions “significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” These lengthy and costly processes can be difficult for a small operator. Plans must also comply with regulations related to insurance, health and safety, and fire and building codes. Some operators struggle to get designs past local inspectors, as building codes tend to be written to city and town standards and are difficult to adapt to the backcountry. Siting and construction of huts can be tricky, and there are no clear guidelines available. Backcountry construction is expensive, especially when materials must be transported by helicopter to sites inaccessible by road. A new generation of prefabricated huts on the horizon may simplify construction in the future.

Running a hut system involves a lot of hard work, mostly invisible to the visitor. Tasks run the gamut from reservations to resupply, and from maintenance to managing staff.

In a few cases (the Mount Tahoma Trails and Alaska Alpine Club huts), volunteers not only administer the system but also provide all the labor to maintain the huts (and trails). The owner of the Southwest Nordic Center hut system manages to do all the supply, maintenance, and reservations tasks himself. Only the larger systems— for example, the Tenth Mountain Division Hut Association, the AMC, Maine Huts and Trails, and San Juan Huts—hire full-time, year-round staff. But most outfits get the jobs done with seasonal help. Hut owners and managers must find and retain good part-time workers in remote rural areas. Full-service systems leverage tradition and location to recruit summer staff. The opportunity to work in the Yosemite backcountry will always prove irresistible to enough folks to fill the staff rosters each year at the High Sierra Camps. The AMC model of staffing huts in the White Mountains with college students lives on as a cherished tradition and powerful recruiting engine.

 NEW DIRECTIONS AND TRENDS FOR US HUTS

As hut systems expand, several trends are now clear. Hut systems are under development not only in the mountains but also at lower elevations and closer to towns and urban centers. Hut systems, new and old, continue to embrace multiple modes of travel. And projects that leverage hut-to-hut for explicit tourism and economic development goals are on the rise. Six new systems are in the planning and implementation phases, and five more are farther out on the horizon. If all of these initiatives come to fruition in the next decade, the overall growth curve of US hut systems will be as steep as that of the 1980s ski hut boom.

Imagine a hut system where you can stay overnight in a converted shepherd wagon like the working wagon shown here in the Pioneer Mountains in Idaho. 

Hut Systems in USA
Idaho shepherds wagon – portable shelter.

Existing hut systems continue to establish new huts, routes, and programs. The American Prairie Reserve, which opened three huts between 2018 and 2020, is beginning work on another of the projected ten huts. Adirondack Hamlets to Huts launched its first season in 2020 with four routes and has plans to expand. Two Colorado hut systems, allied under the Tenth Mountain Division umbrella, are moving forward with long- range plans. The Grand Huts Association, now operating only one of seven projected huts, has funding for a second. The Summit Huts Association opened a fifth hut in 2019, and as part of its master plan, the association is actively exploring options for both building new backcountry structures and repurposing existing structures. The Tenth Mountain Division Hut Association has completed a facility in Leadville, Colorado, to house seasonal staff, vehicles, equipment, and supplies supporting field operations.

Hut Systems in USA
Breakneck Pond, AMC Harriman Outdoor Center, Harriman State Park, New York– Photo by Paula Champagne.

The AMC Harriman Outdoor Center, an hour from New York City, points the way for urban dwellers to enjoy nature relatively close to home. (Photo courtesy of Appalachian Mountain Club) 

Like Adirondack Hamlets to Huts, two other initiatives embrace the European village-to-village model, which relies on existing infrastructure for lodging and meals. LandPaths, an innovative land trust in Sonoma County, California, is planning multiple treks designed to connect people with the land. Existing accommodations and newly built huts will serve as overnight shelter and as sites for environmental education and hands-on land stewardship activities. Since 2011, Friends of the Columbia Gorge has been working toward a 200-mile loop trail on both sides of the majestic Columbia River. Gorge Towns to Trails will promote multi-day trekking adventures in this popular scenic area, with overnights in inns, motels, and bed-and-breakfasts in small towns renowned for local wine and beer.

Other emergent hut systems are focused primarily on biking and skiing, with hiking sometimes in the mix. In Minnesota, Superior Highland Backcountry, an organization dedicated to expanding and protecting backcountry skiing opportunities in the northeastern part of the state, projects a network of huts above Lake Superior, along a ridge that stretches from Finland to Lutsen. In Oregon, mountain bikers can look forward to the completion of the 670-mile Oregon Timber Trail. The Oregon Timber Trail Alliance and Travel Oregon, the state tourism bureau, are working together to realize a route incorporating overnight stays in towns and, eventually, in purpose-built huts. The Alaska Huts Association, in collaboration with the USFS and Alaska Railroad, is raising funds for the Glacier Discovery Project, a three-hut hiking, biking, and skiing system with trailhead access by train. 

Other initiatives, some only in the discussion phase, demonstrate how huts figure in the national conversation. Master plans for both Snowmass and Aspen ski areas include backcountry hut systems. Snowmass, where three huts are proposed for both winter and summer use, has won USFS approval for its master plan; the next step toward the pro- posed hut system is the required environmental review. In California, the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council, which has completed 380 miles of a 500-mile route following ridgelines around the bay, hopes to build a hut network. The Alaska Trails Initiative pro- poses a hut-to-hut network from Seward to Anchorage as part of an effort to entice more visitors, especially from cruise ships, to spend time experiencing the state’s scenic wonders through human-powered journeys.

APX1, a company based in Sun Valley, Idaho, working with a group of investors, envisions a hut system extending from the US-Canada border to the US-Mexico border. This long-distance hut-to-hut route through Idaho, Utah, and Colorado will utilize existing trails and hut systems, and also build new trails and huts as needed. The reservation platform under development will be open source and optimized for hut system reservations, supporting both exclusive- use and by-the-bunk reservation models. The new huts will be owned and operated by APX1, while new trails will be built and maintained by a separate nonprofit.

Over the next several decades, US hut development will reflect past successes and respond to new needs and ideas. As the sector matures, American creativity may shape huts and hut-to-hut travel in ways that are surprising and uplifting. 

US HUTS — FUTURE POSSIBILITIES

You can count the seeds in the apple, but you can’t count the apples in the seeds.

—Anonymous

Until the 1980s, hut systems were rare in the US. With the burst of initiatives and innovations over recent decades, huts have finally gained a firm foothold on American soil and in the public imagination. Predicting the future is perilous; nevertheless, we can’t resist making some projections.

Huts, as a sector in American recreation and education, will begin to mature over the next decades. Some changes will be driven by economics, recreational trends, gear innovations, and climate change, while a commitment to rebalancing the human relationship with nature will drive other developments. We predict that biking will drive the next big thrust in hut system development. Long-distance bikers, on both gravel and single-track routes, represent an eager audience. Like it or not, as e-bikes proliferate in the backcountry, bringing hordes of new users to rugged places, huts—designed to meter and concentrate use—will be an environmentally sound response to help mitigate crowding and habitat disruption.

Climate change, which is negatively affecting destination ski resorts, adds incentives for these massive corporations, already struggling under unsustainable business models, to diversify into other activities. Ski resorts may try to leverage their extensive USFS permits and lobbying power to create upscale hut systems. Marketing campaigns will promote the joys of “uphill” and “side-country” skiing in winter, and tout the comforts of luxurious backcountry huts to affluent hikers in summer. 

Another possible scenario: European-style inn-to-inn or village-to-village traverses will flourish, with trails serving as stepping stones from the city to the country. As in Europe, trekkers in the US will be able to reserve farm stays and lodging in picturesque small towns, consume local food and beverages, and visit cultural sites along the way. Reservation platforms, developed in cooperation with local tourism and economic development agencies, will proliferate. Under these hut-to-hut networks, affiliated accommodations might be branded as walker, biker, and/or skier friendly. In short, hut-to-hut travel will become a more familiar option for average, fit folks looking for outdoor adventure.

But what about some more radical, visionary scenarios? As “local” becomes a dominant travel theme, the next generation of huts may be situated close to where most people actually live. We envision a set of front-country huts, that we call “nearby nature” huts, at the urban and suburban edges, allowing urbanites to spend time in nature close to home. Public transportation increasingly provides access to the vast networks of trails that already exist in these set- tings. Frontcountry parks and trails provide affordable, low-barrier portals for urban communities to enter the natural world, to learn outdoor skills, and to experience the healing balm of trees, grass, rocks, and waterways.

The Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC), originator of the first US hut system, is working toward a version of this future. Rustic, affordable frontcountry accommodations are under development in Averell Harriman State Park, 38 miles from the Bronx. AMC’s Harriman Outdoor Center is reaching beyond the usual white, middle-class hut- to-hut user groups by developing cabins and bunkhouses for people without the gear and skills for camping and backpacking, as well as offering a variety of youth leadership and engagement programs. With the goal of providing comfort and offsetting fear of the unfamiliar, this program serves, among others, African American, Latino, Asian, and other groups currently underrepresented in our great wild places.

The title of E. O. Wilson’s book Half- Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life refers to how much of our world must be protected in order to ensure the level of species bio- diversity needed for humans to thrive.  About 30 percent of the terrestrial domain is at least theoretically under some kind of protection. Half-Earth proposes an umbrella project under which a global army is mobilized to serve the planet and ensure our own survival. The troops will be eyes on the land, monitoring violations of legislated protections. Huts, designed to minimize human impacts, will house this new conservation corps. This army, composed of citizen scientists, academic researchers, and conservation workers, will repair eco- systems and restore landscapes. Some hut encampments will be temporary, relocated to new work sites as projects are completed and in response to overuse and climate change. These volunteer experiences will provide urban dwellers with respite from city life through opportunities for hands-on conservation work, while also connecting people dedicated to the restoration and preservation of the earth. 

Just for fun, imagine new (and existing) hut systems supporting snowshoeing, skijoring, dogsledding, llama or burro packing, long-distance running, and paddling sports—or hut systems that support people who want to travel with their dogs. Portable huts, including yurts, tents, sheep wagons, tiny houses on trailers, and camper vehicles, could be used to link existing huts to create new traverses. And somewhere, a kids’-scale hut system, with huts just a few miles apart, will expose children to the joys of hut life and the thrill of completing a “long- distance” trip. 

Huts will become ever more powerful places for learning and healing, places that allow people to reimagine their lives and the society they live in. A hut traverse will become a recognized cure for “nature deficit disorder.” Programs will teach simple green living skills that have application back home. Hut-to-hut will contribute to creating new generations of outdoor citizens, motivated to make healthy, earth-friendly life style choices and promote environmentally sound policies. Huts will function as authentic, safe spaces, embracing travelers who work and live together with friends, family, and—imagine!—people they don’t even know. Hut systems will become a new version of the summer camp, where young  and old learn outdoor skills and natural history together, and experience the pleasures  of steady physical movement through wild spaces day after day.

A pilgrimage is a long journey to some sacred place as an act of religious devotion or spiritual awakening. Hut systems will function as innovation hubs for new generations of environmental pilgrims seeking to update ritual journeys of redemption and spiritual renewal, rites of passage, and vision quests. Perhaps we will develop a new set of distinctively American pilgrim- age trails, with veneration of nature and personal reflection integrated into the hut- to-hut traverse. 

Huts will be settings where conversations between polarized groups can begin. Hunters and hikers, for example, have largely diverged in recent generations. United by a love of the outdoors, folks from seemingly opposed camps could come together to rediscover common ground. After a day spent in shared recreation or on a service project, hikers and hunters, bikers and anglers, snowmobilers and environmentalists might forge lasting bonds over dinner in the sheltering warmth of the hut.

Finally, we believe America will slowly begin to place huts at regular intervals along at least one of its long-distance trails. Remember Benton MacKaye’s vision of the Appalachian Trail as a trail connecting a series of communities for social transformation? It may be too late to situate huts along parts of the 2200-mile-long AT, but perhaps the situation is ripe somewhere else. The North Country Trail, still under development through the populated heartland, will eventually cover 4600 miles. This trail, the longest, youngest, and least tradition-bound national long-distance trail, may be the most likely to innovate, building linked huts along a few sections of what may become a coast-to-coast path.

US HUTS WILL COME OF AGE The land management community will come to acknowledge huts and incorporate hut-to-hut travel into long-range planning on federal, state, and local levels. Because pressures on some iconic landscapes are threatening to destroy their ecological viability, drastic limitations on public access will be necessary in some places. As research in recreation ecology documents that huts minimize human impacts, hut systems will be deployed by land management agencies as a conservation strategy. Skillfully designed, managed, and monitored hut and trail systems will direct people away from fragile and overused areas toward other carefully selected and hardened sites. Portable huts will also be deployed in order to change front- and backcountry use patterns.

Public parks, including our most iconic national parks, are chronically underfunded with no substantial funding increases insight. In the absence of adequate government support, we must leverage creativity to preserve our cherished places and to promote nature immersion for all. Robert Manning, a specialist in national parks, points to “parknerships” as one part of the solution. Financially stressed state and federal parks will partner with a wide range of nonprofit organizations, including new and existing hut systems. Hut systems with strong conservation programs might then get creative in their fee structures, trading overnights for work in the field. Outdoor clubs will partner with parks and develop hut systems operated by member volunteers to enhance lodging options on public lands.

As Americans learn to love their huts and as new systems rise, huts owners and operators will increasingly reach out to each other. The US Hut Alliance, comprised of hut system representatives and hut advocates, is coming together to exchange information, find common cause in operations, and speak with one voice on important topics. The alliance will articulate best practices and develop an ethics statement situating huts on the leading edge of environmentally sensitive recreation. See “Land Ethics for Huts” for an example of what this might look like. Finally, American land managers and hut operators can learn a lot from systems in Europe, Canada, and New Zealand. We believe land managers will begin to make study tours to see what is being done elsewhere, and that US systems will invite foreign hut specialists to hut- related conferences, workshops, and design charettes to generate promising ideas for the twenty-first century.

LAND ETHICS FOR HUTS 

A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty

of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise

—Aldo Leopold, “The Land Ethic,” in A Sand County Almanac

The community of practice for hut systems may decide someday to develop an ethics statement; this is our personal vision of the issues it should address. [Authors note: since this was written the US Hut Alliance has in fact adopted a values statement (link to website) that incorporates much of the spirit of this statement] These ethics will inform the development of a set of best practices for the hut community, and will become one basis for clearly branding hut systems as exemplary stewards of the land.

As organizations building and operating on wildlands, we have a particular responsibility to set an example in preserving and protecting our biotic community. We voluntarily and wholeheartedly operate our hut systems as stewardship tools designed to concentrate and mitigate human impacts, and to preserve wildlands while making them accessible for recreation, education, and conservation. We creatively weave Leave No Trace principles into every aspect of our programs and operations, and we share resulting innovations with other hut systems as an evolving body of best practices.

Our commitment to our customers, to land owners and managers, and most of all to the land itself is to celebrate and care for the special spirit of the place—the genius loci—on which we operate. Over time, we pledge to leave the land in better ecological health than we found it. Our hut systems are places for experiencing, exploring, and understanding  moral responsibility to nature. The land ethic drives our operational and business prac- tices, and includes: 

Environmental protection. The land is not ours; we are its stewards. We con- form with and strive to exceed federal, state, and local regulations designed to protect vegetation, soils, wildlife, and water and to ensure the overall environmental quality of the land we share with wild nature. We also work with regulatory agencies and legislatures to revise misguided regulations on huts.

Environmental education and conservation. We support use of huts for  teaching and hands-on work advancing environmental protection, conservation, and res- toration. We actively educate our clientele in low-impact outdoor skills and practices. We  strive to keep huts affordable for young people, families, and like-minded organizations. 

Siting, design, and construction. We strive to at least meet and, where feasi- ble, exceed regulations and best practices designed to minimize the human impacts on  the land. We will creatively adapt and apply Leave No Trace principles to guide the siting, design, construction, and maintenance of huts, trails, and associated amenities.

Visitor management. Staff proactively implement and monitor the results of our visitor management plan. This plan, articulating how we balance resource protection and  recreation, uses a combination of persuasive communication strategies and necessary reg- ulations to encourage hut users to minimize environmental impacts, and to ensure they do  not degrade the quality of experience for others.

Business ethics. Whether the business model is nonprofit, for-profit, or government operated, we actively engage our communities and strive to provide locals with affordable overnight accommodations. We work to be financially viable while operating exemplary environmental enterprises. We act in accord with evolving principles and standards, such as those articulated by the B Corps community: meeting high standards of verified social and environmental performance, public transparency, and accountability to balance profit and purpose. 

Private Huts

Private Huts in New Zealand: questions and reflections

(Note: this is part of the larger work New Zealand Huts: Notes towards a Country Study)

Privately owned and operated huts in New Zealand have not been studied, except by Walter Hirsh, who identified 25 private walking tracks in 2007. My interest in these private tracks was piqued at the end of my 2018 visit when I walked two of the best established, the Banks Peninsula Track and the Tuatapere Hump Ridge Track. I realized that American backcountry entrepreneurs might be able to learn something from these New Zealand small businesses. While I don’t have time to write reports on the two private walks I took, they stimulated some of the questions noted below.

While the privately owned and operated NZ hut systems are dwarfed by the single government operated system of 962 huts, these small business enterprises may resonate with the intensely capitalistic inclinations of Americans. In the U.S. there are 17 hut systems (comprising about 105 huts), of which two systems (comprising 8 huts) are operated by the federal government (one, in Yosemite National Park, as a concession). Twelve of the 15 other hut systems are privately operated as small business enterprises, mostly on government lands.

How many private walking tracks exist in New Zealand, what forms do they take and how are they doing? How do they survive in a nation with so many comparatively inexpensive huts? Is the notion of private huts compatible with Kiwi culture and what are their prospects for the future? What might we in the USA learn about and from NZ private huts? These are a few of the questions I’d like to explore in more detail in future. Following are some observations, reflections and questions that will guide my explorations on a return trip.

Continue reading

Hut Economics: what does it cost to operate the NZ DoC Hut System?

New Zealand Huts Department of Conservation, Part D:

Hut Economics: what does it cost to operate the NZ DoC Hut System?

by Sam Demas

(Note: this is part of the larger work New Zealand Huts: Notes towards a Country Study)

Determining hut economics is always the hardest part of studying huts.  Quite often I get little or no useful information from the operators, particularly from private operations.  With a government-operated hut system this has proved a bit easier in the case of New Zealand, though the data I have is an approximation based on some cost modeling that DoC has done over the years.

The bottom line:

  • the estimated annual cost to operate DoC huts is about $12,000,000,
  • DoC takes in about $7,500,000 per year in hut-related revenues, and
  • that leaves about $4,500,000 in net annual expense from the DoC budget.

These figures are only estimates; see caveats and details below.  All amounts are quoted in NZ Dollars.   Note: these estimates only do not account for the following categories of expense:

  • expenses for central services such as the web site and booking system, hut brochures, and Visitor Centers,
  • situations where clubs get a share of the hut revenues,
  • revenue from concessions, which are very difficult to break out specifically for use of huts.

Continue reading

Glacier National Park Backcountry Chalets: historical notes

Glacier National Park Backcountry Chalets: historical notes

by Sam Demas, based on conversation with and the work of Ray Djuff

Glacier National Park backcountry chalets

“View with a Room” book cover

These are notes on the story of a once-grand backcountry hut system in Glacier National Park.  Based on phone conversation with Ray Djuff, reading his remarkable book, and looking at additional sources, I have pieced together the bare bones of the story of the second hut system built in the USA (AMC huts first, and High Sierra Camps third).

The fire that burned the Sperry Chalet dormitory accelerated my interest in learning more about the Glacier backcountry lodging system.  Articles about the fire cited Ray Djuff and one referred to his excellent book (written with Chris Morrison) Glacier’s Historic Hotels and Chalets: View with a Room (Farcountry Press, 2001), which traces the history of the the extensive system of lodges and chalets built and managed by the Great Northern Railway (GNR) to promote railroad visitation to Glacier National Park (the creation of which the GNR vigorously promoted).  You can read much of the very informative first chapter of this book on Amazon.com.

While the chapter on Sperry Chalet was of immediate interest, I enjoyed reading the entire book and highly recommend it (see a book review by Jerry Fetz).  Ms. Morrison and Mr. Djuff write in historical detail about this amazing  example of how the railroads lobbied for national parks, secured transportation and lodging monopolies at them, and, in the case of Glacier and the Great Northern Railway, along the way, developed huts and trails, primarily to promote horseback access to remote parts of the parks.

For more on the relationship between America’s national parks and their development as tourism destinations by the railways, see Alfred Runte’s book Trains of Discovery: Railroads and the Legacy of our National parks” by Alfred Runte (Roberts Reinhart Book, 5th ed., 2011).

In addition to Djuff and Morrison’s book cited above, for more detail on the chalets than what is offered below, see Courtney Stone’s moving blog post The Loss of Sperry Chalet, and the National Parks Lodge Architecture Society website.

***

While Louis Warren Hill, son of James J. Hill — the “Empire Builder” — swore he didn’t want the GNR to be in the hospitality business, he vigorously oversaw the development of a system of 3 large hotels/lodges (Lake McDonald Lodge preceded the GNR hotels), 9 chalet groups, and a number of tent villages.  The grand lodges and hotels are still operating, but the tent villages, most of which were very short lived, are long gone.

The 9 chalet groups (comprising sleeping quarters, dining/cooking area, staff quarters, and sometimes associated cabins) of primary interest here were all originally built (most in the period 1910 – 1913) to provide rustic but comfortable lodging for park visitors traveling into the backcountry by horseback, carriage, or boat.  The railway was promoting the park as the Switzerland of America and Hill was enamored of chalet architecture (his summer home “North Oaks” outside St Paul, MN was a grand chalet).

While comparatively few people hiked to the chalets in the early days, “tramping” was at least a small part of the hut/chalet culture from the beginning and the GNR promoted it as an inexpensive option.  The GNR courted hiking and mountaineering groups, as Djuff and  Morrison report:

Hill [Louis W. Hill] ensured that members of the Chicago Geographical Society, the Seattle Mountaineers, and the Sierra Club of California all received sponsored (often all-expense paid) trips to Glacier.  Then their travelogues were printed by the railway and distributed.

The use of the chalets changed quickly during the 1930’s and 1940’s. With the rise of the automobile people increasingly visited the park by car rather than by train, and apparently many were reluctant to leave their cars behind to take slower moving backcountry trip.  The 52 mile Going-to-the-Sun Road (constructed 1921 – 1933) traveled east to west and going over the Continental Divide,  opened the center of the to automobiles.  Of course the Great Depression also took its toll on visitation.  Where visitors before the 1930’s would typically spend 2-3 weeks in the park, car culture shortened visits to 3-4 days.  The auto helped propel a mentality still common today: “Check. Been there, done that. Off to the next park”.

Glacier National Park Lodgings 1917

Glacier National Park Lodgings, 1917 map by Great Northern Railroad. Courtesy Ray Djuff Collection.

The first golden age of the backcountry chalets for non-motorized travel was from 1913 up to the Great Depression.  Some had short lives: Gunsight Chalets, one of the most popular in the early years, was obliterated by a land slide in 1916.  But what killed them off was the automobile and the development of roads.  By the end of WW II all but 2 of the chalets were accessible by car.  The demand for saddle trips fell off dramatically and the park began to emphasize car camping.  After WW II the Chalets were deemed out-moded or unsupportable by the GNR:

  • three hut complexes were torn down because they were no longer in demand and were in poor condition from disuse: Cut Bank, St Mary’s, and Going-to-the-Sun;
  • the chalet group at Swiftcurrent Lake was turned into an “auto camp”, with cabins for people driving in the park;
  • the Great Northern Railroad sold three chalets: Belton, Sperry and Granite Park; and
  • GNR retained Two Medicine chalets, but they were not much used after WWII and were torn down in 1956 (except for the dining hall and log store, which remain today as historic landmarks).

According to Ray Djuff, who worked for a time at the Prince of Wales Hotel in Glacier, what kept the few remaining backcountry chalets going during the 1950’s and into the 1960’s was use by enthusiastic and fit cliques of park and concessionaire employees.  Djuff says this was a second golden age of the chalets, which became prized hiking destinations for those in the know.  The back to nature movement of the 1960’s and backpacking boom of the 1970’s precipitated yet another golden age, which continues today.  People love these huts.  Getting reservations has long been very competitive, and will certainly be harder still in future.  As in Yosemite, the interest in using the few backcountry huts located on national park lands is very strong.

Each of the chalet groups is discussed in greater detail, and illustrated with period photos and promotional brochures and notices,  in Glacier’s Historic Hotels and Chalets: View With a Room.

Glacier Park Lodging

The Mountaineers of Seattle ready to take a hike, GNR Promotional Brochure, Courtesy Ray Djuff Collection

With the burning of the Sperry Chalet Dormitory on August 31, 2017 (the kitchen and dining building are undamaged), the only remaining backcountry chalet is Granite Park. Because Sperry Chalet is such a rare and beloved backcountry lodging, there is deep sentiment that it should be re-built and re-opened.See my separate post on Sperry Chalet and a piece by Ray Djuff on the fire that further diminished the once-grand hut system in Glacier National Park.

Sperry Chalet Dormitory, Sept. 10, 2017. Note the original iron beds, which held up well in the fire and after many seasons of use! Courtesy Ray Djuff and Glacier National Park Conservancy.

 

 

Among the supporters of this effort are the Glacier National Park Conservancy, Secretary of the Interior Ray Zinke (a Montanan) and the two U.S. Senators from Montana.  See Ray Djuff’s article about the fire and the future.

Author’s note: Sadly, I never visited Sperry Chalet.  At this time I don’t have time to do in-depth research so this is a brief sketch of a big topic.  Fortunately there are a number of good sources to which I refer the reader for more detail.  This post is a placeholder.  It is comprised of notes from sources I plan to revisit and expand upon, including noodling around in a preliminary way in the rich literature on lodging experiments in the U.S. National Parks and the relationship between the railroads and the National Parks.

The National Parks Lodge Architecture Society provides some excellent architectural and historical information along with links about the chalets, including:

Glacier NP Lodges

Glacier Park Lodge Resources

Recommended Reading

 

 

 

 

 

Alaska Huts

Alaska huts and trails and economic development

“Could the lure of trails salvage Alaska’s economy?”

article by Krista Langlois in High Country News (June 26,2017):

Summary  below with link to full article

 

This article is highly recommended to anyone interested in huts and trails and their potential for economic development.  Following is a brief summary:

The subtitle of this piece summarizes Langlois’ arena of exploration: A trial along the Trans-Alaska pipeline could be the start of a booming recreation economy. Krista interviews people on all sides of this question, but is clearly interested in the potential of Alaska’s greatest asset — its sublime landscape and huge tracts of magnificent wilderness — as a desperately needed driver of economic development.  

The economy of Alaska is on the ropes: timber jobs have decreased by 80%, oils production has dropped by 76% since 1989, the state is doing everything it can to prop up fishing and mining, but is now facing a $4 billion budget deficit.  Governor Bill Walker said in 2016 “We have reached a point in our state’s history that we need to be looking beyond oil.”  

The specific proposal Langlois explores is the development of an 800 mile trail that parallels the Trans-Pacific pipeline.  She outlines the arguments pro and con, provides interesting character sketches some of the advocates and opponents of the trail, and provides valuable context in comparing the state of trail development in Alaska compared with that in the lower 48 states.  The bottom line is that while Alaska has unsurpassed wilderness beauty, it has relatively little infrastructure to attract outdoor enthusiasts.

She hones in on the fact that the rugged wilderness of Alaska is beyond the capabilities of most people, and that the development of hut systems is one way of making these wonders accessible to the vast majority of “people in the middle” who appreciate and long for contact with wild but are simply  not up to the job of backpacking in Alaska.  She interviews Tom Callahan of Alaska Huts Association, and cites relevant economic development studies and initiatives including the New Zealand hut system and Great Walks, the AMC Hut System, and Adventure Cycling, and Fruita Colorado to name a few.  

But don’t settle for my summary: its well worth reading the entire article.

Grand Huts Association: $100,000 expansion grant

Congratulations!  According to an article in the SkyHiDaily News,  a major grant from private donors will help fund the second hut in The Grand Huts Association.

Their first hut (the Broome Hut pictured here), which took 15 years to get permitted and built, was completed in 2012 at a cost of $400,000.  Located in a remote location with excellent back country skiing, materials were delivered to the site by helicopter.  The hut is very popular and operates close to full capacity in winter and at about half-capacity in summer.  Located on US Forest Service Land near Winter Park Colorado, the Grand Huts association hopes to eventually grow to 5-7 huts, creating a hut-to-hut system from Berthoud Pass to Grand Lake in Grand County.

Continue reading

Alpine huts for Scotland? News of a possible pilot project…

image

Larig Leacach Bothy Courtesy Wikipedia

Is Scotland missing out on a key mountain tourism niche?

The Ramblers in Scotland think this may be true, and are proposing a pilot project to test this assumption.

While the Scots have “Bothies” — unimproved  backpacker shelters — European-style huts are not part of the accommodations infrastructure for walkers in Scotland, Wales, England.  They rely on a robust network of B&B’s and hostels.  This leaves gaps in mountainous regions.

Continue reading

News: Economic impact of hut-to-hut systems

Most hut systems aspire to document their economic impact in the area in which they operate.   But its hard to do without professional help, which most systems can’t afford.   Recently I ran across two very good economic analyses, about which there will be an article in the new year.

Meanwhile, check out the recent work of the Appalachian Mountain Club  “Economic Impact of the Appalachian Club’s Huts and Lodges in New Hampshire“, and the latest in a series of serious analyses statements done over the years by the Methow Trails “Economic Impacts of Methow Trails“.

It seems there is a need for an economic impact template focused on huts and trails that can be adapted for use locally by hut system managers.  But thats another topic!

Sam Demas

HutNews October 2015

(Alaska Huts Logo, used with permission)

INCREASES IN HUT USE REPORTED

Informal reports from the Appalachian Mountain Club Huts, 10th Mountain Division Huts, and San Juan Hut Systems indicate that demand for their services is strong and usage continues to increase.  AMC and 10MD report occupancy rates are up approximately 4%-5% over last year.  AMC huts are experiencing their third year in a row of record occupancy.  they are on track to beat last years record of 43,000 visitors by up to 3,000 more visitors.  AMC and SJH are thinking about how to meet the growing demand, and expansion plans are under consideration.

Continue reading

The Diverse Huts of the Swiss Alpine Club — essay by Marco Volken and Remo Kundert

“The SAC huts are open to all and serve as a meeting place for a variety of outdoor enthusiasts. They are both objects of identification for members and an important infrastructure for alpine tourism.” This is how the Swiss Alpine Club summarizes the purpose of its huts in its 2006 hut regulations.

Continue reading