Three years ago my husband, Matt, and I hiked the Three Capes Trek in Tasmania. This is where it began. The idea of hut-to-hut on Mt. Kenya was born there.
The Three Capes Trek was a newly completed through-hike with huts along the coast of Tasmania. It was so thoughtfully designed that Matt and I couldn’t help but marvel at all the details as we went along. The huts were individually designed to match the aesthetic of their surroundings with stunning viewpoints and lots of outdoor spaces. Each hut separated bunk sleeping rooms that held about 10 people and a large kitchen and heated common space. At each cluster of huts, there was an experienced staff member who offered a briefing in the evening, highlighting the flora and fauna in the area along with the weather forecast for the next day and answering questions. Each common space had a bookshelf with the same books so that hikers could start reading something on the first night and continue it as they went along without the burden of carrying the book itself. There were indigenous art installations. Trailhead drop off and pick up was pre-arranged as part of the package. Whoever designed the experience had thought through every detail from the vantage point of the hiker and how to make the most wonderful experience possible from the moment we arrived all the way to the end.
As we admired the thoughtful design, we kept wondering why there weren’t more hut systems like this in the US and other mountain ranges where we had spent time. Inspired by our experience in Tasmania, we started daydreaming about building hut systems in mountain ranges around the world.
Why Mount Kenya?
Matt and I are both American. He grew up in San Francisco, California, discovering the wonder of mountain hiking later in life. I grew up in Sun Valley, Idaho, and have mountains in my blood. We met while working for a non-profit called One Acre Fund in Kenya. That’s where we have lived and worked for the past 10 years and where we are raising our family today.
Last year as we sat talking for the millionth time about building hut systems in the US, Matt suggested we could consider the project for Mt Kenya and… BOOM. That was it. Mt Kenya is the second highest peak on the African continent, after Kilimanjaro. Its summit is above 17,000 feet and requires a technical climb. However, hikers can also summit a non-technical point at 15,000 feet. Despite attracting only ~15000 visitors a year, compared to Kili’s ~50,000 or Mt Rainer’s 2M, Mt Kenya is widely considered to be more beautiful due its varied landscapes and different ecological zones. It is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and UNESCO Biosphere Reserve.
Photos by Hailey Tucker and Agoro Adhiambo
Mt Kenya is one of only a few Afro-alpine ecosystems in the world. It has an altitudinal gradient that leads to an unusual varied range of ecosystems in a relatively small area. According to the Mt Kenya Management Plan published in 2017, “The vast forest has large populations of several threatened animal species and the evolution and ecology of the Afro-alpine flora are outstanding for a wide range of rare and endemic species.” Wildlife includes the African elephant, black rhino, white rhino, mountain bongo, grevy’s zebra, primates, and is an Important Bird Area (IBA).” Mt Kenya is one of the five main water towers in Kenya and is a vital water source for several million people. The Mt Kenya Forest also acts as a carbon sink absorbing carbon dioxide that otherwise would contribute to climate change, regulates water cycles, maintains soil quality, and reduces risks of natural disasters such as floods. We need to protect this park.
According to Patrick Adams in an article published by the NY Times in February 2019, “The earth’s sixth mass extinction, scientists warn, is now well underway. Worldwide, wildlife populations are plummeting at astonishing rates, and the trend is perhaps most starkly evident in Africa’s protected areas — the parks, game reserves and sanctuaries home to many of the world’s most charismatic species. Between 1970 and 2005, national parks in Africa saw an average decline of 59 percent in the populations of dozens of large mammals, among them lions, zebras, elephants and giraffes. In at least a dozen parks, the losses exceeded 85 percent.” The Mt Kenya park is no exception and despite the hard work and dedication of several other NGOs and local organizations, there remains a tremendous amount of work to be done to protect the park and the wildlife that inhabits it.
Why Huts?
Mt Kenya already has a few independently owned and operated huts on the mountain (Old Moses, Shiptons, Naro Moru River Huts, Chogoria and Austian Hut are the ones that receive the most traffic). Unfortunately, most were all built in the 1980’s and few have been actively maintained. As such, most hikers prefer to camp rather than stay in the huts, which can have damaging effects on the surrounding ecosystems. For example, there are few proper latrines at campsites and as a consequence popular areas, like the lakes, are now showing the effects. This hypothesis has been evidenced by the work of Dr. Jeff Marion in proving the environmental footprint of huts is significantly less than distributed camping on parks. We believe that the installation of proper infrastructure and subsequent maintenance of that infrastructure will be essential to protecting the environment and the animals that live in the park, not to mention the experience of pristine nature for hikers.
Matt and I both want to do something that will contribute to addressing the climate crisis. We know that our our kids will be the ones to inherit it. We believe that connecting more people in Kenya and other parts of the world will be important for developing future grassroots support for conservation and climate change prevention. Drawing a connection between national parks and people is where the conservation movement originated in countries like the US. In many emerging markets, the conservation movement is not yet mainstream nor is the deep connection to nature and national parks. We want to change this. We also want to work to protect the mountains and the parks we love as we bring more people into these precious spaces.
Progress to Date
That is where this journey began. I called a friend and colleague, Koome McCourt, who shares our passion for nature conservation and would join as a cofounder in our project. Matt and I each started to carve out an hour every morning to research and set up calls with people who worked on hut systems. With a two-year-old, a six-month-old and a full time job, this was no small feat, and yet I usually found it gave me energy for other activities. We began to learn everything we could about mountain huts. We contacted other organizations and individuals working in the Mt Kenya area. We met with the government bodies who manage the forest and the park on Mt Kenya. We read environmental reports about Mt Kenya and the threats facing the ecosystem there. We spoke to architects, trail experts, and waste management experts. Each conversation we had led to another one and the more that we researched the clearer it became we had surfaced not only a good idea but a necessary one for Mt Kenya.
Maisha Mlima
All of this work led to the formation of our non-profit organization, Maisha Mlima. Maisha Mlima or ‘Mountain Life’ in Swahili is a social enterprise that develops trails and hut systems to promote conservation in some of the most beautiful and underused mountain ranges in the world. Our mission is to promote conservation by increasing eco-friendly access to the great outdoors, and to ensure parks and trails are foundational for local economies and that people everywhere are connected to nature. Mt Kenya will be our first project but hopefully not our last. Our concept pitch deck is here and our website is here.
During our initial round of conversations, we were fortunate enough to find partners in White Arkitectur and World Trails Network, who would help us shape the concept and develop initial renderings for what the huts might become. We also found the Kenya Forestry Service and Kenya Wildlife Service eager to see us implement this project. We worked with all of these partners to pull together the pitch deck and conservation plan that we’re now using to build a larger coalition of partners, advisors, and funders to see this dream through to completion.
Renderings by White Arkitectur
I want to offer a tremendous thanks to everyone who has supported us up to now in this journey including: Honerable Peter Kinyua of Kenya Forestry Service, Susie Weeks of Mt Kenya Trust, Mike Watson of Lewa Wildlife Conservancy, Valentine Mwende and Kevin McCourt of Kairu & McCourt Advocates, Galeo Saintz of World Trails Network, Sam Demas of Hut2Hut, Greg Carr of Gorongoza Park, Joe and Francie St. Onge of SVTrekkers, Ben Dodge of the Colorado 10th Mtn Division, Christy Mahone of the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies, and so many others.
We’re still building our coalition. If you or anyone you know is interested in getting involved, please get in touch!
Photo by Mollie Parker and rendering by White Arkitectur
[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 chartsSixteenFeatured 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.
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
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?
Forging friendship with crayons over dinner at Francie’s, Summit Huts, CO. Self service hutsDevices discouraged in some hut systems
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.
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.
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.
American Prairie Reserve Yurts in a cottonwood galleryEvening glow, Trujillo Meadows Yurt, Southwest Nordic Center
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.
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.
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.
A U.S. Hut Alliance is now being born! Over a year ago I invited a group of U.S. hut professionals to join a zoom call to introduce them to Mick Abbott, a creative landscape architect, tramper and hut nut. The group enjoyed talking together and decided to continue meeting via zoom. As folks got to know each other the conversation quickly evolved into planning to form a U.S. Hut Alliance. Following is a quick update on progress so far. Once the group has laid the foundation for a national huts organization we will reach out to recruit members and broaden the conversation to include more hut folks.
The initial steering committee and officers currently working to establish the organization includes:
This steering committee conducted a survey of all US hut owners to identify the most important services a U.S. Hut Alliance could provide. The topics identified by respondents, in order of priority were:
Operations forums
Best practices
Studying economic impacts of huts
Lobbying and acting as the public voice of huts
Education and outreach
Job board
Getting together in person to discuss collaborations
Joint services such as marketing, advertising, insurance policies, etc.
Reservations platform(s)
Linkage with international hut organizations
The overall purposes of the emerging U.S. Hut Alliance are to connect hut operators, support them on working on common interests, allow them to speak with one voice on key issues, and provide useful information and services. Based on these results and discussions in our monthly zoom conversations, the steering committee is currently working on:
Bylaws (based on Colorado Alliance of Huts and Yurts);
Established a Facebook page for members only;
Mission, vision, and values statements;
A strategic plan;
Secure fiscal sponsorship (Summit Institute, Utah);
Beginning a process for identifying and sharing best practices;
Establish membership procedures and mechanisms for paying and playing; and
Developing a web site to include the above (and more).
We hope to complete this scope of work in the coming months and be ready to expand the conversation. There will be many more issues to discuss over time as the organization grows, but we are confident we will be up and running in the year ahead. The timing is perfect as huts continue to increase in popularity and are attracting more attention from the outdoor recreation community, educators, conservationists and other land managers. Stay tuned!
Trip Report by Jack Drury, February 17-March 1, 2019
History, Culture, and Backcountry Skiing in Norway and Sweden
All photos courtesy of Jack Drury. See also a separate photo gallery of additional photos focused on Backcountry skiing and Swedish Tourism Association lodgings. Jack’s ski trip was in the Jamptland Triangle region of Sweden.
Chapter 1 – Origin
Backcountry skiing in Norway and Sweden. My cousin Edie Konesni, a retired PA (Physician Assistant) on Islesboro, Maine and her son Bennett a talented musician as well as garlic farmer living in Belfast, Maine visited us at Thanksgiving and planted the seeds of a possible trip to Norway. The idea was to attend a community festival and take in Norwegian folk music and dance, passions of Edie and Bennett, and then ski hut to hut for four or five days. The hut-to-hut experience would be great research for my work with Adirondack Hamlets to Huts in developing “hut-to-hut” routes in the Adirondack Park of New York. Round-trip flights looked very reasonable at under $500. The challenge was to find dates that would work for us all and get me back in time for maple syrup season as I operate a small sugarbush and mother nature determines when the sap runs.
I felt the need to be back by the first of
March and Edie and Bennett were willing to work around that date. Bennett was
keen to attend the Rørosmartnan
or market festival in the town of Røros, a small former copper
mining community of 5,600 located midway up Norway along the border with
Sweden. Bennett is a student of Norwegian folk fiddle music and hoped to find
fellow fiddlers to play with. Edie is an accomplished folk dancer and was
looking forward to finding opportunities to learn some Norwegian folk dances.
The trip to Røros came together quickly as the
market festival started February 19 and we wanted to see the opening
ceremonies. So we planned a February 17 departure date from New York with a day
to travel from Oslo to Røros by train. We purchased one-way tickets and started
researching hut-to-hut options in the area.
As we started our research it was clear that
there were lots of “huts” in the area but a number of things emerged. We were
early for the typical ski season because it was still usually pretty frigid
until mid-March and second, many of the huts didn’t even open until then. A
Swedish friend of Bennett’s suggested we look on the Swedish side of the border
and all of a sudden more opportunities started to come into focus. I studied an
online topo map of Sweden along with the location of fjällstations or mountain
stations and after considerable study came up with a possible route. After all my
research it turns out I had stumbled onto one of the most popular hiking routes
in central Sweden called the Jämtland Triangle, Jämtland being the region
or state we were traveling in. I also stumbled on to the Swedish
Tourism Association’s website which I thought was a government
agency. It wasn’t until we got to Sweden and stayed in their “huts” that I
realized it was, as they described it, “An association of committed people who
seek discoveries off the beaten track, deeper into the forests, and higher up
the mountain.” They operate nearly 300 lodgings ranging from hotels, to
hostels, mountain stations, and mountain cabins. Edie made reservations for us
to stay at three different fjällstations including a night at the same one the
first and last night of our trip and a layover day at the second lodging. We
were set! There were some minor train connections to arrange but we had a good
plan and were excited to have a trip that included a rich cultural/historical
experience in Røros, Norway and an adventurous hut-to-hut cross-country ski
experience in Jämtland, Sweden. Edie and I arranged to fly home from Östersund,
Sweden via London to Boston where she would fly to Augusta, ME and I would fly
to Saranac Lake, NY. Bennett was to stay in Sweden for further adventures.
(Note: this is part of the larger work New Zealand Huts: Notes towards a Country Study)
Following is a very brief selection of publications, web sites and organizations to begin delving into the world of New Zealand huts. There is a rich literature on huts and tramping in NZ, I recommend starting with two indispensable books:
Shelter From the Storm by Shaun Barnett, Rob Brown, and Geoff Spearpoint (Craig Potton Publishing, 2012).
Tramping a New Zealand History, by Shaun Barnett and Chris Maclean (Craig Potton Publishing, 2014).
The bibliographies and footnotes in these amazing works will immediately lead you deep into the relevant literature.
–>For a brief introduction, even better, read the downloadable reprint of the Introduction to Shelter From the Storm; this essay by Shaun Barnett is an excellent introduction to NZ huts.
Also by Barnett, Brown and Spearpoint A Bunk for the Night: A Guide to New Zealand’s Best Backcountry Huts, Potton & Burton, 2016(?).
Other insightful works on huts and tramping include works by Mark Pickering, notably:
A Trampers Journey, Craig Potton Publishing, 2004.
Huts: untold stories from back-country NZ, Canterbury University Press, 2010.
The Hills, Heinemann Reid, 1988.
Golden Bay writer Gerard Hindmarsh has written about huts in some of the essays in his Kahurangi Calling, Potton and Burton, 2010, and Kahurangi Stories, Potton and Burton, 2017.
NZ huts are best understood within the context of environmental conservation and the role of humans in this fabulously beautiful, remote landscape.
For a quick, informative and stimulating sense of the broader landscape/environmental history of NZ, see: Michael King’s magisterial overview Penguin History of New Zealand, Penguin Books, 2012. While a 500-page book can only skim the surface of a nation’s history, this one does it very well. For most of us, dipping into chapters selectively is more manageable than reading the entire book. The first few chapters set the pre-historic and early history, chapter 11 on the seminal Treaty of Waitangi is useful (even more so is the Wikipedia article), and Chapter 26, land under pressure, briefly provides invaluable historical context on environmental history.
Wild Heart: the possibility of wilderness in Aotearoa New Zealand, edited by Mick Abbott and Richard Reeve, Otago University Press, 2011. These 17 essays by trampers, conservationists, historians, writers, scientists, and conservationists provide useful perspective on how Kiwi’s are thinking about the nature, roles, uses and protection of wilderness today. It gives a good sense of the many ways in which wildness is “at the nation’s psychological and physical core”.
Environmental historian Geoff Parks’s provocative Theatre Country: essays on landscape and Whenua, Victoria University Press, 2006. The Maori word whenua means both placenta and people, and this series of essays explores how New Zealanders – indigenous and colonial — are, and are not, connected to the land they occupy. Parks’ thinking about wilderness and landscape seems to be in the spirit of William Cronon, but with a distinctive Kiwi sensibility. The essays range widely, discussing the historical views of landscape and the picturesque imported from British romanticism, nature tourism, and it frames New Zealand’s approach to landscape as a profoundly and misguidedly dichotomous insistence on dividing the nation into two distinct theatrical scenes, both playing out on a national stage largely outside the critical awareness of the actors: 1. the intensively cultivated 51% of the land, and 2. the highly protected, puristic notion of “wilderness” characterized by DoC’s management regime for the 33%
A few relevant websites:
NZ Department of Conservation With persistent, creative searching, this extensive website will yield a wealth of information and perspective.
Tramper.co.nz – A great site for locating tracks to walk and learning about the range of tramping and huts in NZ.
Remote Huts A valuable online forum for those interested in the preservation and restoration of remote huts and tracks. Includes information about Permolat.
Backcountry Trust Information about grants and projects of this remarkable hut and track maintenance program, funded in large part by DoC.
Facebook sites for “Shelter from the Storm”, the Backcountry Trust, and the Federated Mountain Clubs, and other groups are great for staying up to date on developments and for networking.
NZ Alpine Club source for climbers and information about a network of alpine huts.
Wilderness Magazine , an excellent print and online publication, also has a useful website.
Federated Mountain Clubs A key outdoors organization representing 80 clubs, FMC is at the nexus of outdoors activity and information. Their brief includes advocacy and information/ publishing. Their quarterly magazine Backcountry, available in print and online, is an indispensable source of information about huts, tramping and outdoor activities generally. Their page providing links to other websites is a great place to start exploring beyond what is listed above.
New Zealand Huts Department of Conservation, Part D:
New Zealand Backcountry Trust: adopting a home in the mountains
by Sam Demas
(Note: this is part of the larger work New Zealand Huts: Notes towards a Country Study)
[I hope someday to receive pictures from BCT to include with this post]
The remarkable chain of events that engendered increased citizen involvement in hut and track maintenance is outlined in part 8 of Notes on Ten Selected Operations.This movement in turn gave birth to an amazing pubic/private partnership, the Backcountry Trust (BCT). BCT is one of the most exciting hut-related initiatives I encountered in NZ. It represents the kind of cultural and governmental convergence of ideas, energies, needs and solutions that will help to carry the rich heritage of DoC huts into future generations. The Backcountry Trust recently published a brochure with great photos and information showcasing some of their projects.
Established in 2017, the BCT grew out of grass roots hut maintenance efforts nation-wide and the resulting three year DoC funding experiment “Outdoor Recreation Consortium”. Allocated $1,200,000 over three years to fund hut and track maintenance projects and was effectively a successful “proof of concept” project to answer the question, ” If DoC supported volunteers for biodiversity efforts, why not for huts?”.
Based on the success of projects funded by the “Outdoor Recreation Consortium”, DoC allocated $700,000 over two years to formalize the granting process and fund three rounds of project proposals each year. Since the inception of the “outdoor Recreation Consortium” and the efforts of its successor the BCT, volunteers have used DoC funding channeled through these organizations to restore 100 huts and over 900 km of walking and mountain biking paths.
The BCT clearly addresses a number of DoC values, including getting more people to participate in recreation, and engaging more people with conservation and valuing its benefits.
The BCT solicits grant relevant proposals of $5,000 to $20,000, providing complete applications guidelines on its website. BCT grants officer is activist, photographer and writer Rob Brown and the six member board has two representatives from each of the three founding organizations: New Zealand Deerstalkers Association, Federated Mountain Clubs, and Trail Fund NZ. These three organizations represent 135 clubs and 35,000 members or affiliates. The BCT Facebook site Huts and Tracksis one forum for passionate backcountry hut folks, and another is Remote Huts Forum and Blog. An April 2017 post in Wilderlife by Rob Brown and Geoff Spearpoint provides a vision of the partnership.
The BCT website explains the workings of the program. The projects page and photo gallery give a sense of the range of projects undertaken. I especially recommend the website section quoted below, which provides links to some excellent reading on this amazing public/private partnership and how it operates an a nitty-gritty level:
Adopting a Home in the Mountains
Geoff Spearpoint, Rob Brown and Shaun Barnett have dedicated the final chapter of their latest Backcountry Huts Book – A Bunk for the Night – to our vision for protecting the hut network: Preserving the Huts
Geoff Spearpoint has also written a practical guide to hut maintenance which gives a good idea of the type of work typically involved in these projects. If you are considering adopting a hut it is a must read: Adopting a Home in the Mountains
Geoff Ockwell has prepared a simple project planning spreadsheet, which gives a good idea of the materials required for a backcountry hut restoration.
The Backcountry Trust recently published a brochure with great photos and information showcasing some of their projects.
Loyal, engaged and committed to the conservation estate, Kiwis with and through their agency DoC, will doubtless be intentional, and perhaps even creative, in shaping the future of their remarkable national hut system. As contemporary society evolves, what is the future of the world’s largest hut system? Below are a few of the questions that most interest I look forward to discussing them further with hut folks.
Restoration Crew
1. Will DoC stay firm in its support of the New Zealanders experience of the New Zealand back country? Will a robust system of backcountry huts be maintained, and not sacrificed to supporting the tourist experience of huts? Will huts remain affordable and accessible for Kiwis? These are the concerns Kiwis overwhelmingly expressed when I asked their views about the future of NZ huts. [Interestingly, few other visions or questions were expressed about the future of huts among Kiwis I asked about this, with the exception of Mick Abbott, a fount of ideas and questions.] My sense is that Kiwi trampers have done a fabulous job of making their concerns known and are contributing creatively to ensuring the hut future they most desire. And my sense is that DoC is fully on board with this vision as central to the future of the hut system. Much hard work remains to ensure this vision.
2. What is the future of front country and road-end huts? DoC seems to have come full circle in its thinking about road-end huts and is no longer committed to removing all of them. Meanwhile, DoC has inherited a significant number of baches (e.g on Rangitito Island), some of which are in proximity to urban areas (e.g. Orongorongo). Ongoing tenure review may result in inheritance of additional structures. How can the nation benefit from these structures? Might they become valued infrastructure for providing urban dwellers with safe nature immersion experiences and outdoor/environmental education opportunities? School and youth groups, church groups, and families are some of the obvious potential user groups for front country “huts” and other structures. How can they be made secure and protected from vandalism? Might voluntary hut wardens/environmental educators play a role? DoC lodges, hostels and cabins, which provide greater amenities, already serve these functions. So do some huts. Should this become a more intentional strategy?
3. What is the future of hut siting, design, and architecture? Now that the vast DoC hut system is fully built out and seemingly on track to be well maintained, what will future hut designs look like? [Most Kiwis I spoke with fervently hope the designs won’t change in future]. While there are not likely to be a great many new huts built in future, Mick Abbott suggests huts can be designed (or re-designed) as catalysts for change and innovation in developing skills and attitudes for living well with nature, for living lightly on the land. What we learn in huts can be brought home to inform our daily lives. How to build huts systems that make an area more robust, biodiverse, at scale? Will the trend towards greater amenities in serviced huts seep into standard and basic huts? Perhaps a series of design charrettes that stimulate creative thinking about hut design may be part of determining the future roles of huts and what that means for future hut designs?
Chaffey Hut after restoration
New Waihohonu Hut, Tongariro National Park
Meg Hut, sheep musters hut
4. Will some huts return to their origins as conservation infrastructure? Might huts see increasing use as bases for biodiversity programs (conservation huts), including pest control initiatives, reforestation, erosion control, protection and re-introduction of native species, and for “eyes on the land” in nature reserves?
5. What is the future of private involvement in huts and walks? Today NZ has approximately 30 privately operated hut systems(by comparison, the US has about 18 hut systems, all but one of which is privately operated, some for-profit and some non-profit operated by NGOs). It seems highly unlikely that private huts and walks will even begin to approach the scale of DoC huts, but I wonder what roles/niches they might fill? The older model, e.g. Ultimate Hikes operating a parallel glamping system on Milford and Routeburn Tracks, doesn’t seem to me like a model to expand. But DoC seems open to trying different models of public/private partnership in hut and track management to see what works. Two of the best known are the Hump Ridge Track and the Old Ghost Road. It will be interesting to take stock of the lessons learned from experiments in public/private partnership.
6. What directions will Maori land managers take with huts on conservation lands? As some conservation lands (i.e. some former National Parks such as Te Urewera and Paparoa) are granted a new legal status and positioned for joint management and eventual all-Maori management, how will the tangata wenhua (people of the land) ethos manifestin management of land, water and huts? Will huts continue as traditional recreational infrastructure for trampers? Will they be prized primarily for revenue generation, or will they also add a dimension of education and engagement with about Maori ideas and practices about human relationship to the earth? How will the design and roles of huts change under Maori management, and what might DoC, the nation and the world learn from this?
7. Is New Zealand developing a multi-tier hut system? Andrew Buglass articulated a concern of many trampers that a two-tier system is developing, “One is extremely well resourced, risk averse, overcrowded and out of the price range….of ordinary New Zealanders. The other is basic, remote, and has a high level of community input.” It seems to me the hut system may actually be evolving into multiple “tiers” to serve an ever more diverse range of audiences.
The growing range of huts (and their accommodations cousins: cabins, camps, baches, and lodges) is apparent when comparing, to name just a handful: the marvelous array of historic huts on the Cobb Valley Track, the huts and tracks of the Abel Tasman Great Walk, the Ghost Trail, the Rangitoto baches, the cabins, camps and lodges and the public/private Hump Ridge Track.
It is critical that the unique, traditional Kiwi backcountry hut experience be privileged and protected as the hut system evolves. But the system will evolve along with Kiwi society.
Starting in the 1990’s, DoC began to rationalize its sprawling system of huts in ways that resulted in the present categories:
Great Walks Huts – catering for Backcountry Comfort Seekers (BCC);
Serviced and Serviced-Alpine Huts – catering for BCC or Backcountry Adventurers (BCA);
Standard Huts (catering for BCA)
Basic Huts (catering for BCA or Remoteness Seekers (RS).
These four hut categories are a subset of the seven “visitor groups” identified in the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum work reported in the 1996 “Visitor Strategy” document. The three not applied to huts are: Short stop travelers (SST), Day Visitors (DV), and Overnighters (ON).
This sensible subset of categories appears flexible enough to encompass most uses/users of huts per se, and may serve NZ well for years to come.
However, as a thought experiment, lets imagine that DoC might in future decide to review its hut categories as part of an exercise in examining how best to address changing user groups and uses. In such an exercise, what other uses/user groups might be considered in categorizing (and designing and operating) huts and other accommodation types? This may involve re-visiting the original seven “visitor groups” and thinking about how huts relate to the other groups and accommodation types. For example:
Recreational users: e.g. BCA and RS huts, which form the core of Kiwi tramping, hunting and fishing. Other recreational user groups, which may well bleed into BCC category, include bicyclists and boaters, kayakers, snorkelers and other marine reserve visitors.
Conservation volunteers: Huts used extensively for conservation work in programs designed to foster a connection with nature through hands-on work (of course there are already huts set aside for agency scientific and backcountry work purposes);
“Voluntourism”: (a subset of the above) huts designed to provide international tourists with an opportunity to experience NZ nature first-hand through participation in volunteer conservation projects.
Urban newcomers to nature: Huts catering to NZ’s increasing urban population, providing introductory nature immersion experiences and teaching outdoor skills to those who haven’t learned them;
Environmental/outdoor education: huts designed for use with youth groups and schools;
International tourist tracks: catering to foreigners who are willing to pay for a high-end recreational experience with the proceeds allocated to conservation programs and maintenance of backcountry huts, rather into the pockets of concessionaires.
Bach vacationers: urban and suburban Kiwis who are not up to “roughing it” in a hut, but happy to stay in pre-existing rustic accommodations inherited by DoC on the conservation estate.
Perhaps this thought experiment is an exercise in comparing apples and oranges, and perhaps it could veer into a dangerous muddling of what should remain distinct categories. But as the uses and users of huts (and the other accommodations on the conservation estate) continues to expand, inevitably the lines will begin to blur. The role(s) of the hut system per se will likely need to be reaffirmed and/or clarified over time.
The hut system may in fact become multi-tiered over time, but that should be a part of a deliberate, values-based decision-making process. It should not be simply a function of mission drift and a reaction to mounting pressures (e.g. constrained budgets, tourism pressures, etc.). If the traditional Kiwi backcountry hut experience is to be protected and privileged in future, it will be within the context of a growing diversity of hut/backcountry/outdoor experiences and accommodations.
Note: These jottings on challenges and opportunities are one way of wrapping up loose ends and finishing this phase of my study of NZ huts, conservation, and tramping. These are notes on topics about which I hope to learn more in future. As observations, questions and opinions of an outsider with large gaps in his understanding NZ, I apologize in advance for mistakes, misunderstandings, cultural arrogance, and/or naïveté; and invite elucidation, constructive criticism and alternative views.
*******
With one of the most extensive, well supported and successful hut systems in the world, what challenges and opportunities are faced by those using and operating NZ huts?
Engagement: A major theme and opportunity for DoC and the tramping community today is “engagement”. There is a groundswell of voluntary hut maintenance activity, with the Backcountry Trust as a flagship program. As the DoC tradition of relying on conservation volunteers extends increasingly to huts and tracks, my sense is that more Kiwis will begin to use huts as infrastructure for conservation, track maintenance, outdoor education and other purposes in addition to recreation. The DoC Director General, Lou Sansom, seems committed to and practiced at removing bureaucratic roadblocks to citizen engagement. I heard reports of DoC rangers in the field who have come to appreciate serious voluntary hut maintenance efforts. By working together volunteers and rangers come to realize they are on the same team. Rangers come to recognize the good will and practical value of these voluntary efforts. It seems the Kiwi public is very supportive of hut restoration work and increasingly values its heritage of huts and tramping. Of course there are real challenges in organizing and managing a large-scale program of voluntary efforts, including getting a new generation of trampers involved. There will be a series of tramping club centenaries over the coming decade and these seem likely to generate further “engagement”, a long tradition of NZ tramping clubs. In addition, clubs are no longer the exclusive gate-keepers for new trampers, and DoC will likely find ways of working with a new generation of trampers.
Realizing ambitious goals: Many New Zealanders appear to have embraced mottos such as “100% Pure” and “Clean and Green” as proclamations of the nation’s environmental consciousness. On the other hand, many Kiwi’s suggest this is primarily about public relations and that much more substance is needed to justify these claims. DoC has announced a number of amazingly ambitious goals (e.g. “Predator free by 2050”, “Restoring the dawn chorus”), and has injected a highly controversial/divisive program of using of the pesticide 1080 to advance these programs. In the huts arena, caring for the world’s largest collection of backcountry huts, along with the Great Walks-style accommodations is a major challenge. Fortunately DoC appears to have widespread public support for its mission and programs.
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.
Spectacular views
Comfortable lodges
Full kitchens
Store for snacks and food
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.
While learning basic facts about NZ huts (e.g. how they are organized, operated, funded, and used), I was quickly drawn to trying to understand the cultural context of huts and long-distance human-powered travel in NZ. While I made progress in learning the facts, developing even a slightly nuanced understanding of the broader context for NZ huts will take more time, travel, tramping, talking and reading.
This “NZ country study” – still a work in progress — is one building block in a larger project to compare and contrast huts across 6 – 8 nations. Tramping, traveling and talking in NZ informed my approach to country studies in part by stimulating many questions of cross-cultural comparison. I found myself trying to compare what I was learning in NZ with what I knew about the topic in the USA. Wow! Confronting my incomplete and idiosyncratic understanding of my own culture was a useful, if humbling, experience! Travel abroad can certainly help us understand ourselves and the place we call home, as well as a bit about other peoples and lands.
I’m just beginning to learn how to think about cross-cultural comparisons and have a long ways to go…….
So what follows is not a cross cultural comparison of NZ huts with US or other nation(s); I simply don’t know enough yet to go there. Rather these are thoughts and questions, using NZ as an example, towards a more intentional method of cross-cultural comparison as a lens for studying and comparing hut systems.
The hope is that these notes will stimulate useful comments and criticisms, and perhaps even lead to collaborations in exploring this arena of comparing hut systems around the world.
1. In beginning a country study, I focus on ascertaining the obvious facts about a hut system so I can begin to draw comparisons with huts in other nations.
2. This leads to identifying the unique features of each nation’s hut system, comparing and contrasting them. What makes this hut system different from others in the world? For example, in NZ this includes:
Historical development of tramping and huts
Tramping culture and tramping clubs of New Zealand
The large DoC government-owned and operated hut system
Great Walks and other categories of tramps and huts
Hut architecture and design
Private walks and huts
Maori operated huts and tracks
And small but interesting topics such as: the innovative gear industry of NZ, car relocation services, the Kiwi bach as a related architectural type,
Overview of the relevant literature, including books, magazines and websites; and a sense of the state of relevant publishing, maps, libraries and archives.
3. Next, I try to drill deeper, looking at key attitudes, metrics and indicators of land use, environmental awareness, and recreational culture. Most nations do not have book like Shelter from the Storm, which provides a starting point for such analysis. Among the topics in this arena are:
Land use and environmental attitudes:
What are the historical patterns of land use and how do they influence environmental attitudes today? It was invaluable to have a broad overview, such as that provided in Chapter 26 “Land under Pressure” in Michael King’s Penguin History of New Zealand. This includes a sketch of the historical patterns of land use, the dawning of environmental awareness, the arc of environmental activism and legislation, and key environmental organizations. This background informs questions I ask in interviews and casual conversations. Geoff Park’s Theatre Country is another example of environmental history shedding light on present attitudes and challenges.
What percentage of land is in public ownership and how is it administered for recreation and conservation?
What is the role of private land and of land owners in recreation and conservation?
Extent, operations and changing attitudes towards wilderness, national parks, and other lands with conservation value? Wild Heart edited by Mick Abbott and Richard Reeve, for example, brings together differing perspectives, and points to areas where Kiwi attitudes converge and diverge from those in the USA, Australia and elsewhere, and specifically addresses ideas about huts and wilderness.
Key features of the culture’s attitudes about and engagement with environmental issues such as protection of natural resources, recycling and consumer habits, environmental education programs.
Recreational culture in general:
What is the historical arc of recreational culture over time? For example, in former British colonies, how were British attitudes to alpinism, rambling, outdoor clubs, and hunting absorbed, transformed and/or rejected. The prevalence and extent of elitist vs. egalitarian ethos of tramping and tramping clubs, and of alpinism, for example. These evolved differently in New Zealand than in Ireland, Canada, and the USA. These differences may shape and can help to understand cultural differences in recreation in these nations.
Roles of clubs and other mechanisms for promoting and supporting participation in tramping? Extent of permission and overlap with conservation organizations?
What are the recreational motivations and values of a culture (e.g. solitude, not seeing others, tolerance for crowding, etc.) and how do they shape huts, tramping and camping? How and why have the relationships of hunters and trampers evolved?
What is the history and culture of long distance, human-powered travel in a nation? Extent and nature of trails and of accommodations for skiers, walkers, and cyclists? How are hospitality traditions of a nation reflected in modern recreational culture?
Miles/km of tracks/trails and nature of the trails? Nature and difficult of the terrain? Trends in trail maintenance?
General health and fitness of the populace, rates of participation in long-distance human-powered travel, preferences for terrain, accommodations,
Trends in camping, hiking, cycling, etc.? How do these affect interest in/use of huts and other accommodation systems?
Rights of access – NZ, USA and Ireland have similar laws around legal rights of access for walkers on private land; these are based largely on English laws that have long since been changed in the UK. Most other European nations seem to recognize traditional rights of way to a greater extent than the former British colonies. Similarly rights of access to coastal lands (e.g. Queen’s chain in NZ) differs among nations and can affect the extent of tracks by rivers/seas/ocean. The overall impact of these legal differences is of course affected by the extent of publicly owned lands, by other relevant legislation. Is there a Walking Access Commission or other entity advocating for the rights of walkers?
Laws related to recreation – For example, in NZ the laws providing for health care for trampers injured in the backcountry, combined with laws prohibiting recreationists from suing a company or government for liability in case of death or injury create a more relaxed and creative approach to outdoor recreation than in the USA.
Tourism and impacts on nature
Attitudes toward, use, and role(s) of huts:
Societal attitudes towards and extent of knowledge of, huts as recreational infrastructure?
Hut etiquette varies among cultures, and differences can be sources of tension in the remarkable experience of communal living that huts provide. It will be interesting to study differences among nations and how they relate to deeper cultural traits, preferences, and values.
Level(s) of amenities and how this reflects cultural preferences and traditions? Nature of the terrain? Demographics of use (age, gender, race, education, domestic, international). Rates of participation compared with other recreational opportunities?
Use of huts for educational, conservation, therapeutic purposes?
Affordability of huts?
Categories of hut visitors catered to? For example, in NZ huts are categorized as catering to Backcountry Comfort Seekers, Backcountry Adventurers, Remoteness Seekers, and Thrill Seekers. In the far less developed hut systems of the USA, there is no guidebook to hut systems (I’m working on one now!), and there are no equivalent categories signaling the comparative level of amenities/difficulty/challenge of a hut system.
4. Finally, I hope to understand some of the broad historical and socio-economic context, the key challenges of a nation that condition efforts to create its environmental future, and how these factors may influence the present and future roles of its huts. In the case of New Zealand, some of the fascinating broad features of Kiwi culture that resonated with me include a set of conflicts and conundrums that arise in part from its unique position as the last large land mass to be settled by Europeans. In his Penguin History of New Zealand, Michael King opens the book with a quote from Geoff Park that summarizes a central conflict of the nation’s identity and future:
New Zealand’s fertile plains were the last that Europeans found before the Earth’s supply revealed itself as finite. Our relationship with them has been completely unsustainable…..[We] have exploited these islands’ richest ecosystems with all the violence that modern science and technology could summon….We must live with the rest of nature or die with the rest of nature.
While the environmental challenges faced by Kiwis are certainly not unique, they create a set of salient characteristics of NZ culture that influences attitudes to huts, tracks, tramping and outdoor culture. This seems particularly so due to the rapidity of environmental degradation in this young nation, the broad awareness of the populace of the issues, the comparatively large amount of land in the conservation estate, broad popular support for DoC and its brief to protect and conserve natural resources, and the apparent strength of the environmental movement.
A few of the remarkable contradictions, conflicts and conundrums that struck me as central to NZ’s current challenges and environmental futures:
The rapid deforestation of over 50% of the land in pursuit of the goal of creating the Great Britain of the southern hemisphere, complete with a pastoral landscape aesthetic creates ongoing environmental challenges.
The designation of 40% of the nation’s land mass as part of the conservation estate sets up a stark dichotomy in land use: developed and conserved.
These islands with no native terrestrial mammals have established an economy based on animal husbandry.
An island of 3.5 million people, produces food (especially particular dairy and meat) to feed 40,000,000 people per year, which incurs internal environmental costs.
Kiwis have among the highest annual rate of consumption of meat per person in the world.
The growing export economy for dairy products is utilizing water resources at a stunning rate. A very wet nation appears to be facing issues of water quality and, in some areas, sufficiency. Resolution of this issue may open a Pandora’s box of issues, including Maori water rights.
The role of Maori citizens in civil society in general, and in conservation and tourism issues in particular is a major challenge and an opportunity.
The legal personification of former national parks, such as Te Urewera, is a remarkable development, introducing a parallel system of land rights and management. It will be fascinating to see what the Maori do with the dozens of huts for which they are now responsible.
An island nation with a sense of isolation from the rest of the world, Kiwi’s are in fact very much tied into the rest of the world. They are: curious about and engaged with the larger world, while mindful of the fact they have created something special that they don’t want to spoil, and simultaneously always looking elsewhere for answers, affirmation and a sense of what is worth paying attention to. This brings to mind the aphorism “be careful what you wish for”, and is encapsulated in Allen Curnow’s warning,
Always to islanders danger,
Is what comes over the sea.
New Zealand is “Clean and Green” and “100% Pure”, and also competing in the international economy with nations that have no such aspirations.
An important part of NZ economy is international tourism, which inexorably veers into “mass tourism”, and
strains the patience of Kiwis and threatens the natural beauty and integrity of the very ecosystems that make the land so appealing; and
strains DoC’s ability to cater to a broad range of recreational uses of the conservation estate, while also pursuing its lofty conservation goals;
prompts the question: who benefits and what suffers from the seemingly inexorable growth in international tourism. Is it sustainable over time, and at what costs?
Conservation conundrums: for example, use of the pesticide 1080 as a divisive issue; viewed as “correcting a blunder with a crime”.
Most of the items on this short list of major challenges certainly have analogs in other cultures. While I can’t get lost in the deep weeds of these issues, I am fascinated by discussing with colleagues:
How do these cultural particularities inform national environmental values and aspirations? and
How do they condition attitudes and programs in environmental education, recreational culture and in the roles of huts in a particular culture, and across cultures?
In the end, the real fun will come in trying to look across what I learn about Ireland, New Zealand, USA (and eventually other nations such as Switzerland, Austria, France, Norway and Japan), to see if I can detect patterns, anomalies, unique features, trends, and interesting ideas. To the extent this comparison of hut systems might be grounded in some level of cross-cultural comparison and understanding, the work may have greater meaning. Ideas travel far and wide and find new meanings as they go……