The latest information I have is that the Russet Lake hut (Himmelsbach hut) is to be replaced by the Spearhead Hut Committee. I believe it is an opportunity to acquire our old asset and put it to another use. These are the thoughts I have.

Negotiate with B.C. Parks to fly out the structure or dismantle it and fly it out.

Store it until a suitable location can be found. I can contact someone I know in Mission who may be able to help out storing the hut.

Ideas about a new location are being tossed around (in no order of preference):

• Coquihalla
• Watersprite
• Upper Pokosha/Sigurd outside Tantalus park boundary
• Upper Skookum (south of Eanastick Meadows in old logging slash next to a pond and outside Garibaldi park boundary)

Apply for tenure at one of these locations or other location.

Refurbish cabin. Modify for wood stove.

Erect new facility.

I'm all for it, Paul, as long as it's in reasonable enough shape and that it makes some economic sense. Something will need to be done with it anyway if it's to be replaced. We don't want a cabin graveyard up there 

You mentioned a wood stove in your post... I'm curious whether you've looked into alternatives like pellet stoves and kerosene. I haven't looked into it much so wondering whether you have...

Worthy of investigation for sure.  If Parks will pay to fly it out then it seems like an opportunity for us.  The trucking cost from Whistler to somewhere else seems like a reasonable cost for us to acquire the hut.  If we had to bear the costs of flying it out things change. 

It would be great if Parks could just fly it to a location of our choosing, but this might be wishful thinking - I guess we could always ask....

There are Advantages and Disadvantages about the location at the pond near Skookum Creek for a cabin.

Advantages:

1)  It is centrally located in a massive area between Mamquam Lake, Darling Lake (Mamquam Icefield) and Pyramid Mountain/Spire Peaks

2)  It could create Hut-to-Hut hiking/skiing opportunities when connected to Mamquam Lake and Elfin Lakes

2)  Unlimited supply of firewood available at site (no need to fly in wood)

3)  Plenty of water

4)  Access would be less than 2 hours once the Darling Lake Trail is Complete

Disadvantages:

1)  Low elevation of site (1020 meters/3,300 feet).  This is not a disadvantage for hiking and climbing, but for skiing.

2)  A bridge across the mighty Darling Creek would need to be constructed (although that is likely going to happen anyways in the future).

I wouldn't be able to choose which of the 4 sites you mentioned is most deserving of a hut - they are all worthy.   I would only oppose a site North of Whistler, as I think the area is becoming saturated with cabins (Highway 99 corridor).

I think there are a couple of worthwhile sites in the Callaghan Valley, but permitting may not be realistic.

North of Callaghan Lake there is an area with many small lakes right around treeline.  This area has good below treeline yoyo skiing terrain and access to alpine skiing on the Callaghan Massif.  Hiking in this area would be excellent if there were some trails to get up to the alpine.  This area is inside the newly created Upper Soo conservancy, which does not have a management plan, nor can we expect one in the foreseeable future.  Due to the conservancy, Squamish nation has considerable influence in this area, but they may be difficult to engage with.  Winter access is currently a bit costly, as you have to pay for a XC ticket and ski to Callaghan lake ($25) or buy a ride on the weekend shuttle to Callaghan Lake ($46)

The other site is Beverley Lake, which has good tree skiing and alpine skiing on the NW side of Rainbow.  Summer hiking and scrambling is good and this is a non-motorized zone.  The "Callaghan Valley recreation plan" promised in the sea to sky LRMP has not been done yet.

The north side of Metal Dome look attractive too, but I think the avalanche risk is too high for any sort of permanent structure in this area.  There may be a suitably protected site at south of the bench bench below the metal dome glacier morraine, but it's a bit out of the way from the main skiing area.  Skiing in this area is excellent and hiking would be ok.  The whole area is either in the Callaghan Conservancy, or in a first nations cultural management area.

 Hi Francis, I never looked into pellets. I don't think kerosene is very nice. They have one at the Brian Waddington hut. It vents into the cabin and stinks the place up and pollutes. I also have one and they are rather ineffectual in generating heat. Also, the wicks are difficult to keep at the correct length. Wood works well if the cabin is in a forest and there is not too much demand. The Pebble Creek (Ash Pass) hut comes to mind. Usage is a bit too high so wood is a bit of a problem. North Creek seems to manage quite well.

Thanks Paul. I also have mixed feelings about kerosene from a stay at Wendy Thompson. The good part about it is that each party brings their own fuel, which tends to reduce waste as people won't generally carry a ton of kerosene up there. Just a quick search on pellet stoves seems to suggest that the efficiency is a fair bit higher than a wood stove, it burns much cleaner, so less polluting, and uses wood dust residue rather than cutting more trees. Cost seems reasonable, around US$2k. My main concern would be cost of pellets and whether they are delicate, and requiring more maintenance. Anyway, food for thought. I think they are fairly common in Europe (if I remember well they were used in some cabins on the Haute Route). May be a good option for a cabin in the alpine or for high-usage cabins (Cerise creek requires flying in wood every fall).

One concern about moving the Russet Lake hut: if it needs to be dismantled and re-assembled, I would expect that a lot of the wood will be splitting when being taken apart and/or reassembled, so it may turn out to be quite labour-intensive and some cost for replacing some of the wood should be factored in. I do like the idea of re-using rather than disposing though.

I will contact BC Parks this week to ask them about the disposition of Himmelsbach hut at Russet Lake.

Scott, what about a site on the approach to Solitude Glacier? Would it be in conflict with the Conflict Lake lodge?

Because of the shuttle, I could see it being attractive. We used to visit Callaghan on skis around Easter. It was always a mind numbing slog the 10 km or more up the road on skis with blisters almost guaranteed. With the shuttle I could see it being worthwhile to spend a few nights at a BCMC hut. Each party would bring in its own wood pellets for a pellet burning stove. Could easily sled the load from the lodge to Solitude. There is a lot there that could be done in summer too. Skiing area is huge. Nice of the Conflict Lake folks to get us to help them set aside the non-motorized area and then shaft us on the access. They owe us, maybe.

I don't like the area around Beverley for a hut. It's too close to WOP and all that entails. Plus there's not that much to do there in summer except maybe Rainbow. The other peaks are lower and wooded almost to the summits. Same goes for the back end of Callaghan Lake. Not enough high peaks except Callaghan nearby.

Ed Zenger has posted a good analysis of the Coq on Francis' Coquihalla hut thread.

I spoke with Ron Goldstone of BC Parks a couple of weeks ago. The hut will needed by construction personnel until September 2016 at which time the new hut should be complete.

Ron is going to check at the office to see if there is a legal agreement between the BCMC and BC Parks.

I would guess that 50% of Callaghan Country's overnight visitors at the lodge are backcountry skiers, so I would expect that the company would oppose another hut in that branch of the valley on the grounds of competition.  However I don't know the terms of the Callaghan Country park use permit.  I think this is the reason why they only offer a shuttle to Callaghan Lake, and not to the lodge itself.  Many of their overnight packages for backcountry skiers include a shuttle right to the lodge.

Assiniboine park is notable in that there's a luxury lodge right next to some inexpensive basic huts.

I spoke with a guy from Squamish on Chris Ludwig's trip yesterday. He can get access to the forms to make curved laminated beams. It sounds like it can be done pretty cheap if we do it with volunteers. It calls in question whether there is any benefit to recycling the Russet Lake hut. Four laminated beams can be produced in an evening so you'd be looking at about five evenings of volunteer work.

That's very interesting, Paul, as the current plan for the Watersprite hut is to make the arches ourselves, unless we can find a supplier to make them at near the same cost (obviously a form of donation by the supplier).