Re: Any Other Parks Have HSC-LIke Accommodations?

I love the High Sierra Camp experience in Yosemite so I was trying to think of other national parks that might have something similar. I can think of Bear Paw Meadows in Sequoia and Phantom Ranch at the Grand Canyon.

Anywhere else?

Quote
Mom
I love the High Sierra Camp experience in Yosemite so I was trying to think of other national parks that might have something similar. I can think of Bear Paw Meadows in Sequoia and Phantom Ranch at the Grand Canyon.

Anywhere else?

In researching a winter trip to New Zealand (our winter, not theirs!) I saw lots of their great treks like Routeburn, Caples, Milford, etc. have affordable backcountry huts to stay in. Not sure in the US though.

I can think of a few parks with some aspects of an HSC, but overall...beyond SEKI and Grand Canyon I'm drawing a blank (e.g.: Isle Royale has a hotel at the Rock Harbor boat landing, you're on foot and not driving but the hotel is right there, and Rainier has Muir Camp w/ indoor lodging at 10,000 ft. but no prepared meals, shower, bedding, etc.). (In reference to prior threads here, I'm not counting Tuolumne Lodge as a HSC no matter how many protests pink chickens offer because one doesn't hike to get there, so its not like the huts in the Alps).

Edit: I guess LeConte at the Smokies might be an option, you could look into that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2012 08:13PM by ttilley.

Not exactly HSC like but:

In Glacier National Park

Granite Park and Sperry Chalets
Glacier National Park has two backcountry chalets that visitors can hike to for overnight accommodations. Both are operated by Belton Chalets Inc. For reservations contact:


http://www.graniteparkchalet.com/

www.sperrychalet.com/

Belton Chalets, Inc.,
PO Box 189,
West Glacier, MT 59936
1-888-345-2649



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2012 08:11AM by parklover.

Thanks, parklover. That's exactly the sort of information I was looking for. The Glacier chalets sound great.

Never been to the HSC camps but there are hut accomodations in the White Mountains in New Hampshire (mostly around Mt. Washington) - they are spaced a comfortable distance apart and provide overnight accomodations and meals.

http://www.outdoors.org/lodging/whitemountains/huts/index.cfm

Oddly enough, I just found out about this today.

http://www.sequoiahighsierracamp.com/

I knew about this camp also but I didn't count it because it is so close to the road (3/4 mile). All the others are a good half-day or day hike from any roads. I suppose May Lake is close to the road being only 1.3 miles away, but it's part of the loop.

I looked at the websites for the chalets at Glacier and for LeConte. They both look interesting but you just can't beat the scenery at Yosemite. Even the trail at Glacier isn't as scenic although seeing big horn sheep and mountain goats would be interesting. Still, I thank everyone for the information and I'll be keeping all these camps in mind for future national park visits.

I've read some of the public scoping comments on the SEKI Wilderness Plan process. There are quite a few that talked about Bearpaw HSC that called for its removal. Most were adamant that it was an abomination to have such a facility in the middle of a designated wilderness area.

I personally think this is minor, but there are some absolute purists out there.

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectId=33225

Here's an example:

Quote

I also have some specific recommendations. The back country camps - like at Bearpaw or Vogelsang (I know that's Yosemite) - are an abomination. They are horrible. I have had to hike through these areas to get to somewhere else. Bearpaw, in particular is dusty, over-used, trashed. The area is spectacular. Nine Lakes basins and the Kaweah basin are some of the best areas to visit. To get there you have to walk by (and camp) at Bearpaw.

I searched and saw one comment in favor of Bearpaw remaining.

Those 'purists' would deny a backcountry experience to an entire demographic. The majority of backpackers are in their twenties. Those going to the HSCs are typically 45 to 60. When I was in my twenties, I was working like crazy to establish my career. In my thirties, I had children. You cannot hike many miles with little ones. Now in my 50's I can finally take trips like this. The NPS is worried about not being relevant to some groups. They need to be mindful of the wants of those who pay the taxes that support the parks.

I think one of the biggest issues in all of our wilderness use discussions is exactly this: how do you keep the wilderness as pure as possible, and still make sure you have enough opportunities for lots of different people and uses---because if only a tiny segment of the population values these areas, they will fall under attach...and we won't have the votes to stop it.

Not an easy dilemma to resolve,

---

Check our our website: http://www.backpackthesierra.com/
Or just read a good mystery novel set in the Sierra; https://www.amazon.com/Danger-Falling-Rocks-Paul-Wagner/dp/0984884963

Quote
balzaccom
I think one of the biggest issues in all of our wilderness use discussions is exactly this: how do you keep the wilderness as pure as possible, and still make sure you have enough opportunities for lots of different people and uses---because if only a tiny segment of the population values these areas, they will fall under attach...and we won't have the votes to stop it.

Not an easy dilemma to resolve,

Part of the issue I have is that such strong language is often used such that it's hard for any kind of compromise once the language used has been so absolute. I see words like "abomination" or "travesty" and it's hard to take someone seriously. I've heard many strange things in my lifetime. One of the strangest was that NPS should change the place names of any park or any feature in a park that was named after a person or people. The reason given was that NPS was supposed to be about "natural things" and naming something after people was antithetical to that ideal. It was hard to take that argument seriously.

The High Sierra Camps have been around for a long time, in fact longer than the Wilderness Act. They're a very small dot in a very large landscape. They might as well call for the elimination of backcountry ranger stations. I do understand that some have an issue with helicopters being used, but they're probably a lesser impact than mule trains. There are a lot of things that predate wilderness designations as well as competing interests that would otherwise have meant no wilderness designation at all.

If they want purity, then we can go one step further. Ban any sort of electronic device and go at it the way John Muir would have trekked around Yosemite. No synthetic clothing, backpacks, or sleeping bags. It's got to be wool. No bear canisters, since that's plastic. Only flour in a burlap sack, hung from a tree with a jute rope. Maybe allow for paper maps, but only with a compass made of glass and metal. Purity gets ridiculous when taken to extremes.

I get that some people don't like it because it's not ideologically pure. So what?