[Andrew]

The FMC are seeking our comment on two issues by 15 June.
(a) Which DoC huts do you think require immediate repairs?
FMC hope to provide some feedback to DoC on where they should be spending their $16m over the next 3 years.

(b) What do you want to see and not want to see in the design of new huts?
FMC intend to work with DoC to settle on standard designs for future huts and would like club input on desirable and undesirable design features.

Either post your comments here or drop me a line.

[Wayne]

Another matter as club that we need to consider, that is related to this topic, is the future of the Mountain House Hut.

As many of you are aware, a number of clubbies have recently spent some time repairing Smiths Creek shelter. The club has spent some money on this, with some additional finance from DoC and some donations from various businesses. THe club is also committed to maintaining Maungahuka Hut and again quite a bit of club and DoC resources has gone into repairing and maintaining this hut over recent years. We are now interested in obtaining the views from club members, and others about the future for Mountain House.

According to DoC the Mountain House hut is suffering from decay and will require some structural work on it. We are yet to verify this, but plan to do so, and get some estimations as to the cost of repair.

There would seem to be a number of options for Mountain House – it could be restored; or it could be removed; or it could be removed and perhaps a basic shelter with a picnic table be installed along with a toilet and camping area.

We would be interested in hearing you views on the future for Mountain House. We need to recognise that while an extra $16m from the Govt is a good amount of money for hut maintenance, this money is not likely to cover improvements to all huts, plus the building of new huts – so, should we be considering advocating the removal of some huts or facilities and have the funding concerntated on some more strategic huts? If so, what should we do with Mountain House?

THanks
Wayne Stevens
President
WTMC

[Grant Newton]

I’m glad that consideration is being given to standard design of huts – it constantly annoys me that so much money is wasted in designing many different configurations of huts instead of spending the money on building or maintaining them.

I suggest that designs should hold 10 – 12 people for remote huts (although Harry Smith will support 6 bunk FS huts, I believe these are little small by todays standards. If DoC are going to the effort of building a hut, it might as well cater for more than one group), 20 – 24 for moderately popular huts and approx 30 – 40 for great walk or similar huts. This would require just 3 designs to cover all tramping huts for all tramping regions. Smart and co-ordinated designs would allow standard components which would reduce maintenance hassles and costs i.e. common window sizes allows easy glass replacement if broken. I also believe the 60-70 bunk huts starting to creep in encourage too many people and subsequently the wilderness experience is destroyed.

Apart from great walk huts, I would prefer to see no gas provided – this must be costly to maintain supply by helicoptor and ensure equipment is safe. As trampers carry stoves, these should be used.

Other factors to consider are:
– Reasonable sized windows (unlike the bunkrooms in the Routeburn Falls hut) to allow light in the huts and a chance to see the views outside.
– Keep bunks to no more than 2 high – high ceilings make huts hard to heat anyway.
– Verandah or a large porch for boots & parkas to be left
– Ladders to top bunks
– In larger huts, the bunkrooms should be separate from the living area to allow people to stay up later without keeping others awake.
– Water piped inside from water tanks
– Maintenance – keep the design simple and maintenance will be simple

Hopefully we can see money spent wisely which will allow a network of functional huts with funds to continue to maintain them. NZ will then have a sustainable hut network.

Consideration needs to be given to where huts are located – I have once done an medium grade overnight trip (no side tracks led from this track) where I passed 7 huts, subsequently most were unmaintained. Had planning been done in the first instance, 1 decent sized hut at a suitable spot could have been built and serviced the requirements of all trampers.

I would also encourage installation of long drop toilets at suitable camp sites where huts are a reasonable distance away (or at appropriate lunch spots on the main trails/great walks) – this will help reduce impact on the environment.

Cheers
Grant

[Simon Ward]

Mountain House

Mountain House seems to me to have 2 functions – a lunch stop for those heading to/from Powell, Holdsworth etc. and an “emergency” shelter for those who do not make it to Powell. I have recently met a number of people who have used the hut for both reasons. The hut needs serious work (rotten roof timbers, broken window) – this doesn’t sound much but could easily soak up at least $1000. Plus the interior needs a repaint and the area round the hut needs tidying (with some helicopter assistance to remove the huge, new, unused plastic water tank). All this could be managed by WT&MC – the question is whether we are prepared to comit resources of time and money to a hut which probably has a limited life. During the next few months we intend to prepare a plan and budget for what needs doing, in advance of the next Tararua Huts Ctte meeting. Given the recent injection of funding for huts, I suspect priorities for maintenance and so on will be re-evaluated.

Hut Design

I agree with Grant- lets see standardisation of huts and facilities where possible. I think there is a place for a small hut (say 4 bunks) to be constructed from rugged materials in a kitset form and used to replace bivvys and many of the little rotting huts around the place – the priority is shelter! Many huts (and their surrounding environment) are in poor condition because of poorly designed stoves and fireplaces – these leak and are invariably smokey, resulting in rotting filthy huts. Do we need stoves and fireplaces? Sure, they can be nice in winter or poor weather, but are they really necessary? If so, what is a good design that is fuel efficient and does not leak?

I think the move to glamour huts and tracks with whizzy facilities goes against the whole point of outdoor recreation – if you want flash stoves, gas cookers, heaters and the like, stay at home! Let’s have safe and comfortable huts which do not cost the earth to maintain or supply.

Simon Ward

[Wayne]

Thank you for all comments. Below is a copy of a letter sent to FMC in response to their request for information/comment

.

13 June 2001

Barbara Marshall
Secretary
FMC
Fax nr (04) 2333-8244

Dear Barbara

DOC HUTS
Thank you for your note requesting comments on DoC huts. After consulting with our members, we wish to offer the following comments in the two areas requested:

(i) details of any particular huts that are in need of repair:

Before outlining comments on huts that are in need of repair, we wish to offer the following general comments on the planning for capital expenditure for DoC huts. It is important that careful consideration needs to be given as to which huts are to be repaired or maintained in the future. DoC should take a strategic view of which huts are to be repaired. For instance, one new hut could perhaps take the place of 2 or 3 older huts that are in close proximity. Consideration also needs to be taken into account of the safety aspects of maintaining our current hut system, as well as the location of individual huts. While the Government has provided some additional funding the 2001/02 Budget, DoC will need to continue to prioritise its expenditure. Many backcountry huts wont require much more than a lick of paint, but it is likely that there will not be sufficient funding for the repair and maintenance of all huts in New Zealand. Therefore we consider that a capital expenditure plan, that also considers operating costs for maintaining and repairing existing huts and new huts, needs to be prepared. This capital plan should be prioritised, updated regularly and developed witht he input of FMC and clubs.

In terms of specific huts that are in need of repair, we wish to mention that our club was responsible for the establishment of Mountain House in the Tararuas, and while at present this hut has a very low rating in terms of planned DoC capital expenditure and maintenance, we would like to see something done with this site. We would like to work with DoC to explore options for Mountain House, including: replacement with a shelter; or restoration of the existing hut; or allowing the existing hut to continue with minimal repairs and maintenance. Our club has not formed a firm view on the future of Mountain House, but we would like to be actively involved in the decision-making in terms of what happens with Mountain House.

Many DoC huts do not require that much attention. A bit of extra maintenance, and perhaps a paint could ensure that these huts have a longer life than what they currently have.

(ii) possible designs for future huts, including the desirable or undesirable features of huts and hut design.

A number of our members have commented on the need to have some standard designs for DoC huts. Having numerous designs does seem wasteful in terms of design plans, and the holding of spare materials to repair these numerous types of huts. We would favour there being say 3 or 4 designs nationally for DoC huts of different sizes and locations (eg alpine huts, tramping huts, touristy areas). There will also be the need for some minor adaptations for the site the particular hut is located on. Covered verandas are a welcome feature of some of the newer styled huts ? they provide somewhere to leave wet gear, and can sometimes provide an extra area for sleeping under when a hut is crowded.

Concerns have also been expressed from a number of our members about gas facilities being provided at un-wardened huts. The low compliance rate in terms of hut fees suggests means that DoC should really look carefully at whether such facilities should be provided. Gas can also be a fire risk for huts. On our club trips every party carries enough stoves and other cooking appliances for meals etc, so we do not require gas in DoC huts. Where gas is provided, many of our members admit to using such facilities and carrying their own unused gas/fuel home. Such facilities are considered to a luxury rather than a necessity.

There are also concerns about the fireplaces that are provided in some huts. Some of these fireplaces are in very bad condition and lead to smokey huts and the building up of soot on the walls etc. Consideration needs also to be given to the impact that having such fireplaces has on the environment in terms of the wood that is being collected ? even old dead trees are part of an eco-system. For example fireplaces or stoves should be removed where the only available vegetation near the hut is subalpine scrub. There also seems to be a wide variety types of fireplaces and wood stoves provided at huts. Some of these facilities seem poorly designed while others are better. Maybe DoC should determine which types of fireplace/stove design are the most efficient and easy to operate, and if new wood stove/fireplaces are being installed, go with the most efficient wood stove/fireplace.

In terms of hut design ? the standard old 6 bunk NZFS style hut is often too small for most of the club trips we run ?but still maybe appropriate in many instances. Our trips always carry tent fly?s or tents, so small huts are not a great problem for us. If DoC is going to build new huts, serious consideration needs to be given to making huts bigger as well as the bunks that are installed ? having bench style bunks would seem a better use of space than many of the old style bunks that are in the old 6 bunk DoC hut. Also, a number of our members have commented that some huts do not have enough windows and as a result this contributes to dampness and a gloomy feel about the place ? skylights are a relatively cheap way to remedy this design problem.

There also needs to be consideration of having DoC toilet facilities provided at commonly used campsites or lunch spots. Having such facilities will help to minimise the impact that trampers have on the environment.

Thank you for asking our views on this topic. The one final comment that we wish to make is that the system of huts and tracks etc in our National Parks and recreational areas is one where there needs to be a close relationship between DoC and tramping clubs (and FMC). The clubs have had a major role in establishing the current system, and it is important that DoC continues to work closely with FMC and the tramping clubs. Such close working relationships should also mean that DoC would be able to draw on some of the resources of clubs (where such resources exist ? maybe often labour resources) to assist them in working parties and the maintenance of huts. The one suggested improvement would be that there needs to be greater transparency and updating of clubs on DoC?s plans for the backcountry huts, not just locally, but also nationally.

Kind regards

Wayne Stevens
President
Wellington Tramping and Mountaineering Club

[Author]

Posts