Watersprite Cabin

About

In 2009 the British Columbia Mountaineering Club obtained a Nominal Rent Tenure on Crown land in the Watersprite Lake area (1 Km south of Garibaldi Park and approximately 17 Km east of Squamish) with an intention to build a hut near the lake.

At a special general meeting on January 12, 2016 BCMC members voted in favour of the release of club’s money for the construction of a cabin at Watersprite Lake.

After a summer and fall of 2016, the club volunteers were busy with the cabin construction and the club is now proud to announce that the cabin is open and reservable via the BCMC.ca website at https://bcmc.ca/club_huts.php.

Please note that this web blog is no longer updated or maintained.

15 thoughts on “About

  1. I was up at Watersprite Lake today to satisfy my curiosity about the hut site. The staked site looks safe from avalanches and snowpack deformation. It’s a bit of a walk to get water. Of concern is that the site is in the lee of a small ridge and some trees. This is a classic set up for snow accumulation unless there is sufficient wind speed through the trees to blow snow past the hut. I think it would be good to do a couple of winter trips to the site, the first to plant some snow probes, the second to see how they fare through the winter. Of course, the cabin itself will alter the wind characteristics of the site. (At this time of year, beware of extremely slippery talus that doesn’t get the sun at all.)

    Like

  2. The Watersprite Lake Cabin Project was VOTED OUT: The Special Resolution about financing and building the WSL Hut was defeated by a member vote at the AGM on Nov. 10th, 2015. —Thank You to all the volunteers who have worked on that project — What next?: Let’s see if we can get 75% of voting members on board for a Coquihalla Hut?

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Werner

    The Hut Committee believes that the hut project was voted out because of the budget. We have reviewed this issue and have come up with a solution that will reduce the cost to the club by approx. 50%.

    We will be taking the new budget costing back to the executive and seeing how they think we should proceed.

    After we finish and address all challenges, we will then start on a hut project up the Coquihalla. Which I think is a great place for another BCMC Hut.

    Wilson

    Like

  4. PLEASE RATE THE LOCATION
    I’ve spent quite a time in the area during last 10 years doing resonances, marking trails, leading trips to Martin, Dreadnought Peaks and Mamquam Mt. via Watersprite Lake. I would rate the location according to the type of activities.
    SUMMER-FALL SEASONS:
    1. CAMPING – 3 out 5 ( It’s a very nice site but one can easily bring a tent and enjoy time out, day or two max since you are in the box – there is not much to do – the best is a nude swim in the lake)
    2. HIKING – 3 out of 5 ( Both Martin and Dreadnought Peaks are one day trip from the trail head – there is no need in camping; the views are great though)
    3. MOUNTAINEERING – 2 out 5 ( despite the fact that there are a few great destination in Mamquam Mt. area the camping at Watersprite Lake does not help: some can do Mamquam Mt. in a day either from the lake or trail head; those who want to do more have to camp much higher in alpine and bring the camping gear anyways.)
    WINTER-SPRING SEASONS:
    1. CAMPING – 1 out 5 ( the strongest and most equipped (having best 4x4s) might be able to get there; the rest will be freezing their asses in the tents trying to get there anyways, this time no one will be swimming in the lake)
    2. SNOWSHOEING – 2 out of 5 ( still you are facing the problems described above; and on the good day watch for avalanches)
    3. SKI MOUNTAINEERING – 1 out of 5 ( I’m very generous with the mark – there is nothing to ski up there but long and boring logging road on a good day. Those who want to ski Mamquam Mt. which is great destination again, have to pass on the cabin and camp in alpine)
    The overall score in my opinion is 2 out of 5.

    Like

  5. Pure and simple it is a poor location for a mountaineering hut.

    What are mountaineering activities? Skiing, snowshoeing, rock climbing, ice climbing and naturally “mountaineering” a cumulation of potentially any of the above.

    Compare it to the successful huts in SW BC and what does a Watersprite Lake hut offer? Notable and challenging peaks? Good ski terrain and conditions across all avalanche hazard ratings? Rock/snow/ice climbing?

    Does the BCMC operate any successful hut locations for it’s members? North Creek, Mountain Lakes or Plummer.

    What makes the “successful” huts such as Lake Lovely Water, Haberl Hut, Wendy Thompson Hut, Brew Hut, Keith’s Hut, etc so popular?

    The current popularity of the urban day hiker crowd should be the final deciding factor for anyone still considering this location. A hut will turn into nothing but a party location with users contributing no fees and pushing any members who do use it out.

    https://www.instagram.com/explore/tags/waterspritelake/

    Please, just let it die and don’t push it through just because we already have permission to build in that location.

    Consider the decades of funds that it will take to build a hut and the further decades that it will be around for with an equally suitable location and amount of research into the location.

    Like

  6. MURKY (ILLEGAL?) AND AVALANCHE-DANGEROUS WAYS TO GET THE HUT PROJECT *PUSHED THROUGH* WITH ONLY 50+% – NO MATTER WHAT? – Here are my issues/3 questions I have with the WSL Hut Project:

    The mechanics of calling for a member vote on January 12, 2016 has not been handled properly and several secretive attempts by directors have been made to cover-up the mistakes that would have resulted in a 75% threshold support. The question is whether a vote on January 12, short of 75% will be legal, given the multiple conflicting versions of the call for a meeting. —- To be legal, a CORRECT NOTICE for a General Meeting and an Ordinary Resolution has to be sent out by mail (email?) 14+2=16 days before the vote!

    1) WHAT IS THE RATIONAL TO LOWER THE THRESHOLD DOWN TO 50% ? (Is it because otherwise this director’s pet project can’t be build?)

    2) WHY WERE MEMBERS NOT INFORMED about multiple, secretive text changes on the Forum *before* I published these manipulations/monkey-business on the Club Forum? ——Shouldn’t there be a transparent discussion and a widespread support for one of the biggest club investments?—– Are directors conveniently *changing the rules during the race* because the hut-project did not get enough yes votes from members in November?

    3) INCREASED AVALANCHE DEATHS: WOULD IT NOT REDUCE AVALANCHE DEATHS, if *BC’s biggest Mountaineering Club* would choose a less-dangerous ski area?
    —— The WSL Hut will, like a magnet, ‘suck-in’ additional 800 estimated skier days per season into complex – dangerous avalanche terrain – resulting in (fermi)estimated 3, 6, 9 DEAD SKIERS during the coming 10 to 40 years? – Our Directors feel NO RESPONSIBILITY?? to prevent 2, 4, 6 unnecessary avalanche deaths by choosing a saver location than the almost exclusively COMPLEX WSL-Ski area?
    —— We all know, that the proposed warning signs in the field will only act as a legal fig-leave and will NOT SAVE THOSE 2 to 6 LIVE!

    NB: I have reason to believe, that the BOD deliberately does not -or is afraid to – ask an AVALANCHE PROFESSIONAL TO ASSESS THE SKI AREA, because directors do not want to get a second time (after the *Save Hut-Area A* was declined due to avalanche danger) -in writing- an ‘UNSAFE or HIGH RISK’ evaluation for the proposed Ski-Area, which would kill the WSL Project. ***Pushing this hut through comes first – PREVENTING ACCIDENTS AND SKIER SAFETY COMES SECOND :-(((( ***

    Like

    • After the 1st vote was defeated there was a significant change in the project financing. The hut committee was able to secure $20,000 and other external funding therefore the executive found it prudent to hold a second vote for the release of $30,000 from the club money. If you remember, the first vote asked for a release of $15,000 from a special fund and $35,000 from a General fund. Release of money from a restricted fund requires a special resolution and a 75% of votes in agreement. The $15,000 from the special fund is no longer required thanks to the external funding. Therefore we’re voting, in an ordinary resolution, on the release of $30,000 from a General fund.

      Like

  7. All members of the board of directors do have a fiduciary to represent the best interests of the club by abiding all legislative government and club bylaws. Failure to do so can result in legal action against individuals.

    It is a dirty move to try and push this through with little notice aside from a footnote on the website a couple of weeks ahead of the vote after the motion was defeated one already.

    Looks like we have some true politicians on the BOD.

    Like

  8. After the 1st vote was defeated there was a significant change in the project financing where the hut committee was able to secure $20,000 in external funding. This changed the project ask significantly enough that a 2nd vote was in order. This was agreed at the Dec 1st executive meeting and is recorded in minutes. The first email to a wide membership (a notice of general meeting) went out on Dec 7. Subsequently a short presentation about the project and the intended vote was done at the BCMC social on Dec 8th. Since then, another email was sent out on Jan 7 to members reminding them about the vote. The general meeting notice is also published on the club website and members who do not have an email address were notified by paper mail.

    Like

  9. To Alena: 1. You write “The first email to a wide membership (a notice of general meeting) went out on Dec. 7th.” – CORRECT IS: The headline reads: ”Notice of SPECIAL RESOLUTION” and further down”…moved as SPECIAL RESOLUTION that..” If the word ‘General Meeting’ is absolutely nowhere on that Legal Notice why are you calling this a ‘N o t i c e of General Meeting’!? —For all Members: A SPECIAL RESOLUTION AS ANNOUNCED needs 75% to pass and an Ordinary Resolution in a General Meeting needs 50+% to pass. This looks like more MANAGED information -to bring the threshold needed to pass- from 75% down to 50+%?

    2. The ‘reminder-email’/Jan.7th you write about‘: It is MANAGED INFORMATION to call it a ‘reminder-email’ as THE LEGAL NOTICE has
    a) A complete different text and
    b) Is factually-legally (without writing it) announcing a DIFFERENT TYPE OF RESOLUTION (an Ordinary Resolution) than was announced on Dec. 7th (a Special Resolution). It does not even mention the type of resolution, just mentions a 50%+ 1 threshold.
    c) You know that this NEW Notice (Nr4) does NOT meet the requirements of a 14days legal notice before the vote and it MAKES THE VOTE THEREFORE ILLEGAL!
    d) As a director, you have a fiduciary obligation and position of trust – Aren’t you inviting people for an illegal vote?

    3. You write: The $15,000 from the special fund is no longer required thanks to the external funding. This is what really happened when I was at the Executive/BOD Meeting on Dec.1st:
    a) During the discussion it was absolutely clear, that the BOD deliberately does not want to take any money out from the ‘Literary and Reserve Fund’ WHICH CONTAINS MONEY SPECIFICALLY SAVED FOR only 2 things: HUT BUILDING and for Communication Projects. To get money released- a vote needs a SPECIAL RESOLUTION which in turn needs a high 75% yes vote.
    b) President David Scanlon mentioned that he does NOT want to go there anymore. He does not want to think about that anymore. (Meaning taking money from the Lit&Res Fund which needs 75%)
    c)–This fund meddling and lowering of the threshold only takes place, because David Scanlon and other Directors do not want again a vote that needs 75% Yes votes with the chance they get defeated a second time!
    d)This is what I call ‘changing the rules during the race’ or tipping the playing field to get the wanted result and the money released with only 50% Yes vote.
    e) This is using a legal financial loophole– but it is in my personal view as ethical as paying legally your taxes in Luxemburg. And everybody in the BOD knows that!!
    f) What about Directors fiduciary obligation and position of trust? Even if the vote will produce 75+% yes in an (illegal vote), the process of arriving there will for ever compromise the legitimacy of that hut-project. Some members already call it the cheater’s hut.

    ——–End of answering Alena’s post – those three new things came up recently:

    I. More incorrect information? : It is mentioned on our web page and at above direct mails (All you wanted to know…Dec.7th): “It had been the Water Sprite Lake Cabin Building Committee’s hope that its fundraising efforts could have been confirmed prior to the November AGM.” —THIS SEEMS INCORRECT–
    a) Check for the truth: Look at the MEC website/Community&Events/Community contribution, read ‘Annual Applications Dead Lines’:… Applicants notified: MID NOVEMBER! How could anyone expect to have a vote early November ,requiring 14 days legal Notice to Members!!! This does not look truthful – does it?

    II. More secrecy via secret hut committee meetings:
    a) THE BOD announces proper transparency at the WSL Hut Page: ”The (hut) committee meets regularly at ANZA Club on West 8th Avenue in Vancouver. Additional volunteers are always welcome and BCMC guests are free to pop in and audit the discussion.
    b) But doing in reality: Holding SECRET/unpublished committee meetings like on Nov. 12th (so members could NOT audit the discussion), where still NO MINUTES are published 7 weeks later, and where those tricks of how to lower the voting threshold from 75% to 51% seem to were concocted.
    -Again: Do you see the pattern of secrecy?

    III. There appears to be a CONFLICT OF INTEREST? (COI)
    A BCMC Director/VP and ‘Member of the Hut Committee’ has not notified the club to clear a possible/potential conflict of interest -now or in the future, monetary or others- with the BOD back in March, before he started his ‘Back Country Hut Company’ (a consultancy?) only a few months after he became a member of the Hut-Committee:
    -Advertising his Company on the net: http://thebackcountryhutcompany.com/
    -Advertising at an affiliated US web page: http://thebackcountryhutcompany.com/sample-page/so-you-want-to-build-a-hut/
    -Advertising (indirectly) his BCMC Hut Activity ‘gaining hut building experience’ – on a public career-network.
    -I informed the BOD some days ago about this COI, but I have not heard back from them. Check it out on the net for yourself.

    IV. WHAT IT WOULD NEED FOR ME, TO VOTE *YES* FOR THE WSL-HUT:
    -My suggestion of what I would change to get the project secuerely approved in a positive and uniting way-
    a) I am not interested in killing the WSL hut project! This beautiful location deserves a clean, highly inclusive vote. – No problem to get over 75% votes in a straight forward and transparent way.
    b). Reschedule the vote form Jan12 to beginning March or better to April. (Last year we planned that vote for as late as June) Announce correctly a Special Resolution in a General Meeting (clearly mention the 75% threshold like in the first vote)
    c) Get the WSL Ski Area risk-assessed by a (our existing?) Professional Avalanche Specialist

    d) If the Area-Assessment looks fine, you will get my YES-vote and easily 80+% and you will make most – if not all- members happy 🙂

    d) If you choose to ram this vote through – you may still get 75% of a vote – but you will leave the club divided for a looooooong time, as the process was so controversial, flawed and tilted in one way. Please avoid that some members will call it the cheater-hut forever.

    – After all – it is a visually beautiful location as long as it is declared ‘save enough’ by a professional. Please hold a truly uniting vote in March -or even saver- in April. YOU WILL GET MY VOTE 🙂

    Like

  10. We realize that the wording of the Dec 24 notice was inaccurate in calling for a special resolution – this was an unfortunate mistake which the BOD tried hard to correct via new mailings (Dec 24 by paper mail to “non-electronic” members and Jan 7 by email) plus postings on the bcmc.ca website during various times in December. Unfortunately, these attempts were labelled as intentional misleading, which I can assure you is not the case. Of course, we are concerned about having a valid vote and therefore much scrutiny was done in the background to ensure that the communications sent out to members stated the essentials of the upcoming special general meeting: the place, the date and time, the general purpose. To that end we did have a board-independent lawyer review the Dec 7, Dec 24 and Jan 7 mail-outs and are now satisfied that the vote is legal and the notice provided meets the 14-day requirement.

    Like

    • Alena, one of the problems (the main?) on that issue is:
      1. That the BOD should have ‘come clean’ and announce on the webpage and via email (the same way the mistake was published), that a mistake was made as soon as I told you factually on the Forum on Dec 9th. It should not have been done in peace meal version quietly – because now you knew, I have noticed a member has noted those quiet changes! It is the secrecy that makes me loose trust in our BOD!
      2. I Have no problem that some directors made a mistake (I make many too)—- I do have a problem when those mistakes are corrected in such a SECRETIVE WAY—-
      —————————————————————————————
      MEMBERS PLEASE NOTE: today,at 16.44h I tried to publish a similar post to my above one, on the Forum (it gets much more traffic). The post was blocked from the Forum. – Looks like censor ship to me.
      —————————————————————————————-

      Like

      • Hi Werner, BCMC doesn’t censor or moderate member comments on the club forum so am not sure what happened there. Am checking with the webmaster, you might need to try to repost if something went wonky.

        Like

  11. well after reading this page before we went to watersprite hut for a couple of days of skiing, I was worried the terrain and skiing wouldn’t be all that good. The people who rated this area poorly for skiable terrain are crazy. It was awesome, the hut is awesome our group of seven were blown away. we rate it much higher than 1 out of 5 as stars liarsky rated it. there you go.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s