Just got notice at the annual Forest Service/permit discussion meeting (this afternoon) that there will be an increase in reserving BWCA permits!

The company that is doing them lost the "bid" for next year so from what I heard, proposed to raise rates for the reservation fee from $6.00 to $10.00.

At meeting with Forest Service today it was sort of said, "Lucky they didn't go up more than that". I guess there was nothing in the contract that said they couldn't raise rates. (?) Was told not sure when this will start, maybe soon.

Heard that they might want to go retroactive on permits already reserved but not sure how they could legally do that.

Don't blame the Forest Service for this one, out of their hands.

Greed.
Wow.66% increase..

I guess owner of new company just had a kid and baby needs a new pair of shoes.

I'm waiting for the day that the USFS charges a daily rate for camping like state parks, national parks and Canada does.

Don't get me wrong-I don't want to see it happen-but with a single fee for entering for as long as you want to stay its a really inexpensive option for use of a public area.

Currently for $22 per adult ($16 for fee plus $6 reservation), less for children, you can go the BWCAW for as long as you want. Raising it to $26 is not welcomed but still an incredble value.

And if you go before May 1 and after October 1 its free.

If you grab an open permit the day you want to enter between May 1 and October 1 and not reserve it you don't have to pay the recreation.gov reservation fee.

I doubt Dave and Amy would have been able to do the year in the BWCAW if they had to pay a daily use fee per person for the 365 days they were there without even more funding and help from the Friends and others. If the fee was $15 a day, for all 365 days, for each of them, that would have come to $10,950.

And that is part of the reason the interagency pass is such a great gift to get for the people we love. My parents have been getting me my pass as my Christmas present for over a decade now and every year i would bet that I save a couple hundred dollars on entrance fees above and beyond what the pass would have originally cost. I have no problems with them raising prices as long as they continue to fund responsible stewardship of the places I consider sacred.

Second on the value of the Interagency Pass! My Seinior Interagency Pass has been the best value I have purchased.

But the price increase is from an independent contractor that is/will operate the reservation system. The reservation fee went up, not the permit fee, the Pass does not apply to or cover reservation cost.

butthead

So, am I hearing this correctly. The raised reservation fee will NOT go to the USFS but to the company organizing the permitting, right?

Correct-it is not the USFS money or job to take and manage reservations.
Resrvations are a contracted service from a third party provider.

Not sure I could be bothered any less about this. I'd defy anyone to show me a better vacation value than a BW trip. Even with the additional cost of a Q trip, I'd say the same thing there as well.

quote ParkerMag: "Not sure I could be bothered any less about this. I'd defy anyone to show me a better vacation value than a BW trip. Even with the additional cost of a Q trip, I'd say the same thing there as well."

Totally agree-I rarely go to BWCAW anymore and when I do its short trips in shoulder season.

I've seen almost all of it, get annoyed by the way some treat it, annoyed by the lack of respect that some show toward other campers and I prefer solitude. Because of that I go to Canada now and still feel the price is fair even though it is substantially more then BWCAW.

quote Bogwalker: "

quote ParkerMag: "Not sure I could be bothered any less about this. I'd defy anyone to show me a better vacation value than a BW trip. Even with the additional cost of a Q trip, I'd say the same thing there as well."

Totally agree-I rarely go to BWCAW anymore and when I do its short trips in shoulder season.


I've seen almost all of it, get annoyed by the way some treat it, annoyed by the lack of respect that some show toward other campers and I prefer solitude. Because of that I go to Canada now and still feel the price is fair even though it is substantially more then BWCAW."

Agree, I just hope if there is anymore change in fee it isn't private companies being benefited. Unless they are going in and maintaining the place.

Does the interagency pass apply for bwca permits? How does that work?

Given the current political attitude regarding public lands and their management, I would not be surprised to see a significant increase in user fees.

Compared to $15/person/night in WCPP, it's a steal. With the BWCAW price you get better sites, with latrines and fire grates. I wish that they would charge more to help pay for more maintenance and patrolling. OTOH, WCPP should do more for what they charge. Been through many portages there that seem to have been cut for a 14' canoe. Also, access could be much better with roads fixed up and camping allowed at entry points for those who drive all day to get there. How about a latrine at each entry point for WCPP? At the BWCAW we get a lot for our buck.

I would be interested to see how much profit the previous company made.
Also who was responsible for approving a contract that has no price increase provisions in it.
I'm sure there are stats somewhere that list how many permits were issued last year and how many were reservations and how many were picked up without reservations.

How many were phoned in and how many used the internet....
As for the pass I've never asked for a refund on my reservation fee. You don't get this 1/2off til you pick up the permit. Seemed like a pain for the forest service to refund $3.00. But now I might ask for my $4.00 back.
Now when I reserve my site at Fall lake camp ground the 1/2off is given at the time you make your reservation.

My bad I know reservation fees are non refundable. It's camping fees that are 1/2 off

quote PortageKeeper: "Compared to $15/person/night in WCPP, it's a steal. With the BWCAW price you get better sites, with latrines and fire grates. I wish that they would charge more to help pay for more maintenance and patrolling. OTOH, WCPP should do more for what they charge. Been through many portages there that seem to have been cut for a 14' canoe. Also, access could be much better with roads fixed up and camping allowed at entry points for those who drive all day to get there. How about a latrine at each entry point for WCPP? At the BWCAW we get a lot for our buck."

For some of us the lack of access and amenities in places like WCPP is a bonus. When I've been there I didn't like paying the daily fee but it was worth it for the experience.

Alan

quote Alan Gage: "

quote PortageKeeper: "Compared to $15/person/night in WCPP, it's a steal. With the BWCAW price you get better sites, with latrines and fire grates. I wish that they would charge more to help pay for more maintenance and patrolling. OTOH, WCPP should do more for what they charge. Been through many portages there that seem to have been cut for a 14' canoe. Also, access could be much better with roads fixed up and camping allowed at entry points for those who drive all day to get there. How about a latrine at each entry point for WCPP? At the BWCAW we get a lot for our buck."

For some of us the lack of access and amenities in places like WCPP is a bonus. When I've been there I didn't like paying the daily fee but it was worth it for the experience.


Alan"

I agree, the only way I see it justified in the bwca is usage. If you have 250,000 people in the same 1.1 illion acres or whatever digging cat holes everywhere the BW would be pretty gross to say the least. In WCPP you actually have to use some skills not needed in a campgrounds

quote nctry: "Does the interagency pass apply for bwca permits? How does that work?"

Yes, half price. Have not reserved online since retiring. Instead picking permits in person at Ranger Stations. I believe an online reservation does not discount till the permit is picked up (no provision in the order process), just like they will not accept a single person canoe party.
Campsite reservations online do accept the Interagency card number and discount the site cost 50%.

butthead

I believe the reservation fee was $12 up until a few years ago. The $6 vender somehow cut the price in half.

quote ParkerMag: "Not sure I could be bothered any less about this. I'd defy anyone to show me a better vacation value than a BW trip. Even with the additional cost of a Q trip, I'd say the same thing there as well."

Agreed.

quote AndySG: "Given the current political attitude regarding public lands and their management, I would not be surprised to see a significant increase in user fees."

I would not be surprised to see a significant decrease in user fees.

quote PortageKeeper: "Compared to $15/person/night in WCPP, it's a steal. With the BWCAW price you get better sites, with latrines and fire grates. I wish that they would charge more to help pay for more maintenance and patrolling. OTOH, WCPP should do more for what they charge. Been through many portages there that seem to have been cut for a 14' canoe. Also, access could be much better with roads fixed up and camping allowed at entry points for those who drive all day to get there. How about a latrine at each entry point for WCPP? At the BWCAW we get a lot for our buck."

It's a little bit of apples and oranges... Each operational Ontario Provincial Park relies pretty heavily on its particular user fees, whereas the USFS -- overseeing the BWCAWA -- probably has different revenue streams for patrolling, upkeep, etc. ? Even if directly dependent on user fees (?), BWCA sees very many more users... The website, myccr.com has some interesting threads about funding and conditions for the Ontario Provincial Parks.

I understand completely-3rd party Contractor raised their prices.

Still. This IS the fault of the USFS. This is their program.

That's like saying it's not the Twins' fault if Ticketmaster raises their fees. The twins/MLB can choose another vendor or should have negotiated control of this in their deal.

Bottom line- the baseball ticket costs more. ..

Also- from a pure business standpoint, increased permit numbers should cause efficiencies and reduce the fee. There are minimal additional costs assosicated with more users- at least at the 3rd party vendor's level. They already have a system in place and their overhead is not going to change.

Name one good business where more volume increases the per unit cost... Is it more expensive per sale for amazon to maintain their website when they have 10 sales or 10 million??

It's $4 I'm not complaining... it is what it is- but what it is is bad management.

quote Dances with Sheep: "

quote AndySG: "Given the current political attitude regarding public lands and their management, I would not be surprised to see a significant increase in user fees."

I would not be surprised to see a significant decrease in user fees."

The trend in the Forest system a very high percentage of the funds allocated by the Federal government are now going to fight forest fires on federal land etc.. less and less money goig for forest maintenance etc.
Superior National Forest staff is way less than 50% they had around 1970 and recent years has been more of a skeleton crew.
The user fee is extremely cheap now.
I do think the registration fee did go up too much at once and to go up that much,did the previous group bid at all?

Its ironic but the Bass Pro company I know for awhile handled issued MN DNR licenses,I don't know who has the contract now?

What took them so long. It's the best bargain in all of the parks.

quote Savage Voyageur: "What took them so long. It's the best bargain in all of the parks. "

Let's keep in mind it's not the actual program that gets the increase.

quote Alan Gage: "

quote PortageKeeper: "Compared to $15/person/night in WCPP, it's a steal. With the BWCAW price you get better sites, with latrines and fire grates. I wish that they would charge more to help pay for more maintenance and patrolling. OTOH, WCPP should do more for what they charge. Been through many portages there that seem to have been cut for a 14' canoe. Also, access could be much better with roads fixed up and camping allowed at entry points for those who drive all day to get there. How about a latrine at each entry point for WCPP? At the BWCAW we get a lot for our buck."

For some of us the lack of access and amenities in places like WCPP is a bonus. When I've been there I didn't like paying the daily fee but it was worth it for the experience.


Alan"

I understand this and mostly agree. I was trying to state a big difference between the two, but then stating what I would like to see changed. Once the logging operation around, and on the way to Leano pulled out, they took their culverts with them. The MNR I believe had an agreement with them that the logging company would landscape the spots where there were culverts so people would still be able to get through. This was a wise move as a dip in the road is harder for beaver to plug than a culvert. Regardless, the MNR (or park service) had stated that they have no intentions of maintaining the roads. This means that eventually most people won't get through at all and will need to use another means (shuttle, plane etc). To me, this only hurts them, but certainly helps shuttle services and air services. I think that they should keep these entry points open to most, not just open for those who have a 4x4 with high clearance.

Golly 10 whole dollars. Outrageous I say!

quote Dances with Sheep: "

quote AndySG: "Given the current political attitude regarding public lands and their management, I would not be surprised to see a significant increase in user fees."

I would not be surprised to see a significant decrease in user fees."

can't imagine a decrease in user fees. i would support an increase provided the money goes primarily to the area is was collected from (BWCA) and not so much to administration. they could use it fund more wilderness people to maintain portages, campsites, replace/dig new latrines.

quote Mocha: "

quote Dances with Sheep: "

quote AndySG: "Given the current political attitude regarding public lands and their management, I would not be surprised to see a significant increase in user fees."

I would not be surprised to see a significant decrease in user fees."

can't imagine a decrease in user fees. i would support an increase provided the money goes primarily to the area is was collected from (BWCA) and not so much to administration. they could use it fund more wilderness people to maintain portages, campsites, replace/dig new latrines."

There won't be a decrease and I agree with Mocha. Now I know like National Parks and even the BWCA much of that user fee suppose to stay where generated. How much in percent?

quote nctry: "

quote Bogwalker: "

quote ParkerMag: "Not sure I could be bothered any less about this. I'd defy anyone to show me a better vacation value than a BW trip. Even with the additional cost of a Q trip, I'd say the same thing there as well."

Totally agree-I rarely go to BWCAW anymore and when I do its short trips in shoulder season.



I've seen almost all of it, get annoyed by the way some treat it, annoyed by the lack of respect that some show toward other campers and I prefer solitude. Because of that I go to Canada now and still feel the price is fair even though it is substantially more then BWCAW."

Agree, I just hope if there is anymore change in fee it isn't private companies being benefited. Unless they are going in and maintaining the place."

Exactly!

The previous company handled many of our Countries parks and forest campgrounds. To lose the bid for next year on a 4 dollar increase? What were they thinking and it sounds like something is missing here?

More of a question than a answer on my part. But here is the camping fee reservation from the same site or group that handles other campsite fees. Is the BWCA fee just catching up. I have no idea? Maybe the new company is making all campground fees the same?


This is existing fees for other type campsites,while still BWCA fees are $6.00
Copied from Recreation.gov. site:

United States Forest Service camping facilities (with few exceptions) have a non-refundable reservation fee added to each reservation.

If made by phone, the non-refundable reservation fee is $10.00.
If made online at Recreation.gov, the non-refundable reservation fee is $9.00.

This small fee guarantees customers the opportunity to secure their favorite site, holiday, facility, etc.

For a full list of fees and charges associated with the reservation process, visit the Fees and Cancellation tab on Recreation.gov after pulling up your preferred Facility or discuss with one of our knowledgeable phone representatives.

Like many have said, I would like to see an increase in the permit fee-not the reservation fee. Make it a daily charge like Quetico and the other PP. Frankly, I would also like to see fewer permits available each day as well.

quote yogi59weedr: "Greed.
Wow.66% increase..

I guess owner of new company just had a kid and baby needs a new pair of shoes."

Less than a cup of Caribou. Let's all panic! Where else are you going to go? Quetico is fished out from all the folks who paid too much. Stay home.

I am pretty certain that the USFS gets a percentage of permit fees from contractors just as they do from contractors that manage other recreational facilities or special use permit holders that charge people for guided trips. Probably 3%.

A ten dollar permit fee is still a great deal

quote old_salt: "

quote yogi59weedr: "Greed.
Wow.66% increase..


I guess owner of new company just had a kid and baby needs a new pair of shoes."

Less than a cup of Caribou. Let's all panic! Where else are you going to go? Quetico is fished out from all the folks who paid too much. Stay home."

I agree

quote ParkerMag: "Not sure I could be bothered any less about this. I'd defy anyone to show me a better vacation value than a BW trip. Even with the additional cost of a Q trip, I'd say the same thing there as well."

Yes, yes, yes

Too expensive now, I'm never going back :)

This has not been stated: but think about it, perhaps the contractor decided to increase their employees wages and give them a much needed raise!! Or perhaps, something out of their control occurred, like, the cost of providing benefits to their employees increased and they just wanted to cover the cost to continuing to provide that benefit. Or they may have moved to a location with an higher cost of rent.

I have worked in the Federal Government (Forest Service and EPA) as well as a contractor for various Federal Agencies (so I have a little bit of knowledge about the issue) and there are cost increases for contractors that are totally allowable and acceptable under their contract.
Also, as a Federal contractor, their costs structure is audited by the DCAA and while not perfect, it does a certain level of legitimacy to a contractor's fees being raised. Many of these types of contracts allow for increases that are "Unforeseen" or legal under the FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulations).

So please keep it in perspective, since none of us on this BB know the actual reason for the increase!! We only know what Lynn told us.

quote Mocha: "

quote Dances with Sheep: "

quote AndySG: "Given the current political attitude regarding public lands and their management, I would not be surprised to see a significant increase in user fees."

I would not be surprised to see a significant decrease in user fees."

can't imagine a decrease in user fees. i would support an increase provided the money goes primarily to the area is was collected from (BWCA) and not so much to administration. they could use it fund more wilderness people to maintain portages, campsites, replace/dig new latrines."

Agree !

I was always happily surprised with how affordable it has been. I understand that the idea is to keep the area usable for all Americans, so prices should be kept low. The company running it should be allowed to make a profit. Their profits should not be exorbitant. I don't know... maybe 10% after expenses???? Just throwing out a number. There are a lot of ways to hide profits. This is always the problem when using/getting government money.

quote Grizzlyman: "

quote Savage Voyageur: "What took them so long. It's the best bargain in all of the parks. "

Let's keep in mind it's not the actual program that gets the increase. "

Right you are, I misunderstood. This fee is just for the people that issue the permits.

I would be in favor of starting a daily use rate of a few bucks to be put right back into the area. Hire more Rangers, better maintenance of trails and sites and others. Might be per permit or per person. It would be a user fee like the Quetico has. If you don't use it you won't pay for it. If you do, you will help offset the cost of maintaining the area.

As of today, the reservation fee (not camping BWCA fee) is now $10.00 for recreation.gov to handle the permit.

Reserved a couple today & saw it is now official.

Its still cheap in today's world.

quote Savage Voyageur: "

quote Grizzlyman: "

quote Savage Voyageur: "What took them so long. It's the best bargain in all of the parks. "

Let's keep in mind it's not the actual program that gets the increase. "

Right you are, I misunderstood. This fee is just for the people that issue the permits.

I would be in favor of starting a daily use rate of a few bucks to be put right back into the area. Hire more Rangers, better maintenance of trails and sites and others. Might be per permit or per person. It would be a user fee like the Quetico has. If you don't use it you won't pay for it. If you do, you will help offset the cost of maintaining the area. "

as i understood it, the reservation fee, previously $6, now $10, stays with the company who won the bid. the user fees come back to the forest, Superior National Forest in the case of the BWCA, for where the reservation was made. Now, that amount is divvied up amongst administration and wilderness. i'm sure if someone wanted to read the fine print in some 10,000 page handbook, you could find the answer to how it's divvied up.

quote Mocha: "

quote Savage Voyageur: "

quote Grizzlyman: "

quote Savage Voyageur: "What took them so long. It's the best bargain in all of the parks. "

Let's keep in mind it's not the actual program that gets the increase. "

Right you are, I misunderstood. This fee is just for the people that issue the permits.


I would be in favor of starting a daily use rate of a few bucks to be put right back into the area. Hire more Rangers, better maintenance of trails and sites and others. Might be per permit or per person. It would be a user fee like the Quetico has. If you don't use it you won't pay for it. If you do, you will help offset the cost of maintaining the area. "

as i understood it, the reservation fee, previously $6, now $10, stays with the company who won the bid. the user fees come back to the forest, Superior National Forest in the case of the BWCA, for where the reservation was made. Now, that amount is divvied up amongst administration and wilderness. i'm sure if someone wanted to read the fine print in some 10,000 page handbook, you could find the answer to how it's divvied up."

Yes I think you are correct Mocha.

I'm not saying that $10.00 is not bad. I'm just curiocurious why it went up 67%I'm one year.Im not buying the raise and benefits.
Maybe they under bid the bid by so much to get the contract that they knew they could make it up on raising the reservation few.

If we tell them it's a bargain believe you me , ,, they will raise it.

All I know is what was said at the meeting and it sort of went like; "well they didn't get the bid for next year so they are raising the fee they charge for the reservation amount."

And there wasn't anything in the agreement (that was sort of indicated too) that prevented them from raising it, "just be glad it didn't go up to $50.00"

quote VoyageurNorth: "All I know is what was said at the meeting and it sort of went like; "well they didn't get the bid for next year so they are raising the fee they charge for the reservation amount."


And there wasn't anything in the agreement (that was sort of indicated too) that prevented them from raising it, "just be glad it didn't go up to $50.00""

It is difficult when your business depends on another entities control of prices! Trust me, I know.

quote drnatus: "

quote VoyageurNorth: "All I know is what was said at the meeting and it sort of went like; "well they didn't get the bid for next year so they are raising the fee they charge for the reservation amount."



And there wasn't anything in the agreement (that was sort of indicated too) that prevented them from raising it, "just be glad it didn't go up to $50.00""

It is difficult when your business depends on another entities control of prices! Trust me, I know. "

That is different than I first thought. It is the out going company charging more.
Like I mentioned earlier I see regular campsites I campgrounds has been around $10 in the past.
I wonder what MN DNR vendor gets for campsite reservations?

Something I also don't know anything about is the cost and logistics of a company to run their programs. I have zero idea?

This is a contract vendor also:
What is the reservation fee? MN DNR State Parks

It is $8.50 to make a reservation online and $10.00 to make a reservation by phone. There is no fee to make a same-day reservation.

quote VoyageurNorth: "As of today, the reservation fee (not camping BWCA fee) is now $10.00 for recreation.gov to handle the permit.


Reserved a couple today & saw it is now official.


"

1

And for those of us that made our reservations earlier in the year, will we be grandfathered in at the old price structure?

I think I should check my reservation status.

quote airmorse: "

quote VoyageurNorth: "As of today, the reservation fee (not camping BWCA fee) is now $10.00 for recreation.gov to handle the permit.



Reserved a couple today & saw it is now official.



"

1


And for those of us that made our reservations earlier in the year, will we be grandfathered in at the old price structure?


I think I should check my reservation status."

You should be fine you already paid the reservation fee. Just made a new reservation it was $10 and looked at my account old fee still listed at $6 for earlier reservation made.

quote VoyageurNorth: "All I know is what was said at the meeting and it sort of went like; "well they didn't get the bid for next year so they are raising the fee they charge for the reservation amount."


And there wasn't anything in the agreement (that was sort of indicated too) that prevented them from raising it, "just be glad it didn't go up to $50.00""

Still a bargain, but it seems pretty shady that the out-going company -- recreation.gov -- could raise rates mid-season. How could it be that there was no contract to honor?

I'm just hoping that the new company might bring an improved look to the website's reservation experience for 2018. The present system works, sure, but it wouldn't hurt to have a wider view of the calendar to make finding that ideal date and EP combination a bit quicker without all of the 'Next 2 weeks' or 'Find Other Entrances' links: i.e. a larger grid showing multiple date choices (full month?) across the top and multiple EP choices (all?) down the left side...

Still a cheap vacation.

quote yogi59weedr: "I'm not saying that $10.00 is not bad. I'm just curiocurious why it went up 67%I'm one year.Im not buying the raise and benefits.
Maybe they under bid the bid by so much to get the contract that they knew they could make it up on raising the reservation few.


If we tell them it's a bargain believe you me , ,, they will raise it."

Like this reasoning. Lordy, they sure get their extra income fees if you have to make a date change or a cancellation.

quote Zulu: "I believe the reservation fee was $12 up until a few years ago. The $6 vender somehow cut the price in half. "

In case anyone is interested in this fact, the reservation fee was $12 up through 2010. Since 2011 it has been $6.00, which was a 50% reduction. The $10.00 is still lower than it was in 2010. In dollar terms it went down $6.00 in 2011 and now has gone up $4.00, at least for the remainder of this contract period. I can't think of many other services that dropped that much and remained there over the same time period.

Apparently someone underbid them for the new contract. They will not have a business next year. We do not yet know what the new contractor will charge. As someone who has subcontracted with contractors who had to bid on a contract annually, my experience is that any savings will come from lower pay to employees/independent contractors. Most likely their pay will go down, but the price won't. The service/product may or may not be better. We'll see.

In light of the facts of past history and the unknowns of the future service, I'll not be too quick to excoriate the current contractor.

quote Pinetree: "Its still cheap in today's world."

If "it" is the BW permit, I agree.

If "it" is a $10.00 reservation, I disagree. Look at Amazon -- they can manage the transaction for a pittance. Why $10.00 for a reservation? That is not cheap in my book.