Should the number of permits per day for some EPs be reduced? It seems that if all daily permits are allocated over multiple days (common event) then all campsites within reach are full. What happens when a group cannot find an empty site? Negative impacts to over fishing?

I don't believe the number should be reduced. No matter what time of year if you want to get away from the crowds , there are endless places to do it. It may take a couple more portages, or a longer paddle, but if you do your homework you will find solitude , and campsites galore. The"busy " entry points will always be more crowded . Some people don't mind having to start looking for a empty campsite at noon, I am not one of them.

Better be careful when asking for permit numbers to be reduced, or you may be one of those that never gets another.
The BWCA used to handle 250,000 annual visitors, now the number is a bit over 100,000 and has dropped below that on occasion.
There are plenty of campsites, you just need to paddle a bit further than you'd like.
Everyone wants to find wilderness just outside the parking lot at their entry point!!

No. If you feel it's too crowded or aren't willing to travel further in then go during the off season. An added benefit is no bugs and no fees!

There's nothing written in stone that says the current number of permits allotted at each entry is the exact right amount.

Some of you sound pretty closed minded to any change.

I just hope that they are monitoring which permits are being used, and seeking the input of rangers and outfitters about campsite usage on a continuous basis. I think I read a thread about a study they are doing on this as well...which I think is great and if they can discover a more strategic way to disperse the permits, including reducing or increasing them in certain places, I'm all for it.

I don't know the answer. I do know I have nightmares about not finding open sites though, and it legitimately causes me anxiety during trips. Every time I read a trip report that features some group stranded without a site, I get pretty bummed.

I don't read than many trip reports but do people get stuck without sites? I've never not found multiple sites even late in the day (maybe close once but still found sites), but I like the traveling so not looking for a site near an EPs.

(I agree with outfitters who proposed a new portage from Lake One to Two, so you can bypass the bottleneck at the pond. Some small changes like that would help.)

If your stuck on only camping at 4 and 5 star sites I can see how it may seem crowded but I've traveled some of the most popular places at the most popular times and still found open sites.

I had the same conversation as TGO mentions with the owner of the Red Rock Store on Monday. His observation was that regardless of what the studies show the number of users and especially the 5+ day trip users is way down.

The proposed change billconner mentions crossed my mind as we traveled to Insula last week. I would be more than happy to strap my pack on and walk the distance from Lake 1 to Lake 2. For what it's worth I'd do the same for the 3 shorties between Lake 4 and Hudson. While it provides for some comedic relief that is by far the busiest stretch I've encountered in the BW.

The only time I've had trouble finding a site was the last night when we wanted a campsite close to the EP.

As others have said, the BWCA usage is down by half from peak usage. There are plenty if campsites as long as you travel in 3-5 portages from your EP.

I've found the same situation while hunting wilderness areas out West. Hike in more than a mile from where you park and you will generally have the area to yourself.

Use a popular EP, in peak season, a plan to only do 1 or 2 portages and you'll probably have issues finding a site if you wait after 1pm to start looking.

I have historically bought into the notion of 'sweat equity' getting you solitude, fishing and a nice site.

I used to avoid sites on the first/last couple lakes before the entry/exit because of the overuse many of these sites see.

This year, I am stressing out because I am taking my 9 Y.O. daughter on her first BWCA trip, and want it to be positive. This means reduced distances, lower stress, and shorter times seeking a site. Watching the permits get gobbled up, I am preparing myself (and her) that we may be paddling around looking for a site.

I guess I'll have a better formed opinion on this question when I'm back later in July, but I think for those who cannot manage travel to the depths of the park some accommodation might be needed. I don't know if that means reviewing the number of permits available, adding some sites on busy entry lakes, some availability of reserved sites, or something else.

Reduced No, re-evaluate and adjust Yes. There are some entry points that only have one entry a day. Why is Pine lake only line permit a day? Why does Moose have so many a day?
There also needs to be a re-evaluate through the season. The busy times need to be reduced a few and then add them later to others entry points or the same area. Again just a tweak not a major thing. It would be very easy to do this just look at the data and adjust.

You also have to remember that if you reduce permits you are taking money from local people that depend on that money. Only really 4 months out of the year that people go there in big numbers from June to September. Add up each person and the money that would be lost on Outfitters, grocery stores, gas stations, bait stores and that's a big number.

Another no here. I spend much more time thinking about how to encourage MORE people to experience the BWCA, not fewer. It's my impression there are more people who want to paddle in one day and basecamp than there were many years ago, which I think is part of the problem. I've seen people paddle in around key holidays and hope to get specific sites on popular lakes. I agree with VNO that some adjustments may help, but for the most part an early start, hard paddling, and flexible plans are the best solution to overcrowding in a key areas.

Maybe like horse lake have a restriction on permits that allow you to camp on busier entry point lakes and make those who want to camp there pay a little extra. After a good re-evaluation that is.

Last year I entered via a Moose Lake permit. I traveled to the north arm of Knife the first day and found a site with no problem. Later in the trip when reaching the south arm I was lucky to find a lousy site. The only tent pad was literally 10 ft from the latrine.

Both on the day paddling in and the day paddling back out I encountered numerous scout and other groups with 8-9 in each party.

What occurred to me was not a reduction of moose lake permits but rather breaking them up into multiple entry points. For example: Wind lake, Basswood via Prairie Portage, birch lake, and Ensign thus forcing a little more distribution of groups from the large permit entry points. The same could be done with Saganaga, Seagull, etc.

Not a reduction of permits but a more intentional dispersal. I was certain that when paddling back into Moose last year that every scout troop in America had a moose lake permit and they were all headed to knife lake. LOL

This is not meant as a slight towards the BSA, nearly noting the make up of the groups as we talked with all of them we encountered.

Obi.......i like that.. Never thought of it that way....

I'd go for more motor permits also.....

For those of you that were getting ready to throw your beer bottle at me..... I already ducked..

I cannot remember where I heard this, and if true, kept very quiet since it could open a can of worms.
You can camp/pitch a tent anywhere, BUT cannot have a camp fire unless at an approved site with a grate???

quote treehorn: "There's nothing written in stone that says the current number of permits allotted at each entry is the exact right amount."

I believe the number of parties allowed through each entry point is based on the number of campsites available (85%???)

quote homers: "Should the number of permits per day for some EPs be reduced? It seems that if all daily permits are allocated over multiple days (common event) then all campsites within reach are full. What happens when a group cannot find an empty site? Negative impacts to over fishing?"

My gut feeling pretty much agrees with the first three replies. And I remember sleeping on the shore one night after dark looking for an open camp in bad weather

Can only speculate and hope the fishing is sustainable. I hope it doesn't' change anymore than it already has and also hope it remains at least near wilderness forever. oth

quote yogi59weedr: "Obi.......i like that.. Never thought of it that way....


I'd go for more motor permits also.....


For those of you that were getting ready to throw your beer bottle at me..... I already ducked.."

Damn, I missed! Lol

quote The Great Outdoors: "
I cannot remember where I heard this, and if true, kept very quiet since it could open a can of worms.
You can camp/pitch a tent anywhere, BUT cannot have a camp fire unless at an approved site with a grate???
"

That's true for PMAs (primitively management areas), but no where else that I'm aware of and you can still have a fire, but I think they discourage them.

Frankly, if I traveled all day and couldn't find a site I'd just stealth camp away from shore and portages for one night and move onearly the next morning. I've never had an issue though if I find something by early afternoon, even in peak season. I've neverr tried it on an entry point lake during peak season.

An overall reduction i dont think would be a good idea overall, although since i plan my trips long in advance to be flexible with dates i would most likely benefit from it more than be hurt by it. That being said if there are specific entry points that need to be adjusted i would go for that, weather it be adding campsites or reducing permits. There are some areas i can think of that could stand to have campsites added.

A few areas may need tweaking, but I'm not sure about reducing. As people are involved, it is hard to predict how many will enter, how far in they will go, who is in their party ( kids, physical issues, invincible 20 year olds?) , or if they plan to base camp. Then throw in number and size of sites, distance between lakes, and many other variables. I am glad I'm not the one to make those decisions. Makes my head hurt to think about it.

Ideally (to my way of thinking) entry lakes would be used on the way in only in a storm where you shouldn't travel, but you need to enter on that date. Or for your last night in the BW. I have nightmares about not finding a site and being forced to exit earlier than planned.

Entered Moose R. N on June 4th. We were surprised how scarce sites (period, and open) were across Iron and Crooked, particularly given the size of the lakes and distance from an entry.

Short answer, YES. The Forest Service needs to at least audit the quota limit, it's based on dated figures.

Ran into a Forest Service employee last year. She was out with a trainee checking on sites and cleaning toilets. We made small talk about our trip and I asked her how often the quotas are audited, she said the quota limit was established back in the 1980's and hasn't been revisited since. I expressed that I felt like finding good campsites are becoming quite difficult, but this is likely a symptom of the EP's that we are going into.

Now my expectations are that I likely won't find the top 3 sites I'm after on any given lake.

No. The USFS knows what it's doing/regulating. Whatever the formula is -- it seems to be working well to get folks out there to enjoy the wilderness areas.

First of all, I think people need to go back and learn some of the history of how they came up with the number of permits. It was based on the "actual" use pre- BWCA days and the amount of available campsites in an area. If we start reducing the number of permits, this could be in violation of the law that created the BWCA.

As far as fishing pressure goes, even the most heavily fished lakes are getting 25% (if even that) of the pressure they would be getting if outside the BWCA.

the idea that even when all permits are reserved the campsite usage is 60%. i'm not sure if this is considering all the possible travel routes a person can do with one ep permit.

the other issue is as campsites are closed permanently there will be no replacement of those campsites. considering the blowdown, fires and other issues over the years, i wonder how many sites that amounts to? how many sites are currently closed temporarily (resting)?

also, people move less frequently, basecamp more, have shorter trips so can't go further in... it all amounts to congestion in the first few lakes from the ep.

i think it would be hard for a party with newbies, or all newbies, or families with young children to expect to travel an aggressive route so they would naturally opt for a site just a portage or two in.

Forest Service do some searching on the USFS website, there is loads of info on lots of stuff (even non-BWCA!) if you're willing to dig. the other option is to have a conversation with a forest service district ranger (not the counter people, they don't make the decisions) or write an email or letter with your questions.

If the goal of this post is to allow more available campsites then I would suggest that a better alternative would be to change the system to daily use instead of unlimited use once purchased. This would allow better data on who is where (in a general area at least) and for how long.

Cross referencing # of days paid for + entry point (and possibly even reporting exit point) would allow for better data and management of campsites.

Quotas could be revised using this system to the maximum number of people in a general area at a given time instead of just people going in on a certain day.

I don't think there will be any negative impact to fishing...if a group can't find an open campsite, and has to travel further to find one, fishing will be the last thing they stop to do. If anything competition for sites take pressure off the fish. Anyway, I agree with the above sentiment that if you feel it's too crowded you simply aren't putting forth the effort, because the BWCA offers plenty of solitude and elbow room if you know where and how to look. Popular routes will remain that regardless..

I agree with Savage Voyageur - don't reduce but re-evaluate the allocations or establish - like some of the busy lakes - entry lake only permits. Some areas are so very over used - like Moose Lake with the Boy Scout Northern Tier groups - or Lake One.
Check the data and re-allocate.

I agree with Savage Voyageur - don't reduce but re-evaluate the allocations or establish - like some of the busy lakes - entry lake only permits. Some areas are so very over used - like Moose Lake with the Boy Scout Northern Tier groups - or Lake One.
Check the data and re-allocate.

I do both long-travel trips with my young(ish) friends, and short trips with my wife and young kids. I agree that the "frontcountry" campsites are being overused and (in some places) are in short supply, possibly due to an increase in basecamping. Finding decent frontcountry campsites is a source of stress for me when planning a trip with small children, particularly during the summer months.

USFS/SNF should re-evaluate their management of "frontcountry" lakes - those that can be reached relatively easily and/or quickly should have their permit numbers scrutinized.

And it's not just "finding a campsite"...I'm also concerned about overuse and damage to the resource.

quote anthonylane: "Short answer, YES. The Forest Service needs to at least audit the quota limit, it's based on dated figures.

Ran into a Forest Service employee last year. She was out with a trainee checking on sites and cleaning toilets. We made small talk about our trip and I asked her how often the quotas are audited, she said the quota limit was established back in the 1980's and hasn't been revisited since. I expressed that I felt like finding good campsites are becoming quite difficult, but this is likely a symptom of the EP's that we are going into.

Now my expectations are that I likely won't find the top 3 sites I'm after on any given lake. "

Quotas have been changed the last few years where fires destroyed some campsites.

Overall I would leave it as is but with some tweeting.

The system will always have some bumps. You know if you make people who base camp like one portage in move more into remote areas,than those who normally paddle thru the crowds to get to quite areas will now see more people.

It would be nice to see on a given day the percent of campsites on a given lake are filled. It would also be nice like way back in the 60's they might close a campsite for a couple of years to recuperate and close it down with maybe a alternate site opened if needed?
Funny in some ways. It is a good problem people are using the BWCA,it is another kind of problem when some areas are overused.
Nobody wants to see where you lose the flexabilty(sp) when canoeing to chose a campsite as you go.
Go to the back country of a National park and you reserve specific sites before you go.
Its a good system now with maybe a little fine tuning?

Basically in heavy used areas plan to look for a campsite early. Also plan your trips more in the quite times.

No, if you don't like the current numbers, go to Quetico.

OT-That was Zeus in the photo you sent me!!

quote The Great Outdoors: "OT-That was Zeus in the photo you sent me!!"

Yep, that other pic that Bluto posted was really hard to tell, but I knew it had to be Zeus when I saw that other pic I sent you.

Just a different look.
Aprox. 3000 campsites inside the BWCA.
Average max permits per day, motor overnite and paddle overnite, about 275.
Check my numbers, I've made my share of mistakes.

Good arguments could be made to increase the number of permits. Because the total number of campsites are/may be underutilized.

butthead

Just back this morning from EP14 to LLC, a loop through Beartrack back to Snow Bay, and to EP14. Hardly saw anyone till this morning on the first portage north of EP. Very surprised. Maybe 4 other groups in the whole trip before today. Every site we looked at was unoccuiped.

In 2013 we were in a lake and found a closed campsite. It had a little sign indicating a new campsite was open to the north, and sure enough there was a replacement campsite. Somebody in this thread said they didn't make new ones to replaced closed ones, but that is not the case.

Campsite overuse is not limited to BWCA. There are many that are overused in Quetico, but they are never closed there. And Quetico has what, half the visitors of BWCA? Nice sites on nice lakes with good fishing will always be used, and overused.

Certainly don't reduce permits. More people need to go and get outside and experience BWCA if it is going to stay protected.
Joe

quote joewildlife: "In 2013 we were in a lake and found a closed campsite. It had a little sign indicating a new campsite was open to the north, and sure enough there was a replacement campsite. Somebody in this thread said they didn't make new ones to replaced closed ones, but that is not the case. "

Joe... that was me that said that. got that info from a USFS district ranger during a discussion after the Cavity and Ham fires when the area burned devastated many sites.

glad to hear your news! hoping the site you found was suitable for the popularity of the area you were traveling.

No I don't think they need to decrease the permit number/quota.

As others have said the actual usage is less than in the past, I think the problem is people don't want to put the sweat equity in anymore. The FS doesn't compute the quota based on everyone just doing portage or two in...it is based on groups moving on. There seems to be a lot more people just close basecamping. It isn't the FS quota creating the problem it is BWCAW campers changing their type of travel/camping.

T

quote timatkn: "No I don't think they need to decrease the permit number/quota.


As others have said the actual usage is less than in the past, I think the problem is people don't want to put the sweat equity in anymore. The FS doesn't compute the quota based on everyone just doing portage or two in...it is based on groups moving on. There seems to be a lot more people just close basecamping. It isn't the FS quota creating the problem it is BWCAW campers changing their type of travel/camping.


T"

Exactly what my outfitter said this morning. Lakes 1 - 3, Ensign, etc. packed. Another two portages - solitude. Older and maybe lazier - but I'm not sure that correlates. At 65 I just feel like going further, if slower, and I saw youngins heading into Shell to base.