Another thread got me thinking...

A few years ago, we did the Granite river loop. At the end, we were camped on Sag. The kids wanted a burger and thought it would be a fun day trip. So we paddled to the trail center, had a great burger, and paddled back to camp.

Did we break the rules about the permit becoming invalid if the leader left the BWCA?

If the leader, or any and all members left and came back in, yes.
However, if a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound?? :)

If you paddled to Trail Center, that's one heckuva paddle! I think it must have been the little store/grill at the end of the trail? But "Yes," that is against the rules. But, Sag is on the border of the BWCAW anyway and I cannot imagine a ranger being "Hard nosed" about a little infraction such as that?

Once we had 4 of our party splitting off and headed in on Seagull and we helped them over the Rog portage and Seagull was ugly. Decided to all go back as a group, eat dinner in GM, and get a "Day of" permit. Got lucky and went in at Lizz the next day.

yes you did, I guess it is up to us individually to follow certain rules. I tend to stick to the rules when in the BWCA, good Karma, good conscience etc.

TGO-However, if a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound?? :).
That is just not the sort of mentality we need. That "who's going to catch us" mentality. Who is going to catch us when we bring guns and shoot up Basswood? Who is going to catch us when we trash camp sites? Who is going to catch us when we catch bait in Canada and sell it in the US?

Are you really comparing getting your kids a burger to shooting up a Basswood campsite?

Actually, no I wasn't comparing the two violations of the rules. I was commenting on TGO's "if a tree falls in the woods" comment.

Rules are rules, I'm sure that Lakner didn't think it was a big deal to fire off a few rounds and scare some "eunuchs"

The point is that rules are there for a reason. It is up to us to follow them, or not, however small *we think* they may be.

I agree that rules are rules, but I also believe there are different "levels" of rules, thus the reason for different levels of punishment/recourse. Stealing a car is against the rules and the punishment is years in jail. Exiting the BWCA to enhance the experience of your kids is against the rules, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a Ranger who would strictly enforce the rule or even if they did enforce it, the punishment would be minimal. I am very leary of people who take the position of rules are rules and imply they always follow them. I guarantee those same people stood in the express checkout line with 11 items or ripped off the mattress tag cuz it made a crinkly noise in the middle of the night or went 26 miles per hour on a city street.

I never speed on the highway to Quetico :) jk

I've wondered what the point of this rule is. I assume they are trying to prevent people from essentially "living" in the wilderness, and coming out every few weeks to re supply? I've always wanted to camp on Sag and fish and explore the non Quetico Canadian side, and although I see nothing ethically wrong with doing this, it is a clear violation of the rules. I've also read about people with Quetico permits on the border lakes crossing the border to use the thunder box, which again doesn't sound like a big deal but is a clear violation of the rules.

Yes, it is basically to limit trip length and allow the permit allocations to be meaningful. If you can leave for part of a day to resupply, obviously, you could stay longer. Few people would do that and so it would have a small effect on the quotas. I think it would be few people because most people trip for less time than you can easily carry food for. So resupplying isn't an issue for their choice of trip length. If you can drive to a new EP and enter there then you start throwing off the planning of the quotas and number of campsites. And what if you could come out for more than a day? Then a permit basically lasts all season.

I did a trip from Crane Lake to Lake Superior one year. While paddling past Gunflint Lodge we stopped in for some batteries.

What's the rule on paddling through Gunflint Lake which is outside of the boundary waters?

quote wharrier: "I did a trip from Crane Lake to Lake Superior one year. While paddling past Gunflint Lodge we stopped in for some batteries.


What's the rule on paddling through Gunflint Lake which is outside of the boundary waters?"

I believe there is a qualifying statement that says "as long as it's part of your route", you can travel outside the park. So, paddling Gunflint lake is ok.....stopping at the lodge is not.
It's like putting in at Crab lake, paddling down LIS South, crossing the Echo Trail (outside the park) and continuing on LIS North.....as one continuous trip.

quote cowdoc: "I believe there is a qualifying statement that says "as long as it's part of your route", you can travel outside the park. So, paddling Gunflint lake is ok.....stopping at the lodge is not.
It's like putting in at Crab lake, paddling down LIS South, crossing the Echo Trail (outside the park) and continuing on LIS North.....as one continuous trip."

That would logically fit with the ranger's explanation to me that a BWCA permit is still valid for a return through the BWCA if the trip includes a trip into Quetico. She didn't explain *why* it's still valid, only *that* it's still valid; but it makes sense with that explanation: the canoe trip involves time outside the BWCA, but it's part of the BWCA trip route.

quote wharrier: "I did a trip from Crane Lake to Lake Superior one year. While paddling past Gunflint Lodge we stopped in for some batteries.


What's the rule on paddling through Gunflint Lake which is outside of the boundary waters?"

Here's an old thread on crossing "corridors" in the BWCA, stating that during a continuous trip across the BWCA you may, because of geography, lawfully exit the wilderness and reenter it. But if you spend a night or otherwise resupply while outside the BWCA, you need a new permit.

quote Soledad: "Actually, no I wasn't comparing the two violations of the rules. I was commenting on TGO's "if a tree falls in the woods" comment.

Rules are rules, I'm sure that Lakner didn't think it was a big deal to fire off a few rounds and scare some "eunuchs"

The point is that rules are there for a reason. It is up to us to follow them, or not, however small *we think* they may be."

Exiting and re-entering the Bdub just to grab a burger is against the rules, but comparing it to shooting up a campsite, or whatever other scene you can conjure up???
If and when they did re-enter, did the world change for the worse, did it kill or injure anyone, damage anyone's property, etc??
If not, who cares?
I think someone needs to take one deep breath, and chill out a bit!
Wow!!!!!
PS-Don't exceed the speed limit on the way up, pull a U turn in the middle of Ely's streets, or cut a single green twig in the forest.
Of course, a 100% law abiding person like yourself would never do anything like that! :)
PPS-Who caught bait in Canada and transported it to the United States??
Please tell me, I'm very curious, or are you just launching baseless accusations or insinuations to try to make a point?

quote TominMpls: "

quote cowdoc: "I believe there is a qualifying statement that says "as long as it's part of your route", you can travel outside the park. So, paddling Gunflint lake is ok.....stopping at the lodge is not.
It's like putting in at Crab lake, paddling down LIS South, crossing the Echo Trail (outside the park) and continuing on LIS North.....as one continuous trip."

That would logically fit with the ranger's explanation to me that a BWCA permit is still valid for a return through the BWCA if the trip includes a trip into Quetico. She didn't explain *why* it's still valid, only *that* it's still valid; but it makes sense with that explanation: the canoe trip involves time outside the BWCA, but it's part of the BWCA trip route."

This is what drives me nuts. I have in writing from USFS office in Duluth that tripping in the Q - other than just portages along the border - makes the BWCA permit invalid. I'm sure the ranger told you that, as outfitters have told me same. I have tried to get better definition on "corridor crossing" but when I ask specific questions, they don't reply.

PS to be clear, nothing against post, only what it reports. Unlike Greek drama, I don't believe in killing the messenger. :)

Technically this is unacceptable, a few years ago we lost our keys to the truck while canoeing, literally fell out of the canoe (long story), either way we decided to take a two day trek from where we were back to our entry point, hitch hike to the ranger station, and call home to have a set shipped up to the ranger station, we then hitchhiked back to our entry point to continue our trip, when we left just hitchhiked back to the ranger station with our keys waiting for us in an envelope.

Worked great, except got chewed out pretty good by one of the rangers for leaving without it being an "emergency" , another ranger at the station was more accepting to our situation.

Here's a take on rule application by one of the smartest, toughest people I know.


Off-topic, but if you want more Calvin, there's this.

quote billconner: "

quote TominMpls: "

quote cowdoc: "I believe there is a qualifying statement that says "as long as it's part of your route", you can travel outside the park. So, paddling Gunflint lake is ok.....stopping at the lodge is not.
It's like putting in at Crab lake, paddling down LIS South, crossing the Echo Trail (outside the park) and continuing on LIS North.....as one continuous trip."

That would logically fit with the ranger's explanation to me that a BWCA permit is still valid for a return through the BWCA if the trip includes a trip into Quetico. She didn't explain *why* it's still valid, only *that* it's still valid; but it makes sense with that explanation: the canoe trip involves time outside the BWCA, but it's part of the BWCA trip route."

This is what drives me nuts. I have in writing from USFS office in Duluth that tripping in the Q - other than just portages along the border - makes the BWCA permit invalid. I'm sure the ranger told you that, as outfitters have told me same. I have tried to get better definition on "corridor crossing" but when I ask specific questions, they don't reply.

PS to be clear, nothing against post, only what it reports. Unlike Greek drama, I don't believe in killing the messenger. :)"

Don't know if this is what you refer to, but anyone passing through the BWCA to get into the Quetico Park to camp needs, (or used to need ???), a BWCA permit.
You cannot camp in the BWCA with this permit, it's just issued for travel to get into the park.
The permit is good for entering and exiting after staying in the Quetico.
Hope I didn't make this confusing??? :)

quote missmolly: " Here's a take on rule application by one of the smartest, toughest people I know.



Off-topic, but if you want more Calvin, there's this. "

I love guys like this. They are always the ones who cruise with a ton of weight through a portage and have the energy to run back, meet me while I'm only halfway through, grab the canoe off my shoulders and go, while I am basically jogging with nothing on my shoulders to keep up!

...off topic, random comment, sorry....

quote Kobykat: "

quote missmolly: " Here's a take on rule application by one of the smartest, toughest people I know.



Off-topic, but if you want more Calvin, there's this. "

I love guys like this. They are always the ones who cruise with a ton of weight through a portage and have the energy to run back, meet me while I'm only halfway through, grab the canoe off my shoulders and go, while I am basically jogging with nothing on my shoulders to keep up!


...off topic, random comment, sorry...."

Calvin is the best of Sparta AND the best of Athens. He averaged 25 miles a day on the Appalachian Trail, but has done other things that make his AT end-to-end hike seem like a Sunday stroll. He once solo-crawled some wild pig tunnels on an undeveloped Hawaiian island to rappel into a canyon and he hurt himself bouldering a wild river in the canyon and had to free climb out with a bum leg. When he isn't adventuring, he's a world class programmer who's paid to work at home, taking only the gigs he wants...and he's wanted by many.

quote The Great Outdoors: "
Don't know if this is what you refer to, but anyone passing through the BWCA to get into the Quetico Park to camp needs, (or used to need ???), a BWCA permit.
You cannot camp in the BWCA with this permit, it's just issued for travel to get into the park.
The permit is good for entering and exiting after staying in the Quetico.
Hope I didn't make this confusing??? :)"

That would be if you're using a day-use permit just to get through the BWCA for a same-day entry to Quetico, which actually isn't what I was talking with the ranger about. I was talking about a multi-day trip where some of the middle days are in Quetico, but where you're camping in the BWCA on other days. This was a ranger at the Kawishiwi station in Ely, and she told me that if I had an overnight BWCA permit that entered the BWCA legally on, and also had a legally-acquired Quetico permit (and obviously also a remote area border crossing permit), I could travel freely between the two parks, staying at sites on either side according to my route, and could legally exit through the BWCA on the same permit I'd entered. I asked if it was more appropriate to get a "from Canada" entry permit for the return, and she said no, that those are only for people whose initial entry is through Quetico, and who enter the BWCA first remotely.

Again, I haven't read the rulebooks; but the ranger was explicitly telling me that it was more flexible than I'd understood it to be. So whether or not she' *technically* right, that's what she told me, and they're the ones enforcing it so I'd say it's okay.

TGO posted "The permit is good for entering and exiting after staying in the Quetico."

This is exactly what I have in writing from USGS in Duluth office that you cannot do. If you are tripping in Canada - not along border - you need a permit for before and a different one for after - according to the rules. If not overnight in BWCAW, obviously day permit is fine. But if you trip if Canada you have left the BWCAW and therefore your permit for before entering Canada and leaving the Wilderness is no longer valid. Returning and camping in BWCAW you'd need a #71 From Canada - a permit that they will issue (much) further in advance than the day before. (Find that in the rules on line.)

But we have USFS rangers (and outfitters and experienced people here) contradicting each other on a number of issues and chances are you probably won't get checked, so almost a moot point. Just frustrating that the rules are so unclear and so unevenly interpreted, and many details and interpretations are only in hard copy in Duluth.