Chat Rooms (0 Chatting)  |  Search  |   Login/Join
* For the benefit of the community, commercial posting is not allowed.
Boundary Waters Quetico Forum
   Quetico Forum
      No camping in Kawa Bay-Kawnipi     
 Forum Sponsor

Author

Text

MarshallPrime
distinguished member (298)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
05/22/2018 09:12AM
I just got an update from our outfitter who is giving us a tow to start our Falls Chain to Kawnipi trip in a couple weeks. Andy from Tuscarora is great and he wanted to pass along some new info that just came out in the new Quetico Management plan this year. If you need a good outfitter, Tuscarora is AWESOME!
It states that you can no longer CAMP in Kawa Bay due to it being re-designated a rare ecological area. There is no camping anywhere in the eastern most bay, Kawa Bay, even on the islands...anywhere. I guess just outside the narrows that leads to the bay is the closest you can be to it. If I am remembering right there are only a couple sites even outside those narrows leading into Kawa Bay.

I had not heard/read this so I am very glad he told us about it and made me aware. I hadnt seen anything on here about it so I wanted to pass the word along and see what you all thought about it.
 
Reply    Reply with Quote    Print Top Bottom Previous Next
QueticoMike
distinguished member(4735)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
05/22/2018 10:12AM
Thanks, it would be interesting to find out more details on all of this!
old_salt
distinguished member(2303)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
05/22/2018 08:37PM
My first thought is ‘April fools ‘ in May. I don’t see anything about this on the Quetico website. If it’s real, the source can be cited...
05/23/2018 11:59AM
The pdf of the revised Quetico Park Plan is available here.
On page 29 (page 39 in Adobe Reader) is a map of the park (Figure 4). It shows that the eastern part of Kawa Bay is in the Wawiag River Nature Reserve (NR1). Pages 23 and 24 (pages 33 and 34 using Adobe Reader) describe a Nature Reserve and the restrictions placed upon it: "Rock climbing and scrambling, back country camping, and mechanized travel are not permitted in nature reserve zones. Existing campsites in nature reserve zones will be closed and rehabilitated."

I think that we had a similar discussion concerning Sheridan, Other Man, and This Man Lakes last year. On those lakes, camping on the known sites would not be a problem.
MarshallPrime
distinguished member (298)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
05/23/2018 12:48PM
Ausable: "The pdf of the revised Quetico Park Plan is available here. "
Thanks for the link, Ive been busy today and not had a chance to post it. Yes, it actually says "the existing campsites will be closed and rehabilitated."

TheBrownLeader
distinguished member (289)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
05/23/2018 02:05PM
I am not from Canada, so my two cents don't matter... but I really hate this news. This shuts down two 5 star campsites after a very long slog down the Greenwood Creek and the Wawiag river if you are entering from Clay (as I am in August).

Also, makes it hard to fish the Wawiag river at dusk, unless you want to set up camp in the marsh. Oh, this hurts my soul.
05/23/2018 02:29PM

I guess we won't be seeing this from camp.
cburton103
distinguished member (291)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
05/23/2018 04:29PM
Maybe it's just me, but I can't see why they would include the three islands in the Waiwag River Flood Plain Nature Reserve. Seems like they could get almost all of the conservation benefit with much less recreational impact if they would have just not included the islands, two of which have campsites. Thoughts?
AdamXChicago
distinguished member(1067)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
05/23/2018 05:08PM
Disappointing news. Flying in to Clay in two weeks and had planned on camping at Waiwag River mouth or nearby island campsites. :-(
Oh well...
05/23/2018 06:08PM
It looks like the 3 northeast islands that have the established campsites are in the NR1 zone, but the other islands are not. The next island to the southwest may have a legacy campsite. It could be rough but usable. Maybe.
05/23/2018 07:48PM
Read the plan. What a load of BS since time immemorial.
old_salt
distinguished member(2303)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
05/24/2018 06:39AM
BnD: "Read the plan. What a load of BS since time immemorial. "

+1
tumblehome
distinguished member(1431)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
05/24/2018 08:02AM
I'm on the fence about this. One thing that comes to mind is the Indian community that was on Kawnipi up until the 1920's? Does this have any play on the NR on Kawa Bay?

I commend the Canadians on protecting their resource unlike the adult playground on the US side. I can only dream that Americans would adopt some of the concepts that are in use in the Q.

Interesting that 83% of Q users are from the US.

Tom
MooseTrack
distinguished member(566)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
05/24/2018 08:22AM
AdamXChicago: "Disappointing news. Flying into Clay in two weeks and had planned on camping at Waiwag River mouth or nearby island campsites. :-(
Oh well..."


I am curious where are you flying from into Clay Lake? The float plane service that all the Ely outfitters use no longer services fly in trips. Therefore, no more fly in trips to the Quetico.
Wabawho
member (19)member
 
05/24/2018 09:36AM
+1

"I commend the Canadians on protecting their resource unlike the adult playground on the US side."
dele
distinguished member (118)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
05/24/2018 09:59AM
Wabawho: " +1

"I commend the Canadians on protecting their resource unlike the adult playground on the US side.""

Yup. Page 13 of the management plan linked above (p. 23 in adobe reader) states:

"The floral diversity of the Wawiag River floodplain is perhaps greater than anywhere else in Quetico, with any southern and western species present. Near the mouth of the Wawiag at Kawa Bay, a silver maple community with white elm is found on the narrow levee. Fringed loosestrife and sessile-leaved bellwort are abundant in the herbaceous layer. Hawthorn spp. and chokecherry are co-dominant, with nannyberry and highbush cranberry common associates. Hops are also present at this site, found growing on the upright shrub species. Locally rare herbaceous species found in this forest community include smooth carrion flower, ostrich fern, and cow parsnip. "

It's a unique area within the entire BWCA-Quetico eco-system. I'm glad they want to protect it. Sounds like people are still welcome to paddle and fish in the area, just not camp. Seems quite reasonable.

Highbrace
Guest Paddler
 
05/24/2018 01:52PM
I concur. It seems a touch ironic that people who travel to this unique landscape that wise people in the past preserved for our enjoyment would object to the preservation of a unique part of that landscape simply because is a bit inconvenient for them. I suggest the objectors plan to visit the BWCA.
old_salt
distinguished member(2303)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
05/24/2018 04:11PM
Highbrace: "I concur. It seems a touch ironic that people who travel to this unique landscape that wise people in the past preserved for our enjoyment would object to the preservation of a unique part of that landscape simply because is a bit inconvenient for them. I suggest the objectors plan to visit the BWCA.
"


I would bet that those who question this policy have done more to protect and promote Quetico than all of the Johnny-come-lately types who pontificate against us combined.

Having been there, I’m familiar with the beauty and uniqueness of the area. I see no harm in camping there. The natives did so for centuries. They didn’t wreck it. I have no interest in camping in the bwca as it is overused already. We didn’t throw out the baby with the bath water as some are prone to do. I do appreciate Quetico management and agree with most of it.

It’s too bad that some here don’t see the value of free and open debate.
05/24/2018 04:33PM
BnD: "Read the plan. What a load of BS since time immemorial. "

Made me laugh! Thanks!

For those of you that think this is a great plan, wait until you have to travel through the area, and either have to travel many miles on big water in a storm or wind or you are now forced into a small area where everyone will overuse it. Sometimes decisions are made with good intentions but the actual plan can be more detrimental in the long run.

It’s funny to me that the Canadians are worried about the future of the park due to less people using it, yet they continually make rules that make it likely less people will use it. For the most part the Q is on a steady decline since the mid-nineties.

T


AdamXChicago
distinguished member(1067)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
05/24/2018 06:24PM
MooseTrack: "AdamXChicago: "Disappointing news. Flying into Clay in two weeks and had planned on camping at Waiwag River mouth or nearby island campsites. :-(
Oh well..."



I am curious where are you flying from into Clay Lake? The float plane service that all the Ely outfitters use no longer services fly in trips. Therefore, no more fly in trips to the Quetico.
"


Both VCO and Seagull Outfitters were able to get us flights to Clay
billconner
distinguished member(6733)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
05/24/2018 06:49PM
"For the most part the Q is on a steady decline since the mid-nineties."

Maybe numbers of users has declined but does not seem like the value and beauty of the park has declined to me.
old_salt
distinguished member(2303)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
05/24/2018 08:03PM
billconner: ""For the most part the Q is on a steady decline since the mid-nineties."


Maybe numbers of users has declined but does not seem like the value and beauty of the park has declined to me.
"


With the decline in use, one can get a permit most anytime for most entry points. I have found many campsites that are being reclaimed by nature from non-use. Some are not in the database. Selfishly, I’m okay with that. I’m sure it’s tough for the outfitters. A number of them have failed over the years.
cburton103
distinguished member (291)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
05/24/2018 08:48PM
Like most others here, I can see both sides of this issue.

1) On the one hand, it's important to protect wilderness areas and preserve their unique and wild characteristics.

2) On the other hand, we must still leave these areas usable enough such that enough people will continue to use them, support them, and defend their preservation.

I think the issue here is that this management move seems to underplay point number two here. I can't see many ways in which point number one is in jeopardy in Quetico these days. Just my two cents.
gymcoachdon
distinguished member (395)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
05/24/2018 09:36PM
Just a thought...
BWCA has designated campsites, so use is limited to a "defined" area. I think that the ability to camp "anywhere" in Quetico, is what makes this problematic. I'm pretty sure that the sites in place, and used currently are not the bio-diverse areas they are protecting.
Making Kawa Bay a "designated site only" camping area, might be a workable compromise.
old_salt
distinguished member(2303)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
05/24/2018 09:46PM
Camping anywhere in Quetico is not really practical. That’s why camping is done where others have camped. There aren’t many places to camp in Kawa bay. The existing campsite database tends to further concentrate use since many users want the best sites. Of course, ‘best’ is in the eye of the beholder.
05/24/2018 09:57PM
billconner: ""For the most part the Q is on a steady decline since the mid-nineties."

Maybe numbers of users has declined but does not seem like the value and beauty of the park has declined to me. "

That is really selfish and a short sighted way to look at the situation.

Yes selfishly the park is better for “ME” right now than in the mid 90’s but I can tell you when usage goes down and it becomes a money drain so does the value to the government and eventually a new administration comes to power and decides maybe mining or logging or selling off the land to private owners would better serve constituents and boom our paradise is gone...

All I can tell you is usage and costs are a concern to the Canadian government and I want my kids to have the pleasure of the use of the park when I am gone, I am not just thinking about myself and what I want. You have to think about the future.

T
gymcoachdon
distinguished member (395)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
05/24/2018 10:09PM
old_salt: "Camping anywhere in Quetico is not really practical. That’s why camping is done where others have camped. There aren’t many places to camp in Kawa bay. The existing campsite database tends to further concentrate use since many users want the best sites. Of course, ‘best’ is in the eye of the beholder."

Yes, and that is why I put it in quotations. But if park managers think that the entire area is a potential campsite, then they protect the entire area. That was my thought anyway...
billconner
distinguished member(6733)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
05/25/2018 07:33AM
timatkn: "billconner: ""For the most part the Q is on a steady decline since the mid-nineties."

Maybe numbers of users has declined but does not seem like the value and beauty of the park has declined to me. "

That is really selfish and a short sighted way to look at the situation.

Yes, selfishly the park is better for “ME” right now than in the mid 90’s but I can tell you when usage goes down and it becomes a money drain so does the value to the government and eventually a new administration comes to power and decides maybe mining or logging or selling off the land to private owners would better serve constituents and boom our paradise is gone.

All I can tell you is usage and costs are a concern to the Canadian government and I want my kids to have the pleasure of the use of the park when I am gone, I am not just thinking about myself and what I want. You have to think about the future.

T"

You're entitled to your opinion, but please don't ascribe opinions to me that I neither stated nor expressed. I was simply pointing out that the number of users declining is not necessarily the same as the park declining. In fact, if more use is good, why would you state publicly the park is declining? Seems that could only discourage more people.

In the end, I believe it is the barbless and no live bait in combination with the park fee income having to pay for the park that has resulted in the decline in number of users, not one small area being off limits to camping. And that is an opinion formed on hearing it from a number of outfitters.
TheBrownLeader
distinguished member (289)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
05/25/2018 08:05AM
old_salt: "Highbrace: "I concur. It seems a touch ironic that people who travel to this unique landscape that wise people in the past preserved for our enjoyment would object to the preservation of a unique part of that landscape simply because is a bit inconvenient for them. I suggest the objectors plan to visit the BWCA.
"



I would bet that those who question this policy have done more to protect and promote Quetico than all of the Johnny-come-lately types who pontificate against us combined.


Having been there, I’m familiar with the beauty and uniqueness of the area. I see no harm in camping there. The natives did so for centuries. They didn’t wreck it. I have no interest in camping in the bwca as it is overused already. We didn’t throw out the baby with the bath water as some are prone to do. I do appreciate Quetico management and agree with most of it.


It’s too bad that some here don’t see the value of free and open debate."


Right on, Old Salt! Pointing fingers from a high horse at a bunch of mostly anonymous digital commentary... well, it's not very grown up.

tumblehome
distinguished member(1431)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
05/25/2018 11:21AM
The public was invited to comment on the current plan so whats done is done.

I dont think quetico is in jeopardy of adverse changes if use declines. When I read the park plan it seems to me they look at quetico as a culturally important park and not a place for revenue. I feel that the natives and government alike want to preserve what they have. This is strong contrast to the bwca which is driven solely on money.


I respect both sides of the kawa bay issue and l am ok with the current designation. Humans just cant seem to get along with nature even when we try to. Man caused fires and accidental invasive species introduction via plants and insects has really done a number on the earth.

I understand the frustration from the guys that go to Kawa bay though. It would be a disappointment to no longer camp up there. Of course im sure a few new campsites just down the bay are in order.
Tom
old_salt
distinguished member(2303)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
05/25/2018 11:43AM
Interesting how many who have never been to Kawa bay who seem to have the answer.
I submit that if you haven’t been there, you cannot possibly comprehend the scope of this.

Yes, there was a public comment period, but I don’t remember seeing this proposal in it. It’s another example of political correctness run amuck.

What I would like to hear, that hasn’t been voiced is from someone who has actually been to Kawa who thinks this is a good idea.

And, for those who think it’s done because of a regulation, regulations get repealed on a regular basis.
billconner
distinguished member(6733)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
05/25/2018 11:52AM
Tumblehome - can you explain the BWCA being driven by money comment? It seems just the oposite to me - the Q fees have to nearly pay for the operating cost of the park but the US taxpayer pays for cost of operating BWCAW.

From conversations with past and present Q superintendents, they consider cultural, natural, and economic resources, but know that users pay the bulk of the costs. Best I could find is fees pay around 90% of OPP operating costs and the Ontario taxpayers pick up the other 10%. Too difficult to find budget info on SNF and BWCAW, but pretty sure fees are an insignificant portion of the budget and not sure they actually impact funding, other than they indicate number of users.
Mocha
distinguished member(7208)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
05/25/2018 02:15PM
MooseTrack: "AdamXChicago: "Disappointing news. Flying into Clay in two weeks and had planned on camping at Waiwag River mouth or nearby island campsites. :-(
Oh well..."



I am curious where are you flying from into Clay Lake? The float plane service that all the Ely outfitters use no longer services fly in trips. Therefore, no more fly in trips to the Quetico.
"


perhaps Sepawe Air is still in business? they also own Kashibowie Outposts and do remote fly in trips into canada (north of quetico)
tumblehome
distinguished member(1431)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
05/25/2018 05:52PM
old_salt: "Interesting how many who have never been to Kawa bay who seem to have the answer.
I submit that if you haven’t been there, you cannot possibly comprehend the scope of this.

"


I'm not sure if you are talking about the logistics of traveling through there or about the deep appreciation you have for it.
I've been to a lot of places in the Q. Left,right,up,down. And I know I've been to places in the Q you haven't been too. I feel that while I haven't been to Kawa Bay (been close to it) I am still permitted to have an opinion on it. I will always without question side with increased protections of any wild place because we are losing more and more of them every year. I've never seen a whale or a polar bear but I will always support their protection from man.

@Bill Connor, what I meant about the money in the BWCA is not the paltry fees collected but the decisions made about its use and protection, or lack of, is driven by money. Specifically the economy and politics. I have never heard a lawmaker suggest protections of the BWCA based on rare or unique plant species or native-American cultural significance.

Finally, I'm a little dissapointed that a bunch of folks who passionately love Quetico are arguing with each other in such a manner. Arn't we all on the same team?

Tom
05/25/2018 06:32PM
The best way to spread Christmas cheer is singing loud for all to hear. Get it?
old_salt
distinguished member(2303)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
05/25/2018 06:59PM
I didn’t know I was on a team. I’m entitled to my opinion as is everyone else. If you’re looking for agreement, then perhaps we can agree to disagree. No one can convince me that this policy makes any sense. Camping in Kawa is no more detrimental than camping anywhere else.
05/25/2018 09:00PM
Sorry it struck a chord with me, if that is what you meant, fine, but then you only took a part of my quote and attributed a meaning to that small part that I could not hope to comprehend. Read that whole paragraph of my post, replying to it in the manner you did it sounded like to me you liked that the park use was declining even though the Park/Government itself has stated this is a concern. I believe Robin (the last supervisor) came on one of these sites himself in the mid 2000’s to solicit feedback as the decline in users/revenue was concerning to the future relvevance and sustainability of the park.
It seemed like you you didn’t care about the future of the Park being there for our children, only that it is better for you now with less people. Thanks for the clarification. I obviously read more into your reply than was intended and apologize. We are just both passionate about a place we love,

T
05/25/2018 09:06PM
tumblehome: "The public was invited to comment on the current plan so whats done is done.


I dont think quetico is in jeopardy of adverse changes if use declines. When I read the park plan it seems to me they look at quetico as a culturally important park and not a place for revenue. I feel that the natives and government alike want to preserve what they have. This is strong contrast to the bwca which is driven solely on money.

Tom"


So if the government and Natives want to preserve the park so much then why are they still allowing uncontrolled use of live bait...leeches, minnows, crawlers in Quetico if you hire a native guide? I can hire a native guide, fly in to one of of the designated rotating fly in lakes, such as Poohbah and bring whatever invasive minnow I want for live bait. There is no oversite nor enforcement in this area. How is that preserving the park? You can’t do that in the BWCAW, the Q I contend is currently at a higher risk for invasives than the BWCAW as you cannot practically get live minnows into many BWCAW lakes.

I think it is is just the silliness of the situation that upsets people. Kawa Bay will not affect my trip, but paddling through there and seeing the sites...they made a decision to close .01% of the area that could possibly be disturbed by humans? Yet they still allow live bait virtually everywhere under the right circumstances. I just don’t agree they really know what they are doing. I love the park, but I am not going to put blinders on either and support every decision.

T

old_salt
distinguished member(2303)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
05/26/2018 12:25AM
timatkn: "tumblehome: "The public was invited to comment on the current plan so whats done is done.



I dont think quetico is in jeopardy of adverse changes if use declines. When I read the park plan it seems to me they look at quetico as a culturally important park and not a place for revenue. I feel that the natives and government alike want to preserve what they have. This is strong contrast to the bwca which is driven solely on money.


Tom"



So if the government and Natives want to preserve the park so much then why are they still allowing uncontrolled use of live bait...leeches, minnows, crawlers in Quetico if you hire a native guide? I can hire a native guide, fly in to one of of the designated rotating fly in lakes, such as Poohbah and bring whatever invasive minnow I want for live bait. There is no oversite nor enforcement in this area. How is that preserving the park? You can’t do that in the BWCAW, the Q I contend is currently at a higher risk for invasives than the BWCAW as you cannot practically get live minnows into many BWCAW lakes.


I think it is is just the silliness of the situation that upsets people. Kawa Bay will not affect my trip, but paddling through there and seeing the sites...they made a decision to close .01% of the area that could possibly be disturbed by humans? Yet they still allow live bait virtually everywhere under the right circumstances. I just don’t agree they really know what they are doing. I love the park, but I am not going to put blinders on either and support every decision.


T


"


Great points and well said, Tim! Thanks!
billconner
distinguished member(6733)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
05/26/2018 07:36AM
Please explain to a non-fisherperson why you can't get live minnows into BWCAW lakes?

old_salt
distinguished member(2303)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
05/26/2018 07:46AM
billconner: "Please explain to a non-fisherperson why you can't get live minnows into BWCAW lakes?


"


Difficulty of care and transportation. Live minnows soon become dead minnows if not properly cared for. Not worth the hassle factor.
05/26/2018 09:32AM
old_salt: "billconner: "Please explain to a non-fisherperson why you can't get live minnows into BWCAW lakes? "
Difficulty of care and transportation. Live minnows soon become dead minnows if not properly cared for. Not worth the hassle factor."

What OS said vs. being able to fly or use motors in Quetico. It is easier to get minnows deeper into the Q in many instances than the BWCAW. You can still get minnows into the BWCA, it just isn’t practical in the interior. To bring in inavasives you don’t need expose every lake, you just need to expose various lakes throughout the watershed. Take a look at the rotating fly in in and guide lakes potentially being exposed every year, many are interconnected by running water.

Leeches I don’t believe have much risk, crawlers are more of a soil/land risk, but the minnows are the main concern. BTW live minnows were outlawed I believe 20-30 years ago, but I can assure you they are still being used. Either it is still legal for guides or it is wink, wink. When questioning the park I have been told conflicting things...”it is their ancestral right”, “can’t be occurring”, “we will check on that”. All I know is I’ve seen guides use them first hand, and I have friends who only go to the Q on fly ins with guides and insist their is no ban on minnows.

T
billconner
distinguished member(6733)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
05/26/2018 06:25PM
Thank you. So not allowed in Q but used and fly in makes it easy. Allowed in BWCAW but not practical to take deep because of travel time.
05/26/2018 08:32PM
Yea..I guess I could of used less words :)
billconner
distinguished member(6733)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
05/27/2018 07:11AM
Well, if you've never carried a minnow or live bait or any fishing gear these things are a mystery.

I do struggle to understand why invasive species introduced around the perimeter of BWCAW are not a threat, and the relatively few fly ins in the Q are. It seems like if they hot a hold anyplace, they'd be everywhere. Basswood with motors must see a fair share of minnows.
05/27/2018 09:56PM
The BWCAW is threatened—-I never said it wasn’t—-my exact words were the Q is at a higher risk. It is just the ability to fly in or motor in (many Q lakes are motorized as well) live minnows makes it more of a threat. Minnows just aren’t a practical choice for the BWCAW, although they get used on the periphery while in the Q the motorized ability makes their use more viable. They are being dropped in through out the Q, while in the BWCAW they are in the periphery. That makes the Q more of a threat for invasive species even though on the surface it appears they have taken appropriate action.

My point is, this is a bigger problem than the .01% of the land people camped on in Kawa Bay and an example of the perplexing decisions the park makes. It was a response to Tumblehome saying the park and natives are trying to preserve the park. Well maybe?
thistlekicker
distinguished member (290)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
05/28/2018 10:52AM
Would be interesting to get a botanist's take on the park's rationale.

Those "temperate" species would seem to be less at-risk, given climate trends. If anything, they might be more likely to expand their range further across the Q. I'm sure there are many plant species not currently common in the Q that are limited by the cold - in a warmer climate they could conceivably start showing up (increasing floral diversity). Are they going to close more areas to camping if Silver Maple starts showing up more commonly in a warmer climate?

If anything, they should be focused on the species most at-risk, those that are near the southern edge of their range in the Q.
Highbrace
Guest Paddler
 
05/29/2018 02:58PM
To old salt, dele, timatkn, and others. At age 72, I have been visiting Quetico for 45 years; been to Kawa Bay; been to most sections of Quetico, except the SW; and will always support preservation efforts. The only reason Quetico exists for our current enjoyment is because preservationists in the past withstood attacks from those who favor the status quo and place human values above wilderness values. There is far more to a wilderness experience than catching fish and conveniently located five star campsites.
old_salt
distinguished member(2303)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
05/29/2018 05:42PM
Highbrace: "To old salt, dele, timatkn, and others. At age 72, I have been visiting Quetico for 45 years; been to Kawa Bay; been to most sections of Quetico, except the SW; and will always support preservation efforts. The only reason Quetico exists for our current enjoyment is because preservationists in the past withstood attacks from those who favor the status quo and place human values above wilderness values. There is far more to a wilderness experience than catching fish and conveniently located five star campsites."

I take offense at you and others who think that because I question the Park policy, which is new this year, that I am anti-preservation. I support preservation and this does nothing significant towards that end.
Congratulations on your impressive resume. I am 64 and have paddled Quetico for 50 years this year. This only proves that we both have significant experience and see things differently. BTW, no one said anything about fishing and five-star campsites. There’s no five-stars in Kawa bay.
billconner
distinguished member(6733)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
05/29/2018 07:15PM
So much for the oath of dignity and respect in yet another thread.
old_salt
distinguished member(2303)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
05/29/2018 08:31PM
billconner: "So much for the oath of dignity and respect in yet another thread. "

I assume that refers to the anonymous flamer.
Highbrace
Guest Paddler
 
05/30/2018 08:49AM
To understand the scientific basis for preserving the lower Wiawag, I suggest reading chapter 5 of Jon Nelson's book, Quetico: Near to Nature's Heart, to learn what two scientists, Shan Walshe and Bill Muir, had to say about the unique flora in this area. To understand why camping and preservation are incompatible, read the Leave No Trace thread on this forum and then contemplate the destruction that can, and has, been caused by one carelessly tended campfire.
Frankie_Paull
distinguished member (201)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
05/30/2018 10:23AM
I just wish they would allow live bait to be used in boarder waters.
billconner
distinguished member(6733)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
05/30/2018 11:17AM
Highbrace: "To understand the scientific basis for preserving the lower Wiawag, I suggest reading chapter 5 of Jon Nelson's book, Quetico: Near to Nature's Heart, to learn what two scientists, Shan Walshe and Bill Muir, had to say about the unique flora in this area. To understand why camping and preservation are incompatible, read the Leave No Trace thread on this forum and then contemplate the destruction that can, and has, been caused by one carelessly tended campfire.
"


Thank you!
old_salt
distinguished member(2303)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
05/30/2018 12:18PM
billconner: "Highbrace: "To understand the scientific basis for preserving the lower Wiawag, I suggest reading chapter 5 of Jon Nelson's book, Quetico: Near to Nature's Heart, to learn what two scientists, Shan Walshe and Bill Muir, had to say about the unique flora in this area. To understand why camping and preservation are incompatible, read the Leave No Trace thread on this forum and then contemplate the destruction that can, and has, been caused by one carelessly tended campfire.
"



Thank you!"


I’ve read the book, I have a copy, good read. Not debating the uniqueness of the area. To cite the extreme example of the possibility of someone burning down the area is ridiculous. As we all know, people have camped there for centuries without burning down the bay. Perhaps the uniqueness is because people have camped there?
TheBrownLeader
distinguished member (289)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
05/31/2018 10:04AM
There is no reason to disallow camping on the first big Island if the concern is for the lower Wawiag and its grass. I can see closing down the campsite right at the mouth, but there is little to be gained by shutting the Island sites down, and forcing 2-3 more hours travel on all entrants from Clay Lake. It's already a long ass trip from Clay to the mouth.

I called Quetico and asked what to do if there was a storm, or too much wind, or it got dark when you were in Kawa Bay. They told me to make camp, be safe, and depart the next day. So, why not just open that one Island site?
05/31/2018 02:35PM
Highbrace: "To old salt, dele, timatkn, and others. At age 72, I have been visiting Quetico for 45 years; been to Kawa Bay; been to most sections of Quetico, except the SW; and will always support preservation efforts. The only reason Quetico exists for our current enjoyment is because preservationists in the past withstood attacks from those who favor the status quo and place human values above wilderness values. There is far more to a wilderness experience than catching fish and conveniently located five star campsites."

I have never fished Kawa Bay...never camped there, I paddled it. I have no dog in this fight except common sense.

If anything I want Quetico to enforce tighter regs on live bait not this fake ban they have now...so do I love Quetico more than you now? You seem to be equating time in the park (age) and deference to the government as the indicator of the value of your opinion or your personal rating of who is correct. Think about that for second...

Only old guys who think the government only makes good decisions has the right opinion? That might not be what you mean but essentially that is what you come off as saying.

We all love the park---that we can agree, it is always good to have people question and hold decision makers accountable. That is all some of us are trying to say. No one makes the right decision every time. I will follow all the rules, even ones I think are silly or misguided, but I will also voice my opinion.

T

Highbrace
Guest Paddler
 
05/31/2018 07:09PM
timatkn: Like you, I am voicing my opinion. I only included my age and experience because, after my first comment supporting the ban, I was called elitist, johnny come lately, on a high horse pontificating, someone who has probably not been to Kawa Bay or done much to support Quetico, and a flamer. My deference is to science, not to government, and I agree that the live bait ban should be strictly enforced.
cburton103
distinguished member (291)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
05/31/2018 07:41PM
Highbrace: "To old salt, dele, timatkn, and others. At age 72, I have been visiting Quetico for 45 years; been to Kawa Bay; been to most sections of Quetico, except the SW; and will always support preservation efforts. The only reason Quetico exists for our current enjoyment is because preservationists in the past withstood attacks from those who favor the status quo and place human values above wilderness values. There is far more to a wilderness experience than catching fish and conveniently located five star campsites."

Highbrace,

As is typical with online forums, if you don’t have a regular account and some history of posting charitably, it’s hard to extend the benefit of the doubt to every anonymous person on the internet. I’m sure you can appreciate that. I’m sure you can also appreciate that your last sentence that I’ve quoted can come across as an insinuation that some people (who you specifically called out) have a shallow view of wilderness and it’s aims and purposes.

As far as your recent comment about supporting the science, that’s a tricky one. Science can describe the natural world, how one variable affects another, etc. What science cannot do, however, is make value judgments. Given this, it would cerainly make sense that the way for science to suggest we preserve the natural world is to not hike or camp on it at all. That’s undoubtedly better for preserving them in their wild state. However, we make value judgments that say we as a society value the ability to recreate in these wild places for our benefit. This, in turn, creates people like nearly everyone on these message boards who wants to see these wild lands managed wisely to allow for future generations to enjoy them similarly.

There must be a balance between keeping areas entirely wild and our ability to recreate reasonably. Otherwise there will eventually not be sufficient people to protect these wild lands from other interests.
05/31/2018 08:37PM
cburton103: "Highbrace c"




There must be a balance between keeping areas entirely wild and our ability to recreate reasonably. Otherwise there will eventually not be sufficient people to protect these wild lands from other interests."


Well said... I need to work on my succinct replies :), that is the point I was trying to make earlier.
06/01/2018 06:31AM
Highbrace: "To understand the scientific basis for preserving the lower Wiawag, I suggest reading chapter 5 of Jon Nelson's book, Quetico: Near to Nature's Heart, to learn what two scientists, Shan Walshe and Bill Muir, had to say about the unique flora in this area. To understand why camping and preservation are incompatible, read the Leave No Trace thread on this forum and then contemplate the destruction that can, and has, been caused by one carelessly tended campfire.
"


As someone as yourself who believes in science you understand you are completely contradicting yourself?

How did that area become unique? This area was occupied by humans for a very long time before Shan Walsh was ever born, humans not heavily occupying the area has only occurred in the modern era. So using science and hypothesis it is very possible this area is unique because of human intervention.

Since humans have camped and occupied this area for centuries and there has been no apparent damage destrying uniqueness to the area wouldn’t one be able to use science to surmise with the current downward trend in park usage, the risks of any damage have actually decreased since Shan Walshe worked in the Park?

Your last part is ludicrous...you bring up an extreme situation that someone could start a fire thus no camping in the area? Is that science based? Seriously? What kind of math did you use to calculate the odds of that situation? I defer to science as well, I have done research, I currently work in a science based profession. Doesn’t mean I am completely right on everything but I can tell you all of this would be very hard to defend in a strong peer review. In the Park plan you hold so high as “sciences based” they state they can build facilities...buildings in the area for researchers to stay, they can put up signs and make hiking trails...so you have been to the waiwag/Kawa Bay...what would cause more ecological damage, the researchers coming in or an old ancient campsite area that was already declining in use and kept human impact into a very confined area? Maybe they will leave the area alone, but categorizing it as an ecological area gives them this leeway.

T
Highbrace
Guest Paddler
 
06/01/2018 01:48PM
I agree with your comments on the role of science, the importance of balance, and the importance of maintaining a constituency to support wild places. In fact, balance is at the core of my argument supporting the camping ban in Kawa Bay. By my count, the ban eliminates 3 or 4 campsites and there are other campsites within a few miles of the ones that have been closed. We could do the math to determine the percent of Quetico campsites lost by the ban, but, since we both have science backgrounds, we can probably agree that, by inspection, the percentage is very small. The small number of campsites closed and the proximity of other campsites seems to me to be a balanced approach to protecting the the unique biotic community in the Lower Wiawag. We disagree, obviously, but I respect your right to your opinion and consider your comments to have been well reasoned and appropriate.

My comment on the components of a wilderness experience was simply a statement of fact in support of my argument and was not directed at any person. I included the names of those who had made counter comments because is seemed to me that doing so would clarify who I was addressing. If someone was offended or considered my comment condescending, they are entitled to their opinion, but they are not entitled to claim to know my motivation.

To determine my opinion on land use issues, I try to follow Aldo Leopold's "land ethic", but as you have pointed out, that can be tricky. Leopold said that a thing was right if it tended to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. Reasonable, well intentioned people can differ on the application of that guideline to specific issues, like the camping ban, for instance.

Now that I am retired, I was exploring the possibility of joining this forum and decided to weigh in on this thread to learn more about the group dynamic. When other threads were neutral or advice based, comments were always reasonable and helpful. When the topic was controversial, the bear, wolf, lion thread, for example, it appeared to me that the most frequent commenters switched to attack mode and directed harsh comments toward newcomers and dissenters. That dynamic certainly played out in this thread. Our current public space has too much vitriol and too many echo chambers. Fortunately, I have found some opportunities for rational discourse on controversial topics. Because I was trained as an engineer, served many years in the military and merchant marine and then was a high school principal, some name calling does not really deter me from expressing my opinions, but when I encounter that dynamic in a public space, I say my piece and then choose to spend my time elsewhere. So, I wish you adieu and happy paddling.
old_salt
distinguished member(2303)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
06/01/2018 04:39PM
A predictable conclusion. Don’t let the screen door hit you...
billconner
distinguished member(6733)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
06/01/2018 07:37PM
old_salt: "billconner: "So much for the oath of dignity and respect in yet another thread. "


I assume that refers to the anonymous flamer."


Your assumption is clearly not correct.
MarshallPrime
distinguished member (298)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
06/01/2018 08:15PM
Wow, this got out of hand. I just wanted to inform people because I was surprised by this and didnt want others to also...I found it odd...as many others clearly have also.

Well, we leave a week from tomorrow so it will be interesting to see where the fish are after the late Ice, real high temps, and now going back to more normal low 70s.

Good luck out there everyone.
MarshallPrime
distinguished member (298)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
06/01/2018 08:15PM
Wow, this got out of hand. I just wanted to inform people because I was surprised by this and didnt want others to also...I found it odd...as many others clearly have also.

Well, we leave a week from tomorrow so it will be interesting to see where the fish are after the late Ice, real high temps, and now going back to more normal low 70s.

Good luck out there everyone.
06/02/2018 12:11PM
Highbrace...people that post anonymously like yourself are looked at differently I will admit. There are many reasons for that...there is a history of registered users using anonymous posts to flame other posters or to offer fake support for their own posts, as well as random people coming on to troll. As long as you remain anonymous there is going to be more scrutiny and people are going to take your posts less seriously.

As far as personal attacks...maybe look in the mirror? I am sure you are nice person and sitting around the campfire we would have a fun conversation but you basically called out specific posters as not being conservation minded because they didn't agree with your the park is never wrong thought process. I'd rather be called a personal name than what you did... That may not have been your intention? But see below for an explanation...If you don't like the back and forth then don't join those specific threads.

I hope you reconsider and join and offer advice, just realize what you post or what you think you are saying may be different than what other posters read or think you are trying to say...sometimes that upsets people but generally they all get along. It is like a family, I can get into a disagreement with my Dad or brother...it can get heated but at the end of the day we still have more in common than we disagree and it is a great relationship. That is how I look at this site and my back and forth conversation with you...

T
cburton103
distinguished member (291)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
06/02/2018 01:13PM
MarshallPrime: "Wow, this got out of hand. I just wanted to inform people because I was surprised by this and didnt want others to also...I found it odd...as many others clearly have also.


Well, we leave a week from tomorrow so it will be interesting to see where the fish are after the late Ice, real high temps, and now going back to more normal low 70s.


Good luck out there everyone.
"


Perhaps it’s just me, but I don’t feel like this thread really got out of hand. There was a relatively small amount of unproductive commentary and insinuations from each side of the issue - for and against the campsite ban in Kawa. We had pretty balanced input both for and against the ban, from both frequent posters (billconner and tumblehome in the for category, old_salt and timatkin in the against category) and some varied input from new posters and off and on posters like myself.

Both sides said their piece, acknowledged that the others have valid opinions and experiences, and essentially agreed to disagree. Sure, a little flaming back and forth, but cerainly not what I would consider entirely without civility or anything close to it.

Highbrace, I for one would always welcome you back to the forum, and I’m sure everyone else feels the same. It’s the back and forth on contentious topics that allow us all to be perhaps a bit more balanced than we otherwise may be.

Happy paddling out there, everyone! And MarahallPrime, let us know your thoughts about how not using the campsites closer to the mouth of the waiwag affect your trip. The Clay Lake fly in is on my short list, so I’d enjoy reading about it.
tumblehome
distinguished member(1431)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
06/02/2018 03:08PM
I have observed threads that start informative and progressively become more antagonistic as it moves along. There are two reasons why.
1. More people join in.
2. people become offended when others don't agree with them.

The latter being the biggest problem. I have learned that my opinion is my own and while I wish everyone agreed with everything I write, I know that is not the case. I have also learned that being abusive to another person's point of view does nothing more than offend them and the cycle continues.

It's easy to call out someone that is 180' from the consensus and using offending words so as to punish the offender and drive the point home. In the end it probably does not work and everyone goes away mad.

I think this thread, for the most part was pretty civil. Those that turned the screws on others might have done it intentionally, or had a vehement position that needed punctuation to get their point across.

I do not have a problem for Canada making the river estuary a NR but I totally understand the other side to and cannot disagree with their reasoning. There are other topics that I totally do not understand the other side and I'm pretty sure they are absolutely wrong.
You will find my displeasure with sulfide mining, over-crowding, our President, and guns but I'll leave those alone for now!

Tom
TheBrownLeader
distinguished member (289)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
06/04/2018 03:46PM
Hearing now that the first 4 campsites in Kawa Bay (as shown on that other paddle planning site) are closed, and the next 2 are open for camping. Does anyone know about these sites? do they exist or are they just scrub from the burn?
Kiporby
distinguished member(4458)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
06/05/2018 12:10PM
Just reading this thread today. Just a different point to throw into the discussion. I find it interesting that the park is concerned about protecting the Kawa Bay area now and its rare flowers given in 1995 the area was hit hard by the Bird Lake fire. What I'm saying is nature's impact ( and yes, the Bird Lake fire was started by lightning) is usually far more impactful to an area like the Quetico than what man can do.
 
Reply    Reply with Quote    Print Top Bottom Previous Next