Surprised I haven't seen this posted.

https://queticosuperior.org/boundary-waters-outfitters-propose-new-permit-system/

Seems interesting. Doesn't seem current system is really great.

Article is surprisingly unclear about exactly what Schiefelbein is proposing.

I assume from context that it's the 4-month rolling reservation system, but it does not fully connect those dots.

Regardless, if that's his proposal, I can see some benefit, though it still does not necessarily address permit hoarding.

I don't think you will slow down permit hoarding until you make the penalty for cancellation greater to the extent that it hurts. The current loss of only the reservation fee is laughable

One proposal from one small outfitter isn’t going to move the needle. Now, get a coalition of the majority of all outfitters and cooperators to band together and present a unified front, maybe gather a couple thousand signatures from customers supporting said proposal, and then change might happen.

All in all I tend to agree with Saltdog.

I had to cancel an overnight motor permit this year. I was issued a refund— meaning that I received a $32 check from the US treasury in Kansas City 4 months after the cancellation. That should give you a sense of the level of efficiency at play here.

saltdog: "I don't think you will slow down permit hoarding until you make the penalty for cancellation greater to the extent that it hurts. The current loss of only the reservation fee is laughable"

Permits could be 100% non-refundable and I still don't think it moves the needle, unless they increase the fees to the point of being impactful. I can get a permt for my family to the Boundary waters for less money then I can take them out to lunch.

Speckled: "

saltdog: "I don't think you will slow down permit hoarding until you make the penalty for cancellation greater to the extent that it hurts. The current loss of only the reservation fee is laughable"

Permits could be 100% non-refundable and I still don't think it moves the needle, unless they increase the fees to the point of being impactful. I can get a permt for my family to the Boundary waters for less money then I can take them out to lunch."

This also makes it something that people with less money can afford, though. When I started taking my kids, the fees were about what I could swing. Much more and I'm not sure we could have gone.

billconner: "Surprised I haven't seen this posted.

https://queticosuperior.org/boundary-waters-outfitters-propose-new-permit-system/

Seems interesting. Doesn't seem current system is really great."

Link

1. How is "permit hoarding" defined . . . ?

2. How do we know to what extent it is occurring, i.e. what data is available . . . ?

3. How will a 6-month "rolling reservation system" prevent people from hoarding 6 months in advance instead of 9 months?

4. If you make permit fees more expensive and/or non-refundable, and it stops permit hoarding, then you will only punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty.

Permit hoarding is a problem in many wilderness areas. My brother backpacks Yosemite a lot and is always complaining about the permit system. You can even buy software that will allow you to game the system like some folks do on Ebay. The Cascades in Washington dealt with the hoarding issue by restricting the number of permits someone could reserve. Maybe the BWCA should only allow one or two per person. I suppose you could game that by sending in fake names, but that could be dealt with.

What if the USFS liked the hoarding system?It keeps visitor numbers down but still keeps the daily quota high enough to satisfy politicians.

Eliminating hoarding is simple and easy as already written about in this thread. Quetico probably has no hoarding whatsoever. It’s not a complicated problem by any means.

Tom

I think the main thing a rolling system does is spread out the load on both the system and the outfitters. Instead of trying to make reservations for the whole season on one date, you spread that out. However, that means the outfitters are then on the hook to be ready to login and get permits every day for months. You pretty much couldn't take a vacation once permit season started.

Making the time between getting a permit and an entry date shorter could mean that people would know their plans better and book fewer backup permits. But it also means that you can't plan as far in advance. I'd make it at least 6 months.

Perhaps the right penalty for canceling too many permits is the one I thought the FS had put in place (not sure if they have used it): removing people's rights to reserve permits for a couple of years. That's an even penalty regardless of income level but easy to escape by having someone else on the trip reserve the permit.

I can see how this would be good for outfitters if they are booking permits for clients. I would imagine many people planning summer trips don't contact an outfitter by January. This way they would have more options.
Seems to benefit the outfitters without really harming other users.
I don't think it would affect me at all.

Maybe the old lottery wasn’t such a bad system… I have never been a fan of recreation dot gov…

I thought the rolling reservation system solved some of the problems. Taking reservations for the whole year at one time seems bound to create problems. Just forcing a hoarder to go to reservation system on multiple days is likely to reduce hoarding some.

Not sure holding back permits for walk ups helps anything. Not like you can save one of each entry, plus it seems there are always some available.

I don't know numbers but wonder if the reduction of permits prompted by the pandemic surge was reversed, if hoarding would return to pre pandemic levels, which didn't seem so problematic.

With how my job works, I do not get to 'put in' for days off for most of my trips, I take what I can get and go from there, mostly on short notice. And it works GREAT with the current system! I just bring all of my maps and leave the extras in the car. There are ALWAYS permits available for today and tomorrow because of the permit hoarding described above. I'll watch EPs sell out in January, 100% sold out for the whole season, and then 2 or 3 days in advance of the actual permit they come available. I even got one canoe to admit to it last summer. They were racing me and another solo across a lake just a couple of miles in. I mentioned that neither of us would be camping on that lake and they suddenly decided to stop paddling so hard. The other solo and I were both on permits that we had reserved in the last 48 hours. I thanked them for the permits and they ended up acknowledging the fact that they had cancelled 2 extra permits for that EP on that day. This was out of an EP that typically sells out in January, for June and July at least. 4 permits per day and this one group reserved 3 of them so that they could camp on the closest lake to the EP.

I think a rolling reservations system is a great idea! Same with increased penalties for permit cancellations. Permit hoarding is a very real problem. However they fix it, I hope they don't go the direction of VNP, Sylvania, Everglades NP, where you have to reserve a campsite for each night before your trip starts.

Z4K: "they ended up acknowledging the fact that they had cancelled 2 extra permits for that EP on that day."

Just thinking about this gets me pretty steamed...

Z4K: "However they fix it, I hope they don't go the direction of VNP, Sylvania, Everglades NP, where you have to reserve a campsite for each night before your trip starts."

Regarding specific campsite reservations: I would think twice about involving myself in a permit system that would force me to travel on days when wind/weather should keep most people in camp.

sns: "

Z4K: "they ended up acknowledging the fact that they had cancelled 2 extra permits for that EP on that day."

Just thinking about this gets me pretty steamed..."

+1

This amounts to stealing from the outfitters. I know not everyone uses an outfitter, but this is the exact behavior that outfitters are talking about.

Michwall2: "

Z4K: "However they fix it, I hope they don't go the direction of VNP, Sylvania, Everglades NP, where you have to reserve a campsite for each night before your trip starts."

Regarding specific campsite reservations: I would think twice about involving myself in a permit system that would force me to travel on days when wind/weather should keep most people in camp."

When the 2021 Quetico fires closed the Park and cancelled our permit for a late-August early September trip, we opted to visit Algonquin instead. While they don't require a campsite reservation each night, Algonquin's permit system requires a destination lake for each night. As a result, our trip had far less flexibility than a BWCA or Quetico visit offers. Personally I would support a rolling reservation system (as Quetico's permit system operates), but suspect that no matter what reservation system is used, someone will find ways to game the system.

TZ

Michwall2: "

sns: "

Z4K: "they ended up acknowledging the fact that they had cancelled 2 extra permits for that EP on that day."

Just thinking about this gets me pretty steamed..."

+1

This amounts to stealing from the outfitters. I know not everyone uses an outfitter, but this is the exact behavior that outfitters are talking about."

And this behavior will be unaffected by a rolling reservation system . . .

Just curious on rolling reservation systems - do they roll daily, weekly, monthly?

Michwall2: "

sns: "

Z4K: "they ended up acknowledging the fact that they had cancelled 2 extra permits for that EP on that day."

Just thinking about this gets me pretty steamed..."

+1

This amounts to stealing from the outfitters. I know not everyone uses an outfitter, but this is the exact behavior that outfitters are talking about."

+2 Not only outfitters, but all other businesses that benefit from the visitors

boonie: "Just curious on rolling reservation systems - do they roll daily, weekly, monthly?"

Daily in the case of Quetico. From the Quetico website:

"Reservations are available online or by phone up to five months in advance of your arrival date."

TZ

I think the NFS should really take a good long look at how Ontario Parks does their reservation system. Cancellation fees go up as you get closer to permit date. I think the NFS should raise the permit fee slightly but not outprice it. Something like a per night fee of $10 up to a maximum of $70. Still allowing you to stay as long as you wish. Then cancellation fees increase until you lose all of your permit fees if you cancel a week or so before your trip. Don't think it will solve everything but it would help.

The problem with making fees not refundable or where the penalty is close to the cost of an actual permit is that the "violators" will still reserve the permits, they just won't cancel them so they won't be available to anyone else. Like someone mentioned already, a permit costs about the same as lunch at a restaurant or the cost of going to a movie. I know a lot of people that pay $60-$100 to play a round of golf every week and that only takes 3-4 hours; giving up $48 for a better chance at a preferred campsite divided amongst 4 people is nothing. It's too bad some people aren't more considerate of others.

saltdog: "I don't think you will slow down permit hoarding until you make the penalty for cancellation greater to the extent that it hurts. The current loss of only the reservation fee is laughable"

Then only selfish wealthy people will hoard instead of just selfish regular people. Same goes with speeding in cars. Unless you think the penalty should be more than a fine. Kinda like how you can lose your license with too many speeding tickets.

Take this comment for what it's worth but my extended family has been going up to the BWCA since the 60's for 1-3 weeks at a time. We have reserved our own permits for as long as those systems have been available to the public. We have our own strategies for securing permits and have never come up short. You can tweak the system here or there but most likely you fix one thing and break another.

In a way though it's not the reservation system that is a problem, but the vision for the area. One one hand its a public area that has to freely accommodate anyone. OTOH, there are politicians and activists who, while giving in to some restricted access, really would like to see no one (or at least a select few) with access.

So there you have it. A popular public resource that is tightly controlled. The NFS even reached out to our family for ideas on how to improve the reservation system but even after the years of working the system and thinking about how to improve it, basically every idea is just a tweak within the constraints that doesn't address the fundamental problem.

So what did I recommend? Ease up on access and increase wilderness patrols. Improve and add portage locations and entry points. Increase camp sites. Let motors go around US Point. Make it easier for people to spread out and go deeper and provide more permits i.e. accommodate demand. Have more Rangers checking, informing , enforcing and helping people in the area. Basically, if you stop calling something a problem, the problem goes away.

Just spitballing here, but what if permits are restricted to a certain allotted amount per user for that designated area. Let's say 5. That means I could only secure a permit 5 times in a season per user account on reservation.org for the boundary waters. This wouldn't necessarily eliminate hoarding as one person could save 5 entry points for one date(s), but in order to reserve more then 5, they would have to have their fellow paddlers create an account on reservation.org and reserve up to an additional 5 permits.

Outfitters could apply for a Outfitter's Reservation Pass, which would allow them to make unlimited permit reservations. Application for an outfitter's reservation pass would require incorporation date, years in service, estimated permits pulled per year, etc.

I don't know, just an idea.

Raise the fees and raise them significantly. I'd make the fee around $200. You want to book all the permits for two days, will it's going to cost you a grand and it's non-refundable. I truly mean this with no offense, but I don't understand the affordability arguement. The permit fees are such a small portion of the overall cost;

Time off work
Travel costs
Food Costs
Outfitting costs (rental or self)

The current permit fee is such a small part of the overall cost.

Raising the fees has been around for decades and it has some merit and probably a desired outcome. Problem is, is that the BWCA is a public facility, not a Taylor Swift concert. How do you keep the "public" BWCA from becoming a private refuge for the affluent?

A family of four (two parents and two kids) goes in for a week.

They currently pay $6 + $16 + $16 + $8 + $8 = $54.

That's under two dollars per person per night.

Not an expert on this, but what if your reservation has to include everyone in your party. And no person can have two reservations at the same time. Not only permit holder, but no member of the party can be holding two reservations at the same time.

outofgas: "Raising the fees has been around for decades and it has some merit and probably a desired outcome. Problem is, is that the BWCA is a public facility, not a Taylor Swift concert. How do you keep the "public" BWCA from becoming a private refuge for the affluent?"

This is the part of the logic that I don't understand. How does $200 make it a refuge for the affluent?

What's the total cost of a trip for 4 people to the boundary waters for a week? Does a permit going from 50 to 200 really make that much of a difference when compared to the total cost?

Piragis charges $125 per person per day, add gas to get there, maybe a bunkhouse stay the night prior or night after. Maybe a tow or shuttle? Maybe you have your own gear, in which case you've probably spent alot more money outfitting yourself over the years.

I believe there are a lot of people, not ones who are members here, self outfitted with well used gear and within 6 hours, for whom $200 would be significant and prohibitive for some. They have food costs in or out. So $150-200 in gas. It's their vacation.

I'm with outofgas. Open up a few PMAs, annex some of the SNF land, do what's necessary to make unpopular areas more popular, add campsites, add portages, increase permits, and substantially increase ranger presence.

People seeking solitude can go to Quetico or shoulder seasons.

I am not sure why this is so hard for the FS to fix.

Hoarding has been an issue for many years. I believe it eats up 30-40% of the available permits and of that amount I believe 10-20% are never cancelled—just never used or claimed…Sorry I swear the stats were on this site in the past...but this has been documented for at least 15 years. Hoarding isn’t new…just more pronounced/noticeable since the pandemic. The current system encourages hoarding. Get your group together, reserve as many permits as you can in January for all your possible trips, then dump the ones you don’t want as you figure out your schedule and what you really want to do…That’s hoarding! Would you book any other vacation this way? No way! Because most have built in costs to deter this behavior. I used to get mad at this, but really…it’s the system’s fault. If you don’t do it this way then you aren’t certain of a permit. Z4K is correct…you can wait it out and get one because all of the Hoarders will drop a few permits, but many new people don’t know or others don’t have the tolerance to do that.

I say this isn’t hard to fix because this was a HUGE issue for Quetico in the 90’s and early 2000’s. They changed their system specifically to combat hoarding. Permit hoarding probably didn’t disappear but it was no longer an issue of concern and access/availability improved significantly. If they want to fix it there is an easy solution right there.


Rolling permit availability—works so people don’t have to reserve their trip so far in advance that they later find out it won’t work. They are more likley to actually go on the booked trip.


Higher fees: You can tell me it’s going to price people out…I think that is a cop out. The fees for the BWCAW are ridiculously low. I pay more for gas to get there than I do in BWCAW fees and I live 4 hours away. I am not talking Q expensive, but something…even a little to move the needle.


Rolling cancellation: You make a reservation and you figure out pretty quickly you can’t make it…fine, small fee to cancel—thanks for being courteous and cancelling early. You wait till the last second. Cancellation fee+ the price of the full trip. Here is an idea…don’t book trips you aren’t 100% committed too. Then you don’t get hit with fees. The closer to the date of entry the higher the cost for cancellation. Encourages more commitment and earlier cancellations to put the permits back in the system.

How do we know this will work…because it’s worked for almost 20 years in Quetico. It wouldn’t be as effective because the Q is so much more expensive but it would work.

The group referenced above that reserved all the permits for an entry point and then cancelled last minute would have to pay $300 instead of $24…if you think that doesn’t happen a lot…I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell ya for cheap ;)

T

timatkn: "I am not sure why this is so hard for the FS to fix.

It's hard to fix because it is supposed to be hard to fix. The FS is in the unenviable position of implementing a solution to a system that has built-in, intentionally unfixable problems. The permitting system is basically a linear programming problem with a bunch of constraints, put in over the years to make the problem unsolvable. Why would good people do such a thing, you say? Because, while we, and maybe even the vast majority of people, view the BWCA as a tax-payer funded resource for the public's benefit, there are plenty of other groups that see it as a tax-payer funded resource for their benefit. These groups oppose every proposal to make the BWCA easier to use and lobby for every proposal to make it harder. There is nothing too small. It's death by a thousand cuts. There're hundreds of examples.
So yeah, maybe you can make the permitting system a tad better (I'm not discounting people's suggestions) but you're going to end up doing it within their rules and nothing will fundamentally change.

I said it earlier and I’ll say it again.

How do you know the FS does NOT want to fix it?
It keeps quota numbers high which pleases the politicians.

It keeps cash flowing going to the contractor that runs the site.

It keeps the user levels lower than the quota for a better wilderness experience. Everyone is happy.

If it wasn’t for a few vocal outfitters and a few more politicians, the quotas would be lower yet.


Tom

tumblehome: "I said it earlier and I’ll say it again.


How do you know the FS does NOT want to fix it?
It keeps quota numbers high which pleases the politicians.

Tom"

I guess they could be lying…but publically the FS has said they want to fix it. They have said it is a problem. They changed the system recently so you couldn’t secure 2 permits on t he same day. They publicly stated they are tracking hoarding and know who is doing it…it is the government…so action will take years (Heck remember it took them over 10 years to prosecute an open and shut case on Ciscoe poaching :) ) THey have altered their data collection to track hoarding better.

The concern right now is the users of the BWCAW are getting older and aging out. Hoarding makes it harder for newer/younger people to access BWCAW. They don’t know the ins/outs on how to secure a permit (Hoard or wait till later)…if this continues eventually there could be less support for the BWCAW. Who is going to care enough to vote politicians in who will continue to protect it. Complacency kills everything…If my job was in part dependent on the future viability of the BWCAW I’d be motivated to fix it.

T

Speckled: "

outofgas: "Raising the fees has been around for decades and it has some merit and probably a desired outcome. Problem is, is that the BWCA is a public facility, not a Taylor Swift concert. How do you keep the "public" BWCA from becoming a private refuge for the affluent?"

This is the part of the logic that I don't understand. How does $200 make it a refuge for the affluent?


What's the total cost of a trip for 4 people to the boundary waters for a week? Does a permit going from 50 to 200 really make that much of a difference when compared to the total cost?


Piragis charges $125 per person per day, add gas to get there, maybe a bunkhouse stay the night prior or night after. Maybe a tow or shuttle? Maybe you have your own gear, in which case you've probably spent alot more money outfitting yourself over the years.

"

If a permit cost $200, I never would have started going to the boundary waters. It's not about how much I spend now, it's more about getting started. I never had much money and I don't live in a metro area. Even if the permit was free, there are still a lot of costs involved. Gas, food, gear that wears out, and single use items. I started with borrowed and thrift store gear and could still barely afford it.

The point is that raising costs sounds like no big deal when you can afford it, but there are a lot of people out there that can't afford it and we shouldn't make that a barrier.

Personally, I like the idea of younger people without a lot of money going on trips. Sure, they make mistakes and some of them cause problems, but a lot of us did too when we were their age.

A1t2o: "

Speckled: "

outofgas: "Raising the fees has been around for decades and it has some merit and probably a desired outcome. Problem is, is that the BWCA is a public facility, not a Taylor Swift concert. How do you keep the "public" BWCA from becoming a private refuge for the affluent?"

This is the part of the logic that I don't understand. How does $200 make it a refuge for the affluent?



What's the total cost of a trip for 4 people to the boundary waters for a week? Does a permit going from 50 to 200 really make that much of a difference when compared to the total cost?



Piragis charges $125 per person per day, add gas to get there, maybe a bunkhouse stay the night prior or night after. Maybe a tow or shuttle? Maybe you have your own gear, in which case you've probably spent alot more money outfitting yourself over the years.


"

If a permit cost $200, I never would have started going to the boundary waters. It's not about how much I spend now, it's more about getting started. I never had much money and I don't live in a metro area. Even if the permit was free, there are still a lot of costs involved. Gas, food, gear that wears out, and single use items. I started with borrowed and thrift store gear and could still barely afford it.


The point is that raising costs sounds like no big deal when you can afford it, but there are a lot of people out there that can't afford it and we shouldn't make that a barrier.


Personally, I like the idea of younger people without a lot of money going on trips. Sure, they make mistakes and some of them cause problems, but a lot of us did too when we were their age. "

The issues is Younger/newer people can't access it now...All the permits are gone by 1/31. New people don't usually plan that far in advance. Don't know to start that early. They are calling outfitters and being turned away due to no permits per the article.

T

sns: "A family of four (two parents and two kids) goes in for a week.


They currently pay $6 + $16 + $16 + $8 + $8 = $54.


That's under two dollars per person per night."

This is basically my family's math.

That said, the low fees are precisely what makes this work for my family. Going to the BWCA isn't our primary vacation, and my wife has no interest in it becoming our primary vacation. Because the fees are low, we are able to afford goingn to the BWCA once a year for a long weekend, in addition to spending a week at a cabin every year that costs us about $2k to rent, periodic vacations like the cruise we will take this spring break, and I can justify going on a guy's BWCA trip later in the fall.

If the fees went up significantly, there are families that will be forced to choose between vacations and camping, to say nothing of the families that can only afford something like a BWCA trip. I'd rather that we keep outdoor recreation affordable. Just build a sliding scale of cancellation fees that eventually exceed the value of the permit itself. Each cancellation increases the cancellation fee until it becomes too painful for people to cancel. Build in an appeals process to account for the non-standard issues like medical emergencies.

Eagle98 - does your sliding scale assume same person? I thought that some hoarding was often a group effort - each person in a group reserving the same EP same day for instance.

billconner: "Eagle98 - does your sliding scale assume same person? I thought that some hoarding was often a group effort - each person in a group reserving the same EP same day for instance."

I guess in my mind, and admittedly i haven't thought this all the way through since it isn't my day job :) , i did assume the same person, but the penalty wouldn't clear year to year, therefore it would get prohibitively expensive for people within a group to keep cancelling permits over time.

It wouldn't solve a random group that shows up and decides to try this on their first trip, but maybe it would knock down the repeat offenders? My assumption is that the people that hoard are probably not new the wilderness, and hoard regularly. I don't know...it's a brainstorm from a keyboard warrior. :)

Here's my thoughts...

1. 1 permit reservation per user/household per week. If you're caught using multiple accounts, you forfeit permit privileges for 2 years.
2. Cancellation fees increase to $100 closer than 4 weeks out. A no show is a $100 fee.
3. 2 no shows and you forfeit permit privileges for 5 years.
4. Increase reservations to $30 per person.

Dreamer: "Here's my thoughts...


1. 1 permit reservation per user/household per week. If you're caught using multiple accounts, you forfeit permit privileges for 2 years.
2. Cancellation fees increase to $100 closer than 4 weeks out. A no show is a $100 fee.
3. 2 no shows and you forfeit permit privileges for 5 years.
4. Increase reservations to $30 per person."

Penalizing people for not showing up is not going to fly. Stuff happens, from sickness to weather. The public is not going to stand for punitive punishment, nor should they. Not to mention the legality of it would be on shaky ground.

Keeping cancellation fees low and refunding money means people are more likely to do so, which opens more permits and options for others. In theory, anyway.

The fact is that none of us knows how many people or outfitters are actually hoarding. It's impossible to come up with solutions to a perceived problem when you don't know the impact to begin with. Permits are hoarded because of high demand. Reducing hoarding won't necessarily reduce demand.

plmn: "

Dreamer: "Here's my thoughts...



1. 1 permit reservation per user/household per week. If you're caught using multiple accounts, you forfeit permit privileges for 2 years.
2. Cancellation fees increase to $100 closer than 4 weeks out. A no show is a $100 fee.
3. 2 no shows and you forfeit permit privileges for 5 years.
4. Increase reservations to $30 per person."

Penalizing people for not showing up is not going to fly. Stuff happens, from sickness to weather. The public is not going to stand for punitive punishment, nor should they. Not to mention the legality of it would be on shaky ground.


Keeping cancellation fees low and refunding money means people are more likely to do so, which opens more permits and options for others. In theory, anyway.

The fact is that none of us knows how many people or outfitters are actually hoarding. It's impossible to come up with solutions to a perceived problem when you don't know the impact to begin with. Permits are hoarded because of high demand. Reducing hoarding won't necessarily reduce demand.


"

I completely disagree.

The FS knows how much Hoarding is going on and who is doing it. It’s acknowledged it’s a problem. It is not a “perceived” problem. It has the numbers, how could they not? It’s all electronically tracked? Will they take action?…it’s just going to take a L-O-N-G time. It’s the government…

The current cancellation process encourages hoarding. It’s broken. There is nothing in it to encourage people to cancel in a timely manner. There is nothing to encourage people to only book trips they know they can take. People book a lot of maybes now(I get why)…Heck there is nothing in the current system to encourage ya cancel at all. The initial reservation is too cheap. You spend more at DQ on the way out than the current no shows cost…ridiculous.

T

There is a lot of good talk here. Clearly there is no silver bullet and there are multiple "use cases" that need to be addressed.

1. Multiple people in a group reserving permits for the same entry point on the same day
2. A person reserving an entry point and not showing up (or reserving permits on adjacent days for close proximity entry points)

There are some legitimate reasons to do these things even without emergencies, without hoarding intent. I'll start with my own experience with #2.

Last year I did my first solo and had reserved South Kawishiwi River for a Saturday entry, on permit opener. However, the Weds leading up to that trip, I found that a Little Gabbro permit opened up for Friday, and I decided to shift my plans due to this coveted entry point that would make my entry a little easier and give me more flexibility, and time! I snagged the Little Gabbro permit, not knowing if my outfitter (VNO) would actually have my requested canoe available. They did, and I was able to head up Friday morning instead of evening, but I didn't cancel the Saturday permit - because I honestly forgot to do so. I didn't want to cancel it until I had verified everything with VNO, my manager, and my girlfriend, and after all that, I had a little more work to put into prep, and forgot to go back to cancel the Saturday permit. This was an honest mistake, with no malicious intent.

In my case, I would have accepted a cancellation penalty. $100 would have stung pretty bad - I probably would've just stuck with the South Kawishiwi entry if such a penalty existed. I would've much rather have paid a late notice permit swap fee, maybe $40, which would have automatically traded my South Kawishiwi permit for the Little Gabbro permit, or just eaten the full cost of my South Kawishiwi permit. In my case, when I showed up at VNO and they printed my permit, it either auto-canceled my South Kawishiwi permit, or VNO did it (can't remember), but I actually got my money back for that permit. IMO your entire trip fee should be forfeit if you cancel/don't show within 7 days, maybe 14 days. I don't want the BWCA to be prohibitively expensive - it's a super cheap vacation for me (maybe not if you consider the thousands of dollars in gear I've purchased over the years), but for some people it might be all they can afford. For me though, the penalty was in the ball park of $20, less than half of what I paid in gas to drive up to Ely from Minneapolis and back. For a family of 4, they'd be forfeiting ~$80 - not a small amount of money, but it pales in comparison to the cost of gas, food, and gear (whether you accumulated it over time or are renting it).

Someone with slightly less pure intent, maybe to reduce campsite contention in that area, might book permits for Farm Lake, South Kawishiwi, and Little Gabbro, 3 days in a row. How could we stop those people people from reserving permits for entry points in close proximity across multiple days (maybe to reduce campsite competition in an area)? When you reserve a permit, you specify the estimated length of your trip. This should be what limits you from booking additional permits within a specific timeframe. However, what would stop someone from saying their trip is only 1 day long, though, to avoid this? There might actually be people who can only do a couple single-nighters, or for whatever reason actually do want to try out multiple entry points for a single night each, back to back. Should these people be prevented from doing it? Maybe the solution is a permit cap, where you can only book 2 permits in a rolling 30 day window, regardless of the proximity of the entry points to each other.

I've already rambled on enough about #2 so to salvage any semblance of brevity, I'll try to make #1 quicker.

How do we stop multiple people in a group from booking a permit for the same entry point on the same day? Authentication. Require each party member to have a Recreation.gov account, and they must click an emailed link to join the trip. If member1 books EP1 and adds member2/3/4, and then member2/3/4 tries to book ANY EP for the same day, they are prevented from doing so. Of course this could be troublesome if, in a legit situation, you're member2 and member1 forgets to cancel the permit due to whatever issue, and you can't book a permit for that day until member1 cancels the permit. I'd expect that a call to the USFS with a good explanation might allow you to sort that out (but it would result in you being pulled out of member1's permit).

People might also just stop registering their party members under the same permit, so everyone in the party buys their own permit. My understanding is that separate parties can travel and camp together as long as they obey the 4 craft/9 people in one area rule, so theoretically there isn't any current rule that would make this approach unlawful (even if the separate permit holders are paddling the same canoe........). There would possibly need to be a rule change that prohibits there being more than 1 permit holder per craft - so you'd have to all be paddling solo canoes in order for that approach to be legal.

Ultimately I think there needs to be a preventative control as well as a stiffer penalty for late notice cancellations/no-shows. Perhaps we toss in a "reputation" system as well, where if you have more than 3 cancellations in a 2 year period, you are blocked from booking a permit for 1 year. You could also put in a cap, where you are only able to book 3 permits per year, unless perhaps you have perfect reputation (i.e. no cancellations for 2 years), in which case you can book unlimited permits per year, of course still obeying the other permit rules. This wouldn't stop you from being a member on someone else's permit, but if you implemented some of my other proposed controls, I'd think this wouldn't increase hoarding potential (certainly not beyond current ability to do so).

I've done enough rambling, maybe had too much coffee, so I apologize to anyone that's read this far. Just wanted to offer my thoughts after reading many others!

Make all entry permits be issued the day of, no reservations. That would stop the hoarding problem and also give us new problems to bitch about.

What if the permit was $200 and when you picked up your permit either from a ranger station or an outfitter the permit system would check you off as 'here and accounted for' and auto process a refund of the excess fees?

I couldn't get my #1 or #2 desired permit last year after the first two hours of availability.

I went with my third option. I kept checking all winter , spring and early summer for cancellations and wouldn't ya know it the cancellations rolled in line a storm when I returned and checked.

It's pretty odd to show up at #23 and see open spaces, I mean way more than expected.

Bushman: "What if the permit was $200 and when you picked up your permit either from a ranger station or an outfitter the permit system would check you off as 'here and accounted for' and auto process a refund of the excess fees?


I couldn't get my #1 or #2 desired permit last year after the first two hours of availability.


I went with my third option. I kept checking all winter , spring and early summer for cancellations and wouldn't ya know it the cancellations rolled in line a storm when I returned and checked.


It's pretty odd to show up at #23 and see open spaces, I mean way more than expected."

I like this idea as long as the refund is made in a timely manner. There would need to be some sort of stipulation for permits cancelled 30 days, 21 days, 14 days, and 7 days prior to entry date for "real" emergencies.

timatkn: "
I completely disagree.


The FS knows how much Hoarding is going on and who is doing it. It’s acknowledged it’s a problem. It is not a “perceived” problem. It has the numbers, how could they not? It’s all electronically tracked? Will they take action?…it’s just going to take a L-O-N-G time. It’s the government…


The current cancellation process encourages hoarding. It’s broken. There is nothing in it to encourage people to cancel in a timely manner. There is nothing to encourage people to only book trips they know they can take. People book a lot of maybes now(I get why)…Heck there is nothing in the current system to encourage ya cancel at all. The initial reservation is too cheap. You spend more at DQ on the way out than the current no shows cost…ridiculous.


T



"

I didn't say the FS didn't know. I said nobody here knows. The first step to any solution needs to be analyzing the data, which we simply don't have. And even if the FS has that data, they may not feel it is a big enough problem to do anything about it, or more likely, they feel that many of the "solutions" proposed here are not politically or practically viable. That is why I said "perceived" problem, which probably wasn't a great choice of words. I agree it's an issue, I'm just not sure how much of one.

Bushman: "What if the permit was $200 and when you picked up your permit either from a ranger station or an outfitter the permit system would check you off as 'here and accounted for' and auto process a refund of the excess fees?


I couldn't get my #1 or #2 desired permit last year after the first two hours of availability.


I went with my third option. I kept checking all winter , spring and early summer for cancellations and wouldn't ya know it the cancellations rolled in line a storm when I returned and checked.


It's pretty odd to show up at #23 and see open spaces, I mean way more than expected."

That is still penalizing people for things that may not be in their control for a reservation that has to be made many months in advance and very often involves travel of hundreds of miles just to get there. Not everybody can afford to risk $200 on that. Again, there is no way that will fly with the general public.

Plus, that incentivizes people to NOT cancel, which will reduce the number of last minute permits available.

Northwoodsman: "

Bushman: "What if the permit was $200 and when you picked up your permit either from a ranger station or an outfitter the permit system would check you off as 'here and accounted for' and auto process a refund of the excess fees?



I couldn't get my #1 or #2 desired permit last year after the first two hours of availability.



I went with my third option. I kept checking all winter , spring and early summer for cancellations and wouldn't ya know it the cancellations rolled in line a storm when I returned and checked.



It's pretty odd to show up at #23 and see open spaces, I mean way more than expected."

I like this idea as long as the refund is made in a timely manner. There would need to be some sort of stipulation for permits cancelled 30 days, 21 days, 14 days, and 7 days prior to entry date for "real" emergencies."

This option seems to balance effectiveness while still keeping things affordable. I’d also suggest maybe having two separate charges. The original $16 fee is charged to your card when you make the reservation. A second $200 fee is authorized but not actually charged. When you pick up your permit to start your trip the $200 authorization is voided. The difference being you never have to actually pay the $200 as long as you show up which can be a big deal to someone with less money.

You could also look to the travel industry (since it's semi-related) and see what they do. Airlines - you book a ticket and there are generally no refunds, you have a year or so to use the credit for a different flight. Hotels - most don't charge your credit card if you book a room at full price if you cancel 48 hours prior but you can book a non-refundable room at a much lower cost. Car rentals - they don't charge you until you pick up your vehicle, but they also don't guarantee that they will have a vehicle available unless you pre-pay (non-refundable).

You can bet there is a LOT of thought going into to booking a trip when you need to fly, stay in a hotel, and book a rental car.

plmn: "

Bushman: "What if the permit was $200 and when you picked up your permit either from a ranger station or an outfitter the permit system would check you off as 'here and accounted for' and auto process a refund of the excess fees?



I couldn't get my #1 or #2 desired permit last year after the first two hours of availability.



I went with my third option. I kept checking all winter , spring and early summer for cancellations and wouldn't ya know it the cancellations rolled in line a storm when I returned and checked.



It's pretty odd to show up at #23 and see open spaces, I mean way more than expected."

That is still penalizing people for things that may not be in their control for a reservation that has to be made many months in advance and very often involves travel of hundreds of miles just to get there. Not everybody can afford to risk $200 on that. Again, there is no way that will fly with the general public.


Plus, that incentivizes people to NOT cancel, which will reduce the number of last minute permits available. "

See Northwoodsmans response. It's not entirely different than any other vacation I have planned. If you cancel within a certain amount of time you get a refund. If not you are subject to a tiered system of deposit loss.
I plan my trip in January and take it in August. A lot of things can go wrong between those dates I agree but at least some of those permits may get released in time for others to enjoy. There are a lot of nuances involved. There will probably never be a change made and we will just have to rely on being lucky.

Bushman: "See Northwoodsmans response. It's not entirely different than any other vacation I have planned. If you cancel within a certain amount of time you get a refund. If not you are subject to a tiered system of deposit loss.
I plan my trip in January and take it in August. A lot of things can go wrong between those dates I agree but at least some of those permits may get released in time for others to enjoy. There are a lot of nuances involved. There will probably never be a change made and we will just have to rely on being lucky."

Two key differences here. The first is that the fee I am arguing against is not part of the cost of the trip. It's a punitive punishment many times the cost of the permit. The second is that this is a pubic wilderness area, not a private company. Any such attempt to assess punitive punishments that are unaffordable to many will be met with quite a bit of pubic, and in turn political backlash.

Now, if you want to just forfeit the permit fee if it's closer than 30 days, that would probably work. But charging $100-200 on top of that? Not going to happen, nor should it.

Yes, we want to encourage people to cancel. When people just don’t show up for put in, though, doesn’t the permit availability show up in the system the next day? With the net loss of one day per no show?

Again, need to see the data before commenting further…

This could easily be done with an app that scans the IDs of all group members for the reservation to be made, similar to how the DoorDash app requires ID scanning for alcohol delivery. If the name on the ID does not match the name of the paddler, the permit isn’t issued. Passports and other forms of ID are accepted by the way, not just driver licenses.

Each paddler is now committed to that permit on those days, and no other permits for the same days can be reserved by these paddlers.

However, this does not prevent people asking their friends, neighbors or other family members to reserve simultaneous permits to “help” them ensure a great campsite.

The practice of getting fake permits so paddlers can pick their campsites is so heinous that I don’t even think the system I propose will stop it. These are anti social people who don’t give a damn about others. They will find a way to game the system in their favor.

But I would really push back against having to choose my campsites in advance. There are just too many factors at play, including weather health an injury, to force people to travel. If they did that I’d never return to BWCA. It would change the character of the experience too much.

The is for this honest account! I honestly thought that there was a policy initiated last year that kicked you out of the system if you tried to reserve two permits for overlapping days?

Can somebody please review the history of that for me? Thanks!

It's a good discussion but as I said before it is way more complicated (on purpose) than can be addressed with simple solutions. Not even discussed here is that outfitters and resort owners compete for the same permits, in the same way for their clientele, as the general public. On a daily basis the cooperators try to match people up with the permits they have acquired with the individually acquired ones, to get the most efficient use of permits. What this means is that technically, the 9 people in a group may never have met one another prior to entry day. In actuality it is more likely that only another boat of folks might tag along on your underused permit quota. In this sense the "hoarding" really isn't as bad as it sounds because it makes maximum use of the reservations.
Cooperators and outfitters would never allow a change that could potentially keep their clientele out of the BWCA. If people can't be guaranteed passage their businesses would fail.

outofgas: "It's a good discussion but as I said before it is way more complicated (on purpose) than can be addressed with simple solutions. Not even discussed here is that outfitters and resort owners compete for the same permits, in the same way for their clientele, as the general public. On a daily basis the cooperators try to match people up with the permits they have acquired with the individually acquired ones, to get the most efficient use of permits. What this means is that technically, the 9 people in a group may never have met one another prior to entry day. In actuality it is more likely that only another boat of folks might tag along on your underused permit quota. In this sense the "hoarding" really isn't as bad as it sounds because it makes maximum use of the reservations.
Cooperators and outfitters would never allow a change that could potentially keep their clientele out of the BWCA. If people can't be guaranteed passage their businesses would fail. "

I am not exactly sure of what you are saying.

I am pretty sure outfitters can only reserve permits for clients. They can't just request permits and fill them later. They have to have a client/name to attach it too.

I've never heard of an outfitter grouping 9 people together that didn't know each other. They conceivably could...but I'd guess it almost never happens.

I highly doubt an outfitter is hoarding permits. It is highly trackable, the FS would come down on them right away because of their high volumes. Individuals get away with it...for now...because relatively speaking each individual is low volume.

I don't know what is an underused permit is? Either you booked a trip/permit and you went or you didn't. It's either used or not used permit. Late cancels and no shows rarely ever get booked---that would put them into unused.

T

LaVirginienne: "The is for this honest account! I honestly thought that there was a policy initiated last year that kicked you out of the system if you tried to reserve two permits for overlapping days?


Can somebody please review the history of that for me? Thanks! "

Correct. I know people that book 2 permits on the same day get one of them cancelled automatically and a warning. I do think you can overlap without penalty. I won't go into the details, but it's easy to get around the rules to do overbooking. It's essentially been docuemnted on here already.

THe only exception are Non profit charity's. For example I am in Scouting, I booked 2 trips (Snowbank and Lake one) on the same day last year. As we had 2 crews and I wanted them to do separate trips not get bunched up thus violating the 4 canoe/9 person rules. Need to be good examples right? But when you check in you have to separate those permits and assign the right names. You also need to provide proof you are a non profit at the time of booking.

T

Just checking if I have this correct but two styles of "hoarding". One is one person or group reserving a bunch of permits on different days probably with no intent to use more than one; and Two, a group reserving many or all of the permits for a single EP on the same day, presumably each listing just themselves as leader.

And is there agreement this increased a lot with the pandemic crush?

I can't say I'm much in favor of changes that rely primarily on punitive measures.

timatkn: "

outofgas: "It's a good discussion but as I said before it is way more complicated (on purpose) than can be addressed with simple solutions. Not even discussed here is that outfitters and resort owners compete for the same permits, in the same way for their clientele, as the general public. On a daily basis the cooperators try to match people up with the permits they have acquired with the individually acquired ones, to get the most efficient use of permits. What this means is that technically, the 9 people in a group may never have met one another prior to entry day. In actuality it is more likely that only another boat of folks might tag along on your underused permit quota. In this sense the "hoarding" really isn't as bad as it sounds because it makes maximum use of the reservations.
Cooperators and outfitters would never allow a change that could potentially keep their clientele out of the BWCA. If people can't be guaranteed passage their businesses would fail. "

I am not exactly sure of what you are saying.


I am pretty sure outfitters can only reserve permits for clients. They can't just request permits and fill them later. They have to have a client/name to attach it too.


I've never heard of an outfitter grouping 9 people together that didn't know each other. They conceivably could...but I'd guess it almost never happens.


I highly doubt an outfitter is hoarding permits. It is highly trackable, the FS would come down on them right away because of their high volumes. Individuals get away with it...for now...because relatively speaking each individual is low volume.


I don't know what is an underused permit is? Either you booked a trip/permit and you went or you didn't. It's either used or not used permit. Late cancels and no shows rarely ever get booked---that would put them into unused.


T
"

I wonder if they are talking about day motor permits? That goes something like this. Let’s say on Jan 31 I book a DM permit for myself and my son. Then in March I hear from a friend, or maybe from a fellow forum user that they struck out. If I’m feeling friendly I can go into my reservation and add them as additional watercraft, as long as I stay under the max for both watercraft and people. Now let’s say I want to hit the water at 6am but my buddy can’t make it til 10am. The outfitter will hold the additional watercraft stub for him and he can enter on his own at his own convenience, as long as it’s on the same day. No rules are broken here. Now, If I leave the lake at 3pm and my buddy wants to stay until 6pm, technically he is breaking the rules because the stub is only valid as long as the trip leader remains in the wilderness. But since there is no rule that watercraft have to stick together, the motor lakes are large, and enforcement spread thin, this is a rule that definitely gets stretched.

Now go back to the beginning of the scenario and pretend it was an outfitter who booked that DM permit for my group of 2— and they have a bunch of other customers also wanting DM permits for that same week/day. I could maybe see an opportunity for an unscrupulous outfitter to exploit that stub loophole without my knowledge to make maximum use of each permit. I don’t see how I’d ever know the difference. But still, I doubt this is happening often or even at all. And Of course this scenario doesn’t work on overnight permits because the whole group is required to camp together at one site.

If outofgas is saying outfitters do this with overnight permits, I too would call BS on that. If my outfitter tried adding a group of strangers to my permit with the expectation that we would share a site, that would be the end of my relationship with that outfitter; and if they tried sending me out into the wilderness to seek my own campsite with just a stub and no proper permit with myself as a trip-leader, I would report them to the USFS immediately. I truly do not believe this is happening. I believe the outfitters are good stewards of the resource.

outofgas: "It's a good discussion but as I said before it is way more complicated (on purpose) than can be addressed with simple solutions. Not even discussed here is that outfitters and resort owners compete for the same permits, in the same way for their clientele, as the general public. On a daily basis the cooperators try to match people up with the permits they have acquired with the individually acquired ones, to get the most efficient use of permits. What this means is that technically, the 9 people in a group may never have met one another prior to entry day. In actuality it is more likely that only another boat of folks might tag along on your underused permit quota. In this sense the "hoarding" really isn't as bad as it sounds because it makes maximum use of the reservations.
Cooperators and outfitters would never allow a change that could potentially keep their clientele out of the BWCA. If people can't be guaranteed passage their businesses would fail. "

Wow! None of what you posted is true.

Wow! None of what you posted is true. "

You are incorrect. The permit Group Leader has to go in but the other boats and people can change from the original reservation. There is nothing that says the other people have to have some kind of "relationship" with the leader or others in group. Mostly used for Day Use Motor but some guys will be happy to share a camp site with others. It's a valid technique that efficiently uses permits and benefits the outfitters and clientele. It's just one more thing in an overly complicated system that any solution has to take into account.
And yes, the oufitters and resort operators that reserve permits on behalf of their clients compete with everyone else on "reservation day".

outofgas: "

Wow! None of what you posted is true. "

You are incorrect. Limited to Day use Motor. The permit Group Leader has to go in but the other boats and people can change from the original reservation. There is nothing that says the other people have to have some kind of "relationship" with the leader or others in group. It's a valid technique that efficiently uses permits and benefits the outfitters and clientele. It's just one more thing in an overly complicated system that any solution has to take into account.
And yes, the oufitters and resort operators that reserve permits on behalf of their clients compete with everyone else on "reservation day". "

See my post just before northwoodsman above though — unless the the trip leader is the last to leave the wilderness, those additional watercraft would all be in violation.

Also, broadly speaking, I have found 99% of people on this forum are not talking about motor permits in conversations like this. Most have never reserved one and are not aware of the different rules that apply. So it helps to specify that you are talking DM/OM permits when you post. Just my 2 cents. I understood what you were saying but a lot of folks will be scratching their heads.

Now go back to the beginning of the scenario and pretend it was an outfitter who booked that DM permit for my group of 2— and they have a bunch of other customers also wanting DM permits for that same week/day. I could maybe see an opportunity for an unscrupulous outfitter to exploit that stub loophole without my knowledge to make maximum use of each permit. I don’t see how I’d ever know the difference. But still, I doubt this is happening often or even at all.
"

Happens all the time and is not unscrupulous. There is no rule that says you have to have some kind of relationship to people on your permit. It's done to maximize the use of permits. If this was disallowed it would make matters worse in that people who booked vacations well in advance would have less chance of getting out on the water. They would be hesitant to visit and that is not good for outfitters, Ely or vacationers.

Also, broadly speaking, I have found 99% of people on this forum are not talking about motor permits in conversations like this. Most have never reserved one and are not aware of the different rules that apply. So it helps to specify that you are talking DM/OM permits when you post. Just my 2 cents. I understood what you were saying but a lot of folks will be scratching their heads."

Yes, it is confusing. I brought it up though because a bunch of the proposals could conflict with how a large portion of the BWCA is currently used.

outofgas: "Happens all the time and is not unscrupulous."

If I'm the leader of a group, and someone I don't know is holding a stub for my group without my consent or even being made aware, would it not reflect poorly on me with the USFS if the stub-holder is caught breaking a rule or regulation? Or what if there was a tragedy involving the boat I didn't even realize was on my permit? Even if I can sort things out with the USFS when they come asking me questions, I just don't want the hassle of being tied to people I didn't specifically choose to trip with. I would be very unhappy with an outfitter that did this without my consent, and if I was the recipient of a stub rather than a permit when I arrived at the outfitter, I wouldn't be any happier. That would be the last time I do business with that outfitter.

All that said, you are correct that there are a ton of competing interests to be considered when proposing changes to the rules.

outofgas: "

Now go back to the beginning of the scenario and pretend it was an outfitter who booked that DM permit for my group of 2— and they have a bunch of other customers also wanting DM permits for that same week/day. I could maybe see an opportunity for an unscrupulous outfitter to exploit that stub loophole without my knowledge to make maximum use of each permit. I don’t see how I’d ever know the difference. But still, I doubt this is happening often or even at all.
"

Happens all the time and is not unscrupulous. There is no rule that says you have to have some kind of relationship to people on your permit. It's done to maximize the use of permits. If this was disallowed it would make matters worse in that people who booked vacations well in advance would have less chance of getting out on the water. They would be hesitant to visit and that is not good for outfitters, Ely or vacationers."

Please provide evidence of this occurring. I have never heard of it, nor ever read about a group having this happen to them. I can guarantee that if an outfitter ever did it to me, I would never be using their services again. I go to the BW to spend time with the people I planned on going with, not some randoms matched to me because my permit has "space".

Please provide evidence of this occurring. I have never heard of it, nor ever read about a group having this happen to them. I can guarantee that if an outfitter ever did it to me, I would never be using their services again. I go to the BW to spend time with the people I planned on going with, not some randoms matched to me because my permit has "space". "

First hand experience over many, many years. There's nothing wrong with it. You are not required to socialize with people on your permit. If there's unused space on a permit might as well help a brother out. By maximizing a permit you are reducing the need to hoard. Why would this be a problem as it is not against any rule and is a win-win for everybody.

outofgas: "

Please provide evidence of this occurring. I have never heard of it, nor ever read about a group having this happen to them. I can guarantee that if an outfitter ever did it to me, I would never be using their services again. I go to the BW to spend time with the people I planned on going with, not some randoms matched to me because my permit has "space". "

First hand experience over many, many years. There's nothing wrong with it. You are not required to socialize with people on your permit. If there's unused space on a permit might as well help a brother out. By maximizing a permit you are reducing the need to hoard. Why would this be a problem as it is not against any rule and is a win-win for everybody."

Are your referring to overnight permits? If so, you not seeing the issue with this simply amazes me and I'll leave it at that.

outofgas: "

Please provide evidence of this occurring. I have never heard of it, nor ever read about a group having this happen to them. I can guarantee that if an outfitter ever did it to me, I would never be using their services again. I go to the BW to spend time with the people I planned on going with, not some randoms matched to me because my permit has "space". "

First hand experience over many, many years. There's nothing wrong with it. You are not required to socialize with people on your permit. If there's unused space on a permit might as well help a brother out. By maximizing a permit you are reducing the need to hoard. Why would this be a problem as it is not against any rule and is a win-win for everybody."

I've also never heard of anything like what you are describing.

I can only imagine how the person, excited about their big solo trip, would feel about unknowingly being bundled into a big group, and learning about that the morning of entry at the outfitter.

Are your referring to overnight permits? If so, you not seeing the issue with this simply amazes me and I'll leave it at that. "

Either Day or Overnight permits. You can be a day motor person and be tacked onto someone else's overnight permit. You just come out that evening.

I've also never heard of anything like what you are describing. I can only imagine how the person, excited about their big solo trip, would feel about unknowingly being bundled into a big group, and learning about that the morning of entry at the outfitter.
"

It depends on the specifics but being bundled onto someone elses's group permit doesn't not mean you have to associate with them, or even that you knew you were bundled. The only time it would matter would be if you put on an overnight permit. If you didn't come out that day you'd have to overnight with that group.

outofgas: "

I've also never heard of anything like what you are describing. I can only imagine how the person, excited about their big solo trip, would feel about unknowingly being bundled into a big group, and learning about that the morning of entry at the outfitter.
"

It depends on the specifics but being bundled onto someone elses's group permit doesn't not mean you have to associate with them, or even that you knew you were bundled. The only time it would matter would be if you put on an overnight permit. If you didn't come out that day you'd have to overnight with that group."

If this happened to you and you were told “that’s how it works”, you were lied to and taken advantage of and I feel bad for you. Groups on the same overnight permit must stay at the same camp. They might enter the same EP and go 1 lake on or 10 lakes in. The other group would have to do the same, ie forced association. Which doesn’t happen unless as I said before, you were duped.

If this happened to you and you were told “that’s how it works”, you were lied to and taken advantage of and I feel bad for you. Groups on the same overnight permit must stay at the same camp. They might enter the same EP and go 1 lake on or 10 lakes in. The other group would have to do the same, ie forced association. Which doesn’t happen unless as I said before, you were duped. "

There is no lying, no one was taken advantage of, no rules are being broken, nothing unscrupulous is being done, no one is being duped and no reason to feel bad for me.
None of the people in a group have to "know" each other or where the other groupmates are and unless you are the group leader, a boat can come out anytime. People get sick, some people can't cut it, equipment problems, etc. Because of this, people are often tagged onto others permits. It has been this way for decades but it is impossible to say how common it is as there is no tracking of any personal relationships - it's just boat and people numbers. You are not forced onto another's permit nor are you required to accept others on yours, although as I said, it's a nice gesture to help a others get out on a lake - there's no downside to to doing this. If you are in a jam you should have no problem being part of someone else's permit as it may be the only way you get out. As you say, the requirement is that if you stay overnight you eventually have to catch up to your permit group and stay at the same campsite.
Back to the point, the permit system has to handle an incredible number of permutations. If you change one thing you are likely to break another. It's not just as simple as "charge more" or "stagger days" or restrict permits. Personally, I liked the lottery better - less stress, but it did encourage over permitting. They should have allowed returns of the overages (with refunds) and then a second chance lottery relatively soon after the first..

outofgas: "

Please provide evidence of this occurring. I have never heard of it, nor ever read about a group having this happen to them. I can guarantee that if an outfitter ever did it to me, I would never be using their services again. I go to the BW to spend time with the people I planned on going with, not some randoms matched to me because my permit has "space". "

First hand experience over many, many years. There's nothing wrong with it. You are not required to socialize with people on your permit. If there's unused space on a permit might as well help a brother out. By maximizing a permit you are reducing the need to hoard. Why would this be a problem as it is not against any rule and is a win-win for everybody."

Let's just talk about non-motorized paddlers for a minute.
1. If you are a day paddler all you need to do is fill out a self-issued day permit. There are no limits as to how many day permits enter on any given day at any given EP so there is no need to "bundle" groups for day paddling.
2. Many, if not most, paddlers are reluctant to share a campsite for one night with a stranger or group of strangers, let alone share a permit where they HAVE to camp together the entire time they are in the BWCA.
3. Many (most) paddlers want solitude and would be very much against other paddlers joining them on their permit.

Now for all BWCA users, non-motorized and motorized:
1. It's stated as follows in the reg's: "The person signing for and picking up the permit can only be responsible for one group."
2. If an outfitter bundled groups together as you suggest they wouldn't be in business long. That's a terrible business tactic.
3. Most, if not all, group leaders would report this unethical practice of bundling groups together to the USFS which could lead to their Outfitting permit getting pulled. It wouldn't take long at all for another outfitter to catch wind of this and would surely report them.
4. As a group leader I would never allow another group of strangers to "tag" along since I would be responsible for their actions. If I recall the group leaders name is printed on each copy of the permit.

outofgas: "You are not forced onto another's permit nor are you required to accept others on yours, although as I said, it's a nice gesture to help a others get out on a lake - there's no downside to to doing this. If you are in a jam you should have no problem being part of someone else's permit as it may be the only way you get out."

OK, this is where the nuance of printed word gets tricky, but I think I'm tracking with you now outofgas. :)

When Gildedgopher said there was an opportunity for an "...unscrupulous outfitter to exploit that stub loophole without my knowledge to make maximum use of each permit", and then you replied "Happens all the time and is not unscrupulous...", then I got fixated on a scenario where an outfitter takes a stub from my permit and just hands it off to another group, without first receiving my consent to include the other group on my permit. That was crazy to me and would upset me as a customer of an outfitter if I discovered it.

Your last message clearly says no one is being forced onto the permit, or requiring you to accept others, but frames it as a scenario where an outfitter might ask if you're willing to include another group on your permit. While that request would bother me for an overnight paddle where I'm going to have to camp with the other person/group, in the case of a day use motor permit, I can see why it wouldn't be as big of deal and would be viewed as a "nice gesture" to get everyone on the water that day.

For me, my consternation was around something happening to my permit behind my back, but it appears that isn't what you were getting at. I can see why users of day use motor permits, largely used by fishing groups, would be more open to this "matchmaking". As long as everyone is aware of it in advance, I can see your point and wouldn't be as shocked to find outfitters that cater to the day use motor permits facilitating this matchmaking for their customers.

Great thread demonstrating that this is a tricky and complex issue needing a solution but having no easy ones!

Here's a question that's a variation on this theme but may come up when permits open next week. I will be in a party of 3 (one tandem, one solo) in 2024. Our group has always done one permit for a 7-10 day trip. I'm the old guy and am finding it harder to push for big miles and many portages day after day. I'm happy to push for a few days to get off the beaten track but find it harder to keep on pushing beyond that, especially with no layover day except when forced by wind and waves (something I've quietly started wishing for!).

Is it ethical if we seek two permits next week for the same group for the same entry and entry date; one for me and one for the younger over achievers? We would be together for the first 1-3 days and then split for 1 night or 2 or maybe until meeting back at the car on departure day. However, we might also stay together for the whole trip, especially if the weather's bad or they decide they will miss me too much.

If we split up, we need two permits. If we don't split up, are we hoarding? I'm also raising this as an example of ways folks might get tangled up in a new anti-hoarding rule when their motives are not to block others from a permit.

KawnipiKid: "Is it ethical if we seek two permits next week for the same group for the same entry and entry date; one for me and one for the younger over achievers? We would be together for the first 1-3 days and then split for 1 night or 2 or maybe until meeting back at the car on departure day. However, we might also stay together for the whole trip, especially if the weather's bad or they decide they will miss me too much. "

I’ve got no issue with your scenario, assuming your intent is to split off like you are describing. Plans can change on any trip, so you go with your plan until it changes.

Now as for wishing for wind…THAT I have a problem with! Lol :)

billconner: "Just checking if I have this correct but two styles of "hoarding". One is one person or group reserving a bunch of permits on different days probably with no intent to use more than one; and Two, a group reserving many or all of the permits for a single EP on the same day, presumably each listing just themselves as leader.


And is there agreement this increased a lot with the pandemic crush?


I can't say I'm much in favor of changes that rely primarily on punitive measures."

Agree on all accounts, but I would add the FS has commented it’s been an issue for 20 years, just worse recently…prompting more complaints and feedback recently. Just saying it isn’t new…

As a first hand example…in 2004 went to Insula in the fall—mid September. I got the last permit for the 2 week period/window I had for a trip…I kept checking permits and noticed at best only 1/2 got used in most cases many days ended up having 3/4 of the permits available daily. We barely saw anyone the whole trip anywhere yet 2 weeks before…every single permit was taken for every day.

That’s what prompted my new strategy of not worrying about booking in January. Just book a trip last second you almost always have your pick of any entry point. I’ve never been burned…although the FS has reported the no shows have increased in the last few years which is troubling to my strategy :)

T

I don't see a workable way to prevent a person using multiple IDs or a group of people working together from either form of hoarding. There will be ways around it. Criminalizing it isn't going to work.

It would be interesting to know the actual entry numbers after late cancellations and no shows are deducted. I'm just not convinced there are not enough permits available.

That doesn't help the outfitters who are more dependent on far in advance reservations. I'd solve that and help them out by giving cooperators access to reservations a day or two earlier than the general public. Longer range, increase supply, developing some PMA area with portages and campsites, adding SNF acreage to the BWCA, and adding a few EPs. The demand is unlikely to decrease over the next several decades.

timatkn: "

billconner: "Just checking if I have this correct but two styles of "hoarding". One is one person or group reserving a bunch of permits on different days probably with no intent to use more than one; and Two, a group reserving many or all of the permits for a single EP on the same day, presumably each listing just themselves as leader.



And is there agreement this increased a lot with the pandemic crush?



I can't say I'm much in favor of changes that rely primarily on punitive measures."

Agree on all accounts, but I would add the FS has commented it’s been an issue for 20 years, just worse recently…prompting more complaints and feedback recently. Just saying it isn’t new…


As a first hand example…in 2004 went to Insula in the fall—mid September. I got the last permit for the 2 week period/window I had for a trip…I kept checking permits and noticed at best only 1/2 got used in most cases many days ended up having 3/4 of the permits available daily. We barely saw anyone the whole trip anywhere yet 2 weeks before…every single permit was taken for every day.


That’s what prompted my new strategy of not worrying about booking in January. Just book a trip last second you almost always have your pick of any entry point. I’ve never been burned…although the FS has reported the no shows have increased in the last few years which is troubling to my strategy :)


T"

This was not true a few years ago with the fire that shut down some of the area. There were very few entry points to choose from after the fire closure. The hoarders really screwed people that year.

billconner: "I don't see a workable way to prevent a person using multiple IDs or a group of people working together from either form of hoarding. There will be ways around it. Criminalizing it isn't going to work.


"

I disagree…Quetico had this exact same issue in the 90’s…once again it isn’t new…they changed their cancellation structure to where the closer to the date of entry the higher the cancellation fee.

At the very least the FS could do that. It wouldn’t stop it but the FS would collect more money instead of losing a ton due to this practice. At least they would get $50-60 in cancellation fees instead of the $8 it is now. If someone was booking 3-4 extra permits now it costs them $32 to cancel last second… if they adopted the Q version it would now cost $200-250. It isn’t criminalizing. It would encourage people to cancel sooner. If someone had an emergency or last second legit issue…so be it…it’s the risk we all take. You still save money by not going, the travel to get there costs more than an unused permit.

The other issue is people…people on this very board…hoard permits for a lot of “what if” and “maybe” trips because it is is so cheap to cancel. I don’t blame them. If you don’t join the hoarders…it’s hard to get a permit, unless you can do my last second strategy. Most people aren’t willing to take the risk I am.

What if people only secured permits for trips they absolutely knew they could take? What a novel idea? It shouldn’t be…

But that’s also why I proposed a rolling permit availability date, similar to Quetico. The closer to the date you secure your permit the easier it is is to be certain you can actually go on the trip.
T

"Quetico had this exact same issue in the 90’s"

No live bait and barbless hooks would also help, as it did in Quetico.

True, I've rarely been able to plan ahead of or BWCAW trips, and have never been disappointed. I kind of enjoyed my son finding a permit on his phone on our way driving there. As noted, never disappointed.

I don't know how you can collect more than the total cost of a permit - like a minimum $38 for two iirc? Add people at pick up? Seems unlikely to deter many, but sure, keep that if within 30 days. Doesn't it work for Quetico because they charge a lot more at time of reservation? If you're saying go after more money than they paid initially, that is criminalization and my guess is major collection problems not to mention political.

I've read through this thread and pondered the problem and possible solutions.

I interpret the problem statement as "Too many permits are going unused and are not released for use". Whether it be because people are booking multiple permits to keep low numbers of others for campsite competition, or just because they book on a whim and only release at the last moment (or not at all) because the penalty for not releasing it is low.

Here is a proposal:

-booking system remains as today.
-Canceling a permit is what changes
..Cancel 1 month before entry day? - Full refund
..Cancel 2 weeks before entry day? - 1/2 refund
..Cancel 1 week or less before entry day? - No refund
..Don't cancel AND don't pick up your permit? - No refund AND $250 loss-of-use charge

This incentivizes people to release unused permits ASAP. It sets a loss of use charge that would be prohibitive for most who hoard with the intention of tying up limited public resources. It incentivizes people to cancel at least a week out so there is SOME amount of time for someone else to pick up the permit - and if you were a hoarder who did that with the intention of limiting campsite competition it costs you.

The only negative I see is if you are a person unlucky enough to have an emergency that precludes you going on the trip AND it also is severe enough that it precludes you from calling and canceling before the entry date. That is a limitation of this model, but in all likelihoods, probably won't happen for most instances.

So - pick it apart: why wouldn't this move the needle in a positive direction?

Tim

Troska: "I've read through this thread and pondered the problem and possible solutions.


I interpret the problem statement as "Too many permits are going unused and are not released for use". Whether it be because people are booking multiple permits to keep low numbers of others for campsite competition, or just because they book on a whim and only release at the last moment (or not at all) because the penalty for not releasing it is low.


Here is a proposal:


-booking system remains as today.
-Canceling a permit is what changes
..Cancel 1 month before entry day? - Full refund
..Cancel 2 weeks before entry day? - 1/2 refund
..Cancel 1 week or less before entry day? - No refund
..Don't cancel AND don't pick up your permit? - No refund AND $250 loss-of-use charge


This incentivizes people to release unused permits ASAP. It sets a loss of use charge that would be prohibitive for most who hoard with the intention of tying up limited public resources. It incentivizes people to cancel at least a week out so there is SOME amount of time for someone else to pick up the permit - and if you were a hoarder who did that with the intention of limiting campsite competition it costs you.


The only negative I see is if you are a person unlucky enough to have an emergency that precludes you going on the trip AND it also is severe enough that it precludes you from calling and canceling before the entry date. That is a limitation of this model, but in all likelihoods, probably won't happen for most instances.


So - pick it apart: why wouldn't this move the needle in a positive direction?


Tim
"

Sure, take what they paid if less than 30 days. How are you going to collect a lot more than what was already paid? Hotels, airlines, etc. may take all you have prepaid, but what is example that takes more? and without litigation?

billconner


Sure, take what they paid if less than 30 days. How are you going to collect a lot more than what was already paid? Hotels, airlines, etc. may take all you have prepaid, but what is example that takes more? and without litigation?"

I'm not trying to equate this to a hotel, or an airline, or any other for-profit business. It is a limited public resource that only has X number of opportunities for use. We want to maximize the availability of those opportunities.

It could be as simple as a check-box in the checkout portion of recreation.gov that says "I understand that I will be charged a $250 loss-of-use fee if I do not cancel AND do not pick up my permit by my entry day". No litigation required - you agreed to it as part of your permit reservation process.

Would this process hinder any legitimate use of the resource? Examples I missed?

Tim

Troska: "
I'm not trying to equate this to a hotel, or an airline, or any other for-profit business. It is a limited public resource that only has X number of opportunities for use. We want to maximize the availability of those opportunities.


It could be as simple as a check-box in the checkout portion of recreation.gov that says "I understand that I will be charged a $250 loss-of-use fee if I do not cancel AND do not pick up my permit by my entry day". No litigation required - you agreed to it as part of your permit reservation process.


Would this process hinder any legitimate use of the resource? Examples I missed?


Tim
"

You didn't give an example, you just tried to justify it. I am with your ideas up until the punitive fee part.

Again, the public is not going to stand for cancelation fees that are many times what the value of the product actually is just because somebody does not use it. Nor should they. A waiver would not change how unethical it is for a public entity to behave that way. I don't think you really understand the firestorm that would erupt if they tried to implement that. There would be strong pressure for whoever approved it to be fired...which would be appropriate, IMO.

plmn
You didn't give an example, you just tried to justify it. I am with your ideas up until the punitive fee part.

Again, the public is not going to stand for cancelation fees that are many times what the value of the product actually is just because somebody does not use it. Nor should they. A waiver would not change how unethical it is for a public entity to behave that way. I don't think you really understand the firestorm that would erupt if they tried to implement that. There would be strong pressure for whoever approved it to be fired...which would be appropriate, IMO.
"

I am communicating poorly then - I am not trying to justify it. I'm trying to find an adjustment to the current system that will address the issue that others have brought up that I'm taking at face value that it is actually happening. IF it is happening, here is a solution that doesn't require scanners at entry points, or some complex trip partner tracking system. You simply let the economics of poor decisions drive behavior that benefits legitimate use, and punishes abuse of the system.

Tell me more about the public not standing for a loss-of-use fee? Go back and read what I wrote - there is no cancelation fee. There only is a fee if you tie up all the permits for your entry point, then don't bother to cancel them so nobody competes with you for a campsite. I honestly see no firestorm because this should impact nearly zero people who are trying to use the resource as intended.

Firing of the bureaucrat who approved a change may be overstated. If they could show that data supports it would achieve the intended effect (more permit availability for public use) with little to no negative consequence, the consequence should be "good job".

Examples - I asked for examples where people who have a legitimate use case would be harmed by this proposal. I can't think of any, but I realize I don't trip like everybody else trips. So who does this harm besides the scofflaws?

Tim

edit - I forgot to add: If you don't do something to drive behavior to actually cancel the permits, people (being lazy) won't cancel permits with under a week to go - because they get nothing for it. Especially if they were the type that were trying to hoard to keep other people out in the first place.

Also - this might not actually be a problem. I don't know, I haven't seen any data. I do see that it is darn hard to get permits, and my anecdotal evidence is that on trips I went on, everything was booked up until the day of, then a bunch became available, and when I was out there it wasn't extremely busy - suggesting unused permits.

Troska
....It could be as simple as a check-box in the checkout portion of recreation.gov that says "I understand that I will be charged a $250 loss-of-use fee if I do not cancel AND do not pick up my permit by my entry day". No litigation required - you agreed to it as part of your permit reservation process.
"

It makes sense on the surface but the devil is always in the details - and there are many with this system.
First, this is a public facility supported by our tax dollars. It is not a private business that maximizes profit and can implement whatever rules they want.
More importantly, Many of these trips are planned a year in advance by necessity. People have to coordinate schedules, time off approved, work around family activities, accommodations, gas, plane, gear expenses, etc. All that pre-expense is wasted if you can't get permits. Many would not go if permits weren't somewhat guaranteed for your visit. You almost have to over permit yourself a bit because you never know what comes up in the meantime, even the day of. People get sick, dogs die, family members pass away, Elvis dies, broken equipment, injuries, arguments, bad weather. You name it, it's happened. So if I can't go today I need the flexibility to go tomorrow. How can the FS justify confiscating $250 because my kid got sick and I had to take him/her to the hospital? There is no way that once they get the money you'd ever be able to get it back on some sort of appeal. Ely isn't in that great of shape now. Just imagine how many businesses (outfitters and supporting) would close if just a fraction of people opted out.

I understand and agree with forfeiting deposits/pre-payments, but don't know if any examples of a penalty fee being collected without litigation other than the IRS.

Based on what's been presented, this is primarily an outfitter problem. They're important to the wilderness and the community economy, give them an advantage. If they had first dibs on reservations, more people would go to them. Or set aside a percentage for them, and what they don't use are released a week or two in advance. They collect larger deposits, non-refundable. More money stays in the region. (And if it took some of the permit issuing burden of the USFS, maybe they could have more rangers in the wilderness, more beneficial long term than anything you could do with permits.)

How many people here (whom are not outfitters) are actually impacted by the reported hoarding? (And I don't think not getting your first choice EP on first choice date is seriously impacted, but ymmv.)

I do like the quetico 5 months to the day. That could also reduce some hoarding of type of many days, not all the permits for campsite and EP solitude.)

outofgas:
It makes sense on the surface but the devil is always in the details - and there are many with this system.
First, this is a public facility supported by our tax dollars. It is not a private business that maximizes profit and can implement whatever rules they want.
More importantly, Many of these trips are planned a year in advance by necessity. People have to coordinate schedules, time off approved, work around family activities, accommodations, gas, plane, gear expenses, etc. All that pre-expense is wasted if you can't get permits. Many would not go if permits weren't somewhat guaranteed for your visit. You almost have to over permit yourself a bit because you never know what comes up in the meantime, even the day of. People get sick, dogs die, family members pass away, Elvis dies, broken equipment, injuries, arguments, bad weather. You name it, it's happened. So if I can't go today I need the flexibility to go tomorrow. How can the FS justify confiscating $250 because my kid got sick and I had to take him/her to the hospital? There is no way that once they get the money you'd ever be able to get it back on some sort of appeal. Ely isn't in that great of shape now. Just imagine how many businesses (outfitters and supporting) would close if just a fraction of people opted out."

I like this - it's a good challenge to the thought process. Let me share my response on a couple points.

Booking a year out - I agree with everything you said. There SHOULD be more permits available for contingencies because it is minimizing the abusive "hoarding" of permits. Now - if you are saying people book the same permit for thursday, friday, and saturday, and don't cancel the 2 extra - well, that is what I'm trying to prevent from happening. Or just cancel the 2 extra a month out and get your money back. If you are stating it is necessary to hold 2 extra permits around the entry date up until the day of entry, I'd argue that is part of the problem (maybe I'm in the minority that just books my one entry day).

Profit - It's not about profit. It's about disincentivizing behavior that limits public access to public resources. The loss-of-use fee benefits those people don't have good access to permits today. Any additional dollars to the FS are inconsequential.

Justify keeping the money if XYZ happens - yes, those things happen. In most cases, we still have access to a phone for a quick call to cancel the permit and save the $250. It would be hard to convince me that those issues that preclude a phone call are a frequent enough occurrence to have a meaningful impact on legitimate users.

Ely/Outfitters - this _should_ make more permits available for more trippers. That is the whole point of this thought exercise. It should see MORE people through outfitters, MORE people stopping at the cafe, etc. The stated issue was that there were permits going unused because of either late cancelations, or no cancelation and no use.

billconner:
Based on what's been presented, this is primarily an outfitter problem. They're important to the wilderness and the community economy, give them an advantage. If they had first dibs on reservations, more people would go to them. Or set aside a percentage for them, and what they don't use are released a week or two in advance. They collect larger deposits, non-refundable. More money stays in the region. (And if it took some of the permit issuing burden of the USFS, maybe they could have more rangers in the wilderness, more beneficial long term than anything you could do with permits.)
"

I think it outfitters had first dibs on permits it would become impossible to obtain certain permits without using an outfitter. And why should I pay someone to use a computer system I’m perfectly capable of using myself? Who would decide what percent goes to the outfitters and what percent the rest of us get to fight over? I see so many potential issues with that scenario.

As far as permit-issuing work preventing the USFS from putting rangers in the field, I just don’t think that’s accurate. The folks who are working at the ranger stations are not all qualified to work in the field, and aren’t paid the same either. The way government budgets often work is that when it’s noticed a portion of the budget is no longer needed, the budget just shrinks accordingly. You don’t get to just re-allocate to other projects, there are always a hundred vying interests for every dollar. This is part of why change is so slow and difficult in government orgs, because everyone guards their budgets so vigilantly. The best way to ensure your budget doesn’t shrink is to keep doing everything status-quo.

Haven't even thrown in the lake homeowners permit needs either. Right now everyone is a peer and they beat each over the head for permits. I still like the old lottery system with a 2nd (maybe 3rd) chance lottery and a slightly higher fee. If you won more than you needed you'd have a chance to return the ones you don't need by a certain date for a refund. A second lottery would handle the returns and so on.

I think it outfitters had first dibs on permits it would become impossible to obtain certain permits without using an outfitter. And why should I pay someone to use a computer system I’m perfectly capable of using myself? Who would decide what percent goes to the outfitters and what percent the rest of us get to fight over? I see so many potential issues with that scenario.

Tru dat. That's kind of how it used to work pre-internet. Once you could reserve your own it was much better. I didn't have to rely on my outfitter to obtain my permits, along with all their other clients, on a 2400 baud modem at the Ely library.

billconner: "
How many people here (whom are not outfitters) are actually impacted by the reported hoarding? (And I don't think not getting your first choice EP on first choice date is seriously impacted, but ymmv.)
"

Good point, for experienced paddlers it doesn’t affect us much. We either know to hoard and play the game or wait for the cancellations to roll in later.

I know we all want less people, but the average age is increasing in the BWCAW…for new people securing a permit is a challenge. The system inhibits new people and thus kids going to the BWCAW.

T

timatkn: "

billconner: "
How many people here (whom are not outfitters) are actually impacted by the reported hoarding? (And I don't think not getting your first choice EP on first choice date is seriously impacted, but ymmv.)
"

Good point, for experienced paddlers it doesn’t affect us much. We either know to hoard and play the game or wait for the cancellations to roll in later.


I know we all want less people, but the average age is increasing in the BWCAW…for new people securing a permit is a challenge. The system inhibits new people and thus kids going to the BWCAW.


T"

You may be right about the challenge for new and younger folk but do we know that? It seems the outfitters are the indeed impacted by the hoarding.

The "less people" is why I think developing a portion of the PMAs and adding SNF land, with portages, campsites, and entry points. The problem seems to be in the 10 to 20% range, not half again or doubling.

Make no small plans. Start now to increase the BWCAW 50% over the next 50 years.

Good ideas for expansion

billconner: "You may be right about the challenge for new and younger folk but do we know that? It seems the outfitters are the indeed impacted by the hoarding.


The "less people" is why I think developing a portion of the PMAs and adding SNF land, with portages, campsites, and entry points. The problem seems to be in the 10 to 20% range, not half again or doubling.


Make no small plans. Start now to increase the BWCAW 50% over the next 50 years. "

I like that idea, but the trouble with that is that it reduces the tax base for those communities. That's why I no longer buy the critical habitat plates...that money is used to buy up private property which takes revenue away from those areas and makes it harder for people like me to buy a piece of property for recreation or future residence. That has to be weighed against the impact of more people visiting the area.

I guess in areas where the population and property values are declining it could work. But the latter doesn't seem to be happening anywhere in the state, despite the poor economy.

billconner: "

timatkn: "

billconner: "
How many people here (whom are not outfitters) are actually impacted by the reported hoarding? (And I don't think not getting your first choice EP on first choice date is seriously impacted, but ymmv.)
"

Good point, for experienced paddlers it doesn’t affect us much. We either know to hoard and play the game or wait for the cancellations to roll in later.



I know we all want less people, but the average age is increasing in the BWCAW…for new people securing a permit is a challenge. The system inhibits new people and thus kids going to the BWCAW.



T"

You may be right about the challenge for new and younger folk but do we know that? It seems the outfitters are the indeed impacted by the hoarding.


The "less people" is why I think developing a portion of the PMAs and adding SNF land, with portages, campsites, and entry points. The problem seems to be in the 10 to 20% range, not half again or doubling.


Make no small plans. Start now to increase the BWCAW 50% over the next 50 years. "

Unpopular opinion, but I think there are already a ton of places outside of the BW to visit that would give people, especially those new and inexperienced to backcountry canoe camping, a similar experience. There are tons of water access, dispersed, backcountry sites all over the SNF and even Chippewa. There are state parks with reservable watercraft sites. Voyageurs is a great option with remote but reservable sites with amenities. While I don't want to dissuade new visitors to the BW, I think many would be better served by some of these less demanding options. This would give some of those newer people an opportunity to decide if that style of trip is even appealing to them instead of diving right in. I encounter a number of groups every year that look woefully prepared and are just downright miserable.

The state tourism board, outfitters and social media do an excellent job of painting the BW as a must do trip. I believe a lot of folks are seeing those photos posted on Instagram and plan a trip just to get that photo to post, when their experience level isn't really there yet. They do not do a great job promoting these other opportunities (probably because there isn't much money in it).

Also as "wilderness" trip, consider the permit process as your first opportunity to have to change up your plans. If you're not resilient enough to have to pick a different entry point and trip plan, what the hell is going to happen when you really encounter an issue in the backcountry.

This is getting tiring. We can’t change it and we all still go.

Walleye6: Unpopular opinion, but I think there are already a ton of places outside of the BW to visit that would give people, especially those new and inexperienced to backcountry canoe camping, a similar experience. "

YES! I feel alone on this board sometimes when I try to suggest the greater SNF, VNP, Sylvania and the many flowages and rivers in WI as alternatives to the BWCA for inexperienced or less ambitious groups.

Just saw this on another bb:

"Cancellations and no shows have tripled over the last 4 years. I think social media has hyped the idea that there aren't enough permits to go around when in truth there has never been a year when over 80% of the permits were used. I wonder if there is a better system."

Is this accurate?

billconner: "Just saw this on another bb:


"Cancellations and no shows have tripled over the last 4 years. I think social media has hyped the idea that there aren't enough permits to go around when in truth there has never been a year when over 80% of the permits were used. I wonder if there is a better system."


Is this accurate?"

I am not sure, but seems unlikely.

2017 there were 4712 cancellations and 1832 no shows.
2021 the number of cancellations was 9672 and no shows 3076. It didn't triple during that 4 year time period although went up significantly (doubled) . I would argue 2017's numbers aren't good either.

I don't see data for the last 4 years...doesn't mean it isn't available. I just don't know where it is... Anyway...the last 4 years would of started with 2019. In 2019 there were 4655 cancellations and 2279 no shows. I cannot see those numbers tripling to 2023. It would have to go up to 20,000-21,000 cancel/no shows per year and there are anywhere from 25,000 to 32,000 permits issued per year. That would mean upwards of 65% of all permits were cancelled or no showed in 2023. That seems way to high--despite my feelings on the issue.

The data does show this has been an issue before the COVID boom.

T

Thanks Tim.

Maybe there should be a better system for utilizing the backcountry sites across the region. Spread people out, diffuse panic permits, create more options for new folks and short term planning.

timatkn: "2017 there were 4712 cancellations and 1832 no shows.
2021 the number of cancellations was 9672 and no shows 3076. It didn't triple during that 4 year time period although went up significantly (doubled) . I would argue 2017's numbers aren't good either.


I don't see data for the last 4 years...doesn't mean it isn't available. I just don't know where it is... Anyway...the last 4 years would of started with 2019. In 2019 there were 4655 cancellations and 2279 no shows. I cannot see those numbers tripling to 2023. It would have to go up to 20,000-21,000 cancel/no shows per year and there are anywhere from 25,000 to 32,000 permits issued per year. That would mean upwards of 65% of all permits were cancelled or no showed in 2023. That seems way to high--despite my feelings on the issue.


The data does show this has been an issue before the COVID boom.


T"

What was the rate before 2017? Was it pretty stable? A fair amount is to be expected when you have to plan so far ahead and account for bad weather, fire bans, etc. I know if severe weather was expected I'd certainly think twice before making the 6-7 hour drive, and many are coming from much further away than me. So it's always going to be a much higher cancellation rate than hotels or plane tickets and such.

I am also guessing that the higher usage during COVID naturally upped that rate, again since you have to plan ahead so far to get the more desirable EPs. Probably a daisy chain reaction as well when a desirable EP permit becomes available where people grab it and then cancel what they already had.

plmn: "

timatkn: "2017 there were 4712 cancellations and 1832 no shows.
2021 the number of cancellations was 9672 and no shows 3076. It didn't triple during that 4 year time period although went up significantly (doubled) . I would argue 2017's numbers aren't good either.



I don't see data for the last 4 years...doesn't mean it isn't available. I just don't know where it is... Anyway...the last 4 years would of started with 2019. In 2019 there were 4655 cancellations and 2279 no shows. I cannot see those numbers tripling to 2023. It would have to go up to 20,000-21,000 cancel/no shows per year and there are anywhere from 25,000 to 32,000 permits issued per year. That would mean upwards of 65% of all permits were cancelled or no showed in 2023. That seems way to high--despite my feelings on the issue.



The data does show this has been an issue before the COVID boom.



T"

What was the rate before 2017? Was it pretty stable? A fair amount is to be expected when you have to plan so far ahead and account for bad weather, fire bans, etc. I know if severe weather was expected I'd certainly think twice before making the 6-7 hour drive, and many are coming from much further away than me. So it's always going to be a much higher cancellation rate than hotels or plane tickets and such.


I am also guessing that the higher usage during COVID naturally upped that rate, again since you have to plan ahead so far to get the more desirable EPs. Probably a daisy chain reaction as well when a desirable EP permit becomes available where people grab it and then cancel what they already had.


"

I believe the 2017 numbers are a lower year than average because usage was lower. If you are saying those are acceptable numbers I completely disagree. There were only 25,000 permits pulled that year… They had almost a 10% no show rate and overall almost a third of all permits booked were cancelled or no showed. If are telling me this is all due to personal circumstances out of peoples control I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell ya :) Those are sky high numbers…and they are only getting worse.

The FS hasn’t released recent numbers but they did say the no show rate increased by 28% in 2022… The claim is they went significantly up in 2023 as well.

T

timatkn:"I believe the 2017 numbers are a lower year than average because usage was lower. If you are saying those are acceptable numbers I completely disagree. There were only 25,000 permits pulled that year… They had almost a 10% no show rate and overall almost a third of all permits booked were cancelled or no showed. If are telling me this is all due to personal circumstances out of peoples control I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell ya :) Those are sky high numbers…and they are only getting worse.


The FS hasn’t released recent numbers but they did say the no show rate increased by 28% in 2022… The claim is they went significantly up in 2023 as well.


T
"

Well for example there was a fire ban for quite a while last season that needs to be taken into account.

It's impossible to know what is "acceptable" or not without knowing what previous rates AND usage were, along with weather related events.

When it comes down to it, I was able to get the highly desirable EP I wanted these past two years. So I prefer the current system compared to, for example, the lottery that some have suggested.

Plmn…the proposals people have made or the FS is contemplating shouldn’t hurt your current or future ability to get a permit.

It’s all centered around making no shows and last second cancels more painful… Encourage people to cancel sooner than later. Or banning those that signifcantly abuse the system.

I’ll go on record and say if you are cancelling last second or no showing because of a fire ban, you shouldn’t get a refund.

You might not believe it is an issue but I can assure you the FS has plenty of data for many years to know that late cancels and no shows are an issue. They have been tracking since at least 2000. The no shows and late cancels haven’t been “acceptable” for a long time according to the FS…the last few years has made it worse and brought the issue up more. They have that data tied to every user’s account. I heard a FS rep get interviewed on outdoor news and then again on KFAN stating all of this last year or the year before.

T

I agree with most of that except canceling because of a fire ban. Some people my be nervous about camping in a tinder box.

Chieflonewatie: "I agree with most of that except canceling because of a fire ban. Some people my be nervous about camping in a tinder box."

That’s their choice. I disagree you are camping in a tinder box…seems like an extreme take. Seems like I get stuck in a fire ban every other year…never felt unsafe. But yep you cancel/no show last second consequences to every action… if I had a family emergency come up, so be it. Just by not driving to the BWCAW I’d save more than the permit costs…let alone one meal on the way up for my family. So still saving money by canceling. Even if I lose the whole permit cost.

T

A note about 2021 numbers:

Don't forget that many permits were cancelled by USFS due to fires. If these were included in number of cancellations that would result in a large increase. In addition they were were on a schedule later of notifying people on a weekend if an EP was going to open next week. For example I had a permit entering the first of the week and didn't know if it would be open until I was leaving home (Sat). I had catalogued a variety of options in case it didn't. The entry did open, but the entire area east of it remianed closed. Could have been the reason for some non-cancellations and no shows.

timatkn: "Plmn…the proposals people have made or the FS is contemplating shouldn’t hurt your current or future ability to get a permit.

It’s all centered around making no shows and last second cancels more painful… Encourage people to cancel sooner than later. Or banning those that signifcantly abuse the system.

I’ll go on record and say if you are cancelling last second or no showing because of a fire ban, you shouldn’t get a refund.


You might not believe it is an issue but I can assure you the FS has plenty of data for many years to know that late cancels and no shows are an issue. They have been tracking since at least 2000. The no shows and late cancels haven’t been “acceptable” for a long time according to the FS…the last few years has made it worse and brought the issue up more. They have that data tied to every user’s account. I heard a FS rep get interviewed on outdoor news and then again on KFAN stating all of this last year or the year before.


T"

A lottery would definitely hurt my chances to get the permit of my choice. Forfeiting the permit fee would not.

As I said before, I'm fine with a reduced refund up to no refund the closer you get to the date. It's the punitive measures some have proposed that I disagree with.

I also want to be clear that I am not saying there isn't a problem. I'm saying that without the data we have no idea what the extent of the problem is and therefor how best to deal with it.

timatkn: "I am not sure why this is so hard for the FS to fix.


Hoarding has been an issue for many years. I believe it eats up 30-40% of the available permits and of that amount I believe 10-20% are never cancelled—just never used or claimed…Sorry I swear the stats were on this site in the past...but this has been documented for at least 15 years. Hoarding isn’t new…just more pronounced/noticeable since the pandemic. The current system encourages hoarding. Get your group together, reserve as many permits as you can in January for all your possible trips, then dump the ones you don’t want as you figure out your schedule and what you really want to do…That’s hoarding! Would you book any other vacation this way? No way! Because most have built in costs to deter this behavior. I used to get mad at this, but really…it’s the system’s fault. If you don’t do it this way then you aren’t certain of a permit. Z4K is correct…you can wait it out and get one because all of the Hoarders will drop a few permits, but many new people don’t know or others don’t have the tolerance to do that.



old data but still relevant on hoarding
2009

2009

Some have the system worked out. Like multiple people in one party entering for permits at once.

Also first month of permit availability you should be allowed to reserve 2-3 permits at max.

We don't need to add additional campsites for additional permits. Crowed enough as it is and we don't need motor boats pass U.S. point as suggested.

Like Isabella Lake, we could add a permit or two and open burned-out campsites if feasible.
After like 3 nights camping we should pay additional fees,it is just too cheap for extended stays when a little extra money in the forest service coffer could go to enforcement and maintenance. Forest service staff is like 30% of what it was in the 1970's. Also may loosen few more campsites on some shorting their stay.

Overall it is a great reservation system on the number of allowed permits.

Pinetree, thanks for the 2009 article. I do think the FS changed their motor permit process because of that.

Back then it was a few Outfitters hoarding all the motor permits.

I don’t do motor trips so I am not sure when the process changed never really payed attention.

It does show the FS is willing to make changes based on feedback and data collection.

Plmn, I WOULD NOT advocate for a lottery again. The current system just needs some tweaks.

T

timatkn: "…but I can assure you the FS has plenty of data for many years to know that late cancels and no shows are an issue. They have been tracking since at least 2000."

Great. Now I need to worry about my “no show” from the first trip I planned myself back in 2014. :)

I went through sawbill outfitters, and when I picked up my canoe I had no idea that I needed to pick up a physical permit from them too. The staff didn’t mention it, so I took my canoe and off I went for 4 days. I only figured out my mistake on day 3 when my trip mate and I got talking. Thankfully, no rangers stopped me, but the no show displayed on my account for years and kind of bothered me!

I’m guessing that my scenario is uncommon, but it is one of the no show statistics out there. :)

Maybe you all have seen it, but I was just on rec.gov and noticed a kind of push or ad for camping outside the beds in the end, listing all the virtues (no permits, no fees, etc ) and generally promoting it. Kudos to the USFS (I think them) for this.

I have taken my kids on amazing trips by seeing what permit us available on short notice. I know this is not an option for everyone. I am not a fan of increasing permit prices though. $200 per person might not seem like a lot relative to the rest of the costs, but if I am going with 4 of my kids, the permits alone would be $800. Add food, gas, canoe rental, bunkhouse, etc. and we probably wouldn't be going.

After reading this thread I walk away with confirmation of my gut feeling that motor users are unscrupulous grifters and the only motors in the BWCA should be tow boats. To the quality motorists out there, conversations like this give you a bad name.

Pinetree: "2009 "

Well that was for motorboats, but I would assume they do this for overnight permits as well?

"Van Every said the Forest Service typically overbooks the quota, based on the average no-show rate on any particular route."

If so (and that's a big if) then it would seem that while no shows are a problem, they may already be largely accounted for and the real problem is simply increased usage. Increased usage, or even perceived increased usage increases the amount of permits pulled in January, and since that is so early it's naturally going to increase no-shows and cancellations. That story seems to support that logic.

Pinetree: "Also first month of permit availability you should be allowed to reserve 2-3 permits at max.


We don't need to add additional campsites for additional permits. Crowed enough as it is and we don't need motor boats pass U.S. point as suggested.


Like Isabella Lake, we could add a permit or two and open burned-out campsites if feasible.
After like 3 nights camping we should pay additional fees,it is just too cheap for extended stays when a little extra money in the forest service coffer could go to enforcement and maintenance. Forest service staff is like 30% of what it was in the 1970's. Also may loosen few more campsites on some shorting their stay.
."

I like the limit on initial reservations. Outfitters should have much higher limits, since their livelihood depends on it.

I initially liked the increased fees for longer stays, however when I think about it those longer stays are typically the people who are going further in. Making it more expensive to do longer trips may end up putting more pressure on the entry lakes. I am guessing that is why they don't charge by the day as it is, to encourage people to explore the more remote areas. But, that is only a guess.

plmn: "

Pinetree: "2009 "

"Van Every said the Forest Service typically overbooks the quota, based on the average no-show rate on any particular route."

"

I hadn't seen that before but kind of like it. Like airlines overbooking for no shows. With smaller numbers they'll be off more often than airlines but if the average is right on all good. Just release them later or make them available for outfitters.

Probably stated already but I'd think that a much lower percentage of outfitter reserved permits are no shows/late cancels.

timatkn: "

Chieflonewatie: "I agree with most of that except canceling because of a fire ban. Some people my be nervous about camping in a tinder box."

That’s their choice. I disagree you are camping in a tinder box…seems like an extreme take. Seems like I get stuck in a fire ban every other year…never felt unsafe. But yep you cancel/no show last second consequences to every action… if I had a family emergency come up, so be it. Just by not driving to the BWCAW I’d save more than the permit costs…let alone one meal on the way up for my family. So still saving money by canceling. Even if I lose the whole permit cost.



What? Extreme take I don’t think so. Three years ago they closed it because of fire. The whole group had vacation planed. Time taken off from work. We had to cancel and got the fee back, but not the time off of work. It’s not their fault but some people may not want to risk that.

plmn: “
I like the limit on initial reservations. Outfitters should have much higher limits, since their livelihood depends on it. "

Just wanted to clarify that outfitters aren’t allotted any permits to sell. They only try to make reservations for the dates and EPs on behalf of people. It’s my understanding outfitters don’t get any payment for this service but rather for outfitting clients with canoes, camping gear, meals, and shuttles etc.

I’ve been impressed with the outfitters I’ve rented canoes from and I think the BWCA is very fortunate to have so many first class businesses offering their services. I think they really feel the economic brunt of permit hoarding, no shows and late cancellations.

Not significant but I think Outfitters - "cooperators" - get a buck or two for issuing a permit. Not sure it covers their cost. IIRC, the outfitter I have used charges "an outfitting fee", a small percentage of the total bill. Maybe that's only on part of the charges. I haven't looked because the total always seems so reasonable.

billconner: "Not significant but I think Outfitters - "cooperators" - get a buck or two for issuing a permit. Not sure it covers their cost. IIRC, the outfitter I have used charges "an outfitting fee", a small percentage of the total bill. Maybe that's only on part of the charges. I haven't looked because the total always seems so reasonable."

I am pretty sure they do not get anything for issuing permits. I think many charge a small fee because I believe the payment needs to be by credit card and it re-coups some of the CC charges. I could be wrong. This is where I miss Lynn…she would have chimed in by now LOL.


907Tundra is correct as well…except in the early 2000’s there was day use motor hoarding by a couple of outfitters per the article referenced by Pintree for 2009. I am under the impression the system changed to combat that and it is no longer the case.

Chieflonewaite, saying if there is a fire ban you are camping on a tinder box is an extreme take. It’s a safeguard. I believe most of the BWCAW fires have historically taken place outside of fire bans BTW. I’ve gone over 50x. I’ve had 1 permit canceled due to fire. BTW those permits cancelled during the fires don’t count on the late cancels nor no show stats. They are obviously pulled out of the data.

T

Ironic the posting today of permits being canceled - 2 by one person.

on rec.gov:

"Cooperators may charge a service fee for issuing permits (up to $2 per overnight permit)."

They heard there is a fire ban.

Goodness…I need a Pepcid. Lots to digest. Ethics are difficult to police.

We are a group that drives 18 hours one way…not had any issues getting a permit. Maybe not your first choice, but a permit.

Understanding that some entry points are more difficult or too difficult for those of us aging, with kids, inexperienced, etc, etc…

Here’s a question for you folks in the know…How many days during permit season are there zero permits available? I’m not poking the bear for those of you who want what you want…I am just curious.

There is always something available.

Chieflonewatie: "There is always something available."

Thank you, Chief.

Looking at my entry date, Saturday, June 29th, there are currently 33 entry points with permits available. If something urgent came up and we couldn't make it that week, the following Saturday has 44 entry points with availability.

I realize that the root runs deeper, has several veins and some of the quoted numbers are alarming. However, from the outside, I'm just not sure the extent these permit shenanigans are affecting overall access.

Take the blue pill....take the red pill...both will have to steal from Paul to give to Peter. There is no magic solution, fairy dust or easy button. More access...crowding. Less access...recession. It will always come down to which side of the lake you are camping.

North Fowl or Vermillion...we're coming! See you soon!