I'm 99% sure it's legal, but I thought I would ask the experts. If I get a bwca overnight paddle permit for Saganaga the night before we pick up our Quetico permit at Cache Bay can I camp on the US side before we head to the ranger station the next day?

Do I need a day use permit the day I exit? What if I'm not sure what day it will be?

I’m no expert, but yes you can camp on the US side if you get the overnight paddle permit. And if you still have that permit on your way out of the Q, you will not need to worry about re-crossing Saganaga.

I agree with what Inspector says. I do that at PP - launch in afternoon and camp near PP - on an EP 20 overnight paddle. You can overnight in BWCA on way out as well on same permit. The key is you "have not left the wilderness" so still on your trip, even if you detoured through the Q.

quote billconner: "I agree with what Inspector says. I do that at PP - launch in afternoon and camp near PP - on an EP 20 overnight paddle. You can overnight in BWCA on way out as well on same permit. The key is you "have not left the wilderness" so still on your trip, even if you detoured through the Q."

I think technically this is illegal becuase you aren't camping consecutively in the BWCAW and technically left the U.S. wilderness, but doesn't violate the spirit of the rules and I don't think you would get "pinched" unless you had an overzealous Ranger that was watching you come back into the BWCAW from Canada to camp on the U.S. side. I've never met a Ranger that would worry about something like this to tell the truth.

I think this is one of those rules you could call the main office for clarification and depending on who you talk to you'd get a different answer :)

To the original question, how would they ever know if they stopped you? If you did need a day permit for some reason just get a blank one on the way in nd fill it out the day you need it, just deposit the stub on the way out so they can track day use. If you got stopped you'd be fine.

T

I would tend to agree with Timatkn. The good news is it should not matter since you would have to be observed crossing the border in order to have any problems, as Timatkn said.

With all due respect T and GC, I have called USFS a couple of times and asked outfitter and they all concur that spending time in the Q is not leaving the wilderness. Further, if it was, you would not be able to enter the BWCAW, travel in Q, and return through the BWCAW because there would be no entry point. From Canada, ep 71, quite explicitly says "Trip must originate from Canada without passing through BWCAW first." on rec.gov.

But please call rangers and ask and if they agree with you, please ask them to explain the From Canada clause.

This is yet another of those rules that confuse me. When I have called the BW staff they have told me that once I enter Canada via the Q I had to get a from Canada permit. To be fair, I have not called in 10-15 years but they told me this a couple of times. I remember the discussions because I pointed out the problem of requiring a permit in hand a week before it was needed, when of course I was in the Q and could not get the permit. It was a catch 22.

Bill I have called in the last 5 years and have received the same answer as Granite Cliffs, but I have no doubt you received a different answer---that's a government agency for ya :) I am not sure I'd ever take an outfitters word as gospel as soem still say you can day trip to warrior hill and climb it if you have a BWCAW permit.

If you look on the online rules though it says you may not re-enter at a different date. Doesn't say anything about re-enter from a wilderness or it doesn't say BWCAW AND a Quetico rules. There are probably different versions you can find as well, but the rules are vague enough someone could fine you if they observed your re-entering.... Would I worry about---probably not. I don't see why they would care really or what problem it would cause.

I haven't tried to do an entry from Canada, once they told me I couldn't return on one permit I just decided to get a day permit both ways or do a tow and they take care of it.


Forest service rules

I'm scheduled to speak with SNF office in Duluth tomorrow and will let you know what I find out.

PS: This time.

quote billconner: "I'm scheduled to speak with SNF office in Duluth tomorrow and will let you know what I find out.

PS: This time."

:)

I had a long, interesting, and very nice conversation with the permits manager at the SNF office in Duluth this morning. According to "the book" she is to go by, I'm wrong. On the other hand, I don't think she doubt's I was told otherwise and admits it is confusing. So, by what I would say is the best and most likely official source IMHO, if you cross the border (for other than as allowed by the Webster Asburton Treaty I would assume but not swear to) and come back into the BWCAW, you need a permit for EP71. I can only assume that means even for a day trip (for which you should have a Q day pass).

I think what I thought to be true is better, and I don't see how within the normal period of a permit it makes any difference if you spend some time in the Q, nor how it helps the quota goals. And since the seemingly unwritten policy - confirmed this morning - that you can leave the BWCAW and renter - like from LIS north to south across the Echo Trail and several other places like that as long as you don't go to a store, etc. - is OK - what's the difference?

I did get a clear statement that permits for EP71 will be issued in advance, by email even, weeks in advance of entering if necessary for your trip plans, by them.

I felt sincere concern that different interpretations might have originated from USFS employees. Also, they promised to discuss this at the permit issuers meeting in April (would that be rangers and outfitters I guess?) and try to resolve this conflict. Also seemed to be a priority to get this information on their web site.

I encouraged them to perhaps look at these forums as well. The sporadic postings by one of the WCPP staff on QJ was always helpful I thought.

I plan to follow up and maybe present other sometimes confusing regulatory issues.

quote billconner: "I had a long, interesting, and very nice conversation with the permits manager at the SNF office in Duluth this morning. According to "the book" she is to go by, I'm wrong. On the other hand, I don't think she doubt's I was told otherwise and admits it is confusing. So, by what I would say is the best and most likely official source IMHO, if you cross the border (for other than as allowed by the Webster Asburton Treaty I would assume but not swear to) and come back into the BWCAW, you need a permit for EP71. I can only assume that means even for a day trip (for which you should have a Q day pass)."

This is what my college professor was doing when I went with her on trips into Quetico in the 1980s. I used to post my answer in that way here until the masses pretty much convinced me she was wrong. It may not only be USFS employees saying differently, but also certain lecturers as written here in the 4th paragraph in the section titled "BWCAW AND QUETICO?"

Thanks for talking to them Bill.

I seriously wouldn't stop the way you are doing it though, I still don't see how it would affect anyone in a negative way so don't see a problem with it. Plus next time you can get a another answer :)

Nice to know how the entry from Quetico works and you can get it well ahead of time.

T

I take comfort in the concept that if you're not trashing the place and not trying to evade paying but just misunderstood a fine point, any ranger will probably let it go. It is too bad though that the regulations aren't a little clearer and better desiminated.