Boundary Waters Quetico Forum :: Trip Planning Forum :: Campsites All Taken
|
Author | Message Text | ||
mutz |
A small town near us us requested a speed limit change,one section from 35 to 25, another from 45 to 35. The state did a traffic study and agreed the limits needed to be changed, the first from 35 to 45, the second from 45 to 55. Again be carefull what you ask for. |
||
billconner |
Oddly, I've never had a serious issue finding a site - front country or deep in. |
||
BuckFlicks |
thegildedgopher: I wasn't aware of campsite reservation on recreation.gov. Nice! I have a quick link in my book marks to BWCA permits and have never navigated the site otherwise. I imagine that could indeed be used to set up a reservation system in the BWCA with only a little bit of hassle. I'll concede that point. But I still wouldn't want campsite reservations in the BWCA. |
||
Aldy1 |
|
||
Bdubr |
|
||
Savage Voyageur |
|
||
Aldy1 |
Our outfitter said people have gotten angry at them for this happening in the past - which seem ridiculous to be mad at them. Wasn't sure how common this was. |
||
tumblehome |
If the USFS even suggests lowering quotas, they are beaten down immediately. Sorry your trip was such a bummer. I too have had a few memorable experiences like that. We got caught in your situation on a day when it was over 100'. All the campsite along our route were occupied. We continued to portage and paddle on and on. My sister got heat stroke and got very sick. We brought her to shore and tried to cool her off with wet towels. We put her in the lake slowly to cool her body temperature. Eventually she got better but was very sick. We found a campsite at about 7PM that night. Tom |
||
overthehill |
|
||
TuscaroraBorealis |
We just got back from our trip from Ram Lake EP #44. We were lucky in that a worker at our outfitters had just returned the day before our entry and informed us that Little Trout Lake (our hopeful destination ) had been fully occupied. After seeing how many cars were in the parking lot we decided, that if no one was camped on Ram Lake, that we would grab a site there as the law of averages suggested Little Trout would still be full and we didn't want to have to backtrack over some difficult portages or do the monster into Misquah Lake where there is only one crummy site. Later in our trip we ran across the group who had entered the day before us. They told us they wound up having to portage all the way to Vista Lake (from Ram) only to get the crummy site there. Talk about a tough day! Needless to say we were grateful to have basecamped on Ram for the weekend. |
||
sylvesterii |
How did Insula look? Recovery from the fire still coming along in the south? |
||
cburton103 |
This is almost always a problem within a couple lakes of popular entry points. Good solutions are stopping 3-4 lakes from popular entry points, or making sure to get to a new camp before 2 pm or so. My solution was to start canoe tripping in Quetico instead. It's fairly rare for any of my preferred campsites to be taken, much less to not be able to find one. |
||
Spartan2 |
We have only had this problem a couple of times and it usually ended up with a terrible amount of paddling on the last day, a cranky bow paddler, and not ending the trip on the best note. That was the main reason we began scheduling our trips for longer periods of time (10-12 days), avoiding beginning and ending on weekend days, and sometimes looking for less popular entry points. |
||
mutz |
|
||
mutz |
|
||
egknuti |
|
||
andym |
|
||
timatkn |
Anyway unless you are arriving at an entry point by noon, I would have a backup plan to push on or leave. It is just the reality. It is getting worse even though the BWCAW permit use is down. Just more people stick8ng to the entry lakes now a days it seems. The permit numbers are based on people dispersing throughout the wilderness and traveling, that just isn’t occuring as much anymore. For whatever reason entry point base camping has become more popular. Adjust your expectations appropriately or move on to Quetico like I did. T |
||
mgraber |
|
||
timatkn |
I think another factor is groups don’t stay as long thus shorter trips puts more pressure on the entry lakes as well. T |
||
Savage Voyageur |
BuckFlicks: "Savage: While this kind of thing is frustrating and can put a sour note on the end of what was otherwise a good trip, I don't see how something like this is the USFS's responsibility to field a complaint on... or even reply to. What would be their response? . " Well then we will just have to disagree on this one. I can’t remember just who I contacted but I called the ranger station and was given a contact person. That person is responsible for what goes on up there and that person should have responded back. Just like I do at work, someone has an issue and I have to get back to them with a response. It’s my job! It takes a minute or if thier life to write an email. I was not looking for a response as much as I was making them aware of a problem. If no one says anything they will never know there is a problem. The person in charge was not on the lake looking for a campsite, I was. The quota system is out of wack and needs to be addressed and adjusted. Too many are let in on some entry points and not enough on others. An entry point needs to be adjusted as the summer goes on. Example would be in June 15 permits a day, then in July and August drop the number to 10. Then in sept raise back up to 15 a day. Same permits per season just spread them out over the season better. Holidays also need to be adjusted down. Anyway if I were king for a day this is what I would change. |
||
nooneuno |
We went in last week on Snowbank and made our way up, stayed on Ima a while, went to Thomas where we spent a few days, then down to Insula for a few more and finally out yesterday at Lake One we put on over 50 miles and 25 plus portages, the entire trip the most noticeable factor was how few people we saw, less than 25 other boats total, we had our choice of sites and each one we stayed at was a 5 star that was never available to us before on Insula we even stayed two days on Williamson Island and only one of the beach sites on the NE corner was occupied. We were still on Thomas over the actual weekend so perhaps that was the difference perhaps it was just overniters on the numbers chain? |
||
nofish |
Savage Voyageur: " If an EP can handled 15 permits a day in June why can't they handle 15 in July? There are no more campsites in June then there are in July. |
||
BuckFlicks |
Respectfully disagree, Tumblehome. The only way to accomplish what you want is to require reservation of a specific campsite each night, or to require a specific itinerary when purchasing a permit and deviation from said itinerary isn't allowed (or both.) Which people would also complain about. Either way would dramatically increase the permit cost as it would require an intricate reservation system and more people to manage it. Which people would complain about. Some people complain about everything. It's public land. Everyone is entitled to use it. If that cramps your style, that's a personal problem to overcome (which you seem to have done,) not the USFS's responsibility. I don't like it crowded either... that's why I don't go during the summer. You can't dictate where people go after they've been issued the permit. |
||
Savage Voyageur |
|
||
nofish |
I'm really not seeing how changing the numbers based on the month helps anything. The numbers are set based on what the FS thinks the area can support and that isn't dependent on time of year. If they can support 15 permits a day in June then they can support 15 in July. If July permits fill up with scout groups and families with kids then people can always adjust their trip dates and go in June if they really want that EP. If lakes near the EP are completely full of campers then perhaps the EP can't really support 15 permits. Whether its June or July or a holiday weekend would be irrelevant. The only way I can see changing permit numbers by month as being helpful is if there is some data showing that groups in certain months stay longer or move less than groups traveling in other months. |
||
DeanL |
tumblehome: "It is the FS 'fault' for overcrowding. The quota system is supposed to disperse campers. They set the quota. The overcrowding issue is chronic all summer, not just the holidays. The two times I have had had 100% occupancy was not on entry lakes. I'm not trying to be a buzzkill to all the people planning a trip but the truth is the truth. As an addition to the overcrowding all summer. I question the idea about entering this day or that day instead of day x or day y. A fair share of entry points have most or all of the permits taken every day for the whole summer. I've never understood the best day of the week argument I guess. To your statement about anxiety finding a site, I could not agree more. I have camped during shoulder and busy seasons, gone to the middle and stayed close to the edge. One thing that is always the same is that I cannot relax until I have my canoe on shore and the tent set up. I realize the chances of primo sites being open is slim to none but there are times when just finding any site becomes a challenge. That's the time that the whole site saving topic really comes to shine bit I think we solved that problem last week. |
||
arm2008 |
Practically guaranteed you a site and gave you an idea of how much company you could expect to see. Did have to plan and not wing it. Once we did end up staying on a different lake due to weather, but nobody in their right mind was out in the rain and wind to complain about it! It wouldn't be rocket science to implement a similar system in the BWCA. |
||
thegildedgopher |
BuckFlicks: "Respectfully disagree, Tumblehome. The only way to accomplish what you want is to require reservation of a specific campsite each night, or to require a specific itinerary when purchasing a permit and deviation from said itinerary isn't allowed (or both.) Which people would also complain about. Either way would dramatically increase the permit cost as it would require an intricate reservation system and more people to manage it. Which people would complain about." Am I missing something? We already use recreation.gov to purchase our permits. The technology is in place. For Voyageurs you can reserve any of over 150 specific sites. They wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel here. In my opinion they could easily make sites on EP's reservable and probably turn a greater profit in the process. Deeper lakes could stay first come/served. |
||
bwcadan |
|
||
timatkn |
T |
||
billconner |
|
||
thistlekicker |
The FS could do something about this but probably won't. |
||
Thwarted |
timatkn: "Missmolly...you give me too much credit :) we had a week of seclusion and then this lake looked like a KOA campground, this group wasn’t going to be the last rolling into camp, at that point it wasn’t a wilderness anymore, I just figured might as well as head back to full civilization and the amenities...especially a beer at that point. So it was 50% it felt good to make this groups day and 50% mental therapy to leave because I was annoyed :) LOL...I was about to add kudos to your karma too but your transparency just stopped me short. I share your perspective. End of great trip, too many people, not a nice end, so let's end this on our own terms. |
||
cowdoc |
|
||
missmolly |
timatkn: "Unfortunate yes, this has happened to me. We came from Fraser lake and got to Dissappointment lake around 4 pm. We literally got the last site on the Lake and was unloading when a panic stricken group of ladies asked if we were leaving...there were several other groups paddling looking for sites, it was a mess. Anyway I said yes we were, and abandoned the site to them. My wife was perplexed, when I told her we had already paddled quite a bit what’s another hour or two...they need the site more than we do, let’s get a beer and a burger in Ely instead of Kraft Mac and cheese. On the way out I caught a couple of 26 inch walleye...Karma baby! Man, you are kind. If I were Mother Nature, I would have hooked a 32-inch walleye on your line! |
||
justinrlees |
Has anyone ever done this? |
||
Cc26 |
justinrlees: "I would never want to do this, but if you are traveling and its getting close to sun down and you are on a lake with no open campsites, how much of an issue would it be to camp on an unmarked make-shift campsite? I know typically, there usually isn't an area flat enough nor open to do so. But, I can't imagine a park ranger giving you a fine if you were to explain what happened and only stayed there to lay over. i have seen this twice in 5 trips. once on the southern end of fourtown lake, guys were just waking up, and having a fire when we were paddling out. the other one was on gabbro lake, just north of the island site just as you get into gabbro from little gabbro. i don't know what they were doing, but it was about 2 am, and i heard a loud bang in the middle of the night. sat straight up in the tent, didn't have any idea what it was. turns out it was these guys slamming the canoe into the rocks. about 9am they come out of the woods and start on their way again |
||
treehorn |
|
||
BeaV |
justinrlees: "I would never want to do this, but if you are traveling and its getting close to sun down and you are on a lake with no open campsites, how much of an issue would it be to camp on an unmarked make-shift campsite? I know typically, there usually isn't an area flat enough nor open to do so. But, I can't imagine a park ranger giving you a fine if you were to explain what happened and only stayed there to lay over. Common sense and safety concerns trump "rules". If night time, dangerous wind conditions, or health concerns force a group to stop short of a designated campsite, find a suitable stopping place. If you really have a valid reason to stop short of a campsite, minimize your time and disturbance at that spot. Don't make a fire ring, build a fire, make tent sites, that kind of stuff. Find a fairly level spot to sleep on. The right time of year you may not need to set up a tent. If you don't set up a tent, make a fire, and linger too long, is this really a campsite anyhow? There's nothing that says you can't rest on shore wherever you want. In your example of darkness being the reason.....get up early and leave the adhoc resting site. If you arrive in the dark and leave in the dark, you will never be confronted. If the next morning comes and you're lazing around "in camp" with tents all set up and gear strewn around at 10 am, then this would not be OK in my book. |
||
Michwall2 |
justinrlees: "I would never want to do this, but if you are traveling and its getting close to sun down and you are on a lake with no open campsites, how much of an issue would it be to camp on an unmarked make-shift campsite? I know typically, there usually isn't an area flat enough nor open to do so. But, I can't imagine a park ranger giving you a fine if you were to explain what happened and only stayed there to lay over. I think creating a sub rosa campsite is a huge LNT violation. Yeah, I think you would get a fine no matter the circumstances. I have seen only one in my years of tripping. I was on Long Island Lake on the far east end. The spot was heavily trampled. The evidence was not going away soon. I have heard of people camping at the end of portages in a pinch. Pitched in the dark and gone at first light sort of thing. Minimal impact on the land. Even there, you don't know who you might be obstructing. One particularly memorable August trip, we were on Mesaba Lake and the campsites were full (and Mesaba rarely has more than one campsite occupied). We encountered people who had entered Sawbill Lake passing at dusk still looking for campsites. They headed for Hub Lake. My guess is that they paddled all of Sawbill and/or Alton before heading north through Kelso and then over the 480 to Zenith and up to Mesaba/Hub area. That's a long first day! |
||
nofish |
We had to make the decision to press on and go further or back track. It appeared that more groups were heading north so we figured odds of finding a site in that direction was remote so we sucked it up and back tracked into Winchell and couldn't find a site. We ended up back tracking all the way back to Brule and spent the rest of the day paddling Brule to find a site. We were still a few days shy of your planned exit day so we really didn't want to exit that early. We ended up finding a mediocre site up in the bay leading to the Cone lakes and as far as we could tell it was the last site on the lake. We logged a lot of miles that day and even though we had planned on seeing more lakes over the next few days there was no way we were giving up even a mediocre camp site so we ended up base camping there the rest of the trip. The lesson taken from this trip has helped in planning all future trips. Now when planning a trip I look for routes with a long or difficult portage early on day 1. I've found very few people want to do those portages so I've had little trouble finding sites after the portage. |
||
Aldy1 |
sylvesterii: "That's too bad to hear. It was also our plan for a trip at the end of July. Camp at a north site on Insula, head back day before to be out early the last day. Might have to revisit that plan. Burn area is still burnt, but you can see new tiny trees popping up. I personally would never want to stay there, but it's fine to travel through. Worth paddling onto the NE side of Insula. You might be fine staying on Lake 1 or 2 if you leave early enough. We stayed at site 1326 and enjoyed our time there. |
||
thegildedgopher |
|
||
tumblehome |
BeaV: BeaV. Your statement is excellent advice on how to deal with no available campsites. Very well worded. Tom |
||
egknuti |
|
||
4keys |
|
||
johndku |
4keys: "I know a couple guys who were put in this situation last weekend. All sites on a large lake were taken, it was early evening and a big storm was quickly moving in, so there was no time to safely go to another lake. They asked 4 guys if they could pitch a tent to get out of the storm and they'd leave right away in the morning. They were told no, so they had to go down the shoreline and set up at the first place they could land. I saw a video- extreme wind and high waves. They definitely made the correct choice to stay at a non- site instead of being on the water. Bad Karma for the people who wouldn't let them pitch a tent. I can't imagine saying "No" to somebody in the evening, desperate, with a storm moving in. I know people want the 'we're all alone" experience, (so do I), but I'd like to think I'd help out in a dangerous situation. |
||
PikeEatPike |
|
||
rtallent |
justinrlees: "I would never want to do this, but if you are traveling and its getting close to sun down and you are on a lake with no open campsites, how much of an issue would it be to camp on an unmarked make-shift campsite? I know typically, there usually isn't an area flat enough nor open to do so. But, I can't imagine a park ranger giving you a fine if you were to explain what happened and only stayed there to lay over. Had to do that a couple times over the years (once night-paddling on Basswood due to winds; once near a full-up entry point lake area with about a half hour of daylight), but wouldn't even call it a "make-shift" campsite. Just carried canoe and gear into the trees out of sight and found a patch of ground for the tent. No fire; no cooking, even. Up at daylight and gone; coffee and breakfast somewhere down the way. Pretty much per Beav's advice. That was solo; tougher with a group of any size. Oh yeah, my name is Howard Sprague. |
||
jamotrade |
|
||
tumblehome |
It's not always Karma. We had a situation on Badwater Lake in Quetico some years ago. A group asked if they could camp with us, I can't remember the reason they asked us or what time of day it was. We said no. (Remember that you can camp anywhere in Quetico.) So they pulled up 100' from us and made a camp beside our camp. I can't tell you my feelings about this. I guess I'm thankful they camped 100' from us instead of in our camp. And yup, When I'm camping, I want the 'alone feeling'. Now, if there is an emergency, and we can pick those out pretty easily, I would not hesitate. A lot of the problems people create up there are from a lack of experience, bad judgement, ignorance, etc. Sometimes just bad luck. Or in the BWCA, it's the broken quota system that allows too many people into a given area. Those folks are victims of the Government and politics. Tom |
||
BuckFlicks |
Once the USFS issues a permit, they have no way to actually control the use of the permit without having a ranger permanently stationed at every lake. The permit says you can stay in the BWCA as long as you want and it doesn't say "don't camp within one lake of a busy entry point on a holiday weekend because someone else who didn't plan properly might write us an angry letter if they can't find a campsite after 3:00pm." It also says you can stay up to 14 days at one site (no other time restrictions at a campsite close to an EP.) You don't know how many of those people were just entering that day, or how many were exiting. The USFS can't control where you exit - or any other restriction on campsite usage other than camping is only permitted in designated campsites, and limits on group size. Aldy: Sorry you had to push so hard to get out on the last day. That sucks, but silver lining: now you know for the next time. We usually plan to stop 2-3 lakes (or more if said lakes are small) away from the EP in order to have an easy last day, and to maximize our camping options. Sometimes we get close and make better time on the 2nd to last day, and just push on and leave a day early because we hit our target site by 1:00 and pushing on closer to the EP would likely result in the situation you described. Thinking alternately, we plan ahead and can see us reaching the EP by 5:00... and by the time you start thinking like that, you're also thinking about how a hot shower, and a steak and whiskey or wine are sounding a LOT better than freeze dried chicken teriyaki and lake water again. We also almost always put in on Tuesdays so we are generally only dealing with mid-week crowds rather than weekend crowds. As for making an emergency bivouac outside of a designated campsite - I have to think that very few if any rangers would cite someone for pitching an emergency camp for a few hours due to illness, injury, weather, hypothermia, or other emergencies. Now if you just plopped down on a spot because you're too lazy to paddle to the next lake and the sites on your preferred lake are all taken... different story. As others have mentioned... personal safety trumps rules. Just don't linger long into the morning. Get up and move on as soon as possible, and in the name of all that is holy, do everything you can to minimize your impact on the site. |
||
carmike |
My plan now is to bring a weather radio with and pay attention to the wind forecast. If it's favorable for our last day, we just stay camped well away from the entry point. It does mean we get to the car a little later, but it also means we have one less take down/ set up without any fears of finding a site. |
||
iastfan112 |
Good thing they did too. As they had encountered this group earlier in the day: Boyscouts 2014 |
||
mgraber |
4keys: "I know a couple guys who were put in this situation last weekend. All sites on a large lake were taken, it was early evening and a big storm was quickly moving in, so there was no time to safely go to another lake. They asked 4 guys if they could pitch a tent to get out of the storm and they'd leave right away in the morning. They were told no, so they had to go down the shoreline and set up at the first place they could land. I saw a video- extreme wind and high waves. They definitely made the correct choice to stay at a non- site instead of being on the water. Man, that's harsh. Too bad we can't lifetime ban those 4 guys, what an atrocious thing to do. They did the right thing staying where they were, no doubt about it. |
||
johndku |
tumblehome: "@johndeku, |
||
nofish |
|
||
tumblehome |
I just don't go the the BWCA anymore unless there is a chance of frost or snow. That seems to be the key to keeping the numbers down. I might do a weekend solo trip if I really have the itch in July but I know where I can sneak away alone and find a site. Campers should not have to have anxiety about having a campsite on their trip. But sadly, it is a major issue for almost any summer group. Tom |
||
timatkn |
mgraber: "4keys: "I know a couple guys who were put in this situation last weekend. All sites on a large lake were taken, it was early evening and a big storm was quickly moving in, so there was no time to safely go to another lake. They asked 4 guys if they could pitch a tent to get out of the storm and they'd leave right away in the morning. They were told no, so they had to go down the shoreline and set up at the first place they could land. I saw a video- extreme wind and high waves. They definitely made the correct choice to stay at a non- site instead of being on the water. I personally would of invited the group to camp under the situation described, but before we ban the 4 guys for saying no--there are always 2 sides to a story. If you come rolling into an entry lake (really any lake) late in the day/evening you are taking a large risk of camps being taken. Does your poor planning mean others need to sacrifice their "wilderness" experience? I know I don't go there to share sites. Maybe it was the 4th time that day they were asked, maybe they couldn't see the storm coming or didn't know it was that bad, maybe they thought the group paddling could make it to a portage, how late really did they ask? I have waited many a storm out on the shoreline only to move a few hours later...there are lots of variables. I could be wrong and they were just jerks, but I wasn't there I don't know. But I also put some personal responsibility on the guys asking to camp by putting themselves in that situation with what sounds like a poor choice in the first place. |
||
unshavenman |
|
||
tumblehome |
Another suggestion is to reduce permits per day during the summer. And it's been stated that if there are 15 permits available in mid May and there is are many open sites but 15 permits in mid June creates overcrowding and that the quota should be reduced during busy months. True, reducing the quota in the summer would help but the fact remains that the quota is not met in the slow season. Therefore the quota number is excessive since it is over-crowded when the quota is met. Do campers accept an over-crowded area so as to not hurt an outfitter? Is this a fair price to pay so an outfitter stays profitable? Ask any prudent camper looking for a place to sleep in July if his predicament is acceptable so an outfitter stays in business. I am not in favor of losing outfitters but I am also not in favor of overcrowding during the summer vacation season so an outfitter is profitable. Requiring campers to camp at specific sites or even specific lakes is good on paper but would not work since it takes just one camper to not cooperate and you have wilderness gridlock. I'm going with reducing the quota. The proof that it works is in Quetico where 70% fewer daily permits are available and over-crowding does not exist. The quota does not need to be reduced by that much, even 10 or 20% would resolve most campsite issues. Tom |
||
The Great Outdoors |
tumblehome: "One suggestion so far is to open more campsites on busy lakes. If you look at Lake One or Ensign for example, there are so many campsites that people are all withing earshot of each other. More campsites further reduces the wilderness experience that campers are looking for This suggestion that the way to create a sustainable tourism based economy is to decrease the number of people allowed in the area seems a bit strange. However, this has been the case since the early '60's, and some wonder why the community looks to diversify it's economic base with another industry, say mining. I'm sure that someone will reply that if one cannot make a living any longer, they must look elsewhere for employment, and move on. Can the same also be said for someone that didn't enjoy the Wilderness Experience they desired, to look elsewhere and move on?? It's lot easier to pack up a tent, canoe, and sleeping bag, than one's worldly belongings, children, and leave an area they were born and raised in! :) |
||
mjmkjun |
timatkn: "mgraber: "4keys: "I know a couple guys who were put in this situation last weekend. All sites on a large lake were taken, it was early evening and a big storm was quickly moving in, so there was no time to safely go to another lake. They asked 4 guys if they could pitch a tent to get out of the storm and they'd leave right away in the morning. They were told no, so they had to go down the shoreline and set up at the first place they could land. I saw a video- extreme wind and high waves. They definitely made the correct choice to stay at a non- site instead of being on the water. Well stated, timatkn. |
||
DeanL |
|
||
thistlekicker |
The Great Outdoors: " It cuts both ways. Some of us are looking elsewhere and moving on exactly because of frontcountry overcrowding. I'm not going to bring my young family on a long weekend trip in midsummer because I'm going to be stressed the entire time about finding an open campsite on the lakes we can reasonably reach given time constraints and my kids' paddling ability. From my perspective, I have better options. |
||
The Great Outdoors |
thistlekicker: "The Great Outdoors: " Then I applaud you for choosing to find other options, than demanding that user permits be cut so you can have the privacy you desire. I find the suggestion that someone feels an outfitter's business be limited economically by cutting permit numbers, rather irritating. |
||
BuckFlicks |
thegildedgopher: "BuckFlicks: "Respectfully disagree, Tumblehome. The only way to accomplish what you want is to require reservation of a specific campsite each night, or to require a specific itinerary when purchasing a permit and deviation from said itinerary isn't allowed (or both.) Which people would also complain about. Either way would dramatically increase the permit cost as it would require an intricate reservation system and more people to manage it. Which people would complain about." Point being that the system as it is only issues X number of permits per day. The suggested solution to the problem of requiring reservations per campsite per night and restricting permits based on the day requires issuing X permits per day, but X varies depending on what day it is, and also requires the assignment of a specific campsite for each night of the season - what essentially amounts to hotel reservation software, but instead of assigning one room for the length of the stay, it would be one room the first night, another room for 2 nights, another room for 1 night, another room for 2 nights and yet another room for 1 night - and God forbid anyone want to camp near an entry point... because apparently some people's needs for campsites near an entry point are more important than the needs of people who got there first. This is far more intricate software than is currently in place and we all know that the government can't make any new changes without maximum time and expense, and multiple bidders. I know, I work for the government. The current software is probably easily managed by one person. The new system would require a larger staff and more expensive software. |
||
BuckFlicks |
timatkn: This is really the essence of my whole point - lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency (or the requirement of a change in policy, or the response from the USFS) on my part. Everyone knows the drill. Everyone knows busy EPs are busy during busy weekends. Don't roll on to Sawbill late in the day on Memorial Day Weekend and get angry when all the campsites are taken... and if you do, don't expect the USFS to change policy because you planned poorly and were surprised/upset by something that happens every holiday weekend. |
||
Bushman |
For Example #22 Mudro w/ no camping on Horse Lake. Should most entry points have restricted permits along with regular? If you reserve a permit knowing you can only camp on X number of lakes or within a certain distance of an entry point it would be easier to help solidify a campsite. Those restricted permits could get used by many of the short distance base campers or weekend warriors which would leave the remaining unrestricted permits open to the distance travelers who would have the opposite restrictions. There could potentially be more permits available this way (which could benefit many) I think it would mainly give you an idea of what you are facing when you hit the water. I'm sure all of us look at the permits remaining at our respective entry points to get a clue on what it may be like. |
||
nooneuno |
|
||
billconner |
Make no small plans. |
||
WinstonRumfoord |
tumblehome: Agree completely. Every time we pass an occupied site my anxiety level creeps up. I have found that very early season and very late season are my preferred times to go. I also like the brutal portage routes. We have a few routes we frequent where we will go a full week without seeing another boat. |
||
thegildedgopher |
BuckFlicks: "thegildedgopher: "BuckFlicks: "Respectfully disagree, Tumblehome. The only way to accomplish what you want is to require reservation of a specific campsite each night, or to require a specific itinerary when purchasing a permit and deviation from said itinerary isn't allowed (or both.) Which people would also complain about. Either way would dramatically increase the permit cost as it would require an intricate reservation system and more people to manage it. Which people would complain about." I'm sorry, but I believe you are simply incorrect about the software capability. I just went on recreation.gov and in the span of 5 minutes I had an itinerary put together for a week using multiple different sites on various lakes in VNP. If every single site in the BWCA was numbered and reservable in the system, why would we even need the ridiculously confusing and opaque permit system? If the site is available, BOOM, you're in. You can bank on it being yours. That said, I never said make ALL sites reservable requiring complicated itineraries. I said make EP lakes -- especially overnight motor lakes -- reservable so that folks who want to experience the BWCA but aren't able to advance further into the park, can still do so. "because apparently some people's needs for campsites near an entry point are more important than the needs of people who got there first." In the case of OM/EP lakes, yes. Those boats have no other options. You put in on Snowbank with an overnight motor permit and all the sites are taken, your only option is to turn around leave. |