Is it, or should it be, legal or illegal to exit the Boundary Waters midway through a long trip to restock supplies from town, a local outfitter, or at an entry point (i.e. supplies left at a vehicle, or via a support team)? Or for that matter for any other reasonable necessity…

Several years back I got into a conversation with a US Forest Ranger when we were at the Superior National Forest Gunflint Ranger District Station in Grand Marais. The ranger asked if I was interested in obtaining an entry permit for the Border Route Trail. A member of our group replied “no, we’re already camped on Pine Lake.”

Having heard about the “Border Route Trail Guide” book, being near the trail, merely a couple days post ice out, and hazardous weather/water conditions (that kept us camp bound for a couple of days); we decided that an alternative (should the weather break) would be to hike portions of the route in our area.

After a couple of tension filled moments; the fact that I had read the BWCA Wilderness Act of 1978, the Wilderness Act of 1964, the BWCAW Rules & Regulations, many conversations with outfitters & guides, and any other regulation that the internet and books could provide; and some very persuasive testimony on my part… the best being that one could hike the entire Border Route Trail / Kekekabic Trail on one permit, in which doing so would necessitate exiting and reentering on the same permit; and medical necessity i.e. stitches or an imbedded hook. We were encouraged to be discrete and get back to our camp without any unnecessary delay; which we did.

The following spring while picking up my permit I ran into the same ranger again. We talked about the situation from the year before, and he stated that there were extensive conversations regarding our incident. The resolution reached by the Forest Service was as follows:
A group must still only enter the Boundary Waters on the date of the permit; however, a group may exit and reenter the Boundary Waters during their stay (regardless of the reason) as long as reenter on the same day that you exit: 0001 - 2400 hours.

I’m sure there are those on both sides of this issue, and a multitude of reasons for that.

This is news to me. Not that I wouldn't bend the rules a little if I'd forgotten something in my car etc. anyway.

Interesting, I have known that you could cross "corridors" without a new permit. An example might be starting your trip at Moose River, working through the BWCA, traveling down the Little Indian Sioux, from the north side to the south side and eventually pulling out someplace like Big Lake.

I used those many times while leading outward bound groups. But my understanding, was that you needed to cross from the BWCA back into the BWCA on the same day, and without receiving any type of outside support (in otherwords, no running to town to get supplies).

quote CrookedPaddler1: "Interesting, I have known that you could cross "corridors" without a new permit. An example might be starting your trip at Moose River, working through the BWCA, traveling down the Little Indian Sioux, from the north side to the south side and eventually pulling out someplace like Big Lake.


I used those many times while leading outward bound groups. But my understanding, was that you needed to cross from the BWCA back into the BWCA on the same day, and without receiving any type of outside support (in otherwords, no running to town to get supplies)."

I'm not saying they haven't revised it since my conversation with the Ranger at the Gunflint Station, but that's where it was a few years ago.

And I was not arguing with you, it has been a few years (okay almost 20 years) since I was leading outward bound trips!

Interesting, but I would need to see it in writing before I would attempt it. I have always told my groups that under no circumstances could you reenter without a new permit.

I did just a few weeks ago. Forgot my book, was stymied by ice and had to back track ten miles. As long as I was just an hour and a half from my car, and had a few more days ahead, I went back to my car and grabbed my book. Sort of felt guilty but never considered that I was violating the rules.

I've exited and re-entered when forgetting meds in car. Same EP (out-car-back in).

Not that I would do such a thing, but you could use that logic to enter any EP you want then... enter at EP on your permit, turn around and go to another EP and go "back" into BWCA. Gets a bit ridiculous.

I understand through-tripping, but sounds like the proposed USFS answer wouldn't require any conditions.

There are almost NO Forest Service Rangers in the BWCA any more. So, if you enter, re-enter, or not... seems a minor point when so many are violating the regulations.

Just this spring we have found illegal camp sites with built up rock fire pits, live trees hacked or taken down and bark stripped in the number lakes area and on to Insula.

Sorry to hijack this thread - just seems like we are preaching to the choir. Those that are concerned with the regulations and try to follow them are on this website. The ones that really need to consider illegal behavior are not listening. Ok, soap box back in the closet.

On my forty day I retained new permits when I resupplied. But I also crossed areas not in the BW and back in again within a few hours which I was always told by FS as being ok. I always ask first.

My understanding is that you are only permitted to exit and reenter the Wilderness without a new permit under one circumstance - when you are completing a loop though a corridor that is outside of the Wilderness. As someone else said, I'd have to see it in writing to believe that you are allowed to come and go as long as you are outside the Wilderness less than 24 hours.

And I also think that should be the rule. Otherwise, someone could set up a camp near an EP and just come and go (within 24 hours) and add to congestion at the EP.

I think some rangers may be flexible about how to apply that rule when people bend it in circumstances that don't impact other trippers, such as in low-traffic seasons. I think all rangers should use a rule of reason in enforcement. But I don't think this is something that is permitted any time you like.

quote Ho Ho: "



I think some rangers may be flexible about how to apply that rule when people bend it in circumstances that don't impact other trippers, such as in low-traffic seasons. I think all rangers should use a rule of reason in enforcement. But I don't think this is something that is permitted any time you like.


"

Exactly.

We enter, exit, and re-enter whenever we take a load in at an entry point and go back to the car for a second load.
Returning to the car for forgotten meds or a camera barely differs from that second pack, depending on the length of time that has passed. A same-day entry, exit and re-entry sounds perfectly legit to me. It only gets questionable when it happens over more than one day.
In the case of forgotten medications, I think I could see myself returning to the car on day two.

How about in the case of meeting someone, a couple of weeks into a trip, at a prearranged time, to pick up a resupply pack at the entry point? Here, the new guy does short hike down to the river or lake, from the parking area, to switch packs while the camper does not leave the wilderness area. Does that violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the rule? Has anyone done that? Does anyone care?

As with a lot of things some things are best not talked about.

quote nctry: "On my forty day I retained new permits when I resupplied. But I also crossed areas not in the BW and back in again within a few hours which I was always told by FS as being ok. I always ask first."

This is absolutely within the rules and there is no need to ask or get permission.

For instance, if you have an EP 68 permit, you are not officially entering the BWCA until you paddle the 1 1/2 miles from the parking lot through McFarland Lake and enter into Pine Lake. If after you camped on Pine Lake for a night or two and you decide that you want to do a daytrip to John Lake or Little John, you technically would be leaving the boundaries of the BWCA when you exited Pine Lake to paddle back through McFarland to John or Little John.

As long as you do not stop to get out of your canoe and go to your vehicle, the USFS doe NOT consider this as exiting the wilderness.

Pine Lake EP is not the only example of this scenario where you can paddle from one BWCA lake to another and have to travel through a lake that is outside the boundaries of the BWCA.

Another great example is traveling to Quetico. It is perfectly legal to have a BWCA permit, and if you also get a Quetico permit , you can camp a few days in the BWCA, cross over into Quetico to spend a few days, and then cross back into the BWCA for a few more nights. Again, the USFS does NOT consider this as exiting the wilderness.

For those that choose to ignore this rule and go back to their vehicles for something they forgot or drive thier vehicle to restock, the chances are you will never get caught because of the limited number of rangers in the area.

It really comes down to personal integrity.

quote riverrunner: "As with a lot of things some things are best not talked about."

+1

The way I look at it is that you can enter and leave as often as you like on the entry date of your permit. It doesn't list a time, just a date. What constitutes leaving the BWCA? Is it getting out of the canoe and standing in the water? Is it touching dry land? Is the parking lot not part of the entry point?

Is the # of permits per day at an entry site to control congestion at the actual entry point? Or is it to control the amount of people in a certain area of the BWCA? I would think the latter.

Hmmmm, didn't realize that? We had to exit once when our less experienced friends had to leave a few days early. We'd not planned to exit, however; wind was very bad. Glad we exited with them as they swamped on Seagull. Anyway, we went all the way back with them to HJO and got a new permit for an EP a few miles away and re-entered.

Permit rules state you must enter on the date of your permit. Seems to me you could come and go all day long so long as you did it all on that date, as crazy as that seems. I think the biggest violation to this rule is the area near Sawbill...where people camped on surrounding lakes make supply runs, ice runs, bait runs, etc. back and forth to the outfitter throughout their trip. Technically that is a no-no if you aren't getting a new permit each day. I'm not talking about campers at the campground utilizing self-issued day-use permits, but rather those camped in the BWCA running back to the store for candy, showers, and such.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, to further complicate matters, are there not certain routes that take you in and out of the BWCA borders? Island River comes to mind, but I'd have to check my map to be sure.

In my opinion, it should be illegal if it isn't already. The portages in the first few miles of many BWCAW entry points are already too crowded the way it is. Especially in the peak summer months. If you start allowing permit holders to come and go because they forgot something in town then the entry portages have the potential to be grid locked. In my opinion, once you are in then you stay in. Except for medical reasons.

This FS pdf reads that one may not exit and re-enter on a date following the permit date without a new permit.

"You must enter the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness
(BWCAW) at the entry point and on the date shown on your
permit.

You may not enter/re-enter at a different point or date using this
permit.

Permit and stubs become invalid when the trip leader exits the
wilderness."

When I do my border trip I will have to do this to get through Gunflint lake but it will be the same trip.

quote housty9: "When I do my border trip I will have to do this to get through Gunflint lake but it will be the same trip."

I'm not familiar with the Gunflint Lake area but if you have a BWCA permit and leave the BWCA to cross the border into Quetico and then come back into the BWCA, you do NOT need a second BWCA permit.

The same thing applies if you never leave the US but go from a lake that is within the BWCA, paddle through a lake that is outside the BWCA to get to yet another lake that is within the BWCA, you do NOT need a second BWCA permit.

quote LuvMyBell: "

quote housty9: "When I do my border trip I will have to do this to get through Gunflint lake but it will be the same trip."

I'm not familiar with the Gunflint Lake area but if you have a BWCA permit and leave the BWCA to cross the border into Quetico and then come back into the BWCA, you do NOT need a second BWCA permit.


The same thing applies if you never leave the US but go from a lake that is within the BWCA, paddle through a lake that is outside the BWCA to get to yet another lake that is within the BWCA, you do NOT need a second BWCA permit.


"

That's kinda what I thought.

quote LuvMyBell: "

quote housty9: "When I do my border trip I will have to do this to get through Gunflint lake but it will be the same trip."

I'm not familiar with the Gunflint Lake area but if you have a BWCA permit and leave the BWCA to cross the border into Quetico and then come back into the BWCA, you do NOT need a second BWCA permit.

"

Ah - the simple version - but isn't this based on "not leaving the wilderness" language in regulations so if you start on a BWCA permit, cross into the Q, run into Atikokan for a night, and then back south, through the Q and back into the BWCA, can you use same permit or do you need a new "from Canada" permit?

These are much better questions for the dead of winter.

quote billconner: "

quote LuvMyBell: "

quote housty9: "When I do my border trip I will have to do this to get through Gunflint lake but it will be the same trip."

I'm not familiar with the Gunflint Lake area but if you have a BWCA permit and leave the BWCA to cross the border into Quetico and then come back into the BWCA, you do NOT need a second BWCA permit.


"

Ah - the simple version - but isn't this based on "not leaving the wilderness" language in regulations so if you start on a BWCA permit, cross into the Q, run into Atikokan for a night, and then back south, through the Q and back into the BWCA, can you use same permit or do you need a new "from Canada" permit?


These are much better questions for the dead of winter."

Not being a Quetico tripper the thought of exiting at Anitoken for a night never occurred to me.

Interesting....if you exited anywhere on the US side of the border the answer is simple.....not Allowed...get a new permit. But exiting on the Canadian side? Does the US care what you do north of the border? I'll bet you'd get as many different answers as the number of USFS personnel you asked.....lol

To me it would be exiting the wilderness as a 'spirit of the law' issue rather than 'letter of the law'. In your heart you know you exited the wilderness.

quote Jeriatric: "How about in the case of meeting someone, a couple of weeks into a trip, at a prearranged time, to pick up a resupply pack at the entry point? Here, the new guy does short hike down to the river or lake, from the parking area, to switch packs while the camper does not leave the wilderness area.
"

The easy solution here is to have the resupply guy get a permit and rendezvous in the wilderness. In fact I have gone in to rendezvous with my son and another guy, although we stayed with them for the remainder of the trip. We could have just as easily continued on our own or just gone back to the car.

quote oldgentleman: "

quote Jeriatric: "How about in the case of meeting someone, a couple of weeks into a trip, at a prearranged time, to pick up a resupply pack at the entry point? Here, the new guy does short hike down to the river or lake, from the parking area, to switch packs while the camper does not leave the wilderness area.
"

The easy solution here is to have the resupply guy get a permit and rendezvous in the wilderness. In fact I have gone in to rendezvous with my son and another guy, although we stayed with them for the remainder of the trip. We could have just as easily continued on our own or just gone back to the car."

I have often thought this would be an opportunity for an ambitious local to make some money.......

Go to the store and load a cooler with frozen meats or even beer or alcohol. Get a day permit and paddle in to some interior lakes and sell their wares to BWCA trippers. After 4 or 5 days I'd pay several dollars for a steak or a ice cold beer.

This could be a cold call business or something prearranged to meet at a time on a certain lake.

It is perfectly legal to meet someone who is already in the BWCA but I'm not sure if you'd need some sort of business license or permit from the USFS or state?
LOL ...... I can hear the wilderness purists screaming about the thought of this type of business in the BWCA......

There is the letter of the law, the intent of the law, the interpretation of the law and the enforcement of the law, just to name a few. The basic permit is a basic intent of the law. The laws for the Boundary Waters - BWCA Wilderness Act of 1978/Wilderness Act of 1964/BWCAW Rules & Regulations, the US Forestry Laws for Superior National Forest, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Laws - like Fish & Game Regulations, State Laws, Local Laws & Regulations, various other Rules, Regulations, & Laws, not to mention the yearly changes/modifications to all of the aforementioned; then finally the enforcement of all of the previously mentioned criteria would be impossible to hand out to and learn prior to a trip into the Boundary Waters.

Take for instance when I pull some one over for speeding… I can't possibly pull everyone who speeds 1 mile or more per hour over the posted speed limit. In some state they have developed a "right to speed" interpretation of the law for 10 miles or under in a 45 to 70 mph zone. In Iowa we have speed cameras in certain areas that catches speeders going more than 10 over, but only issues what is tantamount to a parking ticket to those speeders (albeit a bit pricey, but it does not go on their driving record).

I could delve deep into much more intense issues like driving under the influence and the absurdity in the laws, enforcement, and punitive phases of this issue, but that is for another time. Suffice it to say, it is a very contentious issue, and rightfully so.

The point is that in every aspect of the law, from the writing to the punitive phase, from the intent to the letter of the law, and from the interpretation to the enforcement of the law is rarely a simple matter.

In this case, about 12 years or so ago, the US Forestry Service made an interpretation of this law considering all of the "exceptions" where one might possibly enter, exit, and reenter the BWCAW (i.e. medicines, fringe lake resupplies, medical emergencies, into the Quetico and back, etcetera), and therefore decided to interrupt and enforce the regulations as I stated. They determined the myriad of reasons would be too great to interrupt on a case-by-case basis considering the alleged violators "reasons" and such. Therefore, they made a department decision to enforce the laws as I stated. A group must enter the Boundary Waters on the date of the permit; however, a group may exit and reenter the Boundary Waters during their stay (regardless of the reason) as long as reenter on the same day that it is exited: 0001 - 2400 hours.

I understand and greatly appreciate everyone's comments on this issue, but as a Law Enforcement Officer who's heard every excuse for traffic violations alone… enforcing the law with the latitude of discretion is essential (i.e. a warning ticket).

Please keep posting; discussion like these is beneficial to everyone.

I have never seen the written rule that a group may exit the wilderness for any reason as long as they reenter on the same date they exited.

Can you point us to where this is written please?

quote LuvMyBell: "I have never seen the written rule that a group may exit the wilderness for any reason as long as they reenter on the same date they exited.


Can you point us to where this is written please?


"

As far as I know it is not written. Instead, it came directly from the US Forest Ranger that I dealt with over two seasons. He stated that it was as issue discussed over the winter, and what I posted was the agencies decision.

I will endeavor over the next few days to track down the written interpretation for this post.

On the resupply, I think about a long border trip and having my outfitter bring a pack to PP on a tow trip.

quote billconner: "On the resupply, I think about a long border trip and having my outfitter bring a pack to PP on a tow trip."

On one trip, I used an outfitter for a shuttle at the end of a multi-week trip. They forgot to put us on their board, and we were left stranded many miles from civilization.

Not all was bad; in fact, it actually was very memorable and positive overall. We eventually got a lift back towards the outfitter; and it has become a very classic tale around the camp fire. If I see a campfire blog post, I will share the whole story…

Bottom line, things happen and you cannot always depend on others for your trip's necessities. Alternative planning is a must! Be prepared and know your options.

I just read the blog post for "What's that smell?" and nearly everyone would not report someone for smoking weed... neither would I, yet people have issues, sometimes major league, with some of the other violations posted through out the many blog post pages.

I don't think anyone said they would report a violator. (If someone did say it, most people did not.) What people said, in response to the question of whether it is permitted, was "No" because the rules clearly state that it's not. If someone asks you if something is legal and you say no because it's not, that doesn't mean you intend to report a violation.

In terms of the intent of the rule, I think it definitely violates the who purpose of having EP quotas if you can come and go as you please as long as you do it the same day. So yes, if you do this, you are not just violating the letter of the rule, but also the spirit, and that can negatively impact other campers in a busy area where all permits are taken.

quote jtbwcaw: "I just read the blog post for "What's that smell?" and nearly everyone would not report someone for smoking weed... neither would I, yet people have issues, sometimes major league, with some of the other violations posted???"

If anyone came onto my property, in my house or into my campsite getting reported to the police for smoking pot would be the least of your problems.

If I was paddling by a campsite and saw/smelled this going on as long as no other illegal activity or rule breaking was going on I would ignore it.

I would ignore it mainly because anymore its treated as a misdemeanor at best and in many cities isn't even prosecuted. What's the point?

But I still don't want it around me or my family.

quote jtbwcaw: "

quote billconner: "On the resupply, I think about a long border trip and having my outfitter bring a pack to PP on a tow trip."

On one trip, I used an outfitter for a shuttle at the end of a multi-week trip. They forgot to put us on their board, and we were left stranded many miles from civilization.


Not all was bad; in fact, it actually was very memorable and positive overall. We eventually got a lift back towards the outfitter; and it has become a very classic tale around the camp fire. If I see a campfire blog post, I will share the whole story…


Bottom line, things happen and you cannot always depend on others for your trip's necessities. Alternative planning is a must! Be prepared and know your options."

I understand planning since that is what I do for a living and the beauty of resupply at PP is that I could always catch a tow down and back to the outfitter's Moose Lake base - where my food pack would be. Maybe just leave in car and take a day paddle permit to get it. I have found CCO to be extremely dependable.

quote Ho Ho: "
I don't think anyone said they would report a violator. (If someone did say it, most people did not.) What people said, in response to the question of whether it is permitted, was "No" because the rules clearly state that it's not. If someone asks you if something is legal and you say no because it's not, that doesn't mean you intend to report a violation.


In terms of the intent of the rule, I think it definitely violates the who purpose of having EP quotas if you can come and go as you please as long as you do it the same day. So yes, if you do this, you are not just violating the letter of the rule, but also the spirit, and that can negatively impact other campers in a busy area where all permits are taken.


"

I think the majority of opinions expressed on this subject would agree that the way the rule is written today that it is against the rules to exit and renter the BWCA without a new permit. Although there is some interpretation as to what constitutes 'exiting the wilderness'.

However, all this discussion on agreeing or disagreeing with the rule, violating the intent of the law or the spirit of the law has been rendered mute IF what jtbwcaw says turns out to be true. He says the USFS has made a determiniation that it is now permissible to exit and reenter the BWCA without a new permit as long as it's done in the same day.

I'm anxiously waiting on jtbwcaw to get written confirmation and post it here. If it turns out to be true, the official USFS rules and regulations should be updated.

Ho Ho serious question not meant to be argumentative.....How does someone exiting and reentering the BWCA 'negatively impact other campers in a busy area where all permits are taken'?

I would think that most people who ignore the current rule and exit the wilderness to restock, either from their vehicle in the EP parking lot, or by driving their vehicle into town, do so without all their gear. It is probably still setup at their campsite waiting on their return from restocking.

Whether they leave to restock or not, they are still using the same campsite. This has zero impact on other campers.

Depending on the area the act of going to the EP and exiting could, and I stress the word could, create some extra congestion on portages and at the EP. But I don't see how this negatively impacts anyone. Maybe my views are skewed because I trip in the shoulder seasons but I have never had to wait to launch or unload at an EP...EVER and rarely have had to wait at portages.

quote LuvMyBell: "

quote Ho Ho: "
I don't think anyone said they would report a violator. (If someone did say it, most people did not.) What people said, in response to the question of whether it is permitted, was "No" because the rules clearly state that it's not. If someone asks you if something is legal and you say no because it's not, that doesn't mean you intend to report a violation.

In terms of the intent of the rule, I think it definitely violates the who purpose of having EP quotas if you can come and go as you please as long as you do it the same day. So yes, if you do this, you are not just violating the letter of the rule, but also the spirit, and that can negatively impact other campers in a busy area where all permits are taken.
"

I think the majority of opinions expressed on this subject would agree that the way the rule is written today that it is against the rules to exit and renter the BWCA without a new permit. Although there is some interpretation as to what constitutes 'exiting the wilderness'.

However, all this discussion on agreeing or disagreeing with the rule, violating the intent of the law or the spirit of the law has been rendered mute IF what jtbwcaw says turns out to be true. He says the USFS has made a determination that it is now permissible to exit and reenter the BWCA without a new permit as long as it's done in the same day.

I'm anxiously waiting on jtbwcaw to get written confirmation and post it here. If it turns out to be true, the official USFS rules and regulations should be updated.

Ho Ho serious question not meant to be argumentative.....How does someone exiting and reentering the BWCA 'negatively impact other campers in a busy area where all permits are taken'?

I would think that most people who ignore the current rule and exit the wilderness to restock, either from their vehicle in the EP parking lot, or by driving their vehicle into town, do so without all their gear. It is probably still setup at their campsite waiting on their return from restocking.

Whether they leave to restock or not, they are still using the same campsite. This has zero impact on other campers.

Depending on the area the act of going to the EP and exiting could, and I stress the word could, create some extra congestion on portages and at the EP. But I don't see how this negatively impacts anyone. Maybe my views are skewed because I trip in the shoulder seasons but I have never had to wait to launch or unload at an EP...EVER and rarely have had to wait at portages."

I just spoke with a Ranger at the Gunflint Ranger Station, she stated she didn’t have an answer to my question, and she’d have to get back to me. She stated as far as she currently knew it was okay as long as the group leader didn’t exit the Boundary Waters. But again, she didn’t know, and she’d get back to me after talking to her supervisor.
I’ll update as she gets back to me, or I find something in writing.

Pick up a day paddle permit - no cost and self issued - and use that until your "last and final" entry for which the overnight paddle is used.

I guess I can understand forgetting something - I always take a double set of meds with one packed well in advance in pack since my doctor tells me I won't live without them - but who would actually want to be going back and forth to entry point? I want o get as far away as a fast and as soon as possible. Seems like a minor or no inconvenience if one in many do this.

The .gov "You may not enter/re-enter at a different point or date using this permit." and "Permit and stubs become invalid when the trip leader exits the wilderness. " rules do seem to suggest you can come and go at the same EP on the entry date unless its the trip leader and you consider being at the EP not in the wilderness.

So if you cross the Echo Trail at LIS north to south and don't pause, did you exit the wilderness? If you left resupply in a vehicle there and stopped to pick that up, did you end the permit? If someone shuttled you to Ely and back, did you end the trip? In terms of the goals of the quota system, what difference is there really? I probably would not resupply or go into Ely, don't really care if someone else does, and doubt anyone would be "caught" just for this but that it might be added if there were other charges.

I got called back by the Gunflint Ranger Station. They stated that basically, as long as the leader stays in the BWCAW, or leaves for an essential purpose, and in doing so does not jeopardize any member of the group... then not much will be done. However, it's like I said about speeding tickets; it's the flavor of the individual Ranger Station's Supervisor, and the individual discretion of the Ranger.

quote jtbwcaw: "I got called back by the Gunflint Ranger Station. They stated that basically, as long as the leader stays in the BWCAW, or leaves for an essential purpose, and in doing so does not jeopardize any member of the group... then not much will be done. However, it's like I said about speeding tickets; it's the flavor of the individual Ranger Station's Supervisor, and the individual discretion of the Ranger."

That is NOT a satisfactory answer by the USFS. In fact it's really a non-answer. I am way too black-n-white to accept this. Something is either right/wrong, legal/illegal, etc...... There should NEVER be any grey area with rules and regulations of any kind.

If individual rangers can choose at their discretion to ticket or not ticket, then it is really no different than getting stopped for speeding. The common thread is that we know the activity is really against the rules or no ranger would ever give a ticket.

If exiting the wilderness for non-emergency situations such as restocking supplies was something that I or anyone in my group would ever consider doing (which we do not), I would write a letter to the head of the USFS explaining the kind of nonsense advice that their local personnel are giving out when asked specific questions regarding rules & regulations.

quote LuvMyBell: "

quote jtbwcaw: "I got called back by the Gunflint Ranger Station. They stated that basically, as long as the leader stays in the BWCAW, or leaves for an essential purpose, and in doing so does not jeopardize any member of the group... then not much will be done. However, it's like I said about speeding tickets; it's the flavor of the individual Ranger Station's Supervisor, and the individual discretion of the Ranger."

That is NOT a satisfactory answer by the USFS. In fact it's really a non-answer. I am way too black-n-white to accept this. Something is either right/wrong, legal/illegal, etc...... There should NEVER be any gray area with rules and regulations of any kind.


If individual rangers can choose at their discretion to ticket or not ticket, then it is really no different than getting stopped for speeding. The common thread is that we know the activity is really against the rules or no ranger would ever give a ticket.

If exiting the wilderness for non-emergency situations such as restocking supplies was something that I or anyone in my group would ever consider doing (which we do not), I would write a letter to the head of the USFS explaining the kind of nonsense advice that their local personnel are giving out when asked specific questions regarding rules & regulations."

I agree with you, completely. How is it that it was so clear 10 to 12 years ago, but now it’s ambiguous at best.
The only personal affect I have related to this is that given the work I do... I've become numb to working in a gray area.
I do Civilian Law Enforcement on a military base.
We are to enforce Federal, State, and Local laws; Department of Defense rules & regulations; military base specific SOP's, rules & regulations; and more. Additionally, there are the Commanders, Supervisors, and "sacred cow" people that we have to deal with.
Rarely, and I do mean rarely is anything black & white…
It’s very frustrating overall; to the point I’m looking to go elsewhere after 16 years of service.
The only saving grace may be the inability of our supervisors to hold our officer’s feet to the fire for failures to enforce violations if we so choose to look the other way; not good, but you have to find the positive if it’s there.
Thanks for the inputs on this issue; I will continue to try and clear up this muddied water if at all possible

quote LuvMyBell: "

There should NEVER be any grey area with rules and regulations of any kind."

That place must be next to utopia.

quote billconner: "

quote LuvMyBell: "

There should NEVER be any grey area with rules and regulations of any kind."

That place must be next to utopia."

You got it; LOL!

quote billconner: "

quote LuvMyBell: "

There should NEVER be any grey area with rules and regulations of any kind."

That place must be next to utopia."

I should have been more specific with this statement. I should have added the following to my quoted statement above.....

'where there is the possibility of someone getting fined, kicked out of the BWCA or any other legal action'.

The USFS owes it to it's customers to be very specific and clear on any rules that they might inflict a legal or financial penalty.

Just my opinion.

quote LuvMyBell:

Ho Ho serious question not meant to be argumentative.....How does someone exiting and reentering the BWCA 'negatively impact other campers in a busy area where all permits are taken'?

"

The permit quota is not strictly about campsite availability. The quota limits the traffic on portages and also limits the traffic on small streams and rivers.

I increasingly find myself pulling over on portages and small rivers and patiently waiting for other paddlers to pass by.

I would argue that allowing someone to exit and reenter the BWCA would negatively impact me exponentially by increasing traffic and causing more gridlock on portages and entry points.

Can't fix the html or whatever so LMB: "The USFS owes it to it's customers to be very specific and clear on any rules that they might inflict a legal or financial penalty."

I don't disagree but I just don't find that clarity, especially in federal regulations. I have the ADA legislation and OSHA open all the tine and spend hours trying to find an interpretation that a whole design team can live with. And then onto the next project and it starts all over. I called the IRS help line with a question. Didn't seem right, called again. Three calls, three pretty different interpretations. I read ask ten CPAs to prepare your tax return and likely to have 10 different bottom lines.

So yes, it would be nice if there was clarity, but there isn't and all I can do is live with it. My life is way to short to think I can fix even on iota of whats unclear with any federal regulations, let alone what's wrong, so why bother?

quote billconner: "Can't fix the html or whatever so LMB: "The USFS owes it to it's customers to be very specific and clear on any rules that they might inflict a legal or financial penalty."


I don't disagree but I just don't find that clarity, especially in federal regulations. I have the ADA legislation and OSHA open all the tine and spend hours trying to find an interpretation that a whole design team can live with. And then onto the next project and it starts all over. I called the IRS help line with a question. Didn't seem right, called again. Three calls, three pretty different interpretations. I read ask ten CPAs to prepare your tax return and likely to have 10 different bottom lines.

So yes, it would be nice if there was clarity, but there isn't and all I can do is live with it. My life is way to short to think I can fix even on iota of whats unclear with any feuderal regulations, let alone what's wrong, so why bother?


"

You make an excellent point regarding complex federal regulations.

I would hope that something as simple as....is it legal to exit and reenter the BWCA.....would be simple yes or no answer and wouldnt tax the brains of any federal employee to get right.

After all the BWCA rules are 2 pages long not the customary 1000+ page documents meant to keep the lawyers in this country employed.

That's the short form or summary. Here are some of the actual regulations