BWCA Picking a campsite Boundary Waters Listening Point - General Discussion
Chat Rooms (0 Chatting)  |  Search  |   Login/Join
* For the benefit of the community, commercial posting is not allowed.
Boundary Waters Quetico Forum
   Listening Point - General Discussion
      Picking a campsite     
 Forum Sponsor

Author

Text

Ducksndirt
member (18)member
  
07/27/2020 01:07PM  
Got a question for you all. I’ve read a couple posts on here about people (groups) splitting up to find a good camp site. I don’t have a problem with that, utilize your resources, but be respectable enough to let the next party know that you may be leaving very shortly.

What I do have a problem with is single parties leaving a bag at a spot for a reservation, to me that doesn’t cut it, to me it’s a dumb a** forgetting something when they left. I’ve had this happen many times duck hunting, people thinking they can hoard an area by leaving decoys or an individual on a mound so you won’t get to close to them.

Is that ethical to the BWCA? To me it’s not, if you want this spot you should have taken it, if not take your chances for the next one. What does everyone think on this issue? I know I wouldn’t do it, but there are many that would.

Thanks for the input.
 
      Print Top Bottom Previous Next
mgraber
distinguished member(1486)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
07/27/2020 01:25PM  
This has been discussed here in the past. In my opinion it is never OK to occupy more than one campsite at a time, in any way, ever. It is an exceptionally crappy thing to do, and goes against the very nature of canoe country. It is also illegal, even to use a campsite to eat lunch while day tripping away from your actual camp site. I asked, and was told, a group or any part of a group can only use one campsite at a time, even for a lunch stopover while day tripping. Sadly, many don't see it that way. Rules in canoe country are being broken more and more :( We have had several irritating experiences with people holding up campsites.
 
jamdemos
distinguished member (104)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
07/27/2020 01:35PM  
I’ve done the two groups one stays at the site while the other goes to the next site, but we’ll only do this for the next closest site, not around the whole lake, so that we are only “ holding” the site for maybe 20min, and typically it’s only when we know of a site further down that we like. I don’t agree with the lay items at a site and move on then pickup the items back up like curious George as you make your way back.

And to go onto of what Ngraber said, we’re technically never occupying two sites, if one group stays on the first site and the next group moves to the next site to look, they never technically occupy that site yet, always have waved us down while still out on the water.
 
Ducksndirt
member (18)member
  
07/27/2020 01:41PM  
Thanks, I know that is probably the consensus. I’ve been speculating the worst and I need to get back in a different mind set. “PMA” (Positive Mental Attitude) must prevail!
 
MikeinMpls
distinguished member(1338)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
07/27/2020 01:50PM  
jamdemos: "I’ve done the two groups one stays at the site while the other goes to the next site, but we’ll only do this for the next closest site, not around the whole lake, so that we are only “ holding” the site for maybe 20min, and typically it’s only when we know of a site further down that we like. I don’t agree with the lay items at a site and move on then pickup the items back up like curious George as you make your way back.

And to go onto of what Ngraber said, we’re technically never occupying two sites, if one group stays on the first site and the next group moves to the next site to look, they never technically occupy that site yet, always have waved us down while still out on the water."


This an interesting use of cognitive distortion to mentally make something that is wrong right in your mind. When you leave one group at a site so you can see if you like the next one better, you are keeping other campers from using that site. The length of time doesn't matter. If other campers cannot use it because you are "holding it," then you're occupying. You are occupying to prevent other campers from using the site while you search for a nicer one.

All in all, that's a really shitty thing to do. That it's only "20 minutes" or that you're only checking a site further down the lake, or that it's people holding your site rather than a pack....doesn't make it any less shitty.

Mike
 
07/27/2020 02:17PM  
Perhaps because there were only two of us in one canoe, I don't see the difference. If I leave a bag and we paddle on to check out another site close by, why is that worse than two parties leaving one person to "hold" a site while others check out a different site. Either way, it is occupying two sites. And not the most ethical procedure.

Now that I have said that, have we ever done it? Not exactly. If there is no one around anywhere in the area we have checked out one site, left it, checked out another site and gone back to the first one. Perhaps once or twice in 40+ years we have actually left me at one site while my husband paddles on alone to check out another. Not the best, and never done when there were any other people in sight anywhere.

We never planned ahead for a specific site, nor did we check "ratings" to see which sites were good ones. By and large we just stopped when we were ready to stop and when we saw a campsite available. It didn't matter if it was two-star or five. . .but then, as I have said before, we didn't travel with a big group.

 
jamdemos
distinguished member (104)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
07/27/2020 02:29PM  
MikeinMpls: "
jamdemos: "I’ve done the two groups one stays at the site while the other goes to the next site, but we’ll only do this for the next closest site, not around the whole lake, so that we are only “ holding” the site for maybe 20min, and typically it’s only when we know of a site further down that we like. I don’t agree with the lay items at a site and move on then pickup the items back up like curious George as you make your way back.


And to go onto of what Ngraber said, we’re technically never occupying two sites, if one group stays on the first site and the next group moves to the next site to look, they never technically occupy that site yet, always have waved us down while still out on the water."



This an interesting use of cognitive distortion to mentally make something that is wrong right in your mind. When you leave one group at a site so you can see if you like the next one better, you are keeping other campers from using that site. The length of time doesn't matter. If other campers cannot use it because you are "holding it," then you're occupying. You are occupying to prevent other campers from using the site while you search for a nicer one.


All in all, that's a really shitty thing to do. That it's only "20 minutes" or that you're only checking a site further down the lake, or that it's people holding your site rather than a pack....doesn't make it any less shitty.


Mike"


It is not mentally convincing myself that it is correct it is following every rule there is, and in my view 100% legal and morally fine. Never had it ever kept someone from occupying a site, if I’m at one site and the group goes forward towards the next site they see it’s open and wave me down before ever occupying that site, I move off the site I’m on, thus opening it before we ever occupy the other site, we are still one group in one permit only ever occupying one site. If this breaks your morals it’s not my problem your idea of right and wrong is not law, but what we are doing is completely acceptable. With all the stuff I hear about happening in the BW with people ruining it my way of doing this is the least of the problems. FYI I’ve only done this twice, and it’s never been when we’ve been in eyesight of another group,
 
07/27/2020 02:35PM  
When I paddle up to a site, I make a decision - either take it or move on in hopes of a better one. I’m always trying to estimate how busy it is and what the consequences of a lake being full are, but they are just guesses.

So far in my trips, I have not yet come across bags left to hold a site.

I have often been camped at one site and paddled over to look at another during the day. I’ve only done this when no one appeared to be looking for a site as I did not want to keep anyone from taking it if they were looking. I did once have a group pull around a corner and pause offshore. I jumped in my canoe and paddled out to tell them it was open.
 
Minnesotian
distinguished member(2309)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
07/27/2020 02:51PM  
Jaywalker: "When I paddle up to a site, I make a decision - either take it or move on in hopes of a better one. I’m always trying to estimate how busy it is and what the consequences of a lake being full are, but they are just guesses.
"


This is the way.

Much like trying to decide if canoeing into weather is a good idea or not, choosing a campsite is the same deal. Make a decision. Either choose the site based on the fact it looks good balanced with observations during the day of traffic, weather, fatigue, etc. Or don't and move onto another one. It's up to you how much you want to gamble.

Don't leave a bag behind. Personally speaking, if I were to come up to a site and see a single bag, I would assume someone forgot it and that the site was open. I would set up my tent. If you returned with the idea that this was your site because you left a bag, you would be wrong. You weren't there in person. But I also would be wrong because I assumed, and we know how assumptions can lead to disagreements.

Leaving something behind in order to "claim" a site just opens up a greater chance of conflict with another group based on subjective rules.
 
AdamXChicago
distinguished member(1175)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
07/27/2020 02:59PM  
Sorry, but no one should be able to secure two campsites at one time. Goes against the ethos of the BW/Q
AdamX
 
airmorse
distinguished member(3420)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
07/27/2020 03:11PM  
To take this discussion a little further, i have seen outfitters put gear on "requested" campsites for a fee. That really pissed me off!!! It was on Iron lake.
 
Bearpath9
distinguished member (364)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
07/27/2020 03:14PM  
Came across a site in June on Sandpit (only site, actually) that was empty-except for the leech locker tied to a bush near the landing. It was coming on to rain, so we just set up and stayed. I figured they forgot it, it never crossed my mind that it could be a save. But back on subject, no, that is not an ethical thing to do. If you are going out to look for a new site on the same lake, go out a ways to where you can see some sites, and use binocs.

P.S. It had a red cord and about 1/2 lb. of leeches inside. After wrestling with LNT and theft, I decided to leave it there.
 
Northwoodsman
distinguished member(2059)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
07/27/2020 04:28PM  
If there are two of us in one canoe we take our chances of losing a spot to look for a better one. We won't "reserve" one with equipment. If we have two canoes we often use radios to check out various spots but we are careful not to occupy two sites at the same time. For the past several years I have only paddled in mid May or mid to late September so there is very little traffic anyway. An outfitter placing gear on a site to reserve it should have their privileges of being a provider suspended. The gear should also be confiscated. I certainly would not give my business to someone who did this.
 
Zwater
distinguished member(570)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
07/27/2020 06:08PM  
Damn Covid. Everyone needs to calm down:)
 
07/27/2020 06:20PM  
Jaywalker: "When I paddle up to a site, I make a decision - either take it or move on in hopes of a better one. I’m always trying to estimate how busy it is and what the consequences of a lake being full are, but they are just guesses.


So far in my trips, I have not yet come across bags left to hold a site.


I have often been camped at one site and paddled over to look at another during the day. I’ve only done this when no one appeared to be looking for a site as I did not want to keep anyone from taking it if they were looking. I did once have a group pull around a corner and pause offshore. I jumped in my canoe and paddled out to tell them it was open. "
This is the only acceptable way. You have to realize if someone see's a canoe or a person at a site they'll think the site is occupied. Often this is from a distance. If I see a pack or any equipment at a site it AUTOMATICALLY BECOMES FORGOTTEN GEAR that's moved to the landing and I go about setting up my camp.
 
spud
member (37)member
  
07/27/2020 06:41PM  
We had someone on Smoke throw a pack on on side of the big site on the peninsula and paddle off past us to another site. Having not seen anything at the middle of the site, or at the landing for the side we were on, we stopped and started setting up camp. With my tent all assembled they returned the guy sent the lady up to us to say that they had the site and their packs were at the shore, while he sat in the canoe.. but it was no big deal they said because according to them, "There are more sites available on the lake....".. pissed off we packed our stuff back up as to not have a confrontation... well of course all these other open sites were now full...

Not sure how they wouldnt have been occupying 2 sites on the lake if the other was "better" in their eyes...

Lucky for us, we took a gamble on flame and it was open, but this is probably the most frustrated I've been in the bwca due to someone else's selfish actions...
 
Abbey
distinguished member (278)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
07/27/2020 08:18PM  
Tangentially related, but if we are on a site without good sight lines toward the main lake (tree cover, shore geometry, whatever), we try to put a bright piece of gear in a visible spot to save others the disappointment of paddling really close only to find the site occupied. Usually it is the canoe that is obvious, but we also leave something to see when out fishing for the day. Just a bit of backcountry courtesy.

On the main topic, a site is only occupied if there are humans on it or sleeping gear set up (tent or hammock with rainfly).
 
MichiganMan
distinguished member (228)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
07/27/2020 08:30PM  
This was a frustrating one: We approached a campsite on Jean Lake and could see that it wasn't occupied. Sweet! But just then two canoes come around the corner and beach at the site. Literally one more minute and we'd have been on the site. Noticing the canoes were empty of gear, we paddled up and chatted with the gentlemen. It turns out they were camped on the other end of the lake and just taking a day trip lunch break. We politely let them know that we were planning to camp on the site as soon as they left. Not wanting to be rude, we paddled a little ways off to an open shoreline. They finally did vacate the site- two and a half hours later! We gritted our teeth and did not say anything when they finally left. I guess I can't imagine being that inconsiderate.
 
thistlekicker
distinguished member (471)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
07/28/2020 12:51AM  
Abbey: "Tangentially related, but if we are on a site without good sight lines toward the main lake (tree cover, shore geometry, whatever), we try to put a bright piece of gear in a visible spot to save others the disappointment of paddling really close only to find the site occupied. Usually it is the canoe that is obvious, but we also leave something to see when out fishing for the day. Just a bit of backcountry courtesy.


On the main topic, a site is only occupied if there are humans on it or sleeping gear set up (tent or hammock with rainfly). "


Camped on Alice two weeks ago, we left for a daytrip to see the Fishdance pictos. Realizing our tents, tarp, and other gear were set up back in the woods and not immediately visible, I hung a large red portage pack about 8 feet up in a pine, easily visible from hundreds of yards away. As we paddled across Alice, I looked back to see 3 canoes approaching our camp. I pulled out my monocular and watched one canoe land on shore and a guy get out and start walking around our camp. Our tarp and tents should have been completely visible at this point, and we had a stove set up on the firegrate (fire ban was on). At this point we were almost a mile away from camp, but turned back because this was really disturbing. Within a few minutes the group left, heading away from us, and weren't able to catch up with them. All was fine at camp, and I assumed it was just another example of people displaying poor canoe country etiquette. Now I wonder if they had been burned before by the "leave a pack on shore and search for a better campsite" trick.

All this is to say there are consequences for poor canoe country etiquette. People who don't know better assume that's just the way things are done, and it goes downhill from there.
 
07/28/2020 05:34AM  
This has been discussed before and some folks actually throw some gear in a campsite to claim it and paddle off... to begin fishing as soon as possible. They intend to set up camp when they return. This is legit and their right to fish when they want and set up camp when they want. It could, however, be a problem for those that "assume" any gear left in camp was forgotten or abandoned.
 
mjmkjun
distinguished member(2885)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
07/28/2020 06:49AM  
Ducksndirt: "...
Is that ethical to the BWCA? To me it’s not, if you want this spot you should have taken it, if not take your chances for the next one. What does everyone think on this issue? I know I wouldn’t do it, but there are many that would.

Thanks for the input."

Your opinion and interpretation are spot-on correct. People will modify and stretch the sense of fair-play to suit their desires. Nothing new. Don't let it get under your skin cuz it'll mess with a good tripping attitude, as you wisely noted in a following post.
 
MikeinMpls
distinguished member(1338)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
07/28/2020 07:39AM  
jamdemos: "
MikeinMpls: "
jamdemos: "I’ve done the two groups one stays at the site while the other goes to the next site, but we’ll only do this for the next closest site, not around the whole lake, so that we are only “ holding” the site for maybe 20min, and typically it’s only when we know of a site further down that we like. I don’t agree with the lay items at a site and move on then pickup the items back up like curious George as you make your way back.



And to go onto of what Ngraber said, we’re technically never occupying two sites, if one group stays on the first site and the next group moves to the next site to look, they never technically occupy that site yet, always have waved us down while still out on the water."




This an interesting use of cognitive distortion to mentally make something that is wrong right in your mind. When you leave one group at a site so you can see if you like the next one better, you are keeping other campers from using that site. The length of time doesn't matter. If other campers cannot use it because you are "holding it," then you're occupying. You are occupying to prevent other campers from using the site while you search for a nicer one.



All in all, that's a really shitty thing to do. That it's only "20 minutes" or that you're only checking a site further down the lake, or that it's people holding your site rather than a pack....doesn't make it any less shitty.



Mike"



It is not mentally convincing myself that it is correct it is following every rule there is, and in my view 100% legal and morally fine. Never had it ever kept someone from occupying a site, if I’m at one site and the group goes forward towards the next site they see it’s open and wave me down before ever occupying that site, I move off the site I’m on, thus opening it before we ever occupy the other site, we are still one group in one permit only ever occupying one site. If this breaks your morals it’s not my problem your idea of right and wrong is not law, but what we are doing is completely acceptable. With all the stuff I hear about happening in the BW with people ruining it my way of doing this is the least of the problems. FYI I’ve only done this twice, and it’s never been when we’ve been in eyesight of another group, "


If I was to write a chapter in a psychology textbook (and I have), I would simply cut and paste your response under the heading of "cognitive distortions." Look it up. Yours is a perfect example of twisting thinking and making excuses to engage in behavior that is wrong by convincing yourself it is right or OK. That you have never "kept someone from occupying a site" completely misses the point, as it was your intention to do so...it just hasn't happened yet.

Bear in mind, I never said what you do is illegal. I said what you do is shitty (I'll use a different word from now on.) If your view of your behavior exists only in a dichotomous realm (what I do is either illegal or it's OK), then you have bigger problems than your BWCA behavior. If my posts and the other posts haven't caused you to question your campsite selection methods, your comments about my moral compass notwithstanding, then I truly hope you consider camping at any of the wonderful state and county campgrounds in the area.

That you've only "done this twice" and that what you do isn't a big deal because "my way of doing this is the least of the problems" of the BWCA also misses the mark, by a mile, and are excuses and rationalizations that third graders have been using since third grade was invented. Your behavior is what is making the BWCA a much less desirable destination than it used to be...when doing right by others wasn't solely defined by legality. It was defined by being quiet, respecting others, packing out trash (I am not accusing you of these) AND, in small part, by taking a campsite or not taking a campsite, not holding one from others until a better one could be found.

Mike
 
missmolly
distinguished member(7681)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
07/28/2020 07:40AM  
MichiganMan wrote: "Noticing the canoes were empty of gear, we paddled up and chatted with the gentlemen."

Uh, you misidentified those cretins. You could have been a gentleman, gone full Brit, and said, "I say Good Day to you, sir, good day!"
 
07/28/2020 09:17AM  
lindylair: "This has been discussed before and some folks actually throw some gear in a campsite to claim it and paddle off... to begin fishing as soon as possible. They intend to set up camp when they return. This is legit and their right to fish when they want and set up camp when they want. It could, however, be a problem for those that "assume" any gear left in camp was forgotten or abandoned. "
Emptying you canoe of gear and then go fishing is different than leaving a symbolic pack behind, as what we call in the Chicago area as "Dibs".If I see a bunch of packs up by the campsite. It's taken. I see one pack, then its "forgotten"
 
Savage Voyageur
distinguished member(14414)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished membermaster membermaster member
  
07/28/2020 10:24AM  
I hate it when I read about people leaving a pack at one site to claim it then paddling around the lake landing at sites to see it that site is better. It has happened to me a few times. To another group looking for a site they see you at the second site and assume that site is occupied. Then they go to the pack saving site and either assume that 1) the site is also occupied or 2) someone left a pack.

To address 1) you now have occupied two campsites depriving others of a site and causing them to paddle on, portage their gear maybe to another lake. Here is the result of your decision to leave a pack.
(You just caused this group a lot more work before they can call it a day.)

To address 2)You caused the new group to make a decision. Do they move in and set up camp? Do they move your pack to the shore so the group can claim the forgotten pack? Do they assume that site too is taken? Let’s say you make the decision to move in and set up camp. Then your group comes back because the second or third site was not to your liking. The next thing to happen would be a confrontation by one or both groups. Who wants to break a camp and move after you have it set up? Here is the results of your decision to leave a pack.
(You caused a confrontation at minimum, confusion, arguments. If the group that set up decides to break camp you caused them more work and wasted their time.)

Don’t leave things at a campsite to claim your site. Set up or move on.
 
07/28/2020 12:26PM  
Blatz: "
lindylair: "This has been discussed before and some folks actually throw some gear in a campsite to claim it and paddle off... to begin fishing as soon as possible. They intend to set up camp when they return. This is legit and their right to fish when they want and set up camp when they want. It could, however, be a problem for those that "assume" any gear left in camp was forgotten or abandoned.

"
Emptying you canoe of gear and then go fishing is different than leaving a symbolic pack behind, as what we call in the Chicago area as "Dibs".If I see a bunch of packs up by the campsite. It's taken. I see one pack, then its "forgotten""


What if it's a solo camper and they only have one pack?
I hope for the sake of these ardent fisher people that they leave your "approved" number of bags in camp so they don't end up without a site.
 
07/28/2020 02:27PM  
lindylair: "
Blatz: "
lindylair: "This has been discussed before and some folks actually throw some gear in a campsite to claim it and paddle off... to begin fishing as soon as possible. They intend to set up camp when they return. This is legit and their right to fish when they want and set up camp when they want. It could, however, be a problem for those that "assume" any gear left in camp was forgotten or abandoned.


"
Emptying you canoe of gear and then go fishing is different than leaving a symbolic pack behind, as what we call in the Chicago area as "Dibs".If I see a bunch of packs up by the campsite. It's taken. I see one pack, then its "forgotten""



What if it's a solo camper and they only have one pack?
I hope for the sake of these ardent fisher people that they leave your "approved" number of bags in camp so they don't end up without a site. "


I’m a solo camper. When I want to be quick about it, I can set my tent up (minus the inside stuff) in 5-6 minutes. My tarp can go up in 3-4. I can tie my Ursack to a tree in less than one minute. It takes less than a minute to get each of my bags from the landing up to somewhere near the fire pit. Doing any one or two of these things would help someone paddling by know that I was in the process of setting up camp, and would be helpful at differentiating me from the people trying to hold a campsite, or someone who forgot a bag or is breaking camp. I would do this as a courtesy to others to help avoid confusion about whether or not the site is taken, especially in crowded or popular areas.

No one is trying to infringe on anyone’s right to fish but the walleye are going to still be there five minutes later, and that’s all it would take.
 
07/28/2020 03:31PM  
Jaywalker: "
lindylair: "
Blatz: "
lindylair: "This has been discussed before and some folks actually throw some gear in a campsite to claim it and paddle off... to begin fishing as soon as possible. They intend to set up camp when they return. This is legit and their right to fish when they want and set up camp when they want. It could, however, be a problem for those that "assume" any gear left in camp was forgotten or abandoned.



"
Emptying you canoe of gear and then go fishing is different than leaving a symbolic pack behind, as what we call in the Chicago area as "Dibs".If I see a bunch of packs up by the campsite. It's taken. I see one pack, then its "forgotten""




What if it's a solo camper and they only have one pack?
I hope for the sake of these ardent fisher people that they leave your "approved" number of bags in camp so they don't end up without a site. "



I’m a solo camper. When I want to be quick about it, I can set my tent up (minus the inside stuff) in 5-6 minutes. My tarp can go up in 3-4. I can tie my Ursack to a tree in less than one minute. It takes less than a minute to get each of my bags from the landing up to somewhere near the fire pit. Doing any one or two of these things would help someone paddling by know that I was in the process of setting up camp, and would be helpful at differentiating me from the people trying to hold a campsite, or someone who forgot a bag or is breaking camp. I would do this as a courtesy to others to help avoid confusion about whether or not the site is taken, especially in crowded or popular areas.


No one is trying to infringe on anyone’s right to fish but the walleye are going to still be there five minutes later, and that’s all it would take. "
I agree,just set up camp and the world will be a better place.
 
MichiganMan
distinguished member (228)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
07/28/2020 04:37PM  
missmolly: "MichiganMan wrote: "Noticing the canoes were empty of gear, we paddled up and chatted with the gentlemen."


Uh, you misidentified those cretins. You could have been a gentleman, gone full Brit, and said, "I say Good Day to you, sir, good day!""


Ha ha! Not sure that would work, since my kids just laugh at me when I try my best British accent! And yes, we did mis-identify them.
 
07/28/2020 06:31PM  
It is this kind of situation that has convinced me to mostly forgo the BW during the summer. If I go at all it is during the shoulder seasons (spring or fall). Otherwise I prefer Canada. I am too old to deal with a-holes after contending with so many of them in the urban area I live in.
 
07/28/2020 07:04PM  
mgraber: "This has been discussed here in the past. In my opinion it is never OK to occupy more than one campsite at a time, in any way, ever. It is an exceptionally crappy thing to do, and goes against the very nature of canoe country. It is also illegal, even to use a campsite to eat lunch while day tripping away from your actual camp site. I asked, and was told, a group or any part of a group can only use one campsite at a time, even for a lunch stopover while day tripping. Sadly, many don't see it that way. Rules in canoe country are being broken more and more :( We have had several irritating experiences with people holding up campsites."



I didn't know it was illegal to stop and have lunch at another campsite. Where in the rule book does it state this? My last trip I stopped at a site on a day trip and I had lunch. I guess I've been breaking the rules for a long time. Please don't turn me in.
 
thistlekicker
distinguished member (471)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
07/29/2020 08:13AM  
It's unfortunate that what's "legal" or "not against the rules" gets conflated with what's "right". Is it illegal to drop a pack at a campsite on a busy lake to hold it while you look for a site you like better? Probably not. But it's not right. Is it against the rules to stop for lunch at a campsite while you're on a daytrip to a remote lake but have set up your camp somewhere else? Technically yes, it's against the rules to "occupy" two campsites at the same time. But if you're aware of what you're doing and how it may impact other travelers (or not), it may be perfectly fine and good.
 
analyzer
distinguished member(2162)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
07/29/2020 08:22AM  
What seems to me to be as bad or worse, than holding a campsite, while exploring others, is holding a reservation.

As of yesterday early afternoon (Tuesday), there were 3 entry point choices for Friday.

As of this morning (Wed), there are 25 entry point choices for Friday.

I've been watching closely for a month to get an education on how it changes, and for the last 3 weeks, there was next to nothing available for this Thursday and Friday. Someone would have thought they'd have to change their plans. Last night it jumped to 17, and as of today it jumped to 25. People wait until the very last minute to cancel that permit.

Are those outfitters holding them? Who's booking all the extra permits? Or do you think that's not typical, and it's completely covid related, that so many are getting canceled?

 
analyzer
distinguished member(2162)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
07/29/2020 09:07AM  
analyzer: "What seems to me to be as bad or worse, than holding a campsite, while exploring others, is holding a reservation.


As of yesterday early afternoon (Tuesday), there were 3 entry point choices for Friday.


As of this morning (Wed), there are 25 entry point choices for Friday.


I've been watching closely for a month to get an education on how it changes, and for the last 3 weeks, there was next to nothing available for this Thursday and Friday. Someone would have thought they'd have to change their plans. Last night it jumped to 17, and as of today it jumped to 25. People wait until the very last minute to cancel that permit.


Are those outfitters holding them? Who's booking all the extra permits? Or do you think that's not typical, and it's completely covid related, that so many are getting canceled?


"


That's so weird. I just looked half an hour later, and all of those open entry permits for Friday are gone. is there an outfitter, or some other entity scooping up all the potential permits? Over 28 permits for Friday, disappeared in 30 minutes. Either there is intense demand, or perhaps some sort of glitch in the reservation system was reversed. Sorry, I shouldn't be stepping on this thread.
 
07/29/2020 09:15AM  
thistlekicker: "It's unfortunate that what's "legal" or "not against the rules" gets conflated with what's "right". Is it illegal to drop a pack at a campsite on a busy lake to hold it while you look for a site you like better? Probably not. But it's not right. Is it against the rules to stop for lunch at a campsite while you're on a daytrip to a remote lake but have set up your camp somewhere else? Technically yes, it's against the rules to "occupy" two campsites at the same time. But if you're aware of what you're doing and how it may impact other travelers (or not), it may be perfectly fine and good. "

I don’t think it’s illegal to stop at another campsite if I’m camped somewhere else. Maybe I should call the Forest device to get clarity. Many lakes, because of the terrain, don’t have places to stop for lunch other than the portage or campsites. Having lunch at an unoccupied site means I lesson my impact on the lake. Which I think the forest service would encourage. If I’m looking for a site and I see people there I usually look for tents or tarps for indications that they are camped there. If I don’t see a tent or tarp, I’ll paddle up and ask.
 
Michwall2
distinguished member(1435)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
07/29/2020 09:20AM  
analyzer: "What seems to me to be as bad or worse, than holding a campsite, while exploring others, is holding a reservation.


As of yesterday early afternoon (Tuesday), there were 3 entry point choices for Friday.


As of this morning (Wed), there are 25 entry point choices for Friday.


I've been watching closely for a month to get an education on how it changes, and for the last 3 weeks, there was next to nothing available for this Thursday and Friday. Someone would have thought they'd have to change their plans. Last night it jumped to 17, and as of today it jumped to 25. People wait until the very last minute to cancel that permit.


Are those outfitters holding them? Who's booking all the extra permits? Or do you think that's not typical, and it's completely covid related, that so many are getting canceled?


"


One explanation could be that there are several cities/counties/states (Chicago is one.) that are just enacting quarantines for people who spend more than 24 hours in states with surging Covid-19 cases. People may be making the decision either to not risk the travel or that they cannot do a 14 day quarantine upon returning.
 
jamdemos
distinguished member (104)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
07/29/2020 11:11AM  
MikeinMpls: "
jamdemos: "
MikeinMpls: "
jamdemos: "I’ve done the two groups one stays at the site while the other goes to the next site, but we’ll only do this for the next closest site, not around the whole lake, so that we are only “ holding” the site for maybe 20min, and typically it’s only when we know of a site further down that we like. I don’t agree with the lay items at a site and move on then pickup the items back up like curious George as you make your way back.



And to go onto of what Ngraber said, we’re technically never occupying two sites, if one group stays on the first site and the next group moves to the next site to look, they never technically occupy that site yet, always have waved us down while still out on the water."




This an interesting use of cognitive distortion to mentally make something that is wrong right in your mind. When you leave one group at a site so you can see if you like the next one better, you are keeping other campers from using that site. The length of time doesn't matter. If other campers cannot use it because you are "holding it," then you're occupying. You are occupying to prevent other campers from using the site while you search for a nicer one.



All in all, that's a really shitty thing to do. That it's only "20 minutes" or that you're only checking a site further down the lake, or that it's people holding your site rather than a pack....doesn't make it any less shitty.



Mike"




It is not mentally convincing myself that it is correct it is following every rule there is, and in my view 100% legal and morally fine. Never had it ever kept someone from occupying a site, if I’m at one site and the group goes forward towards the next site they see it’s open and wave me down before ever occupying that site, I move off the site I’m on, thus opening it before we ever occupy the other site, we are still one group in one permit only ever occupying one site. If this breaks your morals it’s not my problem your idea of right and wrong is not law, but what we are doing is completely acceptable. With all the stuff I hear about happening in the BW with people ruining it my way of doing this is the least of the problems. FYI I’ve only done this twice, and it’s never been when we’ve been in eyesight of another group, "



If I was to write a chapter in a psychology textbook (and I have), I would simply cut and paste your response under the heading of "cognitive distortions." Look it up. Yours is a perfect example of twisting thinking and making excuses to engage in behavior that is wrong by convincing yourself it is right or OK. That you have never "kept someone from occupying a site" completely misses the point, as it was your intention to do so...it just hasn't happened yet.


Bear in mind, I never said what you do is illegal. I said what you do is shitty (I'll use a different word from now on.) If your view of your behavior exists only in a dichotomous realm (what I do is either illegal or it's OK), then you have bigger problems than your BWCA behavior. If my posts and the other posts haven't caused you to question your campsite selection methods, your comments about my moral compass notwithstanding, then I truly hope you consider camping at any of the wonderful state and county campgrounds in the area.

That you've only "done this twice" and that what you do isn't a big deal because "my way of doing this is the least of the problems" of the BWCA also misses the mark, by a mile, and are excuses and rationalizations that third graders have been using since third grade was invented. Your behavior is what is making the BWCA a much less desirable destination than it used to be...when doing right by others wasn't solely defined by legality. It was defined by being quiet, respecting others, packing out trash (I am not accusing you of these) AND, in small part, by taking a campsite or not taking a campsite, not holding one from others until a better one could be found.


Mike"


Mike I don’t have to look it up, to start I don’t understand how you can preach ethics and treating other groups or people using conscious practices, when you sit there and belittle people when you know nothing about them or their background. This is the sole reason I rarely engage in online disputes. Someone always has to leave feeling superior or “right”. I brought in legality topic as it pertains to a basic platform to start from, not saying to do every action on a daily basic of legal or not.

My second post about saying it’s the least of the problems wasn’t me trying to get at that this is okey, it was just stating that you trying to make me feel like shit for this one method is childish in itself. State your option, but to just blatantly attack me calling me a 3rd grader ect is useless.

I think you really need to go back up and re read my method, it’s never and never will be my intention to block a group from a site, and for you to say just cause it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it won’t isn’t valid, I don’t tackle every situation the same.

I can almost guarantee I’m one of the most conscious camper that enters the BW, along with being extremely conscious of other campers... I’ve hiked the SHT, PCT and others and I understand how fellow camper/ hikers are like family. I treat them with the same respect I would want upon me, which I can tell is not how you function in the way you have attacked me so quickly.

I’m not going to continue trying to defend what I’ve done as I’m doing this over my phone and it’s already annoying, feel free to email me if you wanna continue this discussion, this type of back and forth banter doesn’t belong on this forum. There is not a cut and dry line within ethical base decisions and what’s morally right or wrong. If I followed your daily behavior for a week I’m sure I could make a list of things that are ethically wrong in my view but you’d try and defend them in the same manner.
 
07/29/2020 11:27AM  
Interesting conversation. One I had not really considered because I have not encountered it before in the real world. Mainly because I was always told that you could stop and check out a site, but when you unload, you have effectively "taken" that site.

My group and I have split up on the same lake (never crossing portages) looking for a site. When we split up we usually stop at one site together and then one boat goes ahead. The guys in the boat waiting usually just float in the in boat or pull up to use the latrine, and scope out the tent pads and cooking areas; no gear is removed from the boat that is waiting.

If the boat the went ahead finds a better spot they unload on the new site and set up their tents, leaving all other gear waiting in bags, and returns to the waiting boat to gather them up.

If the boat that went ahead does not find a site, they return and then we unpack and set up camp on the site the first boat was waiting off of.

To me a set up tent says "taken", while just a bag on shore says "oops, I was forgotten". I have paddled up to other people, and have had other people paddle up to me, asking if they were taking a site or if the site is taken. It never hurts to ask. Even in the BW.
 
Chieflonewatie
distinguished member (147)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
07/29/2020 12:55PM  
If I was to write a chapter in a psychology textbook (and I have), I would simply cut and paste your response under the heading of "cognitive distortions." Look it up. Yours is a perfect example of twisting thinking and making excuses to engage in behavior that is wrong by convincing yourself it is right or OK. That you have never "kept someone from occupying a site" completely misses the point, as it was your intention to do so...it just hasn't happened yet.

I love it when people have to tell everyone how smart they are to make their point.
 
MikeinMpls
distinguished member(1338)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
07/29/2020 01:07PM  
Chieflonewatie: "If I was to write a chapter in a psychology textbook (and I have), I would simply cut and paste your response under the heading of "cognitive distortions." Look it up. Yours is a perfect example of twisting thinking and making excuses to engage in behavior that is wrong by convincing yourself it is right or OK. That you have never "kept someone from occupying a site" completely misses the point, as it was your intention to do so...it just hasn't happened yet.


I love it when people have to tell everyone how smart they are to make their point.
"


If that's how you comprehended my post, then explaining the concept again would be lost on you.

I'm outta this thread.

Mike
 
Zwater
distinguished member(570)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
07/29/2020 01:28PM  
jamdemos: "
MikeinMpls: "
jamdemos: "
MikeinMpls: "
jamdemos: "I’ve done the two groups one stays at the site while the other goes to the next site, but we’ll only do this for the next closest site, not around the whole lake, so that we are only “ holding” the site for maybe 20min, and typically it’s only when we know of a site further down that we like. I don’t agree with the lay items at a site and move on then pickup the items back up like curious George as you make your way back.




And to go onto of what Ngraber said, we’re technically never occupying two sites, if one group stays on the first site and the next group moves to the next site to look, they never technically occupy that site yet, always have waved us down while still out on the water."





This an interesting use of cognitive distortion to mentally make something that is wrong right in your mind. When you leave one group at a site so you can see if you like the next one better, you are keeping other campers from using that site. The length of time doesn't matter. If other campers cannot use it because you are "holding it," then you're occupying. You are occupying to prevent other campers from using the site while you search for a nicer one.




All in all, that's a really shitty thing to do. That it's only "20 minutes" or that you're only checking a site further down the lake, or that it's people holding your site rather than a pack....doesn't make it any less shitty.




Mike"




It is not mentally convincing myself that it is correct it is following every rule there is, and in my view 100% legal and morally fine. Never had it ever kept someone from occupying a site, if I’m at one site and the group goes forward towards the next site they see it’s open and wave me down before ever occupying that site, I move off the site I’m on, thus opening it before we ever occupy the other site, we are still one group in one permit only ever occupying one site. If this breaks your morals it’s not my problem your idea of right and wrong is not law, but what we are doing is completely acceptable. With all the stuff I hear about happening in the BW with people ruining it my way of doing this is the least of the problems. FYI I’ve only done this twice, and it’s never been when we’ve been in eyesight of another group, "




If I was to write a chapter in a psychology textbook (and I have), I would simply cut and paste your response under the heading of "cognitive distortions." Look it up. Yours is a perfect example of twisting thinking and making excuses to engage in behavior that is wrong by convincing yourself it is right or OK. That you have never "kept someone from occupying a site" completely misses the point, as it was your intention to do so...it just hasn't happened yet.



Bear in mind, I never said what you do is illegal. I said what you do is shitty (I'll use a different word from now on.) If your view of your behavior exists only in a dichotomous realm (what I do is either illegal or it's OK), then you have bigger problems than your BWCA behavior. If my posts and the other posts haven't caused you to question your campsite selection methods, your comments about my moral compass notwithstanding, then I truly hope you consider camping at any of the wonderful state and county campgrounds in the area.


That you've only "done this twice" and that what you do isn't a big deal because "my way of doing this is the least of the problems" of the BWCA also misses the mark, by a mile, and are excuses and rationalizations that third graders have been using since third grade was invented. Your behavior is what is making the BWCA a much less desirable destination than it used to be...when doing right by others wasn't solely defined by legality. It was defined by being quiet, respecting others, packing out trash (I am not accusing you of these) AND, in small part, by taking a campsite or not taking a campsite, not holding one from others until a better one could be found.



Mike"



Mike I don’t have to look it up, to start I don’t understand how you can preach ethics and treating other groups or people using conscious practices, when you sit there and belittle people when you know nothing about them or their background. This is the sole reason I rarely engage in online disputes. Someone always has to leave feeling superior or “right”. I brought in legality topic as it pertains to a basic platform to start from, not saying to do every action on a daily basic of legal or not, I taught Engineering Ethic courses so trust me I understand it’s not just what’s legal and not.


My second post about saying it’s the least of the problems wasn’t me trying to get at that this is okey, it was just stating that you trying to make me feel like shit for this one method is childish in itself. State your option, but to just blatantly attack me calling me a 3rd grader ect is useless.

I think you really need to go back up and re read my method, it’s never and never will be my intention to block a group from a site, and for you to say just cause it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it won’t isn’t valid, I don’t tackle every situation the same.

I can almost guarantee I’m one of the most conscious camper that enters the BW, along with being extremely conscious of other campers... I’ve hiked the SHT, PCT and others and I understand how fellow camper/ hikers are like family. I treat them with the same respect I would want upon me, which I can tell is not how you function in the way you have attacked me so quickly.

I’m not going to continue trying to defend what I’ve done as I’m doing this over my phone and it’s already annoying, feel free to email me if you wanna continue this discussion, this type of back and forth banter doesn’t belong on this forum. There is not a cut and dry line within ethical base decisions and what’s morally right or wrong. If I followed your daily behavior for a week I’m sure I could make a list of things that are ethically wrong in my view but you’d try and defend them in the same manner."

Great post!
Mic drop!
 
07/29/2020 02:23PM  
Chieflonewatie: "If I was to write a chapter in a psychology textbook (and I have), I would simply cut and paste your response under the heading of "cognitive distortions." Look it up. Yours is a perfect example of twisting thinking and making excuses to engage in behavior that is wrong by convincing yourself it is right or OK. That you have never "kept someone from occupying a site" completely misses the point, as it was your intention to do so...it just hasn't happened yet.


I love it when people have to tell everyone how smart they are to make their point.
"


I must admit that I didn't read some of the longer posts above but this one made me chuckle a bit.

Sorry chief, lol. I'll buy you a bear at the next get together
 
schweady
distinguished member(8070)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
07/29/2020 02:34PM  
Whenever there is the temptation to use this method, I daydream about a group who leaves one person back at a site and goes in search for another. They find a better one. To keep it legal in their minds, nobody gets out at the better site. Rather, they go back to pick up the person left behind. Then, while traveling back to the chosen site, they find it being newly occupied. So, they travel back to the first site, and find it being newly occupied.

Karma.


BTW: During a site search one year, one of the guys in our group split off from the rest of us to look at sites on the other side of the lake. One site had no evidence of occupants, but a hammock hung in plain view as they approached. He says it's really comfy.

Not sure how I feel about his possibly stealing someone's legally placed bed, but it goes to show that leaving just one piece of equipment can often be construed as an illegal attempt to 'save' a site, tempting fate.
 
Ducksndirt
member (18)member
  
07/29/2020 03:02PM  
WOW!!!! I sure didn't mean to get the natives riled up. I will be more careful and consider the possible sensitivity of a subject next time. :)
 
jamdemos
distinguished member (104)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
07/29/2020 03:10PM  
Ducksndirt: "WOW!!!! I sure didn't mean to get the natives riled up. I will be more careful and consider the possible sensitivity of a subject next time. :)"


Ya sorry Ducksndirt I had no intentions of turning your thread into mumbling nonsense, just really hate when people call me out for something I am completely not. The manner in which people attack others on the internet immediately still perpetuates me. I’ll go back into my little hole of just observing.
 
07/29/2020 06:22PM  
Next Can we discuss if my group of 9 lands at a busy portage and quadruple portages, that everyone else has to wait until we are completely done before they can land as to not violate the no groups larger than 9 rules :)
 
analyzer
distinguished member(2162)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
07/29/2020 06:47PM  
timatkn: "Next Can we discuss if my group of 9 lands at a busy portage and quadruple portages, that everyone else has to wait until we are completely done before they can land as to not violate the no groups larger than 9 rules :)"


Hmmm, was that last August, between Clearwater, and Mountain? That 9-some was probably us. Sorry bout that.
 
07/29/2020 07:51PM  
Ducksndirt: "WOW!!!! I sure didn't mean to get the natives riled up. I will be more careful and consider the possible sensitivity of a subject next time. :)"


No worries, Ducksndirt. This exact can of worms gets pried open and kicked around at least once a year. Different players and stories from time to time, but it always comes out just about the same way. Hopefully you’ve got enough info to make up your own mind about what’s right for you.
 
Ducksndirt
member (18)member
  
07/29/2020 08:10PM  
I try to live by the "Golden Rule" even though life has taught me that it doesn't always work out that way. There are "GOOD" people out there and it's usually a blessing when you happen to cross paths with them. As someone mentioned, "Karma" is a bitch, and we usually reap what we sow. I really don't care what site I get, I just want to get there!!!
 
AluminumBarge
member (48)member
  
07/29/2020 11:21PM  
I actually had this happen this past June on Iron. We came in from Bottle portage and looked at sites that were open as we went around the lake. Thought about staying at the second site on the western shore but decided to risk it and look for something better and more centralized. We got to the highly rated site on the island in the southern area and someone left a small pack, fishing pole, and leach locker right by shore. Obviously trying to reserve the site. We got out and checked out the site, very nice. No other equipment was there and I was close to just dumping the stuff back in the woods as it was obvious what they were Doing. We continued on and checked most of the other sites. We decided to go back to the western shore and the site there. On the way we noticed two people pack up from one site and paddle to that island site. So they were occupying two sites at once. I was ticked, but continued on and hoped karma would kick in and give them what they deserve. We actually took the third site in from Bottle on the western shore as the previous occupants left as we paddled around Iron. It turned out to be a nice site, but I would have preferred the island site. Here’s hoping those jerks had a flood of skeeters around them for their whole trip.
 
07/30/2020 10:10AM  
In my opinion, taking a campsite is like chips: take one dip and end it! Double dipping
 
paulsexton
member (7)member
  
07/30/2020 12:08PM  
Zwater: "Damn Covid. Everyone needs to calm down:)"

100% spot on. Folks need to take a pill of chill and not let this shamdemic get the better of their upbringing.
 
mvillasuso
distinguished member (135)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
07/30/2020 12:48PM  
It’s an asshole move to try and restrict access to a campsite (effectively, an ‘occupation’) by leaving gear behind to discourage others’ proper use of said site.
If you do this, you are committing an asshole move.
‘This is NBD,’ you tell yourself, as you are ONLY TEMPORARILY being an asshole.
That’s also what assholes do, and you can rest comfortably, as you have found your calling.

MAKE CAMP OR MOVE ON.
 
07/30/2020 05:45PM  
One word.....Wabakimi.....
 
AdamXChicago
distinguished member(1175)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
07/30/2020 06:49PM  
jcavenagh: "One word.....Wabakimi....."

Gotta get past that border issue first...
AdamX
 
tarnkt
distinguished member (366)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
07/30/2020 08:04PM  
Zwater: "Damn Covid. Everyone needs to calm down:)"


Amen.

Use common sense and don’t worry about what other people are doing. There are 2200 campsites in the BWCA, you’ll get one.

Happy tripping everyone!!!
 
Bearpath9
distinguished member (364)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
07/31/2020 09:58AM  
paulsexton: "
Zwater: "Damn Covid. Everyone needs to calm down:)"

100% spot on. Folks need to take a pill of chill and not let this shamdemic get the better of their upbringing."


"Shamdemic" ? If we had more people like you, we would have less people like you.
 
Savage Voyageur
distinguished member(14414)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished membermaster membermaster member
  
07/31/2020 10:19AM  
jcavenagh: "One word.....Wabakimi....."


If I could go to Wabakimi, I would go further north of that.
 
08/01/2020 05:01PM  
AdamXChicago: "
jcavenagh: "One word.....Wabakimi....."

Gotta get past that border issue first...
AdamX"

Dang!!! :)
 
mschi772
distinguished member(806)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
08/01/2020 06:32PM  
tarnkt: "There are 2200 campsites in the BWCA, you’ll get one."


In general, I agree, but there are some areas that can get crowded fast. For one example, East Bearskin. Four entries per day. Only about 20 camp sites to choose from before you're already encroaching on the Clearwater or Pine entry areas, and each of them have somewhere around 20 campsites in their respective areas which, in total, account for all of the camp sites in the region until you make your way around to Rose, and those are going to be heavily dominated by Duncan and Daniels entrants/exits.

Again, I agree overall, but there are some areas where site availability can get sketchy fast if people aren't on their best behavior in terms of site occupancy or even having a permit at all.
 
missmolly
distinguished member(7681)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
08/02/2020 06:48AM  
paulsexton: "
Zwater: "Damn Covid. Everyone needs to calm down:)"

100% spot on. Folks need to take a pill of chill and not let this shamdemic get the better of their upbringing."


The same person who wrote "shamdemic" uses this as his tagline: "planning and preparation are not essential if you're willing to suffer the consequences"…..."

We do do irony here, I guess.
 
08/02/2020 09:54AM  
missmolly: "
paulsexton: "
Zwater: "Damn Covid. Everyone needs to calm down:)"

100% spot on. Folks need to take a pill of chill and not let this shamdemic get the better of their upbringing."



The same person who wrote "shamdemic" uses this as his tagline: "planning and preparation are not essential if you're willing to suffer the consequences"…..."


We do do irony here, I guess. "


From TX explains a lot...
 
greywolf33
distinguished member (189)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
08/12/2020 01:48PM  
This issue raised its' ugly head on my trip to LIS North last week. As our group was approaching the 40 rod portage from Upper to Lower Pawness, a couple of guys in empty tandem canoes had just completed the portage and were paddling away back toward U.P.. We asked them about available campsites and they basically said that all the sites on both Pawness lakes were full and that they had "reserved" the last site for themselves. We were headed for Shell and beyond so I really didn't think much of what he said. Our party of 6 were fully loaded, completing our admittedly very slowly double portage, when one of these guys, plus a woman we hadn't seen previously, brought a load of packs to the end of the portage. At that moment it dawned on me what they were up to. I asked the guy straight out "Are you guys occupying two campsites at the same time? That's not cool you know!" His eyes went straight down to his shoes and he replied..."No, we have another site reserved. We dropped a guy over there and we are moving there". He never looked up from the ground or said another word. There were a lot of people searching for sites this past weekend. I wonder how many people end up paddling much father than they really wanted because scofflaws like these guys were occupying more than one campsite? I guess for these fools, the rules only apply to others...not themselves.
 
08/12/2020 05:18PM  
greywolf33: "This issue raised its' ugly head on my trip to LIS North last week. As our group was approaching the 40 rod portage from Upper to Lower Pawness, a couple of guys in empty tandem canoes had just completed the portage and were paddling away back toward U.P.. We asked them about available campsites and they basically said that all the sites on both Pawness lakes were full and that they had "reserved" the last site for themselves. We were headed for Shell and beyond so I really didn't think much of what he said. Our party of 6 were fully loaded, completing our admittedly very slowly double portage, when one of these guys plus a woman we hadn't seen previously, brought a load of packs to the end of the portage. At that moment it dawned on me what they were up to. I asked they guy straight out "Are you guys occupying two campsites at the same time? That's not cool you know?" His eyes when straight down to his shoes and he replied..."No, we have another site reserved. We dropped a guy over there and we are moving there". He never looked up from the ground or said another word. There were a lot of people searching for sites this past weekend. I wonder how many people end up paddling much father than they really wanted because scofflaws like these guys were occupying more than one campsite? I guess for these fools, the rules only apply to others...not themselves."

I guess that group would get the Douche Bag Award. I was fishing on Isabella Lake last weekend and I noticed a canoe leaving a campsite and heading toward the portage. They stashed their canoe and disappeared up the portage. I noticed a tent and kayak still at their campsite so I thought maybe they decided to exit early and someone else decided to stay. Not the case at all. They left in their vehicle and returned as I was loading in the parking lot. In the time they were gone, several groups had entered and were looking for campsites.
 
mgraber
distinguished member(1486)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
08/13/2020 08:12PM  
RT: "Interesting conversation. One I had not really considered because I have not encountered it before in the real world. Mainly because I was always told that you could stop and check out a site, but when you unload, you have effectively "taken" that site.


My group and I have split up on the same lake (never crossing portages) looking for a site. When we split up we usually stop at one site together and then one boat goes ahead. The guys in the boat waiting usually just float in the in boat or pull up to use the latrine, and scope out the tent pads and cooking areas; no gear is removed from the boat that is waiting.


If the boat the went ahead finds a better spot they unload on the new site and set up their tents, leaving all other gear waiting in bags, and returns to the waiting boat to gather them up.


If the boat that went ahead does not find a site, they return and then we unpack and set up camp on the site the first boat was waiting off of.


To me a set up tent says "taken", while just a bag on shore says "oops, I was forgotten". I have paddled up to other people, and have had other people paddle up to me, asking if they were taking a site or if the site is taken. It never hurts to ask. Even in the BW."


The issue with this is that for anyone looking from a distance with bino's, both sites would appear to be taken, so not illegal, but definitely inconsiderate. I am not saying you are an inconsiderate person, just that what you described is inconsiderate and maybe you've never thought about it that way.
 
mgraber
distinguished member(1486)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
08/13/2020 08:17PM  
lindylair: "This has been discussed before and some folks actually throw some gear in a campsite to claim it and paddle off... to begin fishing as soon as possible. They intend to set up camp when they return. This is legit and their right to fish when they want and set up camp when they want. It could, however, be a problem for those that "assume" any gear left in camp was forgotten or abandoned. "


I tend to agree with this, but was told that you needed to actually set up your shelter in order to claim a site, so we make sure to do that now. Not criticizing or arguing, just stating what I was told. I think it is usually pretty obvious when someone is planning to stay.
 
mgraber
distinguished member(1486)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
08/13/2020 08:21PM  
MichiganMan: "This was a frustrating one: We approached a campsite on Jean Lake and could see that it wasn't occupied. Sweet! But just then two canoes come around the corner and beach at the site. Literally one more minute and we'd have been on the site. Noticing the canoes were empty of gear, we paddled up and chatted with the gentlemen. It turns out they were camped on the other end of the lake and just taking a day trip lunch break. We politely let them know that we were planning to camp on the site as soon as they left. Not wanting to be rude, we paddled a little ways off to an open shoreline. They finally did vacate the site- two and a half hours later! We gritted our teeth and did not say anything when they finally left. I guess I can't imagine being that inconsiderate.
"


That is shockingly inconsiderate. smh
 
mgraber
distinguished member(1486)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
08/13/2020 08:24PM  
egknuti: "
mgraber: "This has been discussed here in the past. In my opinion it is never OK to occupy more than one campsite at a time, in any way, ever. It is an exceptionally crappy thing to do, and goes against the very nature of canoe country. It is also illegal, even to use a campsite to eat lunch while day tripping away from your actual camp site. I asked, and was told, a group or any part of a group can only use one campsite at a time, even for a lunch stopover while day tripping. Sadly, many don't see it that way. Rules in canoe country are being broken more and more :( We have had several irritating experiences with people holding up campsites."




I didn't know it was illegal to stop and have lunch at another campsite. Where in the rule book does it state this? My last trip I stopped at a site on a day trip and I had lunch. I guess I've been breaking the rules for a long time. Please don't turn me in."


I won't turn you in, and I'm not even mad at you :) but it is in the rule books where it says a group can only occupy one site at a time. You could also do what I did and just call and ask, and who knows, it may depend on who you talk to. Just consider that a group may be wanting or needing the site you are eating lunch at. Just try to be considerate. An example: We were looking for a site on a lake with only a handful of sites, we were exhausted, it was late afternoon we had been traveling HARD for 9 hours , the next lake was a LONG portage and only had one campsite, the next lake had none, ALL sites were occupied. We were obviously very concerned, but luckily, before we started the portage, the group on the closest campsite waved us over and told us that if we were looking for a site, we could have that one as they were just stopping for a snack and a break. We were elated, and thanked them, but it was all avoidable and could have ended with us sleeping in the woods illegally.
 
bottomtothetap
distinguished member(1021)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
08/19/2020 01:02AM  
This debate resurfaces regularly indicating that there really are not any complete and sure-thing correct answers. The biggest solution is just be considerate and nice to everyone you can and do your best, following the rules in ways you see them most benefiting others . Don't get worked up by those who are not doing their trip in the manner in which you'd do yours--even if it makes a bit more work for you. It's the BWCA and you expect challenges and that is part if the appeal. Accepting them and adapting to make your trip still as good as can be makes it all the more enjoyable.

If there is ANY indication that a site is occupied, I move on without worrying at all if it really is occupied or if the spot really should have been "mine". I did have a situation once on our first day in which we did not see an empty spot the entire day from the morning entry point on. It was now getting dark and we were with children and getting hungry and tired. The next possible sites were a mile or two away. In my view, further travel presented a significant risk so a decision had to be made and we stopped and pitched our tent at a non-site (BWCA side, not Quetico). Yes, illegal, but don't judge me for it as I wouldn't verbally judge you for making a decision you felt important. While I wish I hadn't felt the need to stay there, at the same time I don't regret doing so even if it was, no doubt, against the rules. Given all of the factors, it seemed the way to adapt at the time. We did what seemed best to have a safe night there while minimizing impact. If found by a ranger my hope was that he/she would be understanding (I'm confident they would have been). If the ranger felt a fine was in order I would have willingly accepted that consequence. We left at early light and took the next open site we found about mid morning and the rest of the trip went smoothly, it all worked out. I never felt "mad" at others for occupying all of those sites or ever stewed about if a single permit had been at more than one site as we passed by. We learned from the situation and hopefully, now armed with further experience, I will not have to make that choice ever again.

The point of my story is to not fret about the "competition" for campsites and whether everyone else is competing fairly. Or if you or everyone else is following every rule. Of course, know the rules but then just simply strive to do right. If you have questions about an immediate situation, have a friendly conversation. You'll likely gain understanding of each other and avoid a confrontation. If the other party is seeming to pursue confrontation, be the bigger person and diffuse things by maybe just moving on. It's the BWCA and you are there to have fun. If you relax and have some flexibility, it WILL all work out and the fun will happen.

 
08/19/2020 06:14PM  
i never once took the rule "occupy" as meaning you couldn't stop and have a shore lunch at a vacant campsite. done that many times on extended paddles away from camp. i took it as setting up camp . and in the true definition of the word , does state to take up a place or space but it also refers to the word extend, in time.
but putting a pack to save a site is a definite NO !
 
08/19/2020 06:41PM  
Chieflonewatie: "If I was to write a chapter in a psychology textbook (and I have), I would simply cut and paste your response under the heading of "cognitive distortions." Look it up. Yours is a perfect example of twisting thinking and making excuses to engage in behavior that is wrong by convincing yourself it is right or OK. That you have never "kept someone from occupying a site" completely misses the point, as it was your intention to do so...it just hasn't happened yet.


I love it when people have to tell everyone how smart they are to make their point.
"
"the pot calling the kettle black"
, the "and i have" comment ,
 
08/19/2020 07:38PM  
bottomtothetap: "I did have a situation once on our first day in which we did not see an empty spot the entire day from the morning entry point on. It was now getting dark and we were with children and getting hungry and tired. The next possible sites were a mile or two away. In my view, further travel presented a significant risk so a decision had to be made and we stopped and pitched our tent at a non-site (BWCA side, not Quetico). Yes, illegal, but don't judge me for it as I wouldn't verbally judge you for making a decision you felt important. While I wish I hadn't felt the need to stay there, at the same time I don't regret doing so even if it was, no doubt, against the rules. Given all of the factors, it seemed the way to adapt at the time. We did what seemed best to have a safe night there while minimizing impact. If found by a ranger my hope was that he/she would be understanding (I'm confident they would have been). If the ranger felt a fine was in order I would have willingly accepted that consequence. We left at early light and took the next open site we found about mid morning and the rest of the trip went smoothly, it all worked out. "


It happens, especially this year - you did the right thing. Your family's safety is first.
 
      Print Top Bottom Previous Next
Listening Point - General Discussion Sponsor:
True North Map Company