BWCA Lac La Croix, pictographs on Canadian side Boundary Waters Trip Planning Forum
Chat Rooms (0 Chatting)  |  Search  |   Login/Join
* For the benefit of the community, commercial posting is not allowed.
Boundary Waters Quetico Forum
   Trip Planning Forum
      Lac La Croix, pictographs on Canadian side     
 Forum Sponsor

Author

Text

irishluck
member (45)member
  
02/06/2021 04:09PM  
I'm thinking about a trip to see pictographs on LLC and camping on the U.S. side.
Can U.S. citizens legally paddle to view the pictographs on the Canadian side of the lake without a permit on a day trip? Could this be done before the border was closed? I'm assuming the border will be open at some point soon.
 
Reply    Reply with Quote    Print Top Bottom Previous Next
schweady
distinguished member(8070)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
02/06/2021 04:17PM  
You can float alongside the pictographs and enjoy viewing them. Just don't land on Canadian soil, climb Warrior's Hill, or have your fishing equipment rigged up. The LLC pictos are quite something, and extend a long distance... much more to see than just the iconic moose seen in most photos. I had done a good bit of research on the various panels, and we spent a good 20-25 minutes while there, taking it all in.

tumblehome
distinguished member(2911)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
02/06/2021 04:21PM  
That answer is a flat no. No gray area.
We had a lengthy discussion about this last fall. I'll look for the thread.

Edit:
I searched 'warrior Hill' and found a bunch of threads. Here is but one. I picked this search term because a lot of Americans want to paddle across the border to see Warrior Hill. It's just a little bit inside Canada.

Illegal entry

Last year the Canadian rangers were getting pretty fed up with Americans crossing into Canada. Too many people breaking too many laws.
Tom
irishluck
member (45)member
  
02/06/2021 04:33PM  
Thanks for the reply, Schweady. And actually your great descriptions in a post from 2017 got me considering EP 16 in the first place. I should have specified, my intention was to view from the canoe and NOT venture onto Canadian land.
schweady
distinguished member(8070)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
02/06/2021 04:35PM  
tumblehome - The thread you linked does not mention the pictos, rather, it poses a question about "a quick visit to Warrior Hill." Everything about the subsequent discussion leads me to believe that the OP is asking about landing on the shore and climbing to the top. I will agree that this is clearly illegal without proper permits. Same goes for a visit to Rebecca Falls, as this is clearly not near the border and would take an intentional detour from a route along international border waters. Any excursion north of Iron Lake's big island would be considered a violation.
02/06/2021 04:55PM  
Legally, you should have an RABC permit AND a Quetico Park day permit. Maybe your US passport as well for the return across the border(Has anyone ever seen US Border Patrol on the east end of LLL?). If you are close enough to the shore to see the pictographs then you are in Canada. You are not crossing into Canada to reach a legal portage, you have no legal right to be in Canada at that place without an RABC and a park day permit.

That said, there was a time when it seemed OK to paddle over and view the pictographs. Quetico paddling rangers toured through there regularly and if you were respectful when they queried you about your permits they were friendly enough and asked you to move on.

As I have not been there in a long time. Such friendliness may have faded.
cyclones30
distinguished member(4163)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
02/06/2021 06:59PM  
I agree with sedges. It's technically not legal right now. Nor was it before without proper paperwork which was a huge pain if that was your only venture into Canada. But with the border closed it's clearly illegal now.

I recall a trip report last yr from someone having a not so great encounter with some Canadian rangers while a BW tripper was floating in this area.

Does it mean there aren't people out there that don't know better or will risk it for the half hour they're across the line? Sure. Probably also leads to higher patrols in that area
02/06/2021 11:19PM  
Legally the answer is no...the Webster-Ashburton treaty applies to travel only. Site seeing is not travel and you don’t need to cross the border to travel along Lac La Croix .

There was a time where this was no big deal. Since 911 this seems to have changed for both countries.

With that said...people do it all the time. The chances of getting fined or caught are relatively low...if you do it and get fined just don’t complain. Potentially you could be charged by both the Canadians and the U.S. Governments. Once again little chance of getting caught but it is possible. Not advocating breaking the law just trying to reply realistically.

T
02/08/2021 07:34PM  
I did last May. Just go and enjoy, but don't fish there.
woodsandwater
distinguished member (401)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
02/08/2021 08:16PM  
I've paddled over to see the pictos on four different trips over the years and taken photos. I think they are the best I've seen in the BW.
mgraber
distinguished member(1486)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
02/08/2021 10:59PM  
I spent some time asking questions while in Atikokan 2 summers ago, and if you are viewing the pictographs and a ranger catches you you will be fined for entering the park without a permit, it makes no difference if on the water or not.If Canadian customs agents catch you you will be arrested and taken to Canada. Our outfitter friend had some clients get caught on the north side of Crooked quite a few years back. A plane landed, they were arrested and taken to a cell in Canada. He said it was a real mess and proved to be a very expensive mistake for them. I guess if you feel the risk is worth it, go for it. From what I hear US is much worse.
mschi772
distinguished member(806)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
02/09/2021 11:48AM  
The idea that Americans can cross the border on the water so long as they don't get out onto land or fish is and American invention and is not legal. This is a "tradition" that needs to die as it is extremely disrespectful to Canada and makes us look like entitled a-holes.

If they every allow it again, if you want to cross the border from BWCA into Canada, have your passport, and RABC, and a Quetico day pass or permit.
02/09/2021 02:05PM  
mschi772: "The idea that Americans can cross the border on the water so long as they don't get out onto land or fish is and American invention and is not legal. This is a "tradition" that needs to die as it is extremely disrespectful to Canada and makes us look like entitled a-holes.

If they every allow it again, if you want to cross the border from BWCA into Canada, have your passport, and RABC, and a Quetico day pass or permit."


I agree with this and the previous comment by mgraber.

What makes this a breakable rule but not other rules that pertain to the BWCA or Quetico...or general laws for that matter? One thing is for sure last year there was a significant uptick in violations of the LNT policies and many have shared their concern in various posts on this message board on the matter, and rightly so. People learn by example. I guess now more than ever we should be modeling the behaviors we want to see in others. I certainly hope all users of the park(s) adhere to the rules and regulations, regardless if they agree with them or not.
billconner
distinguished member(8608)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
02/09/2021 06:39PM  
I guess it depends on when do water communications become sight seeing.
"It being understood that all the water-communications, and all the usual portages along the line from Lake Superior to the Lake of the Woods; and also Grand Portage, from the shore of Lake Superior to the Pigeon river, as now actually used, shall be free and open to the use of the citizens and subjects of both countries."
I'm pretty sure taking the shortest and easiest paddling route is an intent. Taking the English Channel on Basswood or hugging
the Canadian shore in high waves from northwest seems quite within the spirit and intent of the treaty.
cyclones30
distinguished member(4163)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
02/09/2021 06:53PM  
billconner: "I guess it depends on when do water communications become sight seeing.
"It being understood that all the water-communications, and all the usual portages along the line from Lake Superior to the Lake of the Woods; and also Grand Portage, from the shore of Lake Superior to the Pigeon river, as now actually used, shall be free and open to the use of the citizens and subjects of both countries."
I'm pretty sure taking the shortest and easiest paddling route is an intent. Taking the English Channel on Basswood or hugging
the Canadian shore in high waves from northwest seems quite within the spirit and intent of the treaty."


Hugging a shore in high waves due to safety is different than sight-seeing. Paddling into Canada though I wish it was legal to see some awesome sights isn't legal. Rebecca Falls, these Picto's, etc. Can the Canadians come see the Isle of Pines? Not legally....could they come look @ something on the south end of Thursday bay or south end of Iron? No. Will someone catch them? Who knows....

Will someone catch a farmer in north dakota if he steps across the fence line? Who knows...but it's your risk and I agree w/ the other posters. Seems like a good way to further ruin stuff for the future if we abuse it.
bottomtothetap
distinguished member(1021)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
02/09/2021 10:09PM  
I think the treaty, as written, leaves LOTS to interpretation. So the way to answer these questions is maybe not what is "legal" but what is currently being interpreted. To billconner's point, a lot seems to ride on intent and the treaty does not define things so much as refer to what is "understood". Is it now understood that one is not to cross one millimeter beyond the imaginary line on the water? This interpretation would not seem to be consistent with the treaty words of "all water-communications" and "free and open to the use of citizens and subjects of both countries". I do not see any words to the effect of restricted use to one side of the water or the other. Nor does it state that you may not pause or enjoy the view.

Agreed that abuse of these understandings may ruin stuff for the future. But what is abusive? For a long time it seems that it was "understood" that abuse did not not include being on the water but included purposely stepping on land unless it was necessary to do so in the course of continuing travel (the treaty does address and allow for that: "usual portages")

Granted that I'm doing a lot of interpretation here myself but that seems all any of us CAN do in the absence of wording to the contrary, which I have not found anywhere.

ALSO...Does anyone know the the exact coordinates of the water border? It seems to be shown slightly different on various maps. Would it be wise, under current understanding, that if you plan on travelling along a border route to only do so with a GPS or, better yet, just plan a different route that avoids any border water?
billconner
distinguished member(8608)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
02/10/2021 05:04AM  
Just look at border in Little Vermillion, where it followed a stream before the built a dam. No way boats don't " communicate" across the border.
02/10/2021 08:01AM  
billconner: "I guess it depends on when do water communications become sight seeing.
"It being understood that all the water-communications, and all the usual portages along the line from Lake Superior to the Lake of the Woods; and also Grand Portage, from the shore of Lake Superior to the Pigeon river, as now actually used, shall be free and open to the use of the citizens and subjects of both countries."
I'm pretty sure taking the shortest and easiest paddling route is an intent. Taking the English Channel on Basswood or hugging
the Canadian shore in high waves from northwest seems quite within the spirit and intent of the treaty."
It was always my understanding that you can stay on the main body of water of border lakes, but not go into inlets or land your canoe on the Canadian side. I'm guessing once the pandemic is gone it will go back to that.
billconner
distinguished member(8608)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
02/10/2021 12:34PM  
Blatz - I agree basically. If a straight line from where you are in US waters to where you are going to in US waters takes you through CA waters, its permitted. I did not get the sense the pandemic has really changed it other than some erroneous warnings.

I guess the problem is even if you are right, and would prevail in the long run, pretty inconvenient to get picked up and have your trek interrupted by over zealous enforcers.

I will admit the times I have gone far along the border, its been on a Q permit, so RABC, Q permit, US passport, and a BWCA permit to get in and out - covered. I understand that can't happen for a while now.
GraniteCliffs
distinguished member(1981)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
02/10/2021 01:17PM  
It seems quite clear to me. Cross the invisible line that represents the border at your own risk.
Can you do it and get away with it? Yes, of course. Has it been done for years? Yes. Have I done it over the years? Of course.
However, it is 2021. It is not legal. Do it at your own risk. But don't complain if you get nabbed. I could live with a fine. Not so much being carted off to a jail cell somewhere(which I would doubt very much.)
But my largest fear is kissing my future RABC permits goodbye. That would be horrendous.
scotttimm
distinguished member(647)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
02/10/2021 02:18PM  
Several years ago I visited those pictos after seeing many pics of them on this site, threads saying it was fine if you don't get out of the boat, and my outfitter said it was ok. While viewing, a ranger boat passed by without a glance in our direction, though I didn't think about it at the time. Last summer we visited, had a nice discussion with some First Nation folks who pulled up in a boat, and they didn't say anything that made me think otherwise. A day later, a group passing by our campsite said they were harassed and nearly run over by a motor boat that cursed them out. Made me wonder, so I came back and researched further. I remember a thread on here last Fall stating it was NOT ok...
I think this is innocently misunderstood by many, and it would be helpful if outfitters were on the same page, as many visitors rely on their advice on trips. If we go in the future, I will look into the appropriate permits.
woodsandwater
distinguished member (401)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
02/10/2021 04:58PM  
Do you think it would be helpful if you could sing the Canadian National anthem, "O Canada," in its entirety if you got stopped? ????
billconner
distinguished member(8608)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
02/10/2021 06:30PM  
When you answer the border agent, maybe an "eh" between every other word. Eh?
02/10/2021 07:02PM  
billconner: "When you answer the border agent, maybe an "eh" between every other word. Eh?"


Not necessary, they will know you are simply paddling and are, "Oat, and aboat, in a boat."
02/10/2021 07:52PM  
A lot of good posts and information as well as different interpretations.

Does anyone know if Lake of The Woods is included in the treaty? If so, there is your precedent...run one foot over that border and they are on you...every outfitter/resort up there will warn you don’t go near the border and that the Canadians don’t accept excuses that you did not know where the border was at.

I know people have posted on this website of being fined for siteseeing over the border but still an on adjoining border lake—so there is precedent there as well. TGO—who unfortunately is no longer with us, would preach do not cross the border and he is a life long resident of the area with a lot of personal experience...

From posts on this thread and previous...it just appears you getting fined is up to the whim of the Canadian that finds you. You can’t fight it...it will cost more to go to court than to fight it...so I guess it depends on whether you want to risk it or not.

The other thing you could do...but this would put you on their radar...is email the Quetico Park Superintendent and ask his interpretation? If he says it is okay...keep the email on you to show an authority if you get stopped. It might not stop a fine, but would make it less likely.

T
02/10/2021 08:11PM  
Blatz: "
billconner: "I guess it depends on when do water communications become sightseeing.

"It being understood that all the water-communications, and all the usual portages along the line from Lake Superior to the Lake of the Woods; and also Grand Portage, from the shore of Lake Superior to the Pigeon river, as now actually used, shall be free and open to the use of the citizens and subjects of both countries."

I'm pretty sure taking the shortest and easiest paddling route is an intent. Taking the English Channel on Basswood or hugging the Canadian shore in high waves from northwest seems quite within the spirit and intent of the treaty."

It was always my understanding that you can stay on the main body of water of border lakes, but not go into inlets or land your canoe on the Canadian side. I'm guessing once the pandemic is gone it will go back to that. "

I can tell you from personal experience this thought process is common but totally incorrect. Back in 2015 or 2016. We did a spring trip and one lake over from crooked we saw a plane all day long over Crooked lake. Eventually flew over and landed on our lake and checked our Quetico permits...they were more than happy to tells us they spent the entire day fining Americans that were over the border on Crooked...They do this sting every year...usually in May...especially targeting fisherman, they gotta pay for that plane they charter somehow ;)

T
GraniteCliffs
distinguished member(1981)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
02/10/2021 08:40PM  
I would not place much faith in what the park super has to say. There has always been, in my experience, quite a disconnect between customs/border staff and park staff. Different job responsibilities. Just not sure if the border folks would give any credibility to a park perspective on a border issue.
cyclones30
distinguished member(4163)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
02/10/2021 09:20PM  
GraniteCliffs: "I would not place much faith in what the park super has to say. There has always been, in my experience, quite a disconnect between customs/border staff and park staff. Different job responsibilities. Just not sure if the border folks would give any credibility to a park perspective on a border issue. "


Agreed, that would be like someone in Mexico asking a Texas county park ranger if it was ok. Border patrol/customs isn't going to care what the park person said or didn't say
lookout!
Guest Paddler
  
02/10/2021 09:40PM  
Good luck when you face the magistrate in a foreign country after
you just broke how many laws? No travel to Canada in a pandemic,
No RABC, no permit.... Good luck in a Canadian jail, since you will be
held, because you can't return to the US. Plenty of patrol on the border,
ever heard of drones? Enjoy your extended trip! Just saying.
Pinched
Guest Paddler
  
02/10/2021 10:42PM  
So all of the stories of stopping and arresting people or issuing fines for being on the lake on the “wrong” side of the border for even a brief time don’t seem to be abiding by the international treaty that was cited earlier. Has this treaty been suspended after 9-11 or now because of the pandemic?
02/10/2021 11:25PM  
Pinched : "So all of the stories of stopping and arresting people or issuing fines for being on the lake on the “wrong” side of the border for even a brief time don’t seem to be abiding by the international treaty that was cited earlier. Has this treaty been suspended after 9-11 or now because of the pandemic?"


I don’t think anyone posted the entire treaty? So not sure you can really make that statement?

T
02/10/2021 11:26PM  
GraniteCliffs: "I would not place much faith in what the park super has to say. There has always been, in my experience, quite a disconnect between customs/border staff and park staff. Different job responsibilities. Just not sure if the border folks would give any credibility to a park perspective on a border issue. "


You make a great point...I guess I was thinking customs agents rarely are enforcing the border between the BWCA and Quetico. All the fines I am aware of are...and I am sure I am not aware of most cases...have been Park fines, which are about $250/person. Now if you are caught by customs it could be thousands per person, but I wonder if customs would really grab you if you never touched ground? I’d be surprised if they did for just looking at pictos. In this case you are correct, customs would not care what the Park Superintendent said.

T
lookout!
Guest Paddler
  
02/10/2021 11:35PM  
I own a cabin maybe 500' into Canada on Saganaga, it was an act of parliament
and the Queen to use it last summer.
No border thing as a portage goes has changed, you can use any international
portage, just don't go touring into foreign waters. Period.. Hassles, yes
There are no RABC permits, or Quetico permits Like Eddy Murphy would say "Coming From America"..
billconner
distinguished member(8608)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
02/11/2021 06:10AM  
There's a bar on the border a little north if me - border line painted on floor - kind of wonder how that works.
02/11/2021 07:38AM  
billconner: "There's a bar on the border a little north if me - border line painted on floor - kind of wonder how that works. "


What’s the name of the place? There is a library in Vermont that straddles the line...this article is from 2017 and already things were tightening up...there was also an incident where someone used the library to smuggle across the border...my guess these nuanced places will disappear unfortunately.

Library border
bottomtothetap
distinguished member(1021)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
02/11/2021 12:02PM  
timatkn: "
Pinched : "So all of the stories of stopping and arresting people or issuing fines for being on the lake on the “wrong” side of the border for even a brief time don’t seem to be abiding by the international treaty that was cited earlier. Has this treaty been suspended after 9-11 or now because of the pandemic?"



I don’t think anyone posted the entire treaty? So not sure you can really make that statement?


T"


But the part of the treaty that WAS posted on this thread is the section that deals with the body of water being discussed here.

If one does read the entire document, treaty text
multiple uses of the terms "free and open" and wording like "shall in no way be obstructed by either party" in reference to the navigation of common waters would
be noted and would support the guest paddler's observation. As mentioned in an earlier reply, the treaty itself does not seem to have any language about restricted use of these common waters.

Granted, the treaty was written in a time of many circumstances different than those in play today and indeed there are sections that seem to have been permanently suspended (for example, the requirement for both parties to maintain a naval force of "no less than eighty guns" aimed at the African coast in order to suppress the slave trade). In fact, there are specific provisions written into the treaty as a means for suspension of certain clauses (again, slave trade suppression). This would seem to make the guest paddler's wondering about further suspensions of the treaty a valid question.
billconner
distinguished member(8608)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
02/11/2021 12:11PM  
Can't recall name. I believe the bar is closed. They do seem to allow (for pay I assume) Canadians to have US mail order delivered to them, and then the purchaser can pick it up. They won't do reverse which is how I became acquainted with them. On Dundee road in Covington NY - gmaps says it is 8777 Rte 132, Saint-Anicet, QC J0S 1L0, Canada.
marrowoflife
member (46)member
  
02/11/2021 01:59PM  
lookout!: "I own a cabin maybe 500' into Canada on Saganaga, it was an act of parliament
and the Queen to use it last summer.".."


I love this - can't imagine the hassle, but would venture to guess that in the end, it is well worth it.
02/11/2021 05:35PM  
bottomtothetap: "
timatkn: "
Pinched : "So all of the stories of stopping and arresting people or issuing fines for being on the lake on the “wrong” side of the border for even a brief time don’t seem to be abiding by the international treaty that was cited earlier. Has this treaty been suspended after 9-11 or now because of the pandemic?"




I don’t think anyone posted the entire treaty? So not sure you can really make that statement?



T"



But the part of the treaty that WAS posted on this thread is the section that deals with the body of water being discussed here.


If one does read the entire document, treaty text
multiple uses of the terms "free and open" and wording like "shall in no way be obstructed by either party" in reference to the navigation of common waters would
be noted and would support the guest paddler's observation. As mentioned in an earlier reply, the treaty itself does not seem to have any language about restricted use of these common waters.


Granted, the treaty was written in a time of many circumstances different than those in play today and indeed there are sections that seem to have been permanently suspended (for example, the requirement for both parties to maintain a naval force of "no less than eighty guns" aimed at the African coast in order to suppress the slave trade). In fact, there are specific provisions written into the treaty as a means for suspension of certain clauses (again, slave trade suppression). This would seem to make the guest paddler's wondering about further suspensions of the treaty a valid question. "


I can’t really argue with your interpretations of the treaty...all I can say in practice and implementation there is precedent for people getting fined, charged, or even temporarily jailed. The U.S. Government isn’t backing citizens that get busted...in that case it is practice and precedent that matter not our interpretation. You aren’t going to fight the Canadian government...at least not at a prohibited cost.

T
mgraber
distinguished member(1486)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
02/11/2021 06:01PM  
From the conversations I have had with people in the know, it comes down to travel. As long as you are going more or less from point A to B you will be OK even if you veer over the border, but when you are sight seeing, fishing, etc. and are significantly over the border it is obvious that your purpose is not travel. I believe the purpose of the treaty was always mostly about travel. Something I forgot to add in the earlier post about the fishermen who were arrested, they apparently had Canadian fishing licenses so they could legally fish in Canadian waters, but had not passed customs\obtained an RABC, or purchased a permit to be in Quetico, all of which are necessary to be there. Having the fishing license clinched their fate because it showed their intent to be in Canada. I don't really have a dog in this fight other than I don't want the Canadians to view us as disrespectful "lawbreakers". I know the US is just as stringent if not more so. As a side note the customs officer at Sand Point told me a number of years ago that there were drugs that crossed the border through canoe country as that was a safer route than most to move drugs from Mexico or US to Canada. I could imagine a couple of backpacks full of cocaine could be more safely smuggled that way than driving through customs. Point being, there are borders for a reason. Anyway, hope you all have a good/safe year, and that Canada and US opens the border.
02/11/2021 06:23PM  
So if I catch fish in one lake and portage them over to another lake it’s ok as long as I don’t get caught, right?

Or what about getting a permit for one entry point and entering at another entry point same day but close by or simply delay entry by a day, is that ok? I mean in the grand scheme of things it’s not really like the number of people entering BWCA would be different.

If I burn a bunch of garbage, that I should be packing out, in the fire grate when it’s dark is that ok? I’m sure no one would even notice.




billconner
distinguished member(8608)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
02/11/2021 06:50PM  
I've heard about threats of arrests and fines, but not any specifics, like a poster here or dates. I'm sure Q rangers have fined some for being in the Q for other than just travel, including fishing and sight seeing, but not for just traveling across the border.

tumblehome
distinguished member(2911)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
02/11/2021 07:19PM  
The word used to travel from A to B is conveyance. Using the water as as a means of conveyance along the border is permissible. Paddling over the border to look at pictographs or checking out a cool island is not conveyance.

As spring turns to summer and the chaos resumes, we will once again hear about the shenanigans a special few Americans pursue along the border, thus tightening the international noose on us all once again.

For some reason, manifest destiny still reigns in our blood. Sad.
Tom
Wharfrat63
distinguished member (149)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
02/12/2021 10:01AM  
IrishLuck,

Some people on this board, love to "Judge the whole world by the sparkle they think it lacks". Well, to be fair, that seems to be the trend everywhere these days.

I think you will be fine. Don't get out of the canoe; don't have your fishing poles out; don't carry a firearm or drugs...and don't hang out long. And if stopped, just tell them you are passing thru to Iron or coming from Iron going to Fishskate Narrows....because you are, right?

Here is the post from last fall, people have mentioned here...

Have fun and enjoy.

Wharfrat
 
Reply    Reply with Quote    Print Top Bottom Previous Next
Trip Planning Sponsor:
True North Map Company