DULUTH -- Pandemic-fueled surge in visitation to BWCA expected to continue this year. Nearly 166,000 people visited the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness last summer — a 16% jump from the previous year — and the most in at least a decade, according to a new report from the U.S. Forest Service.

There was an even bigger increase in the number of permits issued for visits between May and September.

The report, released Tuesday, April 27, shows what many people saw firsthand last year: a huge surge of campers and paddlers flocking to the remote wilderness of the Boundary Waters, along the Canadian border, after the lockdowns prompted by the first few months of the COVID-19 pandemic eased.

After several consecutive years of hovering right around 25,000 permits issued annually, that number jumped to more than 31,000 last year — a 25% increase.

Those numbers do not come as a surprise to Andy McDonnell, who along with Ada Igoe co-owns Tuscarora Lodge and Canoe Outfitters, located 50 miles down the Gunflint Trail out of Grand Marais, Minn.

“It was just an astonishingly busy year,” he said, noting their business was up slightly more than 25%.

The Forest Service saw a surge in visitation across the country last year in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated shutdowns. With kids’ activities canceled and longer vacations put on hold, people flocked to the Boundary Waters and other public lands for outdoor activities that naturally allowed for social distancing.

But the season didn’t start out that way for McDonnell and other canoe outfitters. The Boundary Waters was closed last year until May 18, when Minnesota’s initial stay-at-home order was lifted.

“As soon as we were able to open, it was as busy as we’ve ever been,” said McDonnell. “It was pretty much like, you flick the light switch, overnight we went from one day we were sitting around here twiddling our thumbs. The next day, the phone was ringing off the hook. And we couldn't keep up.”

It was a similar story for Jason Zabokrtsky, who owns Ely Outfitting Co.

“It was our busiest summer ever,” he said. Zabokrtsky estimates his business outfitted 20% more people than his previous busiest summer, “people who just needed to escape the city and get to the safe, rural area of the wilderness.”

An even busier summer

And Zabokrtsky said he expects this summer to be even busier: “Everybody I talk to is just seeing dramatically significant increases in bookings.”

Forest Service officials told Zabokrtsky and other outfitters they’ve seen a substantial increase in permits reserved so far this year, compared to the same time last year.

“We're expecting another busy season,” said Superior National Forest spokesperson Joanna Gilkeson. “We don't typically publish our permit report numbers until the end of the season, because things are constantly in flux with people canceling and changing and scheduling and booking permits. But we can tell you that we're expecting a busy year.”

That’s reflected in the federal government’s online reservation system, where many popular entry points to the wilderness are already booked for weeks at a time. The Forest Service restricts the number of parties that can enter the Boundary Waters on any given day to spread out visitors and limit the impact on the wilderness.

“Typically, when May rolls around, we have plenty of quota permits to reserve for people for trips starting in June,” said Zabokrtsky. “This year, it's dramatically different. There are permits available for June for entering the BWCA. But there are far fewer to choose from than in a typical year in the past.”

Outfitters say the heightened demand is likely due in large part to the pandemic: People look for a safe, family-friendly vacation in the outdoors within driving distance.

Another contributing factor is the continued border closure with Canada. Some canoeists and anglers who typically travel into Canada are instead reserving trips in the Boundary Waters, according to Zabokrtsky and others.

There was a downside to the surge in visitation last summer. Forest Service officials say they saw “unprecedented natural resource damage” in the Boundary Waters, such as the cutting of live trees, human waste not being properly disposed, illegal camping, trash left in campfire rings and latrines, and campfires left unattended.

The U.S. Forest Service's Superior National Forest division posted this photo to Facebook on July 20, 2020, as part of a series of photos highlighting what not to do in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Courtesy of the U.S. Forest Service file
The U.S. Forest Service's Superior National Forest division posted this photo to Facebook on July 20, 2020, as part of a series of photos highlighting what not to do in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Courtesy of the U.S. Forest Service file
There was also more of what Gilkeson calls “social resource degradation,” including increased crowding and noise levels, and disruptive and oversized groups, “that don't really give you the true wilderness experience.”

Officials believe that was partly due to a change last year that allowed visitors to print out their permits at home. Typically, visitors to the Boundary Waters have to pick up permits in person, either at a Forest Service ranger station, or from an outfitter, where they’re required to watch a video and take a quiz on wilderness “Leave No Trace” ethics.

This year, visitors will again be able to print out a permit at home. But this time, they will be required to attend a 20-minute virtual “Leave No Trace/Tread Lightly” education session, which includes an overview of Boundary Waters regulations, before the Forest Service emails them their permit.

“So this year we're really ramping up our efforts,” said Gilkeson.

To avoid congestion, outfitters recommend working a bit harder this year, and paddling farther into the wilderness away from entry points, where many paddlers tend to stop and set up camp for several days.

And, while there are clearly unique circumstances contributing to the recent surge in visitors to the BWCA, outfitters like Zabokrstky wonder whether the trend may continue now that more people have discovered the wilderness.

“I think more people are finding out about it, and how wonderful it is and how special a vacation it can be. And I'm really wondering if this is going to be a bit of a new normal going forward.”

Pandemic-fueled surge in visitation to Boundary Waters expected to continue this year

I'm entertaining the notion of canceling my permit and spending the time at home. I will have way more seclusion and see far fewer people on my five acres than in the BWCA.

JWilder: "I'm entertaining the notion of canceling my permit and spending the time at home. I will have way more seclusion and see far fewer people on my five acres than in the BWCA. "

As far as I'm concerned, once I'm a couple portages in, anyone I see is someone I'm OK with seeing, and I enjoy meeting them. People who go to the same areas I do have earned it just like I did and inherently have things in common with me, so I'm more than happy to share the experience with them and even *gasp* interact with them. I can respect antisocial motivations for wilderness trips, but I don't share those motivations.

mschi772: "

JWilder: "I'm entertaining the notion of canceling my permit and spending the time at home. I will have way more seclusion and see far less people on my 5 acres than in the BWCA...



"

As far as I'm concerned, once I'm a couple portages in, anyone I see is someone I'm OK with seeing, and I enjoy meeting them. People who go to the same areas I do have earned it just like I did and inherently have things in common with me, so I'm more than happy to share the experience with them and even *gasp* interact with them. I can respect antisocial motivations for wilderness trips, but I don't share those motivations. "

FYI, while I agree with much of what you say, seeking solitude/seclusion is not the same as being antisocial. I am often seeking the aforementioned, which is not to say I'm antisocial. The definitions of antisocial (look them up) are not particularly flattering and I don't think you meant it that way. I think people will attest that I can be quite sociable. The same is probably true of JW too, although I haven't had the pleasure of meeting him yet.

boonie: "

mschi772: "

JWilder: "I'm entertaining the notion of canceling my permit and spending the time at home. I will have way more seclusion and see far less people on my 5 acres than in the BWCA...



"

As far as I'm concerned, once I'm a couple portages in, anyone I see is someone I'm OK with seeing, and I enjoy meeting them. People who go to the same areas I do have earned it just like I did and inherently have things in common with me, so I'm more than happy to share the experience with them and even *gasp* interact with them. I can respect antisocial motivations for wilderness trips, but I don't share those motivations. "

FYI, while I agree with much of what you say, seeking solitude/seclusion is not the same as being antisocial. I am often seeking the aforementioned, which is not to say I'm antisocial. The definitions of antisocial (look them up) are not particularly flattering and I don't think you meant it that way. I think people will attest that I can be quite sociable. The same is probably true of JW too, although I haven't had the pleasure of meeting him yet. "

No, I did not mean it in the sense that you're a sociopath or unsuitable for society or that you generally detest others. I just meant it in a literal sense of opposing socialization even if only temporarily. Anti....social. If there's a better word for the desire to avoid others and have solitude, I can't think of it.

I think any of us who started tripping 10+ years ago have seen some big changes, not just from 2020. It's an amazing place and people suddenly had free time to check it out. No doubt many will want to come back!
Much like a family having a bbq at a public park doesn't get to me, neither does this. These areas are here for that. Just because I used it first doesn't make it mine. It is sad when people make a mess and tarnish a good thing but that's unfortunately everywhere. I'd like to hope those who care so little will also lose interest and visit less frequently, but we'll see.
I too understand wanting your space when up there. It was nearly a given a decade ago....but things change, times change, and it's not like that anymore, probably never will be. Doesn't mean you can't enjoy it still.

I'm super curious what it will be like. My first Fishing opener trip was 1999 - Brule Lake, we looped through Cherokee, Long Island, Winchell and back down to Brule. We entered Friday morning and saw no one until Sunday when we returned back to Brule to Exit.

Second Fishing Opener Trip was Moose River North up to LLC. We saw another party at the EP, but quickly put some distance between us, snagged a great site on Boulder Bay and over a long weekend only saw one other party come across the portage into LLC.

From there out trips migrated into June and then to the late fall.

This year will be my first opener trip in quite a few years. I'm super curious what to expect. I have a Friday permit and plan to hit the trail early, pretty much as soon as I can outfitter opens and I can pick my permit. I can see that two days prior all permits are gone and 3 days prior one of the permits is taken. How far and where they're headed - who knows. If we all have the same target lake. All sites will be taken before I even shove off...which would suck. I need to come up with a viable plan B.

I'm going in on Saturday. Hoping to still have the Kawishiwi to myself :)

I expect a fair percentage of the new users will realize what a gem the bdub is and want to go back. 26 years ago I went up to see what the bdub was all about and now go once or twice every year. The good news is that a lot of the users will realize what a precious resource the bdub is and seek to preserve it.

One data point: I went to book a trip in late July on the Gunflint side and had to dig around a bit to find night-before accommodations. First few I checked were full, including outfitter bunkhouse.

Demand can be a good thing. If numbers dwindled enough, the government would likely start thinking about repurposing that land. It's an exaggeration, but WCPP wasn't even getting a 1000 people a year. Even if we fell to quetico type numbers, the outfitters would not survive.

Last year during the pandemic, the auto renting world had too many vehicles, so they sold off 30-40% of their inventory. Now when you go to florida in March, you pay $500 a DAY for a rental vehicle. Prices are expensive all over, because of a shortage of supply.

If visitors drop in the bwca, outfitters fail. Then when demand increases, the remaining outfitters will charge alot more money, because of high demand, with lack of supply. It would quickly become unaffordable for many.

While this kind of demand, is pushing the eco limits, it's not necessarily a bad thing. It wasn't that long ago that the outfitters were hurting. High gas prices were killing travel. As summer destination options open back up, more kids are playing ball again, more people are attending weddings, etc, the demand for boundary waters trips will lessen.

We really need the Quetico to open again, that will disperse about 25k visitors, from the bwca to the Q.

analyzer: "Demand can be a good thing. If numbers dwindled enough, the government would likely start thinking about repurposing that land. It's an exaggeration, but WCPP wasn't even getting a 1000 people a year. Even if we fell to quetico type numbers, the outfitters would not survive.


Last year during the pandemic, the auto renting world had too many vehicles, so they sold off 30-40% of their inventory. Now when you go to florida in March, you pay $500 a DAY for a rental vehicle. Prices are expensive all over, because of a shortage of supply.


If visitors drop in the bwca, outfitters fail. Then when demand increases, the remaining outfitters will charge alot more money, because of high demand, with lack of supply. It would quickly become unaffordable for many.


While this kind of demand, is pushing the eco limits, it's not necessarily a bad thing. It wasn't that long ago that the outfitters were hurting. High gas prices were killing travel. As summer destination options open back up, more kids are playing ball again, more people are attending weddings, etc, the demand for boundary waters trips will lessen.


We really need the Quetico to open again, that will disperse about 25k visitors, from the bwca to the Q."

I agree. The whole outdoors industry was in decline before COVID. I remember when 200K visited the BW and permits were by lottery. Then there was the 1999 Blowdown and then 10 years of fires...and then the new generation decided phones, videos and craft beer replaced, fresh air, trees and clear clean water...Lottery was mostly suspended in 2012.

After years of travel and raising kids, my first visit in the new millennium was a family trip in 2016. Ely looked like it was close to being a ghost town. Empty stores and not much activity, The ebb and flow of supply and demand.

After one good year for the outfitters, it looks like 3 are up for sale.

I agree with boonie's take that seeking solitude is not the same as being antisocial. A few years back I was on a solo trip in late July and was on Iron Lake on day 4 or so. Started meandering back to my put-in at Moose River and could not find one open site. Spent the whole day paddling and eventually left. Told myself that was the last time I would hit the BWCA and spent ensuing summers in Quetico. As a teacher, I am limited in when I can trip, and I do not equate the stress of not being able to find a site with being antisocial.

I have a couple of trips planned this summer and have mixed feelings about them due to what I experienced on my trips last year. I do not paddle one lake in and base camp, so I get the notion that the further in I go the fewer people I may encounter. I also do not mind encountering people; in fact, I like it! What I do not like is getting stressed out when I cannot find an open site.

I wish permits were fewer and more expensive as is the case in Quetico. Those of you who remember Jan (aka kanoes) may recall his take that the BWCA was getting "loved to death" and that was a statement he made a good 10 years ago.

Frenchy19: "I agree with boonie's take that seeking solitude is not the same as being antisocial. A few years back I was on a solo trip in late July and was on Iron Lake on day 4 or so. Started meandering back to my put-in at Moose River and could not find one open site. Spent the whole day paddling and eventually left. Told myself that was the last time I would hit the BWCA and spent ensuing summers in Quetico. As a teacher, I am limited in when I can trip, and I do not equate the stress of not being able to find a site with being antisocial.


I have a couple of trips planned this summer and have mixed feelings about them due to what I experienced on my trips last year. I do not paddle one lake in and base camp, so I get the notion that the further in I go the fewer people I may encounter. I also do not mind encountering people; in fact, I like it! What I do not like is getting stressed out when I cannot find an open site.


I wish permits were fewer and more expensive as is the case in Quetico. Those of you who remember Jan (aka kanoes) may recall his take that the BWCA was getting "loved to death" and that was a statement he made a good 10 years ago. "

There are a lot of entries/areas where I think the permit quotas are solid, but people stubbornly crowding the entry lakes and the same destinations certainly causes problems. I love me some base-camping, but I'd be very willing to discuss ideas like destination permits or something like limiting how long a group is allowed to occupy the same site in order to encourage people to spread and move about more. A related thought I was having is: for lakes like Seagull, for example, where there are regular permits and Seagull-only permits, are the regular permits discouraged from camping on Seagull? I think that would be a reasonable thing to do--discouraged, not forbidden.

There are some entries where I think the permit quotas are whack. Kawishiwi Lake comes to mind. Nine per day?! Yikes! That's the same as the total number of entries off of Poplar. And almost the same as Brule including the Brule-only permits. There are route options, but you have to get almost a day in before you can start branching into the various options, and along the way, there is an area that was burned. Nine per day seems crazy to me there. There are other entries that don't strike me as that insane but could probably be tweaked a little. Hog Creek as basically a dead-end with 5/day seems like its asking for trouble. South Hegman's overnight paddle quota even at just 2/day seems like it is also asking for trouble as I doubt anyone getting a permit there is wanting to go to Angleworm or else they'd have gotten an Angleworm permit...plus once you combine Angleworm and S Hegman to 4/day, the possibilities start to look sketchy to me especially since paddlers quickly run into Mudro entrants.

Should a system that evolved over a lot of years snd seems to have worked ok for quite a while be completely tossed because of the pandemic? The current quotas seem to have worked and provided choices up to 2019. I hope its tweaking rather than drastic cuts all at once if they do change or else everyone here in a few years will be complaining of too few options and dropping use. (Which is ok until there are too few to justify maintaining it at all.)

billconner: "Should a system that evolved over a lot of years snd seems to have worked ok for quite a while be completely tossed because of the pandemic? "

I don't think so. It's really a perfect storm.

Many summer entertainment options are limited, or gone.

Not so much this year, but last year, the kids didn't have ball. Even the 20's and 30's had no softball/baseball.

The twins and saints season ticket holders were looking for other entertainment options.

Weddings were canceled, and pushed back.

Many people were unemployed, yet had more money than normal.

The Canadian border is shutdown, so Quetico visitors stay in the boundary waters. People aren't going on Canadian fly-in fishing trips. They aren't going to the Canadian Rockies etc.

Who wants to go to Europe, or NYC, or LA, or even Vegas last year, when everything is shut down, and limited. I don't want to go to Paris, if all the museums are shutdown.

So what happens. Where can we go, that we will be relatively covid safe, that's not terribly affected by Covid? The BWCA. We have money, we have time, and no commitments to anything else.

And people who would normally take a 5-7 day trip, to get back for a twins game, kids game, wedding, work, etc, don't have to be anywhere, at any time. So suddenly those 5-7 day trips, become 10-14 day trips. I heard lots of people going on 28 day trips. They were unemployed, and getting an extra $600 a week last year. They had LOTs of time, no commitments, and plenty of money. Perfect storm.

Lets pretend you have 4 groups entering per day, and staying 5 days. Day 1. 4 enter. Day 2 4 enter, we are now at 8 groups in. Day 3 4 enter, 12 groups. Day 4, 4 enter, 16 groups, day 5, 4 enter 20 groups. Day 6, 4 enter, 4 leave, 20 groups. So you level off at 20 groups dispersed in that area. But what if all of those groups, stay 2 weeks. Day 6, 24, day 7 (28), day 8 (32) day 9 (36), day 10 (40) day 11 (44) day 12 (48) day 13 (52) day 14 (56) day 15, 4 groups enter, and 4 leave, so you level off at 56 groups dispersed over the same area. Same number of entry permits, but because of unemployment, and lack of commitments to ball teams, weddings, work, etc, everyone can stay longer. Now granted, not all groups are staying 2 weeks, but it gives you an idea, of how the perfect storm, might take you from 20 groups in the knife area, to 56 groups in the same area, without changing the number of entry permits.

As stuff opens back up. People will make commitments to other stuff, and it will shorten their trips, and we won't have as much pressure on the resource. It's really just been a perfect storm. Available time, available money, lack of other commitments, lack of other entertainment options, canadian border closed, specifically the Quetico, all adds to the pressure.

billconner: "....(Which is ok until there are too few to justify maintaining it at all.)"

Well, naive question, which I'm quite good at. So would not "maintaining" the BWCA cause it to revert to a real wilderness, or would it then be open for mining, development, etc? If the former, great. If the latter, well, let's just turn it into a national park which I tend to avoid due to the crowds.....

PineKnot: "

billconner: "....(Which is ok until there are too few to justify maintaining it at all.)"

Well, naive question, which I'm quite good at. So would not "maintaining" the BWCA cause it to revert to a real wilderness, or would it then be open for mining, development, etc? If the former, great. If the latter, well, let's just turn it into a national park which I tend to avoid due to the crowds.....
"

Pure speculation. Perhaps too little use and land reverts to national forest with fewer protections and more abuse, including lumber and mining, than "wilderness".

So.....an unmaintained wilderness.....no mining, logging, development, etc...but a real pain/challenge to access.....I like that!!

billconner: "

PineKnot: "

billconner: "....(Which is ok until there are too few to justify maintaining it at all.)"

Well, naive question, which I'm quite good at. So would not "maintaining" the BWCA cause it to revert to a real wilderness, or would it then be open for mining, development, etc? If the former, great. If the latter, well, let's just turn it into a national park which I tend to avoid due to the crowds.....
"

Pure speculation. Perhaps too little use and land reverts to national forest with fewer protections and more abuse, including lumber and mining, than "wilderness". "

Well and the further point is not even official "maintenance" but traffic maintenance. So the forest service does a fair bit of maintenance, but rarely do they have to rebuild something from the ground up unless there is a fire or a big storm. Their work is supplemented by the traffic that goes through. People using a portage really help keep it open. Too many people using the same resource degrades it to an extent that the forest service maintenance changes from keeping stuff open to mitigating degradation. Less permits would lessen that load, but lessen forest service income.

The overuse discussion has long been a talk we have been having, but 2020 took that discussion and blew it to ridiculous proportions. There are solutions, but how many of them would all of us want? I like the increasing leave no trace regulations, but the cynic in me worries about the amount of good it will do. Fewer permits seems unreasonable. Raising the cost of permits, though I wouldn't mind paying more, may only make it less available financially to a bracket of the population that already struggles with getting into the outdoors with the high equipment costs. Another option is visit caps with each permit only being good for a week or something, but that only really hurts the enthusiasts. Most of the newer guests, as others have mentioned, won't stay longer than a week once other obligations and activities open back up. Still further options would be things like the PMA regulations expanded where one pulls a permit for camping in a certain region. It really would limit traffic, but it's that double edge sword of how soon does it totally lose its wilderness character? The BWCA has always toed that line, but the tighter the regulations, the less "wild" it becomes.

All I know is this guide season is going to be nuts, possibly to a degree that I haven't seen before (but who knows if this one will be less crazy than the last.) I do know that I will be trying harder than ever to not camp my groups near entry points. We'll see...

billconner: "

PineKnot: "

billconner: "....(Which is ok until there are too few to justify maintaining it at all.)"

Well, naive question, which I'm quite good at. So would not "maintaining" the BWCA cause it to revert to a real wilderness, or would it then be open for mining, development, etc? If the former, great. If the latter, well, let's just turn it into a national park which I tend to avoid due to the crowds.....
"

Pure speculation. Perhaps too little use and land reverts to national forest with fewer protections and more abuse, including lumber and mining, than "wilderness". "

The BWCAW is a creature of Congress; the USFS only administers it according to the governing legislation. And the odds of statutory repeal went way down on November 3rd.

I was speculating in terms of decades, not 2 or 4 year election cycles. Won't happen tomorrow or in my lifetime I suspect. Several national parks, 26 I think, also creatures of congress, have been de-parked.

The bwcaW is a wilderness first and a tourist destination second. If visitation dropped, that would only make it's primary purpose easier to fulfill. People need to stop thinking of the BWCAW as some kind of national park. It is not.

PineKnot: "So.....an unmaintained wilderness.....no mining, logging, development, etc...but a real pain/challenge to access.....I like that!!"

Right on!

billconner: "I was speculating in terms of decades, not 2 or 4 year election cycles. Won't happen tomorrow or in my lifetime I suspect. Several national parks, 26 I think, also creatures of congress, have been de-parked. "

Nothing on the scale of the BWCAW has ever been delisted as a national park, to my knowledge. Most (all?) of these have been far smaller units:

Pruning the Parks: Six National Parks Acquired via Transfer in 1933 Were Subsequently Abolished

Full list of delisted NP: National parks no more

I appreciate you believe this could never happen. I think it is possible.

billconner: "Full list of delisted NP: National parks no more


I appreciate you believe this could never happen. I think it is possible. "

BWCAW isn't a park. If you want to entertain pointless apples-to-apples speculation, look for *wildernesses* that have lost their status as designated wilderness areas, not de-listed parks.

Dang I avoided the bwca for the first time in my life last year bc of all the horror stories... but I'm going this time. Hopefully my usual areas are still quiet.

billconner: "Full list of delisted NP: National parks no more


I appreciate you believe this could never happen. I think it is possible. "

It is extremely possible that the BWCA could be de-listed. The last big push was from DFL Rep. Tom Bakk around 1990. This was during a contentious period when the BWCA was in crisis and both sides tried to either further protect or de-list the BWCA. People like Bruce Vento and Paul Wellstone were on the side of wilderness. Does anyone remember the hearings in International falls?

Tom Bakk proposed in front of a thousand people that the BWCA should be made a National Recreation area Think Lake Mead, Think Lake Havasu. Houseboats, jets skies. I was there.

I'm telling you folks, the BWCA is just a pen stroke away from being taken away on any given day. Don't think for a moment that it won't be swept away if not for vocal advocates of its protection. There have been many close calls and the only reason it still exists is because people spoke out, not just complained, but did something!

Without the tree-huggers such as the Sierra Club, Friends of the BWCA, passionate legislaters, the Boundary Waters would have been dismantled several decades ago.