I saw This article on Google news today. I'm not one to post on reddit but I thought the topic was interesting. I would allow a group with us if it was needed, but not rude people.

Enjoyed the quote about hopping into the middle of a stranger's canoe with only 2 people in it because it "their canoe technically holds 3..."

In nearly 50 trips, this has never come up. Now that I said it, I suppose it will...

This is just one more reason why I avoid overly popular places like the BWCA in-season. It has probably been 10-12 yrs since I was there in May/June/August. I live in far SE Wisconsin along Lake Michigan just 20-22 miles from Illinois. I have to deal with rude and inconsiderate people frequently, especially when driving. Shoulder season trips for me only, the cooler/colder the weather the better I like it as long as the water is liquid.

I found the USFS reported response a little surprising. I thought a permit entitled you to a site even if solo. I'm imagining being solo and a group of 8 pulls up.

What if the 4 girls were camped and a couple of guys would have done the same? This behavior/practice is NOT acceptable. Unless you are invited by a group that is occupying a campsite it's not acceptable to enter the occupied campsite. If it's an emergency and there are no other campsites - I know that it's illegal but either bushwhack and use LNT principles or pitch at the side of a portage. Before you do either, conditions better prohibit travelling, someone better be injured that prevents you from travelling at a reasonable pace, or it better be nearing sunset. You got yourself into the predicament and you know the rules and etiquette.

With that said, if any polite and reasonable person or group that I deem non-threatening and safe, would request to share my campsite within 2-3 hours of sunset or in windy, rainy conditions, or perhaps be first-timers that really have bit off more than they can chew and may face life-threatening conditions if they continue, or have young children, I would be happy to share.

Very bizarre behavior indeed. I am always on the look out for travelers who might need a spot late in the day or in a storm and am either prepared to direct them to a site I know is open or offer them a space to set up if it is dire...I have met some cool people this way. But to enter a campsite and presume you are welcome to stay without any explanation is just rude.

I'm starting to think that maybe the intruders seriously believed all campsites are open to anybody as long as the number on the site does not exceed nine. In other words, they thought what they did was the way things are done.

Hard to say how I would have reacted, but they would not have stayed the night.

Mike

Yup, bizarre behavior. But, I have had that exact thing, up to a point, happen to me. I was backpacking (solo), and was set up on a backcountry site, and two backpackers showed up and set their packs down at the other side of “my” clearing. I spoke up right away, saying there were three campsites in a row here, and this one was mine. Fortunately they picked up their packs and moved to the next site up the side trail. They just had not known about the separate sites.

MikeinMpls: "I'm starting to think that maybe the intruders seriously believed all campsites are open to anybody as long as the number on the site does not exceed nine. In other words, they thought what they did was the way things are done."

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking too. I don't backpack, but isn't this the etiquette along trails like the Superior Hiking Trail, Appalachian, etc? I think sharing campsites is the norm there, so perhaps these women came from that experience. I'd still think you would exchange a few pleasantries, but again, I'm not sure how much groups socialize with each other on backpacking trails.

To be clear, I definitely expect a private campsite in the BWCA, barring unforeseen circumstances. This just feels like a case of misunderstanding the application of the 9 person/4 watercraft rule.

They could come from a hiking background. The sites on say the Appalacian Trail or even closer the Superior Hiking Trail are commonly shared by hikers. There's no limit, whoever shows up, sets up camp for the night and then moves on in the morning. It's common for hikers.

I think that we don't know the entire story. To me this gives the impression of a pair of females that were spooked by the behavior of another group. Trauma influenced or induced behavior often appears this way. That they specifically chose a site with another set of 4 females (what are the odds of this occurring) and that they didn't talk? Were they being followed? Stalked? Stranger things have happened. In an environment where 90% of the participants are male, I could see females feeling uncomfortable/spooked if a group of males is less than gentlemanly.

Just another possible prism through which to view this behavior.

I just can't believe there's not more information to share here.

"Less than 10 feet away" and there was not any more conversation had than "where is the latrine and we don't care if you drink or smoke weed?"

How is that even possible, from either party?

I mean, less than 10 feet is very close. I don't even pitch my tent that close to my buddy's when camping, if at all possible.

Whole thing is so weird.

billconner: "I found the USFS reported response a little surprising. I thought a permit entitled you to a site even if solo. I'm imagining being solo and a group of 8 pulls up. "

I couldn’t agree more. Their response is unacceptable. They need to discourage this behavior in the strongest terms possible.

It appears they have rights to share the site....?? Though I'd agree, it's poor form. But as mentioned there a ton of camps along trails that are intended to be shared so maybe that's what they were acclimated with.

I've had this happen once in the B-dub, solo hiking on Knute Lake, or rather me and my dog. At maybe an hour before sunset 2 guys walked up to the edge of camp. LeeRoy was on the end of his tie-out giving them the business the second they walked up. Best dog I've ever had, kind, but a guard dog now doubt and has the bark & look to make folks think twice.
They asked if the site was taken which I replied that it was. Had my dog not been so vocal the "can we squeeze in question" may have been coming. They chatted quietly amongst themselves for a bit and I told them another camp was about a mile down the trail and they walked on. Both had massive packs and one guy had a a 30" machete strapped to his leg. They had first trip written all over them.
I would not have liked it if they just shoved in and set up camp, not sure what I would have done.

Michwall2: "I think that we don't know the entire story. To me this gives the impression of a pair of females that were spooked by the behavior of another group. Trauma influenced or induced behavior often appears this way. That they specifically chose a site with another set of 4 females (what are the odds of this occurring) and that they didn't talk? Were they being followed? Stalked? Stranger things have happened. In an environment where 90% of the participants are male, I could see females feeling uncomfortable/spooked if a group of males is less than gentlemanly.


Just another possible prism through which to view this behavior. "

^This.^

Thank you, Michael, for considering another possible perspective.

missmolly: "

Michwall2: "I think that we don't know the entire story. To me this gives the impression of a pair of females that were spooked by the behavior of another group. Trauma influenced or induced behavior often appears this way. That they specifically chose a site with another set of 4 females (what are the odds of this occurring) and that they didn't talk? Were they being followed? Stalked? Stranger things have happened. In an environment where 90% of the participants are male, I could see females feeling uncomfortable/spooked if a group of males is less than gentlemanly.



Just another possible prism through which to view this behavior. "

^This.^

Thank you, Michael, for considering another possible perspective. "

I wish the group of 4 had just communicated openly. “Are you two ok? Did something happen? Sharing a site isn’t the normal practice in the BWCA, but if you’re hurt or under duress we would consider allowing you to stay here.”

Just start a dang conversation, what’s so hard about that?

thegildedgopher: "

missmolly: "

Michwall2: "I think that we don't know the entire story. To me this gives the impression of a pair of females that were spooked by the behavior of another group. Trauma influenced or induced behavior often appears this way. That they specifically chose a site with another set of 4 females (what are the odds of this occurring) and that they didn't talk? Were they being followed? Stalked? Stranger things have happened. In an environment where 90% of the participants are male, I could see females feeling uncomfortable/spooked if a group of males is less than gentlemanly.



Just another possible prism through which to view this behavior. "

^This.^


Thank you, Michael, for considering another possible perspective. "

I wish the group of 4 had just communicated openly. “Are you two ok? Did something happen? Sharing a site isn’t the normal practice in the BWCA, but if you’re hurt or under duress we would consider allowing you to stay here.”


Just start a dang conversation, what’s so hard about that?"

It seems it might have been both groups first trip. I thought the consensus here was a permit entitles you to all of one site but now not certain I can point to that in regulations.

They might be used to something similar to the Superior Hiking Trail. Where campsites are not limited to one group.

thegildedgopher: "

missmolly: "

Michwall2: "I think that we don't know the entire story. To me this gives the impression of a pair of females that were spooked by the behavior of another group. Trauma influenced or induced behavior often appears this way. That they specifically chose a site with another set of 4 females (what are the odds of this occurring) and that they didn't talk? Were they being followed? Stalked? Stranger things have happened. In an environment where 90% of the participants are male, I could see females feeling uncomfortable/spooked if a group of males is less than gentlemanly.



Just another possible prism through which to view this behavior. "

^This.^


Thank you, Michael, for considering another possible perspective. "

I wish the group of 4 had just communicated openly. “Are you two ok? Did something happen? Sharing a site isn’t the normal practice in the BWCA, but if you’re hurt or under duress we would consider allowing you to stay here.”


Just start a dang conversation, what’s so hard about that?"

(Edited per Atom’s post)
I don’t know, I think you, missmolly and Michwall2 are giving WAY too much credit to the second group.

2nd group
1. Didn’t ask
2. Didn’t communicate they were staying just set up camp
3. It was made clear they weren’t welcome and they stayed and continued to not communicate a need to stay
4. Made a point to say it was okay for the other group could do drugs or drink…
5. When they pulled into the camp it would have been hard to know or see it was all women
6. They immediately asked how many people in camp…showing intent to camp no matter what the current occupants wanted.

If they were able to comment it was okay for the the group they were intruding on that is was okay for them to do drugs and drink I am pretty confident they could of communicated they were scared. There was nothing in the story to suggest they were scared or concerned. Quite the opposite…they seem emboldened to do whatever they want!

I’ve been in this situation and it’s easy to judge it later but this is COMPLETELY unexpected behavior in the BWCAW so when it happens to you it’s hard to react in the best way. It’s scary, it’s unpredicatable, surprising, catches you completely off guard. The judgement should be on the individuals breaking social norms…which is the second group. Sometimes the best explanation is stupidity and A-Holeness…

T

Also…there are always 11 people at my site…until you show your FS badge then I’ll tell you what the real number is…learned my lesson.

And I’ve invited people to stay with me in bad conditions, not opposed to that at all.

T

timatkn:

4. Asked to do drugs at the campsite…

Just want to clarify this so misinformation isn't spread. The original post says:

"They say that the site holds 9 (which is true) and they 'don’t care if we smoke weed or drink'. And that was that, they set up and stayed the night right next to us."

As rude and out of touch this group was, they never "asked to do drugs at the campsite".

Let me be clear, I'm not defending the second group by any means. What they did goes totally against etiquette and most people here have made that perfectly clear. We all would have done some further digging and told them to keep moving unless there were some very clear extenuating circumstances. Let's just make sure we're getting the facts straight.

My guess is that they were SHT hikers, or something like that. I’ve hiked the whole SHT, and its 1000% common to just roll up to a campsite, not say anything, and just camp, and keep to yourselves… its also common to share “tales from the trail” for camaraderie as well…

I have been on the other end of the stick this past year hiking Snowbank trail… after a LONG day of hiking we pulled up to the Parent Lake site (which is a hiking site btw, and NOT on paddling maps) and a group of paddlers were already there set up.

My tripping parter and I were so defeated, and SO TIRED, the camper just stared at us, and didn’t say anything, so we turned around and had to hike over to Becoosin instead.

I was tempted to start setting up though because we were so gosh darn tired. We read the room though. It wasn’t a group saying, “Oh you girls look tired, do you want to set up here?” But then again, I KNOW paddlers don’t want to share sites.

I wonder if there are paddling places that are like the SHT where there are shared campsites?

I read more and more of stories like this. It really needs to be clearly spelled out in the three videos, an email to the trip leader, and on the back of your permit. There are so many other parks that clearly spell it out. It should read one group at a time at any campsite unless an emergency situation. Or, it should read you can have multiple groups at one campsite. It needs to be spelled out on paper, and in media, emails, and spoken word by outfitters, and rangers to end this confusion.

timatkn: "

thegildedgopher: "

missmolly: "

Michwall2: "I think that we don't know the entire story. To me this gives the impression of a pair of females that were spooked by the behavior of another group. Trauma influenced or induced behavior often appears this way. That they specifically chose a site with another set of 4 females (what are the odds of this occurring) and that they didn't talk? Were they being followed? Stalked? Stranger things have happened. In an environment where 90% of the participants are male, I could see females feeling uncomfortable/spooked if a group of males is less than gentlemanly.




Just another possible prism through which to view this behavior. "

^This.^



Thank you, Michael, for considering another possible perspective. "

I wish the group of 4 had just communicated openly. “Are you two ok? Did something happen? Sharing a site isn’t the normal practice in the BWCA, but if you’re hurt or under duress we would consider allowing you to stay here.”



Just start a dang conversation, what’s so hard about that?"

I don’t know, I think you, missmolly and Michwall2 are giving WAY too much credit to the second group.


2nd group
1. Didn’t ask
2. Didn’t communicate they were staying just set up camp
3. It was made clear they weren’t welcome and they stayed and continued to not communicate a need to stay
4. Asked to do drugs at the campsite…
5. When they pulled into the camp it would have been hard to know or see it was all women
6. They immediately asked how many people in camp…showing intent to camp no matter what the current occupants wanted.


If they were able to ask about drugs I am pretty confident they could of communicated they were scared. There was nothing in the story to suggest they were scared or concerned. Quite the opposite…they seem emboldened to do whatever they want!


I’ve been in this situation and it’s easy to judge it later but this is COMPLETELY unexpected behavior in the BWCAW so when it happens to you it’s hard to react in the best way. It’s scary, it’s unpredicatable, surprising, catches you completely off guard. The judgement should be on the individuals breaking social norms…which is the second group. Sometimes the best explanation is stupidity and A-Holeness…


T"

I tend to give folks the benefit of the doubt, to a fault. I still think most folks are decent. But I didn’t mean to defend the actions of the intruders, just wanted to make the point that communication goes a long way. To me the pair of campers sat there wondering “what is the deal with these people” all night - and indeed, they’re still wondering out loud on the internet. My point was, the best way to get an answer to that question would’ve been to ask them plainly in person. Everything else is pure speculation.

To be crystal clear— I would never impose on another group like that. But if the tables were turned I would communicate quite clearly that I wasn’t OK with their behavior and give them a chance to explain. Maybe I’m naive and that approach will get me beat up or shot someday, but I don’t let things fester when I have the opportunity to address them. I acknowledge that this approach is influenced by white dude privilege. I know It’s not that simple for many.

MN_Lindsey: "My guess is that they were SHT hikers, or something like that. I’ve hiked the whole SHT, and its 1000% common to just roll up to a campsite, not say anything, and just camp, and keep to yourselves… its also common to share “tales from the trail” for camaraderie as well…


I have been on the other end of the stick this past year hiking Snowbank trail… after a LONG day of hiking we pulled up to the Parent Lake site (which is a hiking site btw, and NOT on paddling maps) and a group of paddlers were already there set up.


My tripping parter and I were so defeated, and SO TIRED, the camper just stared at us, and didn’t say anything, so we turned around and had to hike over to Becoosin instead.


I was tempted to start setting up though because we were so gosh darn tired. We read the room though. It wasn’t a group saying, “Oh you girls look tired, do you want to set up here?” But then again, I KNOW paddlers don’t want to share sites.


I wonder if there are paddling places that are like the SHT where there are shared campsites? "

This was my exact thought as well. The two sound like people that are used to backpacking etiquette and not BWCA etiquette. I have experienced shared sites on the SHT many times. But when hiking the BRT in the BWCA, and there are sites that are backpacking/canoe sites, we skipped every site that was already occupied. Made for a really long day.

Tim: "I think you, missmolly and Michwall2 are giving WAY too much credit to the second group."

I'm not "giving credit" to the second group. I did credit Michwall2 for thinking the best of that group rather than the worst, as others have done in considering a Superior Trail background.

The Appalachian Trail works the same way. You simply arrive at a shelter, unroll your sleeping bag, and prepare your meal. You may chat with those already there, but there isn't that expectation.

No MollyCredits* (TM) for you, Tim, for thinking the worst of them.


*Redeemable for cash and valuable prizes!

MN_Lindsey: "My guess is that they were SHT hikers, or something like that. I’ve hiked the whole SHT, and its 1000% common to just roll up to a campsite, not say anything, and just camp, and keep to yourselves… its also common to share “tales from the trail” for camaraderie as well…


I have been on the other end of the stick this past year hiking Snowbank trail… after a LONG day of hiking we pulled up to the Parent Lake site (which is a hiking site btw, and NOT on paddling maps) and a group of paddlers were already there set up.


My tripping parter and I were so defeated, and SO TIRED, the camper just stared at us, and didn’t say anything, so we turned around and had to hike over to Becoosin instead.


I was tempted to start setting up though because we were so gosh darn tired. We read the room though. It wasn’t a group saying, “Oh you girls look tired, do you want to set up here?” But then again, I KNOW paddlers don’t want to share sites.


I wonder if there are paddling places that are like the SHT where there are shared campsites? "

To your question about other paddling places like the SHT, yes there is. On the Flambeau River in Wisconsin, there are many primitive campsites that are on a first come basis. These campsites have areas for 2 or 3 camping groups and all share a pit toliet, fire ring and some even a picnic table. We once had four groups (nobody knew each other) all stay the night at a site that was really set up for only two groups, but we all had a great time. The last two groups both asked if they could join us. We agreed and it became a very memorable night. I would not like that in the BW though.

A lot of assumptions. I wouldn't care, go ahead and camp next door. It's not worth getting all uptight about. Kinda weird, but hey, lotsa that going around. Be kind and friendly, if that doesn't fly, then go f yourself! Haha.

Scat, I think you are making assumptions too.

There are a lot of places you can go to do group campgrounds. If I wanted to do that, then I would go to those places.

I don’t think it’s “uptight” to not want people to camp with you in the BWCA when that is the expected experience.

My wife and I have had a group of nine men enter our camp unannounced. If you're not a little “uptight” in that situation, then I think someone has a screw loose. My previous experiences shape my current reaction. I travel with my wife and two kids. I think people entering my camp has a different perspective than probably you. Try looking at it from others' eyes.

There was a rape case a few years back in the BWCAW. There are cases where people have entered camps in the BWCA with guns and threatening people. While rare, they happen.

If I was by myself or with my friends, probably no big deal. With my wife and kids? You're damn right I am uptight, Scat!

T

One word.......Wabakimi.... :)

Savage Voyageur: "I read more and more of stories like this. It really needs to be clearly spelled out in the three videos, an email to the trip leader, and on the back of your permit. There are so many other parks that clearly spell it out. It should read one group at a time at any campsite unless an emergency situation. Or, it should read you can have multiple groups at one campsite. It needs to be spelled out on paper, and in media, emails, and spoken word by outfitters, and rangers to end this confusion. "

Very true SV,

I retired after 30 years working for the federal government, my last 3 years were spent in Alaska as a Fire Prevention and Mitigation Specialist. I often had to put on programs in schools, at fairs, and workshops for the public. I also had to put out PSA's "Public Service Announcements" on the radio and in local papers.

Relaying "Clear and Concise" information to the public is key.

The USFS failed in this area with their response to this situation IMHO. Unfortunately this does not surprise me one bit, three of my 30 years were spent working for the Superior NF, where I experienced this first hand.

While I thought this was a rule - 1 permit per site - has anyone found this in the regulations or any USFS publications? Trying to figure out how a first timer would or should know.

There isn't verbiage stating one permit per site. Here is the phrasing:

Nine (9) people and four (4) watercraft are the maximum
amount allowed gathered together in the wilderness.

You may not exceed this limit at any time or anywhere (on
water, portages, or campsites) in the BWCAW

And this:
All members of a permit group must camp together at one site.
.

"pasty dudes with shirts off".

As I was reading this long thread on sharing a campsite all I could think of was ...white people problems. And there it is in black and white.

Sounds like some should carry no trespassing signs and others could carry all are welcome here signs. Problem solved!

Last year on a seven day loop we had two other groups camp at our site the first night of the trip.

We were on a fairly remote lake off the Gunflint side, we'd set up camp on the last remaining site on the lake. Right around 6pm two canoes come off the portage and onto the lake. A friend gets his binoculars and starts watching them. They look frantic. The two canoes split up and one starts heading our way. We made a quick plan for what to say to them, suggest other sites on the next lake, etc. but as they pulled up we realized we, randomly, knew them. So we welcomed them in, laughed at the irony, and that was all good.

A little while later the second canoe, who unbeknownst to us wasn't traveling with the folks we knew, pulls up. It was a husband and wife, on their anniversary, clearly not having a good time at all, and were way in over their heads. They inquired about camping with us and we explained the situation and suggested a site on an adjacent lake. It was quickly getting dark though.

They paddled off, but came back less than a half hour later, essentially begging us to stay. The husband explained their predicament, his wife had twisted her ankle on the portage and the day was not going well, so we found space for them. As they pulled the canoe out and unloaded it the wife said nothing, at all. As they set up the tent and made dinner, she said nothing. Then she went to bed, and said nothing. The next morning we found the husband up and awake, standing silently outside their tent, very very early. He told us they both hadn't been since they were kids and so for their anniversary went through an outfitter for everything and had no clue how difficult it was going to be. His wife eventually came out of the tent, but again she said nothing, the entire time. Just glared at him every now and then. We quickly packed up our things and headed on our way.

We still wonder if their marriage survived that trip. I tend to think not.

I have probably told this story before, and if so (and you have read it) just ignore and forgive me.

Many years ago we were camped early on Loon Lake. (I believe it was on Loon Lake, but I am not sure the location is germaine to the discussion anyway.) It was a sunny afternoon about 2 or 2:30 PM and we were napping in the warm tent when we heard a canoe approach on our landing.

This was early in a trip when I had really, REALLY been looking forward to the solitude and silence of the BWCA after a tulmultuous ending of the school year. I was pretty frazzled. I asked Spartan1 to go out and talk to the people, and told him that I did not want to share the site under any circumstances. It was early in the afternoon, a June day when we hadn't seen many people at all, and the weather was gorgeous.

My husband is not a confrontational person. He is very low-key when he talks with strangers, and he doesn't present himself as at all threatening. He is also not always firm in what he says. I was in the tent, of course, so I could almost overhear the conversation, and it went sort of like this: "We would like to camp here. We have our elderly father with us and he is tired and doesn't want to go farther. Could we share this site with you?" Spartan1's reply was firm, in my opinion. He said, "We really wanted to have this site to ourselves, that is why we stopped early and made our camp. There are other sites not far from here, it is early, and i am sure you can find something before too long. We would appreciate it if you would move along."

The man left. We assumed that they were leaving. And shortly thereafter, they set up camp (two canoes, two tents) down on the shore of the lake, well within our view of the lake, and actually within earshot of any conversation. They could see us and we could see them all evening.

I was NOT a happy camper! But at that point there didn't seem like much we could do, so we just enjoyed our evening and made the best of the situation. In the morning as we were eating breakfast the man approached our camp and said that his father was disabled and would have to go up and use our latrine. So he and his father trekked through our camp, found the biffy trail, and went up to do their business. They did thank us.

I have thought about this situation many times in the years since. I thought about it when we desperately needed a campsite in bad weather, or late in a day when we couldn't find one. I felt guilty and selfish at the time of the encounter, and I am not sure I would have reacted the same way if I had it to do over again. However, I do think early afternoon on a beautiful day isn't the time to approach a camp and ask to share. Certainly not a time to demand to do so!

The "rules" of the FS are ambiguous, and those of us who have traveled in the BWCA for decades have assumed that a campsite is a private camp for one party. It isn't a "rule" thing, it is, as this thread points out, an "etiquette" thing.

Personally, I think the rule should be changed and be made crystal clear that a campsite is for one party unless that party offers to share in emergency circumstances. But that's just my opinion, and since we no longer take BWCA canoe trips, I don't think my opinion is worth much more than just that. One person's opinion.

Boundary Waters State Park

jillpine: "There isn't verbiage stating one permit per site.
"

So how is a first timer supposed to know this is the usual practice?

The fault lies with the Forest Service. They need to be explicit.

billconner: "

jillpine: "There isn't verbiage stating one permit per site.
"

So how is a first timer supposed to know this is the usual practice?"

I agree the FS had a poor response. I guess for me we went with an outfitter and they made it clear it was one group per site, if you see a group at a site you were to avoid it. In the most recent video for the last time I went to the BWCA (2020( it stated something to the effect people go to the BWCA for more seclusion so please try to give occupied campsites a wider berth… It also states Campsites are first come first serve…not approach occupied campsites to see if they are full…

I’ve done hiking and it was clear that campsites were group or shared. There is nothing in the BWCA language noting this. I think people giving others an out because they must be used to hiking rules is simplistic…I mean go to Europe and drive on the right side of the road and try…”well other places I drive we drive on the right side so it must be the same everywhere? :)” Also the BWCA is a wilderness not a hiking trail—they aren’t the same thing.

Based on all that I’d say you’d have to be an idiot to think campsites were shared…but then the FS comes out with their official response…sheesh…I agree they need to take a stance and set expectations.

T

Maiingan: ""pasty dudes with shirts off".

"

Assumptions…assumptions…my group of friends are all former high school and college FB teammates. Maybe half are pasty :) depending on the year…like I said if anyone came into our camp with that group I wouldn’t be worried…what’s weirder is people never came into our camp with that group…when most of these stories come up it seems to be a husband or wife or someone with kids. Not all the time but the majority…why is that?

T

missmolly: "The fault lies with the Forest Service. They need to be explicit. "

I agree. I have never been for more rules and laws, but times change.

When I was much younger people always left their bwca cabins open, stocked with firewood and some food. Before that my Parents and Grandparents would always stop at the Indian camps and where always welcome. Didn't matter if it was social visit or for a little help. Being able to survive in the area sometimes meant you had to count on the people of the area for a little help.

missmolly: "The fault lies with the Forest Service. They need to be explicit. "

The Bwca is too fragile to be left to chance.
I think the mandatory stop at the ranger station for the videos should re-instated and the LNT rules and other BWCA rules be vigorously and clearly laid out by the FS.
I use the outfitter generated permit system most of the time and don't want to jeopardize that convenience but--
The outfitters have a lot going on and making them responsible for showing the videos and explaining the rules is not fair to hard working business people and IMHO not a effective as a uniformed FS person doing the same.

Maiingan: "

missmolly: "The fault lies with the Forest Service. They need to be explicit. "

I agree. I have never been for more rules and laws, but times change.


When I was much younger people always left their bwca cabins open, stocked with firewood and some food. Before that my Parents and Grandparents would always stop at the Indian camps and where always welcome. Didn't matter if it was social visit or for a little help. Being able to survive in the area sometimes meant you had to count on the people of the area for a little help.


"

My fear is that the Forest Service will appoint a committee to consider this change. The committee will suggest a study. The study will go into budget review. Budget review will form its own committee to consider whether spending 90 seconds to inform the rangers of this rule change, i.e. one paddling group per campsite, is doable, enforceable, and environmentally sound. That committee will meet once and forget to meet again. Nothing will change.

merlyn: "

missmolly: "The fault lies with the Forest Service. They need to be explicit. "

The Bwca is too fragile to be left to chance.
I think the mandatory stop at the ranger station for the videos should re-instated and the LNT rules and other BWCA rules be vigorously and clearly laid out by the FS.
I use the outfitter generated permit system most of the time and don't want to jeopardize that convenience but--
The outfitters have a lot going on and making them responsible for showing the videos and explaining the rules is not fair to hard working business people and IMHO not a effective as a uniformed FS person doing the same. "

I agree. The new (4 or 5 years ago?) Quetico superintendent had same plan - no more outfitter issued permits. He wanted everyone to have face time with a ranger. I don't know if he succeeded and got this done or not. I sensed a lot of resistance, even some of his staff.

Everyone entering gets a half hour or so in front of a ranger (who hopefully adds one permit/group per campsite is the normal practice.)