I received an email from our outfitter yesterday asking us to write the forest service in support of tows. Apparently, due to a law suit, they are taking public comments on tow services through the end of the year.

Does anyone know how likely it is they will ban tows? We use them in Saganaga and Seagull. Most of our guys are 50's to late 60's. If they did not have access to two services from Voyageur to Red Rock portage, we would have to go to a different lake.

No idea on if the Forest Service will ban the tow services. I gave my 2 cents to them in the email link that was provided a month ago. I wonder if they will use the results of the responses to determine the outcome. I would suggest that everyone send in their comments and thoughts, no matter if it for or against the tows.

I wonder if the Forest Service is like my sister-in-law? She asks for advice when her mind is already made up.

My understanding is the lawsuit is about bringing the number of tows back to the previously agreed limits (from an old lawsuit settlement). The lawsuit accuses the Forest Service of allowing 3 times as many and the plaintiffs are trying to get courts to order compliance. The Forest Service has no interest in ending tow boat service as they see too many benefits. But the group bringing the lawsuit did ask for a temporary injunction that would put a moratorium on tows until the matter is settled. The initial request for that was denied last summer or fall I believe.

bobbernumber3: "I wonder if the Forest Service is like my sister-in-law? She asks for advice when her mind is already made up."

Your sister-in-law sounds like a well reasoned and insightful individual to me.

I don't ask for opinions before my mind is made up. After I've done my best, that's when I'll ask others why they might think my thoughtful and therefore well reasoned opinions could possibly be w er wro ..... suboptimal in their specific little neighborhoods.

Hey, you never know.

uqme2: "

bobbernumber3: "I wonder if the Forest Service is like my sister-in-law? She asks for advice when her mind is already made up."

Your sister-in-law sounds like a well reasoned and insightful individual to me."

WRONG!

I would be shocked if tows were eliminated. Tows were a part of the original compromise that established the BWCA. To eliminate tows completely would mean opening up that act for amendment, which would then open the door for reducing or getting rid of the BWCA wilderness designation.

I think tows will continue to be available, but some sort of restrictions will be put into place. Such as tow boats can only operate during certain hours, or there can only be so many round trips in one day, or a tier system for the number of tows each outfitter can supply.

If you want to read a novel about it, this forum had a big ol' discussion about it back in May/June: https://bwca.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=forum.thread&threadId=1321515&forumID=12&confID=1&vt=1682145078

One never knows, but from the Wilderness Act of 1978 I am pretty sure that the FS cannot ban tows.

They can certainly limit them.

If you read the motor numbers established by the Wilderness Act, the current motor numbers appear to be well under the maximum that was set.

My guess is if the FS does a huge reduction in tows there would be merit to do a lawsuit by the other side…so the FS will try to come up with a solution both sides find palatable. Minnesotian makes a good point on possible solutions.

I think that is impossible as the side currently bringing the lawsuit to the FS seems to think motors should be banned in the BWCAW…the previous compromise didn’t seem to have legal merit and was more of voluntary request that did not work. At least according to the new lawsuit.

Although creating a larger non-motorized area of the BWCAW would be great…it simply is legally impossible. The Wilderness Act of 1978 is very clear on that.

T

straighthairedcurly: "My understanding is the lawsuit is about bringing the number of tows back to the previously agreed limits (from an old lawsuit settlement). The lawsuit accuses the Forest Service of allowing 3 times as many and the plaintiffs are trying to get courts to order compliance. The Forest Service has no interest in ending tow boat service as they see too many benefits. But the group bringing the lawsuit did ask for a temporary injunction that would put a moratorium on tows until the matter is settled. The initial request for that was denied last summer or fall I believe. "

agree, on the part usage has got out of control, moderation please.