BWCA Hedging bets? Boundary Waters Listening Point - General Discussion
Chat Rooms (0 Chatting)  |  Search  |   Login/Join
* BWCA is supported by its audience. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission.
 Forum Sponsor

Author

Text

OHPaddler
member (23)member
  
02/02/2025 02:14PM  
I’m wondering how many of my fellow paddlers needed to hedge bets re: this paddling season. The RABC pause, Trump trade war and (to a lesser degree) talk of a 51st state have all added some level of uncertainty to planning a canoe trip to Canada. Did anyone else pull a permit in the BWCA just in case plans for Canada fall through?
 
      Print Top Bottom Previous Next
moosedoggie
distinguished member (207)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
02/02/2025 03:14PM  
Yes. We may end up staying on the US side of Basswood.
 
KawnipiKid
distinguished member (270)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
02/02/2025 04:02PM  
Yes. This is not a year I can go up and around to enter the Q from the north. I have a Snowbank permit and will enjoy using it. If RABC somehow comes back, I'll likely turn it in and find a stray permit to get to the border or will do a day permit/tow combo to PP or American Point/Cache Bay. I posted several weeks back expressing optimism the RABC program will return this season but, as of now, have lost that optimism. I'm not optimistic about much of anything except that a BW trip, any trip, will be restorative for the soul as usual.
 
02/02/2025 05:09PM  
...yes, I'm nervous about getting into Canada this year... usually,I've used the BWCA in May to get the rust out, then spend 3 weeks or so in the Woodland Caribou during the summer. October/November: back in the BWCA...but the tone of discussion from both sides of the border has kept me thinking about getting into Canada...hopefully, I'm wrong...and can paddle both regions...as I hope all of you can.
 
Jackfish
Moderator
distinguished member(8027)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
02/02/2025 08:29PM  
How would any talk about making Canada our 51st state or anything related to a trade war make any difference to being able to go to Quetico, Woodland Caribou or anywhere else? Do you really think they're going to close the border? They went two years during Covid with the border closed or strict regulations about crossing. They're not going to do that again.
 
OHPaddler
member (23)member
  
02/02/2025 09:44PM  
Maybe? RABC is paused, trade war is in full swing, commander in chief is talking about making Canada a state. It added just enough uncertainty for me.
 
EmmaMorgan
senior member (91)senior membersenior member
  
02/03/2025 07:20AM  
I’m among those who reserved a BWCA permit in case the RABC program isn’t restarted either at all or in time to get RABCs issued before a June trip. The elimination of the Pacific Crest Trail permit program last week made me less optimistic about the future of the RABCs.
PCT permits eliminated

I already had a Carp permit reserved but now have a Moose Lake permit reserved as well. If things were as they were a year ago I wouldn’t have reserved the BWCA permit. But we are planning to keep both permits and do a combined Quetico/BWCA trip if we are able to get RABCs.

For my solo Quetico trip this year I was already planning to enter from the north so haven’t reserved a backup BWCA permit. I’m waiting to see whether Canada will put any restrictions on travelers, such as reducing or eliminating personal use exemptions. (I’m fully self-outfitted so it could get expensive if I had to pay a tax/duty on all the gear I’d be bringing to Canada.) If things change I’ll do a BWCA trip instead with whatever permit I can get at the time of the trip.
 
billconner
distinguished member(8869)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
02/03/2025 06:26PM  
Jackfish: "Serious question and absolutely nothing political with my intent.... how would Trump's BS talk about making Canada our 51st state or anything related to a trade war make any difference to being able to go to Quetico, Woodland Caribou or anywhere else? Do you really think they're going to close the border? They went two years during Covid with the border closed or strict regulations about crossing. They're not going to do that again."


Not political (is that like saying with all due respect) but the Canadians are booing the US anthem at hockey games in Canada.
 
Jackfish
Moderator
distinguished member(8027)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
02/03/2025 07:45PM  
billconner: "
Jackfish: "Serious question and absolutely nothing political with my intent.... how would Trump's BS talk about making Canada our 51st state or anything related to a trade war make any difference to being able to go to Quetico, Woodland Caribou or anywhere else? Do you really think they're going to close the border? They went two years during Covid with the border closed or strict regulations about crossing. They're not going to do that again."

Not political (is that like saying with all due respect) but the Canadians are booing the US anthem at hockey games in Canada. "

People from the US who want to go to Quetico, Woodland Caribou, Wabakimi or anywhere else in Canada will still be able to go and enjoy themselves, just as they have been.
 
billconner
distinguished member(8869)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
02/04/2025 05:03AM  
"The tariffs and other trade war crap will have nothing directly to do with tourism."

I don't agree. They're angry and scared, boycotting US products, and canceling travel to US.
 
02/04/2025 05:55AM  
I am certainly hoping for no border issues. Another buddy and I are putting together a Canadian trip which will be a reunion trip with some Wabakimi Project past participants we haven’t paddled with for a number of years.
 
02/04/2025 07:04AM  
billconner: ""The tariffs and other trade war crap will have nothing directly to do with tourism."


I don't agree. They're angry and scared, boycotting US products, and canceling travel to US."


I think you are making a big assumption. It’s an opinion…and as with all opinions you could be right…but politically comparing people booing in Toronto to Western Ontario is like comparing Los Angelas, CA to Pierre, SD…same country but completely different priorities and political affiliations.

Trudeau’s approval rating is 33%. In contrast Trumps approval rating is right around 50% (historically low for a new President but comparatively high). To close the borders down and cause further economic harm to his citizens would be political suicide. Trudeau might be on the way out, but he has to care about his party’s future? So I would assume the other way. Once again just an opinion and I might be wrong, but to me that’s where the data leads when you leave out emotions.

Most of this talk is political posturing, not much will happen and I also think most Canadians know that. I don’t personally like it or agree, but I also don’t think in the end much will happen based off of previous history (2016-2017).

T
 
Jackfish
Moderator
distinguished member(8027)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
02/04/2025 08:11AM  
billconner: ""The tariffs and other trade war crap will have nothing directly to do with tourism."

I don't agree. They're angry and scared, boycotting US products, and canceling travel to US."

Bill, the original post in this thread is about concerns that people potentially might not be able to go TO CANADA. The post, and my response, has nothing to do with Canadians coming to the US.
 
KawnipiKid
distinguished member (270)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
02/04/2025 09:48AM  
Jackfish: "Serious question and absolutely nothing political with my intent.... how would Trump's BS talk about making Canada our 51st state or anything related to a trade war make any difference to being able to go to Quetico, Woodland Caribou or anywhere else? Do you really think they're going to close the border? They went two years during Covid with the border closed or strict regulations about crossing. They're not going to do that again."

My hedging so far is strictly based on the RABC issue. In earlier threads, I was optimistic the RABC or something like would come back. I'm no longer optimistic.

Yes, I can go to Canada for another trip and don't think the border will close. But if I was planning that, I would be hedging due to the discomfort of driving and parking my Wisconsin plates around Canada right now, even without an American flag sticker on my bumper. I'm a proud American and love Canada. While I have always thought that visiting, making friends and spending money best support our mutual friendship and being good neighbors, I would hedge at this time.
 
02/04/2025 12:14PM  
So sad and embarrassed as a U.S. citizen that this is even an issue! To blame our long time friends and world allies to the north for a trade imbalance and our problems with illegal fentanyl is ludicrous. Good news is that U.S. deaths from fentanyl overdose is down 51% in 2024. We know the ingredients to produce fentanyl come primarily from China and are produced in Mexican based labs. Best estimates are 98% of this enters our country through Mexico with perhaps 1% through Canada.

Regarding our trade deficit, this deficit with Canada in 2024 was the second smallest behind only France. This deficit being only 4% of the total U.S. trade deficit, 1/8th the size with China and 1/5th the size with Mexico. "Geography has made us neighbors and history has made us friends" John F Kennedy.

We hear constantly the need for secure borders. My question would be, what other country in the world would you rather have as a border neighbor?

 
thegildedgopher
distinguished member(1760)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
02/04/2025 02:30PM  
Well said, Freddy.

Yes, I am hedging. Our normal spot on the Canadian side of Saganaga (non-Quetico) is, for all intents and purposes, inaccessible without an RABC permit. I booked a BWCA permit for late September to give us as much possible time to pivot if the RABC permits were to become available again.
 
portagedog09
distinguished member (210)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
02/04/2025 03:39PM  
Back on topic.....

Yeah, hedging for sure. Plan A is RABC/Prairie Portage. Plan B is to drive up through International Falls/Fort Frances and enter the north side. This is for the second trip. For the first trip, Plan A is Plan B. Already have a Baptism Creek entry reservation for that. And it can't get here soon enough! I agree with Jackfish on there not being a problem entering Canada.

pd
 
02/04/2025 04:04PM  
portagedog09: "Back on topic.....


Yeah, hedging for sure. Plan A is RABC/Prairie Portage. Plan B is to drive up through International Falls/Fort Frances and enter the north side. This is for the second trip. For the first trip, Plan A is Plan B. Already have a Baptism Creek entry reservation for that. And it can't get here soon enough! I agree with Jackfish on there not being a problem entering Canada.


pd"


Hedging here, too. While we prefer late-August early-September trips, we're not confident in the return of the RABC by then, so our Plan A is your Plan B...

TZ
 
ockycamper
distinguished member(1583)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
02/04/2025 04:22PM  
"Serious question and absolutely nothing political with my intent.... how would Trump's BS talk about making Canada our 51st state "

Not political?
 
Jackfish
Moderator
distinguished member(8027)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
02/04/2025 04:32PM  
ockycamper: ""Serious question and absolutely nothing political with my intent.... how would Trump's BS talk about making Canada our 51st state "

Not political?"

Ocky... please include the rest of my sentence... " or anything related to a trade war make any difference to being able to go to Quetico, Woodland Caribou or anywhere else?

Going on a canoe trip to Canada has nothing to do with the trade wars or tariffs.
 
ockycamper
distinguished member(1583)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
02/04/2025 05:10PM  
your last sentence makes my point
 
02/04/2025 05:57PM  
Back on topic… no worries about a trip to Canada that doesn’t involve an RABC.

RABC…I have no confidence this will be resolved in time for trips. I want to be wrong on this for sure. I don’t think it will matter if tariffs are done or not…more on the inadequacies of government to get something done.

T
 
billconner
distinguished member(8869)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
02/04/2025 06:25PM  
I did not imply difficulty entering Canada. I was suggesting that US citizens might be unwelcomed by some Canadian citizens. Just Google "canadians vandalizing US cars".
 
thegildedgopher
distinguished member(1760)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
02/04/2025 06:32PM  
It would be nice if folks at least acknowledged that there are certain specific areas and kinds of trips that are basically not accessible without the RABC. They are definitely the exception, but it doesn’t make it won’t impact certain people’s plans— and the financial impact on the businesses is potentially severe if they don’t get this sorted out.

Re: “it’s not political.” My 2 cents that nobody asked for: any time someone feels the need to qualify their statement with such a disclaimer, you can almost guarantee that somebody somewhere is going to disagree, take offense, or take it upon themselves to turn it political. While I’m certain that’s not your intent here, jackfish, I also think that as a moderator you’ve probably seen this enough times to know the potential pitfalls. (See recent locked thread in quetico forum.) So part of me is a little confused why you’d even choose to attempt to thread this particular needle when we know there’s a high probability it won’t end well.
 
02/04/2025 06:33PM  
Freddy: " So sad and embarrassed as a U.S. citizen that this is even an issue! To blame our long time friends and world allies to the north for a trade imbalance and our problems with illegal fentanyl is ludicrous. Good news is that U.S. deaths from fentanyl overdose is down 51% in 2024. We know the ingredients to produce fentanyl come primarily from China and are produced in Mexican based labs. Best estimates are 98% of this enters our country through Mexico with perhaps 1% through Canada.

Regarding our trade deficit, this deficit with Canada in 2024 was the second smallest behind only France. This deficit being only 4% of the total U.S. trade deficit, 1/8th the size with China and 1/5th the size with Mexico. "Geography has made us neighbors and history has made us friends" John F Kennedy.

We hear constantly the need for secure borders. My question would be, what other country in the world would you rather have as a border neighbor?

"
I agree with you-2024 numbers
U.S. Customs own figures 2024 results:
Fentanyl (seized in 2024): From Canada to the U.S.: 43 pounds and From Mexico to the U.S. a total of 21,148 pounds From U.S. to Canada: 882 pounds (Figures on fentanyl seizures supplied by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.)'
 
02/05/2025 07:38AM  
billconner: " Just Google "canadians vandalizing US cars". "


I did Google this exact statement and ironically the first whole page of results were from way back in 2020 when Canadians were vandalizing fellow Canadian cars because some Canadians had US plates. During COVID some Canadians thought they were entering Canada illegally and took the law into their own hands…but instead were just damaging fellow Canadians cars LOL…nice to see the US doesn’t have the market cornered on idiocracy LOL.

BTW…the max fine in Canada is $5,000/ 2 years in jail for car vandalism…sounds like they take it seriously…over 1 Million Canadians live in the US and have US license plates…So when you see anything about US cars being vandalized it is most likely Canadian cars being vandalized LOL…just punching the numbers vs. the odds…

My final point is this is whether it’s a US car or Canadian car it’s a Canadian issue…won’t affect the RABC nor Border crossings. I am sure you can find idiot US citizens that do this too.

T
 
Jackfish
Moderator
distinguished member(8027)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
02/05/2025 12:27PM  
I have edited my posts in this thread to take out words, phrases and/or paragraphs that a few have found to be political. I didn't delete the posts completely because what's done is done, nor did I edit anyone else's post that included my original commentary.

I will simply state that my comment was based on how silly it was for "you know who" to make the comment about making Canada our 51st state. We all know it will never happen so, as POTUS, why say it?

This thread unexpectedly went south on me and I should have known better than to even try to interject anything that even hints at political talk. It's part of the reason I hate politics so much. I'll do better next time. Peace.
 
KawnipiKid
distinguished member (270)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
02/05/2025 01:27PM  
Jackfish: "I have edited my posts in this thread to take out words, phrases and/or paragraphs that a few have found to be political. I didn't delete the posts completely because what's done is done, nor did I edit anyone else's post that included my original commentary.

I will simply state that my comment was based on how silly it was for "you know who" to make the comment about making Canada our 51st state. We all know it will never happen so, as POTUS, why say it?

This thread unexpectedly went south on me and I should have known better than to even try to interject anything that even hints at political talk. It's part of the reason I hate politics so much. I'll do better next time. Peace."


Thanks much, Jackfish. I appreciate your approach to this under the circumstances. You do a good job with the sometimes tougher than it should be task of keeping us on the rails.
 
02/06/2025 12:31AM  
I’ll go back to my and Howie’s previous posts about moderation…

A thankless, unappreciative, excessively over analyzed job :)

Thanks!!!

T
 
ItascaBirder
member (26)member
  
02/06/2025 05:04PM  
I'm seeing posts with qualifiers along the lines of "not being political...".

I can't find the forum rules anywhere--are politics not allowed? Like it or not, politics has a HUGE impact on the BWCA. For example, one party is much more fervent about mining in the BWCA watershed. Are we supposed to pretend this isn't true to avoid hurting the feelings of the people voting for that party?
 
billconner
distinguished member(8869)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
02/06/2025 06:09PM  
ItascaBirder: "I'm seeing posts with qualifiers along the lines of "not being political...".

I can't find the forum rules anywhere--are politics not allowed? Like it or not, politics has a HUGE impact on the BWCA. For example, one party is much more fervent about mining in the BWCA watershed. Are we supposed to pretend this isn't true to avoid hurting the feelings of the people voting for that party?"

Mining shall not be discussed here.
 
ItascaBirder
member (26)member
  
02/06/2025 07:51PM  
billconner: "
ItascaBirder: "I'm seeing posts with qualifiers along the lines of "not being political...".

I can't find the forum rules anywhere--are politics not allowed? Like it or not, politics has a HUGE impact on the BWCA. For example, one party is much more fervent about mining in the BWCA watershed. Are we supposed to pretend this isn't true to avoid hurting the feelings of the people voting for that party?"

Mining shall not be discussed here."

Is that in the forum rules or just something posters have to "know"?
 
thegildedgopher
distinguished member(1760)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
02/06/2025 08:05PM  
I don’t think there are any explicit rules. But what typically happens once discussions veer toward politics is people are incapable of being respectful or others have thin skin, barbs are traded and then the thread gets locked, effectively ending the productive discussion that preceded the politics. What’s the point?
 
ItascaBirder
member (26)member
  
02/09/2025 06:47AM  
thegildedgopher: "I don’t think there are any explicit rules. But what typically happens once discussions veer toward politics is people are incapable of being respectful or others have thin skin, barbs are traded and then the thread gets locked, effectively ending the productive discussion that preceded the politics. What’s the point?"


I guess the point is that pretending or wishing something isn't true doesn't make it so. The BWCA exists in its current state at the mercy of the federal government and the wisdom of the people we put in charge of that government. If you vote for candidates and parties with stated goals that are antagonistic to the long-term health and existence of the BWCA, you should be fully aware of the consequences of that. This is a forum for people who love the BWCA to discuss their experiences, find answers to questions, and share views on issues that impact the BWCA. I fail to see why people who care about the BWCA should self-censor about important topics to avoid stirring guilt or anger in a subset of people who enjoy the BWCA but vote in ways that leave the area at risk of degradation or other negative impacts.

If I vote for a candidate who promises, among other things, to eliminate housing assistance, it is not everyone else's responsibility to keep me in the dark about the suffering of homeless people so I can go about my day unaware of the result of my choice. If we actually care about the preservation of the generational treasure that is the BWCA and passing it down in the best condition possible, we should be clear and open about the risks to the BWCA, even if that makes some people uncomfortable. At best, a good discussion might get thoughtful people to reconsider their choice...at the bottom line, discussion is the only tool we have in a democratic system, assuming we have a system that is at least partially responsive to the will of the people.

But, I don't run the forum, so if discussing the greatest threats to the BWCA and being explicit about which political interests are behind those threats is not allowed on BWCA.com, then I can accept this as a place for fishing tips, gear reviews, etc. There are other places available for conversations about protecting the BWCA. We didn't ask for these concerns; very few people here WANT to have to worry about how mining, development, land transfers, policy changes, and other exploitation threatens the places we treasure but the people in charge--generally people who have no appreciation for the value of wilderness or anything else outside of money and power--have seen fit to foist these issues upon us.
 
eagle98mn
distinguished member (176)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
02/09/2025 07:59AM  
ItascaBirder: "If you vote for candidates and parties with stated goals that are antagonistic to the long-term health and existence of the BWCA, you should be fully aware of the consequences of that."


I don't disagree with much of what you said in theory. In practice, I think many are also simply fatigued of circling the same conversations - at least I will admit to that fatigue.

My best friend and tripping buddy disagrees with me politically on a bunch of topics. He is very rooted in his party and I am more independent. We have talked, argued even, about BWCA and other issues to the point that there really is nothing new to add to the conversation anymore. I have learned to accept that we can have different opinions, even over a beloved place like the BWCA, because I value his friendship more than his vote and I don't want to spend life arguing with him. So we mostly just let the topics sit, understanding we disagree and that's just how it will be. I still love spending time with him and his family.

That's similar to what we have here in the forum. I think many of us value the people, experiences, advice, etc. on this board and don't want to see that community pulled apart over issues where minds are largely made up. We know where the conversations lead, the facts are already out there, and opinions have already been formed. It makes it harder to discuss a place that we all love when there is tension between individuals on here, and is the tension worth it when minds are made up? I haven't seen a single post online about someone changing their BWCA-adjacent political opinions, much less switching party affiliations! :)

Topic at hand - I'm staying south of the border simply because that was my plan this year. I would be making backup plans if I was counting on an RABC because governments are involved. I'm not super concerned about traveling into Canada by road this year, mostly because I do have an optimistic view that most people will treat each other well and its the actions of a few that get the headlines. :)
 
thegildedgopher
distinguished member(1760)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
02/09/2025 03:02PM  
Itascabirder— I think Eagle really covers most of what I would have posted above. I agree with nearly everything you said. And to be honest, I agreed with what jackfish first posted as well. I’m not worried about protecting anyone’s feelings but when threads get locked, something real gets lost. And I have yet to see any thread about mining survive the lock. People can’t play nice, simple as that.
 
ockycamper
distinguished member(1583)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
02/09/2025 03:10PM  
ItascaBirder: "
thegildedgopher: "I don’t think there are any explicit rules. But what typically happens once discussions veer toward politics is people are incapable of being respectful or others have thin skin, barbs are traded and then the thread gets locked, effectively ending the productive discussion that preceded the politics. What’s the point?"



I guess the point is that pretending or wishing something isn't true doesn't make it so. The BWCA exists in its current state at the mercy of the federal government and the wisdom of the people we put in charge of that government. If you vote for candidates and parties with stated goals that are antagonistic to the long-term health and existence of the BWCA, you should be fully aware of the consequences of that. This is a forum for people who love the BWCA to discuss their experiences, find answers to questions, and share views on issues that impact the BWCA. I fail to see why people who care about the BWCA should self-censor about important topics to avoid stirring guilt or anger in a subset of people who enjoy the BWCA but vote in ways that leave the area at risk of degradation or other negative impacts.


If I vote for a candidate who promises, among other things, to eliminate housing assistance, it is not everyone else's responsibility to keep me in the dark about the suffering of homeless people so I can go about my day unaware of the result of my choice. If we actually care about the preservation of the generational treasure that is the BWCA and passing it down in the best condition possible, we should be clear and open about the risks to the BWCA, even if that makes some people uncomfortable. At best, a good discussion might get thoughtful people to reconsider their choice...at the bottom line, discussion is the only tool we have in a democratic system, assuming we have a system that is at least partially responsive to the will of the people.


But, I don't run the forum, so if discussing the greatest threats to the BWCA and being explicit about which political interests are behind those threats is not allowed on BWCA.com, then I can accept this as a place for fishing tips, gear reviews, etc. There are other places available for conversations about protecting the BWCA. We didn't ask for these concerns; very few people here WANT to have to worry about how mining, development, land transfers, policy changes, and other exploitation threatens the places we treasure but the people in charge--generally people who have no appreciation for the value of wilderness or anything else outside of money and power--have seen fit to foist these issues upon us."


It is clear from your post that you and I do not share the same political views. Like others, I would like to keep the BWCA forums simply for tripping info. But if you open it up with comments like the above you should also be aware that the majority of voters voted for the current administration. Your views, therefore, could quite possibly be in the minority of BWCA trippers. I love the BWCA as well as you do. But I am not part of a "subset" of voters, but rather the majority of voters that voted for the current policies that are being put in place. Do you really want to open the door to those types of conversations?

Time to get things back to tripping.
 
ItascaBirder
member (26)member
  
02/09/2025 03:23PM  
I understand where you and Eagle are coming from, so I'll avoid discussing issues that are arguably more important than much of what is discussed here. I know the politicians and parties and lobbyists cannot be swayed on these issues, so it makes sense to have spaces to make the interest group in the electorate aware of what is happening and why it matters. This may not be one of those spaces.

Like it or not (and I don't), the threats are resurfacing at this moment and we'll be forced to deal with them, even if it means people struggle to keep their emotions and civility in check. If the checks on short-sighted greed and unrelenting development fail to hold back the damage, the damage will occur, even if the people who voted against those checks tell themselves a story that they didn't mean for that to happen or that the failure of the checks was good somehow.
 
02/09/2025 03:57PM  
ockycamper: "
ItascaBirder: "
thegildedgopher: "I don’t think there are any explicit rules. But what typically happens once discussions veer toward politics is people are incapable of being respectful or others have thin skin, barbs are traded and then the thread gets locked, effectively ending the productive discussion that preceded the politics. What’s the point?"




I guess the point is that pretending or wishing something isn't true doesn't make it so. The BWCA exists in its current state at the mercy of the federal government and the wisdom of the people we put in charge of that government. If you vote for candidates and parties with stated goals that are antagonistic to the long-term health and existence of the BWCA, you should be fully aware of the consequences of that. This is a forum for people who love the BWCA to discuss their experiences, find answers to questions, and share views on issues that impact the BWCA. I fail to see why people who care about the BWCA should self-censor about important topics to avoid stirring guilt or anger in a subset of people who enjoy the BWCA but vote in ways that leave the area at risk of degradation or other negative impacts.



If I vote for a candidate who promises, among other things, to eliminate housing assistance, it is not everyone else's responsibility to keep me in the dark about the suffering of homeless people so I can go about my day unaware of the result of my choice. If we actually care about the preservation of the generational treasure that is the BWCA and passing it down in the best condition possible, we should be clear and open about the risks to the BWCA, even if that makes some people uncomfortable. At best, a good discussion might get thoughtful people to reconsider their choice...at the bottom line, discussion is the only tool we have in a democratic system, assuming we have a system that is at least partially responsive to the will of the people.



But, I don't run the forum, so if discussing the greatest threats to the BWCA and being explicit about which political interests are behind those threats is not allowed on BWCA.com, then I can accept this as a place for fishing tips, gear reviews, etc. There are other places available for conversations about protecting the BWCA. We didn't ask for these concerns; very few people here WANT to have to worry about how mining, development, land transfers, policy changes, and other exploitation threatens the places we treasure but the people in charge--generally people who have no appreciation for the value of wilderness or anything else outside of money and power--have seen fit to foist these issues upon us."



It is clear from your post that you and I do not share the same political views. Like others, I would like to keep the BWCA forums simply for tripping info. But if you open it up with comments like the above you should also be aware that the majority of voters voted for the current administration. Your views, therefore, could quite possibly be in the minority of BWCA trippers. I love the BWCA as well as you do. But I am not part of a "subset" of voters, but rather the majority of voters that voted for the current policies that are being put in place. Do you really want to open the door to those types of conversations?


Time to get things back to tripping."

I think you just did-open the door
 
02/09/2025 03:58PM  
thegildedgopher: "Itascabirder— I think Eagle really covers most of what I would have posted above. I agree with nearly everything you said. And to be honest, I agreed with what jackfish first posted as well. I’m not worried about protecting anyone’s feelings but when threads get locked, something real gets lost. And I have yet to see any thread about mining survive the lock. People can’t play nice, simple as that."

Yes, the most important issue confronting the future of the BWCA, which we all love, but can't talk about its future.
 
ItascaBirder
member (26)member
  
02/09/2025 05:15PM  

It is clear from your post that you and I do not share the same political views. Like others, I would like to keep the BWCA forums simply for tripping info. But if you open it up with comments like the above you should also be aware that the majority of voters voted for the current administration. Your views, therefore, could quite possibly be in the minority of BWCA trippers. I love the BWCA as well as you do. But I am not part of a "subset" of voters, but rather the majority of voters that voted for the current policies that are being put in place. Do you really want to open the door to those types of conversations?


Time to get things back to tripping."


I'm not moved by argumentum ad populum. 32% of eligible voters voting to degrade the BWCA doesn't mean the damage won't occur or that the people who voted for it understood the implications for the BWCA or even considered them at all. Even if I were the only person advocating for protecting the BWCA from the damage of the various interests that threaten it, I'd rather have the clear conscience that comes from opposing those interests.

 
billconner
distinguished member(8869)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
02/09/2025 06:25PM  
Just a technical fact. The current administration did not have a majority of the votes, just 49.8% I believe, and the people of Minnesota most affected by this issue not even a plurality. Hopefully the issue is left to the people of Minnesota.
 
campnfish
distinguished member(537)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
02/09/2025 06:54PM  
My RABC is valid so no change of plans.
 
Minnesotian
distinguished member(2456)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
02/09/2025 08:28PM  
Pinetree: "
thegildedgopher: "Itascabirder— I think Eagle really covers most of what I would have posted above. I agree with nearly everything you said. And to be honest, I agreed with what jackfish first posted as well. I’m not worried about protecting anyone’s feelings but when threads get locked, something real gets lost. And I have yet to see any thread about mining survive the lock. People can’t play nice, simple as that."

Yes, the most important issue confronting the future of the BWCA, which we all love, but can't talk about its future.
"


Yeah, agreed. Don't look up!
 
mgraber
distinguished member(1565)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
02/10/2025 02:38AM  
billconner: "Just a technical fact. The current administration did not have a majority of the votes, just 49.8% I believe, and the people of Minnesota most affected by this issue not even a plurality. Hopefully the issue is left to the people of Minnesota. "


The other side only had 48.3, so it did, in fact, get the majority...for better or for worse.
 
billconner
distinguished member(8869)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
02/10/2025 05:55AM  
mgraber: "
billconner: "Just a technical fact. The current administration did not have a majority of the votes, just 49.8% I believe, and the people of Minnesota most affected by this issue not even a plurality. Hopefully the issue is left to the people of Minnesota. "



The other side only had 48.3, so it did, in fact, get the majority...for better or for worse."


Plurality, not majority. Not half. So, in fact, not a majority.
 
ockycamper
distinguished member(1583)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
02/10/2025 09:23AM  
Regardless of terminology, more voters voted for the current admnistration then the other alternatives. That group is not a subset. I also think that it is way off to imply that those that voted for this administration hate the environment and voted for its demise. When you look at a breakout of red vs blue votes. . . by county. . . you can clearly see it is urban areas vs the rest of the nation. I live in a rural/suburban state and area. People in my state and area put a great deal of money into conservation efforts, and not just through the money we pay in fishing and hunting licenses.

The BWCA is owned and managed by the federal government. It belongs to us all. Not just the people in Minnesota.
 
02/10/2025 10:17AM  
ockycamper: "Regardless of terminology, more voters voted for the current admnistration then the other alternatives. That group is not a subset. I also think that it is way off to imply that those that voted for this administration hate the environment and voted for its demise. When you look at a breakout of red vs blue votes. . . by county. . . you can clearly see it is urban areas vs the rest of the nation. I live in a rural/suburban state and area. People in my state and area put a great deal of money into conservation efforts, and not just through the money we pay in fishing and hunting licenses.


The BWCA is owned and managed by the federal government. It belongs to us all. Not just the people in Minnesota. "


And all the lakes are owned by the State of Minnesota per the state constitution. I'd be fine with transferring the whole area to the State of Minnesota as long as many red states want to do that with fed lands in their states. Could be a fantastic money-maker for us, because the place is unique in the USA.
 
      Print Top Bottom Previous Next
Listening Point - General Discussion Sponsor:
Rockwood Outfitters