I just came across an interesting debate on the BWCA Facebook page and thought someone here might know the actual answer. Someone asked about a potential fire ban in the next couple weeks and this led to an interesting exchange between two folks who were both sure they were right. The essence of it was if you are in the BWCA and a fire ban is enacted, are you responsible for knowing? There were some interesting points made by both sides. One said that there is no way of knowing once you're in there and there's nothing you can do until you come across a ranger. The other said that the law and rangers all say that you are responsible, regardless of ignorance. I've never seen any actual policy on this, I've always heard that the rules you go in with apply to your whole trip but if the law (or lack thereof) says otherwise, it would be great to help educate folks (present company included). We always have a weather radio on our trips so we would likely know the next morning or as weather appeared to approach when we listened to the announcements, but I'm curious to know if there is definitive policy on this?

If there is no ban when you go in, you can have fires until told otherwise. Rangers may stop and tell you about the ban if they can. If it is not noted on your permit, I would imagine that you wouldn't get a fine for having a fire during a ban. Ignorance is bliss. Just don't burn down the BWCA.


We will be lucky if there are rangers during this administration...

If a fire ban is put in place after you enter the BWCA and you encounter a ranger, they will inform you of the ban when they check your permit, and write on your permit that they informed you of the ban. After that, you are required to abide by the ban and could be issued a citation if you were caught violating it.

In my experience, the rangers don't expect people to know about things that were implemented after they enter the BWCA. They know when you entered by the date on your permit. For example, a few years ago I was caught by rangers while camping one evening in a closed area of the BWCA. They politely informed me that the area I was in was closed, asked when I'd come into the BWCA and checked my permit. I didn't get into any trouble at all because the closure had happened after my entry date. I was required to make my way out of the closed area, starting the next morning and at a reasonable (but safe) pace, i.e., no stopping to go fishing, etc., but didn't receive a citation or warning or anything.

A couple years ago I went in on the first day of a fire ban. I saw a group already in and told them a fire ban went in place today. They sort of brushed me off, as their fire was going. I went by their camp later in the evening and they must have decided it was prudent not have a fire.

Without knowing the actual answer, I would like to think that any ranger (or anyone else for that matter) would understand that the lack of knowledge is one of the main reasons people go to the BWCA.

Many years ago, I was the first person to advise my parents of what happened on 9/11. They had entered at the Snake River the weekend prior and I saw them on Lake One with another group. Almost an entire week later they had no idea of what had occurred or how the world had changed. Long may it be so.

If you enter with no fire ban and they involve a ban you can still have a fire because you have no idea they put a fire ban on. If a ranger stops by they will mark your permit and tell you no more fires. If you still choose to have fires after your permit has been marked and get caught you will be fined.

Its been well established in judicial precedent that ignorance of the law is not a valid legal argument.

YaMarVa: "Its been well established in judicial precedent that ignorance of the law is not a valid legal argument."

True, but that's not quite what those cases say. As you note, there is a well-established principle that ignorance of the law is no defense. But that is a purely functional presumption based on the necessity of holding people to constructive knowledge of duly enacted laws - statutes, regulations promulgated to flesh out statutes, etc - which govern behavior, set certain obligations, etc. If we did not induglge that presumption, many laws would be difficult to enforce. That presumption does not readily apply to a sudden administrative decision to impose a fire ban when one is off the grid. Imputing knowledge of a fire ban in that circumstance would be like towing your car for violating a no parking order entered w/out notice in the middle of the night while you are asleep. That's probably not how it works....but never say never!

tanvat: "

YaMarVa: "Its been well established in judicial precedent that ignorance of the law is not a valid legal argument."

True, but that's not quite what those cases say. As you note, there is a well-established principle that ignorance of the law is no defense. But that is a purely functional presumption based on the necessity of holding people to constructive knowledge of duly enacted laws - statutes, regulations promulgated to flesh out statutes, etc - which govern behavior, set certain obligations, etc. If we did not induglge that presumption, many laws would be difficult to enforce. That presumption does not readily apply to a sudden administrative decision to impose a fire ban when one is off the grid. Imputing knowledge of a fire ban in that circumstance would be like towing your car for violating a no parking order entered w/out notice in the middle of the night while you are asleep. That's probably not how it works....but never say never!"

Kinda. The two relevant USSC cases establish that a person who is unaware of a law cannot be convicted of violating it if there was no probability they could have known the law existed. I would argue in this scenario, probability does exist. This presumption does apply to administrative rules, Courts often recognize administrative rules but not always to the same extent as statutory laws. Courts generally defer to the expertise of agencies when interpreting and applying their rules, but ultimately, courts have the authority to review and potentially overturn agency actions.

Thinking more about it - when you head into the backcountry and there is no fire ban, that is operative assumption once you head off into the wilds. Those are the rules we are relying on. To say otherwise would be to presume both that a paddler or hiker is not ignorant of an interim administrative fiat because they are assumed to be able to predict all future changes the moment they may be enacted. That's not the same as me being presumed to be aware that stealing is wrong, tax evasion may get me in a jam, or that driving under the influence is a good way lose driving privileges.

tanvat: "Thinking more about it - when you head into the backcountry and there is no fire ban, that is operative assumption once you head off into the wilds. Those are the rules we are relying on. To say otherwise would be to presume both that a paddler or hiker is not ignorant of an interim administrative fiat because they are assumed to be able to predict all future changes the moment they may be enacted. That's not the same as me being presumed to be aware that stealing is wrong, tax evasion may get me in a jam, or that driving under the influence is a good way lose driving privileges. "

I would argue that it is not an operative assumption. I can think of multiple ways someone could still be reasonably informed of the ban once they enter the BWCA.

Fair points - it is an an interesting issue. I'd take my chances on having a fire IF the conditions were right and I could have one on the day I left. Realistically, if conditions are such that a fire ban could be put in place, the fire-prone conditions - dry landscape, low humidity, breezy, etc - counsel in favor of not having an open fire even if you technically could have one as of the date you left. Better safe than sorry. On mountain backpacking trips I'm often psyched at the idea of having a small campfire, but the on-the-ground reality says no or I'm just flat out too tired at the end of day to anything but rack out.

LostInREI: "I just came across an interesting debate on the BWCA Facebook page and thought someone here might know the actual answer. Someone asked about a potential fire ban in the next couple weeks and this led to an interesting exchange between two folks who were both sure they were right. The essence of it was if you are in the BWCA and a fire ban is enacted, are you responsible for knowing? There were some interesting points made by both sides. One said that there is no way of knowing once you're in there and there's nothing you can do until you come across a ranger. The other said that the law and rangers all say that you are responsible, regardless of ignorance. I've never seen any actual policy on this, I've always heard that the rules you go in with apply to your whole trip but if the law (or lack thereof) says otherwise, it would be great to help educate folks (present company included). We always have a weather radio on our trips so we would likely know the next morning or as weather appeared to approach when we listened to the announcements, but I'm curious to know if there is definitive policy on this? "

Quote from above.
"The other said that the law and rangers all say that you are responsible, regardless of ignorance."
One is always responsible for the fire they start no matter if it is a burn ban or not, or a permitted fire. I prescribed burned 35,000 acres in my career. Perhaps that is what the rangers were referring to.

FYI: I do not think NOAA weather radio reports on fire bans, jurisdictional areas would make that hard when the tribe and DNR may not have fire bans, but the USFS does. Not sure.

tanvat: "Fair points - it is an an interesting issue. I'd take my chances on having a fire IF the conditions were right and I could have one on the day I left. Realistically, if conditions are such that a fire ban could be put in place, the fire-prone conditions - dry landscape, low humidity, breezy, etc - counsel in favor of not having an open fire even if you technically could have one as of the date you left. Better safe than sorry. On mountain backpacking trips I'm often psyched at the idea of having a small campfire, but the on-the-ground reality says no or I'm just flat out too tired at the end of day to anything but rack out. "

I agree it’s an interesting legal debate.

Was there a fire ban on May 5, 2007?

If a campfire starts a forest fire, ban or not, there will be legal consequences. Everyone has a responsibility to be careful with their use of fire and ignorance of a ban won't protect anyone.

YaMarVa: "

tanvat: "Thinking more about it - when you head into the backcountry and there is no fire ban, that is operative assumption once you head off into the wilds. Those are the rules we are relying on. To say otherwise would be to presume both that a paddler or hiker is not ignorant of an interim administrative fiat because they are assumed to be able to predict all future changes the moment they may be enacted. That's not the same as me being presumed to be aware that stealing is wrong, tax evasion may get me in a jam, or that driving under the influence is a good way lose driving privileges. "

I would argue that it is not an operative assumption. I can think of multiple ways someone could still be reasonably informed of the ban once they enter the BWCA. "

What ways can you think of that someone would be reasonably informed? You could approach people you see on portages or out on a lake and say, “excuse me, have you spoken with someone else that entered today and did they tell you if any existing laws or regulations have changed?”

If there isn’t a requirement to bring a radio, how would this work?
Even if there were a radio requirement, there is no consistent and reliable source for this type of information. You’d have to listen all day potentially, and there could be a new fire ban, and you still may not know of it.

Would you have to also be monitoring for all regulation changes proactively? Changes to fishing regs, food storage regs, etc.

brp: "

YaMarVa: "

tanvat: "Thinking more about it - when you head into the backcountry and there is no fire ban, that is operative assumption once you head off into the wilds. Those are the rules we are relying on. To say otherwise would be to presume both that a paddler or hiker is not ignorant of an interim administrative fiat because they are assumed to be able to predict all future changes the moment they may be enacted. That's not the same as me being presumed to be aware that stealing is wrong, tax evasion may get me in a jam, or that driving under the influence is a good way lose driving privileges. "

I would argue that it is not an operative assumption. I can think of multiple ways someone could still be reasonably informed of the ban once they enter the BWCA. "

What ways can you think of that someone would be reasonably informed?…. "

1) A FS Ranger. Over my 20+ years of trips I’ve been informed of information many times from FS Rangers. I was informed by a Ranger of the fire ban in 2023.
2) Other Travelers. I learn a lot of information from other travelers.
3) Sat phones. I’d guess half of BWCA travelers carry some form of Sat phone. Maybe even more than half do now days.

More unreasonable ways include the fact that no where in the BWCA is unreachable in under 1.5 days of travel, so information can be shared in a reasonable amount of time. And, Id also argue, if you’re entering the BWCA you should be knowledgeable about the current fire conditions to make educated decisions about having a campfire.

Doesn’t everyone pack a weather radio along? I don’t think I’ve ever tripped without a weather radio. I have been mid trip at least two times now where a fire ban was started a few days into my trip. Both times, I learned of the fire ban on my weather radio. A ranger probably won’t ticket you, but anybody who has a weather radio has no excuse for ignorance.

Tony

GopherAdventure: "Doesn’t everyone pack a weather radio along? I don’t think I’ve ever tripped without a weather radio. I have been mid trip at least two times now where a fire ban was started a few days into my trip. Both times, I learned of the fire ban on my weather radio. A ranger probably won’t ticket you, but anybody who has a weather radio has no excuse for ignorance.


Tony"

+1

GopherAdventure: "Doesn’t everyone pack a weather radio along? I don’t think I’ve ever tripped without a weather radio. I have been mid trip at least two times now where a fire ban was started a few days into my trip. Both times, I learned of the fire ban on my weather radio. A ranger probably won’t ticket you, but anybody who has a weather radio has no excuse for ignorance.


Tony"

I’ve been tripping for 35+ years and have never needed or used a weather radio. I’ve used my inreach to get weather updates, but it doesn’t provide fire ban info.

What if you were to enter the wilderness planning to cook over a fire, not bringing a stove and fuel with you, and a fire ban is put in place after you have started your trip?

Is it always safe to cook over a designated fire if there is not a fire ban?

I took an 18 day trip early in 2023. On the morning of my last day 2 rangers visited my camp and told me there was a fire ban. I was surprised and said I had not known that. They said they understood since I had entered well before the ban. There were no consequences.

Although I had not had many fires on that trip, I did have a fire the previous night. There is a certain level of shame you suffer from being ‘that guy’.

When I got home my wife told me she had alerted me through my Inreach device when the fire ban was announced. I looked back on my messages and saw where she had said ‘no fire ban in effect’. I had mistakenly read that message thinking she said there was still no fire ban. We agreed that next time she would tell me a fire ban was announced.

One Tin Soldier: "What if you were to enter the wilderness planning to cook over a fire, not bringing a stove and fuel with you, and a fire ban is put in place after you have started your trip?


Is it always safe to cook over a designated fire if there is not a fire ban?

"

Once you have been informed of a fire ban you cannot cook over a fire. You will fined and probably banned if caught. They expect you to be prepared.

T

YaMarVa: "

brp: "

YaMarVa: "

tanvat: "Thinking more about it - when you head into the backcountry and there is no fire ban, that is operative assumption once you head off into the wilds. Those are the rules we are relying on. To say otherwise would be to presume both that a paddler or hiker is not ignorant of an interim administrative fiat because they are assumed to be able to predict all future changes the moment they may be enacted. That's not the same as me being presumed to be aware that stealing is wrong, tax evasion may get me in a jam, or that driving under the influence is a good way lose driving privileges. "

I would argue that it is not an operative assumption. I can think of multiple ways someone could still be reasonably informed of the ban once they enter the BWCA. "

What ways can you think of that someone would be reasonably informed?…. "

1) A FS Ranger. Over my 20+ years of trips I’ve been informed of information many times from FS Rangers. I was informed by a Ranger of the fire ban in 2023.
2) Other Travelers. I learn a lot of information from other travelers.
3) Sat phones. I’d guess half of BWCA travelers carry some form of Sat phone. Maybe even more than half do now days.


More unreasonable ways include the fact that no where in the BWCA is unreachable in under 1.5 days of travel, so information can be shared in a reasonable amount of time. And, Id also argue, if you’re entering the BWCA you should be knowledgeable about the current fire conditions to make educated decisions about having a campfire.
"

While I completely agree that being able to make educated decisions about having a fire or not is the absolute minimum that anyone should do, I don't agree with the ways one may be "informed".

My first BWCA trip was when I was two years old (I think) and I've been going semi-regularly ever since. At no time have I ever taken a weather radio (If they even give fire ban updates.... LindenTree cast doubt on this), a Sat Phone or frankly any other GPS/texting device. Additionally, I've spoken to rangers inside the park less than five times ever. That leaves talking to other travelers... and personally I never go out of my way to strike up a conversation. I'm happy to talk if someone wants, but the best part of the wilderness is the solitude and quiet, I have no interest in messing that up for others.

I guess to me it comes down to paying attention and being smart when using any fire at all. We're all probably lucky that the majority of people who use the BWCA care enough to notice the conditions and make typically good decisions. Hopefully we can keep that up so more/new regulations aren't levied.

Barca: "

YaMarVa: "

brp: "

YaMarVa: "

tanvat: "Thinking more about it - when you head into the backcountry and there is no fire ban, that is operative assumption once you head off into the wilds. Those are the rules we are relying on. To say otherwise would be to presume both that a paddler or hiker is not ignorant of an interim administrative fiat because they are assumed to be able to predict all future changes the moment they may be enacted. That's not the same as me being presumed to be aware that stealing is wrong, tax evasion may get me in a jam, or that driving under the influence is a good way lose driving privileges. "

I would argue that it is not an operative assumption. I can think of multiple ways someone could still be reasonably informed of the ban once they enter the BWCA. "

What ways can you think of that someone would be reasonably informed?…. "

1) A FS Ranger. Over my 20+ years of trips I’ve been informed of information many times from FS Rangers. I was informed by a Ranger of the fire ban in 2023.
2) Other Travelers. I learn a lot of information from other travelers.
3) Sat phones. I’d guess half of BWCA travelers carry some form of Sat phone. Maybe even more than half do now days.



More unreasonable ways include the fact that no where in the BWCA is unreachable in under 1.5 days of travel, so information can be shared in a reasonable amount of time. And, Id also argue, if you’re entering the BWCA you should be knowledgeable about the current fire conditions to make educated decisions about having a campfire.
"

While I completely agree that being able to make educated decisions about having a fire or not is the absolute minimum that anyone should do, I don't agree with the ways one may be "informed".


My first BWCA trip was when I was two years old (I think) and I've been going semi-regularly ever since. At no time have I ever taken a weather radio (If they even give fire ban updates.... LindenTree cast doubt on this), a Sat Phone or frankly any other GPS/texting device. Additionally, I've spoken to rangers inside the park less than five times ever. That leaves talking to other travelers... and personally I never go out of my way to strike up a conversation. I'm happy to talk if someone wants, but the best part of the wilderness is the solitude and quiet, I have no interest in messing that up for others.


I guess to me it comes down to paying attention and being smart when using any fire at all. We're all probably lucky that the majority of people who use the BWCA care enough to notice the conditions and make typically good decisions. Hopefully we can keep that up so more/new regulations aren't levied. "

Legally the only way you could be fined for a fire is if the FS met you in the BWCA and told you there was a fire ban and then marked your permit that you were informed.

Now as others have pointed out if you make poor decisions and cause a massive fire it really doesn’t’t matter if a fire ban is in place or not. You are always responsible for your actions.

T

GopherAdventure: "Doesn’t everyone pack a weather radio along? I don’t think I’ve ever tripped without a weather radio. I have been mid trip at least two times now where a fire ban was started a few days into my trip. Both times, I learned of the fire ban on my weather radio. A ranger probably won’t ticket you, but anybody who has a weather radio has no excuse for ignorance.


Tony"

Did you learn of a fire ban or a red flag warning? NWS doesn't issue fire bans. USFS does. Not saying you didn't hear what you say but it's quite confusing in how the two agencies overlap in informing or not this critical information.
I had a weather radio on Iron (Curtain Falls one) in 2007 during the Ham Lake fire. (we actual had smoke ) --Went in knowing about a fire ban but never once heard it on the weather radio. Several other times - same thing during a ban. But that is just my experience.
Right now red flag warnings are going on and not anywhere near a fire ban from what I understand ( maybe I'am wrong) - diligence with open flames for sure (like always) but a complete fire ban is not what a red flag warning is for. Just my .02

@Barca, the judicial standard in reasonability isn’t were YOU reasonably informed, it is, could someone be reasonably informed. I’d argue, yes, a person could be reasonably informed of this information within a few days while in the BWCA. The fact that YOU don’t talk to Rangers or other travels or carry a sat phone doesn’t negate that someone could be reasonably informed. That is how it is generally applied in the courts. Though, I’ve been in court enough to know you win some arguments and you lose some.

Thanks for the back and forth.

YaMarVa: "@Barca, the judicial standard in reasonability isn’t were YOU reasonably informed, it is, could someone be reasonably informed. I’d argue, yes, a person could be reasonably informed of this information within a few days while in the BWCA. The fact that YOU don’t talk to Rangers or other travels or carry a sat phone doesn’t negate that someone could be reasonably informed. That is how it is generally applied in the courts. Though, I’ve been in court enough to know you win some arguments and you lose some.


Thanks for the back and forth. "

You're implying that our legal system is confusing and uncertain at times?! I'm shocked I tell you. :) Now if we can only get common sense to prevail half the time, our worry about any significant human caused fires could be eliminated. Sadly not holding my breath on that one. Interesting topic though. Happy paddling!

There have been in the past forums on this subject-often fire ban

Barca: "

YaMarVa: "@Barca, the judicial standard in reasonability isn’t were YOU reasonably informed, it is, could someone be reasonably informed. I’d argue, yes, a person could be reasonably informed of this information within a few days while in the BWCA. The fact that YOU don’t talk to Rangers or other travels or carry a sat phone doesn’t negate that someone could be reasonably informed. That is how it is generally applied in the courts. Though, I’ve been in court enough to know you win some arguments and you lose some.



Thanks for the back and forth. "

You're implying that our legal system is confusing and uncertain at times?! I'm shocked I tell you. :) Now if we can only get common sense to prevail half the time, our worry about any significant human caused fires could be eliminated. Sadly not holding my breath on that one. Interesting topic though. Happy paddling! "

Haha, pretty much. Taker easy.

May 10, 2025


The National Weather Service has issued a Red Flag Warning for several counties in northwest Minnesota from 11 a.m. to 10 p.m. today, May 10, due to extreme fire danger.

Affected counties include Beltrami, Clearwater, Kittson, Lake of the Woods, Marshall, Pennington, Polk, Red Lake, and Roseau.

A Red Flag Warning means fires can spread quickly and grow out of control under the predicted weather conditions, including high winds and low relative humidity. Do not burn in counties where a Red Flag Warning is in effect and check any recent burning to ensure the coals are completely out cold.

“When fire risk is this high it’s important to be careful with anything could spark a wildfire,” said Karen Harrison, DNR wildfire prevention specialist.

The DNR will not issue or activate open burning permits during the Red Flag Warning, and campfires are discouraged.

Additionally, a Fire Weather Watch has been issued for 61 counties for tomorrow, May 11, where strong winds and low relative humidity are predicted to produce near-critical fire weather conditions. Outdoor burning is discouraged. Fire Weather Watches are evolving situations and could quickly progress to Red Flag conditions. Visit the National Weather Service for updates.

For more information and daily updates visit the statewide fire danger and burning restrictions page of the DNR website.

To receive text updates on current wildfire risk and open burning restrictions in Minnesota text “FIRE” to 66468.

Appreciate you all diving into this. I wasn't sold either way, but I think if it's even close to a ban, we will just plan to cook on the small stoves. All of our meals are dehydrated anyway (other than fresh fish), so it shouldn't be too big of a deal unless we have some kind of emergency and miraculously lose both bags that contain a stove and fuel. Would be a bit of a bummer with no fire as sitting around the fire with the group I go with is one of the things I really look forward to, but certainly not a dealbreaker. Tight lines.

The purpose of a ban is to reduce the chance of a forest fire. Regardless of a ban, you can still be held responsible for starting a forest fire. A debate on the technicalities of when a rule can be enforced is interesting conversation. The bigger picture to me is whether or not most folks would control their own fire making when presented with wind, extreme dryness and nearby combustibles.