Hi Everyone,
I have a ton of backpacking experience but not a lot of BWCA experience. My question for the group is what would you do if you ended up on shore because of wind conditions that were unsafe for your skill level and the weather didn’t calm enough to leave the site. The equivalent of being wind bound at a site, without the site? Obviously, no campfire but do you go ahead and set up a tent or hammock and stay the night? It seems like maybe not quite an emergency but? Interested in people’s thoughts on the subject (I tried to search for a similar question but didn’t find anything).

Yes. Once the decision has been made not to leave the site because of sustained winds, make camp and practice leave minimal trace/impact. More the likely this will occur on the end of a portage so you will have room to set up.

In these circumstances LNT suggests that you stay where you are and minimize impact on the location. Anytime that rescue resources are called in there's going to be a more significant trace than simply avoiding the dangerous conditions and hunkering down. I would even argue that in some situations it would be okay to start a campfire, namely to stave off hypothermia.

Really you shouldn’t get into this situation. And I don’t think the forest service would let you camp where you are. Get an early start if you think the winds will be bad, don’t travel as far as you intended, or maybe don’t travel that day at all.
I had a group of young kids who were not experienced. The winds were 30-4mph ripping down Kawishiwi River. I realized this isn’t the way to go. It was our last day. I contemplated staying one more night, but I realized we could exit Little Gabbro and avoid the winds. We made it out and thankfully our outfitter drove down past our original exit point and they found us. Had we not had that option, we would have stayed put.

It happens and the wise a crazy decision is stay put and camp for the night but minimize impact. Once coming out of Gull lake into Bald Eagle I tried to continue and got about 20 yards out into the lake solo. It was so I just got of the side of the portage waited to almost dark and pitched the tent there. Got going again at daatbreak and made it out. I honestly don't think,no I know I would of capsized if I went out that night.
No one is going to fine you if you do what I did. But maybe sometimes you push yourself right away and leave the designated campsite. Bad decision from the start.
Also I many trips now I have that extra day planned from the beginning to get out if needed.
Also traveled after dark a few times or get up just before daybreak to beat the winds.
Be safe, don't push yourself for ego or otherwise.

While I prefer to follow the rules and do my best to accomplish this through good planning and good decision making, the human factor can come into play resulting in errors. Even if you are doing quite well, nature can sometimes do the unexpected.

It's easy to say that one should never get into a situation where you'd have to consider breaking the rules but s*** happens. If or when it does, I will asses what the risk is of proceeding within the rule vs the safety of breaking the rule. That assesment includes consideration of the least skilled members of the group. In reality, the fact that you may have to deal with the unexpected and that there may be at least some risk in your planned trip is is a part of the whole appeal of a wilderness adventure.

Thankfully, over dozens of BWCA trips, I've only had to make such an assesment a few times and only once did I feel that our situation weighed us toward breaking the rule in the name of safety by camping at a non-designated spot. Given the circumstances I doubt that we'd have been fined but I would have accepted one in the name of what I felt was the best decision for the situation. In retrospect I don't know much that we would have done differently and would probably make that same decision again. We moved on the next day with as minimum impact as we could.

When you think about it, when a rescue is initiated, the authorities themselves sometimes "break the rules", but it is the right decision for the situation.

LNT should be (used/observed/practiced/whatever word you prefer) if at all possible, and at all times.

However, it's never worth a human life to pick not staying/making a fire ect if it's someone's life on the line. The forest will re-grow in time, you will not.

So long as you do the best you can based on your knowledge and skill set to avoid bad situations nobody should ever judge or be angry with you. Use a bad situation to learn, but safety must always come first. Your life cannot be replaced.

I'm not sure how I feel about advising to avoid bad decisions—it's as if most people don't already do that in most situations, or as if bad decisions can be completely avoided in the first place. If everything could be predicted there’d be no need for life jackets, would there?

Of course, in the wild, the consequences can be far more severe than in the city, and naturally, our decision-making process should reflect that. But for the same reason, out there it also becomes much harder to predict which choice will turn out to be the wrong one an hour or two later.

The choices we face out there are far less structured and more vaguely defined than those in everyday life—and most people (me for sure) have difficulty handling such ambiguity all that well. There are no streets, no traffic lights, no layered rules, no guard rails.
If you're wind-bound, don’t waste time feeling guilty—just do what’s necessary to keep your group safe. Set up camp if needed. Build a fire. It's not an adventure if you don't survive it.

I think the big decision is not where you camp, but how you camp. If you leave the site so nobody knows you were ever there, that is all you can do.

This situation can absolutely happen in unforeseen fashion.

Example: I was in Quetico and had left Mack lake on the third day of our trip and headed down the Wawiag River. As we entered Kawnipi, it was clear we had no business being on the lake and we quickly pulled over in an area adjacent to the mouth of the river that is not open for camping. Human life had to take priority. Now, about an hour before sunset the winds relented enough that we decided to go for it and move. But if the winds hadn't let up, we would have stayed. There was no way to anticipate the winds on the winding river, so we just had to do the best we could to respect the closed area.

Agree with the replies. My only additional thought is that in a true "emergency" situation the cost of a ticket isn't even a consideration when avoiding life threatening conditions. As irritating as a ticket would be, it is relatively minor compared to risking your crew.

Dolpho: "Agree with the replies. My only additional thought is that in a true "emergency" situation the cost of a ticket isn't even a consideration when avoiding life threatening conditions. As irritating as a ticket would be, it is relatively minor compared to risking your crew."

no one is going to ticket anyone if conditions are harsh. Also if conditions are that harsh how is the ranger even going to get where your camping. He or she is not going to be stupid enough to paddle around when they might lose their life also.
Name one instance-just one someone got ticketed for playing it safe. There is none.

Just do what you need to do.

eagle98mn: "This situation can absolutely happen in unforeseen fashion.


Example: I was in Quetico and had left Mack lake on the third day of our trip and headed down the Wawiag River. As we entered Kawnipi, it was clear we had no business being on the lake and we quickly pulled over in an area adjacent to the mouth of the river that is not open for camping. Human life had to take priority. Now, about an hour before sunset the winds relented enough that we decided to go for it and move. But if the winds hadn't let up, we would have stayed. There was no way to anticipate the winds on the winding river, so we just had to do the best we could to respect the closed area."

I'm likely missing something so apologies in advance, but you can camp anywhere in Quetico. It does not have to be a designated campsite. How was this area "not open for camping"? Just curious.

HangLoose: "

eagle98mn: "This situation can absolutely happen in unforeseen fashion.



Example: I was in Quetico and had left Mack lake on the third day of our trip and headed down the Wawiag River. As we entered Kawnipi, it was clear we had no business being on the lake and we quickly pulled over in an area adjacent to the mouth of the river that is not open for camping. Human life had to take priority. Now, about an hour before sunset the winds relented enough that we decided to go for it and move. But if the winds hadn't let up, we would have stayed. There was no way to anticipate the winds on the winding river, so we just had to do the best we could to respect the closed area."

I'm likely missing something so apologies in advance, but you can camp anywhere in Quetico. It does not have to be a designated campsite. How was this area "not open for camping"? Just curious."

No. In recent years there have been several "no camping" zones established due to cultural or sensitive/rare resources. The Wawiag River and head of Kawa Bay is one of them.

Should be a last resort decision. Keep impact minimal. When I have seen canoeist who need help I have invited them to my campsite for the night if need be. The US side of the BW has a lot of campsites with people on them. Many would be willing to help/share. In quetico, less likely and you may have to wing it.

A little birdie has told me that the BWCA Rangers have done this same thing/bushwacked in the past.

We left a site and traveled for the day aware of the weather forecast via weather radio. The wind and waves came up surprisingly and much more than forecast and we waited on shore without a nearby site until sundown with no reprieve. We camped as lightly as possible, obviously no fire, and in the morning fluffed up under where we slept and used a white pine bow to erase our footprints and canoe marks above the water line on the beach area. We were safe, no harm no foul. As noted in other posts, it was highly unlikely or impossible anyone, including rangers, could have been on the water to find us anyway. Safety first and do what's necessary.

When it comes to human safety vs following the rules, safety should win out every time. End of discussion.

Pinetree: "

Dolpho: "Agree with the replies. My only additional thought is that in a true "emergency" situation the cost of a ticket isn't even a consideration when avoiding life threatening conditions. As irritating as a ticket would be, it is relatively minor compared to risking your crew."

no one is going to ticket anyone if conditions are harsh. Also if conditions are that harsh how is the ranger even going to get where your camping. He or she is not going to be stupid enough to paddle around when they might lose their life also.
Name one instance-just one someone got ticketed for playing it safe. There is none."

I wasn’t suggesting anyone has, should, or would be ticketed in this situation.

The point I was attempting to make is that the worse thing that can happen from a rules standpoint is a ticket by a ranger and even if that were to occur it would be trivial in a harsh “emergency” situation.

Regulations are regulations, but Rangers are understanding of situations, but may address the same situation differently. Camping at non site at 4pm when you have 6 more hours of daylight or still being camped at a non site at 9am vs being gone at 5 am are things they would consider. Don’t make it worse by violating additional regulations such as having a fire or not properly disposing of waste and cutting live veg. Find a spot that is more LNT friendly if possible, bald rock vs crunching lichen and ripping up moss. Clean up after yourself and make it look like no one was there. That being said, it is still a violation which you are allowed to contest in court if you receive a ticket, but Rangers generally take in the totality of the situation and use their discretion off of that.

arctic: "

HangLoose: "

eagle98mn: "This situation can absolutely happen in unforeseen fashion.



Example: I was in Quetico and had left Mack lake on the third day of our trip and headed down the Wawiag River. As we entered Kawnipi, it was clear we had no business being on the lake and we quickly pulled over in an area adjacent to the mouth of the river that is not open for camping. Human life had to take priority. Now, about an hour before sunset the winds relented enough that we decided to go for it and move. But if the winds hadn't let up, we would have stayed. There was no way to anticipate the winds on the winding river, so we just had to do the best we could to respect the closed area."

I'm likely missing something so apologies in advance, but you can camp anywhere in Quetico. It does not have to be a designated campsite. How was this area "not open for camping"? Just curious."

No. In recent years there have been several "no camping" zones established due to cultural or sensitive/rare resources. The Wawiag River and head of Kawa Bay is one of them."

Arctic nailed it. We were informed at the Cache Bay station of the restricted areas when we told them of our planned loop. It has been a few years now, but if my memory is correct the restriction extended through the first 3 islands SW of the mouth of the Wawiag.

eagle98mn: "

arctic: "

HangLoose: "

eagle98mn: "This situation can absolutely happen in unforeseen fashion.




Example: I was in Quetico and had left Mack lake on the third day of our trip and headed down the Wawiag River. As we entered Kawnipi, it was clear we had no business being on the lake and we quickly pulled over in an area adjacent to the mouth of the river that is not open for camping. Human life had to take priority. Now, about an hour before sunset the winds relented enough that we decided to go for it and move. But if the winds hadn't let up, we would have stayed. There was no way to anticipate the winds on the winding river, so we just had to do the best we could to respect the closed area."

I'm likely missing something so apologies in advance, but you can camp anywhere in Quetico. It does not have to be a designated campsite. How was this area "not open for camping"? Just curious."

No. In recent years there have been several "no camping" zones established due to cultural or sensitive/rare resources. The Wawiag River and head of Kawa Bay is one of them."

Arctic nailed it. We were informed at the Cache Bay station of the restricted areas when we told them of our planned loop. It has been a few years now, but if my memory is correct the restriction extended through the first 3 islands SW of the mouth of the Wawiag."

I believe another such area is the Man chain - at least that's what I was told last summer when I picked up my permit at Prairie Portage. (You can still camp in this area, but you need to camp at an established site and stay on the site, not explore the woods or shoreline around it, and not expand it, etc.)

Quetico Provincial Park has designated areas where camping is not permitted, particularly in regions considered sacred or culturally significant.

No Camping Areas:

Sacred Grounds: Certain locations within the park are recognized as sacred by Indigenous communities. Camping is restricted in these areas to respect cultural heritage.
Designated Zones: Specific zones may be marked as no camping areas to protect wildlife, ecosystems, or for safety reasons.
Regulations:

Visitors should check the latest regulations from Ontario Parks or the Quetico Provincial Park website for updated information on camping restrictions and sacred sites.
It is advisable to obtain a map of the park that highlights no camping zones.
Cultural Sensitivity:

Respect for Indigenous lands and practices is crucial. Engaging with local Indigenous communities can provide deeper insights into the significance of these areas

Another reason that hammock camping rocks. Hardly any damage to plants compared to a tent footprint.

What I'd go with if became an issue. This is not legal advice.
In criminal law , a necessity defense claims the actor’s illegal conduct was the necessary lesser of two evils in a situation threatening specific harm to the actor or others. Generally, a successful necessity defense must prove:

The actor acted to prevent injury to the actor or someone else;
The actor had no reasonable alternative;
The actor did not create greater danger than the danger avoided;
The actor actually believed the illegal conduct was necessary to prevent the threatened harm or evil;
A reasonable person would have also believed the illegal conduct was necessary in the circumstances and
The actor did not substantially contribute to the emergency.

Eliminate poor decision making and you don't get yourself into the situation.

toastedmarshmallow12: "Eliminate poor decision making and you don't get yourself into the situation. "

Mostly true, but wind and weather can change quickly and unexpectedly and weather forecasts can be wrong, and people can get caught in an area with no campsites, or where all campsites safely reachable are already occupied.

toastedmarshmallow12: "Eliminate poor decision making and you don't get yourself into the situation. "

You must be the smartest person in the world.

toastedmarshmallow12: "Eliminate poor decision making and you don't get yourself into the situation. "

In the situation I described earlier in this thread, the exact opposite was true: eliminate poor decision making and you find yourself in a situation in which safety requires you camp in a location without an official campsite.

toastedmarshmallow12: "Eliminate poor decision making and you don't get yourself into the situation. "

It must be nice being the only person in the world who never makes a poor decision ;)

toastedmarshmallow12: "Eliminate poor decision making and you don't get yourself into the situation. "

So, let me know how my poor decision making led to this situation. Beautiful, sunny day. Portaged into Ogish about 12:30pm with the intention of finding a campsite. As soon as we arrived on the lake, we could now see a major t-storm front approaching so we beelined for the nearest campsite. Full. Next one, full, then full and so on. The front was bearing down fast. We were paddling race pace in a 3-person canoe desperately checking each campsite. The gust front hit hard but we were still able to paddle as we steadily eliminated each and every site. Except there was a closed site (marked closed on map and had no fire grate). Now the lightning had started and was very frequent. Not safe to be on the water and the only possible sites to check were on the south end with no guarantee any would be empty. We decided the only safe move was to stop at the closed site. We just set up our tent and cooked a quick dinner on our stove. Fortunately, the site shared a biffy with another nearby site so we had a toilet. We left very early the next morning after cleaning up numerous abandoned items from some other group that had camped there illegally. I think the only poor decision would have been to continue in unsafe conditions. However, because of that day, I have determined that I will never plan to camp on Ogish again, I don't even plan trips that go through it and prefer to keep away from such a busy lake.

It also happens coming off a lake you portage into a bigger lake and the lake being calm on the lake just left, your hit with direct winds coming into the landing with huge waves. Like Baily bay in Quetico(yes I know you can camp anywhere there, but the physical situation is the same) or Snowbank, some have tried and failed on those lakes when they should of stayed put.
NO ONE IS GOING TO QUESTION YOUR DECISION. EXCEPT YOUR LOVED ONES IF YOU NEVER COME HOME. PLAY IT SAFE.
It also pays to be a day late getting home than never going home alive.

"Live by the rules, not die by them"

bottomtothetap: ""Live by the rules, not die by them""

This is the boundary waters semi wilderness. No need to die if you have a choice. If in danger I would camp in your back yard.

Hey don’t be so hard on Toastedmarshmellow12…

We don’t know the total context of the comment…

When I first read it, I thought of all the times I see people come rolling into an entry point at 3PM or later. When the wind is typically at its worst. Then have to make an improvised campsite or share because everything is taken. DUH!!! That’s a bad decision…

I think we can all agree if the conditions warrant you do what need to do to be safe, I doubt the poster meant there is never a time where it could be warranted…but let’s face it there are people that make bad decisions too.

T

egknuti: "I had a group of young kids who were not experienced. The winds were 30-4mph ripping down Kawishiwi River. I realized this isn’t the way to go. It was our last day. I contemplated staying one more night... "

Similar situation, same place. I was with 4 Boy Scouts and 3 dads. We were camped on the easternmost site on Clear Lake. The wind was bad on our final day and the decision was made(erroneously) to leave, assuming the river would give us some cover. WRONG, and no one gave a thought to the conditions on Farm Lake. We passed numerous places where people took refuge along the way. We made it to the entry point on Farm Lake where the waves were 2-3 ft high it seemed. We were going to stay there over nite when another guy informed us that he had called the outfitter who was coming in his john boat to get him. It was the same outfitter we used. He took us all back and his staff retrieved our gear the next day. It was quite harrowing on the river and worse on the lake. (The vote to leave camp that day was 3-1, I lost)