FS Fee proposal

I support them and would like to see them go directly back to the BWCA

What are they, I have no idea?

This is from the SNF webpage. User fees for youth would go from $8 to $20 and for adults from $16 to $40. Still appears to be a one time charge up front. Sounds good to me.



Proposed Recreation Fee Changes
The Superior National Forest has not raised fees since 2008. In that time, wilderness ranger staffing and maintenance costs for points of entry, portages and campsites have increased substantially.

We are proposing an increase in Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness fees to:

Fee Current Fee Proposed Change
Per Youth Per Trip $8.00 $20.00
Per Adult/Senior Per Trip $16.00 $40.00

I'm for it!

lindylair: "This is from the SNF webpage. User fees for youth would go from $8 to $20 and for adults from $16 to $40. Still appears to be a one time charge up front. Sounds good to me.



Proposed Recreation Fee Changes
The Superior National Forest has not raised fees since 2008. In that time, wilderness ranger staffing and maintenance costs for points of entry, portages and campsites have increased substantially.


We are proposing an increase in Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness fees to:


Fee Current Fee Proposed Change
Per Youth Per Trip $8.00 $20.00
Per Adult/Senior Per Trip $16.00 $40.00
"

Good deal, still if fees go up, hope it stays at home-the BWCA

Thanks for the update and info

I'm in favor - ideally they go even higher to eliminate some of the double booking issues we see today.

I am in favor of raising prices but don't want to overprice so families with kids can't afford to bring everyone on a trip.

Mocha: "I am in favor of raising prices but don't want to overprice so families with kids can't afford to bring everyone on a trip."

Agree-but children should go higher also-how much?

I'm in favor of it, sounds like the USFS is able to keep 80% of revenue collected from user fees.

"In 2004, Congress passed the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act which allows the Forest Service to retain at least 80% of the money collected at recreation sites and use these funds locally to operate, maintain, and improve these sites."

I'm guessing these fees are spread out through the entire USFS recreation programs in the nation but not sure. It would seem otherwise, that the Superior NF being the most heavily visited wilderness in the system would generate alot more money than some of the lesser used wilderness systems, many that do not charge a fee for wilderness camping or other recreation sites outside of the wilderness system.

Uff-da that's a big increase all at once. I'm worried about it pricing out families and newbies who want to enjoy the BWCA.

I'm all for paying more if it's what we need to keep the BWCA alive, but going straight to a 250% increase all at once is a little steep. I think a phased increase would be more palatable to the general public.

A lot of people going to the BWCA also have equipment rentals to pay for on top of the permit fee. I'm also worried this will add extra cost and make it too exclusive for the average person who wants to go.

Can't even go to a movie with popcorn and a soda for $40.
Still the best deal going even at the higher fee.
I do have to wonder why the senior/adult difference, $16 vs $40.
If $24 is a problem, you have bigger ones.

alpinebrule: "Can't even go to a movie with popcorn and a soda for $40.
Still the best deal going even at the higher fee.
I do have to wonder why the senior/adult difference, $16 vs $40.
If $24 is a problem, you have bigger ones.
"

agree and pretty cheap for maybe a 5 day trip when you think one night in a motel is or one meal at aa restaurant now.
A person has to remember operating expense has went way up in the last 15 years. Probably if they don't change the law senior citizens with the Senior discount card it would still be 50% off. So many seniors going now.

Agree, way past time to increase prices. The cheapest thing on a BWCAW trip is the permit. My gas from the Twin Cities cost more than my Family's permit. So I don't buy into it won't be affordable. People will complain...they always do...

With the new prices my family cost would roughly be $120...for what...a week in the BWCAW? Still a great deal.

I'd like to also see less refunded on the back end when people cancel to recoup the lost revenue on all the cancels. Seems like most industries are going to this now, as people seem to overbook/hoard everything now a days.

I'd also feel better about the increase if I knew enforcement/education was increased.


T

timatkn: "Agree, way past time to increase prices. The cheapest thing on a BWCAW trip is the permit. My gas from the Twin Cities cost more than my Family's permit. So I don't buy into it won't be affordable. People will complain...they always do...


With the new prices my family cost would roughly be $120...for what...a week in the BWCAW? Still a great deal.


I'd like to also see less refunded on the back end when people cancel to recoup the lost revenue on all the cancels. Seems like most industries are going to this now, as people seem to overbook/hoard everything now a days.


I'd also feel better about the increase if I knew enforcement/education was increased.
Agree-for many it would cost more just to get there,quite a bargain.


T


"

Looks like the day use motor permits stay the same. Hummmm

I support it, IF the money stays in the BW. Knowing the government, I have some doubts about that...

Mocha: "I am in favor of raising prices but don't want to overprice so families with kids can't afford to bring everyone on a trip."

Family of 5 here. $56 to $140 stings on top of renting multiple canoes.

I’m not saying I don’t get it, but this makes the family trip hurt a whole lot more than my trip with friends.

I am all for it as well. If it means opening ranger stations again for permits and puts some people back to work up there then its well worth it. Maybe it will keep away the yahoo's like we experienced at the end of May on Lake Three.

Also here is a link where you can leave a public comment if you want.

Mpls Tribune
Individual fees to travel into the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness will more than double beginning in 2027 under a proposal unveiled Monday by the U.S. Forest Service.

The agency said in a news release that more money is needed because “wilderness ranger staffing and maintenance costs for points of entry, portages and campsites have increased substantially.”

The fee for an adult would increase from $16 to $40 per trip; for a youth, from $8 to $20.

Fees into the BWCAW, in the Superior National Forest, haven’t increased since 2008, the agency said.

The Forest Service said on its webpage that the increased fees will “go right back to the national forest” and that visitors will see improvements. The extra fees also will support search-and-rescue expenses.

Three open houses are scheduled to learn more about the proposal:

In-person, 4 to 6 p.m. July 14, Kawishiwi District Office in Ely
Virtual, 4 to 6 p.m. July 15
In-person, 4 to 6 p.m. July 22, Gunflint District Office in Grand Marais

Learn how to submit a comment or offer feedback via email or online at bit.ly/bwcawfeecomment. The deadline to comment is Sept. 2.

I recently solo camped in Northern Highland American Legion State Forest in northern Wisconsin for 5 nights for $95 and at Twelve Mile Beach Campground in Pictured Rocks in the UP for 4 nights for $100 plus fees. The proposed change, while big percentage-wise, doesn't come close to the "going rate" these days. All are still a great value and the BW will be at $40.

I'm all for it. I just got back from a road trip out west with the family during which we camped at a series of state, national, and county parks. Paying $6.00 a slim bundle for pine, nightly fees, poor fishing, etc. all had me missing the incredible value of a BW's trip.

I look forward to digging into the details more. Overall, I think it is good thing. I hope they increase the cancellation fees to discourage the rush to book trips with little penalty.

I am curious what change or how this is written such that the additional dollars will be funneled back into the BWCA. My understanding from past conversations with the Forest Service is all the fees that come from permits and their cut from cooperators goes back to Washington. They get allocated a budget from Washington to operate on. It looks like this is across the entire eastern region so maybe it is presume they will all get more?

All of you people who are for it should have been sending the government extra money every year with a note saying this is for the BWCA. This increase will do nothing to protect our favorite place.

Chieflonewatie: "All of you people who are for it should have been sending the government extra money every year with a note saying this is for the BWCA. This increase will do nothing to protect our favorite place."

I couldn't disagree with this more. If you really want the BWCA to be around you find a way to make it more financially sustainable and raising fees does that. The people that are using it need to be the people that are paying for it.

Chieflonewatie: "All of you people who are for it should have been sending the government extra money every year with a note saying this is for the BWCA. This increase will do nothing to protect our favorite place."

Many of us do donate to various organizations...who hopefully manage and allocate thier funds better than the government. Me sending the government more money randomly, does nothing to fix the well established issues with the BWCA Permit system (Permit Hoarding, Double Booking, etc...). I'm hopeful this will help, even if just a little.

adam: "
I look forward to digging into the details more. Overall, I think it is good thing. I hope they increase the cancellation fees to discourage the rush to book trips with little penalty.


I am curious what change or how this is written such that the additional dollars will be funneled back into the BWCA. My understanding from past conversations with the Forest Service is all the fees that come from permits and their cut from cooperators goes back to Washington. They get allocated a budget from Washington to operate on. It looks like this is across the entire eastern region so maybe it is presume they will all get more?



"

some confusion exists or clarity where the money goes from the permit. No fault of anyone,we just need clarity. Maybe I later today or someone closer to the USFS can ask this question?
The old question is "Well did you ask them"?

I also agree with the increases provided they go back to the park. This is still a bargain!

I'm okay with a fee increase, but I would like it to change to a fee/night like the fees in Quetico.
We live close by so my wife and I go in one day, fish until dark, spend the night, and then exit the next day. An $80 charge for one night seems kind of high.

I support this change. Reasonable.

Chieflonewatie: "All of you people who are for it should have been sending the government extra money every year with a note saying this is for the BWCA. This increase will do nothing to protect our favorite place."

So, what is your suggestion? Keep things the same? I wish they would jack the rate to a daily fee per person as Quetico does.

eagle98mn: "

Mocha: "I am in favor of raising prices but don't want to overprice so families with kids can't afford to bring everyone on a trip."

Family of 5 here. $56 to $140 stings on top of renting multiple canoes.


I’m not saying I don’t get it, but this makes the family trip hurt a whole lot more than my trip with friends."

$84 makes your family trip "hurt a whole lot more?" Come on!

When I talk with outfitters, they consistently share concerns about the declining number of young people visiting the BWCA. They worry about the long-term impact of this trend. After all, kids who aren't exposed to the wilderness rarely grow up to be environmental stewards.

I realize this might make me sound old, but I grew up in a time when my friends and I could spend a week in the BWCA at minimal cost. The area was much simpler then—no elaborate DNR office in Ely, and no unnecessary docks or retaining walls at entry points, which often make it harder—and less safe— to load a canoe. I can’t help but wonder if there are other ways to manage the budget that prioritizes the essential needs like campsite and portage maintenance while keeping other costs down.

My deep love for the BWCA and our public wilderness areas was formed through that low-cost access in my youth. I worry that raising fees will only increase the barriers for many families and young people today.

How far is you drive to BWCA?

Pinetree: "
FS Fee proposal

I support them and would like to see them go directly back to the BWCA

What are they, I have no idea?"

Currently, trips to the BWCA are a terrific bargain. It seems to be a no brainer that increasing fees would be a effective method to raise revenue to support this and other wilderness areas. I am skeptical, however, that any revenue raised from supplemental or use fees would make it back to these wilderness areas. Already, there have been a significant number of terminations of Forest Service and National Park Service personnel. Funds already appropriated to Wilderness Areas and National Parks to have been stopped, so there is little hope that revenue from new fees will ever get back to Cook or St. Louis counties.

I understand tips soon be untaxed income. Perhaps the most effective way to support the BWCA will be tipping your local Forest Ranger.

Grandpa: "When I talk with outfitters, they consistently share concerns about the declining number of young people visiting the BWCA. They worry about the long-term impact of this trend. After all, kids who aren't exposed to the wilderness rarely grow up to be environmental stewards.


I realize this might make me sound old, but I grew up in a time when my friends and I could spend a week in the BWCA at minimal cost. The area was much simpler then—no elaborate DNR office in Ely, and no unnecessary docks or retaining walls at entry points, which often make it harder—and less safe— to load a canoe. I can’t help but wonder if there are other ways to manage the budget that prioritizes the essential needs like campsite and portage maintenance while keeping other costs down.


My deep love for the BWCA and our public wilderness areas was formed through that low-cost access in my youth. I worry that raising fees will only increase the barriers for many families and young people today."

Where are you going with docks and retaining walls? Snowbank used to have a dock? That's all I've ever seen and that's bene gone for years....Where is the elaborate DNR office? Do you mean the FS office and not the DNR office? I mean it is well done but elaborate doesn't really properly describe it.

T

This message has had HTML content edited out of it.

Frenchy19: "

Chieflonewatie: "All of you people who are for it should have been sending the government extra money every year with a note saying this is for the BWCA. This increase will do nothing to protect our favorite place."

So, what is your suggestion? Keep things the same? I wish they would jack the rate to a daily fee per person as Quetico does. "

Chieflonewatie: "All of you people who are for it should have been sending the government extra money every year with a note saying this is for the BWCA. This increase will do nothing to protect our favorite place."

Nothing, except bring more money for management and possibly reduce over booking. I don't know that sounds like more than nothing?

Sending extra money is a straw man argument. It isn't even possible to do that when booking my permit...you could make a lump sum donation but you can't control where the money goes. They aren't the same thing. I mean I could just counter and say since you don't want fees increased it means you hate the BWCAW. That's also a straw man argument and I'd say untrue as well.

T

Well, seeing as the new administration has fired a large percentage of USFS workers, why all of a sudden do they think the forest needs more money? will they then rehire or hire new staff and spend the extra money on salaries?

perhaps some of the increase should go to cooperators who now bear the brunt of educating more people due to increased # of permits issued to travelers who are not their customer. currently cooperators are allowed to charge $2 to issue a permit.

i feel they are on the right track with raising fees and should have done it more frequently that in one lump sum.

i'd agree with a no refund policy or higher penalty policy for cancelling permits within the 72 hour window, and even higher fee for no-show.

i'm also in favor of charging for pets. and might go so far as to say pets should be part of the count for a party of up to 9.

Do cooperators get to collect a fee when they issue a fishing license? I've only gone to private businesses to get a fishing license, does the DNR even issue them at State run offices?

YaMarVa: "Do cooperators get to collect a fee when they issue a fishing license? I've only gone to private businesses to get a fishing license, does the DNR even issue them at State run offices?"

Don't quote me on this, but I believe it's similar to Ohio where I live. The "cooperator" or any bait shop ect that issues licenses gets a nominal fee. Used to be something like 2-3 dollars. Which in all honesty is likely not worth the time spent.

While I typically get mine online, if I go to a physical location to get one, I purchase something else simply to make up for the work they've put in. Done the same the couple times I've picked up permits at Paragis... While they benefit from the people coming through and using their service, it's a government issue, not something private industry is supposed to be handling.

Barca: "

YaMarVa: "Do cooperators get to collect a fee when they issue a fishing license? I've only gone to private businesses to get a fishing license, does the DNR even issue them at State run offices?"

Don't quote me on this, but I believe it's similar to Ohio where I live. The "cooperator" or any bait shop ect that issues licenses gets a nominal fee. Used to be something like 2-3 dollars. Which in all honesty is likely not worth the time spent.


While I typically get mine online, if I go to a physical location to get one, I purchase something else simply to make up for the work they've put in. Done the same the couple times I've picked up permits at Paragis... While they benefit from the people coming through and using their service, it's a government issue, not something private industry is supposed to be handling. "

Most all fly shops in Montana have stopped issuing fishing licenses, they usually point to a QR code posted on the wall and tell you to get your own online.

YaMarVa: "

Barca: "

YaMarVa: "Do cooperators get to collect a fee when they issue a fishing license? I've only gone to private businesses to get a fishing license, does the DNR even issue them at State run offices?"

Don't quote me on this, but I believe it's similar to Ohio where I live. The "cooperator" or any bait shop ect that issues licenses gets a nominal fee. Used to be something like 2-3 dollars. Which in all honesty is likely not worth the time spent.



While I typically get mine online, if I go to a physical location to get one, I purchase something else simply to make up for the work they've put in. Done the same the couple times I've picked up permits at Paragis... While they benefit from the people coming through and using their service, it's a government issue, not something private industry is supposed to be handling. "

Most all fly shops in Montana have stopped issuing fishing licenses, they usually point to a QR code posted on the wall and tell you to get your own online. "

The world is getting to much artificial agenda-procedures. Loved always in face to doing business.
Same with deer hunting-instead of putting a tag on the deer-you I pad in your registration.

Pinetree: "
Three open houses are scheduled to learn more about the proposal:


In-person, 4 to 6 p.m. July 14, Kawishiwi District Office in Ely
Virtual, 4 to 6 p.m. July 15
In-person, 4 to 6 p.m. July 22, Gunflint District Office in Grand Marais

"

We're going in at East Bearskin a few days before the Gunflint open house. Would going to an open house constitute exiting the BWCA? :) Guess we'll do the virtual open house.

I advocated for higher fees when this issue erupted here a few months back. 2.5x across the board from current fees seems perfect to me. It's the right scale and leaves behind any complaints or justifications about particular groups getting new preferential treatment or changing how the fees are structured. Smart. I wish they would start immediately but FY26 is only a few months away and too baked-in by now. By Fed standards this is a very responsive move. Dare I say, "well played"?

Our twin daughters just graduated from college (thank you) and have new jobs (ditto) so have no PTO to join us this summer. Hopefully, next year we can introduce them to the BWCA. One said she wants to go to the Mall of America on the way. Ugh. Entry fees would still be a fraction of one lulu-letics yoga thingy (I'm a guy) they might buy there. If the new fees are too much for you, maybe we will run into you at the mall. How much were those combo meals at the Food Court?

Frenchy19: "$84 makes your family trip "hurt a whole lot more?" Come on!"

"hurt a whole lot more...than my trip with friends". It was a comparison statement. I have to pay an extra $84 to bring my whole family but with my friends it only sets me back an extra $24.

My point was that families with kids will get hit harder than trips among friends. To expand on that, a family trip isn't all that great a camping value under these new thresholds unless you can make 6+ days of it. Look at the math for a long weekend, 3 nights:

Family of 5 in the BWCA right now: $56
Family of 5 in the BWCA under proposal: $140
Family of 5 at Itasca State Park drive-in ($25 daily + $8 reservation fee): $83
Family of 5 at Itasca State Park Hike-in ($23 daily + $8) : $77
Family of 5 at Scenic State Park Canoe/Boat-In ($22 daily + $8): $74

Trip with a friend in the BWCA right now: $16
Trip with a friend in the BWCA under proposal: $40
Campsite with a friend at Itasca State Park Drive-In: $41.50
Campsite with a friend at Itasca State Park Hike-In: $38.50
Campsite with a friend at Scenic State Park Canoe/Boat-In: $37

So the cost for my family, while not prohibitive for me personally (grateful for that at this point in my life), certainly is an outlier compared to other family camping opportunities around the state, especially considering this doesn't get into the cheaper state forest campgrounds. Meanwhile, the cost to go with a friend is pretty much comparable with other options.

I favor the increase as long as they spend the fees on BW needs and expenses. They have not increased fees for quite a while and the increase is not too high. So do it.

Why did my post get deleted? Claiming kids should be free is controversial?

This feel like a slight of hand move to essentially increase taxes without increasing taxes. We've been seeing cuts to the forest service in order to save tax dollars, yet here we are seeing a fee increase. The forest service can't raise taxes or control how much tax money they get, but they can raise fees to increase revenue. I don't mind this. If anything I find it a bit amusing, but what it does mean is that we're "passing the buck" to the folks who actually do use the BWCA which is something to consider.

The extra cost doesn't bother me, but I suspect the majority of the folks on here saying that are like me and are in a comfortable position financially. Ask a young family with an average US income, or even one with lower than average income (who we should really be accommodating) whether or not the price change is concerning and I think you'd get some different answers.

YaMarVa: "Why did my post get deleted? Claiming kids should be free is controversial?

"

Usually it’s the response to your post, unfortunately harmless ones often get removed with the negative response. Just a guess since I never saw your post.

Having kids be free or a cut off for being free isn’t controversial. We are seeing less kids in the outdoors anything we can do to incentivize kids in the outdoors is worth speculation. Also addresses the well founded arguments above about how the price increase could hurt families.

Doesn’t mean everyone needs to agree, but it’s a good conversation.

T

timatkn: "

YaMarVa: "Why did my post get deleted? Claiming kids should be free is controversial?


"

Usually it’s the response to your post, unfortunately harmless ones often get removed with the negative response. Just a guess since I never saw your post.


Having kids be free or a cut off for being free isn’t controversial. We are seeing less kids in the outdoors anything we can do to incentivize kids in the outdoors is worth speculation. Also addresses the well founded arguments above about how the price increase could hurt families.


Doesn’t mean everyone needs to agree, but it’s a good conversation.


T


"

Of course this impacts the pocketbook of everyone who uses the asset but that is the appropriate cohort to target. The corollary is that funding comes from general tax revenues which means that consumers of the asset are subsidized by folks who do not use it - and more - have likely never even heard of it.

On the vast list of goods and services that can be argued in favour being broadly subsidized, leisure surely should be down near the bottom in my opinion.

This fee increase is rather extreme! All it's doing is promoting to keep locals out of the woods as the level of income is rather low for the area. All while promoting the area for everyone under the sun from 3 plus hours away. Which are the people that break the rules have no idea what to do. The tourist dollars which is the income for many people in the area cannot support trips into the woods For the $40 fee you should never have to walk around any type of debris on a portage and which makes the portage more dangerous.

This is why this LOCAL guy don't support this massive increase!!!

Wonder if Senior citizen half rate will still be in effect. I bet it will.

That’s pretty wild to assume anyone who lives over 3hrs away are the problem makers in the BWCA. That has not been my experience at all, and I think history proves this too. Prior to the wilderness designation the BWCA was a dumping ground.

Funds have not been increased for decades, now along with nationwide cuts to the USFS funding has to come from somewhere.
Being most USFS are also on call to fight fires, nobody is left to mind the store.
I still would like to see a cheaper 1 night permit for those who want to go just for a short trip and a harsh penalty if they abuse it.
It still is the cheapest event in town.

Several thoughts:

Fundamental economic truth - Price is a form of rationing. As soon as you require a monetary fee you begin to "price" people out of the market. We see this most obviously in the price of such things as gasoline, airline tickets, hotel rooms, tickets to theme parks (or "Lightning Lanes"), etc. The higher the demand the more the business can charge for the "product".

I just picked a rather random 10 days in July to see what the permit system showed. I would venture to guess that the permits reserved exceeds 95%. Clearly price is not an obstacle to most at it's current level. In fact, at the current price, one could argue that the system is contributing to abuses such as:

1. Over use. We are all familiar with the anecdotes of those of us unable to find a campsite as we near an entry point. And, the problems associated with overuse of campsites - erosion, flora degradation, fauna infestations, trash, etc.

2. Permit reservation abuses. The booking of multiple permits by the same party to either preserve entry date alternatives or to eliminate the aforementioned campsite competition.

The current pricing plan apparently does nothing to alleviate these issues. In other words, it does nothing to ration the product sufficiently to prevent either problems from recurring. However, simply reducing the supply of the product (as has been tried already) seems to have had minimal effect on these issues and perhaps has exacerbated the permit abuses (fewer permits to buy up to limit campsite competition).

Will the proposed pricing plan address either of issues? It will take some time to see what, if any, effect these prices might have on usage. It will be interesting to watch.

Obviously the software exists to implement a more demand sensitive pricing policy. Would you pay more to trip during the mid-July through end of August time period? Would you pay more for a permit through the LIS North entry, the Mudro entry, the Lake One entry, or the Lizz Lake Entry? These permits effectively sell out for the year in January.

Would those who could not afford the higher prices of demand sensitive pricing places or times alter their behavior to trip during less attractive times or less attractive entries? Or just not trip?

A more restrictive refund policy might also help. Through this type of change the real cost of permit abuses might rise enough to make them a less attractive alternative.

I do think that the lack of high season permits has driven a substantial number of visitors into the shoulder seasons. This has effectively spread some usage out over time. But, does this help or make the over usage problems worse?

All interesting questions. Thoughts?

YaMarVa: " That’s pretty wild to assume anyone who lives over 3hrs away are the problem makers in the BWCA. That has not been my experience at all, and I think history proves this too. Prior to the wilderness designation the BWCA was a dumping ground.
"

Gotta call foul too. If we leave anything in the Boundary Waters it is unused firewood for the next group and lures that break off in deep water. We pick up things like plastic bottles and monofilament we might find and drive them all the way back to Texas to recycling at our convenience. We respect the BWCA just as much as locals - it's our park too! The only functional difference between us and locals is that we pay more for non-resident fishing licenses.

TH1988: "This fee increase is rather extreme! All it's doing is promoting to keep locals out of the woods as the level of income is rather low for the area. All while promoting the area for everyone under the sun from 3 plus hours away. Which are the people that break the rules have no idea what to do. The tourist dollars which is the income for many people in the area cannot support trips into the woods For the $40 fee you should never have to walk around any type of debris on a portage and which makes the portage more dangerous.


This is why this LOCAL guy don't support this massive increase!!!"

Ya - there's alot going on in this post. Hard to take it seriously. Just feels like an attempt to incite argument.

Regardless, i'll post a few thoughts.

The permit is still the cheapest part of a BW trip. If increased gas costs, gear costs (rental or purchased) or increased food costs haven't priced you out. I can't see how the permit increase would.

Additionally, while wages are slightly lower in say Ely than than Duluth Superior and Duluth Superior is slightly lower the cities, it's not hugely significant, especially when considering the overall cost of living.

Stating the extra revenue from raising the fee to $40 should cover a near constant portage clearing and maintenance effort...I don't even know where to go with this one. The economics of such a statement are lost on me.

TH1988 - hopefully you find a place to paddle and the wind will be at your back and fish at the end of your line.

Pinetree: "Wonder if Senior citizen half rate will still be in effect. I bet it will."

The half-price senior rate now is only available for those with a national parks senior pass. Like you, I assume a similar discount would be part of a future permit system.

Ausable: "

Pinetree: "Wonder if Senior citizen half rate will still be in effect. I bet it will."

The half-price senior rate now is only available for those with a national parks senior pass. Like you, I assume a similar discount would be part of a future permit system."

very true and got it a decade ago. I believe now the Senior pass is like a $80 now? senior discount

With the percent of campers eligible keeps growing and more discounts, it really means the younger generation has to pickup the tab and cover our discount if we want the same quality service.
20% of Minnesotans are age 62 or older.

Suddenly, I'm thinking of not sharing my secret spots.
People within 100 miles might start crowding In.

Pinetree: "With the percent of campers eligible keeps growing and more discounts, it really means the younger generation has to pickup the tab and cover our discount if we want the same quality service.
20% of Minnesotans are age 62 or older."

I'm 47 and I love the BWCAW, I will contribute to it's upkeep and wellbeing for the rest of my life. While I don't, and won't, have kids; I have a dozen nieces and nephews. I will bring them, who want, to explore. Frankly, any kid that floats a few days on the Buffalo river and enjoys it will find bliss in Minnesota. Likely, they will start to dream of Ontario's distant creeks. Wilderness is in all of of us, we merely need to accept that the world we live in is greater than our fears.

Just like a pound of leeches, the price goes up every year.

It’s long overdue. I would like a permit charge and nightly fee but this is a good start. It’s still cheap for what you get.

timatkn: "Agree, way past time to increase prices. The cheapest thing on a BWCAW trip is the permit. My gas from the Twin Cities cost more than my Family's permit. So I don't buy into it won't be affordable. People will complain...they always do...


With the new prices my family cost would roughly be $120...for what...a week in the BWCAW? Still a great deal.


I'd like to also see less refunded on the back end when people cancel to recoup the lost revenue on all the cancels. Seems like most industries are going to this now, as people seem to overbook/hoard everything now a days.


I'd also feel better about the increase if I knew enforcement/education was increased.



T


"

If the refund goes down, doesn’t the motivation to cancel the permit go down…so that the quota/permit is more likely to be wasted?

If the permit is canceled and someone then buys it, you get half back. If nobody buys it, you get no refund.

adam: "
Just like a pound of leeches, the price goes up every year. "

You mean I can't buy a 4 x4 Ford pickup for $3000.00 like I did in 1972?

brp: "

timatkn: "Agree, way past time to increase prices. The cheapest thing on a BWCAW trip is the permit. My gas from the Twin Cities cost more than my Family's permit. So I don't buy into it won't be affordable. People will complain...they always do...



With the new prices my family cost would roughly be $120...for what...a week in the BWCAW? Still a great deal.



I'd like to also see less refunded on the back end when people cancel to recoup the lost revenue on all the cancels. Seems like most industries are going to this now, as people seem to overbook/hoard everything now a days.



I'd also feel better about the increase if I knew enforcement/education was increased.



T



"

If the refund goes down, doesn’t the motivation to cancel the permit go down…so that the quota/permit is more likely to be wasted?


If the permit is canceled and someone then buys it, you get half back. If nobody buys it, you get no refund. "

A higher initial fee discourages the “what if” reservations. In all industries now…people over book because they don’t commit to a date when they book…then just do the trip eventually they can make and either cancel or no show the rest of the bookings. It used to be you book a trip when you know you can commit. It has created an artificial sense of everything being full or booked when in essence the volumes may be down. This isn’t just the BWCAW, it’s hotels, Restaurants, it’s your Doctor’s office etc…

I believe the current no show fee is minimal. Because there is minimal initial cost.

I’d make the initial reservation fee much higher, you lose it if cancel. What is it now like $7-9? Ridiculous! Then I’d have you pay your full fee (maybe make the minimal group size 4) and then depending on when you cancel you get 100% refund vs. no refund. Cancel 3 months in advance full refund…within 48 hours no refund. A 48 hour cancellation almost never gets filled and is lost revenue.

The FS has already started this to some extent. I think you can no longer just pay for a single permit. Your group size needs to be 2 then if you show up they refund you the second person. This is because they know people game the system with solo permits they never intend to use. They at least double the amount they get on those solo no shows but it’s still peanuts and denies people access to the BWCAW. They tried but it wasn’t enough…Hence this proposal to increase fees…

Anyway…yes you are right you need an incentive for canceling earlier than later. You don’t want the penalty to be so high, no one cancels. Cancels happen. But you also can’t just have a minimal cancelation fee in today’s modern world. People will take advantage of it.

T

timatkn: "

brp: "

timatkn: "Agree, way past time to increase prices. The cheapest thing on a BWCAW trip is the permit. My gas from the Twin Cities cost more than my Family's permit. So I don't buy into it won't be affordable. People will complain...they always do...



With the new prices my family cost would roughly be $120...for what...a week in the BWCAW? Still a great deal.



I'd like to also see less refunded on the back end when people cancel to recoup the lost revenue on all the cancels. Seems like most industries are going to this now, as people seem to overbook/hoard everything now a days.



I'd also feel better about the increase if I knew enforcement/education was increased.




T



"

If the refund goes down, doesn’t the motivation to cancel the permit go down…so that the quota/permit is more likely to be wasted?



If the permit is canceled and someone then buys it, you get half back. If nobody buys it, you get no refund. "

A higher initial fee discourages the “what if” reservations. In all industries now…people over book because they don’t commit to a date when they book…then just do the trip eventually they can make and either cancel or no show the rest of the bookings. It used to be you book a trip when you know you can commit. It has created an artificial sense of everything being full or booked when in essence the volumes may be down. This isn’t just the BWCAW, it’s hotels, Restaurants, it’s your Doctor’s office etc…


I believe the current no show fee is minimal. Because there is minimal initial cost.


I’d make the initial reservation fee much higher, you lose it if cancel. What is it now like $7-9? Ridiculous! Then I’d have you pay your full fee (maybe make the minimal group size 4) and then depending on when you cancel you get 100% refund vs. no refund. Cancel 3 months in advance full refund…within 48 hours no refund. A 48 hour cancellation almost never gets filled and is lost revenue.


The FS has already started this to some extent. I think you can no longer just pay for a single permit. Your group size needs to be 2 then if you show up they refund you the second person. This is because they know people game the system with solo permits they never intend to use. They at least double the amount they get on those solo no shows but it’s still peanuts and denies people access to the BWCAW. They tried but it wasn’t enough…Hence this proposal to increase fees…


Anyway…yes you are right you need an incentive for canceling earlier than later. You don’t want the penalty to be so high, no one cancels. Cancels happen. But you also can’t just have a minimal cancelation fee in today’s modern world. People will take advantage of it.


T


"

As someone who only solo camps (because I don't know anyone who is interested in going with me), I respectfully but vehemently disagree that the minimum group size allowable for a permit should be 4. Why should I be discriminated against just because I trip by myself? I'd like to see some hard data that backs up your assertion that solo permit holders are more likely to be no-shows or cancellations. That might be true, but I haven't seen anyone make that claim before in the many discussions about the topic here over the years.

Also FYI, you're wrong about the FS no longer accepting solo permit applications. I did that for my permit this coming weekend.

Just throwing out ideas for a broken system…

There would not be any discrimination. You have a minimum deposit…You cancel way ahead or go on your trip you get the deposit back or you apply it to your balance. That’s not discrimination. That’s business…maybe my solution is too high? But the current process isn’t working…

I never said they don’t accept solo permits. I said they charge for a minimum of 2 people now to combat the growing problem of people reserving permits under solos and either no showing or late cancelling.

If you carefully look at your solo permits you will see you owe $38. A solo permit should only cost $22. They charge you $6 non refundable reservation fee (peanuts), $16.00 fee for the solo paddler and a $16.00 deposit fee that is refunded once you check in or if you add another paddler it will go towards that balance. Essentially charging you for 2 paddlers upfront to increase the reservation cost. It makes the no show cost sting more and was designed to combat the increasing solo no shows. If I book for 2 people, my cost is…drum roll…$38 :) The same as the solo paddler…

It didn’t work. I don’t have the numbers, but in Minnesota there have been numerous round tables, and Outdoor radio shows interviewing the FS (Fan outdoors, Outdoor News) where they have commented on this. I mean do the math…it makes sense. If I am going to reserve a “what if” permit or a permit I intend to no show or late cancel. I’d do it under a solo paddler. To do otherwise is ludicrous.

T

timatkn: "Just throwing out ideas for a broken system…


There would not be any discrimination. You have a minimum deposit…You cancel way ahead or go on your trip you get the deposit back or you apply it to your balance. That’s not discrimination. That’s business…maybe my solution is too high? But the current process isn’t working…


I never said they don’t accept solo permits. I said they charge for a minimum of 2 people now to combat the growing problem of people reserving permits under solos and either no showing or late cancelling.


If you carefully look at your solo permits you will see you owe $38. A solo permit should only cost $22. They charge you $6 non refundable reservation fee (peanuts), $16.00 fee for the solo paddler and a $16.00 deposit fee that is refunded once you check in or if you add another paddler it will go towards that balance. Essentially charging you for 2 paddlers upfront to increase the reservation cost. It makes the no show cost sting more and was designed to combat the increasing solo no shows. If I book for 2 people, my cost is…drum roll…$38 :) The same as the solo paddler…


It didn’t work. I don’t have the numbers, but in Minnesota there have been numerous round tables, and Outdoor radio shows interviewing the FS (Fan outdoors, Outdoor News) where they have commented on this. I mean do the math…it makes sense. If I am going to reserve a “what if” permit or a permit I intend to no show or late cancel. I’d do it under a solo paddler. To do otherwise is ludicrous.


T"

Thanks for the considered response. I appreciate it in light of some of the other responses here recently. I've never gotten any kind of refund when I check in as a solo paddler though. Does that mean I'm actually being charged double? I assumed that the $38 fee was the cost for a single permit, since I've never booked a permit for more than one person. I admit I should not have assumed that.

Speckled"Additionally, while wages are slightly lower in say Ely than than Duluth Superior and Duluth Superior is slightly lower the cities, it's not hugely significant, especially when considering the overall cost of living.
Stating the extra revenue from raising the fee to $40 should cover a near constant portage clearing and maintenance effort...I don't even know where to go with this one. The economics of such a statement are lost on me."

Agreed but I have been roaming the SNF and North Shore for over 40 years now. Bought land, and have intruduced people that don't look like me for at least 35 years. These people would be affected. I will continue to show them the secret spots that are not affected by price increases.

NEIowapaddler: "

timatkn: "Just throwing out ideas for a broken system…
T"

. Does that mean I'm actually being charged double? I assumed that the $38 fee was the cost for a single permit, since I've never booked a permit for more than one person. I admit I should not have assumed that. "

Well essentially up front you could say you are charged double I guess. It’s semantics at this point. You aren’t really charged double. A solo booking just has to pay a minimum deposit. Once you check in and they confirm you are a solo paddler and that your total cost is really $22 they will refund (credit back to your CC) that money ($16). Also if you cancel you will be refunded both fees and just lose the $6. If you just no show and don’t bother to cancel…then you lose the deposit so you could say at that time you are charged double as well, but if someone doens’t bother to cancel that’s their fault…and that’s what started all of this of why they require a minimum deposit.

In these interviews and town halls the FS has said they know who the abusers are…the more severe abusers they have already banned. But really I think there are plenty of work arounds for abusers that it isn’t effective. I know outfitters are on record that the FS isn’t doing enough.

T

I don't believe I've ever gotten that $16 refund after checking in as a solo paddler though. That was my point about being charged double. It's possible that my memory is failing me but I think I'd remember getting some money back lol.

It would be on your CC statement. They don’t tell you are anything. You would have to look for it. Or m aye they over charged you?

T

11 million dollar backlog of maintenance BWCA



USFS says rising costs necessitate fee increase
The potential increase in fees would mark the first fee increase since 2008, when the trip fee was hiked to $16 for adults and $8 for youth. Forest Service officials say the proposed fee increase, to $40 for adults and $20 for youth, is necessary to cover the rising costs of managing the 1.1-million-acre BWCAW. Forest Service officials say the wilderness currently has an $11 million maintenance backlog, one that is likely to grow even larger this year as a result of staffing and budget cuts.
Forest Service officials said that at least 80 percent of the funds raised by the fee increase will go back to the Superior National Forest to help pay for the recreational program. “Visitors to the area will see improved public services such as portages, latrines, and fire grates, as well as additional wilderness rangers and law enforcement,” according to a Forest Service Q&A available on the Superior National Forest website.
The Timberjay requested comparable wilderness management budget data from the Superior, but officials did not respond to the request as of press time, nor did they respond when asked whether the fee hike proposal originated with the Superior National Forest or at the regional or national offices.
An increase in fees is consistent with a push by the Trump administration to increase user fees for visitors to some public lands, such as national parks, to offset the impact of budget cuts implemented by the administration.

NEIowapaddler: "I don't believe I've ever gotten that $16 refund after checking in as a solo paddler though. That was my point about being charged double. It's possible that my memory is failing me but I think I'd remember getting some money back lol. "

My last 20 ish trips have been either solo or with one of my kids. Besides the October and April trips when it’s self issued permits , the reservation system has made me book it as 2 adults. Then when I pick up the permit they change it to solo or 1 adult and 1 youth. The Ranger or outfitter rarely mentions the refund, but I do get an email from reservation.gov telling me I got a $16 or $8 refund on my cc after picking up the permit.

There was at least one time that the outfitter forgot to change my permit to solo and that was the only time I’ve ever been checked by a ranger during a trip. I didn’t realize it until the Ranger told me. He was laughing and said that he didn’t think another person would fit in the solo canoe with me and my dog. He also jokingly said I didn’t need to pay for the dog. LOL. He wrote a note on my permit and said I could stop at the Ranger Station after my trip and get a refund if I wanted to. I think there was also one time that an outfitter forgot to change the 2nd person from adult to youth.

It should be free.

Just got a permit cost me $38, I don’t remember it asking for the group size, which is 2 (hopefully). I was surprised it went up but not surprised. Could mean a lot of extra money they might need to keep the park managed. I’m not against it. Rock on.

Stumpy: "It should be free."

Awww Come on Stumpy…nothing is free in life. Somebody has to pay some way somehow.

Not one single thing in this world has ever been free…one way or the other someone paid for it. Whether it be money, blood, sweat, tears, sanity etc…

T

Stumpy: "It should be free."

Stumpy, when I was younger, we would joke that someday they will charge for air. (Well they do now to fill your tires.) Yes, someday they will charge for water. Coffee used to be free or up to a dime. Movies were 25 cents and popcorn a dime.

Times have changed, I guess.

Stumpy: "It should be free."

There is no such thing as "free" public anything. Somebody pays for it, whether willing or unwilling.

plmn: "

Stumpy: "It should be free."

There is no such thing as "free" public anything. Somebody pays for it, whether willing or unwilling. "

BINGO free to some means you and I pay for them. As a business owner, I pay a higher % in taxes than 99% of the people. I have worked for more than 50 years, many 80-hour weeks. Never got a paid day off or paid vacation. Everyone claims to be for small business, yet half the country says that businesses should pay more.

Geez - I paid $38 for a permit, split with my partner it’s nineteen bucks. You can’t get lunch for two at a hot dog joint for under $30 these days. A BW trip is priceless, a char dog & fries not so much.

Stumpy: "It should be free."

And all permits should be self-issued the day of entry.