WE discussed this before. Some areas you have to go from a lake inside the BWCA, maybe a short distance back in.
Like maybe from Duncan to Daniels. North Sioux to South Sioux. I am sure many others.

But it is two entry points.

What is the ruling on this now?

decade old posts on the subject

rules?

When I checked with the ranger station on this issue last year I was told 2 permits were needed.

Look at campsite 1933 on Island River and tell me which two permits you would need to access this campsite.

Unfortunately I don’t think I you can 100% trust station FS employees to always be knowledgeable on the rules when it comes to intricacy like this.

You/they could be right…just not counting it as the final word.
T

RMinMN: "Look at campsite 1933 on Island River and tell me which two permits you would need to access this campsite."

In this particular case, only 1? Just get an EP 34 permit and paddle upstream from the Island River landing. You only need to enter the BWCAW once. The permit doesn't specify that you have to travel downstream. My read on entry points has always been that the permit only specifies the water body you have to be on when you enter the BWCAW.

timatkn: "Unfortunately I don’t think I you can 100% trust station FS employees to always be knowledgeable on the rules when it comes to intricacy like this.


You/they could be right…just not counting it as the final word.
T"

Who then does have the final word?

We recently had the case of the a thread in Trip Planning Forum where the OP was going to enter on a Saganaga Permit and then turn south and travel into Sea Gull in an attempt to get to Ogish? He was told (by his outfitter) that that trip plan would not be permitted? Why?

What is the guiding principal(s) that is violated by an exit and reenter?

You are the ranger - Permitted or not permitted and why:

Scenario 1
You entered on a Kawishiwi Permit and have paddled the Lady Lakes Chain. You are currently camped on Alton and headed for Cherokee Lake (making a loop through Little Sag back to Kawishiwi.). While paddling Alton the wind picks up and you decide you would rather paddle the more protected western shore of Sawbill than be hammered the full length of Alton and half of Kelso before you can get to Sawbill. Taking the portage from Alton to Sawbill, you discover on your map that the Sawbill bay you are about to enter is not a part of the BWCAW proper. Must you go back to Alton? Or can you paddle the few hundred yards of Sawbill outside the BW and reenter having a safer and easier paddle (and one less portage too!)?

Scenario 2
You enter the BWCAW on a Homer Lake Permit. with the intent of spending 2 nights on Homer and then spending 3 nights on Brule Lake. Unfortunately, the small isthmus of land that the portage from Juno Lake to Brule Lake has a portage that passes outside of the BW. Is this a permissible re-entry?

Scenario 3
You enter at Sawbill Lake, paddle the Lady Lakes Chain, paddle south to Kawishiwi Lake, and would like to portage to Hog Creek entry along the road and continue west along the Perent Lake/River. Is this a permissible re-entry.

Scenario 4
You are on a multi-week solo. You have planned a resupply at Kawishiwi Lake. The border of the lake is the border of the BW. Your resupply partner picks up a pack, steps in the water, and places it in the canoe. You decide to get out and use the latrine. Oops, you left the BW. Must you get a new permit? Bonus Question - Did your partner who put the pack in the canoe violate the permit system by not having a day use permit when he stepped into the water thus crossing the BWCAW boundary?

Scenario 5
You are a group of 5 on a basecamp at Alton Lake. You discover that you forgot a pan to fry your fish. It is back in the car at the Sawbill entry parking lot. You send one person in a solo to the parking lot. He exits the BW. Completes a day use permit to re-enter and rejoin the group. Is this permissible? If it is a violation, has he voided the entire group's permit or only his portion? What if he is the group leader?

Scenario 6
How do the Voyageur's Challenge participants deal with portion of the crossing near the Gunflint Trail that is outside the BW and then reenter?

If you determine that some of these are permissible, why? What are the principals you are applying that make these either permissible or a violation?

Michwall2: "Who then does have the final word? "

I think that would come down to the agent that checks your permit. I don't think these are a situations that are encountered very often. The Island River campsite is unique. I wouldn't expect anyone in possession of a valid permit to be fined or escorted out unless they were doing something egregious or obviously improper. If you're found on Mountain Lake with a 10-day old Little Vermillion River permit, you're fine. If you're found on Tuscarora the same day as your Brant permit, you should be fined.

RMinMN: "Look at campsite 1933 on Island River and tell me which two permits you would need to access this campsite."

I also was -thinking about Island river.
Also I know someone who went from Kawishiwi lake to hogs creek than Isabella lake.

Lets hear from the Border Route Challenges folks. They all leave the Wilderness at Magnetic Lake and re-enter at South Lake.

As I understand it, the only technically allowed exit and reenter on the same permit is when you are traveling across corridors between bwca sections... So magnetic to south lake is allowed to continue your trip, as well as traveling from trout lake to nina moose.

There are likely areas that have slight map line deficiencies and force an exit and reenter and practically you wouldn't be ticketed, and if you were from an overzealous ranger, then I highly doubt a judge would see it that way.

In the case of the Island River - I think there's the technical application of the rules and the spirit of the law.

I specifically asked about the Island River many years ago (late 90's) and was told "Don't worry about permit for anything upstream of the EP".

Specific to 1933 site - Unless FS came though or a user has recently - the site is unusable. I last looked for it 2021 and couldn't find it. I see another user found it in 2024 and it wasn't in a usable condition.

A quote from our Ben way way back in time
06/02/2014 08:38PM
"On my forty day I retained new permits when I resupplied. But I also crossed areas not in the BW and back in again within a few hours which I was always told by FS as being ok. I always ask first".

I think in some cases aa individual forestry would Have " Don't ask don't tell policy". If you asked at times he would probably have to say no.

Michwall2: "

timatkn: "Unfortunately I don’t think I you can 100% trust station FS employees to always be knowledgeable on the rules when it comes to intricacy like this.



You/they could be right…just not counting it as the final word.
T"

Who then does have the final word?

We recently had the case of the a thread in Trip Planning Forum where the OP was going to enter on a Saganaga Permit and then turn south and travel into Sea Gull in an attempt to get to Ogish? He was told (by his outfitter) that that trip plan would not be permitted? Why?

"

You know from reading that thread that I already explained there why this is a permit violation. In fact, my post on the subject may even have been read by that OP before it was confirmed by the outfitter.

I don’t have the time or inclination to analyze your other scenarios. But as an example, here is my explanation reprised for the benefit of others:

”AndyEck84: ’Our trip date is May 26-31. We have a permit for 55 (Sag)."


The BWCA boundary at Sag and Seagull is a bar to your apparently planned route.

You have a permit to ENTER the BWCAW from EP 55. That permit is typically used for (1) camping on Sag, (2) continuing into the Quetico or (3) portaging out of Sag, in the latter case often looping back through Seagull and out from there.

You do not have a permit to RE-ENTER the BWCAW. Once you’re out, you’re out until you have a new permit.

“ BWCAW Rules and Regulations
TRAVEL PERMITS
You must enter the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) at the entry point and on the date shown on your permit.
You may not enter/re-enter at a different point or date using this permit.
Permit and stubs become invalid when the trip leader exits the wilderness.”

The BWCA boundary near the entry points at Sag and Seagull is INTENDED to prevent using Gull Lake as a means of circumventing the permit restrictions. The feds use this to spread people out:

Z4K: "

Michwall2: "Who then does have the final word? "

I think that would come down to the agent that checks your permit. I don't think these are a situations that are encountered very often. The Island River campsite is unique. I wouldn't expect anyone in possession of a valid permit to be fined or escorted out unless they were doing something egregious or obviously improper. If you're found on Mountain Lake with a 10-day old Little Vermillion River permit, you're fine. If you're found on Tuscarora the same day as your Brant permit, you should be fined."

Agree, the person in the field or I would assume a high level administrator. Most of the time the staff manning a desk are trained to administer permits (sometimes I’ve had them not know that…seriously!) not determine nuance of laws.

What is published isn’t really the “Laws” or even the BWCAW rules. There is a document that has all the legal-ease with specific wording. It used to be available on the web, I can’t find it anymore. For example the rule about 9 people 4 watercraft is quite long with an explanation I believe…not the short version you see published. Where it is very clear…you happening to be at a portage while another obviously second group is there as well is not a violation even if you exceed the 9 person 4 canoe number. It’s all about being part of the same group and traveling together. Yet if you ask a station employee who doesn’t actually enforce the rules it’s 50/50 if you get the right answer. That’s the most obvious mistake I’ve seen.

I also observed FS station employees telling campers the Blue barrels had to be hung and were illegal to use (they are now) but this was prior to special orders.

I’ve had trouble getting my Primitive Management Permit added to my permit or even reserving one for that matter, where I either get a more senior person calling me back or I just try a different day.

I’ve done A LOT of trips and usually use the FS for permits. There is a lot of variability in knowledge. The worst one was SNF remote camping permit. I got denied entry for a day because the employee insisted I needed to have a canoe reserved as well to go to Shoepack Lake, even though I showed him on the website by reserving a permit the canoes were part of that. There was no possible way to reserve a canoe…I had to delay a day and try a new person. Who still didn’t know the rules, but at least was willing to read the FS own website…

T

timatkn: "What is published isn’t really the “Laws” or even the BWCAW rules. There is a document that has all the legal-ease with specific wording. It used to be available on the web, I can’t find it anymore. For example the rule about 9 people 4 watercraft is quite long with an explanation I believe…not the short version you see published. Where it is very clear…you happening to be at a portage while another obviously second group is there as well is not a violation even if you exceed the 9 person 4 canoe number. It’s all about being part of the same group and traveling together. Yet if you ask a station employee who doesn’t actually enforce the rules it’s 50/50 if you get the right answer. That’s the most obvious mistake I’ve seen."

I used a short summary for quick education. To know what a federal judge will use (which is the final word on the subject), start here. You will also need the congressional enactments and the Forest Supervisor Orders, but I don’t have time for that now:

CFR Title 36 Part 261

CFR Title 36, Part 293

sedges: "Lets hear from the Border Route Challenges folks. They all leave the Wilderness at Magnetic Lake and re-enter at South Lake."

It has always been accepted by the USFS that when doing continuous travel from the "west side" to the "east side" of the BWCA that it is allowable to pass through the gap from Magnetic to South Lake without a new permit as long as you aren't pulling off for beers, resupply, or camping for the night outside the BWCA. This was true when I was traveling with camp groups as well.

However, other passages from one "side" to the other are expected to pull a new permit. For example, paddle into Poplar Lake from the west and then portage down the road to put back in and reeneter the BWCA...that requires a new permit.

straighthairedcurly: "

sedges: "Lets hear from the Border Route Challenges folks. They all leave the Wilderness at Magnetic Lake and re-enter at South Lake."

It has always been accepted by the USFS that when doing continuous travel from the "west side" to the "east side" of the BWCA that it is allowable to pass through the gap from Magnetic to South Lake without a new permit as long as you aren't pulling off for beers, resupply, or camping for the night outside the BWCA. This was true when I was traveling with camp groups as well.


However, other passages from one "side" to the other are expected to pull a new permit. For example, paddle into Poplar Lake from the west and then portage down the road to put back in and reeneter the BWCA...that requires a new permit."

Depending on the weather, Magnetic to South Lake can be formidable undertaking without camping along the way.

The reason I needed a second permit on my forty day was I stopped on Gunflint… spent the night and resulting. If I was to keep going on the border route I would not need a second permit. I did that trip many times from the Arrowhead trail’s Little John Lake to Little Indian Sioux on one permit. On that 40 day trip I was doing loop ta loops throughout the BWCA… my second result was going to be at Prairie Portage, but fires forced me out at Snowbank Lake due to forest fire. I called our buddy Pat… aka Zulu and he nabbed me up and I got a permit for Fall lake and getting on Basswood I had the big water tankers refilling their planes in front of me.
But the thing is… if you go directly through say from Magnetic Lake to South Lake without camping or stopping at Outfitters… you didn’t need the second permit. But times are changing. I understand you have to have dogs on a leash on portages and such. Before you just needed them under your control. Having my dogs loaded with a pack and me with a load that would be too dangerous for both of us. Plus… anyone coming by would have to encounter my dogs loaded instead of her stepping aside off the trail as trained.
So my point is the laws are changing and you need to talk to the forest supervisor is who I would ask. He was always very responsive and even gave permission to go in when a friend was possibly in need of help…
They were at one time very good about reality… I see that changing because of a few…

Keep in mind there's some portages where you not only leave the BW, but you leave the country. That seems to be cool with the man.