|
Boundary Waters Quetico Forum :: Listening Point - General Discussion :: Totally theoretical...
|
| Author | Message Text | ||
| x2jmorris |
fadersup: "I'll be ok playing by the rules on this one, whatever they are at the time. That part about the a-holes is spot on. |
||
| Grizzlyman |
|
||
| LindenTree |
missmolly: " wise catch no fish like nofish? ;-)" Wow mm, and all. i bet you can't say that three times in a row fast :-) |
||
| nofish |
adam: " #2 is for sure the biggest concern. The other stuff can probably be managed with a little creativity. I just picture how busy hwy 61 can be with folks streaming up north in the summer. If only 1 out 100 cars brings someone that infects another person we could still see a spread that could quickly overwhelm the small medical facilities in the area. |
||
| mutz |
|
||
| Michwall2 |
x2jmorris: "nofish: "Certainly is a tempting thought. Since its so hard to patrol the whole park and keep people out I'm sure they'll attempt to scare people from even attempting it with a rather large fine for those caught. Like others mentioned a $5000 fine if caught would keep me out even if there is only a small chance I'd be caught. While they can't "make up" a fine, they can find multiple violations that you don't even know exist: e.g. Entry without permit. Disobeying a lawful federal closure order. Trespassing. Illegal camping in a closed recreational area. Fishing closed lakes. Taking fish beyond the limit(0) on closed fishing lakes. Unlawful use of a watercraft on a closed lake. Endangering a peace officer (Having to deal with you at close range during Covid-19 outbreak.) Open fire in a closed recreational area. Illegal parking in a closed recreation area. If they really wanted to make and example of you, besides the fines, you would probably lose your canoe and related equipment, your camping equipment, and your fishing equipment through asset forfeiture. (Maybe even the auto that brought you there?) |
||
| nofish |
missmolly: " Its really part art and part science. You have to know where the fish aren't going to be so you can cast there but then you have to be able to do it with just the right amount of style. |
||
| VaderStrom |
|
||
| nofish |
LindenTree: "missmolly: " wise catch no fish like nofish? ;-)" Might need to make this into a t-shirt. "No one can catch NO fish like Nofish" |
||
| x2jmorris |
|
||
| Beavercreek56 |
|
||
| mooseplums |
That said, still holding out hope for a late Sept trip. |
||
| missmolly |
nofish: "Certainly is a tempting thought. Since its so hard to patrol the whole park and keep people out I'm sure they'll attempt to scare people from even attempting it with a rather large fine for those caught. Like others mentioned a $5000 fine if caught would keep me out even if there is only a small chance I'd be caught. Once again, I agree with nofish. So many local waters to explore. Here's one of the world's great mysteries: How can someone so wise catch no fish like nofish? ;-) |
||
| VaderStrom |
Regarding your hypothetical, it seems to make sense, but I'd never risk it as it'd be too much to risk the rest of my tripping lifetime on one year of trips. |
||
| GraniteCliffs |
No flames, no smoke. So we figured we could go regardless. And then we saw words that basically said anyone violating the rule could be banned from the Q. We turned around. |
||
| mutz |
billconner: "Since I'm fairly certain the parking lots are not actually in the BWCAW, in line with no motorized vehicles, I would not assume they would be closed if the Wilderness was. That’s a good point, but I would guess if they close the BWCA, they will close the parking lots to stop those who feel they are above the law and decide to take the chance and just go. |
||
| nofish |
There is a whole lot of other public land to roam around on that can't be closed so that could be an option. However, if you are not from the area I would encourage you to stay home and not make the trek up there. This is a good time to explore your local waters and find the gems right around you. As tempting as it is to sneak away for a canoe trip during all of this there really is no valid reason to take the risk of spreading things around any more than they already area. Its all part of that stay at home order. |
||
| adam |
There are many things at play with this. 1) It certainly would be possible to limit the contact between people. a) permit videos could be watched online or on mobile phone in their car at the outfitters before permit is slipped through the window. b) outfitters could accept checkin and payment online, have canoes/gear ready outside or drop off canoes and gear at the entry point. c) Forest service could just close their offices, relaying on online/outfitter issued permits. d) Forest service would need to be active in managing the bathrooms/garbage at entry points and monitoring for the worst offenders. The bathrooms at entry points are likely one of the highest risk areas. 2) Larger issue is community health services due to visitors coming up with the illness and entering the health system and spreading the virus. |
||
| missmolly |
nofish: "LindenTree: "missmolly: " wise catch no fish like nofish? ;-)" If my family situation permitted it, I'd love to take you to a 50-fish-or-more-per-person lake. And I'd merrily wear that t-shirt until your wrist ached, which would force you to say, "That t-shirt tells a damn lie!" |
||
| missmolly |
LindenTree: "missmolly: " wise catch no fish like nofish? ;-)" I tried! I failed! It's hard! |
||
| 4keys |
My husband and I had traveled out of state to visit our son. We planned on doing a lot of outdoor activities, one of which was to visit a hot spring. We drove an hour from the city, only to find a notice at the trail head that said the 2.5 mile trail and hot springs were closed. I believe it was by the forest service. (Nothing was on the website when he checked it). There were a few other cars n the parking lot which were empty. Let me say that I am not a rule breaker, but at first we were like, well, we won't be near others on the trail and there are several pools to spread out among. As we were discussing it, I reread the notice and saw mention of a $5,000 fine! That ended the discussion right there, especially after my son said he has seen rangers up there before. So we left and found an open hiking trail nearby. I'm not sure what the group of six college age kids that arrived after us decided to do though. So we would find other activities to do if the BW was closed and save our plans for next year. |
||
| MikeinMpls |
Mike |
||
| LindenTree |
I ran the fire engine for the USFS out of Isabella for over 3 years. I rarely went to the BW during those years. I discovered that there is a whole lot of wilderness outside the BWCA, with far fewer people. That area is called the Superior National Forest. In the years I worked/lived and recreated on USFS land. I only scratched the surface on things to see and lakes to camp and paddle on. That portion of the Superior National Forest is still there. "Come find it" I will not be closed, there is too much private, state and county land in the area. |
||
| thegildedgopher |
i wouldn't do it. too much risk in my opinion. i want to enjoy the wilderness for another 40 years so i'll suffer this year if necessary. easy for me to say with a september permit. not counting on being able to use my june permits. |
||
| fadersup |
I fantasize about doing the same Mike, and if the park officially closes there will be people that go in anyway. Those people are called a-holes, and in general they don't seem to mind being called as such. |
||
| MikeinMpls |
Scenario: BWCA is closed by government order. Re-opening date TBD. Permits for dates during time of closure are unusable. Questions and discussion: I assume going into a closed federal wilderness area would be considered a big deal, and one would face considerable legal trouble if they did so. But, who will know? In answering my own question, I assume NFS planes will still patrol for fires, and would also report any violators to Superior National Forest law enforcement. In turn, I assume SNF law enforcement duties will not be curtailed at all, and finding someone who violates the order would be rather easy. Vehicles at EPs would be recorded, adding to the ease of any investigation. I also assume anyone entering against an order would be entering without a permit, another big deal. Maybe I've just answered my own questions. But, truth be told, part of me has a fantasy of just going in regardless of an order. I think "if I go straight in, no human interaction coming or going, it would be OK. It's the wilderness, and it's very safe." It's a fantasy, and I WILL NOT do that. WILL NOT. But I'm wondering if others have mused about the subject. Maybe I'm pre-mourning for a canceled trip, despite having no evidence that anything would be canceled. Or maybe I think too much. Mike |
||
| MikeinMpls |
Mike |
||
| x2jmorris |
nofish: "Certainly is a tempting thought. Since its so hard to patrol the whole park and keep people out I'm sure they'll attempt to scare people from even attempting it with a rather large fine for those caught. Like others mentioned a $5000 fine if caught would keep me out even if there is only a small chance I'd be caught. They can't just make up a fine. Has to be already around and I would guess it is no different than the being in there without a permit fine... whatever that might be. |
||
| billconner |
|
||
| MikeinMpls |
VaderStrom: "I've had a similar thought, but in a slightly different scenario. It would make sense to me to see all current reservations cancelled for the season. What if you went in before the season started, on April XXth, and made a few week trip out of it? Would you technically be breaking the rules if you're using the self issued permit that didn't require a reservation as it was before the season 'started'? If ice-out is early, I am considering a brief solo in mid-to later April. It won't be an extended trip, but kinda/sorta in the scenario you mention. Mike |