Boundary Waters Quetico Forum :: Listening Point - General Discussion :: Why so much not used?
|
Author | Message Text | ||
Savage Voyageur |
|
||
okinaw55 |
Do they want to leave space for wildlife to be untouched? Is it a fire issue? Is there no feasible portage routes? It's a question that has been on my mind for a very long time. I'm totally fine with they way things are, but I don't get it. Anyone know? |
||
schweady |
marrowoflife: "Butthead, I'll quickly share part of the answer for him here... For one, the maps he shows here are screenshots of Garmin BaseCamp, an app he uses to save and organize data compiled on his Garmin GPSMAP 62st. I'm sure he has more, including his Birdseye subscription. |
||
Stumpy |
nctry: "Yeah, some of the pma’s were routes back in the day. Some of my old maps still had the portages on them. Just not real clear. But the other thing is why do you want to open it up more? Isn’t it better that we keep areas a little more wild? I like the idea there are not people crawling around every square inch of the BW, and I’ll bet there are animals that appreciate it too. " Yeah, they can go uninterrupted, while eating each other. ;) |
||
butthead |
butthead |
||
airmorse |
|
||
lindylair |
Seems like the most important point here is that I would not advocate increasing permits or visitors but just spread them out more so that folks can find a little more "solitude" which seems like a major motivation for going, and also spread out the usage of campsites so their usable life is longer and the impact of visitors is less. More campsites means potentially less folks with horror stories of going in and not finding a campsite and having to either camp on a portage ending or head back out for a ruined trip. Or hoping for that campsite close to the entry point for that last night but finding them all occupied and having to cut their trip short by a day. Spread the same number of visitors out on a larger number of lakes and campsites equals less impact in each individual spot and potentially better experiences for the folks who have planned for a year or more and spent significant dollars to visit. PMA's aren't for everyone and I don't think they are the solution, especially for the newer BWCA traveler. With the same number of visitors I do not think the wild aspect of the BWCA would be compromised, just possibly better experiences for those that go. And we want folks to go, right? |
||
lindylair |
Keep the overall permit availability the same so there aren't more folks using it, just spreading them out more. There may be some good reasons these lakes don't have campsites. Everything changes, perhaps we need to change the approach to management of the BWCA along with it. Not advocating more folks, in fact just the opposite. Spreading the usage out more, good for visitors and the wilderness. These are just lakes along current paddling routes...creating portages to some of the remote lakes is another question, and potentially a good idea too but that involves a lot more resources. Still in the big picture and in the long run...lots of interesting spots up there with virtually no access for the majority of paddlers. The overall question is what's good for the folks who use the wilderness AND what's good for the wilderness itself. I don't claim to have insight to that balance. |
||
okinaw55 |
|
||
Michwall2 |
We are base camping more. And base camping closer to the entries. The reports from this year confirmed this. How many here complained that there were no campsites near entries. It is obvious that the FS usage theories assume a certain amount of travel by most visitors to the wilderness. Is that happening any more? Many of the PMA's used to have portage routes through them. They were abandoned and campsites closed. Why? Lack of usage? Lack of interest? Lack of fish or the "correct" species? Single campsite, dead end lakes - How many people are willing to take the risk of making a 90-180 rod portage to a single campsite, dead end lake only to turn around and have to portage back out again if the site is in use? For example - How many would portage into Wonder Lake south of Alton Lake or continue on to Sunhigh Lake? The portage is not daunting at 140 rds. The campsites receive low ratings on this site. Do we even know if there are game fish there? Why are they not used more? They are certainly not a hard day's travel from Sawbill lake. Alton, Sawbill, and Kelso are some of the busiest lakes around. Why don't people visit/use these as overflow? |
||
bottomtothetap |
Michwall2 It's because we are all getting older! |
||
billconner |
Michwall2: "Many of the PMA's used to have portage routes through them. They were abandoned and campsites closed. Why? Lack of usage? Lack of interest? Lack of fish or the "correct" species? They became PMAs because of budget - lack of funding. |
||
tumblehome |
The PMA’s were designated as primitive where they were never maintained by the USFS. That was and is the point of them. Only in the past 10-15 years have they become known to the masses. I found out about them from a friend here in MN whose Father was a FS manager. This was before you could Google them. Tom |
||
butthead |
Start adding items like campsites. And the BWCA starts looking filled up. I can add more items EP's Trail's PMA's and what looks unused begins to show that access gets very limited. Few conected lakes, large areas of marshy ground, PMA's. Looking at the area this way you can see very little of the BWCA is unused. Area around Wolfpack Lake west of the Pauness. |
||
butthead |
butthead |
||
deerfoot |
|
||
scat |
|
||
nctry |
|
||
scat |
|
||
Pinetree |
nctry: "Yeah, some of the pma’s were routes back in the day. Some of my old maps still had the portages on them. Just not real clear. But the other thing is why do you want to open it up more? Isn’t it better that we keep areas a little more wild? I like the idea there are not people crawling around every square inch of the BW, and I’ll bet there are animals that appreciate it too. " I like the idea there is a destination I can reach with more effort that others will not put forth. |
||
billconner |
|
||
mschi772 |
|
||
billconner |
This us around 1986. Wish some academic would write an update as seemingly objective and unbiased as this. |
||
Pinetree |
billconner: "I tried to find a little more history of PMAs and found this instead. Interesting read imho. BWCA changes I remember when they were established. Reason was to have areas that would give a person a chance at more remoteness and primitive. Good idea. Also long before the BWCA was established in its present form most lakes had a portage trail. Also best way to reduce over fishing is a limited access, meaning trail difficulty or distant to travel. |
||
billconner |
|
||
marrowoflife |
butthead: "Getting old and been a mappi9ng geek for a long time, so I have quite a set of files and mapping programs. This got me looking. Starting with just BWCA, Quetico, and Superior NF showing BWCA is less than half of the surrounding NF. Butthead, I'm sure you've answered this question plenty of times before, but if you don't mind sharing what software/programs do you use? Thanks, marrowoflife |