|
Boundary Waters Quetico Forum :: Listening Point - General Discussion :: No permits, no fees?
|
| Author | Message Text | ||
| Pinetree |
|
||
| dogwoodgirl |
|
||
| YaMarVa |
|
||
| Frenchy19 |
|
||
| Traveler |
|
||
| prettypaddle |
|
||
| Traveler |
As I thought about the topic though, I had to admit to myself that I think I would prefer if the entire permitting process and associated fees disappeared. Perhaps the BWCA would shortly become something like Branson in the north woods in which case I would readily admit that this was a foolish move. I would just say that my many experiences of dispersed camping, canoeing and fishing in the SNF make me think it might work out just fine. I have taken many trips up north without a fee or a permit in the areas surrounding the BWCA and found them to be well kept, beautiful, and not a bit overrun. Typically, I would say, I see fewer folks on those trips than I do in the BWCA proper. I would not suggest any other changes to the rules and enforcement, just the permiting process. I'm sure I don't see this ever happening so perhaps it's a ridiculous idea to bring up here but that's my take. |
||
| timatkn |
Basically been there, done that, doesn't work for this particular area. T |
||
| Traveler |
|
||
| Traveler |
Why, though, does it seem true that the unregulated areas feel less populated? They are also beautiful. True you might see/hear an occasional fishing boat (not often) and some of the campsites include picnic tables which you might find offputting but there are a lot of really nice areas with no fees and no permits. Why does it work there? |
||
| YaMarVa |
Traveler: "Why, though, does it seem true that the unregulated areas feel less populated? They are also beautiful. True you might see/hear an occasional fishing boat (not often) and some of the campsites include picnic tables which you might find offputting but there are a lot of really nice areas with no fees and no permits. Why does it work there?" Probably because there is a ton of information regarding the BWCA compared to the rest of the SNF. |
||
| NEIowapaddler |
Traveler: "...perhaps it's a ridiculous idea to bring up here..." I wholeheartedly agree with this part of your comment, at least ;) |
||
| KawnipiKid |
Traveler: "No worries, I understand. I think it might be true that things would get overrun. I also agree that the place is too populated now. Good topic to ponder, Traveler. Unregulated areas are very different than the BW. The BW is a cohesive area with special and unduplicatible qualities. While massive, more than 1 million acres, the BW is very popular and is used for one primary purpose mostly concentrated into 5 of 12 months per year. Permits aren't required in the rest of the year. It is one of the most dynamic systems of lakes and rivers in the world; a vast network with both incredible diversity and almost complete inter-connectedness. Almost all of the people who use it travel on the same liquid pathways and stay in the same set of camps. This concentrates humanity into much closer proximity than, say, a wilderness/roadless area of the same size in Alaska. Being on water, you also see and hear people much more readily across greater distances. You can be in unregulated environments and be closer to many more people than on Knife Lake but perhaps never know it or feel it. A BW lake with one other canoe way off on the horizon feels "populated." Other qualities that make the BW a special place perhaps more in need of regulation include the qualities of its name itself, word-by-word: Boundary -- a nearly 150 mile waterway of historic importance to native populations for thousands of years and those of European origin for 500+. Waters -- wetlands, swamps, beaver ponds, creeks, rivers, rapids, pool-and-drop, waterfalls, small lakes, giant lakes and more, all in an interconnected web made even more cohesive through the network of human made portages, both ancient and modern. It seems like a durable system but is more easily subject to degradation (fisheries, water quality) than it might appear. Canoe -- The limitation on travel to almost exclusively paddling (with just a small amount of hiking) takes us back to a more historical and primal way of being - paddling - that fuels a sense of accomplishment, exploration, peace, and reflection at a pre-modern pace. This draws lots of people, and for good reason. Area -- Already said, but, this cohesive massive special area like no other has a large carrying capacity but is so popular for the B, W and C reasons. It's inviting and famous enough to draw crowds that reach or exceed that carrying capacity. We have (I hope "have," not "had") a wonderful colleague here on the messageboards who rarely posts anymore, Ms. Molly. She never paddled the BW but was very active here as a thoughtful poster. She paddled exclusively in the sprawing and open (no permit) "Crown Lands" of Canada and reflected on experiences much like those we find in the BWCA and Quetico (Algonquin, for that matter). Those Crown Lands can be open and unregulated IMO because they are dispersed, remote and not cohesive and are a milion destinations rather than one destination. One beautiful little Crown lake or area may become better known or remain a secret, but is not part of and embedded in this amazing dynamic whole. Finally, there's a direct parallel to overtourism issues in general and how popularity makes quiet places busy to the point of regulation. I backpacked the wild pacific coast of the Vancouver Island Old Lifesaving Trail in 1982; no permits. On the way, I stopped at REI in Seattle. My REI member number is in the first 300,000. Today there are 25 million plus members. Seattle was the only REI store, today there are 141. Only a small number of us had ever heard of North Face or REI for that matter. The coast trail was glorious and not busy. Over the years, I would see it touted in Outside Magazine a lots of other places as worthy of everyone's bucket list Then social media was invented, etc. Today, permits are required and in great demand. No surprise, the numbers grew until they were over the trail's and area's human carrying capacity. The permits keep it just below that level. It was open and not busy and is now permitted and feels much busier because it was capped at some "max capacity" level. I'm guessing there's a BWCA parallel. It's the same for climbing Yosemite's big walls and for Grand Canyon rafting and ... Enjoy the unpermitted place before they are discovered by the magazines and facebook groups. I'm sorry for the big-winded ramble. Your question got me thinking, one of the best things about these messageboards! I wish you happy trails, whether wide open or requiring a permit. |
||
| bnics |
Traveler: "No worries, I understand. I think it might be true that things would get overrun. I also agree that the place is too populated now. I would argue (not in all cases) that unregulated areas simply aren't as sought after as regulated areas. This could be due to level of access, availability of camping or a whole number of reasons. When I think about some National Forest dispersed camping I've done, it's fun but there's not marked campsites, latrines, fire grates, etc. ALL of that would go away if it were no longer regulated. |
||
| Savage Voyageur |
Traveler: "Lot's of well thought and well written comments! I'm 70 years old and probably just guilty of wishing I was 18 again! :-)" I hope you are taking advantage of your age and using a Senior pass for 1/2 off your permit fee. |
||
| timatkn |
YaMarVa: "Traveler: "Why, though, does it seem true that the unregulated areas feel less populated? They are also beautiful. True you might see/hear an occasional fishing boat (not often) and some of the campsites include picnic tables which you might find offputting but there are a lot of really nice areas with no fees and no permits. Why does it work there?" Yea, that's what my thoughts are. Most of the areas that are just open, no one knows about them, there isn't much support for them, and they are usually not large areas like the BWCAW...small areas just don't attract people often. It's that ability to travel 20, 50, 150 miles in a wilderness. None of the areas you mention have that ability that I am aware of. On the advertising part...we see it on this site all the time. People want to travel in larger groups, we make the suggestion about the SNF or other areas and almost never do they take the advice..."but we want the Boundary Waters". I also think there is a prestige portion...I mean I meet people all the time who say they go to the Boundary Waters and brag about it only to find out they go to a Cabin in Ely every year LOL. T |