I recieved an email today from Williams and Hall outfitter regarding potential changes to the SNF policy regarding Towboats.

Invitation for Public Input

Definitely worth the read and an opportunity to send the SNF your two cents.

Thanks Cricket for posting this. Looks like the Forest Service is taking feedback comments until January 1, 2024.

POS government website wouldn’t complete my ‘captcha’ & then deleted my entire comment after spending longer than I intended preparing it.

Thank you for sharing. I hope they don’t get rid of tows, it would make Moose EP an awful mess if 28 groups per day used that single EP landing instead of the EP + PP, Splash, & Birch portage landings. I’d bet some of the loudest voices calling for tows to end do not even use the park or tow-EPs, though that’s just my opinion.

I agree with John.

The last handful of trips I have taken involved introducing younger kids to the Bdub. A couple of these have involved tows on Moose and Saganaga. That first trip means so much on whether they will want to keep coming back, and either having that first day or the last memory of the trip to be a long grouling slog through wind and waves on the big lakes could turn an otherwise great trip into something that turns them off.

Agree with John and cricket. Our first two trips were from moose. First one we paddled from the entry point, second one we used a tow (because we knew they existed at that point). Greatly added to our enjoyment and experience.

BEARnMOOSE: "Agree with John and cricket. Our first two trips were from moose. First one we paddled from the entry point, second one we used a tow (because we knew they existed at that point). Greatly added to our enjoyment and experience. "

However, remember that what adds to your enjoyment detracts from others' enjoyment. I don't have an issue with having some tows available for people who really need them to be able to experience the area. It is the huge increase in the number of tows over the original allotment that I have a problem with. It has turned into the norm vs the exception to get a tow and it feels like the reason is just to beat the people who paddle so they can grab the campsites on Ensign or Knife first. The constant buzzing of tow boats (especially on Moose) really takes away from my paddling experience.

I get the feeling from reading the article that the Forest Service is leaning towards reducing some tows on the Moose Lake Chain. It definitely doesn’t feel like a wilderness area until you are out of earshot of the motorboats in this specific area. You used to be able to camp on Newfound or Sucker and have a relatively quiet experience, but lately it seems impossible. They are a constant noise in the peak summer months, running paddlers all daylight hours. This is just perception, but I spend a fair share of time in the area and have for several years and it seems like there are more tows then they’re used to be. I have nothing against people taking the tows, I know vacation time is scarce for lots of people nowadays, I just think it’s gotten a little out of hand. Maybe time for a reset…

My two cents.

Tony

I’ve probably shared my opinion too many times on this LOL…

I think the major issue is mindset. Unfortunately when the BWCAW was created…as part of the compromise (a compromise that cannot be changed) parts of the BWCAW were left motorized… to me the motorized areas really aren’t the BWCAW. They are just another motorized lake in Minnesota. I don’t like it, but I also understand without the compromise the BWCAW would probably still all be motorized…Every lake would be able to have motors. So it was the best possible outcome we could have had.

The issue seems to be many people don’t understand the rules…they think complaining or shaming people for using motors legally in the motorized zone will somehow stop the motors. It won’t. I hear comments motors diminish the experience…I think this is the mindset piece issue. Moose and other motor lakes aren’t a wilderness…never can be…never will be. It’s a buffer zone at best. I’ll admit I take tows on those lakes…the reason being…Moose isn’t really a wilderness. I don’t want to paddle on motorized Lakes. It’s a waste of my time. I have no idea why anyone would. But it’s a personal choice if you decide to paddle on a designated motor lake…just stop bitching at others for not doing it…I don’t consider it part of the BWCAW…at least as far as canoeing goes. Like I said it NEVER can be what some canoeists want…no matter how much complaining they do.

Possibly the FS will reduce tows? I think tows will reduce either way as numbers drop in the BWCAW—that’s the trend. I am not even sure the FS can legally reduce tows. The current numbers, which are higher than 5 years ago, are still within the guidelines set by congress in 1978.

Reduce tows or not…20 years from now people will still be complaining about it on Moose :)

T

timatkn: "I’ve probably shared my opinion too many times on this LOL…


I think the major issue is mindset. Unfortunately when the BWCAW was created…as part of the compromise (a compromise that cannot be changed) parts of the BWCAW were left motorized… to me the motorized areas really aren’t the BWCAW. They are just another motorized lake in Minnesota. I don’t like it, but I also understand without the compromise the BWCAW would probably still all be motorized…Every lake would be able to have motors. So it was the best possible outcome we could have had.


The issue seems to be many people don’t understand the rules…they think complaining or shaming people for using motors legally in the motorized zone will somehow stop the motors. It won’t. I hear comments motors diminish the experience…I think this is the mindset piece issue. Moose and other motor lakes aren’t a wilderness…never can be…never will be. It’s a buffer zone at best. I’ll admit I take tows on those lakes…the reason being…Moose isn’t really a wilderness. I don’t want to paddle on motorized Lakes. It’s a waste of my time. I have no idea why anyone would. But it’s a personal choice if you decide to paddle on a designated motor lake…just stop bitching at others for not doing it…I don’t consider it part of the BWCAW…at least as far as canoeing goes. Like I said it NEVER can be what some canoeists want…no matter how much complaining they do.


Possibly the FS will reduce tows? I think tows will reduce either way as numbers drop in the BWCAW—that’s the trend. I am not even sure the FS can legally reduce tows. The current numbers, which are higher than 5 years ago, are still within the guidelines set by congress in 1978.


Reduce tows or not…20 years from now people will still be complaining about it on Moose :)


T"

very well said. As above, the tows we have experienced (east side of Seagull, and on Saganaga) are motorized lake areas, not really the BWCA. Also, our groups are getting older and without the tows on those two lakes we would not be paddling/portaging into the lakes we go to.

When we started in the BWCA 16 years ago someone told me that there was a BWCA evolution with paddlers. They start in the Ely area. Then get tired of the crowds and move to the Gunflint area. Finally, those that want a true experience of wilderness gravitate to Quetico area. He probably was not far off.

timatkn: "…
T"

I concur.
Even if tows are reduced/eliminated, there will still be motorboats on those lakes, so the net result would just harm canoeists trying to get deeper & away from the motor zone on Day One. In my experience, the tow boats tend to be quieter & more courteous than the fishing boats. It is also a revenue stream for the outfitters & the local economy by extension.
From my perspective, the government will do what the government wants to do & the input of individuals is far less important than money, clout, & blackmail - the true currency of our ruling class,

ockycamper: "Also, our groups are getting older and without the tows on those two lakes we would not be paddling/portaging into the lakes we go to."

This is so true. The group I assisted to/from Knife & to their tow yesterday never would have considered the trip plan if not for the tow, so they would not have had a trip this year. It was one woman’s 52nd year up here, 50 in a row before involuntary hiatus. She hadn’t seen Knife Lake since Dorothy lived here & if not for the tow being available I don’t think she would have seen it for the rest of her days, which would have been a shame.

1960s and 1970s:
We care deeply about the environment, to the point that we elect lawmakers who pass laws that reflect our ideals (Wilderness Act, Clean Water Act)

2020s:
We went too far with these crazy environmental laws.

I concur with much of what was said here. The day/use of motor boats and tow boats go hand in hand. Do I wish all motors were out of the BWCA? Absolutely. That won't happen any day soon. Attacking the tow boats won't fix the issues that most day-use motors bring.

As to the sentiment that tow boats are necessary for dispersal, I don't entirely think that's true. It's true in the current arrangement with the high permits and motorized zone. If the entirety of the BWCA was non-motorized, then areas closer to the entry would be wilder and places like Moose Lake would be maybe 12 permits a day. The current high level is with the assumption that motors will move them. People would still disperse without them. That's what mandatory campsite use gives you.

There are so many "what-ifs" and "if-only's" I just have to keep reminding myself how lucky we are to have this place. Of course, I wish there weren't motors on most of the big lakes. I also wish the Echo Trail never existed (can you imagine how remote some of those lakes would feel?!?) And yes, so many other wishes for what this place could have been that do nothing more than rile people up (haha.) But compromises were made, compromises which made this place possible. Every step of the way, new threats came along that wanted to ruin it completely, and we are lucky to have what we do. The best I can do is love it well, care for it when I am here, and be part of helping other people love it and, with any hope, the generations that come after me will have the chance to love it too.

Groups of nine bother me much more than tows.

YaMarVa: "Groups of nine bother me much more than tows. "

worse...2 groups of 9 obviously traveling together but under 2 permits and they get to a narrow portage right before you triple portaging. I am not in a hurry but come on...LOL

We bring up 14 to 20 men each fall. We split into 3 groups and stage when we leave the outfitters.

Let me give you another perspective. 14 years ago one of our groups, 4 canoes, 8 men, were unloading (one canoe at a time) to go through a portage. Another canoe with a father and son in it shoved through our other three canoes which were waiting to unload, jumped out and single portaged right through our group. When I told him my understanding that the rules (note the videos you have to watch) state you have to wait your turn he said he was single portaging and had been coming up for 25 years and this was allowed.

Seriously? People are in that much of a hurry? I can make the case that groups of 2-4 can be just as much of a pain when they push through everyone else because "they now how to do it right".

timatkn: "

YaMarVa: "Groups of nine bother me much more than tows. "

worse...2 groups of 9 obviously traveling together but under 2 permits and they get to a narrow portage right before you triple portaging. I am not in a hurry but come on...LOL"

Hahaha! I was stuck behind one of those, a group of eight canoes, on the little portage from Swamp into Sag. Just a complete traffic jam.

ockycamper: "We bring up 14 to 20 men each fall. We split into 3 groups and stage when we leave the outfitters.


Let me give you another perspective. 14 years ago one of our groups, 4 canoes, 8 men, were unloading (one canoe at a time) to go through a portage. Another canoe with a father and son in it shoved through our other three canoes which were waiting to unload, jumped out and single portaged right through our group. When I told him my understanding that the rules (note the videos you have to watch) state you have to wait your turn he said he was single portaging and had been coming up for 25 years and this was allowed.


Seriously? People are in that much of a hurry? I can make the case that groups of 2-4 can be just as much of a pain when they push through everyone else because "they now how to do it right"."

Fair case, but if you pull up to a portage with 8 men and 4 canoes and right after you land a solo person or a tandem pulls up, you would be in the right place to let them go through, especially if they say they are single-portaging. It's a courtesy.

Although I understand that, the videos are very clear that when approaching a portage you stay off shore until the canoe in front is unloaded and moving through the portage. If they offer you to come on through that is one thing. But no one has a right (again I point to the videos everyone is supposed to watch) to just push through the group in front of them because they are going too slow.

ockycamper: "Although I understand that, the videos are very clear that when approaching a portage you stay off shore until the canoe in front is unloaded and moving through the portage. If they offer you to come on through that is one thing. But no one has a right (again I point to the videos everyone is supposed to watch) to just push through the group in front of them because they are going too slow."

Right, I'm not supporting anyone just rolling up and plowing their way through if it's not warranted. But if you have a large group and happen to land moments before a single canoe does, you're kind of a dick to not let them pass through when you know it's going to take your group 30-45 minutes to complete your portage. Just saying.

I've run into some pretty snobby large groups before when I am soloing that take their sweet time or hang out on the landing and chat because they also know what rules state and they feel it's their right to take as long as they please. In those cases, yeah I'm gonna just plow my way through. Sorry not sorry.

ockycamper: "... the videos are very clear that when approaching a portage you stay off shore until the canoe in front is unloaded and moving through the portage....."

Incorrect, I just re-watched the video and it says it is a "courtesy to wait", not a regulation.

The regulation on your permit states that "No more than 9 people may be together in the Wilderness - on the water, at a portage, or in camp." I am not aware of a regulation that states you must wait off-shore if a group is using the portage.

Just saying there are two view points. We have always had larger groups. In the Ely area we routinely had groups of one or two canoes plow right through our groups stating that it was their right. That's why we moved to the Gunflint area and more remote lakes that don't have as many paddlers. . .as well as the fall. We have also made it a practice to get our gear through then go back and help carry gear for others that are struggling. We try to help everyone on the portage. But frankly, I don't have much patience for the ones that blow through us and everyone else. . . not stopping to help those that could use some help portaging. . . because they don't want to wait.

Most portages can accommodate 2 or 3 canoes loading/unloading at a time.

The following is taken directly from the Superior National Forest Web site:

Q: Tell me about portage etiquette.
A: Wait on the water until the group in front of you has proceeded down the trail.


So why do some feel they have the right to push through others?

ockycamper: "The following is taken directly from the Superior National Forest Web site:


Q: Tell me about portage etiquette.
A: Wait on the water until the group in front of you has proceeded down the trail.



So why do some feel they have the right to push through others?"

Because courtesy and etiquette are not rules.

So you have the right to shove through a slower group? I understand if they are sitting around and goofing off. But I have not seen that before. What I have seen is groups that are struggling on portages and could use some help, not someone shoving past them because they don't want to wait.

ockycamper: "So you have the right to shove through a slower group? ...."

Yes, technically you do as long as there are no more than 9 people on the portage.

We will have to disagree on this one. However I suppose everyone "has the right" to display poor manners and etiquette.

ockycamper: "We will have to disagree on this one. However I suppose everyone "has the right" to display poor manners and etiquette."

What are we disagreeing about?

Yes, everyone has a right to display poor manners and etiquette as long as they're not breaking a law. My friend thinks its poor etiquette to have a watch on your left hand or use your left hand for eating, whereas I don't believe its bad etiquette to eat with my left hand. I follow rules, not norms of courtesy or etiquette.

Then going back to the original thread. . . boat motors on motorized lakes do not bother me near as bad as those that shove through others at portages rather then help everyone on the portage get through quickly as possible.

ockycamper: "Then going back to the original thread. . . boat motors on motorized lakes do not bother me near as bad as those that shove through others at portages rather then help everyone on the portage get through quickly as possible. "

Besides the experience you mentioned, is this actually happening to people? I've never experienced it. I generally have only met kind, excited people on portages.

It happened often to us in the Ely area where there were a lot more paddlers. Hasn't happened since we moved to Gunflint and mid to late September ten years ago. Our group is typically made up of guys in their 50's-70's. So we tend to go a little slower at portages then those half our age. That said, it is our practice to waive solos and tandems through, and to help others on the portage get through as well by carrying their gear. Quite simply, we just aren't in that big of a hurry. That happens when you get our age.

ockycamper: "It happened often to us in the Ely area where there were a lot more paddlers. Hasn't happened since we moved to Gunflint and mid to late September ten years ago. Our group is typically made up of guys in their 50's-70's. So we tend to go a little slower at portages then those half our age. That said, it is our practice to waive solos and tandems through, and to help others on the portage get through as well by carrying their gear. Quite simply, we just aren't in that big of a hurry. That happens when you get our age."

I'm in my 40s now, and for sure am moving slower than my trips in my 20s.

I have exclusively done Gunflint trips since 2012, and returned to EP 14 two weeks ago for my first Ely trip since then, and I also noticed the large difference in traffic at portage landings. My three gunflint trips this year were noticeably quieter on the portages.

ockycamper: That said, it is our practice to waive solos and tandems through, and to help others on the portage get through as well by carrying their gear. Quite simply, we just aren't in that big of a hurry. That happens when you get our age."

Two times someone carried our gear across portages this past year.

Speaking for myself and other BWCAW rangers I worked with on the East side this summer. We do not like it when others carry our gear across portages, we are afraid something is going to get misplaced, I am 60 years old.

Our groups do not just pick up peoples gear and carry it through. We ask them if they would like some help. We have never had anyone tell us "no thanks we would rather do it ourselves". The help has always been welcomed.

ockycamper: "Our groups do not just pick up peoples gear and carry it through. We ask them if they would like some help. We have never had anyone tell us "no thanks we would rather do it ourselves". The help has always been welcomed."

Understood and thanks, both times were when we double portaged and someone brought our packs across on their double portage, empty back haul without asking.

TreeBear.
What issues do most day use motors need fixing.

YaMarVa: "

ockycamper: "So you have the right to shove through a slower group? ...."

Yes, technically you do as long as there are no more than 9 people on the portage. "

That’s not even technically true.

“A: Group size is limited to 9 people and 4 watercraft at any time or anywhere in the Wilderness—on the water, on portages, or in camp. Smaller groups have less impact.”

The key word is group size. If both of our groups are 5 people and we portage at the same time…we are separate groups. Our groups are not traveling or gathering together. We are not in violation of the rules. If we got a ticket 10 out of 10 times we could win in court the way the rules are written. This rule was put in place because Scout, Youth, and church groups arrive in these massive groups. All with separate permits but traveling together. THis is who the rule is intended to stop. I know because before me…my troop got busted :) They “staged” 30 minutes behind each other but the second group caught the 1st group it was a big portage and there were probably 25-30 people going both ways…the scouts rightfully got the riot act from the ranger but only the scouts got the fine and the lecture. The other groups were easily separate and considered fine by the ranger. I am in charge now and I make everyone do different entry points to resist the temptation.

timatkn: "

YaMarVa: "

ockycamper: "So you have the right to shove through a slower group? ...."

Yes, technically you do as long as there are no more than 9 people on the portage. "

That’s not even technically true.


“A: Group size is limited to 9 people and 4 watercraft at any time or anywhere in the Wilderness—on the water, on portages, or in camp. Smaller groups have less impact.”


The key word is group size. If both of our groups are 5 people and we portage at the same time…we are separate groups. Our groups are not traveling or gathering together. We are not in violation of the rules. If we got a ticket 10 out of 10 times we could win in court the way the rules are written. This rule was put in place because Scout, Youth, and church groups arrive in these massive groups. All with separate permits but traveling together. THis is who the rule is intended to stop. I know because before me…my troop got busted :) They “staged” 30 minutes behind each other but the second group caught the 1st group it was a big portage and there were probably 25-30 people going both ways…the scouts rightfully got the riot act from the ranger but only the scouts got the fine and the lecture. The other groups were easily separate and considered fine by the ranger. I am in charge now and I make everyone do different entry points to resist the temptation. "

Yes, good clarification and even more to the point you can use a portage landing if another group already is.

YaMarVa: "

timatkn: "

YaMarVa: "

ockycamper: "So you have the right to shove through a slower group? ...."

Yes, technically you do as long as there are no more than 9 people on the portage. "

That’s not even technically true.



“A: Group size is limited to 9 people and 4 watercraft at any time or anywhere in the Wilderness—on the water, on portages, or in camp. Smaller groups have less impact.”



The key word is group size. If both of our groups are 5 people and we portage at the same time…we are separate groups. Our groups are not traveling or gathering together. We are not in violation of the rules. If we got a ticket 10 out of 10 times we could win in court the way the rules are written. This rule was put in place because Scout, Youth, and church groups arrive in these massive groups. All with separate permits but traveling together. THis is who the rule is intended to stop. I know because before me…my troop got busted :) They “staged” 30 minutes behind each other but the second group caught the 1st group it was a big portage and there were probably 25-30 people going both ways…the scouts rightfully got the riot act from the ranger but only the scouts got the fine and the lecture. The other groups were easily separate and considered fine by the ranger. I am in charge now and I make everyone do different entry points to resist the temptation. "

Yes, good clarification and even more to the point you can use a portage landing if another group already is. "

Yea..it should be common sense. If there is room and you aren’t bothering anyone go ahead and land. I’ve been on larger busier portages with multiple groups and everyone got along just fine. I’ve been passed…people have passed me…who cares? I go at the pace i find comfortable. On my last trip a young couple landed after us and we encouraged them to go down the trail first. It was our scouts 1st day and they were slow. I would never have expected them to wait until our group had left. Share…show etiquette…it goes both ways.

T

As for carrying someone else’s gear:

That is bad etiquette if the owner has not given permission. Please do not carry my gear for me. That’s just wrong.

A large group of 8 or 9 people should always yield to a small group of one or two. That’s good etiquette. If a small group shall wait on the water for a large group of senior men and women to finish the portage, how long should that small group wait. A half hour, hour? An hour and a half?

Tom

JohnGalt: "

ockycamper: "Also, our groups are getting older and without the tows on those two lakes we would not be paddling/portaging into the lakes we go to."

This is so true. The group I assisted to/from Knife & to their tow yesterday never would have considered the trip plan if not for the tow, so they would not have had a trip this year. It was one woman’s 52nd year up here, 50 in a row before involuntary hiatus. She hadn’t seen Knife Lake since Dorothy lived here & if not for the tow being available I don’t think she would have seen it for the rest of her days, which would have been a shame."

Totally appropriate use for a tow. But that is not the norm on Moose Lake in particular. It has become a way for physically capable people to race to Ensign or Knife to grab campsites before the paddlers. IMO. Tows on Sag and Seagull have little impact on my experience on those lakes. Moose is a whole different story...motorboats lined up at the portage entrances to drop clients such that I have to wait with my gear on my shoulders or try to weave my way through to a clear spot. I don't want to eliminate tows, I just want them brought to a reasonable level on Moose.

ockycamper: "It happened often to us in the Ely area where there were a lot more paddlers. Hasn't happened since we moved to Gunflint and mid to late September ten years ago. Our group is typically made up of guys in their 50's-70's. So we tend to go a little slower at portages then those half our age. That said, it is our practice to waive solos and tandems through, and to help others on the portage get through as well by carrying their gear. Quite simply, we just aren't in that big of a hurry. That happens when you get our age."

I hope you are asking if they want help, not just grabbing a pack and hauling it over because you think that is helpful. I do not like if someone touches my gear without asking me first. I understand the urge to help, but transporting someone's gear without permission is a big no-no in my book of etiquette.

If a portage is super busy with people coming up on our tail and another group who is just starting out, we will generally push in pretty quickly. I never try to unload a boat while others are still unloading a boat. But if they are clearly going to be returning for a second load, I will move past them once they unload. Otherwise some of these portages would have a 2 hour wait and need traffic lights. We typically will ask people if they mind us single portaging past them, just the polite thing to do and I've never had anyone say no.

But motorboat tows bother me way more than someone being a little pushy at a portage or grabbing my gear without permission. To each their own though.

I have said a couple of times that we don't just pick up other peoples gear and carry it through. We move our gear through. If we pass someone that appears to be struggling or tired we will offer help. We have yet to be turned down. Because we have a larger group, one of our guys would carry their canoe and the others their gear. It gets them through the portage in one trip. Again. . . we ask them if they need help. If they say yes, we mobilize and help them out.

I just have never understood the attitude that some don't want to be slowed down to allow others who are slower/newer/older/less capable. And yes, we would always offer a solo or tandem to move through our group if they wished. However, after 16 years we are pretty fast at portages. We just try to look around and see if someone would like help. We are in no hurry. All that said, I don't have much patience for someone that shoves their canoe in with ours at the landing and unloads while we are unloading. . . without asking or invitation. It strikes me as an entitlement attitude.

I am all for tow boats up to the BWCA border, then at which point they are not conducive to the wilderness. The BWCA comprises less than 1% of Minnesota. Motorboats are allowed on the remaining 99%. Opponents to motors in the wilderness are not asking for much when you put it in perspective.

If a group cannot get to the wilderness without a tow boat, then how do they get around once they have to put the canoe in the water?

Tom

The issue is that the BWCA is different things to each group. Our groups come for the wilderness and fishing. We go to Gunflint and go in the fall to get away from people. We also hate portaging and are base campers. So we typically go no more then one portage in and use the tows to get to the portage if available. We do a LOT of paddling once to our base camps. But that is for fishing and exploring when we aren't carrying a canoe load of gear.

tumblehome: "I am all for tow boats up to the BWCA border, then at which point they are not conducive to the wilderness. The BWCA comprises less than 1% of Minnesota. Motorboats are allowed on the remaining 99%. Opponents to motors in the wilderness are not asking for much when you put it in perspective.


If a group cannot get to the wilderness without a tow boat, then how do they get around once they have to put the canoe in the water?


Tom



"

BWCA has 1,175 lakes, about 1/8 of 1% of those lakes allow limited motor access on the edge of the wilderness area. Given that the character of the Canadian Shield is not something you can find on the vast majority of Minnesota’s lakes, it’s not too much to ask to make this unique area accessible to more folks by allowing small motors on this tiny slice of the bwca.

Re: your second paragraph? It’s pretty silly to presume that not being able to paddle the entire width of Saganaga means someone would therefore not be able to enjoy a nice week of base camping on Red Rock or another comparable lake.

thegildedgopher: "

tumblehome: "
If a group cannot get to the wilderness without a tow boat, then how do they get around once they have to put the canoe in the water?

Tom

"

Re: your second paragraph? It’s pretty silly to presume that not being able to paddle the entire width of Saganaga means someone would therefore not be able to enjoy a nice week of base camping on Red Rock or another comparable lake."

I could paddle to Quetico, but I can get there faster with a tow. Then I put the canoe in the water and paddle.

tumblehome: "I am all for tow boats up to the BWCA border, then at which point they are not conducive to the wilderness. The BWCA comprises less than 1% of Minnesota. Motorboats are allowed on the remaining 99%. Opponents to motors in the wilderness are not asking for much when you put it in perspective.


If a group cannot get to the wilderness without a tow boat, then how do they get around once they have to put the canoe in the water?


Tom
"

I don't disagree with anything you say in your 1st paragraph as far as what i want to happen...except it is impossible under the BWCAW Act. It might seem annoying i keep bringing this up, but it's just as annoying people keep calling for bans on motors when it's impossible.

Your second paragraph is just a different take. Since I know I can't change the rules...I work around them. Lakes with motors on them in my mind aren't part of the Wilderness. So I take a tow through them. I consider it a complete waste of time paddling through a motorized lake. I can do that anywhere. Where it seems like some people keep paddling motorized lakes getting mad there are motors on them??? Just avoid them, take a tow, or stop complaining. Those really are the only options left. I avoid them when I can or take a tow. I used to complain too...

T

So....what do you all think the Forest Service is going to do after getting feedback? Given their recent actions of limiting permits at certain entry points, I am certain they will enact some new rule regarding tow boats.

I don't think tows will be eliminated because the BWCA was formed with a compromise to include some motorized lakes. To eliminate motor lakes would mean opening the whole BWCA Act for amendment, which could cause more harm as other interest groups would see that as an opportunity to chip away.

My best guess is that a limitation on the number of tows in a day (round trip? One way?) or a limitation on the hours of tow operation will be enacted. Any other guesses?

Minnesotian…

If they restrict tows it will have to be under the commercial operators portion of the BWCAW act—I don’t know enough to make a prediction on that. I am pretty certain they can’t eliminate tows as part of the Wilderness Act, but there seems to be wiggle room to regulate or reduce. I think there are loopholes for the tow operators to work around those restrictions too though if they get creative…which would require more regulation…and so on.

I believe the amount of motors per day is at or under the guidelines set with the creation of the BWCAW act so there is no viable case there to restrict motor use. The tow operators could sue back and probably win if the FS tries to go that route.

That’s all assuming their feedback is for reducing tows…which is a good assumption but not 100% certain either. Maybe a compromise with tow operators feedback makes sense? Try to make both sides happy???

T

straighthairedcurly: "

BEARnMOOSE: "Agree with John and cricket. Our first two trips were from moose. First one we paddled from the entry point, second one we used a tow (because we knew they existed at that point). Greatly added to our enjoyment and experience. "

However, remember that what adds to your enjoyment detracts from others' enjoyment. I don't have an issue with having some tows available for people who really need them to be able to experience the area. It is the huge increase in the number of tows over the original allotment that I have a problem with. It has turned into the norm vs the exception to get a tow and it feels like the reason is just to beat the people who paddle so they can grab the campsites on Ensign or Knife first. The constant buzzing of tow boats (especially on Moose) really takes away from my paddling experience. "

Very well written and I agree 100%.

JohnGalt: "
This is so true. The group I assisted to/from Knife & to their tow yesterday never would have considered the trip plan if not for the tow, so they would not have had a trip this year. It was one woman’s 52nd year up here, 50 in a row before involuntary hiatus. She hadn’t seen Knife Lake since Dorothy lived here & if not for the tow being available I don’t think she would have seen it for the rest of her days, which would have been a shame."

If you can't have a trip without a towboat, you should probably start thinking about a new destination for camping trips as its only a matter of time before lack of physical ability is a serious safety issue. There is a certain amount of physical ability that is needed to trip in the bwca. Going in without it is quite foolish and asking for problems IMO.

Again. . . .everyone's definition of BWCA is something different. We don't like portaging and base camp. We come to fish, hang out around the camp site, and explore (with empy canoes and day packs). We can camp on Seagull, or take a short portage into Alpine or Red Rock and we are home.

The BWCA experience does not have to be just for the "fit" that like to paddle long hours and do multiple portages. We go for the solitude and fishing. Doing away with tows only appeals to the group that wants to do long miles and many portages. The rest of us just like to hang out.

timatkn: "I’ve probably shared my opinion too many times on this LOL…

I think the major issue is mindset. Unfortunately when the BWCAW was created…as part of the compromise (a compromise that cannot be changed) parts of the BWCAW were left motorized… to me the motorized areas really aren’t the BWCAW. They are just another motorized lake in Minnesota. I don’t like it, but I also understand without the compromise the BWCAW would probably still all be motorized…Every lake would be able to have motors. So it was the best possible outcome we could have had.

Possibly the FS will reduce tows? I think tows will reduce either way as numbers drop in the BWCAW—that’s the trend. I am not even sure the FS can legally reduce tows. The current numbers, which are higher than 5 years ago, are still within the

T"

I don't like tows when I am paddling, I have taken them to Quetico :)

Is the number of tows an act of congress or was it set by regulations? I am not 100% sure, and let me know if you know, but upon reading the act I interpret the act as telling the secretary or the agency to develop the number of tow permits. To me that says the tows are regulatory in nature developed by the agency as instructed by the act.

So yes, tows probably aren't going away without an act of congress, but in theory the agency could to say 1 permit per day or electric only motors, as allowed under their regulatory authority under the act.

Edited to add that after reading the Williams and Hall post, I am convinced that the agency has the ability to set tow rates, not eliminate, but under their authority could minimally restrict their usage and set conditions.

There are hundreds of lakes in the BWCA. Only a handful have tows. I don't see the problem. If you don't like boat motors, don't paddle on those lakes.

flopnfolds: Is the number of tows an act of congress or was it set by regulations? I am not 100% sure, and let me know if you know, but upon reading the act I interpret the act as telling the secretary or the agency to develop the number of tow permits. To me that says the tows are regulatory in nature developed by the agency as instructed by the act.

So yes, tows probably aren't going away without an act of congress, but in theory the agency could to say 1 permit per day or electric only motors, as allowed under their regulatory authority under the act.

Edited to add that after reading the Williams and Hall post, I am convinced that the agency has the ability to set tow rates, not eliminate, but under their authority could minimally restrict their usage and set conditions.
"

Section 4(f) directs "the Secretary to set quotas for the use of motorboats within the wilderness portions of the lakes listed in subsection c....That the quota established for any one year shall not exceed the average actual annual motorboat use of the calendar years 1976, 1977, and 1978 for each lake...that on each lake resort owners and their guests on that particular lake shall have access to that particular lake and their entry shall not be counted in determining such use."

The word "tow" only appears in the BWCAW act once, and its in subsection c.

I’ve used a tow twice in the forty whatever years I paddled. Used moose many times and can see the benefit of tows. They don’t bother me and if they did I would do like I do when paddling the west side of Lac La Croix… I get up and paddle before there’s much boat traffic. Plenty of places to go to avoid tow boats if they bother you. It’s been part of things from the beginning… they have helped people including myself on very windy days. I had a three year old kid and some young inexperienced kids. They did well, but that final stretch down moose wasn’t going to happen without one. As far as people using them to beat others to campsites… I’m guessing that isn’t the norm. Usuall to get deeper maybe or accessibility issues.

nctry: "As far as people using them to beat others to campsites… I’m guessing that isn’t the norm."

Those people don’t exist. They are a figment in the imagination of the same type of folks who think the zipper merge isn’t “fair.”

Did I read the numbers right? The amount of tows have actually been going down?

If this is so what is the point of the proposal?

There are plenty of no motor entry point s if they bother you and tows are super helpful on big lake when the water is cold, it’s windy, you have a young family, or in my case once a hungry pregnant wife.

thegildedgopher: "

nctry: "As far as people using them to beat others to campsites… I’m guessing that isn’t the norm."

Those people don’t exist. They are a figment in the imagination of the same type of folks who think the zipper merge isn’t “fair.”"

Zipper merge? But it’s way better to get in one line 10 miles before the merge…says…no one with at least 2 brain cells LOL

T

thistlekicker: "1960s and 1970s:
We care deeply about the environment, to the point that we elect lawmakers who pass laws that reflect our ideals (Wilderness Act, Clean Water Act)


2020s:
We went too far with these crazy environmental laws.
"

True to some extent, for sure. But with no caps on population growth, the tendency for more regulation will only increase on every aspect of society as one person's idea of "freedom" affects someone else's idea of "freedom".

Person 1: "When will you people stop adding more environmental laws and restrictions?

Person 2: "When will you people stop developing more and more wild areas and destroying nature?"