what is the reason for letting motor boats in some parts of the BWCA and not others. Why is there a limit on the size motor that is allowed, and what would be the problem with letting bigger boats into the waters, would there be a problem with the environment?

I believe the boats are allowed in some areas do to historical reasons. When the BW became a Wilderness area many users really fought it. They wanted to continue to use motorboats/snowmobiles in the area. The fact that motor boats are allowed in some areas and not others was a "compromise". This is a federal wilderness area, which makes this land among the most protected lands in the United states. (Even more so than National Parks) There are many good reasons for not allowing motorboats everywhere, so I'll only list a few. From an environmental point of view, 2 cycle boat motors are horrible polluters, both in the air and in the water (4 strokes are much better, but still aren't as clean as a paddle). If motor boats were allowed everywhere, the portages would be congested with people trying to get motor boats across. There are no gas stations back there, so users would have to pack in all their gas. This introduces the possibility of spills. There is also an issue with noise pollution. Being a wilderness area, users expect a certain level of peace and quiet.

As for the limit on Motor size, I belive this is just a simple way to enforce a speed limit. Being in a canoe when you've got a bunch of 100hp bass boats speeding around is not fun. After all, this is the Boundary Waters CANOE Area, and it's not like there is a shortage of places to take out motor boats in Minnesota.

Mason...
Most of the lakes where motors are permitted are near the beginning or the edges of the BWCA.
Also most of them are bigger lakes that maybe can "take" more fuel polution than many of the smaller lakes...

I really don't think you'd like to portage a motor and fuel very far into the interior, let alone a boat..

AND...IT WOULD JUST RUIN THE PURPOSE OF THE BWCA (CANOE AREA) it is what it reads Canoe area.....meaning to me, PADDLE ONLY...
I think you'd destroy the wilderness, solitude, wildlife,forests the water itself, and everything else that makes this area SO GREAT AN EXPEIRIENCE!!!

Woodpecker

I beg to differ. As a veteran camper I can tell you that penetrating the interior of the Canadian wilderness with motors and fuel is a snap. A 3HP on the back of a 16' Alumicraft and you sail up muskegs, shoot across lakes and I've never found a portage we couldn't handle, you simply attach the motor to a backpack frame and go. Single portaging is out of the question most of the time, but hey I just crossed that large lake in 8 minutes.

Do I want the BWCAW and Q to allow motors? No, but the fears of environmental damage and pollution are completely overblown. The vast sprawling wilderness West of the Quetico that sees float planes, tiny camping cabins and occasional fly-in anglers outfitted with boats and 25hp motors is testament enough.

The sonic damage caused by the noise of float planes and motors is real enough, but minor.

Go for it then Beemer....
I'm talking traditional...after all I'm a historical reenactor so it would definitely be out of the question to even think of a motor and fuel...in the pristine area of the BWCA....
(and, I agree with Oregonfly--it's not like there aren't enough lakes to "motor" on in MN.)

Woodpecker

thanks for all of this information, I am doing a project on preserving the BWCA and this will really help me out with my project.

Beemer, As a veteran camper and an Environmental Scientist, I don't see how you can equate the area west of Quetico with the BWCA. These fly in areas are much more remote that the BW, and see a LOT less use. Your average Joe 6 pack doesn't make it back there. 10 motors on a Lake is going to cause 10 times as much damage as 1 motor. Be careful with your belief that "fears of environmental damage and pollution are completely overblown". Beliefs like that are the cause of environmental damage and pollution.

I don't think anyone can argue that people don't pollute when there is gas and motors involved. There is all too much evidence of that pretty much everywhere. However, I would disagree that it is "damaged." Do I believe we should pollute? No, but the fact is, while we are changing things, the only constant is change. We are not destroying it just changing it and who is to say it is worse, and worse than what? Besides the satalites that are sent off into space that wont burn up in the earths atmosphere, there is still the same atoms that there always were (despite the artificial ones and fission seperating some). But really until we get fusion going full scale I dont think there will really be any real "destruction."

I think everyone makes good points here:
If people wanted and it was permitted, there would be absolutely no problem hauling boats and motors to the most recessed areas of the wilderness anywhere in the world.

Motors do cause pollution. I would like to keep the status quo too. Better yet ban the things completely for everyone, planes and all up there.

Perhaps a longer POV is being pointed out. IMHO, in the time it will take to reach our extinction as a species(barring the ability to leave our jewel of a world) our impact on the planet will be minimal, unless we succeed in turning the place into a barren rock. Hence the "fears of environmental damage and pollution are completely overblown" are justifiable in this light.

two cents

Jim

RIGHT ON OREGONFLY.....

I agree...if everyone would just drop one gum wrapper on a portage...can you imagine how long it would take before that particular portage would become a "beautiful" example of how today's environmentally concerned are concerned about their environment...

I know we can say that this is just an example and not to worry ,BUT just think about the consequences....
The same COULD happen if we would be nonchalant in thinking that the fears of environmental damage and pollution in the BWCA and Q is completely overblown.
"EVERY LITTER BIT HURTS"
This is just my 2 (or maybe 3) cents worth.... Thanks for this discussion....

Woodpecker

I think people are misinterpreting Beemer's remarks on saying "the fears of environmental damage and pollution are completely overblown. " Beemer obviously knows that the pollution does happen, and that even with a lower number of motors on lakes that it does hurt the enviroment (any research not sponsered by big corp will tell you that). Now correct me if I am wrong Beemer, but it seems to me that Beemer is saying that people just talk about it or write about it too much.

I do not think there is one example that shows that pollution does not hurt the enviroment. (Obviously by hurt I mean change in a way that is deemed wrong by the society and culture of this site and a majority of western industralized nations.) That is really the purpose of pollution.

As far as our extinction as a species, it will come sooner than you think. Or at least billions of us will die very soon. Of all the water in the world only 3 percent is fresh. Of that 2 percent is in glaciers. Of the one percent left about 70 percent falls as rain in the amazon where relatively few people live. The aquafir for the U.S. has had 1/3 removed in the last fifty years and continues faster and will be used up (unless policy changes) in less than thirty. The colorado river doesn't reach the ocean anymore, many rivers and lakes in africa are gone, and many sources of fresh water are not safe for people to drink.

What happens without any water? It'll be fun to find out.

Time out folks. I'm a 30 year veteran of the BWCAW and Quetico - so have been doing this for a while. In 30 years I've never dropped a gum wrapper and in fact have carefully cleaned up after my Scout Troop on portages to gather each and every Starburst wrapper. Never pack in a bottle or can and carefully clean out solid debris from firepits and pack that out too. Never wash dishes in the lake (leastwise not for the past 20 of those years) in short I play by the rules and demand that those with me do the same.

What I'm saying is that we tend to become obsessive about this topic and can lose sight of reality. The actual impact of light usage with small motor boats and float planes is pretty slight - probably not unmeasurable, but close to it. Snowmobiles - the stinky noisy things that they are are also generally a low impact device - at least when used by mature thinking people. That you see is really the rub. There is an unfortunate general correlation between the motorized crowd and litter. Dunno why, but it sure seems to be there.

No moral here - just the observation that our wilderness rules and morals tend to change over the years - what was normal just a few decades back is unthinkable today. (Cutting boughs to sleep on, cutting saplings for tent supports and so forth)

If any of you want additional adventures check out the vast Canadian wilderness outside of Quetico. It sure is a wilderness... and it does allow engines.

what is the 10-4 on ball

I enjoy fishing from my motorboat as well taking my family for a ride on the water. Equally I enjoy the quiet of a BWCA trip in fact this year I have already been on a 10 day paddle and am planning to take my family to Basswood for a 10 day motor.I have never left trash for the next group in fact try to take back what others have left it is amazing to me how much trash you can still find. Face it there are always slugs in the crowd to leave a mark. I geuss my point is there is good in both types of recreation and I would hate to give up either type.One final note we must never forget that CONSERVATION=WISE USE OF A NATURAL RESOURCE NOT NO USE!!!!! If we remember this we can go forward with modern convience and with yesterdays simplicity. Thankyou