BWCA Scaling down motorized trips Boundary Waters Listening Point - General Discussion
Chat Rooms (0 Chatting)  |  Search  |   Login/Join
* For the benefit of the community, commercial posting is not allowed.
Boundary Waters Quetico Forum
   Listening Point - General Discussion
      Scaling down motorized trips     
 Forum Sponsor

Author

Text

rbevars
senior member (77)senior membersenior member
  
10/01/2015 06:04PM   (Thread Older Than 3 Years)
Maybe a personal preference. Some people probably don't have a problem with motorized boats while others feel it affects their wilderness experience.

MPR story

 
      Print Top Bottom Previous Next
billconner
distinguished member(8608)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/01/2015 07:34PM  
Thanks for posting. I'm in the "they don't bother me" camp.
 
10/01/2015 07:48PM  
Doesn't bother me, so many non-motor EPs to choose from, we all have to share the resource.
 
10/01/2015 07:53PM  
quote billconner: "I'm in the "they don't bother me" camp."

same here.
 
10/01/2015 07:56PM  
Why would people complain about this. If you don't want to see boat traffic don't go to where they are!!! There's a zillion places in the boundary waters were this is not an issue.
 
Savage Voyageur
distinguished member(14414)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished membermaster membermaster member
  
10/01/2015 08:18PM  
They don't bother me.
 
Grandma L
distinguished member(5628)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/01/2015 08:26PM  
They don't bother me - as long as they don't run me over.
 
gkimball
distinguished member(655)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/01/2015 09:04PM  
"the Forest Service's 1993 plan caps towboat trips at 1,342 per year. The group said data from its freedom of information request show the Forest Service allowed 1,639 trips in 2011 and 2,124 last year."

Pretty significant departure from the management plan, I'd say.

It's called the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Not the Boundary Waters Motorboat-Towing-Canoe Area. Hard enough to find a setting without motorboats, why not respect the management plan?
 
10/01/2015 09:07PM  
quote Ragged: "Doesn't bother me, so many non-motor EPs to choose from, we all have to share the resource. "

Same here. We tripped on Basswood once and that was enough for me. I will use a tow if one is available so I can get out of the motor zones asap.
 
10/01/2015 10:50PM  
quote walllee: "Why would people complain about this. "


Because some people go through life looking for things to complain about. Of course you are right that there are plenty of place to go where no motors are allowed so its easy to get away from them if they bother you but that sort of obvious logic doesn't work on everyone :)

Personally they don't bother me at all. I'll exchange a friendly wave with any boater. Motor boat, canoe, plastic inflatable pool raft, doesn't matter to me.
 
ObiWenonahKenobi
distinguished member (483)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/01/2015 10:55PM  
They don't bother me. When I first started tripping in the BWCA there were motors on Knife Lake and Thomas/Fraiser.
I'm getting older and the day is coming when the only way I'll get to enjoy the area is by motor to a campsite on a motorized fringe lake.
 
andym
distinguished member(5340)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/02/2015 12:11AM  
A good number of people make some money guiding fisherman on motor daytrips or overnights or providing lodging to people who take those daytrips. My feeling is there are plenty of places that don't allow any motors and I'm fine with it the way that it is.
 
10/02/2015 12:31AM  
I've only been on Moose once, and used a tow at that time to thrill the kids. I used to wonder why someone would EVER go to BWCA and opt for a tow, and then I became a customer.

I have no real issues with tow operators and we had a good experience, but I won't choose to PADDLE Moose I don't think while there are tows operating. I'll either join them again and tow or go somewhere else.

That said, I think they should go ahead and update the law/limits to match what is being provided successfully. FS gets 3% of tow fees, so it could be a win-win for everyone if they agree on a consistent way to COUNT a tow and then actually share in the fees.

 
NotLight
distinguished member(1262)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/02/2015 05:44AM  
99% of lakes in Minnesota are open to motorboats. But really, for the tourism economy to have any chance of survival whatsoever, it really needs to be 99.1%? I just don't buy it. Especially when the goal of adding the extra 0.1% is to make it easier for people to get to areas highly desirable DUE TO THEIR LACK OF MOTORBOATS and OVERFISHING. If you want to ride in a motorboat, no matter what the reason, why can't you go to Mille Lacs?

At some point in US history, a decision was made about what to do with government held land. I think the decision was, open 90% of it to public and private development - mine, log, graze, and spray the hell out of it. Keep about 9% in government hands but allow people to mine, log, graze, and spray the hell out of it in exchange for political favors - with some RV campgrounds here and there. But keep 1% or so wild - and at the time, a lot of that 1% was kept wild only because it was difficult to log or graze, and had few known mineral deposits.

If the 99% of public land already available for public use of any kind is not enough, I'm guessing 99.1% won't really be enough either. Or 99.5%, or 100%, or 110%. At some point you need to get your act together and start making better use of what you have, instead of whining for more and more. Especially when you've been given 99% of what's available already. If you are too incompetent to make a go of it given 99% of the resources, you are probably going to be just as incompetent at managing your new 0.1%. It's like giving a bum $20 "for a meal" - yeah, right to the liquor store.

The motorboats bother me. They're just a great way to haul huge coolers in and out for harvesting fish. If you need a huge cooler, go to Mille Lacs.





 
10/02/2015 06:38AM  
quote NotLight: "
99% of lakes in Minnesota are open to motorboats. But really, for the tourism economy to have any chance of survival whatsoever, it really needs to be 99.1%? I just don't buy it. Especially when the goal of adding the extra 0.1% is to make it easier for people to get to areas highly desirable DUE TO THEIR LACK OF MOTORBOATS and OVERFISHING. If you want to ride in a motorboat, no matter what the reason, why can't you go to Mille Lacs?


At some point in US history, a decision was made about what to do with government held land. I think the decision was, open 90% of it to public and private development - mine, log, graze, and spray the hell out of it. Keep about 9% in government hands but allow people to mine, log, graze, and spray the hell out of it in exchange for political favors - with some RV campgrounds here and there. But keep 1% or so wild - and at the time, a lot of that 1% was kept wild only because it was difficult to log or graze, and had few known mineral deposits.


If the 99% of public land already available for public use of any kind is not enough, I'm guessing 99.1% won't really be enough either. Or 99.5%, or 100%, or 110%. At some point you need to get your act together and start making better use of what you have, instead of whining for more and more. Especially when you've been given 99% of what's available already.


The motorboats bother me. They're just a great way to haul huge coolers in and out for harvesting fish. If you need a huge cooler, go to Mille Lacs.






"


100% of lakes in MN are open to paddling, but I think we can all agree not all those lakes are as beautiful as those found in the BW and not all of those have campsites.
 
billconner
distinguished member(8608)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/02/2015 07:31AM  
I should have added that the motors don't bother me and I paddle Moose. Much ado about very little.
 
gkimball
distinguished member(655)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/02/2015 08:23AM  
This isn't about the basic question of use of motors. That was settled years ago. The article cited above is about getting outfitters to abide by the management plan and the Forest Service to do its job.

We are blessed that Minnesota even has a place where you can escape motorboats. Not all states do. I just wish it was bigger and included all motorboats. Then the entrances around Ely would be more attractive.

As for lakes that allow both motors and paddling - ever tried to paddle a canoe on Lake Minnetonka or White Bear Lake? Works for some people, not for others. Not all paddling opportunities are the same. Motor boating is only impacted by the presence of canoes to the degree they must avoid collisions. Canoeing is impacted in many more ways - safety, noise, pollution, speed, drunken debauchery (in some places), etc.

When you look at the size of Minnesota, population distribution, the number and kinds of lakes, I'd say motor boating has it way better than recreational pastimes (not just canoeing) that don't want to be around them.
 
ArrowheadPaddler
distinguished member(695)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/02/2015 08:25AM  
Perhaps they're working with Quetico Administration in an effort to increase northern entry point usage :)
 
schweady
distinguished member(8070)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/02/2015 08:33AM  
"Bother me" v "doesn't bother me" is not the issue here. The troublesome part: the FS is turning a blind eye toward outfitters who allegedly mis-report numbers of trips and/or disregard limits agreed upon in 1993. Perhaps it is best to look at: What was used to arrive at the current "limit"? Was there a negotiated agreement? Does the number need to be changed? What would be the effect?
 
Minnesotian
distinguished member(2309)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/02/2015 08:45AM  
quote gkimball: ""the Forest Service's 1993 plan caps towboat trips at 1,342 per year. The group said data from its freedom of information request show the Forest Service allowed 1,639 trips in 2011 and 2,124 last year."


Pretty significant departure from the management plan, I'd say.
"


I agree. Pretty significant.

Listen, I have taken tow's from William and Hall and I will probably continue to do so. They are convenient and have gotten me to Quetico in a timely manner and I try to do my part to support the local economy. I don't want to see them banned...

BUT

I think there is a bit of a hypocrisy going on in the thread regarding the disregard of the tow limits. I have see many threads complaining about the number of canoes bunched up at portages, or groups bigger then 9 canoeing together, or leaving trash behind or any other rule that has been broken.

Isn't this a case were a rule pertaining to the BWCA is clearly being ignored?

There are two fixes to this problem as far as I can tell:

1. Enforce the rules as stated
or
2. Raise the number of allotted tows in a year.

Personally, I think the number of tows should be increased. If that helps more people to get camping, then go for it. And plus, I can't see the Forest Service enforcing this what with how stretched their resources are as it is.

 
NotLight
distinguished member(1262)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/02/2015 08:55AM  
quote schweady: ""Bother me" v "doesn't bother me" is not the issue here. The troublesome part: the FS is turning a blind eye toward outfitters who allegedly mis-report numbers of trips and/or disregard limits agreed upon in 1993. Perhaps it is best to look at: What was used to arrive at the current "limit"? Was there a negotiated agreement? Does the number need to be changed? What would be the effect?
"


The big problem, as I see it, is that 99 cents out of every dollar earned from tourism or mining up there immediatly leaves town. It goes to the outboard motor company in Japan, the aluminum mines in Wyoming, the boat maker down in the cities, the oil vendors in Saudi Arabia, the pickup truck factory in Mexico, the bankers in Chicago, and the pill vendors in Jersey. Unless the economy becomes more diversified up there, and the dollars from tourism and mining stay where they are earned, they'll never get anywhere. Pushing the wilderness rules is never going to benefit anyone, because the fruits of those endeavors are just sent elsewhere. They have these big grandstanding arguments up there with the evil "city folks" when they want to bend or break all these rules, to create about 5 jobs. Problem is, they really need thousands of jobs, and just get suckered into so much less because they feel like there's some huge victory over the man because they get another 5 motor trips a day into the BWCA. Who can support a family on that? Meanwhile, they tarnish their best resource. They shouldn't allow any motorboats in there at all, let alone what's allowed under the agreement. Instead, they should be asking really for much more significant economic development benefits through the goverment that help better utilize the non-wilderness resources that they already have access to.



 
10/02/2015 10:07AM  
I would agree that they need to follow the rules and if need be change the rules to fit the current needs. I will say that when I'm on Sag the vast majority of boat traffic up/down the corridor is tow boats, not fisherman or boat camping folks. I will also say many of the tows I see are one canoe or so. Maybe they need to start bunching them together more often to get their tow numbers down, but then of course people will start complaining that they had to wait 2 hours for their tow to leave. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


I think what they have in place right now is an excellent compromise. I think all groups of the public is well served right now with no one getting short changed. If you like to camp and fish and want to bring someone who can't canoe (very young or very old)there is no better place to go than the motor zones of the BW. VNP is a zoo compared to the BW where motor permits are heavily restricted.

quote NotLight: " They shouldn't allow any motorboats in there at all

"


So you would like to deny the resource in its entirety to anyone who can't paddle? Young couples like myself with a toddler that cant swim? What about grandpa with severe balance issues and bunk knee? How many beautiful secluded campsites are found on White Bear, Minnetonka and Mille Lacs? Do you think just because someone can't canoe that they like being surrounded by fast boats tossing huge wakes? The VAST majority of the BW and all of the Q is paddle only, to see someone advocate taking away an opportunity from one segment of users to add to the pile of another seems a bit selfish to this guy but we are all entitled to our opinions.



 
2K10
distinguished member(737)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/02/2015 10:47AM  
quote NotLight: " They shouldn't allow any motorboats in there at all


"
"

So you would like to deny the resource in its entirety to anyone who can't paddle? Young couples like myself with a toddler that cant swim? What about grandpa with severe balance issues and bunk knee? How many beautiful secluded campsites are found on White Bear, Minnetonka and Mille Lacs? Do you think just because someone can't canoe that they like being surrounded by fast boats tossing huge wakes? The VAST majority of the BW and all of the Q is paddle only, to see someone advocate taking away an opportunity from one segment of users to add to the pile of another seems a bit selfish to this guy but we are all entitled to our opinions.


""

I couldn’t agree more, thank you for that Ragged!! I usually don’t speak up on controversial topics, but that comment by NotLight struck a cord with me. I have not been able to do a canoe trip in 5 years because of some health issues, but fortunately have still been able to enjoy the place I love so much (and where my boyfriend was raised) because of being able to go to parts of the BWCA in a motorboat. To compare Mille Lacs with lakes like Snowbank, Moose or Trout Lake is absurd. Granted, Moose is a little different story because of the outfitter traffic. I live 20 minutes from Mille Lacs and only go there a few times/year because of the convenience – IMO it’s a boring lake and is in no way the same as the seclusion and beauty you get when going up to the BW.

Taking a motorboat on one of the few lakes in the BWCA that allows them is not about it being a “great way to haul huge coolers in and out for harvesting fish.” We still pack minimal when doing Trout or Snowbank trips, just as if we were on a canoe trip. It’s about enjoying nature at it’s best, which you are not going to get on Mille Lacs. Have you ever been on Trout Lake in July, one of the “busier” times of year? Those darn two or three 25hp motorboats clogging up that huge lake sure are a PIA – and are really annoying for the 1 or 2 canoes that choose to go through there, ha.

 
2old4U
distinguished member(1456)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/02/2015 11:59AM  
Going to a motor lake and complaining about the motors is like moving to the country and complaining about dusty roads or the smell of cow poop. You can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all of the people all of the time!
 
thistlekicker
distinguished member (471)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/02/2015 12:39PM  
The issue isn't motors vs no motors - it's about following the rules and agreements that are in place. If people think more motor usage is justified, they should make a case for it, and do things in the open, rather than just ignore the rules.
 
thistlekicker
distinguished member (471)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/02/2015 12:56PM  
Is there some part of the Wilderness Act that guarantees access to a wilderness resource, anywhere, to anyone, regardless of age, fitness level, or ability?

I'm honestly curious, as this seems to be a major justification for maintaining motor use at its current level (and possibly increasing into the future), rather than maintaining at previously agreed-upon levels or even (gasp!) decreasing.
 
dele
distinguished member (119)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/02/2015 01:15PM  
double post, sorry!
 
dele
distinguished member (119)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/02/2015 01:15PM  
I know very little about the history of the BWCA. But as somebody who goes there in search of peace and quiet, I'm completely baffled by the allowance of motorboats.

There are hundreds of thousands of lakes in the U.S. where motorboats are allowed. There are 10,000 lakes in Minnesota where motorboats are allowed. Even in the vicinity of the BWCA, there are huge, beautiful lakes deep in the National Forest, with campsites on them, where motorboats are allowed.

Why can't people who want to use motors in the north country keep them on Lake of the Woods, Rainy Lake, Kabetagoma, Vermillion, and Burntside? And on the Gunflint side, Greenwood, Poplar, Hungry Jack, Gunflint, and other lakes that are not in the BWCA? There are so many lakes that motorboaters can enjoy. Why do we have to allow them on Sag, Seagull, Basswood, Snowbank, Moose, Trout, and other BWCA lakes? It just doesn't make much sense to me.

Allowing motors really restricts the number of entries and routes I can use in the BWCA, because I don't drive up there to fall asleep to the sound of motorboats. I can do that anywhere else in northern MN or WI. We should have a BWCA free of motorboats.

I hope a move is made to eliminate them from all of the BWCA forever.
 
gkimball
distinguished member(655)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/02/2015 02:15PM  
The idea of the Wilderness Act of 1964 was precisely to preserve places where the impacts of things like motorboats didn't happen while they still exist. There are many good reasons to do this. Too many to list here.

That's partly why the BWCA act, another piece of legislation specific to the BWCA was passed, to answer the stink raised by people who must use motors to make a buck, or to get into the backcountry because they can't get there without one.

Even though there are dozens of beautiful boundary waters lakes with thousands of acres of water they can go.

Only trouble is once they get there they want to get away from the impacts of motorboats, and experience the kind of environment a non-motorized environment provides.

A classic "Catch-22" in action.

Welcome to the BWCA...
 
10/02/2015 02:32PM  
quote thistlekicker: "The issue isn't motors vs no motors - it's about following the rules and agreements that are in place. "


I think everyone for the most part would agree that those rules need to be followed, no complaints here. But on the flip side the compromise made at the time allowed for limited motor use under very limited and strict conditions, so a deal is a deal.







 
billconner
distinguished member(8608)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/02/2015 02:52PM  
quote Ragged: "
quote thistlekicker: "The issue isn't motors vs no motors - it's about following the rules and agreements that are in place. "



I think everyone for the most part would agree that those rules need to be followed, no complaints here. But on the flip side the compromise made at the time allowed for limited motor use under very limited and strict conditions, so a deal is a deal."



I agree with Minnesotian - enforce all the rules. I should revise my statement that I'm bothered less by the violations of this rule than I am of many other rules - since at most this is a couple hours at either end of a trip for a couple of entry points, and the garbage, over crowding, hacked trees, and so on bother me the whole trip. And I can avoid the motors by avoiding several entry points - I can't avoid the other stuff.
 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/02/2015 03:36PM  

quote>


The big problem, as I see it, is that 99 cents out of every dollar earned from tourism or mining up there immediatly leaves town. It goes to the outboard motor company in Japan, the aluminum mines in Wyoming, the boat maker down in the cities, the oil vendors in Saudi Arabia, the pickup truck factory in Mexico, the bankers in Chicago, and the pill vendors in Jersey. Unless the economy becomes more diversified up there, and the dollars from tourism and mining stay where they are earned, they'll never get anywhere. Pushing the wilderness rules is never going to benefit anyone, because the fruits of those endeavors are just sent elsewhere. They have these big grandstanding arguments up there with the evil "city folks" when they want to bend or break all these rules, to create about 5 jobs. Problem is, they really need thousands of jobs, and just get suckered into so much less because they feel like there's some huge victory over the man because they get another 5 motor trips a day into the BWCA. Who can support a family on that? Meanwhile, they tarnish their best resource. They shouldn't allow any motorboats in there at all, let alone what's allowed under the agreement. Instead, they should be asking really for much more significant economic development benefits through the goverment that help better utilize the non-wilderness resources that they already have access to.



I agree with this. There are already so many lakes open to motor use, even adjacent to the BWCA that it is difficult to justify the need for motors that conflict with the wilderness principles under which the BWCA is managed. I mean there is already huge availability to motorboat recreation in Minnesota elsewhere.

I've used a tow last summer on Moose but that was mainly to get beyond the motorboat traffic. For us, even though we technically entered on Moose Lake, the real entry point into the BWCA was at Indian Portage where the tow dropped us and the motorboats ended.. Removing motorboats from those lakes would effectively enlarge the BWCA without adding any more land to it.

I understand that this is about compliance with USFS limits rather than prohibiting motors altogether but the latter measure would solve the problem by eliminating the conflict that towing seeks to deal with.

I know there is a perceived economic issue for Ely but, as has already been pointed out, there are only a handful of seasonal jobs affected. I don't understand, frankly, why Ely gets so little economic benefit from the vast recreational resources surrounding it. The resort/lodging recreation development there is so seemingly low key as to resemble the 1920's.

You would expect to find all kinds of lodging and recreational facilities for what is, or ought to be, a year round recreational environment. Maybe they're there but they're well hidden. We only found one hotel in the whole town, a ridiculously overpriced Super 8 in a not very appealing location. That and everything else apparently was already booked up the night we came out of the woods and the entire North Shore as well. We ended up driving to Michigan that night.
 
10/02/2015 04:48PM  
The Forest Service's plan allowing tow boats was established in 1993 at 1342 trip. Maybe it needs to be updated to a 2016 plan allowing 2000 a year.
Lots of folks complain about overcrowding at entry lakes. Towboat use allows faster dispersion of tripping groups and is a good source of revenue to the USFS.
The lakes involved have large areas outside of the established BWCA boundaries. 15 trips per year, per lake, over the current 1993 limit
is hardly noticeable vs the traffic in the non-BWCA portions.

butthead
 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/02/2015 06:01PM  
quote butthead: "The Forest Service's plan allowing tow boats was established in 1993 at 1342 trip. Maybe it needs to be updated to a 2016 plan allowing 2000 a year.
Lots of folks complain about overcrowding at entry lakes. Towboat use allows faster dispersion of tripping groups and is a good source of revenue to the USFS.
The lakes involved have large areas outside of the established BWCA boundaries. 15 trips per year, per lake, over the current 1993 limit
is hardly noticeable vs the traffic in the non-BWCA portions.


butthead"



Aren't quite a few of these areas that are within the BWCA that allow motorboat use though? Some of those lakes which have non BWCA portions (Basswood Lake) are accessible only through the BWCA aren't they? My point though is that having motors within the BWCA effectively reduces its size. Last year we came out on Sag Lake and much of the last day was within motorboat traffic even though we were supposedly in a wilderness area and even though the actual exit point is way down the channel in the bay leading to the lake. It felt like we had exited the BWCA the moment we passed American Point. The point of the tows, it seems to me is to get to those virtual entry points without having to paddle through motorboat infested water to get there. The existence of the tows compounds the problem they attempt to solve (ie how to get into the "real" BWCA)

It seemed to me that much of the crowding on Sag was actually due to the allowability of motors. People were motorboat camping I think.

It may very well be that additional tows do not represent an appreciable problem but, if so, it calls into question why there are any limits at all.
 
10/02/2015 06:13PM  
That chain and Basswood are some pretty rough waters at times. I'm guessing those boats have saved a few people from paddling some nasty waters. The number of tows should coincide with permits. I caught a ride once when I had a three year old with. I thought it was a life saver. I like the non motorized lakes as much as anyone. But if rules are being bent in this case change the rules. That service is pretty invaluable to a lot of people.
 
Grouseguy1
distinguished member (472)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/02/2015 07:21PM  
Keep the motors out of the bwCa. Go to Voyagers if you can't paddle for whatever reason.
 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/02/2015 07:30PM  
Quite a large portion of Basswood Lake (most of it on the American side, I think) is open to motorized use, even though it is entirely within the BWCA (and the Quetico). Unless I am mistaken, you can only get on to it by going through the BWCA or the Quetico. Do outfitters do tows on Basswood Lake?

My question would be: Isn't motorized use of that lake incompatible with the wilderness values the BWCA was established to protect?

What justification could there be for continuing to allow such an incompatible use to continue?

How many motors use Basswood Lake? We've heard someone imply that the number of motors on BWCA lakes elsewhere is actually quite small and therefore not an appreciable nuisance. I would not say the number on Moose was negligeable. I had no desire to be canoeing amongst all the towboats zipping past. I find it ironic that we were riding on a motor boat to get away from the motorboats. At any rate, if the numbers of people actually being served by the allowance of motorboats elsewhere is really quite low, why is it necessary to preserve such an incompatible use (nuisance?) for the advantage of so few (if they really are so few)?

I think I understand that there is an economic stake in the concession to allow motorized use but I don't understand why the very many lakes that are outside of the BWCA (many in the vicinity of Ely) and open to motorboat use are not enough?
 
andym
distinguished member(5340)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/02/2015 07:54PM  
If you say that motor boats can just go elsewhere then you are aaying to reduce the viability of resorts and fishing guide services in the Ely area. And that just further reduces the economic viability of the Ely area. Burntside isn't enough. White Iron is good but even resorts on it guide motor trips on Basswood and visitors want that.
 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/02/2015 07:57PM  
quote andym: "If you say that motor boats can just go elsewhere then you are aaying to reduce the viability of resorts and fishing guide services in the Ely area. And that just further reduces the economic viability of the Ely area. Burntside isn't enough. "


Right but I would like to get a better idea as to just how many people depend upon that motorized use? It seems to me that there is a lot more than Burntside Lake available to them in any case.

I don't see why the economic viability of the Ely area should be tied to such traditional uses (fishing guide in a motorboat?) I grew up in a lakes area that probably was once tied to such uses but which has long since outgrown that business model, and we didn't even have the advantage of a nearby million acre canoe wilderness. People go to the lakes and to the woods for a lot of reasons other than to fish from a motorboat.
 
gkimball
distinguished member(655)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/02/2015 08:11PM  
quote arcadie: "I don't understand why the very many lakes that are outside of the BWCA (many in the vicinity of Ely) and open to motorboat use are not enough?"



Because they want what wilderness management creates, or are captivated by the idea of being in the BWCA, but don't / can't / won't do what it takes to get there under their own power.

Epitomized by using motorized tows to get past where motorboats can go. Needing to do what you want to escape by doing what you want to escape. A crazy situation.

Like I said above - Catch 22 in action.
 
10/02/2015 08:28PM  
quote arcadie: "

It seemed to me that much of the crowding on Sag was actually due to the allowability of motors. People were motorboat camping I think.

"


Do you have any idea how few over night motor permits there are for Sag? Once you enter June they start going down sharply, many weeks there will be 5-7 a WEEK, while paddle permits are something like 19 a DAY, some weeks on Sag there is only 1-2 permits a WEEK. Last year there were s few weeks in Sept that had 1 or 0 permits a day for overnight motor. If you saw overcrowding it wasn't from motorboat campers.
 
Basspro69
distinguished member(14142)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished membermaster membermaster member
  
10/02/2015 08:54PM  
quote NotLight: "99% of lakes in Minnesota are open to motorboats. But really, for the tourism economy to have any chance of survival whatsoever, it really needs to be 99.1%? I just don't buy it. Especially when the goal of adding the extra 0.1% is to make it easier for people to get to areas highly desirable DUE TO THEIR LACK OF MOTORBOATS and OVERFISHING. If you want to ride in a motorboat, no matter what the reason, why can't you go to Mille Lacs?


At some point in US history, a decision was made about what to do with government held land. I think the decision was, open 90% of it to public and private development - mine, log, graze, and spray the hell out of it. Keep about 9% in government hands but allow people to mine, log, graze, and spray the hell out of it in exchange for political favors - with some RV campgrounds here and there. But keep 1% or so wild - and at the time, a lot of that 1% was kept wild only because it was difficult to log or graze, and had few known mineral deposits.


If the 99% of public land already available for public use of any kind is not enough, I'm guessing 99.1% won't really be enough either. Or 99.5%, or 100%, or 110%. At some point you need to get your act together and start making better use of what you have, instead of whining for more and more. Especially when you've been given 99% of what's available already. If you are too incompetent to make a go of it given 99% of the resources, you are probably going to be just as incompetent at managing your new 0.1%. It's like giving a bum $20 "for a meal" - yeah, right to the liquor store.


The motorboats bother me. They're just a great way to haul huge coolers in and out for harvesting fish. If you need a huge cooler, go to Mille Lacs.






"
Very good post I agree with a lot of what you said here. My issue is this, either the lake should be motorized or not motorized and I will use Clearwater Lake off the Gunflint as an example, you can take a boat on this lake with a permit and if ever there was a lake that should be canoe only its this one. I will say however since there are many eps without motorboats then a person should choose one of them to avoid the boats.
 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/02/2015 09:24PM  
quote gkimball: "
quote arcadie: "I don't understand why the very many lakes that are outside of the BWCA (many in the vicinity of Ely) and open to motorboat use are not enough?"




Because they want what wilderness management creates, or are captivated by the idea of being in the BWCA, but don't / can't / won't do what it takes to get there under their own power.


Epitomized by using motorized tows to get past where motorboats can go. Needing to do what you want to escape by doing what you want to escape. A crazy situation.


Like I said above - Catch 22 in action."


What this reminds me of is a proposal, not long ago, to build a road into a remote pond in a wilderness area in order to provide handicap accessibility to the wilderness. It was pointed out that, with a road and mechanized access, this would no longer be wilderness. In fact it would be no different in many ways than the many ponds that are already accessible by motorized vehicle. Thankfully the proposal died but I'm sure its still alive in the minds of many because basically they just want to be able to drive in there. The Catch 22, in that case is that, in order to access the wilderness as a handicapped person you have to make it "not wilderness" thus you cannot access the wilderness as a handicapped person in that way no matter how many roads you build. The wilderness just disappears as such when you provide such access. I have feeling that is just what is happening in certain areas of the BWCA.

My feeling is that the BWCA is a precious national resource to be managed in the national interest and not as an economic prop for a small former mining town in the vicinity. The decision was made to protect the wilderness values of this portion of the Superior National Forest and manage it for those qualities for the benefit of everyone. It seems evident to me that motorboats within that wilderness are not compatible with those values.


I was just curious to know how many there are of the resort/fishing guide businesses in the area that the "motors allowed" part of the BWCA is being managed to support? Is it four family resorts, ten, twenty, thirty?

When I spoke of the many other lakes in the vicinity and across Minnesota that are accessible to motorized use I was thinking of the interests of those who want to engage in motorboat recreation. They won't get sympathy from me if their ability to access the BWCA by motorboat is curtailed. It seems to me they are already well served since almost everywhere else is available to them.

I'm sure that the creation of the BWCA and the reduction over time of motor access to its lakes has meant change and perhaps hardship for a few in the Ely area but surely it also presents many new opportunities. Ely is in the middle of a beautiful natural area and there must be many potential opportunities even as patterns of recreation change.
 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/02/2015 10:05PM  
quote Ragged: "
quote arcadie: "


It seemed to me that much of the crowding on Sag was actually due to the allowability of motors. People were motorboat camping I think.


"



Do you have any idea how few over night motor permits there are for Sag? Once you enter June they start going down sharply, many weeks there will be 5-7 a WEEK, while paddle permits are something like 19 a DAY, some weeks on Sag there is only 1-2 permits a WEEK. Last year there were s few weeks in Sept that had 1 or 0 permits a day for overnight motor. If you saw overcrowding it wasn't from motorboat campers."


Point well taken. I stand corrected. Ironically the congestion I mistakenly ascribed to motorboat use might be used in support of the contention that tow boats serve to disperse people from these easily accessible entrance areas. It doesn't seem to be working although who knows what it might be like without those motorboats towing people out to Hook Island?
 
mjmkjun
distinguished member(2885)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/03/2015 07:43AM  
quote gkimball: "The idea of the Wilderness Act of 1964 was precisely to preserve places where the impacts of things like motorboats didn't happen while they still exist. There are many good reasons to do this. Too many to list here.


That's partly why the BWCA act, another piece of legislation specific to the BWCA was passed, to answer the stink raised by people who must use motors to make a buck, or to get into the backcountry because they can't get there without one.


Even though there are dozens of beautiful boundary waters lakes with thousands of acres of water they can go.


Only trouble is once they get there they want to get away from the impacts of motorboats, and experience the kind of environment a non-motorized environment provides.


A classic "Catch-22" in action.


Welcome to the BWCA..."


well-stated!
 
The Great Outdoors
distinguished member(5592)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/03/2015 08:24AM  
Most of those replying to the original post, realize that it's much ado about nothing.
Several of you who are totally against tow boat use should stop and think about the consequences of your actions:
1. The tow boats are being used by canoeists.
2. Failure to have this option will cause canoe traffic jams on Moose Lake, similar to Friday night traffic heading north from the twin cities, and other major population areas.
3. This will have the same no tow boat people screaming about too much canoe traffic.
4 This will then result in a demand for a decrease in the number of permits on entry points that have tow boats, once they are gone.
5. When permits become scarce because you can no longer adequately disperse traffic, people will be sitting at home.
6. You have now began to eat your own, think about it.
 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/03/2015 08:53AM  
quote The Great Outdoors: "Most of those replying to the original post, realize that it's much ado about nothing.
Several of you who are totally against tow boat use should stop and think about the consequences of your actions:
1. The tow boats are being used by canoeists.
2. Failure to have this option will cause canoe traffic jams on Moose Lake, similar to Friday night traffic heading north from the twin cities, and other major population areas.
3. This will have the same no tow boat people screaming about too much canoe traffic.
4 This will then result in a demand for a decrease in the number of permits on entry points that have tow boats, once they are gone.
5. When permits become scarce because you can no longer adequately disperse traffic, people will be sitting at home.
6. You have now began to eat your own, think about it."




I think the point about dispersal is a good one but the discussion has also raised the question as to whether motor boats should be allowed at all in places away from entry points. Basswood Lake comes to mind. It isn't necessary to provide tows across Basswood to disperse canoe parties from the congestion occurring at entry points. The lake is huge and well able to accommodate quite a few people and yet much of it (most of it on the American side) is open to motorboats.

 
The Great Outdoors
distinguished member(5592)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/03/2015 09:14AM  
Over 99% of the lakes in the BWCA do not allow motors!
Is the other .9%(or less) really worth starting another Cell Tower type fiasco? :)
 
yogi59weedr
distinguished member(2662)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/03/2015 09:18AM  
Maybe we can eliminate the tow boats and add more permits for fishing boats. You go there to paddle. So paddle. With that being said. What did Rodney King say..... "Can't we all get along".
 
NotLight
distinguished member(1262)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/03/2015 09:21AM  
quote The Great Outdoors: "Over 99% of the lakes in the BWCA do not allow motors!
Is the other .9%(or less) really worth starting another Cell Tower type fiasco? :)"


Well, sometimes, but not all the time, bringing up issues like this can put every interested party in a better position than where they started, if you look for the right compromise. Maybe you do allow more motorboats than under the current regulations, in exchange for a slightly lower speed limit, if it is speed and noise that is the issue. Or maybe you allow more permits than under the current regulations, under some secondary category based on age or disability. Or, you allow more permits, in exchange for something beneficial to the wilderness area. You just have to look for the right compromise and it might be there.



 
10/03/2015 10:05AM  
The question here is the Tow boas here,mostly on the Moose lake chain has been running over their permitted quota like 80% last year,it wasn't even close to what was supposed to be allowed.

Also one or two(I repeat most outfitters followed the rules) tow boat operators were not recording trips etc., They were doing what they pleased. Ask around if you know some of them it was very obvious.

Over the last few years the vast majority of TOW boat operators have became much more courteous to canoe people paddling,but a couple of operators have been almost pushing the limit by going close to canoes as possible. MN. Conservation officers are aware of this.

That said the object at this time should be to just get the numbers under control and address the safety issue created by a couple of bad apples.

Most Tow boat boat operators have been very courteous,but a couple have decided to make their own rules. Like everything a few or 1 can tarnish everybody.

I think at the Gunflnt and Saganaga lake area,zero problems exist.
 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/03/2015 10:26AM  
quote The Great Outdoors: "Over 99% of the lakes in the BWCA do not allow motors!
Is the other .9%(or less) really worth starting another Cell Tower type fiasco? :)"


That may well be but the figure may not be very useful. Many of the lakes represented by the statistic are quite small and quite a few are not even really accessible even to canoes. Some of the lakes open to motorboats are quite large and represent a substantial percentage of the total lake area.

The issue is really the wilderness concept and whether motor boats are compatible with wilderness values. I think they are not but I realize the limited motorboat usage that is allowed reflects compromises that were made in the creation and subsequent modifications to the BWCA. There was terrific opposition to the BWCA when it was created and further redefined. We are lucky to have the BWCA at all. There was a great deal of pressure at the time (1970's) to develop the entire area to make it more accessible to various kinds of motorized access. That remote lake you are so fond of might very well have had a road, a campground and a launching ramp and possibly a summer resort. You might be sharing it with water skiers instead of savoring its isolation and quietude. The lakes and rivers and forest would still be there but the wilderness values that make it special would not.

I just think that, as the BWCA matures, as a designated wilderness area managed by the FS, it might be time to take another look at motor use and further curtail and perhaps eliminate it.

I'm guessing that the attitude of some tow operators in the Ely area that has been described is a residue of this simmering hostility among some of the locals to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area itself. Whether they would be any better off had the area been developed as a recreation area instead is an open question. I suspect the resources would have been developed and exploited mostly with outside money including large amounts of federal funding and they would mostly have at best a few low paying service jobs at resorts owned by people from elsewhere. You could argue that there hasn't been very much development of available recreational resources outside the BWCA that remain available. The locals just don't have the capital or the know how, I would guess, or maybe the area is too remote and such developed recreational opportunities already abound elsewhere

Possibly they would now be employed at various open pit mines throughout what is now the BWCA or maybe those mines would be closed now as so many other mines up there have been, leaving gaping holes and industrial pollution and unemployment.

 
SaganagaJoe
distinguished member(2113)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/03/2015 11:27AM  
(Enjoying my day off from law school work)

Could you also look at it as a way to improve access? My grandpa will be 75 years old next August. Thankfully he can still paddle. When he can't paddle anymore, I want to keep bringing him to the BWCA, so I'm thinking about sticking to the motorized lakes then and using a motor, if I can.

I've camped every year for three years in a row on Saganaga. I can only think of one motorboat joyride I heard/witnessed, and they were in the legal part of the lake and didn't carry on and on. I don't think the motors detract because there's not as many of them as you might think, at least on the Gunflint side.

I was skeptical of the whole tow boat thing until I took one...and now I get it. They are awesome. Again the key was access. I had my 74 year old grandpa and 70 year old great-uncle and we couldn't afford to wear them out before the first portage. Best money I've ever spent in my life. It turned what would have been a three hour paddle into a twenty minute ride and a spring in my step on the Saganaga Falls portage.

I do think motors are consistent with wilderness values (especially on the back of a square stern canoe)...Apparently Calvin Rutstrum thought so too, see his book The New Way of the Wilderness. Just not in a paddle only lake. I don't know about you but I love the reliable rumble of an old 7 horse Evinrude, especially when I'm driving it. And I'm as big of a silence/peace guy as they come.

It's all about careful stewardship...We don't have to apologize for being in the wilderness. We are earthlings and the earth was made for us; we should enjoy it! That does not however give us an excuse to wantonly destroy it, violate LNT, and destroy people's serenity; nothing could be further from the truth.

Do I think motors should be in all the BWCA? No; and if you don't like the motors - peace and silence is just a portage or two away. If you camp on motorized lakes, well, you pays your money and you takes your choice (coming from a frequent Saganaga camper!) Do I think we can keep motors running on the motorized sections to improve access for paddlers and wilderness enthusiasts who wouldn't otherwise paddle or would have a hard time doing so? Sure.



 
The Great Outdoors
distinguished member(5592)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/03/2015 12:01PM  
The towboats are there, because canoeists demand the service!
If you have an objection to the towboat, preach to the choir, and convince them not to use it.
But be very truthful, and point out the fact that there will be a daily traffic jam on the Moose chain, so the number of permits issued will have to be cut in half,or more.
With this said, many people using this entry point will be denied a permit in the future.
If this is what you want, the canoeists hold the destiny of the towboat in their own hands.
Be very careful what you wish for, you just may get it!
 
andym
distinguished member(5340)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/03/2015 01:32PM  
I would guess at about 20 resorts where fishing is a major draw in the Ely area. Plus, while paddlers may rent a bunk room at an outfitter and eat breakfast on the way in,the motor fishing folks are staying for a week and eating multiple meals or shopping at Zups and shopping along Sheridan St. For their entire time in Ely. So they may have a larger impact per person on the town.

But mostly, I enjoy agreeing with TGO on an issue. That doesn't happen too often.

BTW, I am friends with a couple of guides.

Also, I never use EPs where motors are allowed. Hate the things!
 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/03/2015 01:43PM  
quote andym: "I would guess at about 20 resorts where fishing is a major draw in the Ely area. Plus, while paddlers may rent a bunk room at an outfitter and eat breakfast on the way in,the motor fishing folks are staying for a week and eating multiple meals or shopping at Zups and shopping along Sheridan St. For their entire time in Ely. So they may have a larger impact per person on the town.


But mostly, I enjoy agreeing with TGO on an issue. That doesn't happen too often.


BTW, I am friends with a couple of guides.

Also, I never use EPs where motors are allowed. Hate the things!"


So about 20 owners and their employees plus what their guests (those who motor into the BWCA) spend in town.

Someone above mentioned access to the BWCA for the elderly.
I am a couple months shy of 70, have a history of a heart condition and my knee isn't so good. There are things I cannot do anymore, places I cannot climb or hike to that I used to love being at. I cherish those memories but I would not want to see chairlifts or roads or ATV trails built to provide me with access. That would destroy those things about those places that I loved and there are already many other places that are accessed by lifts and roads that I can go to.

Last summer my son and I were able to take an 8 day trip into the BWCA. I'm embarrassed to say that we took a tow from Moose to Indian portage. I don't think it was needed. We simply wanted to get beyond the motorboat traffic into the BWCAW. In the back of our minds was the thought that this might be the last for me. Hopefully there will be many more but when the time comes I'll remember those canoe trips and probably use one of those lakes outside the BWC that I can still get to. I don't want to use a motor to get into what is intended to be a wilderness.

I wouldn't be unhappy to see motorboat use in the BWCA curtailed. I think it would improve upon the wilderness experience the BWCAW was intended to protect.

As far as motor boats reducing congestion at entry points (as opposed to the use of motors on places like Basswood Lake which are no where near the entries) that strikes me as possibly a valid argument for tows. I'm not sure though if it is valid. Those places are already congested. People are just moving rapidly down the lake rather than paddling slowly. A more compelling argument could be made for more campsites within a day's paddle of some entry points. Sag Lake sites for example seemed to be filled by campers who were not going any further. There are few sites beyond on some routes though. Ottertrack Lake for example has ,if memory serves me, only a couple sites. The other lakes along that route are similar in the lack of sites to camp until you reach Knife. I think we ended up portaging into Ester Lake in order to find a site that was not taken.

Going in at Indian Portage, we were at Knife Lake and Robbin's Island in a couple hours so the additional two hours we'd have spent paddling down Moose and Newfound wouldn't have made a huge difference. There seem to be many places to camp on Knife.

Anyway I don't demand the tow service by any stretch. It is just a necessary evil, using a motorboat to get away from motorboats.

Thanks for the opportunity to add my piece. I know its a controversial subject but it deserves discussion, I think.



 
thistlekicker
distinguished member (471)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/03/2015 02:48PM  
quote The Great Outdoors: "Most of those replying to the original post, realize that it's much ado about nothing.
Several of you who are totally against tow boat use should stop and think about the consequences of your actions:
1. The tow boats are being used by canoeists.
2. Failure to have this option will cause canoe traffic jams on Moose Lake, similar to Friday night traffic heading north from the twin cities, and other major population areas.
3. This will have the same no tow boat people screaming about too much canoe traffic.
4 This will then result in a demand for a decrease in the number of permits on entry points that have tow boats, once they are gone.
5. When permits become scarce because you can no longer adequately disperse traffic, people will be sitting at home.
6. You have now began to eat your own, think about it."


I think you're exaggerating, but that said, I'd willing to accept those outcomes.
 
thistlekicker
distinguished member (471)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/03/2015 03:00PM  
quote SaganagaJoe: "(Enjoying my day off from law school work)


Could you also look at it as a way to improve access? My grandpa will be 75 years old next August. Thankfully he can still paddle. When he can't paddle anymore, I want to keep bringing him to the BWCA, so I'm thinking about sticking to the motorized lakes then and using a motor, if I can.


I've camped every year for three years in a row on Saganaga. I can only think of one motorboat joyride I heard/witnessed, and they were in the legal part of the lake and didn't carry on and on. I don't think the motors detract because there's not as many of them as you might think, at least on the Gunflint side.


I was skeptical of the whole tow boat thing until I took one...and now I get it. They are awesome. Again the key was access. I had my 74 year old grandpa and 70 year old great-uncle and we couldn't afford to wear them out before the first portage. Best money I've ever spent in my life. It turned what would have been a three hour paddle into a twenty minute ride and a spring in my step on the Saganaga Falls portage.


I do think motors are consistent with wilderness values (especially on the back of a square stern canoe)...Apparently Calvin Rutstrum thought so too, see his book The New Way of the Wilderness. Just not in a paddle only lake. I don't know about you but I love the reliable rumble of an old 7 horse Evinrude, especially when I'm driving it. And I'm as big of a silence/peace guy as they come.


It's all about careful stewardship...We don't have to apologize for being in the wilderness. We are earthlings and the earth was made for us; we should enjoy it! That does not however give us an excuse to wantonly destroy it, violate LNT, and destroy people's serenity; nothing could be further from the truth.


Do I think motors should be in all the BWCA? No; and if you don't like the motors - peace and silence is just a portage or two away. If you camp on motorized lakes, well, you pays your money and you takes your choice (coming from a frequent Saganaga camper!) Do I think we can keep motors running on the motorized sections to improve access for paddlers and wilderness enthusiasts who wouldn't otherwise paddle or would have a hard time doing so? Sure.

"


You may think that motors are consistent with wilderness values, and that "the earth was made for us and our enjoyment" (paraphrasing), but I think those sentiments are not real consistent with the underlying concepts and objectives of the Wilderness Act. I'm not an expert on the history of wilderness and the BWCA, but reading the legislation, it seems pretty clear to me that wilderness means "no motors".

I agree there is a lot of skill and knowledge required to traverse lake country wilderness in small motorboats - in some cases it's arguably more difficult than paddling. And personally, I love that sort of thing, too. But there are tons of other places to do that. And maybe there aren't that many people who are truly bothered by motors in the BWCA. But that still doesn't mean motors belong in the BWCA.
 
SaganagaJoe
distinguished member(2113)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/03/2015 03:00PM  
quote thistlekicker: "
quote The Great Outdoors: "Most of those replying to the original post, realize that it's much ado about nothing.
Several of you who are totally against tow boat use should stop and think about the consequences of your actions:
1. The tow boats are being used by canoeists.
2. Failure to have this option will cause canoe traffic jams on Moose Lake, similar to Friday night traffic heading north from the twin cities, and other major population areas.
3. This will have the same no tow boat people screaming about too much canoe traffic.
4 This will then result in a demand for a decrease in the number of permits on entry points that have tow boats, once they are gone.
5. When permits become scarce because you can no longer adequately disperse traffic, people will be sitting at home.
6. You have now began to eat your own, think about it."



I think you're exaggerating, but that said, I'd willing to accept those outcomes. "


I believe you - let's all remember that this chap is in the business and knows what he's talking about...like I said above it's totally an access thing.

Say TGO how was the bass fishing this year?
 
10/03/2015 03:56PM  
I think many here are missing the point, it's not as simple as motors in the BWCA, it could just as eaisly be seen as the BWCA in the motor zone. If the comprsmise hadn't been made there is a very good chance these motor zones would never have been in the BWCA, and we wouldn't be having this silly discussion. It's not like the BWCA was some sovereign nation, it's boundaries are simply lines on a map. Many of the cabins and resorts in the motor zone were there well before those lines were drawn. Without the compromises made those lines could very well have been pushed further back. I said it once and I'll say it again, it's a good set up, leave it alone.
 
The Great Outdoors
distinguished member(5592)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/03/2015 04:45PM  
SaganagaJoe,
A Bass fishing experience could only exceeded by getting a root canal while listening to a polka, thank you for asking!! :)
As for Thistlekicker's suspicion that my predictions of permit reductions if towboats being banned are exaggerated, just wait!
Those that want to eliminate towboats may be opening a Pandora's Box, and you will not like what's inside.
The person from Wilderness Watch is Kevin Proescholdt, former head of the Friends of the Boundary Waters, who they exiled to Montana because of his over reach when writing the book "Troubled Waters!"
 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/03/2015 05:25PM  
quote The Great Outdoors: "SaganagaJoe,
A Bass fishing experience could only exceeded by getting a root canal while listening to a polka, thank you for asking!! :)
As for Thistlekicker's suspicion that my predictions of permit reductions if towboats being banned are exaggerated, just wait!
Those that want to eliminate towboats may be opening a Pandora's Box, and you will not like what's inside.
The person from Wilderness Watch is Kevin Proescholdt, former head of the Friends of the Boundary Waters, who they exiled to Montana because of his over reach when writing the book "Troubled Waters!""


I didn't know you could exile someone to Montana. There are worse fates I suppose.

Obviously I have personal opinions but I try to remain open to persuasion. Tell me how not having tow boats would cause congestion on Moose Lake. I'm not saying it wouldn't, I just don't think I fully understand it. If the USFS issues 22 entry permits a day for Moose (did I just pull that out of my hat? I'm sure there are day use and motor use permits as well) there will be 22 parties going down the lake. Will it be more congested if they are travelling slowly and less if they are travelling swiftly? Either way there will be 22 parties going down the lake. I suppose if they all leave the entry point at once there would be congestion but whether they all proceed swiftly or slowly it would presumably be the same. Congestion I assume means a lot of people in one place at the same time. Having more people on the three lakes at once I would imagine is not necessarily congestion. Now, assuming people leave at different times I would think they would be spread out a bit, unless some factor is introduced to cause some to arrive more quickly than others which would seem to suggest the spread out crowd would bunch up. Ie tow boats may cause congestion?

Honestly, having seen the congestion that is present at these popular entry points I am leaning toward the idea that these tows may serve a useful purpose that is not just getting people away from the motor boats quickly but I would like to better understand just how they relieve congestion. I think I see the problem inherent in the funnel that is the Moose Lake entry. Could it be that staggering entry times on entry permits is key to lessening congestion? Is the number of people base camping near these entry points the true cause of perceived congestion?

 
GraniteCliffs
distinguished member(1981)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/03/2015 07:08PM  
It seems to me that we really don't have all of the facts. We know what the Forest Service cap is. What we don't know is how many tows are actually run.
I am also not clear as to what legal authority and latitude the Forest Service has to alter the caps. If they have the ability to alter the number it would seem they could do so and be on solid legal ground.
I would think nothing will change in the near future-----except perhaps the Forest Service establishing some clear direction and auditing of how many tows outfitters are doing. Without the current number being accurate it is impossible to even begin to construct a solution, if one is needed at all.
We will never agree on these issues but following the original legislative intent seems to have worked well overall. In this case it may well work itself out without the need for any legal action. The litigation does provide the Forest Service with some impetus to more clearly define what they are doing and how they are doing it in this case.
 
The Great Outdoors
distinguished member(5592)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/03/2015 09:03PM  
quote arcadie: "
quote The Great Outdoors: "SaganagaJoe,
A Bass fishing experience could only exceeded by getting a root canal while listening to a polka, thank you for asking!! :)
As for Thistlekicker's suspicion that my predictions of permit reductions if towboats being banned are exaggerated, just wait!
Those that want to eliminate towboats may be opening a Pandora's Box, and you will not like what's inside.
The person from Wilderness Watch is Kevin Proescholdt, former head of the Friends of the Boundary Waters, who they exiled to Montana because of his over reach when writing the book "Troubled Waters!""




Tell me how not having tow boats would cause congestion on Moose Lake. I'm not saying it wouldn't, I just don't think I fully understand it. If the USFS issues 22 entry permits a day for Moose (did I just pull that out of my hat? I'm sure there are day use and motor use permits as well) there will be 22 parties going down the lake. Will it be more congested if they are travelling slowly and less if they are travelling swiftly? Either way there will be 22 parties going down the lake. I suppose if they all leave the entry point at once there would be congestion but whether they all proceed swiftly or slowly it would presumably be the same. Congestion I assume means a lot of people in one place at the same time. Having more people on the three lakes at once I would imagine is not necessarily congestion. Now, assuming people leave at different times I would think they would be spread out a bit,

Honestly, having seen the congestion that is present at these popular entry points I am leaning toward the idea that these tows may serve a useful purpose that is not just getting people away from the motor boats quickly but I would like to better understand just how they relieve congestion.

"

If there are 22 permits allowed per day, 3 canoes max per permit, makes 66 potential canoes leaving at close to the same time, since EVERYONE seems to want to start as early as possible. That sure suggests congestion to me. I've seen many canoes going through Sucker narrows at times, so many that a tow boat would have a hard time getting through.
I'm merely trying to warn some anti towboat types that they could screw things up for many parties that do use their service.
And you must admit, many canoeists complain that there are too many people, and the Forest Service should reduce the number of permits.
I've read that several times on this forum.
I'll say it one more time, when permit numbers decrease because of complaints, only canoeists will suffer, and they will have brought it on themselves.
 
gkimball
distinguished member(655)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/03/2015 10:43PM  
quote GraniteCliffs: "It seems to me that we really don't have all of the facts. We know what the Forest Service cap is. What we don't know is how many tows are actually run.
I am also not clear as to what legal authority and latitude the Forest Service has to alter the caps. If they have the ability to alter the number it would seem they could do so and be on solid legal ground.
I would think nothing will change in the near future-----except perhaps the Forest Service establishing some clear direction and auditing of how many tows outfitters are doing. Without the current number being accurate it is impossible to even begin to construct a solution, if one is needed at all.
We will never agree on these issues but following the original legislative intent seems to have worked well overall. In this case it may well work itself out without the need for any legal action. The litigation does provide the Forest Service with some impetus to more clearly define what they are doing and how they are doing it in this case.
"


Agree completely!

The whole thing is about getting the FS to get control and do its job. I don't think there will be any decrease in permits. Nowhere does it say the plaintiff is trying to shut down towing services. They just want the FS to do what it is supposed to do.
 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/03/2015 11:11PM  
quote The Great Outdoors: "
quote arcadie: "
quote The Great Outdoors: "SaganagaJoe,
A Bass fishing experience could only exceeded by getting a root canal while listening to a polka, thank you for asking!! :)
As for Thistlekicker's suspicion that my predictions of permit reductions if towboats being banned are exaggerated, just wait!
Those that want to eliminate towboats may be opening a Pandora's Box, and you will not like what's inside.
The person from Wilderness Watch is Kevin Proescholdt, former head of the Friends of the Boundary Waters, who they exiled to Montana because of his over reach when writing the book "Troubled Waters!""




Tell me how not having tow boats would cause congestion on Moose Lake. I'm not saying it wouldn't, I just don't think I fully understand it. If the USFS issues 22 entry permits a day for Moose (did I just pull that out of my hat? I'm sure there are day use and motor use permits as well) there will be 22 parties going down the lake. Will it be more congested if they are travelling slowly and less if they are travelling swiftly? Either way there will be 22 parties going down the lake. I suppose if they all leave the entry point at once there would be congestion but whether they all proceed swiftly or slowly it would presumably be the same. Congestion I assume means a lot of people in one place at the same time. Having more people on the three lakes at once I would imagine is not necessarily congestion. Now, assuming people leave at different times I would think they would be spread out a bit,


Honestly, having seen the congestion that is present at these popular entry points I am leaning toward the idea that these tows may serve a useful purpose that is not just getting people away from the motor boats quickly but I would like to better understand just how they relieve congestion.


"

If there are 22 permits allowed per day, 3 canoes max per permit, makes 66 potential canoes leaving at close to the same time, since EVERYONE seems to want to start as early as possible. That sure suggests congestion to me. I've seen many canoes going through Sucker narrows at times, so many that a tow boat would have a hard time getting through.
I'm merely trying to warn some anti towboat types that they could screw things up for many parties that do use their service.
And you must admit, many canoeists complain that there are too many people, and the Forest Service should reduce the number of permits.
I've read that several times on this forum.
I'll say it one more time, when permit numbers decrease because of complaints, only canoeists will suffer, and they will have brought it on themselves."


I don't know, I must be the exception. I like to sleep in on my vacation. :)
There haven't seemed to me to be that many parties all together, a lot of tow boats on the Moose chain maybe and a few canoes strung out but perhaps I just get underway later than most. Even so we found the campsite on Robbin's Island unoccupied (at 2PM or so, we left Indian Portage at 11 AM).
I think its curious to hear that people may be complaining about too many permits. I've noticed a lot of parties camping near the entry points but few people elsewhere. Last summer we took this fairly popular route (Moose, Knife Kekekabic, Fraser, Thomas, Alice, Insula, Hudson, numbered lakes and out at Lake one at the end of July. We saw a few Boy Scout groups out of Williams and Hall but few other canoes until we got to the end of the number lakes. Granted it isn't like the Quetico where I recall days when we saw no one else (years ago admittedy). I wouldn't have described it as crowded this trip though. Last summer we took a trip out of Seagull Lake and saw few other parties until we reached Sag Lake. We did have another Boy Scout group right behind us on several portages until we paused to let them go by but they were almost the only party we saw on the way in to South Arm of Knife. Even Seagull was quiet, come to think of it. I don't recall seeing another canoe but I suppose there were a few. The results of the fire over there are pretty ghastly, maybe that keeps people away.

The BWCA is relatively populated for a designated wilderness but the place is pretty unique for the States. The number of permits allowed is a compromise I'm sure. The popular entry points are relatively few and I suppose the glut od people near them is just a reflection of that.
 
yogi59weedr
distinguished member(2662)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/04/2015 08:11AM  
I have no problem with tows. If they wanted to keep track of the tows , just include it in on the permit.when your permit is issued where ever there could be a box. Are you using a tow?. That's one. That's two. Etc. Or issue the permits in the lottery as permits with tows and permits without tows. If your using a tow w/o the proper permit, then your busted.
 
10/04/2015 08:26AM  
quote arcadie: "
quote The Great Outdoors: "
quote arcadie: "
quote The Great Outdoors: "SaganagaJoe,
A Bass fishing experience could only exceeded by getting a root canal while listening to a polka, thank you for asking!! :)
As for Thistlekicker's suspicion that my predictions of permit reductions if towboats being banned are exaggerated, just wait!
Those that want to eliminate towboats may be opening a Pandora's Box, and you will not like what's inside.
The person from Wilderness Watch is Kevin Proescholdt, former head of the Friends of the Boundary Waters, who they exiled to Montana because of his over reach when writing the book "Troubled Waters!""





Tell me how not having tow boats would cause congestion on Moose Lake. I'm not saying it wouldn't, I just don't think I fully understand it. If the USFS issues 22 entry permits a day for Moose (did I just pull that out of my hat? I'm sure there are day use and motor use permits as well) there will be 22 parties going down the lake. Will it be more congested if they are travelling slowly and less if they are travelling swiftly? Either way there will be 22 parties going down the lake. I suppose if they all leave the entry point at once there would be congestion but whether they all proceed swiftly or slowly it would presumably be the same. Congestion I assume means a lot of people in one place at the same time. Having more people on the three lakes at once I would imagine is not necessarily congestion. Now, assuming people leave at different times I would think they would be spread out a bit,



Honestly, having seen the congestion that is present at these popular entry points I am leaning toward the idea that these tows may serve a useful purpose that is not just getting people away from the motor boats quickly but I would like to better understand just how they relieve congestion.



"

If there are 22 permits allowed per day, 3 canoes max per permit, makes 66 potential canoes leaving at close to the same time, since EVERYONE seems to want to start as early as possible. That sure suggests congestion to me. I've seen many canoes going through Sucker narrows at times, so many that a tow boat would have a hard time getting through.
I'm merely trying to warn some anti towboat types that they could screw things up for many parties that do use their service.
And you must admit, many canoeists complain that there are too many people, and the Forest Service should reduce the number of permits.
I've read that several times on this forum.
I'll say it one more time, when permit numbers decrease because of complaints, only canoeists will suffer, and they will have brought it on themselves."



I don't know, I must be the exception. I like to sleep in on my vacation. :)
There haven't seemed to me to be that many parties all together, a lot of tow boats on the Moose chain maybe and a few canoes strung out but perhaps I just get underway later than most. Even so we found the campsite on Robbin's Island unoccupied (at 2PM or so, we left Indian Portage at 11 AM).
I think its curious to hear that people may be complaining about too many permits. I've noticed a lot of parties camping near the entry points but few people elsewhere. Last summer we took this fairly popular route (Moose, Knife Kekekabic, Fraser, Thomas, Alice, Insula, Hudson, numbered lakes and out at Lake one at the end of July. We saw a few Boy Scout groups out of Williams and Hall but few other canoes until we got to the end of the number lakes. Granted it isn't like the Quetico where I recall days when we saw no one else (years ago admittedy). I wouldn't have described it as crowded this trip though. Last summer we took a trip out of Seagull Lake and saw few other parties until we reached Sag Lake. We did have another Boy Scout group right behind us on several portages until we paused to let them go by but they were almost the only party we saw on the way in to South Arm of Knife. Even Seagull was quiet, come to think of it. I don't recall seeing another canoe but I suppose there were a few. The results of the fire over there are pretty ghastly, maybe that keeps people away.


The BWCA is relatively populated for a designated wilderness but the place is pretty unique for the States. The number of permits allowed is a compromise I'm sure. The popular entry points are relatively few and I suppose the glut od people near them is just a reflection of that. "


Very few people camp on Moose-Found lake area because of boat traffic.

According to the suit, the Forest Service's 1993 plan caps towboat trips at 1,342 per year. The group said data from its freedom of information request show the Forest Service allowed 1,639 trips in 2011 and 2,124 last year.

The only thing I say and change is go with the capand stay within the cap and the one of very few that don't record trips etc. of the tow boats get rid of that one.

A lot of good Tow boat operators out there that are doing it correct and also practice very safe water boat handling.

One boat operator does not care.
 
PineKnot
distinguished member(2021)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/04/2015 09:38AM  
This has been one the most interesting threads I've read in while. And it is quite commendable that the debate has been so civil and informing.

Since I drive about 1000 miles each way for my 2-3 canoe trips each summer, time spent in the BWCA/Quetico is of the essence. So I have used the tows on Moose and Saganaga for many years now.

I agree with much of the info provided on both sides of this debate, but I have to conclude that I wouldn't mind seeing motorized use on the BWCA lakes phased out. I am not suggesting it be done immediately, but perhaps phased out over the next few decades. After watching the Last Alaskans, I really appreciate how compromise was made to phase out human occupation in ANWR to return it to its true wilderness status. Maybe I'm just naive but do wonder whether something similar could be done regarding motorized use in the BWCAW...
 
The Great Outdoors
distinguished member(5592)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/04/2015 10:57AM  
quote gkimball: "
quote GraniteCliffs: "It seems to me that we really don't have all of the facts. We know what the Forest Service cap is. What we don't know is how many tows are actually run.
I am also not clear as to what legal authority and latitude the Forest Service has to alter the caps. If they have the ability to alter the number it would seem they could do so and be on solid legal ground.
I would think nothing will change in the near future-----except perhaps the Forest Service establishing some clear direction and auditing of how many tows outfitters are doing. Without the current number being accurate it is impossible to even begin to construct a solution, if one is needed at all.
We will never agree on these issues but following the original legislative intent seems to have worked well overall. In this case it may well work itself out without the need for any legal action. The litigation does provide the Forest Service with some impetus to more clearly define what they are doing and how they are doing it in this case.
"


Agree completely!


The whole thing is about getting the FS to get control and do its job. I don't think there will be any decrease in permits. Nowhere does it say the plaintiff is trying to shut down towing services. They just want the FS to do what it is supposed to do."


Actually the Friends of the Boundary Waters ultimate goal is to eliminate the towboat. Check out Brian O'Neill (SP?), attorney, and see his quote about towboats, even though he has used them!!
Kevin Proeschuldt was the former director of the Friends of the Boundary Waters, now head of Wilderness Watch.
Wonder why a Montana group is interested in the BWCA, unless the Friends brought in a "hit man" to do their dirty work!

 
10/04/2015 11:21AM  
The only thing at this point as mentioned the existing regulations are not being followed and watercraft motorboat safety is not being followed by a very few,which creates a bad image and potential serious safety problem. This could be remedied by common courtesy.


TGO did that water temp get below 60 degrees yet? Around home went trout fishing yesterday and it was 63 degrees.
 
ChristineCanoes
senior member (88)senior membersenior member
  
10/04/2015 12:34PM  
To me there are 2 issues:

1 - The rules are not being followed. I do not think it matters what agenda the organization has I think it is good that they are bringing this up.

2 - the whole question of motor boats. I trip in Algonquin a lot. We have a similar set up. I agree that motors decrease my enjoyment/ lead me to avoid lakes I would like to enjoy. However, I also recognize why these compromises are necessary.
 
The Great Outdoors
distinguished member(5592)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/04/2015 06:52PM  
quote Pinetree:
TGO did that water temp get below 60 degrees yet? Around home went trout fishing yesterday and it was 63 degrees. "


Yes, temps were 58.7-59.6 degrees today.

PS-This entire discussion about towboats is much ado about nothing!
The only ones that will be hurt if this thing hits the boiling point are the canoeists that use the service, and several outfitters that run the service.
And whether or not you realize it, you will have once again crippled another small piece of the area economy.
 
warhawk
distinguished member (382)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/04/2015 09:48PM  
What do you care about motors or tows on fringe lakes. If you are so hard core and wilderness hungry, portage and paddle your butt a couple lakes in and forget about it. Geez.
 
10/04/2015 09:54PM  
quote warhawk: "What do you care about motors or tows on fringe lakes. If you are so hard core and wilderness hungry, portage and paddle your butt a couple lakes in and forget about it. Geez."

click on the link in the original post and read it. this isn't about them being good or bad...its about enforcing a current regulation. Geez.
 
mjmkjun
distinguished member(2885)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/05/2015 06:50AM  
Just wanted to comment that it's a pleasure to visit/revisit a thread like this one and read opposing views which gives all readers something to contemplate/digest info regarding potential controversial matters.
A subject like this has been known to get out of hand... then insults and innuendos would fly back and forth.....rendering the 'conversations' useless as egotism in excess soon becomes a bore. Gone are those occurrences.
Thanks moderators. Thanks BWCA members. That is all. :-)
 
10/05/2015 07:32AM  
quote warhawk: "What do you care about motors or tows on fringe lakes. If you are so hard core and wilderness hungry, portage and paddle your butt a couple lakes in and forget about it. Geez."


Disagree,its a little more than that.
 
rbevars
senior member (77)senior membersenior member
  
10/05/2015 07:53PM  
Thanks to all for such an informative and civil debate. While this topic is certainly a divided one, I appreciate everyone's contribution. I have learned a lot reading this thread.
 
Basspro69
distinguished member(14142)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished membermaster membermaster member
  
10/05/2015 09:38PM  
quote The Great Outdoors: "Over 99% of the lakes in the BWCA do not allow motors!
Is the other .9%(or less) really worth starting another Cell Tower type fiasco? :)"
In my opinion no its not, the only time I would have a problem with whats currently being done is if they tried to expand the motorboat areas in the bwca. You actually changed my mind on the cell tower issue because ultimately it was outside the bwca, now the mining issue is a whole different animal, but that's a discussion for a different time :-)
 
Basspro69
distinguished member(14142)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished membermaster membermaster member
  
10/05/2015 09:44PM  
quote yogi59weedr: "Maybe we can eliminate the tow boats and add more permits for fishing boats. You go there to paddle. So paddle. With that being said. What did Rodney King say..... "Can't we all get along". "
He was on crack when he said that JK
 
2old4U
distinguished member(1456)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/06/2015 09:51AM  
Forgive me if it was already mentioned, but it's my understanding that when legislation was passed to create the BWCAW that some motor lakes (and associated motorized portages) were written in to appease the many families, resorts, and other businesses that were affected by losing their homes, cabins, and livelihoods...it is quite possible NONE of the BWCA could have become what it is without permitting these limited motor routes. Every act of legislation must be a compromise and these routes were just such. I hate to dig up old bones, but imagine your family had a resort on Basswood and along comes the government and says "get out, we got a bunch of people that want to canoe here and they want it quiet." I believe some of the larger fringe lakes were left motorized due to those people...and even then some of those lakes were phased out, Brule for example. So, to say that motor boats can go find another place to go is not only not in keeping with the ruling, but a complete disregard for why the ruling is why it is...and the lives that were drastically changed so we all can have this wonderful place we call the BWCA. I for one can live with the limited motor routes; they don't bother me...and I even take advantage of them from time to time when the boat seems more inviting.
 
inspector13
distinguished member(4169)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/06/2015 11:14AM  
quote arcadie: The issue is really the wilderness concept and whether motor boats are compatible with wilderness values. I think they are not but I realize the limited motorboat usage that is allowed reflects compromises that were made in the creation and subsequent modifications to the BWCA. There was terrific opposition to the BWCA when it was created and further redefined. We are lucky to have the BWCA at all. There was a great deal of pressure at the time (1970's) to develop the entire area to make it more accessible to various kinds of motorized access. That remote lake you are so fond of might very well have had a road, a campground and a launching ramp and possibly a summer resort. You might be sharing it with water skiers instead of savoring its isolation and quietude. The lakes and rivers and forest would still be there but the wilderness values that make it special would not."

You are about 50 years off with the development pressure statement. The wilderness act had all ready passed by 1964. Development pressure was happening in the 1920’s when there was a push for a "Road to Every Lake". The Shipstead-Newton-Nolan Act was passed partially in response to that, but we still have the Kekekabic Trail as a trace of the push.

 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/06/2015 11:20AM  
quote inspector13: "
quote arcadie: The issue is really the wilderness concept and whether motor boats are compatible with wilderness values. I think they are not but I realize the limited motorboat usage that is allowed reflects compromises that were made in the creation and subsequent modifications to the BWCA. There was terrific opposition to the BWCA when it was created and further redefined. We are lucky to have the BWCA at all. There was a great deal of pressure at the time (1970's) to develop the entire area to make it more accessible to various kinds of motorized access. That remote lake you are so fond of might very well have had a road, a campground and a launching ramp and possibly a summer resort. You might be sharing it with water skiers instead of savoring its isolation and quietude. The lakes and rivers and forest would still be there but the wilderness values that make it special would not."

You are about 50 years off with the development pressure statement. The wilderness act had all ready passed by 1964. Development pressure was happening in the 1920’s when there was a push for a “Road to Every Lake”. The Shipstead-Newton-Nolan Act was passed in response to that, but we still have the Kekekabic Trail as a trace of the push.


"


Thanks, I knew the Wilderness Act was passed in 1964 but I understood the Boundary Waters Canoe Area was further defined in the 1970's. I was living in St. Paul at the time (New Hampshire now) and I recall some of the furor as motors were further restricted. I think Oberstar had a plan for development that was put forward as an alternative in response to various pressure including especially those of affected local people.

I think pressure on the resource, as the USFS might label it, is longstanding. Various compromises were incorporated into the early wilderness designations in response to these pressures. In some wilderness areas for example limited grazing was allowed to continue. As incompatible as such grazing was with the wilderness concept, the creation of these wilderness areas was a huge victory for proponents of wilderness since dating back at least to the 1920's there were proposals put before Congress to virtually give away many of these lands to those who were grazing on them. In fact all of it, as far as I know was once available under the homestead and mining acts, at least in theory (I can't imagine being able to plow up much of the BWCA to plant crops and create a homestead).

I know that the creation of these wildernesses caused hardship to local people but I wonder if long term they don't represent a net gain for them long term because the resource is preserved and managed in perpetuity. Here in NH we live adjacent to the National Forest. Private exploitation of the forest here had perhaps advanced to a greater extent than elsewhere. Unrestricted wide scale logging reduced most of the forest and mountains to a cut over brushpile wasteland that, when it burned over, caused tremendous flooding and destruction downstream. Logging companies raced through the area to pull out everything they could extract and, in the end left the local people unemployed with few prospects since the resources were gone. The national forest has managed the area including those areas designated as wilderness, carefully since its creation and tourism and recreation are the mainstay of the economy now.

I wonder what the area which is now the BWCA would now be like if those development plans had gone forward and if the area would be much different from those many other places in the country that are accessed by roads and full of development?
 
Savage Voyageur
distinguished member(14414)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished membermaster membermaster member
  
10/06/2015 11:29AM  
I have used tows many times. I have no problem with them. But I had no idea that the people operating the tow services were going over the quota. It's like so many laws nowadays. They make a law and no enforcement after that. How difficult can it be? Report to the forest service every tow you make. Could report every week or every day. It not that hard. If they are choosing not to enforce the quota than remove the quota.
 
ozarkpaddler
distinguished member(5163)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/06/2015 11:36AM  
quote 2old4U: "Forgive me if it was already mentioned, but it's my understanding that when legislation was passed to create the BWCAW that some motor lakes (and associated motorized portages) were written in to appease the many families, resorts, and other businesses that were affected by losing their homes, cabins, and livelihoods...it is quite possible NONE of the BWCA could have become what it is without permitting these limited motor routes. Every act of legislation must be a compromise and these routes were just such. I hate to dig up old bones, but imagine your family had a resort on Basswood and along comes the government and says "get out, we got a bunch of people that want to canoe here and they want it quiet." I believe some of the larger fringe lakes were left motorized due to those people...and even then some of those lakes were phased out, Brule for example. So, to say that motor boats can go find another place to go is not only not in keeping with the ruling, but a complete disregard for why the ruling is why it is...and the lives that were drastically changed so we all can have this wonderful place we call the BWCA. I for one can live with the limited motor routes; they don't bother me...and I even take advantage of them from time to time when the boat seems more inviting. "


Well, as I read through these and thought about what I wanted to say, I got down to yours and you mentioned a point I wanted to make, and probably said it better than I would have? I was a member and supporter of one of the aforementioned organizations but disliked their refusal to compromise on issues years ago. I felt like I was supporting a group made up of grown up kids who were used to getting everything they wanted? I'll bite my tongue and not say anything further about that.

I love big Sag, it's my favorite lake. I would love to see Sag motor-less myself. I could get that wilderness experience without portages as my health has taken a "Hit" and portages are more difficult. But that was not the agreement.

Hold the outfitter who's breaking the rule on tows feet to the fire. That's fine. But if we keep pushing for more and more things to be exclusive to us paddlers, I believe TGO is correct in saying we may not like what we end up with?
 
10/06/2015 11:48AM  
I think I have read one comment I completely agree with. Ragged's comment about tow boats and their capacity. If they can carry 2 or 3 canoes then make them carry 2 or 3 canoes on a set time schedule. That makes great sense. That should cut down on the number of two boats. Give them that 1300 some trips a year and use all available space.

I don't know how these two boats affect private motor day and overnight use but I am curious about that. I'd be all for getting rid of more tow boats and allowing more private motor permits. It's a pain in the butt the way it is to get a permit to get my motor boat to Basswood. Lucky if I get 1 a year and usually end up settling for a day use and camping at Bear Head.

Overall, doesn't bother me one way or the other. I agree with enforce the current rules or change it to meet the current use and then slam the door shut on future changes. I am surprised that there are so many tow boats and the number of trips is going up. I thought the number of people visiting the BWCA have been in decline. Does that mean that people are also simply getting lazier?

Concerning this 'Change the rules to meet current use'...can we do that to the speed limits on the freeways too please? I mean many people are all doing 80 in a 65 zone anyway. Lets get that speed limit changed to meet current use.
 
10/06/2015 12:02PM  
To Quote Inspector13: "You are about 50 years off with the development pressure statement. The wilderness act had all ready passed by 1964. Development pressure was happening in the 1920’s when there was a push for a “Road to Every Lake”. The Shipstead-Newton-Nolan Act was passed partially in response to that, but we still have the Kekekabic Trail as a trace of the push."

Going off topic, but I didn't know this. The Kek trail was originally road? Two-track type? Had to have been pretty rugged road...
 
inspector13
distinguished member(4169)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/06/2015 12:30PM  

quote rtallent: "Going off topic, but I didn't know this. The Kek trail was originally road? Two-track type? Had to have been pretty rugged road..."

Yes a very rugged road developed and maintained for Forest Service fire fighters. The Fernburg Road was built as part of the original push. It was supposed to be extended by upgrading the fire access road. Roads on the Gunflint side also started penetrating deeper into the interior, and what is now the Centennial Trail is a trace of that. They were going to connect those primitive roads so you would have been able to drive from Ely to Gunflint Lake in your model T or REO Speedwagon. : )

 
inspector13
distinguished member(4169)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/06/2015 01:12PM  
quote arcadie:
Thanks, I knew the Wilderness Act was passed in 1964 but I understood the Boundary Waters Canoe Area was further defined in the 1970's. I was living in St. Paul at the time (New Hampshire now) and I recall some of the furor as motors were further restricted. I think Oberstar had a plan for development that was put forward as an alternative in response to various pressure including especially those of affected local people.

I think pressure on the resource, as the USFS might label it, is longstanding. Various compromises were incorporated into the early wilderness designations in response to these pressures. In some wilderness areas for example limited grazing was allowed to continue. As incompatible as such grazing was with the wilderness concept, the creation of these wilderness areas was a huge victory for proponents of wilderness since dating back at least to the 1920's there were proposals put before Congress to virtually give away many of these lands to those who were grazing on them...

I wonder what the area which is now the BWCA would now be like if those development plans had gone forward and if the area would be much different from those many other places in the country that are accessed by roads and full of development?"

Yes the 1978 Act that pertained specifically to the BWCA was just putting more teeth into the original Wilderness Act by further restricting uses such as logging, motorboat, and snowmobile use, and also by setting up the quota system. There were many exemptions for the Superior National Forest written into the 1964 Act because of compromise, and there was compromise because there were many people living and making a living within the newly created borders. Many more people than in the other wilderness areas covered by that act. I actually thought it was ironic for you to mention you thought the resort/lodging recreation development in the area seemed so low key as to resemble the 1920's when that was about the time laws restricting development began.

But in all honesty I can’t think much difference would be found now if those laws had not been passed at all. Look at all of the area in the Superior National Forest not covered by the Acts. They are not exactly a hotbed of development. The winters are too damn harsh.

 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/06/2015 01:27PM  
quote inspector13: "
quote arcadie:
Thanks, I knew the Wilderness Act was passed in 1964 but I understood the Boundary Waters Canoe Area was further defined in the 1970's. I was living in St. Paul at the time (New Hampshire now) and I recall some of the furor as motors were further restricted. I think Oberstar had a plan for development that was put forward as an alternative in response to various pressure including especially those of affected local people.

I think pressure on the resource, as the USFS might label it, is longstanding. Various compromises were incorporated into the early wilderness designations in response to these pressures. In some wilderness areas for example limited grazing was allowed to continue. As incompatible as such grazing was with the wilderness concept, the creation of these wilderness areas was a huge victory for proponents of wilderness since dating back at least to the 1920's there were proposals put before Congress to virtually give away many of these lands to those who were grazing on them...

I wonder what the area which is now the BWCA would now be like if those development plans had gone forward and if the area would be much different from those many other places in the country that are accessed by roads and full of development?"

Yes the 1978 Act that pertained specifically to the BWCA was just putting more teeth into the original Wilderness Act by further restricting uses such as logging, motorboat, and snowmobile use, and also by setting up the quota system. There were many exemptions for the Superior National Forest written into the 1964 Act because of compromise, and there was compromise because there were many people living and making a living within the newly created borders. Many more people than in the other wilderness areas covered by that act. I actually thought it was ironic for you to mention you thought the resort/lodging recreation development in the area seemed so low key as to resemble the 1920's when that was about the time laws restricting development began.

But in all honesty I can’t think much difference would be found now if those laws had not been passed at all. Look at all of the area in the Superior National Forest not covered by the Acts. They are not exactly a hotbed of development. The winters are too damn harsh.

"


I guess that's the point I seem to be coming to...that, with the kind of development that had been proposed and without the wilderness designation of the BWCA, things would not be rosier for the local economy. Long term the BWCA establishes something that is unique and a sustaining asset.
 
10/06/2015 01:54PM  
quote Savage Voyageur: "I have used tows many times. I have no problem with them. But I had no idea that the people operating the tow services were going over the quota. It's like so many laws nowadays. They make a law and no enforcement after that. How difficult can it be? Report to the forest service every tow you make. Could report every week or every day. It not that hard. If they are choosing not to enforce the quota than remove the quota. "


If Tow boats went away I would be in favor of it,but I am not asking for it or suggesting it.

It could go a long way to solving part of the problem,if you use a Tow boat operator and in your opinion he goes to close to canoes and causes a safety issue, change Tow boat operators or drop them all together,your choice.

A few years ago we were paddling on Newfound lake in about the middle of the lake heading north. A Tow boat came from the south was farther out than us to the west it angled back toward us a came too close and almost swamped us.

The people who got a Tow ride with there canoe group actually waited until we got to Prairie Portage at the landing and apologized to us and said they would never use that particular Tow service again or
would paddle up. That Tow service was stationed on Moose lake.


That said and you could even repeat it, there is also some very conscious Tow Boat operators who look out for where your at and for your safety.


Remember a few years back we came into prairie Portage on a fairly windy day,here stood a gal who was operating a Tow boat and she was also very concerned for us and also her canoe clients who were late.
She mentioned make sure you have your life jacket on.

Pretty sure who it was,it is a Gal we all love and is a outfitter who often visits this forum with helpful and informative info.

Thanks and nice seeing you on the last day of September that year and deep concern for your canoe people. You could tell you really cared.


My whole point the Tow boats just have to stay within quota's and respect canoe groups-a few don't.
 
10/06/2015 03:00PM  
quote SaganagaJoe: "(Enjoying my day off from law school work)


Could you also look at it as a way to improve access? My grandpa will be 75 years old next August. Thankfully he can still paddle. When he can't paddle anymore, I want to keep bringing him to the BWCA, so I'm thinking about sticking to the motorized lakes then and using a motor, if I can.


I've camped every year for three years in a row on Saganaga. I can only think of one motorboat joyride I heard/witnessed, and they were in the legal part of the lake and didn't carry on and on. I don't think the motors detract because there's not as many of them as you might think, at least on the Gunflint side.


I was skeptical of the whole tow boat thing until I took one...and now I get it. They are awesome. Again the key was access. I had my 74 year old grandpa and 70 year old great-uncle and we couldn't afford to wear them out before the first portage. Best money I've ever spent in my life. It turned what would have been a three hour paddle into a twenty minute ride and a spring in my step on the Saganaga Falls portage.


I do think motors are consistent with wilderness values (especially on the back of a square stern canoe)...Apparently Calvin Rutstrum thought so too, see his book The New Way of the Wilderness. Just not in a paddle only lake. I don't know about you but I love the reliable rumble of an old 7 horse Evinrude, especially when I'm driving it. And I'm as big of a silence/peace guy as they come.


It's all about careful stewardship...We don't have to apologize for being in the wilderness. We are earthlings and the earth was made for us; we should enjoy it! That does not however give us an excuse to wantonly destroy it, violate LNT, and destroy people's serenity; nothing could be further from the truth.


Do I think motors should be in all the BWCA? No; and if you don't like the motors - peace and silence is just a portage or two away. If you camp on motorized lakes, well, you pays your money and you takes your choice (coming from a frequent Saganaga camper!) Do I think we can keep motors running on the motorized sections to improve access for paddlers and wilderness enthusiasts who wouldn't otherwise paddle or would have a hard time doing so? Sure.




"


Why is it SO important that you go to the BWCAW if you are just going to motorboat? There are better (or just as good) options for this type of recreation.
(FYI: I'm not poking the bear, I am just curious.)
 
10/06/2015 03:11PM  
quote SaganagaJoe: "
quote thistlekicker: "
quote The Great Outdoors: "Most of those replying to the original post, realize that it's much ado about nothing.
Several of you who are totally against tow boat use should stop and think about the consequences of your actions:
1. The tow boats are being used by canoeists.
2. Failure to have this option will cause canoe traffic jams on Moose Lake, similar to Friday night traffic heading north from the twin cities, and other major population areas.
3. This will have the same no tow boat people screaming about too much canoe traffic.
4 This will then result in a demand for a decrease in the number of permits on entry points that have tow boats, once they are gone.
5. When permits become scarce because you can no longer adequately disperse traffic, people will be sitting at home.
6. You have now began to eat your own, think about it."




I think you're exaggerating, but that said, I'd willing to accept those outcomes. "



I believe you - let's all remember that this chap is in the business and knows what he's talking about...like I said above it's totally an access thing.


Say TGO how was the bass fishing this year? "


I would also like to point out he thus has a very selfish reason for his points if he indeed provides a tow service and from the fight in his posts he does...then again he also wants to ruin the whole area with a new form of mining...so who knows anymore.

Best points so far are:
1. Follow the rules
2. Don't go to motor entries if you don't like them.
3. Review the current limits.
4. Review the entry lake camping "habits" and make adjustments where needed. If there is a need and way to limit the base camping "problem" on these locations then do it.
 
10/06/2015 04:00PM  
quote Doughboy12: "


There are better (or just as good) options for this type of recreation.
(FYI: I'm not poking the bear, I am just curious.)"



I guess I don't know of these areas, but very open to suggestions. Just because you like to take a trip here and there with a small boat does not mean you want the full blown anything goes rules found in other areas. I happen to like the more primitive camp sites found in the BWCA. I like the 25hp rule, I like the managed quota system that helps prevent overcrowding. I like that there is just enough people that if you ran into any issues you stand a good chance of getting timely assistance. Closest thing I have found is VNP and it’s still a far cry from the motor zones found on the edge of the BWCA. WAY more people, bigger, faster, louder boats. Campsites are more developed, bear boxes, docks ect. Don't get me wrong, it’s nice, in moderation, but it’s not the same, no way Jose.

I guess I’m just a camping whore, I’ll take it any way I can. By canoe, by car, by boat, by foot, by skis, by dogsled, its all good to me and I like a little bit of everything. I like canoes, but I don’t only canoe. I like boats, but I don’t only boat. I’m not sure why this concept is so hard for some to comprehend. I almost feel sad that some feel pigeonholed into thinking you can only enjoy the outdoors in one way or the other. That you must be a canoeist and only a canoeist, that you must be a boater and only a boater. It’s just not the way some of us (myself included) see it. Variety is truly the spice of life.


If it wasn’t for the little boat I have my wife would rarely if ever accompany me to the northwoods I love. She’s been on canoe trips and did just fine, but she doesn’t enjoy canoeing like I do, she simply prefers the boat where she can relax a bit and be a little more productive in the search for Mr Walleye. The more I can drag her up there the more time I get to spend up there.

All I can say is don't knock it until you have tried it, and don't say there is no need for it just because you personally don't use it. I know it can be hard to think in others shoes, but it is a worthwhile venture. I'm not disabled but I wouldn't say eliminate handicap accessibility. I don't plan on buying an electric car anytime soon but I wouldn't outlaw them. I have never personally had a need for a Tampon but I'm pretty sure the world is a better place because they exist. You can't simply say you want to do away with something just because you don't use it or see a need for it, that's just plain selfish.
 
10/06/2015 04:34PM  
Double post...
 
10/06/2015 04:34PM  
quote inspector13: "You are about 50 years off with the development pressure statement. The wilderness act had all ready passed by 1964. Development pressure was happening in the 1920’s when there was a push for a "Road to Every Lake". The Shipstead-Newton-Nolan Act was passed partially in response to that, but we still have the Kekekabic Trail as a trace of the push.

"


Pretty sure it is a reach in thinking that the Kek was a planned road...it was always just a link for firefighters to access the interior and more importantly, cross the divide.
Now part of the Pow Wow Trail on the other hand WAS a road. All be it "just" a logging road, but as we can imagine, most of the roads up there started like that.
 
billconner
distinguished member(8608)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/06/2015 04:35PM  
quote Doughboy12: "I would also like to point out he thus has a very selfish reason for his points if he indeed provides a tow service and from the fight in his posts he does...then again he also wants to ruin the whole area with a new form of mining...so who knows anymore."


So much for it not getting personal.
 
10/06/2015 04:40PM  
quote Ragged: "
quote Doughboy12: "



There are better (or just as good) options for this type of recreation.
(FYI: I'm not poking the bear, I am just curious.)"


I guess I don't know of these areas, but very open to suggestions...
"


Hate to give away Lindylair's secret but check out Crescent...for one example. It even has a boat in camp site all to itself...although not a very nice one it could be made to be.
 
10/06/2015 04:43PM  
quote billconner: "
quote Doughboy12: "I would also like to point out he thus has a very selfish reason for his points if he indeed provides a tow service and from the fight in his posts he does...then again he also wants to ruin the whole area with a new form of mining...so who knows anymore."


So much for it not getting personal."


How is that personal???
One person claims we should hold his opinion in high regard by stating "let's all remember that this chap is in the business and knows what he's talking about" and I am just pointing out the flaw in that thinking...
 
dele
distinguished member (119)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/06/2015 05:25PM  
quote billconner: "
quote Doughboy12: "I would also like to point out he thus has a very selfish reason for his points if he indeed provides a tow service and from the fight in his posts he does...then again he also wants to ruin the whole area with a new form of mining...so who knows anymore."



So much for it not getting personal."


That's not making it personal, it's only pointing out that the poster many have been debating with in this thread has a direct business stake in keeping parts of the BWCA open to motorboats. Until Doughboy 12 pointed that out, The Great Outdoors's arguments about why it's important to keep motorboats allowed seemed to be about the long term viability of the wilderness, but now we know that they may really be about his bottom line.

That's a really important thing for anybody reading the thread to know as they evaluate his arguments and try to determine what their own position should be.
 
10/06/2015 05:33PM  
quote Doughboy12: "


Hate to give away Lindylair's secret but check out Crescent...for one example. It even has a boat in camp site all to itself...although not a very nice one it could be made to be."



There are over 70 sites on Sag alone that are accessible by boat, you are going to have to come up with a little more than one site on one lake.
 
ozarkpaddler
distinguished member(5163)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/06/2015 05:46PM  
quote dele: "
quote billconner: "
quote Doughboy12: "I would also like to point out he thus has a very selfish reason for his points if he indeed provides a tow service and from the fight in his posts he does...then again he also wants to ruin the whole area with a new form of mining...so who knows anymore."

So much for it not getting personal."

That's not making it personal, it's only pointing out that the poster many have been debating with in this thread has a direct business stake in keeping parts of the BWCA open to motorboats. Until Doughboy 12 pointed that out, The Great Outdoors's arguments about why it's important to keep motorboats allowed seemed to be about the long term viability of the wilderness, but now we know that they may really be about his bottom line.
That's a really important thing for anybody reading the thread to know as they evaluate his arguments and try to determine what their own position should be."


Hmmm, I didn't think the lawsuit had anything to do with ELIMINATING motors? SO now, we're admitting this IS the true agenda?

Since you are pointing out TGO may reap some small benefit by encouraging the use of motors, is it not unreasonable for me to point out that certain entities are pursuing these lawsuits not only for the good of us all, but for THEIR monetary benefits? These "Groups" have made a "Business" out of litigation. IMHO, I'll support the fella selling fishing bait rather than lawyers selling me.....something more "Smelly" than bait!

I will now step away from the keyboard so as to refrain from saying what I REALLY feel.
 
billconner
distinguished member(8608)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/06/2015 06:14PM  
quote Doughboy12: "
quote billconner: "
quote Doughboy12: "I would also like to point out he thus has a very selfish reason for his points if he indeed provides a tow service and from the fight in his posts he does...then again he also wants to ruin the whole area with a new form of mining...so who knows anymore."



So much for it not getting personal."



How is that personal???
One person claims we should hold his opinion in high regard by stating "let's all remember that this chap is in the business and knows what he's talking about" and I am just pointing out the flaw in that thinking..."


WTF does mining have to do with this subject? Tell me you're not trying to attack the individual rather than his ideas? That's making it personal.
 
billconner
distinguished member(8608)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/06/2015 06:16PM  
quote dele: "
quote billconner: "
quote Doughboy12: "I would also like to point out he thus has a very selfish reason for his points if he indeed provides a tow service and from the fight in his posts he does...then again he also wants to ruin the whole area with a new form of mining...so who knows anymore."




So much for it not getting personal."



That's not making it personal, it's only pointing out that the poster many have been debating with in this thread has a direct business stake in keeping parts of the BWCA open to motorboats. Until Doughboy 12 pointed that out, The Great Outdoors's arguments about why it's important to keep motorboats allowed seemed to be about the long term viability of the wilderness, but now we know that they may really be about his bottom line.


That's a really important thing for anybody reading the thread to know as they evaluate his arguments and try to determine what their own position should be."


OK. So someone can research you and doughboy and bring up you business and personal motivations and how they affect your posts. Are you now or have you ever been.....
 
andym
distinguished member(5340)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/06/2015 06:49PM  
I thought he owned a bait store. When did he start a tow service? It's not listed in his sponsor listing of this site.

Here's the listing: "The Great Outdoors in Ely, Minnesota is your gateway to the nearby lakes and so much more. This bait shop offers live bait, tackle, lures, fishing gear, and most importantly, fishing guide: Jim Maki. Stop in and talk to Jim about the latest fishing news, recommended "hot spots", the best bait, his custom made tackle, and more stories of the fish pictures featured on this site."
 
10/06/2015 06:49PM  
We all have a vested interest in various ways.
 
Savage Voyageur
distinguished member(14414)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished membermaster membermaster member
  
10/06/2015 07:39PM  
quote Pinetree: "
quote Savage Voyageur: "I have used tows many times. I have no problem with them. But I had no idea that the people operating the tow services were going over the quota. It's like so many laws nowadays. They make a law and no enforcement after that. How difficult can it be? Report to the forest service every tow you make. Could report every week or every day. It not that hard. If they are choosing not to enforce the quota than remove the quota. "



If Tow boats went away I would be in favor of it,but I am not asking for it or suggesting it.


It could go a long way to solving part of the problem,if you use a Tow boat operator and in your opinion he goes to close to canoes and causes a safety issue, change Tow boat operators or drop them all together,your choice.


A few years ago we were paddling on Newfound lake in about the middle of the lake heading north. A Tow boat came from the south was farther out than us to the west it angled back toward us a came too close and almost swamped us.


The people who got a Tow ride with there canoe group actually waited until we got to Prairie Portage at the landing and apologized to us and said they would never use that particular Tow service again or
would paddle up. That Tow service was stationed on Moose lake.



That said and you could even repeat it, there is also some very conscious Tow Boat operators who look out for where your at and for your safety.



Remember a few years back we came into prairie Portage on a fairly windy day,here stood a gal who was operating a Tow boat and she was also very concerned for us and also her canoe clients who were late.
She mentioned make sure you have your life jacket on.


Pretty sure who it was,it is a Gal we all love and is a outfitter who often visits this forum with helpful and informative info.


Thanks and nice seeing you on the last day of September that year and deep concern for your canoe people. You could tell you really cared.



My whole point the Tow boats just have to stay within quota's and respect canoe groups-a few don't. "


I think you quoted the wrong person, because my response and yours are two different topics.
 
10/07/2015 07:46AM  
quote Ragged: "
quote Doughboy12: "



Hate to give away Lindylair's secret but check out Crescent...for one example. It even has a boat in camp site all to itself...although not a very nice one it could be made to be."




There are over 70 sites on Sag alone that are accessible by boat, you are going to have to come up with a little more than one site on one lake."


I guess you miss the point of wanting to go to the BWCAW...seclusion.
70 spots seclusion doesn't make. That spot would give you exactly what he is looking for...guaranteed.
 
10/07/2015 07:52AM  
quote andym: "I thought he owned a bait store. When did he start a tow service? It's not listed in his sponsor listing of this site.


Here's the listing: "The Great Outdoors in Ely, Minnesota is your gateway to the nearby lakes and so much more. This bait shop offers live bait, tackle, lures, fishing gear, and most importantly, fishing guide: Jim Maki. Stop in and talk to Jim about the latest fishing news, recommended "hot spots", the best bait, his custom made tackle, and more stories of the fish pictures featured on this site.""


I said "IF"....read it again IIIIFFFFF!!!!!
He is most certainly PRO anything that can bring jobs to his town and I commend him for that.
I just was pointing out the flip side to the opinion of we should listen to this guy because...I have NO dog in this fight...I don't plan to EVER go on those lakes.
 
10/07/2015 08:30AM  
quote Doughboy12: "I have NO dog in this fight...I don't plan to EVER go on those lakes."


How can someone who’s own signature announces that they are VP of the Boundary Water Advisory Committee claim he has "no dog in this fight". Last time I checked most Pro BWCA groups were not pushing for motor use nor do they tend to be very tolerant of them in general. So from where I stand I would say you are very much on the other end of the spectrum with a clear dog in the fight, your posts in this thread only affirm this notion.


As far as your statement about TGO, if you have zero reason to think he has a tow service why even put the statement out there? You are trying to back out by saying you used the word "if". Where does that end? Is it ok to say untrue things about someone as long as we say “if”? In my eyes that was a statement that should NOT have been made, if you have no indication that its true you should not have even put it out there to muddy the waters, poor form my friend, poor form.



P.S. Still waiting for the list of other options, you are going to need 3-400 sites and 40,000+ boatable acers. They must be horsepower limited, quota controlled and they have to be every bit as beautiful as their rocky island strewn BWCA counterparts, trust me it’s not out there.


I don't mean to badger you, and want to be as respectful as possible, but at the same time you made a statement and I REALLY want to hold you to it. It can be found below for reference. Please list these better or equal options. I think I have done a very good job outlining what the criteria is that makes these motors zones special to me and many others. If there is another option that meets this criteria I am all ears, but I just don't think its out there.



quote Doughboy12: "

There are better (or just as good) options for this type of recreation."



 
schweady
distinguished member(8070)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/07/2015 10:34AM  
From the original link:
"...the Forest Service's 1993 plan caps towboat trips at 1,342 per year...the Forest Service allowed 1,639 trips in 2011 and 2,124 last year..."

Exceeding the cap is the only issue involved in the suit.

Focus.
 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/07/2015 10:36AM  
quote Ragged: "
quote Doughboy12: "I have NO dog in this fight...I don't plan to EVER go on those lakes."



How can someone who’s own signature announces that they are VP of the Boundary Water Advisory Committee claim he has "no dog in this fight". Last time I checked most Pro BWCA groups were not pushing for motor use nor do they tend to be very tolerant of them in general. So from where I stand I would say you are very much on the other end of the spectrum with a clear dog in the fight, your posts in this thread only affirm this notion.



As far as your statement about TGO, if you have zero reason to think he has a tow service why even put the statement out there? You are trying to back out by saying you used the word "if". Where does that end? Is it ok to say untrue things about someone as long as we say “if”? In my eyes that was a statement that should NOT have been made, if you have no indication that its true you should not have even put it out there to muddy the waters, poor form my friend, poor form.




P.S. Still waiting for the list of other options, you are going to need 3-400 sites and 40,000+ boatable acers. They must be horsepower limited, quota controlled and they have to be every bit as beautiful as their rocky island strewn BWCA counterparts, trust me it’s not out there.



I don't mean to badger you, and want to be as respectful as possible, but at the same time you made a statement and I REALLY want to hold you to it. It can be found below for reference. Please list these better or equal options. I think I have done a very good job outlining what the criteria is that makes these motors zones special to me and many others. If there is another option that meets this criteria I am all ears, but I just don't think its out there.



quote Doughboy12: "


There are better (or just as good) options for this type of recreation."




"

I don't get it. If you are pro Boundary Waters and/or belong to a group that is you have a "dog in the fight"? Wouldn't that include most of us?

I don't think I understand 3-400 sites. Is it 3 sites or 400? In any case 40,000 plus boatable acres (if these are the acres open to motorboats in the BWCA) is a lot of access. TGO had previously told us that only 1% , if I recall correctly, of lakes in the BWCA were open to motor use. I wonder what percentage of canoe accessible lake area that 40,000 plus area represents?

I wonder just how many acres are already available to motorboats elsewhere in Minnesota and how many campsites? How many by contrast are wilderness accessible only by canoe or foot?

It seems to me that virtually everywhere else in an area abundant with lakes and rivers is open for motors whereas only this one unique area (BWCAW) excludes them in part. Note that the BWCA motorless areas do not exclude people who ordinarily use motors it just excludes their motors in an effort to preserve a unique experience.

Why should large parts of the BWCA be kept available to a type of use that is incompatible with the wilderness values it is intended to protect when motorboaters already have such vast opportunities available to them?
 
andym
distinguished member(5340)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/07/2015 10:40AM  
You said "if he indeed provides" which sounds like you think he does do that but aren't sure. And you buried the clarifier after other text that made him sound selfish. And then said "and from the fight in his posts he does." That effectively removed the if.

I do agree that we have spread out from the initial post. In general, I'm in favor of following the rules and reconsidering them if they aren't working.
 
10/07/2015 11:34AM  
quote Ragged: "
quote Doughboy12: "I have NO dog in this fight...I don't plan to EVER go on those lakes."



How can someone who’s own signature announces that they are VP of the Boundary Water Advisory Committee claim he has "no dog in this fight".

"


It's a hiking "group"...but if you did your research...or paid attention at all in these forums you would know that.
 
10/07/2015 11:37AM  
quote Ragged: "

I don't mean to badger you, and want to be as respectful as possible, but at the same time you made a statement and I REALLY want to hold you to it. It can be found below for reference. Please list these better or equal options. I think I have done a very good job outlining what the criteria is that makes these motors zones special to me and many others. If there is another option that meets this criteria I am all ears, but I just don't think its out there.

"


Sure you do...and I gave you a start. Do your own homework.
I'm not sure the idea of the conversation was to get him to 400-500 campsites. He is one person in search of one campsite...let it go it wasn't even your question I was responding to...but that doesn't seem important, you just want to pick a fight, and make it personal.
 
10/07/2015 11:43AM  
quote andym: "You said "if he indeed provides" which sounds like you think he does do that but aren't sure. And you buried the clarifier after other text that made him sound selfish. And then said "and from the fight in his posts he does." That effectively removed the if.

I do agree that we have spread out from the initial post. In general, I'm in favor of following the rules and reconsidering them if they aren't working. "


Reading Comprehension 101 ...
I can't help how YOU take it. I can only put the words on the page. Not sure how you came to the conclusion I buried it? Its there plain as the nose on your face.
 
Savage Voyageur
distinguished member(14414)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished membermaster membermaster member
  
10/07/2015 11:55AM  
quote schweady: "From the original link:
"...the Forest Service's 1993 plan caps towboat trips at 1,342 per year...the Forest Service allowed 1,639 trips in 2011 and 2,124 last year..."


Exceeding the cap is the only issue involved in the suit.


Focus.
"


Thanks for your words of wisdom.
 
2old4U
distinguished member(1456)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/07/2015 12:06PM  
" Why is it SO important that you go to the BWCAW if you are just going to motorboat? There are better (or just as good) options for this type of recreation.
(FYI: I'm not poking the bear, I am just curious.)"


Well, the simple answer would be for the very same exact reasons I'd want to go in a canoe...albeit just a lot more comfortable mode of transportation. But, furthermore, I love big water! Lakes like Basswood and Sag float my boat, pardon the pun, but to fish them efficiently, comfortably, and in the shoulder seasons when I most enjoy fishing I prefer to do it in a motor boat...and to be honest I see very few canoes during those time periods. And, as ironic/strange as it may sound, I like fishing those lakes due to the lack of boats. I would say of the 4-6 trips a year that I take to the BWCA that less than half are in a motor boat, the rest are all done by paddle power. So long as it's legal, and I'm physically able, I will continue to enjoy both.
 
10/07/2015 12:13PM  
quote arcadie: "


I don't think I understand 3-400 sites. Is it 3 sites or 400? In any case 40,000 plus boatable acres (if these are the acres open to motorboats in the BWCA) is a lot of access. TGO had previously told us that only 1% , if I recall correctly, of lakes in the BWCA were open to motor use. I wonder what percentage of canoe accessible lake area that 40,000 plus area represents?


I wonder just how many acres are already available to motorboats elsewhere in Minnesota and how many campsites? How many by contrast are wilderness accessible only by canoe or foot?


It seems to me that virtually everywhere else in an area abundant with lakes and rivers is open for motors whereas only this one unique area (BWCAW) excludes them in part. Note that the BWCA motorless areas do not exclude people who ordinarily use motors it just excludes their motors in an effort to preserve a unique experience.


Why should large parts of the BWCA be kept available to a type of use that is incompatible with the wilderness values it is intended to protect when motorboaters already have such vast opportunities available to them?"



First off the campsites and area numbers are "shoot from the hip numbers". I wouldn't dwell on them, I honestly don't know the exact number of acres but I know there are some huge lakes up there, simply put there is currently allot of campsites and water to use if you want.


Ok, this is starting to become a case of beating a dead horse. The fact is their absolutely IS NOT similar circumstances found "virtually everywhere", I'm not sure how to make that point any clearer. I give up.

While the area is large it is still a small percentage of the total. Why are people so hell bent on being selfish and wanting it ALL? There are something like 15 EPs that allow motors, out of how many? Don't use them, let everyone have use of the resource. The beauty and atmosphere found in the BWCA is absolutely unique, doesn’t matter how you get there.

What is with this "incompatible with wilderness" junk. Most of the motor areas have cabins and resorts on the lakes. On the Canadian side of Sag there isn’t even a horse power limit. Hell they have a customs building and fly float planes in and out of there. If you are paddling by 3000sqft million dollar cabins and thinking you are In the middle of a wilderness that isn’t “compatible” with small motors than I don’t know what to tell you, I guess your mind is made up and logic is out the window.


 
Thisismatthew
distinguished member (175)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/07/2015 02:20PM  
I would love to see this scaled down we were traveling south through Loon on a loop last year and were passed by about 10 boats through the narrows.
 
10/07/2015 02:21PM  
quote Ragged: "
First off the campsites and area numbers are "shoot from the hip numbers". I wouldn't dwell on them, I honestly don't know the exact number of acres but I know there are some huge lakes up there, simply put there is currently allot of campsites and water to use if you want.
"

So you lied...

quote Ragged: "
Ok, this is starting to become a case of beating a dead horse. The fact is their absolutely IS NOT similar circumstances found "virtually everywhere", I'm not sure how to make that point any clearer. I give up.
"

Who ever claimed that? You seem to ignore the fact that there are options, just because you don't want to admit it doesn't make it so. Consider that horse dead too.

quote Ragged: "
While the area is large it is still a small percentage of the total. Why are people so hell bent on being selfish and wanting it ALL? There are something like 15 EPs that allow motors, out of how many? Don't use them, let everyone have use of the resource. The beauty and atmosphere found in the BWCA is absolutely unique, doesn’t matter how you get there.
"

Just requesting they follow the current rules. No one here is demanding to have all motor boats removed...at least 99% of the posters here. The uniqueness comes from there being a limit on the motors allowed. a point you seem to keep missing.

quote Ragged: "
What is with this "incompatible with wilderness" junk. Most of the motor areas have cabins and resorts on the lakes. On the Canadian side of Sag there isn’t even a horse power limit. Hell they have a customs building and fly float planes in and out of there. If you are paddling by 3000sqft million dollar cabins and thinking you are In the middle of a wilderness that isn’t “compatible” with small motors than I don’t know what to tell you, I guess your mind is made up and logic is out the window.
"

Logic never entered into any of the things you have been ranting about...IMHO
 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/07/2015 03:10PM  
quote Ragged: "
quote arcadie: "



I don't think I understand 3-400 sites. Is it 3 sites or 400? In any case 40,000 plus boatable acres (if these are the acres open to motorboats in the BWCA) is a lot of access. TGO had previously told us that only 1% , if I recall correctly, of lakes in the BWCA were open to motor use. I wonder what percentage of canoe accessible lake area that 40,000 plus area represents?



I wonder just how many acres are already available to motorboats elsewhere in Minnesota and how many campsites? How many by contrast are wilderness accessible only by canoe or foot?



It seems to me that virtually everywhere else in an area abundant with lakes and rivers is open for motors whereas only this one unique area (BWCAW) excludes them in part. Note that the BWCA motorless areas do not exclude people who ordinarily use motors it just excludes their motors in an effort to preserve a unique experience.



Why should large parts of the BWCA be kept available to a type of use that is incompatible with the wilderness values it is intended to protect when motorboaters already have such vast opportunities available to them?"




First off the campsites and area numbers are "shoot from the hip numbers". I wouldn't dwell on them, I honestly don't know the exact number of acres but I know there are some huge lakes up there, simply put there is currently allot of campsites and water to use if you want.



Ok, this is starting to become a case of beating a dead horse. The fact is their absolutely IS NOT similar circumstances found "virtually everywhere", I'm not sure how to make that point any clearer. I give up.


While the area is large it is still a small percentage of the total. Why are people so hell bent on being selfish and wanting it ALL? There are something like 15 EPs that allow motors, out of how many? Don't use them, let everyone have use of the resource. The beauty and atmosphere found in the BWCA is absolutely unique, doesn’t matter how you get there.


What is with this "incompatible with wilderness" junk. Most of the motor areas have cabins and resorts on the lakes. On the Canadian side of Sag there isn’t even a horse power limit. Hell they have a customs building and fly float planes in and out of there. If you are paddling by 3000sqft million dollar cabins and thinking you are In the middle of a wilderness that isn’t “compatible” with small motors than I don’t know what to tell you, I guess your mind is made up and logic is out the window.



"


I agree with you that the beauty of the BWCA is unique although I do think that many of Minnesota's other waters are also beautiful. What sets the BWCA off from those is the absence of development and by the absence of intrusion by man's mechanical devices.

The "incompatibility with wilderness that you seem to think is "junk" derives from the stated purpose of wilderness when the Wilderness Act was passed, to set aside: “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”

I didn't realize there were "million dollar cabins" in the BWCA. I would certainly agree that they do not belong. Where, specifically do you mean? Aren't you referring to areas outside the boundary of the BWCA?
 
10/07/2015 03:37PM  
I give up
 
GraniteCliffs
distinguished member(1981)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/07/2015 03:49PM  
Like I said earlier: A lot of dust up over an issue that is not going to change much of anything. Motors will not be banned on the Moose Chain so why get too agitated over the issue.

The Forest Service will look at past and current us, establish some improved reporting requirements and likely set the caps at the average use the past few years. Translation: No change in the end.

I don't like the tows if I am paddling on Moose. However, I have taken them close to a 100 times over the past many years. Tows are allowed in this section of the BW and not in others. It is what it is.

I say live and let live in this case---just leave things the way they are with some better reporting and tracking.

Now what I am really frustrated and agitated about is my last trip in in the books as of this past weekend. No more till spring. Now that is irritating and worth stewing about.
 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/07/2015 04:07PM  
quote GraniteCliffs: "Like I said earlier: A lot of dust up over an issue that is not going to change much of anything. Motors will not be banned on the Moose Chain so why get too agitated over the issue.


The Forest Service will look at past and current us, establish some improved reporting requirements and likely set the caps at the average use the past few years. Translation: No change in the end.

I don't like the tows if I am paddling on Moose. However, I have taken them close to a 100 times over the past many years. Tows are allowed in this section of the BW and not in others. It is what it is.


I say live and let live in this case---just leave things the way they are with some better reporting and tracking.


Now what I am really frustrated and agitated about is my last trip in in the books as of this past weekend. No more till spring. Now that is irritating and worth stewing about."


Motor use in general seems to be a considerable expansion of the topic. Nonetheless its interesting to hash it over and become acquainted with what seems to be quite an emotional topic. I don't see any indication in their (USFS) plans to curtail motor usage further. You might think they could better enforce their own quotas though. I assume the problem arises in part because the USFS in Superior National Forest has been subjected to the same loss of operational funds other forests have seen.
 
thistlekicker
distinguished member (471)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/07/2015 08:51PM  
"motor use in general" seems relevant because most of the early replies to the OP were variations on "motors don't bother me" , which (to me) implies they think exceeding the quota is not a big deal, maybe they should raise the quota if more people want to use motors, aging population will need more motor permits in the future to access wilderness, etc. Maybe I was reading too much into some off-the-cuff replies, and maybe some people didn't even read the article, but I think the "motor use in general" is at least somewhat relevant to the discussion if only for future directions for motor usage in the BW.

I enjoy these types of discussions because I'm honestly interested in management of wilderness areas and really have no idea how some of these quotas are determined. The number is 1,342? Forty-two??? Really??? That type of precision tells me there is some meaning to the number. What is this number trying to protect in terms of the resource, while at the same time providing some sort of service to users and economic benefit to the area. I want to understand the rationale.

 
10/07/2015 09:15PM  
quote Ragged: "I give up"

I cant blame ya. :/
 
andym
distinguished member(5340)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/07/2015 09:29PM  
quote thistlekicker: "The number is 1,342? Forty-two??? Really??? That type of precision tells me there is some meaning to the number.
"


It's a "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe" reference.

BTW, I've given up too. Except for jokes.
 
yogi59weedr
distinguished member(2662)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/07/2015 11:13PM  
Rules...... it's very simple.... make them for what's best for all involved. .. then enforce them...I'm pretty sure they are not going to issue more permits then are allotted. Keep tabs on tows just like permits.Hard to do. Yes. We were paddling in one time and flagged down a tow. How do you count that..sorry didn't have any jokes.... no wait got one.. If a boat falls in the bwca and nobody hears it, does it still make a noise.
 
VoyageurNorth
distinguished member(2709)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/07/2015 11:34PM  
I seem to remember reading that one of the problems for the tow boats is the description of a "trip" for a permit. Is a trip one way up the lake? Is it one way up & one way down? (this is for tow boats). If they go up the lake to drop someone off & pick up someone else, is that two trips?

When the quota was set up, I believe there were a lot more exempt boats so the permit quota didn't include them. Now that those boats are not exempt, they are added into the quotas.

We use tow boat operators but don't tow in the BWCA ourselves so I'm not exactly sure about it.

I'm guessing that someone from the Moose Lake chain (a resort or tow boat operator) who has been here a long time, might have a clearer idea.

I'd be interested to have someone from that area post.



 
10/08/2015 08:23AM  
From the USFS manuel-regulations.

Towboats
Semi-primitive Motorized MA
A towboat operation is a commercial enterprise that
takes people and equipment from a starting point to a
drop-off point.
Beginning in 1995, all towboat operations must be
authorized by a special use permit.
Towboat use will be limited to the 1992 levels for
numbers of boats, trips, current operators, and specific
lakes. Growth will not be permitted beyond these
limits. If an operator terminates his/her special use
permit, an assessment will be completed to determine
if a permit should be issued to another individual or
business.

I see in 2014 there were at least 26 TOW boat operators(businesses with permits). Compared to the past? I don't know?

The main point like mentioned some operators run one canoe up,turn around go pick up another canoe and go to the same place. They could of both went on one boat.
 
10/08/2015 08:24AM  
quote VoyageurNorth: " I seem to remember reading that one of the problems for the tow boats is the description of a "trip" for a permit. Is a trip one way up the lake? Is it one way up & one way down? (this is for tow boats). If they go up the lake to drop someone off & pick up someone else, is that two trips?


When the quota was set up, I believe there were a lot more exempt boats so the permit quota didn't include them. Now that those boats are not exempt, they are added into the quotas.


We use tow boat operators but don't tow in the BWCA ourselves so I'm not exactly sure about it.


I'm guessing that someone from the Moose Lake chain (a resort or tow boat operator) who has been here a long time, might have a clearer idea.






Good question
I'd be interested to have someone from that area post.
 
VoyageurNorth
distinguished member(2709)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/08/2015 02:51PM  
For those of you thinking that the tow boats could put more than one group together, making less trips.

Take into consideration that people don't all tend to go at the same time. And if they have a group of over 4 people & 2 watercraft, the tow service needs to take 2 boats for transport.

Think about those times when you had someone either tow you or transport you with a van; would you prefer waiting another hour or whatever, to be placed with another group so there would be less transporting going on? Or if you arrive at say, 9:00 am and want to be out on the water by 10 am, would you be willing to wait until another group showed up at 11 am to be combined with them?
 
10/08/2015 03:09PM  
quote VoyageurNorth: "For those of you thinking that the tow boats could put more than one group together, making less trips.


Take into consideration that people don't all tend to go at the same time. And if they have a group of over 4 people & 2 watercraft, the tow service needs to take 2 boats for transport.


Think about those times when you had someone either tow you or transport you with a van; would you prefer waiting another hour or whatever, to be placed with another group so there would be less transporting going on? Or if you arrive at say, 9:00 am and want to be out on the water by 10 am, would you be willing to wait until another group showed up at 11 am to be combined with them?"


Valid points...except, I don't control when a plane leaves or when the buses run, I buy a ticket on their schedule not mine. Put them on a schedule and run them like that. Done.
 
billconner
distinguished member(8608)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/08/2015 03:54PM  
quote Doughboy12: "
quote VoyageurNorth: "For those of you thinking that the tow boats could put more than one group together, making less trips.



Take into consideration that people don't all tend to go at the same time. And if they have a group of over 4 people & 2 watercraft, the tow service needs to take 2 boats for transport.



Think about those times when you had someone either tow you or transport you with a van; would you prefer waiting another hour or whatever, to be placed with another group so there would be less transporting going on? Or if you arrive at say, 9:00 am and want to be out on the water by 10 am, would you be willing to wait until another group showed up at 11 am to be combined with them?"



Valid points...except, I don't control when a plane leaves or when the buses run, I buy a ticket on their schedule not mine. Put them on a schedule and run them like that. Done."


Just thinking out of the box, I you could have larger than 25 hp you could take more boats in many fewer trips, but seems two canoes is the limit for 25 hp. And there once was a road up the east side of Moose - don't know if it got across the Sucker/Ensign portage or not - that was used to get canoes and people closer to PP. Maybe that would be less intrusive than motors - run like the mechanized portages.
 
gkimball
distinguished member(655)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/08/2015 04:15PM  
Just curious - how are towing services structured? Typical cost? Per person, group, # of canoes? Never use or inquired about them.
 
VoyageurNorth
distinguished member(2709)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/08/2015 04:52PM  
cost is generally per person.

On Lac La Croix there is usually a minimum a four person rate, so if only two-three people,their per person rate is higher. Of course the rates for up there (at the 4 person rate) is about $140+ per person one way.

On the Moose Lake chain, usually it is a 2 person minimum rate. That chain (based on at least 2 people) per person is $24-28 depending on which point the drop off/pick up is at.



 
The Great Outdoors
distinguished member(5592)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/08/2015 06:05PM  
quote arcadie: "
quote Ragged: "
quote Doughboy12: "I have NO dog in this fight...I don't plan to EVER go on those lakes."




How can someone who’s own signature announces that they are VP of the Boundary Water Advisory Committee claim he has "no dog in this fight". Last time I checked most Pro BWCA groups were not pushing for motor use nor do they tend to be very tolerant of them in general. So from where I stand I would say you are very much on the other end of the spectrum with a clear dog in the fight, your posts in this thread only affirm this notion.
As far as your statement about TGO, if you have zero reason to think he has a tow service why even put the statement out there? You are trying to back out by saying you used the word "if". Where does that end? Is it ok to say untrue things about someone as long as we say “if”? In my eyes that was a statement that should NOT have been made, if you have no indication that its true you should not have even put it out there to muddy the waters, poor form my friend, poor form.

quote Doughboy12: "
There are better (or just as good) options for this type of recreation."


"

I don't get it. If you are pro Boundary Waters and/or belong to a group that is you have a "dog in the fight"? Wouldn't that include most of us?
I don't think I understand 3-400 sites. Is it 3 sites or 400? In any case 40,000 plus boatable acres (if these are the acres open to motorboats in the BWCA) is a lot of access. TGO had previously told us that only 1% , if I recall correctly, of lakes in the BWCA were open to motor use. I wonder what percentage of canoe accessible lake area that 40,000 plus area represents?
Why should large parts of the BWCA be kept available to a type of use that is incompatible with the wilderness values it is intended to protect when motorboaters already have such vast opportunities available to them?"

Just to clarify a few things:
I do not have, or own any part of any tow boat service, so I have no dog in the fight!!
My statement that over 99% of the lakes in the BWCA do not allow any motors is true, but the environmental groups do not like to use that figure since it shows a true picture of how many lakes are motor free.
The prefer to use water acreage, because that figure fits their agenda.
There are approximately 1075 lakes in the BWCA, with about 18 allowing motor use, so do the math!
Most of them have limited access in the summer (outboard motors) and no use in the winter (snowmobiles)
 
gkimball
distinguished member(655)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/08/2015 07:18PM  
quote The Great Outdoors: "
quote arcadie: "
quote Ragged: "
quote Doughboy12: "I have NO dog in this fight...I don't plan to EVER go on those lakes."




How can someone who’s own signature announces that they are VP of the Boundary Water Advisory Committee claim he has "no dog in this fight". Last time I checked most Pro BWCA groups were not pushing for motor use nor do they tend to be very tolerant of them in general. So from where I stand I would say you are very much on the other end of the spectrum with a clear dog in the fight, your posts in this thread only affirm this notion.
As far as your statement about TGO, if you have zero reason to think he has a tow service why even put the statement out there? You are trying to back out by saying you used the word "if". Where does that end? Is it ok to say untrue things about someone as long as we say “if”? In my eyes that was a statement that should NOT have been made, if you have no indication that its true you should not have even put it out there to muddy the waters, poor form my friend, poor form.


quote Doughboy12: "
There are better (or just as good) options for this type of recreation."



"

I don't get it. If you are pro Boundary Waters and/or belong to a group that is you have a "dog in the fight"? Wouldn't that include most of us?
I don't think I understand 3-400 sites. Is it 3 sites or 400? In any case 40,000 plus boatable acres (if these are the acres open to motorboats in the BWCA) is a lot of access. TGO had previously told us that only 1% , if I recall correctly, of lakes in the BWCA were open to motor use. I wonder what percentage of canoe accessible lake area that 40,000 plus area represents?
Why should large parts of the BWCA be kept available to a type of use that is incompatible with the wilderness values it is intended to protect when motorboaters already have such vast opportunities available to them?"

Just to clarify a few things:
I do not have, or own any part of any tow boat service, so I have no dog in the fight!!
My statement that over 99% of the lakes in the BWCA do not allow any motors is true, but the environmental groups do not like to use that figure since it shows a true picture of how many lakes are motor free.
The prefer to use water acreage, because that figure fits their agenda.
There are approximately 1075 lakes in the BWCA, with about 18 allowing motor use, so do the math!
Most of them have limited access in the summer (outboard motors) and no use in the winter (snowmobiles)"


What is the percent of water surface acreage open to motors? If you look at the color coded Superior National Forest Map a a HUGE amount of water is open to motors. Number of lakes is pretty meaningless.
 
GraniteCliffs
distinguished member(1981)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/08/2015 07:22PM  
In regard to bunching tows to allow a greater number of passengers: Nope. I am not waiting because someone else is late. And outfitters would feel compelled to wait to give good service.

I almost always go to Prairie. I am picturing two tows with 10 people each being dropped at the same time. Not a pretty picture. Jason( who does Quetico permits, etc) would likely stroke out. I, too, would likely stroke out if I had to wait for the crowd to subside. Nope, not for it. Yep, like everyone else it is all about me, my time and my values or views.

To say nothing of the complaints about boat wakes---bad now but worse under this scenario of larger boats and motors headed up and down the lakes.

Otherwise canoes vs boats/acreage vs number of lakes, etc. is all just a difference of opinion and values that will not get resolved here. No right or wrong. Just different.

I figure I have about ten years left of going to the Q being towed up and down the Moose Chain a number of times each of those years. Odds are heavy that in ten years the operation will not vary much from what it is today. And that, my friends, is fine with me.
 
VoyageurNorth
distinguished member(2709)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/08/2015 07:49PM  
"I almost always go to Prairie. I am picturing two tows with 10 people each being dropped at the same time. Not a pretty picture. Jason( who does Quetico permits, etc) would likely stroke out. I, too, would likely stroke out if I had to wait for the crowd to subside. Nope, not for it. Yep, like everyone else it is all about me, my time and my values or views." (from Granite, I messed up the quoting).

Just so you know (& in case other people thought it was possible), with the size limit of motors (25HP) they can only use, a maximum of 4 people is possible for each towboat. I don't think that size motor could really "push" a larger boat up the chain of lakes. I guess I could be wrong, I don't run boats, but that is what has been always indicated.

TGO, what do you think?
 
10/08/2015 08:24PM  
There is usually a line at prairie portage right when they open because many Tow boat operators it is part of there selling point to be there early.

For that reason sometimes we delay going up a hour or so. Been stuck behind 15 plus people and we got there before they even open.

For us because we paddle it is best we start like 6 Am to beat the boat rush up or wait a couple of hours.

I think what has happen now there is so many Tow Boat operators running the Moose lake chain with many have a good number of clientes they overwhelmed that stretch and few are paying any attention to rules or regulation Quotas.

They don't have that problem at Saganaga with as much volume,number of operators and a very important point Sag is much wider than the Moose chain and motor boats can give a wide berth of canoes. The Moose chain has numerous narrow areas to go thru.
 
GraniteCliffs
distinguished member(1981)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/08/2015 08:29PM  
A couple of thoughts. The only way to haul a lot more people at once would be to increase the motor size. Since it is not going to happen it is likely not worth discussing. Mmmmm, unless it would get me to Prairie in half the time! Just kidding. I think.
Two, currently tow boats haul more than four persons at once. I have ridden with as may as six with an outfitter. Five of us this year on one trip.
My fear would be larger motors, larger boats and more folks per boat making a mess of my personal tow preferences. But not going to happen either.
Yep, again, it is all about me.
BTW, two weeks ago we used some services from an outfitter in Ely. Great service, two friendly young men working there. VNO!
 
10/08/2015 08:44PM  
When I talk about more hauling I mean mainly more than one canoe at a time,not talking about overloading.

Also problem solved after the quota per day filled,that's it. Rest can canoe up or back etc.

I am amazed at Prairie Portage groups coming out will wait hours for the Tow boat if they come to the landing early. A 90 inute paddle will get them to Moose lake landing and they can be more flexible when they chose to come out.
 
dblwhiskey
distinguished member (257)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/08/2015 09:05PM  
I've read the original article regarding quotas and that is what the lawsuit is about, the USFS set quotas and that they are not being enforced. It's not about the percentage of lakes affected or how big of an area that they cover. It's not about motors messing with your solitude or congestion at the portages. It's about the quotas, the rules, the laws or numbers, however you want to label it. That is what they are basing their suit on.

These are people that are beyond reproach in what they do. I'm sure they have never driven over the speed limit. They have never made a questionable entry on their tax form. They wouldn't make erroneous claims on a work related travel claim. The list could go on but these people are above that. They are all about being perfect and adhering to the numbers. Of course if you believe that they will also make you a good deal on a bridge in Brooklyn. They found a loophole to push their agenda on and that is all that this is about. We had a saying in the Navy, "a bitchin' sailor is a happy sailor" and I guess the same is true about these Environmentalists. If they win this one then what will be next, no more campfires, no more fishing... what's next.

I truly feel that the Ely business people that have weighed in have no great interest in the matter one way or another. I do believe they bring up great points and I do believe TGO brings up a very valid point of watching what you wish for. I know of some young adults that didn't see mandatory health care when they voted some years back. I have always been leery of someone telling me they are doing something for my interest. If I were that interested I'd do it for myself.

As one last point, in the words of a former First Lady, Secretary of State, and current Democratic Presidential Candidate, "what difference does it make".
 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/08/2015 09:30PM  
quote Pinetree: "When I talk about more hauling I mean mainly more than one canoe at a time,not talking about overloading.


Also problem solved after the quota per day filled,that's it. Rest can canoe up or back etc.


I am amazed at Prairie Portage groups coming out will wait hours for the Tow boat if they come to the landing early. A 90 inute paddle will get them to Moose lake landing and they can be more flexible when they chose to come out."


Unless the wind is in their face of course. I once spent hours (in Nov.) paddling against what felt like a brick wall to get down the lakes to Moose Lake Landing.

No tows were around of course but dealing with a certain amount of difficulty goes with that kind of experience I think.
 
The Great Outdoors
distinguished member(5592)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/09/2015 08:04AM  

gkimball,
As I previously stated, the water acreage of motor use camouflages the fact that the BWCA has about 18 bodies of water that allow outboard motor use (no snowmobile use), and about 1057 that do not!
The only ones I have found to consider this meaningless, are normally members of the Friends of the Boundary Waters, or Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness.
 
10/09/2015 08:04AM  
Your contention that a 25hp motor can't push a bigger boat is hogwash...I see 9HP motors on some very LARGE boats. They are referred to as kicker motors and do just fine. It has to do with part of the reason you would take a tow. "I need to be there quicker and I don't want to do the work."
Do the math...26 Tow operators each doing a few a day is a lot of trips a day...no wonder they are over the limit.
I would love to see the boats continue because there is a clear need and want for the service but I also see room to evolve into a more organized system as I said before. I think there are real opportunities for improvement but like most things where people are involved, change is perceived as bad.
 
gkimball
distinguished member(655)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/09/2015 08:22AM  
quote The Great Outdoors: "
gkimball,
As I previously stated, the water acreage of motor use camouflages the fact that the BWCA has about 18 bodies of water that allow outboard motor use (no snowmobile use), and about 1057 that do not!
The only ones I have found to consider this meaningless, are normally members of the Friends of the Boundary Waters, or Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness.
"


It only has meaning if you want to consider criteria such as distribution of visitors, accessibility to visitors, how the size of the lake affects canoeing. Things like that. Simply considering numbers of lakes ignores some pretty important considerations for those who want to think about how the BWCA should be managed.

Hey, thanks for the tip about Friends of the Boundary Waters and Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness. They sound like my kind of organizations if they care to think things through about the BWCA. Think I'll sign up.
 
10/09/2015 08:24AM  
Doughboy man, you crack me up, comparing a kicker motor to an actual means of transport. Bravo!





 
billconner
distinguished member(8608)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/09/2015 08:43AM  
quote dblwhiskey: "I've read the original article regarding quotas and that is what the lawsuit is about, the USFS set quotas and that they are not being enforced. It's not about the percentage of lakes affected or how big of an area that they cover. It's not about motors messing with your solitude or congestion at the portages. It's about the quotas, the rules, the laws or numbers, however you want to label it. That is what they are basing their suit on.

These are people that are beyond reproach in what they do. I'm sure they have never driven over the speed limit. They have never made a questionable entry on their tax form. They wouldn't make erroneous claims on a work related travel claim. The list could go on but these people are above that. They are all about being perfect and adhering to the numbers. Of course if you believe that they will also make you a good deal on a bridge in Brooklyn. They found a loophole to push their agenda on and that is all that this is about. We had a saying in the Navy, "a bitchin' sailor is a happy sailor" and I guess the same is true about these Environmentalists. If they win this one then what will be next, no more campfires, no more fishing... what's next.


I truly feel that the Ely business people that have weighed in have no great interest in the matter one way or another. I do believe they bring up great points and I do believe TGO brings up a very valid point of watching what you wish for. I know of some young adults that didn't see mandatory health care when they voted some years back. I have always been leery of someone telling me they are doing something for my interest. If I were that interested I'd do it for myself.


As one last point, in the words of a former First Lady, Secretary of State, and current Democratic Presidential Candidate, "what difference does it make"."


+1 Thanks. I was thinking about this violation and all the other laws and regulations that are not enforced and often violated, and some of those even pose a hazard.
 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/09/2015 11:02AM  
quote Ragged: "Doughboy man, you crack me up, comparing a kicker motor to an actual means of transport. Bravo!





"


I have a 1 1/2 HP motor I used to use on a 23 ft sailboat. Worked just fine, not very fast but would be easy to portage I suppose and great for a square stern canoe used for fishing. Its hard to imagine fishermen needing a 25 hp motor in the BWCA.Incidently I have a 23 HP diesel that is used to power my current boat, a 26 ft motor whaleboat that is rated to carry 22 people. Some folks I used to know had one that was used to tow log booms down Moosehead lake (in Maine) so there's no lack of power and the thing can be pushed up to about 20 mph.
 
yogi59weedr
distinguished member(2662)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/09/2015 11:17AM  
If that diesel motor sounds like a diesel pickup then you should be tarred and feathered.lol. sometimes I think diesels should be banished from campgrounds. ....
 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/09/2015 11:24AM  
quote yogi59weedr: "If that diesel motor sounds like a diesel pickup then you should be tarred and feathered.lol. sometimes I think diesels should be banished from campgrounds. ...."


Its actually a lot quieter than an outboard motor since the exhaust goes thru a baffle and cooling water is mixed with exhaust. Sounds more like a "put put". Not the bag-of-bolts sound you probably associate with an idling diesel.

I understand where you're coming from, having been asleep in my tent when a diesel towing a camper pulled into the campground late at night and then started up his generator so he could watch his satellite TV.
 
10/09/2015 12:05PM  
quote Ragged: "Doughboy man, you crack me up, comparing a kicker motor to an actual means of transport. Bravo!
"


Thanks...;-)
 
10/09/2015 12:08PM  
quote arcadie: "
quote yogi59weedr: "If that diesel motor sounds like a diesel pickup then you should be tarred and feathered.lol. sometimes I think diesels should be banished from campgrounds. ...."



Its actually a lot quieter than an outboard motor since the exhaust goes thru a baffle and cooling water is mixed with exhaust. Sounds more like a "put put". Not the bag-of-bolts sound you probably associate with an idling diesel.


I understand where you're coming from, having been asleep in my tent when a diesel towing a camper pulled into the campground late at night and then started up his generator so he could watch his satellite TV."


I suppose this is where I should confess, I drive a Diesel truck? :-(
 
10/09/2015 12:35PM  
quote arcadie: "
I have a 1 1/2 HP motor I used to use on a 23 ft sailboat. Worked just fine, not very fast but would be easy to portage I suppose and great for a square stern canoe used for fishing. Its hard to imagine fishermen needing a 25 hp motor in the BWCA.Incidently I have a 23 HP diesel that is used to power my current boat, a 26 ft motor whaleboat that is rated to carry 22 people. Some folks I used to know had one that was used to tow log booms down Moosehead lake (in Maine) so there's no lack of power and the thing can be pushed up to about 20 mph. "




UGH, you guys are pulling me back in...... must resist....... must resist!




I can see it now, the future of tows in the BWCA




 
dblwhiskey
distinguished member (257)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/09/2015 01:36PM  
quote Doughboy12: "
quote arcadie: "
quote yogi59weedr: "If that diesel motor sounds like a diesel pickup then you should be tarred and feathered.lol. sometimes I think diesels should be banished from campgrounds. ...."




Its actually a lot quieter than an outboard motor since the exhaust goes thru a baffle and cooling water is mixed with exhaust. Sounds more like a "put put". Not the bag-of-bolts sound you probably associate with an idling diesel.



I understand where you're coming from, having been asleep in my tent when a diesel towing a camper pulled into the campground late at night and then started up his generator so he could watch his satellite TV."



I suppose this is where I should confess, I drive a Diesel truck? :-("


What brand is it, Peterbilt, Kenworth, Freightliner or one of the others.
 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/09/2015 01:54PM  
quote Ragged: "
quote arcadie: "
I have a 1 1/2 HP motor I used to use on a 23 ft sailboat. Worked just fine, not very fast but would be easy to portage I suppose and great for a square stern canoe used for fishing. Its hard to imagine fishermen needing a 25 hp motor in the BWCA.Incidently I have a 23 HP diesel that is used to power my current boat, a 26 ft motor whaleboat that is rated to carry 22 people. Some folks I used to know had one that was used to tow log booms down Moosehead lake (in Maine) so there's no lack of power and the thing can be pushed up to about 20 mph. "





UGH, you guys are pulling me back in...... must resist....... must resist!





I can see it now, the future of tows in the BWCA





"



Heh heh, I can see it now, only one tow a day required :)
 
dblwhiskey
distinguished member (257)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/09/2015 02:10PM  
quote arcadie: "
quote Ragged: "
quote arcadie: "
I have a 1 1/2 HP motor I used to use on a 23 ft sailboat. Worked just fine, not very fast but would be easy to portage I suppose and great for a square stern canoe used for fishing. Its hard to imagine fishermen needing a 25 hp motor in the BWCA.Incidently I have a 23 HP diesel that is used to power my current boat, a 26 ft motor whaleboat that is rated to carry 22 people. Some folks I used to know had one that was used to tow log booms down Moosehead lake (in Maine) so there's no lack of power and the thing can be pushed up to about 20 mph. "






UGH, you guys are pulling me back in...... must resist....... must resist!





I can see it now, the future of tows in the BWCA





"




Heh heh, I can see it now, only one tow a day required :)"


Not really, the lawsuit as I pointed out is about the numbers. The numbers state group size to be 9 people and 4 boats. So if they were to see this they would go totally over the edge. All joking aside, the maximum a tow could handle would be 8 people and 3 canoes because the boat doing the tow and the operator of the boat would have to be added to the count. Maybe I'm wrong but it think that is how it would be looked at under the current rules.
 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/09/2015 05:48PM  
quote dblwhiskey: "
quote arcadie: "
quote Ragged: "
quote arcadie: "
I have a 1 1/2 HP motor I used to use on a 23 ft sailboat. Worked just fine, not very fast but would be easy to portage I suppose and great for a square stern canoe used for fishing. Its hard to imagine fishermen needing a 25 hp motor in the BWCA.Incidently I have a 23 HP diesel that is used to power my current boat, a 26 ft motor whaleboat that is rated to carry 22 people. Some folks I used to know had one that was used to tow log booms down Moosehead lake (in Maine) so there's no lack of power and the thing can be pushed up to about 20 mph. "






UGH, you guys are pulling me back in...... must resist....... must resist!






I can see it now, the future of tows in the BWCA






"




Heh heh, I can see it now, only one tow a day required :)"



Not really, the lawsuit as I pointed out is about the numbers. The numbers state group size to be 9 people and 4 boats. So if they were to see this they would go totally over the edge. All joking aside, the maximum a tow could handle would be 8 people and 3 canoes because the boat doing the tow and the operator of the boat would have to be added to the count. Maybe I'm wrong but it think that is how it would be looked at under the current rules."


It was a joke!
 
yogi59weedr
distinguished member(2662)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/09/2015 06:29PM  
Bahahaha ;)
 
dblwhiskey
distinguished member (257)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/09/2015 07:17PM  
Arcadie I realize it was a joke, that is why I said all joking aside before I finished my post. My actual point was to say that if someone thought more people and canoes per tow I believe you still need to stay within the rules. If I'm not wrong the tow boat and operator would have to be counted as part of the group so you didn't violate the 9 and 4 rule.
 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/09/2015 10:11PM  
quote dblwhiskey: "Arcadie I realize it was a joke, that is why I said all joking aside before I finished my post. My actual point was to say that if someone thought more people and canoes per tow I believe you still need to stay within the rules. If I'm not wrong the tow boat and operator would have to be counted as part of the group so you didn't violate the 9 and 4 rule."


Sorry I was just being "duh".

I think there is a problem with the USFS rules being not well defined. Like " What is a trip?" as someone previously asked. I would think that the maximum number of people and boats specified refers to the number of people and canoes tripping into the BWCA and not the driver and his towboat but who knows? You would think these might be spelled out somewhere. It would seem to be simple enough. Likewise "trip" in the context of tows, one might expect, refers to the number of actual trips the towboat takes down the lake and not whether it is carrying people and canoes both ways but again who knows? Presumably the limitation on the number of tow trips allowed is intended to limit the amount of commercial boat traffic so you might think the actual number of towboat runs down the lake is the critical factor. The number of canoes entering is already controlled with the permit system.

Curiously I have heard here from one person that tows on the Moose Lake chain reduce the amount of congestion and from another that they lead to congestion. If congestion really is a factor there you might think that timed departures would help with the problem but I suppose that leads to other complications. I don't suppose the USFS has enough money to actually station someone there at the entry point. If they are taking a percentage of tow fees you might expect that is the least they could do, provide some value for their tax. In fact if the rules are being thwarted this really is a monetary issue for them since it would appear they are being shorted the revenue that is due. This could conceivably benefit the tow concessionaires if it allowed them to actually fill their boats each trip.
 
billconner
distinguished member(8608)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/10/2015 06:36AM  
Thoughtful points arcadie. I think many threads have pointed out the regulations not being sufficiently clear, corridor crossing and restricted permits being two examples. Your quota point is true except it seems there are always Moose Lake overnight paddle permits available. I'm not sure permit income and cost of USFS operations are directly related (like they are in Quetico).

It also seems the tow providers are being blamed for the use, but like drugs and drug dealers, ultimately it's the demand and user that is the cause. Rather than looking to government, just try to get the trippers to paddle. I use to take a tow but stopped. So while the tows at present level don't bother me, I'm also not contributing.
 
10/10/2015 08:51AM  
The problem is all Tow boat operators advertise their Tow boat service with zero talk their is a limitation on how many trips per day or year each one is allowed. It just got out of control with almost no regulation. Certain businesses push hard to get people to include the Tow in their canoe package.

Other waters(beside Moose) Tow boats operate I am sure have few if any problems with less usage?

Simple trips like to Vera,never understood why somebody didn't paddle a little over 1 hour to a moderate- slow paddle of 1.5 hours to get to the landing and portage.
 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/10/2015 11:53AM  
quote Pinetree: "The problem is all Tow boat operators advertise their Tow boat service with zero talk their is a limitation on how many trips per day or year each one is allowed. It just got out of control with almost no regulation. Certain businesses push hard to get people to include the Tow in their canoe package.

Other waters Tow boats operate I am sure have few if any problems?


Simple trips like to Vera,never understood why somebody didn't paddle a little over 1 hour to a moderate- slow paddle of 1.5 hours to get to the landing and portage."


I think people are anxious to get into the BWCA when they are starting a trip. There is a lot of activity around the perimeter whether it be basecamping, day use, motors and so on that make the fringe area seem like not the true BWCA so they're eager to get past it as soon as possible and the tows offer that prospect.

As far as tow regulation I don't know the answer except to better define the regs and require people to follow them. In general in a situation of commercial interaction, it makes sense to try to structure the conditions so as to make the interests of each party work to the advantage of the other in its objectives. Better defining the rules would make planning easier for the operators I think. It must be galling for a conscientious operator to see one of his competitors flaunting the rules and increasing his profits. Years ago the USFS had guard stations at critical locations to keep everyone honest and the percentage of fees collected by them ought to fund that.
 
The Great Outdoors
distinguished member(5592)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/10/2015 12:39PM  
quote gkimball: "
quote The Great Outdoors: "
gkimball,
As I previously stated, the water acreage of motor use camouflages the fact that the BWCA has about 18 bodies of water that allow outboard motor use (no snowmobile use), and about 1057 that do not!
The only ones I have found to consider this meaningless, are normally members of the Friends of the Boundary Waters, or Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness.
"

It only has meaning if you want to consider criteria such as distribution of visitors, accessibility to visitors, how the size of the lake affects canoeing. Things like that. Simply considering numbers of lakes ignores some pretty important considerations for those who want to think about how the BWCA should be managed.
Hey, thanks for the tip about Friends of the Boundary Waters and Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness. They sound like my kind of organizations if they care to think things through about the BWCA. Think I'll sign up."

No problem, but with some of your posts, I already assumed that you were president of both groups!! :)
 
schweady
distinguished member(8070)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/10/2015 01:35PM  
I'm not suggesting it as a requirement, but wouldn't it be great to have data collected and made available from post-trip surveys for each overnight permit, showing which campsites were occupied for each night of each trip? I think it would make pretty cool maps for each entry point... dots could show Day 1 distances traveled, concentration on lakes each day, identify percentages of basecamp trippers, etc.

No, it doesn't solve anything here, just a crazy thought.
 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/10/2015 02:16PM  
quote schweady: "I'm not suggesting it as a requirement, but wouldn't it be great to have data collected and made available from post-trip surveys for each overnight permit, showing which campsites were occupied for each night of each trip? I think it would make pretty cool maps for each entry point... dots could show Day 1 distances traveled, concentration on lakes each day, identify percentages of basecamp trippers, etc.


No, it doesn't solve anything here, just a crazy thought.
"


I took a trip from near Kawishwi Lake years ago up to Little Sag Lake and down to Sawbill Lake in the Tofte area. After the trip I received a follow up questionaire from the USFS inquiring about, among other things, the route I took from the entry point and which lakes I had visited. I'm a little surprised they are no longer doing this. It would seem to be a relatively low cost way to keep track of concentration of usage, dispersion etc.
 
billconner
distinguished member(8608)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/10/2015 04:02PM  
quote arcadie: "
quote schweady: "I'm not suggesting it as a requirement, but wouldn't it be great to have data collected and made available from post-trip surveys for each overnight permit, showing which campsites were occupied for each night of each trip? I think it would make pretty cool maps for each entry point... dots could show Day 1 distances traveled, concentration on lakes each day, identify percentages of basecamp trippers, etc.



No, it doesn't solve anything here, just a crazy thought.
"



I took a trip from near Kawishwi Lake years ago up to Little Sag Lake and down to Sawbill Lake in the Tofte area. After the trip I received a follow up questionaire from the USFS inquiring about, among other things, the route I took from the entry point and which lakes I had visited. I'm a little surprised they are no longer doing this. It would seem to be a relatively low cost way to keep track of concentration of usage, dispersion etc. "


I recall that also. I suspect it's budget related. They probably don't have 10 crews in the whole of BWCAW at any one time in peak season and are hardly able to do minimum maintenance.
 
10/11/2015 01:42PM  
quote arcadie: "
quote schweady: "I'm not suggesting it as a requirement, but wouldn't it be great to have data collected and made available from post-trip surveys for each overnight permit, showing which campsites were occupied for each night of each trip? I think it would make pretty cool maps for each entry point... dots could show Day 1 distances traveled, concentration on lakes each day, identify percentages of basecamp trippers, etc.



No, it doesn't solve anything here, just a crazy thought.
"



I took a trip from near Kawishwi Lake years ago up to Little Sag Lake and down to Sawbill Lake in the Tofte area. After the trip I received a follow up questionaire from the USFS inquiring about, among other things, the route I took from the entry point and which lakes I had visited. I'm a little surprised they are no longer doing this. It would seem to be a relatively low cost way to keep track of concentration of usage, dispersion etc. "


surveys cost money, too. that cost would probably come out of the user fees you pay meaning less money back to the superior national forest. it wouldn't cost the user anything but their time to write up synopsis and email it to the ranger station nearest their entry point. there might be things people share that could be addressed during the winter by ski, snowshoe or dog team.
 
Savage Voyageur
distinguished member(14414)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished membermaster membermaster member
  
10/11/2015 02:34PM  
quote Pinetree: "The problem is all Tow boat operators advertise their Tow boat service with zero talk their is a limitation on how many trips per day or year each one is allowed. It just got out of control with almost no regulation. Certain businesses push hard to get people to include the Tow in their canoe package.


Great point. I never knew until this thread that the tow operations are going over the quota. I would have thought there was some agency watching this. There I go again thinking...
 
andym
distinguished member(5340)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/11/2015 06:20PM  
Do we know that the FS gets to keep the BWCA fees and is directed to spend them on the BWCA? Often in the federal government, income goes to the general treasury and money to spend is provided through the annual budget. But I don't know if the FS works that way.

Also, collecting info in the federal government is now somewhat complex and requires setting up a system that protects identity and requires listing in the federal register for comments before starting. So, starting a new survey system requires some significant work.
 
billconner
distinguished member(8608)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/11/2015 08:04PM  
quote andym: "Do we know that the FS gets to keep the BWCA fees and is directed to spend them on the BWCA? Often in the federal government, income goes to the general treasury and money to spend is provided through the annual budget. But I don't know if the FS works that way.


Also, collecting info in the federal government is now somewhat complex and requires setting up a system that protects identity and requires listing in the federal register for comments before starting. So, starting a new survey system requires some significant work."


I made that point above and am pretty sure the budgeted expense is separate and independent of revenue (unlike Quetico). Good point about the survey - lots of regulations for government data collection.
 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/11/2015 09:26PM  
quote billconner: "
quote andym: "Do we know that the FS gets to keep the BWCA fees and is directed to spend them on the BWCA? Often in the federal government, income goes to the general treasury and money to spend is provided through the annual budget. But I don't know if the FS works that way.



Also, collecting info in the federal government is now somewhat complex and requires setting up a system that protects identity and requires listing in the federal register for comments before starting. So, starting a new survey system requires some significant work."



I made that point above and am pretty sure the budgeted expense is separate and independent of revenue (unlike Quetico). Good point about the survey - lots of regulations for government data collection."


I'm not so sure about the fees collected going into the Treasury. You may be correct but here in New Hampshire the White Mountain National Forest established a parking fee that I believe they use to make improvements for recreational use. I don't know the mechanism but I've been under the impression that these fees which they collect in the National forest are spent by them at their discretion. their budgets have been cut substantially and they must be creative in raising what funds they can to offset the budget shortfall.
 
10/11/2015 09:38PM  
Much of the fees I think suppose to go back into the system,but congress is robbing many natural resource funds and putting into general revenue.

20 billion of IOU's to conservation

Guilty as many others in wandering from original topic which some may have forgot what it was?
 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/11/2015 11:09PM  
quote Pinetree: "Much of the fees I think suppose to go back into the system,but congress is robbing many natural resource funds and putting into general revenue.


20 billion of IOU's to conservation


Guilty as many others in wandering from original topic which some may have forgot what it was?"


Maybe not. The topic was tow operators exceeding the quotas set by the USFS and the Forest Service apparently not enforcing them. As with many of the things we might fault the USFS for, lack of enforcement, lack of maintenance, the root problem may be lack of funds. The USFS has been hit hard by budget cuts and congressional retaliation for its return to a policy of enforcing its mandate. Back during the Clinton administration when Mike Dombeck was appointed head of the USFS to put an end to the "national tree farm" certain members of Congress vowed to hurt the service with cuts in its budget and we've seen the results. As I've said, around here they have had to resort to charging for parking in order to procure funds for even minimal repairs and improvements.
 
billconner
distinguished member(8608)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/12/2015 06:33AM  
I'm guessing the parking income is somehow not part of the USFS budget, but separate somehow?
 
Basspro69
distinguished member(14142)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished membermaster membermaster member
  
10/12/2015 08:13AM  
quote Doughboy12: "
quote SaganagaJoe: "(Enjoying my day off from law school work)



Could you also look at it as a way to improve access? My grandpa will be 75 years old next August. Thankfully he can still paddle. When he can't paddle anymore, I want to keep bringing him to the BWCA, so I'm thinking about sticking to the motorized lakes then and using a motor, if I can.



I've camped every year for three years in a row on Saganaga. I can only think of one motorboat joyride I heard/witnessed, and they were in the legal part of the lake and didn't carry on and on. I don't think the motors detract because there's not as many of them as you might think, at least on the Gunflint side.



I was skeptical of the whole tow boat thing until I took one...and now I get it. They are awesome. Again the key was access. I had my 74 year old grandpa and 70 year old great-uncle and we couldn't afford to wear them out before the first portage. Best money I've ever spent in my life. It turned what would have been a three hour paddle into a twenty minute ride and a spring in my step on the Saganaga Falls portage.



I do think motors are consistent with wilderness values (especially on the back of a square stern canoe)...Apparently Calvin Rutstrum thought so too, see his book The New Way of the Wilderness. Just not in a paddle only lake. I don't know about you but I love the reliable rumble of an old 7 horse Evinrude, especially when I'm driving it. And I'm as big of a silence/peace guy as they come.



It's all about careful stewardship...We don't have to apologize for being in the wilderness. We are earthlings and the earth was made for us; we should enjoy it! That does not however give us an excuse to wantonly destroy it, violate LNT, and destroy people's serenity; nothing could be further from the truth.



Do I think motors should be in all the BWCA? No; and if you don't like the motors - peace and silence is just a portage or two away. If you camp on motorized lakes, well, you pays your money and you takes your choice (coming from a frequent Saganaga camper!) Do I think we can keep motors running on the motorized sections to improve access for paddlers and wilderness enthusiasts who wouldn't otherwise paddle or would have a hard time doing so? Sure.





"



Why is it SO important that you go to the BWCAW if you are just going to motorboat? There are better (or just as good) options for this type of recreation.
(FYI: I'm not poking the bear, I am just curious.)"
Why is it so important for a person who is trying to get away from everything to put in on a motorized route, that is the part I dont understand.There are numerous non motorized eps to put in at. I fish alot of lakes that border the bwca in a boat and Im usually the only one on the lake, so I can understand why a person would want to fish in a boat on a beautiful lake like Basswood. To me a boat is 10 times more comfortable and since I use my electric motor 98 percent of the time when im fishing these lakes its also very quiet. At this point in my life I boat more than I canoe so being on a lake like basswood gives you that wildnerness feel but wit a more comfortable ride. I still like to Canoe very small intimate lakes but if Im on a big lake nowadays I choose one that i can take a boat on.
 
10/12/2015 09:07AM  
quote Basspro69: "
quote Doughboy12: "Why is it SO important that you go to the BWCAW if you are just going to motorboat? There are better (or just as good) options for this type of recreation.
(FYI: I'm not poking the bear, I am just curious.)"
Why is it so important for a person who is trying to get away from everything to put in on a motorized route, that is the part I dont understand.There are numerous non motorized eps to put in at. I fish alot of lakes that border the bwca in a boat and Im usually the only one on the lake, so I can understand why a person would want to fish in a boat on a beautiful lake like Basswood. To me a boat is 10 times more comfortable and since I use my electric motor 98 percent of the time when im fishing these lakes its also very quiet. At this point in my life I boat more than I canoe so being on a lake like basswood gives you that wildnerness feel but wit a more comfortable ride. I still like to Canoe very small intimate lakes but if Im on a big lake nowadays I choose one that i can take a boat on. "

Good Question...
...and I too do loath fishing from a canoe and even more so from my kayak. It just doesn't "work" for me.
 
10/12/2015 04:05PM  
quote Doughboy12: "
quote Basspro69: "
quote Doughboy12: "Why is it SO important that you go to the BWCAW if you are just going to motorboat? There are better (or just as good) options for this type of recreation.
(FYI: I'm not poking the bear, I am just curious.)"
Why is it so important for a person who is trying to get away from everything to put in on a motorized route, that is the part I dont understand.There are numerous non motorized eps to put in at. I fish alot of lakes that border the bwca in a boat and Im usually the only one on the lake, so I can understand why a person would want to fish in a boat on a beautiful lake like Basswood. To me a boat is 10 times more comfortable and since I use my electric motor 98 percent of the time when im fishing these lakes its also very quiet. At this point in my life I boat more than I canoe so being on a lake like basswood gives you that wildnerness feel but wit a more comfortable ride. I still like to Canoe very small intimate lakes but if Im on a big lake nowadays I choose one that i can take a boat on. "

Good Question...
...and I too do loath fishing from a canoe and even more so from my kayak. It just doesn't "work" for me. "


Moose lake especially is a corridor to much of the BWCA and the major entry point going to Quetico.
Its like a major highway. Going canoeing on many waters that is the only choice of entrance.
 
The Great Outdoors
distinguished member(5592)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/12/2015 10:21PM  
I agree with Pinetree!
When you have a major highway (such as the Moose chain) to many other areas, expect it to be busy.
They should allow the towboats unlimited use to disburse the canoe traffic.
If and when the environmentalists achieve their final goal of eliminating all towboats, the daily number of permits will be cut in half, perhaps even more.
Mark my words!
 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/12/2015 11:17PM  
quote The Great Outdoors: "I agree with Pinetree!
When you have a major highway (such as the Moose chain) to many other areas, expect it to be busy.
They should allow the towboats unlimited use to disburse the canoe traffic.
If and when the environmentalists achieve their final goal of eliminating all towboats, the daily number of permits will be cut in half, perhaps even more.
Mark my words!"


Why are towboats necessary to disperse traffic? It only takes a couple hours to paddle down to Prairie portage (less to Indian Portage, Ensign etc. so everyone could be off the Moose chain fairly quickly.

I know you've attempted to explain your reasoning previously but it seemed to hinge upon people leaving at the same time.
Maybe people should, as you say, expect the lake to be busy. Wouldn't it be less busy without the towboats operating?

Some of us may use the towboats to get beyond a busy area as long as they are available but I'm not sure they are necessary or that we would miss them.
 
The Great Outdoors
distinguished member(5592)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/13/2015 07:54AM  
You certainly would miss towboats on the Moose chain.
Most people like to leave early in the morning, so the majority of the canoes will be heading out between 6 and 7.
The Moose chain has 27 daily permits, with a three canoe maximum per permit.
27 X 3= 81 possible canoes leaving daily, that's a lot of traffic, and is every day.
What goes in, must come out!!
So using a three day cycle for sake of discussion, a maximum of 243 canoes have left, and a maximum of 243 canoes will be returning.
I do not know how many times (if ever) you have been on the Moose chain, but imagine that amount, or even one fourth of that amount, going in opposite direction in Sucker narrows.
You will have the canoe jam from Hell daily, and disgruntled canoeists will eventually be calling for less permits.
When they cut the daily permits from 27, many who use this route will be forced to go elsewhere.
So the major route traveled to the BWCA and Canada has now been severely curtailed.
You may think this is an exaggeration, but do the math.
I've watched how these environmental groups have worked for years, and this will happen.
Then what will La Tourell's, Williams and Hall, Vossburg's, Canadian Border Outfitters, Canoe Country Outfitters, and the Northern Tier Boy Scout base do when they can no longer survive on the small number of permits?
 
10/13/2015 08:20AM  
quote The Great Outdoors: "I agree with Pinetree!
When you have a major highway (such as the Moose chain) to many other areas, expect it to be busy.
They should allow the towboats unlimited use to disburse the canoe traffic.
If and when the environmentalists achieve their final goal of eliminating all towboats, the daily number of permits will be cut in half, perhaps even more.
Mark my words!"



You agree with my first part only,it is a major highway.

I believe the Tow boat numbers should stay within quotas and Tow boats running back and forth unlimited times has created the problem. The unnatural whitecaps and modes created by Tow boats makes for a unpleasant time. Never seen too many canoes make whitecaps.

Actually if canoes did not use Tow boats much of the time when starting out would be dispersed. Very few canoes start out at 6 am,except for maybe me. Also it is four canoes per permit.

Simplest answer is for Tow boat operators and USFS to sit down and figure out how to stay within limits.

Like I said earlier about two Tow boat operators have a very high usage of all Tow boat permits from Moose lake.
 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/13/2015 09:20AM  
quote The Great Outdoors: "You certainly would miss towboats on the Moose chain.
Most people like to leave early in the morning, so the majority of the canoes will be heading out between 6 and 7.
The Moose chain has 27 daily permits, with a three canoe maximum per permit.
27 X 3= 81 possible canoes leaving daily, that's a lot of traffic, and is every day.
What goes in, must come out!!
So using a three day cycle for sake of discussion, a maximum of 243 canoes have left, and a maximum of 243 canoes will be returning.
I do not know how many times (if ever) you have been on the Moose chain, but imagine that amount, or even one fourth of that amount, going in opposite direction in Sucker narrows.
You will have the canoe jam from Hell daily, and disgruntled canoeists will eventually be calling for less permits.
When they cut the daily permits from 27, many who use this route will be forced to go elsewhere.
So the major route traveled to the BWCA and Canada has now been severely curtailed.
You may think this is an exaggeration, but do the math.
I've watched how these environmental groups have worked for years, and this will happen.
Then what will La Tourell's, Williams and Hall, Vossburg's, Canadian Border Outfitters, Canoe Country Outfitters, and the Northern Tier Boy Scout base do when they can no longer survive on the small number of permits?"


How many permits actually go out with 3 canoes? My permit (except for the Quetico once years ago) has never had more than one canoe associated with it.

I think you make a good point though. A great many routes through the BWCA (and into the Quetico) funnel through the Moose Lake chain and it is likely to always be busy. I'm not convinced that canoeists would not accept this as a necessary evil though.

One constructive remedy might be to stagger departure times. I assume the towboat operators don't carry all their clients between 6 and 7 or they wouldn't be carrying enough parties to make any money. So presumably by offering tows at various times towboat operators are actually acting to provide staggered departures.

Actually, despite the impression I may have created, I am personally more concerned with motor boats in the heart of the BWCA than I am with them on some of these peripheral lakes. They (motor boats) really are not compatible with the wilderness values the Wilderness Act sought to protect. Certain perimeter lakes such as Moose though are not entirely within the BWCA. There seems to be a fair amount of traffic because of their funnel nature and there is development on them just outside the BWCA boundary. As someone pointed out earlier, its difficult to imagine you are in a wilderness as you cruise past million dollar cabins (even though you are not yet actually within the BWCA). The same can't be said for Basswood Lake though, to cite a prominent example.

I imagine that curtailing motors on a lake like Basswood could really impact your business and I appreciate that. The good news for you may be that there doesn't seem to be any such limitation on the horizon.

Presumably the limitations on towboat trips on Moose is an effort to control the kind of congestion you have recognized as a problem. Hope fully the Forest Service will act to bring things into line with its own policy.
 
10/13/2015 09:36AM  
quote The Great Outdoors: "They should allow the towboats unlimited use to disburse the canoe traffic."


Yes, this makes complete sense...there can only be as many tows as there are permitted canoe groups going in and out anyway right? And as everyone that goes there knows they exist then what is the big deal. You have won me over...it will still be limited motor boat traffic, based on the number of canoe permits. One question (that I guess I could find on my own but you can tell me): you keep saying 3 canoes, is this a special limited entry point? (Normal permits are for 4 watercraft.)

quote The Great Outdoors: "If and when the environmentalists achieve their final goal of eliminating all towboats, the daily number of permits will be cut in half, perhaps even more.
Mark my words!"


You keep pounding on this...I don't see any proof/past history of it.
 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/13/2015 10:06AM  
quote Doughboy12: "
quote The Great Outdoors: "They should allow the towboats unlimited use to disburse the canoe traffic."


Yes, this makes complete sense...there can only be as many tows as there are permitted canoe groups going in and out anyway right? And as everyone that goes there knows they exist then what is the big deal. You have won me over...it will still be limited motor boat traffic, based on the number of canoe permits. One question (that I guess I could find on my own but you can tell me): you keep saying 3 canoes, is this a special limited entry point? (Normal permits are for 4 watercraft.)

quote The Great Outdoors: "If and when the environmentalists achieve their final goal of eliminating all towboats, the daily number of permits will be cut in half, perhaps even more.
Mark my words!"


You keep pounding on this...I don't see any proof/past history of it."


I think its 4 canoes, nine people. I'm not sure though about the potential number of tows being limited to 27 permits. Doesn't the tow provide day paddlers with a means to get down the lake too, and possibly onto one of the neighboring lakes like Ensign, Birch, and Basswood for a day trip?
 
ozarkpaddler
distinguished member(5163)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/13/2015 10:17AM  
Well.......... Nope, changed my mind, I aint going to chime in again, I'm going to take the "Oath" and go paddling! But I'm beginning to see why some in Ely look at us "Outsiders" with a bit of angst
 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/13/2015 10:29AM  
quote ozarkpaddler: "Well.......... Nope, changed my mind, I aint going to chime in again, I'm going to take the "Oath" and go paddling! But I'm beginning to see why some in Ely look at us "Outsiders" with a bit of angst"


Isn't it a familiar situation in many such areas? National Forests, and National Parks and BLM lands are a national resource managed according to principles which are established nationally and yet this is their neighborhood, their backyard and a source of their livelihood.
I think I can begin to understand. I live in an in holding within a National Forest myself. Although I do not myself derive any income from the forest I have in the past.
 
10/13/2015 11:54AM  
quote arcadie: "
quote Doughboy12: "
quote The Great Outdoors: "They should allow the towboats unlimited use to disburse the canoe traffic."



Yes, this makes complete sense...there can only be as many tows as there are permitted canoe groups going in and out anyway right? And as everyone that goes there knows they exist then what is the big deal. You have won me over...it will still be limited motor boat traffic, based on the number of canoe permits. One question (that I guess I could find on my own but you can tell me): you keep saying 3 canoes, is this a special limited entry point? (Normal permits are for 4 watercraft.)


quote The Great Outdoors: "If and when the environmentalists achieve their final goal of eliminating all towboats, the daily number of permits will be cut in half, perhaps even more.
Mark my words!"



You keep pounding on this...I don't see any proof/past history of it."



I think its 4 canoes, nine people. I'm not sure though about the potential number of tows being limited to 27 permits. Doesn't the tow provide day paddlers with a means to get down the lake too, and possibly onto one of the neighboring lakes like Ensign, Birch, and Basswood for a day trip? "


27 is the number of overnight canoe permits. The whole talk has been to work within the existing limits.
 
Whitepine
senior member (93)senior membersenior member
  
10/13/2015 12:15PM  
quote Doughboy12: "
quote The Great Outdoors: "They should allow the towboats unlimited use to disburse the canoe traffic."


Yes, this makes complete sense...there can only be as many tows as there are permitted canoe groups going in and out anyway right? And as everyone that goes there knows they exist then what is the big deal. You have won me over...it will still be limited motor boat traffic, based on the number of canoe permits. One question (that I guess I could find on my own but you can tell me): you keep saying 3 canoes, is this a special limited entry point? (Normal permits are for 4 watercraft.)

quote The Great Outdoors: "If and when the environmentalists achieve their final goal of eliminating all towboats, the daily number of permits will be cut in half, perhaps even more.
Mark my words!"


You keep pounding on this...I don't see any proof/past history of it."


I think you have to count the towboat as one of the 4 watercraft.

Environmental groups want to and have pressured congressmen to eliminate all motorized use. 30 seconds of research found this, scroll down to the "Action Alert":

Sawbill 1998

Here is the relevant section:

Action Alert
Your immediate action is needed to defeat a late breaking "deal" that will allow trucks to haul boats across two wilderness portage trails in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area (BWCA) Wilderness. The deal is expected to be attached as a rider to the Federal Transportation Bill, a.k.a. "ISTEA," as early as tomorrow!

Last year, Congressman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) and Senator Rod Grams introduced legislation, HR. 1739 and S. 783, that would roll-back wilderness protections for the BWCA Wilderness by allowing trucks to haul boats across three portages and eliminating the 1999 phase out of motorboats on the west end of Seagull Lake. This legislation was countered by a bill by Congressman Bruce Vento (D-MN), HR 2149, that would increase protections for the BWCA Wilderness by eliminating all tow boat use, removing motorboats on Lac La Croix, Loon, Canoe and Alder Lakes, and adding approximately 7,400 acres of land and lakes to the wilderness.

Unfortunately, late Monday afternoon, 5/18, an unexpected backroom deal was announced between Oberstar and Vento. While still sketchy, details of the deal are as follow:
1) Trucks would be allowed to haul boats across Trout and Prairie portages, both within the BWCA Wilderness.
2) Motorboat access would be eliminated from both Canoe (107 acres) and Alder (342 acres) Lakes in the wilderness.

 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/13/2015 12:35PM  
quote Whitepine: "
quote Doughboy12: "
quote The Great Outdoors: "They should allow the towboats unlimited use to disburse the canoe traffic."



Yes, this makes complete sense...there can only be as many tows as there are permitted canoe groups going in and out anyway right? And as everyone that goes there knows they exist then what is the big deal. You have won me over...it will still be limited motor boat traffic, based on the number of canoe permits. One question (that I guess I could find on my own but you can tell me): you keep saying 3 canoes, is this a special limited entry point? (Normal permits are for 4 watercraft.)


quote The Great Outdoors: "If and when the environmentalists achieve their final goal of eliminating all towboats, the daily number of permits will be cut in half, perhaps even more.
Mark my words!"





You keep pounding on this...I don't see any proof/past history of it."



I think you have to count the towboat as one of the 4 watercraft.


Environmental groups want to and have pressured congressmen to eliminate all motorized use. 30 seconds of research found this, scroll down to the "Action Alert":


Sawbill 1998


Here is the relevant section:


Action Alert
Your immediate action is needed to defeat a late breaking "deal" that will allow trucks to haul boats across two wilderness portage trails in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area (BWCA) Wilderness. The deal is expected to be attached as a rider to the Federal Transportation Bill, a.k.a. "ISTEA," as early as tomorrow!


Last year, Congressman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) and Senator Rod Grams introduced legislation, HR. 1739 and S. 783, that would roll-back wilderness protections for the BWCA Wilderness by allowing trucks to haul boats across three portages and eliminating the 1999 phase out of motorboats on the west end of Seagull Lake. This legislation was countered by a bill by Congressman Bruce Vento (D-MN), HR 2149, that would increase protections for the BWCA Wilderness by eliminating all tow boat use, removing motorboats on Lac La Croix, Loon, Canoe and Alder Lakes, and adding approximately 7,400 acres of land and lakes to the wilderness.


Unfortunately, late Monday afternoon, 5/18, an unexpected backroom deal was announced between Oberstar and Vento. While still sketchy, details of the deal are as follow:
1) Trucks would be allowed to haul boats across Trout and Prairie portages, both within the BWCA Wilderness.
2) Motorboat access would be eliminated from both Canoe (107 acres) and Alder (342 acres) Lakes in the wilderness.


"


The article you quoted is from 1998.

Yes certain groups would like to see motor boat use curtailed and have lobbied for it but little of that has happened in the 17 years since. Mostly that happened, if I recall correctly, is that motorboat use was expanded by reopening the truck portage at Prairie portage.

I can't see further restrictions coming from Congress anytime soon.
 
billconner
distinguished member(8608)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/13/2015 12:49PM  
Those counting Moose eps may not be counting the Q permits that utilize tows.

But wait, ban tows, and allow flybins to inlet bay or basswood. Trade off.
 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/13/2015 01:07PM  
quote billconner: "Those counting Moose eps may not be counting the Q permits that utilize tows.


But wait, ban tows, and allow flybins to inlet bay or basswood. Trade off."


Don't you need a regular BWCA entry permit to access the Quetico from Moose?
I don't know, I have only ever gone into the Quetico from the Atikokan side.
 
10/13/2015 01:24PM  
quote arcadie: "
quote billconner: "Those counting Moose eps may not be counting the Q permits that utilize tows.



But wait, ban tows, and allow flybins to inlet bay or basswood. Trade off."



Don't you need a regular BWCA entry permit to access the Quetico from Moose?
I don't know, I have only ever gone into the Quetico from the Atikokan side."


Just a day permit if traveling by canoe. Pick it up at access.
 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/13/2015 01:31PM  
quote Pinetree: "
quote arcadie: "
quote billconner: "Those counting Moose eps may not be counting the Q permits that utilize tows.



But wait, ban tows, and allow flybins to inlet bay or basswood. Trade off."




Don't you need a regular BWCA entry permit to access the Quetico from Moose?
I don't know, I have only ever gone into the Quetico from the Atikokan side."



Just a day permit if traveling by canoe. Pick it up at access."


So tows will not be automatically limited to 27 (the number of overnight entry permits allowed) as has been suggested, if restrictions were removed on the number of tows.
 
10/13/2015 01:42PM  
That number has nothing to do with Tow boat usage. That is the daily Quota of overnight permits.
 
10/13/2015 01:45PM  
quote Whitepine: "I think you have to count the towboat as one of the 4 watercraft."

Well that is plain dumb...goes against what the 4 boat rule is intended to do by forcing a group with 4 canoes to use 2 tows...
 
10/13/2015 01:48PM  
quote Pinetree: "That number has nothing to do with Tow boat usage. That is the daily Quota of overnight permits."

I think he is referring to the conversation of unlimited tow permits by default being limited by the number of overnight paddle permits. Which when I said that didn't realize that "some" of the people using the tow don't pull a BWCAW permit. Makes the issue even more messy to me now.
 
VoyageurNorth
distinguished member(2709)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/13/2015 01:51PM  
quote Doughboy12: "
quote Whitepine: "I think you have to count the towboat as one of the 4 watercraft."

Well that is plain dumb...goes against what the 4 boat rule is intended to do by forcing a group with 4 canoes to use 2 tows..."


I don't know of any current tow boats that could haul 4 canoes & 8 people. Remember that the boats not only have to haul people but their gear as well. A group of four people typically will have about 5 total packs, paddles, lifejackets, and miscellaneous gear depending on if they are fishing or not.

As for day permits; day use paddle permits are self issuing & have no quotas. But day use motor permits do have a quota, so when those run out, that is it. We issue a lot of permits and many people get their day use permits sent to us to issue. I get tons of calls & walk ins asking about if any day use motor permits are available and for most of the summer (mid May through early September) we have to tell them no. Every so often one will open up, cancelled from someone or ??? Day use motors have their quota set by week, Saturday to Friday. The day use is reserved for that week and the person can use that day use permit any day of that designated week.

Day use permits, whether motor or paddle, are to be used no earlier than 12:01 am to 11:59 pm on the day they enter the BWCA, a 24 hour permit. No overnight camping is allowed with these permits.
 
10/13/2015 02:05PM  
quote VoyageurNorth: "
quote Doughboy12: "
quote Whitepine: "I think you have to count the towboat as one of the 4 watercraft."

Well that is plain dumb...goes against what the 4 boat rule is intended to do by forcing a group with 4 canoes to use 2 tows..."



I don't know of any current tow boats that could haul 4 canoes & 8 people. Remember that the boats not only have to haul people but their gear as well. A group of four people typically will have about 5 total packs, paddles, lifejackets, and miscellaneous gear depending on if they are fishing or not.


As for day permits; day use paddle permits are self issuing & have no quotas. But day use motor permits do have a quota, so when those run out, that is it. We issue a lot of permits and many people get their day use permits sent to us to issue. I get tons of calls & walk ins asking about if any day use motor permits are available and for most of the summer (mid May through early September) we have to tell them no. Every so often one will open up, cancelled from someone or ??? Day use motors have their quota set by week, Saturday to Friday. The day use is reserved for that week and the person can use that day use permit any day of that designated week.


Day use permits, whether motor or paddle, are to be used no earlier than 12:01 am to 11:59 pm on the day they enter the BWCA, a 24 hour permit. No overnight camping is allowed with these permits."




Thanks for the very good info.

I have not seen any motor boat usage since say 2011,but than on Moose I see at least 25% of permits went unused even with over issue by USFS to account for that.

The Tow boat usage per day etc.-by each operator is more unclear to me. Trying to figure that out?
 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/13/2015 03:03PM  
quote Pinetree: "That number has nothing to do with Tow boat usage. That is the daily Quota of overnight permits."


Yes I know that but someone suggested that the number of daily tows would be self regulating since they could not exceed the number of daily overnight paddle permits (27 on Moose). Evidently the number who might use tows could be quite a bit larger if day use paddlers including Quetico bound parties were factored in.
 
The Great Outdoors
distinguished member(5592)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/13/2015 03:46PM  
quote Doughboy12: "
quote The Great Outdoors: "They should allow the towboats unlimited use to disburse the canoe traffic."


Yes, this makes complete sense...there can only be as many tows as there are permitted canoe groups going in and out anyway right? And as everyone that goes there knows they exist then what is the big deal. You have won me over...it will still be limited motor boat traffic, based on the number of canoe permits. One question (that I guess I could find on my own but you can tell me): you keep saying 3 canoes, is this a special limited entry point? (Normal permits are for 4 watercraft.)

quote The Great Outdoors: "If and when the environmentalists achieve their final goal of eliminating all towboats, the daily number of permits will be cut in half, perhaps even more.
Mark my words!"

You keep pounding on this...I don't see any proof/past history of it."


I checked with a DNR employee, and he said 3 canoes/permit. I won't argue, if it's 4, add another 27 canoes to pick the grand total to 98 canoes per day!
You may be rather new to these groups methods, and possibly naïve about the way they operate. They have taken cabins, resorts, and many motorized routes away over the years.
Hell, they even went crazy over a cell phone tower OUTSIDE of the BWCA.
The writing is on the wall, the towboats go away, canoe congestion is unbearable, and the call for cutting the number of permits will grow.
Haven't you been reading these threads on the forum, when several have suggested that there need to be less permits because there are too many people already.
It's hard to believe you can't see this coming!
You can have the last word on this, but I guarantee that I'll have the last laugh.
You will begin to eat your own!!
 
10/13/2015 05:45PM  
quote The Great Outdoors: "
quote Doughboy12: "
quote The Great Outdoors: "They should allow the towboats unlimited use to disburse the canoe traffic."



Yes, this makes complete sense...there can only be as many tows as there are permitted canoe groups going in and out anyway right? And as everyone that goes there knows they exist then what is the big deal. You have won me over...it will still be limited motor boat traffic, based on the number of canoe permits. One question (that I guess I could find on my own but you can tell me): you keep saying 3 canoes, is this a special limited entry point? (Normal permits are for 4 watercraft.)

quote The Great Outdoors: "If and when the environmentalists achieve their final goal of eliminating all towboats, the daily number of permits will be cut in half, perhaps even more.
Mark my words!"

You keep pounding on this...I don't see any proof/past history of it."


I checked with a DNR employee, and he said 3 canoes/permit. I won't argue, if it's 4, add another 27 canoes to pick the grand total to 98 canoes per day!
You may be rather new to these groups methods, and possibly naïve about the way they operate. They have taken cabins, resorts, and many motorized routes away over the years.
Hell, they even went crazy over a cell phone tower OUTSIDE of the BWCA.
The writing is on the wall, the towboats go away, canoe congestion is unbearable, and the call for cutting the number of permits will grow.
Haven't you been reading these threads on the forum, when several have suggested that there need to be less permits because there are too many people already.
It's hard to believe you can't see this coming!
You can have the last word on this, but I guarantee that I'll have the last laugh.
You will begin to eat your own!!"

Sorry, not about the last word...just having a discussion here.

Not sure why a DNR guy would know anything (much less asked) about a USFS rule...maybe you meant USFS Ranger.

Nobody, and I'll say it again, nobody here is calling for them to be cut much less dropped. We are talking about them abiding by the agreement...none of "us" belong to that group, that I am aware of. You are arguing points that don't resonate with this crowd.

Every time the overcrowding threads come up here people are talked off the ledge with the common knowledge that there are those entry points that are like that and to expect it on the entry lakes. It never goes very far.

Also, I said I have never been to, nor do I plan to, be on those lakes. So laugh all you want, it doesn't make sense to me...

Not to mention the fact that I said I agree with you that it should be unlimited...but I guess you missed that part???
 
billconner
distinguished member(8608)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/13/2015 07:01PM  
quote arcadie: "
quote billconner: "Those counting Moose eps may not be counting the Q permits that utilize tows.



But wait, ban tows, and allow flybins to inlet bay or basswood. Trade off."



Don't you need a regular BWCA entry permit to access the Quetico from Moose?
I don't know, I have only ever gone into the Quetico from the Atikokan side."


If you tow, you're included in the tow permit for bwca.
 
10/13/2015 07:12PM  
quote billconner: "
quote arcadie: "
quote billconner: "Those counting Moose eps may not be counting the Q permits that utilize tows.



But wait, ban tows, and allow flybins to inlet bay or basswood. Trade off."




Don't you need a regular BWCA entry permit to access the Quetico from Moose?
I don't know, I have only ever gone into the Quetico from the Atikokan side."



If you tow, you're included in the tow permit for bwca."




Bill- you mean for the daily permit? That would make sense.
 
GraniteCliffs
distinguished member(1981)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/13/2015 07:21PM  
Two hundred and seven posts, three of them mine. I actually read most of them and found the discussion mostly interesting and educational.
But, again, contrary to the extreme posts on either side of the issue I just don't see any likelihood of change in regard to tows. A new method of counting what is taking place, without changing current practices, is what I would believe will take place.
Many lawsuits are filed every single day without a chance in Hades of effective substantial change. Many lawsuits have been filed in regard to the BW and not much has changed in the past 15-20 years, except for the opening of motorized portages once again at both Trout and Prairie. This lawsuit only challenges the method of counting.
I consider myself an environmentalist that is very protective of the BW and Q. I don't belong to any groups. I don't support any changes either direction in regard to tows or opening or closing areas to boats.
If it ain't busted don't fix it.
 
billconner
distinguished member(8608)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/13/2015 08:25PM  
quote Pinetree: "
quote billconner: "
quote arcadie: "
quote billconner: "Those counting Moose eps may not be counting the Q permits that utilize tows.




But wait, ban tows, and allow flybins to inlet bay or basswood. Trade off."




Don't you need a regular BWCA entry permit to access the Quetico from Moose?
I don't know, I have only ever gone into the Quetico from the Atikokan side."




If you tow, you're included in the tow permit for bwca."




Bill- you mean for the daily permit? That would make sense."


I mean I think each tow boat has a permit. I'd guess the operators don't have to reserve a permit for each day for each boat but maybe they do. But I believe that permit includes the passengers, as if towing from a outfitter base on Moose to PP, the passengers don't need a separate permit.

Hey, I paddle Moose and usually camp on Sucker or near the first night. A few motors on the west shore simply don't bother me.
 
The Great Outdoors
distinguished member(5592)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/14/2015 08:06AM  
quote GraniteCliffs: .......... in regard to tows or opening or closing areas to boats.
If it ain't busted don't fix it."

Thank you for your voice of reason!! :)
 
10/14/2015 08:09AM  
That means staying within quotas.
 
billconner
distinguished member(8608)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/14/2015 11:55AM  
quote Pinetree: "That means staying within quotas."


Perhaps we could actually make a difference and help the situation if we all - the members of BWCA.COM - simply agreed to not use tows. I'm sure the members at BWCA.COM use more than a few. Or we can leave it to the courts and government and not do a darn thing ourselves.
 
Grouseguy1
distinguished member (472)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/14/2015 12:03PM  
Why hasn't this thread vanished ? Has it not been "beat to death"?
 
thistlekicker
distinguished member (471)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/14/2015 01:16PM  
Looking into this a little more it sounds as if the motor quota was established at its current level to match an estimate of motor use in the late 1970s. Can anyone elaborate on this?
 
10/14/2015 01:39PM  
The plain language of the statute requires the Secretary to implement a system of “entry point quotas” for motorboat use and caps the quota at the average use for the years 1976-78, which totaled 10,539 motorboat trips. ? Within these guideposts, the specific means of implementing motorboat use quotas is left to the discretion of the Secretary. ? While the Secretary has chosen to implement an independent means of monitoring commercial towboats, the Secretary has not exempted commercial towboats from the overall motorboat use restrictions set forth in the BWCA Wilderness Act. The Wilderness Plan limits commercial towboats to their 1992 levels, which amounts to 1,342 towboat trips per season. ? Separately, the Plan sets the general motorboat use quota at 7,902 trips. ? The combined number of motorized boat trips that the Plan allows (1,342 + 7,902) totals 9,244 trips, which does not exceed the 10,539 motorboat trips cap mandated by the BWCA Wilderness Act. Accordingly, this portion of the Plan is an entirely reasonable and permissible construction of the statute. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1311811.html#sthash.Xu5lL7c0.dpuf
 
yogi59weedr
distinguished member(2662)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/14/2015 02:46PM  
Ok. Well that settles that. CASE CLOSED.??
 
10/14/2015 03:42PM  
quote yogi59weedr: "Ok. Well that settles that. CASE CLOSED.??"

I never understand these post calling for the closing or deletion of a thread...If you don't like it, don't open it, over and over again.
 
billconner
distinguished member(8608)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
  
10/14/2015 05:27PM  
quote Doughboy12: "
quote yogi59weedr: "Ok. Well that settles that. CASE CLOSED.??"

I never understand these post calling for the closing or deletion of a thread...If you don't like it, don't open it, over and over again."


Oh goody! Something eles to kvetch about.
 
Grouseguy1
distinguished member (472)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/14/2015 05:29PM  
quote Doughboy12: "
quote yogi59weedr: "Ok. Well that settles that. CASE CLOSED.??"

I never understand these post calling for the closing or deletion of a thread...If you don't like it, don't open it, over and over again."


At least the thread hasn't disappeared. What I dont get is making an entire thread disappear just because it shows a little passion.
 
dblwhiskey
distinguished member (257)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/14/2015 11:18PM  
quote Doughboy12: "
quote yogi59weedr: "Ok. Well that settles that. CASE CLOSED.??"

I never understand these post calling for the closing or deletion of a thread...If you don't like it, don't open it, over and over again."


I really think you need to stop and examine things a minute. I read yogi59weedr response and it's follows in right after an explanation of the lawsuit and quotas and such. It reads (the lawsuit explanation) about as dry as a popcorn fart. To which I think he is responding in away that I read to say, so that's that and ain't that nice, case closed?? I do not read or take it as a bitch about the thread. Maybe I'm wrong.

One of the things I find so damn aggravating with all of this type of communication with keyboards is that you have to idea of the senders emotions. You have no idea if he is agreeing and saying it seems very clear cut and final or is it more of an Archie Bunker type of isn't that nice, where do they find these meatheads and wwhhyyyy do they have to make a mess of it? If you and I were talking face to face you would understand the sarcasm in my imitation of him (Archie Bunker) but it's so damn hard to convey here. I see the 2 question marks and see it as a form of emotion showing something other than full agreement with the suit.

If I'm wrong in my read of his response I am very willing to apologize and stand corrected. Thanks for reading.
 
10/15/2015 07:54AM  
quote Grouseguy1: "
quote Doughboy12: "
quote yogi59weedr: "Ok. Well that settles that. CASE CLOSED.??"

I never understand these post calling for the closing or deletion of a thread...If you don't like it, don't open it, over and over again."



At least the thread hasn't disappeared. What I dont get is making an entire thread disappear just because it shows a little passion. "

Because it is all unicorns and rainbows in the BWCA.COM world... No distention needed nor wanted.
 
yogi59weedr
distinguished member(2662)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/15/2015 08:59AM  
Calm down doughboy. I wasn't calling for a deletion. Enjoy all the info pulled up by everyone. Amazing....the two questions marks was the computers idea. I mearly posted a smilely face. I spent 28 yrs in a Illinois prison. You better have a pretty sharp muzzy to get through my skin. To me it's simple... #1. If there is a quota,enforce it. If some language needs to be clarified. Then clarify it. Don't like boats,go else where. They keep pretty good tabs on the #'s of paddle and motor permits. If the quote has been reached then no more permits. Maybe a lottery for the tows. That way they can keep an accurate count. Dry as a popcorn fart..........bahahaha
 
arcadie
senior member (85)senior membersenior member
  
10/19/2015 11:25AM  
This is a bit off topic except that the original topic centered around the USFS failing to enforce its own quotas. The following is an example of the USFS allowing a use to continue whose permit expired 27 years ago.
permit expired
 
10/19/2015 03:31PM  
quote yogi59weedr: "... To me it's simple...
If there is a quota,enforce it.
If some language needs to be clarified. Then clarify it.
Don't like boats, go else where.
If the quote has been reached then no more permits.
Maybe a lottery for the tows. That way they can keep an accurate count. "


I couldn't have written my position on the matter any better...You sir NAILED it.

(I edited out the "fluff" hope you don't mind...)
 
yogi59weedr
distinguished member(2662)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
  
10/19/2015 05:33PM  
:) we're good
 
10/19/2015 07:03PM  
quote yogi59weedr: ":) we're good"


I think it is half time tho-just a little break needed.
 
      Print Top Bottom Previous Next
Listening Point - General Discussion Sponsor:
Canoe Country