|
Years ago a friend and I were on Lac La Croix at the start of a trip. He was incensed about the motorboats we saw. (Despite the fact we flew in ourselves.) Just the thought of it ruined his whole day. We talked about the pros and cons for a long while. There were even 3-4 boats in tight formation fishing the Brewer rapids which didn't help matters any. He just could not let it go. Later that evening a few lakes into the Q, just as the stars were coming out and we were paddling back to our campsite, his anger finally turned to pity, wondering if they'd ever know what they were missing. Such is life. How does that work anyway? Is the Canada side motorized as well? Can you cross the border? Can your leaches cross the border? Let me know. BTW - More motorboat permits for BWCA Larry Oakes DULUTH -- Motorboat permits along three lake chains in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCA) will be nearly tripled under a plan to accommodate property owners whose use of the lakes was restricted by a 1999 court ruling. The rule change was made by Superior National Forest Supervisor Jim Saunders for day-use permits for motorboats in the Moose, Saganaga and Farm lake chains. It will increase from a total of 2,376 to a total of 6,892, spread throughout the boating season. If the decision is not appealed, it could take effect in April. Despite the increase, motor use in the 12 lakes making up the chains probably will be the same or lower than before a 1999 ruling by the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, according to the Forest Service. That's because before the court's 1999 decision, property owners and their overnight guests had unlimited motorboat access to other lakes in a chain, with no permit required, and the Forest Service did not count their use when setting permit quotas. Since the 1999 ruling, those previously exempted users have been required to compete with visitors for permits to take their motorboats to other lakes on a chain. They retain rights to use a motorboat on their own lake without a permit. Some property owners complained to the Forest Service that their exempt status was a property right that had been violated. Some asked the Forest Service to compensate for that loss by increasing quotas and assigning the increase to them alone. Meanwhile, environmentalists, who had hailed the 1999 court ruling, asked the Forest Service to keep the quotas the same, arguing that motor use is not compatible with the wilderness concept, and that this was an opportunity to decrease overall motor use. "While I personally appreciate and understand those concerns, the 1964 Wilderness Act and the 1978 BWCAW Act specifically authorize motor use on these lakes," Saunders wrote in his decision. "My decision to increase the quotas should not be viewed as a disregard for wilderness," he wrote. "Motorboat use is expected to be less than or equal to levels that occurred from 1976 to 1998." The decision does not earmark any of the increased permit quota for property owners, meaning they'll compete with everyone else to go on lakes other than the one on which they own property. Environmental groups on Monday expressed disappointment in the decision. "Doubling motorized use will only ensure that the sights, sounds and smells of motorboats will thoroughly dominate those lake chains," Jaime Juenemann, president of Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation, said in a news release. Bud Darling, president of the Gunflint Outfitters Association, said the decision is only a partial victory. "Our lake, Gull, is so small you can't go anywhere. For 25 years we had access to [Saganaga Lake] with no restriction. Now we need a permit. "We were hoping they would segregate the [permit] increase to give it back to landowners. Upping the quota and opening it up to everyone was our second choice." Dissenters have 45 days to appeal the decision to a higher Forest Service office. Posted by db on March 01, 2002 at 14:12 |
Responses to this Post:
|
