I was just reading about some wildernes rivers/lakes to be found in Superior National Forest next to the BW.

Anyone have experience in these areas (the mentioned the 'vegitable lakes'.  Was just currious if these places would be 'less traveled' and 'more wild' then would be BW...

I was reading a report about trying to add 49,000 acres adjacent to the BW to the park.  This included places such as Agassa Lake, Baldpate Lake, Big Lake/Portage River, Brule Mountain, Cucumber Lake, Eagle Mountain, East Otter Lake, Echo River, Gunflint Lake SE, Homer Lake, Lake Jeanette, Lima Mountain, Magnetic Lake, Mine Lake, North Arm Burntside, Urho Creek, Willow Creek, Wolf Lake.

In addition to these 19 parcels adjacent to the park, there were 5 in the middle of the national forest deemed worth making into wildernes parks.  These were Cabin Creek, Hog Lake Mississippi Creek, Picket Lake, and Seven Beaver, totaling 40,000 acres...

does this sound like a good thing?

A good thing?  Depends on your point of view.

What I might like, I'm sure another will despise.  Try asking the landowners in those areas.

Ask Mark Zup if it was a good thing to kick his dad out of Curtain Falls.  You and I might like it, but he sure didn't.

Sig Olson used the BWCA for profit by running tourists fishing and camping and hunting with gas motors into the future BWCA.  As he aquired wealth...his view of a "good thing" changed.  Others would not be allowed to make their fortune off the land as he had been able to do.

Personally....I'm not for it.  Should it happen...you bet I'd use it.

What do you think huskerwater....a good thing?

well, I have family (aunt) in Maine, and there is a similar debate raging there about their north woods.

Not knowing the area, it depends.

In maine, much of their north woods is owned by huge paper/lumber companies.  They allow free and open access to all of their land to anyone (paddlers, hikers, hunters, trappers, snowmobiliers...) as long as they are not destroying property, or cutting down live trees.

I don't know what public access on the Superior National Forest, but I would think that they should be able to cordon off some 'unique' 'wilderness' areas that would be forbidden for future lumbering.  Preserving some old (or older) growth trees.

As in all things I think it's important to take into consideration the context of when and how decisions were and are made.

Sig had his critics in Ely and he certainly traveled a slippery slope by maintaining his outfitting service while fighting for wilderness protection.  But to paint with a wide brush and claim that Sig only "changed his mind" once he could afford to ignores the fact that were it not for his efforts and that of his colleagues none of us would have the BWCAW or Q to enjoy.

Peace.

The Beav

wrote on Feb 11^th, 2005 at 4:36pm:

Sig Olson used the BWCA for profit by running tourists fishing and camping and hunting with gas motors into the future BWCA.  As he aquired wealth...his view of a "good thing" changed.

That could be one reason. Another could be that as he acquired a deeper appreciation and understanding over the years he looked back and was able to see what it was he appreciated most, and what it was really worth.

db...that view might hold some water if I could have heard the guy say it.  Have you read any of his stuff addressing the issue of him fighting for the BWCA whilst making a living (and I've been told it was a good one) off the area?  I'd like to read it if available.

Anyway...my point in illustrating his case....a lead fighter for a place we all love, used the area for personal profit, in a manner that was in direct opposition to his later claims.  So to me there is no "right or wrong".  It's all about who has the most influence and Olson had quite abit.  Point-of-view changes too as his case highlights.  So right or wrong depends on your position in time also.

A Wilderness Within: The Life of Sigurd F. Olsen by David Backes.

I've read it twice. Good stuff.

The Beav

Much of this debate was captured in some past years issues of BWJ. Now there is another guy who has made a good living off of the wilderness...

So Old Salt...should we take the above mentioned lands for our use? (the publics use)?

Wally - No, I've not talked to him nor ever read anything he wrote other than a few quotes so I'm sure you and many others have a better perception than I do about him personally. I only know what I've heard and can only apply that to personal experience. Making a living is a necessary evil, there are different ways to go about it and ya gotta do what we're good at.

I agree, point-of skew, as it should, changes over time. In our time, the BW/Q wouldn't exist without some sort of past/present profit motive. It seems he may have had a little to do with it being what it is today.

All I'm suggesting is perhaps once he found himself on that slippery slope - he stopped, looked around and took a deep breath while wondering how he got there and where to go next.

If there is one thing I'm sure of it's that the difference between use, abuse and sheer hypocrisy is in the eye of the beholder - And in a more perfect world, what the object of our affections could mean to future generations. If making a living was the most important reason he did things, we'd certainly be discussing someplace else, someplace else  (or not).

I don't own land and am quite satisfied inside Quetico's boundary so I've no passion for that debate but if you (or anyone) has something to say on that subject, feel free to get it all out.

wally,
My only point was that this debate was captured very nicely IMHO in Stu's BWJ issues of a few years ago. I don't think I said anything regarding landowners vs. public lands. There is certainly a need for both private land and public land. Stu is another example, you chose Sig, of someone who made a nice living off of the wilderness- in and of itself neither good nor evil-no judgement intended. 8) 8)

If it hadn't been taken from the Indians in the first place, we would be going there to visit a casino.

Personally, I much prefer to paddle.

Back to the original question concerning SNF...

There is a 6,000 acre semi-primitive wilderness area in the SNF north of Grand Rapids, MN.  It is called the Joyce Estate and includes several small land locked lakes where no motors are allowed.  These small lakes provide excellent panfish and largemouth bass fishing.  Another small lake is a designated trout lake, although I had no luck the one time I tried it.  There are campsites available, including several with firepits and latrines.  The main lakes are Spider and Trout -- both of which have public accesses and are open to motorized boats.  Trout Lake is connected to a chain of lakes that is unsurpassed in water clarity, sand beaches, and relatively low levels of development compared to the rest of the area.  The entire lake chain is easily paddled in a single day.

My grandparents lived on the Joyce estate for 13 years as caretakers.  Thus, I practically grew up on the place.  It is a good place to camp in the SNF that is both cheap and easy to get to.  I also continue to deer hunt up there in the fall, when I get the chance.  This fall, I went and got my canoe to paddle out the deer I shot across Trout Lake.  We were quite the sight with four deer legs sticking up out of my stripper coming down the lake!

For more info, just let me know.  There are MANY lakes in that area of the SNF that are ideally suited for canoe fishermen, in that they have no public access for motor boats and are small enough to be manageable on a windy day.

As to the philoshophical discussion -- The wise resort owner / outfitter will ALWAYS protect his livlihood by encouraging good conservation practices.  Most tourists don't want to come if the fish are all gone and the place is a dump!  Otherwise they could stay in the cities and hang out on Lake Minnetonka while their non-outdoorsy significant others hang out at the Mall of America....

Thanks for the heads up on the Joyce Estate, Kevin.  It looks worth exploring.  (I'm thinking from a glance at the map that it is technically in Chippewa Nat'l Forest instead of Superior NF.)

Beymer lists several canoeing options in Superior National Forest outside the BW.  I'm wondering if anyone has ever done one of the these.  In particular, anyone ever done the loop that includes Bass Lake, Low Lake, Range and Grassy Rivers, Grassy Lake, Tee Lake, Slattern (sp?) Lake, Fenske Lake, Everett Lake, East Twin Lake, Dead River, Burntside Lake, and Little Long Lake (there might be a couple other small lakes in there too)?  Looks like fun, clearly not completely wilderness but probably much less traveled than busy parts of the BW.  (It looks like it is used some as a snowmobile route in the winter, too.)

I have cruised up the dead into Twin Lakes in a small fishing boat with a small motor. I don't think they see much activity, from what I remember there was a nice campsite up there.

Oops!  Thanks for the correction!  It is Chippewa National Forest -- duh.  Oh well, it is still a nice place to get away to.