I was wondering how many actually took the time to send in a comment on the Quetico Park Management Plan options.
  (You need to Login or Register

Today is the last day they will be accepted. (I think)

Still time to do it online TODAY.

I would hope EVERYONE who uses the Q resource takes the time to comment on the plan!

Like I tell my non-voting friends every election cycle, You don't vote, you don't get to bitch ;)

Just like in a political election, you never really know who's vote or input can/will tip the scale.  Sometimes it's comes down to a handful of votes or a insightful comment.

Amen to that.  The squeaky wheel gets the grease.  We just had a local council scrap a plan due to "vocal oposition" at town hall meetings.  Turns out that of the 700 in attendance, only 5 were very vocal.  If you can make the time, please do so.

I sent mine in weeks ago and made many comments.  I'm pretty convinced that we will be seeing designated campsites very soon, road access via the Wawiag River, and outfitting services oriented toward Atikokan area businesses.

Arctic wrote on Oct 16^th, 2010 at 12:27am:

I sent mine in weeks ago and made many comments.  I'm pretty convinced that we will be seeing designated campsites very soon, road access via the Wawiag River, and outfitting services oriented toward Atikokan area businesses.

Why is that? Do you know what all of our comments have been or something else we should know?

Wife and I sent in comments weeks ago. It pays to be heard sometimes.

Arctic wrote on Oct 16^th, 2010 at 12:27am:

I'm pretty convinced that we will be seeing designated campsites very soon, . . .

Huh?  You need to elaborate on this.

I'm also curious about any evidence that would indicate a predetermined outcome, is that what you're telling us?

Also, it may be possible to send comments online over the weekend...worth a shot if you procrastinated...

I sent mine in.

Am especially interested in issues like the designated campsites and the possible introduction/spread of uses like mountain biking. As much as I like to bike on the road, and truck camp on an abandoned farm we have access to during the summer and during fall hunting seasons, I do not think those activities are appropriate for quiet, pristine areas.

Bikes (and ATVs and horses) do significant damage. That's a fact. They also attract a loud, rowdy and blundering crowd.

Kentucky is expanding an initiative called Adventure Tourism, which, among other things, includes cross-state trails where people can ride ATVs, bikes and horses on trails and camp.

Neat in its own way, but when those trails cross streams, the damage is extensive.

I realize the long-term goals of the Canadian park governing crowd are to increase use in Quetico and open it up to people who like do things other than canoe or who are unable because of health issues to paddle and portage, but that seems to defeat the purpose. Some areas -- like Quetico -- SHOULD be limited in use.

Thanks for reminding us, db.

Not sure how much weight comments from a guy who lives 950 miles from the border will have, if any, but they at least know how I feel.

- kypaddler

Quote:

Not sure how much weight comments from a guy who lives 950 miles from the border will have, if any, but they at least know how I feel.

If I'm half that distance away my opinions should have twice the weight, eh?  ;D

We shouldn't have a say is what most of us living south of that line would expect but no. I've talked with the last two supers and the impression I've developed over the years is they really do care what we think. After all, we're the people that use it most so it makes sense. Kinda like American political donations at the moment.

Designated campsites, routes wouldn't really affect anyone's trips and those it might wouldn't much care and the more I think about dots on a map, the less feasible that becomes to designate by. Although I do expect Chrismar to add some dots eventually (such is life) I can't imagine an all out effort to verify and legalize all the dots.

The problem I see with it is one of perception. Right now there's an exterior boundary. It's a sacred sort of a thing. There's places where if you go beyond it you find clear-cut. Within that boundary you can go anywhere you want but telling people where they can and cannot go within that, well - seems a lot of people would have a huge problem with that simply on principle alone.

The aging dam is something to think about. I know Pickerel, Rawn, Batch ... fairly well. A possibly eventual six foot drop? I could live with that but would rather not. before my first trip they had recently banned motors and took a log or two out so the Pickerel river was pretty ugly. Damn ugly, scary ugly. Over the years it's become one of my favorite 20 minute stretches times two. Had my second closest moose sighting ever there this year. Probably twenty feet. We scared each other. The hair on his neck was standing up and he probably heard my heart pound. My cameras were not out since Pickerel was still a little dicey that morning plus I had a schedule to keep but I'll have that picture in my head for the rest of my life. It's filed right alongside the one with the mud banks, scary ugly dead trees and the temporary alder thickets that followed.

A lot depends on wether your vision is short or long term. Short is easy and I see the development of multi use trails and such as short term in this case so I don't think I varied much from the preferred options on those. If I did I erred on the side of caution and restraint.  Having paddled the same stretch of French probably nearly 100 times, I really know nothing about it beyond it's level was lowered to create a beech for the campground once upon a time. If they can increase revenue w/o messing up the thrill I share with others - more power to em.

Quote:

If they can increase revenue w/o messing up the thrill I share with others - more power to em.

Good point.

Running Quetico takes money. It has to come from somewhere. When paddling use is down, and expenses are up, that pressure is particularly acute.

So, I guess I agree, if a few changes in an area I typically just paddle through solves a problem, that's a good thing.

But ... as always, the anxiety stems from the unknown -- what happens a few years down the road, if money is again tight, or if pressure from certain recreational-use advocates escalate? Would park officials propose further expansion of uses, or intrusion of those uses further into the park?

Who knows.

All would be well, I guess, if everybody shared an ironclad belief in the need to protect and preserve pristine areas like Quetico, and that belief trumped all.

Just don't want the pinhole in the d**e to become a gushing break.

That same anxiety address the campsite designations, as well. The more you designate, and regulate, and put up signs and restrict, the less it feels like a blank spot on a map where you can escape and try to get in touch with all that Olson, Thoreau, Abbey and others spoke of.

And I must admit, my first glimpse of the Pickerel to Bisk dam shocked me (it just seemed so out of place), but if it keeps water levels where they need to be, then so be it.

-- kypaddler

For what it's worth, I wrote a blog with my thoughts back in September. Here's an opinion of an outfitter just 5 miles from the Quetico Park at Cache Bay.

The Quetico Park is looking for comments regarding their "plan" for the Provincial Park.  Much of the plan centers around the Dawson Trail Campground and surrounding area which doesn't affect us at the southeastern entry point into Quetico.  There is however a part of the plan that deals with fly-in options that does affect us.  

    Guests can fly from Saganaga Lake to the edge of the Quetico Park and paddle back to us through the Park.  We've had groups fly-into Beaverhouse but the majority of our guests fly into Clay Lake.  When low water levels have made travel on the Greenwood River near impossible the Quetico has allowed planes to land in Mack Lake.  This was the case at the beginning of the season but it changed around the first of September when we were confirming travel plans for a group of ours.  We were told planes were no longer allowed to fly into Mack, end of story.

    Our guests wanted to do the route very badly so we had them taken to Ross Lake.  After paddling several hours and traveling across lots of portages(one over a mile in length) they made it into Mack Lake.  Just in time for a float plane to drop down in front of them and let a group of canoeists plunk down into Mack Lake to begin their trip.

    It's confusing to say the least.  It's obvious the Quetico Park needs a plan and one they will stick with.  But I don't understand why just because you can drive to an entry point means you shouldn't be allowed to fly to an entry point?  A fly-in is exciting and it saves time which is very valuable these days.  Is the "plan" to make Americans drive into Canada if they want to access Beaverhouse and Clay Lake?  The folks in Atikokan and outfitters think it's a good idea, well, duh!  Does the Quetico need to force folks to drive into Canada just so they can gain access to the Quetico?  Isn't it enough we already have to use Canadian flight services and pay extra for the camping fees when groups come from the US.

    And if the Quetico Park "plan" isn't what I've stated above and they just want to get rid of planes then why still allow float planes to drop only Canadians into Cache Bay?  Do Canadians make a different noise when they fly or cause less impact than an American?  Why can't they just drive down here and paddle across Sag to get to Cache Bay like everyone else?    

The park would prefer to continue to allow commercial aircraft on Saganaga (Cache Bay) and Basswood Lake, yet only for Canadian residents. The reason being, said Reilly, is that for Canadians the only other option is to enter through the Boundary Waters Canoe Area.

    I'm not sure what would happen to a Canadian if they had to enter through the Boundary Waters but obviously Reilly is concerned.  Is it because Canadians would realize the fees for the BWCA are considerably less than they are for the Quetico Park?  

    I have no clue what kind of a "plan" these people can come up with.  For years the outfitters and businesses have been trying to cut off access to the Quetico Park from the south.  It seems to me pretty soon they won't have to because they are doing such a good job of cutting their own throat that very few people want to access the Quetico from the South anymore.  Will those folks drive to Atikokan to start their trip or will they bypass the Quetico altogether and go to Wabikimi or Algonquin or even worse yet, the Boundary Waters?

    They say they want input and public comment about the "plan."  I encourage you to contact them with any of your concerns or questions.  Maybe you'll get a straight answer and then again maybe not.  We'll just have to wait to hear the "plan."

It seems pretty obvious that they (Canucks) love American money more than they love American tourists. It would simplify things for them if we just sent them our funds and never visit Q. The unfortunate reality for them is that we can see what is patently unfair, and we call them out on it. We also expect to not be at a disadvantage when it comes to entry and use of Q. Unfortunately, for us, they own the Q, and as owners, they feel justified in extorting Americans for it's use.

I have made many trips from north side of Q. I don't spend any more with their outfitters than I do with American outfitters. Translation: As little as possible. I have my own canoe, equipment, food. I top off in International Falls, so I won't pay their higher prices for gas. My trips are cheap.

I always imagine the drive compared to a tow as a wash. North gets cheaper by the day for longer trips like mine though.

I've never understood the animosity I hear about pricing. The southern entries have to cost more to staff and supply....

I certainly don't expect the Canadian people to subsidize my trips.

The power lies with you, the canoist, holder of the dollar.  Let the owners make their changes.  Let the owners of the dollars make their changes too.  In time, the park owners will always want your dollar.  Don't just hand it over....demand some appreciation for it?  How?  Continue to starve 'em for awhile....and so far your doing a great job!

Save the Quetico, paddle the BW!

db wrote on Oct 20^th, 2010 at 7:19am:

I've never understood the animosity I hear about pricing. The southern entries have to cost more to staff and supply.... I certainly don't expect the Canadian people to subsidize my trips.

I agree with the sentiment, as animosity of higher fees does not solve anything.  I subscribe to Wally's thoughts, and haven't gone to the Quet. since '07.  For me, I can have a 10 day trip much cheaper, and all is good.  It's a de-facto voting with my dollars.

I don't have any hard figures, but from past discussions I've had with Rangers at Prairie Portage, cost of operations did not appear to be any factor in increasing fees.  Rather, the desire to shift usage to other entries/areas was the primary reason cited.

I sent mine in too.

I would have missed the whole thing if it hadn't been for QJ - thanks db !!!

Kingfisher wrote on Oct 16^th, 2010 at 1:31am:

Arctic wrote on Oct 16th, 2010 at 12:27am: I sent mine in weeks ago and made many comments.  I'm pretty convinced that we will be seeing designated campsites very soon, road access via the Wawiag River, and outfitting services oriented toward Atikokan area businesses. Why is that? Do you know what all of our comments have been or something else we should know?

I met a group of junior rangers on Mc Dougall Lake this summer.  They were in the process of documenting with GPS every campsite in Quetico.  My impression from talking with them is that there will eventually be designated campsites in Quetico.

For those of you who think that public opinion always drives decision making, you should recalibrate.  Public input is often just a formality.

Establishing designated sites in Quetico would not be the end of the world, as countless sites have been there for centuries.  Rarely is there a need to cut a campsite.  There are quite a few sites on small islands that should be closed, and requiring the use of designated sites would enable that.

While I can understand higher user fees for the southern entry points, as they are probably more expensive to operate, I've never liked the disparity between "Resident Canadians" and "non-Residents".  I see plenty of Canadians visiting US national parks, but they pay the same fees that everyone else does, which seems fair.

As for aircraft access and outfitting being geared toward Atikokan area businesses, that's fine.  It's an Ontario park and support for the preservation of Quetico (and other parks) needs to come from local businesses.

For decades its been Ely and Gunflint Trail area outfitters who have benefited the most from Quetico.  Frankly, there are probably too many outfitters competing for the number of clients available in that mostly seasonal business, anyway.

Why does it have to be designated campsites to the exclusion of choosing your own site?  I believe the popular and most used campsites will remain popular and used, designated or not.  Many often used sites would likely benefit from having a latrine and a specific fire ring location.  Other sites, such as islands too small, could be posted that they should not be camped on.  The vast majority of campers would see the logic in not using the over used sites and other campers might need the gentle guidance a posted sign would present.  At the same time why not allow campsite choice as well for those travelling less popular routes or lakes or instances when there are too many canoe parties for the number of available sites and for solo paddlers who generally require very little space for an overnight stay.  :-?

I think you would still be able to choose your campsite, just as you do in the BWCAW.  It's just that you would not be able to camp on any site that was not designated as a campsite.  I can't imagine there being a problem finding unoccupied sites in Quetico, as there seems to be fewer paddlers in the park than ten or twenty years ago.  Obviously some areas would need more sites than other areas.

I'd rather not see "no-camping" signs in the backcountry.  People might just rip these down and camp there anyway.

My guess is that designated sites would be indicated by a fire ring and shown on park maps.  BWCA-type latrines aren't really needed except on the more heavily-used, easily accessed parts of the park, and I can't imagine that they would be installed anywhere in the interior in the foreseeable future.

The park currently encourages users to burn their toilet paper, as that stuff does not break down for years.  Burning TP should be a requirement.

Arctic wrote on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 6:14pm:

I met a group of junior rangers on Mc Dougall Lake this summer.  They were in the process of documenting with GPS every campsite in Quetico.  My impression from talking with them is that there will eventually be designated campsites in Quetico.

Arctic,

Do you know from what base they were starting, Legacy Forest GIS, etc?  Many of us have knowledge of camp sites that are not on any maps and aren't on the Legacy Forest database.  Seems like the task would take many years and lots of searching and verification to actually log all of the "established" campsites.  

I know of several sites not on any map or the Legacy Forest database. I also have a few choice sites off the beaten path that are not recognizable from the lake or even from the shore.  Only way you would find them is if you see a canoe at shore, or see people occupying it.  And they don't get much use because of this.

I guess I find that task exceedingly difficult and lengthy.  However, I would be happy to be on the ranger team!:) :) :)

I don't think they find every campsite as you say.  Depending on the " plan" they might not need too?

I'm guessing they'll funnel paddlers along pre-determined corridors with the afore mentioned campsites. You could day-trip off of your chosen route, but not camp.

Unless they do something like that, how can they ever enforce designated campsites?

Only way I see, is if they narrow down the areas they have too " patrol" and figure a way to check on " illegal" camping.

Maybe they have an account with Google Earth ;D

From what I saw they were paddling the entire shoreline of the lakes they passed through on their route, and documenting every site they could find.  They seemed pretty thorough, and were out all summer, along with other crews.

No doubt they will miss some "sites", but there are countless places where you could camp, ranging back onto high ridges, etc.  But these wouldn't matter anyway, if they require the use of designated campsites.

Having paddled the Park for ~10 years before we figured out there were printed maps w/ red dots on 'em, (DOH! Woohoo!) it's always seemed to me that the McKenzie/Beymer... dots hit the highlights you couldn't miss with a baseball bat and that was fine at the time. After a year or two, we'd often try to get as far away from them as possible. Back when we'd do spring recon trips, they always seemed like cheating somehow and that hasn't changed much for me at least. It's good to know you have a fallback when needed. Some are just too good to pass up when available. Everyone can appreciate a nice landing and room to stretch out. Mud and worse things were normally avoided. Easy works.

I have to take inventory every year. I absolutely hate it because I get to pay pay tax on every dumb idea I can count. Besides, Q's been Q for a hundred+ years. I guess it's about time they knew what they had in stock eh?

Would "cutting" a site perhaps be something you would do with a can in your hand? I don't believe that's what anyone is concerned with but if anyone is I could see that being better handled with a request than a rule and it probably would have the same effect (it would on me at least). Hmmm, suddenly, caching a pack at multiple red dots doesn't seem so bad after all.

Personally, the maps currently available are already overkill to a large degree. Progress is not what the Q that I have grown to know & love needs. Dumbing it down to something the lowest common denominator can fuctor in won't make her any more appealing to me or anyone else IMO.

This was the first year that I brought maps that showed SOME of the campsites, but also showed sites that don't really exist in reality.  The online, Paddler's Campsite Database for Quetico also shows the location of numerous sites that don't really exist.  

Since 1979 I have always used the park map, which at a scale of two miles to the inch, is plenty good.

Personally, I don't much like the idea of having to camp on designated sites in Quetico, especially as there seems to be fewer users now than there were twenty years ago.  I'm convinced that this will be required soon, though.