What is your opinion on the man-made stuff you come across in Quetico?  I'm not talking about portages and fire pits - they are somewhat necessary.  I'm talking about all the rock formations, cairns, inuk's, log furniture, tables, cooking grates, etc... that are becoming more prevalent IMO.  Should we tear them down?  Pack them out?  Dismantle them? 

I usually tear down the rock structures and toss log furniture into the woods.  Tables with nails are usually left and reported to park officials.  What are your thoughts?

PJ -

Great discussion topic.  I have mixed feelings & behaviors re: the matter.

I'll admit to using log "furniture" when present & if it served my immediate needs.  However, my usual gut reaction is: I don't like to see it. 

In the old days, it bothered me even on peripheral lakes just outside of the park (ex. Three Mile Lake, just outside of Wolseley) when I'd see such structures all over the place in the extreme.  Nowadays, eager beavers seem all-too-anxious to make what THEY perceive as "improvements" well inside of the park, paying no heed whatsoever to park regulations and, more importantly, the aesthetics of the park.

In general, I probably have less of a problem with stone cairns than with log furniture.  Still, piling stones up still sticks "the hand of man" into your face just when you're trying to get away from that hand and INTO the wilderness. 

Bottom line: my general preference is to minimize evidence of the hand of man whenever possible.

My preferred response would likely be: inform park officials of campsites where I have seen such handiwork.  If I knew I'd have the park's blessing to tear stuff down, I might do it IF I knew I wouldn't further injure trees, etc..

That's my 2 cents worth, anyhow.

Jimbo   8-)   

I appreciate a few sitting logs around a fire pit and consider it as much a part of a campsite as the fire pit.  Other than that, I would just as soon not see cairns, constructed furniture and other 'improvements' in the wilderness.  I  once found a gosh-awful 'latrine pit' that someone constructed, complete with sitting logs and torn up moss and duff in a way that was in no way necessary and certainly outside of park rules.  I did my best to restore it to it's natural state and erase the ugliness it left.

pd

Jimbo wrote on Jul 26^th, 2017 at 6:46pm:

........ In general, I probably have less of a problem with stone cairns than with log furniture.  Still, piling stones up still sticks "the hand of man" into your face just when you're trying to get away from that hand and INTO the wilderness.  Bottom line: my general preference is to minimize evidence of the hand of man whenever possible. .......... Jimbo   8-)

well put. i feel the same (although that stone arch is pretty cool)

Our crews have never added to whatever "The Hand of Man" has done before us.  If it is already there, useful for some purpose, we tend to take advantage of it.  If it does not serve some reasonable purpose, if it is filthy, trashy, would cause most people to move on to another site, etc., we clean it up and pack it out if possible.

Like it or not, "The Hand of Man" has been alive and traveling that part of the land for many, many years.  Would it somehow look less annoying if we knew the fire pit in a camp had been there for 250 years instead of since 1960?  If we do not want the presence of man to show at all, do we un-employee the portage crews, do away with tows, and access roads?

Many of us who travel the Quetico are getting a bit long in the tooth.  I appreciate a fire pit that is already there and a place where most of the floater rocks have been previously removed from the tent pad, etc.  The parks in turn need enough considerate human traffic, and enough human user fees paid, to remain open and viable.

All that being said, I am always delighted when I stumble into a camp that looks like no one has been there for many years.

Mossback

I have no problem with the fireplace s and log seating but seeing nails in trees bothers me.  Inuks are fine when serving a purpose.

Now, the stone chairs (5-6) on Gebeonequet  in the BW,... they are definitely far from the established site and not out in the open.  I was ok with it for that reason.  I wouldn't want to see it in a campsite.  The log bench is fine.

Quote:

Like it or not, "The Hand of Man" has been alive and traveling that part of the land for many, many years.

The problem as I see it is that like most anything, the good or bad of it is in the eyes of the beholder/builder.

I stayed at a site on Bentpine and while exploring the area around my camp, found a table made from logs with a big flat rock for a top.

There were Beaver FEET all around the table/ground, some still had fur on them.

I'm assuming it was a cleaning/skinning work station for trappers.

The Native People are the only ones that can legally trap in the park, so unless poachers came in, it was Native People doing the "furniture building".

There is a very elaborate fire pit on that no-name lake where the run-out from Cirrus is on one end and the short portage into Cirrus in on the other.

It was multi level and you could see places where you could use it as a smoker. QD told me that there is a big sucker run every spring at the outlet and the tribe nets them and smokes them.

  What bothers me more than any man-made structure using rocks or DEAD logs is the people who crap IN the camp area as if that is an acceptable thing ANYWHERE.

I honestly don't think there is anywhere at least in the lower 49 states where you can't find a backwoods camp of some sort sooner or later.

You see all those iron chains/pins on rocks along the rivers from the logging era and that big iron gear "canoe anchor" on BH. All of it not of the natural world but part of the history of the region.

This is an interesting topic for someone like me, someone who hasn't been to the Q in a very long time, and who traveled primarily in the BWCA for more than 40 years.  Quite happily, I might add.  I understand that things are changing now in the BWCA since my last trip in 2013, and not for the better, so my comments aren't "current", but this is my perspective from my traveling 1973-2013.

It has always been a bit puzzling to me that the Quetico purists "put down" those of us who go to the BWCA quite soundly because our campsites have fire grates and latrines.  Because, to me, as I have been on this board and another one quite regularly for the past ten years, I have heard so very many discussions of "campsites in the Q", even "five-star", "four-star", and such--and discussions of the fire pits, the rather elaborate stone fireplaces (with photos), the logs around the fire pits, and the "improvements" at the campsites, etc., and I have thought, "Wait a minute!  I was under the impression that the Quetico was totally unspoiled!  That there WERE no established campsites, that you could camp wherever you wished, that there were no traces of other campers before you--that it was a true 'wilderness', not a 'park', like the BWCA!"   ;)

Believe it or not, I have never seen a rock structure in the BWCA.  At least not one of more than five or six rocks.  Now, I must admit I have not visited the famous "stone chairs" on Ge-be-on-e-quet, so those would be an exception to my comment.  But I built a little Inuk once on Insula, and it ended up looking very foreign.  It just doesn't seem to be done there. 

Perhaps I am rambling and not making my point.  To me, a biffy keeps the mess in one place and isn't a big deal.  And a fire grate with a few rocks around it isn't much different than a big rock structure and "bring your own grate."

Are we kidding ourselves that it is a true wilderness?   Sure.

But I guess my views are more like Mossback's.  If I find it and it is sort of nice, I leave it alone.  I just don't make it.  When I made it that one time, I found it quite unsatisfying.  I think I learned my lesson.

A few rock structures don't bother me, heck I've built a few small ones expecting they be toppled.  Nails I hate, hatchet hacks on trees I really hate, trash in fire pits I hate, but what really chaps MY ass, is profuse evidence that "the hand of man" has been wiping "the ass of man" strewn about the campsite.  On my last trip I found piles of feces and TP right next to tent sites. Some people are just pigs.

I'm not naive and I know that we aren't in true wilderness and there are differences that remain.  Obviously I'm not referring to the things that are already there (Logging artifacts are cool and part of the heritage of the park.  Same with pictos, portages, old cars and bridge remains) 

Personally, I am okay with the following:

1)  One inukshuk here and there.  Fine, kids, I get it.  It's what you do.  But 5 or more strewn about a campsite?  They won't last by the time I'm done with the site.

2)  One small fire-grate hiding in the juniper bush behind the tent sites.  Not a big deal - I may even use it to bake my foil wrapped LT.  The other 4 leaned up against the quarry of rocks used for a fire-pit will be packed out by yours truly.

3)  A small to medium size fire-pit.  I don't understand the chimney fire-pits.  Seriously, a few rocks will suffice but if it's higher than my knees, it usually comes down.

4)  Some garbage in the firepit.  Not a big deal to me and I have no problem picking out a few foil wrappers or tobacco cans and packing them out.  Easy fix.

I am not okay with;

1)  TP/human waste, homemade latrines.  I think we can all agree on this.

2)  Log benches.  Sorry, pack in a decent camp-chair please.

3)  Chimney fireplaces.

4)  Plywood tables and nails used to construct them.  I typically let the park know but most of them are still standing even after notification.

5)  Half burnt, 10 foot logs sitting along the fire area.  I'm guessing this is the result of a group too lazy to gather firewood and just started burning benches??  It's what it looks like anyway.

As to the BW comparison . . . I don't disparage the BW or those who use it.  I'm glad its there and glad people use it.  Heck, I'll even do a 2-3 day trip through there on a whim.  But, there is no question as to the difference in "wilderness" experience between areas of the 2 parks.  A campsite on Lake Three and a campsite on Cirrus are worlds apart in all ways and I hope it stays that way.  (The unfortunate part is that the difference between a Lake 3 campsite and anything 15 miles north of Prairie Portage is not that different anymore.)   :-/

jimmar wrote on Jul 27^th, 2017 at 12:33am:

A few rock structures don't bother me, heck I've built a few small ones expecting they be toppled.  Nails I hate, hatchet hacks on trees I really hate, trash in fire pits I hate, but what really chaps MY ass, is profuse evidence that "the hand of man" has been wiping "the ass of man" strewn about the campsite.  On my last trip I found piles of feces and TP right next to tent sites. Some people are just pigs.

Sums up my feelings well. "Structures" made if only natural materials - seats and tables and fire pits  - don't bother me.

It's not that difficult.  Don't be a campsite pig and leave the site as you would have liked to have found it.  So pack out or burn all your trash...don't leave it in the firepit for me to pick out (I always do, if any is there). Do your business well away from camp and bury everything. If I can tell where your latrine area was, you can and should do better. Don't put nails in trees, don't cut live saplings for your tarp pole, don't stash firegrates or anything else, don't haul in non-native materials to build camp furniture (heck don't even build any with native materials).

I used to use log benches a lot more but camp chairs are so light and comfortable there's no need. I won't deconstruct what's there but I won't use it either.

It's been a long time since I've been to any campsite that receives even moderate traffic that doesn't have at least a couple nails in trees. If they are there, I'll use them. If not, I have bungee cords and/or rope that will suffice for me to hang anything I need to hang.

If you cut any live saplings/trees for any purpose, they are getting immediately dragged way back in the forest. I don't want to have to explain why it's there if the ranger shows up.  Collapsible tarp poles are very light and a lot more reliable.

If you stash grates, lawn furniture, etc. I will pack them out if it's reasonable for me to do so. The last day or two of a trip, it's a virtual guarantee I will do so. Early in a trip which involves a lot of travel/portages, I'll probably leave your crap stashed well out of sight but not too hard to find if you look. I don't need/want to carry it all over the Q.

I will reconstruct the firepit to suit my needs if it doesn't already. Some are completely ridiculous. Most are fine even if they could be a lot smaller. I mostly cook on stoves but I do grill venison/steaks/fish so I just want a way to get my firegrate level and at the proper height.

I do appreciate a nice flat/level surface for camp stoves. I've seen all kinds of rocks used for this, some work great and some don't. If it doesn't work, I'm moving it out of my way. If it does the job well, it will still be there when I leave.

I am at a disadvantage here, as I cannot figure out how to use the "quote" feature, and anyway, I know I am talking "apples and oranges" with you guys.  Just another couple of comments:

PJ:  I know that you know this, but there are hundreds of campsites in the BWCA that are not like Lake Three.  Just like there are hundreds of portages in the Q unlike Prairie Portage.

And in my four decades in the canoe country (BWCA primarily, with some trips in Quetico, Algonquin, and one in Temagami) the only times I have encountered the problem with TP and human waste scattered around it was not in the BWCA.  Also, have never encountered items like grates and lawn furniture stashed in the BW, nor are there large chimney-type fireplaces.  Yes, the portages are easier, and depending upon where and when you go, you will see a lot more people.  It has a different feel about it, a less "wilderness" feel, than the Q.

Some don't disparage, but many do. 

Nails in trees really bother me.  I rarely remember seeing them, and even more rarely remember using one.  I think what bothers me most is when people carve initials in birch trees or strip the bark.  In fact, the initial-carving is probably one of my biggest pet peeves wherever I go in the great outdoors.

---

I enjoy using the benches and fire pit - otherwise, don't like to see "artwork" or whatever - if I don't like it, I will take it down.
Mostly, don't see too much except logs around a fire pit.

There is an iron set of horse-shoes, a bocce ball kit and 4 golf clubs at the sand beach campsite on Soho.  At least they were there 3 years ago.  I told the park about it.  Anyone been there lately?

What would you do?

Quote:

What would you do?

I would do what you did, tell the park about it.

I don't feel it's my duty/responsibility to tear down man-made objects when the park is being run by the Native Peoples who are responsible for it.

  TP/sanitation/garbage is MY responsibility anything else IMHO is getting into a GREY area.

I've camped right behind NATIVE crews and I can tell you from first-hand experience THEY follow their OWN guidelines on what's acceptable backcountry behavior that might not fit the Governments.

The Northern most campsite on Turtle Island on BH is where many Native people group camp when they visit friends/relatives working at the BH ranger station.
 
  The last time I stayed there before leaving park, there was an area where they had stashed numerous buckets/fire grates that they used while camping.

For all, anyone knows that RESORT gear was put there by the Natives?

You tell the park rangers, you've done your duty, what happens next is on them.

I've noticed that three seem to be relatively few new nails in trees in the Quetico and that in a fair number of places folks have removed them. If present and convenient I hang my water bag from them. I tell folks I'm camping with that they are "native american nails"- from before the time of Europeans.

The nails surprise me but it seems I see more in bwca now than 10 years ago. I don't carry anything to pull them and not about to add tools.

PhantomJug wrote on Jul 27^th, 2017 at 7:34pm:

There is an iron set of horse-shoes, a bocce ball kit and 4 golf clubs at the sand beach campsite on Soho.  At least they were there 3 years ago.  I told the park about it.  Anyone been there lately?

They were not there in 2015.

Disregard for cleanliness, tidiness, and wanton waste annoy me anywhere I go, be it the canoe country or my kids bedroom.  So factoring these out of the mix, I take no offence at what is seen up there.  I don't go there to see what the earth looked like before Columbus. But I can have an idea of what it did.  What distinguishes the purity of it for me is being able to drink the lake water and unable to hear the sound of media broadcast.  Add to this, my trips are a fishing vacation.  I know of no other place where quality comes at such a reasonable cost in terms of both travel time and dollars.

I second Mossback's comment regarding the unused sites.  These exist in the BW as well.  They are remote and offer no appeal, except that the fishing can be quite good, even right out front.

-YB

I thought the POD for 7/26 was a real work of art.
I also think being offended by a scrap of toilet paper or a bit of aluminum foil left in the fire-pit borders on OCD behavior; IMO it is far better in the fire-pit than strewn about the campsite. 
I agree with Solus, nails are sometimes useful and you need good eyesight to even notice them most of the time.
Everyone has their own idea of what the "ideal" fire ring is.  If it is too big, YOU have obviously chosen a site which is used a lot. . . and which could easily disappoint you in other ways (above). 
"No sign of human hands..." Really ?!  99.9% of you live in-town (city, megalopolis) surely any woods or green grass is more wild and untouched than city life.
>:(

Whether nails in trees are useful for my purposes or not is completely besides the point.  They are sharp, metal objects that have been driven into a living thing.  The earth in all its manifestation does not exist for my use.  It's value is not based on its utility to me but is inherent because it is living.  It isn't about getting things back to the way they were, it is about being conscious of all our relationships and moving gracefully and care-fully in concert with them.  It astonishes me that people can spend time in the north country and not appreciate the delicacy and intimacy of the relationships that comprise existence.

In no way do I favor the driving of nails into trees- totally opposed.

The point you are missing is that the nails are already in the tree. To remove them is far more damaging to the tree than for them to remain- removal a decision in favor of an aesthetic concern rather than a decision favoring the well-being of the tree. Since they are preexistent one can certainly move with grace and concentration in order to hang a water bag.

Solus wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 2:11am:

In no way do I favor the driving of nails into trees- totally opposed. The point you are missing is that the nails are already in the tree. To remove them is far more damaging to the tree than for them to remain- removal a decision in favor of an aesthetic concern rather than a decision favoring the well-being of the tree. Since they are preexistent one can certainly move with grace and concentration in order to hang a water bag.

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound as though I was accusing you of anything.  Only making a point that is dear to me.

Solus wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 2:11am:

Since they are preexistent one can certainly move with grace and concentration in order to hang a water bag.

I love this line.  ;D 

I'll take a nail over grafitti anyday. 

Like this?

---

Kerry-

I didn't feel offended or accused. I agree with your sentiment; I am often shocked and stunned by the lack of awareness and connection demonstrated by folks.

I couldn't resist having a little fun. Though it is true that upon arrival to a camp, with my loaded craft semi secured by gravity I stagger around the site looking for a "native American nail" to hang my water bag (an early model platypus 6L bag with a completely non functioning zip closure atop- thus hanging the bag (and getting out of the canoe with its contents intact) is the first order of business).

TomT wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 12:46pm:

Solus wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 2:11am: Since they are preexistent one can certainly move with grace and concentration in order to hang a water bag. I love this line.  ;D  I'll take a nail over grafitti anyday.

How old does grafitti have to be before it's a pictogragh?

Yeah, those darn native Americans writin' all over the rocks.....

What surprises me is that people haven't tried to do their own pictographs using what the natives used.  Why hasn't anyone written their name and date in red ochre on a cliff face to last for centuries?  Too much work probably.

Quote:

How old does grafitti have to be before it's a pictogragh?

I can see it now ;D
Dad can me and the guy's take the canoe out, I promise to be home on time and not do anything stupid.
Son, why was there traces of red ochre powder in the canoe?
  It's NOT mine Dad, I don't know how it got there  :-? ;D ;D

Family story:  My dad (now almost 101 yrs old) was a boy scout canoe guide out of Ely in the early 1940's and caught up in "will we be going to war?" times.  He was an artist type also.  So on one wilderness trip he got a hair-brained idea to put a swastika looking symbol on a big rock face by scraping off the lichens to make it stand out.  It got him put on the suspected anti-American list.... :-X

BillConner wrote on Jul 31^st, 2017 at 11:45am:

TomT wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 12:46pm: Solus wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 2:11am: Since they are preexistent one can certainly move with grace and concentration in order to hang a water bag. I love this line.  ;D  I'll take a nail over grafitti anyday.  How old does grafitti have to be before it's a pictogragh?

Bill, that's a joke, right?

Kerry wrote on Jul 31^st, 2017 at 5:17pm:

BillConner wrote on Jul 31st, 2017 at 11:45am: TomT wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 12:46pm: Solus wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 2:11am: Since they are preexistent one can certainly move with grace and concentration in order to hang a water bag. I love this line.  ;D  I'll take a nail over grafitti anyday.  How old does grafitti have to be before it's a pictogragh? Bill, that's a joke, right?

It's a philosophical question. At Philmont, they have decided if something has been the way it is for 50 years it's historical and should remain.  I think it's interesting that we can despise a dry laid stone chair built by humans in the last few years but revere a painting on a rock by humans several 100 years ago. Are the metal remnants from the logging historic artifacts or trash violating LNT? Would a rock structure from logging era be ok but one from 10 years ago not be? I like the Philmont policy as being at least clear.

I try not to leave any trace, and carry out other people's trash if feasible. I don't stack stones except an occasional one around a fire pit, but am not bothered by and actually enjoy what some have built. And I like the several hundred year old grafitti.

The hand of man is everywhere. We were on a beach campsite on Pickerel last year and probably the best tent area had been used as a latrine. Besides the fact that we could see lights on the horizon and my cell phone worked, it wasn't my great wilderness experience that night.
I have no problem with log benches (dead of course) and a fire pit. Bring the rest home. Regardless of what our definition is of "wilderness," this is the real wilderness experience to the vast majority of visitors. It's incumbent on us to keep it in its same relatively pristine condition. Just that alone is going to be really hard to do going forward.

BillConner wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 11:29am:

Kerry wrote on Jul 31st, 2017 at 5:17pm: BillConner wrote on Jul 31st, 2017 at 11:45am: TomT wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 12:46pm: Solus wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 2:11am: Since they are preexistent one can certainly move with grace and concentration in order to hang a water bag. I love this line.  ;D  I'll take a nail over grafitti anyday.  How old does grafitti have to be before it's a pictogragh? Bill, that's a joke, right? It's a philosophical question. At Philmont, they have decided if something has been the way it is for 50 years it's historical and should remain.  I think it's interesting that we can despise a dry laid stone chair built by humans in the last few years but revere a painting on a rock by humans several 100 years ago. Are the metal remnants from the logging historic artifacts or trash violating LNT? Would a rock structure from logging era be ok but one from 10 years ago not be? I like the Philmont policy as being at least clear. I try not to leave any trace, and carry out other people's trash if feasible. I don't stack stones except an occasional one around a fire pit, but am not bothered by and actually enjoy what some have built. And I like the several hundred year old grafitti.

I've only recently come back from our month long trip down the Bloodvein River so I've just seen this response and feel I have to reply.  The Bloodvein, by the way, is an area where there are a great many rock paintings or pictographs.  But, Bill, it is critical to understand that rock paintings are not graffiti.  The intention of graffiti is to state, "I was here."  In some ways it is always a personal affirmation of my being and is, therefore, ego driven.  Pictographs are not that.  They represent teachings, not the person that put them there.  Pictographs mark places that are considered sacred - windows or access points for the acquisition of medicine -  and tell the story of the medicine and its nature.  My point is that what these ancient people were doing was not even remotely similar to painting graffiti on a wall.  It's a profound mistake to compare one to the other and suggest that the only reason pictographs are meaningful or acceptable is because they are old.  They are meaningful because they have meaning and that's why, I believe, they're still there after hundreds, sometimes even a thousand years or more.

Whatever the motivation for painting on rock's, I suspect at some age it all becomes an historic artifact worth preserving. 

Likewise, is there a possibility that someone today could paint rocks for the same reasons and with the same intentions as the first nation people did hundreds of years ago?  Would that be deemed worthy of preservation?

BillConner wrote on Sep 20^th, 2017 at 12:42pm:

Whatever the motivation for painting on rock's, I suspect at some age it all becomes an historic artifact worth preserving.  Likewise, is there a possibility that someone today could paint rocks for the same reasons and with the same intentions as the first nation people did hundreds of years ago?  Would that be deemed worthy of preservation?

It would indeed be worthy of preservation, however, that's the point - in today's narcissistic age we are so distant from our environment that we simply don't have that kind of relationship with the natural world.  So when we paint on rocks, or for that matter, alter the environment in any way it's mostly about, "look at me," which, in my opinion, is not something that is either worth doing or preserving.