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      

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

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

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.

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.

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.)