Forgotten BWCAW History
mcr...@northernnet.com
Great controversy has been associated with the Boundary Waters
Canoe Area since the 1920's. The most important part of the BWCA's
history is often omitted. This is the period after the 1948 passage of the
Thye-Blatnik Act, which authorized the acquisition by purchase or
condemnation of land within the BWCA, called the Superior Roadless
Primitive Area at that time. Many people's lives were affected by the
forced buy-outs and condemnation of their cabins, homes, resorts,
businesses, and land over the next thirty years.
Before these buy-outs, Ely, Minnesota had a dozen operating hotels
and motels, a dozen canoe outfitters, and 65 resorts, both in and outside
of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Ely was very prosperous, and had
become the largest inland seaplane base in the world. Airplanes offered
services to visitors, and access to remote lakes and resorts.
Conservationists said airplanes were destroying the silence and solitude
of the area. As a result, in 1949 President Truman established an
Airspace Reservation over the Superior Roadless Area, as it was renamed.
Logging began in what is known as the BWCA in the late 1800's and
early 1900's. Most of the logging occurred in the central section of the
area: the Basswood Lake, Knife Lake, and Kekekabic Lake areas. By 1930,
nearly one fourth of the BWCA had been logged off. As a result, the area
was riddled with roads and in 1958, the Forest Service decided to change
the name of the Superior Roadless Area to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area.
In 1955, congress failed to pass the first wilderness bill.
Minnesota's Senator Hubert H. Humphrey reintroduced the bill again in
1957. Again there was great opposition, this time from the U.S. Forest
Service. After repeated failures to pass the Wilderness Bill in
congressional sessions from 1958 through 1961, the Senate finally
passed the bill in 1961 and 1963. It wasn't until 1964 that the House
passed the Wilderness Bill in 1964, creating the National Wilderness
Preservation System, which included the Boundary Waters Canoe Area.
The BWCA was a perplexing issue for Congress. It was not a
wilderness area, but it was in a class by itself, a very unique area. It
had a long history of uses inconsistent with the ideas stated in the
Wilderness Act. Congress provided the only exceptions in the law for the
BWCA, allowing specific uses applicable only to the BWCA. Nothing in the
Wilderness Act would modify the restrictions and provisions of the
Shipstead-Nolan or the Thye-Blatnik Acts.
Congress directed that management of the BWCA follow regulations
established by the secretary of agriculture "in accordance with the
general purpose of maintaining. . . the primitive character of the area,"
but without unnecessary restrictions on other uses "including that of
timber." Nothing in the act would be construed to "preclude the
continuance within the area of any already established use of motorboats."
In 1964, Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman appointed a
special Boundary Waters Canoe Area Review Committee, headed by George
Selke. The committee was composed of representatives of all known facets
of public opinion concerned about the BWCA. The committee was to conduct
a comprehensive study on the BWCA and recommend regulations for its timber
management. A similar committee, the Arrowhead Association Committee,
addressed issues relating to recreation and tourism.
In December of 1965, Secretary of Agriculture Freeman released the
regulations and administrative guidelines for the management of the
Boundary Waters Canoe Area, as recommended by the Selke Committee and
Arrowhead Association Committee.
Timber harvesting would be permitted in the portal zone; motorboat
and snowmobiles would be allowed on designated routes in the portal zone;
mechanical transportation of watercrafts would be permitted to continue on
the five mechanized portages, also allowing the structures and facilities
necessary for their operation; and the possession or transportation of
motors and snowmobiles would be permitted on the International Boundary
Route, including the portages commonly used in traversing the
International Boundary as provided for in the 1842 Webster-Ashburton
Treaty.
In 1966, the BWCA became the nation's first wilderness area to use
a visitor permit system. In 1969, the National Environmental Policy Act
was passed, which provided for an environmental impact study and statement
whenever federal legislation was involved. This was to guide Forest
Service management. As a result, campsites were designated in 1969, and
at the urging of area resorts and outfitters, cans and bottles were banned
in 1971.
Because of the uniqueness of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, and
its tradition of logging and motor uses, in 1975 Rep. James Oberstar
introduced a bill that would have removed the center section of the BWCA
from the National Wilderness Preservation System. This area had been
logged off, developed with cabins, resorts and roads, and was visited by
motorboat and snowmobile users. It was not a true wilderness area. Rep.
Oberstar's legislation would have designated the area as a National
Recreational Area, which was more in line with its multiple uses.
Preservationists supported the Fraser-Vento bill that would outlaw
logging, restrict mining and motorboats, ban snowmobiles, and authorize
another $8,000,000 for purchase of over 20 BWCA-edge resorts. The 1978
BWCA Wilderness Act that President Carter signed was a so-called
compromise between Friends of the Boundary Waters lawyer Chuck Dayton and
Boundary Waters Conservation Alliance lawyer Ron Walls. Neither the
preservationists nor the recreationalists approved of this bill, but it is
the law.
The 1978 BWCA Wilderness Act further restricted motorboat and
snowmobile use in the BWCA;, banned logging and mining; and reduced
visitor permit quotas all without an environmental impact study as
required by NEPA. The truck portages were permitted to continue, unless
there was a feasible alternative. The 1978 Act disregards the promises of
the 1964 Wilderness Act, and makes no reference to honoring the
Webster-Ashburton Treaty. 45,000 more acres were added to the area,
renaming it the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.
In 1989, the U.S. Forest Service conducted extensive tests on the
three truck portages, (Prairie Portage, 4-Mile Portage, and Trout Lake
Portage). They agreed that there was no other feasible means of
transporting boats and canoes across the portages. The Friends of the
Boundary Waters and other preservationist groups sued the U.S. Forest
Service on the definition of the word "feasible," taking the case to the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals after U.S. District Court Judge James
Rosenbaum had ruled to keep the truck portages open. As a result of the
removal of the trucks from the three portages, there has been a bottleneck
of BWCAW use and abuse at Prairie Portage, with a potential for injury to
the porters who run boats, canoes and gear across with specially made dollies.
Senate and House Hearings were held in Washington D.C. on the 1996
Oberstar/Grams legislation, concerning the three main points of the
legislation: returning the trucks to the three mechanized portages between
motorized lakes; uniform motor-use boundary adjustments on Lac La Croix,
Basswood, Birch Lake of the Moose Lake Chain, Saganaga, and Seagull Lakes,
which already allow motors; and the Intergovernmental Management Council,
which would allow local, county, state, and tribal elected officials to
work along with the federal agencies, giving their input, but not allowing
for local control of the management of the Boundary Waters. The Secretary
of Agriculture would have the final say in any management plan.
Senator Grams asked Kevin Proescholdt if his organization could
accept a compromise on motor-use in the BWCAW. Proescholdt answered yes,
at which point Senator Grams held up the Friends of the Boundary Waters
Fact Sheet which states their agenda to "end motor use in the Boundary
Waters Canoe Area Wilderness."
Senator Grams also put Becky Rom, (testifying on behalf of the
Wilderness Society), on the spot when she said the '78 BWCA Wilderness Act
was a compromise that had been judiciously agreed upon. Senator Grams
asked, "Isn't it true that two lawyers were locked in a room for two days
until they came to an agreement, which was rejected by both sides?" He
then read from Proescholdt's book 'Troubled Water' about how the Friends'
lawyer, Chuck Dayton, had purposely included the word "feasible" knowing
that the other lawyer, Ron Walls, would take the layman terminology,
meaning "practical", rather than the environmental meaning of "possible".
Who, if not the layman, are our Senators and Congressmen and women
representing?
Conservationists with Common Sense and area Outfitters
Associations' reasons for not wanting to take part in mediation at this
time were made very clear. How can you sit down at the same table with
these people, knowing that they are incapable of bargaining in good faith?
It is very hard to have any respect for environmental groups, even though
they have accomplished a lot of good, when their main goal is to further
restrict recreational uses in our country's only motorized wilderness
area. They refuse to respect and honor the 1964 Wilderness Act and the
1978 BWCA Wilderness Act which allow continued motor-use.
In Senator Grams' closing remarks, he reprimanded Senator
Wellstone for trying to put a halt to his legislation, and by the end of
the hearing Senator Wellstone was at a loss of words.
Even though the BWCAW is a national wilderness, people living
closest to the area have made the greatest sacrifices and have been
impacted the most by regulations and restrictions. Local property owners
lost their homes, cabins, resorts, businesses, and many of their
traditional uses when the BWCAW was created; local communities all along
the Boundary Waters lost high paying job opportunities with the banning of
logging and mining within the BWCA. With the growing popularity of the
BWCAW, local people are the ones responsible for services such as garbage
disposal, search and rescue, medical assistance with our clinics and
hospitals, maintaining portages and campsites, fighting fires (along with
the Forest Service), and educating the visitors by our outfitters.
In the three counties - Cook, Lake and St. Louis - where the BWCAW
is located, as much as 82% of the land in these counties are tax exempted,
federally owned lands, which also includes the Superior National Forest.
The tax burden is unjustly put upon the property owners of the remaining
18%. In addition, the state of Minnesota owns 15% of the land within the
Boundary Waters, and also retains jurisdiction over the water rights.
People agree that as our population grows, so will the desire for
people to "get away from it all", and they will want to visit the BWCAW.
There are other options to address this desire for a wilderness
experience other than a reduction of permits.
Over the years, the Forest Service has closed more and more
campsites and entry points in the BWCAW, thus funneling more and more
people into a smaller area adding to the abuse of the area. With a
growing population wanting to visit the area more campsites and entry
points should be opened, not closed.
As I stated in a previous posting, I am not advocating more
paddle-only lakes being opened up to motor use, and no one is
advocating more motors in the BWCAW. The permit quotas have been set,
there cannot be more motors than already permitted. Having uniform motor
use on the already motorized lakes - Lac La Croix, Basswood, Birch of the
Moose Lake Chain, Saganaga, and Seagull Lakes - would help in the
dispersement of motor boats. Also, with more campsites open in the
paddle-only zone and the continued use of towboats, canoeists would be
better dispersed and be able to reach a more solitude area.
The arrogance of people to presume that wilderness can only be
experienced if you travel the area by canoe or on foot! It doesn't matter
that there are 10,000 other lakes in Minnesota that allow motorboats. The
same argument can be said for the 94,000,000 acres of wilderness in this
country that do not allow motor use for the canoeist or hiker to visit.
Getting all philosophical, and assuming that one cannot hear the
echoes of the birds; feel and smell the air, and the scent of pine; stand
next to a waterfall, taste the clear water and feel humbled by the power
of the falls, all because I got to that place with the use of a motor, is
ludicrous! If the sound and smell of that motor is that offensive, you
were more than likely on a motorized lakes, or only one portage removed
from that lake.
Our family has experienced the undeveloped wilderness on every
trip into the Boundary Waters, whether we got there by canoe, boat, skis,
snowshoes, or snowmobile. Just because a person uses a motor doesn't mean
it's never turned off, or that the people don't walk through the pines or
admire the rapids and waterfalls.
We have made several discoveries in the BWCAW of old resort sites,
building foundations, docks, barges, wood stoves, dumpsites, Indian
villages, the cement water gauging station and water marker, and the
sunken steam engines. We have found the brass plaque in the rock on Half
Dog Island, seen the lilacs blooming on Wenstrom's point on Basswood and
the lilies of the valley on Skidway Island. We've found Ella Hall's grave
marker, and seen the railroad pilings and even some rail on some of the
lakes. We've followed old roads into the woods and seen the huge white
pines measuring over twelve feet around, and we have even come across a
World War II memorial - the French Cross of Loraine - that stands fifteen
feet tall!
These things are all still in the Boundary Waters, waiting to be
discovered, along with the many bald eagles, bear, deer, wolves, and moose
we have seen. One of the largest and impressive congregations of loons
can be seen in the middle of the motor zone of Basswood Lake - anywhere
from 20 to 100 loons can be seen at one time from your boat or canoe.
If four people set out on a BWCAW trip - one in a Kevlar canoe;
one in a wooden canoe; one in a square stern canoe with a 5hp motor; and
one in a 14 or 16 foot boat with a 15 or 25hp motor, and they all go in
different direction - north, south, east and west - who has the better
wilderness experience? Wilderness means different things to different
people, just as beauty is in the eye of the holder. Who are we to judge
how one chooses to enjoy their wilderness trip, especially when it is
written in law allowing motor use?
Congress realized the uniqueness of the Boundary Waters, and has
allowed continued motorized uses because of all that still remains in the
BWCAW. To try to change the original intent of the special exceptions
written into the 1964 Wilderness Act regarding the BWCA is morally and
ethically wrong. Try as you may, you can't destroy all the history of the
BWCAW that remains in the wilderness.
An Intergovernmental Management Council, much like the Selke
Committee and the Arrowhead Association Committee, is needed more than
ever. Public opinion would still be accepted, along with knowledgeable
land-use experts on the local, county and state level. There would be no
local control, but there obviously would be a loss of some control by the
environmental community which has been pushing their wilderness single or
no-use agenda forward at the expense of local people, all across the
country, who live closest to the areas.
With the Oberstar/Grams bipartisan legislation, the legislative
process should be allowed to move forward. Any changes, and the mechanics
of the Intergovernmental Management Council, should be dealt with in
committee by the senators and representatives we have elected to office.
This would not set an unprecedented means of federal land
management. Granted, all states may not be able to utilize an
Intergovernmental Management Council. That would probably have to be
decided case by case.
Resources:
Books:
Saving Quetico-Superior A Land Set Apart, by R. Newell Searle, 1977
Our Historic Boundary Waters by Duane Lund, 1980
Canoe Country: An Embattled Wilderness by David Backes, 1991
Troubled Waters by Kevin Proescholdt, 1995
Magazines:
"BWCAW History: Part I (1900-1930)" by Jim dale Vickery
Boundary Waters Journal, Summer 1988
"BWCAW History: Part II (1930-1978)" by Jim dale Vickery
Boundary Waters Journal, Fall 1988
Papers:
Complete Text on BWCA Management, 1965
"Boundary Waters Canoe Area Plan"
Superior National Forest Draft, 1972
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Richard Saro
Let me understand - you advocate more water area for motorcraft,
mechanized portages, towboats, more campsites, higher entry permit
quotas, a redefinition of wilderness, and local control.
Sure sounds like profit motivated exploitation of a natural resource.
--
Richard Saro
rgs...@infonet.isl.net
mcr...@northernnet.com
In article <5a0u6n$f...@news.isl.net>,
Richard-
Evidently you didn't read my posting. You understand nothing!
The BWCAW is a CREATED Wilderness! It allows limited motor use, thus making
it different from other Wilderness areas. The continued motor use was a
concession for all the buy-outs of private property, cabins, homes, resorts,
businesses, etc.
The only ones advocating more water surface for motors, more entry point
permits, and local control are the likes of you to distort the facts. As to more
campsites, I do think the many campsites that have been closed in the no motor
zone should be reopened for the canoeists.
As to the issue of truck portages and towboats, these help in the dispersement
of CANOES mostly. In the 1978 BWCAW Act the truck portages were allowed to
continue. It was the preservationists' twisted definition of 'feasible' that
closed them. We want what we were allowed with the 1978 BWCAW Act! If it
weren't for the sacrifices of the local people, whom you seem to loathe so much,
it would have taken many more years before the Boundary Waters was made into a
Wilderness.
One last point. To your statement, "Sure sounds like profit motivated
exploitation of a natural resource." The only profit motivated by exploitation
has been by all the tree huggers and elite. There have been NO NEW businesses
promoting motor use of the BWCAW, but there sure have been alot of 'wilderness
exploitation' with new businesses promoting canoeing, canoeing gear, BWCAW dog
sledding trips, dog sledding and winter gear, ski shops, gourmet coffee shops,
Wolf Center, and even talk of a Bear Center!!! All non-motorized exploitation
of the wilderness, and few pay above minimum wage and offer insurance benefits!
The following are portions of the WILDERNESS ACT OF 1964, mostly pretaining to
the BWCAW, which you have probably never read either. The original intent of
the Wilderness Act allowed continued motor use, and even though the 1978 BWCAW
Act further restricted the area, we aim to retain the lakes we now have for
motor use and fishing! - N
Public Law 88-577 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136)
88th Congress, Second Session
September 3, 1964
AN ACT
To establish a National Wilderness Preservation System for the
permanent good of the whole people, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SHORT TITLE +
SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "Wilderness Act."
WILDERNESS SYSTEM ESTABLISHED - STATEMENT of POLICY
SECTION 2. (a) In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied
by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not
occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its
possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and
protection in their natural condition, it is hereby declared to
be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people
of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring
resource of wilderness. For this purpose there is hereby
established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be
composed of federally owned areas designed by Congress as
"wilderness areas," and these shall be administered for the use
and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave
them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and
so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the
preservation of their wilderness character, and for the gathering
and dissemination of information regarding their use and
enjoyment as wilderness; and no Federal lands shall be designated
as "wilderness areas" except as provided for in this Act or by a
subsequent Act.
(b) The inclusion of an area in the National Wilderness
Preservation System notwithstanding, the area shall continue to
be managed by the Department and agency having jurisdiction
***** thereover immediately before its inclusion in the National
Wilderness Preservation System unless otherwise provided by Act
of Congress. No appropriation shall be available for payment of
expenses or salaries for the administration of the National
Wilderness Preservation System as a separate unit nor shall any
appropriations be available for aditional personnel stated as
being required solely for the purpose of managing or
administering areas solely because they are included within the
National Wilderness Preservation System.
DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS
***** c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his
own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area
where the earth and community of life are untrammeled by man,
where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of
wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of
undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and
***** influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation,
which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural
conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected
primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work
substantially unnoticable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for
solitude or a primitive and unconfirmed type of recreation; (3)
***** has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size
as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired
condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or
other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical
value.
NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM - EXTENT OF SYSTEM
SECTION 3.
(a) All areas within the national forests classified at least 30
days before the effective date of this Act by the Secretary of
Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service as 'wilderness,"
"wild," or "canoe" are hereby designated as wilderness areas.
The Secretary of Agriculture shall--
<snip>
(2) Maintain, available to the public, records pertaining to said
wilderness areas, including maps and legal descriptions, copies
of regulations governing them, copies of public notices of, and
reports submitted to Congress regarding pending additions,
eliminations, or modifications. Maps, legal descriptions, and
regulations pertaining to wilderness areas within their
respective jurisdictions also shall be available to the public in
the offices of regional foresters, national foerest supervisors,
and forest rangers.
Classification
(b) The Secretary of Agriculture shall, within ten years after
the enactment of this Act, review, as to its suitability or
nonsuitability for preservation as wilderness, each area in the
national forests classified on the effective date of this Act by
the Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service
as "primitive" and report his findings to the President.
Presidential recommendation to Congress.
The President shall advise the United States Senate and House of
Representatives of his recommendations with respect to the
designation as "wilderness" or other reclassification of each
area on which review has been completed, together with maps and a
definition of boundaries. Such advise shall be given with
respect to not less than one-third of all the areas now
classified as "primitive" within three years after the enactment
of this Act, and the remaining areas within ten years after the
enactment of this Act.
Congressional approval.
***** Each recommendation of the President for designation as
"wilderness" shall become effective only if so provided by an Act
of Congress. Areas classified as "primitive" on the effective
date of this Act shall continue to be administered under the
rules and regulations affecting such areas on the effective date
of this Act until Congress has determined otherwise. Any such
***** area may be increased in size by the the President at the time he
submits his recommendations to the Congress by not more than five
thousand acres with no more than one thousand two hundred acres
or by more than one thousand two hundred and eighty acres in any
one compact unit; if it is proposed to increase the size of any
such area by more than five thousand acres or by more than one
thousand two hundred and eighty acres in any one compact unit the
increase in size shall not become effective until acted upon by
Congress. Nothing herein contained shall limit the President in
proposing, as part of his recommendations to Congress, the
alteration of existing boundaries of primitive areas or
recommending the addition of any contiguous area of national
forest lands predominantly of wilderness value. Notwithstanding
any other provisions of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture
***** may complete his review and delete such areas as may be
necessary, but not to exceed seven thousand acres, from the
southern tip of the Gore Range-Eagles Nest Primitive Area,
***** Colorado, if the Secretary determines that such action is in the
public interest.
Report to President.
(c) Within ten years after the effective date of this Act the
Secretary of the Interior shall review every roadless area of
***** five thousand contiguous acres or more in the national parks,
monuments, and other units of the national park system and every
such area of, and every roadless island within, the national
wildlife refuges and game ranges, under his jurisdiction on the
effective date of this Act and shall report to the President his
recommendation as to the suitability or non-suitability of each
such area or island for preservation as wilderness.
<snip>
Congressional approval.
A recommendation of the President for designation as wilderness
shall become effective only if so provided by an Act of
Congress. Nothing contained herein shall, by implication or
otherwise, be construed to lessen the present statutory authority
of the Secretary of the Interior with respect to the maintenance
of roadless areas within units of the national park system.
Suitability.
(d)(1) The Secretgary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the
Interior shall, prior to submitting any recommendations to the
president with respect to the suitability of any area for
preservation as wilderness--
Publication in Federal Register
(A) give such public notice of the proposed action as they
deem appropriate, including pulication in the Federal
register and in a newspaper having general circulation in the
area or areas in the vicinity of the affected land;
Hearings.
(B) hold a public hearing or hearings at a location or
***** locations convenient to ther area affected. The hearings shall
be announced through such means as the respective Secretaries
involved deem appropriate, including notices in the Federal
Register and in newspapers of general circulation in the area:
Provided, That if the lands involved are located in more than
one State, at least one hearing shall be held in each State in
which a portion of the land lies;
<snip>
Proposed modification.
(e) Any modification or adjustment of boundaries of any
wilderness area shall be recommended by the appropriate
Secretary after public notice of such proposal and public
hearing or hearings as provided in subsection (d) of this
section. The proposed modification or adjustment shall then be
recommended with map and description thereof to the President.
The President shall advise the United States Senate and the
House of Representatives of his recommendations with respect to
such modification or adjustment and such recommendations shall
become effective only in the same manner as provided for in
subsections (b) and (c) of this section.
SECTION 4. (a) The purposes of this Act are hereby declared to be within and
supplemental to the purposes for which national forests and units
of the national park and wildlife refuge systems are established
and administered and---
(1) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to be interference
with the purpose for which national forests are established
as set forth in the Act of June 4, 1897 (30 Stat. 11), and
the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of June 12, 1960,
(74 Stat. 215).
***** (2) Nothing in this Act shall modify the restrictions and
provisions of the Shipstead-Nolan Act (Public Law 539,
Seventy-first Congress, July 10, 1930; 46 Stat. 1020), the
Thye-Blatnik Act (Public Law 733, Eightieth Congress, June
22, 1948; 62 Stat. 568), and the Humphrey-Thye-Blatnik-Anderson
Act (Public Law 607, Eighty-fourth Congress, June 22, 1956;
70 Stat. 326), as applying to the Superior National Forest or
the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture.
<snip>
(b) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, each agency
administering any area designated as wilderness shall be
***** responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area
and shall so administer such area for such other purposes for
which it may have been established as also to preserve its
wilderness character. Except as otherwise provided in this Act,
***** wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of
receational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and
historical use.
PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN USES
***** (c) Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject
to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial
enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area
***** designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum
requirement for the administration of the area for the purpose of
this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving
the health and safety of persons with the area), there shall be
no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment
or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other forms of
mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any
such area.
SPECIAL PROVISIONS *****
***** (d) The following special provisions are hereby made:
***** (1) With wilderness areas designated by this Act the use of
aircraft or motorboats, where these uses have already become
established, may be permitted to continue subject to such
restrictions as the Secretary of Agriculture deems desirable. In
addition, such measures may be taken as may be necessasry in the
control of fire, insects, and diseases, subject to such
conditions as the Secretary deems desirable.
Water resources and grazing.
(4) Within wilderness areas in the national forest designated by
this Act, (1) the President may, within a specific area and in
accordance with such regulations as he may deem desirable,
***** authorize prospecting for water resources, the establishment and
maintenance of reservoirs, water-conservation works, power
projects, transmission lines, and other facicilities needed in
the public interest, including the road construction and
maintenance essential to development and use thereof, upon his
***** determination that such use or uses in the specific area will
better serve the interests of the United States and the people
thereof than will its denial; and (2) the grazing of livestock,
where established prior to the effective date of this Act, shall
be permitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations
as are deemed necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture.
<snip>
(5) Other provisions of this Act to the contrary notwithstanding,
the management of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, formerly
designated as the Superior, Little Indian Sioux and Caribou
Roadless Areas, in the Superior National Forest, Minnesota, shall
be in accordance with regulations established by the Secretary of
Agriculture in accordance with the general purpose of
***** maintaining, without unnecessary restrictions on other uses,
including that of timber, the primitve character of the area,
particularly in the vicinity of lakes, streams, and portages:
***** Provided, That nothing in this Act shall preclude the continuance
within the area of any already established use of motorboats.
***** (6) Commercial services may be performed within the wilderness
areas designated by this Act to the extent necessary for
activities which are proper for grazing the recreational or other
wilderness purposes of the areas.
(7) Nothing in this Act shall constitute an express or implied
claim or denial on the part of the Federal Government as to
***** exemption from State water laws.
(8) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting the
***** jurisdiction or responsibilies of the several States with respect
to wildlife and fish in the national forests.
STATE AND PRIVATE LANDS WITHIN WILDERNESS AREAS
SECTION 5. (a) In any case where State-owned or privately owned land is
completely surrounded by national forest lands within areas
designated by this Act as wilderness, such State or private
***** owners shall be given such rights as may be necessary to assure
adequate access to such State-owned or privately owned land by
such State or private owner and their successors in interest, or
the State-owned land or privately owned land shall be exchanged
for federally owned land in the same State of approximately equal
value under authorities available to the Secretary of
Agriculture:
<snip>
Acquisition.
(c) Subject to the appropriation of funds by Congress, the
Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to acquire privately owned
land within the perimeter of any area designated by this Act as
wilderness if (1) the owner concurs in such acquisiton or (2) the
acquisition is specifically authorized by Congress.
<snip>
Rob Smith
mcr...@northernnet.com wrote:
> Evidently you didn't read my posting. You understand nothing!
Snip
Lots of stuff there. Allow me to summarize what I predict the general respose in this
newsgroup will be:
If this wilderness area is different from others and was to chartered to allow motor use
we should change the rules to be consistant with the rules in other wilderness areas. No
motors.
Rob Smith
awa...@cdc.net
> rgs...@infonet.isl.net (Richard Saro) writes:
>
> Let me understand - you advocate more water area for motorcraft,
> mechanized portages, towboats, more campsites, higher entry permit
> quotas, a redefinition of wilderness, and local control.
>
> Sure sounds like profit motivated exploitation of a natural resource.
>
> --
> Richard Saro
> rgs...@infonet.isl.net
That was not my take on the post. IMO, you're twisting what was
written to attempt to strengthen your point of view. It seems to me
that there is a good balance motor/non-motor water. I have heard
far more clamor from the canoe crowd for less "motorized" water than
I have heard from motorcraft users wanting more water.
As for portages, it would help if some were reopened. Reopen the 4
mile portage on Basswood Lake and you diffuse the motorcraft traffic
on the lake and cut the congestion (and damage) at Prarie Portage.
There are a few places that could support a few more campsites
without impacting the wilderness experience. That would also
slightly increase the amount of available entry permits.
No one will ever define "wilderness" to me, I have my own definition
and don't need your's, or anyone else's.
Sounds like "profit motivated exploitation of a natural resource" and
"the views of Richard Saro" are being confused here.
Alan
David Fawcett
mcr...@northernnet.com wrote:
[Her interpretation of BWCAW history snipped]
Wow! If you and the wise-use group that you represent put only half as
much effort into the mediation effort than the energy that you have
placed into your Usenet posting.
Steve Pearson
Richard Saro wrote:
>
> Let me understand - you advocate more water area for motorcraft,
> mechanized portages, towboats, more campsites, higher entry permit
> quotas, a redefinition of wilderness, and local control.
>
> Sure sounds like profit motivated exploitation of a natural resource.
>
> --
> Richard Saro
> rgs...@infonet.isl.net
Hey Ho Richard:
I wouldn't call it that at all...I would call it conservation using
common sense. Now THERE is a novel concept, you should explore in more
thoughly.
Stevie.Pee
P.S. To mcready: Well said.
Stevie.Pee
Lonny Isenberg
In article <851745...@dejanews.com>, <mcr...@northernnet.com> wrote:
>In article <5a0u6n$f...@news.isl.net>,
> rgs...@infonet.isl.net (Richard Saro) wrote:
>>
>>
>> Let me understand - you advocate more water area for motorcraft,
>> mechanized portages, towboats, more campsites, higher entry permit
>> quotas, a redefinition of wilderness, and local control.
>>
>> Sure sounds like profit motivated exploitation of a natural resource.
>>
>> --
>> Richard Saro
>> rgs...@infonet.isl.net
>
>
>Richard-
>
>Evidently you didn't read my posting. You understand nothing!
>
>The BWCAW is a CREATED Wilderness! It allows limited motor use, thus making
>it different from other Wilderness areas. The continued motor use was a
>concession for all the buy-outs of private property, cabins, homes, resorts,
>businesses, etc.
>
>The only ones advocating more water surface for motors, more entry point
>permits, and local control are the likes of you to distort the facts. As to more
>campsites, I do think the many campsites that have been closed in the no motor
>zone should be reopened for the canoeists.
>
>As to the issue of truck portages and towboats, these help in the dispersement
>of CANOES mostly. In the 1978 BWCAW Act the truck portages were allowed to
20 years or so, at a little over 2,000 sites. When some sites are closed due
to overuse, others are opened. As far as the local control issue goes, it was
part of a bill introduced in the last session of congress which your wise use
group supported.
>continue. It was the preservationists' twisted definition of 'feasible' that
>closed them. We want what we were allowed with the 1978 BWCAW Act! If it
>weren't for the sacrifices of the local people, whom you seem to loathe so much,
>it would have taken many more years before the Boundary Waters was made into a
>Wilderness.
The portages aren't closed, you don't seem to realize that. People can still
pay to have their boats towed across the portage, only the method has changed.
It is no longer done with jeeps and trucks. You constantly argue a point that
has been refuted by what is actually taking place at the portage. It makes no
difference what the you want to call it, whether it's feasible or possible or
whatever, boats and motors are being transported across the portage just like
before 1992 and people who don't want to portage their own equipment still
pay the concessionaire to do it for them. Obviously the judges descision was
correct.
Larry Wolfe
Steve Pearson wrote:
>
> Richard Saro wrote: [...]
> > Sure sounds like profit motivated exploitation of a natural resource.
> >
> Hey Ho Richard:
> I wouldn't call it that at all...I would call it conservation using
> common sense. Now THERE is a novel concept, you should explore in more
> thoughly.
> The only novelty I can see is the notion that there is some intrinsic
connection between "common sense" and the expansion of the use of internal
combustion engines. The further connection with "conservation" stikes me
more as bizarre than novel. Never did appreciate the subtleties of
"newspeak". Perhaps I should explore them more thoroughly.
--larry
mcr...@northernnet.com
In article <32C6E2...@worldnet.att.net>,
David-
In order to have true mediation you have to have mutual faith and trust in the
parties you are dealing with. I would like to share an understanding of BWCAW
issues to you by using a timeline.
The start of the timeline is 1964 with the passage of the Wilderness Act. After
numerous buy-outs, condemnations and continued motor-use concessions, the 1964
Wilderness Act was accepted. For ten years there was peace.
Along came the so-called environmentalists in the mid 1970’s with their talk of
more restrictions! With the passage of the 1978 BWCA Wilderness Act (which
preservation groups call a compromise, but in reality was another 'taking' and
no giving on their part) the peace was destroyed, and the trust level for the
environmentalists plummeted!
Over the next ten years there was acceptance of the 1978 BWCA Wilderness Act and
the level of trust for the environmentalists was restored somewhat, but never to
the same level of 1964. Canoeists and motor users weren’t entirely happy, but
they were content with the areas of the BWCAW each had.
In 1988, the environmentalists said the three truck portages had to be closed to
motorized use. They insisted on a feasibility study, which the U.S. Forest
Service, along with the University of Minnesota, performed. It was determined
there was no other feasible means of transporting boats, canoes, gear, etc.
across Prairie, Four Mile and Trout Lake Portages, the truck could remain.
The Friends of the Boundary Waters and other preservation groups didn’t like
that decision, so they sued the U.S. Forest Service on the definition of the
word "feasible," taking the case to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals after
U.S. District Court Judge James Rosenbaum had ruled to keep the truck portages
open. In 1992, with the removal of the trucks from Prairie, Four Mile and Trout
Lake Portages (another 'taking'), the bottom fell out on the BWCAW issues trust
level, again.
After several years of hearing complaints from Minnesota constituents about how
the preservationists deceivingly closed the three truck portages to motorized
use (labeled a fast fix because we didn't sit back and accept the removal of
the trucks), eight Minnesotan legislators wrote letters to Congressman James
Oberstar and Senators Paul Wellstone and Rod Grams in March of 1995. They asked
for reform of federal land management policies for Voyageurs National Park and
the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.
In the spring of 1996, the BWCAW issues trust level began to rise. There was
real hope of bi-partisan legislation being passed with the introduction of the
Oberstar/Grams legislation. A hope that would restore some faith in our
government. Senator Wellstone refused to support this legislation, and called
for mediation instead, even though Senate and House hearings were already
scheduled.
Senator Wellstone, along with the help of the preservation groups, blocked any
chance of legislation being passed before it was even given a chance. Rather
than allow the Senate and the House to do their job and allow the legislation to
get into committee for mark-up, Senator Wellstone called on his Democrat friends
and scripted them in the claims that the legislation was going nowhere. Trust
levels once again plummeted.
You can't sit down to mediation with people you have no faith and trust in.
That’s where we are today.
mcr...@northernnet.com
In article <5a8qq8$l...@walter.cray.com>,
l...@cray.com (Lonny Isenberg) wrote:
>
> In article <851745...@dejanews.com>, <mcr...@northernnet.com> wrote:
> 20 years or so, at a little over 2,000 sites. When some sites are closed due
> to overuse, others are opened. As far as the local control issue goes, it was
> part of a bill introduced in the last session of congress which your wise use
> group supported.
There was a great reduction with the last management plan, which also eliminated
some entry points and reduced quotas.
>
> >continue. It was the preservationists' twisted definition of 'feasible' that
> >closed them. We want what we were allowed with the 1978 BWCAW Act! If it
> >weren't for the sacrifices of the local people, whom you seem to loathe so
much,
> >it would have taken many more years before the Boundary Waters was made into
a
> >Wilderness.
> The portages aren't closed, you don't seem to realize that. People can still
> pay to have their boats towed across the portage, only the method has changed.
> It is no longer done with jeeps and trucks. You constantly argue a point that
> has been refuted by what is actually taking place at the portage. It makes no
> difference what the you want to call it, whether it's feasible or possible or
> whatever, boats and motors are being transported across the portage just like
> before 1992 and people who don't want to portage their own equipment still
> pay the concessionaire to do it for them. Obviously the judges descision was
> correct.
I never said the portages were closed! But, Prairie Portage, Four Mile Postage
and Trout Lake Portage ARE closed to motorized use as allowed with the 1978
BWCAW Act! Prairie Portage has continued to provide a portaging service out of
loyalty to their customers. It is done by excruciating measures, with great
risk to the workers. Four Mile Portage has been eliminated as an entry point
and used to only access the halfway point lakes, proof that it is not feasible
to transport boats, motors, canoes, gear, etc. all the way across. Trout Lake
portage use is way down, and there is no portaging service. As a result, there
is a great use and abuse of Prairie Portage. This is good?
> >
> >One last point. To your statement, "Sure sounds like profit motivated
> >exploitation of a natural resource." The only profit motivated by
exploitation
> >has been by all the tree huggers and elite. There have been NO NEW
businesses
> >promoting motor use of the BWCAW, but there sure have been alot of
'wilderness
> >exploitation' with new businesses promoting canoeing, canoeing gear, BWCAW
dog
> >sledding trips, dog sledding and winter gear, ski shops, gourmet coffee
shops,
> >Wolf Center, and even talk of a Bear Center!!! All non-motorized
exploitation
> >of the wilderness, and few pay above minimum wage and offer insurance
benefits!
> >
What, no comment on this? By the way, none of these 'new' job provide insurance
benefits.
David Fawcett
I am sure that all of the jobs that support motor users pay insurance
and benefits. I bet the kid driving the tow boat on Sucker Lake, the
person cleaning cabins at the resort, and the servers at the cafes
making minimum wage all got benefits.
David Fawcett
mcr...@northernnet.com wrote:
>
> In article <32C6E2...@worldnet.att.net>,
> dfa...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >
> > mcr...@northernnet.com wrote:
> >
> > [Her interpretation of BWCAW history snipped]
> >
> > Wow! If you and the wise-use group that you represent put only half as
> > much effort into the mediation effort than the energy that you have
> > placed into your Usenet posting.
>
> David-
>
> In order to have true mediation you have to have mutual faith and trust in the
> parties you are dealing with.
The mediation process is not binding arbitration. Participants are able
to walk away from the process if agreement cannot be made. The
mediation process is designed to get people with apparently opposing
views on a complex issue to sit down together, find out what they agree
upon, find out what they do not agree upon, and then try to work out a
solution that they can both agree upon.
In the process, they get to know each other, understand what makes these
issues so important to each party, and they may be able to build trust
as they go through this process.
I still maintain that it would have been more productive for you and
your group to join the process instead of trying to wage a public
relations campaign here on rec.backcountry.
> In the spring of 1996, the BWCAW issues trust level began to rise. There was
> real hope of bi-partisan legislation being passed with the introduction of the
> Oberstar/Grams legislation.
While, yes, Grams is a Republican and Oberstar is a Democrat, it is
bi-partisan legislation. But in this case, I think that political party
is quite irrelevant. This legislation did not represent the views of
both sides of the issue, and certainly not the view of a majority of the
people in Minnesota.
>A hope that would restore some faith in our
> government. Senator Wellstone refused to support this legislation, and called
> for mediation instead, even though Senate and House hearings were already
> scheduled.
Why resort to heavy-handed federal legislation before exploring other
options. Coming to agreement or consensus on a the issues will provide
a solution that will last much longer than new legislation every few
years.
If it comes to legislation, may the democratic process work so that the
views of the people of Minnesota are represented by their Congressmen.
A majority of Minnesotans want status quo or stronger wilderness
protections in the BWCAW.
> Senator Wellstone called on his Democrat friends
> and scripted them in the claims that the legislation was going nowhere. Trust
> levels once again plummeted.
Speaking of trust, didn't Grams try to stick his version of the BWCAW
legislation into the federal Parks bill instead of allowing it to be
voted on for its own merit?
Larry Wolfe
mcr...@northernnet.com wrote:
>
> In article <5a8qq8$l...@walter.cray.com>,
> l...@cray.com (Lonny Isenberg) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >One last point. To your statement, "Sure sounds like profit motivated
> > >exploitation of a natural resource." The only profit motivated by
> exploitation
> > >has been by all the tree huggers and elite. There have been NO NEW
> businesses
> > >promoting motor use of the BWCAW, but there sure have been alot of
> 'wilderness
> > >exploitation' with new businesses promoting canoeing, canoeing gear, BWCAW
> dog
> > >sledding trips, dog sledding and winter gear, ski shops, gourmet coffee
> shops,
> > >Wolf Center, and even talk of a Bear Center!!! All non-motorized
> exploitation
> > >of the wilderness, and few pay above minimum wage and offer insurance
> benefits!
> > >
>
> What, no comment on this? By the way, none of these 'new' job provide insurance
> benefits.
What is there to say? Your original post went on at great length about the
utter economic destitution that resulted from a reduction of motorized (ab)use
of the resource. Your colleague has posted a rather extensive list of new
businesses that have sprung up to service/exploit those who are willing to
enjoy the area without an internal combustion engine for a companion. Apparently
there are quite a few of them as the list of businesses is long.
Perhaps the comment is needed from you?
I note a tendency towards the wise-user's odd definition of elite as well. It
appears that if I go into a wilderness with basic food and clothing, walking on my
own two feet, I am an elitist. On the other hand, if one arrives expecting a paved,
powered and plumbed campsite, driving a $70,000 motor home, towing a $25,000 SUV, and
"rough it" because there is no cable TV, then one is some kind of universal, regular
joe-citizen. Just a guess, but I would bet that there are a lot more folks with
$1,000 in disposible income than there are ones with $100,000+.
--larry
awa...@cdc.net
> > >
>
> > I wouldn't call it that at all...I would call it conservation using
> > common sense. Now THERE is a novel concept, you should explore in more
> > thoughly.
> > The only novelty I can see is the notion that there is some intrinsic
> connection between "common sense" and the expansion of the use of internal
> combustion engines. The further connection with "conservation" stikes me
> more as bizarre than novel. Never did appreciate the subtleties of
> "newspeak". Perhaps I should explore them more thoroughly.
>
> --larry
Geez, Larry, if not for the internal combustion engine, where would you
wear your LL Bean driving jacket? Maybe we should all go hug a big
white pine to gain you wisdom.
Alan
mcr...@northernnet.com
In article <8519766...@dejanews.com>,
mcr...@northernnet.com wrote:
In article <32C6E2...@worldnet.att.net>,
dfa...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> mcr...@northernnet.com wrote:
>
> [Her interpretation of BWCAW history snipped]
>
> Wow! If you and the wise-use group that you represent put only half as
> much effort into the mediation effort than the energy that you have
> placed into your Usenet posting.
David-
In order to have true mediation you have to have mutual faith and trust in the
parties you are dealing with. I would like to share an understanding of BWCAW
issues with you by using a timeline.
The start of the timeline is 1964 with the passage of the Wilderness Act. After
numerous buy-outs, condemnations and continued motor-use concessions, the 1964
Wilderness Act was accepted. For ten years there was peace.
Along came the so-called environmentalists in the mid 1970’s with their talk of
more restrictions! With the passage of the 1978 BWCA Wilderness Act (which
preservation groups call a compromise, but in reality was another 'taking' and
no giving on their part) the peace was destroyed, and the trust level for the
environmentalists plummeted!
Over the next ten years there was eventual acceptance of the 1978 BWCA
Wilderness Act and the level of trust for the environmentalists was restored
somewhat, but never to the same level of 1964. Canoeists and motor users
weren’t entirely happy, but they were content with the areas of the BWCAW each
had.
In 1988, the environmentalists said the three truck portages had to be closed to
motorized use. They insisted on a feasibility study, which the U.S. Forest
Service, along with the University of Minnesota, performed. It was determined
there was no other feasible means of transporting boats, canoes, gear, etc.
across Prairie, Four Mile and Trout Lake Portages, the truck could remain.
The Friends of the Boundary Waters and other preservation groups didn’t like
that decision, so they sued the U.S. Forest Service on the definition of the
word "feasible," taking the case to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals after
U.S. District Court Judge James Rosenbaum had ruled to keep the truck portages
open. In 1992, with the removal of the trucks from Prairie, Four Mile and Trout
Lake Portages (another 'taking'and no giving), the bottom fell out on the BWCAW
issues trust level, again.
After several years of hearing complaints from Minnesota constituents about how
the preservationists deceivingly closed the three truck portages to motorized
use (labeled a fast fix because we didn't sit back and accept the removal of
the trucks), eight Minnesotan legislators wrote letters to Congressman James
Oberstar and Senators Paul Wellstone and Rod Grams in March of 1995. They asked
for reform of federal land management policies for Voyageurs National Park and
the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.
In the spring of 1996, the BWCAW issues trust level began to rise. There was
real hope of bi-partisan legislation being passed with the introduction of the
Oberstar/Grams legislation. A hope that would restore some faith in our
government. Senator Wellstone refused to support this legislation, and called
for mediation instead, even though Senate and House hearings were already
scheduled.
Senator Wellstone, along with the help of the preservation groups, blocked any
chance of legislation being passed before it was even given a chance. Rather
than allow the Senate and the House to do their job and allow the legislation to
get into committee for mark-up, Senator Wellstone called on his Democrat friends
and scripted them in the claims that the legislation was going nowhere - dead on
arrival. Trust levels once again plummeted.
You can't sit down to mediation with people you have no faith and trust in. And
the preservation groups have said they want 'more takings' before they do any
giving. With their 'taking' of the three truck portages we got nothing in
return, other than reduced access and bottlenecked abuse of Prairie Portage.
A return to the 1978 BWCAW legislation, allowing the three truck portages would
be a return to status quo for both sides. That's where the mediation has to
start from to re-establish any faith and trust in the environmental groups and
in the process. Until that happens there will be no progress. That’s where we
are today.
Grizzgear
A few thoughts on the posting of mcready.
I thought the whole process of legistlation through time was to maintain
the then-current desires of the relevant voting population. It is a
bitter pill to swallow when you're on the opposing side of new
legistlation, passed or unpassed (it happens to me all the time), but the
alternative is to maintain the status quo, which proves destructive in a
changing economic/ecological/social environment.
mcready may have a distrust of the environmental crowd because he has been
on the opposing side of legislation three times, but that's the price of
democracy. His notion of applying the concept of 'takings' to the BWCAW
is an intriguing idea, but why should we start the timeline in 1964? How
about 1500 (a scenario that appeals to the Native Americans), or 2000 BC
(a scenario that appeals to the wildlife)? Personally, I think the
concept of 'takings' is flawed for this very reason...you can't assign a
proper time to "start the clock". The notion of "status quo" is flawed
for the same reason.
Personal compensation should not result from the public's desire to
reassess the use of public lands, even though such reassessment always
leads to a new balance of economic fortune among individuals. If you rely
on the use of public assets in your business, then you have to live with
the risk of having those assets pulled out from under you, because you
don't control them. The success of my business is tied to many pieces of
legistlation which could change tomorrow...yet I have no control over
them, and certainly no economic recourse ("takings") when they change.
Mediation, by the way, is used as a legal alternative to suit. It is not a
touchy-feely joining of hands between dissenting parties (that would be
'consensus'). As such, it is almost always conducted between adversaries
(with a mutually agreeable mediator to catalyze negotiations). Mediation
often fails, unless both sides have agreed to use mediation as the final
step in resolution (in which case the mediator is used more as a judge).
Trusting an adversary is a questionable strategy for winning. Your
adversary has a different agenda, different goals, and (very often)
different ethics in accomplishing those goals. I would imagine that the
envonmental crowd and the wise-use crowd distrust each other equally.
Both have used extreme (sometimes illegal) tactics to gain the result they
believe is right.
Rick Stockton
rgs...@infonet.isl.net (Richard Saro) wrote:
>Let me understand - you advocate more water area for motorcraft,
>mechanized portages, towboats, more campsites, higher entry permit
>quotas, a redefinition of wilderness, and local control.
>>The arrogance of people to presume that wilderness can
>>only be experienced if you travel the area by canoe or
>>on foot! It doesn't matter that there are 10,000 other lakes
>>in Minnesota that allow motorboats.
motorboats and airplanes are compatible with a wilderness
experience just because your buddies want to do
those activities, or make money selling gas and
engine rebuilds ("and Leech Lake is so crowded and
noisy, hey, Knife Lake is really quiet, why can't we go
there....")
To proclaim that the obvious ability to use all those other
lakes for these activities 'doesn't matter' seems rather
unsubstantiated and ARROGANT. Most Minnesotans
want the Wilderness preserved. But Mr Grams usually
supports anything his campaign contributors want, to hell
with the public interest. There's MONEY to be made!
--
Rick Stockton <rick...@mail.idt.net>
http://rick...@mail.idt.net/
awa...@cdc.net
> REAL ARROGANCE is proclaiming that jet skis and
> motorboats and airplanes are compatible with a wilderness
> experience just because your buddies want to do
> those activities, or make money selling gas and
> engine rebuilds ("and Leech Lake is so crowded and
> noisy, hey, Knife Lake is really quiet, why can't we go
> there....")
Basswood Lake is really quiet. There are motorcraft there.
Motorcraft are allowed right now and I use them. I don't
want more allowance for motorcraft, or less. You go up there
and do what you enjoy doing, and I think that's great. I go
up there and do what I enjoy doing (which, by the way, only
involves using a motor to get to the campsite) and you and
some pinhead canoe paddlers want to take it away from me.
There is plenty of no-motor water in the BWCAW, go use
it.
> To proclaim that the obvious ability to use all those other
> lakes for these activities 'doesn't matter' seems rather
> unsubstantiated and ARROGANT. Most Minnesotans
> want the Wilderness preserved. But Mr Grams usually
> supports anything his campaign contributors want, to hell
> with the public interest. There's MONEY to be made!
What is it that makes your preference correct? Does the
fact that you paddle a canoe make you you elite?
You seem to like the word "arrogant". You should. Go take
a look in the mirror.
Alan
mcr...@northernnet.com
In article <32C89...@worldnet.att.net>,
dfa...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> mcr...@northernnet.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <5a8qq8$l...@walter.cray.com>,
> > l...@cray.com (Lonny Isenberg) wrote:
> > >
insurance
> > benefits.
>
> and benefits. I bet the kid driving the tow boat on Sucker Lake, the
> person cleaning cabins at the resort, and the servers at the cafes
> making minimum wage all got benefits.
The job you list are seasonal jobs, mostly in the summer. Many of the new
business exploiting the wilderness are year round employment, paying mostly
minimum wage, with no benefits.
Steve Pearson
Hey Ho Alan:
God ain't this FUN !!! I just love messin' with these folks heads (or
as your daddy says "hey-uds")...<VBG>. Remind me to send you my list of
"Stevie Pee's 101 Words and Phrases that Excite (or is that Incite) Tree
Huggers". Hint: Use the names "Al Gore" and "The Unabomber" in the same
sentence <VBG>.
ANYWAY, what I really wrote to ask is your opinion. I take you back
to our previous expeditions into Basswood Lake...In the past I think we
have been very well mannered visitors. Since that seems not to matter
worth a hill of beans to our fellow "outdoorsmen" <BG> I propose the
ammending the following practices:
A) When motoring we should no longer give canoe parties the (minimum)
100yd berth we have in the past. Nor should we continue to idle down to
a crawl in order not to upset their proverbial apple cart (not to
mention blowing their "karma").
B) When motoring we should no longer give occupied campsites the widest
berth possible. Particularly if it is a canoe party occupying the
campsite. We wouldn't want to do anything to violate their expectations
of our behavior. Matter of fact, in the interest of preserving
stereotypes we should probably throw out the anchor, maybe dump a jerry
can or two of fuel over the side and then (for added impact) whip out
ol' Mr. Happy, hang him over the side and download about a quart of that
Pabst Blue Ribbon we swilled on the way in.
C) Lets "correct" past behavior and leave every campsite we visit
looking like a Alabama pigstye (my appologies to folks from Alabama).
For starters we could throw a couple of beer cans in the privey, maybe
leave a few empty cans of Spam lying here and there. For the grande
finale we could break out the far-arms, pop off a few hundred rounds and
leave a couple hundred shell cases for someone else to pick up...
Ya know, on second thought maybe we SHOULDN'T do all that stuff.
Maybe we should continue to conduct ourselves like the we always have;
like competent considerate outdoorsmen...After all screwing with these
folks via the inter-net is one thing (fun ?)...screwing with 'em on the
water is a waste of time (and not very nice).
Stevie.Pee
Executive Action
I don't understand all this highfalutin' stuff about time lines and takings and legislation.
And the only thing I know about mediation is it didn't work when I got divorced. What I do
know is I pay my taxes over and over and over. The fishing license, the excise tax on the
equipment--like the jet-ski, taxes on taxes in the fuel. So all I want is to have some part of
the time I can go to the BWCA, kick back with a coupla six packs of Bud, some Bocephus tapes
and my jet=ski. What's all the furor about? What's the big deal? Just a few hours a day for
us jet-skiers in some pristine setting created by the Lord himself for all of us to enjoy.
Happy New Year to all.
Bubba
Executive Action
Well now Mr. Pee I think you have hit the nail straight on the head this time. One correction,
howver. It would more properly be an Arkansas pig sty than and Alabama pig sty. Having been
to both states, I can say this with great confidence. And the rest of us having seen what
comes to Washington from Arkansas can judge accordingly. <BG>
Fact is we all pay the taxes and we all should have the change to share the joys of the BWCA. I
think I just might make an exploratory trip up there this summer with the two Yammys, a coupla
dozen six packs and might even bring along Aunt Em.
Being the mechanical type that I am, I will work on a more efficient muffler for the Yammy and
maybe even some kind of improved exhaust trap/recirculator. Heck, I dont mind retarding the
engine a bit if it means I can make the wilderness a better place for all of us, including them
tree hugger types that are trying their dangest to make me unwelcome.
Well a Happy New Year to all--including the elitist tree huggers. Bubba, here is for love for
all and enjoying the wilderness.
Bubba
Muskie
Well a Happy New Year to all--including the elitist tree huggers.
Bubba, here is for love for
all and enjoying the wilderness.
Bubba
Fantastic. It amazes me how you wise-use folks manage to contradict
yourself in every post you make about the BWCAW. everytime
you use the words "wilderness" and "motors" together, you make yourself
look foolish. Those two words belong no where near each other.
Find the definition of wilderness, defined by the Native Americans,
and by the U.S. Government. You will see that motors and
wilderness do not go together. Why dont you take your fat lazy ass
and motor your boat in Voyeaguers national park? Or how about the other
12,000 lakes in minnesota? Why must you insist that motors be used in
the ONE rare place they shouldnt be used? I guess you just get your
kicks by spewing your engine oil and gas all over the BWCAW, and
hoisting your large ass in the boat and not moving one inch of your
lazy flabby body. Get some exercise pal, and quit relying on a small
horsepowered, oil spewing outboard motor to scoot your fat ass around
the BWCAW. use your arms and legs to propel you. Its why nature gave
them to you.-----Muskie
cyli
I tried some day tripping in the close areas of the BWAC. It made me
sure not to go back. Littered with yuppies in canoes and yahoos in motor
boats. Frankly, I understood the attitudes of those in the boats fairly
well, even when I was giving them the finger for damn near swamping us.
The canoers are trying to drive them out of there, by any means they can.
They're probably a mix of natural dorks with high horsepower and people
who're just plain disgusted with the canoe invasion and attitude. Where
the canoers seem to have some feeling that only they understand the
wilderness and love it. Two weeks a year.
The only people we saw who followed the 100 yard low wake procedure were
the carry in guides. Doubtless because their bread and butter depends on
not offending canoers. We got to watch the rangers bust one big power
boat in a cove area (dunno what for, bottles sounds most likely) and the
rest of the covey of them scatter, slowly at first and at max speed as
soon as out of easy sight of the rangers who might note their boat
numbers.
I'll go back to camping and canoeing a bit south of the BWAC, where there
are less people. Way less people. It's a magnet. And the most obvious
persons up there are the ones who are so intent on a 'wilderness
experience' that you sometimes want to grab them and tell them a safety
rule or some other bit of common sense. If I want dumb canoers, I can
find them in abundance on the rivers near the Twin Cities. If I want
dumb powerboaters, I can find them on almost any Minnesota lake that's
bigger than a couple of acres. But I prefer the places that the only
dumb canoer is me and the water's too rocky and shallow for even the
quieter fisher power people. Who I generally get along just fine with.
I don't know what the BWAC is like past a day paddle. I no longer want
to. It's too far to drive for all the bureaucracy and hassle. Permit
this, permit that, can't this, must that. None of it can be left to
common sense because they're dealing with too many people. And there's
that percentage factor. Not to mention Sturgeon's Law (not the fish, the
SF writer.).
The canoe faction is the one with the most political power at the moment.
I feel the loss of the motorized portages is unjust and even a piddly
sort of power play. The kind that'll leave a bad taste to those affected
for years. I do not feel that the canoeizing of the BWAC is doing a
bunch of economic harm to the locals. Northern Minnesota is pretty
depressed economically anyway. It's not as if they can find better jobs
that close to home, unless a lot of logging starts up again (unlikely)
and the mining industry went down so badly so long ago that it's probably
only grandad who remembers having a great job drilling or digging or in
the roller mill. Farming up there always sucked heavily. Working for a
canoe outfitter's not that big a comedown from my view.
So a plague on both sides of advocates. I'll be elsewhere unless my
friends get that currently popular enthusiasm again. And then I'll only
be there for a weekend. Stopping off a hundred miles south at that
delightful state forest park that's almost deserted 80 per cent of the
time so I can have my 'wilderness experience.' The loons can be heard
clearly. No group sings of humans, just those of coyote pups. The water
is placid, unless a fisherman comes in. And then he'll zoom to a spot
and settle. Where the night sounds are the raccoons trying to check out
everything in my camp. And I've seen the northern lights and some
meteorites every time I've been there. A forest service guy happened on
me one afternoon right after I'd come down from a group thing in the BWAC
and asked me what the difference was in each place. I said, 'No little
mountains. No people.' He laughed. We both figured the loss of a few
rocky hills was worth the loss of the other.
"If I die of curiousity, who will entertain you with naive questions?"
I only answer my mail on an average of once every two months. Be
patient.
Steve Pearson
Hey Ho Bubba:
Obviously this "Muskie" person knows you quite well...he seems to be
on a first name basis with your ass...or at least SOMEBODYS ass.
Stevie.Pee
Executive Action
Now Muskie, come on-- take a deep breath and chill out man. I know you are passionate about
your beloved wilderness and see me as an intruder. But that's no reason to get into vulgar
attacks. You are making assumptions that are not true. Fact is, I am in fairly good physical
condition for someone my age. Perhaps a bit worse for the wear of having played football for
so many years. But still in okay condition. So your descriptions may fit someone, but not me.
Now I am not insulted and extend to you a hand of friendship. I think we have to work these
things out together. Fer instance-- maybe certain areas of the lakes be set aside for no
motors.
As far as spilling gasoline and oil-- I suppose there are irresponsible people who do just
that. Just like there are people who top off at the gas pump and wind up spilling gas. Have you
ever done that? But a properly tuned and maintained engine will not do that if operated
properly. "Sides-- I already said I would work on my Yammy to minimize emissions and noise.
And you know what, Muskie, if I were using the Yammy in an area where it was really upsetting
and bothering you, and you came to me and discussed it like a gentleman we could probably work
out something-- why heck, I'd be glad to set aside the Yammy for a while and have you show me
some tips for catching muskies. I have been fishing over thirty years. Never caught a muskie
yet. I hear they are a big kick. I had this friend in Michigan who was a great muskie
fisherman-- said he would troll his rig right in the wake of the motor-- right in the
turbulence and those fish would come right up in there and take it.
Well, Muskie, you have a good day. And don't get so upset with Bubba here. I don't mean harm
to anyone.
Bubba
Elvis
In article <5ai8qa$1...@nemesis.ntsource.com>, mi...@mail.ntsource.com
(Muskie) ranted:
>
> Well a Happy New Year to all--including the elitist tree huggers.
> Bubba, here is for love for
> all and enjoying the wilderness.
>
> Bubba
>
>
> Fantastic. It amazes me how you wise-use folks manage to contradict
> yourself in every post you make about the BWCAW. everytime
> you use the words "wilderness" and "motors" together, you make yourself
> look foolish. Those two words belong no where near each other.
> Find the definition of wilderness, defined by the Native Americans,
> and by the U.S. Government. You will see that motors and
> wilderness do not go together. Why dont you take your fat lazy ass
> and motor your boat in Voyeaguers national park? Or how about the other
> 12,000 lakes in minnesota? Why must you insist that motors be used in
> the ONE rare place they shouldnt be used? I guess you just get your
> kicks by spewing your engine oil and gas all over the BWCAW, and
> hoisting your large ass in the boat and not moving one inch of your
> lazy flabby body. Get some exercise pal, and quit relying on a small
> horsepowered, oil spewing outboard motor to scoot your fat ass around
> the BWCAW. use your arms and legs to propel you. Its why nature gave
> them to you.-----Muskie
Muskie- Trolling again ? At least boats don't do damage to the environment
like 4X4's do. Remember this posting of yours ? What a hypocrite ! I got
out my American Indian dictionary as you suggested and it defined
"wilderness" as an area with no roads. What were you and your massive
derriere doing there with a (shudder) motor ?
Subject: Re: Does Anybody Go Anywhere?
From: mi...@mail.ntsource.com (Muskie)
Date: 1996/10/26
Organization: NAVOCEANO
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.autos.4x4
Why yes, I just got back from a long weekend in Michigans rugged
Upper Peninsula. I drove many miles through rock and mud, and overall
it was a great 4x4 experience. You cant beat an area that has no paved
roads!---Muskie
Muskie...@any.moment
> Steve Pearson <Steve.Tin...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> writes:
> Hey Ho Bubba:
> Obviously this "Muskie" person knows you quite well...he seems to be
> on a first name basis with your ass...or at least SOMEBODYS ass.
Stevie, there are lots of guys familiar with Muskie's ass. I hear he's thinking
about mounting a beer can holder on the back of his head.
Alan