How to recruit new canoe paddlers?

[Steve in Idaho]

Tell me why we need more canoeists. Fewer canoeists means less crowds in canoeing parks. I say let the yakers conglomerate in the city lakes and outfitted streams. More campsites and thinner crowds in the backcountry.

You have a point. The BW didn't feel crowded to me either time I was there, but we did see several groups searching for a campsite this last time. Idunno.... seemed like they would have been well served to get an earlier start on their day. My takeaway though is that campsites are so dispersed that there is room for more without negatively effecting the experience. And the more people in love with the BWCA, the more political will to protect it.

 

[Gamma1214]

...the more people in love with the BWCA, the more political will to protect it.

I think that's the most important point. The more people out there, the more the resources will be protected. @memaquay can probably speak more directly about that but that has always seemed a big part of why he does what he does... If nobody paddles the routes, they get lost and then there's less reason to protect them

 

[Punkinhead]

Last week a group of friends planned a paddling trip for today. All dropped out except myself and wife in a canoe and one friend in a kayak. Two dropped out because they said their knees and hips were hurting so getting in and out of their kayaks is getting too difficult. We lost two friends to the same complaints last year. I tried explain how much easier it is to get in and out of a canoe but didn't get any converts because it takes skill to paddle a canoe and none of them are sufficiently interested to learn something new.

 

[Steve in Idaho]

Two dropped out because they said their knees and hips were hurting so getting in and out of their kayaks is getting too difficult.

I have several kayaker friends who have dropped out of paddling altogether for that same reason. I think there is just a natural resistance at some point to learning new things.

 

[ScottS]

First of all, there are different types of kayakers.

You might have pretty good luck getting a seakayaker to like canoeing - in fact, I got back into canoeing after building and using 3 sea kayaks and discovering that I really felt much more at home in a canoe. I must have had the dumbest grin on my face when I came home after that first day out canoeing.

As for the department store plastic sit-on kayak folk, the challenge will be getting them to think of their boat as something more than a beach toy... and people that paddle beach toys are going to have trouble imagining what paddling could really be.

XC skiing has a similar problem. Most people can learn to skate ski on moderately level terrain and a groomed trail in a day or two. Give them classic skis and they are back to step 1, and too frustrated to put in the time learning...but at least we know where they are - on a groomed trail.

 

[Black_Fly]

Don’t look now, but the political leverage of canoeists is zero, and canoeing is more popular than ever. We’re soon to be sharing the wilderness with copper mines and drilling rigs. Streams outside wildernesses are mostly open sewers wherever people live. Not sure how full latrines, decimated trees, and no room at campsites is supposed to fix anything.

It feels good to see young people enjoying canoeing, but you can love a thing to death, and exponential population growth will more than cover the marginal political power status quo.

 

[Black_Fly]

You have a point. The BW didn't feel crowded to me either time I was there, but we did see several groups searching for a campsite this last time. Idunno.... seemed like they would have been well served to get an earlier start on their day. My takeaway though is that campsites are so dispersed that there is room for more without negatively effecting the experience. And the more people in love with the BWCA, the more political will to protect it.

I slept on a pile of rocks my first night last year. Luckily, I snagged an open site on day two. The procession in front of camp kept me from skinny dipping my entire stay, and noise from other campers and aircraft was prolific. I’m hoping for better this month, but judging by the availability of permits, it’s going to be the same. The problem with BWCA is the geography - It’s too elongated, offering way too much access along the perimeter. Quetico is roughly the same area, but more circular in shape, making most of it more remote and inaccessible from the perimeter. Compare the number of entry points: BWCA-80, QPP-21. As much as I love it, BWCA has too many visitors, is too accessible, and has too much infrastructure to call it anything but an amusement park. The major political clout of the BWCA is centered on economic impacts, which is a sad thing for a “wilderness.”

 

[yknpdlr]

The major political clout of the BWCA is centered on economic impacts, which is a sad thing for a “wilderness.”

We have a similar problem in the Adirondacks. Everyone wants to enjoy their own sport, especially the lazy redneck motorized kind. Lobbyists for 4 wheelers in summer, snowmobiles in winter. The claim, especially in the more isolated rural towns is that they are practically the sole support the local economy, but increasingly at the expense of the wilderness ore wild forest areas. Those towns did perfectly by themselves in all the years leading up to the advent of those powerful machines and the city folk incursion. The demand for ever widening motor trails to connect different regions is never ending, just so they can "safely" run at 60-70mph while on their way from one watering hole to the next. Local politicians are more than happy to comply. The "forever wild" clause withinthe state constitution helps somewhat, but the disaster of opening up old wilderness areas to motorized access is only an uninformed public vote away.

 

[Gamma1214]

I’m hoping for better this month, but judging by the availability of permits, it’s going to be the same.

Drive North young man. Another 8-10 hours & you'll be in true wilderness without campsite competition of any kind. (though you can still sleep on a pile of rocks if you wish. Nobody is going to see you to comment on it... or the skinny-dipping)

 

[Steve in Idaho]

I slept on a pile of rocks my first night last year. Luckily, I snagged an open site on day two. The procession in front of camp kept me from skinny dipping my entire stay, and noise from other campers and aircraft was prolific. I’m hoping for better this month, but judging by the availability of permits, it’s going to be the same. The problem with BWCA is the geography - It’s too elongated, offering way too much access along the perimeter. Quetico is roughly the same area, but more circular in shape, making most of it more remote and inaccessible from the perimeter. Compare the number of entry points: BWCA-80, QPP-21. As much as I love it, BWCA has too many visitors, is too accessible, and has too much infrastructure to call it anything but an amusement park. The major political clout of the BWCA is centered on economic impacts, which is a sad thing for a “wilderness.”

Again, I've only been there twice, so my perspective is different. While I'm aware that it's often referred to as "wilderness", I don't quite see it as so. I have the Frank Church to compare with it. Now, that's wilderness - by lower 48 standards. If I'm being careful I would go only so far as to call the BWCA a non-motorized recreational area. But amusement park? I think that's a huge exaggeration. One thing's for certain, that ride ain't on rails.

My impression of what's wrong with the BWCA isn't so much the number of users or ease of access as it is just poor management. Frankly, from discussions I've seen and heard, I don't think there's been any serious attempt at good management of the resource or users.

And here's the thing....if it's such a money maker for the local communities, the political class should have a vested interest in preserving it. Lacking that economy related motivation, what hope is there for the BWCA?