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 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
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.
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.”
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.
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)
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.
Thanks for contributing that. I have suspected that to be the case, having only gone as far as three portages. Not much different from what I see in other places. One or two miles in on foot, most people are done. Three miles on foot, might as well be a hundred.
After seeing the size of the snapping turtle that visited us, I'm going to take a pass on swimming in the BW, with or without clothes....but especially without.
