Shelters

[Rafiki]

Daisy Farm is infested with them. So is Three Mile. Lane Cove has none. And places like Todd Harbor and Siskiwit have one and two so its a rat race to see who will claim them first. Here is my question...I know certain sites have enough shelters as it is but some places are very sparsely populated with them...do you think if enough money was pooled together by donations that places like Todd Harbor and Siskiwit could gain a couple of more shelters? I am imagining they surveyed places that are close to the waters of Lake Superior (meaning easier access) which have campsites only and said they were not suitable for shelter developments, while on a different token, I am guessing that traveling with the wood and hardware to places like Hatchet Lake and South Desor (not as easy to access) was not something that was convenient so the idea of building shelters in these areas was not feasible. But again do you think there is any way to convince the National Park services to build a couple of more if places that have very few of them? And on a side note, how old are a lot of these shelters? When were they built? Thanks.

[johnhens]

I would contact the Park Service headquarters and inquire there. They are good about answering questions and giving background info on why there are only 2 shelters at Siskiwit, for instance.

If you don't mind, let us know what you find out.
Good questions by the way!!!

[MikeT]

A personal opinion here. And, I must qualify this with the fact that I only go late and early in the season. I believe there are plenty of shelters where they are needed (ie.Rock Harbor, Three Mile, Daisy, Washington Creek). I personally would not like a shelter at Desor North & South etc. and think it would take away from the natural wilderness feel of a great place like Little Todd. The one that is at Todd takes away from the feel of it. I know they are handy (especially in bad weather) and I have taken advantage of them, but I also would have survived without them. As I said, this is a personal opinion and there are many other opinions I know. Just had to get mine out there.

Another side of this issue is the new "Wilderness and Backcountry Management Plan" which, among many, many other things, discusses not having shelters at all (picnic tables also, but that is a whole other topic).

I personally do not use shelters these days and actually avoid them. My Rock Harbor experience has been greatly improved since I stopped using the shelters and went in the "backcountry". The only place I stay in a shelter is Washington Creek usually because all of the tent sites are terrible (except #2) unless I go down to the group sites (which I do if they are not full). I personally would like to see better tent sites at Washington, Moskey and Daisy as all of the tent sites in those places are not very good.
Just wanted to make my statement and it is 100% my opinion

[Midwest Ed]

Throughout the years of talking to park employees, I have always been told the shelters and their original construction date back to the days of the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps). The CCC operated from 1933 to 1942 and was part of FDR’s version of a stimulus program during the Great Depression. The Island was Congressionally authorized a national park in 1931 so it makes sense the new park would be a target for government sponsored development and improvements.

Shelters are only found in campgrounds accessible by Lake Superior boat with the minor exception of Washington Creek. Only one campground with a dock does not have any shelters, namely Hay Bay. To me this strongly implied the decision as to where to construct shelters was affected by the level of difficulty to transport building materials and provide maintenance. Purposefully not having shelters in the “back country” could also have been a conscience decision. It certainly would be interesting to know if the number of shelters has changed in the last 80 years or if any had ever been constructed in any inland areas. Weighing the benefits of the shelters vs. their impact on the wilderness seems to me to be a personal issue. Limiting them to only Lake Superior sites is a reasonable compromise. If it weren't for the occasional screen door slam most purists would not have too much else to complain about as they can otherwise avoid the shelters. Maybe some of that extra maintenance money could be invested in some dampened door closers.

I found this Michigan DNR history blog that adds some supporting data. It also includes info on the wild fire of '36 that consumed 1/4 of the island and also a factoid that 100 CCC personnel wintered on the Island in 1936-37.

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-15 ... --,00.html

Here’s the interesting excerpt:

“Most Michigan CCC camps were in either national or state forests. The state's only National Park Service camps were on Isle Royale, which had been designated a national park in 1931. On 13 August 1935, an advance party of twenty men from Company 2699, led by Captain Edward S. Thomas, arrived off the island in Siskiwit Bay. Forced to wade ashore, the men cleared a living area for the remainder of the company, which arrived later that month. The 2699th completed Camp Siskiwit and performed general forestry work before returning to the mainland in October. The following spring the company returned to Isle Royale and constructed Camp Rock Harbor at present-day Daisy Farm Landing.

On 23 July, forest fires fed by strong winds broke out on the island. They created so much smoke that vessels along the Keweenaw shoreline were forced to sound their foghorns. As the fires worsened, more men from CCC camps in Michigan and Wisconsin were shipped to the island. In mid-August the conservation editor of the Grand Rapids Press, Ben East, who spent three days on the island, reported that the eighteen hundred men fighting the fires were doing a remarkable job against enormous odds. "I'm not in any sense a trained firefighter," East observed, "but I do know 'guts' . . . and the CCC lads on Isle Royale have 'em."

Described by East as "the largest fire army" to ever fight a single blaze in Michigan, the men faced numerous challenges. The island lacked roads, and its rocky terrain made plows and tractors useless in establishing firelines. The men dug one hundred miles of trenches by hand with axes and shovels. There was little available sand, and as East reported, "The soil is leaf mold and humus, lying in a shallow layer over clay and rock. The soil itself burns." While there was an abundance of water, portable pumps were required to drive the water across ridges and swamps to the fires. (Eighty-pound gas tanks were carried inland to keep the pumps running.)

The CCC enrollees fought the fires in twelve-hour shifts. The day shift awoke at 3:30 A.M., ate breakfast and walked several miles inland to relieve those who had fought the fires by lantern light throughout the night. Except for a lunch break, the crew worked until relieved by the night crew at 6:00 P.M. East noted that one crew of three hundred men had continued at this pace for nineteen days without a break. The fire fighters endured food shortages, rotting food stores and poor sanitary conditions that resulted in a mild dysentery epidemic. In spite of these setbacks, they checked the fires, which destroyed 35,000 of the island's 132,000 acres. According to East, without the efforts of the CCC men, "some of the finest scenic spots on the Island would have been laid bare."

One hundred men volunteered to spend the winter of 1936-37 on Isle Royale eliminating fire menaces. With the safety of winter snows, the men burned the slash and half-burned trees from the summer firelines. Although Isle Royale was blocked by ice for up to five months, the enrollees were not "utterly isolated." A ski-equipped airplane was available for monthly trips to the mainland and for emergencies. The CCC remained on Isle Royale until September 1941.”

[zims]

I would like to make an opinion here if I could. I do enjoy the shelters, if one is available, mostly washington creek since I always get treated to moose watching. I agree there the tent sites are not the greatest. I would like to see the actual tent pad area more defined, such as the tent pad area at west chickenbone. Another personal idea to improve washington creek area would be to make simple wood platforms equivelant to a free standing 8x8 deck. any ideas?

[Redbad]

If the graffiti in the shelters is an indication as to their age, then I don't recall any of the shelters that I stayed in (TH, WC, DF) being older than 10-15 years given the dates on the graffiti.

Most state parks in Michigan were improved by the CCC as were the National Forests in Michigan, and there seems to be a common CCC design to shelters and buildings (usually cement and fieldstone or cement and timbers) which is absent in the shelters on ISRO. The ISRO shelters are constructed of materials that can be landed from the ISRO landing craft at Mott Island or transported to the location by vehicle (think WC). The campgrounds with shelters also have picnic tables which have been commercially built. Perhaps a member of the forum is a present or former maintenance ranger on ISRO and has more information to share?

While shelters are a nice feature (and they are REALLY nice in inclement weather), I think that there are enough of them and that in some places there are to many shelters. Many visitors to ISRO don't get past DF or MB on their trip to the island and the campgrounds with a lot of shelters can get loud and the sound of slamming doors gets old fast. Shelters would destroy the intimacy of several campgrounds (LT, NLD, etc).