Isle Royale Forums

Article in today's Detroit News about the Wilderness Stewardship Plan the Park Service is working on for IR. Some highlights: Possible campground reservations, possible winter camping.

The Park Service is asking for comments:

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/ ... 580416007/

I couldn't read the article since it is $ub$criber based. But a few thoughts on reservations - I generally love being able to reserve a campsite here in Wis as they are drive to and the weather virtually never forces campers to delay their arrival date. But on the Rock campers have the luxury of extending their stay at a given campsite when they weather gets ugly. Anyone using canoes or kayaks may feel obligated to continue with original intinerary in sketchy weather. Definately some pros and cons to reservations. I do hope they explore this idea though.

Here's an account from the horse's mouth. The horse does not require a subscription:

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.c ... tID=120003

It appears that one way to submit comments is to hand-deliver them to the Park Superintendent.

(To see the actual plan, click on the NPS ISRO WSP Newsletter link near the bottom of the page. I tried to attach the document to this post, but due to its excellent photographs, it was too large.)

coarse-grained hot takes: (i) Mr Ed speaks bureaucratize, and (ii) the three "prelminary draft alternative concepts" are

-the status quo, whatever that is

-increasing wilderness infra-structure (new trails, new campground, new sites at existing campgrounds) to accommodate uptick in wilderness visitors.

-making the wilderness more "wilderness-y", in the sense of more demanding to visit, by requiring camping permits, removing campsites from existing campgrounds, removing shelters, removing trails, imposing a smaller cap on groups, and permitting winter camping. Presumably the idea is to depress high season visitation. (<--my paraphrase---the document characterizes this option as promoting "solitude".)

I'm surprised the article is behind a paywall for you guys. It opens freely for me.

One thing the article did say is that the Park Service went through the same exercise in 2011. They never implemented it.

You are able to comment through the website now. No need to hand deliver them anymore.

Interesting. I had a long chat with Denice, the superintendent, while sitting on the dock at Windigo during my visit last summer. She mentioned that this plan was coming, as we talked about the current state of crowding at the most popular campgrounds.

If they do build a new campground, I wonder where it would be? I have long thought that a permit-reserved, paid-for camping area near Rock Harbor with 3-night stays or so, would keep the current RH campground for flow of visitors (1-night limit) while allowing families, elders, anyone, to enjoy the RH area for three days while not having to backpack but not having to pay the high prices for lodging. RH has dayhiking, excursion boat tours, ranger talks, the gallery, many things of historical interest. This summer, I was surprised to see so many families camping for three days at Windigo where this is allowed - but there are many interesting things in the RH area that are not accessible to base campers because of the one-night limit. I do totally agree that there needs to be a 1-night area for hikers coming off the trail to catch a ferry, not arguing with that at all. I wonder whether it would make sense to have reserved permits for camping at RH, 3M and Daisy Farm, and leave the rest alone. I know I hated it when another favorite NP went from free/no reservations for backcountry camping to reserve-in-advance, $25/campsite/night fee structure.