Quote:


Your right about the portages being longer on average. However the 2x I was there, I found them extremely well maintained and especially for a novice, easy too find.

ALL the campsites and portages are marked by a large orange triangle from what I remember. In either case you can't miss them. I always carry a small pair of binoculars. Rather than paddling over, I would scan for unoccupied sites or portage saving time and energy.

The longer portages have plenty of corduroy and the longest I was on, a mile+, had canoe rests about every 1/4 mile. With so much usage, unless you were on a interior remote route, I doubt you'd get off the trail, unless there was a seasonal flooding or blow down.

I agree, for novices or first time solo paddlers who wanted a little "security" blanket, Algonquin isn't the worst choice.
But, after a BW/Q trip, you can't really expect the same experience there IMHO

Thanks for the useful info !

Algonquin is much closer for me, but I go to Quetico anyway for the reasons people have already mentioned.  Fwiw, I've also noticed (on maps) that the portages tend to be longer in Algonquin.
-tom

Welcome ferratagirl.
Weather, air & water temp, black flies and skeeters...all virtually identical. Quetico and Algonquin are about the same latitude. Terrain is similar. Fishing is generally better to much better in Quetico. Bears are more of a problem in Algonquin, IMO, because they've had more opportunities to figure us out.
Take the time to explore this entire website. There is a wealth of info if you're patient, polite, and willing to dig.
WiF

Hi ! I have 3 canoe trip experiences, all of them in Algonquin Park. I would like to try Quetico, bu tcan somebody compare the wheather and temperature of the lakes in June August and September between these tow parks ?

Thanks for your input

We had a very enjoyable trip in Temagami 'way back in August of 1990.  We were there for a six-day canoe trip, and it certainly wasn't the BWCA or Quetico, but when I just went to the bookcase and retrieved the album I was surprised to see how many similarities there were in my narrative to the one I am currently writing for the 2009 trip.  "Awakening to the sound of the loons", "water that is clear and beautiful" (it was the clearest water I have ever seen), "a lovely campsite", "so peaceful and quiet", etc.  There were motors, though, and were cabins in some of the places.  We visited Bear Island and went in the little First Nation Church--I have some lovely photos of the windows there.

Our loop was Temagami Lake, Cross lake, Wasaksina Lake, Driftwood Lake, Iceland Lake, the S. Tetapaga River, and back to Temagami Lake.  My photos look very much like they do from a BW trip:  misty mornings, sunsets, loons, tall trees,  but not nearly as many rocks as in northern Minnesota.

Have no idea what that area is like 19 years later.  I wouldn't mind returning to see sometime.

Another alternative, but even farther for someone in MN, is Maine's Allagash Wilderness Waterway.  In camparing it to BWCA I found this:

Crowding: comparable.
Scenic: comparable
Waterways: much of AWW is class I rivers
Portages: far fewer at AWW
Cleanliness: AWW cleaner than BWCA
Accomodations: AWW far less primitive.

AWW has designated sites like BWCA but it has actual outhouses, picnic tables, and tarp poles over the tables at each "cell".  Camping spots may have multiple "cells" with each "cell" having its own table/firepit.  In our trip, each camp spot we were at had multiple cells: 4 nights nobody was at the other cell and two nights the other cell was used.  I neither case did having company degrade the experience for us, but it does lessen the wilderness feel.  Those wanting to insure more wildnerness atmosphere could seek out the single cell campsites.

Rangers are far more active in AWW keeping the place cleaned up.  At some sites, they even cut grass.

Thanks again everyone for your input.  I think you have all talked me out of a future Algonquin trip.  Although the idea of catching brookies might tempt me to make the trip sometime.  I am still intrigued by the idea of going to Temagami sometime to hike Ishpatina Ridge or see the large white pine stands.  A trip to Wabakimi or Woodland Caribou is definitely in the future and closer to home. 

My desire to visit other canoeing destinations has nothing to do with my attitudes towards BW/Q.  It is, without a doubt, my favorite place in the world.  I feel very fortunate to have been brought up in family with a canoe tripping tradition so close to these premier wilderness areas.  However, I too am surprised at the number of people around here who either take for granted, or view the BW/Q with hostility (i.e. its "wasted as a wilderness area).  I certainly hope the wild character of these areas is maintained into the future.

Quote:


I agree with Wind-in-face and JJS, IF I lived in MN, I would be heading North, not EAST
Back in the "olden days" Algonquin was probably a real jewel, but the BW is a "wilderness" compared to Algonquin, the Q even more so.
I went there because my tandem partner backed out 2 weeks before our trip to Quetico. I was unsure about doing a solo in the Q, so I'm opted for a little closer area, a 6 hour drive for me from Lower MI.
 I might go back someday, because in early Spring it has some outstanding  Brook Trout fishing mainly in the Northern/Central part of the park.
I would go for that as I love catching/eating Brookies. I would go in and base camp a few places and day trip the small feeder streams.
I'd go in from the North, and I believe that early enough in the season, you would eliminate the "crowds".  Here's a good book about the park and the brook trout.
 A Paddlers Guide to Algonquin Park  " Brook Trout and Black-flies " by Kevin Callan.
 Has maps/routes/contact info/fishing info. Even if you don't go, it's a nice read. Lots of historical facts and other good info. Check it out

I agree with Solotripper's post about Algonquin. I tripped there about 10 times from the late 70s through early 90s. I stopped going because of the factors that ST mentioned. Too crowded, too regulated, and too much hassle. The terrain is almost identical to Quetico, but the fishing is not nearly as good. Algonquin is only about 3 hours north of Toronto, and within a few hours of the most heavily populated areas of Canada. A 2-lane highway cuts across the bottom third of the park, and there are several campgrounds there. Solitude is not easy to find mid-June through end of August. In many ways Algonquin is more like the more heavily used sections of the Boundary Waters. (Bring a stove, 'cause you'll have a hard time finding firewood at sites within a day of an EP)
Algonquin, IMO, would be a good place to introduce someone to backwoods canoe camping. Or maybe to take your first solo. It is a little more forgiving in terms of available help and opportunities to bail. Ironically though, bears are more of a threat.

NO WAY would I travel a long distance to paddle Algonquin if I could get to BW/Q. I have no experience with Temagami, but I know it is quite a bit smaller.

Sometimes I feel like people who have relatively easy access the BW/Q don't fully appreciate what a jewel they have in their midst. I just hope the people who make decisions for Quetico can prevent it from experiencing the same fate as Algonquin. Talking to oldtimers, Quetico is already on that slippery slope to being loved to death.
OK, I've yapped enough. Enjoy the Q!

Here's a thread-starter:
Increase Quetico fees even higher to discourage over use and maybe increase maintenance
OR
Keep it affordable to make it available to more people and garner wider support for its protection

Wind-in-Face