This was the first year that I brought maps that showed SOME of the campsites, but also showed sites that don't really exist in reality.  The online, Paddler's Campsite Database for Quetico also shows the location of numerous sites that don't really exist. 

Since 1979 I have always used the park map, which at a scale of two miles to the inch, is plenty good.

Personally, I don't much like the idea of having to camp on designated sites in Quetico, especially as there seems to be fewer users now than there were twenty years ago.  I'm convinced that this will be required soon, though.

Having paddled the Park for ~10 years before we figured out there were printed maps w/ red dots on 'em, (DOH! Woohoo!) it's always seemed to me that the McKenzie/Beymer... dots hit the highlights you couldn't miss with a baseball bat and that was fine at the time. After a year or two, we'd often try to get as far away from them as possible. Back when we'd do spring recon trips, they always seemed like cheating somehow and that hasn't changed much for me at least. It's good to know you have a fallback when needed. Some are just too good to pass up when available. Everyone can appreciate a nice landing and room to stretch out. Mud and worse things were normally avoided. Easy works.

I have to take inventory every year. I absolutely hate it because I get to pay pay tax on every dumb idea I can count. Besides, Q's been Q for a hundred+ years. I guess it's about time they knew what they had in stock eh?

Would "cutting" a site perhaps be something you would do with a can in your hand? I don't believe that's what anyone is concerned with but if anyone is I could see that being better handled with a request than a rule and it probably would have the same effect (it would on me at least). Hmmm, suddenly, caching a pack at multiple red dots doesn't seem so bad after all.

Personally, the maps currently available are already overkill to a large degree. Progress is not what the Q that I have grown to know & love needs. Dumbing it down to something the lowest common denominator can fuctor in won't make her any more appealing to me or anyone else IMO.

From what I saw they were paddling the entire shoreline of the lakes they passed through on their route, and documenting every site they could find.  They seemed pretty thorough, and were out all summer, along with other crews.

No doubt they will miss some "sites", but there are countless places where you could camp, ranging back onto high ridges, etc.  But these wouldn't matter anyway, if they require the use of designated campsites.

I don't think they find every campsite as you say.  Depending on the " plan" they might not need too?

I'm guessing they'll funnel paddlers along pre-determined corridors with the afore mentioned campsites. You could day-trip off of your chosen route, but not camp.

Unless they do something like that, how can they ever enforce designated campsites?

Only way I see, is if they narrow down the areas they have too " patrol" and figure a way to check on " illegal" camping.

Maybe they have an account with Google Earth

Arctic wrote on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 6:14pm:


Arctic,

Do you know from what base they were starting, Legacy Forest GIS, etc?  Many of us have knowledge of camp sites that are not on any maps and aren't on the Legacy Forest database.  Seems like the task would take many years and lots of searching and verification to actually log all of the "established" campsites. 

I know of several sites not on any map or the Legacy Forest database. I also have a few choice sites off the beaten path that are not recognizable from the lake or even from the shore.  Only way you would find them is if you see a canoe at shore, or see people occupying it.  And they don't get much use because of this.

I guess I find that task exceedingly difficult and lengthy.  However, I would be happy to be on the ranger team!

I think you would still be able to choose your campsite, just as you do in the BWCAW.  It's just that you would not be able to camp on any site that was not designated as a campsite.  I can't imagine there being a problem finding unoccupied sites in Quetico, as there seems to be fewer paddlers in the park than ten or twenty years ago.  Obviously some areas would need more sites than other areas.

I'd rather not see "no-camping" signs in the backcountry.  People might just rip these down and camp there anyway.

My guess is that designated sites would be indicated by a fire ring and shown on park maps.  BWCA-type latrines aren't really needed except on the more heavily-used, easily accessed parts of the park, and I can't imagine that they would be installed anywhere in the interior in the foreseeable future.

The park currently encourages users to burn their toilet paper, as that stuff does not break down for years.  Burning TP should be a requirement.

Why does it have to be designated campsites to the exclusion of choosing your own site?  I believe the popular and most used campsites will remain popular and used, designated or not.  Many often used sites would likely benefit from having a latrine and a specific fire ring location.  Other sites, such as islands too small, could be posted that they should not be camped on.  The vast majority of campers would see the logic in not using the over used sites and other campers might need the gentle guidance a posted sign would present.  At the same time why not allow campsite choice as well for those travelling less popular routes or lakes or instances when there are too many canoe parties for the number of available sites and for solo paddlers who generally require very little space for an overnight stay. 

Kingfisher wrote on Oct 16^th, 2010 at 1:31am:


I met a group of junior rangers on Mc Dougall Lake this summer.  They were in the process of documenting with GPS every campsite in Quetico.  My impression from talking with them is that there will eventually be designated campsites in Quetico.

For those of you who think that public opinion always drives decision making, you should recalibrate.  Public input is often just a formality.

Establishing designated sites in Quetico would not be the end of the world, as countless sites have been there for centuries.  Rarely is there a need to cut a campsite.  There are quite a few sites on small islands that should be closed, and requiring the use of designated sites would enable that.

While I can understand higher user fees for the southern entry points, as they are probably more expensive to operate, I've never liked the disparity between "Resident Canadians" and "non-Residents".  I see plenty of Canadians visiting US national parks, but they pay the same fees that everyone else does, which seems fair.

As for aircraft access and outfitting being geared toward Atikokan area businesses, that's fine.  It's an Ontario park and support for the preservation of Quetico (and other parks) needs to come from local businesses.

For decades its been Ely and Gunflint Trail area outfitters who have benefited the most from Quetico.  Frankly, there are probably too many outfitters competing for the number of clients available in that mostly seasonal business, anyway.

I sent mine in too.

I would have missed the whole thing if it hadn't been for QJ - thanks db !!!

db wrote on Oct 20^th, 2010 at 7:19am:


I agree with the sentiment, as animosity of higher fees does not solve anything.  I subscribe to Wally's thoughts, and haven't gone to the Quet. since '07.  For me, I can have a 10 day trip much cheaper, and all is good.  It's a de-facto voting with my dollars.

I don't have any hard figures, but from past discussions I've had with Rangers at Prairie Portage, cost of operations did not appear to be any factor in increasing fees.  Rather, the desire to shift usage to other entries/areas was the primary reason cited.