Here's the scenario:

You intend on staying two nights on a lake that has two obvious campsites. The next lake is farther than you intend on traveling that day but decent and doable with some effort. It only has one mediocre campsite.

One of the two sites on this lake is awesome with a big front porch and 4 great tent pads but it's beat (over used). The other kind of sucks with four obvious tent pads, one good, the others progressively less so and the landing is a challenge so it's rarely used and in rather good shape.

Both are open and within sight and earshot of each other and you know there is a big group behind you although they were far enough back that all you can make out is four identical canoes and a number of figures moving around.

Q: As a solo or two person group, do you leave the nicer campsite for the bigger group and take the less desirable site - or take the better one - or move on and hope for the best?

You can only choose one answer but members might be able to delete and/or change it. (I think) I set the "Time limit for deleting vote:" to 30. I'm assuming that's days and I expect I can change it if it's hours or minutes - we'll find out together eh?. No-one can see the results until the poll is closed. Will someone please remind me to close it mid May?

How do you work this thing anyway?  ;D

This one requires some thought because you know the big group is behind you. What becomes even more tricky is claiming a big beautiful windblown campsite with a great view only to have a big group pull up later.

That is exactly what happened to me when I flopped at the big long Peninsula site on North Bay adjacent to the side lake portage. Just before a hard rain I did just get the tarp up and my little MSR Zoid tent. Then I settled in to await the arrival of my partner feeling lucky to have secured such a nice spot so late in the afternoon.

Before his arrival however, a group of 3 boats beelined right to me and since my canoe is small and blends in well (same with tarp and tent) they got pretty close before realizing I was there. They clustered up murmuring and glaring at me for what seemed like a very long time. I suppose I can't really blame them for being sore as this site is ideal for a large group. If I hadn't already set up I likely would of moved for them. No words were exchanged but I had the bear spray out just in case things got testy ( for crying out loud, I'm kidding about the spray.........I wouldn't of used it unless they actually landed).

I voted.  But I think it would be a better poll if you told me the time of day when I was making this decision.  If it is 1 PM I might make a different decision than at 4:30.  Just a thought.

Agree with Spartan2.  Never have I ever had a person or group leave a campsite for my group when we had a larger group.  However, I've shared a campsite with a small group a couple of times when conditions were bad (windbound, lightning, hypothermia, etc.)

I presumed that making the next site didn't pose any risk other than an extra hour or two of travelling.  One wasn't going to be forced to set-up in the dark or cross open water during a thunderstorm.  That the worst case was asking to share the next site if occupied or set-up on the portage or other less than ideal location for one night.


Move on, take my chances.  Mostly because of the noise that tends to come with groups of 4+ people.  Though there may be other circumstances that make the added security of a group near attractive, kinda rare though.


Ideally I would chat the group up and find out where they intend to camp if the opportunity presents itself.  If they mention the same site I'm bound for, mention that there's a race on.  I've pulled up to sites at the same time as others before with that awkward moment before one group grows a pair and stakes a claim.

In my experience the etiquitte is that if you know there are folks behind you and another site ahead of you, leave them the closer & more appropriate site for their group.  This is mitigated by the solo paddler needing to TCB & if you're out-pacing tandem folks - you rock & they suck.  Solo changes my priorities a little from allocating based on what's appropriate to making sure I'm safe.

One should be prepared to share their site for the night if there aren't *any* other sites that can be gotten to before sundown.  Fault & poor planning be damned when the sun is setting an folks need to make camp.  Something I find is missing from some contemporary trippers.  Often folks behave like they've founded a nation when they make camp.  Back in the day any port in a storm was the norm and the occasional shared firepit respects the people & the land.

first come, first serve, first choice

the choice is yours...so no wrong answer re the group behind you....whatever you choose will be appropriate, because you are there first.

I voted for moving on. However I wouldn't put my personal safety at risk in doing so.

Mostly, I'm with Wally.  First come-first served.  However, I'm rarely ever first-come.  I usually will still be paddling up until 7:00 PM or later before I really start looking for a site.  

No vote for me.  I'd be open to making all three choices depending on my own personal circumstances.  I wouldn't deliberately stiff a group from the only site that would work for them, though, unless it was also the only site that would work for me.

I use a hammock.  Anywhere I can land the canoe (in Quetico) is fair game for my campsite... presuming I can find trees.

Jimbo   8-)

Always move on for me. I'd camp anywhere rather than within earshot of a large group when I'm solo. It's just not the solo experience when you camp near larger groups.

I went with move on, I don't want to be by the big group no matter  what your morals regarding campsite choosing in that situation are.

I'd take the good site.  I paid my money, quite a big chunk of it, so I don't see any reason to move on (andwhat if they didn't take the goodsite after all- then I'd be feeling likeapretty big fool).  If a big group want's to be sure to get that nice big site, they can send one of thier canoes ahead to claim it - get up earlier than I do.  Even more so if I was planning on more than one night at that location.

In part, that's mostly because I tend to travel late, and if I hit camp at between 5 and 7 pm, I'm not at all inclined to give it up for a maybe not taken site at next lake - noisewise, since the sites are within hearing of each other, its gonna be noisy anyway, and I'd be getting mad at myself for giving up a nice site to a noisy group (if it turned out that way, and like someone said, more likely than not a group of 4+ is gonna be noisy.

The one time that happened to me, I got to the site about a half hour or so ahead of the big group, and did move onbecause they askedme forthe site-  which meant me setting up camp in the rain farther down the lake at an only half way decent site.  At that time, it didn't matter much and I was only slightly reluctant (I hadn't pitched my camp yet), but I wouldn't give up a nice windy point in heavy bug conditions - I've shared my sites a few times, too.

But I just don't buy into any theory that says a group of one or two is somehow less deserving of a nice site than a group of 4 or more.

Amen Mad_Mat.  The Boundary Waters seems to have more of a problem, what with the designated campsites only rule.  The only time it's been a problem was when we were camped on Bootleg Lake with another group claiming the only other campsite within miles.  Unfortunately a 3rd group came through at about 6pm.  They never stopped by, but we would have gladly shared our site.  I believe they brush crashed at the portage that night and left in a hurry that morning.

Jimbo wrote on Apr 20^th, 2010 at 12:39am:

I use a hammock.  Anywhere I can land the canoe (in Quetico) is fair game for my campsite... presuming I can find trees. Jimbo   8-)

 I had the same thought. One good thing (among many) is that in the Q you can bushwack anywhere you please.

 Db didn't specify and did say you were going to be there for 2 nights.
IF it was the Q, I'd join Jimbo and hang the tarp/ Byer Mosquito Hammock and find a spot as far away as possible from the group ;)

Mad_Mat wrote on Apr 20^th, 2010 at 1:25pm:

In part, that's mostly because I tend to travel late, and if I hit camp at between 5 and 7 pm

Totally agree with you.  Solo paddler late in the day gets to land wherever is available.

Not sure about the "better site" concept.  Depends on the size of the group.  Comparing a site with one good spot to pitch my shelter vs. a site with 4 good spots to pitch my shelter.  Both have met my need for a good pitch.  Three extra pitch spots that I'm not going to use does not improve the 4 spot site for me and may be a detractor depending on the overall state.  Once I meet one criteria I move on to the next.
1.  Good tent pitch, level, well drained, not in a floodpath.
2.  Appropriate shelter/exposure depending on the season/conditions, breezy if buggy, sheltered if windy/rainy.
3.  Nice view, good sunrise or sunset view, good sky view.
4.  Reasonable bear bag options.
4.  Nice firepit.

Have not done a solo, I presume I'd be inclined to move on.

It depends who my partner is.  Be it Kingfisher, no need even to ask.  I'd have the same mindset and getting to next lake in a reasonable time is not an issue.

Be it my wife, I am already in trouble for not stopping at the last lake.  I grab the best one.  Be it my kids, the bigger group will want to move on (to seek their own solitude), I stay.  

Other scenario with partner, since the plan is for 2 days, there is good reason for going there.  The lake is going to be big enough and except for the minimal time in camp, I can avoid the activity of others. I choose the camp without the front porch.

-YB

Set up camp on the good site with the tent easily visible from the lake, maybe hang some laundry up to dry. Then quickly paddle over to the lesser site and sit on the rocks near shore. When the big group comes by, they will see both sites as occupied and move on to the next lake, leaving you the good site AND peace and quiet.

;D ;D ;D

Just kidding (maybe I'll get flamed again).

I take the good site (on the first come first served basis), and come out ahead if the other group is quiet (there are some like that) or if they weren't planning to stay at that lake anyway, and they move on. If the other group is noisy but move on the next day, then I still have a chance at one quiet night at the lake I planned for.

When I planned my trip, I could see on the map that the first lake had two sites close together, and that I would probably have neighbours for either one or two nights. Knowing there is a big group behind me has changed the odds a bit, but probably not much, and I must have had good reasons for planning to stay two nights on this particular lake in the first place. If solitude was that critical, I wouldn't have planned to stay here at all. So why change the original plans?

WoW Joe! You be da devil. The thought would have never crossed my mind. I like it though. Don't think I could do it myself but I like it a lot. Welcome BTW!

------
FWIW - I never defined the time of day beyond saying the next lake was decent and doable. All next lakes require some effort. One campsite on it means a large group could be noisy and probably not bother anyone. Not that large groups are all noisy.... Let's say it's mid to late afternoon in June. Plenty of daylight left to hit the next lake, set up camp and have a leisurely dinner before going out for the evening.

If the situation were reversed and you were leading the big group, do you think anyone in your group might be be miffed that the solo took the better site? Would there be a discussion about it in your group? And yes you told them which site you hoped might be open and why plus you understood the possibility that both sites might be taken. Heck, You're group may have even been aiming for the next lake all along!

Maybe this is just the Q paddler in me but here's a little different twist on campsite selection etiquette - if there is such a thing. Shouldn't it be obvious to the large group that someone who is solo IS solo because they desire solitude if not quiet? If reasonably possible, and the scenario described is, wouldn't you simply move on so the solo (or ANY other group) could have the area to themselves?

Basically I wouldn't choose a camp within sight and earshot of any other occupied site unless I seriously had to. I'd appreciate the same courtesy and I certainly would never set anchor and fish in front of anyone else's campsite. I at least hope I'm not in the minority with that.

No I would never jerk someone around like that either, and I sure hope nobody else on these boards would seriously consider it. But the way the question was stated sounded sort of like a logic puzzle, so I couldn't resist exploring all the possibilities.

If I were the leader of the big group, I would know in advance that I would have trouble finding big campsites. So I would either stick to big lakes with lots of alternatives or get up very early and make camp early too.

If someone gets to a site before me, it's theirs, period. If it's 1 pm and my prize site is already taken by a solo canoeist, well there are worse things in life than a little extra paddling in Q, aren't there? (ie your hypothetical whiny group member may need some attitude adjustment, but Q is a good place for that)

On the question of etiquette: shouldn't all groups on nonisolated sites try to be as quiet and unobtrusive as possible, regardless of whether the other site is occupied by Greta Garbo or another pack of schmeauxs? Whether the solo paddler wants to be alone, or just wants to paddle alone, or is alone due to other circumstances should have nothing to do with it.

P.S.

Or maybe the solo paddler is an advance scout for another group of four canoes ...

Joe, I'd do it

I don't ever begrudge anyone for taking any campsite regardless of whether or not the site is appropriately sized for their group.  They got there first.  That's all there is to it.  

I try not to camp near others, but if the best available site on the lake I choose to stay at is near another occupied site, so be it.  I pick my nightly destination lakes for a good reason so there's little chance I will move on unless there's simply no choice.

Whether solo or group, I don't travel with noisy people so I don't worry about me or my group disrupting the other at all with noise issues.  

Visually, it is what it is.  My mug is ugly and they'll just have to deal with it as best they can.  When they picked their site close to another campsite, they had to know that it was possible for the other site to get selected.  If having other campers within view offends them, then they did a poor job of campsite selection and that's their problem, not mine.

I'd personnaly choose to move on. (Although I couldn't say that may my choice would be the group consensus) As someone who tends to be the larger group. (The smallest group has been 6) I find that the group will gladly travel how far we need to go that day with no complaints. Once they hear that this lake is the one we intend to camp one, there is a great deal of grumbling if we are forced to push on.

Quote:

db: If the situation were reversed and you were leading the big group, do you think anyone in your group might be be miffed that the solo took the better site? Would there be a discussion about it in your group?

I honestly don't think that there would even be a discussion in our group, particularly if we didn't know anything about the sites in question. Unless we'd been there before, we wouldn't really know how good the site would be, so once seeing it occupied, we'd just move on and see what lies ahead. First come, first served.

Although, I did vote on the poll to move on.

I have talked to other people/groups on portages to get a feel for their plans, if it seems like there may be site "competetion", particularly in the BWCAW where choices are limited. Not to set up a competition, but just to at least get a feel for what we may be up against. For example, we were on the Frost River last June on a very rainy, windy chilly day. There was a tandem ahead of our group of 6, and we asked them early on if they planned on taking the Bologna Lake site, or if they were going farther. They said they were going on, so we at least knew Bologna was an option.

" I certainly would never set anchor and fish in front of anyone else's campsite. I at least hope I'm not in the minority with that. " -DB

I think you may be, at least in the B-dub, where the campsites in some places are on top of each other.  Can't recall how many times I've had canoes just drift past the shoreline in front of my camp while I'm having dinner or just relaxing for the evening. Not even an "oops, we're sorry, we'll fish the other shoreline".  Makes you want to fire a shot across their bow.

I've never considered this to be a moral dilemma, and I still don't. All sites are first-come, first served. The other group(s) should also know that and be prepared for contingencies. If it was storming and I saw a group looking for a site, I would invite them in, and share the tarp & coffee, & a meal if we were preparing one anyway. Then, when the weather clears, I would bid them farewell, as they find their own site.

pigsmoke wrote on Apr 21^st, 2010 at 5:48pm:

Can't recall how many times I've had canoes just drift past the shoreline in front of my camp while I'm having dinner or just relaxing for the evening. Not even an "oops, we're sorry, we'll fish the other shoreline".  Makes you want to fire a shot across their bow.

Careful, we might shoot back!

I'm with Wally on that one.

Hey DB, I want to know what spurred the query, the scenario?

If I was solo and solitude was the gig, I would push on. If it was a lake that I wanted to fish I would stay... If I was in good spirits and the struck me as good souls or had kiddies I would leave the "good site" to them; maybe even make a chocolate cake for them or give a fish. If they were "_________" I would  enjoy the breezy point and proceed to sprawl, and let them talk crap and give me the eye ball and smile back. If the weather was crap or they were in a pickle I'd share, with an open invitation, and cook up a storm; leave the next morning even if it was a lake that I wanted to fish.

The "manners" thing is an interesting idea; a way. I always thought that it was a drag to have to stop so dang early to snag that site that has been on the list for many years; but that is the way of policy and use. PMA's here I come.

marlin55388 wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2010 at 3:47am:

Hey DB, I want to know what spurred the query, the scenario?

What spawned my question was the   (You need to Login or Register. I couldn't understand why someone would plan that route that way. It worked fine but at the same time it didn't make sense to me. Was the reason Laker fishing or a desire to have people close by. Doesn't matter - just not how I would do it as I like to avoid people while hitting nice areas w/ the sort of options I like for layover days.

I don't care who thinks what and some people's answers don't surprise me. ;)  I was just curious if there was some unspoken social norm I missed somewhere along the line. Call it my feeble effort to determine what normal might be. And yes this sample is obviously skewed but at least it'll be an informed and thoughtful point of skew. Hence the ability to re-vote.

Feeble not ;) ;) I think it is a neato dialog, got me thinkin' "who do I want to be"; and I did find the double campsite "posing" humorous in a twisted sort of way. I wouldn't do it, but I thought on it! Thanks for gettin' off the ground DB [smiley=dankk2.gif]

It's a little easiler making a decission on a computer rather than in real life situation.  Here I think I would move on.  I'd avoid the group and go to the next lake.  In real life it would depend on the weather conditions and time of day.

starwatcher.

No question, take the better campsite.  You have no idea what the other group intends.
They may not be planning on stopping.  They may only stop for one night.  They might all be using hammocks.  They may evaluate campsites differently and think the other site is better.

When do we get to see the poll results?

Ummm, now.

I head to Quetico in large part for beauty and solitude.  In making this decision, I would try to figure out how to not be around the big group for the night, including moving on to the next lake.