Quote:


If I'm half that distance away my opinions should have twice the weight, eh?  

We shouldn't have a say is what most of us living south of that line would expect but no. I've talked with the last two supers and the impression I've developed over the years is they really do care what we think. After all, we're the people that use it most so it makes sense. Kinda like American political donations at the moment.

Designated campsites, routes wouldn't really affect anyone's trips and those it might wouldn't much care and the more I think about dots on a map, the less feasible that becomes to designate by. Although I do expect Chrismar to add some dots eventually (such is life) I can't imagine an all out effort to verify and legalize all the dots.

The problem I see with it is one of perception. Right now there's an exterior boundary. It's a sacred sort of a thing. There's places where if you go beyond it you find clear-cut. Within that boundary you can go anywhere you want but telling people where they can and cannot go within that, well - seems a lot of people would have a huge problem with that simply on principle alone.

The aging dam is something to think about. I know Pickerel, Rawn, Batch ... fairly well. A possibly eventual six foot drop? I could live with that but would rather not. before my first trip they had recently banned motors and took a log or two out so the Pickerel river was pretty ugly. Damn ugly, scary ugly. Over the years it's become one of my favorite 20 minute stretches times two. Had my second closest moose sighting ever there this year. Probably twenty feet. We scared each other. The hair on his neck was standing up and he probably heard my heart pound. My cameras were not out since Pickerel was still a little dicey that morning plus I had a schedule to keep but I'll have that picture in my head for the rest of my life. It's filed right alongside the one with the mud banks, scary ugly dead trees and the temporary alder thickets that followed.

A lot depends on wether your vision is short or long term. Short is easy and I see the development of multi use trails and such as short term in this case so I don't think I varied much from the preferred options on those. If I did I erred on the side of caution and restraint.  Having paddled the same stretch of French probably nearly 100 times, I really know nothing about it beyond it's level was lowered to create a beech for the campground once upon a time. If they can increase revenue w/o messing up the thrill I share with others - more power to em.

For what it's worth, I wrote a blog with my thoughts back in September. Here's an opinion of an outfitter just 5 miles from the Quetico Park at Cache Bay.

The Quetico Park is looking for comments regarding their "plan" for the Provincial Park.  Much of the plan centers around the Dawson Trail Campground and surrounding area which doesn't affect us at the southeastern entry point into Quetico.  There is however a part of the plan that deals with fly-in options that does affect us. 

     Guests can fly from Saganaga Lake to the edge of the Quetico Park and paddle back to us through the Park.  We've had groups fly-into Beaverhouse but the majority of our guests fly into Clay Lake.  When low water levels have made travel on the Greenwood River near impossible the Quetico has allowed planes to land in Mack Lake.  This was the case at the beginning of the season but it changed around the first of September when we were confirming travel plans for a group of ours.  We were told planes were no longer allowed to fly into Mack, end of story.

     Our guests wanted to do the route very badly so we had them taken to Ross Lake.  After paddling several hours and traveling across lots of portages(one over a mile in length) they made it into Mack Lake.  Just in time for a float plane to drop down in front of them and let a group of canoeists plunk down into Mack Lake to begin their trip.

     It's confusing to say the least.  It's obvious the Quetico Park needs a plan and one they will stick with.  But I don't understand why just because you can drive to an entry point means you shouldn't be allowed to fly to an entry point?  A fly-in is exciting and it saves time which is very valuable these days.  Is the "plan" to make Americans drive into Canada if they want to access Beaverhouse and Clay Lake?  The folks in Atikokan and outfitters think it's a good idea, well, duh!  Does the Quetico need to force folks to drive into Canada just so they can gain access to the Quetico?  Isn't it enough we already have to use Canadian flight services and pay extra for the camping fees when groups come from the US.

     And if the Quetico Park "plan" isn't what I've stated above and they just want to get rid of planes then why still allow float planes to drop only Canadians into Cache Bay?  Do Canadians make a different noise when they fly or cause less impact than an American?  Why can't they just drive down here and paddle across Sag to get to Cache Bay like everyone else?    

The park would prefer to continue to allow commercial aircraft on Saganaga (Cache Bay) and Basswood Lake, yet only for Canadian residents. The reason being, said Reilly, is that for Canadians the only other option is to enter through the Boundary Waters Canoe Area.

     I'm not sure what would happen to a Canadian if they had to enter through the Boundary Waters but obviously Reilly is concerned.  Is it because Canadians would realize the fees for the BWCA are considerably less than they are for the Quetico Park?   

     I have no clue what kind of a "plan" these people can come up with.  For years the outfitters and businesses have been trying to cut off access to the Quetico Park from the south.  It seems to me pretty soon they won't have to because they are doing such a good job of cutting their own throat that very few people want to access the Quetico from the South anymore.  Will those folks drive to Atikokan to start their trip or will they bypass the Quetico altogether and go to Wabikimi or Algonquin or even worse yet, the Boundary Waters?

     They say they want input and public comment about the "plan."  I encourage you to contact them with any of your concerns or questions.  Maybe you'll get a straight answer and then again maybe not.  We'll just have to wait to hear the "plan."

I always imagine the drive compared to a tow as a wash. North gets cheaper by the day for longer trips like mine though.

I've never understood the animosity I hear about pricing. The southern entries have to cost more to staff and supply....

I certainly don't expect the Canadian people to subsidize my trips.

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.

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.