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.

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

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.