I realize this can be a very subjective topic but, what criteria do you use when determining how difficult a portage is when commenting about, or rating, said trail?

For example, when I rate a portage and give it a 7, I'm saying it's more difficult thanat least 60% of the maintained portages in the BWCAW. I ONLY base the rating on comparison to other portages in the BWCAW.

I've read where some have rated the Missing Link - Tuscarora portage as only a 3. To me that's saying that approximately 70% of the portages are more difficult. But, the million dollar question is, "compared to what other areas?" If comparing BW & Q portages to some that BEAV did on his Alaskan adventure, they would all barely scratch the surface of a 1. :)

Of course everyone is free to do as they please. And this is just my opinion, but when commenting on portages in the BW; I base the ratings only against other BW portages. Although I could rationalize adding Quetico to that equation. I think that would give a clearer picture.

Another question to ponder...What would you prefer, one long portage or several short ones with minimal paddling in between? I'd rather do the long one.

I realize that if I want to get to a certain lake I'll need to do certain portages. So, in one sense, i just gotta do em regardless of what potential difficulties they may possess, if I want to accomplish getting there. But, for me, it's a fun part of the planning to get other people's thoughts on potential routes and having a clearer picture of what they base their comments on.

One long/hard portage because it tends to weed the people out.

I'll bite
#1 - Was that a portage or a beaver dam?
#2.5 - That was a nice little portage.
#5 - Now that got my attention!!
#7.5 - Who the heck picked this route?
#10 - I will never take that portage again!!
My preference is longer paddles and longer portages. It takes a lot of time to unload and load even if your efficient. And you might have other parties to consider.

As the difficulty of a portage is subjective to the user in question I simply keep track of how many times I swear out loud on a portage and that is the number I use in my rating.

Can't coment about portage ratings.

I will comment that I like longer portages and paddles, than little hops here and there.
Portages of 160+ rods are nothing to me after doing a few in Ak that were ~500 rods

Doing a percentage method would require knowledge of pretty much every portage in the rating area to be accurate. If this information could be compiled and rated somewhat accurately, it would be a good reference.

FullGo: "Doing a percentage method would require knowledge of pretty much every portage in the rating area to be accurate. If this information could be compiled and rated somewhat accurately, it would be a good reference. "

I understand no one has done every portage, so a 100% accurate assesment is not the goal. But, even those who have only done a few trips will have a rudimentary understanding of different ratings.

The inquiry isn't meant to call anyone out or say their opinion is wrong. Just, as stated, understand what they use a criteria to say a BWCAW portage is easy, difficult or somewhere in between.

LindenTree3: "Can't coment about portage ratings.


I will comment that I like longer portages and paddles, than little hops here and there.
Portages of 160+ rods are nothing to me after doing a few in Ak that were ~500 rods "

I'll keep that in mind when I see one if your ratings.

Captn Tony: "

LindenTree3: "Can't coment about portage ratings.



I will comment that I like longer portages and paddles, than little hops here and there.
Portages of 160+ rods are nothing to me after doing a few in Ak that were ~500 rods "

I'll keep that in mind when I see one if your ratings."

This illustrates the point of what criteria is used.

I'm not saying everyone (or anyone) who ever comments/rates a portage needs to do this before doing so. I just think it would be interesting to get 'somewhat' of a pulse of how people base their opinions...hence the OP.

Thank you LindenTree3.

There's portage ratings? I never noticed. And after looking at campsite ratings and being surprised and dismayed, I'm unlikely to look at portage ratings. Pretty much the only campsite ratings I've looked at and agreed with were yours, TB.

Captn Tony: "

LindenTree3: "Can't coment about portage ratings.



I will comment that I like longer portages and paddles, than little hops here and there.
Portages of 160+ rods are nothing to me after doing a few in Ak that were ~500 rods "

I'll keep that in mind when I see one if your ratings."

I've got one out there allready, the portage on the Island River upstream of the RR crossinging on the Tomahawk rd into Isabella Lk.

Granted the 500 rod portages in Ak were mostly flat compared to the BW.
I always soloed and only had to worry about being Grizzly bear bait. :-)

I find portage ratings helpful even though I realize they are subjective. The comments alone are worth the read. Some that I perused for the Missing to Tusk portage were hilarious --- less so when I actually had to carry that one for the first time. I like Capt Tony's ratings -- mostly because they echo my sentiments on portages.

I guess a number and comments are the most helpful in the long run. A "7" could be fine for me if it's flat, but if it's also muddy swamp then I'd probably rate it more of 10 for difficulty. Like many others here I'm sure, I've been on 20 rod portages that climb straight up and have you bouldering the entire time (I'm looking at you Fourtown portages) and I've had 160 rodders that are a piece of cake. (Sandpit to Tin Can Mike for example).

I take into consideration the quality and ease of both landings, the amount of time going up or down hills, obstacles like mud and boulders, standing water, marshy areas where mosquitoes like to breed and hangout, the # of canoes/paddlers that the landings can accommodate at once, how easy/hard it is to find, and of course length..

The hills, length, and landings are each about 30% of my score, everything else makes up about 10%. I base it on overall difficulty and don't tend to compare it to others. I will take a long flat portage over a medium long hilly one. I'll take several small portages (flat or hilly) over a medium long hilly one. I don't like hills, they kill me. If I can get a break along the trail, I tend to do better.

Some portages are mostly downhill or uphill. Your rating will depend on your direction of travel.

FullGo: "Doing a percentage method would require knowledge of pretty much every portage in the rating area to be accurate. If this information could be compiled and rated somewhat accurately, it would be a good reference. "

Just eliminate the artificial limit of 1-10 and you can evaluate each portage without ever seeing the rest. For example: a 100 rod portage with significant elevation change, good footing the whole way, and easy to follow could be a 3. The same portage extended to 200 rods is a 6, and 300 rods is a 9.

A portage in AK may end up a 44. That seems fine, as it's much longer and more difficult than the 3 in the BWCA.

Maybe rate the portage in 100 rod chunks and sum up the sections for a total, taking into account travel direction and any sections that are significantly up/down hill.

I use the ratings all the time. i use a couple of methods.
Method 1. Pick out a couple of portages you have done and and pick out a couple of raters then compare their ratings to yours. So if you thought it was a 5 and they rated it a 5 then you know you're at similar pain levels.
The lazy way is to just average the ratings.

It is just such a subjective rating system it is really tough. I use captaintony’s system if I even look any more.

I know on an early trip we went to Quetico in low water conditions, had only done BWCA portages before, I rated the route from Ted to Gardner as difficult. We had to slog through mud to get tot the portage, had to do a lot of searching for portages. Then about 3 years later did the exact same route and I would rate it easy peezy, high water no mud, portages easy to find. My rating changed based on experience and weather conditions.

How about if you do a portage early on before you get into your groove vs. later? I know for me portages are always easier on day 5 and beyond or on the way out.

T

I think it makes sense to use TB's 'comparison method'...

If a portage is tougher under normal conditions than 80% of all other portages that the user has knowledge of, then it should get a 9. If it's easier than 80%, then it should get a 1.
An average portage should be a 4, 5, or 6.
We all have biases, but the 'comparison method' seems to minimize biases.

Lets put age into the equation too. The portage that was an 8 when I was 25 and new at portaging was only a 4 when I was 35 having had much more practice. Now at 65, that same portage is climbing nearer to 7 as my legs just don't have that same spring to them and I dread the day when, because of my age, that same portage goes off the scale because I simply cannot make it.

I always thought the Misquah to Little Trout portage was the toughest I had done. I still do actually. When I did it on a day trip to Little Trout from Ram it wasn’t that bad. That was twice in one day but a single trip each time with a solo canoe and fishing equipment. One small day pack. I was rested and it was a piece of cake. Also I knew what to expect. The first time I did it was a double portage and at the end of my first BW portaging experience, which was a pretty rugged trip. That was much tougher. Didn’t have as much energy left in the tank. I would have given it a 10 on my first trip and maybe a 7 on the second trip.

TB, great thought provoking posting.
Portaging is as much mental as it is physical achievement. Portages are significant part of canoe trips in BWCA for me. Rating depends greatly on your expectations before embarking on a portage.
My ratings would emphasize the length versus the elevation gain. Hence the subjective approach. i am small framed canoeist. No Hercules. Sprinting is my game versus distance running. The long ones take more out of me than shorter but rugged ones.
I agree with you with % comparison of the lake connecting carries.
Simple definition of portages I would use is: easy, moderate and difficult; regardless the length and terrain challenges.
Why don't we play a little "waiting time for canoeing" game?
TB, you select a portage and interested members would chime in and write down their analysis of each portage. You moderate the conversation and dictate when we all move on to next one.
That would give you reference of how everyone perceives portaging.

It's definitely subjective. Sometimes it's better not to know :)

TB - I think your approach is the right way. They really should be rated relative to other BWCA portages. Which would result in an equal distribution of all numbers. As it is, the vast majority of portages sit at a 2-3.

I think most people honestly rate them relative to their own physical limitations, or lack thereof. Basically, if it didn't kill them, many guys around here won't rate it any higher than a 5 or 6. It's actually kind of a macho thing I think...posting that 8, 9 or 10 means you are admitting it gave you trouble...and people don't want to admit that.

I remember at the end of the Temperance loop there was a 200 rod or so portage from the Smoke/Fire area back to Sawbill that I was stresssing over for some reason. The length of it actually. When we did it, it was a piece of cake, totally flat and we flew through it, passing another group of guys even. My expectation was an 8, when in reality I would give it a 5. Sometimes expecting the worst can lead to a pleasant surprise.

I think much has to do with conditions..........Is it really hot out? Has it been raining a lot? Did the Memory Lane and Death March portages in the Quetico and seen them as a "nice walk in the woods". But if it had been hot or very wet it may of been another story.

The infamous Knox Bog Trot (WCPP) going in was not so tough and I wondered what all the hoopla was about. But 3 weeks later after 2 days of rain I discovered it was "the real deal" and had quite a time getting through.

And sometimes it can be as simple as your state of mind or physical condition at the time. What is tough one day is much easier on another. Nothing wrong with rating them. It doesn’t hurt to know what you’re up against. I’ve never seen them rated before. Is that on here somewhere?

Yes, I would be rating it in comparison to other BW portages. The guidebooks seem to just base it on length, which isn't realistic. The Crab Lake portage is over a mile long, but is so easy compared to some much shorter ones like Muskeg-Kiskadinna, Flying-Green, etc. Things that make one tough are steep sections, bad footing - rocky, muddy, and awkward landings. Some steep ones are tougher one direction than the other, like Tuscarora-Missing Link, or especially Fente-Hub.

All other things being equal, I'd prefer one long portage to several smaller ones. One 200-rod portage is easier than five 40-rod portages since you only deal with lifting once instead of multiple times, and only deal with one landing vs. five.

Like you, TB, I pretty much do whatever ones I have to in order to go where I want.

I do agree with whoever said that the comments are more useful than the rating number.

You could look at a map for the length, topography, and probable swampiness and get a pretty good idea. I tend to ignore the personal ratings (unless, of course, everyone is giving it a 10...) There's another paddling site around here that attaches a "hilliness" index to each portage (along with an elevation graph). Not exactly sure what the formula is, but that helps somewhat. Boiling it down to a single number 1-10 is pretty meaningless.

If it's on the route, you go. The experience will tell you whether you ever go back...

treehorn: "TB - I think your approach is the right way. They really should be rated relative to other BWCA portages. Which would result in an equal distribution of all numbers. As it is, the vast majority of portages sit at a 2-3.


I think most people honestly rate them relative to their own physical limitations, or lack thereof. Basically, if it didn't kill them, many guys around here won't rate it any higher than a 5 or 6. It's actually kind of a macho thing I think...posting that 8, 9 or 10 means you are admitting it gave you trouble...and people don't want to admit that."

This is pretty much what I think too.

Personally, I like to remove length from the equation somewhat. The length is already given so I don't need people to tell me that it is hard only because it is long, what I want to know is how rough the trail is, if it is rocky, muddy, hilly, or how good the landing is. Personally I think the rating system would benefit if we split this all up. Rather than overall difficulty, it would tell us more if we could rate how the trail rates in individual categories. So if the muddiness is sometimes a 1 and sometimes a 9 then that tells us something, same for knowing how steep it can be.

This type of system could also be helpful for people with bad hips, backs or knees. These people would be very interested in a particular rating or 2 and not worry so much about the others. I just think that people want an understanding of what to expect and the current ratings leaves a lot of information out.

A1t2o - That pretty much hits it on the head. But, of course, it begins to wander into Too Much Information territory, and folks will criticize spoiling the serendipity.

I think it was already mentioned, but a photo is a great thing as well. It's a luxury and I don't post them up but I greatly appreciate when others do. The hill index that was mentioned
has also been a great help in judging my route options.

I rate them based on how much I had to exert myself. On a 1-5 rating I use the following definitions.

1 - Means it was quick and easy and it was nothing more than a chance to stretch my legs.

2 - Means it was rather enjoyable and had a brief section that required a bit of effort.

3 - Means it was a good workout but I was capable of more.

4 - Means I'm sweating and tired and need a quick break before pushing on

5 - Means I'm exhausted and never want to do that portage again.

So far I've never encountered a 5, I've been through plenty of 4's but I've never met a portage that I would think twice about doing again.

I've found portages are more mental than physical. Sure they can be long and tiring and physically demanding but your mental attitude tends to mean more than physical stamina. If you dwell on the difficulty it will feel harder, if you focus on the challenge and the accomplishment it will feel easier and at the end your perspective looking back will be much different.

A couple years ago on a trip from the number lakes to Insula, while walking past the rock wall a bat flew into my canoe and proceeded to fly back and forth across my face, on a one to 10 I would have rated it a 46 when I went back last year it was only a five, would these even count?

Thanks to everyone for the comments & insights.

schweady: "A1t2o - That pretty much hits it on the head. But, of course, it begins to wander into Too Much Information territory, and folks will criticize spoiling the serendipity.
"

I know what you mean, but its not like the portage ratings are really obvious so too much information is only if you go looking for it. I just want to be able to plan ahead without putting ourselves into marathon days or asking for everyone's opinion for every route option during a planning phase. Looking at topography maps gets tedious too without giving much for details. I also think that us needing this conversation to explain what the current ratings mean, says that the current system is quite vague.

Sometimes there is just something about a portage that raises the anxiety level as we approach it. Like many of the people on this thread a look forward to doing a long and difficult portage as it tends to provide me with more solitude once on the other side. Many of the portages that others consider difficult I could do in my sleep (like Horse portage....365 rods of walking on flat level ground!). There are other short portages that kick my tail evertime. To me the worst portage in the BWCA or the Quetico is the portage from Cypress (I think) to Esther......It is all uphill and when I think I can't take another step for the tenth time, I put the canoe down and the lake is literally 25' from me....