I'll be working on photos to put into my trip report for a bit before I do the actual write-up.

If you'd like to see some of my shots, you can visit my Trip Photo Journal.

More later.


dd

Here is a partially annotated map of the water covered on this trip.

Finally finished selecting & loading the picture selection for the trip report ... actual trip report to come. I may swap out the "overview map" with tighter section maps because it looks a little cluttered with all the daily routes and places where I caught multiple fish marked.

dd

DD
Can't seem to open the file.

quote PortageKeeper: "DD
Can't seem to open the file."

Hmmmm. Seems to be working for me. Anyone else have a problem with accessing the photos (which are stored in the bwca photo gallery)? (If so, I'll re-located them to an external server.)

dd

Just a note that says "Sorry, no photos where found for this user."
If there were a photo cache, it would show it in your profile as well.

See if it works now ... I didn't have "photo share" checked in my profile. (May still need yet another tweek since the "photo journal" icon still doesn't show.)

dd

The link still doesn't work, but there is now a photo icon in your profile that does.
Great photo's! Didn't realize there were so many picto's in that area. How did the Pakcanoe do on the trip? I see in your other photo's a pic of it with extra(?)cross members. Were they an option?

quote PortageKeeper: "Didn't realize there were so many picto's in that area. How did the Pakcanoe do on the trip? I see in your other photo's a pic of it with extra(?)cross members. Were they an option?"

Actually, I didn't get to all of the picto's. There were 2 more locations further west on Artery that I was going to visit, but ran out of time due to the amount of time it took to do the portages in and out. However, I've been told that they are not very visible. I would have also made a day trip to Murdock that the portages into/out of Larus been passable. (The original trip called for a traverse to Bigshell (with a number of ports that I KNEW would be an issue with deadfall under the circumstances). There is another picto site on the lake just before you reach Bigshell. So, there are quite a number of sites in the park, and very likely more to be found. The park staff is now aware of 2 sites on Donald they didn't know about in 2011.

The Pakcanoe did OK. Not as fast over the water as a Prism, but I expected that. Yet, I was still able to maintain about 3 mph as a typical cruising speed. I did poke a hole in it doing the portage into Artery, which required a patch when I got back to the campsite (another reason I chose not to bushwhack my way to other lakes). The patch was simple enough to do with the included patch kit, but then you have to wait until the adhesive sets up. But a tear, rather than a puncture would be another matter. The hole was in the thinner side wall material ... the bottom withstood me running up on a few rocks with no problem at all.

I bought the Pakcanoe as a 150T (tandem) and then purchased the conversion kit to configure as a 150 (solo). The configuration I ran with on this trip was the 150. The number of thwarts and ribs are the same in each, but the 150 is thinner (with slightly taller sides). So there were no "extra" thwarts added ... just the normal ones that come with either the 150T or 150. BTW: In a close-up shot, the "gold" ribs are from the normal (150T) set-up and the silver ones are for the solo (150) arrangement.

One thing that I continued to marvel about was how easy the heavier (45 lb) Pakcanoe was to hoist overhead than the lighter (34 lb) Prism. All those tubing sections made for a hand hold just where you need one. I did have to "shim-out" my GPS and depth finder mounts using split rings made of 1" PVC pipe so that they fit snuggly on the forward thwart. I may see if I can find a way to add a foot rail ... I did miss having one like in my Prism. Finally, I found (due to the slightly wider layout) that loading/unloading gear was easier with the Pakcanoe. And, you have lash points just about everywhere (with the tubing). I also used a few cable tie loops to add clip-on points.

dd

Here is a picture of the 150 Pakcanoe showing the extra ribs/thwarts for the two models. The canoe came with 2 web seats and mounting hardware that are not shown. (Footnote: It seems to be the same model that Les Stroud used in the "Artic Tundra" episode of his Survivorman series.)

That sounds great. I hope to get there in '14 to check them out. By that time, all the portages should be clear for easier access. I did make an offer to Claire at one point to gather a few bodies to help clear some trails, but they turned us down saying that we'd need to cut through a lot of red tape first. This was before 'snow-down', and I believe that they've loosed the rules a bit now, as I see that regular trippers are clearing with chainsaws on their own and not getting in trouble for it.

I wondered about the upper sidewall durability on the Pakcanoe. As you say, a sharp branch on a portage trail or narrow creek is all it might take leave a hole. All in all though, they seem to have the market on packable fly-in canoes. I can't justify getting one at this time, but who knows, all it might take is an itch to get into an area that has no other access, (and a lot of pleading with my wife) and I'll be on my way to another unmapped lake. I personally would be strapped between the 165 and the 170 tandem. The 165 must paddle more efficiently, being narrower. I'll have to do some more research before taking the plunge.

For this year's trip, it was a desirable option since both my paddling partner and I enjoy paddling solo. So without a packable canoe, we'd have been looking at taking 2 float planes in to get our gear in. After breakfast, we each tend to go our own way and meet-up again at dinner.

The only reason I went with the 150 is the reduced weight of this boat along with its ample load carrying capacity. So, if I do another fly-in trip, I'm sure I'll be taking it again. It is also easy to transport, so when I journey to other location, it is a nice option if I think I can get some paddling time in.

dd

quote PortageKeeper: "By that time, all the portages should be clear for easier access"

except that new blow downs will occur
it is a never ending process

quote ZaraSp00k: "

quote PortageKeeper: "By that time, all the portages should be clear for easier access"

except that new blow downs will occur
it is a never ending process"

Since I've made a few trips to WCPP, let me attempt to explain. In 2011, I entered the park from Manitoba via the Garner Lake EP. When I entered, the section from Garner Lake to Haggart Lake hadn't seen a portage crew in 6 years. Yes, there were blow downs to negotiate and occasionally it took a bit of searching to find the beginning of a portage, but once you found the trail you could follow it.

What I experienced this year was not blow downs. It was trail obliteration. I've also exchanged several PM's with "Marten" who was on the team doing some early portage clearing. He mentioned that after he went thru some sections with a chain saw there were 8 foot tall wind rows on each side of the trail. He labeled sections like this prior to clearing as "impassable."

So, if you are headed into WCPP this season especially ... good idea to check with the park staff to see which routes have been cleared and are open.

dd

Video of the first hour of the trip.

Enjoy! More later

dd