Amazing portage maintenance—bog bridges, causeways, and wide, weed-trimmed corridors. I never had to do a three-point turn with the canoe, and only remember stepping over a couple small trees/limbs that had come down since the latest portage work.

Algonquin has dirt—we never used a rock tie-out instead of a tent stake.

Portages are generally longer than Quetico's.

Lots of visitors in the park—we've gone eight days in Quetico only seeing 2 other people, but typically saw 20 or more people per day in Algonquin.

Many signs of the park's logging, farming, railroad, and commercial history are still visible. We paddled under abandoned railroad corridor several times, and passed cottages that are still used as summer get-aways by people leasing them from the Ontario government.

While Quetico permit applications list only an entry lake, Algonquin permits require the applicant to list each night's lake. Because we knew so little about the park, we planned shorter days than we usually paddle in Quetico. I prefer the Quetico system, but understand that Algonquin's higher visitation requires their additional restrictions.

Because we could drive to our put-in lake (Kioshkokwi), we designed a “bow tie” route that brought us back to the lake on Day 5. This strategy let us carry only half our food & fuel at the trip start, and lightened our single-walk portage loads—NICE! On Day 5, after setting up camp, we paddled to the put-in, dropped off some useless weight (saw, excess snacks, empty fuel canister, etc), and picked up our remaining food & fuel. We may be able to do this from a couple Quetico entry points. Has anyone tried a resupply via one of the tow operators?

Portages and campsites are clearly marked with 12”x18” brightly-colored signs. Being able to spot campsites from a couple hundred yards away was nice, but Tia maintains that marking the portages was “robbing us of adventure”!! We've had several adventures in Quetico on what we thought was a portage trail but wasn't.

Many Algonquin lakes allow motors. I don't like the noise or smell, and was surprised by the number of interior lakes that had motors on them.

The park has an interior road system (generally not on the maps and not open to the public) that allows maintenance and emergency access.

We saw less wildlife than in Quetico. No moose or bear, fewer eagles, otters and beaver.

Campsites have a fire ring and benches. Many users bring grills and leave them. Grills left in campsites may be small commercial grills, old refrigerator shelves, or big homemade units. We looked at a planning site that rated Algonquin's campsites as 1-5 stars, and we marked some of the “nicer” sites on our map. After visiting a couple the five-star sites, we now believe the stars were awarded by the number of grills left, not the overall features of the site.

Saw MANY beautiful Swift canoes. Did not see a single bent-shaft paddle or Duluth pack.

When we're too feeble to paddle and portage Quetico, Algonquin might still be an option!

Someone let Kenny (or Kathy) Campcraft loose in the park. While I appreciate the park crews' bench and fire circle efforts, the crude attempts at lashing tables, etc, as well as nails and spikes in many trees detracts from the park's beauty.

Saw lots of cheap blue tarps. Wouldn't a lighter dining fly go better with your Swift?

We decided we kinda like pit toilets vs the Quetico cat-hole option—easier on the legs and we weren't seeing any toilet paper bits dug up by critters.