The recent threads about the Best/Worst campsites in the BW has gotten me thinking about my campsite selection philosophy.

My first several trips into the BW were "flying blind" about campsite ratings. We planned the trip and arrived on our target lakes and started looking for a campsite. We would take the first site that met our meager criteria for a campsite: Good bear hanging trees and at least one decent tent pad.

Then, through my BWJ subscription, I started to become aware of the rating system for campsites. I still didn't use those a whole lot but, if they were in a recent issue, I might jot a couple notes on a lake or two on my route . When I became a member here and campsite ratings were only a click away, I began researching my entire route. The other thing that happened was an acquisition of a blue barrel for food. I became a little less worried about bear hang and started to "upgrade" my campsites. As I did this I found several other trends:

1. The campsites were more "worn" than I remember from earlier campsites. e.g. less duff-more dirt, more trash in and around the campsite, less desirable latrine areas (placement, cleanliness, etc.), more bowl shaped tent pads, etc.

2. More traffic past the campsite as others look there first for their campsite.

3. Less firewood availability from anywhere nearby the campsite.

4. More LNT violations in and around the campsite. e.g. green cut wood, trenches around the tent pads, food in the water at the canoe put in, etc.

It is becoming clear that the availability of "campsite ratings" is having the effect of concentrating visitor traffic through a smaller percentage of campsites in the BW.

It may be that in the time before these ratings availability that outfitters would serve the same function by recommending certain campsites to their customers, but, I would guess that the percentage of people entering with that info was a lot less than people with campsite scouting info now.

Given these things, I may begin targeting more 2 and 3 star campsites. I usually do not travel with large groups. So tent pad numbers is not a factor. Although when I travel with 3-4 people, my 5 person tent sometimes is a tight fit. My blue barrel still provides me with more bear avoidance options so bear hang is still less of a factor. I would expect more solitude as people continue to target the 4-5 star sites. I would expect to find sites that are far less "used" (More duff, less trash, more firewood available, etc.)

Do you research sites before hand? What are your site selection criteria? Which sites do you target? Is your experience with the 4-5 star sites the same as mine? How is our site selection choices evolving (if at all)?

Campsite ratings are merely entertainment for me like pretty much any form of user review in the history of user reviews. Most people don't have enough experience, vocabulary, or critical thinking to provide a good, useful review. I enjoy reading people's reviews, but I don't take them very seriously. I don't visit the BWCA expecting perfection, and I don't try to find it.

My campsite selections are determined more by either what part of the park I want to basecamp in (which is generally determined by a desire to position myself for day-tripping) or where I am around the time I want to stop and set-up camp that day. From there, my choices are refined most by what sites are not already taken. At that point I'll generally take the nearest site that isn't useless. Heck, if it is trashed by previous visitors, that usually attracts me instead of repels me because I find myself eager to clean it up and fix the damage they caused.

The only times I've really *used* campsite reviews is when preparing for a trip with a larger group. I want to get some idea of what sites may be too small for my larger group and what sites are more likely to more easily accommodate a larger group. That info is usually a little more reliable because how much space and tent pads is generally a less subjective evaluation for people to make.

When I go solo in the Q I can stay almost anywhere with my hammock and stove. When I basecamp with my wife I usually know the area already.

I'm with mschi772. I read them but my criteria is so low. I prefer somewhat of easy landing and enough space for two tent pads. If I am on a lake where others are going to be I usually try to aim for ones that are more tucked away so I never encounter them.

Your observation though. I believe that the bwca has just increased in popularity in the last 10 years which leads to all the problems you have mentioned. I see a lot more of it too but I also know where people don't go so I can avoid it. Only time I see it nowadays is when I go to new areas which happen to be areas that are more popular.

I look at the ratings, but as much to eliminate as to target a site. The ratings are so variable - is it really a 2 or is it a 4? Many are also quite old and not really reliable.

My needs are not great, especially solo - one good, small tent pad. No bear scat. I don't hang. I usually just take a look to see and if it's just OK, it's OK;)

I like elevated sites, I like granite outcrop, sand beach is neither a plus or minus, the fire area is no real draw. I think I've stayed on sites rated from 1 through 5. I even stayed on the one on the Kawishiwi River that TB listed in the worst sites thread. It was average for me; certainly not the worst I've stayed on.

I often don't use the highly rated ones that are overused and choose instead a smaller, less used one.

Even way back in 2006 when I stayed at the peninsula site on Oyster, it was overused and I pitched my tent up on top instead of down in the trees.

Campsites are all different in every way. So you need to pick your campsites on your group members needs and goals. That is how many people do you have, 1-9 is a huge difference. What are your groups sleeping arrangements, one big tent, two tents, three tents, four tents, hammocks out in the woods. Is it a blow down area and your group needs trees for hammocks. Does your group want good fishing nearby? What about having a nice cooking area, is that important to your group. Are you tripping with kids and want a swimming area? You need to identify your groups needs and then look online here on campsite reviews. One trip for example, I was in a group of 8 guys and our needs are 4 tents, and three hammocks, great walleye fishing, possibly go on day fishing trips to other lakes, lots of firewood because we cooked over the fire. I needed to find big open campsites on lakes that held walleye with other good fishing lakes nearby. Then look at the map section and see how many campsites on a lake can meet your requirements.

I'd agree with others that the campsite ratings have much less of an impact than the used to for me. I am almost always in a hammock now, so tent pad numbers don't matter and I have extras to keep others off the ground if they prefer.

The main thing I'm looking for now is a campsite with a sunset view, which more often than not also results in a nice breeze during the day. I'm sure I've stayed at 1's that I thought were 5's as well as the opposite.

The basic common sense of finding solace in a 1 or 2 campsite lake or looking for a site far away from portages or away from low lying areas are all things I now naturally consider, but depending on the time of year, some of those things matter much less than others.

Going solo with hammock and stove I am much like AmarilloJim, about anywhere will work. I do enjoy the reviews mostly looking for photos and not so much the ratings. Actual criteria are situational...in an autumn trip I will seek a north facing site hoping to catch northern lights, summer if travelling facing east will allow some of the dew to evaporate while I enjoy a sunrise coffee, but if basing I sleep in so want the west and sunset. Open sites when there are bugs and sheltered sites when weather radio indicates a storm. You get the idea...and when I get there I hang where I can...it's all good.

I look at the campsite rating and will even write them on my maps. I might use them to target an area to stay in when planning, In practice I have found that I will take the first open site when I am ready to get off the water for the day. I am not too picky about sights. It may be different if I base camped for several days.

I try to travel in less-used parts of the BWCA, on move-every-day expedition-type trips, and just take an available site when I feel like stopping for the day. I always scope out the site before unloading my canoe, but can think of only two times I rejected the first site I pulled the canoe up to. Different people have different expectations; for me, I want a relatively flat place to set up a small tent. If it has a convenient place to fix dinner and breakfast, so much the better. I don't care about "five-star" sites.

We all have different trip goals, and I understand the site matters way more to base campers. Even then though, flexibility is key. I honestly can't imagine traveling with a fixation on a specific site - what if it's taken? What if the people who claimed it to be a gem had different goals than you? What if the last person to use the site trashed it?

Good landing, not one where I have do be a gymnast to get in and out of canoe. A flat spot for a tent, not in a depression. A decent, clean thunder box and decent trail leading to it. Clear of widow-makers. A safe spot to take shelter in a bad storm. Trees to tie off tarps. I'm simple.

When I'm ready to stop,I find a site, and make the most of

Blatz: "When I'm ready to stop,I find a site, and make the most of"

Exactly. Most of our canoe-tripping days occurred before there was such a thing as "ratings" for campsites. I don't read them, and when we were tripping we would just look for the place where there was a dot on the map, and one or both of us would go up and look around to see what a site offered.

To me, that was the fun part of it--the adventure. I didn't want to know what someone else thought of a site before I saw it. We stayed in some less-than-ideal sites and made them work, and we also enjoyed some beauties.

I have yet to find a site that didn't work for me, but as a solo hammock camper it's not hard to meet my needs. I usually target the lower star sites because they will have what I need, and see a lot less traffic than the higher star sites.

I pay zero attention to reviews. All sites are pretty good, some sites that people hate in the summer are amazing for shoulder season camping. I haven’t met a campsite that I would complain about in my 20+ trips. I would say that I prefer island sites, but the only reason for that is that I love to walk around the shoreline to fish and explore.

Tony

I read campsite ratings prior to a trip, and just any old time, mainly cuz I just want to read more about the place I love. With an upcoming trip I read with more interest, not so much to pick a campsite but perhaps to identify a site to avoid unless it is a last resort. Perhaps I am lucky, but in all my trips I have only found a campsite trashed one time and that was a mid May trip on Lake One and I suspect the perps were winter campers. Honestly, rarely do I find much in the way of anti LNT stuff.

My buddy and I both agree but many folks' 2 and 3 star campsites work out great for us and would garner at least a 4 star rating from us. We are both photographers so the exposure to either sunset or sunrise is important and if it has both the rating goes up. As much as I love to fish we don't ever seem to do it that much so if a site has good shorefishing opportunities that's at least an extra star. We both use small tents and can pretty much always find a place to set them up so tent pads aren't usually an issue. We also use Bear Vaults for the last several years so a hanging tree is no longer a concern. And finally, after 40 some trips I don't think I have ever stayed at a campsite where we haven't been able to find enough wood for the nightly fires that we have. There's pretty much always wood out there.

We have a trip planned for mid May to Duncan Lake for some first ever Lake Trout fishing and viewing of Rose Falls and the views from the BRT. I have checked out all the sites and it seems that there are two we would rather avoid, two that seem awesome, and 3 that would likely work fine. Wherever we end up I have no doubt that the trip will be a good one.

Ron Swanson: "Campsite ratings are merely entertainment for me like pretty much any form of user review in the history of user reviews. Most people don't have enough experience, vocabulary, or critical thinking to provide a good, useful review. I enjoy reading people's reviews, but I don't take them very seriously. I don't visit the BWCA expecting perfection, and I don't try to find it."

I'm usually only interested in campsite reviews if I'm taking in a large group with young people and want to be aware of the sites on a lake that are likely to accomodate 3 tents. Most often, I'm hammock camping or only need 1 tent site and almost any site will do. As others have said, I've rarely come across a site that was not generally a decent site. I've stayed on many 1-2 star sites that were great as far as I was concerned. Just didn't suit certain peoples sensibilities or priorities which vary from camper to camper.

For us, a site's suitability is all based just two things. First, if we're staying just one night, we're not as picky. Multiple nights or base camping, we'll be more selective.

Second, all sights are more attractive the later in the day it gets. I don't want to be setting up camp at 7:00 p.m. if I don't have to. I'd rather have camp set up by mid-afternoon leaving time to fish, explore, etc....

The observation of people trending towards 4-5 star sites...I think you're 100% right. I think the ratings see alot more views than we'd ever think.

I saw the same thing years ago with a number of my favorite brookie spots as DNR information became more readily available, worn paths were developed, garbage showed up and the brookies got fished out.

CCBBSpeckled: "The observation of people trending towards 4-5 star sites...I think you're 100% right. I think the ratings see alot more views than we'd ever think.


I saw the same thing years ago with a number of my favorite brookie spots as DNR information became more readily available, worn paths were developed, garbage showed up and the brookies got fished out.


"

Really think this is it huh. Well maybe I need to target worse campsites lol.

It's always nice to have a site with no LNT violations, and a friendly landing never hurts. Like others, my ideal varies on the group I am with. If it is a family trip, I'm looking to accommodate a 9x9 Mid, whereas if solo or with my regular tripping partner, I'm looking for ideal hammock trees. Some sites would handle both, while others definitely favor one or the other.

Time of year plays into it, too. Shoulder seasons, I prefer a little more coverage and weather protection, but summer finds me looking for more open or exposed sites with a good breeze to keep the bugs away.

As has been mentioned, site ratings are very subjective, and one size does not fit all.

Campsite reviews are helpful when traveling with my whole family, cousin and niece. Knowing that there is a decent amount of space is really helpful, saves the pain of paddling all around the lake if we know there are ones we DONT want, and since in that large group we tend to basecamp, we want to find a good one where we will park it for five days.

However, last year, pulled up to a campsite which will not be named, was listed as a 2 star on here, and it was our favorite spot of the 16 day trip with just four of us. I'm happy it has a low rating, as we hope to hit it up again this summer. Taking two trips this summer - the first one with just my son, we will be much less picky as we will also be in hammocks. If my dad comes along, it would be nice to know if there are easy landings for him as he has difficulties walking.

Also had an experience last year in a full-out race to make the "good sites" on Tiger Bay (we heard the other group talking on the portage), most were taken but we got one after leaving the pack that was racing to hit a 3 star and we loved it. When with a group, or with some special needs, knowing and researching campsites helps...at least that's what I tell myself while the white stuff is still on the ground. I just take them more with a grain of salt now.

2 years ago we chose a '5 star' site on Beartrack Lake without first looking at the other options on the lake. Then on the way out we passed by a much better campsite that had no reviews. Since then I have not trusted the ratings that I see online.

Our group of 5 always tries to stay on islands. We like the feel of being on an island and it makes us feel more protected from animals paying us a visit in the middle of the night. (Yes I know bears can swim)

I enjoy reading reviews and have contributed some. I mostly do it because I love to read and day dream about the boundary waters. I also like to look at Google Earth to get a feel for the area.

Some things I look for in a site:
- Western facing. Sunsets are one of my favorite parts
- Rock point or open space
- Access to swimming. You can usually make it work if really want to swim
- Trees. No burn

Bonus:
- Trails to explore. Something you'll never know until you get there

johndku: "For us, a site's suitability is all based just two things. First, if we're staying just one night, we're not as picky. Multiple nights or base camping, we'll be more selective.

Second, all sights are more attractive the later in the day it gets. I don't want to be setting up camp at 7:00 p.m. if I don't have to. I'd rather have camp set up by mid-afternoon leaving time to fish, explore, etc...."

Well said. The reviews on this website are helpful, especially if there are pictures of the landing and tent pads. However, unless there is something glaring in the photos, we take the reviews with a grain of salt. So many other factors (personal preference, weather, fatigue, beginning vs. end of the trip) can influence everyone's opinion of a campsite.

One thing I've learned - there is no such thing as a "perfect" campsite...but every one of them is worth spending time at!

Aldy1: "... I mostly do it because I love to read and day dream about the boundary waters...

"

Ahhhh...AMEN!

Since fishing is my main objective, and I’m pretty much a base camper, my criteria is to be in close proximity to where I am going to concentrate most of my fishing time. I do prefer island sites, but not a deal breaker if there is not one. Another must is finding a spot that no matter how much wind there is, I will be able to get to a fishable location.

Since I generally go with a larger group (6) and we generally basecamp for 3-4 nights, having a nice campsite is pretty important. We do end up spending a lot of time in camp just bs'ing and that is always more fun if you've got some space and a great view. And we need spots for at least three tents.

That said, the reviews are more to eliminate sites that are obviously not going to work. And to choose a general area/lake we want to hit. If I see a bunch of highly rated sites clustered somewhere, that is going to be on my radar. If some other lake has three sites that all sound pretty shabby, we probably won't target it.

It's not always the main factor in choosing our destination, but it is one of them.