My wife and I are planning our first trip to Quetico this summer. We have done the Boundary Waters in the past and used both McKenzie and Fisher maps. What maps does anyone use? Pro/Cons of one or the other? Since there are no established campsites in the Quetico does either map show them?

I prefer Fisher maps, mainly for the blue/yellow color contrast. It’s easier for me to read in all types of light. Though you can camp almost anywhere, there are marked campsites, which nearly everyone uses. The reason being that tent pads usually exist and there usually is some kind of fire ring made out of rocks, plus there may also be large logs near the fire ring for seating. Not only is it more convenient since you kind of know what you’re getting, it reduces impact by keeping it to these sites.

I typically use a combination of Fisher and McKenzie maps for navigating on Quetico trips, and also take along the Chrismar Adventure Map that covers the whole park. I find the Chrismar map too small for general navigation but use it to confirm portage locations because some of those on the Fisher and McKenzie maps are off a bit.

Like AluminumBarge I find the blue/yellow contrast of the Fisher maps easier to read. In addition, their smaller scale usually means I can take fewer maps. The downside is that they don’t include any topographical lines for land in Canada. McKenzie maps covering Quetico do have topo lines but they’re less detailed than their BWCA maps.

Both Fisher and McKenzie include red dots marking the locations of some campsites, which are sometimes but not always accurate. A few of the marked campsites have fallen out of use and are now overgrown. What I’ve done is reviewed online canoe route planning sources for locations of Quetico campsites and then marked the locations my Fisher or McKenzie maps. There are many more campsite locations shown on online maps, which gives you more places to look for a site when you arrive on a lake. As you travel in Quetico you’ll also likely run across established campsites that aren’t on any map. You’ll spot them by looking for a rock fire ring.

Just the Chrismar. One map for the entire park and more accurate than any of the others in regards to portage location. Though well into my sixties I have no problem with the reduced scale. Admittedly I rarely look at the map so that may influence my choice.

Other differences not yet mentioned: McKenzie maps have UTM marks along each border whereas the Fisher maps have neither UTM nor lat/lon. Maybe that is not a big deal to you, but I have used the coordinates to double-check locations a few times. McKenzie maps also have N-S and E-W lines drawn between UTM marks so that it is easier to orient a compass accurately. Fisher has no such lines.

Regarding the larger spacing of the contour lines in Quetico vs the BWCA (McKenzie topographical maps), that seems to be a common feature of topographical maps in Canada (I've used other maps in Canada).

McKenzie offers the largest scale so they are my choice. Nice to have a Chrismar in the pack to give perspective and to guarantee you won’t run out of map. Maps weigh nothing so bring Fishers, too, for comparison.

Once you have the maps laid out for your trip, then use online information to mark additional campsites and write helpful notes for your route.

I use McKenzie because it's more "zoomed in," and sometimes the extra details helps me stay found a little easier.

I also keep a Chrismar in a pack as a back up.

Banksiana: "Just the Chrismar. One map for the entire park and more accurate than any of the others in regards to portage location. Though well into my sixties I have no problem with the reduced scale. Admittedly I rarely look at the map so that may influence my choice."

We've used the Chrismar maps since buying our first one in 2010 or so. For several years, we also carried a Quetico Foundation map that we had marked up with campsite and portage info, but a couple years ago started marking up a Chrismar with that data. We now each carry a Chrismar and a compass, and use the "trust but verify" system of wayfinding. We love having the entire park on a single map, and are often looking at next year's potential routes while on this year's trip. The scale has not been an issue for us.

TZ

I use both Fisher and McKenzie depending on which map(s) cover our route better. Those are the maps I mark up for travel, campsites, and fishing info. We always have a Chrismar map along as well to verify portage locations, plan/dream future trips, and as a backup.

Nobody has said anything about True North Maps. I have one and they’re pretty accurate. I keep it in my PFD so I always have a map. I’ve only done southern Q so far.

BonzSF: "Nobody has said anything about True North Maps."

That's because True North doesn't offer maps of Quetico. You've been able to use them in southern Q because that part of the park is adjacent to the BWCA.

Uh, yes they do. If you go to their website: True North Quetico maps

They have three South, West, and East. They are pretty small scale and don’t show campsites but it’ll keep you from getting lost if your other maps are destroyed.

My bad... I stand corrected. But... why would anyone use them when there are better options out there?

BonzSF: "Uh, yes they do. If you go to their website: True North Quetico maps

They have three South, West, and East. They are pretty small scale and don’t show campsites but it’ll keep you from getting lost if your other maps are destroyed."

I've never had a map get destroyed or anything close to that personally. Maps are almost all made of tear resistant, waterproof paper. They sit in my canoe and get water all over them, folded, refolded, and some of them I've been using for 10+ years already. Lost, sure, that could happen. But short of ending up in the fire, it's hard to see them getting destroyed, and that's what my backup Chrismar is for worst case scenario.