Yes-Musclow camp will be forever changed and possibly even enjoyed by many who visit it in the future. That cannot be denied.

The problem is, it was not your decision to make. Did you ask if that is what the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources along with Ontario Parks wanted for the campsite they are tasked to manage and protect? You do not own the land, you don't even reside in Canada-the land belongs to the province of Ontario and the people of Canada and you made decisions about what to do with their land and resource without consulting them.

The Ministry of Natural Resources along with Ontario Parks spent much time and energy putting together a comprehensive long term management plan that went through a rigorous amount of public comment and action to insure it met the requirements of the province, the country of Canada and its people. Claire and the staff at Woodland Caribou Provincial Park are bound to follow the plan that was adopted. You are not in a position to make decisions that go against the directions and principals of their management plan and by doing so you have violated park rules that you agreed to when you signed the permit that granted you permission to access the area.

No one is questioning the removal of dead or downed wood, blowdown and dead trees that limited access. We thank you for helping manage those for our safety. But the practice of trimming and pruning live vegetation, creating a trail into the woods with blazes on live trees etc are not appreciated and were against the rules.

I refer you to one section in the management plan that clearly speaks to this issue. This is just a very small section of a 156 page comprehensive plan for management of the area.

Direction
* Backcountry activities (e.g. hiking trails, portages,
canoeing, kayaking) will occur in a manner that
ensures that wilderness values are protected.
* Move the park along a “wilderness continuum”
towards a state of more wilderness. In the
provincial park wilderness values will be protected
by reducing the human footprint of certain
activities. Examples include designating campsites,
relocating boat caches and limiting motorized
travel. Entry quotas will be implemented when
required.

In other words WCPP has been directed to move the park into a more "wilderness state", not less and hence the reason why we are asked to not improve sites, create new sites, create paths, cut vegetation and we are asked to adhere to true LNT ethics.

Of course some maintenance is necessary to allow safe access to the area for travel and camping such as removing downed and dead wood or blowdown that restricts access to portages and campsites. As we all know WCPP staff does conduct routine clearing/maintenance trips with chainsaws and other tools to address these safety and access concerns. I will add that had a WCPP crew come upon the Musclow campsite in question they MIGHT have removed some blowdown or dead trees but that would have been the extent of their activity on the site. They would not have created a trail back into the woods; they would not have trimmed live shrubs or pruned live vegetation.

The facts are pretty black and white as to what we are expected to do when we visit. You can try to justify your actions every way you want, but you were wrong to do what you did. The decision you took was not yours to make and the camp will forever be changed due to your actions. While some may thank you for your actions and the campsite they can now inhabit, there are many others who are very disappointed with the decisions and changes that you made during your visit that has detracted from the wilderness that was there a few short weeks ago.

Bogwalker, I think that you have explained things very well and I fully agree with all that you have said. I had made some comments in the original thread that will make it appear that I condoned everything that was done at that campsite. Those comments were made before I saw the video showing how extensive the makeover was at that site. I too see no problem with removing downed wood at a place I choose to camp. Beyond that is when our actions start impacting the goals of the WCPP Park Plan.

I also want to make it clear to others that when I am bushwhacking around WCPP I do not make portage trails, blaze trees etc. I know many assume I do but these are rules I do not abuse. The forest type in WCPP allows travel that weaves around such obstacles. I do enjoy searching out new canoe routes. This is a fun hobby of mine and I turn my ideas into the park office in a trip report. Some, like the Irvine Loop and Minjim, are assessed and after they pass all the required mandates of the park plan are cut open by their trained crews.

Did you see the last post on this thread from Que, who is with the parks service. Park service post

I did.

quote Marten: "Bogwalker, I think that you have explained things very well and I fully agree with all that you have said. I had made some comments in the original thread that will make it appear that I condoned everything that was done at that campsite. Those comments were made before I saw the video showing how extensive the makeover was at that site. I too see no problem with removing downed wood at a place I choose to camp. Beyond that is when our actions start impacting the goals of the WCPP Park Plan.


I also want to make it clear to others that when I am bushwhacking around WCPP I do not make portage trails, blaze trees etc. I know many assume I do but these are rules I do not abuse. The forest type in WCPP allows travel that weaves around such obstacles. I do enjoy searching out new canoe routes. This is a fun hobby of mine and I turn my ideas into the park office in a trip report. Some, like the Irvine Loop and Minjim, are assessed and after they pass all the required mandates of the park plan are cut open by their trained crews."

Thanks for clarifying Marten. I have seen most of your videos and know that you find a path through the woods without making changes. Many times natural portages can be followed that weave amongst the trees and rocks. I also am continually amazed at what you can enjoy as a campsite. Many of your sites do not look like a campsite when you leave.

I accept your position and stand corrected.

MT

One of the things I enjoy about Woodland Caribou is the campsites don't look like campsites like anywhere else. It's literally a spot you can pitch your tent and whatever. Many times it's pretty distinct but quite often you can barely tell anyone was ever there. I don't know what Mt did, I didn't see the video. But obviously lessons learned. I've been behind Marten on his adventures and you even wonder if your in the right spot. haha! I recognized a couple of your pics Mt... The end of the 750 Larus portage was quite a memory for me for one. We too I recall had to slip under a tree on that portage last year. Did you visit the pictographs just up from that portage?

it was a great trip report, in this case too detailed ;)
hopefully the report will stay published without edit and it will serve as a learning experience as well as a great report of an otherwise great trip, , it seems to me he realizes his gaffe

nobody mentioned it, but I believe building a livewell is against LNT principles, but I won't get all preachy about it

Thanks Zara
The livewell was actually au natural and supremely situated for use. Yes the TR will remain unadulterated. Despite my error in judgement I am proud of the site. I took great care to not leave a "scar" on the land. No one will paddle by and say "who did that!"

Rather, it will take a trained eye to discern that everything wasn't like it had always been.

However, I have been informed that such actions, well intentioned or not, are against park policy and I will abide by that without any reservations as I am a "team player" and seek only whats good for the park and those that use it.

MT, I, for one, appreciate your 'owning up' to the issues. I looked at your vids and it will take a trained eye to see your work. If the campsite and trail are not used regularly, they will be reclaimed by the woods. It will be interesting to know if any of the critics choose to benefit by targeting the campsite on their trips?

It is also interesting to see how everything is a poll to be popular on this site. I digress, but we can't all agree on everything, but sometimes civility is scarce.

Old Salt I do not view the "critics" in a negative light and have appreciation for the passion shown to protect the wilderness we all hold dear. It is my expressed hope that they do indeed stop at the site and use it and hopefully enjoy it as much as I did. The problem IMO is not the addition of Camp Wolf Spider but rather if others emulate such behavior. While I have cleared some sites of the snowdown I will never again establish a campsite, first and last time.

You implied that I view critics in a negative light. Not true. My only point is that no change is forever and that the wilderness will reclaim whatever percieved harm was done. Using a campsite is what keeps it open and usable. The only question IMO is who gets to decide? Obviously, not the user.

quote old_salt: "You implied that I view critics in a negative light. Not true. "

Sorry about that. I had meant only to express my understanding of the opposing perspective. As per who gets to "decide" I believe Bogwalker said it best when he pointed out, quite correctly as it turns out, that it was not my decision to make. In my defense I had thought that the campsite policy in WCPP was extremely lenient and camp could be made any where. A poor defense at best but that was my understanding at that time.

The site will likely stay open. It was largely open to begin with. I will continue to plug both the Lake and the site as well as the park. Someone is going to go there and have a fine time even though it is way off the beaten path and not easy to get to.

I gotta say that the so called campsite map is so vague that I dont know how they could expect anyone to camp at designated campsites only

in addition I could have sworn that when I talked to Claire this spring she said it was not mandatory to camp at designated sites

quote ZaraSp00k: "I gotta say that the so called campsite map is so vague that I dont know how they could expect anyone to camp at designated campsites only


in addition I could have sworn that when I talked to Claire this spring she said it was not mandatory to camp at designated sites"

Don't start any trouble ;-)
Camp in designated sites only, Its what they want us to do.

I used to sort of make fun of the camp site map but I have found it very helpful on 2 or 3 separate occasions where it got me going in the right general direction. It was a good thing I had reader glasses however or I would of had a tough time.

Evidently there are plans for enhanced info on campsites. Not sure how thats going to work but I like the idea of knowing for sure something I can pitch a tent on is coming up......especially since I like to run late in the day.

quote mastertangler: "

quote ZaraSp00k: "I gotta say that the so called campsite map is so vague that I dont know how they could expect anyone to camp at designated campsites only

in addition I could have sworn that when I talked to Claire this spring she said it was not mandatory to camp at designated sites"

Don't start any trouble ;-)
Camp in designated sites only, Its what they want us to do.

I used to sort of make fun of the camp site map but I have found it very helpful on 2 or 3 separate occasions where it got me going in the right general direction. It was a good thing I had reader glasses however or I would of had a tough time.

Evidently there are plans for enhanced info on campsites. Not sure how thats going to work but I like the idea of knowing for sure something I can pitch a tent on is coming up......especially since I like to run late in the day. "

Vague? Need readers? You boys need to get hooked up. Here is a screen shot sample of campsite locations in WCPP that I've had since 2010 ... and this is only the version I have on my GPS software (which is zoomable). The version I've put together for personal use for printing my own maps has greater resolution and substantially more detail (e.g., there are more like 15 campsites on Musclow, not counting the one that's not authorized). There is even an on-line version (not mine), if you know how to sniff it out.

DD your a whiz with the digital stuff.......I am not. So when they hand me a copy of the campsite map its of the entire park and yup I need my readers to see whats going on. To be entirely fair they offered to provide me a magnified version of the area I would be traveling but I declined knowing my readers would do just fine.

Now, I will do this as gently as is possible as to not smear anyone who may of, with all good intention, put the parks camp site map into use. I have been in the park enough to comprehend that a great many of the sites listed are quite frankly wishful thinking. A perfect example is you suggesting that there are 15 sites on Musclow. I have been around 3/4 of the lake and what your are stating as "fact" is just pie in the sky. The current campsite map shows something like 5 or 6 on Musclow and 1/2 of those are unsuitable for anything other than a hammock. The other few that I found were 1 star and I found myself eager to leave them although they would of been quite welcome had I been desperately needing overnight accomadations. Why would I "build" a site if something else was available?

When I have used the campsite map in the past it was to get a general understanding of where I might find something (the only sites listed for example may be on the other side of a lake). On my last night on an unnamed lake a site was shown on a point when in fact it was on the island out from the point. But it got me close enough that I was able to find a beautiful site.

Of course many sites are accurately placed. But there are enough which aren't to place the map into question in its totality IMHO. I am looking forward to the revamped info which sounds promising.

None of this should discourage anyone from a trip into Woodland Caribou........even without a campsite map there are enough sites that if you give yourself a few hours of daylight you should likely come across something.

quote dentondoc: "

quote mastertangler: "

quote ZaraSp00k: "I gotta say that the so called campsite map is so vague that I dont know how they could expect anyone to camp at designated campsites only


in addition I could have sworn that when I talked to Claire this spring she said it was not mandatory to camp at designated sites"

Don't start any trouble ;-)
Camp in designated sites only, Its what they want us to do.

I used to sort of make fun of the camp site map but I have found it very helpful on 2 or 3 separate occasions where it got me going in the right general direction. It was a good thing I had reader glasses however or I would of had a tough time.

Evidently there are plans for enhanced info on campsites. Not sure how thats going to work but I like the idea of knowing for sure something I can pitch a tent on is coming up......especially since I like to run late in the day. "

Vague? Need readers? You boys need to get hooked up. Here is a screen shot sample of campsite locations in WCPP that I've had since 2010 ... and this is only the version I have on my GPS software (which is zoomable). The version I've put together for personal use for printing my own maps has greater resolution and substantially more detail (e.g., there are more like 15 campsites on Musclow, not counting the one that's not authorized). There is even an on-line version (not mine), if you know how to sniff it out.

"

I hope you are coming to Copia next Spring so that you can share some of this with us GPS neophytes :).

quote HighnDry: "

quote dentondoc: "

quote mastertangler: "

quote ZaraSp00k: "I gotta say that the so called campsite map is so vague that I dont know how they could expect anyone to camp at designated campsites only

in addition I could have sworn that when I talked to Claire this spring she said it was not mandatory to camp at designated sites"

Don't start any trouble ;-)
Camp in designated sites only, Its what they want us to do.

I used to sort of make fun of the camp site map but I have found it very helpful on 2 or 3 separate occasions where it got me going in the right general direction. It was a good thing I had reader glasses however or I would of had a tough time.

Evidently there are plans for enhanced info on campsites. Not sure how thats going to work but I like the idea of knowing for sure something I can pitch a tent on is coming up......especially since I like to run late in the day. "

Vague? Need readers? You boys need to get hooked up. Here is a screen shot sample of campsite locations in WCPP that I've had since 2010 ... and this is only the version I have on my GPS software (which is zoomable). The version I've put together for personal use for printing my own maps has greater resolution and substantially more detail (e.g., there are more like 15 campsites on Musclow, not counting the one that's not authorized). There is even an on-line version (not mine), if you know how to sniff it out.

"

I hope you are coming to Copia next Spring so that you can share some of this with us GPS neophytes :). "

My visits to 'copia are on a 2-year cycle, due to the distance I have to travel. Unfortunately, I was present for 'copia 2016. That generally translates to 2017 being an "off" year for me.

dd

quote mastertangler: "DD your a whiz with the digital stuff.......I am not. So when they hand me a copy of the campsite map its of the entire park and yup I need my readers to see whats going on. To be entirely fair they offered to provide me a magnified version of the area I would be traveling but I declined knowing my readers would do just fine.

Now, I will do this as gently as is possible as to not smear anyone who may of, with all good intention, put the parks camp site map into use. I have been in the park enough to comprehend that a great many of the sites listed are quite frankly wishful thinking. A perfect example is you suggesting that there are 15 sites on Musclow. I have been around 3/4 of the lake and what your are stating as "fact" is just pie in the sky. The current campsite map shows something like 5 or 6 on Musclow and 1/2 of those are unsuitable for anything other than a hammock. The other few that I found were 1 star and I found myself eager to leave them although they would of been quite welcome had I been desperately needing overnight accomadations. Why would I "build" a site if something else was available?

When I have used the campsite map in the past it was to get a general understanding of where I might find something (the only sites listed for example may be on the other side of a lake). On my last night on an unnamed lake a site was shown on a point when in fact it was on the island out from the point. But it got me close enough that I was able to find a beautiful site.

Of course many sites are accurately placed. But there are enough which aren't to place the map into question in its totality IMHO. I am looking forward to the revamped info which sounds promising.

None of this should discourage anyone from a trip into Woodland Caribou........even without a campsite map there are enough sites that if you give yourself a few hours of daylight you should likely come across something.
"

No real skill involved here. If you Google "WCPP campsite map" the first site that pops up (at least on my browser) is an online venue that provides you with what is essentially the park's campsite list (unlike the park's data, it references each campsite with a letter rather than a number). In addition, portages are shown.

Now admittedly the park data is from the same source as much of the original Quetico Paddlers Campsite Database. If you dig deep enough you might still be able to find that data online, but much of it has been archived now. That means that information like campsite locations are historical or "legacy," which translates into "maybe one time decades (or longer) ago, there was a campsite here. So about the only thing you can absolutely guarantee for these campsites is that there is a possibility of flat ground ... nothing about the efficacy of that location for an active or usable site.

BTW: Among the other pieces of information I have collected via intel (some published, some by folks who have been going into the park since before it was a park) are things like fish species by lake and pictograph locations. Did you happen to check out the one in the river just before you reach Musclow lake. I took a quick photo and went on my way ... not wanting to disturb the hornets nest at the same location.

dd

you refer me to a map of campsites that is not from the park, IOW, you or someone else is designating campsites for the park, which I doubt you have authority to do, how do I know which sites are official sites and which are not?

the answer is simple, the park does not mandate you to use designated sites for the simple reason they don't have a way to identify them. Yes, the map is vague, Their map indicates a general area you may find one but there is often not a way to know you are at one unless it is one of the well used ones. Does discarded TP indicate a site? The fact that a spot is nearly devoid of trees? Absence of duff from all the foot traffic? Bench construction? Rock firepits? Stacked firewood? Rock livewell? Initials carved in trees? What exactly indicates you are at the site? You can't use a designated site unless you can find and identify it.

I have 2 peculiar admissions to make DD.........I have never even seen a picto. I guess I just haven't been that interested........which is rather surprising coming from someone who loves reading history. Curious now that I consider it.

And, speaking of Hornets, the second admission is sort of funny but also rather odd and all I can do is shake my head. When I was setting up my tarp at Laurus I noticed some movement around my feet. I glanced down and spent about 2 or 3 seconds arguing with myself wether what I was seeing was hornets or something else (they were flying quite fast). I kid you not! It took getting popped before I reacted. Turns out they were Yellow jackets. Duh!

Just thought I would share that, perhaps someone will get a laugh.

Interesting info about how the campsite map was put into play. I had envisioned 2 other scenarios. One, where park service paddled about and saw something which was sort of flat and said, "yup, thats a campsite". And the other was a mind picture creation which caused a bit of mirth within..........I envisioned a park service office party where alcohol was liberally dispensed. A map of the park was tacked to a board and a handful of darts were given to the participants. Where a dart landed was deemed a campsite. ;-)

OK......thats just not right! I love that park and am already spending inordinate amounts of time leaning over the map for next Augusts route. Fishing equipment has arrived in the mail today and more is expected tomorrow. Its a wee little obsession I tell you!

the rules say to use existing sites, that itself is vague, does that mean if someone has camped there in the past it is an acceptable site? It sounds to me like all it really means is that you are not to do what MasterAngler did. If a site is acceptable to you, I suspect at one time in the last 10,000 years someone has camped there and thus it is an "existing site". If you can't leave it as you found it, don't use it.

Which begs the question Monsieur Spookster (thats French) what do you do if you bushwhack into a lake? BTW it is Tangler, with a "T". I would never claim to be a Master-angler.

MT my friend, you have issues and need professional help. The first step is admitting you were wrong. I strongly suspect NPD, please take this Test , if positive seek help. Its OK, we all have issues that are treatable.

What a great guy you are Andy, very kind. I appreciate your concern. But you might just be right. Thinking about a trip that is still a year out might be a cause for concern. I suppose I don't want to get overly serious yet about the pile of work in front of me. But enough about me, what do you think about me? (sorry, I couldn't help it ;-)

Hey aren't you supposed to be paddling in WCPP?

quote ZaraSp00k: " you refer me to a map of campsites that is not from the park, IOW, you or someone else is designating campsites for the park, which I doubt you have authority to do, how do I know which sites are official sites and which are not?"

Well ... yes and no.

Yes, you are correct. The maps referenced are not from the park.

No, you are not correct. The campsites shown in the maps referenced ARE those designated by the park. If you read my previous post, you should notice that I state that the online site uses letters to reference campsites, while the park uses numbers. One then might ask, "how does he know that the park uses numbers since that information is not to be found anywhere?" The obvious answer ... I have the park's campsite data, provided (at the time I received it) from the park staff member charged with the responsibility of creating the "new and improved" version of the WCPP Campsite Database, with the approval of park staff administration.

Does the online site use the park data? I don't know the answer to that. I'd say its more likely that are using the data I created since it was edited the same way. By that, I mean that the park's data often provided multiple entries for the same campsite. The duplicate entries were provided by various estimates of campsite location (the original data had duplicates listed as "nnn" followed by A, B, C, etc. as multiple entries were logged for the same campsite). I edited the data to reflect only one entry per campsite (selecting either the most obvious location or averaging the coordinates ... the original coordinates were provided in UTM format and I converted to latitude/longitude). The online site only has a single reference for each site and the latitude/longitude numbers are within the margin of error produced when rounding comes into play.

So, long story short ... if you use the online campsite map for WCPP and find an actual campsite, I believe you can rest easy that you haven't stumbled onto a "non-authorized" site.

dd

ps: I did offer my assistance to the park staff to help in the development of the campsite database. (Lets just say that I know more than the average bear about databases.) They declined my offer, preferring instead to do the development "in-house."

I have used maps prepared by DD and found them to be more accurate than any other I have used. So he knows of what he speaks.

I've also benefitted from DD's maps more than once to guide me through a confounding spot or two in that park and a few others.

quote MagicPaddler: "I have used maps prepared by DD and found them to be more accurate than any other I have used. So he knows of what he speaks."

+1

you people are missing the point, nobody is questioning DD's maps

the park wants you to use existing sites, which as I mentioned is kind of a vague directive, doubly so given that the map you download from them is even more vague.
I just downloaded it, again for about the 6th time, and it is still the same, vague at best, you may find a campsite somewhere in the vicinity of where they indicate, ... or maybe not, but as I mentioned, if you find a site suitable for your camp, chances are it has been used by someone in the past, and consequently it is an existing camp, and therefore legit, or at least that's the way I interpret the rules

that you have to get a map from another source is proof that their directive is vague
and not all of us are afraid to access the park from LongLegged Road, so going to Red Lake is not a solution, even if I pass thru Red Lake it will be when the office is closed, I like to get to the landing at sunrise.

quote mastertangler: "Which begs the question Monsieur Spookster (thats French) what do you do if you bushwhack into a lake? BTW it is Tangler, with a "T". I would never claim to be a Master-angler. "

first of all I hope you aren't actually bushwacking, that is against the rules, or at least the way I read them and practice them, Since I carry a hammock, that is not an issue, I can camp just about anywhere, and since I rarely build a campfire, the likelyhood of anyone knowing I was there is slim

maybe you meant what should YOU do, I don't know, that's your problem, but I do know if I ever come across the site you made I will enjoy it, after all, it is an existing site ;)

Yes, one can camp anywhere within the park, but it is against the rules to cut live vegetation thus destroying natural habitat. On my last WC trip, my partner and I were wind bound on a portage landing and were forced to camp there for the night. There was a narrow beach that bordered a flat grassy area and it worked for us. Other than some footprints, there was no evidence we camped there.

Also we had no problem finding campsites. Several of which were not on the park map. Whenever it was time to find a camp, we used the map and/or scanned the shoreline for clear areas and explored them. Sometimes there were sites with a fire pit and sometimes not. To me this was one of many reasons I was enamored with the park. I liked the fact that the park is not perfectly charted. It added to the feeling of truly being in the "wild." Personally, I hope it stays that way.

Yup...Andy and I had some fun looking for campsites. We had the park map, but the scale is so big that it was often useless.
Our beach spot...



As far as "existing" site...I define it as one with a discernable fire pit. Sometimes I will see a fire pit, but then on closer examination it turns out to be just a shore lunch spot.

P.S. Andy, when do you head north??

Thanks for posting the photo Jim. We enter on September 30. I'll post some photos here for your enjoyment. Wishing you were along bro.

quote jcavenagh: "Yup...Andy and I had some fun looking for campsites. We had the park map, but the scale is so big that it was often useless.
Our beach spot...



As far as "existing" site...I define it as one with a discernable fire pit. Sometimes I will see a fire pit, but then on closer examination it turns out to be just a shore lunch spot.

P.S. Andy, when do you head north??"

Looks like one of the Hatchets up there.

quote HighnDry: "

quote jcavenagh: "Yup...Andy and I had some fun looking for campsites. We had the park map, but the scale is so big that it was often useless.
Our beach spot...





As far as "existing" site...I define it as one with a discernable fire pit. Sometimes I will see a fire pit, but then on closer examination it turns out to be just a shore lunch spot.


P.S. Andy, when do you head north??"

Looks like one of the Hatchets up there."

Nailed it my friend. Looking forward to your input here.

quote AndySG: On my last WC trip, my partner and I were wind bound on a portage landing and were forced to camp there for the night. There was a narrow beach that bordered a flat grassy area and it worked for us. "

Sometimes you make due with what is around and are glad its there. I camped at least twice on the portage trail while doing the Hunters Island route in the Quetico. I either got to tired or ran out of daylight. On the last trip into WCPP I camped right off the portage trail on Knox lake having run out of daylight.

Andy I bet you and Cavenaugh were able to breathe a little easier when that option presented itself. Not especially common in those parts (a sand spit next to a portage)

Andy - Me, too...I see the knee doc tomorrow to find out if I gotta get scoped. I think the chances of a YES are about 99%. See email in your box.

MT - We paddled around Hatchet in wind and waves for a while, sat on a small shore beach to see if the wind would lessen, and finally decided to just retreat to the portage that day. Of course, once we settled in the wind died and we had a beautiful evening. We had a small fire and got our trip off to a good start with a couple steaks and some corn.

quote jcavenagh: "Andy - Me, too...I see the knee doc tomorrow to find out if I gotta get scoped. I think the chances of a YES are about 99%. See email in your box.


MT - We paddled around Hatchet in wind and waves for a while, sat on a small shore beach to see if the wind would lessen, and finally decided to just retreat to the portage that day. Of course, once we settled in the wind died and we had a beautiful evening. We had a small fire and got our trip off to a good start with a couple steaks and some corn.
"

Ha! Thats a great pic.......one day I will go the whole steaks and good grub route.

Speaking of knee issues and WCPP.........I had surgery after getting airlifted out of the park and had set up camp on a little sandbar much like you have in the picture. Felt grateful that it was available. An old meniscus tear kept inserting itself in between the joint. Very debilitating. And I had the whole scope thing done at the same time. Now its the "good" knee.

A few observations regarding your therapy post op. This is the ballgame. You can't do to little but you can't do to much either. I asked my doc if biking would be OK and he said yes. And indeed it did help immensely.........so I thought if a little was good then a lot must be great and started doing 25 mile days. Bad idea.

Be patient. Frequency is good but give yourself recovery time as well. The bike did free everything up however and I felt much improved when it looked like things weren't working out so well via the suggested therapy. (That is, of course, until I over did it!) I also recommend drinking lots of almond milk. Seemed to help me substantially.

MT - I hear you. This is the second time on this knee. Last fix lasted about 6 years.
I stepped through a window well cover 3 weeks before tromping through Wabikimi this summer.
Thought I could just breeze through it.
Now I pay the price

quote mastertangler: "

quote AndySG: On my last WC trip, my partner and I were wind bound on a portage landing and were forced to camp there for the night. There was a narrow beach that bordered a flat grassy area and it worked for us. "

Sometimes you make due with what is around and are glad its there. I camped at least twice on the portage trail while doing the Hunters Island route in the Quetico. I either got to tired or ran out of daylight. On the last trip into WCPP I camped right off the portage trail on Knox lake having run out of daylight.


Andy I bet you and Cavenaugh were able to breathe a little easier when that option presented itself. Not especially common in those parts (a sand spit next to a portage)"

you are quite the rule breaker, I'm not sure if it is a specific rule in Quetico, but I know it is in the BWCA
more to yank your chain, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it

but I did run across a group of boy scouts who had camped on the portage trail in Quetico, but that was the least infraction, I stopped counting at a dozen. Luckily I was packed light. It wouldn't have been so bad if they had just slept there, dodging stoves and plates (I probably should have kicked them over) was a quntlet

and though DD doesn't admit it is vague, I would call averaging or estimating camp site locations as vague to the user of this info, not that it bothers me, only to point out that these sites are not "designated" sites, they are merely locations on a map to help direct users to existing sites

quote ZaraSp00k: "and though DD doesn't admit it is vague, I would call averaging or estimating camp site locations as vague to the user of this info, not that it bothers me, only to point out that these sites are not "designated" sites, they are merely locations on a map to help direct users to existing sites"

You do know that assumption is the mother of all f**k ups don't you?

For the dozen or so averaged campsites, you could cover all of the reference points with a good sized tarp? Those eliminated? I simply don't care to try to pitch a tent in the water!

Good news is that the new version, when released, will put your nose at the dead center of the fire ring (that is if the photos don't give you a clue).

OK. Now what are you going to find to bitch about?

dd

Hahahahahaha! Ya know spooky, its a good idea to know the laws and rules for wilderness park camping before one goes there. In both Quetico and WCPP, one is allowed to camp anywhere they please. What IS unlawful is the destruction of existing flora and other activity, whether in a mapped site or a "make do" site. I agree that camping in the middle of a portage trail is extremely bad form, and know that I and others here would never do that. But if I I ever see that and doubt I will, I would stomp all over anything on the trail. In my experience, trails in both parks are seldom wider than 1 foot. BTW, without photos of your story, I don't believe it.

quote dentondoc: "

quote ZaraSp00k: "and though DD doesn't admit it is vague, I would call averaging or estimating camp site locations as vague to the user of this info, not that it bothers me, only to point out that these sites are not "designated" sites, they are merely locations on a map to help direct users to existing sites"

You do know that assumption is the mother of all f**k ups don't you?

For the dozen or so averaged campsites, you could cover all of the reference points with a good sized tarp? Those eliminated? I simply don't care to try to pitch a tent in the water!

Good news is that the new version, when released, will put your nose at the dead center of the fire ring (that is if the photos don't give you a clue).

OK. Now what are you going to find to bitch about?

dd"

sad to see you are so used to having your butt kissed you get mad at someone with an alternate view

quote ZaraSp00k:"sad to see you are so used to having your butt kissed you get mad at someone with an alternate view"

You continue to assert an argument based on false premise. Go ahead and tilt at another windmill Don Quixote!

dd

Geez I wish I could pick a side but I really don't have a clue what you guys are incensed about. Semantics? Splitting hairs? The difference between a designated site or an existing site? And how do we make a determination? Insults over that?........gentlemen I expect better of you.

We all know you paddle along until you see a site and set up for the night. Well, most of us grasp that but a few are still learning. :-0

Yes indeed believe it or not, i did set up basically on the trail, well maybe just off but you get my point. One spot I distinctly remember was at Kennebas falls right at dark........woke up early and caught a couple big walleye on a Super Shad Rap. With the little MSR Zoid one man tent you can set up pretty much anywhere. FWIW........I would never stomp over someones stuff even if they were set up on the trail. Especially after what happened to me (having to crawl to set up), maybe they might of gotten injured and that was the best they could do. I mean, WWJD? Would he stomp all over their stuff or would he be gracious and tolerant?

quote mastertangler: "Geez I wish I could pick a side but I really don't have a clue what you guys are incensed about. Semantics? Splitting hairs? The difference between a designated site or an existing site? And how do we make a determination? Insults over that? "

I can't speak for Spooky, but I'm not angry or insulted. After all, he has no idea how cute my butt is ... and I don't even wear make-up (unless requested).

dd

Ha! DD is also skilled in the art of humor. A man of many talents! ;-)

quote mastertangler: "Geez I wish I could pick a side but I really don't have a clue what you guys are incensed about.



"

this goes back a ways, he has his ideas and anyone else is wrong, for example, why would you not find an exclamation point as a good marker for a campsite?

I could say more, but then he'll have to pretend not to be mad

quote mastertangler: "

We all know you paddle along until you see a site and set up for the night. Well, most of us grasp that but a few are still learning. :-0

Yes indeed believe it or not, i did set up basically on the trail, well maybe just off but you get my point. One spot I distinctly remember was at Kennebas falls right at dark........woke up early and caught a couple big walleye on a Super Shad Rap. With the little MSR Zoid one man tent you can set up pretty much anywhere. FWIW........I would never stomp over someones stuff even if they were set up on the trail. Especially after what happened to me (having to crawl to set up), maybe they might of gotten injured and that was the best they could do. I mean, WWJD? Would he stomp all over their stuff or would he be gracious and tolerant?


"

I'd ignore the stomping statement, it's just big talk on the internet
the As also jumped on my butt for not having the rules memorized after I admitted I didn't. After all, a guy like me who goes lots of different places isn't going to waste brain cells on remembering them all, hell Ontario is different park to park let alone the rest of the world. I do my homework when planning the trip so I know what the rules are, after all, they could have changed. But people who go to the same place all the time think they are the expert and nobody else's opinion measures up to theirs. Probably the reason they have to go alone, nobody can tolerate tripping with them.

This discussion has been worthwhile, it is obvious everyone has their own interpretation of the WC rules on campsites. And many of them were wrong. By the "experts" no less.

My two cents worth: WCPP plans to require camping only at designated sites once they finish their data base which will include exact location and info on each site. Until that time they are asking us to use existing sites but there is no list of what is termed existing sites. They also ask us not to camp on islands as the caribou and moose use these for calving. Another thing they do not like is furniture built from logs at the sites we use. Ideally there would not be fireplaces built either because usually there are natural depression's in the rock that can be used instesd of leaving another man made scar to be seen by all as they travel this little used area.

There are no rules against bushwhacking in wcpp, but do not cut vegetation or chop blazes as you do it. Obviously there will probably be no established campsite when you bushwhack into a remote lake but just look for a nice place on an open rock outcrop where you will only leave a minimal trace.

All can agree that the current campsite info from the park will not direct you to usa le site. If you post your intended route here many will supply you with accurate campsite
Info.