A NOTE ON MY EXPERIENCES WITH FISHER AND McKENZIE MAPS: I've been tripping since '91, and I get new maps each time. I've used both Fisher and McKenzie (frequently both on the same trip) and here's what I've found: They both have the same topo data, but the McKenzie maps, being a larger scale (fewer feet to the inch), are easier to navigate with, EXCEPT: I'm proficient with map and compass (Scout Leader stuff) and I use a GPS, which I use with National Geographic's TOPO program to make my own maps. The Fisher maps seem to have more accurate placement of the red dots that represent campsites. I can sit in camp with a Fisher map and my compass, orient the map and see other campsites in my binoculars right where the map says they should be. I can't always do that with the McKenzie maps. Fisher's red dots also compare more favorably with my own GPS readings when I get home and plot them in TOPO on my PC.

How much larger are the McKenzie maps?

McKenzie maps are 2in" to a mile.
Fisher are 1 1/2 in" to a mile.

I like both of them and take both kinds on each trip. It seems that a lot of times one shows something different then the other. By comparing the two of them you can usually get close to a correct picture of reality.

They're both good maps... I like to get both but if you can only get one, get the Fisher version. The only trip I took where McKenzie was clearly better was a Pow Wow Trail backpacking trip. They sell a set of maps where somebody (probably the Kekakabic Trail Club, I don't remember for sure) has plotted the whole trail, and trail and the GPS waypoints are printed on the map for many points of interest and the campsites. There's one site (the one near Marathon Lake) where the fire grate is missing and we weren't sure if the fire scar was the right place. We were able to walk back and forth on the well worn trail near the clearing and watch the readings on my Magellan Sport Trak Map change, and tell we were 'right on". I wish more groups would coordinate with the map makers, so we could have GPS waypoints for portages and campsites all over the BWCAW!

I ordered McKenzie maps this year, because the Fishers aggravated me when they placed the legend square on a important part of the map blocking it out, when non topographed areas where available.

I'm a McKenzie fan.... but the newer maps have grey "topograph" on land now. It makes the maps a little harder to read, especially small lakes and streams.

Hex

I usually get both maps, (McKenzie & Fisher), when planning a route. Mark Lawyer is correct on the accuracy of Fisher maps. There are a lot of times the McKenzie map in inaccurate or off a little bit. Then when I check the fisher map, it is usually dead on. It is always nice to have both maps when on a trip, just in case.

Here I thought it was just my family (group) that debated over which map was better. The like McKenzie, I like Fisher so we usually end up with both.

Like I said before, the McKenzie map being bigger scale (with identical topo data) is easier to navigate with, but the red campsite dots are more accurately placed on the Fisher maps. I've checked this out at every campsite where both maps were available to me. However, I, too have seen Fisher maps with the legend placed over pertinent areas of the map (very annoying).

I don't even have family to argue this issue with, everybody I know gives me blank stares when I try to discuss it! But I'm the "map freak" both in my family and in my Scout Troop so I'll keep poring over the maps and I'll make sure we find the campsites when we're in the BWCAW!

On one trip the McKenzie map showed a campsite on the east side of the river and the Fisher showed it in the middle of the river. We found the campsite on the west side. Both are good maps but neither is perfect.

Used both in the past, do not remember any preference.
Now I use Maptech Terrain Navigator for the maps I take in the BWCA.
Got a few compliments on the maps I took last year.
The ability to take tailor made maps is great!

butthead

The terrain. nav. does not show the campsites does it?

I'm smiling as I read this thread - my first trip was in 1970 and the Fisher map we used was paper - and essentially covered what is now the entire BWCA. The paper map was perhaps 1/3 the size of the new maps.

I was recently gifted with one just like it - it still shows the numbered lakes / Insula motorized route.

The map cost $.35.

I'm here to tell the tales - so it worked.

In 1980, I "splurged" and bought the 15-map book of Fisher's for (gulp) $6.00. Sure glad I could come up with the $$. My new bride thought I was nuts, spending so much on maps. They're the same 17x22" maps we used for navigation, 1.5 inches per mile, but it's plain paper so it stays at home and I draw in our routes on it each year. On these, the campsite dot was more of an "in the vicinity" marking, leaving us to search the shore a bit for the site. I can't see going back to this smaller scale after using McKenzies. The book is priceles, if only for the cover and its sketches of plaid-shirted men hauling in big northerns. "15 Maps Covering 14.500 Square Miles," "A wilderness and Roadless Area Playground for the Canoeist," "Accurate - Made from American and Canadian Arial Survey Maps with Portage Information."

you can tell your bride that $6 was a forward thinking investment. your vintage fisher map book has a market value of $180 on ebay-at least that's what one sold for last month.

If I had a 26 year old Fisher map book, no way it would be for sale!

Don't know how I screwed up, but I seem to have forfieted my 4 trees...

ML-you're not logged in.

eventually I figgered that out (I'm a little slow on the uptake sometimes). I don't type in my work, so I probably did something when I was watching my two index fingers do the talking!

Cool. You wouldn't happen to know the item number on that book, I can't seem to find it. Nice to see that SOMETHING I bought increased in value...

firemed1916,
Yes Terrain Navigator has both campsites and portages marked.


butthead PS, you have to click on the photo to view the map