|
||||
 Boundary Waters Quetico Forum Quetico Forum new Quetico Guide book question Reply
|
| Previous Messages: | |
| Author | Message Text |
| Ho Ho |
09/16/2007 09:21PM Sorry I missed the vote! Rods for sure, and meters are good too. Good to know my ticket won even before I voted. I'd love to see a guide book that covered some of the Crown Land area just north of Quetico -- between there and White Otter/Turtle River. I canoed that area a lot in the 70s and am wondering if it is still accessible or if logging and development and roads have spoiled it. Beautiful lakes there. Anyway, looking forward to the guide. |
| psukontaraks |
09/16/2007 07:28PM Yeah, my fault. I like your backpacks, the yellow and red ones. |
| kcallan |
09/16/2007 06:55PM Hello, Thanks for the comments. I thought I was signed up? The season is comong to a close and I'm beginning to get somewhat organized. Kevin |
| psukontaraks |
09/15/2007 03:35PM Kevin; The book is good read. Much better than some of the self proclaimed "experts of the canoe country". Amazing how you covered so much ground that I'm scoping. (Badwater, Wawiag, Smoothrock) Have you joined BWCA.com yet? Why not? |
| the truth |
09/17/2006 03:44PM I just looked at some Canadian canoe maps of the Quetico Park that were provided when we were outfitted out of Atikokan. The map scale is 1:50,000 (1 cm = 500 m) and the bar scale lists miles, meters and yards. A Quetico overview map printed in Canada shows portage lengths in yards with a note that a rod equals 5 1/2 yards. (In summary, I still like portage distances in rods) |
| dogwoodgirl |
09/13/2006 07:23PM Very cool! I am particularly interested in reading about your white otter route, as I took a trip up there in the early '70s as a young pup. I've been wondering about how the area has changed and where the best routes might be so that I can take my son- but since I was quite young, the details are a little fuzzy. |
| bogwalker |
09/12/2006 08:08AM Cool Kevin I retraced most of Leopold's Canadian route from the 1920's (I assume it's the one he outlines in his journal contained in "Round River: From the Journals of Aldo Leopold") a few years ago myself. I will enjoy reading your recollections of that trip. Be sure to bring enough copies of the book, I'll be sure to buy one. Maybe at copia I'll share some of my remembrances with you of that route as well. I'll try to remember bring those pictures. I always look forward to your seminars at copia. Next year I hope your seminar and ours do not butt heads on the schedule for a couple of reasons-1) So I can come see yours, 2) So ours gets better attendance. Your videos are one of the many highlights of my trip to copia. |
| kevin callan |
09/12/2006 07:32AM Thanks. I think I'll go with meters and rods, and have a conversion chart at the back of the book. Here's the chapters (routes) in the book: ...and yes, I'll be there at Canoecopia and Midwest show this Spring with the book and new River Rat stuff. I went on a 20 day trip in Quetico this season and filmed the "misadventure." Introduction Quetico 1. Baptism Creek – Trousers Lake Route 2. Pickerel Lake – Rawn Lake Route 3. Sturgeon Lake – Jean Lake Loop 4. Sturgeon Lake – Olifaunt Lake Loop 5. International Canoe Derby Route 6. Poohbah Lake Route 7. Bentpine Creek Loop 8. Wawiag River Loop 9. The Pines Loop 10. Leopold’s North Country Loop 11. Hunter’s Island Loop Beyond Quetico Introduction 1. White Otter Lake – Turtle River Route 2. Wabakimi’s Center of the Universe Route 3. Upper Albany River Route 4. Northwest Wabakimi Route 5. Woodland Caribou Sampler Route |
| CIIcanoe |
09/11/2006 08:52AM Kevin, Be "stumped" no longer. I vote meters and rods. I look forward to the book! Chuck |
| Bannock |
09/11/2006 08:50AM Meters and rods. If you don't have rods you should put a convertion table in the back of the book for quick reference. I think your editor is wrong. Why would he/she want meters and yards? They are so close they are virtually identical especially when you're talking about something so variable as a portage length. |
| timatkn |
09/11/2006 08:16AM My vote is for meters and rods. That way you appease your two audiences. Meters for Canadians and rods for us U.S. citizens. Since Quetico is traversed by more U.S. citizens than Canadians I would think using the rods measurement would be the most important. As someone else said using meters and yards is a little redundant. Good luck with the book! Tim |
| bogwalker |
09/11/2006 06:58AM Hi Kevin-any new videos of River Rat adventures for 'copia next year? I'd use meters and rods as most of us who have gone have gotten used to the concept of meters and can make the conversion. It also will help as the meters will coincide better with any Crown Lands or Quetico Park maps one might get. Looking forward to the book-I'll add it to my collection. Now I just need to retire so I can visit all the places you have inspired me to ge to. See you in March. Steve Freeman-Bogwalker |
| the truth |
09/11/2006 06:53AM It depends on who your audience is for the publication. It's been a long time since I've canoed in Canada outside of the Quetico, but I recall portage distances were shown on the map as survey distance of "chains", which I believe were equivalent to 66.5 feet per chain. I suspect they now have converted to a metric standard, so meters would be appropriate and would also be useful to anyone who isn't familiar with the "rod" term. What units of measure are shown in other canoeing areas in Canada? If you are going for audience in the U.S., the BWCAW standard of rods, which is about a canoe length, is what I understand. |
| dogwoodgirl |
09/11/2006 05:54AM Rods and meters!!! Meters are close enough to yards as to make using both of them pretty silly. Rods are what 99% of experienced canoers on the American side are used to, and meters are what the whole rest of the world uses. |
| Cedarboy |
09/10/2006 12:17PM Please use "Rods" in your next book. For those of us south of your boarder that is how we relate distance as all of our maps are in "Rods". I enjoyed hearing you speek at MidwestMtn a year or 2 ago, keep up the good work. cedarboy |
| bwells113 |
09/10/2006 12:16PM If you're trying to cater to traditional paddlers using rods is a must. I know the quetico rangers don't recognize the unit but Fisher maps still have portages in the quetico territory marked in rods. In terms of yards or meters, being an american i would say use yards, but you may want to go with one english unit and one metric. Using both yards and meters as your editor suggested seems redundant and pointless. To make the americans and canadiens happy if i were you i would use rods and meters. Good luck in finishing your guide book I look forward to reading it. |
| Georgiaboy |
09/10/2006 11:33AM I think I would go rods and meters. Most of us that go to the BWCA and Quetico use rods. The tradition of using rods is worth preserving. (Just my two cents) Of course in our heads we convert rods to miles etc. and meters to about a yard plus a bit. I am a science teacher so it really makes little difference to me but I think out of respect to our friends to the north and in consideration of tradition rods and meters would be appropriate. |
| Beemer01 |
09/10/2006 09:57AM Rods are traditional for most of us on the US side, so as an 'imperialist' I'll vote yards and rods. |
| Kevin Callan |
09/10/2006 08:26AM Hello. I'm just about to hand in my manuscript for my new paddlers guide "A Paddlers Guide to Quetico and Beyond" (to be released March 07) and I'm stumped on whether to have yards and meters or meters and rods for the portage lengths. My editor wants yards and meters and I think meters and rods. I'm thinking you guys would know best - which one? Thanks. |
Community Links
Search BWCA.com
Donate Featured Sponsor
