On June 9th, 5 of us BWCA veterans along with 1 rookie, will begin an 8-day Quetico trip. We've done some day trips into the southern fringes of Q, but never camped overnight. For you folks that have enjoyed both sides of the border, what are the noticeable differences between the Quetico and BWCA experience?

Snakecharmer

Fewer people-a lot fewer people in Quetico. Its not a surprise to be travelling in the summer and not see anyone on a day or two.

Some portages are much more rugged in Quetico and some not well maintained at all which is fine by me. I like a more rustic, less managed feeling area.

Some campsites in Quetico are in great shape with lots of improvemnts, but some get overused and some are disgusting due to poor human waste disposal by previous campers. Some campsites are much less used and thus more primitive or rugged. I like these sites the best. Overall I like BW campsites a little better because of the latrine-I do like the more rustic less used sites in Quetico though.

Plenty of campsites to pick from-you should be able to travel well into the afternoon and not worry about finding a site, plus if one does not exist you can camp anywhere-but stick to established sites.

Water Clarity is awesome in places. If you get to Argo you will see what I mean.

Cost-Quetico is much more expensive. The process to obtain a reservation is more time consuming and picking up your permit can take longer.

Wildlife is about the same, fishing might be a touch better in Quetico.

As far as the skills needed, they're the same (paddle, portage, camp, navigate). The landscape is similar.

Bogs hit most of the logistic things - harder to get permits; crossing an international border, etc.

I agree with him about the campsites. I much perfer the BW campsites over the Q. I like having the firegrate, but the biggest for me is the latrine. If the Q had them I'd be much more likely to go. Some of those sites are a mess with human waste.

The biggest reason I don't go often is the cost. It's bad enough if you're paying for yourself, but gets bad when you've got a couple of youngsters. I know, relatively speaking it is still a cheap vacation, but it's still too much for my limited means. In addition to the camping fees (per person per day opposed to the BW at $10 a person a trip), I've got non-resident fishing license; and costs associated with crossing the border.

Bogs is right, there are a lot less people. You decide if that is a good thing or not.

I will say that I spent the night before an entry at Fort Frances. Now that was an experience (good)! It was my first time in a foriegn country. I got to play with new money; watched Friday Night Canadian Football on TV in our motel; had ketchup flavored potato chips; experienced a hundred different cultural things, all the while feeling comfortable and speaking my native tongue. I think those crossing the border on a RABC are missing a fun aspect of going to the Q.

I think they both got it right.

It out weighs all the negatives by the positives of seclusion and rusticness of the place. Day's of not seeing people is much more possible. Fishing is, dare I say, better.

Latrines and fire grates don't matter to me and rough portages are something we aim for. (BW portages seem like highways when you cross them again)

Portages don't have to be on maps to be there. (milt lake anyone?)

A lot more error on where the red line portages are.

Possible mental pain is camps are rarely marked on maps the further in you go. When it comes down to it, and your looking for a sight to satisfy the needs of the group is where our group dynamics are sometime strained... but you can camp anywhere once you give up looking for the perfect spot.

Hex

I agree with every thing that has been already stated. I did not like having to carry the firegrate. I went the 2nd week of June so there was no human waste except our own. Didn't see a person for three days and he was a ranger. Fishing was better, and fish were larger. I saw more wildlife than I saw in the BWCA which is hard to believe. I did not have problems with the portages.

Ditto to the above - the portages can be quite rough - I advise against a front pack - a technique I usually use in the BWCA.

On the other hand I've been fortunate enough never to find a campsite bespoiled by stupid campers' waste.

snakecharmer, what entry point you going in at? We have a Carp lake entry for June 10th and Twist tie collector will be in that area also that week.

Thanks everyone for your responses. It is really helpful in planning our trip since none of us has overnighted in the Q.

Kevheads - We will be entering through Beaverhouse and exiting out the Malign River to LLC.

It sounds like the campsites are in general, much more rustic. Is wood more plentiful? Seems like it should be. We are discussing bringing along some light weight camp chairs. Is that necessary? Or is there plenty of rocks/logs etc for sitting around most campsites?

Other than the shovel, is there any other equipment that would be necessary/advisable for a Q vs. BW trip?

Snakecharmer.

The campsites are only more rustic because there is no fire grate or latrine. Otherwise very similar as they are carved out of similar type forested areas.

I would say the wood is generally more plentiful if compared to overused sites of the BW. If you hit some less used sites of the BW it would be considered equal.

usually plety of places to sit between built log areas similar to BW, rocks and even a couple other amenities. You could still bring chairs, but there are places to sit at most sites.

A fire grate might be nice as many sites will not have anything more than a rock fire area. I have seen everything from steel bars placed at the right length apart, to fold up grates with legs, to old wire refrigerator shelves placed between two rocks. Some camp sites may have a stashed fire grate back in the woods. If you find one you can use it but leave it at the campsite.

If your looking for solitude, great fishing and wildlife, Quetico has the BW beat hands down. Don't get me wrong, I like the BW too, but I leave that trip for the kids and I. The management of the Park is what I wish the BW was. Next year it will be more interesting with the new fishing reg's.

Bottom line is, if you like to paddle, either park will do. I just like knowing that when I find the eye's, it's pretty constant, or the large Northern's or the very large Small Mouth Bass. Oh I forgot to mention the non-stop action of Lake Trout, which everyone should experience (airplane jig)(100'depth), most lakes.

25th year up there in 2006, they must be doing something right.

Beside being expencive, people haven't mentioned that is wilder, and scarier!!!!Regular BWCA canoists should probably stay home!!

Fishguts, it's almost as if you are discouraging people from going to the Q. LOL!

Our group found Quetico to be a real nice change from the BWCA. As has been mentioned, there are many similarities between the Q and the BWCA. But they are certainly managed differently. I did miss having a latrine, but the most notable difference to me was the absence of people in the Q and their impact. I found the solitude alone worth the added expense.

Sorry FG, but I'll probably be going back.

Snakecharmer

snakecharmer,

Your reasons why you like Quetico is the reason we should spread the word.......Quetico is SCARY!!! Stay in the BWCA where it's safe. It's very wild up there, and some people never return!

Fishguts is right! What I forgot to mention were the saber-tooth snapping turtles and man-eating chipmunks. The mosquitoes in Quetico all drive around in bloodmobiles. VERY SCARY place north of the border. Stay down south where it's safe! And did I mention the expense?!? I had to raid my kids' college funds. Think of the children people! Stay home! LOL.

Snakecharmer

Now you have the spirit snakecharmer, Scary!! Quetico has wolves and mosquitoes and leaches, Oh My!!! I grew up in the BWCA, but haven't been back much since the potties and fire grates appeared....and all the people, Oh! My!

The visitors are scary too!!! Bunch of wild men running from something.Come to think about it- how bout those scarey folks at the Tanner Lake dam? I'll have trouble sleeping after that!!! After this year I'll find it harder to return to my regular BW haunts.

Hey Fishguts, you're not fooling anybody, we all read your trip report!

I recently read about a crazy group of men and women who travelled the Q together. They had a distinct "Pink" cast about them and were seen cohabitating with Flamingos and eating Pepto Bismol laced stew!!! Not sure if they had beaver fever, but they certainly were a little stramge.

Be careful if you go to the Q-You never know who you might run into. This group may still be up there for all I know.

:-)

;-)

Hey bog walker maybe they were aliens-Or members of the group that committed suicide to join the aliens flying in the tail of Hail Bop comet!!
The bunch we saw there were right out of " Deliverance" One was a goth in heels- no kidding

Yes! Quetico is a very wild and weird place. All should beware and keep away!!!!Aliens and flamingos and weirdoes OH! MY!
And no potties or fire grates!!
And the expense!! OH! MY!

Okay, I lied, the fishing stinks and if you get stuck in a blue berry patch and enjoy the plentiful abundance, you'll blow up like the girl on Willy Wonka.

No fire wood to be found, but the campsites are nice if you don't mind sharing your food with a bear. The kangaroo mice are carnivore's, make sure your tent is zipped up. The beavers are addicted to polyurethane and you can't leave your paddles lying on the ground. Bring an extra rope to hike them into the tree's at night.

It's probably best if you stay in the BWCA.