Last year I got out on a number of Algonquin trips with a buddy. On those trips, I noticed that my 60 year body was definitely starting to get a bit old! A couple of times I was thankful for his helping hand. Those occasions were upon coming ashore. After paddling across a good sized lake, I found my legs didn't get me out of the canoe with the same vigor that they used to. Getting under way in the canoe was fine, as was getting my gear along the portage. It was just upon coming ashore that I found myself not being up to snuff.

Well, here I am starting to plan a solo trip. Needless to say, I have a bit of trepidation concerning coming ashore in less than ideal circumstances. There are some landings that I recall quite well. Others I don't recall the shorelines too well and obviously those that I've never been too, I don't have a clue about. It's not just coming ashore at portages, but also coming ashore at campsites, that could be problematic for an old fart with stiff legs!

Back in the mid-nineties, when I started Algonquin Adventures, the concept of trip-logs was casual and has remained so, with portages' difficulty being the main concern. Everyone has their own style and format for writing trip-logs.

As a middle-aged canoeist, I fearlessly threw myself at whatever the landscape offered. Now I have to face facts. I've become an old fart with a dicey ankle and legs that can stiffen-up. I recall instances when other AA'ers remarked on their own growing long-in-the-tooth. Well, its hit home to me and I'm wondering how many others are out there in a similar pickle .. wanting to get more specific information about both portage and campsite landings?

How practical do you all think it .. to compile an "Old Fart's Index" with descriptions of portage landings, portage difficulties, campsite landings and campsite characteristics (tent capacities, exposure, etc.)???

I know it sounds a bit "wuzzy". But believe me, I know I'd certainly benefit from it. And I believe others heading toward the seniors' age would too .. not just old farts, but also those with other physical challenges and even those traveling with young children.

I'm suggesting that those young pups who are considering compiling trip-logs this year, think about their older counterparts and take special note of the potential hardships that may impact the "old farts".

As for a special "Old Fart's Index" .. what do you all think?

Barry Bridgeford
http://www.AlgonquinAdventures.com
http://www.ABRweb.ca .. Algonquin Backcountry Recreationalists - Caring for Algonquin's Backcountry

Barry,

Certainly not a bad idea but the risk is that one man's garbage might be another man's treasure...a landing that I may think is just dandy you might feel is closer to treacherous. Setting up some sort of criteria that included descriptive terms of landing conditions would help, such as "sandy", "rocky", "roots", or combinations of those could lend some clarity but there will always be at least a little personal perspective that could cloud the issue. Sometimes when I'm approaching a landing I'll be eyeing it up and thinking "aw, man, it doesn't look like there's a spot to get out" but when I pull up there happens to be that one rock at just the right spot. On the other hand, sometimes that perfect rock has a wobble to it that sends me reeling and in for a premature swim!

I'm in my forties but certainly get that stiffness and achy legs after sitting in the stern for hours and hours...one thing I'll often do upon arriving at a landing is stand up in the canoe. Usually I'll keep the paddle in contact with the bottom of the lake or stream and keeping pressure on the boat for balance and so that it won't drift on me but it offers a chance to kind of get some of the kinks out by arching your back or doing some gentle twists or weight shifting of the legs. While I'm looking forward to tripping as long as I am physically able, I'm not looking forward to the lingering side-effects!

I think rating landings/portages would be great and relatively easy to maintain. Not being a webguy, I don't know the trials that one could face, but say -- a picture of the landings, a description of the portage in general, etc.

On the side of things, being of the younger crowd on this site, it's sad to hear these things. I hope you find the proper routes, canoes, postures, or whatever it takes to keep ya tripping, Barry

Barry, for most people, 60 is getting a bit "old" to solo trip, but if you still can handle it, go for it!!

I am 45 and starting to feel the effects of working and playing hard ever since my teen years, I have a bum shoulder, knee and hip, all on my right side. I just hope that I will still be portaging and canoeing at 60 and with my son who will only be 21...man, I should of had my kids earlier.

As for giving out info on portages, tent space and landings, I'm all for it, so us "old farts" can still be around in Algonquin until we hit 90...well maybe 80. {lol}

PA, I agree that a purely subjective verbal evaluation would defeat the purpose.

This day and age, we have the advantage of digital cameras. For any "index" to be meaningful, it should rely heavily on the objectivity of photos. However, even photos can be of limited use .. what with the reflections of splashing waves or dark shadows.

There would still have to be some description given as to indicate what lies below the surface at both portage and campsite landings .. for example: "a gentle sand beach", "a boggy bottom with tricky deadwood", "an abrupt rock ledge with a deep drop-off", etc.

Likewise, actual campsites could be photographed, but would also require helpful commentary such as .. "steep climb from water to site", "only one usable tent site", "very close to lake level, possible spring flooding", "surrounded by cedars, probable bugs", "very exposed to north and west winds.", etc. The photos and commentaries would hopefully document potential problems for senior, challenged or very young campers.

I'm not suggesting any kind of numerical valuation or "rating system", as that would invite subjective confusion. Obviously, any descriptive information would have to be subject to a cautionary "disclaimers", since both park and camper "conditions" are subject to misinterpretation and change over time.

Campsite descriptions would require a very careful identification of their "locations", or else all the detail would be for nothing. Perhaps GPS co-ordinates would be the only way to go?

Any further ideas?

Barry Bridgeford
http://www.AlgonquinAdventures.com
http://www.ABRweb.ca .. Algonquin Backcountry Recreationalists - Caring for Algonquin's Backcountry

Hmmm...I'm starting the countdown (in "days") to .... 50 ..... ack.


Wasn't that long ago that people got all freaked out when they thought I was going to start some sort of database about campsites. All because I asked Markus to check out the campsites on Longbow....serendipity that he got that trip report uploaded this week, and it reminded me of that. He posted a description of the landings and the sites, and some pics. This much info about two campsites got some people quite upset.

I've had people tell me that a portage was easy, typical, etc. Yeah, to them. Damned near killed me.

Portage landings would be nice to know about ahead of time. That it climbs uphill, there's a crappy staircase, that the rocks are slippery as ice, etc, etc, etc.

Like Barry said, the best description is a photograph. Might not be a perfect solution, but would be visually accurate. A person or a paddle could give perspective as to the climb.



Barbara

Barry,

Like you, I can get stiff legs after being out on the water for a long paddle. Not because I'm old, no.
But because I'm tall.-- Yeah, that's it. That's the reason - my tallness... I'm not nearly as old as you

So as Papaddler said, strectch before you step out onto shore. I quite often stop a short ways away from
the take out and straighten my legs out for 30 seconds to get the blood flowing before I hit the landing.

I'm not too keen on an 'old fart' section.

Stainless

I too agree that some heads up on landing at portages/campsites
would be helpfull. Could be used to try and triage planned campsites
but then again such info maybe useless as the sites with easier landing
likely go first regardless of age.


Landing has me now thinking about getting out , especially the "how to do it"
versus "just do it" as was the case in years gone past.

I tend to always now un-kneel before landing where possible ( waves permitting)
and if not possible then before exiting the canoe for sure.

Once the tingly goes away , a few test stands in canoe with
paddle on bottom helps before that first step of faith .

BTW: Oh my...
That 60 figure has me worried now .. My two bro's exit the tripping scene at this
early age and now Barry starts to have me worrying that my time is soon

Let me think ... a saying like
One small step for a canoeist may seem like a giant leap "of faith" to a Zoomer
( Forget the senior part , I think Zoomer is more descriptive and does have to mean fast as we ZIP from here to there

Zoomers are a growing, vibrant and affluent community. They look at the world with optimism; they are engaged and aspire to enrich their lives and the lives of their communities."


Perhaps a solution
What's the rush when landing ... just pretend one is visually
reviewing the site from afar before actually committing to the exit
should someone ask what's up


MOTD:
The turtle has been know to participate in many a race and finish
ahead of the rabbit

Rac n

Racoon,

You are a machine!
I don't think you'll have any worries for man years, army boy!







Mark Rubino
Mark's Algonquin Park Sampler - Blog
Mark's Algonquin Park Sampler

http://www.ABRweb.ca .. Algonquin Backcountry Recreationalists - Caring for Algonquin's Backcountry

Barry, a portage index with photos and commentary would be a great long term project. Even though at 66 I guess I qualify as an old fart, there is no need to use a pejorative tag because paddlers of all ages have various limitations that make them less than first string athletes. Such an index would be useful to almost everyone. But for giggles until that index materializes, what if we started a conversation about our "favorite" worst portages? Maybe this has already been started somewhere in the archives. Here are a few of the unforgettable portages on my "avoid if at all possible" list.

1. The upstream landing of the 860m portage around Devils Chute on the Petawawa above Radiant is almost vertical right from the shoreline down into deep water. When I was younger, I walked and lined the river instead of taking the portage.

2. The 4895m portage from Dickson to Round Island, which begins with a long uphill trek and was overall in black line condition when I walked it the first and last time around 1970.

3. Cedar to Carl Wilson via Gull Lake. My memory is fuzzy on specifics, but I will never forget carrying a pack with canoe and having to pull myself upward from tree to tree.

4. Erables to Osler going north to south: a lot of uphill; much easier going in the other direction.

Yes, the "Old Fart Index" is a tad derogatory. I'd intended it as a sort of "tongue-in-cheek" label. But, who needs the grief. So, I will respect your comment and offer up the label "Portage, Landing and Site Inventory".

Alphabetic order would prevail in the following manner ...

Hambone Lake portage to Ralph Bice Lake (GPS co-ord .....)
Hambone Lake portage to south bay (GPS co-ord .....)
Hambone Lake campsite #1 (GPS co-ord .....)
Hambone Lake portage to Magnetewan Lake (GPS co-ord .....)
Hambone Lake campsite #2 (GPS co-ord .....)
Hambone Lake campsite #3 (GPS co-ord .....)

The order of listing (and the sequencing of campsites) on a lake would progress in a clockwise manner, with the first element being that one east of the magnetic-north-most point of the lake. Should a recorded campsite be closed, it could be noted as such. Likewise, if a new campsite gets added, it can be assigned a sub-number such as "Hambone Lake campsite #2a".

Each line of the inventory would be an actual active link to an individual page with its descriptive information. Each page's information format would ideally include details such as follow ...

Hambone Lake portage to Magnetewan Lake (GPS co-ord .....)
Landing: Photo(s), underwater characteristics, type of shoreline.
Topography: Photo(s), extent of steepness, roughness, wetness, additional comments.

Hambone Lake campsite #2 (GPS co-ord .....)
Landing: Photo(s), underwater characteristics, type of shoreline.
Campsite: Photo(s), contour, exposure to sun and wind, number and grade of tent sites, additional comments.

Obviously, for a good while, this would have spotty content and would rely on reader submissions. Indicating the individuals who submit the information would recognize their efforts, as well as encourage accurate portrayals.

Any further thoughts?


Barry Bridgeford
http://www.AlgonquinAdventures.com
http://www.ABRweb.ca .. Algonquin Backcountry Recreationalists - Caring for Algonquin's Backcountry

Even on the portages I have taken many times before I never have a clear memory of the total rise or fall from water to water and the elevation changes and the different pitches of incline and decline I will encounter. Ideally I would have in my head a cross sectional slice of the topography, like a line graph, with meters above sea level at both ends of the portage. I don't use a GPS (or cell phone, for that matter) and don't know its capabilities and actually don't want to get dependent on anything more than a compass and map. The inventory will be fun and useful, but part of the joy of canoeing for me is the discovery and rediscovery process. That is why, unlike some of my friends, I have never kept notes on campsites and portages.

Barry, I share your predicament. I often have to have my friends or scouts hold the canoe for a minute or so to get the blood flowing back in the legs. I think you have a great idea. Actually if you look at the QuietJourney.com site you'll find such a database for BWCA and Quetico Parks.

Here's one to model after: http://www.quietjourney.com/pdb/queticopark.html

I've contributed the portage DB over the past couple of years and I find it to be a wonderful tool to plan routes and gauge difficulties.

Having such a database for Algonquin would be welcomed by these old bones.

Carl

Thanks Carl. That's a great example.

Hopefully, if we can get an Algonquin one started, we can get people to take notes or better yet, take photos!

Let's get some more feedback from others. How many would feel motivated to stop along the way and take such photos and notes? Maybe we just have to remember that we all grow old ... and that would be motivation enough.

Barry Bridgeford
http://www.AlgonquinAdventures.com
http://www.ABRweb.ca .. Algonquin Backcountry Recreationalists - Caring for Algonquin's Backcountry

Barry

As the example Quetico database says:

Have you ever wanted to be able to click on any portage in canoe country,
and read a description of it written by someone who has actually traveled it?


YUPPERS
Sounds like an excellent addition to AA site
I would be prepared to photo and write up a blurb on
future portages I travel in AP.

P.S. The write up sounds like the best method
to me ( see earlier posing for link to samples)
Photos would be helpfull but likely
will vary depending on time of year the portage is used
( e.g. higher water in spring)so may not be essential to the DB of portages


Rac n

How about rating portages similar to downhill ski runs? Should the conditions of the portage change it would take little effort to modify it's rating.

Hi T.O.Tom

A simple "rating" would be purely dependent on the subjective impression of the person submitting the opinion. I recall such a system was proposed over at MCCR, but I don't think it was adopted for that very reason.

Detailed descriptions of the in-water-approach (the landing), the shoreline grade (level or cliff-like), extent of trouble elements (50 meters of rock-field, 100 climb at 1:1 grade, 200 meters of wet area prone to beaver dam flooding, etc.) .. these would help a person make their own decision about planning to take a portage .. rather than wondering what made a portage warrant a #5 rather than a #2.

And, having seen numerous photos accompanying trip-logs, I'm a firm believer in the added value of thoughtfully framed and composed photos.



Barry Bridgeford
http://www.AlgonquinAdventures.com
http://www.ABRweb.ca .. Algonquin Backcountry Recreationalists - Caring for Algonquin's Backcountry

So, lets start with the portage between Ragged and Big Porcupine ( on the way in ) we saw 2 elderly gentlemen last year ( yes older than my 56 years ) and they had stopped halfway up soaked with sweat and huffing and puffing and I am pretty sure they did not know what they had gotten themselves into once I told them they still had about another 300 m straight uphill to go..Maybe that is why so many people camp on Ragged. I know my legs are no longer 25 and the exercise program has started, rowing machine every night..

One of the "ratings" I read at random on the Quiet Journey site said "landings are fine". Ummmm....that's not much help.

There would need to be a "template" set up, criteria defined, etc, so that the ratings are of any value.

I'm thinking of the Rain - Hot portage and its crappy staircase...a photo is worth a thousand words in that case. The start of the portage is made worse by the creation of the staircase, but the portage itself is "not that bad".

Same with the 110m or whatever it is to get to Rosebary. It looks short and sweet on the maps, but that staircase on the east side is a menace. The last time we did it, we bypassed the steps altogether, climbing up the hill beside them instead. I'm guessing that the vegetation growth has made that more difficult to do in the past years.





Barbara

I've settled somewhere around the mid point of any information is better than none. At the same time I think pictures to go with a description make a huge difference. If a description is posted with a picture, then you'll have a good idea when you get there of whether the current conditions match the description you read. Afterwards you may still not agree with the written description but you will definitely be in a better position to confirm or refute the previous description.

Coming back to the idea of any information being better than none, I'd go easy on the "required fields" for a portage description. The structure for the naming convention that Barry suggested looks like a good idea. Some data that is fairly static like the portage length and approximate elevation change might be something to offer fields for, but I wouldn't suggest preventing anyone from entering a portage description without those fields. Beyond that I'd tend to leave it as a free text description and the option of a picture.

___________________________
No your other left!
www.loonislandoutdoors.com