Just a quick question on the BWCA campsites. So I get the general rating of 1-5 but I find many sites listed as "not rated". Do I interpret that these sites are so bad that not even Sasquatch would consider spending the night there? (who is obviously a hardened outdoor sleeping expert.) Or could these be actual 5's that no one has ever stayed at?

It simply means that no one has rated it.

Unrated means unrated.
However, you can highly lean on the likelihood that they are not 4's or 5's

I think there are several factors here:

1. I think that campsites use tends to occur from the “route” to the outside. We tend to use/visit campsites closer to our route than to paddle the extra 15-20 min to the one a mile away.

2. The second is a “rating bias”, we will tend to use those rated sites before an unrated site. So, until a site receives a rating we tend not to take the chance on putting the work to go there when we “know” a rated site will work.

3. I think, much like our favorite fishing holes, the group tends toward keeping their knowledge of a favorite site to themselves to 1. Lessen the chance of overuse and 2. Lessen the chance of showing up and finding it taken.

4. While this group has been around for quite a while, statistically, it takes time for any group to cover a given geographical area. And given that a large portion of our group favors returning to familiar routes and fishing holes each year, the set of us who visit different territories each year is even smaller yet. Then, of those who explore, there is even a smaller set that are willing to make campsite reports.

I have visited/used a couple of “unrated” sites and have found them to be quite acceptable. For that matter, don’t get me started on the subjectivity of “ratings” that are there. Any rating more than 5 years old is suspect. Weather, overuse, abuse, FS changes, etc can and do occur.

Go forth and explore!

Your mission, should you decide to accept it . . .

I agree with what's been said. I will look at them as a general guide, but they are subjective according to many variables - weather, needs, preferences, experience, etc. If there are 2 ratings and one is 2 and the other 4, is it a 3 . . . ?

Another perspective...

I notice sometimes people will comment on a site but not rate it. Which, for me, is the more important factor. As mentioned, ratings are subjective but, much of the layout (landing, tent pads and to a lesser degree tree cover) doesn't. So i pay more credence to the comments & photos rather than the rating. I will say that even for the ones I've rated.

And just like the comments meaning more than a rating number, GOOD photos are worth 1,000 words, especially photos that give perspective of the overall site, not just how cool the campfire pit is or how flat a tent pad is (as examples).

Agree that the sites that have no rating are, most of the time, at the lower end of the "quality campsite" scale.

TuscaroraBorealis: "Another perspective...


I notice sometimes people will comment on a site but not rate it. Which, for me, is the more important factor. As mentioned, ratings are subjective but, much of the layout (landing, tent pads and to a lesser degree tree cover) doesn't. So i pay more credence to the comments & photos rather than the rating. I will say that even for the ones I've rated. "

Good point, TB. I've stayed at several sites more than once and sometimes liked it more or less depending on conditions. I might have rated it lower or higher depending on weather and other conditions.

Thanks everyone for your input. I'm going make it a point to accept the mission, go forth and explore an unrated site on my next trip if there is one where I end up. I will be sure to rate it and snap a few pic's to post as well. Thanks to all again!

I was a volunteer ranger in the BW last summer, I came across quite a few real nice unrated campsites. In general I do not like 5 star, sites as they seem to be really beat down and dusty from overuse,

LindenTree: "I was a volunteer ranger in the BW last summer, I came across quite a few real nice unrated campsites. In general I do not like 5 star, sites as they seem to be really beat down and dusty from overuse,"

Some really nice sites are not rated to prevent crowds from swarming in. Spend less time looking at ratings and more time exploring the wilderness, IMO.

Ratings can also change wildly based on number of people and camp type. As someone who primarily solo's in a hammock, I actually like the small sites that will usually be rated lower. Where if I was with a group of 6-7 people it would be a one star, as a solo it's a 4 or even a 5.

Just goes to show the good photos and notes are worth more.

I went thru Saganaga Lake in August on our last night of the Granite River route and a couple of sites we picked out ahead of time were taken. We traveled from site to site to find a home for the night and probably went in the wrong direction. I was amazed that some of the the sites marked on the map were not there. Some that were there were so bad they were uncampable. We found a decent site off the main route in a bay that was away from canoe and motor traffic. It was apparently not used often. There were a lot of thorny things around the camp area that I trimmed down. It was an acceptable spot for our last night but probably only 2 stars.

Those are simply the sites that TB has not yet visited. Be patient - he will get there shortly.

Envious of all your trips Tuscarora!

Speckled: "Those are simply the sites that TB has not yet visited. Be patient - he will get there shortly.


Envious of all your trips Tuscarora!"

LOL

TuscaroraBorealis: "I pay more credence to the comments & photos rather than the rating."

I completely agree. In fact, the last few trips I've been on, I've taken the time to stop by and get a good photo of several of the sites near my route and post them on this website to help others in their planning.