I can't comment about the thunder box specifically; when I visited the campsite I didn't explore enough to find it. I hated the campsite though, it was very unappealing. With only 1 permit issued for the lake, I can't think of any reason to take #2 over #1. Neither of the sites are spectacular, but #1 is the better site in every way, in my opinion.

It has a poor rocky landing (will depend on water levels), there's nowhere at the shore to reliably store canoes, a very steep rocky incline up to the site, the site itself is tiny and had zero seating by the very small fire pit when I visited. You can get your tent pitched but otherwise there wasn't a single thing that I enjoyed about the site personally. I have pictures for both campsites on my website but I'm guessing you saw that already if you browsed the PCI

trippythings wrote:

It has a poor rocky landing (will depend on water levels), there's nowhere at the shore to reliably store canoes, a very steep rocky incline up to the site, the site itself is tiny and had zero seating by the very small fire pit when I visited. You can get your tent pitched but otherwise there wasn't a single thing that I enjoyed about the site personally. I have pictures for both campsites on my website but I'm guessing you saw that already if you browsed the PCI

Yeah. That doesn't sound so good.  Thanks! 

Thanks Ian! 

Last edited by Shayne74 (5/06/2024 1:08 pm)

martin thanks for your comments,, i agree 100 %   
  i asked about 2 remote campsites on the weekend and i got a  e- mail reply back stating that i had to be a  paid member as well,, the campsites where submitted by a third party ??
     not a good experience for a old guy like me looking for help,  lord knows , i have fed people in algonquin, i have carried strangers packs and canoes while waiting for a water taxi ride ,, we all have to look after each other , but i guess that does not pay da bills
     

Also for the comment about certain campsites being submitted by third-parties:

Everyone that submitted a campsite report to my website before the membership change, was offered a lifetime membership for free. I also offered to remove their submissions if they weren't supportive of the change. This communication was sent well in advance of the change taking place because I believed it was the transparent and right thing to do. Only one single person requested to have their submission removed.

And for everyone that submits a campsite report after the membership change, they get paid for their contribution (there is a page on my website that outlines this in more detail, but in summary, each report = $10 with bonuses for every 5th and 10th report). These people are spending their own time to take photos and write written descriptions of the campsites, they deserve to be compensated for their work, time, and effort.

I made the measured decision to keep the PCI links that originated with "Algonquin & Beyond", by adding the distinguishing "PM" designation and explaining this with .. "NOTE: As of Feb. 21 of 2024, "paid membership" is required to access reports on AlgonquinBeyond.com. AlgonquinAdventures.com will still link to those reports, and will indicate the required membership by a "PM" at the end of each such link." .. in the PCI's sub-list frame.

Changes tend to be a shock, but the internet is always evolving. My decision was to adapt to this change as best I can.

MartinG wrote:

Good deal! Barry you should consider charging Cody for the inbound links. Maybe he can pay to advertise on AA. After all he is surfing on the back of AA and it's contributors.

Agree.
 

Good point Shayne. Life is too short for these sorts of squabbles. Good luck Cody. Happy camping!