Portage between Lake Whittlesey and Chippewa Harbor

[joe edge]

My brothers, nephews and I are planning a trip up to Isle Royale and wanted to know about the Lake Whittlesey to Chippewa Harbor portage. A little background, my brothers and I went on a trip to IR about 20 years ago and had such a great time we wanted to take the next generation on a similar trip. Last time we were dropped off at McCargoe Cove and went through Chickenbone, LeSage, Richie, Intermediate, Siskiwit to Malone Bay. This trip we are talking about following the same route but instead of going to Malone Bay going through Wood lake to Whittlesey to Chippewa Harbor.

My question is, what is the portage between Whittlesey and Chippewa like? How difficult is it?

Thanks for the help!

[jrwiesz]

Easiest from the direction you plan on taking(lake to harbor).

A great resource, "Isle Royale National Park - Foot trails and Water routes" by Jim DuFresne.

He describes in his guide book,(harbor to lake) a 140' elevation gain up a ridge, down and up another ridge, then down to the lake, 0.6 mile portage.

Chickenbone, Ritchie, Siskiwit, Wood, Whittlesey, Chippewa, probably some of the best fishing in the park! Lucky next gen!

[Ingo]

It's not terrible, but you do have to watch your footing. From my 2002 trip log of that same route:

"This portage probably has the roughest footing of the trip with more rocks and roots than the others, though not as steep as some. Beautiful scenery at the end of the portage looking up Chippewa Harbor."
"Paddled up Chippewa Harbor. Maybe the most scenic paddle of the trip."

Definitely worth it!

[Wilderness Junkie]

This portage probably has the roughest footing of the trip with more rocks and roots than the others, though not as steep as some

Agreed.

I made this portage both ways last May. Unless you have light packs and boats, I would plan on 2 trips - one for gear and one for the boat. There are quite a few areas that could end in a bruised tailbone if you miss a step.

[joe edge]

Thanks for all the replies. I think the three sherpas...er, I mean nephews, will be able to handle it.

[Gimp]

I haven't been on that portage myself but have been reading through some trip reports as I plan on being there in late July. The following reports mention it and even have a few pictures. The general consensus seems to be that it's rockier than the other portages, but nothing to get too concerned about.

http://isleroyaleforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1866

http://isleroyaleforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1985

These guys portaged at night with headlamps: http://isleroyaleforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1802

I think that if the pathways at Isle Royale were too easy, the views at the end wouldn't seem so welcoming and my memories wouldn't be as vivid.

[bergman]

I have made the portage ( multiple trips) 1/2 dozen times in each direction. Obviously you will be portaging INTO Whittlesey from Wood Lake. Don't let that portage fool you into thinking that your final portage on the trip will be moderately difficult.

The park map shows the wood-whittlesey portage to be 0.6 miles, and that's pretty accurate. It also says your final portage is 0.6 - that can't be right. It measures 0.53 miles (as crow flies). When u account for the elevation change and straight line deviation, it's about 2/3 mile. It feels longer than that.

The difference between the two portages is like night and day. If all of the portages were like Wood-Whittlesey, the park would be overrun by visitors.

I would guess that the semi-annual foot race amongst the wolves is held over that trail. The winter race starts at the far west end of Siskiwit Lake out to Ryan Island and then back. As they enter the narrows on the return leg, i've heard there's been quite a bit of bumping and shoving, so two awards are given out: the fastest and also the best sportswolfship. Not too many years back, Ranger Pete discovered a fox den where most of the award ribbons had been cached. They are now on display in the old school house at chippewa harbor.

We must be thankful for the park's challenges in that respect (# of visitors limited by virtue of the challenges). So be sure to give yourself plenty of time to do that final portage.

You want to have decent light when u put-in at Chippewa Harbor, as I find that put-in to be one of the toughest in the park. More than once i have come close to injury there. Maybe I'm just tired when I do it. It's a narrow deep V-shape of water right along a ledge on the side from which you climb into your canoe (the opposite side is guarded by haphazardly strewn boulders and an immediate drop-off). Unless u are prepared to wade in (from the end of the "V") better than knee deep, and if so, u will have to negotiate a few boulders with your feet. Bottom line is it helps to have good lighting there, and even before sunset, it will be rather dark in that spot. Boo!

[MikeT]

Profile Lake Whittlesey to Wood Lake (east to west):

Overview: The lake level at Wood Lake is 10’ lower than at Lake Whittlesey. Despite the elevation changes on this portage, it seems to be easy due to the level areas in between the changes. It was quite enjoyable and was one of the easiest portages of any distance I have done.

Profile Chippewa Harbor to Lake Whittlesey (east to west):

Overview: The lake level at Lake Whittlesey is 69’ higher than Chippewa Harbor. This portage is relatively short, but it is hard due to quite a few rock steps, roots and just enough turns to make it where you have to keep your head up. None of the elevation changes are that steep, but it is almost always either going up or down. However, it is a lovely trail and well worth the work to get to Lake Whittlesey, and the wilderness feeling of it.

Also, Wood Lake is a beautiful campground with great views of both lakes a few steps away from the campsites. A great place to spend the night if the lake lets you paddle there from Malone Bay.

[bergman]

MikeT-
Awesome profiles!
The profile for the Wood Lake portage trail shows a high point of 748'. How is that derived? A spokesman for CHP tells me that the trail goes no higher than 738', and they are measuring that elevation at tail height. Thanks.

The sweetness of the Wood Lake trail is all about the foot-friendly trail surface. One can practically make the portage in bare feet, if you can believe that is ever possible on IsleRoyale. Although Stockly Bay to Lane Cove comes to mind.

[MikeT]

Bergman,
When doing profiles, I use a combination of my watch with and altimeter and, mostly, my GPS and noting readings in a small notepad. I am typically doing this while working (i.e. portaging, walking, etc.) and the GPS can loose signal and often does on the island in forested areas. Most of my readings tend to be averages, so the profiles come out pretty accurate, but definitely have a +/- in the actual readings. My main goal is to create a profile more than represent actual readings. I am hoping to get a newer GPS before this spring's trip. Mine is from 2001 and they have come a long way since then.

I agree on the Wood Lake portage, it is nice. Funny how it is so close to the Whittlesey-Wood portage, but so different.

Question, who are CHP? (maybe I am having a brain lapse and should know)

[bergman]

Thanks for the profile details, MikeT.
CHP=chippewa harbor pack. (Hint: "measured at tail height"). . I figure the wolves must really enjoy running that trail. Two or three can probably run side by side most of the way, and remain carefree as to any obstacles (tree roots & rocks). Except for the short trail into Siskiwit Lake from Malone Bay, i've never hiked anywhere in the park further to the west. Are there some foot-friendly trails on the western half of the park?

[Midwest Ed]

MikeT-
The profile for the Wood Lake portage trail shows a high point of 748'. How is that derived? A spokesman for CHP tells me that the trail goes no higher than 738', and they are measuring that elevation at tail height.

The short answer is that a 10 foot difference means nothing.

By virtue of the orbital positions of GPS satellites and trigonometry, the inherent errors in vertical positioning is approximately 1.5X greater (on average) than the horizontal errors. Both errors (horizontal and vertical) are susceptible to many sources such as satellite visibility and receiver velocity as two main examples. The difference between any two sample readings would be expected to exceed more than the 10 foot difference shown here between these two sources (Mike’s GPS and the wolf’s collar GPS). There are methods to dramatically reduce these errors but require scientific or military grade receivers, computational power and most of all many samples taken over a long time.

[MikeT]

Not having access to inside information from the CHP, I may be able to develop an algorithm to compensate for the GPS deficiencies. I might also be able to hack into their telemetry readings and incorporate those. I will see what I can do to compensate. One thing that may make my readings a bit more accurate is I am moving at a slightly slower speed than the CHP. Especially when portaging. Not much, but it must be taken into account. Portaging, I tend to slow down a little more, so they may be even more accurate. However, taking into account the sheer number of readings by the CHP, they are gathering a lot of data.

All that being said, I believe I need to get out my hiking flask and ponder my whole scientific process.