[Southernkomfort27]

Could someone tell me if there any differences to these two mountain areas? Are there differences in elevations? I read that the Ozarks have more cliffs. Are there any other differences? I'm interested in this because I would like to move to an area with mountains, and I'm wondering if the areas are equally picturesque.

[Capt. Dan]

I have spent more time in the ouachitas than the ozarks. I can tell you that there is something so peaceful about the ouachitas that i never want to leave. the ozarks seem to be more river influenced where the ouachita seem to be a "lake heaven"

[rackensack]

I've spent a lot more time in the Ozarks than in the Ouachitas, but my perception is that the Ozarks in general are more rugged and remote -- elevation changes on the whole are more dramatic (steep hills and cliffs) and there are a lot more places that you have to work pretty hard to get to. Just as one example, you have Mt. Sherman just outside Jasper, Arkansas, that's about 2500 ft., and it sits right beside the Little Buffalo River and the town of Jasper, which are at an elevation of about 400 ft. Eastern Madison County and western and southern Newtown County are about as remote as any place in the middle part of the U.S. The remoter parts of the Ozarks certainly stayed isolated longer than most of the Ouachitas -- Ben Hur, in southeastern Newton County, didn't even get electricity until 1969. Partly that's a factor of the Ouachitas' relative proximity to the Arkansas River, which was a major corridor of transportation throughout the state's history -- to get well up into the Ozarks from there, you had to traverse some pretty difficult terrain. Mount Magazine, Rich Mountain, etc. are as high as anything in the Ozarks, but are somehow more accessible than the higher parts of the Ozarks. The Ozarks feel "wilder" than the relatively tamer Ouachitas.

[Stormcrow73]

From a geologic perspective, the Ouachitas and Ozarks are VERY different despite being created right about the same time. The Ouachitas are folded while the Ozarks are an uplift plateau. The Ouachitas share many similarities to the Appalachians: the mountains are long chains of ridges, rock strata is angled relative to flat ground, and the ridges are somewhat interspersed with relatively broad valleys. The mountain/valley chains run roughly east-west. In contrast, the Ozarks were uplifted from ancient seabeds in three distinct plateaus. If you were to have looked down on this region millions of years of ago before weathering took place, you would have three concentric rings. The highest ring is known as the Boston Plateau and is centered roughly around Newton County. All of the "mountains" in the Ozarks are the result of weathering processes so the valleys are all of varying depth and run in virtually any direction. All of the rock strata in the Ozarks run parallel to "flat ground".

There are varying heights to mountains in both formations. The highest peaks in the Ouachitas are higher than the highest peaks in the Ozarks by a couple hundred feet or so. The difference isn't huge but it is there. The fact that there's no distinct directional preference in the Ozarks for valleys makes building roads there difficult so as other posters have said it does tend to be more remote. I'd say they are equally picturesque but I prefer the Ozarks. Come for a week or so and visit both and see which area you prefer.

[strumpeace]

IIRC, the Ouachita range is the the largest east-west mountain range in the world. I think I remember reading that a few years ago. (Most mountain ranges are north-south.)

Both ranges are pretty in their own ways. The view from the observation deck at Petit Jean out over the Arkansas River is gorgeous. But the view over the valley from the deck at Mount Magazine's new lodge may be better; it's stunning.

[Southernkomfort27]

You guys really know your mountains! They sound different, yet equally beautiful. Thanks for the information.

[hubcap]

I also think that the Ozarks are the Oldest mountain range in the United States.

[Stormcrow73]

Originally Posted by hubcap

I also think that the Ozarks are the Oldest mountain range in the United States.

This prompted me to do some research.

What I've found indicates that the oldest mountain range in North America would be the St. Francois Mountains of SE Missouri. These were formed by volcanic forces 1.4 BILLION years ago!! The Appalachians by contrast are 460 million and the Rockies only 70 million years old. The St. Francois is now a part of the Ozark uplift dome but it a geoligically distinct area. The rock now forming the Ozarks and Ouachitas was just muck at the bottom of a shallow sea when the St. Francois began to form. Can't find much to date the formation of Ozarks but the wiki article where the above came from indicates there is a suspected link between the St. Francois and the Ozarks formation which probably would place the Ozarks considerably older than the Appalachians. I'll definitely keep researching this as time allows.

Saint Francois Mountains - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[luvarkansas]

I prefer the Ozarks specifically because of their remoteness....I'm not a city person. Don't care for lakes much, either, although some of the lakes in NWA are gorgeous. The Buffalo River is just too beautiful to be believed....many thanks to the foresighted people who helped preserve it!

The "mountains" (IMO) in most of the other places in Arkansas are really just big hills....Mt. Magazine, Petit Jean, and Mt. Nebo excepted. All three of these places are very interesting and beautiful.

[GetmeoutofAR]

I like the southern Missouri Ozarks the best, gentle and midwestern