Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The results of the poll show that many here know what they are talking about, are not homers and are willing to give credit where credit is due.
Your remarks show that you have issues with New York not winning this poll, period. You are also coming across as very geographically ignorant.
I agree. I voted for Michigan because I have visited many times and im very impressed with their lakes. Its not just the great lakes either. They have many great inland lakes too. I don't see why topogrophy should play a role anyways.
KidCann, those are a bit better. But still you leave me unimpressed because 1) those are average little hills that do not phase anybody and 2) they are nothing compared to states that should be winning like Alaska, New York, California, Montana, and Maine.
IF this were a thread discussing which State had bigger hills, then you MIGHT have something to argue about. Seeing how it is a thread dealing with LAKES, you don't have a leg to stand on. I've lived in the Northeast for 20 years, been all through NY, ME (lived there), and the other New England States. Have family in MT, so I have spent some time there as well. For clean, clear lakes none of them can touch the Great Lakes region. Period.
IF this were a thread discussing which State had bigger hills, then you MIGHT have something to argue about. Seeing how it is a thread dealing with LAKES, you don't have a leg to stand on. I've lived in the Northeast for 20 years, been all through NY, ME (lived there), and the other New England States. Have family in MT, so I have spent some time there as well.For clean, clear lakes none of them can touch the Great Lakes region. Period.
Topography plays a major role in determining a nice lake. You can not be serious saying the lake surroundings what you see do not matter. Minnesota has the highest boat per person ratio in the country, which equals boat exhaust pollution, leaks, and toxic antifouling paint.
It's in the midwest, but it's nothing like what you were describing (a prairie land with shallow muddy waters.) What's funny is that LI is full of shallow muddy marshland waters, as is Miami, so expressing your disliking of these types of lakes is pretty ironic.
Last edited by BPerone201; 06-16-2010 at 10:30 AM..
Does that mean that the ocean near Long Island isn't nice, since LI is mostly flat?
It is not that nice, just a sliver towards Montauk and parts of the northern part of the island where there are decent smaller cliffs. If it had palm trees though, that would help make up for it.
All of these are in Northern MN. Sure, not giant huge mountians, but the topography here is anything but 'flat'.
What's interesting about Minnesota is the highest point above sea level is near Lake Superior, which shows there is quite a divergence of terrain. That area, by the way, is near Rt 61, in the upper, northeast corner of Minnesota that slides into Ontario. Many make the mistake that Minnesota is a flat state, but the aforementioned area is an exception, as many of these pictures prove.
Topography plays a major role in determining a nice lake. You can not be serious saying the lake surroundings what you see do not matter. Minnesota has the highest boat per person ratio in the country, which equals boat exhaust pollution, leaks, and toxic antifouling paint.
In fresh water you don't have to use anti-fouling paint. As for numbers of boats per person, that is meaningless. What would be a better indicator of pollution from boats would be the number of boats per square mile of water. Where did you get the information with the boat/person ratio? I would like to look at that site, and haven't been able to find a reliable source for that information.
In fresh water you don't have to use anti-fouling paint. As for numbers of boats per person, that is meaningless. What would be a better indicator of pollution from boats would be the number of boats per square mile of water. Where did you get the information with the boat/person ratio? I would like to look at that site, and haven't been able to find a reliable source for that information.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
