How often do folks in the southern end of "NorCal” ever visit the remaining 350 miles north of them? (Los Angeles: camping, living in)

[Senno]

Originally Posted by BlackShoe

No way. Bishop is either in the northern part of SoCal or the southern part of CenCal, most likely the latter. Have long been a bit undecided as to whether South Lake Tahoe is in NorCal or CenCal, and SLT is a long way from Bishop.

Yep, afraid so.

[pch1013]

Originally Posted by mateo45

Which is to say, have always believed that huge, roughly one third of the state north of that urban divide, is basically another place and culture altogether, which has no counterpart whatever in "SoCal" or "NorCal", except that we've just sort of arbitrarily ''tacked it on'' as an afterthought.

I think the same could be said for much of "ValCal" (the Central Valley) and "EastCal." For instance, I think the discussion of whether Bishop is in "SoCal" or "NorCal" misses the mark. IMHO, it's neither.

[Ruth4Truth]

Bay Area people go to Yosemite, Tahoe, Mendocino, the Trinity Alps, various redwood groves up north, even up to Arcata. Ukiah, Redding, whatever. Some people have summer places at Echo Lake or Tahoe or in Trinity County. OP, you sound like you don't really know people who have deep roots in Northern California. Maybe most of the people you know are transplants?

[mateo45]

Geez, that kinda reminds me of rednecks deciding who are the "real Amurikins". So how come so defensive about this issue (or "righteously indignant" as the case may be... LOL)! !

BTW, I notice that only less than one percent of Berserkley are natives (aka, have "deep roots").

[caligirlz]

Originally Posted by mateo45

In all the discussions about where the "real" NorCal is, am curious how often folks around the Sacto or Bay areas ever actually venture into the aprox. 350 miles still remaining between them and the OR border (Chico, Redding, Yreka, Modoc County, the North Coast, etc.)?

Never, at least not yet. I have a friend who lives just over the Oregon border so I'd like to go visit her one of these days. Sounds like a fun road trip!! I grew up in southern & central cal, so I'm much more familiar with those areas.

[wburg]

Not very often--there are still a lot of places on my "California spots I want to visit" list, but I visit the Northcoast every couple of years. Humboldt, Mendocino and Del Norte really are their own world--they call it the "Redwood Curtain." Been to Redding and other parts of the north state a few times. You could spend your whole life just vacationing in different parts of California without repeating yourself.

But without Huell Howser, how will we find out about the a-ma-zing parts of California we might never visit?

[Archan]

I think that Northern California goes down to just beyond Fresno and on the coast down just north of Paso Robles. We have to keep Yosemite and Big Sur for us!!

[Bulldogdad]

In the last 35 years of my life I have hunted, fished, camped and hiked every part of Norcal from the Tehachapis to the OR border and from Nevada to the Pacific.

[Deezus]

Originally Posted by mateo45

Without getting into arguments where the particular "dividing lines" are, was wondering how well the NorCal/SoCal analogies hold up. For example, it seems like "SoCal" is much more culturally unified and well-traveled all over, even inland and right up to the southern border... compared to say, the Bay area and Sacto folks who may consider themselves "NorCal", yet apparently don't really travel much or have anything in common beyond a relatively small and narrow east/west urban strip across the lower end.

Which is to say, have always believed that huge, roughly one third of the state north of that urban divide, is basically another place and culture altogether, which has no counterpart whatever in "SoCal" or "NorCal", except that we've just sort of arbitrarily ''tacked it on'' as an afterthought.

Southern California is a much smaller region than Northern California. From Santa Barbara County to the Mexican border isn't really that far--and the region can basically be divided into the coasts and the deserts.

Northern California on the other hand--however it's defined(I've always said it's everything to the SLO and Kern County line)--is a large area with plenty of sub-regions and areas that feel fairly removed from each other. Much of the North Coast is harder to reach from the Sacramento Valley than it would seem--you're frequently driving over long winding mountain roads. The routes over the Sierras(or Cascades) can be fairly snowy and slow to travel(or closed). And the far north of California is really it's own sub-region due to it's relative isolation.

I have cousins and uncles in Butte County, who might go to Shasta to go skiing or go up to Plumas County occasionally, but they're never going to travel to Modoc County or Crescent City--they are more likely to go south to Sacramento and Tahoe or the Bay. Del Norte County itself is much easier to reach for people in Southern Oregon than from any real populated place in California outside of Eureka/Arcata. When I lived in Ashland I used to go to the Marble Mountains and the Siskiyous just over the Oregon border and rarely saw more than a few scattered souls out on the trails.

And my dad who spends a good amount of the year in Plumas County, is just happy that the crowds an hour and a half to the south in Tahoe don't find there way up there in the winter time. But from where his place is, he's more likely to go to Reno for the day than going up to a neighboring county in California for any reason.

[mateo45]

Originally Posted by Deezus

Southern California is a much smaller region than Northern California. From Santa Barbara County to the Mexican border isn't really that far--and the region can basically be divided into the coasts and the deserts.

Northern California on the other hand--however it's defined(I've always said it's everything to the SLO and Kern County line)--is a large area with plenty of sub-regions and areas that feel fairly removed from each other. Much of the North Coast is harder to reach from the Sacramento Valley than it would seem--you're frequently driving over long winding mountain roads. The routes over the Sierras(or Cascades) can be fairly snowy and slow to travel(or closed). And the far north of California is really it's own sub-region due to it's relative isolation.

I have cousins and uncles in Butte County, who might go to Shasta to go skiing or go up to Plumas County occasionally, but they're never going to travel to Modoc County or Crescent City--they are more likely to go south to Sacramento and Tahoe or the Bay. Del Norte County itself is much easier to reach for people in Southern Oregon than from any real populated place in California outside of Eureka/Arcata. When I lived in Ashland I used to go to the Marble Mountains and the Siskiyous just over the Oregon border and rarely saw more than a few scattered souls out on the trails.

And my dad who spends a good amount of the year in Plumas County, is just happy that the crowds an hour and a half to the south in Tahoe don't find there way up there in the winter time. But from where his place is, he's more likely to go to Reno for the day than going up to a neighboring county in California for any reason.

Agreed, including the SLO/Kern division, and especially re: the formidable mountainous divisions in the northern end of the state. But even in addition to the geography, I think that NorCal and SoCal also have way more in common with each other culturally, than either have with the "true NorCal", which is really its own region altogether (much as our Sacto & Bay area friends may choose to differ).