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.
I'm glad our wilderness remains the way it is - it is part of Canadians' identity, and along with Russia's Boreal Forest will keep us all breathing long after the world has destroyed what remains of the Amazon and other tropical hardwood forests.
There is more to northern California that S.F. in fact, S.F. is where northern California starts when you are heading north.
From About.com
"Each degree of latitude is approximately 69 miles (111 kilometers) apart. The range varies (due to the earth's slightly ellipsoid shape) from 68.703 miles (110.567 km) at the equator to 69.407 (111.699 km) at the poles. This is convenient because each minute (1/60th of a degree) is approximately one mile."
So the difference between Toronto's latitude and Crescent City in Northern California is about 118 miles. Not much, but very different weather.
Crescent City, California
41.7561° N, 124.2006° W
43.6481° N, 79.4042° W
Toronto, Coordinates
37.7750° N, 122.4183° W
San Francisco, Coordinates
Pelee Island, reached by ferry from the northern shore of Lake Ontario, is also a fairly major wine producer.
Let me summarize it even more, in my own simple, pictoral way.
When rock like this:
Covers an area like this:
It's almost always either exposed, or just under the surface.
Makes it hard to farm, or build any infrastructure. You have to find areas where the shield dips far underground to build anything significant. Even then, it might poke up here and there, and it's probably cheaper to just do this:
Seriously, look at that map, and then mark out where all the cities are. Anything reletivly large is either not on the shield, or right on it's edge.
Not much left to do but let it sit there and be gorgious.
Anyway, that was my not so serious explaination. lol
Everyone else knows what they are talking about, but I do believe I have a point here.
.
I like it.
Probably closer to the truth than you may realize.
The drive to develope our northern areas has always been tempered by a desire to keep them unspoiled. The Group of Seven painters were such a motive force. Americans have been flying to our northern wilderness since before planes got floats and whereas many would build lodges on our remote northern lakes; they did so trying to keep the footprint minimal and non-invasive
GoodYear is one example of this with their Lodge on Wingfoot Island in Temagami area, west of Great Bear Island. They built that place by having the natives dog sled huge stones and all lumber across the ice in the winter and used it for many years as a recreational get-away for executives who liked to hunt and fish.
I traipsed all through that area as a kid searching old derelict lumber camps for that copper penny nailed to the feed bins. A thirteen year old; back packing with a bed roll and compass into the bush by himself wasn't all that unusual back then. You got hungry, you found a stream and caught a fish. The biggest hassle was not to scare the fire watch towers with smoke from your campfire.
Let me summarize it even more, in my own simple, pictoral way.
When rock like this:
Covers an area like this:
It's almost always either exposed, or just under the surface.
Makes it hard to farm, or build any infrastructure. You have to find areas where the shield dips far underground to build anything significant. Even then, it might poke up here and there, and it's probably cheaper to just do this:
Seriously, look at that map, and then mark out where all the cities are. Anything reletivly large is either not on the shield, or right on it's edge.
Not much left to do but let it sit there and be gorgious.
Anyway, that was my not so serious explaination. lol
Everyone else knows what they are talking about, but I do believe I have a point here.
.
Beautiful pics. So the shield is most of the terrain and then the muskeg is just the far northern section?
The muskeg looks very similar to the swamplands/marshlands where I come from in Louisiana. There, roads were impractical until the 1970's when bridge technology allowed linking various "high ground" areas. Now there are freeways like this (I-10 across Atchafalaya swamp, totally elevated): File:Atchafalaya Swamp Freeway.jpg - Wikimedia Commons (By the way that highway is elevated around 30 feet from the swamp below...)
So it is possible to develop in those kind of areas. Similar to muskeg, you dig out deep and put rocks instead of soil or you simply bridge highways across the landscape.
Where I live now is a karsch landscape (Austin, TX), which means lots of limestone outcroppings and we only have about 2 inches of topsoil. Development is difficult here, but we are still a large city in a terrain that requires lots of blasting, augers, and other instruments.
However, it appears that perhaps Central/Eastern Canada is more interested in conservation of the northern lands whereas Alberta and Saskatchewan are more concerned with development/population growth and they use resource extraction as the lure from other parts of Canada?
Beautiful pics. So the shield is most of the terrain and then the muskeg is just the far northern section?
The muskeg looks very similar to the swamplands/marshlands where I come from in Louisiana. There, roads were impractical until the 1970's when bridge technology allowed linking various "high ground" areas. Now there are freeways like this (I-10 across Atchafalaya swamp, totally elevated): File:Atchafalaya Swamp Freeway.jpg - Wikimedia Commons (By the way that highway is elevated around 30 feet from the swamp below...)
So it is possible to develop in those kind of areas. Similar to muskeg, you dig out deep and put rocks instead of soil or you simply bridge highways across the landscape.
Where I live now is a karsch landscape (Austin, TX), which means lots of limestone outcroppings and we only have about 2 inches of topsoil. Development is difficult here, but we are still a large city in a terrain that requires lots of blasting, augers, and other instruments.
However, it appears that perhaps Central/Eastern Canada is more interested in conservation of the northern lands whereas Alberta and Saskatchewan are more concerned with development/population growth and they use resource extraction as the lure from other parts of Canada?
A fairly accurrate generalization with the odd exception of the nickle mines at Sudbury and the mines at Elliot Lake in Ontario as examples.
So it is possible to develop in those kind of areas. Similar to muskeg, you dig out deep and put rocks instead of soil or you simply bridge highways across the landscape.
A big difference between Louisiana and Northern Ontario/Quebec is that freeze/thaw cycles make the ground unstable. That's always a problem in the north but it's especially important with muskeg because of its high water content. Your swamp highway example is similar to building a causeway -- for the dyke to hold you need stable support.
Anyway, here's the main reason why it hasn't been done in Northern Canada. Your I-10 example links New Orleans and SE USA with Houston. Such a road in Canada would link ?????? with ???????.
Overall I think you're making too big a deal of Western/Eastern differences in Canada. It has nothing to do with intentions or objectives for development. Fertile farmland was developed and that's why Southern Ontario, the St. Lawrence Valley and much of Saskatchewan/Alberta were more heavily settled and the oil sands added a bit to it (although I hope you didn't consider Fort McMurray's 60k population as the best evidence of "higher population density in the West"). The boglands and muskeg of the Canadian shield weren't. In summary, to answer your question you need a geological map, not a political one.
Pelee Island, reached by ferry from the northern shore of Lake Ontario, is also a fairly major wine producer.
Pelee Island merlot is a wonderful wine, but it's ridiculous that I have to go to Ontario to get it. The shelves at the SAQ are stocked with wines from Hungary to South Africa, but won't carry Canadian wine. It makes no sense.
Pelee Island merlot is a wonderful wine, but it's ridiculous that I have to go to Ontario to get it. The shelves at the SAQ are stocked with wines from Hungary to South Africa, but won't carry Canadian wine. It makes no sense.
I've been to at least ten SAQs looking for it, and I was told they're not allowed to carry it.
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.
