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.
Really??? You use Lake Calhoun (the ugliest lake in the state) to generalize all (~12,000) of the Minnesota lakes?
I don't find Calhoun ugly at all -- I'm not even sure where that complaint is coming from. Lakes aren't like oceans in terms of being pristine and algae-less but they're definitely not ugly either -- whether they're in MN, WI or MI (although SPDMiami would lead you to believe that lakes look better in one state vs. another....with his years of experience).
I don't find Calhoun ugly at all -- I'm not even sure where that complaint is coming from. Lakes aren't like oceans in terms of being pristine and algae-less but they're definitely not ugly either -- whether they're in MN, WI or MI (although SPDMiami would lead you to believe that lakes look better in one state vs. another....with his years of experience).
I think we can agree that certain lakes look different but in general the bigger the lake, the nicer it is. The nicer the beach front will look, the less mosquitos will use it as a breeding pool, etc. And most of those 12,000 Minnesota lakes are tiny, imo they are glorified ponds.
Lake St. Clair, while not a great lake, is bigger than any lake in Minnesota besides a great lake, Superior.
If you go to northern Michigan, kind of like Wisconsin or Minnesota, you begin to pick up these little lakes everywhere. However, the energy in Michigan is around the great lakes (Michigan, Huron, Superior). Michigan is almost an island surrounded by great lakes. Almost.
So next time Genghis tries to bring up 12,000 lakes remember that.
Minneapolis Sound had and still has a major influence over pop music. Give credit where credit is due. Jimmy Jam & Terry Lewis, Prince, Mint Condition, etc. have made significant contributions to music.
Great as that all is, it's not going to compare to Motown or the birthplace of Techno. Nor is it going to be nearly as influential as Iggy and the Stooges or MC5. Detroit's contributions to popular music in the 20th century and beyond is nearly unrivaled by any other US city.
I think we can agree that certain lakes look different but in general the bigger the lake, the nicer it is. The nicer the beach front will look, the less mosquitos will use it as a breeding pool, etc. And most of those 12,000 Minnesota lakes are tiny, imo they are glorified ponds.
Lake St. Clair, while not a great lake, is bigger than any lake in Minnesota besides a great lake, Superior.
If you go to northern Michigan, kind of like Wisconsin or Minnesota, you begin to pick up these little lakes everywhere. However, the energy in Michigan is around the great lakes (Michigan, Huron, Superior). Michigan is almost an island surrounded by great lakes. Almost.
So next time Genghis tries to bring up 12,000 lakes remember that.
I understand that northern Michigan looks very similar to Minnesota in terms of lakes, and it is similar ecologically. And I understand that Michigan (and Wisconsin) have many lakes compared to the rest of the country, which is also impressive to it's relatively small size compared to say, Minnesota. However, even though the fact may seem overhyped, it is true that Minnesota has not only more lakes, but a higher density of them as well. I'm not saying that this makes Minnesota any better than Michigan, however I would like to point out that when Ghengis brings up 12,000 lakes (in jest, he is a jester, and many of us know that) it is not untrue. Minnesota has 11,842 lakes greater than 10 acres in size. Michigan has 6,537. A simple glance at Google Maps shows that Minnesota not only has many more lakes (partially due to its size), but a much higher density of lakes, both small and large, than Michigan:
I know it is not necessarily an important point, but since it continues to be refuted without evidence, it is worth noting that Minnesota has a much higher number of inland lakes than Michigan, a much higher density of inland lakes than Michigan, and a higher number and density of large inland lakes than Michigan.
Example: 10 largest inland lakes in each state (which means the Great Lakes are excluded) - in acres:
Michigan:
1) Lake St. Clair - 275,200
2) Houghton Lake - 20,044
3) Torch Lake - 18,770
4) Mullet Lake - 17,360
5) Lake Charlevoix - 17,200
6) Burt Lake - 17,120
7) Lake Gogebic - 13,380
8) Black Lake - 10,130
9) Higgins Lake - 9,900
10) Crystal Lake - 9,854
Minnesota:
1) Lake of the Woods - 950,400
2) Rainy Lake - 220,800
3) Red Lake (Lower) - 180,999
4) Lake Mille Lacs - 132,516
5) Leech Lake - 111,527
6) Red Lake (Upper) - 107,832
7) Lake Winnibigoshish - 58,544
8) Lake Vermillion - 40,557
9) Kabetogama Lake - 25,760
10) Lake Pepin - 25,060
Michigan's top 10 lakes combined are less than half the size of Minnesota's largest lake. Michigan's number 2 - 9 lakes all combined are smaller than Minnesota's number 2 and 3 lakes, and the same size as Minnesota's number 4. Michigan's seconds largest lakes is smaller than Minnesota's 10th largest lake.
I don't need to go on.
The argument that Minnesota's lakes are all "ugly small ponds," and/or that Michigan has better lakes due to size, is ridiculous. The argument that "Lake St. Clair, while not a great lake, is bigger than any lake in Minnesota besides a great lake, Superior" is completely false. Michigan's lakes, on a scale of size, number, and density, do not parallel those of Minnesota, nor do they come close.
I understand that northern Michigan looks very similar to Minnesota in terms of lakes, and it is similar ecologically. And I understand that Michigan (and Wisconsin) have many lakes compared to the rest of the country, which is also impressive to it's relatively small size compared to say, Minnesota. However, even though the fact may seem overhyped, it is true that Minnesota has not only more lakes, but a higher density of them as well. I'm not saying that this makes Minnesota any better than Michigan, however I would like to point out that when Ghengis brings up 12,000 lakes (in jest, he is a jester, and many of us know that) it is not untrue. Minnesota has 11,842 lakes greater than 10 acres in size. Michigan has 6,537. A simple glance at Google Maps shows that Minnesota not only has many more lakes (partially due to its size), but a much higher density of lakes, both small and large, than Michigan:
I know it is not necessarily an important point, but since it continues to be refuted without evidence, it is worth noting that Minnesota has a much higher number of inland lakes than Michigan, a much higher density of inland lakes than Michigan, and a higher number and density of large inland lakes than Michigan.
Example: 10 largest inland lakes in each state (which means the Great Lakes are excluded) - in acres:
Michigan:
1) Lake St. Clair - 275,200
2) Houghton Lake - 20,044
3) Torch Lake - 18,770
4) Mullet Lake - 17,360
5) Lake Charlevoix - 17,200
6) Burt Lake - 17,120
7) Lake Gogebic - 13,380
8) Black Lake - 10,130
9) Higgins Lake - 9,900
10) Crystal Lake - 9,854
Minnesota:
1) Lake of the Woods - 950,400
2) Rainy Lake - 220,800
3) Red Lake (Lower) - 180,999
4) Lake Mille Lacs - 132,516
5) Leech Lake - 111,527
6) Red Lake (Upper) - 107,832
7) Lake Winnibigoshish - 58,544
8) Lake Vermillion - 40,557
9) Kabetogama Lake - 25,760
10) Lake Pepin - 25,060
Michigan's top 10 lakes combined are less than half the size of Minnesota's largest lake. Michigan's number 2 - 9 lakes all combined are smaller than Minnesota's number 2 and 3 lakes, and the same size as Minnesota's number 4. Michigan's seconds largest lakes is smaller than Minnesota's 10th largest lake.
I don't need to go on.
The argument that Minnesota's lakes are all "ugly small ponds," and/or that Michigan has better lakes due to size, is ridiculous. The argument that "Lake St. Clair, while not a great lake, is bigger than any lake in Minnesota besides a great lake, Superior" is completely false. Michigan's lakes, on a scale of size, number, and density, do not parallel those of Minnesota, nor do they come close.
One should note that neither Lake of the Woods, or Lake St. Clair are completely within the borders of their respective states. That Might change the acreage when factoring.
It leaves one to wonder how big of lakes Michigan might have if it weren't already over 40% covered in water. Yes Minnesota definitely has some big lakes. It is intellectually dishonest to insinuate that it somehow puts it ahead of Michigan in the inland lake and leisure category. It is an more stupid hyperbole in my opinion to claim that MN's (inland) lakes are inferior to Michigans. Lets move past this guys.
It leaves one to wonder how big of lakes Michigan might have if it weren't already over 40% covered in water. Yes Minnesota definitely has some big lakes. It is intellectually dishonest to insinuate that it somehow puts it ahead of Michigan in the inland lake and leisure category. It is an more stupid hyperbole in my opinion to claim that MN's (inland) lakes are inferior to Michigans. Lets move past this guys.
I agree, and I hope I made that clear in my post. The only objective factor that would play in would be accessibility, and that doesn't always reflect quality, unless you consider accessibility a quality in itself.
Also, if Michigan didn't have it's Great Lakes, it would most likely not have most if any of it's existing inland lakes. The water came from receding glaciers, and if there hadn't been enough of it to create the current Great Lakes, there wouldn't have been enough to create the inland lakes either. The same goes for Minnesota.
One should note that neither Lake of the Woods, or Lake St. Clair are completely within the borders of their respective states. That Might change the acreage when factoring.
It definitely does. However (not to sound nit-picky) it would still leave Lake of the Woods much larger than St. Clair. It's worth mentioning than Rainy Lake is also partially within Ontario, however there are laws that state that anyone from either country has access to the entirety of the lake by boat (as well as Lake of the Woods and St. Clair), as part of the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 (one of my favorite treaties - if normal people have one of those).
I understand that northern Michigan looks very similar to Minnesota in terms of lakes, and it is similar ecologically. And I understand that Michigan (and Wisconsin) have many lakes compared to the rest of the country, which is also impressive to it's relatively small size compared to say, Minnesota. However, even though the fact may seem overhyped, it is true that Minnesota has not only more lakes, but a higher density of them as well. I'm not saying that this makes Minnesota any better than Michigan, however I would like to point out that when Ghengis brings up 12,000 lakes (in jest, he is a jester, and many of us know that) it is not untrue. Minnesota has 11,842 lakes greater than 10 acres in size. Michigan has 6,537. A simple glance at Google Maps shows that Minnesota not only has many more lakes (partially due to its size), but a much higher density of lakes, both small and large, than Michigan:
I know it is not necessarily an important point, but since it continues to be refuted without evidence, it is worth noting that Minnesota has a much higher number of inland lakes than Michigan, a much higher density of inland lakes than Michigan, and a higher number and density of large inland lakes than Michigan.
Example: 10 largest inland lakes in each state (which means the Great Lakes are excluded) - in acres:
Michigan:
1) Lake St. Clair - 275,200
2) Houghton Lake - 20,044
3) Torch Lake - 18,770
4) Mullet Lake - 17,360
5) Lake Charlevoix - 17,200
6) Burt Lake - 17,120
7) Lake Gogebic - 13,380
8) Black Lake - 10,130
9) Higgins Lake - 9,900
10) Crystal Lake - 9,854
Minnesota:
1) Lake of the Woods - 950,400
2) Rainy Lake - 220,800
3) Red Lake (Lower) - 180,999
4) Lake Mille Lacs - 132,516
5) Leech Lake - 111,527
6) Red Lake (Upper) - 107,832
7) Lake Winnibigoshish - 58,544
8) Lake Vermillion - 40,557
9) Kabetogama Lake - 25,760
10) Lake Pepin - 25,060
Michigan's top 10 lakes combined are less than half the size of Minnesota's largest lake. Michigan's number 2 - 9 lakes all combined are smaller than Minnesota's number 2 and 3 lakes, and the same size as Minnesota's number 4. Michigan's seconds largest lakes is smaller than Minnesota's 10th largest lake.
I don't need to go on.
The argument that Minnesota's lakes are all "ugly small ponds," and/or that Michigan has better lakes due to size, is ridiculous. The argument that "Lake St. Clair, while not a great lake, is bigger than any lake in Minnesota besides a great lake, Superior" is completely false. Michigan's lakes, on a scale of size, number, and density, do not parallel those of Minnesota, nor do they come close.
I'd like to point out that I never mentioned 12,000 lakes, that figure must have been thrown out by someone inherrently more familar with swamps than lakes
and, I'm more of a song and dance man
and don't even get me started about the better sand quality of Minnesota's inland lakes' beaches as compared to Michigan's (or Florida's for that matter)
plus, I think we got more rivers
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.
