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.
Texas has many beautiful spots and is exceptionally diverse, no denying it. When uninformed Texas boosters make false claims and statements or can't appreciate anything outside of Texas because they have so little knowledge or experience of what is outside of it, that is where rebuttals and corrections come in and rightfully so. That's all.
I've never been but Big Bend National Park looks to be amongst the most beautiful places in the country and with very interesting and diverse geography, and the pine forests to the east and hill country by Austin all looks pretty cool to me. So I certainly wasn't bashing Texas, just saying no place beats California, as evident just in my county which is crazy geographically diverse; I can be on the beach, marshes, wine country/cattle grazing foothills, snowy mountains or vast deserts all within a couple of hours.
But "a few hours" is still a huge amount of time. What standard is there of "quick and rapid transition"? Not to mention the glaring fact that if I were in a place like San Diego, it would take a 500 mile trip to see the Redwood Trees, or an 120 mile trip to see alpine mountains. Or if I were in San Francisco, how easy would it be for me to go visit the desert? And does "rapidity of transition" play into the main question of whether or not Texas is a geographically diverse state? Those seem like two different questions to me.
On the other hand, from San Francisco it's only a 10-mile trip to see redwood trees (Muir Woods); from San Diego it's roughly 80 miles to seriously amazing desert scenery (Anza-Borrego).
I could similarly cherry-pick and point out that you have to travel at least 150 miles from Houston to see pretty hills and canyons in the Hill Country, or that South Padre's unique subtropical barrier island scenery is 850 miles from El Paso, but that would be rather unfair.
But in terms of accessibility to the most people, California has Texas beat too, sorry to say. On clear days -- especially in winter -- you can actually see 10,000-foot mountains from just about anyplace in the LA basin, and it takes 2-3 hours to drive to them. That's 15 million people right there, who are within easy reach of huge ski-able mountains as well as ocean beaches.
On the other hand, from San Francisco it's only a 10-mile trip to see redwood trees (Muir Woods); from San Diego it's roughly 80 miles to seriously amazing desert scenery (Anza-Borrego).
I could similarly cherry-pick and point out that you have to travel at least 150 miles from Houston to see pretty hills and canyons in the Hill Country, or that South Padre's unique subtropical barrier island scenery is 850 miles from El Paso, but that would be rather unfair.
Those are factual complaints that you can point out, but the point(s) still stands: 1) What constitutes a "quick and rapid transition" AND 2) Is "a quick and rapid transition" essential for being a geographically diverse state? Texas, everyone knows, is a geographically diverse state. How is that even in dispute here?
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,749 posts, read 23,813,296 times
Reputation: 14660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zedd Spectrum
But "a few hours" is still a huge amount of time. What standard is there of "quick and rapid transition"? Not to mention the glaring fact that if I were in a place like San Diego, it would take a 500 mile trip to see the Redwood Trees, or an 120 mile trip to see alpine mountains. Or if I were in San Francisco, how easy would it be for me to go visit the desert? And does "rapidity of transition" play into the main question of whether or not Texas is a geographically diverse state? Those seem like two different questions to me.
Look, I live in a state that has both diversity (a little Arizona, bit of Colorado, and a bit of Texas all rolled into one state) and a lot of vast featureless nothingness and terrain, especially on the eastern side so I get this. Most threads enable posters to expand on the topic, not just give a simplistic answer to one question. So what I'm saying is many peoples impression of the state is a huge chunk of this in between when driving through Texas....
It's not right to categorize the whole state in that sense (unfortunately some feeble minded people do), but what I'm saying is the grueling 7 hour drive on I-10 between San Antonio and El Paso is the most endless stretch of sameness. Better to skip over it all and do an intrastate flight within Texas. But then that involves a lot of other options for destinations when getting on a plain.
I could get to the California coast in the same distance and time as I could reach somewhere like San Antonio. When I get to somewhere like San Francisco I'd have a whole cornucopia of diverse terrain within a 4 hour drive that could take me to a lot more diverse and accessible options within closer range, than pretty much anywhere in Texas that a 4 hour radius would offer. People also mentioned states like Oregon and Washington because they also have a impressive range of options for diverse topography that could rival Texas in a much smaller space which in itself is very remarkable.
Last edited by Champ le monstre du lac; 09-03-2013 at 06:47 PM..
Those are factual complaints that you can point out, but the point(s) still stands: 1) What constitutes a "quick and rapid transition" AND 2) Is "a quick and rapid transition" essential for being a geographically diverse state? Texas, everyone knows, is a geographically diverse state. How is that even in dispute here?
Well, the question posed by the OP is whether Texas is the most geographically diverse state. I don't really see how it's possible to say it is, no matter how "geographic diversity" is defined.
Well, the question posed by the OP is whether Texas is the most geographically diverse state. I don't really see how it's possible to say it is, no matter how "geographic diversity" is defined.
And what is the evidence of that one way or the other? All I see are arguments about distance and land size against Texas (which in itself is a baseless argument because boundaries are what they are), yet nothing in the affirmative of how other states may possibly be more diverse. Any studies about ecology, number of species, geographic biomes, etc. would be relevant here aside. Please, enlighten me.
Well, the question posed by the OP is whether Texas is the most geographically diverse state. I don't really see how it's possible to say it is, no matter how "geographic diversity" is defined.
Yup. Bottom line TX is a little less diverse than Clark County Nevada.
It has a very long way to go to be remotely in the same class as a California.
Yup. Bottom line TX is a little less diverse than Clark County Nevada.
It has a very long way to go to be remotely in the same class as a California.
I didn't know that Clark County, Nevada had an oceanic coast line, subtropical rainforests, and temperate prairies within its borders. Every single ecosystem found in Clark County can be found in Texas, but the opposite is not even close to being remotely true.
California has 12 different identified ecosystems
Texas has 12 different ecosystems
That takes care of the large states, which unsurprisingly has a lot of different ecosystems. As for the smaller states:
WESTERN UNITED STATES:
Idaho has 10 different ecosystems
Washington has 9 different ecosystems
Oregon has 8 different ecosystems
New Mexico has 7 different ecosystems
Arizona has 6 different ecosystems
Montana has 6 different ecosystems
Colorado has 6 different ecosystems
Wyoming has 5 different ecosystems
Utah has 5 different ecosystems
Nevada has 3 different ecosystems
Oklahoma has 9 different ecosystems
Arkansas has 7 different ecosystems
Missouri has 5 different ecosystems
Maryland has 5 different ecosystems
For its size, Oklahoma definitely punches above its weight. However, keep in mind that ecoregions are only one aspect of geography. Idaho is also another sleeper here (IMO a much more beautiful state than is given credit for) I thought it was interesting nonetheless.
And what is the evidence of that one way or the other? All I see are arguments about distance and land size against Texas (which in itself is a baseless argument because boundaries are what they are), yet nothing in the affirmative of how other states may possibly be more diverse. Any studies about ecology, number of species, geographic biomes, etc. would be relevant here aside. Please, enlighten me.
This map might be a useful starting point for such a discussion.
Last edited by pch1013; 09-03-2013 at 07:01 PM..
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.
