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.
This. I cannot say how many times I hear or read time and time again that the massive wilderness of Idaho is the wildest and the most remote mountain area(s) in the continental USA.
^ This right here. I think this topo map gives a pretty good idea of how rugged the mountain west really is in terms of topography, wildlife, etc....
Basically the area area strectching from Nevada into Eastern Oregon, North Cascades of WA stretching along the border into the Idaho pan handle have some pretty remote spots.
I'm not clowning on Maine (it is beautiful), but it just doesn't hold a candle to these places in terms of sheer size.
^ This right here. I think this topo map gives a pretty good idea of how rugged the mountain west really is in terms of topography, wildlife, etc....
Basically the area area strectching from Nevada into Eastern Oregon, North Cascades of WA stretching along the border into the Idaho pan handle have some pretty remote spots.
I'm not clowning on Maine (it is beautiful), but it just doesn't hold a candle to these places in terms of sheer size.
Yeah, Even in that notoriously over-populated state of CA, the contiguous counties of Modoc, Lassen, Siskiyou, Shasta, Tehama, Plumas, Trinity, Butte, Sierra, Nevada, Humbolt and Mendocino are larger than the state of Maine, but hold roughly half the population. That's a spitball, and I realize distribution of that population is not taken in account, but the scale of the West is just different.
It's hard for me to pick a place, but it would have to be in the west. I'm surprised that no one's brought up Utah, or the greater Colorado Plateau region. Sure, for bleak, loneliness- it's tough to beat NV or eastern OR, and for rugged mountains it's tough to beat Frank Church, North Cascades, or the Bob, but for sheer out-of-this-world uninhabited weird and inhospitable territory, UT easily takes the cake.
But every western state has huge wilderness areas. Even here in CO. And while CO is regarded as overcrowded by some, there is a ton of rugged country that is rarely ever visited. Heck, the area behind where I live (White River/Flat Tops) is a massive plateau with hundreds of square miles of alpine tundra and forest above 10,000', no paved roads, the largest elk population in the world. And it's just one of hundreds of wilderness areas in the greater region!
I'm not clowning on Maine (it is beautiful), but it just doesn't hold a candle to these places in terms of sheer size.
Absolutely everyone has acknowledged that the most wild places in the lower 48 are in the West - it's not even close to close. I think you're confused by a side-bar about the wildest places east of the Mississippi, like northern Maine, Everglades, and the Upper Midwestern northwoods of MN/WI/MI. Wild terrain is more common than not out West, while it's a rarity back East. However - it's interesting to point out the fact that there are indeed large tracts of wilderness there and detail where they are.
I do not disagree that the West is extremely wild, or the "wildest" place in the lower 48.
But can we actually define "wildest"? Is it large tracts of land with sparse population? Anything to do with wildlife? Remoteness, crazy geological features, etc...?
Again, I am not knocking the west.
I just think that it becomes a more fair competition between regions if you take all of those things into account (or even more), as they all have areas they shine in. To me, thousands of miles of woods "feels" more "wild" than the same size area of high desert or canyon land.
You guys can go into flame mode and viciously attack me for "disagreeing" now, since that is how the forums work. (Even though, I never actually did.)
(For instance: I know that in this thread "wildest" doesn't refer to the weather, but if it was defined as such the winners would be states like: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa...etc. Again, I know that we are NOT defining it that way, just wanted to show an example of how it changes based on definition of the word.)
Last edited by Xander_Crews; 06-12-2014 at 09:00 AM..
It clearly means areas with low density (few people per whatever spatial unit) that have low human impact. Those areas, by a landslide, are far more common and far larger where they do exist than anywhere East. It's just how it is. And I agree that Voyageurs (for example) feels more wild to me than a desert, the West has vast forested wildernesses as well.
There are areas with no humans that have a huge human impact and are thus less wild than areas with a larger human presence.
10,000 sq. miles of completely disrupted natural habitat with a population of 1,000 people is less 'wild' than an area of 1,000 square miles of largely intact natural habitat with a population of 10,000 people.
It clearly means areas with low density (few people per whatever spatial unit) that have low human impact.
I try not to make any assumptions no matter how clear something seems on these forums. I try to be very specific so that I can not be accused of misleading or misunderstanding other posters. People in this forum can get very hung up on semantics.
I assume off the bat, and like you suggest, that it is low density areas, uncultivated areas and uninhabited areas. But I wanted to be very clear because there are, as I am sure you know, multiple definitions of the word "wild". There are even multiple definitions pertaining to nature with slight differences.
By that definition of the word wild, you are correct, the west wins handily. (Making the always risky assumption that the OP wants the largest contiguous area with low population. Otherwise, places like the Sand Hills region in Nebraska and west Texas could compete. If you look at the lowest populated counties in the US, a heavy majority of them are in Nebraska and Texas. You have to go pretty far down the list until you start seeing NV, WA, OR, ID, etc... counties. I suspect this to be because the western states are more likely to have big counties, but even then, the scarcity of people is still comparable when you adjust the numbers again. West Texas is pretty huge, the Sand Hills region is not.)
But yeah, I would still give it to the west under that definition.
Quote:
Those areas, by a landslide, are far more common and far larger where they do exist than anywhere East. It's just how it is. And I agree that Voyageurs (for example) feels more wild to me than a desert, the West has vast forested wildernesses as well.
West TX and West NE to me are there at the beginning of The West, regardless of what region people slot the states as a whole. They're certainly far from east of the Mississippi...
West TX and West NE to me are there at the beginning of The West, regardless of what region people slot the states as a whole. They're certainly far from east of the Mississippi...
Oh, I agree.
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.
