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.
Using Google Maps reviews as a proxy for how visited the various national forests are, you'd expect bigger forests, ones with more notable features, and the ones closer to big cities have more reviews while remote ones have less. This mostly pans out, Tahoe National Forest has 3x the reviews of Plumas National Forest and the Rio Grande National Forest has less than half the reviews of San Juan National forest, because the San Juan has much more striking scenery despite both being far away and about similar size.
But there are a lot of surprises as well. Its surprising how few reviews the Mendocino National Forest has despite being so close to a lot of the CA population. This is like Montana level of reviews. Also most of Yellowstone has many thousands of reviews, but the Shoshone National Forest next door just has 83. Does no one make it over there? Does everyone just stay in the Teton Yellowstone area??? It's also surprising how the Pike / San Isabel NF has over 9500 reviews while the Gunnison NF just has 1800, and the Gunnison NF has better scenery; people must really just not travel very far into the CO mountains. Also all the TX national forests have really low reviews comparatively to say AR, MO, IL, MI national forests, does no one in Texas go outside???
How does this compare with what you all have seen on the ground? Are reviews a good proxy? There are some issues where Google will recreate or duplicate things (like Arapahoe NF is listed 2 times), but it seems to be pretty accurate from my observations in Colorado.
Using Google Maps reviews as a proxy for how visited the various national forests are, you'd expect bigger forests, ones with more notable features, and the ones closer to big cities have more reviews while remote ones have less. This mostly pans out, Tahoe National Forest has 3x the reviews of Plumas National Forest and the Rio Grande National Forest has less than half the reviews of San Juan National forest, because the San Juan has much more striking scenery despite both being far away and about similar size.
But there are a lot of surprises as well. Its surprising how few reviews the Mendocino National Forest has despite being so close to a lot of the CA population. This is like Montana level of reviews. Also most of Yellowstone has many thousands of reviews, but the Shoshone National Forest next door just has 83. Does no one make it over there? Does everyone just stay in the Teton Yellowstone area??? It's also surprising how the Pike / San Isabel NF has over 9500 reviews while the Gunnison NF just has 1800, and the Gunnison NF has better scenery; people must really just not travel very far into the CO mountains. Also all the TX national forests have really low reviews comparatively to say AR, MO, IL, MI national forests, does no one in Texas go outside???
How does this compare with what you all have seen on the ground? Are reviews a good proxy? There are some issues where Google will recreate or duplicate things (like Arapahoe NF is listed 2 times), but it seems to be pretty accurate from my observations in Colorado.
I live in Texas but i go outside a lot just not to national forests/
Olympic: 2,988
Okanogan-Wenatchee: 4,484
Colville: 1,092
Gifford-Pinchot: 2,920 (I haven't even heard of this one)
It's really surprising to me that Olympic isn't by far the most reviewed. Nobody I know here willingly travels anywhere that isn't the coast --- maybe I live in a bubble (of less outdoorsy people, or people with conditions that make long hikes difficult?)
Most people go to the closest and best known spots, usually with more developed areas (with toilets, etc.). In some states that leaves a lot of other forest service land lightly used. Generally good to have that choice.
One can find annual visitations counts for some forests if you care / dig.
People talk about National Parks like they are the only wilderness areas in the country. To the point where people assume that there is no (or very little) nature east of the Mississippi because there are few National Parks there.
Suits me. I like National Forests and state parks, that are bigger than several National Parks put together, just fine.
Texas National Forests are nearly all private land. It is difficult to even find a place to stop and get out of your car if passing through, and public facilities are very restricted.
I live in Texas but i go outside a lot just not to national forests/
So what type of land do you do your outdoor rec on? Personal private land, someone else's private land, conservation area type of land, local and state parks?
Quote:
Originally Posted by arr430
Texas National Forests are nearly all private land. It is difficult to even find a place to stop and get out of your car if passing through, and public facilities are very restricted.
Dang, that sucks. The state is already sorely lacking in public land. No wonder why half of Texas comes to CO to vacation... You think the state would realize it's a weak spot in it's offerings and work to improve access. What does TX do with it's land? Nebraska is less than half the size, colder and drier, and still produces more agricultural output, and has more public land relatively. Guess TX is cheap for a reason...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTimidBlueBars
Google review counts of WA national forests:
Olympic: 2,988
Okanogan-Wenatchee: 4,484
Colville: 1,092
Gifford-Pinchot: 2,920 (I haven't even heard of this one)
It's really surprising to me that Olympic isn't by far the most reviewed. Nobody I know here willingly travels anywhere that isn't the coast --- maybe I live in a bubble (of less outdoorsy people, or people with conditions that make long hikes difficult?)
Well, Olympic has a national park and a national forest, so if you combine the 2, you'd have over 10,000 reviews, but it's still not overwhelming. My guess would be that going east is a little drier (though still wet by Rocky standards), which is more user friendly weather for outdoor rec than the rainforest weather of the Olympics. Kind of like in Oregon, Eugene to Bend is a bigger destination than Eugene to Florence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW Crow
Most people go to the closest and best known spots, usually with more developed areas (with toilets, etc.). In some states that leaves a lot of other forest service land lightly used. Generally good to have that choice.
One can find annual visitations counts for some forests if you care / dig.
As a general rule this holds, though it's not always the case. The "all star" places seem to hold their own and draw crowds from across the nation; the San Juan NF and Teton NF aren't close to anything but they have more reviews than a lot of closer places. I'll have to look up the counts, though I don't know how they'd know? I've never been asked or counted when I've visited NF land.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABQConvict
People talk about National Parks like they are the only wilderness areas in the country. To the point where people assume that there is no (or very little) nature east of the Mississippi because there are few National Parks there.
Suits me. I like National Forests and state parks, that are bigger than several National Parks put together, just fine.
I've noticed this as well, it's incredible how much heavier trafficked National Parks are over their free National Forest cousin. The parks have some sort of defined WOW feature you can drive to on a paved road. The National Forests still have WOW, you just have to discover and hike to it more. I wonder with COVID, if people will do less national park travel and more what's in my states back yard national forest exploration?
So what type of land do you do your outdoor rec on? Personal private land, someone else's private land, conservation area type of land, local and state parks?
Dang, that sucks. The state is already sorely lacking in public land. No wonder why half of Texas comes to CO to vacation... You think the state would realize it's a weak spot in it's offerings and work to improve access. What does TX do with it's land? Nebraska is less than half the size, colder and drier, and still produces more agricultural output, and has more public land relatively. Guess TX is cheap for a reason...
Well, Olympic has a national park and a national forest, so if you combine the 2, you'd have over 10,000 reviews, but it's still not overwhelming. My guess would be that going east is a little drier (though still wet by Rocky standards), which is more user friendly weather for outdoor rec than the rainforest weather of the Olympics. Kind of like in Oregon, Eugene to Bend is a bigger destination than Eugene to Florence.
As a general rule this holds, though it's not always the case. The "all star" places seem to hold their own and draw crowds from across the nation; the San Juan NF and Teton NF aren't close to anything but they have more reviews than a lot of closer places. I'll have to look up the counts, though I don't know how they'd know? I've never been asked or counted when I've visited NF land.
I've noticed this as well, it's incredible how much heavier trafficked National Parks are over their free National Forest cousin. The parks have some sort of defined WOW feature you can drive to on a paved road. The National Forests still have WOW, you just have to discover and hike to it more. I wonder with COVID, if people will do less national park travel and more what's in my states back yard national forest exploration?
well most of the time i just go on walks in the neighborhood every weekday.Also, my family has a hunting lease on a ranch in the Hill Country and i bought a trailer to stay in there.I have been to friends land.I used to go to Texas state parks a lot as a kid but i dont have any reason to go anymore.I dont mean to be too controversial but i prefer to do my outdoor activity which is hunting a lot of the times on private land.
Wisconsin has very little national forest, but about a quarter of the state is covered by State Forest. Which is not helpful. The state forests have day-use fees and much higher camping fees and strictly policed access outside designated public areas.
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.
