How does Appalachian forests and nature compare to west coast forests like in Washington, Oregon, or Northern California. I ask because I spend most of my free time exploring the forests in Oregon and I'm planning a move to the other side of the country within a year and my main concern is if I'm going to get the same sense of wonder I get over in the west over in the east. I've heard southern appalachia is better what is everyone's opinion? I know the trees are thinner but what else
>trees are thinner
Are the forests thinner, or are the trees themselves smaller? When I think of a southern Appalachian forest I think of dense, impenetrable underbrush and tall loblolly pine, while the PNW is a massive, thick tree canopy over a relatively bare forest floor.
>bare forest floor
ive walked through ferns taller than me
I love my spring time 10 foot tall Bracken Ferns. That picture is sword ferns, which are midgets by comparison.
PNW evergreens, if you leave them alone which most people don't because israelites hate trees, will live for 1000+ years.
A Doug fir averages 5 inches in diameter of growth a year for around the first 900 years or so so a 150 year old tree would be almost 3 feet in diameter and 10 foot diameter trees aren't uncommon.
What people need to understand is the ENTIRE west coast was clear cut--all of it--from 150 to 200 years ago so it's really hard to find trees older than 200 years in the PNW unless you're willing to do some hard core off trail.
Even then the ancient stand locations aren't easy to find. I found some published in a research paper and stumbled on others by exploring.
>ENTIRE
>all of it
you mean the vast majority of it
I mean all of it.
if you want to nit pick, sure 98%
Close enough to All for me my dude.
Except that you can visit many stands of old growth forest thru-out the West.
>I mean all of it.
but thats not factual
Yes, anything older than 200 years is considered old growth. Work on your reading comprehension--almost all the 1000+ year old trees are gone.
I cant tell if you're really this moronic or just disingenuous.
I corrected your map and circled in red what used to be old growth forests. Everything on the west coast was 600+ to 1000 year old trees and central California and most of the mid west was beaver dams.
You don't know shit about the ecological history of whyt man coming to america.
This is even easier to understand.
>autistic screeching
>doodles
>central california and most of the mid west was beaver dams.
>that guy
lol.
Most of it was cut but not all.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/mature-and-old-growth-forests-tech.pdf
>Forestry service data
Holy frick you're a big timber shill--I guess I should have spotted it when you blatantly lied about old growth forest coverage using a contemporary forestry survey map.
So you're basically straight up lying because I'm talking about the forests that existed before they forestry cartels took over.
Now why are you so obsessed with lying.
>Holy frick you're a big timber shill
Ahhh so you're the hempcrete hippie doofus. You always out yourself as a low IQ schizo eventually, but you should get a trip so we can avoid replying to you before you reveal yourself.
t. big timber shill
>You can't trust studies from the silviculturalists studying the largest tracts of land in the country!
>...you just can't, OK?
You're right, instead I will trust in what some mindbroken hippie says he learned from the natives or trees or whatever without any data at all.
note--this data doesn't at all address any of the points I've made and actually supports it.
East coasters and (lol) Europeans will never know the beauty of a certain side of a certain mountain range (name redacted because frick em)
im pretty content with the east coast, thanks!
i cant say if the east has more or not but the PNW certainly has a crowded forest floor in the majority of its forests aswell very difficult to walk off paths
>lived 20 years in NC appalachia
>lived 3 years in Washington near Seattle
- appalachia has more biodiversity
- pnw has more stunning views
- pnw is green as frick but wet as frick
- appalachia when you are in suburbia fricking sucks but you can have fun times hybrid urban exploring in old factories in the boonies
- pnw has way more tech bro gays shitting up your trails but nicer maintained trails
- pnw has more ranger ricks
- appalachia you can get away with more shit in the woods
- appalachia can be pretty buggy in some seasons
you can walk off the paths but is is generally harder in the PNW
Winter sucks but you can still hit sunny to overcast days to hike, Summers more than make up with fair temperature and clear weather
seasonal misting for weeks does suck but you can cope with good gear and not being a pussy
>East is too fenced in
dog at least in NC you can go hella far in and do whatever the frick you want, sorta the same in Washington but yeah off trail is more treacherous.
yeah some forests have a fricking waitlist and like Uwharrie or shit near Bryson city you just go
>Winter sucks
They way to enjoy winter is to learn to ski and replace hiking with ski touring during the winter.
valid, that or some other thing like rock climbing, skating etc
How do I into knowing geographical biomes, names of relevant wildlife and native plant species etc like this?
gee...maybe open a book
-.- I was asking for book recs ya dork
the east is kinda a compromise between scenic beauty and access to civilization
the prettiest parts are the furthest away from major cities up high on the plateau
highly recommend cumberland/allegeny plateau for sense of wonder
i lived in oregon and the climate was harsh, your choices there are valley where it drizzles all mid fall-mid spring and is cloudy, or high desert where there's less rain but its much colder, even in summer at night
the east has the most gorgeous spring/fall but summer is hot and buggy unless you are up at a pretty high elevation (3000 ft+) and winters can be cloudy cold and miserable depending on where you are
>oregon is rainy
as someone who lived there most of my life this is totally exaggerated. I absolutely adore being out in nature in the rain but anytime you try and do that by the time you get there it stops raining, there may be a lot of days with rainfall but it NEVER rains all day, I actually wanna move to the south to get some more rain in my life and most of the North East has higher precipitation levels too
no, its not that it rains a lot, its that it drizzles near-constantly in the valley, and weeks upon weeks of STRAIGHT cloudy drizzly days are psychologically damaging
in the east, it can get cloudy as I said, especially in the mountains, but you still get more sun in the winter than in the populated valley parts of oregon
I mean the east is just about how much crazy weather you are willing to put up with to have scenic beauty in your life
It's not just the rain. It's the near constant cloud cover.
I lived in various parts of the Willamette Valley for over a decade. It's cloudy 9 months straight.
Couldn't live like that anymore. Had to get out. Southern Oregon, and anywhere east of the Cascades are much better, in that regard. Would love to move to Southern Oregon.
>cloudy 9 months straight
yeah ive lived in Willamette valley 25 years and thats another one of those straight exaggerated sentiments, youre gonna see some open blue sky every other day all year, overcast days exist but not as much as you imply, living in Eugene rn so I know
WRONG
I lived in portland for a year and it was PURE MISERY between mid october and late april
weeks of cloudy drizzle
>but there's one clear day a month
OH GOODY
>portland
theres the reason.
i specified the valley in ALL my comments, I also tried high desert, the problem was it was too fricking cold and you needed so much gear just to do anything outside and the snowpack at higher elevation persisted into early july
appalachia is nicer because the snowpack is usually gone the 2-3 week of march depending on how far south or north you are (at higher elevations) so you can really enjoy the high country in march and april and its usually mild and very nice
so basically you cannot function in averse weather conditions. The Rockies aren't for you, because its hard to get shit done out here. East coast is for those who cannot hack it.
im not gonna do snowshoes and shit thats too much
its just not that fun hiking through deep snow and ice
not my thing
my point is if you are looking for a nice 8-9 month temperate hiking experience southern/central appalachian mountains can be real nice
>the rockies aren't for you
definitely not, no interest I love the east and will never leave, might move around a bit here, but never heading west again except to visit
lol! you have literal rich transplants living there. along with hippie "nomads." get real. you can't even survive without buying your water from the grocery store. frick off
it's to filter homosexuals out
glad it's working
The climate in the PNW has changed SIGNIFCANTLY in the past 20 years.
We're not a sub tropic-like climate (rainy season / dry season, has nothing to do with temperature).
It's 100% a result of the massive deforestation and filling of wetlands.
When people say the PNW is “rainy” what they mean is that it’s constantly gloomy and drizzling, which is true at least from the cascades west which is where I lived.
I also moved to Appalachia so I can tell you a few things. Nothing is as grand as it is on the West Coast, but there is still plenty of NFs/NP land to go around, the hills are also deceptively hard and some of the most difficult hikes I’ve ever done have been here, even without the elevation of the West Coast. The trails are narrow, twisting, rocky, and often overgrown with thorns. The silver lining as someone else mentioned is that the local culture is cool/historic and you’ll rarely if ever have to deal with fire bans.
what is a difficult hike that you ended up enjoying?
lol, lmao even. Oregon, like many states in the west have a mountain range running through them. Only the west side is rainy. Hood River ain’t rainy, neither is Yakima
>doesn't like leeward cascades high 'desert' PrepHole
ngmi
> daily east vs west bait thread
east is nicer in fact (much nicer)
west is dry/barren/dead
>west is dry/barren/dead
I dunno. California looking pretty green right now
irrigation
nope. Winter rains. Irrigation doesnt happen until the snow starts melting.
Climate change rules. Now kentucky and tennessee get all the tornados and the midwest doesn't.
yeah. cool. tornados are fun
not my problem anymore
I’m not sure it’s that they’re actually seeing an increase as much as just them being reported more thanks to population growth and technology
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/watch-out-tornado-alley-is-migrating-eastward/
East is too fenced in. No federal land where you can do frick all. Everything is either private or crowded on the east coast. Plus nudity is illegal over there except for New Hampshire.
plenty of state land and nature preserves and other types of public land
nobody is going to care or find you if you are nude provided you go to a wilderness or unpopular state forest type situation, especially swimming
East coaster here; i visited Oregon for the first time last summer and I found the big ferny forests kind of agoraphobic and shitty. So you'll probably find the east coast kind of claustrophobic and shitty. Still, you'd have to be crazy to wander around a beech and hickory forest and not feel at peace.
I grew up in Maine, no federal land here, also nobody gives a frick where you go or what you do as long as you're not poaching their deer. You're technically right but you're also being misleading.
for some reason west coasties don't believe in state or locally managed public land
That's part of the problem. So many small and discontiguous tracts. Also higher populations mean more crowding in those spots and more regulation.
East doesn't have the same level of freedom or wildness or inspire awe the same way the west does, but it feels cozier. I'd rather live in the east and visit the west.
there's lots of areas with low population density in the east and plenty of sizable public land, just to give an example, pennsylvania, in particular has vast tracts of public land
National parks fricking suck, in the west there's all sort of permits and lotteries and red tape to hike and camp, and there is in some very popular eastern US places, (GSMNP, linville gorge, old rag), but it is way more rare. Also for whatever reason Ohio has a system of nature preserves where its free to go but you are supposed to make an online reservation at least 14 days in advance and I have a feeling the locals just ignore it, but still weird.
Anyways, there's tons of wonderful shit in the east on state forest, starte park, and game land type lands. Its funny how most of this board is conservatives who HATE the government yet they worship federalized land. In the east, national forest tends to get kinda neglected and it makes me sad.
>East doesn't have the same level of freedom
depends on the state, for whatever reason virginia is rather strict on some things, such as all state parks have a fee to enter (sometimes honor system) and state game lands require a paid permit just to walk around, not even to hunt
Ohiogay here, the nature preserve system is mainly to preserve delicate environments that don't need too many people or dogs trudging through. It's unfortunate that it has to be gatekept but for the stuff like bogs with unique and rare species it makes sense to want to preserve it as much as possible. But yeah, our state park and forest system is pretty good overall.
but it isn't like that anywhere else, do I get in trouble if I just show up? I never plan hikes 14 days in advance.
allegheny NF kinda stucks tho, but its surrounded by state forests that are AWESOME, if you total ALL the acres of public land in northern PA you would have a ton, its not a competition because a lot of public land out west isn't even really usable for outdoor stuff anyways
why do west coast people ALWAYS laser-focus in on federalized land and ignore state and local public lands completely?
>a lot of public land out west isn't even really usable for outdoor stuff anyways
because? sounds like cope
>PA you would have a ton
About 2 million
>ignore state and local public lands completely?
I focused on the allegany because its the largest and we were talking about contiguous tracts of land. I am sure PA is great but its not same as the large contiguous tracts of lands out west.
>not the same
Correct. It's better.
>It's better.
meh. Im glad you feel that even tho it seems like seething lol. I prefer you stay in the east. Me? I like lots of open space with lots of large animals and few people
>its not about largest,
>instead of qualitative components?
again. the comment was in regards to contiguous tracts of public land/forest/wilderness. The west just has larger tracts of public land of all sorts. I would be happy to discuss the
>you don't need vast public land to see nice shit
indeed. I encourage you to get out and enjoy your local forest.
>I would be happy to discuss the
the qualitative components of specific forests and public land.
its not about largest, why do westies always focus on numbers instead of qualitative components?
you don't need vast public land to see nice shit you just need some
>why do west coast people ALWAYS laser-focus in on federalized land and ignore state and local public lands completely?
probably because state lands aren’t managed as wilderness and because there is more wilderness in puerto rico than in PA lmao
>only this one kind of designation matters
not really though
most federal lands aren't wilderness either, not that it matter
Again, its about perspective. Some of the designated wildernesses out west are twice as big entire NFs back east. So, no, you dont need huge wilderness areas to have fun out...but it sure is nice.
quality matters more
okay and?
Ok. I like intact ecosystems with large predators. To me thats a quality place to /out. Thats hard to do without large tracts of land.
ive seen bears a few times and heard wolves and coyotes from a distance
you have to keep in mind that most large predators were systematically killed because of the danger they posed
I'd rather be without them tbqh
there's plenty of small mammals and birbs and sometimes those orangey newts (efts)
>I'd rather be without them tbqh
then you dont like true wilderness.
no, i prefer being able to follow paint blazes and have bridges over water crossings to be quite honest PrepHole family
also "wilderness" designation means trails can't be maintained by power tools, so they inevitably go to shit
>can't be maintained by power tools
they can and do get permission to use chainsaws
>so they inevitably go to shit
the harder it is to get to a place the fewer people will go there. You kinda sound like a whiny pussy
there are literally places like that out east. obviously the mountains are a little over half the height on average, but it makes up for it by having FAR more foliage cover and diversity. combine that with 4 true seasons that make the place look completely different, no chinese tourists all over the place like out west, and no jeeps driving through all the fricking rivers like out west. lol. that river canyon isn't a good example of out west uniqueness, it's pretty common across the entire us. the cool thing about the west are places like utah and deserts, that's about it. colorado is completele urbanized, full of tourists and transplants, and you can get just about everywhere with a 4x4.
>no chinese tourists all over the place like out west
harpers ferry would like a word with you
> dc metro area
that's not PrepHole territory at all. that's like calling hollywood blvd nature
>FAR more foliage cover
LOL. That guy.
>4 true seasons
>im the the entire West is a desert guy
got 7 inches of snow last night. How about you?
>that river canyon isn't a good example of out west uniqueness
it is actually- considering it is surrounded by 22 million acres of the largest nearly intact ecosystem in the lower 48 and one of the largest temperate ecosystems on earth...and is in fact the longest undammed river in the lower 48 and drains one of the most geologically active regions in the world with the largest undisturbed hydro thermal features in the world including the worlds largest collection of active gesyers...it also has great fishing. pic rel is same river.
But whatever, I am sure you will hand wave that away lol.
>no chinese tourists all over the place like out west
How the frick would you know? you've only been the the grand canyon and vegas lol. Not a lot of Chinese tourist hunting wolves or Elk in the backcountry lol
Why are either of you complaining about Chinese? The real threat are Mexicans. They're smart enough to hack it in the woods, but shitty people so they graffiti and dump trash everywhere and kill animals for fun.
I wasnt complaining. I never see any mexicans or chinese when im out.
>there are literally places like that out east
The geology is also fascinating on this river canyon. The exposed basalt columns tell the story of previous lava flows
what is the rock on top of the basalt, limestone? i have a question about limestone. i have read something like it is deposits of animals. long time ago limestone mountains were below water, and the deposits were deposited and compressed, and eventually it turned into rock and the bottom of the oceans went up and now we see them here. how much of that is true? what exactly were those deposits, like, were they the shells of mollusks? and were there seriously so many mollusks as to make up so many mountains as to make up th emountains we see today, so huge and dense and pure, with dozens of km of limestone at places without interruption?
>what is the rock on top of the basalt, limestone?
im not sure but I believe its just glacial till. I dont believe it limestone
>deposits were deposited and compressed, and eventually it turned into rock and the bottom of the oceans went up and now we see them here. how much of that is true?
Its true. there once was an inland sea in N.America and plate tectonics push the sea floor up. They have found ocean fossils on everest.
what i'm amazed about is the amount of biomass necessary, there's so much limestone in the world. like whole countries worth of dense, compact rock, i can't imagine how many individual crustaceans or whatever lived and died to make it up over how many millions of years. i thought maybe there was some other source for the rock
sometimes it feels beachy when you are up on a ridge in the east like it gets sandy
the plateau hills are made of sandstone and the ridge and valley have metamorphosed into quartzite
there's also shale
not even sure what shale is tbqh but its probably condensed old sea creatures
>how much of that is true?
IANA geologist but my father was, so I know a thing or 2.
I think the biggest thing you have to keep in mind is the time scale it takes to create sedimentary rocks - to my father, "recent" meant anything under 100 million years.
Limestone is a type of sedimentary rock, layers of sand, decomposed plants and animals that have accumulated over thousands or 100s of thousands or even millions of years. Then they get compressed over millions of years or 10s of millions of years. If the conditions (pressure, mineral composition, time, etc) are just right, you get limestone. Other examples of sedimentary rocks are sandstone, shale, chert.
Most sedimentary rock, and most limestone, will be in flat, low lying areas. Sometimes the plates shift so that these flat, low lying area is pushed up, way up, causing mountain chains. This also takes millions of years or 10s of millions of years. Examples of recent (and by recent I mean 10s of millions of years old) mountain ranges are the Rockies, the Andes, the Himalayas.
Once a mountain range is formed, erosion takes over - rain, ice, frost and wind conspire to break up the mountains and turn them back into sand. Also glaciers can take km or 3 off the tops of mountain ranges. This is why the Appalachians are all rounded lumps, no sharp peaks.
>diversity.
Ah yes. you have a lot of plants in the east. The West has more animals. I guess it depends on what you like. I supposed it would make you reeeee to know that CA is considered the most bio-diverse state in the country lol
The east has significantly more wildlife as well, just less big game. But in places like Tennessee you can hunt black bears and elk. There's also a breeding mountain lion population too, though admittedly very rare.
Ironically, the west has more plant and invertebrate diversity as well.
>The east has significantly more wildlife as well
citation needed
>Tennessee you can hunt black bears and elk
>herd of 400 elk
>9 permits issued
>season 7 days long
lol
>The east has significantly more wildlife
you sure? For example, Montana has 115 different mammals, Tennessee only 89. Montana has 445 different types of birds, Tennessee only 423.
Im sure the east has more amphibians tho.
numbers are all that matter to westies
>The east has significantly more wildlife
>numbers are all that matter to westies
Its not only quantity but also quality. Its the best of both.
Your foxes all have fricking mange and the deer are all small whitetail. What are you even talking about. Everybody has racoons, possums, grey squirells, red eared sliders, box turtles, geese. What could you possibly be claiming that you couldn't see elsewhere? Are there some birds?
>Your foxes
>its a wolf
lol
>the deer are all small whitetail
lol. Dont forget the Mule deer, Elk, Pronghorn, Moose, Big Horn Sheep, Mt. Goats and Bison
>combine that with 4 true seasons that make the place look completely different, no chinese tourists all over the place like out west,
Are you really going to go with the idea that the West doesnt have 4 seasons? Alas, there were no chinese tourist of any flavor here...
wilderness is the only designation that matters. you can play pretend in some woods of new growth always within earshot of a road if you want, but it does not compare to untrammeled land. the reason federalized matters is because only those lands can be designated wilderness, and only a few states (all in the west) manage any state lands to a wilderness level.
>all in the west
False
state forest is literally fine
the only difference is oil/gas drilling rights, presence of bridges, blazed trails vs just signs at junctions (moronic imho), no bikes in wilderness, and obviously no tree sales in wilderness, but 99% of land in the east has been fully clear-cut logged before getting designated wilderness anyways so it doesn't make much of a difference
>a lot of public land out west isn't even really usable for outdoor stuff anyways
this sounds like moronic cope. Please explain.
public land is public land because private owners don't want it
a lot of western public land is barren desert and rocks with little of interest to see
>public land is public land because private owners don't want it
>the most pristine wildernesses
>nobody wants it
you cant be this stupid
>a lot of western public land is barren desert and rocks with little of interest to see
lol. have you ever left the basement?
>take all the logs
>take all the coal
>kill all the large game
>wait how do we still make money off of this land
>oh I guess we can sell it to the government
this is literally how it works
>t.never been out west
I have, I prefer the east
that's not how it works out east
>I have,
vegas doesnt count
>that's not how it works out east
at least you admit you are speaking out of your ass and have no idea what you are talking about.
ive briefly visited california and spent two years in various parts of oregon
i prefer the east
>at least you admit you are speaking out of your ass and have no idea what you are talking about.
?!?!?! this is pretty unidsputed
most land in the mountains in the east was bought up by logging/mining/railroad interests then a small portion of that was sold to the government when it was totally depleted
like this isn't disputed at all
>in the east
but this wasnt the case at all in the West so this
moronation was just you speaking out of your ass.
i prefer the east
>it was totally depleted
>i prefer the east
im happy for you lol
i mean its really a crapshoot of how well maintained the forest is
usually its a lot of crappy invasive vines and scrub and prickers and awful shit because they don't take care of it at all, but occasionally you do find big trees or mossy areas and other nice stuff
sounds horrible. I prefer the West.
there's a lot of potential
sometimes you do get to see fairly pristine forests and that makes it all worth it, also there's nice overlooks and sometimes full river
its just about people being willing to maintain the forests
>sell it to the government
the gov't owned it first you absolute moron.
Western public land is public because during expansion west of the plains the government realized they can ignore the constitution and become land owners, instead of the usual practice done in the east where newly annexed land was slowly privatized and sold off to families. There are plenty of places out west even in very dry places like Arizona and New Mexico that would have been and are still great places for farming and settlements. t. Homesteader in the southwest
Public land is public in the west because the west was too fricking huge for widespread settlement. Prior to white settlement it was less populated in many territories than Siberia at the time (imagine 5,000 people on 400,000 sq miles of land). Even to this day at the current population change rate it will take no less than 100 more years to even get close to the current east coast population. The public land out west is also some of the best land climate wise and ecology wise in the west. Forests in the east are stickly and constantly disturbed, and tracks of pure undisturbed forest between human development sites are 1/100th or even 1/1000th or more smaller than the same such tracts of undisturbed forests in the west. You also don't need permission to go shooting, fishing, hunting, camping, hiking, skiing, rock/fossil hounding etc on public land (literally 90% of it in the west).
If you think Federal land has red tape. You haven't been to Local or State parks in California then. You need to insert money to do literally everything. I live in the Bay Area. But regularly travel to Oregon, and Wisconsin.
The East Bay Regional Parks are a great example of stupid hippies run amok. They hilariously still try to prioritize equestrians, and have wars with the mountain bikers.
They've done everything in there power to let our fishing reservoirs silt up, and make it so you can't do anything. You need a permit to even drink a beer. No smoking. No drones. No RC cars. Obviously guns are a no go even on some of the larger lands.
They are working up to just letting areas turn into wild overgrown jungles. They don't really like any form of recreation. Except for equestrians. And they keep the horses in stables subsidized by the park district. I could go on. Curfews, fishing permits, campfire permits. Even BBQ permits. They shut down their awesome shooting range because it was putting too much lead in the ground or some bs.
State lands are no better. Can't drink or smoke or do fires on the coastal beaches either.
Noticed the Illegal Mexicans give no frick and are starting to do everything. They park where they want, and do whatever. So others are getting bold.
Things very though some countries don't rules on that level. But they are out in the sticks.
>National parks fricking suck, in the west there's all sort of permits and lotteries and red tape to hike and camp
First National Parks dont suck if you know how to use them- but thats not the point.
>pennsylvania, in particular has vast tracts of public land
The largest public land in PA is the Allegany NF which is 500,000 acres...pretty respectable for the east. But my local NF out west is 3.4 million acres of which 900,000 are designated wilderness area (no motors). I dont need a permit to hike or camp anywhere I wanted within those 3.4 million acres...unless its at a designated campground.
not at all. State Parks, state land, local fishing accesses all play a big role in my out west. even the local college owns some prime hiking land that few use.
Federal land should be illegal and is unconstitutional. Many states in the east have state lands you can do frick all on.
Federal land just tends to a) have rigid rules about when and where you can enter and often charges a fee for stuff
and b) the trails go to shit because the government is underfunded (deliberately, by republicans, who only care about private land)
not that state land is necessarily much better but at least you are dealing with a more localized, approachable system that has an incentive to care about the land around them rather than being part of some massive administrative nucleus
I have this feeling that in the 1950s and 1960s federal and state lands were better maintained than now because people didn't have the internet and didn't watch tv as much so they actually went out and then everything sort of slowly drifted into neglect by the 1980s and 1990s.
Ironically state lands charge entrance fees in my state for every single state park, while I can just drive off into 40k sq miles of USFS and BLM land and do stuff for free (disperse camp on 90% of it for free, hike on a few thousand trails for free, cross country offtrail hike for free, go shooting for free, go fishing for free with $40 statewide annual license, go hunting for free on public game units with state hunting license in season or year round for some species, collect rocks and stuff for free etc).
it seems to vary widely
virginia charges for both game lands and all state parks
pennsylvania charges for neither
that said, state forests do not ever charge for entry and almost every eastern state has a fair bit of except like rhode island, connecticut and other coastal states
Where are the better public lands to just go shoot on without being messed with? West or east?
West ofc. East has almost no public land and most have heavy restrictions on what you can do there.
east has tons of public land and state forests are fairly permissive
the west has tons of permitting programs in place to even access certain areas, way more so than the east
it doesn't compare. PNW and especially cascade and olympic peninsula forests are god tier anywhere in the world.
> go to vast western wilderness
> gridlock
it's essentially disney world for boomers and chinese. that's why we own our land in the east. you have to be a multi-generational millionaire in the west to own any land that's worth anything or near and of the nice parts... and those millionaires just shit it up with cattle and other invasive livestock and invasive crops. lmao
the most crowded thing I've seen in the east was the state park main parking lot for the PA grand canyon
and I guess new river gorge gets pretty overhuwhelmed wth normies, but there's plenty of quiet stuff, only problem is it only takes one idiot hogging the best spot on the overlook to ruin it
Only Chinese I saw out West was the Chinese Wall in the Bob! lol
I was the only Chinese here. But because of my ability to grow a beard and double eyelids I'm generally mistaken for Mexican anyways.
>maybe if I post a meme pic that will convince them
lol
this is just moronic cope. Most "boomers and chinese" dont go a mile from their car or tour bus and only go to the NPs which make up a fraction of total wilderness out west. Its Incredibly easy to find solitude. Please post more cope.
Cool golf course.
>its not a golf course
what are you trying to say?
Why do you morons think the entire west is a couple national parks?
Do you have any idea how fricking big the west is?
they do not have trees in california anymore
Most of the west coast of CA used to be 1000 year old trees--they cut them all down and paved over much of it.
>Most of the west coast of CA used to be 1000 year old trees--they cut them all down and paved over much of it.
your correct. its a hideous eysore now.
They cut them down 400 years ago and they're mostly shorter lived trees, minus the big east coast oaks, we're already back to having old growth forest in many parts.
>we're already back to having old growth forest in many parts.
overly optimistic
I love oaks!
favorably
Tennessee side of Smoky Mtns is filled with tourist traps. North Carolina side is much more open, has a lot of native American sites (Cherokee) and honestly some of the most breathtaking views. If you end up there check out Cataloochee Valley. If you decide to check out Tennessee, head down Wears Valley and then up Foothills Parkway. Great views there.
but that's ridge and valley
🙁
Oh definitely. Those spots are good for site-seeing/wildlife.
For hiking, I prefer English Mt. to Mt. Le Conte. Less crowded and the trails are less well-kept so more of a challenge.
>For hiking, I prefer English Mt. to Mt. Le Conte
thats still ridge and valley
plateaus is preferable
>the trails are less well-kept
i hate that
I wish you could have nice, well maintained trails in backcountry
everyone always makes excuses for how shitty the trails are, I hate it
>thats still ridge and valley
Issue is the terrain itself, too gently-sloping to really feel like a good mountain hike. At least in the area I lived in.
> I wish you could have nice, well maintained trails in backcountry
Honestly I didn't mind it, adds some oomph to the hike. But agree it would be nice to have some more variety. Unfortunately State parks are always gonna push for you to visit them instead of local spots, so their trails are much better maintained.
On the flipside, ex-boyfriend and I once hiked an old trail that likely branched off from the original Appalachian trail. An older local put us onto it from his backyard, we had to hack our way through most of it with machetes. I've never felt so badass in my life.
>, too gently-sloping
the whole point of plateau is that you get slot canyons and dendritic land formations out of the deal
>ex-boyfriend
are you a grill?
>slot canyons and dendritic land formations
Yeah we def didn't have that where I was living :') All the more reason to travel and experience all that we can. Smoky Mtns has a lot to offer, but I never enjoy it as much as out west.
>grill?
Yah
>i dont even live in the east but ive been to the most popular tourist shit in the east
as expected
Wrong, the best place to go in Tennessee is the Cherokee National Forest. In practice it functions like defacto BLM land and you can pretty much do whatever. Even hunting and riding dirt bikes and stuff is allowed. I usually go ride there a few times a year.
t. Nashville gay
Most of the good rivers are not navigable and owned by old money inbred morons who have bought off sections and will shoot you with a stamp of approval from the local police goons if you cross the 15 feet of land they own by the road to fish on a stream your tax money stocks.
waterways are public and actually access to waterways isn't too bad even in places that are otherwise crazy for private property signs everywhere and I've definitely seen plenty of river shorelines where there's no "no trespassing" signs between the road and the water, they generally let you fish
also its sad people cant learn to share and get along rather than squabbling over possession of dirt
Waterways are public if they're "navigable" which by most legal definitions isn't a lot of rivers. In the southern Appalachians a lot of the best streams are quite literally chained off by private landowners and fishing resorts who will prosecute/kill you.
hmm maybe we should have a right to roam
you know damn well we got too many darkies for that to work
they don't go PrepHole
I mind!
Look, I don't care if you want no visitors and you just have a farm or some shit with no scenic value, but if there's a cave, creek, river, waterfall, ridgeline, views, or something else potentially scenic on your land, yeah you should be able to access that no matter what as long as you don't disturb them.
>when all the fricking trout I pay to stock with my licenses and gear and shit are locked away down a stream in which I could easily float a raft down during average flow it's really moronic
just figure out when they dump the trout in the creek and stand downstream with a net
>as long as you don't disturb them
Which is why it isn't allowed. If we had RTR in the US it wouldn't just be snot-nosed "thru-hikers" who think they should get to do their speedwalking competitions across our property, it would be destructive tourists leaving trash everywhere, cutting down live trees, blasting bluetooth speakers and tearing up trails nine months out of the year. If you get permission from the landowner to access the land, that's great, but frick letting every skurka-worshipping rando stomp around.
Thats a silly exaggeration. People can coexist.
I have a relative with a couple hundred acres of deer land in central Alabama and even without RTR dozens of local scholars wander around his property setting illegal traps, try to steal deer, and litter and vandalize the place. Even our national and state parks are trashed with 24/7 law enforcement on duty. You're living in a fantasy.
im sure this one anecdote is totally true!
>trespassers?
>Hahaha sounds like some kind of internet fantasy!
Tell me you don't own any land without telling me, moron.
>I've never been to a publicly accessible natural area: the post
scaremongering: the post
I don't mind private property since wildlife management is more local and having morons traipse up and down your land is annoying but when all the fricking trout I pay to stock with my licenses and gear and shit are locked away down a stream in which I could easily float a raft down during average flow it's really moronic.
i love virginia!
as far as northern new england goes, the mountains tend to be smaller but more technical cuz we basically go straight up then straight down. it's fairly common for ascents to require some bouldering and descents to have steep, smooth rock walls. also, i've never had a problem with dispersed camping in various public lands. it's worth checking before you go, but there's plenty of developed and undeveloped land where they're cool with it as long as you're not shitting in the water and breaking glass
also, a lil protip: forget about mountains and seek out beach forests if ya can. picrel is from kejimkujik seaside in nova scotia, which has a little bit of everything. you start out in a dense, lichen-heavy forest, then go to a scrubby open field dotted with boulders, then to an ancient beach where the sand is still rocks, then to a transitional forest (sandy floor), then to a mossy swampy forest (picrel), then to a traditional sand beach, then to a massive rock formation with tide pools and crashing waves
i know that PNW also has beach forests, but something about maine and even massachusetts' complex coastal ecology just gets me rock hard
You are going to have a much greater concern with deer ticks, the tiny bastards you can't see well but carry Lyme disease. They're all over back east. Suggest you treat your outter clothes with permithrin and check yourself end of day.
>You are going to have a much greater concern with deer ticks
True.I'm not much of a hiker in the traditional sense,more of a bushwhacker.Typically I'm out target shooting,foraging mushrooms,or taking pictures of plants and animals.I'll hike miles through every type of landscape imaginable,and it never ceases to amaze me how inconsistent ticks can be.Sometimes you'll pick up dozens of them,other times,none.I'll get them on me walking ten feet on my lawn,and sometimes none after 12 hours in the sticks.I hate it.You always have to be on guard with these frickers,and it wasn't always like this.
It doesn't. The West Coast mogs the east in ever way.
/dab
>. I ask because I spend most of my free time exploring the forests in Oregon and I'm planning a move to the other side of the country within a year and my main concern is if I'm going to get the same sense of wonder I get over in the west over in the east
Hahahahahahahaha. As somebody who is from Arizona and lived in PA LOL. You are going to fricking hate it. Everything there is tiny and overpopulated. It often takes 2 hours to drive 50 miles. There are people EVERYWHERE. Are the trees cool since they're like 4 stories tall? Sure. But you sure as frick better like only looking at trees because there is nothing else to see. And you feel like you're trapped indoors all the time because you never get to see over a few hundered yards. And even in the farmland they have tiny ass little like 5-10 acre fields. It's as though disneyland made a tinytown fake version of nebraska. Oh and the people are c**ts.
You'll be back west of the mississippi within 5 years.
>t. didn't go PrepHole in PA
The cities are irredeemable shitholes, just like every other state, but the woods are nice if you actually leave the parking areas
I've been around PA and it's fine. The taxes are dogshit and it's overpopulated. The people think they're rural even though they are like 20 minutes from a pretty large town no matter where they are in the state. If a child scrapes their knee or loses their balloon it's the worst day of their life. If somebody else saw their dad got their head cut off and then got raped that's the worst day of their life. It's the same with townies who haven't traveled the country. You don't know until you have been somewhere less populated. And even then you often won't love it. My boomer parents can't handle cumin, the basic spice that goes in mexican dishes. I can't make chili with a bit of cumin without them being weirded out by it because they grew up on mccormick chili mix packets. I don't care for star anise. It's nice to visit the trees, but I like seeing distances. I think I will always feel a need for actual mountains in the distance.
Ummm northern pa is not overpopulated and theres plenty of places not within easy reach of a big town
Moved from Portland to VA and absolutely hate it here. I'm also about 5 hour drive from the woods. I went on a hiking trip in Appalachia last year and loved it but it misses that PNW charm
Yeah I
went down to shenandoah and it was fine. You can't really see much because there are trees in your way everywhere but there are a couple overlooks where you can see a couple miles. When walking the biome isn't that much different than the woods in Marylands state parks. And because all you can see is trees it really doesn't feel any different. I was spoiled by being 3 hours between alpine lakes to the sonoran and high desert plains. In general I would describe the east as claustrophobic. You never really feel outside because the clouds are so low and the trees enclose you. I will say that the local city parks are way better because of the trees but the actual ability to escape from people is worse. If you are a city person ai think the east is probably better because the parks are basically just a small section of woods instead of being an overly manicured, grass mowed, fake lake park.
i lived most my life in the PNW but recently spent a little over a month in NC, mostly Charlotte and Wilmington so I didn't get super PrepHole but I actually really liked it there.
PNW wilderness is far superior - still lots of beauty in Appalachia but people on the trails are a lot shittier and darker. cities have less homeless people. I could live in either place and would prefer to have a family in Appalachia but that's not gonna happen so I'm sticking with the new
>PNW wilderness is far superior
WRONG
I do love a good dramatic set of wooden steps innawoods
>but people on the trails are a lot shittier and darker.
what?
Lmao ""white"" people on the east coast are grey skinned manlets. Everybody knows all the germanic and anglos went west and what is left in the east is a dysgenic mutting of swarthy italians, balkanites, and slavs with a touch of irish. The average eastoid "white" looks like this.
Kek, looks kinda like me. I better move out east to be with MUH PEEPOH.
a lot of people from balkan countries were hired to log and mine, it was dangerous work
>this thread again
haven't read it yet but I'm sure the guy who likes to deny that most of the Western half of the country is dryer is here
don't get me wrong I love the west but certain places have way too much sun and not enough rain
barren desert?
high plains too
>barren desert?
even deserts arent barren. sparse for sure. but there is life. SW deserts got some decent rain this winter and its still raining out west.
oh the moron is here lol
you got absolutely school in the last thread
okay buddy
>deserts aren't dry
holy fricking shit
Who said that?
(you)
>lying
whats the point of just making stuff up? I have made 3 posts in this thread and never once said that. wtf. how moronic are you?
I should start posting screenshots from that other thread to show how dumb you are. Maybe it's still up actually
Based eastoid schizo
Read this thread. He had half a dozen people correcting him while he was refusing to admit that west is dryer than the east on average.
https://archived.moe/out/thread/2655220/
oops forgot link
who the frick are you talking about?
would rather have more trees
me too. but there is a certain beauty even to the desert. I enjoy all environments.
Anyone else here like hiking?
Based
I like hiking in tree-filled eastern forests
if you go to the rare sections of old growth eastern forest, you can really get a sense of how magical they were before the loggers consumed them
I know what you mean. I have been in some old growth forests in the PNW that were truly magical
Are you the basement dweller who didn't know how the home drainage works?
>non sequitar
I have no basement. wtf is wrong with you? you dont like trees?
everyone likes trees
yeah I like hiking!
It’s very fun yes
I'm a woods man as well, but as I've gotten older I've started to appreciate the quiet peace of desolation as well.
>desolation
i dont know about desolation but I do like some desert environments
The sonoran is by far the most beautiful desert on earth.
Alas, there are no trees in the West. They were all logged. and since it never rains and the entire west is a desert they dont grow back
Ahhhh open space
you're fooling no one.
okay buddy
I wish this thread was people from the east talking about what they like instead of jealous westoids posting deserts
Trees. I like trees. I like seeing trees. I like being surrounded by trees. I hate seeing more than 1/4th of a mile. I hate being alone. Trees are great. When I go out I see trees and I'm in a bunch of trees. Then I walk through the trees and emjoy the view of all the trees. I love the clouds at night and the trees becauae they keep the pesky stars away. Thankfully there are always trees and clouds because I would hate to see a mountain or a star. Instead I enjoy seeing trees.
sometimes you can make out both sides of the next ridge over, you can't see it clearly cuz of the trees, even with the leaves off
but if you hike to the top of a ridge, sometimes you can see across to the next ridge on both sides
also to get views generally there has to be some sort of manmade intervention (sadly somewhat rare in many places), or just a big ole rock sticking out that you have to go out onto, and if you are lucky, its flat and there's no big gaps, I don't know why people can't lay plywood across the big unsafe gaps
> I hate being alone.
ive come to appreciate that if I can hear a road or there's people who went ahead of me if I fell and needed help it would be easier to get it
also you can certainly find trails with solitude if you are willing to drive a few hours and/or do something unusual
East coasters will never understand what it’s like to actually have an entire mountain range to yourself for a week.
I don't mind sharing.
Commie homosexual
humans are not solitary animals
That's because you don't have a choice.
I feel less insecure if there's others around, given the risk of falling or injuring myself in many places. It sucks to have tons of people there, sure, but I don't mind others being around as long as they don't make noise or sneak up on you.
Bullshit
I almost never see "stay on trail" signs in the east. There's a few things like nature preserves where the signs at the entrance do say that, but that's really unique to that sort of public autism trail type.
Theres plenty of trails nobody uses if you go to a state or national forest and aren't going to the most popular attractions anyways.
Honestly underwhelming by comparison. Sparser and more broken up. Charming in its own right don’t get me wrong. Very comfy small town atmosphere in a lot of places but definitely feels “newer” in that the number of trees that are 100+ years old are dramatically less common. I grew up on the prairie, moved to the east coast in my 20s and enjoyed weekend sectional hikes on the trails immensely, then went west and was struck with the horror of the devastation we have caused the forests. The Appalachians feel like the fricking bunny slopes compared to some of the Rockies and random clusters of mountains out west. Smoother and more rolling compared to the sharp jutting peaks in Colorado or the frick huge “oh we could actually die if we fell” roads and trails I’ve been on in Idaho or Washington. Hard wood just doesn’t have the same dizzying effect that old growth pine does I guess.
There's plenty of bunny slopes in the east where it is 600-700 ft from river to ridge. You may say that's nothing, but it's a lot if the trail is shit or nonexistent. There's plenty of rough, dangerous, steep terrain in the east you make it sound like Death Valley.
Yeah there are places like that. I used to go to Potomac River to do trail runs on weekends when I lived out that way and you can definitely fall and die. However the amount of instances you’re going to run into of that type of thing compared to out west are dramatically less common. It’s not bad. Like I said I like the Apps and the east coast. They’re just more crowded, younger forests, and you’re far less likely to have a butt pucker moment driving up a narrow switch back or run into terrain you’re going to have to figure out how to actually navigate up and down. The trails are usually well used and clearly marked and safe and if you have a problem the odds of getting stuck in it are very low. Whereas if you frick up in the wrong place in Salmon-Challis or the like…you might actually be in some trouble.
Lol you can die on camelback mountain, an in-city 2hr hike. People get emergency helicoptered off it all the time. A girl at my high school fell off a mountain in the superstitions and broke her pelvis and shattered all her teeth. She was fricked up for most of sophomore year.
Lol i got my time on cholla down to 90 minutes to the peak and back to my car trail running
Southern mountains worth a trip or nah? Never been down that way since I was a kid and we basically just hit the Grand Canyon overlook and dipped.
At the right time of year I would hit the superstitions. Like now. Late february- march is when the sornoran desert gets green and all the flowers bloom. And it only gets up to like 70-80F in the day and down to like 30F at night. The superstitions have a few nice point to points. Another little thing AZ has if you like kayaking is the verde river won't kill like the gc but is scenic and doesn't need a registered permit ahead of time. But check the flow.
Sounds like fun. Next years vacation is mine to plan and wifey has been begging to go on an air balloon forever and looks like they have opportunities down there. Any day hikes in particular you would suggest around Gold Canyon?
Treasure loop, it's only like 4 miles with a nice downhill segment to run.
Yup. Now it’s hard to get data on where the “most hard core danger” spot would be if that’s the contest people want to have because the more crowded areas are always going to have more people dropping dead on trails from heart attacks and heat stroke and shit but if we’re talking about lowest likelihood of surviving a frickup or highest average required skill level to navigate I just have to give it to the west. My last trip to Colorado we stopped in Georgetown for the night and some elk hunters came into the hotel lobby asking to hitch hike back East because they found themselves on the wrong side of the mountain and had to SOS the Feds in on their GPS. In fricking Georgetown. They’re just flat out harder to navigate, more sketchy trails, more cliffs, less traffic, and more dangerous critters by comparison.
Arizona actually rates fairly high up on the list for outdoor fatalities and rescues. It has bodied over 1000 people since the year 2000 across the whole state. The Grand Canyon takes up just 1/10th of the total, while the central AZ transition zone mountains and Rim country take up a bulk of the rest. Most of the deaths are falls or people with existing health issues, falls in AZ are really common however. So are hypothermia deaths in cold and snowy weather, most people don't assume that AZ has places that get colder and snowier than huge sections of Europe and about half the rescues are actually in winter. There's some famous shots of the national guard or rescue services pulling people off snowy cliff sides from all over the state. One mountain in Gila county has bodied twice as many people as North Cascades NP in Washington state, almost all of them fall, freeze, or drowning deaths. Every monsoon season the AZ transition zone averages 3-5 drowning, most of them vehicular however, one year though a flood bodied 9 people hanging out by a creek at the same time.
>The Grand Canyon
There is always at least one dipshit from canada or germany or new hampshire who dies there every single year
Yep, the average since 2000 is about 4-5 people a year, the known average fatality count in the GC since AZ was a US territory is about 4 fatalities a year since the mid 1800s. Most of the people dying out there are from out of state or people who have never left the valley. I am local to several wilderness areas in central AZ and we actually average more than that in a typical year on local terrain, much more if you also counted vehicular fatalities in mountain passes (10+).
Now I know why they call it Grand.
>The trails are usually well used
lol you do not get out much in the east
>wifey
why do people make negative broad assumptions about the east, especially the southeast?
>oh its just all crowds
yeah, um the most popular things on weekends, sure, but that's the same anywhere
there's thousands of miles of trails in the east
Please consult the image.
yeah there's still plenty of darkness outside the major cities
Yeah, in-between the walmart, dollar general, and the cracker barrel. I've been to Virginia. Great Pizza Hut pizza there.
if there's only dollar generals around generally you are in for some good hiking around you actually
I'd say let it be and let the landscape and climate filter people. Some of the publicity shots of ANG blackhawks rescuing valley, eastern and european tourists from the sides of cliffs in various weather conditions are pretty cool, my favorites are rescues after a 20-30+ inch winter snow storm (normal and occurs every winter).