I have only ever hiked in Europe but I'm interested in experiences other places when I take a sabbatical next year. Pic rel is the type of environments I have hiked.
Pictures please!
Main differences between hiking in Europe and America?
I have only ever hiked in Europe but I'm interested in experiences other places when I take a sabbatical next year. Pic rel is the type of environments I have hiked.
Pictures please!
>Main differences between hiking in Europe and America?
Over there all the homosexuals will be wearing Patagonia, over here they're all wearing Stumblecrow.
There is nothing in Europe comparable to the West coast of America. The east coast is pretty similar to Europe however--massive population, over crowding, not many PrepHole options... easy to avoid in the West.
>not many PrepHole options
Maybe not for lazy fricks like you who can't be bothered to do any research. I go PrepHole every week of the year and still have places within an hour of me that I haven't gotten around to yet.
Your mountains are shit and 80% of the US lives East of the mississppi. Cope harder city gay.
>The East Coast has orders of magnitude more forests than Europe
This is true, but that's like comparing a crack prostitute to her dead grandparents.
The east coast is almost all managed land, privately owned (on the chopping block), or urban sprawl. The writing is on the wall and at this point I'm praying for multiple, simultaneous, earth pointing X-class flares.
OK homosexual.
If sweet tea was an image. Got I need to visit carolina when I get out of this hellstate of a nation.
This is more what I think of when I think of sweet tea
I was thinking maybe a bit more like this. Sweet tea involves a bit more sophistication after all.
Eastern America has orders of magnitude more forest than any European country and is probably the easiest place in the world to squat/stealth camp in the wilderness while still having reasonable access to basic goods and services.
if you live on the east coast its 30+ hours drive to the west coast, you cant afford flying and lol whats public transport.
if you live in europe its at most a 20 hour drive to the nordics, much less from centrl europe, you also got the alps, baltics or any of thoose places that got nice nature. not to mention you dont need to drive in the first place you can get cheap plane or train tickets.
op is just a gay that doesnt know how to travel.
thanks for the pic anon, i'll be using it as my phone wallpaper from now on, till i find a better one
lol i just found a random pic from google maps somewhere in Bosnia i think? i was looking for a much better view i know exist there but couldnt find it. never been there myself so not taking any credit.
The jokes write themselves.
Anyways, here's a pic about 10 miles from my house
where'd you take this pic?
>verification not required
Peak Amerimutt brain
"muh wild forests", proceeds to drive 5 hours to a trail, hike half a mile on it, clutching muh handgun all the while
Plenty of cool places to hike all along europe, just need to go off trails
Agree. Get me the frick out of here.
>t. has never been more than ten miles from Barstow
it's kinda hard here (america) to find views where you are not just looking at cultivated fields and it is more uninterrupted green but you generally have to drive quite a bit outside of major cities to find that
little disappointing to just look at random people's farms
did there used to be more trees, or that's it?
kinda same situation as europe really
>did there used to be more trees,
it all depends on where. further up the trail you have full forest. But even in the dense conifer forests you have open meadows with sage etc...this area has never been logged. Burned many times over the millenia but never logged
West coast, outside of a few hotspots, is the same dozen or so (mostly) conifer trees over and over again.
I mean don't get me wrong the views are great and it is much less developed but if you love forests and plants then it is pretty underwhelming out there in most places besides maybe the coastal PNW.
>is the same dozen or so (mostly) conifer trees over and over again.
its really not.
A couple of different firs, couple of different pines, Spruce, Western red cedar, Hemlock, Aspen, Birch, and maybe Cottonwood. In alot of places out west that's mostly what you're going to see.
Silver maple, big leaf maple, boxelder, canyon maple, rocky mountain maple, gambel oak, white oak, red oak, catalpa, tuliptree, noble fir, Douglas fir, pinyon pine, lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine. Etc etc. And the rest you mention off the top of my head. It's as diverse as any other temperature region.
Ah yes, is this Arizona anon?
Lol but seriously of the trees you listed five of them are in fact some of the ubiquitous conifers which I was referring to.
>Just as diverse as any other temperate region
There are temperate regions in the US with more species of Oak alone than some western states have species of native tree altogether.
Having said that it very much depends on which region of the west we are referring to, there are a few hotspots but as a generalization I stand by what I've said.
Lol no. There's areas of denser forestation for sure. But literally, no areas gonna be much more diverse than any other in the temperature region. Go down to the humid subtropical you'll get a bit more diversity, but then you're somewhere like Florida or Mississippi.
What I'm used to IS in the deep south. I travel alot out west, and everytime I'm there I am always struck by the beauty of the views but the relative sparsness of the vegetation trees etc. Again there are hotspots that are different, but there are many places where 90% of the forest is literally about a half dozen conifer tree species plus birch and aspen. Particularly alpine areas. Many things like Hawthorn etc. tend to be more of a shrub except in exceptional cases and certain species. Everytime I get back home after a week or so of being there, I feel like I'm entering a green house that's wall to wall with stuff. Much less wide open views (a negative thing to many). No mountains and very little topohraphy (a negative for many people). The woods are so thick with things you can't really even walk through them (also a negative thing to many). However the density of species etc. is on a whole different level.
Now in my mind I don't draw much distinction between subtropical and temperate. A latitudinal distinction doesnt account for a whole lot compared to climate. I mean I could make the argument the British isles are borderline "subtropical" based on climate. Anyways, generally I see temperate and tropical- the major cutoff being a few annual hard frosts. If a place gets hard frosts it is "temperate" in my mind. The frost really has a gigantic influence on the type and cycle of plant growth you see in a place.
Mountain mahogany, few different kinds of willow, narrowleaf cottonwood, few different hawthorn, juniper, serviceberry, dogwood, poplar, ash, a few locusts, thinleaf alder. And so forth and so on. Not including the conifers there's still like 4 dozen deciduous trees I can think of. Probably more once they get broken down to the nitty gritty of them. There's even introduced groves of Fraser magnolia. You aren't gonna get more exciting arborism until you're in the deep south or the tropics realistically.
>west coast isnt biodiversity bc trees
ya idc but eastcucks will only look at trees. not mushrooms or other plants. good luck finding hikes near you with anywhere near the grandeur.
Amazing tree and beautiful picture. Again I've not said anything to detract from the strengths of some parts of the western landscape. But as always, in true westoid form- you cannot accept any suggestion (true or not) which suggests any other landscape surpasses it in some way or another. It's a pathological tendency really.
But no I stand by everything I've said, the vast swathes of the American west, prairie, alpine, desert etc. Are sparse landscapes as far as the diversity of trees and plants go (aka the real richness of the woodlands).
>Are sparse landscapes as far as the diversity of trees and plants go
But not animals.
>ride on the coattails of this one region
Bullshit
The diversity and beauty of landscapes across the West is umatched compared to the east. The east has a lot of decidious trees. bully for you. It can be quite lovely and the amount of greenery is pleasing. Rolling hills are cute.. The west is so much more. The beauty of the prairie is breathtaking and the feeling of space is unimaginable to eastoids. You call it barren and yet its full of life. You are just blind. Same with the deserts- "barren" to you yet full of life and beauty. The alpine settings are beyond compare in the lower 48. The simple beauty in their fragility yet teaming with life lost on someone like you. The oak woodlands, the coastal ranges (1300 miles worth), the rainforests, the volcanoes, the big trees, the old trees all amazing. You try to cope by admitting
>a few hotspots
some places are cool without really accounting for the scale. Those "hot spots:" are as big as states back east lol. 3 wilderness areas in WA state alone are bigger than New Jersey. The scale is lost on eastoids and they cant cope with miles and miles of flat land or sage lol. They cant fathom wilderness areas that are bigger than their entire national forests. They cant fathom miles and miles of undeveloped coastline. They cant fathom fully intact ecosystems with apex predators. So they cope by saying but we have more trees! lol
To me, the density and diversity of the woodland plant species IS the essence of what makes a wood rich vs sparse. I mean if I was going to go take a beautiful picture of some mountains for a desktop screensaver, I'd probably choose out west or if I was a woman choosing an instagram picture.. but as someone who lives in the woods and spends hours each day out there and just loves the woodlands, there is really nothing Ive seen out west from a woodlands perspective that is comparable to some of the warmer areas of the east.
And again with this sensitivity- I've been very clear about the fact that the west has beautiful topography, stunning views, it isn't as developed, etc. However for the lover of the woodlands, and the plantlover- it IS inferior to some other places. I still travel to the west though because it is a beautiful place in it's own way as you've pointed out. Beautiful landscape, but yes the woods always feel very sparse and monotonous. There is no need to be sensitive about it kek no place can be perfect. Westoids have this pathological almost delusional inability to admit anything about another place may be better in some way on the east (another example the gulf beaches are superior wo west coast beaches).
You take that back. Maybe Florida yeah, but Texas and Louisiana beaches suck ass.
>admit anything about another place may be better in some way on the east
I admit the east has more deciduous trees. Alas, that doesnt make it better. just different. I prefer more open space than dense forests. I dont like the monotony of the east coast.
I like a place to feel teeming with life. Not just plants but particularly plants. I want there to be more plant species than I can even count in even a tiny area- even a single acre. And then the next acre will be filled with new things. The more dense and thick the better. I want to be able to walk out of my back door into the woods and find and ID new plants every day that I've never ID'd before. I want the there to be so many I'll never learn them all in my life.
If I was a hiker, and I took hikes once a week or two or something I'd want to be out west because the views and mountains (in some places) are so great. But I'm in the woods and swamps every day, I see them change slowly with the seasons, and every day I find new things and it's so dense I'll never run out of new things or plants. To me, that is the real ultimate fascination of it- an obsession really.
>the gulf beaches are superior wo west coast beaches
for swimming they are. but in general, west coast beaches are much more dramatic and wild and empty of people compared to gulf coast beaches. I prefer that by a wide margin
Most states of the far western US far outstrip every single eastern US state in overall plant diversity, overall animal diversity (mammals, reptiles, birds, insect and fungi), and some western states do in fact outstrip half of the east coast in overall tree and shrub diversity. Let alone climate and topographic diversity. The Alaskan tundra and the Alaskan rainforests by themselves separately have more plant diversity than the entire great plains of North America. Mountains/hills = greater biological, topographic, and climate diversity. This is well documented. There's still 6 feet (1.8m) of snow on the ground right now in parts of Arizona and New Mexico while other parts of those states are in the 90s F degree temps.
>There's still 6 feet (1.8m) of snow on the ground right now in parts of Arizona and New Mexico while other parts of those states are in the 90s F degree temps.
This is why there is water in the desert. The joy of water towers
That and subsurface water will be pumped up certain topographic features and will find the path of least resistance to exit the feature, naturally. Most of the spring waters are actually from underground aquifers that follow topography, and local snow and precipitation does not always indicate aquifer health, as the entire crust of the earth is essentially a giant sponge and has liquid water. For example, almost every single low desert wash has water flowing through it beneath the surface, even in the 120F temps and 4" of annual rainfall climates. The water flows back to the ocean both above and below ground, and gets pumped up and down topographic features.
To see an example of people taking advantage of this in extreme climates (let alone in beautiful mountain forest regions with plenty of rainfall and snow and shade cover with water at the surface already) look up middle eastern qanats. Due to natural pumping action via pressure and topography, natural springs will emerge at both the tops of mountains, and at the bases of them in canyons. Central AZ alone has thousands of such springs which ultimately end up in the Salt, Verde, Gila or Colorado rivers. Beaver dams also historically raised the ground water levels across most of the west, in some areas where they've been reintroduced permanent flows returned in sections for the first time in 150 years (see San Pedro River, AZ).
Have you finally showed your face again Arizona Anon? If it's you I think you know where we left this last time- you wouldn't take me up on the offer.
Also this is from the Alaska Dept. Of Fish and Game:
>Compared to lush tropical and temperate forests, Alaska's boreal forest is an austere place: it supports a relatively low diversity of species, and a relatively low abundance of individual organisms. But the plants and animals that do live here are well-prepared for the bitter cold, short summers, and frequent fires of Earth's largest ecosystem.Those that remain have unique adaptations to help them thrive year-round.
And anyone who knows anything about plants should understand, there is no way possible for a place with such a harsh winter to ever have as much plant activity as a place that is borderline tropical and humid kek. I mean you have one place that gets frigid for months of the year and another place that is a greenhouse that MIGHT get a hard frost every year kek. Do the math bozo.
Your delusions are persistent, but in time you will awaken to the truth that is ever present in reality. Biological diversity is not solely a function of climate or forest cover and it never has been. And yes, the Alaskan tundra has more than 2000 species of native plants in an area smaller than Texas. Sweden as well with its much more temperate climate has more species than the American great plains. Arizona by itself has more than 4500 native plant species not counting fungi or lichens and a further 900 animal species also not counting fungi, lichens, or insects (AZ has over 1300 native bee species by itself), spread throughout each biome. Arid Nevada (which is the most arid state and half as forested as states like AZ-NM-UT-CO) has a comparable number of native plant species to a state like humid Kentucky. And new species are counted every single year. Life adapts to its conditions, there are arctic plants and insects that thrive in freezing temperatures, and there are extremely arid crop plants that survive and thrive on 3" of annual rainfall and produce a prolific crop.
I'm so sorry that you live in beanerzona
The region in which I live in Arizona is 90% white over an area of more than 20,000 sq miles. You preconceptions of various things are all delusions.
Congrats you live in the American equivalent of Orania.
You can't refute any actual data so instead you resort to racial statistics and geography statistics. You'll lose on both of those as well. The racial stratigraphy of the entire western United States outside of a handful of metros is similar to my region, 90% non-hispanic blue eyed 6' whites. You don't want to analyze the racial stats or stratigraphy of the south or even east coast anymore.
Don't worry the beaners are coming to yout flyover shithole county soon 🙂
The state actually got whiter from in the 2000s because of easterners and midwesterners leaving their shitholes to come here, albeit most of them moved to the shittiest locations thankfully. You live in the south and you seriously want to choose the racial hill to die on, be my guest, you'll lose. Those flyover "shitholes" in the mountains will continue to be white 100 years from now, because racism actually still exists here.
>racism still exists here
Not for long when beaners start moving in and the boomers die. Your flyover shithole will be the same as the rest of the country in 20 years time.
Racism is a multigenerational and well ingrained cultural phenomena in many places. In areas with changing demographics beyond the control of the individual, the options are to persist indefinitely and make yourself miserable, or to accept some sort of cultural blend. Many regions will accept the former over the latter, even within the same state. The third option is to move to a place that suits you. In most of the rural intermountain west, the racism is extremely reinforced and well ingrained and multigenerational. The most practiced racist locales in the entire country exist in areas of the mountain states, one such region further north made headlines recently because of it. Either way, these things are irrelevant to biological diversity except for the fact that culturally white people are better at preserving and enjoying environments than most (but not all) other groups when you remove the fact that most industrial pollution and landscape ecology devastation came from whites as well (even if we are improving now).
Look bozo, we've gone through this about 50 times, rock lichens or stonecrop in some crevice in one canyon (fascinating in their own right) are not the same as going into actual thick woods (few and far between in Arizona), and seeing a multitude of varied tree, shrub, fern, palm, weed, grass, and sedge species in an *actual* woodland or wetland (something Arizona has very very little of). Hell even on the grass/sedge front, the southeast has like 1500 species of grasses and sedges kek.
And this still isn't to say that arizona doesn't have some beautiful places in their own way but if you're in Arizona, and you're trying to suggest it has better woodlands than a temperate humid subtropical mixed broadleaf dominated place you are actually deluded kek. Like clinically. Also I've never been to Kentucky I can't say one way or another about it. Alaska is generally a brutal frigid place, that makes it's plant diversity comparatively low- I think most people understand this- the Alaskan department of Fish and Wildlife certainly do kek.
Also don't start back up with this "secret plants" list nonsense, we went through those lists last time they are are rife with double counting and variable numbers based on which lists you use kek, hell I wouldn't be surprised at this point if you weren't the one doing all the double entries. And honestly you could double or triple any states total number of natibe plant species if you started double counting all the slight variations in regional subspecies for the same plant.
At any rate you remember the offer from last fall right? The last time we had this exact same conversation? To put this disagreement to bed once and for all? You want to take me up on it?
Everything I've quoted is in reference specifically to vascular plant species. You can independently verify everything I've said. For example for Alaska if you counted lichens and fungi the Alaskan tundra has in excess of 20,000 species. I also quoted animal species as well which the west also has more of and which you can verify yourself as well. It completely shatters the delusional paradigm you have that only high rainfall forested areas have biological diversity. Not only that, but you also have the delusion that there are no areas of high rainfall dense forest anywhere in the west, when most of the forests of the SW are in fact dense old growth stands and they are in area in excess of 120,000 sq miles for the four corners states alone. Also as to vascular plant species just in the 3 mile section of canyon in my backyard, I have currently cataloged over 300 species by myself from photographic and field note evidence in person. The grassland transition oak woodland-ponderosa forest biome in my region is home to at least 4,000 native vascular plant species and 100 tree species, 500 bird species, over 100 reptile and mammal species and over 80 fish species (both natives and non-natives).
Look, last time we had this same convo we literally went through the tree lists and it was obvious there were double counting on the database and counting of subspecies etc. you are using kek. And no one is saying there aren't a significant number of plant or animal species anywhere (including the deepest parts of the ocean kek) but the difference in density and diversity of woodland cover in Arizona vs a genuinely wooded place is obvious- quantitatively and qualitatively. And I say this as someone who travels across the country to Arizona probably more than any other state because I enjoy going there.
But look we can do this circle jerk again, or we can just settle it. I think it would be a fun event- Arizona autist vs SE autist. We start a thread, set time period, each takes pic of a different tree species with time stamp and see who can come up with the most? What do you say?
No there wasn't, we went into classification specifics over what is a tree, and as I demonstrated most western "shrubs" actually do attain natural heights of 6m and their height is stratified by elevation. It was settled from the get go by the very websites you quoted as authoritarian on the topic, BONAP. Which I proved was a less complete catalog itself, even if it is a useful one, and even from it you can see that the highest overall plant diversity is in the western United States, and states such as AZ and CA and TX have greater tree diversity than 50% or more of the central and eastern US states.
I also provided proof that no catalog is complete, and that the true number of actual species anywhere is much higher than is quoted in the scientific literature, and that currently states like AZ and NM and CA actual have the most on ground cataloging work and research being done in the US in identifying new species. You have just been persistently delusional and that's ok if you want to be, just don't spread your BS.
The single biggest persistent delusion you have is
1) That only high rainfall forest biomes with high tree species counts have high plant diversity (already proven false many times over, this also isn't yet getting into animal and insect diversity).
2) That the western US doesn't have sufficient or any dense woodlands or forests (also persistently proven false, and is actually laughable and shows your lack of perspective).
1. There are clearly areas in the west that have dense mixed woodlands
2. Compared to the prairie, desert, alpine areas, these areas are relatively few and far between
3. Plant diversity maps which use a set number of species (you see 641 etc.) are not undercounting species you mong, they can only MAP species that have been mapped kek. How are you going to make diversity/footprint maps when a species has never even been mapped kek. You can make zero determinations about those species and where they occur- which means when you are analyzing number of species per sqm etc. you can't use those in your measurement. You can only use the data you have and the data we actually have speaks for itself (hence those stark density maps that say you are wrong). Also you shamelessly peddle those same maps for other types of animal etc. simultaneously which is completely dishonest.
4. I'm open to the idea that there are some undiscovered subvarieties of some plants and tress, close relatives, sometimes things get reclassified, but as far as actual tree species go, we pretty much have them all discovered in the US given how much study has occurred. This idea that there are tons of undiscovered tree species being found each year in the US is basically insane.
5. Alot of the plants you tried to pass off as broadleaved deciduous trees were in fact shrubs. I mean it really doesn't bother me so much because if you want to call those shrubs trees then it just opens me up to counting like 50 various vaccinium and hawthorne etc. shrubs as trees kek.
Anyways look, we can argue back and forth with TLDRs for like the 10th time and clog up yet another thread.. but I can think of no better way to settle it than if we just make our own thread where we go out and see who can ID the most trees on foot with time stamp in a set time limit. Isn't that the essence of tree diversity? Go walk out your door on foot, and see how many different species you can count?
>go out and see who can ID the most trees
Peanut gallery here, I say do it. That could be a fun thread to follow, provided everybody could refrain from "hurr durr ur coast dumb" posting
I think it would be fun too but there would have to be some rules to make sure someone didn't cheat. Ultimately there is know way to know if someone is driving all over the place here and there and not staying on foot etc.
I've literally already posted 100 trees which I have cataloged myself in the canyon out back of my house. I also catalog vascular plants (currently at 310 species photographed and ID'd myself in a 3 mile stretch of canyon) and animals.
And again, trees do NOT equal total diversity and are not an indicator of it, which is #1 in your delusions. On the ground in person and in every catalog in the US, the western United States is the most biologically diverse region, and the most topographically and climatically diverse region as well (documented Koppen E to Bwh in less than 57 air miles in my state). It is also the least industrially polluted region and the least densely populated region as well and has the only true old growth forests left in the lower 48. You are entitled to be delusional if you like.
>lituruhhly already posted
Then you should still have the pictures and getting the thread going should be easy for you
No the pics have to be with a time stamp PrepHole or else you could just be pulling them out of anywhere. The point is to see how many different ones you can find in one general area.
Yeah, good point. Doesn't look like he'll do it anyway though; he's just sperging about "hurr durr ur delusional". Disappointing, if not surprising.
>delusional
Well, you have to admit he has a point. I mean all of your preconceptions about other places are wrong and your unhealthy obsession with the number of tree species in any given plot of land is an indicator of autism - of which delusion is a symptom. so theres that.
Guy. Just stop. Why are you this moronic?
>muh tree species
lol. not that guy. just enjoy watching you crash and burn in all your threads.
Delusional neckbeards man. Are you actually this much of a loser or are you just pretending? At this point it doesn't make much difference does it?
>this much of a loser
>projection
lol
>t. Delulu
>he
>muh preconception
>muh delusion
Maybe try different vocabulary next time you samegay
Doesn't AZ have like the worst quality air in the US?
Preconception bias again. Alabama moron brought that up to not knowing that its literally only confined to metro phx. There's not even emissions standards in the rest of the state and I even posted a time stamped air quality index of my area (which IIRC was 13) right now at this moment it is 20. 80% of every western state's population besides CA lives in one or two cities. The rest is literally wilderness by European standards.
It really is:
>West coast, outside of a few hotspots, is the same dozen or so
What do you mean "west coast"- like the immediate coast or is all of CA the "west coast"? CA has 95 different types of native trees.
West of Oklahoma basically. You have alpine, various desert, and prairie (of course some subcategories). California is a very unique state with some unique climate things going on- particularly in the coastal PNW.
No one can go see some of those forests on the coastal PNW and not be in awe of them- but too often western people ride on the coattails of this one region even if they live in let's say prairie or alpine areas.
Take Alaska for example. It is literally is dominated by about ten different tree species. Also every region has its own appeal imho, hell even the high desert has appeal in its own unique way. The west certainly has wide open views, less development generally speaking, interesting topography, stunning landscape views, however it is (generally speaking) relatively sparse when it comes to plant (and especially tree) diversity. It isn't a knock on the place to admit this, it is only being truthful.
yeah you are right. California does have an absolutely amazing climate and ecological diversity. It is the most ecologically diverse state in the country...and the biggest, tallest and oldest trees. Pretty cool.
Yeah, if you're interested in seeing a diverse range of flora, the West is not where you want to be.
There won't be a legitimate response to this
So. By raw numbers of species that's absolutely correct. But lots of species in the east are hyperlocalized and not representative throughout their area where in the west what diversity we do have tends to be more evenly mixed. Which results in a comparatively high Simpson index that's more indicative of what you'll see on any given day hiking.
In my personal experience in the south east species are hyperlocalized but there is also bleed over depending on soil conditions, soil moisture etc.
And when I say hyperlocalized I mean hyper. You might have a hickory hammock one acre, a cedar/holly/oak forest in the next, a big swathe of live oak bottomland, then a black gum swamp, then a cypress swamp, then a red oak longleaf pine upland, then a chestnut oak/overcup oak/magnolia bottomland. A beech dominated block here or there.
And those are just sort of general categories and they will bleed into each other. And each one will have their own mix of less common trees and understory trees in there. But in a square mile or two you might see all of those things. I've never seen anything quite like that out west. And honestly I've never even seen anything quite like it slightly north in the Appalachian region.
>what diversity we do have tends to be more evenly mixed
Seems like a cope. Why is hyperlocalization bad? Seems like it would make finding a patch of rare plants much more memorable.
>diverse range of flora
>per sq mile
Its true- in any give acre of the east there are likely more types of trees than a comparable western acre.
And yet conversely there is a more diverse range of flora and fauna in the West than there is in the east. fascinating isnt it?
Take a state like Colorado- there are only what? Like 50 native tree species total? That's really not that many and alot of states out west have even less.
So? trade offs anon. fewer types of trees but much, much more beautiful. a fair trade to be sure.
That's exactly what I've been saying- there are tradeoffs, spectacular views but relatively sparse for the lover of plants and woodlands.
Yes, you are correct. The West is more beautiful. I prefer the diversity of the west to the monotony of the east. but to each is own lol
Like I said, if I was a woman posting pretty pictures on Instagram I'd want to be in the west lol. If I hiked every few weeks I'd rather be in the west.
However, if I actually lived in the woods, spent all my time in them, loved the woodlands and the plants that compose them beyond a "scenery" sort of level- I'd rather be in a big wetland in the south east. To me the woodlands are much more than just pretty scenery.
>the woods
Sure. But what if you love mountains or the desert?
Then you would be best suited to live on a mountain or in a desert. But if you love the woods, dont live on a mountain or desert.
I have spent more than a few hours... more than a few hundred hours probably piddling around looking for various oak seedlings to transplant kek. And I'll probably be in the dirt before they get mature but for me there is no better time spent in the woods. And the oaks are just the tip of the iceberg really. The real jackpot is finding trilliums and trout lilies maybe Bigleaf Magnolia or something. Green Ash too.
>To me the woodlands are much more than just pretty scenery.
As are the woodlands, Mts, foothills, plains, deserts, rainforests, coastal ranges of West. You just have to have a mind that is open to seeing that instead letting autism dictate your obsession over 20 different types of oak in your backyard.
>you just have to like what I like instead of what you like
Pass
>cant acknowledge the West is more than just pretty scenery
>doubles down on cope
many such cases. sad!
>can't acknowledge that everyone has their own opinion and that those opinions are in no way required to be the same
Sad indeed
>gets BTFO
>obfuscates the obvious
>copes more
lol
>fewer types of trees
Fact
>much more beautiful
Opinion
Learn the difference
>COPE
learn to swallow
>Yeah, if you're interested in seeing a diverse range of flora, the West is not where you want to be.
Not factual. You are either lying or ignorant- which is it?
Why would you measure per state and not a density gradient for the actual density of species appearing in one location? I mean so you can drive to one corner of the state and then 6 hours to the other corner and see diverse species in the same day kek? You have the audacity to accuse others of fudging numbers and using bad graphs kek? I mean for starters look at the size of the states.
lmao you goddamn nitwit
But guys, why is he like this?
I'm in the Rockies and I've posted some photos from my area because I love it here, but normal people can just like, let it go when someone likes something else? If someone were to be like "The Everglades are the best place in the world" a normal person could be like "that's nice buddy! It's cool out there" even if they personally didn't enjoy it as much. What drives a person to the point of obsession?
>I've posted some photos from my area
cool post some pics
>seeing a diverse range of flora, the West is not
>well you *can* but they might not all be in the same square yard
>posts statement.
>blatantly false
>copes
lol
check out desert drifter on YouTube if you wanna see cool shit out west.
Easily superior to what I have hiked in Europe. Looks awesome and serene but can't guage the atmosphere
In this pic is was mid-November and temps around 50f/10c. It was a little unseasonably warm as it could very well have been knee deep in snow. The trails eventually runs along a creek and follows it up a drainage toward that peak.
>this area has never been logged
press x to doubt
You've proven your ignorance of the West a 1000x over. Lots of places in the West were logged. This was not.
man discovers glade in top story
also picrel is oregon
that last photos wasn't a very fun hike as it was super muddy. picrel is idaho, this went awesome with some hail that was very scenic and no trouble functionally
Idaho is flat out my favorite out state. People just don’t understand how ridiculously difficult the environment can be in certain places. The 4x4 gays are often hated on this board but if you watch them trying to break trail in spring time it’s literally miles and miles of
>Winch frick huge 4x4 ten feet
>Chainsaw a fallen tree on the path
>Winch another ten feet
>Chainsaw another fallen tree
>Shit Doug’s rig just fell into a snow melt river that carved itself into the ice pack
>Spend four hours digging Doug out
>Chainsaw another tree
>Now Dave is stuck
It literally just spits in the face of civilization and I love it.
Bunch of trust fund homosexuals ripping up my nature.
Once they make Craters of the Moon a true national park it's all over
large game
In the woods and the bars, now a days.
Population density. If you drive a bit off the beaten path it's easy to end up many miles from the nearest other person and at best hours from emergency services. Trails exist for a reason, use them. Be prepared and take proper supplies, including a gps panic button. Even US coasties don't seem to get it. On the plus side it's coming up on the start of cidiot season so I'll be able to pick up tons of over time on the SAR teams.
>the deepest canyon in europe
>houses everywhere
that's how bad it is
i used to think europe had wilderness and laughed at americans here making fun of us, but then i started actually hiking
we're nothing more but canned sardines
america is freedom they were right all along
>oh no, a house is breaking my illusion of being adventurous! gotta stay inside now and post on PrepHole all day!!!
You could be 500 miles deep in the Amazon jungle and planes will still be flying overhead.
If you dont think thats tragic you shouldnt be on this board.
this is the outdoors board, not the misanthropy board
Yeah thats why we go backpacking in malls and hiking in the suburbs.
Get fricked moron.
I think that's fricking awesome, actually.
You're an insufferable homosexual who probably smells like shit and gives people the creeps.
You people would have both been on Uncle Theodore's mailing list
That's peak city dweller mentality
Imagine getting triggered seeing a house
People in europe live in rural areas, unlike 90% of burgers on this board who can't fathom not having to drive 9 hours to the nearest Instagrammable Trail (tm)
The other 10-15% of burgers (rural western US anons) actually live on the edge of the wilderness or surrounded by it (NF and BLM land in the US is legally wilderness in Europe and designated wilderness in the US is like deep Siberia compared with Europe, where not even roads are allowed) and couldn't fathom seeing houses everywhere when out.
I can drive 30-40 minutes north or south and be in bumfrick despite living in a semi populated town. picrel is 40 minutes
borgirs BTFO'd
it's worse here, they built mansions all over the ridgetops.
Lol. Just stop. They couldn't if they wanted to. Foothills around ski resorts is the closest you'll get.
wtf are you talking about, I live in Appalachia and they are on every fricking ridge that isn't state or fed property moron.
Oh. Those are hills, that's why.
another canyon in europe with no houses.
you are probably closer to this than many americans are to whatever canyon they brag about.
central europeans suffer greatly from distance anxhiety, to them if something isnt within 30min train ride its like it doesnt exist. its unobtainium, how can a human body possibly traverse such distance in a short period of time?
fugg
.... Do you not see the houses? Admittedly if you're in the middle of Nebraska you're not near anything. But I'm like 3 miles away from 3000 ft cliffs and not a structure in sight here in the Rockies. It's not real rocket science. We've got the same landmass as Europe and half the population. Canadians got it even better. But they're hampered because like half the country is tundra. And we've got a bit more diverse biomes in the American side because we run the whole spectrum from tropical at the tip of Florida to savannah to desert to broadleaf oak forest to alpine tundra and everything in between.
i know i fricked up by not posting my intended pic along with the first post.
>diversity
dude im in northern scandinavia, im as close to sahara, africa as someone in new york are to LA. you can make this seem like usa is big and its a good thing, and it is. or you can make it into i have access to a just as wide diversity
>b-but you have to leave your county and visit africa its full off Black folk and you cant bring guns so you cant shoot them down and you will die....
lol
The nicest thing I suppose is that I can get all of those environments without a passport and where everyone speaks my language. Part of the fun of adventuring as an American is the getting there too. Some people hate driving. I love going through the country and getting to stop and see different stuff whenever I want.
I wish I could just show you how cool all the stuff within 30 miles of me is.
I'm a half days drive from like anything you could possibly desire. The largest active geothermal area in the world, red rock canyons unlike anywhere else on earth, giant sand dunes and transient rivers, I got a 600 foot waterfall 5 miles from me. There's just tons of opportunity everywhere you go and lots of exploration off the beaten path. I didn't hit the nordics, but my time in France, Germany and Switzerland just didn't give me the same thrill.
Now that said, the history in Europe is great. The towns are better basically everywhere. Breaking into Heidelberg Castle was a lifetime memory. Switzerland was kinda like if you threw quaint European towns into the Sierras.
But no matter where I went to you couldn't leave the auspices of civilization.
Crawling into the castle undercroft. Lol. It was under renovation at the time. That was years ago.
before i start s b***hfight with you on who lives best for outings, i cant really put "half a day drive" into my perspective so i cant compare it?
i just bought a house within 15min drive from 2MV2+QV6 Ås
always been my favourite PrepHole area now i can do it from my doorstep.
now you show me the same for you? no doxxing required.
I think whatever language you were using did not translate right. Lol. But nah yeah, this is 12 miles from me. There's some really good mountains right on my doorstep
Can see my house from the top of this mountain. Nicely enough you can't see anything from the middle as you head up
yeah but wtf are they compared to yoi?
I'm sorry. I do not understand your question.
And here's about. 25 minute drive and 2.5 hour hike in. I am legit proud of the area I'm in. It's fantastic.
Western US is comparable to Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland except with a fraction of the population density and significantly more variation in climate and habitats (sub-tropical desert to summer firn snow banks and tundra in 50 miles/80km). Eastern US is more like Germany outside of the alps with slightly lower population density, some east coast states on the coast are actually worse than Netherlands tier. Central US is a mix, states like AR, OK, and MN are fairly good tier, while states like KS, NE, IA and ND are quite literally about 90-97% hilly plains, urban settlements, or agricultural land with not much to see or do (let alone places to hike and camp), even with low population density, Europe doesn't really have an analog to the great plains. Western states can be insanely diverse, it is a focal point for research on biomes (also where the concept of biomes came from), climates (especially micro, but also macro time sequenced and paleo studies as well, some locations are the coldest and snowiest of their latitudes in the world or just outright in the world, also has the hottest locations in the world as well and the wettest outside of island climates), biology (plant, mycology, animal, and ecology studies), and topographic and geological morphology studies. In some places you can walk a certain distance and it is like flipping a switch as you change biomes (20%+ humidity rise 10C cooling in mere hundreds of m walked).
>Western US is comparable to Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland except with a fraction of the population density.
so fricking wrong, you would feel like living in a mall at rush hour there compared to here.
Do you mean you would feel like that in Scandinavia or feel like that in the western US. The population density of my state is lower than Sweden and it's the 3rd most populous in the far west. The four corner states alone are larger in land and total area than the Scandinavia peninsula plus Finland (so mainland Norway, Sweden, and Finland), with the four corners still having 3 million less permanent inhabitants in that comparison. Just yesterday I had an entire mountain to myself, all day, on the weekend, in the 3rd most populous western state, and there's still 4ft of snow on the ground in areas (at 33-34N).
hiking in America
>beautiful expansive nature
>camping
>long hikes through varied landscapes
>amazing wildlife and untouched beauty everywhere
'hiking' in Europe
>smelling brown people farts in a hostel
>walking through a tourist town
>walking through dead barren countryside
>no animals (they killed them all)
People will say your post was typed by american hands, but it doesn't matter, it is all true
Sincerely, a european sufferer
hiking in Europe
>beautiful expansive nature
>camping
>long hikes through varied landscapes
>castles and historic landmarks older than the united states littered everywhere
'hiking' in America
>smelling brown people farts in a hostel
>have to queue up with streams of tourists to look at a rock
>rock is named after fast food
>no buffalo (they killed them all)
>get stabbed at the trailhead for misgendering the local methhead
>cars everywhere
i have seen entire herds of buffalo
where are your bison?
No, you've seen bison. The animal is literally named "Bison bison"
in america we call them buffalo
in europe you call them bison because you have water buffalo already
we have never had water buffalo in america, only what you call 'bison' which we call buffalo
we didnt kill any water buffalo because we never had any you fricking dumbass LOL
I'm not the guy you're arguing with, I just hate that you called our animals bison when your animals are also bison, that's all
erm theyre actually called wisent
>where are your bison?
poland, belarussia, bulgaria, russia, czechia, sweden, ukraine, lithuania, romania,...
>While there are now 400,000 bison in North America today, most are domesticated and have been interbred with cattle at some point
why do americans do this?
>why do americans do this?
There is a big push to preserve more of the pure Bison herds. Yellowstone has about 5000 bison and they have been actively feeding breeding programs across the US- mostly indian reservations but other places like Roosevelt NP and the American Prairie reserve. There are about 30,000 bison in the wild currenlty in the US.
>tfw we will never see the great herds again
honestly I think plains indians had the best lives
Wisent already contain a large percentage of domestic bovine DNA. In essence, they're exactly like the US beefalo.
I'm glad we still have some genetically pure wooly cows though
not true, the breeding program for wisent stems from 12 pure individuals. The nazi's did interbreed with american bison but those animals where purged from the breeding program after the war
An independent study of mitochondrial DNA and autosomal markers confirmed these secondary contacts (with an estimate of up to 10% of bovine ancestry in the modern wisent genome)
You have beefalo.
America doesn't have hostels you autistic inbred moronic BIPOC yuropoor homosexual.
Why are you replying to troll posts?
Anon... Are you autistic?
I don't let autism define me so please don't refer to me as autistic, I'm so much more than that label.
hiking in America
>buy ticket to walk on a trail
>several thousand other people walk the same trail because some years ago someone walked it and decided to map it and name it
>you can't go anywhere that's not a named trail
>get shot
Don't forget how you have to go DEEP into literal wilderness, which some states just simply don't have in the first place, to actually get away from people. As in, be prepared to hike at least 10 miles through rough going before you can go more than five minutes without some homosexual with a go-pro coming up on you every five minutes.
I just want to frick my girl in the ass while she braces herself against a tree, where the frick do I go to do this with some semblance of privacy?
>where the frick do I go to do this with some semblance of privacy?
Your private property, sodomite.
>DEEP
>10 miles
Anyway, if you want to completely avoid people and you're willing to leave the city then Australia is great. Much lower population density than anywhere else on earth, and even in regions that aren't desert there are areas where there's almost nobody around. Along the Avon River, for example, there are basically no tracks and no people.
>Don't forget how you have to go DEEP into literal wilderness
you're in the wrong places. Whenever I got out I never see another person.
I go PrepHole during hunting season and once I get more than 100 feet into the trees I'm completely alone; the boomers don't want to stray far from their vehicles, kek
I moved from the US to Yuroop a couple years ago and hiking in the EU sucks balls. I miss American nature, proper PrepHole infrastructure and nice people on trails so much brehs
what differences do you see between the US and Europe, or better the state you're in?
both for out and in general as a civilization
Honestly reminds me of the Kansas Flint Hills. Cozy but not the best hiking opportunities. The plains states are great if you like hunting because they’re loaded with game and I personally enjoy the absolute solitude I can find there whereas most of the famous scenery locations have become loaded with second home owners and tourists mostly hippies, Indians, and Chinese driving the byways force fricked into the land scapes. I specifically remember stopping alongside a highway in colorado and seeing a squad of future programmers step in front of an elk hunter that was glassing a particularly pretty mountain to take a picture obstructing them which was shitty.
North East US is better imo if you want to watch the leaves change in autumn, drive around and visit some quaint small towns, do some light day hiking here and there, and eat some good food.
Southeast US is pretty meh but I’m sure someone from there will argue. I liked Florida for the ocean and that was about it. Keys are fricking dope if you like swimming, diving, fishing, etc. but very expensive and very developed. You can still boat out to some small uninhabited islands but everyone else knows about them too. You don’t need to go to the swamps unless you like 4x4s, guns, fishing, and alligators. I personally do but snobs with delicate sensibilities and low tolerance for mosquitos need not investigate.
Northwest and Rockies are fricking awesome mountains just stay away from the most famous ones. You will hit a traffic jam on Mt. Rainier for example. But if you want to get fricking LOST out in the remote wilderness that’s the place. A lot of it is just too steep to really develop too much and shit tons of federal land thanks to Teddy Roosevelt.
Southwest is desert and has mountains as well. Can be very dangerous with the tweakers, illegal aliens, snakes, heat, scorpions, cacti, etc. but the most beautiful sunset you will ever see is in the desert. Simple as.
>Southeast US is pretty meh
you have never been there, right?
>the southeast is just florida so its flat and ocean
lol
Stationed at Benning two years and went to school at FAU. Had fun in GA but wouldn’t call it particularly great for outdoor activities. I find some good stuff everywhere but not much that blew my mind down there except the love bugs and not in a good way. If you know better enlighten the board. Like I said ain’t talking shit. Just wasn’t particularly blown away.
how often did you make your way to extreme nw Georgia or NC or TN? The best hiking in the SE is not in coastal or piedmont georgia where you were
Two years at Bragg. NC had some nice mountains. There was a little town surrounded by equestrian farms I really liked to visit I can’t remember the name of. Fayetteville and the soulless tree farms that litter the Carolinas just left a bad taste in my mouth honestly.
I use paper products a lot and I guess at some level I understand why logging and tree farms must exist. It's not really like that here a bit further north, I mean in the coastal areas there's some tree farms, but it's more just very-logged thin trees that get yeeted every 20-30 years unless you find somewhere special.
Europe has a long history. America doesn't. What this means for hiking is that in Europe, walking used to be the way people got around, so they built an infrastructure of inns and chalets and B+Bs and s on. Some of this is still in place. So you can readily walk from A to B and only carry your clothes. This can't be done in America except for some very specific places, like the AMC huts or some national parks. And where you can get to many trail heads through public transport in Europe, in America need a car or to hitch hike.
You are generalizing, northern europe exists. Lapland and areas around it is literally wilderness.
>just go where its freezing cold 9 months of the year and there's barely any trees
gee, maybe its wilderness for a reason?
>he doesn't know how to wear appropriate clothes
Maybe you shouldn't go, it might be a bit too advanced there for you.
bullshit if you want to go hiking you need a car, otherwise your options are very limited and it's still annoying to take the train instead of just going with my car, it's also faster, plus you need a car to get to the train station, or take a bus to get there and it takes so fricking long.
public transport sucks, it's good to have but it's an inferior good.
If you wanna feel what hiking was like during medieval times in europe go to new zealand
Why do all of you Black folk only care about hiking in america and europe??
Hiking in japan is great, hiking in australia is great, vietnam was pristine, china was beautiful, new zealand was J.R.R tolkiens vision of an aryan future, malaysia is awesome, indonesia sorta smelled of shit everywhere, africa is nice but only on guarded areas cause nigs will eat you and rape your wife
Unwarranted self importance
If by unwarranted you mean being the most dominant cultural forces of the past 500 years then yes. Europeans and Americans just have a bit of a God complex. Aussies are cool too, you're just really fricking out of the way
Wtf OP that's Trehøje in Denmark. I grew up here and have taken so many shrooms in those hills
i dont know whats the main differences, but its pretty nice where i live in europe
>freedom to roam
>free national parks, wilderness areas and reserves
>free cabins and camping areas with free firewood anyone can use
This place took me whole day of driving from south but it was worth it lol
but theres pretty good amount of national parks even in south, i have one in 10 minute drive away. I was thinkin about getting kayak next since theres so much more to explore trough water.
>national parks
Can't stand national parks. Super heavy handed restrictions on where you camp, and where you can light campfires. Might as well just go on google street view
You can camp absolutely anywhere you want and making a fire is only restricted if you are within 500m of a maintained fireplace. I don't know what the rules are for burgerland
In leafland it's unbearable. Pure tourist cancer. Crown land is all that's worth going to
Here it's pretty chill, motorized travel banned, and the land is protected from industrial destruction.
This is in Norway, hell, most even allow for hunting.
Bong here. I have been all over the United States for the specific purpose of going PrepHole because England is the worst country on earth for going PrepHole.
It's my firm belief that if you want to see cities and culture you go to Europe, if you want to go PrepHole you go to the USA (and stay as far away from the cities as possible)
Practically the main difference is that American PrepHole is far more wild and expansive. That also means it's impossible to get to without a car. If you do not have a car in the USA then forget about going PrepHole. Me personally I hitchhiked everywhere.
But the main difference and the important difference is the lack of villages and farmland. Even in the national parks in europe there are many villages and farms and roads cut through countryside. In the western US you will find large areas of countryside seemingly untouched by man. You can walk vast distances and not see another human.
if that pic is the only kind of environment you've hiked in there's a lot of different places you could go to in Europe before moving on to America, since in the US you are generally much further away from civilization and therefore you need to be better equipped and prepared.
We hike in miles, you hike in kilometers.
Reminder that until two years ago the largest lad mammal in britain was deer LOL
nah the largest land mammal in britain is greg evans from stetchton, mans 30 stone and a filthy fricking animal
>we got 4000 species of oak
I have a cloudberry addiction that can only be quenched by climbing mountains in the summer.
what country is this ?
also what's up with cloudberries ?
I was in Finland last August/September and found exactly 2.
both tasted like some sort of tangy beer lol.
the jam is pretty good though.
USA. They're introduced in these mountains, not native. The seeds are bitter but they're so tangy I don't know. I didn't used to like them but it's become habitual for me to go up once a year, pick a small basket and bring them down.
damn it sure looks like a dream!
the Fins love those berries, I'll definitely have to give them another try.
Have you hiked in France. I made a thread earlier
asking for anons who may have been into places in nearby regions of North Western France. If you may have ideas I suggest you to drop your input in the thread if you may, or simply answer under this reply.
Haven't seen much of america, but afaik the US doesn't have freedom of movement the way the germanic and slavic countries do. There, you only have the choice between curated "trails" targeted towards citygays (the people shitposting about trailnames and ultralightg ear, basically) and walking along roads, as most land is private, fenced in and illegal to cross. East asia is even worse. I've heard good things about southern america, but haven't been there myself, and obviously, africa or northern asia are empty enough that nobody cares what you're doing.
You've got freedom of movement in public land. And freedom to roam doesn't matter much in Europe because most countries don't have freedom to wild camp. (At least the central ones I'm familiar with)
I live in France and I camp most often. I don't have any idea on regulations though but I couldn't care less.
As you should.
But comparing the two stop one another kind of hits home the disparity. Europe has very pretty nature where it exists. But it's not the same.
Shit forgot the pic.
Compare that to public land in Europe and it's not super contiguous. And everyone's laws surrounding camping in each country are a bit different.
>freedom to roam doesn't matter much in Europe because most countries don't have freedom to wild camp
That's complete bullshit. In every single european country (except maybe benelux - never been there and don't know the laws), you can camp everywhere other than designated nature preserves. There's some restrictions on what you're allowed to do while camping (no fire directly on the ground during summer pretty much everywhere, no fully enclosed tents in the forest in Germany, no camping in designated avalanche risk areas in austria and some others), but even if you care for those laws, if you're using a gas stove and a tarp, you can legally camp everywhere where there aren't signs prohibiting it. And to be honest, it's not like anybody enforces them.
https://www.alpinetrek.co.uk/blog/hotel-europe-where-is-wild-camping-permitted/
Lol no. The rules suck.
This is the most wild european cope I’ve seen on this board
What, so suddenly burgers don't have to worry about "no trespassing" signs and fences? when did that change?
Where am I gonna run into a no trespassing sign when I’m in National forrest/Park land? Can you even camp off trail or build fires with deadfall in your tiny parks in Germany?
>At 441.500 hectares, Schleswig-Holstein Wadden Sea is by far Germany’s largest national park.
>Barely larger than my local national forrest
Lmao you can shut the frick up forever germ. The largest public land system in your country is barely punching above mid-tier forrests in the worst parts of the United States.
See
America is cucked beyond belief.
I want you to understand that in the US, one contiguous park system, (the greater Yellowstone area, everything in the light green) is the size of the entire country of Slovakia.
The western US on the cost is were all the people live, east of the Cascades and the Sierra Nevada it all high desert, but there are also a lot of water towers in the western US. So, you do get forest and lake at 1.5 km to 2 kilometers. The forest changes the higher you go up. There are a lot of mountain between 3 and 4 km in the western US. these maps will give you an ideal between the western us and the eastern. https://www.grasshoppergeography.com/cdn/shop/files/ElevationmapoftheUnitedStateswithblackbackgroundproductimage.jpg?v=1694183830&width=1800
what are most secluded places in europe? i'm from croatia, and there's really places without people. i was thinking of visiting monteBlack/albania this summer, alps too. anything else near me where i can get lost?
As posted earlier in this thread, Finland and Sweden. Kainuu for example in finland has a population density of just 3.2/km2, and the weather there doesn't require to have Laplands survival skills. Laplands population density is even lower at 1.8/km2.
I've beat this out in 300 posts with that anon before, I am under no obligation to spoon feed reality to you or anyone else. The alabama anon is the one who lashes out in every single thread you bring up biological diversity in, and you can see where he starts his BS here in this thread which is off topic. Like I said, he is severely delusional (to the point of near mental illness, ie in denial of reality and projects every logical fallacy possible). You are free to be delusional and state BS, just as I am free to come in and remind people of his BS. There are at least two pictures of dense woodland in AZ ITT and most would assume they are from somewhere entirely different, which is an example of preconception bias.
Me too. Couple weeks ago. Spring has sprung since then. Looking good this year. You on the Wyoming side of the Rockies?
deleted my post but no im on the western side
Imagine if this psycho spent as much time going outside as he does rabidly defending his shithole state on the internet lmao.
lol
And delusion? Is Freud right? Does it come from the mother?
post pics lol
I did. I'm up there in the middle after the Norwegian guy. Is everything alright my man? Everything good with the home life? Anyways, I'll check in later after I go get dinner.
Sweet. too bad their werent more deciduous trees in your pics.
Wait. You wouldn't be the same tard who makes all the McCandless threads and Steve Wallis threads would you?
wait. You wouldn't be the same tard who makes all the jerking off outside threads and MGTOW threads are you?
Yep. This is the guy. How can one man have this much condensed autism and moronation?
I know right. Sperging out about muh trees and absolutely getting BTFO but still doubling down on reee. its hilarious. The autism is strong with this one
No. Im the tard who thinks the West is a barren desert and that beavers once ruled the world and that you are a israeli logger. Oh and i like deciduous trees
Expanding your perception beyond your small minded misconceptions is freeing anon.
And by the way that vid was taken during a record breaking drought and check out the forest.
An area almost twice the size of West Virginia looks like this in this video in Arizona. Arizona is one of the snowiest places in the world (pic related April 30) and it's ranked 10 in the US as every single other western US state other than Hawaii beats it or ties it. Every single state surrounding AZ is exactly the same, even dry Nevada (half as forested as AZ but is mostly floral grasslands up north). This is something that people who have mind parasites and mental boxes around them cannot even fathom as they will only think of preconcepted ideas and thoughts they have for places. Just like most people image Australia as entirely desert, when it too is one of the most biodiverse and beautiful places on the planet, like the western US (and Mexico).
>see? SEE how diverse it is? Look at that biodiverse snow
>nowhere else has that
>you just have preconceptions
Continue to entertain us
If you watch the video, you will see a diverse array of habitats being traversed in a few miles. Including riparian mixed deciduous old growth forest. Research in some of those canyons and in some canyons in AZ's sky islands have identified more than 1,000 plant species in single stretches of canyon. And the point about the snow illustrates the delusions and misconceptions and preconceptions people have. As yes, Arizona gets a similar or higher amount of average annual snowfall as the Austrian alps in Europe (6-12m), which is directly indicative of the extreme climate variation over a small area in the west, which is also indicative of extreme flora and fauna habitat variation over both small and large areas. Most of the western US is wilderness and wildlands (of extremely diverse kinds) that you can frick off into without any regulations, any human habitation or industry, and without anyone to bother you. A concept that most Euros and easterners cannot grasp.
Man you wrote all that shit and I'm still just going to prefer east coast woods, what a bummer
That's alright to prefer where you prefer. The reason you've been getting called out is because you have been saying stuff that is provably false (ie BS). If you want to condense it to a truthful statement, just say you prefer the east coast and broadleaf forests and nothing else on the matter. And I would still suggest to get out and expand your perception regardless.
You're the only one "calling him out" because you went on a sperg rage my man. Have you been diagnosed yet?
>eastern broadleaf forests are the most diverse!
To
>I prefer eastern broadleaf forests so that means they're more diverse
To
>I just prefer eastern broadleaf forests ok that means none of the BS I said b4 matters now
Gets called out every single time for years now. If anything the continuous repetition of something that does not align with observed reality and evidence let alone perspective is mental illness.
And I am not the only anon calling him out, he gets called out in almost every thread he posts his BS in. And there's no shortage of utterly delusional easterners and southerners that never step outside their mental boxes. In fact in my experience, the absolutely most delusional people I have ever encountered are southerners and easterners and the level of subconscious cognitive dissonance and then get presented with evidence completely contrary and ultimately go the majority of them display is absolutely astounding. The actual truth of the matter on the ground is that the western US is in fact more diverse (across any set area) than the eastern half of the continent, and this is also simply observed if you only look at climate variation as well.
The truth doesn't give a shit about your ignorance and will keep existing no matter what preference you might have.
I messed part of that up halfway but at this point I don't care, it's always the same circlejerk with moronic eastoids, every single time. And chad westerns shouldn't even associate with moronic easterns anymore. We'll just keep going out and living in one of the most biodiverse, climatically diverse, and most beautiful regions in the world.
>my opinion is the absolute truth and if you don't like what I like then you're wrong bloo bloo bloo
Couldn't you just devote some of that obvious power level to getting over it or something? Blowing an autism gasket every time someone has their own preference must be pretty tiring
What you get called out on is not your opinion, it is objective reality and fact. The western United States is one of the most biodiverse places in the world (in plant species, animal and invertebrate species) and there are massive misconceptions, preconceptions. and stereotypes about it in the minds of closed up mentally boxed in people. And most of the plant species of states like CA, AZ, NM and TX are medicinal and edible, most as in upwards of 2/3rds of all native plants there (in some journals over 80% and native americans already knew about most of them). There is beauty anywhere, and your preference is your own. But denying the objective fact and quantification of reality out of spite regarding the biological and climatological diversity of the western US (and other places subject to mental stereotypes like Australia and Mexico) is akin to mental illness and putting yourself in a tiny mental box. If you actually explored these places you wouldn't even have developed your cognitive dissonance in the first place.
I have uploaded several thousand pictures of AZ that I've taken myself over the last 13+ years here, and I've seen them reused by people other than me and confused for Tennessee, Maine, Kentucky, Canada, PNW, TX, and places in Europe (I've been to all of those place also besides Europe). And in 20+ years of exploring and outing almost daily in my own local area I haven't even scratched the surface of my own county let alone the state. There is a famous local researcher down south here that has outed in the same canyon more than 1250 times and he has personally documented over 1,000 species of plants in the same small canyon. I'm at 310 plant species in my own local canyon (in about 2.5-3 miles).
>310 species
I assume you mean all types of plant- trees, shrubs, flowers, weeds, vines, sedges, ferns, cacti, grasses, aquatic plants, cycads, etc.
310 seems like not many at all tbqh.
Vascular plants not trees, and I mentioned it farther up in the posts. I have also documented 99-101 tree species (depending on shrub-tree classification) and another 65 species of shrubs. The number grows every time I go out. And keep in mind this is in a walking distance of less than 3 miles. I also record fungi and lichens but I haven't categorized or inventoried them yet. And recall that the state of Arizona, in any localized region of it, has well over 1,000 native species of vascular plants, and the central AZ transition zone and the sky islands further south which contain almost every biome in the state have over 3,500-4,500 local species in local inventories and journals. Singular canyons in both having over 1,000 documented vascular plant species. The highest inventory reference I've seen for the whole of AZ is 5,300 vascular plant species. The center of phenological and plant research studies is in AZ in the US, the original observation of biomes and climate stratification in relation to biological life zones was also in AZ.
Also if you do all this IDing everyday why do you keep ducking my tree ID challenge?
I've already done this with you. I posted the trees I've cataloged on my 3 mile hike. I am not uploading 90+ images on here at once or arranging the collage for it. I can ID 100+ plant species within stretches of less than 50 yards in some sections. You can go do the research yourself anytime you like as well. The leading plant based research in the US right now is in Arizona in regards to classification, new species, phenology, medical and technology applications.
Arizona is one of the most beautiful places on Earth. You do you.
>I've catalogued soooooo many plants, like, a bajillion and eleventy-seven of them
>p-prove it? UHHHHH t-that would be too much work, I'll just say preconceptions some more
Wrong anon. I didn't mention plant diversity, but your insistance that anyone who likes things you don't like is "not in accordance with reality" is indicative of some real mental issues. Seek help.
>Wrong anon. I didn't mention plant diversity,
Bullshit. Almost every single thread you ever appear in you state stuff like.
>barren wasteland
>no trees
>broadleaf forests are the most diverse
>not enough broadleaf trees
>muh species density (and then reference flawed out of date maps which I reference 4 posts above yours here)
>muh that's not diversity that's false
>muh broadleafs
You've been doing this for years and I have seen you debate people you thought were me and I never even posted in the thread. You consistently have been debunked at this point in your delusions and persist in them, which is mental illness in my opinion.
Incorrect; I've never posted anything about "species density". That is a different anon. I don't give a shit about your metrics; I like walking in the woods I grew up in. You need to set aside your delusions and accept that there could be more than one person in the world that likes a place other than your favorite little autist kingdom.
Yes you have, ITT even. In almost every actual debate you've had with me (and not 10 other different western botany anons). You've even at one point claimed that I couldn't find even 100 species if I walked up that canyon by me right now and that your backyard is as diverse as even one of these canyons in AZ (1,000+ vascular plants and 100 tree and another 100+ sub-tree shrub species, also 500 bird species some from as far away as south America and Alaska). You need to accept the fact that your backyard and preferred biome is not actually the most diverse place in even the US let alone the world, and stop projecting your delusions regarding broadleaf forests and the western US as preference only metrics (there are quantifiable metrics that cannot lie and do not have an opinion).
>y-yes you're the same person
>nobody is allowed to prefer anything I don't like because of my opinion which I state as fact
>angry autist sounds
No. This
seems to be the anon who wants you to do a separate thread so you can post trees or shut the frick up. I'm the anon who just prefers east coast woods no matter how many paragraphs you write.
You can prefer whatever you want. But as a reminder, your woods are not more diverse than random mountain ranges in the western US and Texas. And trees do NOT equal biodiversity, even though there's no shortage of trees and shrubs in the west either. Look at the BONAP map of shrub species to, guess which side of the country is richer in that as well.
>well maybe you can have an opinion but but but mine is better
As a reminder, I don't give a shit about the diversity in your area; I prefer mine, and trying to lord over everyone about how many subspecies of dandelion you jack off on will never change that.
>but but but look at how rich
Don't care. I like my woods, you like your dandelions.
That good for you, you prefer your area and I'll prefer mine. My local region is probably 1/8th of your entire state with 1/10th the population density. I prefer my insanely biodiverse woods and biomes.
NTA but you say the word and we will set up the time and ID some trees kek. Just go ahead and settle it. No one is going to take you seriously either way as long as you keep ducking now that you've been called out.
>trees
>post it now or every other true thing you stated is bullshit
Clear your delusions and cognitive dissonance man. And if you've been here longer than 10 years, I already posted trees I've personally cataloged in the same canyon. And if you don't take my word for it, good, look up tree species on SEINet with geolocated specimens in single mountain ranges and canyons (116 species), and also pull up sub-tree shrubs to (200+ species, again all in single canyons and ranges).
Lol oh so you are admitting that the database YOU keep insisting on (which has already been shown to contain many duplicate entries) is padded by entries YOU submitted kek??
Anyways, look
>I did XYZ take my word for it.
Isnt going to work for obvious readons surely you can see that. We have to put it to the test and prove it. We have a separate thread, a set time-frame, PrepHole time stamp, all for everyone to see.
Are you the guy who says the west is a barren desert and there are only like 3 types of trees and there is no plant diversity? just curious.
No, I'm the guy who says he doesn't give a shit about the diversity in the autist's area. You know, like I said in my post.
>my biodiver-
Don't. Care.
>No, I'm the guy
you are not this guy?
No, I am the guy who says he simply prefers the woods on the east coast. I haven't posted a picture on this site since they banned incognitoposting.
>I don't care
>stating facts and dispelling cognitive dissonance and misconception is autism
If you didn't care you wouldn't spam why you prefer the east coast so much. The only reason I post at this point is to dispel ignorant eastoid delusions. The majority of you rarely even leave your own county let alone state and most of your world is based on delusions, or mis- and preconceptions.
>I'm on a holy autist crusade to dispel the demonic preconceptions
>unless someone asks me to back up my obnoxious bullshit by actually going outside
>deus dicit intus manere
kek
I've posted more pics in this thread than any other poster at this point.
SEINet data base is one of the most robust databases in the country, because it is sourcing from dozens of other data bases. And they filter duplicate entries, taxonomic classification, hybrids, and recent data from old data. And you can also cross reference it with I-Naturalist (which SEINet also does) and BONAP, and other .gov databases. And we already went through the various taxonomic debates before, there are *more* species than what is listed in any database not less. This is also evident in recent genetic studies. And my tree list I posted was *personal observations from my canyon ID'd through multiple databases*. And I've already proven to you the BS BONAP does with its mapping and how it is directly in opposition with its own database.
And again, there are people more passionate about biodiversity than me in *my own state* who have personally cataloged 1,000 species of vascular plants and more than 100 species of 6m trees and hundreds more woody shrubs, in a *single* canyon in *one* SEAZ sky island. The Gila wilderness (not the NF, just wilderness) in NM by itself, has confirmed over 2000 species of native plants, which is already top 5% percentile for any county in the eastern US.
SEINET is a mostly innavigable mess of a site for for South Western* regional native plant societies that, from what I can tell seems to have very little if any oversight on entries being made. We looked at examples last time of how plants in their database were getting double and triple counted. I mean as an eastern example could we split red maple into two species? Sure you could make the argument- but for anyone who isn't being a donut about it, it is clearly just one species. AND even if they decided to split it into two species, that does not mean a new species was newly discovered kek- it just means that we decided to start calling slight variations in a known species two separate things.
Anyways, you keep talking about all this IDing you do- 100 trees and all- great that means you should win right, why not just put your money where your mouth is? I honestly think you are actually just a big phony.
t. got filtered
SEInet pulls data from almost every other state and regional database in the country, including the eastern and central US. If you plotted just AZ-NM natives there are over 1 million academically acceptable specimen collections/observations. Again, the pinnacle of botanical research in the United States is in Arizona. You can see this somewhat reflected even on BONAPs county level records map (pic related). The Santa Catalinas in AZ have documented over 1200 native plant species, one guy personally documented over 1000 species just in Finger Rock canyon (you can pull up a 14 year old article when he was at 600+ species). It is also not a coincidence that on BONAPs plant families records, Arizona makes up 20% of the entire lists' center of biodiversity for the largest plant families in the United States. And by the way, even SEINet is not complete (and still lists 2800+ native plant species for my county and 4200+ for the state, for comparison BONAP lists 4300+ and a university research institute listed 5,300 species). Again, I POSTED my list, and the moron still DENIED it and then started asking for timestamps.
I don't think you are understanding me: I am making a formal challenge to you. Consider this a glove slap across the face. Not some kind of database plant society infographic nonsense.
Me and you. Put our money where our mouth is. We go ID the trees in a thread at a set time with time stamp- and if you decline, you are yellow. Simple as.
>I challenge you so everything you say is bullshit
Boring, and I've already been through this. You eastern morons are so thick skulled that even when I post my own data you IGNORE or DENY it. So I started referring you to the actual academic data which posts even more than my own collection and you still want to act like morons.
The truth exists regardless of your own moronation and ignorance. And it is not my job to spoon feed you. I have exhaustively proven my case at this point.
t. filtered
Hot air blowing yellow-belly. I'm giving you a chance to prove it once and for all- I'm playing you to call, and you are folding.
>i challenge you to prove what you have already proven 40 times at this point and if you don't accept his time everything you've already proven is BS haha look at me I am a big person
t. logical fallacy and brain rot poster
>I can run a forty in 4.45- see here is a picture of the stop watch
Okay well how about we just race
>uh uh uh boring you are a moron bro I already proved it.
Logical fallacy (and brain rot). The cool thing about quantified data is that once it is recorded it can be cross and back referenced after the fact. Meaning once it has been established it can referenced back to again for confirmation at any time and further more updated at any time.
I have a great idea for some quantifiable data- me and you take a set time period- and go out in the woods and ID some trees with time stamps? How does that sound?
Same brain rot and fallacy my dude. Maybe look into some counseling, or better yet, actually go the frick outside of your shithole hovel and state for once.
Did you just use the well-known reddit profiling phrase "my dude"??
Look the challenge is there for us all to see. Take it or dont- be yellow or not it is up to you.
The irony here is that you're actually a redditor, whereas I have not only never been there, but I've been here longer than the super majority of posters and uploaded thousands of pics here (one of which was posted without my permission in a Tennessee newspaper making it seem like it was taken in TN, when it was taken in AZ).
Well if you want to continue to be here and not be seen as a yellow belly joke by all- you better take that challenge.
>seen as a yellow belly joke by all
So it IS cognitive dissonance lol
How about we start this evening at 5:30 Eastern. That only gives me about three hours till nightfall and you get what an extra three hours?
NTA lol. just watching you crash and burn
NTA lol, but you're just shameless at this point aren't you?
your delusion is evident for all.
>proven
Not until you start posting local pictures with timestamps
>biodiversity
Show us with timestamps
>back referenced
Reference pictures with timestamps
>thousands of pictures
Then a few more with timestamps should be easy for an autist of your caliber
>posting random unverified pictures and shitty infographics is the same as backing up my claims
Incorrect. Until you accept anon's challenge and start walking, you're just another bullshitter. If you actually lived in such a biodiverse area, and if you spent so much time in it cataloguing everything, it would be a simple matter for you to show us. But you don't, so you won't.
See
Same mindset.
The western US is more botanically biodiverse in any scale area criteria than the eastern half of the continent, and further more it is more biodiverse in regards to animals as well. Period.
See even now he's just trying to run the clock out to 300 posts so he can duck the challenge. It's sad really.
here's a challenge to you, find and record or reference more than 1,000 native vascular plant species in an area smaller than 12 sq miles in any region of the eastern half of the continent.
How could I possibly do that in a way that was provable on 4chinz? Everyone is sick of us shitting up threads and I'm trying to put it to bed in a dispostive way, however it goes, for the good of everyone.
It would be entertaining (this dead board desperately needs an event). Me and you would get to be out in the woods so no one really loses, and we all get to see pics of native trees from two totally different landscapes.
Post a data base set. Notice how I included *reference*. There are databases in the western US that reference that many or more native vascular plant species in that small of an area and I've already referenced them. Even on the most generation BONAP county level species count in the eastern half of the continent less than 5% of counties (even in Florida) can even match the Gila Wilderness's level of native vascular plant biodiversity.
How about this- you can check all that bozo fudged numbers nonsense and me and you just go ID some trees, or as they say in your part of the country "Mano a mano".
Everyone can judge for themselves at this point who is full of shit. I'm not feeding the troll anymore ITT.
dude. you got BFTO and now you are trolling
That's all a bunch of nonsense and doesn't prove anything kek.
This is what we do- we set a specific time frame. Make our own thread- tree with time stamp for everyone to see, and see who can ID the most? Other anons would enjoy it- whoever wins or loses still gets to go out in the woods and have some fun.
>I'm not uploading 90 images.
Oh but you'll post 90 TLDRs literally delusional lyrics sperging the same stuff over and over again??
We've already discussed this stuff numerous times. When you look at the BONAP maps the only state out west that really stands out is California. And on the county wide maps there are counties in the southeast that are 1/100th the size of western counties that have higger densities and numbers kek. And this is true for the species wide and vascular plant maps. The tree species maps are just stark tbqh which is why you spreg so bad when someone brings bonap up.
>That's all a bunch of nonsense and doesn't prove anything kek.
See
You sperging "that's FALSE" again for the 300th time. It isn't, it is objective fact. In fact in terms of scale based weather, climate, and also biological species distribution research, it gets harder and harder to measure the smaller in area you go. So the base mapping on most eastoid and .gov sites uses the most atrocious scale references, western orgs and institutions and other independent orgs, catalogs and journals use fine area mapping metrics, in which the species density *goes up* massively in any specific mountain range in CA, AZ, and NM. For example 1250 vascular plant species in less than 12 square miles, 2800 total species in the same county which might be 10,000 sq miles.
Every single catalog, including exceptionally out of date .gov ones and somewhat out of date ones like BONAP, reference more than 4,000 vascular plant species native to Arizona, and the mapping on them is garbage on most (like forecasting weather over a huge area), many of the western catalogs have begun using mapping areas of single mountain ranges and canyons and the species density is unbelievably higher, while the total abundance is about the same (which is also higher than the eastern US).
Trees do NOT equal total plant or animal diversity.
California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas could be classed as megadiverse countries by themselves.
>BONAP proves you wrong
Uh uh the data is bad their method is bad we need to tweak it and use a method that I like better.
Kek you just keep sperging calling anything you don't like FALSE FALSE. The problem you have is that this isn't the honor system you deluded sperg. Idc how many plants you SAY you catalogued. The entire point is to do it in a controlled probable way for all anons to see. But you keep refusing- preferring instead to keep posting TLDRs kek.
We make a thread, set a time, we post the trees with a time stamp and settle it. It would be entertainment for all and fun for the both of us. The fact that you are so invested in this but keep refusing the offer is suggestive that you are A. Lying/exaggerating or B. Are incapable of actually going out in the woods on your own and IDing the plants in real time.
Objectively their method is bad, the .govs are even worse and use outdated data from the 90s. As I mentioned, there are catalogs based in the west that have confirmed over 1,000 vascular plant species in less than 12 sq miles of single mountain ranges and canyons. There are also independent researchers here that have personally collected and ID'd and cataloged over 1,000 species in single canyons in both the sky islands and the Mogollon Rim canyons.
Again, to get it into your thick skull.
Trees do NOT equal total plant or animal diversity.
Arizona is more botanically diverse than any eastern state excepting only possibly Florida, and AZ is more botanically diverse than any central US state excepting only Texas. It is ranked 3rd or 4th in the US in total species abundance in almost every single catalog. And the catalogs that use better mapping criteria have identified statistical species densities of more than 1,000 species in 12 sq miles or less.
I haven't even gotten into animals. AZ is also 3rd at worst in total bird species (500+ species, including the most owls and humming birds of any state), 1st in total ant species and diversity, 2nd in total bee species and diversity (and one of the richest places in the world for bees), has more mammal species than any eastern state and is only beat out in reptiles by Florida and Texas in the central and eastern US.
Look- you can cherry pick stuff all you want, I can cherry pick too- fish species, reptiles, ferns, palms, amphibians, wetland species, woody vines, freshwater mussels. I mean as far as actual woodlands are concerned trees are sort of the biggest category of them all though. And our original argument started out with trees and then you started coping and moving the goal posts etc.
Anyways we can settle it now why do you keep trying to ignore it. Let's just ID the trees? What do you say?
>Cherry pick
Ok yeah I just happen to be cherry picking when every single catalog you can pull up right now confirms everything I am saying. And the more refined area mapping catalogs (such as SEINET, which maps individual mountain ranges) will show you the coastline paradox. The smaller in area refinements you go the greater the complexity and the disparity from more broad mapping criteria metrics.
Single mountains and canyons in AZ and CA at least, but also NM and TX, have species densities higher than any region or state or province of the eastern half of the continent. They also have higher total species abundance (total counts), and much higher animal and invertebrate diversity.
Again you are delusional.
Tree species do NOT equate biodiversity.
Dont move the goal posts now- all this stuff about the tree species you identified etc etc. we started this months ago talking about tree species and that is probably the most significant single category we could come up with when it comes to woodlands. If you had come into a thread talking about cacti species in Arizona I would t be so stupid or hardheaded to try and quibble with you. We started out talking about woodlands and trees and you started sperging about it kek.
You get called out on it and all of a sudden you start coping and moving the goal posts. So why don't we just put it to rest? Why are you scared to just settle it?
Ok I am moving the goal posts by stating the facts that the western US is more botanically diverse in any area criteria you set (10k sq km like BONAP maps, or 12 sq miles like SEINET). Not only is the west more botanically diverse, it is more diverse in every single category of biology (animals, invertebrates, fungi, lichens). States like Alaska and Colorado also have confirmed 500+ bird species.
You have a specific delusion about tree species, which is exactly that, a delusion.
There you with more lies and exaggerations- according to BONAP my area is literally more diverse (across ALL plant species) than anywhere in Arizona. And the only places similar are two pockets in California kek.
>cherry picking
And you accuse me of cherry picking. BONAP mapping criteria is internally set and they do not disclose the criteria. Their data directly contradicts itself. And to show you how, my county is listed as having 2,813 native species, while on that contour map they use it suggests the county has less than 1500 species. You can observe this for yourself if you put in your own county and observe a discrepancy in their mapping and their data bases. The persistent area criteria they set (10,000 sq km) and what they set as native species (reported from various other data bases) show direct conflict with some of their maps.
Do you understand that BONAP is not saying that's the total number of species kek? They are saying that is the total number with mapped info.
How are they going to map and show density of some subvariety of a species that they have no good data for??
How about this trend?
Their maps contradict their own data bases. Look at the query page. And look at other catalogs with county level or lower reports. For example they might give a county with more native species a lower number because it is either larger or smaller than their mapping criteria, and thus it does not reflect the actual total number of native species or diversity in any given county in that first map you posted. For any catalog you look up at the state, county, and lower level, every single western state from UT and OR and south is more diverse than any eastern US state.
And additionally you can observe their other maps and see a different trend.
http://bonap.org/2015_SpecialtyMaps/Most%20Number%20of%20Native%20Species/Native%20Species%20per%20Family.html
Or this trend?
Here is another example of their mapping moronation. Check out the 100+s next to sub 10s in TX and other areas. Look at their query page if you want complete and more accurate lists, thought they still don't disclose their individual data base sets like SEINET does.
And here is another example of area criteria bias. In this map they use the 10k sq km mapping area again and do not disclose which data base sets they derive the data from. For example, for any county in central and southeastern Arizona those numbers of endemics can be reported from single mountain ranges or from the entire county and it will get reported the same way.
Where I live is literally dark purple in that pic kek.
Where I live is bright purple (higher than dark purple). And remember that is mapped with a 10k sq km criteria, which means if you mapped with data base sets from places like SEINet which uses as low as 12 sq mi criteria, you would see the map light up similar to a topographic map in the west and even parts of the east.
I'm not the guy your last posts have been responding to- I haven't been ITT for a few days- but me and you have had this conversation about ten times now and it is always nothing but gloss-over conclusory statements and pure delusion from you- almost shameful actually. Like when you said Alaska was so biodiverse and their own fish and wildlife dept. says the opposite (and you just ignore it).
You criticize BONAP maps and then shamelessly post these stupid "species" per state infographics (which a log on the ground could see is moronic compared to an actual density map) and you just ignore the criticism.
You keep sperging with these deluded TLDRs and touting quantititave data and proof kek and your only evidence you ever produce is some cataloging site that we already proved double and triple counts species and apparently has no methodology to police entries AT ALL that people like you might spam kek. You keep conflating diversity of species across a state compared to a single area or woodland shamelessly like no one can you doing it. It's insane.
Anyways, you spend all this time running your mouth and I've already told you like a dozen times how we can settle this in a fun way that doesn't involve shitting up threads with tldrs but you refuse to take me up on it. Almost like you are alot more comfortable posting on this board than you are (God forbid) actually going out inot the woods kek.
You can persist in your delusions if you want, like I said. The fact of the matter is that the entire western US is more biologically diverse than any other region in North America, across any scale. And you can confirm it yourself, Alaska has more referenced species than that referenced by ADFG. The old ADFG references date to the 90s, in other more active organization catalogs both the central AK boreal region (tundra and boreal to arctic zones) and the Alaskan rainforests *individually* have more than 2,000 native vascular plant species. And Canadian research in the BC rainforests have even more. The BONAP catalogs are not complete, but you can reference them yourself and observe that the actual total species diversity and abundance is higher in the west, and when it conforms the data to county level maps (western counties are the size of eastern states) it completely excludes individual mountain ranges (where the majority of the diversity is). For example for one county it might reference 2,800 species for vascular plants, when in one single mountain range that is 1/300th the size of the county in that county might have 1,200 species within it by itself. And the rate at which catalogs and journals update is either excruciatingly slow (the gov and eastern sites) or a few years behind at worst (western US and other orgs catalogs). This even applies to animal species and microclimate studies.
Arizona is fake and gay. GYE superiority all the way.
>i think that "calling someone out" is the end-all-be-all because i think my opinion is objective fact
>if you prefer somewhere else you're mentally ill
>i will now write my third thesis of the week on why anyone who doesn't love my state is a doodoo-head, to be accompanied by interpretive dance and throat singing
The eastern US does not have the total species abundance and diversity of the western United States, and that's not only with vascular plants, it's also with animals to. Your specific delusion that trees = higher plant diversity is simply false and not in accordance with reality.
>everyone who likes the east coast is the same person
That was my first post, 'tismo jim. Maybe you should expand your tolerance for other people liking things you don't
Going forward I'm going to assume Arizona is a total shithole border to border simply for the fact that someone who loves it SO much can't post a single verifiable picture he took in defense of his sperg rants, kek
>every logical fallacy and conception bias at work and on display for hundreds of anons to see
>Hundreds
Kek wishful thinking.
I'm calling you out Arizona Anónimo. What's it going to be?
He's not going to do it. He'll write Tolstoy-length made-up dissertations every day until dies from starvation before he puts one foot outside to try and prove you wrong. He's got all the spine of a jellyfish on muscle relaxers and he knows it.
>newbie doesn't know that thousands of anons browse even a slow board like out
>twenty-teen jillion anons are monitoring this very thread
And they can all see that AZ anon is a gutless pretender with delusions of superiority
>newbie doesn't know there are about 2 dozen regular AZ posters on out since most of us actually go outside
>there's lots of us and we post all the time
>you just don't see it because we don't post
If I lived in AZ with that screeching autist I wouldn't want anybody to know
The Madrean Pine Oak woodlands are a biodiversity hotspot. However most of the real heart of the Madrean Oak/Pine Woods are in Mexico- not Arizona. There are only approximately twenty pockets in Arizona of this hotspot and only a handful large pockets. It is currently estimated to have approximately 5300 native vascular plant species across the whole area (most of which is located in Mexico).
The North American Coastal Plain is also a Myers listed biodiversity hostpot hosting about 6170 vasuclar native plants- 1748 being endemic. The Coastal Plain Floristic Province alone has over 5470 native plant species.
Despite having mild topographic variation, this plant diversity is mostly due to the NACP being relatively geographically old, having a comparatively long term stable climate, having been a region of large sea level fluctuation over time, pronounced wet and dry seasons with the wet season producing large amounts of precipitation, extremely diverse soil composition comparatively, and a unique system of non anthropogenic natural wildfire activity: "frequently occurring lightening-producing thunderstorms, especially during transitions between pronounced wet and dry seasons, historical lyrics ignited fires that, promoted by flammable fuels, burned through Pine savannas and into surrounding vegetation across most of the lower NACP. Frequent fires maintain open space in ground layer by removing litter, cropping dominant grasses, and top-killing trees and shrubs, and local variation post-fire microenvironmental gradients. Heterogeneity in fire effects along these gradients provides fire microrefugia, resulting in local co-occurance of fire-dependent and fire sensitive species. Moreover topographical protected or lowland areas burn less frequently or patching, generating variation in fire regimes and producing landscapes with refugia for fire-sensitive species."
Historically*
Trees with timestamp or gtfo
The Madrean floristic zone actually extends to the Rim in Arizona in type species. The chaparral and pine-oak woodlands in AZ also extend to 35N, and the interior chaparral woodlands in AZ is estimated at over 3.5 million acres, and the geographic center of it is close to the geographic center of Arizona as a whole (Gila and Yavapai counties). Pacific coast species which were thought to never be found that far in the interior have been found in both counties, and Madrean and Boreal species are also found to overlap in this zone in central AZ. Roughly 97% of all species of plants in Arizona (3700-4300 vascular species alone) can be found in just those two counties in Arizona. It is also the richest zone in North America for avian species by area density outside of California (550+ confirmed species), and you will find species from the southern tip of South America and from Arctic Canada and Alaska.
This is the area officially recognized as the Madrean Pine/Oak Biodiversity Hospot.
The scholarly definition of the Madrean zone is not limited to the sky islands of SEAZ, in scholarly circles it is even sometimes (IMO incorrectly) extended even north of the Mogollon Rim. In the type species indexing (10+ oak species and 30+ southern cordilleran conifers, as well as thousands of vasculars and hundreds of shrubs) and biome indexing (chaparral and pine oak woodland are immediately adjacent to each other, even to almost 35N in Yavapai) the type defined Madrean floristic province actually extends up to the Mogollon Rim in Arizona. And as I already mentioned, two central AZ counties contain 97% of all known cataloged plant species in Arizona (boreal, Madrean, and Pacific coastal overlaps). The AZ transition zone if geologically or at least topographically an extension of the Madrean zone up to the Rim, eg Pinus engelmanni extends naturally into Gila county. The western Mexico Madrean zone and the AZ transition zone contain significant species overlap and continuation from the sky islands. And the state wide zones of just NM, or AZ, or even southern CA individually, have more species than the Coastal plain floristic province in an equal sized area metric. That is, if you were to estimate the total number of species without double counting in AZ, NM, and CA those states contain upwards of 9,000 species of vascular plants, conservatively.
I would not be surprised that picking up the California Floristic Zone, together with the rest of the South West and those nuggets of the Madrean Woodlands would render huge numbers of species. That is a massive area and it encompasses distinct ecoregions. However the California Flristic Zone Hotspot is entirely distinct from the Madrean ecoregion.
I am also not surprised that a handful of counties in Arizona contain a high percentage of Arizona species. The counties in Arizona (perhaps moreso than any other state) are gigantic lol.
However I'm going to go with the technical and published descriptions and mapping of the Madrean Woods as well as the Myers criteria and mapping. There are enclaves of it in Arizona- two major ones in the extreme Southeast of the state. Perhaps there may be some bleed over, however the Sky Islands are fairly distinct pockets, and I have never seen any published mapping etc. which shows those pockets extending much beyond the Bassett area. The "heart" of the Madrean Woods however is most definitely not in Arizona and is firmly in Mexico, and it would be an obvious slight to Mexico to say otherwise. I consider the Madrean Woods to (generally) be a Mexican ecoregion. And when you look at the aerials of the area you can see pretty clearly where the pockets are.
Reminder, the cataloged species for Arizona individually is over 4,000 conservatively. For New Mexico, over 4,000 species conservatively. And for California as a whole, over 6,000 species conservatively. Each of those states are smaller than Texas, for AZ and NM, under half the size of TX. And the species overlap between AZ, NM, and CA is actually not as high as people think, accepting a 37% endemic rate between each state and referencing the current known cataloged species you render a number of about 9,300 species of *vascular* plants (excludes a large amount of woody shrubs and trees, like 600 species). The counties I referenced are actually extremely tiny in area in comparison with any SE US state as a whole, about 1/8th to 1/5th in size at best, and they contain that abundance of species in that small of an area. This is something people cannot grasp. Two central AZ counties contain every single biome in the state minus one (alpine tundra).
Again, the state lines distinction doesnt carry much weight with me- I'm looking at the ecoregions themselves moreso than anything else- which I think is probably the way someone interested in the natural world probably should.
It is a generally and fairly uncontroversial concept within this area of research that the NACP is the most biodiverse and dense region of North America when it comes to plant species- followed closely by the CFP. I think that general understanding is not really even argued about too much these days tbqh. Sometimes you will hear people say it's the CFP, but I'd say it is more common that the NACP is referenced in this way. They are very close. Also the NACP has been comparatively less studied than other regions and will likely only continue to surpass the other regions in vascular plant species as the years go on.
There are half a dozen ecoregions in single states in the west. And as I've already established, there are more vascular plants in CA alone and the combination of AZ-NM alone than the entire NACP. And the density of species is insanely higher in states like AZ and CA.
I find the state line obsession to be somewhat bizarre- as far as the natural world is concerned they are really imaginary lines. What you are really talking about are the distinct ecoregions. And when you look at the ecoregions themselves, it is fairly obvious that the NACP has the highest number of species, the densest areas being in the southern portion of it.
The likely explanation for this aside from other factors I listed earlier is the fairly unique behavior of wildfires in the area. The high rate of lightning strikes and the nature of the extremely wet and moderately dry seasonal weather means you end up with a fairly reliable pattern of burns that clear out undergrowth and leaf litter in many upland areas- combined with the low lying nature of the area and the frequency of swamps and wetland pockets, you end up with a patchwork of fire dependant micro biomes and fire sensitive microbiomes all jumbled up together (this results in grasslands, wetlands, mixed forests, pine savannas, oak/hickory climax forests, etc. all being patched in together in relatively small strips and pockets).
I'm not the one who set it to statelines or regions. But in either comparison, the western US is more botanically diverse and even more diverse in fauna. This is simply due to the extreme variation in habitats (biomes) and climates over a small and large area. And again the ecoregion system is not even that good for fine tuning botanical surveys, as you will end up with areas of hotspots and then relatively low diversity areas taking up a larger area within in, just like in the western US. It's just that the hotspots in the west are insanely more diverse than most people can comprehend. This doesn't take away from the beauty in any one region and you're free to prefer what you want. Medical studies for some central AZ plant and animal species has only just begun and there are already countless applications (some of which have been known for thousands of years by natives, others not).
All I'm trying to tell you is that if I had to pick one specific ecoregion in North America and say "this region has the most densely occuring variety of plant species" I think it is demonstrably the NACP. Again this isn't even that controversial a thing to say at this point. It will probably hit 7,000 native vascular plant species in ten years at the rate it is going. My second choice would definitely be the CFP. And I'm not going to relist the factors that lead to it again because I've already said them twice. Make of this what you will.
And all I am trying to tell you is that the academic ecoregions are not so monotonous, and that the total species density and abundance in state line or regional surveys, is still higher in the western US. And that the NACP as a whole even, is not as diverse as a smaller area in the western US. And as mentioned before, actual on the ground counts are incomplete as new species of flora and fauna are discovered in each new survey in the west.
IF you want to make it a comparison between West and East (idk how you even define that)... I'm open to the idea that as a whole there are probably more vascular plant species in the western US although it is much closer than you appear to think.
However if the topic was forested ecosystems and tree dominated ecosystems (and from what I can tell this is where the controversy in this thread originated) the NACP certainly FAR outpaces anything found in the West.
Also I would add, the lion's share of plant diversity in the west is carried by the CFP and it is true that there are vast swathes of the west that are the lowest plant diversity regions in North America (arctic Alaskan zones, Rocky Mountain Alpine regions, Mojave/Great Basin/Sonoran desert regions etc.).
Again, 9,300 vascular plant species and about 600 more woody species at least in just, Arizona, New Mexico, and California. An area smaller than the NACP. This isn't even including floristically megadiverse Oregon. Your fixation on ecoregion is about as flawed as the other anons fixation on total tree species being indicative of total floristic/botanical diversity given any area requirement. And again, the ecoregions are flawed and should only be taken as general topographic and life zone overviews and not monotonous.
Ecoregion is certainly not flawed anymore than any generalized categorization of ecological characteristics. In fact it is probabky the best categorization we have certainly compared to state lines or "west" and "east" lol. Also, the NACP is approximately 150k-436k sqm depending on the definition being used. Arizona, New Mexico, and California are almost 500k sqm. Also once you start adding species together from state surveys or from different ecoregions- you run into alot of problems because you'd literally have to check every species and make sure it is co-occuring.
I don't find the emphasis on tree species any more strange than your dismissal of them. While I appreciate all plant species types I can understand why, in a conversation about forests, someone would put particular emphasis on trees. It makes sense, many people find them the most impressive element of a places plant life.
Ecoregions are heavily flawed, and they started to develop level IV microecoregions because of this. The NACP is MASSIVE for one ecoregion, it is quoted as being conservatively between 390k and 450k sq miles by the government, and by topography is it over 800k sq miles. There are as I've mentioned time and time again, probably 4-8 much smaller ecoregions within that. And yet again, the combination of AZ, Ca, and NM is smaller than the smallest definition of the NACP and has 50% more vascular plants. The actual number of level IV ecoregion overlap in the west is actually extremely high, and there is no reason to assume it is not the same in the east, in fact I know it is because I've been all over the east as well from AR to FL and there are wildly different floristic areas within it. The microbiomes in the east aren't as small and diverse as they are in the west but it throws an obvious wrench into fine tuning ecoregion and macroregions as a whole in regards to floristic and faunal areas of similarity. The entire US has beauty, however in regards to biodiversity, we can quantify the areas of highest priority (abundance, density, and with probably at least a 20% underestimate of total actual species as more are discovered) and they are in the western US.
Oh yeah, and also, ecoregions are not even well defined by themselves. For example in the NACP you actually have closer to 4 or 5 actual biomes (life zones). For example, yo uwill have different species in the swamps in LA than you would in the wet hardwood forests of southern AL and northern FL. Even if topography doesn't change much over the whole plain, the biomes actually do. In parts of the west where everything is stratified by elevation, ecoregions can often more accurately paint a floristic inventory picture, but in the central and eastern US it doesn't always fit the picture.
While it is true that any variation in factors from one region to another will result in sub biomes, the hallmark of the southern NACP is low lying flat topography, high rainfall, high humidity, varied and complex soil types, very old and stable geologic states, relatively long term stable climate conditions, and a very unique mechanism of non anthropogenic wildfires (as explained in
). Many people overlooked the NACP because it was typically thought that topography variation led to biodiversity, however this focus on one factor is now understood to have been sort of dogmatic, and in fact the low lying frequency and patchwork of wetlands in the NACP combined with the fire activity is exactly what leads to most of its plant diversity.
All ecoregions could be broken down into sub regions. Just like the Northern Sky Islands region of the Madrean Pine Woods is a bit distinct from the Mexican portions.
Btw, this got me updating some of these things and the prevailing count in the Arizona/New Mexico northern portion of the Madrean Woods is currently about 2,500 vascular plant species. The NACP as a whole has now gone up to around 6,500 vascular native plant species.
Part of the NACP zone in Arkansas and S TX and OK are exceptionally different from the parts of it in the FL Panhandle and Carolinas. This is why in the east as a whole, topography alone is not enough for botanical surveys, and you need to start surveying microbiomes and climates like the west has been doing for 100 years. There are hotspots that approach the hotspots species density in the west, but not surpass them as of yet.
Also, as a distinct ecoregion, I disagree that either the CFP or the Madrean hotspots are likely to contain more vascular plant species than the NACP.
The NACP is probably well over 6,300 vascular species. The CFP is probably around 6,000, and the Madrean Woods are probably about 5,300 species of vascular plants. If you combine the two then they certainly would though- however I don't take the state-lines distinction very seriously I look more at the ecoregions themselves. I mean you could find states in the NACP that also pick up substantial swathes of the Piedmont regions, or Florida for example, which picks up the heart of the NACP, as well as a technically tropical ecoregion in Southern Florida which is closer to some of the Carribean Islands (also biodiversity Hotspots).
This is the Coastal Plain Floristic Province
just make a west vs east general and stop you morons