• Thank you for creating an account on Hunt Talk! We require that all new users contribute at least 10 posts before gaining the ability to start new threads. Once you have made 10 posts, you will be able to start new threads in the forum.

The Last Frontier(S)?

KC

New member
Joined
Jun 3, 2002
Messages
328
Location
Colorado Springs, CO
I was watching a program on TV last night and the commentator said that Alaska is the only genuine frontier left. Now I agree that much of Alaska is still truely wild and unspoiled and I agree that parts of it are still a frontier in the generic sence of the word.

But is it the last frontier left? Are there no other places that still qualify as frontiers?

How about Siberia? Any body been there? Any first-hand knowledge?

What about what used to be called the Northwest Territories?

What about Patagonia? Anybody been there?

What about the Amazon River basin? The Pantanal?

What abou the Congo River basin?

The foregoing assumes that "frontier" is limited to land and it excludes the other 75% of the planet. Obviously there are still lots of areas in the deep that have not yet been explored.

KC
 

A-con

New member
Joined
Dec 23, 2000
Messages
2,926
Location
Fresno,Ca.
I think the Congo has pretty much been spoiled, but the Amazon is still wide open. Lots of places that haven't really been explored much yet.
Always wanted to go hunt/fish the Amazon.
 

KC

New member
Joined
Jun 3, 2002
Messages
328
Location
Colorado Springs, CO
Anaconda:

I have no first hand knowledge of the Amazon but I think of it as a place where you could get into deep doo doo real quick. I feel very comfortable in the mountains but the thought of being lost or injured in the jungle makes my skin crawl.

KC
 

Oak

Expert
Joined
Dec 23, 2000
Messages
13,139
Location
Colorado
I think that most of the areas you mentioned would qualify. I would also throw in Antarctica. I think that much of the Amazon is being divided by roads, but the sheer size of the region should still qualify it. I think it would still be easy to get lost in there! Not sure how wild the Pantanal is, but I wouldn't want to be in there during the wet season!

Oak
 

Lostagain

New member
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
483
Location
MT
They say the LAST frontier when promoting AK because its a marketing gimmick. Would you go to AK if it was just _____, no; but you would if it was the LAST Frontier. Those other areas don't qualify because they are not North American and they don't take American Express.
 

Jack O'Conner

New member
Joined
Jan 11, 2003
Messages
131
Location
Black Hawk, SD
Perhaps the author has never visted eastern Montana, western North Dakota, western South Dakota or most of Wyoming.

Still plenty of frontier remaining in these areas. Examples:
1) Harding County, SD has a human population of LESS than 1000. Antelope population of over 7500.
2) Slope County, ND has less than 200 humans in the entire county.
3) NE Wyoming and all of eastern Montana is almost devoid of humans. Only a few dirt roads bisect this vast area.
I've lived in western SD for many years and have seen this frontier first hand. Love it!
Jack
 

cmc

Active member
Joined
Oct 24, 2002
Messages
266
Location
AZ
I've been to Patagonia tons of times and it's not the last frontier. To many retired people moving there and all those bunny huggers opening up gift shops. They do have a real good Octoberfest every year.....

We’re talking about Patagonia, Arizona aren't we?


cmc
 

KC

New member
Joined
Jun 3, 2002
Messages
328
Location
Colorado Springs, CO
Jack:

I've seen most of Wyoming and Montana and some of the Dakotas. I guess one would have to define "frontier" to determine if they qualify. Those areas are too developed and accessible to qualify as frontiers, under my definition. You may have a different definition than myself and that's OK.

I agree that there aren't a whole lot of people in Wyoming or Montana. But I can drive my pickup to just about anywhere in Wyoming and get cell phone reception too. So they aren't isolated or undeveloped anywhere near the same degree as the most remote places in AK. In Alaska a bush pilot can drop you off hundreds of miles from the nearest road, surrounded by muskeg marshes that prevent roads from ever being built, where you don't even see contrails in the sky. If that pilot doesn't come back or you get lost it could take you all summer to walk out to the nearest road and that assumes that you walk in the right direction. AK is several times bigger than TX and there are only a handfull of highways in the entire state.

I agree that "The Last Frontier" is a effective slogan for marketing tourism. Sure there is some frontier there but AK is not the only place where that's true.

But isolation and lack of development are not the only criteria that one could use to define a frontier. In another sense of the term Wyoming and Montana are frontiers because there are places where people still live close to the land. I heard somewhere that Montana and Wyoming are actually losing population. Maybe people just don't see that rural lifestyle as attractive at it once was. I too see the northern plains as wildly beautiful places. It's too bad that not everybody can recognize it. Or maybe that's a blessing in disguise.

I wonder if or how many of the other places that I listed are as isolated and undeveloped as parts of Alaska?

According to Anaconda, the Congo is pretty much spoiled.

I included the Pantanal because I assumed that thousands of square miles of annual high water created isolation. But maybe that's not an accurate assumption.

Yeah the Antarctic would qualify.

Anybody seen Siberia first hand?

I wonder how tough it is to get around in Tierra Del Fuego?

How about the Australian Outback? I wonder if that area would qualify.

KC
 

ELKCHSR

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Messages
13,769
Location
Montana
I might be within a day's hike to some sort of man made place, be it road or town, but never see the lights of town nor anything that is man made that is newer than 50 years old, plus very rarly see any one when out of my foray's..Just the way I like it...
 

Jack O'Conner

New member
Joined
Jan 11, 2003
Messages
131
Location
Black Hawk, SD
The Federal Gov't has those portions of our western states classed as frontier. Criteria includes these factors: population per square mile, distance to medical facilities, municipal supplied power.

Someone stated that adequate cell coverage is found throughout WY,SD,ND, and MT. This statement is untrue.
Jack
 

ELKCHSR

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Messages
13,769
Location
Montana
Yep, out here in Mt. the cell coverage only hits along the "MAIN" freeway's and if you get around much of any hills or mountains, forget it...they that figured good coverage for this state must never get off the beaten path very far, nope not very far indeed!!!
 

Elkhunter

New member
Joined
Dec 20, 2000
Messages
11,273
Location
Jackson, Wyoming
Down here I can get cell reception most places I go. I don't mind that, as long as the hills aren't dotted with telephone poles, billboards and people.
 

ELKCHSR

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Messages
13,769
Location
Montana
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> as long as the hills are dotted with telephone poles, billboards and people. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why would you want that???
 

Elkhunter

New member
Joined
Dec 20, 2000
Messages
11,273
Location
Jackson, Wyoming
It was a typo you bozo. I fixed it so you wouldn't get the wrong idea. After reading all the misspellings on this site, I didn't think I had to proof read anything.
 
Top