English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I'm talking camping for a year and not seeing anyone

2007-11-01 04:57:49 · 12 answers · asked by DaGoof 3 in Travel United States Other - United States

12 answers

Depending on how specific of an area you are talking about varies answers, but I'd have to say the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness Area in Idaho, its 2.3 million acres without any roads and only a few airstrips and possibly no year round residents.

2007-11-01 18:47:15 · answer #1 · answered by IdahoVandalCowGirl 4 · 0 2

I would have to say that the point farthest from any incorporated civilization or roads would have to be somewhere in Alaska's backcountry.

My rationale is this; anywhere you go in the lower 48, you are most likely within 50 miles of some kind of road or settlement. In parts of Alaska, you can't say that. That's where you're most likely to fit the requirement of camping for a year without seeing anyone (low population, untamed wilderness, and extreme winters contribute to this). However, even Barrow is settled, and gets its share of tourism traffic via air. I would not consider that the most remote spot.

To me, to be remote, a place must me as far away as possible from any hint of human civilization. The farther away the place is from such hint of civilation, any spot or line on a map, the more remote I consider it. There are definitely some unsettled parts of places like Wyoming, for example, but I can't say it's truly remote if there are ranches everywhere, and I-25, I-80, I-90, US 16, US 287, and US 26 are crisscrossing the state. Wyoming is still a crossroads of sorts, even if it is sparsely populated. Alaska isn't on the way to anywhere.

Still, if you're actually looking to camp, and if this is more than a hypothetical question, I'd probably recommend somewhere in the western lower 48. The extremes are not as extreme (though camping in remote parts of northern Alaska would be one heck of a documentary!)

EDIT: Help me out on the thumbs-down. Can't stand when people troll without telling you why you're wrong.

2007-11-01 14:40:50 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

The north shore of Alaska is very remote, but the weather is extremely brutal.

In the lower 48, I think you'd have to go up somewhere high in the Appalachians. That guy the FBI was looking for a few years back, lived in the mountains of North Carolina for a few years before they found him, and they knew he was somewhere in the area.

2007-11-01 13:50:23 · answer #3 · answered by shoredude2 7 · 0 3

Alaska

2007-11-01 11:59:54 · answer #4 · answered by Darren 1 · 1 2

I'm sure Alaska is pretty remote, but I think their are some great spots for what your looking for in West Virgina and parts of the Upper Pennisula of Michigan

2007-11-01 12:01:20 · answer #5 · answered by Free Range Chicken 3 · 0 3

If you're talking about the continental US then it's Barrow, Alaska.

2007-11-01 12:00:12 · answer #6 · answered by Sven B 6 · 1 0

Montana

2007-11-01 12:00:37 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Alaska or Wyoming. However, both would be pretty dangerous for camping.

2007-11-01 12:00:30 · answer #8 · answered by firstythirsty 5 · 0 2

Pike's Peak?

2007-11-01 12:00:58 · answer #9 · answered by bandaidgirl 3 · 0 2

Alaska...the Last Frontier!

Do it and you won't be disappointed.

2007-11-01 12:02:05 · answer #10 · answered by ilovehammsbeer 1 · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers