Sebastian Hamm wrote:also very idyllic but not as remoted as Hardangervidda our famous Lüneburger Heide

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%BCneburger_Heide

But the Heide is full of roads; the Wikipedia article lists three Autobahnen.

Hardangervidda is ~6500 km² but note that Yellowstone is 8987 km² ; Wood Buffalo NP in Canada is the world's 2nd largest, at 44,807 km², and Northeast Greenland National Park is #1 at 972000 km².

Anyway, how far are our Norwegians from a road? There are small roads around most of the Hardangervidda, and a few roads that enter it a little ways (in the NW and NE). It looks to me as if the narrow "waist" across Hardangervidda is roadless and about 30 km long. That means that the most remote point is 15 km from a road or a bit more - - you have successfully met my challenge!

For those of you keeping score at home, Thorofare (in Yellowstone) is 40 km from a road, and Siskwit Point (Isle Royale) is a little bit more if islands can play this game.

Speaking of "islands," what's the most remote place in Australia?

By viewing the incredible photos on summitpost I can tell that the Alps in Europe are simply breathtaking.

I have the impression that the European Alps are pretty muched carved up with roads and development and that the native species have been exterminated. I have never thought of anywhere in Europe having unspoiled wilderness with large predators running free.

Why not visit the Andes if that is more what you are looking for? It's also way cheaper (some areas it's easy to find a nice hotel for less than $10). Still, big predators are pretty rare, at least I haven't seen them (only tracks), but lots of other wildlife (saw eight condors on my last trip, plus many animals such as guanacos, alpacas, vicunias, lizards, colorful birds, etc. etc.).

Thanks for the info and I hope to make it to the Alps and maybe some via ferreta.

Sounds ironic to me. If you are looking for wild areas, it seems like a via ferrata is the last thing you would be looking for.

Anyway, some day I'll visit every "major" mountain range in the world. More than likely the Alps will be very last, but I assume I'll get there someday.

Sebastian Hamm wrote:also very idyllic but not as remoted as Hardangervidda our famous Lüneburger Heide

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%BCneburger_Heide

My mother came from there (Uelzen). The Heide however is a human artifact that can only be maintained by human managed disturbance by sheep - it is not a natural landscape at all!

Moni wrote:There are plenty of places that are remote and there is a lot less BS to go there. You don't have to kiss some ranger's ass to get a permit. The population density in Europe is MUCH higher than in the western US with the resulting development. However, the benefits are great public transportation. The hut system reduces impact from random camping.

In the 1850's only about 30% of Switzerland was forested, now it is 80%. Even with urbanization there is more forested ground than in previous years.

Not many predators, but lots of ibex, chamois, mouflon (like big horn sheep), roe deer, red deer, caribou, elk and smaller predators like fox and badger. They have way more song birds. Bear and wolf are rare. Not sure if Europe ever had anything like a cougar but they did (do?) have several species of wildcat.

The Dolomites are nothing like Glacier - completely different rock - but they are spectacular. The Berner Oberland in the middle of Switzerland is more like Glacier - same crappy rock, but with more glaciers and ice holding it together. The Alps have much more relief - not uncommon to see 6000 to 12000 feet of elevation gain on a climb, where in Glacier 6000 is about max and 3000 - 5000 more common.

Definitely worth a visit.

that´s a good and fair description.
And yes, come and visit!

Scott wrote: Why not visit the Andes if that is more what you are looking for? Rugged mountain wise, there is nothing in the Alps that can't be found in the Andes ...
Anyway, some day I'll visit every "major" mountain range in the world. More than likely the Alps will be very last, but I assume I'll get there someday.

How do you want to know that there is nothing in the Alps that can't be found in the Andes, if you haven't been to the Alps yet?

I've seen both mountain ranges and climbed in Peru, Argentina, Chile, Venezuela and Germany, Switzerland, Austria, France and Italy.
From my personal experience I have to say, that there are things in the Alps for certain, that cannot be found in the Andes (and vice versa).

For me personally the Alps are the greatest mountain range in the world. By throwing all of my criteria together the Alps get the highest percentage.

How do you want to know that there is nothing in the Alps that can't be found in the Andes, if you haven't been to the Alps yet?

That statement came directly to me from the author of the Climbers and Hikers Guide to the Wolds Mountains whom I believe holds the worlds record for climbing the most mountains in the most ranges around the world and knows both the Andes and Alps very well and whom is also one of my climbing partners.

From my personal experience I have to say, that there are things in the Alps for certain, that cannot be found in the Andes (and vice versa).

Sure, but I said "rugged mountain type" wise (not flora, fauna, glaciers, etc-obviously those are different) so I think you took my statement out of contex. I meant only that both have just as rugged mountains (which is why I said "rugged mountais wise") and was speaking of mountain types only, not plants, etc.

Not to argue at all and I'll trust your statement, but what mountain types can be found in the Alps, but not the Andes? I assume there are some route differences. Via Ferrata routes I assume, but what else? I'm sure there are many things that could be found in the Alps but not the Andes, but keep in mind that the Andes are the world's longest mountain range, so there isn't much that you can't find there. Other than 7000+ meter peaks and some of the SW desert ranges and the Tepuis, I've never visit any mountain range where the same statement doesn't hold true. I think I could safely saw that no matter what range I'm in (Rockies, Cacausus, Cascades, Sierra Nevada, Mexico's Volcanoes, Southern Alps [NZ], etc, etc), that I could honestly say that the same mountain types are also in the Andes. Of course it's good to visit all mountain ranges at one time or another and all are different in their own way.

Anyway, I only made the statement because the original poster seems to want something with solitude and undeveloped, thus my suggestion. If she would have asked about good transportation, hut sytem, good food and culture, I'm sure the Alps would be exactly what she is looking for.

The biggest difference between the Andes and the Alps is the dense collection of all different kind of rocktype (f. e. limestone in the Dolomites, granit and andesit in Mont Blanc range) within one big mountainrange. Totaly different looks are the result.
The Mont Blanc range is highly packed with glaciers because of it`s elevation, geographical location and it's 4 kilometer vertical dropdown out of flat lands to the west of the range. The Dolomites have almost no glaciers, because they are lower. Same with German Alps. This makes the Alps special for any visitor, because there is so much variety to see in rather short distance.

The valleys in the Alps are not comparable to anything I`ve seen in Southamerica, because the Alps have a totally different flora.
There is rainforest in Venezuela, there are almost no trees in Peru, Equador and the northern parts of Chile and Argentina, there are great beech-woods in Patagonia.
But I haven't seen any mountain in the Andes, that is packed with glaciers and ice for a kilometer of vertical distance, followed by another vertical kilometer of rocky belt and finally a third vertical kilometer of conifer forest all the way down into a valley covered with green grass.
White (snow), green (forest) and ginger (rocks) are the dominating colours in a great balance.



Another difference are the glaciers for sure. The Andes have rugged mountains in Peru (f. e. Cord. Blanca) but those peaks are not highly surrounded with longer glaciers, because of their climatic location. The glaciers are reduced to areas upper 5000 meters.
To find comparable glaciers you have to go to Patagonia. The glaciers there are even bigger than the ones in the Alps, but the mountain ranges are only few - and from size in square kilometers rather small and dotted local groups - like Torres del Paine, Fitz Roy range or Cerro San Lorenzo.

Don`t get me wrong: the Andes - especially in Patagonia - are fascinating! But they are different from the Alps in many, many ways more than what I shortly described here.

I've seen some pictures and movies from NZ. If anything can be compared with the character of the European Alps (rocktype, glaciers, flora, elevation), then this is the closed match.

Don`t get me wrong: the Andes - especially in Patagonia - are fascinating! But they are different from the Alps in many, many ways more than what I shortly described here.

Fair enough and I took that statement out of my post. (though I disagree about the no trees in Ecuador or Peru).

I've seen some pictures and movies from NZ. If anything can be compared with the character of the European Alps (rocktype, glaciers, flora, elevation), then this is the closed match.

Yes, the Southern Alps (NZ) are great. Other than the weather.

Maybe the Ecrins Mountains such as Mont Pelvoux are less busy than other areas. Just a hunch from an American who never went over there.

If you define "wild" as farely unspoilt nature where large predators still roam freely, and you can feel that civilisation is (relatively...) far away:

-"Northern SCANDINAVIA" (Norway, Sweden, Finland) offers the most vast wild areas with a "far from civilisation feeling". Here you have brown bears, wolves, wolverines, lynx, moose, reindeer etc.
-Parts of "the CARPATHIANS" (Romania, Slovakia, Ukraine, etc) still has old forests with plenty of brown bears, wolves, lynx.
-Parts of "the BALKANS" (Bulgaria, northern Greece, Macedonia, Albania, Montenegro, Bosnia, Slovenia, etc) contain plenty of mountains where you can find wild nature with bears etc.
-Parts of "CORDILLERA CANTABRICA" (north-west of Spain) has plenty of wolves, and also bears, old forests etc.
-"RUSSIA" has wild areas, according to the above definition.

Arthur Digbee wrote:Awesome, I'm so happy.

Now let's go for 15 km in Europe south of the Arctic Circle, excluding Russia.

Hmm, what about the World Heritage area Laponia, 6 connected NPs in northern Sweden (including Sarek). Deifintly larger than Yellowstone, Lapponia is 9400km2 wasteland...

EDIT: Ok, it a little bit north of the arctic circle...damn...but im sure youll find unspoiled areas in Europe, especially north and east europe.

Dottie Little Tent wrote:... that the native species have been exterminated ...

Not quite - e.g. in some places of Austria you still can easily spot a lot of Tyrolians, and analogously the same holds true for some parts of Switzerland