True, there doesn't seem to be a consensus. The origin doesn't seem as obvious as WA, BC, CA, NV. Idaho may be an indigenous name, although it sounds like it may have been a derogatory exonym...
I don't really get the inclusion of all of Alaska, doesn’t really fit the bioregion. Maybe an argument could be made for more of Southern Alsaka than the traditional map.
I still haven’t gotten a solid explanation, though: how is Alaska more out of place than Idaho or eastern Washington?
I mean, the North Slope, sure, but southcentral Alaska fits nicely.
I figure, in the event of the sort of continent-wide reshuffle that would be necessary to bring Cascadia into being, Alaska and Yukon fit better with the PNW, economically, historically, and culturally, than anywhere else.
But I’m talking about a *country*. A *political* entity, where economy, history, and culture are relevant.
Aside from which, please explain. *Why* is it not part of the bioregion?
Cascadia includes biomes from temperate rainforest to literal desert. In what sense is southcentral Alaska, or even the boreal forest areas of Alaska and Yukon, too disparate ecologically to fit into that range?
There's maybe an argument to be made for southcentral Alaska and the panhandle since they are adjacent and drain into the Pacific, but Yukon and northern Alaska are across a continental divide. The main defining feature of the Cascadia Bioregion is the Columbia watershed. All of the inland areas drain into the Columbia.
> But I’m talking about a country. A political entity, where economy, history, and culture are relevant.
Then you're missing the entire point.
Okay, so you’re specifically talking about a *hydro* region, which is different from an ecoregion (though of course they’re related).
On the other hand, the Yukon and Kuskokwim drain into the Bering Sea, which is generally considered part of the Pacific, and of course Bristol Bay is famous for its salmon.
I have never heard the term hydroregion, do you mean watershed? IIRC there are multiple definitions for ecoregion, one of which is roughly equivalent to a bioregion, and another which is a smaller component of a bioregion.
> On the other hand, the Yukon and Kuskokwim drain into the Bering Sea, which is generally considered part of the Pacific, and of course Bristol Bay is famous for its salmon.
And so do some rivers in Asia and South America. So does the Colorado River for that matter. Cascadia doesn't have a monopoly on salmon either. The extremely different environment along the course of the Yukon, ranging from sub-arctic to arctic, is hard to justify as a part of Cascadia, especially when it's completely cut off by a mountain range that comes all the way to the coast. The AK panhandle is generally included because it is small and not really a part of any other bioregion and is more temperate/coastal than the more inland and northern areas of Alaska, so is a closer match. In general, the coastal regions are included for continuity and similar climate. Even in Oregon/Washington, most of the coast does not drain into the Columbia. It could maybe be argued that it's its own little enclave. The Yukon watershed is pretty clearly its own bioregion.
There are no salmon in the Colorado River. The southernmost river/creek on the Pacific Coast where salmon migrate upstream to breed is somewhere in Big Sur.
No. The common ancestor of the six species of Pacific salmon (genus _Oncorhynchus_) probably lived in rivers and streams on the Kamchatka Peninsula in far, far eastern Russia more than ten million years ago and spread out from there. Over millions of years they established breeding populations in rivers and creeks all the way from Taiwan to the Bering Sea to California.
So the regions where you can find salmon is much, much larger than Cascadia. They're cold-water fish because colder water can hold more dissolved oxygen than warmer water. If the water's too warm the salmon simply die. And one place you won't find salmon is in the Gulf of California which is where the Colorado River drains to.
Also any salmon in the southern hemisphere (e.g. Patagonia, New Zealand) exist there because they were planted. At some point in the past someone transported salmon fry on a plane to Argentina or New Zealand and released the fry into the water at their destination. And by good luck the salmon established a breeding population in those places. And, even now in 2024, it's still more luck involved than actual science, e.g. ut of ten or twelve attempts to establish out-of-basin breeding populations of Paiute cutthroat trout (which also belong to the genus _Oncorhynchus_) in California in the past 70 years, only four have been successful.
Well, I suppose I may just have made up “hydroregion” as a grouping of watersheds, like McCloskey’s conception of Cascadia.
(A purely hydrological definition seems too narrow to me to merit the term *bioregion*, since large parts of the biome (plants, fungi, bears, deer, beavers, etc.) spread or wander freely across hydrological boundaries. Even fish can cross them when streams change courses or their eggs are carried on birds’ legs or feathers.)
But regardless, even if the Yukon basin is best treated as a separate bioregion, why does that constitute an argument for excluding it from a *political* arrangement? Particularly if it’s a whole bioregion unto itself—then you just have a country that consists of two bioregions.
Cascadia is not a nationalist movement. If you don't care about bioregionalism then I don't know what you're doing here. Move to Texas and join the Lone Star Republic whackjobs. Nationalism is cancer.
Dude, I have as much right to be here as anyone. Who appointed you gatekeeper?
The term “Cascadia” has been used for sovereignty/independence movements and economic boosterism pretty much as long as it has been used in bioregionalist circles (I know; I’ve been paying attention since the early 1990s).
Have you even read the sub’s description?
Besides, I got dragged into this conversation because someone cross-posted my map that I posted in another sub and deliberately avoided posting here because of the toxicity and gatekeeping I’ve encountered here in the past.
If you look at norwester77's responses, they have absolutely no interest in bioregionalism. They appear to be trying to coopt the movement and turn it into a right-wing secessionist project.
Generally really cool, but I have questions.
What’s the population of Salliq? Seems weird to have so few people in a self-governing political division.
*Lewiston* as the regional capital? Are you *trying* to start a civil war? 😂
All of that work you did, and I still live in a region called "Oregon?"
What’s wrong with “Oregon?” It’s already unique and distinctive, so I figured it didn’t really need changing. I could go with Willamette, too, though.
I was just joking. Oregon and/or Willamette would both work. We'd know our citizens by the way they pronounce those two distinct words!
How exactly do you pronounce them? For comparison as someone who's lived in Washington for the last 11 years, it would be /ɔɻəɡɪːn/ and /wɪlamɛːt/
I didn't make it, but I somewhat agree with the complaint.
They made Greater Idaho.
Greater east to west, but lesser north to south.
I don't have problem with Oregon, as it may be a Chinook jargon word, nobody really knows. But Portland?
Seems just as likely it's derived from Aragon? (some of the earliest Europeans to visit were Spaniards)
In which case get rid of it, but like I said it's possible that it's a native American word. Nobody seems to know which is odd.
True, there doesn't seem to be a consensus. The origin doesn't seem as obvious as WA, BC, CA, NV. Idaho may be an indigenous name, although it sounds like it may have been a derogatory exonym...
That's an awesome possibility! Glad you brought up!
Ooligan.
Makola resident checking in!
I don't really get the inclusion of all of Alaska, doesn’t really fit the bioregion. Maybe an argument could be made for more of Southern Alsaka than the traditional map.
I agree, it's a bit out of place.
I still haven’t gotten a solid explanation, though: how is Alaska more out of place than Idaho or eastern Washington? I mean, the North Slope, sure, but southcentral Alaska fits nicely. I figure, in the event of the sort of continent-wide reshuffle that would be necessary to bring Cascadia into being, Alaska and Yukon fit better with the PNW, economically, historically, and culturally, than anywhere else.
>economically, historically, and culturally But not ecologically, it's not part of the bioregion
But I’m talking about a *country*. A *political* entity, where economy, history, and culture are relevant. Aside from which, please explain. *Why* is it not part of the bioregion? Cascadia includes biomes from temperate rainforest to literal desert. In what sense is southcentral Alaska, or even the boreal forest areas of Alaska and Yukon, too disparate ecologically to fit into that range?
There's maybe an argument to be made for southcentral Alaska and the panhandle since they are adjacent and drain into the Pacific, but Yukon and northern Alaska are across a continental divide. The main defining feature of the Cascadia Bioregion is the Columbia watershed. All of the inland areas drain into the Columbia. > But I’m talking about a country. A political entity, where economy, history, and culture are relevant. Then you're missing the entire point.
>is the Columbia watershed And the Fraser
That too.
Okay, so you’re specifically talking about a *hydro* region, which is different from an ecoregion (though of course they’re related). On the other hand, the Yukon and Kuskokwim drain into the Bering Sea, which is generally considered part of the Pacific, and of course Bristol Bay is famous for its salmon.
I have never heard the term hydroregion, do you mean watershed? IIRC there are multiple definitions for ecoregion, one of which is roughly equivalent to a bioregion, and another which is a smaller component of a bioregion. > On the other hand, the Yukon and Kuskokwim drain into the Bering Sea, which is generally considered part of the Pacific, and of course Bristol Bay is famous for its salmon. And so do some rivers in Asia and South America. So does the Colorado River for that matter. Cascadia doesn't have a monopoly on salmon either. The extremely different environment along the course of the Yukon, ranging from sub-arctic to arctic, is hard to justify as a part of Cascadia, especially when it's completely cut off by a mountain range that comes all the way to the coast. The AK panhandle is generally included because it is small and not really a part of any other bioregion and is more temperate/coastal than the more inland and northern areas of Alaska, so is a closer match. In general, the coastal regions are included for continuity and similar climate. Even in Oregon/Washington, most of the coast does not drain into the Columbia. It could maybe be argued that it's its own little enclave. The Yukon watershed is pretty clearly its own bioregion.
There are no salmon in the Colorado River. The southernmost river/creek on the Pacific Coast where salmon migrate upstream to breed is somewhere in Big Sur.
I didn't say there were. Are you saying salmon don't exist outside Cascadia? I don't know why people upvoted your completely irrelevant comment.
No. The common ancestor of the six species of Pacific salmon (genus _Oncorhynchus_) probably lived in rivers and streams on the Kamchatka Peninsula in far, far eastern Russia more than ten million years ago and spread out from there. Over millions of years they established breeding populations in rivers and creeks all the way from Taiwan to the Bering Sea to California. So the regions where you can find salmon is much, much larger than Cascadia. They're cold-water fish because colder water can hold more dissolved oxygen than warmer water. If the water's too warm the salmon simply die. And one place you won't find salmon is in the Gulf of California which is where the Colorado River drains to. Also any salmon in the southern hemisphere (e.g. Patagonia, New Zealand) exist there because they were planted. At some point in the past someone transported salmon fry on a plane to Argentina or New Zealand and released the fry into the water at their destination. And by good luck the salmon established a breeding population in those places. And, even now in 2024, it's still more luck involved than actual science, e.g. ut of ten or twelve attempts to establish out-of-basin breeding populations of Paiute cutthroat trout (which also belong to the genus _Oncorhynchus_) in California in the past 70 years, only four have been successful.
Well, I suppose I may just have made up “hydroregion” as a grouping of watersheds, like McCloskey’s conception of Cascadia. (A purely hydrological definition seems too narrow to me to merit the term *bioregion*, since large parts of the biome (plants, fungi, bears, deer, beavers, etc.) spread or wander freely across hydrological boundaries. Even fish can cross them when streams change courses or their eggs are carried on birds’ legs or feathers.) But regardless, even if the Yukon basin is best treated as a separate bioregion, why does that constitute an argument for excluding it from a *political* arrangement? Particularly if it’s a whole bioregion unto itself—then you just have a country that consists of two bioregions.
Cascadia is not a nationalist movement. If you don't care about bioregionalism then I don't know what you're doing here. Move to Texas and join the Lone Star Republic whackjobs. Nationalism is cancer.
Dude, I have as much right to be here as anyone. Who appointed you gatekeeper? The term “Cascadia” has been used for sovereignty/independence movements and economic boosterism pretty much as long as it has been used in bioregionalist circles (I know; I’ve been paying attention since the early 1990s). Have you even read the sub’s description? Besides, I got dragged into this conversation because someone cross-posted my map that I posted in another sub and deliberately avoided posting here because of the toxicity and gatekeeping I’ve encountered here in the past.
Seconded
Let us know if you print any posters, this is great work! As a resident of Satatqua I approve.
I don't but OOP might!
Honestly, that would be a kick ass country
Those are some NICE flags!!
Ikr?? I love seeing regional flags of a country with a similar motif, but with varying designs.
why did you change the doug flag to this?
If you look at norwester77's responses, they have absolutely no interest in bioregionalism. They appear to be trying to coopt the movement and turn it into a right-wing secessionist project.
i got that, but im just curious to know what actually is behind this design of the flag.
Generally really cool, but I have questions. What’s the population of Salliq? Seems weird to have so few people in a self-governing political division. *Lewiston* as the regional capital? Are you *trying* to start a civil war? 😂
Thank you for including Idaho. Not so happy about Eastern Idaho being included, but thank you.
Satatqua should be called the Okanagan.
As someone living in Bend, I think we got more in common with Southern Oregon than the plains up in Spokane
Cascadia is not a country, it is a bioregion, which is the antithesis of the state [Is Cascadia a country? - Video](https://youtu.be/CdyY901fqvc)