Remote places
05/10/14 05:09
I caught an article in our local newspaper about Ryand and Rebecca Means, who with their daughter Skyla, have been seeking out the most remote location in each state. Their project, began several years ago, is to locate the spot in each of the 50 states that is farthest from any road and then to hike to that place. They invest their vacation time, usually in the early autumn, in their treks. They have been in South Dakota recently where the most remote spot, by their definition, is in Badlands National Park, where you can hike to a place that is 3.7 miles from the nearest road. That’s not a real big distance, compared to some other parts of the United States. We used to hike in what is now the Beartooth-Absaroka Wilderness Area north of Yellowstone Park where every step we took led us farther from the nearest road. We didn’t venture too far, but I’ve definitely been more than ten miles from the nearest road. The couple’s formula led to them to a place in the Bob in Montana where they got about 18 miles from any road.
They didn’t have to worry about grizzly bears in Badlands National Park. I’m guessing that when they get to finding the place most distant from a road in Alaska, they’ll travel most of those miles by airplane.
Of course, there are many different ways to define remote. You can be many places in South Dakota where you are on a road, but a lot of miles from any other people. And then there is the matter of the definition of “road.” I know some things that they might call a road where you could sit for a whole year with no cars coming by.
In some states, the place that they defined as farthest from a road was close enough to a road that they could hear the cars passing by. Here in South Dakota we have some paved state highways where you could stand for several minutes without any cars passing by.
There is something that just feels right to me about their quest, however. I like remote places. I like hiking and paddling and just trekking to get away from other people from time to time. It isn’t that I’m anti-social. It’s quite the opposite with me. I work with people in my daily life and I enjoy the people with whom I’m blessed to live and work.
Despite my grousing about it, yesterday was a pretty good example of my life. I started out in the dark from my home. I was hardly alone on the streets of Rapid City, however. I find that no matter what time I’m out and about, there are always a few others awake and traveling. By the time I left the Interstate highway just east of Wall, however, there was a glorious sunrise and not too many cars passing by. At one point, I carefully pulled over and stopped to take a picture, but no one passed my car while I was stopped. It was a brief stop, but there was probably 5 minutes or more between cars on that stretch of road for a little while.
I spent the middle of the day in meetings, listening to presentations by other people and making a brief presentation myself.
Then I got into the car for 2 1/2 hours to myself driving home. There was more traffic on the drive home, but nothing so frustrating that I was bothered by the others with whom I shared the road. And I was home for an intimate supper and conversation with my wife.
I’m not the kind of person who would thrive in a remote cabin all by myself where I didn’t have contact with others for days at a stretch. I might call that a vacation, but it isn’t the way I want to invest the bulk of my time.
Remote, however, doesn’t scare me. The family in the news article, aren’t traveling solo - they have each other. They have company for every step of the way. Now that is a very good way to travel, even if their daughter needs to be carried some of the time. I have carried both of our children up to the top of Bear Butte when they were tiny. They seemed to enjoy the hike as much as i did.
I collect things, but have never needed to have a complete set. I joke that the ideal number of canoes for a person to have is n + 1, with n being the number of canoes you currently have. There’s always one more that is interesting and worth considering, no matter how many you have. The Means family, however, has a specific number for their quest. When they have reached the most remote location in each of the 50 states, they will have achieved their goal. Assuming that they can add multiple states in one vacation, it will still take them several years. When they finish I suppose they could add Canadian Provinces or Mexican states.
I don’t feel any need to have a full collection of states visited. We like to travel and have visited a bunch of states, but I doubt if my life will lack any meaning if there are a few that I miss.I have no particular need for a complete set.
And there are plenty of places where I have been to which I would enjoy returning.
Perhaps that is why I’m such a big fan of sunrises. I have a lot of pictures of sunrises, but no two are the same. We are given a unique sunrise every day and the image is continually changing. Depending on your location and the time you’ll get a different view than anyone else. Each sunrise gives me the feeling of a unique view of the world. And I can watch a sunrise from the deck of my home or from the seat of my canoe.
This world is a fascinating place, full of great views. May the Means family continue to experience remoteness in their way and may I have a few more sunrises in which to experience God’s glory.