# For Canadians,How Far North Does Human Habitation Stop?



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

..................Is there an East<>West boundry line across the far northern part of Canada that most citizens will not cross because basic services just don't exist to support modern society , or does the government own most of the land and it doesn't want development because of very harsh living conditions ? , thanks , fordy


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

The limitation is road building cost. Look on very good Highway map of Canada. A good one, not a piddly one. You will see each province has different "north ness" due to terrain mostly. The Canadian shield extends across most of our north. It is a land of rock, muskeg, vast numbers of rivers and lakes. It is VERY expensive to build a road into and through, and is not very productive, even for forestry. The productivity comes from mineral wealth.

I guess to answer you directly, no, there is no secret line anywhere. It is simply where the roads are for the most part. The north is mostly inaccesible by road. But the north is different lattitudes for each province. No roads, no towns, no services... The land is mostly government land yes, with a fair amount of indian land ownership.

The vastness of Canada's north makes it impossible to tap into even a small portion of its huge wealth. It will take IMO hundreds of years to develop, due to the vastness, the terrible climate, the lack of soil and growing season, the expense of roads.

Hope this helps a bit.

More info about where I live specifically later...


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

farmerDale said:


> The limitation is road building cost. Look on very good Highway map of Canada. A good one, not a piddly one. You will see each province has different "north ness" due to terrain mostly. The Canadian shield extends across most of our north. It is a land of rock, muskeg, vast numbers of rivers and lakes. It is VERY expensive to build a road into and through, and is not very productive, even for forestry. The productivity comes from mineral wealth.
> 
> I guess to answer you directly, no, there is no secret line anywhere. It is simply where the roads are for the most part. The north is mostly inaccesible by road. But the north is different lattitudes for each province. No roads, no towns, no services... The land is mostly government land yes, with a fair amount of indian land ownership.
> 
> ...


.................Thanks , farmer dale , I suppose in a way this is a blessing that the costs of road building is such that it preserves the land and it's character for many generations to come ! The absolute size of the undeveloped land mass of far northern Canada is really hard to grasp when one looks at a map. thanks for your information . , fordy


----------



## D Lynn (May 26, 2008)

There are SO many answers to your questions. But I guess to put it in a nutshell, most land up North is "Crown Land". Some being purchasable if you do some hunting I suppose. Check out Dignam Land, they deal with a lot of remote real estate. 
As for the far reaches, I reckon one wouldn't want to go higher than the tree line. Winters are rough enough if your only an hour or two outside of any Northern city. We won't discuss the short summers and insects that would keep you indoors anyway. Altho from what I hear it's not hard to get a prospectors permit. 
I've lived up here most of my life and I would call myself a bushbunny, but living WAY "out there" is for the toughest of nuts. I use the word nuts loosely! 
farmerdale has a lot of good advise.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Roads are not the limiting line either. My friend has lived and worked in a couple of Inuit villiages that are basically fly in or water access or dog sled.


----------



## TedH71 (Jan 19, 2003)

The Canadian government basically gave back a part of the country to the American Indians to the north. It's called Nunavut. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunavut also the Iroquois Nations have been fighting the Canadian country for a long time because the parts where they live...they were going to vote to make it a speaking French country of it's own in the east side of Canada. Not going to happen.


----------



## DaleK (Sep 23, 2004)

For a large part of the country habitation was defined by a)rivers and b)availability of furs, because most of the north lands were developed by the fur trade and they used the rivers for transportation. Also to some extent the logging trade. And in more agricultural spots like southern and eastern Ontario the towns were made where the rivers flowed fast enough to power mills.


----------



## lonelytree (Feb 28, 2008)

Southern folks.... lmao.


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

I've read somewhere that the vast majority of Canadians live within 100 miles of the U.S. border. So I assume that after 100 miles inland, it starts getting too inhabital to live.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

That is kind of true. Yes most Canadians live within 200 miles of the american border, but that is because of Ontario and Quebec's large urban centres, along with B.C.'s fraser valley which is highly urban.

But it has nothing really to do with habitability, and is everything to do with a country that is largely urban, and those cities happen to lie within 200 miles of the Us border.

Think about a state like New York, Florida, or Texas. Where do the vast majority of people live? In the country, or in the cities? Just because most folks live in the cities of New York State, does not mean the rest of the state is inhabitable, correct. Without Dallas, Houston, and all the inumerable cities and towns of Texas, would you say the state is uninhabitable? 

No different with Canada, though if you get REALLY far north, it gets less pleasant to live. Up past the forest belt kind of thing.

This is a big fallacy about Canada: That just because most people live in large urban southern cities like Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa, The greater Vancouver area, that the rest must be uninhabitable. These cities only happen to be located close to the US.

I wonder what proportion of US citizens live within 200 miles of either coast or the great lakes??? Must mean the interior is inhabitable. 

I hope this helps explain the fallacy.


----------



## DaleK (Sep 23, 2004)

And it isn't so much that the population is close to the border, but that it's close to the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River, and Pacific in the west, which is how our ancestors came here up until about the 1950s. It's just coincidence that the border runs down the middle of much of that. In Quebec the population is still fairly close to the border, but it's directly on the St. Lawrence and actually drops fairly quickly down towards the Vermont/New Hampshire/Maine borders


----------



## Enuff (Oct 28, 2013)

Airplanes and ice roads....the north is yours to explore. A lot of mining in the territories...clean diamonds, gold and who knows how much oil. 

I agree that a lot of the population does live close to the border but there are some fair size cities in the middle and northern regions of the country. The further north I go the better I like it. Wish I could live in the Yukon or NWT, maybe some day.


----------



## ksfarmer (Apr 28, 2007)

Farmer Dale, my wife remembers when she was a child (10 yrs) her parents took several fishing trips up your way. They went to Lac La Ronge (sp) and stayed at an indian village where they went on guided fishing. She remembers this as really being remote, but a very enjoyable time, and a long drive from Kansas. Is La Ronge farther north from your location? (I might add, this was 50+ years ago)


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

ksfarmer said:


> Farmer Dale, my wife remembers when she was a child (10 yrs) her parents took several fishing trips up your way. They went to Lac La Ronge (sp) and stayed at an indian village where they went on guided fishing. She remembers this as really being remote, but a very enjoyable time, and a long drive from Kansas. Is La Ronge farther north from your location? (I might add, this was 50+ years ago)


\

Yup, La Ronge is about 4.5 HOURS, not MILES, LOL!!! north west of my location. I am close to the edge of the farming belt. I have been there several times for fishing and camping, and for a few years my sister lived there. La Ronge is right at the point where the real wilderness begins: Rock, cliffs, rugged wild country with almost no roads.
Used to dip a cup in the water for a drink, it is/was that pure. 

Canada's north is truly massive and amazing. It is part of the reason when folks are worried about overpopulation I grimmace. When folks think we are running out of water, I laugh. When folks think there is no wilderness left in the world, I am amazed. Take northern Michigan and multiply it by about a million. Or Alaska and multiply it by 5 or so.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

So sorry, I originally said I am 4.5 miles from La Ronge. I meant HOURS. Quite a little difference. LOL! My apologies... WOW.


----------



## ksfarmer (Apr 28, 2007)

farmerDale said:


> So sorry, I originally said I am 4.5 miles from La Ronge. I meant HOURS. Quite a little difference. LOL! My apologies... WOW.


 Thought maybe you meant hours, LOL. Google earth doesn't show much farm ground 4.5 miles from La Ronge. Hope I make it up to see that country someday, sounds great.


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

farmerDale said:


> Without Dallas, Houston, and all the inumerable cities and towns of Texas, would you say the state is uninhabitable? .


Since I'm a OU Sooner fan........YES! Even with those big cities, it's still unhabitable. :hysterical:


----------



## Paquebot (May 10, 2002)

What makes a lot of Canada habitable depends upon what one wants to live on for food. Parts of the northern US states have a short growing season and are limited in what can be grown. USDA Zone 3 is down into the US and much of that is a relatively thin band before Zone 2 takes over. In some places, Zone 2 dips down to Lake Superior. Anything grown there has to be very short-season so fish and game are the main food options. 

Martin


----------



## DaleK (Sep 23, 2004)

Land wise, about 8.5 million acres are currently farmed in Ontario. In the Great Clay Belt in Northeastern Ontario, there are approximately 16 million fertile acres that could easily be converted into farmland with similar crop potential to FarmerDale's neighbourhood, and there are lots of other pockets around


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

The red area above is muskeg country. Muskeg is an impediment to human habitation and to road building and other infrastructure in northern Canada. Canada has an estimated 3 million visible lakes and easily that many again that are invisible, hidden under floating muskeg rafts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muskeg


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Fennick said:


> The red area above is muskeg country. Muskeg is an impediment to human habitation and to road building and other infrastructure in northern Canada. Canada has an estimated 3 million visible lakes and easily that many again that are invisible, hidden under floating muskeg rafts.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muskeg


The red could easily extend halfway down Saskatchewan, and a fair amount of Alberta and manitoba too, and is IMO not a very accurate depiction of muskeg extent at all.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

farmerDale said:


> The red could easily extend halfway down Saskatchewan, and a fair amount of Alberta and manitoba too, and is IMO not a very accurate depiction of muskeg extent at all.


I agree with you. 

I think the map shown in the following link more accurately depicts the southern extent of boreal forest and muskeg in Canada. http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/north

Fordy, you may find the above article also answers some of your other enquiries.


----------



## lonelytree (Feb 28, 2008)

Paquebot said:


> What makes a lot of Canada habitable depends upon what one wants to live on for food. Parts of the northern US states have a short growing season and are limited in what can be grown. USDA Zone 3 is down into the US and much of that is a relatively thin band before Zone 2 takes over. In some places, Zone 2 dips down to Lake Superior. Anything grown there has to be very short-season so fish and game are the main food options.
> 
> Martin


I have heard that there are some pockets that stay warmer and have a bit longer growing season in Canada.

Alaska is like that. 

There are weird years like this one where it might be out of the capability to grow enough or that you plant too early and lose most of your veggies due to a very late breakup. It is finally getting cold. Last year by now I was snowmachining. This year maybe December.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

The limitation of growing grains, hay, etc., is much less of a growing season issue, and more of a lack of soil, muskeg, lakes, rivers, poor forest soils, and again, lack of roads and land availabilty. Most northern land was long ago set aside by government for forestry, mining etc., and is not attainable by private buyers.

Wheat grows well in zone 1, as do most other grains, with the exception of corn. 

I put very little stock in zones on a map. They usually go by the minimum temperatures, and while sure it can get to be -40 often enough, it matters little if it is in the dead of winter anyway. Look at northern Alberta, where there are farms right up to the NWT border, at the 60th parallel. They grow wheat, oats, barley, hay, flax, canola, etc... 

A final thing to remember, is while Canada has lower heat units and shorter seasons, we also have exceptionally long daylight hours in summer, which makes up for a lot. In the places mentioned above, the sun barely disappears at night...


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

yes all the cities are uninhabitable , there are simply to many people there , but i prefer they stay there and not contaminate the rest of the country , they mostly feel exactly opposite so it workks out most of the time.


----------

