Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

icmonkey123 t1_j12xxqi wrote

Does this mean it's the furthest point away from open ocean, that you can still get to by boat?

612

Zr0w3n00 t1_j13gbti wrote

Screw a US road trip, I’m going on a US boat trip

233

GenitalPatton t1_j13mibn wrote

Look up The Great Loop. I have family who have done it and it sounds awesome.

151

submittedanonymously t1_j13tl2s wrote

Yo… that’s awesome. Thanks for the idea!

I’m too broke and penniless now to do it, but I will get to it right when I’m old enough to die broke and penniless… shit

(Joke aside, that would be very cool to do and I’m going ti look into it further)

54

hadidotj t1_j15nr26 wrote

I love the idea of this! Hope I can do it one day!

3

97875 t1_j13ttar wrote

Three Men in a Boat: USA

By Jaxzyn K Jaxzyn

7

drunkenknight9 t1_j13mtnj wrote

Yes. There seems to be a lot of confusion here about what this means so I'll try to clarify. This is the furthest boat trip you can take along natural waterways from the ocean to a point inland without crossing land or using a canal. Taking a boat all the way from the Gulf of Mexico, up the Mississippi, up the Missouri, and into Montana is a very far boat ride. You cannot do this further anywhere else on Earth without using a canal or taking your boat over land. I honestly didn't think this was such a confusing concept but apparently people think it is.

159

[deleted] t1_j13nfxf wrote

[removed]

161

[deleted] t1_j14962f wrote

[removed]

−2

[deleted] t1_j14awr6 wrote

[removed]

0

[deleted] t1_j144u1z wrote

[removed]

−18

[deleted] t1_j13qnil wrote

[removed]

−34

CaptainKickAss3 t1_j144yme wrote

I love how people on Reddit have to tell other people how dumb they are when they explain something.

110

platitood t1_j15jhsm wrote

“I understood this, and I’m honestly not that smart, so if I have to explain to you, you’re a dunce.”

17

carmium t1_j15pyk4 wrote

When you say farthest navigable point, and don't say from what, or into what, the statement remains confusing. It's an impressive factoid to post, but just needed to be expanded upon for half a sentence.

19

Initial_E t1_j13xtmx wrote

I still don’t get it. What makes a canal different from other bodies of water, and why would the furthest point you can go be a bridge that is already designed to let you go further?

10

peteroh9 t1_j141bpy wrote

Canals are manmade and it's just worded poorly.

21

MonsignorJabroni t1_j13yx2c wrote

The bridge isn't the very end of the navigable limit, it's just the last bridge that is needed to let boat traffic through on the navigable stretch. I assume the river becomes impassible not too far upstream from the bridge.

A canal is not natural and many of those we have today did not exist at the time referenced in this post. At the time this bridge was built, there was no point further from an ocean outlet that you could feasibly navigate a boat to without crossing land.

It's not true anymore since there's a shitload of canals elsewhere and there are dams on the Missouri river preventing moving further upstream.

18

rordan t1_j15a2eb wrote

The river is actually navigable for another ~120 miles, but there are restrictions on what type of boats can go because it's a national historic and scenic stretch of the river. At the end of that stretch is the Fort Peck Dam. So I guess if you went all the way in a kayak or a canoe you could conceivably go from the Gulf all the way to Fort Peck.

4

whenitpainsitrours t1_j15in9j wrote

What you describe is down stream from fort benton. Upriver is the great falls of the Missouri.

3

rordan t1_j15jdgm wrote

You're right. I got confused on my directions, seeing as I've only ever floated downriver of Fort Benton. Whoops.

3

AZFramer t1_j15s4j0 wrote

I think back in the day they ran steamboats right up to Three Forks, where the Missouri River begins. Of course, those boats had a 20% or better chance of sinking before they got there, but the risk was well worth the reward up until the railroad came.

3

Kingcrowing t1_j158wz2 wrote

It is worded kind of oddly, and it's not a phenomenon people usually think about.

I wonder what the largest boat can make it to this point? Clearly fairly large at this point since the bridge needs to move.

1

asocialmedium t1_j15cgam wrote

Why isn’t the Amazon or Nile a longer trip?

1

drunkenknight9 t1_j15l2ii wrote

If we were talking about a single river they might be but we're talking about multiple rivers that are tributaries of one another.

1

GeforcerFX t1_j15t1z4 wrote

It was the furthest there are big dams on the Missouri now that block larger boats and barges from moving down the river, kinda a shame since it would be a lot more efficient then using trains to move all that grain from montana and the dakotas to port.

−4

PuraVida3 t1_j13snn8 wrote

I understood exactly what it meant. The landlocked just don't understand the terminologies.

−10

the_cardfather t1_j14y11q wrote

The Missouri continues considerably further than that. Does that mean that it's not navigable, or that we've dredged it considerably since then?

10

digit4lmind t1_j15dxe8 wrote

It’s actually not navigable up to this point anymore, since the river has been heavily dammed in Montana and the Dakotas

24

CassandraVindicated t1_j16ca74 wrote

Reading the Journals of Lewis and Clark, they apparently were able to navigate the Missouri up until a large waterfall that they had to portage around. Anyone familiar with that stretch of the Missouri would probably be able to name it.

4

pug_subterfuge t1_j16qtn3 wrote

Great Falls is roughly the location in Montana they had to portage around. They got extra screwed as that area is mostly cottonwood trees which aren’t very useful for portaging.

3

CassandraVindicated t1_j16ry12 wrote

Yeah, in the book they described it as quite a challenge and apparently it took more time than they wanted to spend. Thanks for the info.

1

jubru t1_j160mxx wrote

I mean not much further. It terminates near three forks about a 3 hour drive south.

1

redvillafranco t1_j13uf4o wrote

It's not navigable this far anymore. Not since the Missouri River Dams were constructed in the mid 1900s.

171

BoozeTheCat t1_j13zyx8 wrote

Thanks for pointing this out. There's no way around those things without a portage.

39

ThePrussianGrippe t1_j15vlef wrote

Does the Missouri not have locks like the Mississippi?

7

GeforcerFX t1_j190fnp wrote

No, trains replaced steam boats and barges on the river. That's part of the reason they built the bridge.

1

Obiwan_Salami t1_j1381al wrote

furthest navigable point" wut?

pretty sure there were people, traders, and rivers in canada in the 1880's. every reason for river traffic.

or am i misunderstanding?

edit...and btw 2473 km or 1536 miles.

48

Josef_The_Red t1_j13929k wrote

I think they mean it's the furthest inland you can travel from the ocean/sea just by boat (and from the title, maybe specifically steamboats). You can take the Mississippi up from New Orleans to St Louis and then the Missouri goes all the way up to this part of Montana.

118

Obiwan_Salami t1_j139m9l wrote

this makes a little more sense, but in that vein, couldn't you hit the great lakes to get to canada as well?

9

Kdlbrg43 t1_j13agar wrote

Not without a canal. The great lakes don't drain into the gulf of Mexico, but rather gulf of St. Lawrence. You would also need to be able to sail up the Niagara falls.

87

Obiwan_Salami t1_j13c5kd wrote

illinois river most definitely reaches lake michigan. especially before chicago played engineer with the chicago river. even now there is barge traffic there. btw chicago river had its flow reversed and now drains away from lake michigan. but its all still navigable.

edited to fix flow mistake.

−3

AdmiralVernon t1_j13gqbv wrote

Not without a canal to connect the Illinois to the Chicago. There used to be a portage used by natives for centuries followed by early European explorers, but the waterways weren’t connected until mid 19th century by the Illinois & Michigan Canal.

47

Obiwan_Salami t1_j13hsb7 wrote

in 1848 which predates op and fort benton in 1880. i'd still say that the south branch chicago river could have been navigable by smaller craft. but maybe not large steam boats.

−23

blubblu t1_j13mfmd wrote

You would?

Not to sound too obtuse, but how would you know that at all?

22

peteroh9 t1_j141juq wrote

Doesn't matter if it's navigable if you couldn't get to it from the Illinois river. It originally flowed into Lake Michigan because it wasn't connected to the Illinois River.

7

Kdlbrg43 t1_j13cfbq wrote

But I don't think there originally used to be a connection, like before the large scale projects, at least I can't find anything online.

14

Obiwan_Salami t1_j13d53k wrote

it did. the chicago river used to flow into lake michigan. over time, sewage built up in the lake and chicagos' drinking water was poisoned with bad disease outbreaks happening. so engineers reversed the flow around 1900ish in order to move sewage away from city and clean up the lake.

here

i been down the chicago river south branch almost to midway airport in a 40 ft. sailboat as it was being motored into winter storage at a marina along the river. thats almost to the joining at des plaines river and i saw barge traffic the entire way. entirely possible to get to the mississippi river from there.

5

rechlin t1_j144amm wrote

But that point was closer to the ocean than Montana. The point here is this was the farthest point away from the end of a river that the river was still navigable.

Of course, this was in the 1800s. That part of the Missouri has not been navigable since the 1950s when the USACE built a set of flood-control dams on the Missouri.

6

peteroh9 t1_j141yy7 wrote

Do you not realize that they reversed it by connecting the rivers? How would the Chicago River have flowed into Lake Michigan and connected to a river that flows to the ocean?

5

ClapAlongChorus t1_j13sxwr wrote

correct, entirely possible because the ship and sanitary canal connect the two seperate watersheds in 1900. Before that, there was not a navigable connection between the chicago and the des plaines.

edit: actually the calumet canal connects the south branch to the des plaines river, I think, but I know less about it, other

2

ClapAlongChorus t1_j13rz9a wrote

hey Obiwan, I think you're misreading the definition of navigable. Up until 1900 with the completion of the of the chicago ship and sanitary canal, there was no connection between the Des Plaines / Illinois River and the Chicago River / Lake Michigan.

Is the divide between the two watersheds very low in elevation? Yes. Was the Chicagoland area a low swamp where travelers often picked up their canoe to get from one waterway to the other? Yes. Could you travel in a boat, without getting out of the boat, with water under the entire boat enough to keep the boat floating, from Lake Michigan to the Des Plaines / Illinois River system? Nope. That is why chicago played engineer with the chicago river.

13

fleebleganger t1_j13rqac wrote

Perhaps but montana to the gulf is farther than the Great Lakes to the gulf or Atlantic

7

-Vayra- t1_j13a0in wrote

Those rivers in Canada are all closer to the sea (Atlantic, Pacific, Hudson Bay or the Beaufort Sea) than Ft Benton is to where it reaches the sea (the Gulf).

20

Obiwan_Salami t1_j13btly wrote

from what i can tell its possible to get to lake nipigon via the illinois river and great lakes. almost the entire lake is more northerly than fort benton. only question i see is that there is a dam and Cameron falls on the way up to nipigon but it looks from satellite like the falls are man made.

otherwise, seems pretty navigable all the way from illinois river. currently accessible through navy pier to des plaines river to illinois river, or further south at little calumet to illinois river.

−5

The_Feeding_End t1_j13loo7 wrote

It's not about how far north it is its about how far inland it is. How far is it from the great Lakes to an ocean? Now how far is Montana? The Missouri River is the longest in North America on its own before reaching the Mississippi. We are talking about going from the Gulf nearly to Canada.

18

Obiwan_Salami t1_j13mhji wrote

north end of lake nipigon is further from gulf than benton. i think we need to compare apples to apples. thats what i was trying to say.

−4

Lamb_or_Beast t1_j13oymb wrote

You seem confused though, lake nipigon is not further from where it drains (out the st Lawrence into North Atlantic); that lake does not drain out the gulf so saying it’s further from the gulf is like comparing apples to bananas. Also, from that point you cannot navigate through natural waterways out to the ocean anyway, you need to use canals to get past Niagara Falls (and possible a few other points? Unsure about that). So no matter what it is not as far…not even close actually.

12

The_Feeding_End t1_j13n4kh wrote

How far is it from the Atlantic? It's roughly 600km as the crow flies. That's not apples to apples.

6

Chicago1871 t1_j14ju7l wrote

Have you heard of Hudson Bay? How far is it from hudson bay?

It looks pretty close the map. So its not too far inland.

3

joecarter93 t1_j14idku wrote

There were fur traders in northern Canada back in the 1700’s, but they used canoes to explore and trade. Steam ships in the 1800’s were not that common in western Canada, as the waterways that far inland tend to be too shallow. I live in Canada relatively near Ft. Benton, but our rivers mostly drain to Hudson Bay. They tried steam ships on our rivers for a couple of years, but they were prone to run aground / partially sink if the rivers were a little low, so they stopped. The railway was also built around that time, which was far more effective.

1

Obiwan_Salami t1_j157467 wrote

canoes are still a form of trade right? i realize i'm speaking from a more theoretical viewpoint, but the basic premise of what i've been saying seems to hold true.

1

platitood t1_j15jxr2 wrote

Canoes were often portaged.

2

Obiwan_Salami t1_j15mp31 wrote

during the rainy season? i can point you to an indiana department of conservation area which has a sign saying that basically from that point, which was about 20ish miles southwest of south bend, indiana, along the yellow river, kankakee system and calumet system, an area of close to 1000 square miles of swamp existed before there was any white settlements.

i'll look for it online in a little while, and if need be, i'll drive there and take a picture. it probably included what we're talking about.

2

ChamberlainSD t1_j130392 wrote

Furs was one of the first mercantile to go down the missouri and mississippi. Using the river they could avoid paying taxes.

33

Vivid-Air7029 t1_j130v9s wrote

I don’t think taxes are what mattered. Especially in an era where tariffs were the main tax. Rivers were used because you could actually sell them to non local markets where they were much more valuable.

59

NoExplanation734 t1_j13wkhu wrote

Before the invention of trains, it was much, much cheaper to ship by water than over land. Think about how long it would take and how arduous it would be to travel 2,700 miles by horse and cart with no roads, versus how easy and relatively quick it would be to just float down a river. There's a reason basically every major human settlement before the invention of the train was accessible by water.

21

joecarter93 t1_j14gjdx wrote

Even with the fur trade in Northern Canada, an area that is still pretty remote to this day and never had much in the way of rail they used canoes to transport furs instead of hiking it with horses.

4

Rocketgirl8097 t1_j15ilqs wrote

Rivers were used because they were faster and easier to carry your supplies and your beaver pelts going back. Cheaper too since you didn't have acquire and feed horses and pack mules.

4

bcsimms04 t1_j13pegi wrote

Back in the late 1800s you could take a steamboat all the way up the Colorado River and the Gila River and the Salt River to Phoenix in Arizona

26

OHoSPARTACUS t1_j15gb13 wrote

The Colorado river is full of rapids and waterfalls though, how could it have ever been navigable by steam?

7

rocky_tiger t1_j14vlow wrote

Used to work in Fort Benton. There are still people who run from Great Falls all the way to the Gulf in Kayak and Canoe trips.

It's a neat little town, several cool museums. There are about 1500 people living in a very small area. There are no stop lights and only a few stop signs in the entire town.

Do yourself a favor and look up the Fort Benton story about the mule and the cannon for a good laugh.

21

jubru t1_j160rvd wrote

The did add one stop light and there is one going to the interstate east out of town

4

BonnieJeanneTonks t1_j16klq9 wrote

There is no interstate near Fort Benton. US Highway 87 is the closest main highway.

1

jubru t1_j16yaug wrote

Sorry yeah you're correct, I meant the highway, there's a stop light on the highway.

2

That_Guy381 t1_j139gfl wrote

OP, I’d love a source for the second part of your post. It’s not in what you linked.

5

Thereelgerg t1_j14kopu wrote

>It was considered the furthest navigable point on Earth

Furthest from what? The caption doesn't make sense.

3

Ronem t1_j15ky3v wrote

Look up the definition of "navigable". It's very specific.

3

Thereelgerg t1_j15lkft wrote

The issue isn't the definition of the word navigable. The issue is that it doesn't tell us what that point is furthest from.

Are they trying to say that it's the navigable point furthest from the Gulf of Mexico? If so, that's just not true.

LOL, she asked me to prove something then blocked me.

Edit:

[https://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=E211US714G0&p=navigable] (of a waterway or sea, able to be sailed on by ships or boats)

There are waterways and seas that are able to be sailed on by ships or boats which are also further away from the Gulf of Mexico than 2,700 miles.

−1

Ronem t1_j15lser wrote

At the time, it was the furthest navigable point from the Gulf of Mexico. Traveling natural waterways inland away from the ocean waters.

It was true.

Prove it wasn't.

Its been discussed ad nauseum in this thread.

2

KamikazeB0B t1_j14epoo wrote

Getting proper Red Dead Redemption vibes with this....

2

Treyred23 t1_j14nf6j wrote

What about the Nile?

At what point is it not navigable?

2

VieFirionaVie t1_j153rgf wrote

Aswan low dam, about 1000km/600mi. Maybe lower depending on the season

2

MeatballDom t1_j157vo2 wrote

Can we please have one thread where people don't just focus on one small inconsequential part of the headline and instead discuss the actual article?

1

ThatGIRLkimT t1_j15pm9a wrote

It is interesting! I wonder what it looks like.

1

Thunderrunt t1_j175kqx wrote

Someone describing a bridge as ‘handsome’ is certainly something I’d never thought I read haha

1

YorkPlantagent t1_j14v9x5 wrote

I used to live in Fort Benton, and I'm really confused by the caption.

0

IHeartRasslin t1_j14du9e wrote

Everywhere on earth is the furthest navigable point so far…

−1

SoLetsReddit t1_j133ajk wrote

They haven’t replaced a steel bridge since 1888?

−8

stellvia2016 t1_j137laa wrote

They did. It's a remote rural area, so there's no money in tearing it down probably. It's been pedestrian-only since 1962 when they built the new bridge a few hundred meters further down. Ironically enough, the wiki says the "new" bridge deck is in bad shape and they're currently exploring ways to overhaul it.

26

Kody_Z t1_j13pf7n wrote

Well, 1962 was 60 years ago.

5

countafit t1_j135qnb wrote

Some of it was replaced after the great flood

2

Chicago1871 t1_j14kdaf wrote

Most of the new york city elevated is that old. As long as you sand away any rust and paint it regularly, itll hold up.

1