« The People | Main | How Remote is Remote? »



Regarding the notion of "Most Remote Location" - is this something commonly referred to in the public forum or did the three of you research and come up with this personally?

I presume the idea is of the former and that people have visited this place under powered travel. My next question follows logically as I wonder, where is the most remote location on the planet?

Roman Dial

There has been at least one other attempt to find the most remote spot, published by Ned Rozell: http://www.r7.fws.gov/internettv/nwrtv/akmartv/units/LinkStMatthew.htm

Jason Geck and I used possibly a different geospatial dataset and came up with a slightly different location: the one we are visiting.

We are unsure if anyone has visited it. Ned wrote me in an email last fall that he'd like to visit the spot but has not. It's likely nobody has purposely visited it, but my hunch is that we'll see some sign of Innupiat hunters, either from snowmobile access in the modern times or old stone points from past times, in the area.

"My next question follows logically as I wonder, where is the most remote location on the planet?"

That's a great question!
As most readers would likely guess, most remote terrestrial spot on the planet is likely in Antarctica, but we have not yet done the GIS buffering exercise.


Roman -

Thanks for the well-defined answer. It amazes me that in the lower 48 one can only get twenty-eight miles from a road or habitation. These points would make good arguments against more roads/drilling in the ANWR.

- Mule

Richard S

I am wondering about the value of the objectives. What you're doing is very cool, but it seems like extreme recreation rather than a scientifically valuable expedition. So here's the thing - wouldn't it be more valuable to do this as part of a PR campaign for wilderness values? An example that comes to mind is Karsten Heuer's 3400 km Yellowstone-to-Yukon hike in support of that conservation initiative. See http://www.y2y.net/overview/adventurers.asp for a bit about that.

Ryan Jordan

Richard: I'm not sure any of us are in this for its scientific merit. However, as you suggest regarding highlighting wilderness values in this context, I couldn't agree more, and this is a core piece of the slideshow tour about the expedition this fall and the book that I am writing that uses this expedition as a backdrop to investigate contiguous wilderness and recreation use in the US.


I understand the terms and the goals. It will be quite the achievement to walk from PHO to the remote spot without support. However, hasn't the goal of your "party" already been compromised by the evacuation of Ryan? Of course, no one should risk life and health to achieve the goal, the evacuation was sensible. But you now are a 2 man party due to unfair means.
Additionally, your attesting to reaching the remotest spot by "fair" means, but you only use these means from PHO(actually from Kivalina. You still had to use "unfair" means to get to Kivalina.
No matter how you cut it, expeditions such as yours cannot truly be done "fairly".

Erden Eruc

Wonderful goals.

On Foot and By Fair Means to me simply means "self-propelled" - that is: "each individual on the team moves his/her body under their own power." None of you will carry another on your backs, a la rickshaw, each will earn the distance by their own muscle power.

I would add self-propelled to your description as well.

Way to go.

Erden Eruc

The comments to this entry are closed.

What is Arctic 1000?

    In June 2006, adventurers Roman Dial, Ryan Jordan, and Jason Geck will attempt the first unsupported trekking traverse of America's most remote wilderness - Alaska's western North Slope and Brooks Range - a distance of 1,000 km (600 miles).
About ::  Objectives ::  People
Route ::  Map ::  Gear
Photos ::  Sponsors