Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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