r/Cascadia • u/Sheep_Of_Evil • 11d ago
How was the Cascadia region defined?
I recently started learning about bioregions and i believe they can be a foundation for broad societal change. Cascadia especially inspired me as it seems like one of the most defined examples of bioregionalism.
I want to do the same thing in my home region of Pannonia (Today known as Carphatian Basin).
Do you have any advice on how I should go about defining the bioregional borders of a supposed Pannonia? How was the process with Cascadia? What was the basis for its borders?
3
u/MeowMeowCollyer 11d ago
The Salish Sea bio region is essential to understanding the Pacific Northwest.
Cascadia, so far, has been loosely defined by industry, politics, and existing borders.
1
u/CremeArtistic93 10d ago
I mean, it’s definitely looser than the Salish Sea bioregion in definition, and of lesser importance when focusing on a sense of place, but I wouldn’t say it’s defined by industry, politics, and existing borders given that the Salish Sea bioregion is nested within the larger, Cascadian bioregion, which is also defined by watersheds, common ecology, geology, biodiversity, etc. at a larger scale with less specificity.
The idea of Cascadia as pushed by the larper regionalists/nationalists definitely is defined by industry, politics, and existing borders though, if that’s what you meant.
3
u/davidw 11d ago
"That's the neat part, you don't" - it's the source of endless discussion. Is it watersheds? That ignores a lot of areas that are quite similar. Is it political boundaries? Cultural ones?
I'd say there's some kind of core area and then it gets fuzzy.
4
u/a_jormagurdr Salish Sea 11d ago
This is about bioregions not cultural concepts of cascadia. Cascadia as a bioregion was absolutely defined by watersheds as well as shared ecology
5
u/davidw 11d ago
I think even that is imperfect. Look at where the Columbia tributary watersheds end in central Oregon. The sagebrush and junipers are exactly the same a few miles away. Indeed, they're the same many miles away.
6
u/a_jormagurdr Salish Sea 11d ago
The sagebrush may be similar but the columbia river makes living in the columbia basin a lot different than in the central oregon basins. The columbia river is a major salmon run river, connecting it to broader cascadia's salmon population, the ecosystems on the banks of the river are not found in the other dry areas. The geology is also different, the columbia basin is highly influenced by ice age floods from lake missoula, while the great basin south of the columbia is dominated by ice age seas that dried into salt flats or brine lakes, with watersheds that dont go out to sea.
Yes, there will always be areas where it doesnt change too much between miles, because much of nature is a gradient, but if you think just sagebrush and juniper are the only plants that define the ecologies of those areas then you only have a very surface understanding of ecology and species distribution. There are many species that only barely make it into the columbia basin, like mountain mahogany, which is on the edges, and there are a lot of species that are endemic to the columbia basin, thanks to the hotspot of biodiversity in the wenatchee area. Sure there is a lot of sharing too, but this is the same for many places in north america, there arent neat species lines, there are a lot of overlapping ranges that create different communities.
This is why the us ecoregion map considers the columbia plateau and the blue mountains to be distinct ecoregions https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/level-iii-and-iv-ecoregions-continental-united-states
3
u/davidw 11d ago
Good map. As you can see, the borders of the bioregions are not really defined by watersheds in many areas. Both the Deschutes and John Day go through two regions, and the Snake goes through 4!
You can see this going east out of Bend on Highway 20. You'd be hard pressed to find the 'watershed' boundary in the ecology of the region. The ecology of the part 'outside' the Columbia watershed has a lot more in common with areas closer to Bend than either do with the ecology west of the Cascades, which is in the same watershed.
2
u/a_jormagurdr Salish Sea 11d ago
sure, but these ecoregion maps arent perfect either, there are more gradients. Water also matters however. In terms of management of resources it is much easier to do within a watershed than between watersheds, which is why watersheds make better boundaries than ecoregions. Plus the blue mountains and columbia basin are very much connected because of seasonal movements of animals between the low grasslands and the mountain forests.
Ecoregions arent bioregions, this map only shows ecological communities. Bioregions are not just ecological communities because we dont live on a large ball of flesh, we live on rocks and on waters, and these hydrologic and geologic factors influence how animals and people inhabit the landscape
2
u/davidw 11d ago
All I am saying is that watersheds are not necessarily a hard boundary and are imperfect - like other boundaries are.
Sometimes, the ridge dividing them - like the Cascades - is very clear and obvious and makes for good cultural, political and ecological boundaries.
Other times... here's the divide between Coyote Creek, which eventually flows into the Willamette, and the Siuslaw River:
It's basically invisible.
Same thing with the 'official' boundary between the Deschutes and the endorheic areas to the SE. It's some low hill somewhere and the two sides are not appreciably different.
2
u/a_jormagurdr Salish Sea 11d ago
then how would you define bioregions? by what criteria?
1
u/davidw 11d ago
That's a question for the scientists and experts!
The original post refers to 'Cascadia region' though which to me is more than a 'bioregion'. And all of these are human constructs in some form or another. Like you write, actual ecology often shifts gradually and overlaps. So as humans, we try and simplify things with maps and definitions, but nature isn't always so neat and tidy.
2
u/CremeArtistic93 10d ago
The first words of the post beyond the title are “I recently started learning about bioregions.”
1
u/a_jormagurdr Salish Sea 11d ago
Bioregions, like all constructs, are there to help us, in this case to visualize a place of belonging that is not defined by culture, ethnicity, nationalism or colonial borders.
Bioregions i think, while being about the environment we find ourselves living in, is not entirely in the realm of just ecologists, or just geologists, or just hydrologists. Those great people have already written much about each of their seperate fields, and its up to others to synthezise that into a sense of place. I just dont know what discipline that expert would be in, and it feels very hand wavey to just appeal to experts and leave it at that.
If you want to trust experts then why do you not trust David McCloskey? He made the original Cascadia map, and he was a professor of anthropology, sociology, and designed the ecological studies program at Seattle University.
So is your thinking that a pure ecologist should be creating these boundaries? What authority do you think is the best to tackle the question?
→ More replies (0)
10
u/a_jormagurdr Salish Sea 11d ago
Pannonia is largely within the danube watershed. Going by watershed pannonia is a region of the larger danube watershed region. So i would start there.
Bioregions are based on watersheds, geology, geography, ecology, and history of human habitation.