As much as I love the countryside,and I do believe we have the best in the world.Id like to visit a true wilderness scandinavia springs to mind any recomendations?
Closest true wilderness to the uk.
- Thread starter urban hunter.
- Start date
Very little untouched forest in Fennoscandia, small patches here and there. Open fell areas have a more untouched feeling if one overlooks the bloody ATV tracks everywhere.
I guess true wilderness is closer in France. Like Jura mountains.
Or Schwarzwald in Germany.
Or Schwarzwald in Germany.
Last edited:
I’ve spent a fair bit of time in Knoydart and though it is wild it isn’t wilderness in my mind. Pre the Clearances I read that there were a thousand fighting men living in the peninsula which would suggest the total population would be perhaps 4-5 times that. In some of the glens that are empty now you can see many a derelict shieling and even lines of agriculture that aren’t apparent unless you look from above. Most of the Highlands were forested in the past but are now managed estates for deer with ancient forests covering only 2%. I think I read that only the Cairngorm plateau truly represents a wilderness in the UK. Clearly the definition is subjective so I guess it depends on your point of view.
Hi @Limaed ,
You just beat me to it! I was just typing that it depends I suppose what your definition of "true wilderness" is.
For example, back in 2005 I was fortunate enough to be a guest of a super Norwegian family near Fyresdal. We hiked, we fished. The place was covered in moose tracks, we even saw a moose. Beaver, black grouse, capercaillie, martin, roe, and wild reindeer. There was even reputed to be a lynx that circled through the area once in a while. However, we were never more than a few miles from habitation, and having been out for several days, we met an older lady who had had a little hut helicoptered to the top of a hill, to live in for the summer. So, wild, and we saw only that one person in over a week, but debatably not wilderness.
You just beat me to it! I was just typing that it depends I suppose what your definition of "true wilderness" is.
For example, back in 2005 I was fortunate enough to be a guest of a super Norwegian family near Fyresdal. We hiked, we fished. The place was covered in moose tracks, we even saw a moose. Beaver, black grouse, capercaillie, martin, roe, and wild reindeer. There was even reputed to be a lynx that circled through the area once in a while. However, we were never more than a few miles from habitation, and having been out for several days, we met an older lady who had had a little hut helicoptered to the top of a hill, to live in for the summer. So, wild, and we saw only that one person in over a week, but debatably not wilderness.
There is a good series, Wild Canada, a couple different versions. I have the Attenborough one, which has different editing, but its big message is that many areas we would today think of as wilderness have been heavily shaped by human activity. I for one would not hold that against it.
Another suggestion
Another suggestion
Tresticklan National Park
The sparse and barren pine forest, with its lichen- and moss-covered flat rocks interspersed with many lakes, makes up a peaceful environment where one can hike for several days.
www.sverigesnationalparker.se
The Romanian portion of the Carpates is probably the only true wilderness left in Europe. You might bump into a bear or wolves but if you get into difficulties, you're on your own.
It rather depends on your definition of wilderness, would the Burren in Ireland count? I would call it wild at least. I would also say Caithness and Sutherland, there is not an awful lot there.
We really have to define wild and wilderness, as you say, to be able to come up with any kind of examples.
Is is untrodden by man? but we are an animal and part of the wilderness.
Is it unshaped by man? there are plenty of places (albeit not huge) that are unshaped by man.
Is it how far away it is from a road, a rail track, a house? those things don't necessarily guarantee sanctuary.
Is it the size of an unchanging landscape?
Is it because of wild dangers such as wolves or bears? I could die from a hornet sting so I don't think any specific threat makes it a wilderness.
Is it the lack of communication? well, most parts of the Powys uplands would count then
I have spent years exploring maps of the UK and finding ravines and gorges in the hills and mountains that I would classify as wilderness - untrodden probably for centuries, isolated, dangerous to explore, wild, peaceful, and where you could spend days and not see a soul. Without a signal, if you slipped and broke a leg, you could easily die - is that not wilderness?
The largest wilderness I have explored are the deserts - in particular the Sahara and the Namib and Skeleton Coast. However, I was more at risk backpacking the Yorkshire Moors solo as a teenager.
Just my rather random thoughts
Is is untrodden by man? but we are an animal and part of the wilderness.
Is it unshaped by man? there are plenty of places (albeit not huge) that are unshaped by man.
Is it how far away it is from a road, a rail track, a house? those things don't necessarily guarantee sanctuary.
Is it the size of an unchanging landscape?
Is it because of wild dangers such as wolves or bears? I could die from a hornet sting so I don't think any specific threat makes it a wilderness.
Is it the lack of communication? well, most parts of the Powys uplands would count then
I have spent years exploring maps of the UK and finding ravines and gorges in the hills and mountains that I would classify as wilderness - untrodden probably for centuries, isolated, dangerous to explore, wild, peaceful, and where you could spend days and not see a soul. Without a signal, if you slipped and broke a leg, you could easily die - is that not wilderness?
The largest wilderness I have explored are the deserts - in particular the Sahara and the Namib and Skeleton Coast. However, I was more at risk backpacking the Yorkshire Moors solo as a teenager.
Just my rather random thoughts
