Just how nice is the Washington coast???
Jul 13th, 2000 | 12:41 PM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just how nice is the Washington coast???
Please help this 1st time visitor to NW!!
While the state of WA gets a lot of attention here, it seems that it is rare that the coast is mentioned with much enthusiasm. It seems like the Oregon coast gets a lot more hype even though WA has the biggest stretch of protected coastline (Olympic Nat. Park)
How about the beauty of the Rainforests? What's the concensus? Are they overrated or is it really a great experience to spend a few days in one. I'm thinking about staying at the Quinault Rainforest and splitting the time spent between interior and coast.
Does this sound nice?
Or, Who votes for Columbia Gorge instead of this? Please help with any advice!! I need to make decisions soon. I would spend 4 days in one of these spots and then plan to spend another 4 days in Mt. Baker, just outside of N. Cascades.
Thanks a million!!!
Scott
While the state of WA gets a lot of attention here, it seems that it is rare that the coast is mentioned with much enthusiasm. It seems like the Oregon coast gets a lot more hype even though WA has the biggest stretch of protected coastline (Olympic Nat. Park)
How about the beauty of the Rainforests? What's the concensus? Are they overrated or is it really a great experience to spend a few days in one. I'm thinking about staying at the Quinault Rainforest and splitting the time spent between interior and coast.
Does this sound nice?
Or, Who votes for Columbia Gorge instead of this? Please help with any advice!! I need to make decisions soon. I would spend 4 days in one of these spots and then plan to spend another 4 days in Mt. Baker, just outside of N. Cascades.
Thanks a million!!!
Scott
Jul 13th, 2000 | 02:17 PM
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi again, Scott,
I think it's very much a matter of your interests. The Washington Pacific coast really has a couple of zones. South of Grays Harbor, the coast tends to be low, with wide and very long beaches, the longest of which, Long Beach (good name) runs for miles and miles. Not many rocks, not much scenery, but interesting habitat and wildlife regimes in coastal bays and estuaries. North of Grays Harbor the coast becomes more rocky and ultimately very wild and inaccessible here and there. This is the National Park coastal strip, and it is certainly as, if not more, spectacular than Oregon equivalents. But its relative inaccessibility, combined with very few accommodations, very wet climate, and the fact that Highway 101 is basically a cul-de-sac, keeps the total number of visitors way down compared with Oregon, where the highway parallels the coast and there are numerous towns and tourist attractions. The rain forest, which comes down to the coast and then extends up the valleys penetrating the Olympic Peninsula and mountains, is unique in the world. The giant trees, hanging mosses, fungi, undergrowth, Roosevelt elk, running streams - these can't be experienced anywhere else. So a visit to the National Park coast and rainforest is really a nature holiday, rather than a man+nature experience. There are some concessions to civilization, like a few towns, hotels, etc., but the density of these things is low compared to points south.
The Columbia Gorge is a linear strip running along the two sides of the great river. The landscape is that of a canyon, with rocky points and outlooks, beautiful bridges and nice towns, waterfalls and hiking trails. The climate changes as you travel west-to-east, so that by the time you get to The Dalles you are in high desert, rather than the wet forest at the western end, near Portland. Along the way there are great views of Mt. Hood or Mt. Adams, orchards, wind surfers, Bonneville Dam, lots of interesting things to see and do. But it's a relatively populated area compared to Olympic NP.
So it comes down to your own preferences. Unless you're a keen naturalist or walker, I'd wonder if 4 days in either wouldn't be too much, especially the Olympic coast, where the coastal strip and the rain forest areas are quite close to one another (with a car, that is). In the case of the Gorge, there's more variety, but a freeway runs through it.
I think it's very much a matter of your interests. The Washington Pacific coast really has a couple of zones. South of Grays Harbor, the coast tends to be low, with wide and very long beaches, the longest of which, Long Beach (good name) runs for miles and miles. Not many rocks, not much scenery, but interesting habitat and wildlife regimes in coastal bays and estuaries. North of Grays Harbor the coast becomes more rocky and ultimately very wild and inaccessible here and there. This is the National Park coastal strip, and it is certainly as, if not more, spectacular than Oregon equivalents. But its relative inaccessibility, combined with very few accommodations, very wet climate, and the fact that Highway 101 is basically a cul-de-sac, keeps the total number of visitors way down compared with Oregon, where the highway parallels the coast and there are numerous towns and tourist attractions. The rain forest, which comes down to the coast and then extends up the valleys penetrating the Olympic Peninsula and mountains, is unique in the world. The giant trees, hanging mosses, fungi, undergrowth, Roosevelt elk, running streams - these can't be experienced anywhere else. So a visit to the National Park coast and rainforest is really a nature holiday, rather than a man+nature experience. There are some concessions to civilization, like a few towns, hotels, etc., but the density of these things is low compared to points south.
The Columbia Gorge is a linear strip running along the two sides of the great river. The landscape is that of a canyon, with rocky points and outlooks, beautiful bridges and nice towns, waterfalls and hiking trails. The climate changes as you travel west-to-east, so that by the time you get to The Dalles you are in high desert, rather than the wet forest at the western end, near Portland. Along the way there are great views of Mt. Hood or Mt. Adams, orchards, wind surfers, Bonneville Dam, lots of interesting things to see and do. But it's a relatively populated area compared to Olympic NP.
So it comes down to your own preferences. Unless you're a keen naturalist or walker, I'd wonder if 4 days in either wouldn't be too much, especially the Olympic coast, where the coastal strip and the rain forest areas are quite close to one another (with a car, that is). In the case of the Gorge, there's more variety, but a freeway runs through it.
Jul 13th, 2000 | 02:31 PM
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Washington coast is indeed beatiful, but not same as LA, or Hawaii, for example. Can be dark and brooding on the coast when it is clear inland, and not so developed, nor suitable for sunning, swimming, etc. Just rugged, wild, and lonely in parts. However, we tree huggers love it. Depends on what you want. Oregon, is, I think a bit more spectacular, for mountain and ocean together...just what you prefer.
Jul 16th, 2000 | 07:59 AM
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
How nice is the Washington State coast. It is suffering from terminal boredom .If you are into sand and grayness you may like it.
Go to Oregon if you want scenic beaches.
The Lincoln City to FLorence stretch in particular on Hwy 101 is probably the most spectacular coastline in the world. Superior to California's Big Sur, Monterrey-Carmel and other overexposed, overated places.
Go to Oregon if you want scenic beaches.
The Lincoln City to FLorence stretch in particular on Hwy 101 is probably the most spectacular coastline in the world. Superior to California's Big Sur, Monterrey-Carmel and other overexposed, overated places.
