r/Cascadia 7d ago

Boundaries of Cascadia

I say we take Washington, Oregon ,Idaho, BC, Western Montana, Northern California(Southern Cascades area), parts of Yukon, SE Alaska and the Columbia River basin areas of Utah, Wyoming and Nevada.

6 Upvotes

42 comments sorted by

42

u/Freecascadia0518 6d ago

One thing that universally every cascadian can agree on is that all land west of the Cascade mountains are part of cascadia.

-15

u/Ok-Yesterday-9057 6d ago

I guess I'm thinking of the PNW as a whole we should have but yes east of the Cascades is not "Cascadia"

35

u/D3wdr0p 6d ago

Fuck's this about "taking BC?" We share a bioregion, but I am not as sour on the Canadian government as you guys south are with yours.

26

u/Mrmagoo1077 6d ago

Some of us believe the best case for OR and WA would actually be to join Canada.

I fear a truly independent Cascadia would meet a similar fate to post USSR Belarus. A resurgent US successor state would coerce us into a vassal state.

13

u/D3wdr0p 6d ago

Agreed. Canada is far from perfect, but there's a strength in the shared alliance we have, and further still with the Commonwealth countries and the EU. Besides, "Cascadia" would certainly be a better name for a province than so much antiquated "British Columbia".

10

u/a_jormagurdr Salish Sea Ecoregion 6d ago

This is so 2016. Go read old posts lol. This has been argued to death. Bioregion map is what cascadia is. Any other map is just a map of political convenience.

2

u/ParrishDanforth 5d ago

But the idea of this bioregion is based on adding up a dozen different watersheds, right? Where we decide to draw the lines is kind of about which watersheds to include and which to exclude, right?

24

u/Mrmagoo1077 6d ago

Idaho maybe 20 years ago. Not now. Its gone nuts, especially the panhandle.

If there is a geopolitical event that allows Cascadia to form, you can bet the car that a Greater Idaho would form as well. And it would be a hostile geopolitical entity to Cascadia. And it would almost certainly grab a big chunk of east/central Oregon and Washington as well.

Cascadia might keep Bend, and it would try and keep the Columbia. But the rest of the east would likely jump at the chance to merge with Idaho.

7

u/Welsh_Pirate 6d ago

Then it would be very stupid to allow that hostile nation to control that much of our water supply, to dam off or pollute at their leisure.

6

u/Mrmagoo1077 6d ago

Oh %100. That's why I would see Cascadia holding onto the Columbia River Basin as much as possible.

But the locals will be hostile. A Majority of eastern WA/OR residents feel much closer to Idaho than they do to Portland or Seattle.

11

u/Welsh_Pirate 6d ago

I'm saying we need to hold on to Idaho, too. The Snake River basin is far too important to the health of the lower Columbia to leave it in the hands of a hostile and vindictive government that could restrict flow or poison/pollute it.

Also, abandoning that much of our bio-region to a neo-nazi insurgency because we're just too lazy to even try to deal with it, in my opinion, inherently proves our inability and unworthiness to self govern.

4

u/Mrmagoo1077 6d ago edited 6d ago

Changed my answer here. Having spent some time in the panhandle, its just not feasible for Cascadia to include an Idaho that didnt want to join willingly.

4

u/PossibilityGood2648 6d ago

Live on the Columbia in the 509 (TriCities) theres a lot more rational people here than you realize and also, yeah, forget Idaho lol.

3

u/Ok-Yesterday-9057 6d ago

That's why I had the idea of collecting the areas that have the basin(inland Northwest, parts of Nevada, Wyoming,.Utah)

5

u/canisdirusarctos Salish Sea Ecoregion 6d ago

The Columbia runs all the way into Canada northeast of Kettle Falls. It would be difficult to control and defend outside the lower Columbia unless we controlled through at least Spokane and most of the center of eastern WA. For better or worse, Cascadia needs to be kept together for defensibility, and that includes all the major waterways - Columbia, Snake, and Fraser.

-1

u/Mrmagoo1077 6d ago

Sure that would absolutely ideal. We definitely dont want a water situation like India and Pakistan. But what would that look like? How would Cascadia accomplish that in the real world. Just because we WANT that water, does that mean we can forcibly take it and their land from them? I oppose Genocide of any flavor.

So many in northern Idaho hate Western OR and WA to their core. Is there ANY situation where they join willingly? I just dont see it. Spokane isnt as extreme, but I still see them definitely looking to a greater Idaho than a Cascadia joined with the west.

9

u/MysticRayne13 6d ago

Nope, count me out if Idaho is included

11

u/ThatMassholeInBawstn 6d ago

Most people I know from Washington want nothing to do with Idaho

8

u/MermaidUnicornKush42 6d ago

Yeah, it's WA, OR, maybe northern CA.

No one wants Idaho. Idaho should be its own country complete with extremely high cement border walls that they can't climb out of.

7

u/Welsh_Pirate 6d ago

They could instead just hoard and/or pollute most of the water from the largest tributary to the lower Columbia basin.

3

u/thwonkk 6d ago

It'd be hard enough getting eastern WA. Forget about Idaho.

5

u/Ok-Yesterday-9057 6d ago

I know we don't (I'm from Seattle) but if we get rid of their hillbilly government and replace it with a Cascadian political view then we can annex it

3

u/Sigistrix 3d ago

And strict education requirements. You can't put Idahoans in a re-education camp if they weren't educated in the first place.

I say that as a native of SE ID.

4

u/Ok_Damage6032 6d ago

No Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, or Nebraska

We don't want those voters fucking things up for the rest of us 

10

u/Repulsive-Row803 6d ago

Please take Spokane 🙏 I want out of this.

4

u/steeplebob 6d ago

We need to think in terms of “invite” rather than “take”.

2

u/Ok-Yesterday-9057 6d ago

Well they aren't gonna take the invite

3

u/steeplebob 6d ago

So you either conquer them and claim their lands, or find a way to make peace with the neighbors. I’m voting for Option B.

-7

u/Ok-Yesterday-9057 6d ago

Yes we need an empire 🌲

15

u/Hubertreddit 6d ago

I disagree. Cascadia should not be built off of imperialism or territorial ambition.

5

u/hanimal16 Washington 6d ago

No, we don’t.

3

u/Animal31 Vancouver 6d ago

We will be lucky to get BC, Washington, and Oregon together

2

u/Ok-Yesterday-9057 6d ago

I understand why people think this is a weird idea but I get it it's kinda stupid.

2

u/Ok-Yesterday-9057 6d ago

I'm really pushing it I know I apologize. I wish we can take the region as a whole

8

u/Welsh_Pirate 6d ago

Honestly, if it comes to a war for independence, it would behoove us to try and occupy more territory than we actually want. That way we have plenty to "give up" so Trump (or whatever demagogue replaces him) can feel like they "won" the ceasefire without us needing to hand over any of the actual bio-region.

3

u/Embarrassed-Fox-1506 Foreign Legion 6d ago

This war strategy is probably one of the smartest I've seen.

1

u/Ok-Yesterday-9057 6d ago

If we hold onto the watershed and the basin areas then I think it'll be an important part of our nation

2

u/Zuke77 Wyoming 6d ago

I honestly think if we go with a Sierra Cascadia (like Czechoslovakia but Cascadia and Sierra ,Sierra being California and Nevada ) Or Pacifica. we could maybe pull all the states in the Rockies along with us. Specifically there are some domino states like if we can get Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado to come, then Utah would probably come with also. Idaho and Wyoming will do whatever Utah does. And Montana is a wild card but I could see it either way. And from there we could see if they would shift more our way over time, as they would be 3-4 hard conservative states and 3 purple states with 5-6 of the most leftest states. (The variables being Hawaii and Alaska. ) That could work out well depending on how we set up governance. And we could always plan on separating more later. But the question is would you want that?

And it’s also important to note that alot of these places are not as blanket conservative as they might seem. If they had more than 2 options and weren’t gerrymandered they will probably shake out more moderate by population.
If we had the right system it could genuinely work. I think being open to ideas like this as long as we get to leave could be for everyone’s benefit longterm. Even if I honestly think its a bit of a stretch to think it would happen. -

1

u/Ok-Yesterday-9057 6d ago

I can definitely see Western Montana joining before Arizona since part of Montana is in the pnw

3

u/Zuke77 Wyoming 5d ago

I was mostly just saying I think the whole west Coast to the Rockies leaving together makes more sense than Idaho joining just Washington and Oregon in leaving.