How many here have been to dog sled races? Show of hands?
Me!
Cumberland House, SK (Voyageur days, maybe?)
How many here have been to dog sled races? Show of hands?
Me!
Cumberland House, SK (Voyageur days, maybe?)
Edmonton called them Klondike days, not me. It was too cold for them to think straight. They changed it to something else, but changed it back to K-days, and still call it Klondike Days. It's not hard to get to Edmonton; there's a road.
How many here have been to dog sled races? Show of hands?
Hudson Bay Company originally offered to the USA Rupert's Land before giving it back to the Crown, which then turned around and gave it to Canada. Perhaps, if the Americans buy it they occupy it more.
ONE of the many reasons Canada's western lands were slower in being developed than the USA's is that the HBC deliberately lied and put out propaganda that Rupert's Land and the future Western portions of Canada were unfit for agriculture. If you PoD that they never put out that information and instead encourage more settlement that helps.
True. What are you using it for? There's not much industry & scant population. It's not "build it & they will come". (Yes, I know, the correct quote is "he"...The Gunslinger said:A rail line to the Arctic Sea would make economic development in the region dozens of times cheaper than it was OTL.
There's a difference between "habitable" & "attractive". More to the point, there's no reason for more population absent something keeping them there. The population of Canada, in the main, clusters where there's agriculture or industry. In the north, there isn't enough industry, not even in oil & diamonds, to need more population, & there's nothing much else bringing people there. Absent massive bison ranching or a boom in demand for caribou meatThe Gunslinger said:the Yukon is actually fairly habitable
True. What are you using it for? There's not much industry & scant population. It's not "build it & they will come". (Yes, I know, the correct quote is "he"...) Furthermore, who's paying for it? (It damn sure ain't gonna be cheap, building on tundra.
) And finally, consider the railway to Churchill: it didn't exactly create a population exodus to the shore of Hudson Bay
...& building & maintaining it hasn't been profitable for a rail company yet, AFAIK.
There's a difference between "habitable" & "attractive". More to the point, there's no reason for more population absent something keeping them there. The population of Canada, in the main, clusters where there's agriculture or industry. In the north, there isn't enough industry, not even in oil & diamonds, to need more population, & there's nothing much else bringing people there. Absent massive bison ranching or a boom in demand for caribou meat(& just picture the screams from the green loons over that one
), I don't foresee any change...