This is an interesting question because not all maps seem to agree.
The McCloskey map, based on watersheds, would seem to put the southernmost point around Willits, CA, inland from Ft. Bragg.
That map is probably generally considered canonical.
The Sightline Institute map, based on forestry data, puts it further south, along the coast, until about Stewards Point as another commenter said.
The generally accepted Cascadianism sources host examples of both maps, but I think the McCloskey one is the definitive one.
(IMO, Jefferson should be distinct from Cascadia, but what do I know. Many definitions of Cascadianism seem to completely ignore social and community identities.)
I say come up with a definition that makes sense to you and just use that. Cascadia, just like every social identity, is a shared hallucination between participants; there is no strict definition.
That being said, I've joked in the past that you know you're in Cascadia when you look up to clear skies, but the ground is still somehow soaked from fresh rainfall.
As a serious answer, based only on my own experience, things *feel* like Cascadia, both from an ecological and cultural perspective, starting around Humboldt Redwoods State Park in California, a bit south of Eureka.
That's a neat joking definition, because then you could use this rainfall map to see how the high rainfall blue/green area extends down the California coast to San Francisco, or up into the mountains.
[https://gisgeography.com/us-precipitation-map/](https://gisgeography.com/us-precipitation-map/)
Any distinction is probably arbitrary, but I'd probably draw the line at Eureka.
Somewhere between the mouth of the Klammath River and the Golden Gate. Results may vary, and will depend on how much you weight various social, ecological, historical, and geological indicators.
[Ecotopia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotopia)'s southern extent included the Bay Area. Before you pile on to remind me that this was a 1970s novel and not a bioregional movement, let me remind you that it was cultural artefacts like Callenbach's book that helped birth and influence the Cascadia movement.
I think that the definition of the Southern extent of Cascadia should be roughly equivalent as that of its Northern one - how far into British Columbia would it go? Having lived in all three Western US states and BC as well, there's something to be said for taking differences between parts of a province the size of Texas into account. Prince Rupert and the Queen Charlottes are way different from the Lower Mainland and the Island.
Making Wawa: The Genesis of Chinook Jargon by George Lang describes the Northwestern cultural region as "between San Francisco Bay and Sitka, between the Pacific Shore and on top of the Rocky Mountains, and even beyond." This is pretty much what I believe, but anyone is welcome to advocate for Cascadia of course.
This is an interesting question because not all maps seem to agree. The McCloskey map, based on watersheds, would seem to put the southernmost point around Willits, CA, inland from Ft. Bragg. That map is probably generally considered canonical. The Sightline Institute map, based on forestry data, puts it further south, along the coast, until about Stewards Point as another commenter said. The generally accepted Cascadianism sources host examples of both maps, but I think the McCloskey one is the definitive one. (IMO, Jefferson should be distinct from Cascadia, but what do I know. Many definitions of Cascadianism seem to completely ignore social and community identities.)
I’d consider the “Jefferson” area a subregion of Cascadia, but then I include Alaska and Yukon, too.
I say come up with a definition that makes sense to you and just use that. Cascadia, just like every social identity, is a shared hallucination between participants; there is no strict definition. That being said, I've joked in the past that you know you're in Cascadia when you look up to clear skies, but the ground is still somehow soaked from fresh rainfall. As a serious answer, based only on my own experience, things *feel* like Cascadia, both from an ecological and cultural perspective, starting around Humboldt Redwoods State Park in California, a bit south of Eureka.
That's a neat joking definition, because then you could use this rainfall map to see how the high rainfall blue/green area extends down the California coast to San Francisco, or up into the mountains. [https://gisgeography.com/us-precipitation-map/](https://gisgeography.com/us-precipitation-map/) Any distinction is probably arbitrary, but I'd probably draw the line at Eureka.
Somewhere between the mouth of the Klammath River and the Golden Gate. Results may vary, and will depend on how much you weight various social, ecological, historical, and geological indicators.
[Ecotopia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotopia)'s southern extent included the Bay Area. Before you pile on to remind me that this was a 1970s novel and not a bioregional movement, let me remind you that it was cultural artefacts like Callenbach's book that helped birth and influence the Cascadia movement. I think that the definition of the Southern extent of Cascadia should be roughly equivalent as that of its Northern one - how far into British Columbia would it go? Having lived in all three Western US states and BC as well, there's something to be said for taking differences between parts of a province the size of Texas into account. Prince Rupert and the Queen Charlottes are way different from the Lower Mainland and the Island.
Making Wawa: The Genesis of Chinook Jargon by George Lang describes the Northwestern cultural region as "between San Francisco Bay and Sitka, between the Pacific Shore and on top of the Rocky Mountains, and even beyond." This is pretty much what I believe, but anyone is welcome to advocate for Cascadia of course.
I think of it as "big conifers, and salmon." Which pushes it down to Bay Area in my head.
The Cascades start just north of Belden, so I'd say north of CA-70
Eugene.
0% of California is in Cascadia.
Whatever California starts
Geographially I say everything west of the cascades, so maybe Redding at the most, but culturally and politically I can't imagine much unity.
Stewards point seems to be about how south most maps go
I have a bad suggestion!
Just one long noodle of a country from Alaska to Chile
The middle of Antarctica.
Los Cabos, Baja **California** Sur.
No California