• GunnarStahlGloveSide@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wisconsin counts large puddles as lakes. If they used the same criteria as Minnesota, they’d have significant fewer than Minnesota.

    But I have no holes to poke in your potato statement. Fuck Idaho.

    • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d be more on board with your lake theory if Minnesota has more lakes if using Wisconsin 's criteria. Otherwise whoever has the largest lakes can just change the definition of lake to weed out everyone else. As far as I know, a lake is simply a body of water surrounded by land. Ponds are just small lakes. Some seas are just large lakes.

        • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It literally says if you use Wisconsin’s criteria, Wisconsin comes out ahead. You’re just repeating the same argument. The only new info is the USGS puts Michigan ahead but doesn’t state the criteria used so it’s hard to say. And Wisconsin comes ahead of you count surface area and the portions of the the various great lakes residing in each state.

            • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Since you weren’t specific, here’s the source paragraphs for both claims:

              According to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota technically has 11,842 lakes. Those lakes are defined as bodies of water 10 acres or more.

              According to the Wisconsin DNR, Wisconsin has 15,074 “documented” lakes. Those are defined as bodies of water 2.2 acres or more. Of those lakes, about 6,000 are named.

              15k is larger than 12k.

              Last claim:

              Finally, Minnesota still comes out ahead by counting surface area covered by lakes. But by adding what both states claim for Lake Superior and Michigan, Wisconsin has twice as much lake surface area.

              Emphasis mine.

              Did you not link the article you thought? Cause it clearly mentions both states. Michigan is definitely mentioned more than just Lake Michigan.

              • GunnarStahlGloveSide@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Your quoted segments clearly reference the different criteria (10 acres versus 2.2).

                And the word “Michigan” appears exactly once in the article: in the second bit you quoted where it clearly refers to the lake.

                • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I feel like you simply never read my initial comment at this point if that’s your response.

                  And I realized I literally just meant to say Minnesota, not Michigan, so you’re correct there. But it’s a moot point.