With clear skies and sparse trees, the Oregon outback has long been regarded as a stargazers’ paradise. Now the region is home to the world’s largest dark sky sanctuary, offering pristine views of the night sky across 2.5m acres.

The Oregon outback international dark sky sanctuary received the certification this week, becoming the largest of 19 sites around the world with the same designation. The sanctuary covers Lake county in south-eastern Oregon, a remote area roughly half the size of New Jersey, and could eventually expand to include more than 11m acres.

The region’s skies are already among the darkest in the world, according to a statement from DarkSky International, and the certification will ensure the area remains protected.

top 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Nudding 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

This seems too American exceptionalism-y to be real lol

[–] OhmsLawn 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

It's an accreditation and award from Dark Sky International , an Arizona nonprofit organization. So, yeah, they probably aren't running around Siberia with light meters.

Still, I appreciate their efforts. Apparently OR had to make some changes to get the title. Effective, too. I hadn't really thought about the area much. Now, I'd like to go spend some time in the high desert, looking at stars.

[–] XeroxCool 6 points 9 months ago

Friendly reminder that "nonprofit" doesn't mean it's a charitable and honest corporation. Not saying DSI is bad, just that nonprofits love to bury profits in executive salaries as "cost of operations" while making people picture volunteers doing good.

[–] Rehwyn 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

They do accreditations internationally too, though you're almost certainly right that some locations aren't as represented, especially since it requires communication and cooperation with the governments for these areas.

[–] XeroxCool 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I agreed, thinking immediately of larger un/sparsely populated regions. While DSI is American and probably biased, this part has something to do with it that would set it apart from some other places:

The certification involved a years-long arduous effort by federal, state and local officials, community members and several legal jurisdictions. It required parties to agree to the plan as well as monitor the night sky and institute lighting improvements, DarkSky International said in a statement.

I'm sure there's some casual ~~bribery~~ suggestive donations

[–] Rehwyn 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

It's good to be cautious about nonprofit organizations, but in the case of DSI, they've been around a while, have a good reputation, and score well on third-party sites like Charity Navigator.

I'd also like to make clear that their Dark Sky Sanctuary certification isn't a scientific one based solely on light pollution, but also that the local/state/etc governments have implemented certain policies to help ensure the area remains a dark sky area. It's best to think of it akin to something like a designated "wilderness" or "wildlife sanctuary" area, but for starry skies. Because DSI works with governments to certify these areas, you're right that certain regions are likely to be more represented, and some not represented at all due to geographic and political barriers.

P.S. I'm not affiliated with DSI, but have used their accreditations in the past to pick wilderness areas to visit for hiking/camping/photography.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago

Now if they could just keep starlink satellites from passing through that area …

[–] HootinNHollerin 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Algeria will take that challenge