How Beautiful Is Minnesota Compared to Other States?

A website has just ranked all 50 states in order of their natural beauty. And guess where Minnesota ranked on their list?

The gang at Thrillist put together their list by having their group of writers compare the physical beauty that's featured in each of our 50 states. The story said, "We assembled a crew of writers who combined had visited every state, and then set about arguing: weighing the variety, quantity, concentration, highlights, and lowlights of every state's physique."

Sounds a little too subjective, if you ask me. Which probably explains why Minnesota, a state with a TON of natural beauty, if you ask me, came in ranked #29. 29?!? That's it? On a list where South Dakota came in ranked #11?!? (No deference to South Dakota, but outside of the Black Hills and the Badlands, what else is there?!?)

For comparison, California was ranked #1; while Kansas was ranked #50. Our neighbor to the east, Wisconsin, was ranked at #23. Iowa, meanwhile, came in at #47. I do agree, though, about California coming in at #1. From the warm Malibu beaches of southern California, to the Redwood Forests in northern California, not to mention the entire Pacific Coast, it really IS a beautiful state.

But I think our state is equally beautiful, in different ways, of course. And while #29 isn't a terrible ranking, it's still in the bottom half-- and I think our 10,000 lakes put us above that number. What do you think? How beautiful is Minnesota compared to other states?