To be precise, Alaska is the least _densely_ populated state, but Wyoming is the least populated state.

Wyoming has a population of ~576,000, which is clearly less than Alaska's population of ~731,000 in absolute numbers of population.

However, because Alaska is roughly 6 times larger (586,412 square miles vs 97,814), it wins by quite a bit on lowest density.

>Wyoming has a population of ~576,000

To put that number in perspective, I live on the border of Cobb County, Georgia, whose population as of 2012 is 707,442. This is one county outside the city limits of Atlanta (but not by much). While Cobb County is a metro Atlanta suburban county, it also has a large portion of semi-rural area. It blows my mind that more than an entire state's populace fits in a tiny (geographically speaking) county in a largely rural state.

> To be precise, Alaska is the least _densely_ populated state, but Wyoming is the least populated state.

You aren't adding any precision, or disambiguating. The OP said least _densely_ populated, as did I.

And the GP said "I could definitely appreciate that it was the least populated state in the US (or least densely populated). Lots of open space."

Just making sure we're all talking about the same thing.

Yes, apparently Wyoming only "wins" on the lower 48 at 5.9 people per square mile, vs Alaska at 1.3 per sq mile.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_populati...

There's a corner of Oregon where it's 1 per square mile:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harney_County,_Oregon

Beautiful place in its own stark way - especially Steens Mountain. I wouldn't want to live there, though.

Well, I bet that there are corners of Wyoming that are that un-dense. Maybe most of the state outside of the I-80 strip?

Oh, I'm sure there are, I just think it's an interesting corner of Oregon that's worth pointing out because it's really unknown, but beautiful and fascinating.