# Should Men Have the Right to Live in the Wildnerness?



## DriftingSand

I just finished watching a wilderness show where a man and wife spent almost a year living in the Idaho wilderness.  They were trekking through a huge National Forest in which homesteading has been completely outlawed (except for a sprinkling of back-woods homes that were "grandfathered in" prior to the law taking affect).  I was thinking that I would like to live in a place like that but will never have the opportunity because it's "against the law."  

What do you think about the idea of allowing homesteading in such places as long as no roads, electricity, plumbing, shopping centers, gas stations, or any other reflections of "civilization" are allowed?  What if a person just wants to live off of the land and take what he needs to survive without the luxuries of urban sprawl?  

What's RIGHT with that or what's WRONG with that?


----------



## Meathead

It would be against the spirit of Obama.


----------



## DriftingSand

Meathead said:


> It would be against the spirit of Obama.



Freedom, in general, goes against his grain.


----------



## Michelle420

DriftingSand said:


> I just finished watching a wilderness show where a man and wife spent almost a year living in the Idaho wilderness.  They were trekking through a huge National Forest in which homesteading has been completely outlawed (except for a sprinkling of back-woods homes that were "grandfathered in" prior to the law taking affect).  I was thinking that I would like to live in a place like that but will never have the opportunity because it's "against the law."
> 
> What do you think about the idea of allowing homesteading in such places as long as no roads, electricity, plumbing, shopping centers, gas stations, or any other reflections of "civilization" are allowed?  What if a person just wants to live off of the land and take what he needs to survive without the luxuries of urban sprawl?
> 
> What's RIGHT with that or what's WRONG with that?



I think people should be allowed to if they want to.


----------



## Katzndogz

They would strip it and despoil it.  No.  That land is public land it doesn't need the pollution of humanity filthying up the place.


----------



## DriftingSand

Katzndogz said:


> They would strip it and despoil it.  No.  That land is public land it doesn't need the pollution of humanity filthying up the place.



I think I could live deep in the forest (where the general public NEVER go) and keep it looking pristine.


----------



## S.J.

Yes, men should have the right to live in the wilderness.  Liberals will oppose it because they need all self-sufficient people living where the government can make them hand over the fruits of their labor so they can have a free ride.


----------



## DriftingSand

S.J. said:


> Yes, men should have the right to live in the wilderness.  Liberals will oppose it because they need all self-sufficient people living where the government can make them hand over the fruits of their labor so they can have a free ride.



Government "officials" (to a man) are control freaks. It's all about keeping us under their thumb and milking us for all we're worth. I still may move to a wilderness location with or without their approval.


----------



## Roadrunner

DriftingSand said:


> I just finished watching a wilderness show where a man and wife spent almost a year living in the Idaho wilderness.  They were trekking through a huge National Forest in which homesteading has been completely outlawed (except for a sprinkling of back-woods homes that were "grandfathered in" prior to the law taking affect).  I was thinking that I would like to live in a place like that but will never have the opportunity because it's "against the law."
> 
> What do you think about the idea of allowing homesteading in such places as long as no roads, electricity, plumbing, shopping centers, gas stations, or any other reflections of "civilization" are allowed?  What if a person just wants to live off of the land and take what he needs to survive without the luxuries of urban sprawl?
> 
> What's RIGHT with that or what's WRONG with that?


It is "the people's land", not yours.

That said, I think you still may be able to homestead in Alaska.

Having just packed out 80lbs of meat from a wilderness area in the Kisatchie NF this afternoon, I kinda dig a few ROADS!!


----------



## Roadrunner

DriftingSand said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, men should have the right to live in the wilderness.  Liberals will oppose it because they need all self-sufficient people living where the government can make them hand over the fruits of their labor so they can have a free ride.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government "officials" (to a man) are control freaks. It's all about keeping us under their thumb and milking us for all we're worth. I still may move to a wilderness location with or without their approval.
Click to expand...

Go for it.

When they shoot you, don't say you were not warned.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

DriftingSand said:


> I just finished watching a wilderness show where a man and wife spent almost a year living in the Idaho wilderness.  They were trekking through a huge National Forest in which homesteading has been completely outlawed (except for a sprinkling of back-woods homes that were "grandfathered in" prior to the law taking affect).  I was thinking that I would like to live in a place like that but will never have the opportunity because it's "against the law."
> 
> What do you think about the idea of allowing homesteading in such places as long as no roads, electricity, plumbing, shopping centers, gas stations, or any other reflections of "civilization" are allowed?  What if a person just wants to live off of the land and take what he needs to survive without the luxuries of urban sprawl?
> 
> What's RIGHT with that or what's WRONG with that?



If you let people live in a National Park, even if initially it's no development (thinking of plumbing issue primarily) it wouldn't stay that way. Once you let people legally live somewhere you have to provide them basic services like modern plumbing and electricity. Consequently, natural and unspoiled wont stay that way once people are living there.


----------



## norwegen

If a bunch of mountain men are living in the wilderness, is it a wilderness?


----------



## jon_berzerk

DriftingSand said:


> I just finished watching a wilderness show where a man and wife spent almost a year living in the Idaho wilderness.  They were trekking through a huge National Forest in which homesteading has been completely outlawed (except for a sprinkling of back-woods homes that were "grandfathered in" prior to the law taking affect).  I was thinking that I would like to live in a place like that but will never have the opportunity because it's "against the law."
> 
> What do you think about the idea of allowing homesteading in such places as long as no roads, electricity, plumbing, shopping centers, gas stations, or any other reflections of "civilization" are allowed?  What if a person just wants to live off of the land and take what he needs to survive without the luxuries of urban sprawl?
> 
> What's RIGHT with that or what's WRONG with that?



stay off the kings land


----------



## Katzndogz

Delta4Embassy said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just finished watching a wilderness show where a man and wife spent almost a year living in the Idaho wilderness.  They were trekking through a huge National Forest in which homesteading has been completely outlawed (except for a sprinkling of back-woods homes that were "grandfathered in" prior to the law taking affect).  I was thinking that I would like to live in a place like that but will never have the opportunity because it's "against the law."
> 
> What do you think about the idea of allowing homesteading in such places as long as no roads, electricity, plumbing, shopping centers, gas stations, or any other reflections of "civilization" are allowed?  What if a person just wants to live off of the land and take what he needs to survive without the luxuries of urban sprawl?
> 
> What's RIGHT with that or what's WRONG with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you let people live in a National Park, even if initially it's no development (thinking of plumbing issue primarily) it wouldn't stay that way. Once you let people legally live somewhere you have to provide them basic services like modern plumbing and electricity. Consequently, natural and unspoiled wont stay that way once people are living there.
Click to expand...


If they live like animals maybe.  No shelters.  No out houses.  No garbage.   No growing food or pot.   No fires.   People are not constructed to live like that.   People leave trash wherever they go.  They need fire to cook and warm themselves.    They cannot live in a forest without ruining it not only for other visitors but for the real residents,  the wildlife that calls the forest home.


----------



## DriftingSand

Roadrunner said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just finished watching a wilderness show where a man and wife spent almost a year living in the Idaho wilderness.  They were trekking through a huge National Forest in which homesteading has been completely outlawed (except for a sprinkling of back-woods homes that were "grandfathered in" prior to the law taking affect).  I was thinking that I would like to live in a place like that but will never have the opportunity because it's "against the law."
> 
> What do you think about the idea of allowing homesteading in such places as long as no roads, electricity, plumbing, shopping centers, gas stations, or any other reflections of "civilization" are allowed?  What if a person just wants to live off of the land and take what he needs to survive without the luxuries of urban sprawl?
> 
> What's RIGHT with that or what's WRONG with that?
> 
> 
> 
> It is "the people's land", not yours.
> 
> That said, I think you still may be able to homestead in Alaska.
> 
> Having just packed out 80lbs of meat from a wilderness area in the Kisatchie NF this afternoon, I kinda dig a few ROADS!!
Click to expand...


I'm "people" too.  LOL  Rather not get too far north.  It would be cold enough in Idaho.  Nobody would ever miss me, see me, or know I'm even there.  It's THAT open and untouched.


----------



## S.J.

Very few people would attempt to live that way, there's not much chance of a handful of hermits ruining the wilderness.


----------



## DriftingSand

jon_berzerk said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just finished watching a wilderness show where a man and wife spent almost a year living in the Idaho wilderness.  They were trekking through a huge National Forest in which homesteading has been completely outlawed (except for a sprinkling of back-woods homes that were "grandfathered in" prior to the law taking affect).  I was thinking that I would like to live in a place like that but will never have the opportunity because it's "against the law."
> 
> What do you think about the idea of allowing homesteading in such places as long as no roads, electricity, plumbing, shopping centers, gas stations, or any other reflections of "civilization" are allowed?  What if a person just wants to live off of the land and take what he needs to survive without the luxuries of urban sprawl?
> 
> What's RIGHT with that or what's WRONG with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stay off the kings land
Click to expand...


I've noticed some of the posts stating that the land "belongs" to the wildlife.  But from a biblical standpoint man was supposed to take dominion over the earth as well as the animals.  Men have been settling the untamed lands of the world since Adam and Eve made their entrance. LOL


----------



## DriftingSand

norwegen said:


> If a bunch of mountain men are living in the wilderness, is it a wilderness?



Yes. If the mountain men are wild.


----------



## DriftingSand

Delta4Embassy said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just finished watching a wilderness show where a man and wife spent almost a year living in the Idaho wilderness.  They were trekking through a huge National Forest in which homesteading has been completely outlawed (except for a sprinkling of back-woods homes that were "grandfathered in" prior to the law taking affect).  I was thinking that I would like to live in a place like that but will never have the opportunity because it's "against the law."
> 
> What do you think about the idea of allowing homesteading in such places as long as no roads, electricity, plumbing, shopping centers, gas stations, or any other reflections of "civilization" are allowed?  What if a person just wants to live off of the land and take what he needs to survive without the luxuries of urban sprawl?
> 
> What's RIGHT with that or what's WRONG with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you let people live in a National Park, even if initially it's no development (thinking of plumbing issue primarily) it wouldn't stay that way. Once you let people legally live somewhere you have to provide them basic services like modern plumbing and electricity. Consequently, natural and unspoiled wont stay that way once people are living there.
Click to expand...


That's why I believe that only a very limited number are allowed to live there.  Most folks wouldn't want to in the first place.  Many who do want to wouldn't or couldn't survive for long.  Living there would be totally conditional.  No roads. No offroad vehicles. No electricity or plumbing. Alaska is a State of the union yet folks live in the wilderness there without all the luxuries of life.  I see no reason why the same can't be true of the deep forests of Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Colorado, etc.


----------



## DriftingSand

Roadrunner said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, men should have the right to live in the wilderness.  Liberals will oppose it because they need all self-sufficient people living where the government can make them hand over the fruits of their labor so they can have a free ride.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government "officials" (to a man) are control freaks. It's all about keeping us under their thumb and milking us for all we're worth. I still may move to a wilderness location with or without their approval.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go for it.
> 
> When they shoot you, don't say you were not warned.
Click to expand...


Shoot me for what?  Well ... they did shoot Randy Weaver's unarmed wife while she held her baby and they were on their private property.  Sooooo ... I guess anything is possible.


----------



## Syriusly

DriftingSand said:


> I just finished watching a wilderness show where a man and wife spent almost a year living in the Idaho wilderness.  They were trekking through a huge National Forest in which homesteading has been completely outlawed (except for a sprinkling of back-woods homes that were "grandfathered in" prior to the law taking affect).  I was thinking that I would like to live in a place like that but will never have the opportunity because it's "against the law."
> 
> What do you think about the idea of allowing homesteading in such places as long as no roads, electricity, plumbing, shopping centers, gas stations, or any other reflections of "civilization" are allowed?  What if a person just wants to live off of the land and take what he needs to survive without the luxuries of urban sprawl?
> 
> What's RIGHT with that or what's WRONG with that?



As far as I know you can live in National Forest land as long as you want. 

Building a home in the middle of National Forest land will run you into some problems, so the answer is- you can go live there, but don't build a home. 

And please don't start any forest fires, and don't leave your trash behind.


----------



## jon_berzerk

DriftingSand said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just finished watching a wilderness show where a man and wife spent almost a year living in the Idaho wilderness.  They were trekking through a huge National Forest in which homesteading has been completely outlawed (except for a sprinkling of back-woods homes that were "grandfathered in" prior to the law taking affect).  I was thinking that I would like to live in a place like that but will never have the opportunity because it's "against the law."
> 
> What do you think about the idea of allowing homesteading in such places as long as no roads, electricity, plumbing, shopping centers, gas stations, or any other reflections of "civilization" are allowed?  What if a person just wants to live off of the land and take what he needs to survive without the luxuries of urban sprawl?
> 
> What's RIGHT with that or what's WRONG with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stay off the kings land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed some of the posts stating that the land "belongs" to the wildlife.  But from a biblical standpoint man was supposed to take dominion over the earth as well as the animals.  Men have been settling the untamed lands of the world since Adam and Eve made their entrance. LOL
Click to expand...


yes


----------



## Rikurzhen

I think that it's important for every society to have some form of escape hatch for people who don't want to live in civilization and deal with all the requirements of civilization. This would be a pressure release value, like on a pressure cooker, to insure that worse things don't come about because people are feeling trapped and oppressed.

The Mountain Man route could be such an escape hatch because people would have to be pretty fed up with society in order to chuck everything. And chucking everything has to be a condition. No fishing get-aways, hunting lodges, etc.

There's so much wilderness that is available. Section off 100 square mile areas and allow one cabin there. No property rights, just right of use. No electricity, no plumbing, no roads. Make it like the guy on the PBS program "Alone in the Wilderness." This also means no schools, no Medicaid, no foodstamps, etc. No taxes = no benefits.


----------



## waltky

Been livin' in the wilderness for the past 12 years...

... right outside Louisville, Ky...

... our mobile home park is in a designated wetwoods area...

... got squirrels, possum, deer, hawks, geese, ducks, snappin' turtles...

... and even seen a coyote earlier this evenin'...

... on I-65 just east of the Ford plant south of Fern Valley Rd.


----------



## Warner Athey

DriftingSand said:


> I just finished watching a wilderness show where a man and wife spent almost a year living in the Idaho wilderness.  They were trekking through a huge National Forest in which homesteading has been completely outlawed (except for a sprinkling of back-woods homes that were "grandfathered in" prior to the law taking affect).  I was thinking that I would like to live in a place like that but will never have the opportunity because it's "against the law."
> 
> What do you think about the idea of allowing homesteading in such places as long as no roads, electricity, plumbing, shopping centers, gas stations, or any other reflections of "civilization" are allowed?  What if a person just wants to live off of the land and take what he needs to survive without the luxuries of urban sprawl?
> 
> What's RIGHT with that or what's WRONG with that?


That is one problem with the government taking up so much land.  They can tell you to keep off of it.


----------



## Warner Athey

Rikurzhen said:


> I think that it's important for every society to have some form of escape hatch for people who don't want to live in civilization and deal with all the requirements of civilization. This would be a pressure release value, like on a pressure cooker, to insure that worse things don't come about because people are feeling trapped and oppressed.
> 
> The Mountain Man route could be such an escape hatch because people would have to be pretty fed up with society in order to chuck everything. And chucking everything has to be a condition. No fishing get-aways, hunting lodges, etc.
> 
> There's so much wilderness that is available. Section off 100 square mile areas and allow one cabin there. No property rights, just right of use. No electricity, no plumbing, no roads. Make it like the guy on the PBS program "Alone in the Wilderness." This also means no schools, no Medicaid, no foodstamps, etc. No taxes = no benefits.


Some people just want the government off their backs.


----------



## Rikurzhen

Warner Athey said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that it's important for every society to have some form of escape hatch for people who don't want to live in civilization and deal with all the requirements of civilization. This would be a pressure release value, like on a pressure cooker, to insure that worse things don't come about because people are feeling trapped and oppressed.
> 
> The Mountain Man route could be such an escape hatch because people would have to be pretty fed up with society in order to chuck everything. And chucking everything has to be a condition. No fishing get-aways, hunting lodges, etc.
> 
> There's so much wilderness that is available. Section off 100 square mile areas and allow one cabin there. No property rights, just right of use. No electricity, no plumbing, no roads. Make it like the guy on the PBS program "Alone in the Wilderness." This also means no schools, no Medicaid, no foodstamps, etc. No taxes = no benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people just want the government off their backs.
Click to expand...


Which is what I'm saying, there needs to be a way for people to get government off their backs but we also need to prevent free riders. Government off their backs also means to heli-evac, no public schools for the kids, no emergency medical treatment, no library borrowing privileges, etc. No government on your back means no government to help you in your daily life.


----------



## S.J.

Rikurzhen said:


> Warner Athey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that it's important for every society to have some form of escape hatch for people who don't want to live in civilization and deal with all the requirements of civilization. This would be a pressure release value, like on a pressure cooker, to insure that worse things don't come about because people are feeling trapped and oppressed.
> 
> The Mountain Man route could be such an escape hatch because people would have to be pretty fed up with society in order to chuck everything. And chucking everything has to be a condition. No fishing get-aways, hunting lodges, etc.
> 
> There's so much wilderness that is available. Section off 100 square mile areas and allow one cabin there. No property rights, just right of use. No electricity, no plumbing, no roads. Make it like the guy on the PBS program "Alone in the Wilderness." This also means no schools, no Medicaid, no foodstamps, etc. No taxes = no benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people just want the government off their backs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is what I'm saying, there needs to be a way for people to get government off their backs but we also need to prevent free riders. *Government off their backs also means to heli-evac, no public schools for the kids, no emergency medical treatment, no library borrowing privileges, etc. No government on your back means no government to help you in your daily life.*
Click to expand...

Why does it have to be all or nothing?  Why can't we have limited government, like we used to have?  The founding fathers neglected to put it the one safeguard to stop the Big Government types that have brought us to this point.  They should have indexed the size of government to the size of the population.  It would have prevented dictators like Obama from growing government so big that the people can't control it anymore.


----------



## Rikurzhen

S.J. said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Warner Athey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that it's important for every society to have some form of escape hatch for people who don't want to live in civilization and deal with all the requirements of civilization. This would be a pressure release value, like on a pressure cooker, to insure that worse things don't come about because people are feeling trapped and oppressed.
> 
> The Mountain Man route could be such an escape hatch because people would have to be pretty fed up with society in order to chuck everything. And chucking everything has to be a condition. No fishing get-aways, hunting lodges, etc.
> 
> There's so much wilderness that is available. Section off 100 square mile areas and allow one cabin there. No property rights, just right of use. No electricity, no plumbing, no roads. Make it like the guy on the PBS program "Alone in the Wilderness." This also means no schools, no Medicaid, no foodstamps, etc. No taxes = no benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people just want the government off their backs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is what I'm saying, there needs to be a way for people to get government off their backs but we also need to prevent free riders. *Government off their backs also means to heli-evac, no public schools for the kids, no emergency medical treatment, no library borrowing privileges, etc. No government on your back means no government to help you in your daily life.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does it have to be all or nothing?  Why can't we have limited government, like we used to have?  The founding fathers neglected to put it the one safeguard to stop the Big Government types that have brought us to this point.  They should have indexed the size of government to the size of the population.  It would have prevented dictators like Obama from growing government so big that the people can't control it anymore.
Click to expand...


Now you're talking about societal change, that's a different kettle of fish.

For the individual though it creates very perverse incentives to have limited government with respect to obligation and expansive government with respect to rights. This is just liberalism under a different light. Don't pay taxes but expect library service or emergency rescue.


----------



## S.J.

Rikurzhen said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Warner Athey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that it's important for every society to have some form of escape hatch for people who don't want to live in civilization and deal with all the requirements of civilization. This would be a pressure release value, like on a pressure cooker, to insure that worse things don't come about because people are feeling trapped and oppressed.
> 
> The Mountain Man route could be such an escape hatch because people would have to be pretty fed up with society in order to chuck everything. And chucking everything has to be a condition. No fishing get-aways, hunting lodges, etc.
> 
> There's so much wilderness that is available. Section off 100 square mile areas and allow one cabin there. No property rights, just right of use. No electricity, no plumbing, no roads. Make it like the guy on the PBS program "Alone in the Wilderness." This also means no schools, no Medicaid, no foodstamps, etc. No taxes = no benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people just want the government off their backs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is what I'm saying, there needs to be a way for people to get government off their backs but we also need to prevent free riders. *Government off their backs also means to heli-evac, no public schools for the kids, no emergency medical treatment, no library borrowing privileges, etc. No government on your back means no government to help you in your daily life.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does it have to be all or nothing?  Why can't we have limited government, like we used to have?  The founding fathers neglected to put it the one safeguard to stop the Big Government types that have brought us to this point.  They should have indexed the size of government to the size of the population.  It would have prevented dictators like Obama from growing government so big that the people can't control it anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're talking about societal change, that's a different kettle of fish.
> 
> For the individual though it creates very perverse incentives to have limited government with respect to obligation and expansive government with respect to rights. This is just liberalism under a different light. Don't pay taxes but expect library service or emergency rescue.
Click to expand...

We don't need to have a bloated government in order to have basic services.  In fact, we don't need government to have those services.  Private citizens have always been able to fill those needs, we've just gotten used to letting government provide them.  We could do it a lot cheaper without them.


----------



## jon_berzerk

S.J. said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Warner Athey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that it's important for every society to have some form of escape hatch for people who don't want to live in civilization and deal with all the requirements of civilization. This would be a pressure release value, like on a pressure cooker, to insure that worse things don't come about because people are feeling trapped and oppressed.
> 
> The Mountain Man route could be such an escape hatch because people would have to be pretty fed up with society in order to chuck everything. And chucking everything has to be a condition. No fishing get-aways, hunting lodges, etc.
> 
> There's so much wilderness that is available. Section off 100 square mile areas and allow one cabin there. No property rights, just right of use. No electricity, no plumbing, no roads. Make it like the guy on the PBS program "Alone in the Wilderness." This also means no schools, no Medicaid, no foodstamps, etc. No taxes = no benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people just want the government off their backs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is what I'm saying, there needs to be a way for people to get government off their backs but we also need to prevent free riders. *Government off their backs also means to heli-evac, no public schools for the kids, no emergency medical treatment, no library borrowing privileges, etc. No government on your back means no government to help you in your daily life.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does it have to be all or nothing?  Why can't we have limited government, like we used to have?  The founding fathers neglected to put it the one safeguard to stop the Big Government types that have brought us to this point.  They should have indexed the size of government to the size of the population.  It would have prevented dictators like Obama from growing government so big that the people can't control it anymore.
Click to expand...



that could make a good amendment


----------



## mamooth

The last homestead in Alaska or anywhere in the USA was granted in 1988.

Homesteading was ended because it had entirely become a method for big timber or mining interests to swipe land, by putting up front people to claim a homestead, which they'd then sell off cheap to the big company.


----------



## HenryBHough

Funny how so many of those who do crazy shit like hauling old school buses out into the wilderness manage to end their liberal lives through starvation.  Suggests to me it's something that oughta be encouraged.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

DriftingSand said:


> I just finished watching a wilderness show where a man and wife spent almost a year living in the Idaho wilderness.  They were trekking through a huge National Forest in which homesteading has been completely outlawed (except for a sprinkling of back-woods homes that were "grandfathered in" prior to the law taking affect).  I was thinking that I would like to live in a place like that but will never have the opportunity because it's "against the law."
> 
> What do you think about the idea of allowing homesteading in such places as long as no roads, electricity, plumbing, shopping centers, gas stations, or any other reflections of "civilization" are allowed?  What if a person just wants to live off of the land and take what he needs to survive without the luxuries of urban sprawl?
> 
> What's RIGHT with that or what's WRONG with that?



Animal Planet's "North Woods Law" mentions every few episodes how 95% of Maine's land is privately owned. So if people wanna build a home on land they own sure. But "public land" should be controlled. Can camp but not make any permanent settlement. But if you buy some land, should be able to build a house and live as you choose. Still subject to government rules and regulations though.


----------



## prison/con.net

you'll find that it's a VERY tough way to live, and it requires a lot of skill, gear and knowledge ,along with at least SOME levels of luck, or you dont make it.  It's many, MANY times easier to just live in a mini-van, conducting yourself in a way that's not noticed. You only need to move it  1/2 mile or so, twice a day, to go unnoticed. you can find one that can do that, for $500 or less and gradually, fix it up until it's reliable. Until that time, use a bike and the buses to get around.


----------



## prison/con.net

public land should all be sold to the highest bidder and used to pay down our national debt. There's no reason why a few should get to use other people's resources, for free. Chris did not haul the bus out to Alaska, he found it there, and he did not die of starvation, he died of using plastic bags to store wild potatoes and the fungus got him.


----------



## prison/con.net

2 years in alaska, and he had not learned to carry salt or jerk meat, did not know to have more than a .22lr rifle,  did not know that the inner bark layer of aspens and pines/spruce trees offers enough calories to sustain life.


----------



## shadow355

DriftingSand said:


> I just finished watching a wilderness show where a man and wife spent almost a year living in the Idaho wilderness.  They were trekking through a huge National Forest in which homesteading has been completely outlawed (except for a sprinkling of back-woods homes that were "grandfathered in" prior to the law taking affect).  I was thinking that I would like to live in a place like that but will never have the opportunity because it's "against the law."
> 
> What do you think about the idea of allowing homesteading in such places as long as no roads, electricity, plumbing, shopping centers, gas stations, or any other reflections of "civilization" are allowed?  What if a person just wants to live off of the land and take what he needs to survive without the luxuries of urban sprawl?
> 
> What's RIGHT with that or what's WRONG with that?


 

 Me, in British Columbia, In a Cabin near a nice lake or stream, Pine.....Spruce and Fir trees all around me. A fire pit about 40 feet from the cabin with a few chairs.

 In the gun Cabinet =  For rabbit and bird hunting a 20 double barrel shotgun with an open choke -   For deer hunting.....a Marlin 45-70 lever action - For squirrel hunting and turkey hunting an 870 Pump with a full choke. To keep the Mountain Lions and Grizzly's away...... and to use as a scouting and camping pistol away from the cabin..... A Smith & Wesson Model 69 ( 44 Mag ) in a cross draw holster. For general self defense around the cabin.....A Glock 22 ( 40 caliber ).

 To maneuver around and to go to town every two months or so to restock on food.....an ole 1990s model F-150.

  No television....just radio.

  No satellite......just the stars.

   Yep.....I have a right to peace - serenity - great scenic views in Canada - and the right to walk around my cabin......in the middle of no where.....enjoying life, while feeling the warmth of the campfire and enjoying tobacco.

   Sincerity is palpable !


    Shadow 355


----------



## ChrisL

You can do whatever you want if you buy your own land.  Taxpayers money goes to maintain that land.  Seeing you guys all strung out running around naked in the woods like madmen might freak out hikers.


----------



## shadow355

ChrisL said:


> You can do whatever you want if you buy your own land.  Taxpayers money goes to maintain that land.  Seeing you guys all strung out running around naked in the woods like madmen might freak out hikers.


 

 Sincerity is palpable !

 Secrecy......is the key to survival !

 " Make a circle and come back and ambush those whom plan on ambushing you." - Rogers Rules for Rangers.

            --------------------------------------------------------------

 Where I would go, there would be no hikers. Too secluded, to remote, and the property is crowded with trees.

  I don't run around the woods naked.

 One time I was driving home - there was...what appeared to be a new tree stuck, about 10 inches in diameter, stuck in the ground......in a corner near my house. Driving home up my road, making a right hand turn...that is near a gate....a new tree was stuck in the ground...like it just appeared. A few days later......the tree, which appeared to be a Oak tree judging by the bark.....was gone. A big tree, about 10 inches in diameter ( heavy ) was just up and gone ; and the ground was not tore up...or disturbed that I noticed.

  Hmmmmm, I am just guessing but was it an item ( the tree - fake tree - false piece of wood disguised as a tree ) that was used for surveillance? I believe so.

 Items....in the woods.....disguised as to be able to perform surveillance with. Audio and video surveillance performed in the woods.

 At my family farm......limbs near my camping and hunting spots placed in between two trees that are growing beside each other. Shotgun shells at my favorite squirrel hunting spots...means someone entered my parents farm and killed squirrels before I got there. Tree limbs placed against trees trunks at an angle, that were not there the last time I visited.

 At my family farm, boot prints...and what appears to be hiking shoe prints in the soft dirt in my hunting and camping areas. And locations where the grass, or weeds have been disturbed ; pushed forward...so someone has been walking on my parents farm, without permission.

 Tree bark scraped with an object or knife.....instead of deer horns, when the deer are marking their area. The tree bark has been disturbed, but no deer tracks around, NOR HAS ANY other the tree limbs been chewed on my deer.....like they do when they do "A rub".

Me.....walk through the woods naked. "I think not !"


  Shadow 355


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

DriftingSand said:


> I just finished watching a wilderness show where a man and wife spent almost a year living in the Idaho wilderness.  They were trekking through a huge National Forest in which homesteading has been completely outlawed (except for a sprinkling of back-woods homes that were "grandfathered in" prior to the law taking affect).  I was thinking that I would like to live in a place like that but will never have the opportunity because it's "against the law."
> 
> What do you think about the idea of allowing homesteading in such places as long as no roads, electricity, plumbing, shopping centers, gas stations, or any other reflections of "civilization" are allowed?  What if a person just wants to live off of the land and take what he needs to survive without the luxuries of urban sprawl?
> 
> What's RIGHT with that or what's WRONG with that?



  The thought of making it illegal makes my blood boil!!!!


----------



## WinterBorn

Even buying your own land, this would be next to impossible.   You still have to have an income in order to pay taxes on the land.

As for public lands being "homesteaded", there would be no way to control the number of people who used the land.  Yes, there are not going to be huge numbers of people trying to get away from it all.  But the numbers could be enough to do harm to the wilderness.  That doesn't take as much as you think.

Plus, for every actual "mountain man" who was living off the land, there would be dozens who would claim to want to do it just to gain access for a few months.  You would have to do away with hunting seasons, limits ect.  That would be very bad for the wilds.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

WinterBorn said:


> Even buying your own land, this would be next to impossible.   You still have to have an income in order to pay taxes on the land.
> 
> As for public lands being "homesteaded", there would be no way to control the number of people who used the land.  Yes, there are not going to be huge numbers of people trying to get away from it all.  But the numbers could be enough to do harm to the wilderness.  That doesn't take as much as you think.
> 
> Plus, for every actual "mountain man" who was living off the land, there would be dozens who would claim to want to do it just to gain access for a few months.  You would have to do away with hunting seasons, limits ect.  That would be very bad for the wilds.



  There is a solution to the the taxes. 
From what I understand you can give the tax man the property when you die in lieu of taxes.


----------



## shadow355

HereWeGoAgain said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just finished watching a wilderness show where a man and wife spent almost a year living in the Idaho wilderness.  They were trekking through a huge National Forest in which homesteading has been completely outlawed (except for a sprinkling of back-woods homes that were "grandfathered in" prior to the law taking affect).  I was thinking that I would like to live in a place like that but will never have the opportunity because it's "against the law."
> 
> What do you think about the idea of allowing homesteading in such places as long as no roads, electricity, plumbing, shopping centers, gas stations, or any other reflections of "civilization" are allowed?  What if a person just wants to live off of the land and take what he needs to survive without the luxuries of urban sprawl?
> 
> What's RIGHT with that or what's WRONG with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thought of making it illegal makes my blood boil!!!!
Click to expand...

 
 The last of October of this year, or the first of November, I plan on camping in the woods for vacation. We were supposed to get 10 days of vacation this year, due to three years service with the new contracted company. Well, as I have been told, the company rescinded the policy company wide. We still only get one week of( 40 hours ) vacation.

  Cheated and screwed over again....but some people in my department still get to take as much time as they want off YEAR ROUND. I am almost positive that if the tables were turned around.....that the people whom instituted that policy, and get more than one week vacation, would be just as discontented.

  Being done wrong and messed over, cheated and stabbed in the back. And no one in lower or midlevel leadership will standup and fight for the subordinates, for the subordinates benefits, pay and vacation.

    Shadow 355


----------



## shadow355

shadow355 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just finished watching a wilderness show where a man and wife spent almost a year living in the Idaho wilderness.  They were trekking through a huge National Forest in which homesteading has been completely outlawed (except for a sprinkling of back-woods homes that were "grandfathered in" prior to the law taking affect).  I was thinking that I would like to live in a place like that but will never have the opportunity because it's "against the law."
> 
> What do you think about the idea of allowing homesteading in such places as long as no roads, electricity, plumbing, shopping centers, gas stations, or any other reflections of "civilization" are allowed?  What if a person just wants to live off of the land and take what he needs to survive without the luxuries of urban sprawl?
> 
> What's RIGHT with that or what's WRONG with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thought of making it illegal makes my blood boil!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The last of October of this year, or the first of November, I plan on camping in the woods for vacation. A WELL DESERVED BREAK. My department was supposed to get 10 days of vacation this year, due to three years ofservice with the new contracted company. Well, as I have been told by my foreman, the company rescinded the ( vacation ) policy company wide. We still only get one week of( 40 hours ) vacation.
> 
> So, for a company that has been in business since 2003, does that mean that the people that has been with the company for four - five or six years...that all their vacation is null and void? Does that mean that those whom have been with the company since its inception...the vacation that they have accrued...the many weeks of time off....is null and void, FOR EVERYONE company wide?  That is very hard for me to believe. I am thinking it is just for our site only, but I might be wrong.
> 
> Cheated and screwed over again....but some people in my department still get to take as much time as they want off YEAR ROUND. I am almost positive that if the tables were turned around.....that the people whom instituted that policy, and get more than one week vacation, would be just as discontented.
> 
> Being done wrong and messed over, cheated and stabbed in the back. And no one in lower or midlevel leadership will standup and fight for the subordinates, for the subordinates benefits, pay and vacation.
> 
> Shadow 355
Click to expand...


----------



## Treeshepherd

*Dispersed Camping*
"_All National Forest lands are open to camping unless otherwise posted. The advantages to this type of camping are many: peace, solitude, and adventure. There are, however, a few 'drawbacks'. You'll need to have a fire permit, bring your own water or purify water from lakes, streams, or springs. Be sure to make your camp at least 100 feet from all water sources. Since there are no toilet facilities, please dig a hole at least six inches deep for disposal of your human waste_."

In California you're supposed to get a free wilderness permit to enter designated wilderness areas. In Oregon they didn't have any wilderness permitting system, last time I backpacked there. 

You're free to camp in the National Forest, unless otherwise posted. Conceivably, you actually could live in the wild legally. You already have that right. 

I was in the Inyo National Forest last week. They had a "no fires" posting, except in campgrounds within the established campfire rings. Perfectly reasonable. I stayed in two of those campgrounds which only had donation boxes for payment. The maximum stay was 14 days, but you can move from one campground to the other and reset your 14 days. In fact there was an 88 year old guy in a '70s motor-home doing just that. I gave him some food and a beer.


----------



## ChrisL

Why anyone would choose to live in the woods is beyond me.    I've watched that reality show with the old man who lives in the woods.  I think he must be kind of nuts.


----------



## Moonglow

Go to Alaska, many live off the grid...


----------



## webaholic.pat

I think it would be great for about a month...by then I should have a fair idea of what it would be like should the SHTF.
 I'd miss the internet & my audio books...I don't think I'd last too long without a couple of really good solar chargers. 
Most of us are spoiled to modern gadgets, but 50 years of my life included hunting, fishing, tenting...camping out in general.
Think I'll just stay home and tough it out.  ;o)


----------



## anotherlife

It would be nice if living in the wilderlines were still an option.  But humans have already crowded out every animal from the wilderliness , so the problem is academic.


----------

