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]

It would be against the spirit of Obama.

Freedom, in general, goes against his grain.

 

[Michelle420]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Go for it.

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

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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!!

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]

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

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]

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

Yes. If the mountain men are wild.

 

[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?

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.

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]

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.

Go for it.

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

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.