Should Men Have the Right to Live in the Wildnerness?

[Syriusly]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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