PDA

View Full Version : Living on the AT



Pages : [1] 2

Trailbender
09-10-2009, 08:39
I couldn't find any threads on this, but when I was hiking, I thought of this a few times. I have pretty good wilderness survival skills, and if I wasn't in college with student loans I considered selling my crap and just living there. I foraged for wild plants while I hiked, and noticed plenty of wild game that could be used to supplement my regular food. Even without that, if you were careful and just bought groceries, your money could last a long time, and you could get random short term jobs in towns. The only problem I could see with this is wintertime. Some parts of the AT would suck covered in ice. Has anyone seriously considered this?

Trailbender
09-10-2009, 16:15
119 views and no replies, odd.

Cool AT Breeze
09-10-2009, 16:20
I live on the trail. When I step out my door I step onto the AT.Everyone that walks the AT walks by my bedroom window. It's awesome, I feel privledged to live here. I know it's not the same as what you are asking but I do live on the trail.

Trailbender
09-10-2009, 16:39
I live on the trail. When I step out my door I step onto the AT.Everyone that walks the AT walks by my bedroom window. It's awesome, I feel privledged to live here. I know it's not the same as what you are asking but I do live on the trail.

So you live at mountain crossings? If you are the owner, I doubt you remember me, but I helped you at the store that day, we talked about guns, and life. I stayed both ways, and fondly remember the hostel. Sitting back and eating a box of Oreos while watching old James Bond movies.

Survivor Dave
09-10-2009, 16:40
I live on the trail. When I step out my door I step onto the AT.Everyone that walks the AT walks by my bedroom window. It's awesome, I feel privledged to live here. I know it's not the same as what you are asking but I do live on the trail.

And on the opposite side of the Trail you have flush toilets, laundry and showers, cut firewood, a Coke machine, pumpkins you forrage off the land in the fall, and a gear shop! That's what I call livin' on the Trail.:D Just kidding man.

Cool AT Breeze
09-10-2009, 16:49
So you live at mountain crossings? If you are the owner, I doubt you remember me, but I helped you at the store that day, we talked about guns, and life. I stayed both ways, and fondly remember the hostel. Sitting back and eating a box of Oreos while watching old James Bond movies.
No I'm not the owner, just staff.

Cool AT Breeze
09-10-2009, 16:50
And on the opposite side of the Trail you have flush toilets, laundry and showers, cut firewood, a Coke machine, pumpkins you forrage off the land in the fall, and a gear shop! That's what I call livin' on the Trail.:D Just kidding man.
I've got the best of both worlds.

Pedaling Fool
09-10-2009, 16:59
I couldn't find any threads on this, but when I was hiking, I thought of this a few times. I have pretty good wilderness survival skills, and if I wasn't in college with student loans I considered selling my crap and just living there. I foraged for wild plants while I hiked, and noticed plenty of wild game that could be used to supplement my regular food. Even without that, if you were careful and just bought groceries, your money could last a long time, and you could get random short term jobs in towns. The only problem I could see with this is wintertime. Some parts of the AT would suck covered in ice. Has anyone seriously considered this?
There are many places where you could just walk off the trail and keep walking, find a nice spot and no one would ever see you. But it would be boring as hell.

sbhikes
09-10-2009, 17:45
I met people on the PCT who live on the PCT. Not full time but enough that they feel like it's their life. They don't forage for food, though. That would be silly. You can't possibly get enough calories.

Jack Tarlin
09-10-2009, 17:52
"Living off the land", i.e. living off what you've trapped in snares or discovered while out mushrooming, etc., is a helluva lot more difficult and time consuming than most people think. You might be able to add a few things to your diet this way, but as far as "supplementing" your diet or making a meaningful contribution to a healthy diet, no, it isn't going to happen. Yoi can't live off toadstools, blueberries and the odd chipmunk, and it'd be unrealistic to think you could survive this way. People try this every year on the Trail. They're usually home in around four days when they get tired of begging food off prepared people.

Terraducky
09-10-2009, 17:56
I couldn't find any threads on this, but when I was hiking, I thought of this a few times. I have pretty good wilderness survival skills, and if I wasn't in college with student loans I considered selling my crap and just living there. I foraged for wild plants while I hiked, and noticed plenty of wild game that could be used to supplement my regular food. Even without that, if you were careful and just bought groceries, your money could last a long time, and you could get random short term jobs in towns. The only problem I could see with this is wintertime. Some parts of the AT would suck covered in ice. Has anyone seriously considered this?

This summer I met a homeless vet who does live on the AT. He wanders shelter to shelter in the mid-Atlantic area, and heads for the southern sections when winter hits...he actually has a rather rough life. Said he's met other homeless people along the way in his travels....

pafarmboy
09-10-2009, 19:01
Earlier this summer while Hiking NB out of GSMNP, about 1/2 mile before the I-40 crossing, I noticed a tentsite setup that looked like it had been there for quite a while. Didn't see anyone around, but it definitely looked like a "permanent" settlement.

Marta
09-10-2009, 19:14
Several years ago, when I was out for the weekend, I ran into a guy at Hogback Ridge Shelter. It was August, but he was wearing long underwear under his shorts, and had a big fire blazing around four in the afternoon. He had a very strong Maine accent. The story he told my husband was that he had walked away from his home in Millinocket about 18 months earlier, had hiked to Georgia, then turned around and hiked north; spent the winter tenting in Walker Gap (didn't ask which one), and then had been hiking all summer. He said he was heading back to Walker Gap for the winter.

I have also run into a few homeless people who were living in shelters. Several years ago, while I was doing some trail maintenance, I talked to a homeless man who was hiking shelter to shelter. Tears came into his eyes when he talked about how nice people were to hikers, as compared to how they treat homeless people in cities.

It chills me, though, to think about Gary Michael Hilton living at Rock Gap Shelter.

http://blogs.discovery.com/bizarre/2009/07/gary-michael-hilton-and-missing-miami-woman.html

Bearpaw
09-10-2009, 19:19
There is definitely a handful of homeless folks who basically live up and down sections of the trail year round. I've run into one around the Franklin, NC area and there are at least a couple in and around the Damascus area.

The one I met draws a small disability check each month that keeps him in groceries. It beats living in an alley and panhandling.

Crazy Larry #1
09-10-2009, 19:30
I couldn't find any threads on this, but when I was hiking, I thought of this a few times. I have pretty good wilderness survival skills, and if I wasn't in college with student loans I considered selling my crap and just living there. I foraged for wild plants while I hiked, and noticed plenty of wild game that could be used to supplement my regular food. Even without that, if you were careful and just bought groceries, your money could last a long time, and you could get random short term jobs in towns. The only problem I could see with this is wintertime. Some parts of the AT would suck covered in ice. Has anyone seriously considered this?
I seriously lived like this for three years on the trail while I was dodging the law. I never foraged the land though but for a few times. I learned real fast that the Indians and our forefathers had to have had it pretty rough by living off of the land. And another thing I learned real fast is that I had to become very frugal with my money, I basically lived on $40.00 a week give or take here and there.

When it comes to winter survival you have to have the niceties to live in those conditions because whatever you do you want to stay as warm as possible. For instance a good tent with a lot of room is great, I had and still have a Mt Hardware Kiva Midpole. A big tent but you will have enough room to keep you and your winter gear in it plus the walls are just thick enuf to keep the wind off of you and you can cook in it as well. I also used an heavy duty emergency blanket for ground cover of which I laid my therma-rest on and my sleepin bag was a Kelty 0 degree hallofill. Do not attempt to live in winter conditions with a down bag, always use a hallofill becasue you can climb into the thing with ice hanging from you and be warm within a short time and in most cases dry in the morning because the moisture will have evaporated from you.

When it comes to gloves I found that a good pair of Army wool gloves worked best with a pair of Gortex mittens for really cold conditions, you want to keep your fingers as close as possible and the wind off of your hands for your hands to stay warm.

When it comes to clothing you'll want good moisture wicking clothing and you will want to layer up. So I am gonna say that you will need to carry at least three pair of everything.

I used Vasque Sundowners for boots and Smartwool socks of which I would put two pair on while hiking and would usually add another pair at night for warmth. Always keep your boots in the tent with you and next too you so they can stay thawed out.

Also keep you water bottles in your sleeping bag while you sleep so they will not get frozen.

When it comes to food, you'll want mostly instant snacks and meals.

I could probably tell you a few other things but the best teacher is to just get out there and do it.

Trailbender
09-10-2009, 20:42
"Living off the land", i.e. living off what you've trapped in snares or discovered while out mushrooming, etc., is a helluva lot more difficult and time consuming than most people think. You might be able to add a few things to your diet this way, but as far as "supplementing" your diet or making a meaningful contribution to a healthy diet, no, it isn't going to happen. Yoi can't live off toadstools, blueberries and the odd chipmunk, and it'd be unrealistic to think you could survive this way. People try this every year on the Trail. They're usually home in around four days when they get tired of begging food off prepared people.

I have done it, there is plenty of things to forage on the AT, plantwise.

JoshStover
09-10-2009, 21:14
Just watch "Into The Wild" and you will see what happens when you get hungry and go crazy.

Tinker
09-10-2009, 21:26
Nope. You can't do it - at least if you're hiking.
The closest thing to living off the land you could get away with (as long as the local and state laws don't prohibit trapping) is to snare some small animals for food while you live near a lake and fish. Edible greens aren't abundant in the woods, but you can find them in clearings (dandilion greens are wonderful, as is plantain, which looks similar, but without flowers).
Berry season is probably the best time to try this.
In the winter you will simply die. :)

tammons
09-10-2009, 21:33
If man could make a sucessful living at scavanging and hunting, we never would have changed from hunter gatherers to an argirculture society.

Fact is to go out into the wild and trap and kill your own food via the mountain men and whatnot and live off the land is extremely difficult.

You will be eating a lot of rabbits and squirrels for sure.

To do it succesfully IMO you would spend about 5-10 ++ hours a day hunting and gathering and expend a lot of calories doing it.

Captn
09-10-2009, 21:58
Billy Goat on the PCT spends every season hiking one of the long trails.

He works odd jobs in the winter to save enough to hike on next season.

I've thought about it ... especially if you have a small pension or are trying to live on Social Security .... you could really stretch your dollars.

No car or car payment, no house or house payment, no electric bill .....

Say you retire early with a small pension. It's not enough to live on but you could bank most of it for 5 or 10 years and end up with a little nest egg about the time your social security kicks in.

Then buy a little piece of southern land that no one likes and build a small cabin, raise a few goats to get the agriculture tax break and sell a few off in the fall.

Buy broken solar cells and a soldering iron to build about 200 watts worth of budget solar cells to cover the cost of a some of your electricity by selling it back to the electric company.

Go hike whenever you want.

Of course, it may be a bit lonely at times .....

atraildreamer
09-10-2009, 22:03
Just watch "Into The Wild" and you will see what happens when you get hungry and go crazy.

IMHO, he was crazy when he started. That 20k+ he gave away could have kept him going a long time.

Captn
09-10-2009, 22:13
There are two primary problems with hunting/gathering.

1.) Limited diet, especially in cold weather.

2.) A given section of land will not support a very large population unless you introduce agriculture.

A few may be able to live this way, but if a large number of people tried it you would quickly run out of resources.

Native people became warriors not because they were bloodthirsty but because they were competing for the same resources. Exclusive resources equaled life for the tribe.

The problem is compounded today because there is a higher proportion of herbivores wandering around the wild since society has reduced the number of natural predators. I watched a special on Discovery that said that there are more than 250 Million deer living in this country today, a much higher number than what would occur in a balanced ecosystem like in Alaska.

You would be competing with these animals for food and they've got the edge.


If man could make a sucessful living at scavanging and hunting, we never would have changed from hunter gatherers to an argirculture society.

Fact is to go out into the wild and trap and kill your own food via the mountain men and whatnot and live off the land is extremely difficult.

You will be eating a lot of rabbits and squirrels for sure.

To do it succesfully IMO you would spend about 5-10 ++ hours a day hunting and gathering and expend a lot of calories doing it.

XCskiNYC
09-10-2009, 22:27
There is definitely a handful of homeless folks who basically live up and down sections of the trail year round. I've run into one around the Franklin, NC area and there are at least a couple in and around the Damascus area.

The one I met draws a small disability check each month that keeps him in groceries. It beats living in an alley and panhandling.


I was wondering about this while staying at Graymoor because it's only an hour from the city by train ($15.00 full fare one-way). It'd probably be a homeless person who already had done some (voluntary) camping and hiking who would do something like this. But as long as somebody had a disability check to stay in groceries and the like, sleeping in a tent at Graymoor would seem a better option than sleeping on the sidewalk, in a shelter, or in an SRO (which are pretty expensive anyway).

OTOH, at Graymoor one would be a distance from medical care, social services, and pretty much everything else except for trees, hikers, and the pizza delivery guy. In fact, there is a sizable town (small city really) less than 10 miles from Graymoor -- Peekskill.

This thread brings up an interesting question of who is a "hiker," who can stay in a shelter or camping area, how long somebody can stay. AFAIK there are now no limits on these things though I have read that some parks on the southern half of the trail do actually have certain criterion as to what exactly makes one a thru-hiker.

double d
09-11-2009, 00:39
There is a reason why earlier humans had to domesticate animals and then institute farming into our early human culture, its because each human basically needs about 2,000 calories a day and living off the land in modern American society just ain't gonna do it, especially on the AT. With that said, you have had a lot of diverse training from the Army and your still young, so why not try it if you can afford it? Could be an interesting experience for you, but just don't end up like Jeremiah Johnson did by eating live crawfish while your starving during the middle of the winter!

swift
09-11-2009, 00:53
There is a reason why earlier humans had to domesticate animals and then institute farming into our early human culture


You have to stay in one place to make beer.

fiddlehead
09-11-2009, 03:21
It depends what you would be willing to eat.
I've seen Burmese immigrant workers in Thailand totally living off of frogs, lizards and birds that they either catch with poles and string or shoot with slingshots. I see this almost weekly in fact.
Their women go out in swamps and collect edible plants to mix in and they do buy some spices like hot peppers, and garlic.
They not only survive on this food but work construction (hard work) and need calories.
Of course edible plants are more abundant in Thailand and so are frogs and lizards but I would be willing to bet that these people could hike the trail and live off the land. (of course i doubt they would want to because they are not doing these things for fun, but in order to make a living and send money home)

yaduck9
09-11-2009, 10:51
Living off the land 101;





http://www.dickproenneke.com/

Pedaling Fool
09-11-2009, 11:09
"Living off the land", i.e. living off what you've trapped in snares or discovered while out mushrooming, etc., is a helluva lot more difficult and time consuming than most people think. You might be able to add a few things to your diet this way, but as far as "supplementing" your diet or making a meaningful contribution to a healthy diet, no, it isn't going to happen. Yoi can't live off toadstools, blueberries and the odd chipmunk, and it'd be unrealistic to think you could survive this way. People try this every year on the Trail. They're usually home in around four days when they get tired of begging food off prepared people.


I have done it, there is plenty of things to forage on the AT, plantwise.
What have you done? Hiked the trail while living off the land OR Just live off the land?

I'm sure you could, as well as others just live off the land, i.e. walk off the trail say about 10 miles or so and just live, but hiking the trail, while living off the land would be very difficult to do in one season. Not saying it's impossible, but most would fail miserably.

As Jack said above, living off the land would be tough, (Note: I'm talking about just LIVING OFF THE LAND). Look at wildlife, that's what the do and they have a tough time doing, many die just trying to live off the land. All of them spend a vast majority of their waking moments eating (searching for food). If you attempt to live off the land your diet will suffer, that's why we humans didn't live nearly as long as we do today and that's also why domesticated animals live longer than their wild counterparts.

Primitive
09-11-2009, 11:35
I met people on the PCT who live on the PCT. Not full time but enough that they feel like it's their life. They don't forage for food, though. That would be silly. You can't possibly get enough calories.

Of course it's possible to get enough calories by foraging. Agriculture is only 10,000 years old.

Although, if your implication is that a non-indigenous person with no extensive training in botany/bushcraft would find it impossible, then I would probably agree.

envirodiver
09-11-2009, 11:47
There is definitely a handful of homeless folks who basically live up and down sections of the trail year round. I've run into one around the Franklin, NC area and there are at least a couple in and around the Damascus area.

The one I met draws a small disability check each month that keeps him in groceries. It beats living in an alley and panhandling.


So true. It would be much better and safer to live in the woods than it would be to set that same tent up under a bridge in downtown Nashville.

Trailbender
09-11-2009, 11:56
What have you done? Hiked the trail while living off the land OR Just live off the land?



I supplemented my diet while hiking the first 200 miles of the AT with foraged plants. I have a decent amount of bushcraft training, and knowing edible plants. I am by no means an expert, but pretty well knowledgeable.

partinj
09-11-2009, 12:03
Hi you can live off the land if you use your brain a buddy of mine and me have a winter camp setup in Aberdeen. We have box traps and dead falls to we got many deers with the dead falls we had been at this for around 5 years now. We have all kind of good food and have gain weight while out in the woods. The reason most folk can't do it is they
don't have the mind set for it or the skills to do it.

PSy BaSS
09-11-2009, 12:09
i'm interested to know how many of you folks use any amount of bushcraft at camp when hiking? i have an interest in this area and like to experiment when i have some down time. i was wondering if people actually use their skills when they have all the so called luxuries in their packs. is it energy wasted or time well spent?

Survivor Dave
09-11-2009, 12:29
Living off the land 101;


http://www.dickproenneke.com/

He did for the most part, but had re-supplies flown in periodically.

Jester2000
09-11-2009, 13:26
I supplemented my diet while hiking the first 200 miles of the AT with foraged plants. I have a decent amount of bushcraft training, and knowing edible plants. I am by no means an expert, but pretty well knowledgeable.

As I'm sure you know, there's a big difference between supplementing one's diet and living off the land. Just about everyone I knew on the PCT supplemented their diet with berries. None of us would have been capable of living off the land while hiking, not even the guy whose trail name was "Forager."


Hi you can live off the land if you use your brain a buddy of mine and me have a winter camp setup in Aberdeen. We have box traps and dead falls to we got many deers with the dead falls we had been at this for around 5 years now. We have all kind of good food and have gain weight while out in the woods. The reason most folk can't do it is they
don't have the mind set for it or the skills to do it.

Actually, the reason people on the trail can't do it (and that's what I think we're talking about here) is because they aren't in a fixed camp like you and your buddy. Hikers could have the right mind set and skills, but unless they don't plan on getting anywhere they'd have to hike. Which sort of prevents one from going back to traps that have been set.

So you're left with foraging, which would be possible during some times of the year, but still wouldn't get you enough calories to keep hiking and would slow you down considerably. Herbivores and even more omniverous animals (such as bear) spend most of their time awake trying to find food. Hikers spend most of theirs hiking or being exhausted from hiking.

Pedaling Fool
09-11-2009, 16:31
Yeah...what Jester said.

tscoffey
09-11-2009, 16:47
Of course edible plants are more abundant in Thailand and so are frogs and lizards

Thailand's growing period is year-round, so perhaps change that to far more abundant.

Pedaling Fool
09-11-2009, 16:53
Another problem with living off the land is that you're more at the mercy of nature. It is believed this is why we exited Africa, due to severe climate change that screwed up the food chain. So no matter where you live eventually you'll have to migrate to survive...or just go to town:D

Marta
09-11-2009, 17:47
Another problem with living off the land along the AT is that, in many places, it is strictly forbidden (National and State Parks) and highly regulated (state game lands). Should it actually be hunting season and you're on land where you can hunt, there will be lots of competition. In SW Virginia I encountered a game warden looking for the person who had shot a bear out of season. As deer season progressed, the deer in the woods became fewer and fewer.

Just a Hiker
09-11-2009, 18:16
I agree with many of the comments......."living off the land" on the AT isn't very practical, and wouldn't leave alot of time for actual hiking as hunting and foraging will take up most of your time. Even the homeless folks that live in some of the shelters along the AT go to town for food and supplies. There are several shelters and lean-to's along the AT that almost always have fulltime residents, and they will tell you that they get very little food from the trail itself.

Panzer1
09-11-2009, 20:49
I'm thinking that it would be illegal to hunt animals while living on the Appalachian trail. There are so many hunting laws...

Panzer

Panzer1
09-11-2009, 20:59
He did for the most part, but had re-supplies flown in periodically.

He actually had a lot of supplies flown in. When you look at his resupply list it was extensive. He only was able to live there because of air supply which was relatively expensive. He received monthly disability checks which he used to pay for the supplies.

He did have a garden and was able to grow 4 different vegetables but it was a small garden. with a short growing season. He was able to hunt and fish legally for all his fresh meat needs.

Panzer

Not Sunshine
09-11-2009, 21:15
no whiteblaze if you live on the trail....

ATBuddy
09-11-2009, 22:21
I couldn't find any threads on this, but when I was hiking, I thought of this a few times. I have pretty good wilderness survival skills, and if I wasn't in college with student loans I considered selling my crap and just living there. I foraged for wild plants while I hiked, and noticed plenty of wild game that could be used to supplement my regular food. Even without that, if you were careful and just bought groceries, your money could last a long time, and you could get random short term jobs in towns. The only problem I could see with this is wintertime. Some parts of the AT would suck covered in ice. Has anyone seriously considered this?

If you become a Back-country national park ranger or a US Forest Service LEO , you can get paid to live in the woods, and carry a gun and protect the land at the same time. That's what I plan on doing.

drastic_quench
09-12-2009, 01:08
I think the trick to truly living off the land with no agriculture is numbers. Early Indians and pre-agricultural humans in the rest of the world hand tribes, clans, etc. If the fisherman struck out, the gathers would still have vegetables or fruit, or the hunters would succeed. Meanwhile, others spent the day gathering wood, cooking tanning leather, skinning animals, building shelters, etc. Community can ease the extreme hardship of living off the land. In all but the most forgiving and ideal environments, there's too few hours in the day and easily available calories for solo survival. Maybe that's why banishment used to be the ultimate punishment.

Marta
09-12-2009, 07:10
I think the trick to truly living off the land with no agriculture is numbers. Early Indians and pre-agricultural humans in the rest of the world hand tribes, clans, etc. If the fisherman struck out, the gathers would still have vegetables or fruit, or the hunters would succeed. Meanwhile, others spent the day gathering wood, cooking tanning leather, skinning animals, building shelters, etc. Community can ease the extreme hardship of living off the land. In all but the most forgiving and ideal environments, there's too few hours in the day and easily available calories for solo survival. Maybe that's why banishment used to be the ultimate punishment.

Very good point.

Another person who has made a serious attempt to live off the land (including while hiking the AT) is Eustace Conway. (See the book The Last American Man.) One way he and his followers round out the diets, when they run out of other food, is dumpster diving.

Alligator
09-12-2009, 07:19
Not dumpster diving--urban foraging.

Old Hillwalker
09-12-2009, 07:23
There is a group in Vermont living totally off the land with virtually no contact with civilization.

Check out the movie "Luggage of the Gods" that was made in Vermont as a documentary ;)

Wise Old Owl
09-12-2009, 09:11
I'm thinking that it would be illegal to hunt animals while living on the Appalachian trail. There are so many hunting laws...

Panzer

Wait - living on the trail, steath camping, and nobody around to really enforce the leagality of you picking up a meal? There are not enough animals and food sources today to do it. I am not saying it cannot be done, but after watching goofy Les Stroud starve himself each week you gotta love gorp!:p

As for dumpster diving, - folks are already doing it behind supermarkets everywhere-times are tough! Remember Eric Robert Rudolph, is the offical hands down "Hide & Seek Winner" until he was caught dumpster diving.

yaduck9
09-28-2009, 10:26
"America, love it or leave it"







Spiro Agnew :eek:

Doctari
09-29-2009, 07:56
In all the hiking I have done over the years, Foraged stuff I have eaten: 4 blueberries, about 1 lb of Oxallis (also known as "Sour grass"), a few pounds each of raspberries & blackberries & 2 M&Ms. Spread out over+ 40 years & a few thousand miles, that aint a lot of calories / mile. :) So I agree that foraging
and hiking isn't doable if you plan on doing miles.

But as to living on the trail; that is my plan if "anything happens to my wife". I'll sell the house & everything not hiking related & hit the AT Ill start at Springer & end at Springer. When done with that; the PCT, maybe also both ways, then: the CDT, Long trail, West highland way (Scotland) etc.

DirtBagger
09-29-2009, 09:14
Foraging - I think not. Be more creative.

I see these dudes at the exit off ramp from I 40 near my house - with a sign that says "need help" - and folks give them money every once in a while. If you could figure a way to hit drivers up for a little cash you could resupply and keep moving. I bet on a good day - especially around Xmas time - those little signs might bring in a hundred dollars or more.

I think it is has potential. What would suck is when you needed enough money to buy a new a bag or pack. I guess you could try and plan a gear replacement near Neels Gap - that way when someone gets their pack checked out and they start tossing gear you might be able to pick it up cheap.
Another option is the WB forum. I have never met such generous folks any where else in my life. All the help and support that comes off this board is incredible.
Maybe you could come up with a rough plan - then work out the kinks as you go.

Tipi Walter
09-29-2009, 09:39
I couldn't find any threads on this, but when I was hiking, I thought of this a few times. I have pretty good wilderness survival skills, and if I wasn't in college with student loans I considered selling my crap and just living there. I foraged for wild plants while I hiked, and noticed plenty of wild game that could be used to supplement my regular food. Even without that, if you were careful and just bought groceries, your money could last a long time, and you could get random short term jobs in towns. The only problem I could see with this is wintertime. Some parts of the AT would suck covered in ice. Has anyone seriously considered this?

This is a good thread and a good conversation. All young men should consider the option of going back to the stone age, if only partially. It's our roots.


"Living off the land", i.e. living off what you've trapped in snares or discovered while out mushrooming, etc., is a helluva lot more difficult and time consuming than most people think. You might be able to add a few things to your diet this way, but as far as "supplementing" your diet or making a meaningful contribution to a healthy diet, no, it isn't going to happen. Yoi can't live off toadstools, blueberries and the odd chipmunk, and it'd be unrealistic to think you could survive this way. People try this every year on the Trail. They're usually home in around four days when they get tired of begging food off prepared people.

But it is possible to set up a semi-permanent shelter and live outdoors for years with a minimum amount of work or money. You already know this.


I seriously lived like this for three years on the trail while I was dodging the law. I never foraged the land though but for a few times. I learned real fast that the Indians and our forefathers had to have had it pretty rough by living off of the land. And another thing I learned real fast is that I had to become very frugal with my money, I basically lived on $40.00 a week give or take here and there.

When it comes to winter survival you have to have the niceties to live in those conditions because whatever you do you want to stay as warm as possible. For instance a good tent with a lot of room is great, I had and still have a Mt Hardware Kiva Midpole. A big tent but you will have enough room to keep you and your winter gear in it plus the walls are just thick enuf to keep the wind off of you and you can cook in it as well. I also used an heavy duty emergency blanket for ground cover of which I laid my therma-rest on and my sleepin bag was a Kelty 0 degree hallofill. Do not attempt to live in winter conditions with a down bag, always use a hallofill becasue you can climb into the thing with ice hanging from you and be warm within a short time and in most cases dry in the morning because the moisture will have evaporated from you.

When it comes to gloves I found that a good pair of Army wool gloves worked best with a pair of Gortex mittens for really cold conditions, you want to keep your fingers as close as possible and the wind off of your hands for your hands to stay warm.

When it comes to clothing you'll want good moisture wicking clothing and you will want to layer up. So I am gonna say that you will need to carry at least three pair of everything.

I used Vasque Sundowners for boots and Smartwool socks of which I would put two pair on while hiking and would usually add another pair at night for warmth. Always keep your boots in the tent with you and next too you so they can stay thawed out.

Also keep you water bottles in your sleeping bag while you sleep so they will not get frozen.

When it comes to food, you'll want mostly instant snacks and meals.

I could probably tell you a few other things but the best teacher is to just get out there and do it.

I like this post and it reminds me of several things. "Necessity is the mother of invention" comes to mind. Did you do your 3 years on the AT? That's one option, along with other places like National Forests and on private land with willing land owners. Then you can forego the temporary tent structure and put up something more substantial like a yurt or a tipi or a hogan, etc. Having a woodstove helps. I always preferred a down bag instead of synthetic, that's just my thing.


If man could make a sucessful living at scavanging and hunting, we never would have changed from hunter gatherers to an argirculture society.

Fact is to go out into the wild and trap and kill your own food via the mountain men and whatnot and live off the land is extremely difficult.

You will be eating a lot of rabbits and squirrels for sure.

To do it succesfully IMO you would spend about 5-10 ++ hours a day hunting and gathering and expend a lot of calories doing it.

Uh, maybe no one's told you, but humans have been living as hunter-gatherers for about 200,000 years, only recently have we become farmers.


Another problem with living off the land along the AT is that, in many places, it is strictly forbidden (National and State Parks) and highly regulated (state game lands). Should it actually be hunting season and you're on land where you can hunt, there will be lots of competition. In SW Virginia I encountered a game warden looking for the person who had shot a bear out of season. As deer season progressed, the deer in the woods became fewer and fewer.

But it's still possible to live permanently out on public land with 2 week stays and camp movement to another place. The hunter/gathering dilemma is simple to solve: be a vegetarian and cache big bags of lentils and rice with some salt. You can augment this diet with wild edibles like mustard greens and chickweed and lambs quarters. Go to town every 2 or 3 weeks for whatever you can afford: cheese, butter, fruit, peanut butter. One large bag of oatmeal is also a lifesaver and can be cached along with the beans and rice. Survival is simple, it's finding the willingness to live like this that is hard. What to do for money? If living out like this is important enough, you'll do ANYTHING short of crime: street music with a hat, play bongos on the sidewalk in town, get food stamps(and you just may qualify), find temporary work or a steady one-day-a-week job. I was a janitor at a small local church for one day a week and this supplied enough money for food. Hitched the 10 miles from my tipi to town to work.


Very good point.

Another person who has made a serious attempt to live off the land (including while hiking the AT) is Eustace Conway. (See the book The Last American Man.) One way he and his followers round out the diets, when they run out of other food, is dumpster diving.

I've been out to Eustace's camps on several occasions, one time when he lived in a Tipi on Howards Creek road outside of Boone, NC. He had a neat woodstove setup with a circling inside stovepipe pushing out heat inside the lodge. He also had a car battery for his tape deck music. I traded him a pair of binoculars for a plaid wool shirt.

We used to dumpster dive together and he had a little dirt bike with a milk crate attached to the back so he could haul his dumpster food. I would occasionally get into a dumpster and find old Eustace inside going thru the cheese and cakes and loose grapes. The mother lode. He told me one time a story of going thru a dumpster and someone throwing in a big jug of something and it hit him on the head. I can't remember if he said it knocked him out or not. It's amazing the amount of food Americans discard.

Pedaling Fool
09-29-2009, 11:21
Uh, maybe no one's told you, but humans have been living as hunter-gatherers for about 200,000 years, only recently have we become farmers.
Not a good way to live, that's why we now farm and will never go back. So, does farming disqualify one from the title of "Living off the Land"?


But it's still possible to live permanently out on public land with 2 week stays and camp movement to another place. The hunter/gathering dilemma is simple to solve: be a vegetarian and cache big bags of lentils and rice with some salt. You can augment this diet with wild edibles like mustard greens and chickweed and lambs quarters. Go to town every 2 or 3 weeks for whatever you can afford: cheese, butter, fruit, peanut butter. One large bag of oatmeal is also a lifesaver and can be cached along with the beans and rice. Survival is simple, it's finding the willingness to live like this that is hard. What to do for money? If living out like this is important enough, you'll do ANYTHING short of crime: street music with a hat, play bongos on the sidewalk in town, get food stamps(and you just may qualify), find temporary work or a steady one-day-a-week job. I was a janitor at a small local church for one day a week and this supplied enough money for food. Hitched the 10 miles from my tipi to town to work.

You say it's possible to live permanently on public lands, but your example is NOT permanent. Living off the land precludes living off society – in any way – at least in my view.


I've been out to Eustace's camps on several occasions, one time when he lived in a Tipi on Howards Creek road outside of Boone, NC. He had a neat woodstove setup with a circling inside stovepipe pushing out heat inside the lodge. He also had a car battery for his tape deck music. I traded him a pair of binoculars for a plaid wool shirt.

We used to dumpster dive together and he had a little dirt bike with a milk crate attached to the back so he could haul his dumpster food. I would occasionally get into a dumpster and find old Eustace inside going thru the cheese and cakes and loose grapes. The mother lode. He told me one time a story of going thru a dumpster and someone throwing in a big jug of something and it hit him on the head. I can't remember if he said it knocked him out or not. It's amazing the amount of food Americans discard.
This is not living off the land, it's just less creature comforts. I guess we need to define what constitues "Living off the Land". I would count farming as living off the land, but I'm confused of your definition, since you pointed out that humans lived for at time without farming.

But this can get messy, sort of like defining a thru-hiker. Example: If one farms with a personal tractor does that disqualify them; must they only farm with home made tools, and those homemade tools must be something they found in nature, not something fabricated from things previously manufactured from society.

Depending on one's definition, living off the land can be either very difficult or just a major inconvenience.

Tipi Walter
09-29-2009, 11:58
You say it's possible to live permanently on public lands, but your example is NOT permanent. Living off the land precludes living off society – in any way – at least in my view.


In this day and age of human extermination towards any large group of people who want to live and stay on their land in a primitive way(i.e. North American Indian removal--modern day South American Indians), I'd say any attempt with any amount of compromise is okay, and is usually done solo or with a very small group. Numbers attract attention(read Cherokee history). We live in a time when humans are not encouraged to live outdoors and in tents, so any effort made in this regard is countered with rules and regulations, such as a two week stay on public land and then moving a mile for another 2 week stay. I've seen car-bound hobo types who follow this rule when they car-camp in national forests, they just move every two weeks. A backpacker/primitivist can do the same. It's called Compromise in the Age of the Nanny State Tent Police. We do what we can.

If that means hauling in a canvas tipi or caching 50lbs of beans and rice or working a couple days a week for cash or using Walmart plastic tarps to set up a forest basecamp, so what? The people who insist on following some pure definition of what it means to live off the land are probably people who have never come close to trying it. And in their minds if they can't approach "perfection" it gives them the excuse to never try. But the call of the stone age is strong and we'll always have neanderthal types hungry for the simple life along a snow covered ridge.

Here's what I can't figure out: When the U.S. set up national parks and wilderness areas, and did all they could to return the land back to its primitive state(minus the rolling RV tourists), and then introduced the bison and the wolves onto the land, why didn't they let the Blackfeet or the Salish or the Crow Indians remain as part of the ecosystem and biosphere? Weren't they there in groups along with the buffalo? Proof of the nanny state tent police in action.

Tipi Walter
09-29-2009, 12:17
Depending on one's definition, living off the land can be either very difficult or just a major inconvenience.

Here's my definition of living off the land, circa the new millenium:
** Paying no rent.
** Havng no electricity.
** Living in a simple shelter like a self-made tipi or a commercial tent or Wall tent or Yurt or Witu, etc. Bedouin Tent? Sure, why not?
** Hauling your own water or having a spring within walking distance.
** Using wood for heat.
** Either be mobile like in the NF with 2 week moves or permanently ensconced on private land(buy an acre/a friend with 40 acres and you take the most remote spot and cut a foot trail to it).
** Pulling all four seasons outdoors and getting the all-important bag nights.
** Foregoing a meat diet and caching beans and grains, and learning enough local plant edibles to augment meals. Beans and grains, stuff like rice and lentils, are very cheap in bulk and go a long way. Having a woodstove supplies a cooking service along with heat. Bowsaws are sacred.

Side Definitions are helpful:
** Have no car sitting around at some trailhead to alert authorities.
** Hitch to town or have a bicycle stashed away or small motorbike or dirtbike.
** Work minimally with fractionally part time work.

Obviously, the whole goal is to have no debt and no bills, period. Except food and peripheral stuff like q-tips and toothpaste. It amazes me that the curse of the Overbuilt House consumes so many people, making them economic slaves with 30 year loans, when in fact a fantastic shelter can be built and permanently lived in for around $500 to a $1000.

And my last point is to your point: Very difficult and a major inconvenience? Ask anyone who has wintered over in a tipi or a yurt or a big tent about how difficult it was and I bet they'll recollect fondly on the experience. Living on the land vs living off the land? You can do both, and compromises must be made to do either successfully nowadays.

Jester2000
09-29-2009, 12:39
In the same vein of believing that people can hike however they please but choosing to call that "thru-hiking" becomes problematic, I think there are a lot of things people can do to live their life in a simple manner that just can't be called "living off the land."

Caching food bought in town is that kind of thing. I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't do something a particular way. There's merit in a lot of the things mentioned.

Thoreau was at Walden Pond, for example, as an exercise in self-reliance, independence, economy, and simplicity, but many people are surprised at how close his cabin is to Concord. He went into town every couple of days to get news, enjoy the company of friends, and buy food, much like hikers hitting town every few days. That he was not truly living off the land in the middle of a wilderness doesn't make his writings less interesting or inspirational.

Tipi Walter
09-29-2009, 12:50
In the same vein of believing that people can hike however they please but choosing to call that "thru-hiking" becomes problematic, I think there are a lot of things people can do to live their life in a simple manner that just can't be called "living off the land."

Caching food bought in town is that kind of thing. I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't do something a particular way. There's merit in a lot of the things mentioned.

Thoreau was at Walden Pond, for example, as an exercise in self-reliance, independence, economy, and simplicity, but many people are surprised at how close his cabin is to Concord. He went into town every couple of days to get news, enjoy the company of friends, and buy food, much like hikers hitting town every few days. That he was not truly living off the land in the middle of a wilderness doesn't make his writings less interesting or inspirational.

Thoreau was only out for 2 years doing his little experiment. Why not 40? He's always brought up as a paragon of simple outdoor living, and yet all around him were Indians doing much better at it in larger groups and with much more success.

The Weasel
09-29-2009, 12:58
Am I the only one noticing a bit of incongruity involving an apostle of "go live in the woods" without electricity who has over 2,000 posts on a computer forum?:-?

TW

max patch
09-29-2009, 13:09
Am I the only one noticing a bit of incongruity involving an apostle of "go live in the woods" without electricity who has over 2,000 posts on a computer forum?:-?

TW

Good point.

Trooper
09-29-2009, 14:24
Aren't there jobs out there as professional gear testers? I guess that would be a pretty cool gig because you get to camp/backpack/etc for a living and get paid for it...

Tipi Walter
09-29-2009, 16:00
Am I the only one noticing a bit of incongruity involving an apostle of "go live in the woods" without electricity who has over 2,000 posts on a computer forum?:-?

TW

Use a thorn to pull a thorn. And anyway, this reliance on electricity is temporary and elusive. A short-term human construct. Who knows, maybe some Cro-Magnon wannabe reads this thread and decides to hit the trail for a very long while. Thorn pulls a thorn,etc.

Pedaling Fool
09-29-2009, 17:36
Here's what I can't figure out: When the U.S. set up national parks and wilderness areas, and did all they could to return the land back to its primitive state(minus the rolling RV tourists), and then introduced the bison and the wolves onto the land, why didn't they let the Blackfeet or the Salish or the Crow Indians remain as part of the ecosystem and biosphere? Weren't they there in groups along with the buffalo? Proof of the nanny state tent police in action.
Simple fact is no one, including Indians, want to live off the land for any period of time, certainly not for the rest of their lives. Hippies tried this back in the 60’s living in communes and NOT even entirely living off the land, yet they all failed miserably. Indians are no different, we’re all humans and we’re all the same beings.

Here's my definition of living off the land, circa the new millenium:
** Paying no rent.
** Havng no electricity.
** Living in a simple shelter like a self-made tipi or a commercial tent or Wall tent or Yurt or Witu, etc. Bedouin Tent? Sure, why not?
** Hauling your own water or having a spring within walking distance.
** Using wood for heat.
** Either be mobile like in the NF with 2 week moves or permanently ensconced on private land(buy an acre/a friend with 40 acres and you take the most remote spot and cut a foot trail to it).
** Pulling all four seasons outdoors and getting the all-important bag nights.
** Foregoing a meat diet and caching beans and grains, and learning enough local plant edibles to augment meals. Beans and grains, stuff like rice and lentils, are very cheap in bulk and go a long way. Having a woodstove supplies a cooking service along with heat. Bowsaws are sacred.

Side Definitions are helpful:
** Have no car sitting around at some trailhead to alert authorities.
** Hitch to town or have a bicycle stashed away or small motorbike or dirtbike.
** Work minimally with fractionally part time work.

Obviously, the whole goal is to have no debt and no bills, period. Except food and peripheral stuff like q-tips and toothpaste. It amazes me that the curse of the Overbuilt House consumes so many people, making them economic slaves with 30 year loans, when in fact a fantastic shelter can be built and permanently lived in for around $500 to a $1000.

And my last point is to your point: Very difficult and a major inconvenience? Ask anyone who has wintered over in a tipi or a yurt or a big tent about how difficult it was and I bet they'll recollect fondly on the experience. Living on the land vs living off the land? You can do both, and compromises must be made to do either successfully nowadays.
Really we can’t talk to one another about this subject because our definitions of "Living off the Land" is so different. Your definition is basically my definition of "Living away from society, but living off of society".

I have a very simple definition of living off the land: Separate yourself from society (doesn’t matter which ecosystem you choose to live in, i.e. desert, arctic, woods…) and survive without the aid of human civilization or human structures.

However, I’ll cut you some slack and allow for a tent, backpack, clothes, etc., but you can not go back to society for repairs or resupply – going back to town is not making due with what nature offers. Now if you choose to live off the land under that definition how long do you think you would last?

The Weasel
09-29-2009, 18:50
OK, Tipi. Now go live in the woods, with no thorns, and leave the rest of us to suffer. Bye. Don't let the (electric) door hit you in the butt on the way out.

TW

Tipi Walter
09-29-2009, 19:14
Simple fact is no one, including Indians, want to live off the land for any period of time, certainly not for the rest of their lives. Hippies tried this back in the 60’s living in communes and NOT even entirely living off the land, yet they all failed miserably. Indians are no different, we’re all humans and we’re all the same beings.

Really we can’t talk to one another about this subject because our definitions of "Living off the Land" is so different. Your definition is basically my definition of "Living away from society, but living off of society".

I have a very simple definition of living off the land: Separate yourself from society (doesn’t matter which ecosystem you choose to live in, i.e. desert, arctic, woods…) and survive without the aid of human civilization or human structures.

However, I’ll cut you some slack and allow for a tent, backpack, clothes, etc., but you can not go back to society for repairs or resupply – going back to town is not making due with what nature offers. Now if you choose to live off the land under that definition how long do you think you would last?

Your statement about no Indians wanting to live on the land forgets the last 190,000 years of human history. Do you know about your early ancestors? If they all failed miserably, how come you're still here?

Your artificial rules--you can not go back to society for repairs or resupply--is self-imposed and can be parsed and argued for years while you stay aloof from the actual experience. Meanwhile, someone here or someone there is living off the grid in some kind of primitive shelter doing the best he can to turn back the clock. 100% pure? Who cares? At least its a step back from the typical American excess. And the armchair survivalists who mutter "how long do you think you would last" sounds a little like a macho challenge or a competitive sport. Why so resistant to the attempt, even if only a partial attempt? What's the point of waving the flag of purported disqualification based on a set of self-chosen criteria?

dreamsoftrails
09-29-2009, 20:09
I have a very simple definition of living off the land: Separate yourself from society (doesn’t matter which ecosystem you choose to live in, i.e. desert, arctic, woods…) and survive without the aid of human civilization or human structures.

there have been human civilizations that effectively 'lived off the land.' hell, we are one of them. everything in our society comes from a natural resource. we still eat food and breathe air. we still build and use shelter. its just more than is necessary.


However, I’ll cut you some slack and allow for a tent, backpack, clothes, etc., but you can not go back to society for repairs or resupply – going back to town is not making due with what nature offers. Now if you choose to live off the land under that definition how long do you think you would last?
going back to town to get food supplies, how is that not making due with what nature offers?

a town is an impossible idea without natural resources, and natural resources are impossible without nature.

i think Tipi is advocating living closer to nature than the average american would fathom or think possible.

you are suggesting that 'living off the land' means you procure all resources on your own in the woods.

there isn't really a right answer, because everyone lives of the land in some way and that is a fact that will never change.

Graywolf
09-29-2009, 20:50
I think all of you should read this article. this guy lived off the land, caught his own food,made his own clothes, made his own shelter, built his own canoe and was very succesful at it. At first he lived close to a town than eventually moved deeper and deeper into the forest, after a while, no one heard from him again, HE WAS SUCCESSFULL,

www.eco-action.org/dt/wildup.html (http://www.eco-action.org/dt/wildup.html)

And where do you get your history from, the indains were very successfull for thousands of years until WE the white man came here and screwed it up for them just like we have done all of history. The white man even screwed up the perfect garden where the food was practiccally handed to us. The white man is the only unsusscefull race on tis earth, we have to steal it fro other civilizations just to make it ourselves.

I'm with you on this one Tipi. Man, do I love the outdoors!!!!

Tipi Walter
09-29-2009, 21:18
Hey Graywolf, thanks for the great link, it'll give me something to read on my next backpacking trip.

The Weasel
09-29-2009, 21:34
Um, Gray? Are you low on medication again?

Native Americans did a pretty good job of screwing things up on their own without white help. You've heard of the Maya? They sort of tanked long before Columbus showed up. The pueblo people in the SW don't even have names. They're generally considered to have been wiped out due to overuse of limited resources. There's more. Humans have two interesting qualities: They succeed, and they fail. Don't disrespect Native Americans by denying they're human. They are.

Glad that your guy disappeared so well that he got written about. A little strange, that. Sort of like you being "with" Tipi while using your computer. Must make you feel guilty as hell, or at least deeply conflicted. Why not go out and drum for a few hours? It will make you feel so much more, you know, "Indian." Or something.

TW

Graywolf
09-29-2009, 22:01
hey guys, I know we kid about this all the time but I was just typing a response to Weasels post and it was over 500 letters. Guess what??? It would not let me post, said it was too short..:banana So I guess we better up the characters from 10 to 1000, HEHE.

Any way, Weasel, I never mentioned anything about the Mayans, however, any civilization that sacrifcies children for the sake of furthering ones culture is Doomed to failure anyway. As for the Publeos, they never left. They disappeared at the same time the Spainards came thru and wiped them out, same as we whites. The ones who did survive took refuge with the Zuni and the Hopi.

And yes, we are all human, if we weren't we probablly woudn't be having this conversation right now. As for electricity?Why to you bring that up so much? I am beginning thank you are one of them who take battery powered handwarmers and can't live without the cell phone while on the trail. I wonder, do you also take a hand held video game with you? All the amenities of life. Some just can't live with out them.

Monkeyboy
09-29-2009, 22:04
Um, Gray? Are you low on medication again?

Native Americans did a pretty good job of screwing things up on their own without white help. You've heard of the Maya? They sort of tanked long before Columbus showed up. The pueblo people in the SW don't even have names. They're generally considered to have been wiped out due to overuse of limited resources. There's more. Humans have two interesting qualities: They succeed, and they fail. Don't disrespect Native Americans by denying they're human. They are.

Glad that your guy disappeared so well that he got written about. A little strange, that. Sort of like you being "with" Tipi while using your computer. Must make you feel guilty as hell, or at least deeply conflicted. Why not go out and drum for a few hours? It will make you feel so much more, you know, "Indian." Or something.

TW

Gee...........that sure was racist.

Graywolf
09-29-2009, 22:19
Um, Gray? Are you low on medication again?

Native Americans did a pretty good job of screwing things up on their own without white help. You've heard of the Maya? They sort of tanked long before Columbus showed up. The pueblo people in the SW don't even have names. They're generally considered to have been wiped out due to overuse of limited resources. There's more. Humans have two interesting qualities: They succeed, and they fail. Don't disrespect Native Americans by denying they're human. They are.

Glad that your guy disappeared so well that he got written about. A little strange, that. Sort of like you being "with" Tipi while using your computer. Must make you feel guilty as hell, or at least deeply conflicted. Why not go out and drum for a few hours? It will make you feel so much more, you know, "Indian." Or something.

TW

By the way Weasel, you were pretty racist on that remark and I resent it... I do play a drum, along with a native american flute. I even take it with me on my hikes......AND I AM NATIVE AMERICAN...Thanks Buddy...

Wise Old Owl
09-29-2009, 22:26
Weasel - Our civilization is just a little more than 3000 years of recorded history and the indian's 10,000 unrecorded history is a failure? You want to discuss this in person while picking up trash along a highway? The Mayan grew crops in soil that would not support them, they invented composting beyond our knowledge...They moved water hundreds of miles before the Italians (Rome)
Which science channel are you watching anyway? Damn didn't post enough characters....

Graywolf
09-29-2009, 22:35
No, Wise owl, I think the new rule is you have to post up to 500 characters before it becomes too short:D

Wise Old Owl
09-29-2009, 23:01
No, Wise owl, I think the new rule is you have to post up to 500 characters before it becomes too short:D

I don't have the time even for 10 strange characters ... Oh I wish I could REALLY post what I am thinking.....:banana

Graywolf
09-29-2009, 23:04
I don't have the time even for 10 strange characters ... Oh I wish I could REALLY post what I am thinking.....:banana

Yeah... but then it would be too short....:banana

Monkeyboy
09-29-2009, 23:13
I don't have the time even for 10 strange characters ... Oh I wish I could REALLY post what I am thinking.....:banana

At least you are actually THINKING about what you post before you post it.............

Wise Old Owl
09-29-2009, 23:48
At least you are actually THINKING about what you post before you post it.............


Thanks next we might be discussing if Refreshing beer beverage of decent choice was involved. - not,:rolleyes:

Graywolf
09-29-2009, 23:56
Thanks next we might be discussing if Refreshing beer beverage of decent choice was involved. - not,:rolleyes:

NOW thats my kinda discussion!!!!!!:banana

The Weasel
09-30-2009, 00:23
Well, Wise. Name one Native American - or any - civilization that is 10,000 years old. One.

And they're not "Indian." If they were, they'd be from India. They're not. They're about as native as anything in the Americas, whether they are Ojibwa or Mayan or Inca.

As for the southwest, the Old People disappeared long before the introduction of western Europeans. And the Mayan didn't kill any more children than, say, Catholic Spain, and certainly didn't disappear because of that; instead, they chose the basic environmental devastation of their territory, and paid the consequences. Luckier than the Dakota and Sioux, though, who got the crap beat out of them by the Ojibwa and were forced into the Great Plains.

Human history is basically the story of one group beating up on another that beat up on others too, except for when we fouled an area up so bad that no one could live there. Sound familiar?

So go live in the wilderness and live off the land. Don't forget your laptop.

TW

Graywolf
09-30-2009, 00:49
Well, Wise. Name one Native American - or any - civilization that is 10,000 years old. One.

And they're not "Indian." If they were, they'd be from India. They're not. They're about as native as anything in the Americas, whether they are Ojibwa or Mayan or Inca.

As for the southwest, the Old People disappeared long before the introduction of western Europeans. And the Mayan didn't kill any more children than, say, Catholic Spain, and certainly didn't disappear because of that; instead, they chose the basic environmental devastation of their territory, and paid the consequences. Luckier than the Dakota and Sioux, though, who got the crap beat out of them by the Ojibwa and were forced into the Great Plains.

Human history is basically the story of one group beating up on another that beat up on others too, except for when we fouled an area up so bad that no one could live there. Sound familiar?

So go live in the wilderness and live off the land. Don't forget your laptop.

TW


Your history once again is way off, Ojibwa is Sioux as is Lakota.
"Mitakuye Oyasin", "We are all Brothers, we are all one." Same language, same people. The U.s. Calvary won when Chief Sitting Bull signed a treaty that the U.S. failed to up hold. And moved the Sioux to other locations thereby dividing them. This is only the short story, google Chief Sitting Bull and read the full story, you'll be amazed.

At least you have the last part right, us humans do like to push around.

Graywolf
09-30-2009, 01:51
You know, as much as I like history, I really would like to get back on to the subject. It is a very interesting topic, for some of us.

Graywolf
09-30-2009, 02:02
I want to apoloigize to Weasel, The Ojibwa is a different nation, belonging to the Chippewa from Minnesota (Go Vikings!!) up into Southern Canada, I was thinking the Oglala Sioux. Sorry.

WOW, humans do make mistakes!!!

Now back to our original program!!!

Pedaling Fool
09-30-2009, 09:11
Your statement about no Indians wanting to live on the land forgets the last 190,000 years of human history. Do you know about your early ancestors? If they all failed miserably, how come you're still here?

Your artificial rules--you can not go back to society for repairs or resupply--is self-imposed and can be parsed and argued for years while you stay aloof from the actual experience. Meanwhile, someone here or someone there is living off the grid in some kind of primitive shelter doing the best he can to turn back the clock. 100% pure? Who cares? At least its a step back from the typical American excess. And the armchair survivalists who mutter "how long do you think you would last" sounds a little like a macho challenge or a competitive sport. Why so resistant to the attempt, even if only a partial attempt? What's the point of waving the flag of purported disqualification based on a set of self-chosen criteria?
We can’t talk about living off the land because our definitions are so completely different. BTW, I did not say the Indians failed miserably; I said that of the hippies.

My "rules" are no more artificial than your rules or the next guy’s rules. To me it’s just obvious, if one intends to live off the land that requires one to live off the land, getting food from town is not living off the land.

However, I understand that the OP’s intention was not to stay completely away from town, but disregarding that (assuming, in his scenario, living off the land is eating/drinking what one can get from the land). I still say no one here could do that while doing a thru-hike or just do it for any real length of time. I wasn’t challenging you.

We just have to agree to disagree, because I can’t accept your definition and you can’t accept mine.

Monkeyboy
09-30-2009, 09:15
Well, Wise. Name one Native American - or any - civilization that is 10,000 years old. One.


You make this too easy Weasy..........

Indigenous Australians, or Aboriginees......dated to be at least 125,000 years old. Ten times the number of years you are asking.

Or how about the Yanomamo of South America. No one knows how old their tribes are, because so little is known about them, but I can tell you, it's a heck of a lot older than a measely 10,000 years.

Learn history, Weasy........it may be enlightening for you.

GeneralLee10
09-30-2009, 09:18
Who cares:) I just wanted to say that sorry.

Pedaling Fool
09-30-2009, 09:18
there have been human civilizations that effectively 'lived off the land.' hell, we are one of them. everything in our society comes from a natural resource. we still eat food and breathe air. we still build and use shelter. its just more than is necessary.

going back to town to get food supplies, how is that not making due with what nature offers?

a town is an impossible idea without natural resources, and natural resources are impossible without nature.

i think Tipi is advocating living closer to nature than the average american would fathom or think possible.

you are suggesting that 'living off the land' means you procure all resources on your own in the woods.

there isn't really a right answer, because everyone lives of the land in some way and that is a fact that will never change.
What you're basically saying is that since we can't separate ourselves from nature therefore we all are living off the land. Well I guess that's your definition and I won't argue with your definition, just like I won't argure with Tipi's definition.

Although I will agree with you that we don't make anything, we just put things together. In other words nothing is unnatural in the most fundamental sense. A nuclear bomb is no more an unnatural weapon than a caveman using a rock as a weapon.

Wise Old Owl
09-30-2009, 09:22
Thanks MB for posting that

Weasel-take your pick
http://www.mcps.org/bms/mediacenter/ancient.htm
http://www.desertusa.com/ind1/du_peo_ana.html

The Weasel
09-30-2009, 11:33
Well, gosh, folks.

I'm glad that Wise Old Owl provided those links. But I'm not sure I'm going to treat as real academically respectable any that put the Aztecs and the Maya in the same "civilization", as does "mediacenter", not to mention its broken links, which sort of suggest a lack of intellectual rigor. And I didn't see any of those listed that look like any that are current societies. And the other one - about the Anasazi - proves my point: The Anasazi don't exist any more as any kind of society. In fact, "Anasazi" isn't even the name of that society; it's a Navajo term for "ancient people whose name we don't really know because they ain't there any more."

As for Australian aborigines, yeah, they've been there a long time. So have Native Americans. Are they a "society" as well as having a common biological heritage? Surely. As a society that lived, historically (until their subjection and semi-genocide by European colonizers) as hunter-gatherers, were they a "civilization" within the way the term is generally accepted by ethnologists and anthroplogists? No; go look at Wikipedia for a definition which is a good working one.

Nor did most Native American societies "live off the land" any more than we do. Many, if not most, were agrarian societies in whole or in large part, particularly in the Northeast, where the arriving Pilgrims and Puritans found cornfields and vacant villages awaiting them due to the massive - 90% - mortality from smallpox and other diseases introduced by the Western world and the Southwest, where fields and irrigation networks can still be identified. That isn't meant to slight those NA societies that engaged in highly organized agriculture and breeding of animals for food; the societies of Meso-America come to mind most quickly. The society I'm most personally familiar with - the Ojibwe, largely from Michigan - farmed for hundreds of years (sorry, not 10,000) growing corn, squash and beans, at least when they weren't beating up on the Sioux (the Ojibwe, by the way, are one of the few NA societies ever to almost beat both the English and the US in open war; tough outfit, and still are).

So if you chest thumpers want to go live in the woods and pick berries and eat bugs, go ahead. Just don't fool yourselves that it is "traditional" or "Indian." It's not.

As for "living off the land" on the AT for a thru hike, suffice it to say that there aren't enough berries, roots or flowers to meet even a fraction of your caloric needs, and killing animals or birds along the way is illegal year-round in much of the trail (state/national parks) and much of the thru hiking season in other parts. Not vast amounts of fishing, either.

Bring your own food.

TW

The Weasel
09-30-2009, 11:39
What you're basically saying is that since we can't separate ourselves from nature therefore we all are living off the land. Well I guess that's your definition and I won't argue with your definition, just like I won't argure with Tipi's definition.

Although I will agree with you that we don't make anything, we just put things together. In other words nothing is unnatural in the most fundamental sense. A nuclear bomb is no more an unnatural weapon than a caveman using a rock as a weapon.

We probably agree, John, although I might note that plutonium (used, regretttably, in many nuclear weapons) is "made" rather than "put together", since it's one of the transuranic elements created synthetically. There are a number of agricultural products which are just about as synthetic, not to mention cloning. Let's face it: Tipi's definition is nonsense.

TW

Jack Tarlin
09-30-2009, 11:48
Actually, Weasel, there are any number of "civilized" places that go back further than 10,000 years.

Off the top of my head, in the Middle East alone, such places as Jaffa, Jericho, Damascus, and Byblos have been occupied for that long, and there are undoubtedly many others.

Oh, and as has been previously pointed out, the Aboriginal people of Australia have been around awhile too......like maybe 60,000 years.

So once again, your repeated history lessons need grains of salt.

Big ones.

The Weasel
09-30-2009, 12:17
Ummm, Jack? I don't think so. Good try, but none of those places existed 10,000 years ago. Sure, beautiful downtown Basel may have "been occupied" 10,000 years ago, but it wasn't nearly as civilized - as in no "civilization" at all - as it tries to be now. Same for "Jaffa, Jericho, Damascus and Byblos." Or the unnamed "many others" you refer to. And while aboriginal people ("Aboriginal" with a capital "A" is a European term for Australia's aborigines, not a name of a "people") have been a lot of places for 10,000 years or so, including, say, the Rift Valley (Gosh! maybe longer! Unless you're a Bible absolutist, that is), that's not the same thing as a "civilization," which was the initial point, as well as my response.

Sorry you don't have the time to read things fully. Don't worry; I doubt you really have ADD or anything. Just take a little more time and read slowly, Jack.

TW

Jack Tarlin
09-30-2009, 12:32
I suppose it depends on one's definition of "civilized" but Jericho has certainly been continously occupied since at least 9,000 BC, and this would go for other places as well, such as the ones I mentioned, also Cyprus, and certainly present day Iraq and Iran, etc.

All of these locations consider themselves to be occupied by civilized people with a rich and proud civilized history.

Weasel is, of course, welcome to disagree.

Monkeyboy
09-30-2009, 12:50
Well, gosh, folks.

I'm glad that Wise Old Owl provided those links. But I'm not sure I'm going to treat as real academically respectable any that put the Aztecs and the Maya in the same "civilization", as does "mediacenter", not to mention its broken links, which sort of suggest a lack of intellectual rigor. And I didn't see any of those listed that look like any that are current societies. And the other one - about the Anasazi - proves my point: The Anasazi don't exist any more as any kind of society. In fact, "Anasazi" isn't even the name of that society; it's a Navajo term for "ancient people whose name we don't really know because they ain't there any more."

As for Australian aborigines, yeah, they've been there a long time. So have Native Americans. Are they a "society" as well as having a common biological heritage? Surely. As a society that lived, historically (until their subjection and semi-genocide by European colonizers) as hunter-gatherers, were they a "civilization" within the way the term is generally accepted by ethnologists and anthroplogists? No; go look at Wikipedia for a definition which is a good working one.

Nor did most Native American societies "live off the land" any more than we do. Many, if not most, were agrarian societies in whole or in large part, particularly in the Northeast, where the arriving Pilgrims and Puritans found cornfields and vacant villages awaiting them due to the massive - 90% - mortality from smallpox and other diseases introduced by the Western world and the Southwest, where fields and irrigation networks can still be identified. That isn't meant to slight those NA societies that engaged in highly organized agriculture and breeding of animals for food; the societies of Meso-America come to mind most quickly. The society I'm most personally familiar with - the Ojibwe, largely from Michigan - farmed for hundreds of years (sorry, not 10,000) growing corn, squash and beans, at least when they weren't beating up on the Sioux (the Ojibwe, by the way, are one of the few NA societies ever to almost beat both the English and the US in open war; tough outfit, and still are).

So if you chest thumpers want to go live in the woods and pick berries and eat bugs, go ahead. Just don't fool yourselves that it is "traditional" or "Indian." It's not.

As for "living off the land" on the AT for a thru hike, suffice it to say that there aren't enough berries, roots or flowers to meet even a fraction of your caloric needs, and killing animals or birds along the way is illegal year-round in much of the trail (state/national parks) and much of the thru hiking season in other parts. Not vast amounts of fishing, either.

Bring your own food.

TW

Still full of it, Weasy......and the longer your posts, the more you prove yourself wrong.

The Aboriganees and the Yanomamo are 100% hunter/gatherers......let me repeat......100% hunter/gatherers.

Some of the Yanomamo tribes can be in the thousands......so so much for your "they really aren't civilations" theory.


Like I said, Weasy........History classes can be your friend......really.......you should try them some time.......you might actually enjoy them.

The Weasel
09-30-2009, 12:55
Well, gosh, Jack. I'm not using my definition, and you don't seem to have one. As I said before, Wikipedia has a pretty good definition of "civilization" but if you didn't read my reference to that, either, maybe it would help. That one is a good working one consistent with that used by modern ethnologists and anthropologists. Using that definition, while Jericho may have been "settled" 8,000 (I can find no reference to your 9,000, so assume it's just something else you've made up) years ago, there is no indicating that the unknown people who did so constituted a "civilization" under any useful sense of the term.

As for "locations consider themselves to be occupied by civilized people," I'll take a pass on whether Damascus is merely currently inhabited or if it is truly civilized, but the point (ignored by you, no doubt due to reading too fast so you sort of miss most things) isn't what they are [I]now. It's what they were 10,000 years ago.

Even so, none of those places "lived off the land" in the sense Tipi is trying to pass off on us. Sorry, folks.

TW

Monkeyboy
09-30-2009, 12:58
Also funny how the Yanomamo aren't considered a civilization, even though they utilize the bow and arrow, a tool that the Incans didn't even HAVE.

Jack Tarlin
09-30-2009, 13:06
Actually, Weasel, I didn't make up my comments about Jericho or anything else, despite your baseless assertion to the contrary.

They actually come from the same place you seem to have got YOUR information. I was in a hurry so I went to Wikipedia which I usually try and avoid. This is, of course, a source which you just this moment decribed as "pretty good" and whose posts on the subject were "good working ones" consistent with top anthropologists.

So assuming the source passes muster with you, Weasel, it may interest you to know that they (Google "Jericho wikipedia") clearly state that settlement in Jericho dates back at least 11,000 years.

Won't comment on your other statements, tho it should be noted that despite your snide quip, Damascus had a sewer system and miles of street lighting when Londoners were still painted blue and dressed in bark.

But it's time to move on. A recent thread, and a good one, about how people view present-day American servicemen morphed into Weasel giving us Canadian poetry readings from 1915.

The thread was vaporized shortly thereafter.

I suggest we get back on topic, which is "Living on the Trail". We can discuss ancient civilizations elsewhere if anyone's interested.

The Weasel
09-30-2009, 13:18
Jack:

"Settlement" and the use of tools or other aspects of technology aren't the hallmarks of civilization, and may not even be necessary. Every anthropologist is going to look to three things: Agriculture, external trade, and highly organized social groupings. That's why pre-Columbian Oddawa were civiliezed, and Jericho, or whatever was there at the time, "11,000 years ago", wasn't.

And that's relevant to the topic here: Tipi and the other romantics think you can go live in the woods - or "off the grid" - and live "naturally". A small number of people in the world might be able to "leave civilization" and do so. But the rest of the planet is pretty much filled to capacity for such things. That includes the AT, too: While there may be plenty of nuts along the AT, the kind that can be eaten, along with other gathered foods, are miniscule even for a small number of people.

Sorry folks, you're not going to leave civilization, even for a while, and make it work. Self-sufficiency doesn't exist.

As for Damascus being civilized, well, sure, they had sewers. They also have the Assads. Some might see a relationship there.


TW

Monkeyboy
09-30-2009, 13:23
Jack:

"Settlement" and the use of tools or other aspects of technology aren't the hallmarks of civilization, and may not even be necessary. Every anthropologist is going to look to three things: Agriculture, external trade, and highly organized social groupings. That's why pre-Columbian Oddawa were civiliezed, and Jericho, or whatever was there at the time, "11,000 years ago", wasn't.

And that's relevant to the topic here: Tipi and the other romantics think you can go live in the woods - or "off the grid" - and live "naturally". A small number of people in the world might be able to "leave civilization" and do so. But the rest of the planet is pretty much filled to capacity for such things. That includes the AT, too: While there may be plenty of nuts along the AT, the kind that can be eaten, along with other gathered foods, are miniscule even for a small number of people.

Sorry folks, you're not going to leave civilization, even for a while, and make it work. Self-sufficiency doesn't exist.

As for Damascus being civilized, well, sure, they had sewers. They also have the Assads. Some might see a relationship there.


TW

Thanks for proving yourself wrong with your own wording, Weasy.

The question was can one live off the land............whether a civilization or not doesn't even come into play.

So the tribes I've mention, both Aboringanee and Yanomamo how both lived "off the land" for hundreds of thousands of years.........regardless of whether being active in trade, sewers, blah blah blah........

God I love it when you prove your own self wrong.........

Monkeyboy
09-30-2009, 14:20
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-XAcgYvh8Pw/Sj_-ogtpyrI/AAAAAAAAAaY/db6YqgR8ZO0/s320/monty-python-and-the-holy-grail-02-800-75.jpg

bulldog
09-30-2009, 14:52
It's been seven months since I've been on this site and this thread title caught my eye because I did actually live on the trail during a fall semester at a branch campus of Penn State in Mont Alto, PA. I slept in Tumbling Run Shelter, used the spring for water, but didn't even attempt to gather or hunt food.

After reading this entire thread, I see nothing has changed here at Whiteblaze. Someone posts a topic and the baboons descend from their trees and take it over with squabbling bullshlt. I think it may be another seven months until I come back.

Monkeyboy
09-30-2009, 15:02
........and that was being on topic how???

TD55
09-30-2009, 15:22
........and that was being on topic how???

He might be trying to make the point if you are a bum squating at a shelter and using it for your home, it is possible to live in the AT? Probably dependent on mommy ad daddys money or student loans maybe?

Monkeyboy
09-30-2009, 15:37
ohhh.......using more of the gathering skills and less of the hunting skills.

Gotcha.

Pedaling Fool
09-30-2009, 16:25
We probably agree, John, although I might note that plutonium (used, regretttably, in many nuclear weapons) is "made" rather than "put together", since it's one of the transuranic elements created synthetically. There are a number of agricultural products which are just about as synthetic, not to mention cloning. Let's face it: Tipi's definition is nonsense.

TW
I was speaking on a very fundamental level that we don't create anything from nothing; including anything we synthesize. It all comes from nature therefore it's natural in it's most fundamental sense. But I see your point.

BTW, I agree with your observation:
"Nor did most Native American societies "live off the land" any more than we do. Many, if not most, were agrarian societies in whole or in large part, particularly in the Northeast, where the arriving Pilgrims and Puritans found cornfields and vacant villages awaiting them due to the massive - 90% - mortality from smallpox and other diseases introduced by the Western world and the Southwest, where fields and irrigation networks can still be identified."

The Weasel
09-30-2009, 17:09
John:

Interesting, and I hope forgivable, thread drift: If something has never existed before in nature, by item AND by type, nor would it exist but for our efforts - plutonium or any of the other transuranics are an example, again - is it 'natural'? By most definitions or usages, No, it's not. But the particles are 'old', I realize.

TW

Jack Tarlin
09-30-2009, 17:13
I dunno if the thread drift is forgiveable, but when several different folks make an effort (or at least the suggestion) that a thread return to its original subject, it's regrettable that this so rarely happens.

I'd like to make the hopefully forgiveable suggestion that we leave behind the Aborigines, the Mayans or Mesopotamians, and the manufacture of plutonium.

This thread was about the phenomena of living on the Trail.

Can we maybe get back there?

Jester2000
09-30-2009, 17:29
This thread was about the phenomena of living on the Trail.

Can we maybe get back there?

I dunno. We're already on page six. I think it's too late. I'd instead like to steer the conversation towards on-trail cheese making.

Monkeyboy
09-30-2009, 17:33
I dunno if the thread drift is forgiveable, but when several different folks make an effort (or at least the suggestion) that a thread return to its original subject, it's regrettable that this so rarely happens.

I'd like to make the hopefully forgiveable suggestion that we leave behind the Aborigines, the Mayans or Mesopotamians, and the manufacture of plutonium.

This thread was about the phenomena of living on the Trail.

Can we maybe get back there?

I agree.

We've already proved Weasy dead wrong....AGAIN.....and as usual he'll never admit it, so we might as well get back to the subject at hand before Weasy went off espousing total BS.

Johnny Thunder
09-30-2009, 17:34
I dunno. I'd instead like to steer the conversation towards on-trail cheese making.

See also, "Chaco, why do your feet smell so bad?" and other threads.

Monkeyboy
09-30-2009, 17:34
I dunno. We're already on page six. I think it's too late. I'd instead like to steer the conversation towards on-trail cheese making.

I'm particular to Fumunda.......

Pedaling Fool
09-30-2009, 18:04
John:

Interesting, and I hope forgivable, thread drift: If something has never existed before in nature, by item AND by type, nor would it exist but for our efforts - plutonium or any of the other transuranics are an example, again - is it 'natural'? By most definitions or usages, No, it's not. But the particles are 'old', I realize.

TW
I understand what you're saying and I can live with that, but I just want to add one last thing for the record.

If we use the word unnatural to describe an atomic device, than I would suggest that someone that wants to live a completely natural life away from all of man’s evil devices than they also need to leave behind their knife, cook set, backpack…, because the alloys/synthetics that make those things possible are just as unnatural as an atomic bomb.

The Weasel
09-30-2009, 18:15
I understand what you're saying and I can live with that, but I just want to add one last thing for the record.

If we use the word unnatural to describe an atomic device, than I would suggest that someone that wants to live a completely natural life away from all of man’s evil devices than they also need to leave behind their knife, cook set, backpack…, because the alloys/synthetics that make those things possible are just as unnatural as an atomic bomb.

John, we agree precisely, and that's why it wasn't really thread drift. "Living off the land" along the AT or elsewhere isn't possible in a 'natural' way. Civilization is here, for us, as is technology. The resources to live "naturally" just don't exist.

Well done, man.

TW

The Weasel
09-30-2009, 18:19
I dunno if the thread drift is forgiveable, but when several different folks make an effort (or at least the suggestion) that a thread return to its original subject, it's regrettable that this so rarely happens.

I'd like to make the hopefully forgiveable suggestion that we leave behind the Aborigines, the Mayans or Mesopotamians, and the manufacture of plutonium.

This thread was about the phenomena of living on the Trail.

Can we maybe get back there?

Jack, I've said this before, and tried to chide you more-or-less gently, but you really do need to read things more completely. In a holistic way, most of mine, and all of John Gault's, posts have beeen about the topic at hand as only slightly modified by others: "Can you live off the land, on the trail or off." That leads into questions of what is necessary for life, and what is (and isn't) "natural". Just because you want to discuss where the blueberries or Queen Anne's Lace are doesn't make the rest of the discussion off-topic. In a word, you're not the boss of the rest of us, even if you'd be a good one, which I sort of doubt.

Let it happen, Jack. Zen can't be controlled.

TW

tammons
09-30-2009, 18:38
What a boring bunch of argumentative knuckleheads.

You can live off the land. No problem.

All you have to do is learn the old ways and spend 16+ hours a day finding food. Guaranteed you will be skinny.

Best to be somewhere tropical with a constant fruit, fish, shell fish with occasional red meat food source. You might actually survive.

Either that or in a permafrost area where there is abundant game. 365 day a year refrigerator. 95% meat and fish diet.

Of course if you cheat and have a gun and ammo and a refrigeration it makes it so easy a modern cave man can do it.

About the only thing the AT has going for it for survival is proximity to towns for dumpster diving and places to beg for food and money.

If you are talking old style primative survival though, we have lost that as a culture except maybe a few scattered tribes here and there. Primative skills is something I am still working.

Its one of those skills that should be taught today in grade school IMO. If you have solid primative living skills you can pretty much survive anything.

Gees, we have even lost in less than 70 years, what my fathers generation knew, how to salt and smoke cure pork, can vegitables, live without refrigeration etc. My grandparents generation was the last of the people that knew how to survive.

Now if the electricity goes out everybody goes into a panic.
God forbid if you cant buy groceries or access clean water.

I would bet 99% of people dont even know how to gut and skin an animal, much less butcher it or do things like make lye soap, weave, knap flint for weapons, dry meat, make string or thread, weave etc.

I think one big problem now is the surface water is not safe to drink pretty much anywhere on the planet. Something our ancesters did not have to deal with.

OF COURSE they were smarter than us in many ways, one being that they did not crap and pee in their own clean water.

The Weasel
09-30-2009, 18:45
Tammons? Most of don't know how to knap flint because it's not a survival skill. Driving a car on the interstate at rush hour is. You almost had me when it sounded like you realized that old skills aren't really useful anymore, since there is no place to live where they are necessary. Knowing how to make and use an atlatl is nice, but just cute, as is finding a few blueberries on the AT: You can't make a living doing that, as you noted yourself.

I'll let Oscar Mayer and Mr. Swift skin my meat. And I won't expect to "live off the land" like Tipi seems to feel one can. One can't.

TW

The Weasel
09-30-2009, 18:46
By the way, "they" did crap and pee in their own clean water.

TW

tammons
09-30-2009, 18:58
The old skills are not neccessary until the electricity goes out.

I mean who really knows. One nasty Solar flare and the grid will be down for a long long time.

Living in Hurricane country I have seen what happens to people when everything stops. No electricity, no clean water, no AC, no grocery store for weeks.

Everybody changes, some for good and band together but some people lose within 2-3 days go nuts.

tammons
09-30-2009, 18:59
By the way, "they" did crap and pee in their own clean water. TW

And how do you know that.

The Weasel
09-30-2009, 19:04
Because people living in coastal and riparian communities always have, either directly or by doing so on land (including as fertilizer) that is within the drainage of those waters. That's how. You think they had water treatment plants for their sewage?

That's how.

TW

The Weasel
09-30-2009, 19:06
Living in Hurricane country I have seen what happens to people when everything stops. No electricity, no clean water, no AC, no grocery store for weeks.

Everybody changes, some for good and band together but some people lose within 2-3 days go nuts.

Yeah, that's when you really need to know how to knapp flint. And how to make lye soap. It's the nuts that are freaking because they can't remember, "Do I put the hand lotion in after I boil the ashes, or before?"

TW

tammons
09-30-2009, 19:09
Oh please.

You are just another person that likes to argue.

Too much hot air.

The operative word was "in" not 200 yards away in a field.

Of course you will probably have something negative to say about that too.

Lone Wolf
09-30-2009, 19:11
Oh please.

You are just another person that likes to argue.

Too much hot air.



you're learning. best not to "discuss" things with him

The Weasel
09-30-2009, 19:15
you're learning. best not to "discuss" things with him

Drama queen.

TW

tammons
09-30-2009, 19:15
Discuss ? #$%^

Gees you are not kidding.

I just posted an opinion on the topic of living on the trail and or living off the land and it took an immediate left turn into never never land with negative critism and attempts at personal invalidation.

Lone Wolf
09-30-2009, 19:16
Discuss ? #$%^

Gees you are not kidding.

I just posted an opinion on the topic of living on the trail and or living off the land and it took an immediate left turn into never never land with negative critism and attempts at personal invalidation.

it's his style

tammons
09-30-2009, 19:17
I can tell.

The Weasel
09-30-2009, 19:23
Ah, for the good old days, when men were men, and women made lye soap. What is this generation coming too? When those who pitched could catch, and didn't whine about it, either. O tempora o mores! ($5 to WhiteBlaze for the first one to correctly respond with how that quote is appropriate in terms of its source. More if I think the response came without looking it up.)

TW

Jester2000
09-30-2009, 19:38
What a boring bunch of argumentative knuckleheads. . .


Discuss ? #$%^

Gees you are not kidding.

I just posted an opinion on the topic of living on the trail and or living off the land and it took an immediate left turn into never never land with negative critism and attempts at personal invalidation.

Hmmm. All you did was post an opinion on the topic? If by "immediate left turn" you mean "starting with the very first sentence of my post" then I think your description is apt. It's been my experience that you often get what you give.

Captn
09-30-2009, 19:46
Ah, for the good old days, when men were men, and women made lye soap. What is this generation coming too? When those who pitched could catch, and didn't whine about it, either. O tempora o mores! ($5 to WhiteBlaze for the first one to correctly respond with how that quote is appropriate in terms of its source. More if I think the response came without looking it up.)

TW

Ah yes .. when men were men and Sheep were Scared.

Monkeyboy
09-30-2009, 20:14
Oh please.

You are just another person that likes to argue.

Too much hot air.

The operative word was "in" not 200 yards away in a field.

Of course you will probably have something negative to say about that too.

DING DING DING......we have a winner.

Monkeyboy
09-30-2009, 20:15
Ah, for the good old days, when men were men, and women made lye soap. What is this generation coming too? When those who pitched could catch, and didn't whine about it, either. O tempora o mores! ($5 to WhiteBlaze for the first one to correctly respond with how that quote is appropriate in terms of its source. More if I think the response came without looking it up.)

TW

Here's a quote that is more apropos.....

You can't milk a donkey without a bucket.

bigmac_in
09-30-2009, 20:21
Ah, for the good old days, when men were men, and women made lye soap. What is this generation coming too? When those who pitched could catch, and didn't whine about it, either. O tempora o mores! ($5 to WhiteBlaze for the first one to correctly respond with how that quote is appropriate in terms of its source. More if I think the response came without looking it up.)

TW


Oh brother . . .:rolleyes:

Monkeyboy
09-30-2009, 20:27
Oh, the times! Oh, the customs!

Three years of latin, Weasy ol' boy.

Whiteblaze accepts paypal.......you can make the donation in the name of MonkeyBoy.

.......and to compare yourself to Cicero speaking of the corruption of his generation.....yeah, right.

Captn
09-30-2009, 20:28
Here's a quote that is more apropos.....

You can't milk a donkey without a bucket.

Or .. when you milk a bull don't put it in the Churn

bigmac_in
09-30-2009, 20:29
No way that will be accepted Monkeyboy . . .

Monkeyboy
09-30-2009, 20:32
No way that will be accepted Monkeyboy . . .

No doubt........

He thinks Latin is only taught to lawyers............

Monkeyboy
09-30-2009, 20:34
At first I thought he was talking about the baseball quote........didn't read the whole thing.........it usually makes me nauseous.

Then I saw the Cicero quote.

Monkeyboy
09-30-2009, 20:40
More appropriate would be from the same speech "Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet?".....

"How long is that madness of yours still to mock us?"

Monkeyboy
09-30-2009, 20:41
Or "quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia?"

..."When is there to be an end of that unbridled audacity of yours?"

Monkeyboy
09-30-2009, 20:46
There were four Catilinarian speeches to be specific........this was from his first.

Again, you can make that donation out to Whiteblaze in the name of MonkeyBoy.

That's spelled M O N K E Y B O Y.

Thank you for your kind generosity.

saimyoji
09-30-2009, 21:45
youre so full of it monkeyspank...you can barely talk american....: no way you've been to latin america and learned there speek.

The Weasel
09-30-2009, 21:52
$5 to WhiteBlaze. But not more, for this, as stated. More for other reasons.

TW

saimyoji
09-30-2009, 21:54
i don't know about y'all, but i'm thinking weasy gets the "pompous ass of the night" award.


CONGRATULATIONS!! :sun

Monkeyboy
09-30-2009, 21:59
$5 to WhiteBlaze. But not more, for this, as stated. More for other reasons.

TW

What other reasons.........because you got served?

What else do you want to know about the speech given.

How about the fact that the senators present wouldn't sit next to him because Cicero was calling him a traitor.

Or the fact that he gave a second speech in which he wasn't even present at all, because he was trying to work up an army to overthrow him and got killed in the process.

What else would appease you to concide the fact that you aren't the only one who knows latin?

What a cheapskate.

Graywolf
09-30-2009, 22:00
WOW, I thought this therad would hopefully go back to the original OP, well, It seems to me since Weasel is so against the 'Wild' way of living and all for civilization, I am now looking forward to see his membership with that other group that wants to pave the AT so it will be "Civilized.

Anw Weasel, yesterday you made a remark that the Pueblos no longer exist, here is a website for you, www.puebloindian.com (http://www.puebloindian.com) Yes, they still are among us.

There is also a tribe in Northern California, the Pit River Tribe, who is now undergoing legal battles to keep there sacred lands around Medicine Lake. They are part of the Ahjumawi-Atsuge Nation, which has been around for over 10,000 years. I lost the web site but you can google it, Pit River Tribe.

As for living off the land, there are many groups doing it and doing it legaly. But just as one poster said, it is hard to define just what Living off the land means. The Mountain Men (and they still are around) lived off the land but still would go into towns when they could, I bet they left as soon as they could though. Humans area clan animal. We need fellowship with others and animals just can't do it. Even God Himself made man to have some one of His kind to fellowship with. We need compaionship.
Sure, we can go out and live off the land, live in the wilderness, but just because it is in our nature, we will have those times when we need to return even if it is for a short time. The NA,s would even go out live among themselves for a time, but would have to return to the tribe for a time. It is not impossible to live off the land, but here is the dilema, Weasel talks about agriculture, Well, he is right, when Adam and Eve sinned (No I am not getting religous, I am making a point), God expelled them from the Garden to go and toil (work the rest of there lives). Originally, we were meant to be at one with nature from the beginning, but because we decided to gain knowledge, man has forgotten those ways. Even our own bodies are not able to withstand that kind of living anylonger. We have adapted and evolved to the point that the true natural way of living just dosn't work anylonger. I wished it did, for I think Man has taken a wrong turn for the worst, BUT nature will prevail, we will go back to our old ways eventually but it will only be those few who can resort to such change.

That is my 2 cents and I hope my post isn't too short,

Gramps
09-30-2009, 22:09
I live on the trail. When I step out my door I step onto the AT.Everyone that walks the AT walks by my bedroom window. It's awesome, I feel privledged to live here. I know it's not the same as what you are asking but I do live on the trail.

Ever think about putting up a toll booth? :-?

"LaPetamaie Thru-way? Now wadda that "idiot (paraphrased) think of next? Anybody got a dime? Somebody's gonna have to go back and get a whole bunch of dimes."

Graywolf
09-30-2009, 22:15
Said that, I must say, I find the idea of living a sustained living very exciting. There are people, some have posted here, who live in the widerness but go into town to make a living. I can understand that. You buy a house, suppose to be yours but in actualaity it isn't. You pay for a car, you think it is yours, but it really isn't. we live in a superficial world where we believe the lies, but in all honesty, don't beleive the truth. I am with Tipi. I think that would be a great way to live. If anyone else thinks this, check out this website, www.teachingdrum.org (http://www.teachingdrum.org) I have always wanted to do this. They teach not only survival, but how to live in harmony with both nature and civilization, which is what I think we should be. They even show you how to build a wigwam. Now, for those here who don't belive this, well, don't check out the website, you will be wasting your time. And if you don't beleive in living in the wilderness, Please, for the sake of the Trail and other hikers, DON'T go on a Thru Hike, you won't make it. A thru Hike is living in the trail, for a time. Sorry to burst your bubble.

And also Weasel, I like how you are always bringing up Electricity. Well, if you have Solar Power, you are actually still living on what nature provides AND get paid for it.:D You can also still use electronics such as a computer to talk to other people who are also doing the same thing to learn how to better it. I.E. living in Harmony. But I suggest you not take that route, it may make a beliver out of you.:D

Egads
09-30-2009, 22:37
O tempora o mores! ($5 to WhiteBlaze for the first one to correctly respond with how that quote is appropriate in terms of its source. More if I think the response came without looking it up.)

TW


$5 to WhiteBlaze. But not more, for this, as stated. More for other reasons.

TW

TW, don't be a cheap lying ass, have you no honor, or was that pledge to donate more than $5 just boasting?

Graywolf
09-30-2009, 23:04
OkOkOkokok,, IIIII GOT IT!!!!!!! You say there is no way to live off the land, you say that no people are older than 10,000 years:-?, you say that you can not compelelty go with out technology, Well I think you all forgot, BIG FOOT has been doing it all time, he lives off of nuts (WB POSTERS) and berries, fish, and the occasional road kill, oh but he dosnt eat weasles, theyr too noisey and argumentive, he even can escape being noticed. WoooHooooo a discovery:banana

The perfect example of living a perfectly normal life in the wild.:cool::cool:

The Weasel
09-30-2009, 23:06
Gray -

You're mistaken. I enjoy being in wild areas, and many others do, too. The problem isn't that I'm against it; the problem (and I've said this before) is that there isn't land and resources sufficient for more than a bare handful (if that) of people to live "wild" without either civilization providing some or a lot of their support. Yes, we can go live in the forest and burn firewood. But we've learned that unrestricted cutting of wood means that the forests disappear; go look for the "Cedars of Lebanon" that once covered that country. They're gone, and won't return. Yes, we can go take berries and roots sufficient to live, but remove them from the food supply of other animals. Yes, we can fish, but as a planet, we are overfishing our oceans. In a few words, we have too many people on this planet to live "wild." It doesn't take Al Gore to look at this planet and realize that we're getting too full to "return to nature." Won't work. I wish it would; some of it would be good. We, as a species, can't do it. Wish you were right, and that I was wrong. But I don't think you are, or that I am.

As for those who wish to attack me, I haven't attacked anyone in this thread personally, not will I. I may disagree, and will say so, with many, sometimes with vigor. But I'm not going to rise to the bait others wish to use. Since those above who like to taunt do so no matter what I say, I simply prefer to ignore them; they may do as they wish, and I will do the same, except that I'm not going to either accuse or justify. If they wish to, that may say as much about them as it says about it. Or not.

But it seems to me that the post topic is of more interest to most than a few people trying to flame one member. So I'll remain interested in the topic, and indifferent about the rest.

TW

Bulldawg
09-30-2009, 23:26
Gray -

You're mistaken. I enjoy being in wild areas, and many others do, too. The problem isn't that I'm against it; the problem (and I've said this before) is that there isn't land and resources sufficient for more than a bare handful (if that) of people to live "wild" without either civilization providing some or a lot of their support. Yes, we can go live in the forest and burn firewood. But we've learned that unrestricted cutting of wood means that the forests disappear; go look for the "Cedars of Lebanon" that once covered that country. They're gone, and won't return. Yes, we can go take berries and roots sufficient to live, but remove them from the food supply of other animals. Yes, we can fish, but as a planet, we are overfishing our oceans. In a few words, we have too many people on this planet to live "wild." It doesn't take Al Gore to look at this planet and realize that we're getting too full to "return to nature." Won't work. I wish it would; some of it would be good. We, as a species, can't do it. Wish you were right, and that I was wrong. But I don't think you are, or that I am.

As for those who wish to attack me, I haven't attacked anyone in this thread personally, not will I. I may disagree, and will say so, with many, sometimes with vigor. But I'm not going to rise to the bait others wish to use. Since those above who like to taunt do so no matter what I say, I simply prefer to ignore them; they may do as they wish, and I will do the same, except that I'm not going to either accuse or justify. If they wish to, that may say as much about them as it says about it. Or not.

But it seems to me that the post topic is of more interest to most than a few people trying to flame one member. So I'll remain interested in the topic, and indifferent about the rest.

TW


Did you pay up??

Graywolf
09-30-2009, 23:28
Weasel, Weasel, Weasel,

I never mentioned all people go live in the forset, Heck, it's too damn crowded in the city, but theer are ways to go about it and escape the evry day hassels of living in the city. For 'Some' it probally means to live longer. I for one had more than one doctor tell me I need to move out of the city for health reasons, but because there are some laws to prevent me, I am stuck here. There are many that will not because they love the city life so much, that to venture even to a small rural town is likened to an alien planet, (my girlfriend), and there are some who under stand the need to be among the wilderness that to leave is sore pain. As I said in a previous post which I assumed you did not read, I understand the need for civilization. It's inevitable (spl?). But we also need balance and not love the wilderness to death. There are some who is made for the natural ways, there are a lot who are not, and I know you agree with me on that. But to live by can't, well, it is can't that has trapped us in the first place. The more we say we can't, the more we won't.

I really don't know how to put it, but I think the OP was curious on how to live on the trail and if anyone has done it. I think that has been answered sooooo many times by those who have. There are those who just have no where else to go. I may be one of those soon. I would rather live in the wilderness as a bum, than sleep on a city sidewalk with the chance of being mugged or killed by a lunatic. The wilderness is soooo much safer, awwww yes, I will return......

Graywolf
09-30-2009, 23:30
Did you pay up??

Dooooh!!!!!! Man I forgot. I also went over the 500 character limit. My message was too short...:D

The Weasel
09-30-2009, 23:49
Did you pay up??

Of course I did. Why would I not?

TW

weary
10-01-2009, 00:39
Tipi, so far, is overwhelmingly ahead in this debate. However, like Henry, and me for a while, he didn't have a spouse and kids to contend with for most of his adventures.

Like much of what has happened in my life, "If it feels good, it is good." Different strokes for different folks -- and don't get stuck in a rut. Henry left the woods after two years and went back to inventing a better way of making pencils -- thus lifting his parents out of failure and poverty -- and giving him the financial means to write Walden.

A few recognize his pencil genius. Millions still read and draw inspiration from Walden.

Weary

Captn
10-01-2009, 06:14
I've given this some thought now .... I think one could live off the trail if they wanted to ...

But you would have to greatly enlarge your definition of food.

Mice, insects, and minnows are all great sources of protein and plentiful, at least in the warm months. Grubs, squirrels, some types of tree bark, and other things like that would also be available.

Getting your daily dose of Vitamins may be a challenge, however.

Monkeyboy
10-01-2009, 08:10
Gray -

You're mistaken. I enjoy being in wild areas, and many others do, too. The problem isn't that I'm against it; the problem (and I've said this before) is that there isn't land and resources sufficient for more than a bare handful (if that) of people to live "wild" without either civilization providing some or a lot of their support. Yes, we can go live in the forest and burn firewood. But we've learned that unrestricted cutting of wood means that the forests disappear; go look for the "Cedars of Lebanon" that once covered that country. They're gone, and won't return. Yes, we can go take berries and roots sufficient to live, but remove them from the food supply of other animals. Yes, we can fish, but as a planet, we are overfishing our oceans. In a few words, we have too many people on this planet to live "wild." It doesn't take Al Gore to look at this planet and realize that we're getting too full to "return to nature." Won't work. I wish it would; some of it would be good. We, as a species, can't do it. Wish you were right, and that I was wrong. But I don't think you are, or that I am.

As for those who wish to attack me, I haven't attacked anyone in this thread personally, not will I. I may disagree, and will say so, with many, sometimes with vigor. But I'm not going to rise to the bait others wish to use. Since those above who like to taunt do so no matter what I say, I simply prefer to ignore them; they may do as they wish, and I will do the same, except that I'm not going to either accuse or justify. If they wish to, that may say as much about them as it says about it. Or not.

But it seems to me that the post topic is of more interest to most than a few people trying to flame one member. So I'll remain interested in the topic, and indifferent about the rest.

TW

Who attacked you Weas? Nobody.

What people have done is called you out on your gasbag rhetoric know-it-all-ness.

It totally irks you when you speak out of your nether regions and get proven wrong, time and time and time again.

Someone states (on topic) that one could live off the land like the Indians. You state (on topic) that you don't think you can, because no other civilization has ever done it. You were proven wrong. You then state that you need to elaborate that no civilization over 10,000 years old had done it (I guess thinking that is a mystically high enough number to cover your ass). It wasn't, and you were called to task yet again.....and again.....and again.

Sorry Weasy ol' boy, but when it comes to matters that you know little about, I've found it best just to keep your mouth shut.

Then you do something totally insane as if to prove your freakin' intelligence, thinking no one would no the answer because it's that cryptic Latin stuff.........only the Great and Powerful Weasy knows Latin........sheesh.

Get off your pedestal Weasy.....you got served......you were wrong......multiple times......and got caught.

Be a man and admit it.

Monkeyboy
10-01-2009, 08:12
Of course I did. Why would I not?

TW

Well, for one thing......the minimum donation on WB Paypal links is 10.00.

And you can tell them that goes to MonkeyBoy's account, not for the purposes of re-upping your subscription for a year.

That's M O N K E Y B O Y.

Monkeyboy
10-01-2009, 08:14
I've given this some thought now .... I think one could live off the trail if they wanted to ...

But you would have to greatly enlarge your definition of food.

Mice, insects, and minnows are all great sources of protein and plentiful, at least in the warm months. Grubs, squirrels, some types of tree bark, and other things like that would also be available.

Getting your daily dose of Vitamins may be a challenge, however.

And that is exactly how the Aboriginee do it.......

weary
10-01-2009, 11:20
Some monkey type creatures live off the land. That suggests to me that the monkey subspecies known as "human" probably could also. Also before humans embarked on inventing civilization, the species lived off the land just like other monkey types.

So at least until this ongoing civilization work is completed, it's my suspicion that the tiny few humans willing to try can probably survive on the fruits of a wild landscape.

But I doubt if they will find it also possible to walk 2,000 miles in six months, while still finding enough grubs, mice, dandelions and such stuff. It takes a lot of time and energy and one burns a lot of calories on a thru hike.

Living on the fruits of wildness also takes a lot of time and energy. Few if any will have enough for both.

Weary

Monkeyboy
10-01-2009, 11:33
Aboriginee travel many miles and live off the land at the same time.
Yanomamo travel many miles and live off the land at the same time.

Key to being able to accomplish this is whether the land region you are in is capable of supporting you while doing this.

In other words, I wouldn't try this in the Mojave Desert.

Monkeyboy
10-01-2009, 11:41
A Walkabout (from Wikipedia)

Walkabout refers to a rite of passage where male Australian Aborigines would undergo a journey during adolescence and live in the wilderness for a period as long as six months. In this practice they would trace the paths, or "songlines", that their people's ceremonial ancestors took, and imitate, in a fashion, their heroic deeds.

Supporting themselves over a long journey for up to six months........

Like it was stated early, you'd have to change your diet to include things you would never think of eating.........

Dances with Mice
10-01-2009, 11:42
Theer was this one guy, supposedly an experienced outdoorsman, who tried living off the land and had good reason to avoid towns and all contact with civilization. He made it for a couple years but it really didn't work too well. (http://www.ericrudolph.radicalfringe.org/lil.htm)

Nope, not at all. (http://www.ericrudolph.radicalfringe.org/lickfloor.htm)

He wound up like a suburban raccoon raiding gardens, trash cans and dumpsters at night.

Pacific Tortuga
10-01-2009, 11:47
Aboriginee travel many miles and live off the land at the same time.
Yanomamo travel many miles and live off the land at the same time.

Key to being able to accomplish this is whether the land region you are in is capable of supporting you while doing this.

In other words, I wouldn't try this in the Mojave Desert.

Not to mention passed down regional no-how from generations of elders.
There is plenty to eat in the desert its finding water that will be difficult.

tammons
10-01-2009, 12:12
Those tribes are masters of what they do which is hunting and gathering. Also master of their domain.

You could probably take a real aboriginal, teach him the native flora and wildlife, let him go mostly anywhere and I bet he could survive in better health than a modern day dumpster diver.

One thing for sure, in true aboriginal culture survival is a group effort.

We are also masters within our very specialized lives, but have forgotten the knowledge required for aboriginal living and by that I dont mean going to the grocery store once a month for supplies. I guess modern civilized folk could do it with enough study and training.
Making a serious effort from scratch would be dangerous.

You could take the path of Cody Lundin dedicate your life to subsistance minimalist living and go live in a debris shelter for a few years. That would be a good start.

For the real deal you would need to go live with a aboriginal tribe for a year or two and learn the finer points of living off the land.

As far as living on the trail, the more I think about it, I do think you could do it long term.

What we all need to fit into our society is money to buy and live in our specialized world.

All you have to do is figure out how to live without money and you are all set.

I live in the far south and there are a lot of homeless people that migrate down here in the winter for warmer weather. Obviously some of them live that life by choice and beg so they do have some $. I try to donate regularly. I often wonder if the harshness of camping out in a box 24-7, being constantly harrassed, arrested, broke, dirty, hungry is worth the freedom. I guess to some it is.

My buddy owns a few buildings close by and they have targeted his property. Drives him nuts.

Graywolf
10-01-2009, 12:43
Well, for one thing......the minimum donation on WB Paypal links is 10.00.

And you can tell them that goes to MonkeyBoy's account, not for the purposes of re-upping your subscription for a year.

That's M O N K E Y B O Y.

Isn't that the same minimal number of characters??:-?:-?

This really has been a fun topic for me. Got me to think (scary). And to look at things from different point of veiws. As Weary said, If is' good, it's good, and for me I would rather be outside anyday of th eyear then stuck in this crappy [email protected]#$$%^ of a city and stuff my lungs with all this pollution. If others find that wrong then so be ti. But for me, I am livin when I am on the trail, and even if it is for a few days or a few months, I AM LIVING ON THE TRAIL.........

Sorry... I didn't use all my characters.

Tipi Walter
10-01-2009, 12:47
Isn't that the same minimal number of characters??:-?:-?

This really has been a fun topic for me. Got me to think (scary). And to look at things from different point of veiws. As Weary said, If is' good, it's good, and for me I would rather be outside anyday of th eyear then stuck in this crappy [email protected]#$$%^ of a city and stuff my lungs with all this pollution. If others find that wrong then so be ti. But for me, I am livin when I am on the trail, and even if it is for a few days or a few months, I AM LIVING ON THE TRAIL.........

Sorry... I didn't use all my characters.

Yeah, let's say you spend 15 days a month backpacking and then return "home"(and the computer)for 15 days. Are you living out or in? What if you consider your "outdoors time" to be your home, and the "computer storage shed"(house)to be a temporary hold over until the next trip? Maybe it's all mental.

Graywolf
10-01-2009, 12:52
I've given this some thought now .... I think one could live off the trail if they wanted to ...

But you would have to greatly enlarge your definition of food.

Mice, insects, and minnows are all great sources of protein and plentiful, at least in the warm months. Grubs, squirrels, some types of tree bark, and other things like that would also be available.

Getting your daily dose of Vitamins may be a challenge, however.

Hey Captn, You said it. Living off the trail is possible!!! There are plenty of mice at all the shelters, just set some traps and wait. Once you finished at one shelter move on to the next, all the way to katahdin. Once you return to the other shelters there should be mice again. Mix that up with some blackberries you will berrymice stew. MMMMMMmmmmm.......

Now you can publish that recipe but it is mine so you will have to pay royalties.

Pedaling Fool
10-01-2009, 16:24
...I often wonder if the harshness of camping out in a box 24-7, being constantly harrassed, arrested, broke, dirty, hungry is worth the freedom. I guess to some it is...
I believe many do make the choice to live this way, but they don't find freedom. There is no such thing as freedom; there are only degrees of freedom or choice.

If you go into the woods you will have freedom from the laws and responsibilities that are associated with society (News Flash: There are rules/laws/responsibilities in ALL societies, not just our society).

If you choose to live off the land or live as a vagrant than you forfeit many freedoms you have in society, the freedom of choice of where and when you eat or when you want to be exposed to the elements. And many, many more that we all take for granted, but nature doesn’t grant them. All you’ve done is exchange one set of responsibilities for another; nature does delegate responsibilities onto you and responsibilities equal less freedom.

Graywolf
10-01-2009, 16:37
I believe many do make the choice to live this way, but they don't find freedom. There is no such thing as freedom; there are only degrees of freedom or choice.

If you go into the woods you will have freedom from the laws and responsibilities that are associated with society (News Flash: There are rules/laws/responsibilities in ALL societies, not just our society).

If you choose to live off the land or live as a vagrant than you forfeit many freedoms you have in society, the freedom of choice of where and when you eat or when you want to be exposed to the elements. And many, many more that we all take for granted, but nature doesn’t grant them. All you’ve done is exchange one set of responsibilities for another; nature does delegate responsibilities onto you and responsibilities equal less freedom.


AHHHHhhhhh.... Natural resposibilities....The best...In the wild we can also run around naked if we want to, when we want....:banana

Graywolf
10-01-2009, 19:06
Well, even BigFoot has to resort to some way of getting his meals on the AT. Check out this shocking video from Vermont,

www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPHVuuVq1QE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPHVuuVq1QE)


I hope this helps with all the confusion of living off the land

The Weasel
10-02-2009, 00:27
I believe many do make the choice to live this way, but they don't find freedom. There is no such thing as freedom; there are only degrees of freedom or choice.

If you go into the woods you will have freedom from the laws and responsibilities that are associated with society (News Flash: There are rules/laws/responsibilities in ALL societies, not just our society).

If you choose to live off the land or live as a vagrant than you forfeit many freedoms you have in society, the freedom of choice of where and when you eat or when you want to be exposed to the elements. And many, many more that we all take for granted, but nature doesn’t grant them. All you’ve done is exchange one set of responsibilities for another; nature does delegate responsibilities onto you and responsibilities equal less freedom.

As much as we might otherwise agree, I think you're wrong on both counts here: First, freedom is the ability to choose, meaningfully. The terms are essentialy synonyms. But more importantly, living "off the land" or as an itinerant (perhaps a better term than vagrant) hardly leaves one free from "rules/laws/responsibilities". Actually, the rules and laws are no different; one is always in a nation/state now, and whether the laws are strictly or weakly enforced, they are omnipresent, and must be observed. Child support, income reporting, no contaminating water sources, and all the other "rules/laws/responsibilities" stay attached, whether you live by berry picking or by coupon clipping. Sorry. But it's true.

TW

Pedaling Fool
10-02-2009, 08:54
As much as we might otherwise agree, I think you're wrong on both counts...
TW
That’s ok TW, I much rather you disagree with me; it’s very entertaining to watch you, in a lawyerly way, split hairs. I won’t argue your points, too tired, had a tough ride yesterday and haven’t had my first cup of coffee today.

Monkeyboy
10-02-2009, 09:08
What is the funniest about all of this is the fact that we had to have a civilization that was over 10,000 years old that actually had buildings, farms, etc.......

....but the civilizations that were nomadic and didn't have buildings and farms didn't count.

.....but yet we were wanting to compare them to a hiker that is nomadic, that didn't have buildings and farms..........

Kinda like comparing apples and oranges.......and then complaining that the orange has a citrusy taste......when wanting to speak of citrus fruit in general.

tammons
10-02-2009, 09:09
You guys are making this way too difficult.

Freedom that hobos seek is freedom from work.

Monkeyboy
10-02-2009, 09:21
Wasn't speaking of a hobo. Was speaking of the original thread as to can someone live off of the land.

And the argument posed was that a farmer doesn't....well, duh....he doesn't have to.

And a city boy doesn't....well, duh....he doesn't have to.

And someone hiking long distances can't obtain that due to the time necessary to hunt/gather.

ALL hunter/gatherer societies have been nomadic.....so yeah....no farms, no buildings and lots of walking are par for the course.

tammons
10-02-2009, 09:55
That was not directed at your post.
The two post above yours.


Wasn't speaking of a hobo. Was speaking of the original thread as to can someone live off of the land.

And the argument posed was that a farmer doesn't....well, duh....he doesn't have to.

And a city boy doesn't....well, duh....he doesn't have to.

And someone hiking long distances can't obtain that due to the time necessary to hunt/gather.

ALL hunter/gatherer societies have been nomadic.....so yeah....no farms, no buildings and lots of walking are par for the course.

Tipi Walter
10-02-2009, 10:26
As much as we might otherwise agree, I think you're wrong on both counts here: First, freedom is the ability to choose, meaningfully. The terms are essentialy synonyms. But more importantly, living "off the land" or as an itinerant (perhaps a better term than vagrant) hardly leaves one free from "rules/laws/responsibilities". Actually, the rules and laws are no different; one is always in a nation/state now, and whether the laws are strictly or weakly enforced, they are omnipresent, and must be observed. Child support, income reporting, no contaminating water sources, and all the other "rules/laws/responsibilities" stay attached, whether you live by berry picking or by coupon clipping. Sorry. But it's true.

TW

To dissect it in such a way misses the whole point of relative freedom and the human choice to live in relative simplicity. Sure, we're always in a nation/state and the laws of that state must be observed whether they are the laws of the coupon clipper or the laws of the berry picker. To harp on the abstract theory that no matter what we do we're always going to be under the thumb of laws can be used as a clever excuse to avoid any attempt at living outdoors or living off the land or embracing the lifestyle of a backpacker living outdoors.

In the real world of human beings, a person can make the choice to live more simply, period. To parse and dissect the words "freedom" or "living off the land" is just an attempt to avoid considering and choosing a life of "simplicity." Backpackers, at least while they're out backpacking, are living a life of physical simplicity, just compare their "carbon footprint" to the typical American couch potato. While backpacking, they use less water, they use less electricity and oil and natural gas and don't pollute while driving, etc(at least after they get to the trail). How this could be debated is beyond me and why it wouldn't be desirable in a world approaching 7 billion doesn't make much sense.

What we have in our current system of society and why more people aren't backpacking and therefore living more simply, is the desire by most to enter into economic slavery, to stay indoors and in debt and enchained. Here are some causes of economic slavery:

** The choice to pursue a career which demands too much of a time commitment per week. Most people work too much and choose to based on these even earlier choices:

** To get married and start a family. The choice to have kids is the biggest cause of modern economic slavery. Very few people are gonna home school their children while living in a wall tent or a tipi and working one day a week in town or homesteading off the land or living as nomads on the AT. It's remotely possible, but it takes the faithful choice of two inspired individuals, a husband and a wife(or a man and a woman), and even then the state apparatus may swoop in at any time to destroy the dream(no flush toilets for the kiddies, etc).

** The crazy addiction to the expensive overbuilt house. This slavery induces people to enter into terrible mortgages and 15 to 30 year debts which in turn commits them to a lifetime of full time work. They never consider living in a wall tent or hogan or tipi instead, and so they become enslaved. No shelter should cost more than a couple thousand dollars. Look at the shelters of indigenous people: simple and cheap.

** The addiction to technology, cable TV, dish TV, computers, cellphones, cars: all these things have a monthly fee associated with them and cause even more slavery to a higher cash flow.

** The nasty debacle of debt. Here the chained greedily enter into contracts with credit cards, bank loans, car loans, home loans, that never fully get paid off, and so the ruination of a life spent indoors and working and not outdoors and backpacking.

In our current society there's no chance that a large group of people can live off the land in primitive conditions. (Do the Amish count?) The land has been taken and laws have been made and fences have been built and every last acre has been accounted for, and the old style hunter/gatherers are extinct. BUT solo individuals can do it on a relative scale, and even if they are not strictly living off the land, they are living on the land in many ways like their ancestors of 20,000 years ago, w/o electricity or running water or central heat and air and on foot and subject to nature's four season. The call of the wild neanderthal is strong and is partially heard on a foot trail with a backpack. This will always be true as long as there's a nature to go to.

weary
10-02-2009, 10:56
....ALL hunter/gatherer societies have been nomadic.....so yeah....no farms, no buildings and lots of walking are par for the course.
hunter/gatherer societies tend to be nomad because they need to be. That's how they find sufficient food. I suspect no such society ever gave up the daily search for sustenance in order to walk a marked trail and reach a mountain 2,000 miles away, in an arbitrary six months time span, no less.

Weary

Monkeyboy
10-02-2009, 11:14
hunter/gatherer societies tend to be nomad because they need to be. That's how they find sufficient food. I suspect no such society ever gave up the daily search for sustenance in order to walk a marked trail and reach a mountain 2,000 miles away, in an arbitrary six months time span, no less.

Weary

First, that is exactly what I am stating........all hunter/gatherers are nomadic.

And as stated before, as to long distance hiking and sustaining yourself, the Aboriginal people do it all the time as a rite of passage.......walking thousands of miles by yourself over a period of six months to a year.

Kinda like their Bar Mitzvah........

Mags
10-02-2009, 11:43
Kinda like their Bar Mitzvah........

I want to see the Walk-about version of this book:


http://levinejudaica.com/catalog/images/discoss.jpg

Monkeyboy
10-02-2009, 11:53
Dig the blue suit..........

kyhipo
10-02-2009, 14:13
I lived on the AT for a couple yrs,not as a frontiersman but just living,working in the northeast and loved it!but not for the weak at heart!KY

Captn
10-02-2009, 14:47
Hey Captn, You said it. Living off the trail is possible!!! There are plenty of mice at all the shelters, just set some traps and wait. Once you finished at one shelter move on to the next, all the way to katahdin. Once you return to the other shelters there should be mice again. Mix that up with some blackberries you will berrymice stew. MMMMMMmmmmm.......

Now you can publish that recipe but it is mine so you will have to pay royalties.



YUMMMMMMY. Berrymice stew .........

Has kind of a ring to it, doesn't it?

Toss in some pine needles and get your full dose of Vitamin C.

Captn
10-02-2009, 14:55
First, that is exactly what I am stating........all hunter/gatherers are nomadic.

And as stated before, as to long distance hiking and sustaining yourself, the Aboriginal people do it all the time as a rite of passage.......walking thousands of miles by yourself over a period of six months to a year.

Kinda like their Bar Mitzvah........

I think they were nomadic for a reason .. they followed the food north in the spring and the food south in the fall ... Hunting was their primary source of protein and animal flesh provides the same caloric content as veggies for about 20% of the effort. However, fruits and veggies were needed for vitamins. Meat alone would give you Scurvy.

They would follow the berries and other natural fruits and veggies north as they ripened and south before the snows if I remember my natural history worth a darn.

Monkeyboy
10-02-2009, 15:13
They learned to eat during the various seasons and moved to specific regions due to nuts, seeds, fruits, etc, that ripened at different seasons.

They also expanded their diet to include (as stated before) different types of bark, tree sap, tubers, greens, fungus, mushrooms, insects, etc. They even made bread from different types of seeds.

The advantage they had, however, is the fact that Australia has many more wild varieties of fruits, nuts and tubers than can be found in North America.

Monkeyboy
10-02-2009, 15:14
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushfood

Mags
10-02-2009, 15:23
I just came back from a North American liquor store and an NA grocery store. I just bought some sweet potatoes, onions, granny smith apples, pears (canned) and pork. I plan on cooking said pork and veggies in apple brandy (that I bought at said liquor store) to make a killer stew next week at some point.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the thread mind you. But, damn...doesn't that sound good?

The Weasel
10-02-2009, 15:36
Mags' post has much to do with the thread. And it sounds good.

Tipi, your very romantic and passionate post is fascinating. But if you mean "get away from human society," that's one thing. But even for a truly miniscule number of people, self-sufficiency just isn't possible, unless they either are willing to go to a totally Neolithic lifestyle or they live close to an abundant and open amount of iron or copper/tin ore and coal and either know how to grow cotton/flax or other fibres or have an adequate herd of sheep. As for your screed against homes and families and so forth, "living off the land" involves being just as much of a time-slave as a "job" under worse circumstances; that's why "old age" in pre-industrial times was generally the 30s or 40s. I'm sorry. Can someone get a bit of a taste for what it was like then? Yes, but no more than wetting one's beak. Can one live like that? No.

It's a nice fantasy, but it's a fantasy.

TW

DAJA
10-02-2009, 16:08
I've recently become a full time homesteader, meaning i've given up having an occupation and rely on harvesting my land for a subsistance living.

I'm 33 and debt free. I own my home (morgage free) including 30 acres of cleared land and 100 acres of woodlot. I built my home to be extremely effecient and off the grid. I'll be completely off the grid in less than a year. Actually I will be recieving money back from my local power utility by selling them my excess power.

In addition, I have a grey water and rain water collection system allowing me to reuse and recycle water and irrigation. Further I use reverse osmosis and UV to treat my well water so I never have to worry about contaminated water.

I grow sunflowers to turn into biodeisel in my garage, this is used for fuel for my VW and tractor.

I grow a 15 acre vegetable garden that will sustain me nearly a full year. Many things are pickled and bottled.

I buy a side of beef and side of swine once a year from a local farmer and butcher and package the meat myself.

I have chickens that provide both fresh free range eggs and meat. In addition I keep a couple of turkeys for Christmas and thanksgiving.

I've just added 4 alpaca's for wool which I have spun by a local lady down the road. This gives me some income as well.

I harvest my own lumber and firewood off my property.

I have apples, peaches, strawberry's, rasberry's, rubarb, that get pickled or frozen. I have a neighbor that supplies me with blueberry's in exchange for fresh greens when in season.

All in all, for my girlfriend and I our monthly expenses are roughly $300 CAN per month to cover internet/phone, sat TV, and the few staples such as sugar, coffee, flower etc that we buy at the grocery store. $300 a month is very easy to achieve and requires no extra effort on our part as it is gained from the labor we're doing for ourselves. Selling extra vege's, eggs, lumber and sometimes firewood.

Yes it is a lot of work, but i'll tell you one thing, I will never sit in a cubical or work for another person the rest of my life. Nothing is more rewarding than providing for oneself on their own property. Everyday is a new challenge and the reward is knowing that your effort is all for your own benifit.

Not the same as living on the trail or being nomadic but still, being self sufficient is a treat...

Jack Tarlin
10-02-2009, 16:11
This sounds like a wonderful life and I wish you well!!

Pedaling Fool
10-02-2009, 17:02
First, that is exactly what I am stating........all hunter/gatherers are nomadic.

And as stated before, as to long distance hiking and sustaining yourself, the Aboriginal people do it all the time as a rite of passage.......walking thousands of miles by yourself over a period of six months to a year.

Kinda like their Bar Mitzvah........
It is irritating to restate things you've already stated in very clear terms.

Pedaling Fool
10-02-2009, 17:14
I've recently become a full time homesteader, meaning i've given up having an occupation and rely on harvesting my land for a subsistance living.

I'm 33 and debt free. I own my home (morgage free) including 30 acres of cleared land and 100 acres of woodlot. I built my home to be extremely effecient and off the grid. I'll be completely off the grid in less than a year. Actually I will be recieving money back from my local power utility by selling them my excess power.

In addition, I have a grey water and rain water collection system allowing me to reuse and recycle water and irrigation. Further I use reverse osmosis and UV to treat my well water so I never have to worry about contaminated water.

I grow sunflowers to turn into biodeisel in my garage, this is used for fuel for my VW and tractor.

I grow a 15 acre vegetable garden that will sustain me nearly a full year. Many things are pickled and bottled.

I buy a side of beef and side of swine once a year from a local farmer and butcher and package the meat myself.

I have chickens that provide both fresh free range eggs and meat. In addition I keep a couple of turkeys for Christmas and thanksgiving.

I've just added 4 alpaca's for wool which I have spun by a local lady down the road. This gives me some income as well.

I harvest my own lumber and firewood off my property.

I have apples, peaches, strawberry's, rasberry's, rubarb, that get pickled or frozen. I have a neighbor that supplies me with blueberry's in exchange for fresh greens when in season.

All in all, for my girlfriend and I our monthly expenses are roughly $300 CAN per month to cover internet/phone, sat TV, and the few staples such as sugar, coffee, flower etc that we buy at the grocery store. $300 a month is very easy to achieve and requires no extra effort on our part as it is gained from the labor we're doing for ourselves. Selling extra vege's, eggs, lumber and sometimes firewood.

Yes it is a lot of work, but i'll tell you one thing, I will never sit in a cubical or work for another person the rest of my life. Nothing is more rewarding than providing for oneself on their own property. Everyday is a new challenge and the reward is knowing that your effort is all for your own benifit.

Not the same as living on the trail or being nomadic but still, being self sufficient is a treat...
That's really nice DAJA, but the reality is not everyone can do that, there just isn't enough land for 6+ billion people. If we were to give everyone equal bits of land it would work out to about 5 acres per person (IIRC). However, the problem is not all land is equal. How would you like to trade your land for desert, arctic, mountainous (I mean really mountainous)... Also if we did this you could forget about having national parks, and many other problems too numerous to mention. We need people living on the grid and in cities, unless we start a major reduction of our populations.

We can't support all 6 billion people on this planet with green technologies nor would organic farming work in feeding everyone.

You may be living green, but you're not living off the land. There's a big difference; if anyone can't see the difference than you've taken too much for granted.

Egads
10-02-2009, 17:26
I just came back from a North American liquor store and an NA grocery store. I just bought some sweet potatoes, onions, granny smith apples, pears (canned) and pork. I plan on cooking said pork and veggies in apple brandy (that I bought at said liquor store) to make a killer stew next week at some point.

I thought all good Italians cook with garlic :rolleyes:

Del Q
10-02-2009, 18:03
Long interesting thread, I believe that acorns are edible, the Indians and Frontiersmen had a LOT of fish & game to select from before we destroyed the environment. I heard that in many cases they spent on average 2 hours per days providing for themselves.

Mags
10-02-2009, 18:12
I thought all good Italians cook with garlic :rolleyes:

..but not when making pork and apple brandy stew. :)

The Weasel
10-02-2009, 20:30
I've recently become a full time homesteader, meaning i've given up having an occupation and rely on harvesting my land for a subsistance living.

I'm 33 and debt free. I own my home (morgage free) including 30 acres of cleared land and 100 acres of woodlot. I built my home to be extremely effecient and off the grid. I'll be completely off the grid in less than a year. Actually I will be recieving money back from my local power utility by selling them my excess power.

In addition, I have a grey water and rain water collection system allowing me to reuse and recycle water and irrigation. Further I use reverse osmosis and UV to treat my well water so I never have to worry about contaminated water.

I grow sunflowers to turn into biodeisel in my garage, this is used for fuel for my VW and tractor.

I grow a 15 acre vegetable garden that will sustain me nearly a full year. Many things are pickled and bottled.

I buy a side of beef and side of swine once a year from a local farmer and butcher and package the meat myself.

I have chickens that provide both fresh free range eggs and meat. In addition I keep a couple of turkeys for Christmas and thanksgiving.

I've just added 4 alpaca's for wool which I have spun by a local lady down the road. This gives me some income as well.

I harvest my own lumber and firewood off my property.

I have apples, peaches, strawberry's, rasberry's, rubarb, that get pickled or frozen. I have a neighbor that supplies me with blueberry's in exchange for fresh greens when in season.

All in all, for my girlfriend and I our monthly expenses are roughly $300 CAN per month to cover internet/phone, sat TV, and the few staples such as sugar, coffee, flower etc that we buy at the grocery store. $300 a month is very easy to achieve and requires no extra effort on our part as it is gained from the labor we're doing for ourselves. Selling extra vege's, eggs, lumber and sometimes firewood.

Yes it is a lot of work, but i'll tell you one thing, I will never sit in a cubical or work for another person the rest of my life. Nothing is more rewarding than providing for oneself on their own property. Everyday is a new challenge and the reward is knowing that your effort is all for your own benifit.

Not the same as living on the trail or being nomadic but still, being self sufficient is a treat...

That's a nice life, but it's not self-sufficient.

- Your 'off the grid' home obviously has, and uses, electricity. The wiring system and the electric lights and appliances were made elsewhere. Probably your generating system was, too.

- I suspect the reverse osmosis system and, almost certainly, most of the parts of the UV system were purchased and made elsewhere in Canada or the US or - gasp! - even China. Was the well hand-dug? Is it an open well or does it use manufactured piping? Is there a pump?

- I'm glad you have chickens. In your part of Canada it gets a bit brisk in the winter. Is the coop heated? With? Where did the coop wire come from?

- Harvesting lumber implies a mill, either yours or someone else's. Is the lumber sawn with a metal saw? Or do you split planks and shingles with a mallet and wedge? Is the wedge wood? or metal?

- When you butcher the side of beef, is it with a a home made blade, smelted from local ore?

- When you freeze your fruits and vegetables, it's not yet a good old Canadian Atlantic winter yet; I assume you use an electric refrigerator or freezer, with chemical coolants. Am I wrong?

- Your computer, TV and sugar, coffee and other staples don't come from your "self-sufficent" lifestyle. They come from China (the electronics), Columbia or Kenya or wherever the coffee was grown, and Ontario or Iowa or Louisiana or Cuba, where sugar comes from.

I am not - repeat not - belittling your efforts. You are, and should be, proud of what you are doing. But you are a part of the provincial, national, regional and world economy and just as dependent upon it as any resident of Montreal or Jakarta. Indeed, you contribute to it in your own way, by excess electricity you generate and by selling the products of your effort to others, just as does the market farmer at my local vegetable stand.

We are all dependent upon each other, whether on the AT or in Canada or North America or any place else, and the myth of "self-sufficiency" is no more true today than when John Donne wrote his poem. The bells all toll for each of us; we do not live alone.

TW

The Weasel
10-02-2009, 20:53
Long interesting thread, I believe that acorns are edible, the Indians and Frontiersmen had a LOT of fish & game to select from before we destroyed the environment. I heard that in many cases they spent on average 2 hours per days providing for themselves.

Acorns aren't edible, dude. And "we" didn't destroy the environment and thus prevent Indians and Frontiersmen from having "a LOT of fish & game to select from." They were right there at the start of doing that, and we've just continued in their footsteps. A number of Native American societies overgrazed, overcut, and overharvested their turf before being forced to move on or disappear into history. And "Buffalo Bill" Cody didn't get his name from ecotourism. Oh; the acorns. If you want to eat acorns (and thousands of Native Americans on the west coast lived off the acorns from live oaks), it's a ton of work. Two hours a day? You heard wrong. Hobbes' turn of phrase for that kind of "life" was accurate: "Nasty, brutish and short."

TW

Dances with Mice
10-02-2009, 21:27
Equestrian plains tribes did pretty well (http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/tallind.htm)living off the land.

Kinda hard to chase herds of buffalo up the Trail these days though.

sbhikes
10-02-2009, 21:47
I've recently become a full time homesteader, meaning i've given up having an occupation and rely on harvesting my land for a subsistance living.

That's so awesome! Do you need a second wife?

While hiking the PCT this summer I walked past a homestead like you described. I was so envious. I wish I could do what you are doing. Who cares if you are semi-dependent on modern technology. You are not as dependent as the rest of us slaves. You found the hole in the fence that thru-hikers think they've found, but you get to live there all the time, not just for 6 months.

Tipi Walter
10-02-2009, 21:58
That's so awesome! Do you need a second wife?

While hiking the PCT this summer I walked past a homestead like you described. I was so envious. I wish I could do what you are doing. Who cares if you are semi-dependent on modern technology. You are not as dependent as the rest of us slaves. You found the hole in the fence that thru-hikers think they've found, but you get to live there all the time, not just for 6 months.

There are several such homesteads in the mountains of NC. I know of two in Celo, NC, a little Quaker community located northeast of Asheville. Off the grid, alternative housing, shake roofs, community building projects, food harvesting and gardens, the works. Joe Hollis has a nice setup in Celo called Mountain Gardens, and he's an expert on medicinal plants and terraced gardening.

Graywolf
10-03-2009, 00:23
There are several such homesteads in the mountains of NC. I know of two in Celo, NC, a little Quaker community located northeast of Asheville. Off the grid, alternative housing, shake roofs, community building projects, food harvesting and gardens, the works. Joe Hollis has a nice setup in Celo called Mountain Gardens, and he's an expert on medicinal plants and terraced gardening.

Man, that is my dream, to at least have a mountain homestead. It would beat this [email protected]#$%^&*() city life.

Every day I have luch with one of te other chefs at work and she really gets on my nerves some times. She always has the phone glued to her ear (i actually think it really is) She told me to day that she could never do the things that I do. I asked her why? She said because she could never be able to live with out technology.

See, even if we could, not every body can live off the land just because they have become too dependant on society and technology. That is ok, that just give the few of us who can more room to wander.

Graywolf
10-03-2009, 00:25
I just came back from a North American liquor store and an NA grocery store. I just bought some sweet potatoes, onions, granny smith apples, pears (canned) and pork. I plan on cooking said pork and veggies in apple brandy (that I bought at said liquor store) to make a killer stew next week at some point.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the thread mind you. But, damn...doesn't that sound good?

Hey Mags, you forgot the mice.

DAJA
10-03-2009, 00:38
That's really nice DAJA, but the reality is not everyone can do that, there just isn't enough land for 6+ billion people. If we were to give everyone equal bits of land it would work out to about 5 acres per person (IIRC). However, the problem is not all land is equal. How would you like to trade your land for desert, arctic, mountainous (I mean really mountainous)... Also if we did this you could forget about having national parks, and many other problems too numerous to mention. We need people living on the grid and in cities, unless we start a major reduction of our populations.

We can't support all 6 billion people on this planet with green technologies nor would organic farming work in feeding everyone.

You may be living green, but you're not living off the land. There's a big difference; if anyone can't see the difference than you've taken too much for granted.

My apology's, my intention was not to claim to be fully self sufficient, but rather to describe the direction i'm heading. I'm under no illusion that my lifestyle is free from the outside world, just to a smaller degree than the average.

I also agree that not everyone could do this, but we make choices and collectively those choices create the world we share. Personally I don't feel we've collectively been making good choices for a long long time. So long in fact, that for all of us alive today, we at no point got a choice to opt in or opt out, and once in there is NO opting out... We realistically have no real alternatives but to participate to some degree. I mean, isn't that the sad reality... The only real freedom is deciding how deeply you want to participate... So yes, as the world spins today, not everyone could do this, but perhaps if more people made this choice, in time we collectively could start living in a more cooperative mannor with our world.


That's a nice life, but it's not self-sufficient.

- Your 'off the grid' home obviously has, and uses, electricity. The wiring system and the electric lights and appliances were made elsewhere. Probably your generating system was, too.

- I suspect the reverse osmosis system and, almost certainly, most of the parts of the UV system were purchased and made elsewhere in Canada or the US or - gasp! - even China. Was the well hand-dug? Is it an open well or does it use manufactured piping? Is there a pump?

- I'm glad you have chickens. In your part of Canada it gets a bit brisk in the winter. Is the coop heated? With? Where did the coop wire come from?

- Harvesting lumber implies a mill, either yours or someone else's. Is the lumber sawn with a metal saw? Or do you split planks and shingles with a mallet and wedge? Is the wedge wood? or metal?

- When you butcher the side of beef, is it with a a home made blade, smelted from local ore?

- When you freeze your fruits and vegetables, it's not yet a good old Canadian Atlantic winter yet; I assume you use an electric refrigerator or freezer, with chemical coolants. Am I wrong?

- Your computer, TV and sugar, coffee and other staples don't come from your "self-sufficent" lifestyle. They come from China (the electronics), Columbia or Kenya or wherever the coffee was grown, and Ontario or Iowa or Louisiana or Cuba, where sugar comes from.

I am not - repeat not - belittling your efforts. You are, and should be, proud of what you are doing. But you are a part of the provincial, national, regional and world economy and just as dependent upon it as any resident of Montreal or Jakarta. Indeed, you contribute to it in your own way, by excess electricity you generate and by selling the products of your effort to others, just as does the market farmer at my local vegetable stand.

We are all dependent upon each other, whether on the AT or in Canada or North America or any place else, and the myth of "self-sufficiency" is no more true today than when John Donne wrote his poem. The bells all toll for each of us; we do not live alone.

TW

Again, of coarse I depend heavily on the outside world... Our greatest strengh as a species is our ingenuity... So yeah, my home is loaded with a wide variety of technology, most of which is expensive and likely harmful to produce and certainly to ship... But again, if more people made different choices, industry and our entire mode of production would eventually change to match the new demands.. Who knows, perhaps we could eventually reach a day in which humans thrived without putting all life at risk..

At the very least it beats sitting in an office...:sun

The Weasel
10-03-2009, 00:42
Daja: I don't disagree with your goals, or your very solid efforts towards them. But please keep in mind that people who keep saying, "I'm self-sufficient" really aren't, in the sense that they create all they need themselves. Whether on a trail or in New Brunswick, it's not possible. Nor is it necessarily better than sitting in an office and, very possibly, not as beneficial, as the use of wood for heating or cooking, for instance, is environmentally even worse than using oil, which is pretty bad.

Keep trying; we're in this together.

TW

tammons
10-03-2009, 01:00
Good job Daja.

Dont pay attention to the know it all naysayers. They might try to belittle you into moving back to the city to lower your wood burning carbon footprint.

Keep it up.

DAJA
10-03-2009, 01:05
That's actually not true.... With an EPA high efficiency air tight stove burning 2.5 corde of wood per winter, selectively cut from my backyard is carbon neutral when balanced against the 100 acres of timber cleaning the air. In fact i'd be carbon neutral with only 5 acres... So the additional 95 acres goes along way to off set the things I can't produce myself.

Further, I supplement my heating including all hot water with a ground water thermal heat pump.. In addition all appliences are the the maximum end of high efficiency. I use the equivelent amount of power in one week as the average Canadian household uses in one day.

This is further enhanced with spray in soy based isulation. It truely is an air tight home with heppa filtration. All powered on site with a combination of home built solar collectors, hot water solar collectors, home built brook gravity power generation, and wind turbine.

Again, yes all this technology requires resources, manufacturing, shipping, etc, but as more people make these choices, and learn that living simpler does not mean going back to the stone age, in time our entire world will move in a cleaner direction. Don't lose technology, use it, but us it and direct it to grow in a direction that creates what we need but cleaner, safer, and more efficiently..

Beats the alternative...

Graywolf
10-03-2009, 01:10
MAN, I QUIT!!!!!!! I'm Going for a walk. And that my friend is self-suffecient. I worked my [email protected]#$%E to make the money MYSELF to by MY SHOES, MY BACKPACK, MY TENT,ect, ect, used MY COMPUTER to contact other HIKERS and EQUIPMENT MAKERS, to GET, OBTAIN, PURCHASE MY EQUIPMENT with MY MONEY that I WORKED HARD WITH MY OWN HANDS TO OBTAIN, so I can take a stroll down the good oh, Appalachcian trail, there Weasel, I am SELF-SUFFICENT. and if I want I can save enough of this money to never leave the trail again. and YES, I WOULD LOVE TO AND CAN.

Any arguments on this???

tammons
10-03-2009, 01:20
I am an architect and when I was in college years ago, everything was passive solar. Active solar systems were much too costly then and appliances were thirsty.

Now that prices have dropped dramatically it is pretty easy to set up an off the grid energy system with active systems and a efficient passive solar design.

I do believe that eventually sometime in the not too distant future all residences or at least communities will be energy self sufficient in that they will produce all needed energy on site.

DAJA
10-03-2009, 01:32
I agree Tammons.... It will likely happen more out of necessity than by choice... Here in Canada we have Federal and Provincial programs that give decent tax credits or direct subsidies for efficient building or renovations. And there is currently a bill going through the house (it won't pass) that will make it manditory for all new construction (both residential and commerical) to be energy self sufficient...It won't pass, but in time it will. Things will have to get worse for the movers and the shapers of the overconsumption crowd, but in time that lifestyle will not be sustainable and will have to seek more effiencent ways of living.

Simply put, there is more than "one" right way to live... And no one can argue the path we're on now is in any way successful, so lets get creative and find better ways of doing old things, and eliminate or at least reduce the things that provide little benifit....

Nearly Normal
10-03-2009, 01:52
I am an architect and when I was in college years ago, everything was passive solar. Active solar systems were much too costly then and appliances were thirsty.

Now that prices have dropped dramatically it is pretty easy to set up an off the grid energy system with active systems and a efficient passive solar design.

I do believe that eventually sometime in the not too distant future all residences or at least communities will be energy self sufficient in that they will produce all needed energy on site.

Easy but costly is what I've found. More competition would help.

tammons
10-03-2009, 02:18
It depends.
Future trends will be torwards smaller houses and smaller is more efficient.
Everything else is getting more efficient too and will continue to do so.

If you build a proper passive solar house depending on where you live, heating and cooling cost will be next to nothing and passive is not that much more expensive to build.

Solar hot water is very cheap. Dirt cheap. Its actually so cheap in some cases, I still dont understand why most home owners dont have one. If its an electric HWH its a large portion of an electrical bill.

Hydroxy and or woodgas gas among other things can be used for cooking.
Small solar freezers and refrigerators are available for a reasonable cost. Thats another energy hog.

All that remains are lights, a few appliances and electrical luxuries and misc.

If you have a creek and a substantial drop in elevation you are all set and that is very cheap.
If not you have to go some form of solar/wind.

That said but there is a company that just came out with a new process to build solar panels, IE not out of silicone. Cant remember the name right now, but they expect prices to be about $1 per watt for panels. Cheap.

The bottleneck right now is batteries. Just not enough technology yet, but with hybred cars that should improve soon.

Ideally you would want a solar array, cooking off hydroxy gas, part used as a gas for cooking, suplemental heating, hot water as is then part split off to hydrogen tanks to run a fuel cell to power your home.

That is very expensive to do right now, but it has already been done by an engineer in NJ I believe. It powers his entire home and he has enough gas in storage to last something like a 6 months to a year.

JoshStover
10-03-2009, 03:41
My apology's, my intention was not to claim to be fully self sufficient, but rather to describe the direction i'm heading. I'm under no illusion that my lifestyle is free from the outside world, just to a smaller degree than the average.

I also agree that not everyone could do this, but we make choices and collectively those choices create the world we share. Personally I don't feel we've collectively been making good choices for a long long time. So long in fact, that for all of us alive today, we at no point got a choice to opt in or opt out, and once in there is NO opting out... We realistically have no real alternatives but to participate to some degree. I mean, isn't that the sad reality... The only real freedom is deciding how deeply you want to participate... So yes, as the world spins today, not everyone could do this, but perhaps if more people made this choice, in time we collectively could start living in a more cooperative mannor with our world.



Again, of coarse I depend heavily on the outside world... Our greatest strengh as a species is our ingenuity... So yeah, my home is loaded with a wide variety of technology, most of which is expensive and likely harmful to produce and certainly to ship... But again, if more people made different choices, industry and our entire mode of production would eventually change to match the new demands.. Who knows, perhaps we could eventually reach a day in which humans thrived without putting all life at risk..

At the very least it beats sitting in an office...:sun

Wow. I really can't believe that people are trying to hate on you. I think what you are doing is freaking GREAT! Keep it up. I know that if more people were like you we would be ALOT better off...

Captn
10-03-2009, 09:34
Electricity and Gas utilities don't make a ton of money off the average consumer compared to the costs of maintaining the Grid.

They make their profit off of Corporations who use as much electricity as a small city all by themselves.

I think it's a point that is easy to lose track of.

Be honest with yourselves .. the answer is NOT to have people consume less. If you think that the average soccer mom is going to give up her SUV for the sake of the environment then you're just wrong. She will continue to make decisions based on perceived safety for her children NOW, not 20 years from now. Consumption will continue to increase as long as the population increases. That is just a fact of life.

If we really want a future built on renewable resources we need to find a way that we, the average consumers, can overproduce enough electricity to supply the entire grid, not just ourselves. That, along with passive systems becoming the norm, as discussed earlier in this thread, will go a LONG way towards the whole green movement. The Economics of being more efficient are already becoming an reality, the economics of supplying the grid are improving, technology is slowly evolving.

Canada has already faced the whole health care issue and developed their own solution, ir-regardless if you like it, it does enable more people to leave the corporate structure and strike out on their own. Make no mistake, working for "the man" isn't just a way to buy food and other necessities, but it's also the only way most americans can provide Health Care for their families.

Why is this such a big deal? Allow me to give you an example: I'm 48 years old and, through no fault of my own, had two discs go bad in my lower back. My choices were surgery or a wheelchair.

The surgery cost $100,000. How could anyone who is living a self sufficient lifestyle survive that type of expenditure? The truth is, they wouldn't. They would be the ones in the wheelchairs.

Most companies no longer will be providing or even supplementing health care for their retirees any longer here in the US.

This is just ONE element of the equation. There are so many more.

The entire system has always been geared towards providing drones for the machine. Good little consumers that work their 50 hours a week, drag their tired tails down to the grocery store and buy some preprocessed box of genetically engineered something or another for dinner, then come home and camp out in front of the electron box, consume a few watts of power, then climb into their sleep number bed to get up and consume again in the morning.

I heartily applaud those among us who are the pioneers in living to a different standard and working to supply the grid, not just themselves.

HERE HERE ... I lift my glass of commercially made, vat produced, energy intensive beer to you in a toast.

I truly and honestly applaud you and your commitment to the future.

I remain, for now, mired in the gears of the machine.

Thankfully, the machine is beginning to change.

Pedaling Fool
10-03-2009, 09:37
Good job Daja.

Dont pay attention to the know it all naysayers. They might try to belittle you into moving back to the city to lower your wood burning carbon footprint.

Keep it up.


Wow. I really can't believe that people are trying to hate on you. I think what you are doing is freaking GREAT! Keep it up. I know that if more people were like you we would be ALOT better off...
No one has been a naysayer or exhibiting hate on DAJA, just injecting some reality to that type of lifestyle and the fact that 6 billion people, given the resources on this planet, cannot exist like that. The fact is we need people living on the grid and in cities. Also organic farming is great for small groups, but not efficient to feed the U.S. population, much less the world’s. (You might say that a population of 6+ billion people is unnatural).

Also living green is nothing compared to living off the land. All advances of human technology allow DAJA to live so comfortably, take them away and life would suck.

Nature is brutal and that is why animals that live off the land spend so much time surviving, despite all the advantages of evolution. You could say it is their job (and it’s a full time job) and it’s hard on them, hence they live shorter life spans than their domesticated counterparts.

Geez, the naivete on here is driving me crazy. Some people take so much for granted they just have no clue how difficult living really is.

Living the simple life is a choice one can make, but only with the advances of technology, it’s not a choice in nature.




.

Pedaling Fool
10-03-2009, 09:44
MAN, I QUIT!!!!!!! I'm Going for a walk. And that my friend is self-suffecient. I worked my [email protected]#$%E to make the money MYSELF to by MY SHOES, MY BACKPACK, MY TENT,ect, ect, used MY COMPUTER to contact other HIKERS and EQUIPMENT MAKERS, to GET, OBTAIN, PURCHASE MY EQUIPMENT with MY MONEY that I WORKED HARD WITH MY OWN HANDS TO OBTAIN, so I can take a stroll down the good oh, Appalachcian trail, there Weasel, I am SELF-SUFFICENT. and if I want I can save enough of this money to never leave the trail again. and YES, I WOULD LOVE TO AND CAN.

Any arguments on this???
Self sufficient:confused: Give me a break.

... and if I want I can save enough of this money to never leave the trail again. and YES, I WOULD LOVE TO AND CAN...
Now that's funny.

Tipi Walter
10-03-2009, 10:29
Be honest with yourselves .. the answer is NOT to have people consume less. If you think that the average soccer mom is going to give up her SUV for the sake of the environment then you're just wrong. She will continue to make decisions based on perceived safety for her children NOW, not 20 years from now. Consumption will continue to increase as long as the population increases. That is just a fact of life.

If we really want a future built on renewable resources we need to find a way that we, the average consumers, can overproduce enough electricity to supply the entire grid, not just ourselves.

So, let's talk about lowering the human population, cull the species with a lowering of the birthrate. If we choose to overpopulate a habitat, we can choose to depopulate a habitat. Consumption will go down. Instead of worrying about how many grizzlies or black bears there are scavenging trash in our towns, worry about lowering our population and therefore our habitat destruction. More bears, less houses.


No one has been a naysayer or exhibiting hate on DAJA, just injecting some reality to that type of lifestyle and the fact that 6 billion people, given the resources on this planet, cannot exist like that. The fact is we need people living on the grid and in cities. Also organic farming is great for small groups, but not efficient to feed the U.S. population, much less the world’s. (You might say that a population of 6+ billion people is unnatural).

Also living green is nothing compared to living off the land. All advances of human technology allow DAJA to live so comfortably, take them away and life would suck.

Nature is brutal and that is why animals that live off the land spend so much time surviving, despite all the advantages of evolution. You could say it is their job (and it’s a full time job) and it’s hard on them, hence they live shorter life spans than their domesticated counterparts.

Geez, the naivete on here is driving me crazy. Some people take so much for granted they just have no clue how difficult living really is.

Living the simple life is a choice one can make, but only with the advances of technology, it’s not a choice in nature.




.

It sounds like you need to go out for about 2 weeks on a long backpacking trip and camp by a wilderness waterfall for several nights. I would agree with you that 6+ billion is unnatural, so what can we do about it? STOP HAVING KIDS! So simple, so impossible.

While you may think Nature is brutal, some biologists would disagree, they see it more as a cooperation between species. The old mindset of seeing nature as brutal is partly a religious discernment and partly a desire to never suffer and die. Obviously, death is a big part of nature, it's as natural to die as it is to live, and to live "in nature" means to accept that nature will kill us in the same fashion it nourishes us. The old outdated religious concept of seeing nature as "fallen" and subject to human "dominion" had it's blossom in the middle ages, but people are slowly starting to see these concepts as erroneous. The Europeans and their offshoots particularly have a hard time letting go of these concepts, but then again, they tend to see themselves as a chosen people with a "city on the hill", and so try to brainwash other cultures into submission and resource depletion. The U.S. is an end product of European colonization, resource depletion, and the hubric fulfillment of a "chosen ones" culture. So, yeah, in their eyes Nature is brutal.

If you see nature as brutal, than you have to interpret the entire cosmos and the Earth within it as brutal, not leaving any room for the joy that comes with communion with "nature" or wilderness. Our niche as humans has always been out in nature, this current fascination with man-made detritus and "progress" comes from that old outdated concept of humans being God's "chosen ones", unique and better than all other species. But I liken our numbers and cleverness to a fireant mound while Nature is Mt Everest. We are puny and mammals and animals, just like all the rest of Earth's creatures. The only thing different from us and the other animals is our lack of wisdom, our inability to see the long term consequences of our actions.

The plains buffalo and the mountain ravens and the box turtles have been around for millions of years, and figured out how to live sustainably in their environment, but humans can't seem to do it, or at least show a severe lack of wisdom in the process.

tammons
10-03-2009, 10:48
(You might say that a population of 6+ billion people is unnatural

Oh its natural all right.
Natural fornicating overpopulation.
Closer to 7 billion now.

If you consider at its current rate the population is doubling roughly every 50 years, At its current rate, in about 100 years we will have less than 1 acre per person. That is considering that maybe 75% of dry land is actually useful.

There will not be enough water
No way to grow enough food

Overpopulation of the planet is the real problem I see in the immediate future and that will just gobble up the natural resources of the planet even faster and turn it into a dust bowl.

We are probably close to the population tipping point right now. In 50 years it could be too late.

Certain tribes of South American Indians see themselves as earth caretakers. Interesting, they say if the natural imbalance keeps up the earth will shake humans off like a dogs shaking off fleas.

Of course then there is my brother in law who things there will be a pandemic that will wipe out most of the population before it gets that far, so as a planet. maybe we dont have so much to worry about after all.

Tipi Walter
10-03-2009, 10:58
Oh its natural all right.
Natural fornicating overpopulation.
Closer to 7 billion now.

If you consider at its current rate the population is doubling roughly every 50 years, At its current rate, in about 100 years we will have less than 1 acre per person. That is considering that maybe 75% of dry land is actually useful.

There will not be enough water
No way to grow enough food

Overpopulation of the planet is the real problem I see in the immediate future and that will just gobble up the natural resources of the planet even faster and turn it into a dust bowl.

We are probably close to the population tipping point right now. In 50 years it could be too late.

Certain tribes of South American Indians see themselves as earth caretakers. Interesting, they say if the natural imbalance keeps up the earth will shake humans off like a dogs shaking off fleas.

Of course then there is my brother in law who things there will be a pandemic that will wipe out most of the population before it gets that far, so as a planet. maybe we dont have so much to worry about after all.

Yeah, what's there to worry about? We'll always have nature in one form or another, but as far as humans go, well, wars and disease will always be ready to limit our numbers. And then again, what species would develop a fission and fusion weapon system capable of destroying most life as we know it? And then to develop a policy of M.A.D., Mutually Assured Destruction? We're a piece of work. Long term wisdom? Uh, maybe not.

tammons
10-03-2009, 11:07
Yeah, what's there to worry about? We'll always have nature in one form or another, but as far as humans go, well, wars and disease will always be ready to limit our numbers. And then again, what species would develop a fission and fusion weapon system capable of destroying most life as we know it? And then to develop a policy of M.A.D., Mutually Assured Destruction? We're a piece of work. Long term wisdom? Uh, maybe not.

The world we live in now is mostly a joke.

Corporate greed and poor government choices will eventually wreck the entire panet unless things change.

Pedaling Fool
10-03-2009, 11:08
It sounds like you need to go out for about 2 weeks on a long backpacking trip and camp by a wilderness waterfall for several nights. I would agree with you that 6+ billion is unnatural, so what can we do about it? STOP HAVING KIDS! So simple, so impossible.
...
I'm actually a very happy person, this is all entertaining.

I didn't say it was unnatural (by my definition), but I can see how some would consider it unnatural seeing how people veiw nature.


While you may think Nature is brutal, some biologists would disagree, they see it more as a cooperation between species. The old mindset of seeing nature as brutal is partly a religious discernment and partly a desire to never suffer and die. Obviously, death is a big part of nature, it's as natural to die as it is to live, and to live "in nature" means to accept that nature will kill us in the same fashion it nourishes us. The old outdated religious concept of seeing nature as "fallen" and subject to human "dominion" had it's blossom in the middle ages, but people are slowly starting to see these concepts as erroneous.
I'm not a religious guy so you got it wrong from the start. I just observe and there is no cooperation between species there is only balance. And to maintain that balance some will survive, some will die, some will thrive and some will strive.


If you see nature as brutal, than you have to interpret the entire cosmos and the Earth within it as brutal, not leaving any room for the joy that comes with communion with "nature" or wilderness. Our niche as humans has always been out in nature, this current fascination with man-made detritus and "progress" comes from that old outdated concept of humans being God's "chosen ones", unique and better than all other species. But I liken our numbers and cleverness to a fireant mound while Nature is Mt Everest. We are puny and mammals and animals, just like all the rest of Earth's creatures. The only thing different from us and the other animals is our lack of wisdom, our inability to see the long term consequences of our actions.

The plains buffalo and the mountain ravens and the box turtles have been around for millions of years, and figured out how to live sustainably in their environment, but humans can't seem to do it, or at least show a severe lack of wisdom in the process.
It's about averages, I understand some life forms have it much easier than others also depends, especially as people in which environment you live.

The simple fact is all our technology makes life much easier. You carry all that technology into the woods on your trips, try one time and keep much of it at home. When you get down to it, a tent and sleeping bag is not much different than the shelter a home provides.

Humans have only been around for about 100,000 years, so who's to say we can't get it right. The fact that other species have been around for millions of years is because they survived. At times they thrived and other times they strived (like when that 6-km wide asteroid hit the planet 65 mya). Don't worry they'll die off some time, after all what's a few hundred million years compared to forever.

Pedaling Fool
10-03-2009, 11:14
Oh its natural all right.
Natural fornicating overpopulation.
Closer to 7 billion now.

If you consider at its current rate the population is doubling roughly every 50 years, At its current rate, in about 100 years we will have less than 1 acre per person. That is considering that maybe 75% of dry land is actually useful.

There will not be enough water
No way to grow enough food

Overpopulation of the planet is the real problem I see in the immediate future and that will just gobble up the natural resources of the planet even faster and turn it into a dust bowl.

We are probably close to the population tipping point right now. In 50 years it could be too late.

Certain tribes of South American Indians see themselves as earth caretakers. Interesting, they say if the natural imbalance keeps up the earth will shake humans off like a dogs shaking off fleas.

Of course then there is my brother in law who things there will be a pandemic that will wipe out most of the population before it gets that far, so as a planet. maybe we dont have so much to worry about after all.
I fail to see the problem here. So if we do increase our population to that point we'll die off, so what's the problem -- isn't that how nature works?

I'm not going to get into my thoughts on this, because it involves technology, the type that usually cause people to think I'm a nut, but I guess that ship has already sailed:sun

Pedaling Fool
10-03-2009, 11:21
Yeah, what's there to worry about? We'll always have nature in one form or another, but as far as humans go, well, wars and disease will always be ready to limit our numbers. And then again, what species would develop a fission and fusion weapon system capable of destroying most life as we know it? And then to develop a policy of M.A.D., Mutually Assured Destruction? We're a piece of work. Long term wisdom? Uh, maybe not.


The world we live in now is mostly a joke.

Corporate greed and poor government choices will eventually wreck the entire panet unless things change.
Nature has killed in far, far greater numbers than all the wars combined.

We can't match the force of nature, even if we detonated all our bombs at once, we can't exceed what nature has already done to this planet. Every so often nature will hit the restart button and wipe out nearly all life on the planet.

Then again if we're successful in creating a blackhole...:sun

Besides in 2012 isn't nature going to annihilate us all:D

tammons
10-03-2009, 11:29
I fail to see the problem here. So if we do increase our population to that point we'll die off, so what's the problem -- isn't that how nature works?

I'm not going to get into my thoughts on this, because it involves technology, the type that usually cause people to think I'm a nut, but I guess that ship has already sailed:sun

I am sure you could synthesize food and whatnot. Might have to go to another planet for raw materials but so be it. You could stack hydroponics, but still in the end there are only so many resources.

Water is here and cyclical and mostly not drinkable in its surface form. I suppose you could set up plants to take care of water problems, recycle your own waste for sustenanceetc.

The problem is the tipping point. I am not a big believer in the absolute man made global warming theory but we can not help from affecting the planet as the population grows even more. I think the problem is if the population get past the tipping point it could lead to total devistation.

We people in the USA have it good. Actually think there is not much of a problem right now, but all you have to do is go to a 3rd world country and look at how the extreme poor people live in those countries.

We cant even take care of those people, much less a population of 14 billion.

I guess large population of people dying off could balance things out, but it has not slowed us down yet.

tammons
10-03-2009, 11:32
Then again if we're successful in creating a blackhole...:sun

Ahh - Cern.

Graywolf
10-03-2009, 11:33
Self sufficient:confused: Give me a break.

Now that's funny.

So John I take it you think that Walking is not self sufficient? How much money does it cost you or society to get off your [email protected]#$ to walk? Nothing. My point!! We humans have all the capacity to be self sufficient, we have just gotten to damn lazy in our ways. No one BUT GOD gave me my 2 legs, and as long as I have them I am self-sufficient.

It seems there are some here that is taking this self sufficient thing WAY TOO FAR!!! Being Self-Sufficient is the abitility to take care of your self with no help. So I guess John, you can't walk by your self?? Did you make the money yourself to do the things you want to do or did you borrow and get into dept. I have no credit cards, I have a car but I don't make car payments, I can go WALK and don't have to rely on someone else to help me. I just move my legs, Kind of goes like this- 1,2, 1, 2 ,1 ,2 or try this John if this helps you, Left Right, Left Right. WOW now you are self sufficient!!!

Some of the ideas in this topic are pretty good points and most of you have really written up some good ones. I am thinking that there is some here who just want to argue the fact that we are not self-sufficient when we really are. Just depends on what point of view you take.

If you look at some of oour cities of the North West you will see folks really doing just that. Portland, Oregan and Vancouver has one of the largest bicycle infrastructure in N. America. There are lots of houses out there that are or is going Solar/Wind. There are people who travel this beatiful country of ours who don't spend a dime on oil or gas. Yes, sometimes you have to spend money to get something to make you self sufficient, i.e, bicyclle, solar cells, etc, etc. But once you have accomplished that you have moved more to close to being totaly self sufficinet.

It is all in the point of view you see what self sufficient is. I think some are just blind.

tammons
10-03-2009, 11:34
Besides in 2012 isn't nature going to annihilate us all:D

I believe that is the dark rift.
I am planning a hod dog and BYOB party on Springer, December 20th 2012.

Pedaling Fool
10-03-2009, 11:37
I am sure you could synthesize food and whatnot. Might have to go to another planet for raw materials but so be it. You could stack hydroponics, but still in the end there are only so many resources.

Water is here and cyclical and mostly not drinkable in its surface form. I suppose you could set up plants to take care of water problems, recycle your own waste for sustenanceetc.

The problem is the tipping point. I am not a big believer in the absolute man made global warming theory but we can not help from affecting the planet as the population grows even more. I think the problem is if the population get past the tipping point it could lead to total devistation.

We people in the USA have it good. Actually think there is not much of a problem right now, but all you have to do is go to a 3rd world country and look at how the extreme poor people live in those countries.

We cant even take care of those people, much less a population of 14 billion.

I guess large population of people dying off could balance things out, but it has not slowed us down yet.
I don't talk about my views on technology, too whacky, but I've been to 3rd world countries and I agree it's ugly. I do feel some guilt (right or wrong) about how easy we have it after seeing, in person, the hardships of these people. Probably the reason for my seemingly contempt for nature, again not saying it's right, but it is what it is.

I absoultely don't believe in global warming, but maybe some of the initiatives won't be a bad thing, but only technology, and not this "geen" BS, will be the answer.

Graywolf
10-03-2009, 11:41
Here is agood web site on living off the grid and beinf self sufficient. Opps...I said that word again...

www.coyotecottage.com (http://www.coyotecottage.com)

Start with clicking on "Why"then work your way around. I like he artcle in the "Why" room.

Pedaling Fool
10-03-2009, 11:41
So John I take it you think that Walking is not self sufficient? How much money does it cost you or society to get off your [email protected]#$ to walk? Nothing. My point!! We humans have all the capacity to be self sufficient, we have just gotten to damn lazy in our ways. No one BUT GOD gave me my 2 legs, and as long as I have them I am self-sufficient.

It seems there are some here that is taking this self sufficient thing WAY TOO FAR!!! Being Self-Sufficient is the abitility to take care of your self with no help. So I guess John, you can't walk by your self?? Did you make the money yourself to do the things you want to do or did you borrow and get into dept. I have no credit cards, I have a car but I don't make car payments, I can go WALK and don't have to rely on someone else to help me. I just move my legs, Kind of goes like this- 1,2, 1, 2 ,1 ,2 or try this John if this helps you, Left Right, Left Right. WOW now you are self sufficient!!!

Some of the ideas in this topic are pretty good points and most of you have really written up some good ones. I am thinking that there is some here who just want to argue the fact that we are not self-sufficient when we really are. Just depends on what point of view you take.

If you look at some of oour cities of the North West you will see folks really doing just that. Portland, Oregan and Vancouver has one of the largest bicycle infrastructure in N. America. There are lots of houses out there that are or is going Solar/Wind. There are people who travel this beatiful country of ours who don't spend a dime on oil or gas. Yes, sometimes you have to spend money to get something to make you self sufficient, i.e, bicyclle, solar cells, etc, etc. But once you have accomplished that you have moved more to close to being totaly self sufficinet.

It is all in the point of view you see what self sufficient is. I think some are just blind.
Yes, it's all about point of view and I tend to look at the big picture and I see self sufficiency as unnatural, therefore not attainable.

tammons
10-03-2009, 11:42
I absoultely don't believe in global warming, but maybe some of the initiatives won't be a bad thing, but only technology, and not this "geen" BS, will be the answer.

I think green is good. It will happen, if for no other reason just to say screw you to the Oil Cartel.

They have way to much power anyway.

The real problem as I see it is the gov't is using the threat of global warming to tax us to death. *** is that cap and trade bill anyway. Garbage.

tammons
10-03-2009, 11:45
Cody Lundin has a pretty cool off the grid house in AZ.

Pedaling Fool
10-03-2009, 11:49
I think green is good. It will happen, if for no other reason just to say screw you to the Oil Cartel.

They have way to much power anyway.

The real problem as I see it is the gov't is using the threat of global warming to tax us to death. *** is that cap and trade bill anyway. Garbage.
I have the same contempt for these oil companies, but it is also our fault for consuming so much, we gave them the power over us, with out us they are powerless.

I'm pretty conservative guy, except on social issues, but I ride a bicycle as my primary form of transportation, have been doing so for over 20 years. I can count on my hands and toes how many other commuters I've seen (not heard of) in over 20 years and with all the green talk you would think I would see, at least a very modest increase in cycling commuters, but I haven't. Although I do see a lot more "green" bumperstickers. I guess it's the thought that counts:rolleyes:. Where are all my liberal friends?

BTW, I'm outta here, going on a bike ride, see ya'll later.:sun

tammons
10-03-2009, 11:58
Cody Lundin house link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWpSVNrt0LU&feature=channel_page

weary
10-03-2009, 12:13
Acorns aren't edible, dude. ....If you want to eat acorns (and thousands of Native Americans on the west coast lived off the acorns from live oaks), it's a ton of work. Two hours a day? You heard wrong. Hobbes' turn of phrase for that kind of "life" was accurate: "Nasty, brutish and short."

TW
Well I agree with most of your post, Weasel. But acorns can't be both inedible and edible.

All oak trees have edible acorns. Some have more tannin than others, but leaching will remove the tannin from all of them! On the trail just crack the shell and pound the inside into a paste. (a couple of smooth stones will work.)

Put the mess into a cotton bag and place in a fast moving stream at least overnight; a few days produces a tastier acorn flour.

At home, just grind the insides up in a blender, along with plenty of water. Repeat untill the milky tannin is all leached away. Taste the solution from time to time. When the bitter taste disappears, so has most of the tannin.

JUst add the wet flour to any pancakes, either supermarket types or your favorite from scratch recipe. With plenty of syrup you'll hardly notice the presence of acorns -- well, not if you keep the percentage of acorns pretty low.

Weary

mudhead
10-03-2009, 14:55
Having tried that in the '70s, well, maybe I didn't do it right. But they are edible.

Can't recommend it.

The Weasel
10-03-2009, 20:49
Well I agree with most of your post, Weasel. But acorns can't be both inedible and edible.

***Weary

Thank you for continuing on and (a) proving me correct and (b) explaining why. I appreciate it.
:D

TW

Captn
10-03-2009, 22:57
Oh its natural all right.
Natural fornicating overpopulation.
Closer to 7 billion now.

If you consider at its current rate the population is doubling roughly every 50 years, At its current rate, in about 100 years we will have less than 1 acre per person. That is considering that maybe 75% of dry land is actually useful.

There will not be enough water
No way to grow enough food


.

Soylent Green is People, Soylent Green is PEOPLE ....

Graywolf
10-04-2009, 00:56
:(:(:( Man no one agrees, the world is falling apart, backpackers who don't believe in wilderness, city folks that think they are backpackers but believe since the world is already screwed up we might as well join in and help keep screwing it up, man, That sound like my ex girlfriend who wants to come back but keeps screwwing up, and acorns that are edible and then not edibl, The sky that once was blue but now I really have no idea what color it is, Damn, I need a walk. Oh Wait, John told me I can't do that because it is not possible to do that my self??:confused: Well, I am going for a walk any way even if it does break the laws of the un-natural. Man, now I am confused!!!!

Graywolf
10-04-2009, 01:50
Well, Ok, I can see why people want to stay caged in by the high cost of living but this guy seriously wants out...


www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx8eZyN141I (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx8eZyN141I)

Captn
10-04-2009, 07:52
Well, Ok, I can see why people want to stay caged in by the high cost of living but this guy seriously wants out...


www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx8eZyN141I (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx8eZyN141I)

Well ... he's got a point.

You don't own land in this country .... you rent it from the state government.

If you don't believe that, quit paying your rent (property taxes) and see what happens.

Pedaling Fool
10-04-2009, 08:51
Equestrian plains tribes did pretty well (http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/tallind.htm)living off the land.

Kinda hard to chase herds of buffalo up the Trail these days though.
Thanks, a good read.

Captn
10-04-2009, 09:35
Thanks, a good read.

A very good read.

Population pressures make living off the land difficult. Much of the wild game habitat has disappeared to make way for agriculture.

Graywolf
10-04-2009, 13:34
The world we live in now is mostly a joke.

Corporate greed and poor government choices will eventually wreck the entire panet unless things change.


Aint that the truth....

Oh and equestrian tribes ????? You mean there is a tribe of horses???

WOW!!!!!! No more bigfoot videos, I am going to look for this tribe of horses, Man, I would never have figured!!!!

tammons
10-04-2009, 14:23
Joke is putting it mildly. Look at the Morons we have in Washington.

Graywolf
10-04-2009, 16:08
Joke is putting it mildly. Look at the Morons we have in Washington.

The reason I don't watch much news. It really is sad!!!! "Strongest" country in the world and it is full Politicus moronicus

tammons
10-04-2009, 16:14
I think the topper (beside the president himself) is either the regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein that thinks, hunting should be outlawed, animals should have the right to sue humans, and that we need a 2nd bill of rights, or Timothy Geitner, head of the treasury department and tax cheat who let the economic meltdown happen on his watch as the head of the FED.

Mediocrity abounds

The Weasel
10-04-2009, 17:00
Leave out the politics, folks, or this thread probably will get shut down and/or disappeared. I don't mind, but the Powers here usually seem to close them down. Let's go back to the topic.

TW

njordan2
10-04-2009, 17:19
I think every hiker who has stepped foot on the trail has had this thought. Anyone can live anywhere on this planet for their entire normal life cycle. It is all a matter of how large one's network is. If the network consists of one person, this is very difficult. Particularly in non tropical climates. If the network is large enough, one can live on Antarctica or under the ocean. Usually to sustain an existance it requires several families settling into a community. That is why the pioneers traveled in wagon trains. Even the primitive savages that once occupied this land lived and moved in family communities. Besides, eking out an existance would be very lonely. It is nice to be able to express your feelings of the beauty around you on this wonderful Earth to another human being.