WHERE WOULD YOU GO... to build a remote cabin and live off the land? (house, buy)

[Metlakatla]

If I wanted hide--let's say the feds were after me or some such stupid reason, I would hide in a city. If I just wanted to idjit proof my existence as much as possible, I'd look for the place with the lowest population density that had whatever access I need to civilization in order to survive. If I wanted to die I would go try to "live" off the land.

[RedJacket]

Originally Posted by warptman

Alaska State Land Offerings

Some reasonable prices. Why squat or hide when you could get five acres for five grand.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by NomadicBear

I certainly don't recommend this, and I'm a law-abiding citizen, but with such a vast portion of land in Alaska owned by the government, if one truly wants to live "in the bush," a crude cabin built on public land might be the way to go. Sure, you don't own it, but who cares? You could probably live there your whole life and not be kicked off. The state is enormous. Surely there are places one can just "get lost." If I really wanted to live off the land, and be around nobody, I'm not sure ownership of the land would be of utmost importance.

Use a wall tent rather than a cabin and it would be legal (not easy, but legal). There's trappers, hunters and others who do that all the time, some for rather extended periods of time. But you need to know where you are, the rules, etc. You'll want to avoid national parks, for instance. Can't legally grow a garden that way as far as I know but, one could certainly get away with "guerilla gardening" some potatoes, etc., in hidden spots...

The feds are insane about the federal lands. They still routinely harass so-called "inholders" and people whose property borders theirs (this is mostly an issue with the NPS around national parks...they're the worst offenders). They'll do anything they can to prevent easy access even when the property owners have a legal right of way, etc., for instance. Millions of federal acres and they still harass people who have a few acres...look up "rural cleansing" to get an idea of why...

You don't want to get lost in arctic/subarctic areas unprepared...

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by think first

Some reasonable prices. Why squat or hide when you could get five acres for five grand.

Just make sure it's not 4.99 acres of swamp and .01 dry...

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Jmadison2

My experience has been, higher credentials = higher pay in most of the states I've lived in and industries I've worked in. Perhaps in more frontier places it's not true. But in mass majority suburbia it is. And well, most folks aren't going to start a dairy farm. So for the vast majority, a degree, in a high paying field is the most effective route to go.

My point is simple. If you are going to pay for a degree... don't spend the money on something that doesn't have an upper fifth return attached to it.

In short, absolutely go for Doctor, Lawyer, etc.

Well I think almost everyone should wait a few years after high school before actually going to college if they go. Get some real world experience, sort out what they want to do, and discover if their idea for a degree would be practical...

[richelles]

Originally Posted by NomadicBear

... Anyone with even a modicum of common sense realizes that it's much easier to get away from people in an area with the least population density rather than the most. ...

A while back (Actually post # 24) I asked a question about what brought so many people to this forum seeking what seems to be perceived as "getting away from it all". Whether they come for the false lure of free land or to live in some isolated region where they can live without neighbors they all seem to express some form of their being disenchanted with society and wishing for a complete lack of stress. Some even allude to creating their own community of like minded individuals who would all live off the land. Some express their lack of regard for any form of government, some even invoke satisfaction by being a lone individual without any further human contact as a worthy goal.

They seem endowed with some revelation that the "Last Frontier" is the ultimate goal where they can begin this adventure as the last of the "Homesteaders" who have been provided with some special creative force that can enable them to succeed in this endeavor. For the most part they allude to their total disenchantment with the accoutrement's of civilization and explain how they would dwell naked in the forest content with a total lack of possessions. It appears to me they need to be woke up, perhaps by being shook, so they stop and smell the roses and look at what they are proposing.

Actually if one reads the history of the homesteading period, without a preconceived bias, the actual people who first went to each area of the Western States and settled were pioneers who took as much of civilization with them as was feasible in their individual circumstances. The first things they did was form some means of community protection (read government), they built homes (read neighborhoods), they built common facilities (read Churches, schools, bars, smithies, roads, and other public facilities), and they took an interest in each other's welfare, (read police, hospitals, libraries, and other means of seeing all was well in their community), all of which are disdained by these modern day adventurers who romanticize seeking something ephemeral when those real workers sought things for their children and grandchildren.

The ones who come here to the forum seeking free land, a place to exist in solitude, a place without the taxes that provide the previously listed features, and the socialization for the common good can't be desirable in a State that needs thinkers who seek to better this place. How does someone who dies living in a school bus improve their living space for the future? All they do is use the environment for their selfish needs and leave nothing behind them but depleted resources.

They don't want to leave roads, education for their progeny nor a history of accomplishment. What did most of the Mountain men leave behind them when they departed this Earth that stands as a monument today? There are fewer beavers, trees, and whatever than had they farmed land, produced the goods that made this country what it is today, or did something useful? Why come to Alaska to not make it a better place but one where they leave only the cost of their existence? The original people who came to this land long ago lived in harmony with the land and for the most part with each other and not as loners. They understood what being alone was and did not desire that existence.

[NomadicBear]

I like a lot of your posts, richelles, but you are generalizing way too much in your latest. I believe that a lot of the people talking about "living off the land" are really just interested in being as self sufficient as possible, and living a frugal, simple life. Your assertion that most have "Christopher McCandless Syndrome" is too extreme, IMO.

Personally, I have zero interest in a life in the bush. I'd like 5 acres or more somewhere on the Kenai Peninsula or the SE with road access year round. That's about as remote as I'm interested in. While I like my own company, I don't like it that much.

I think it's fair and helpful to warn people of the pitfalls of unrealistic dreams, but you take it too far by calling them undesirables interested in running naked in the forest, offering nothing to society.

[Floyd_Davidson]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

If I wanted hide--let's say the feds were after me or some such stupid reason, I would hide in a city. If I just wanted to idjit proof my existence as much as possible, I'd look for the place with the lowest population density that had whatever access I need to civilization in order to survive. If I wanted to die I would go try to "live" off the land.

Dead on!

[starlite9]

Originally Posted by NomadicBear

Sorry, Floyd. I tried to agree with you a little bit to kind of cool your jets and find some common ground, but you seem to be quite argumentative, attempting to force feed the same points over and over. Anyone with even a modicum of common sense realizes that it's much easier to get away from people in an area with the least population density rather than the most. Your argument is flawed.

Nope, have to side with Floyd with this one (I think I have a fever).

When a "Newbie" comes to rural Alaska, they stick out like a sore thumb! Even when they are living out remote, they still are watched by the locals from a distance. All the folks on the River system live in the "Wild", but can tell when someone comes or goes past their homestead, even the police at times will see who the "New" guy is at times.

The dream of fading away into the "Wild" is a nice dream for most folks, but it is just that. If you want to disappear, the loneliest I have ever been is in the big city. Nobody knows you, wants to know you or could care less about you. Basically, you become invisible to the world.

It is not like that in both small Bush towns or remote areas, just a person in town that isn't part of the local circles sticks out. Even Clueless Candiless died in a bus that he thought was remote, but the locals used it for a hunting camp in the fall. There is also a number of cabins in the area that he didn't know about either, many are in need of major repair, but that was a big mining district in the fourties and fifties.

Floyd was spot on about that (can't believe I said that again)

[Floyd_Davidson]

Originally Posted by NomadicBear

I like a lot of your posts, richelles, but you are generalizing way too much in your latest. I believe that a lot of the people talking about "living off the land" are really just interested in being as self sufficient as possible, and living a frugal, simple life. Your assertion that most have "Christopher McCandless Syndrome" is too extreme, IMO.

Rich, like Metlakatla, is hitting it dead on. They do have exactly the same mindset that McCandless had, and there is very little of what they perceive about it that is realistic.