Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I keep hearing this whining about the rich coming in and changing everything. If you don't like 'em, don't sell your land. When someone buys the land they will do with it as they see fit. You or I (yes, me too) may not like it BUT it is a fact of life.
And while we are on the topic of it - there is another fallacy that is constantly perpetuated - that the ranchers are the stewards of the land. Want to conserve the land? Turn it into a National park. That way it will be conserved for EVERYBODY, not just the ranchers and their children. I call BS on that.
OD
It's not the people complaining who sold their land, it's the people who've left who did that.
If you claim to value nature, wildlife, etc., I don't see how you can turn around and defend suburban development. This is pure hypocrisy.
I have some experience with this in Vermont. The state became a destination for wealthy sorts from NY, CT, MA, NJ, etc., in the past few decades. They've turned Chittenden County into wall to wall filthy sprawl and pollution. You might as well be in CT as be in Shelburne. Some of the previously most beautiful mountain towns (Killington, Stowe, etc.) have their once pristine mountains covered in mcmansions, condos, and all the ridiculous 5+ acre lawns. Mountains once teeming with wildlife such as deer are now deserts as far as that goes. The wealthy admirers of Vermont have become its worst destroyers. I don't consider land a commodity, it is what makes life possible here, and if destroyed we will die out. I have no problem commenting on what's done to any piece of land as I see fit. Unless you have allodial title you don't actually own it anyways. You rent it from the government.
The ranchers weren't the greatest conservationists necessarily but by keeping such large tracts undeveloped they did far better for the land than these developers. The National Parks are pretty poorly managed these days. With all the concessions, hotels, etc., in them, they became precisely what they were formed to prevent from happening.
What's funny about all this arrogant anti-non-wealthy nonsense this thread as turned into, is that if you look to history, when countries experience significant economic stress (as we have currently), and the "have nots" are further and further oppressed by the "haves," generally the "haves" become "have nots" in rather violent, gruesome ways. This country is a powder keg at the moment but too many are too blind to see it. Those gated communities could very well be big targets in the future if things don't improve soon. I'll be safe in the poor backwoods of either Vermont or Alaska if that happens.
Again I ask, to what real end? You obviously have an agenda and a deep-seeded hatred for rural places and people. Otherwise you wouldn't be all over this with post after post after post denigrating not just rural urroundings but the people occupy them as well. I'm sorry if you had a bad experience but a whole bunch of us live in the country or woods or other outlying areas and love it. You do nothing positive with your constant warnings, gloom and doom predictions and putdowns of our chosen lifestyles. It's just become redundant!
My friend, we are discussing here who moves to rural areas and why. Doesn't mean I am like that, I am just sharing my experiences of what is being sold to city folks and how it is advertised (by your fellow local developer family that owns half the small town). And yes, moving to a rural place can end up in a very rough experience - depending on where you moved you can have all of the bad stuff I said and worse. You can also be perfectly fine and everything can be great, from neighbors to weather to everything else.
A lot of rural areas in United states are populated with trash rednecks whose only goal in life after you move in will be to show you how redneck they can be. This will include trashing your property, riding ATVs on it, dumping garbage next to it, being loud and obnoxious and being a general nuisance.
You can also end up in a place where your neighbors are 4th generation german farmers whose every inch of their fields looks amazing, clean, they are quiet and welcoming and being around them is just a joy. In my opinion, the latter is rarer than the former. Your mileage might vary.
A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that a rural place is like a European village where farmers are educated and you can hear Beethoven out of the farmer's window. Heck, a lot of people make the mistake that rural people farm and ranch! (only 2.5% of US population farms). Not in United States. Our culture is completely different. A lot of people here are surprised that a lot of tiny towns across the country have "projects" and are drowning in drugs (meth) and crime. Go to a small mountain town in NC with population 850 - has a crime/drug problem proportional to a large city. Similar in NM, MO, FL or really anywhere across the country.
OD
Yep... you're right. Its a scary place here in rural America... you and like-minded folks probably better just stay away.
It's not the people complaining who sold their land, it's the people who've left who did that.
If you claim to value nature, wildlife, etc., I don't see how you can turn around and defend suburban development. This is pure hypocrisy.
I did not lay out the rest of my opinions so you only got one part of the story although I am pretty sure you can deduce the rest. In my opinion most land should be public and for everyone to use. Hunting (other than personal for food and sustenance) should be banned. ATVs have no place in National or State parks and forests. Cattle should not be grazed on BLM land (why would a taxpayer support a program run at a loss to sustain someone's lifestyle on what is clearly not a profitable venture?). Predators like wolves and bears, coyote and mountain lions should be allowed to grow back in numbers and regulate the deer, elk and other animal populations as they always did.
Now, for the overpopulation thing. We do somewhat agree on that but if most land was National or State park where you cannot build or develop, no problem, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
I have some experience with this in Vermont. The state became a destination for wealthy sorts from NY, CT, MA, NJ, etc., in the past few decades. They've turned Chittenden County into wall to wall filthy sprawl and pollution. You might as well be in CT as be in Shelburne. Some of the previously most beautiful mountain towns (Killington, Stowe, etc.) have their once pristine mountains covered in mcmansions, condos, and all the ridiculous 5+ acre lawns. Mountains once teeming with wildlife such as deer are now deserts as far as that goes. The wealthy admirers of Vermont have become its worst destroyers. I don't consider land a commodity, it is what makes life possible here, and if destroyed we will die out. I have no problem commenting on what's done to any piece of land as I see fit. Unless you have allodial title you don't actually own it anyways. You rent it from the government.
Overpopulation is never good. If you want to preserve Nature for future generations it is best to have people live in high density in smaller areas and just put the rest of the land in conservation status (like National Parks) for everyone to enjoy and for species within the boundaries to be protected from business interests and "influence groups", faulty research and industry trying to push this or that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
The ranchers weren't the greatest conservationists necessarily but by keeping such large tracts undeveloped they did far better for the land than these developers. The National Parks are pretty poorly managed these days. With all the concessions, hotels, etc., in them, they became precisely what they were formed to prevent from happening.
Ranchers in SW Texas almost exterminated the eagles - they paid people to hunt them via airplanes under the pretext that the eagles took sheep and goats. Plenty of these stories around, similar motivations in Montana, WY or elsewhere. How many of these "extermination" stories can you quote from a National Park?
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
What's funny about all this arrogant anti-non-wealthy nonsense this thread as turned into, is that if you look to history, when countries experience significant economic stress (as we have currently), and the "have nots" are further and further oppressed by the "haves," generally the "haves" become "have nots" in rather violent, gruesome ways. This country is a powder keg at the moment but too many are too blind to see it. Those gated communities could very well be big targets in the future if things don't improve soon. I'll be safe in the poor backwoods of either Vermont or Alaska if that happens.
Again I ask, to what real end? You obviously have an agenda and a deep-seeded hatred for rural places and people. Otherwise you wouldn't be all over this with post after post after post denigrating not just rural urroundings but the people occupy them as well. I'm sorry if you had a bad experience but a whole bunch of us live in the country or woods or other outlying areas and love it. You do nothing positive with your constant warnings, gloom and doom predictions and putdowns of our chosen lifestyles. It's just become redundant!
Again, I am providing a different point of view to the rosy rural picture a lot of real estate agents, developers and others who stand to profit from the new rural experience try to paint. I am also trying to point out that there is nothing special or smart about rural folks that makes them superior to city people.
Development can have a wonderful ecological effect. Where are the areas richest in both plants and animals? In the deep woods? Hardly. That's a most barren place. In meadows? Somewhat better. But now let's look at the border between meadow and forest; it's teeming with both wildlife of many species and a large variety of plants. Many species require that combination. Take a look if you ever actually go to the country. Those five to hundred acre parcels cut from virgin forest or those meadows suddenly planted with trees to shade a home turn the area into something really special. There'll be tree squirrels where there were none for lack of habitat. Then the grove will grow attracting birds who had no place before.
Nature loves change and diverse habitats. We can improve thing and help Nature whether it's by cutting, planting, or just leaving out some corn. Think about the coral reefs that have been started by dumping derelict cars into the water, a proven method.
Development can have a wonderful ecological effect. Where are the areas richest in both plants and animals? In the deep woods? Hardly. That's a most barren place. In meadows? Somewhat better. But now let's look at the border between meadow and forest; it's teeming with both wildlife of many species and a large variety of plants. Many species require that combination. Take a look if you ever actually go to the country. Those five to hundred acre parcels cut from virgin forest or those meadows suddenly planted with trees to shade a home turn the area into something really special. There'll be tree squirrels where there were none for lack of habitat. Then the grove will grow attracting birds who had no place before.
Nature loves change and diverse habitats. We can improve thing and help Nature whether it's by cutting, planting, or just leaving out some corn. Think about the coral reefs that have been started by dumping derelict cars into the water, a proven method.
That depends on what species you're looking for. The common game and bird species people most often see or think of (deer, rabbits, etc.) like the edge areas. Some species (various birds including the famous spotted owl, marten, etc.) prefer mature forests that are largely undisturbed. We need a variety of forest stages not one. Those lawns are really deserts as far as biodiversity goes, and soon enough the suburban yuppies start calling in exterminators to stop the wildlife from eating their landscaping or wiring.
I did not lay out the rest of my opinions so you only got one part of the story although I am pretty sure you can deduce the rest. In my opinion most land should be public and for everyone to use. Hunting (other than personal for food and sustenance) should be banned. ATVs have no place in National or State parks and forests. Cattle should not be grazed on BLM land (why would a taxpayer support a program run at a loss to sustain someone's lifestyle on what is clearly not a profitable venture?). Predators like wolves and bears, coyote and mountain lions should be allowed to grow back in numbers and regulate the deer, elk and other animal populations as they always did.
Now, for the overpopulation thing. We do somewhat agree on that but if most land was National or State park where you cannot build or develop, no problem, right?
Some of that I agree with, but others not so. I want all the wildlife restored, West and East, but I see nothing wrong with regulated hunting. The fact is there were always humans here hunting and managing things. The uninhabited wilderness is a myth of European settlers. ATV's can be confined to some developed trails. Banning them from public land in VT has entirely backfired and caused more widespread illegal and destructive riding than would happen if there were regulated trails as in NH and Maine. They do have their uses for getting large game animals out of the woods, accessing remote camps, getting firewood, etc.
I don't think our wild lands should be mere museums of nature. I think it should be made possible to truly live as a part of nature in the wildernss as our ancestors did in the most isolated wilderness areas. I suspect most people today are too soft and urbanized to ever be capable of it, but the world of money should not be a monopoly of a lifestyle.
Quote:
Overpopulation is never good. If you want to preserve Nature for future generations it is best to have people live in high density in smaller areas and just put the rest of the land in conservation status (like National Parks) for everyone to enjoy and for species within the boundaries to be protected from business interests and "influence groups", faulty research and industry trying to push this or that.
I'd rather die than live in such density. It is incredibly unhealthy to live in dense cities and psychologists are finally doing studies that show this. Those of us who truly appreciate the wild should stay right in the rural areas. The city sorts and developers who destroy nature for commercial purposes need to be confined to the cities. The suburban sprawl needs to be stopped.
Quote:
Ranchers in SW Texas almost exterminated the eagles - they paid people to hunt them via airplanes under the pretext that the eagles took sheep and goats. Plenty of these stories around, similar motivations in Montana, WY or elsewhere. How many of these "extermination" stories can you quote from a National Park?
Predators including wolves and cougars were hunted to extirpation in many national parks by the NPS, for about the same reason (though the focus was on keeping artificially high prey populations of deer, elk, etc.).
Some of that I agree with, but others not so. I want all the wildlife restored, West and East, but I see nothing wrong with regulated hunting. The fact is there were always humans here hunting and managing things. The uninhabited wilderness is a myth of European settlers. ATV's can be confined to some developed trails. Banning them from public land in VT has entirely backfired and caused more widespread illegal and destructive riding than would happen if there were regulated trails as in NH and Maine. They do have their uses for getting large game animals out of the woods, accessing remote camps, getting firewood, etc.
I think the guy who is going to get his game is generally probably quiet and respectful. I am talking about the family of 6 each on their own ATV, raping the path and its surroundings along the way, "recreating" themselves. Some recreation... Sitting on the couch at home, sitting on the ATV in nature. How is this "enjoying Nature" anyways when it zooms by you while you infest it with gasoline fumes and tear up the land? As for illegal driving backfiring, well - it is illegal. Enforce it better and make the penalties VERY stiff - we need to protect what we have left.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
I don't think our wild lands should be mere museums of nature. I think it should be made possible to truly live as a part of nature in the wildernss as our ancestors did in the most isolated wilderness areas. I suspect most people today are too soft and urbanized to ever be capable of it, but the world of money should not be a monopoly of a lifestyle.
Today you need money for everything. To protect and to destroy. Sad but true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
I'd rather die than live in such density. It is incredibly unhealthy to live in dense cities and psychologists are finally doing studies that show this. Those of us who truly appreciate the wild should stay right in the rural areas. The city sorts and developers who destroy nature for commercial purposes need to be confined to the cities. The suburban sprawl needs to be stopped.
Well, push comers to shove if you want the land to be protected, people are the worst offenders. Finally, "the suburban sprawl needs to be stopped" goes directly against everyone's right (just like you want yours) to live away from high density. Apparently it is a supreme right, even over protecting Nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
Predators including wolves and cougars were hunted to extirpation in many national parks by the NPS, for about the same reason (though the focus was on keeping artificially high prey populations of deer, elk, etc.).
Quote please , I am not sure this is so much true.
OD
A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that a rural place is like a European village where farmers are educated and you can hear Beethoven out of the farmer's window. Heck, a lot of people make the mistake that rural people farm and ranch! (only 2.5% of US population farms). Not in United States. Our culture is completely different. A lot of people here are surprised that a lot of tiny towns across the country have "projects" and are drowning in drugs (meth) and crime. Go to a small mountain town in NC with population 850 - has a crime/drug problem proportional to a large city. Similar in NM, MO, FL or really anywhere across the country.
OD
Agree fully. Rural does not always equal a better way of life. If looking for a rural plot of land to settle down, I found the it is better to be in an area that still has a vibrant rural economy. I have a place in a very rural part of the northern plains, but the closest towns are still fairly healthy as locally controlled farming is still big business. If anything, lack of population is a problem, as it is hard to find employees. Areas that are rural but have no support system, such as swaths of Appalachia or even certain towns in the high plains, can be drug infested cesspools.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, I am not sure this is so much true.
