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 live in rural Maine, I am not sure where your getting the idea of pollution here.
I grew up farming in a drought prone area. A major region of the USA is drought prone. If you desire to grow crops without pumping water, to raise livestock, etc, then you must first avoid all of the drought-prone regions.
I saw a government map a few months ago that was showing the areas that today have water only because of municipal infrastructure, as compared to areas that would still have water even without any municipal infrastructure. Very few places in the US have natural water in abundance, I live in one of those areas.
I also have issue with the way that 'BOL' is commonly used. It seems that many people use it to mean a temporary hide-out. But say you haul with you 6-weeks of food, then what? Are you going to turn around and go back at that point?
Better in my mind to simply find a place where you want to live. I did. I built a house, planted an orchard, and every year we extend our gardens bigger. Hopefully one day we will be producing all of our own food. Off-grid producing our own electricity. And as I said before we already have plenty of water [but I am not aware of what Ohio pollution your thinking of. Ohio sits South of the Snow-belt. The snow-belt passes South of us. Anything water-borne or air-borne from Ohio is not generally going to be coming this way].
If you are concerned for SHTF emergencies, than maybe you should find a place, go there, and homestead.
This also highlights the problem with contemporary housing. Houses built before central air conditioning won't be comfortable when there is no power.
A superinsulated structure, in general, has the potential to be a better shelter from temperature extremes. But it is not the complete answer to all climates and extremes.
So in choosing a B.O.L. , one might simply look for a place where one can build an autonomous shelter, designed to handle the local extremes.
Houses built before AC were built to take advantage of the prevailing winds and accounted for where the sun was in the sky.
New homes today do not take into account orientation or sun.
Older homes in the south have north/south orientation for the breezes and deep roof overhangs to provide shade. Many also built within a cluster of trees to provide more shade in the summer.
How many new homes today are built like that ? Very few due to the conveniences of modern living.
It's doubtful there is such a thing as becoming completely self-sustaining, but if I were young (I'm not), I would look for a place with a mild climate, readily available water and a reasonable growing season. In our travels over the last 20 years, my pick in the US would be the mythical state of "Jefferson," that is, the border country of northern California and southern Oregon. In my opinion, it comes as close to being idyllic as any place and still be affordable.
Towns like Selma, Cave Junction, Taklima, and O'Brien in southern Oregon, and Fort Jones and Etna, California, might be possibilities. Another area of interest is southern Virginia. Floyd, Virgina, comes to mind.
In Canada, the Okanagan Valley or Vancouver Island in British Columbia are possibilities. As a gardener, I would consider a mild climate to be a definite advantage, although there are ways to use the sun's energy to extend the growing season even in a harsh climate.
Pollution in Maine? There's sites like any state with issues, but the semi-wilderness of Northern Maine is certainly not polluted. Southern NH is much worse than Maine or Vermont, due to sprawl...
My picks are northern Maine, UP Michigan, and North Dakota. No place is perfect. My picks have up sides and down sides. The first thing I look at is low population density and a good distance from metro areas. Of course, there has to be a growing season and water, but I pick colder winters because, number one, I like cold winters, and number two, most others don't.
Here are my perceptions of my picks:
1) Northern Maine: Honestly, I see this area as probably the best. The one thing I'd be concerned with is that it's not all that far away from the masses to the the south. Other than that, it's ideal. Beautiful area; plenty of water for crops; sufficient growing season; fairly cheap land (much of it a mixture of old potato fields and wooded land); plenty of timber for building, cooking and heating; sparse population; fairly independent in attitude. Although I've been planning to move to North Dakota, I often have second thoughts about northern Maine, mainly because I think it is overall a better area for self-sufficiency ("living off the land").
2) UP Michigan: I see this area as being similar to northern Maine. I don't think it lends itself quite so much to agriculture as Maine does. It's also a bit more densely populated and attracts more recreational types and tourism.
3) North Dakota: I think the main thing North Dakota has going for it is the sparse population and independent attitude. Its traditionally an agricultural area. There is very little tourism. And truthfully, because of the very cold winters, it's not the kind of place the "zombies" are going to go. Too rough for them. Too much like work. I will say that the one reservation I have about North Dakota is the lack of timber in most areas. I'm planning a move there, but it's a concern that in a "bad situation," the lack of wood is going to mean the lack of heating and construction. Not good when it's 20 below. I think about that a lot. In that situation, what am I going to do for heat? Sure, I can have a 200 gallon LP tank, but assuming someone doesn't steal it, what happens when it's empty? Hmmmm.
I want to second the post above about the west not being all arid wasteland. In my state (Utah) there are plenty of alpine or sub alpine areas that have plenty of water. Even in the deserts there are many mountain ranges (and accompanying rain shadows/rain blocks). For example, The area in the southern foothills of the Uintah mountains is pretty sparsely populated and has arable land. Wells are typically flowing and need no pump. There are lots of little pockets like this around here. Problem is, the land is typically quite pricey and fairly close to population centers. I think the west could work, though, because the population is quite concentrated in certain areas and really sparse elsewhere.
I really think picking a place that is very cold is a poor idea. You need to spend so much time just keeping warm and surviving and even though you may have water it is frozen. It just doesn't make sense to me.
1) Northern Maine: Honestly, I see this area as probably the best. The one thing I'd be concerned with is that it's not all that far away from the masses to the the south....
As you go South a small bit you encounter the SnowBelt [Chicago, Detroit, Buffalo, NYC, Hartford, Boston]. This is generally a region of higher population densities, and they get seriously hammered with snow routinely.
In Maine our biggest industry is tourism. During the summers folks from the SnowBelt come up here to play. But they are mostly scared of coming here in the winter. They know what winter is like for them, so they 'know' what winter must be like up here.
I honestly do not think that very many from the SnowBelt region would ever travel Northward to escape anything.
Quote:
Other than that, it's ideal. Beautiful area; plenty of water for crops; sufficient growing season; fairly cheap land (much of it a mixture of old potato fields and wooded land); plenty of timber for building, cooking and heating; sparse population; fairly independent in attitude. Although I've been planning to move to North Dakota, I often have second thoughts about northern Maine, mainly because I think it is overall a better area for self-sufficiency ("living off the land").
Low taxes, low cost-of-living, and very relaxed code-enforcement for owner built dwellings allow a person to build their own home and strive for self-sufficiency in most of rural Maine.
Quote:
2) UP Michigan: I see this area as being similar to northern Maine. I don't think it lends itself quite so much to agriculture as Maine does. It's also a bit more densely populated and attracts more recreational types and tourism.
3) North Dakota: I think the main thing North Dakota has going for it is the sparse population and independent attitude. Its traditionally an agricultural area. There is very little tourism. And truthfully, because of the very cold winters, it's not the kind of place the "zombies" are going to go. Too rough for them. Too much like work. I will say that the one reservation I have about North Dakota is the lack of timber in most areas. I'm planning a move there, but it's a concern that in a "bad situation," the lack of wood is going to mean the lack of heating and construction. Not good when it's 20 below. I think about that a lot. In that situation, what am I going to do for heat? Sure, I can have a 200 gallon LP tank, but assuming someone doesn't steal it, what happens when it's empty? Hmmmm.
Why is that?
Here on any ground that is ignored for 5 years you get forest. To keep open ground open land-owners mostly need to run a brush-hog once a year, to knock down all of the saplings.
What is the difference? is it ground water?
Quote:
I want to second the post above about the west not being all arid wasteland. In my state (Utah) there are plenty of alpine or sub alpine areas that have plenty of water. Even in the deserts there are many mountain ranges (and accompanying rain shadows/rain blocks). For example, The area in the southern foothills of the Uintah mountains is pretty sparsely populated and has arable land. Wells are typically flowing and need no pump. There are lots of little pockets like this around here. Problem is, the land is typically quite pricey and fairly close to population centers. I think the west could work, though, because the population is quite concentrated in certain areas and really sparse elsewhere.
True.
I grew up in a dry area, 'water rights' are a big thing. Anyone who has water may easily loose legal 'rights' to use their own water, simply because some far away city is able to claim 'rights' to it.
I really think picking a place that is very cold is a poor idea. You need to spend so much time just keeping warm and surviving and even though you may have water it is frozen. It just doesn't make sense to me.
It does take a bit of effort to get another 3 cords of firewood each year.
I really think picking a place that is very cold is a poor idea. You need to spend so much time just keeping warm and surviving and even though you may have water it is frozen. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Not where I'm at, I've built a cabin during the winter, and normally spend 2 weeks/year gathering prepping and storing wood for the winter. The Water freezes, but if you drill a 1/16" pilot hole in the pipe leading from your well to your storage tank (and a float valve that controls the pump) the well won't freeze up, and you keep your storage tank in a heated area. Besides you can always melt snow and river ice at the worst case.
It's just necessary to adjust to any of the more extreme climates, which is why you can't just bug out there with a high probability of success.
..Low taxes, low cost-of-living, and very relaxed code-enforcement for owner built dwellings allow a person to build their own home and strive for self-sufficiency in most of rural Maine.
I didn't know about the owner/builder breaks. This is not the case in North Dakota, as far as I can tell. And it is pretty important to me, since I am interested in building traditionally and very small. I'll have to look into that. I have a chance to buy a 12 acre plot of land near Presque Isle for around $18,000. That seems like a pretty good price, especially considering I couldn't get a quarter acre around here for that. It's a mix of former potato farm and wooded ground. It's been keeping me up at night. It would take me quite a while to pay for, but it could certainly be worth it to me, considering my future plans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forest beekeeper
True.
I grew up in a dry area, 'water rights' are a big thing. Anyone who has water may easily loose legal 'rights' to use their own water, simply because some far away city is able to claim 'rights' to it.
Be careful.
Yes, there are some really stupid (in my opinion) and territorial water laws around here. Seems like in some areas you could be arrested for letting a raindrop fall into your mouth.
I assume that there isn't really a need for irrigation for the most part in Maine??? That's a bit foreign to me (living out west) because here, if the crops aren't flooded with irrigation water every couple of weeks... well, they won't be there for long.
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.
It would take me quite a while to pay for, but it could certainly be worth it to me, considering my future plans. 
