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.
Having lived in the West since 1967 I've become aware that grass fires are far less destructive and dangerous than brush fires and they're orders of magnitude away from forest fires, particularly the really severe fires that reach the crowns of trees.
The vegetation on my retreat is a mixture of short grass and sagebrush desert. The short bunchgrass that grows here transmits fire very poorly; it bears no resemblance to the lush meadows that people unfamiliar with these areas seem to envision. There's a lower treeline as well as an upper treeline in arid areas. Those are the altitude limits of erect trees (and at the lower limit indicative of the moisture in the soil. Timberline refers to the upper limit of any woody growth. Between the upper treeline and timberline there are distorted ground-clinging versions of trees. Certain species of trees are dominant in various altitude belts. For example, in the upper part of my property there are just a few White Bark Pine marking lower treeline (about 5800' here) Nearby at several hundred feet higher large stands of them. As altitude increases so does moisture.
Fire is always something to be considered. I've chosen to minimize the danger. I've noted frequently that strangers to this forum who are strangers to survivalism as well seem to make the most assured yet silly statements about areas where they've spent little or no time. We do what we must. After the disruption to the flora during the construction of the house I had an invasion of thick weeds which have a habitat of disturbed soil. I removed these weeds every year until they completely died out about five years later. I've never disturbed the sagebrush area because these with their associated wood rat middens hundreds of them are between a thousand and fifteen hundred years old. Since nothing right here seems to be older some destructive event, likely a severe fire, must have happened about that time.
I suggest that anyone who wishes to be able to make intelligent comments on ecological relationships of specific areas first learn some basic ecology (the academic discipline, not the cult). Follow that with description of the area along with information on those environments in general. There's a plethora of information on the western states. It's interesting and avoids the sneering of those of us who demand knowledge as opposed to supposed urban liberal profundity as taught by the American entertainment media.
Not at all. But that's where I bought homesteading land and decided has everything I want for raising a family.
Good.
Often I see folks who debate the best place as being where ever they grew-up.
It is good to see people who have traveled a bit, and looked around, before making such a decision.
I think that for self-sufficient homesteading you need: a low cost-of-living.
No droughts,
Very little cultural dependence on municipal services,
able to produce food and surplus to barter,
And to avoid extreme hot, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and forest fires.
When this continent was being explored and mapped much of today's 'prairie' was originally labeled as the 'Great American Desert'.
'Manifest Destiny' [the aftermath of the 1812 war] and the climatologist theory of the 'Rain follows the plow' fueled the Westward expansion movement. That movement relabeled the 'Great American Desert' to become the 'Great Plains'.
It was observed by the early explorers to be drought-prone desert. Westward expansion has proven it to be drought-prone desert.
Forests can not become established in drought-prone desert. Trees may grow for a few years, until the next drought comes along and kills the trees. The primary plant life that can thrive is annual grasses, which can complete their life-cycle in one season. So even a drought year fire allows them to re-seed for the next year.
You are correct that prairie fires do limit tree growth, but prairie fires are a symptom of a far greater issue; drought.
I won't disagree, but I was responding specifically to the post claiming that the short grass prairie wasn't susceptible to fire.
Generally, any place west of the 100th meridian is unreliable for crops without irrigation. You can grow corn in eastern Nebraska without irrigation, but droughts will get you on occasion, and they tend to be more frequent, more severe, and longer than further east in Indiana, Illinois, and even Iowa.
I won't disagree, but I was responding specifically to the post claiming that the short grass prairie wasn't susceptible to fire.
Generally, any place west of the 100th meridian is unreliable for crops without irrigation. You can grow corn in eastern Nebraska without irrigation, but droughts will get you on occasion, and they tend to be more frequent, more severe, and longer than further east in Indiana, Illinois, and even Iowa.
True, however, some crops grow well in a dryland situation like wheat, oats and barley.
Just because you can't grow everything doesn't mean you can't grow something.
Short grass fires that I have fought on the fire department vs forest fires, grass fires are quick and deadly, forest fires burn hotter longer and can sterilize the ground.
Both have their place in rejuvinating the ground and are part of the natural process, but grass fires if you have a barrier, will go around. Forest fires are dangerous when the trees fall during the fire or explode sending embers everywhere to start new fires, and the dead standing trees are a danger for many years to come as the roots rot and the trees fall.
Prairies are suseptible to fire, no question, but don't have the fuel loads of forests. The other points about visability are valid.
Often I see folks who debate the best place as being where ever they grew-up.
It is good to see people who have traveled a bit, and looked around, before making such a decision.
I think that for self-sufficient homesteading you need: a low cost-of-living.
No droughts,
Very little cultural dependence on municipal services,
able to produce food and surplus to barter,
And to avoid extreme hot, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and forest fires.
This makes sense.
I will also add that you need community. It's impossible for a family to do/produce everything for themselves. You look at the Amish around the country, who are probably the most self-sufficient group of people around, and they always live in communities. Not every Amishman is cut out to be a good farmer, but he might be a good carpenter or iron worker or leather-worker or horse trainer. There are also projects that require lots of manpower, such as building a house or barn or harvesting grain/hay crops. They wouldn't be able to take care of their old and disabled members or educate their children or provide social support by living in isolation.
I will also add that you need community. It's impossible for a family to do/produce everything for themselves. You look at the Amish around the country, who are probably the most self-sufficient group of people around, and they always live in communities. Not every Amishman is cut out to be a good farmer, but he might be a good carpenter or iron worker or leather-worker or horse trainer. There are also projects that require lots of manpower, such as building a house or barn or harvesting grain/hay crops. They wouldn't be able to take care of their old and disabled members or educate their children or provide social support by living in isolation.
I do not think that I was making any sort of case for lone-wolf living.
In the township that we settled in, only a few homes are missing gardens. Most homes have power generators [because we lose electricity so often], and a few homes are off-grid. Wood cutters, welders, livestock, horses [pleasure, not work], etc. An adjacent neighbor raises sheep, cards and spins fiber, as a sideline business. We even have a store-front business that opened recently, a gunsmith.
Nearly everyone here hunts and fishes. Another neighbor runs traplines on my land, he just brought us 20 pounds of matsutake mushrooms.
Community is okay, so long as it is community of people that are actually doing it.
Often I see folks who debate the best place as being where ever they grew-up.
It is good to see people who have traveled a bit, and looked around, before making such a decision.
I think that for self-sufficient homesteading you need: a low cost-of-living.
No droughts,
Very little cultural dependence on municipal services,
able to produce food and surplus to barter,
And to avoid extreme hot, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and forest fires.
This is a wonderful list, honing it down to the essentials for the "ideal" setting. #1 and #3 are high on my list of ideals, and the rest just make good sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Submariner
I do not think that I was making any sort of case for lone-wolf living.
In the township that we settled in, only a few homes are missing gardens. Most homes have power generators [because we lose electricity so often], and a few homes are off-grid. Wood cutters, welders, livestock, horses [pleasure, not work], etc. An adjacent neighbor raises sheep, cards and spins fiber, as a sideline business. We even have a store-front business that opened recently, a gunsmith.
Nearly everyone here hunts and fishes. Another neighbor runs traplines on my land, he just brought us 20 pounds of matsutake mushrooms.
Community is okay, so long as it is community of people that are actually doing it.
Again, makes sense. I don't think "lone-wolf" living is the ultimate ideal in a sufficiency capacity. There has to be community, whether in a scattered rural setting or something more like a hamlet or small town.
However, I think a lone-wolf existence can be preferable to certain "community situations." My opinion is that for (especially in a stressful "survival" situation) a community to have any chance in the long term, that community must be quite homogeneous in many respects. They should share goals, work ethics, a certain sense of selflessness, common beliefs, and just be like-minded in general. We hear so much about "diversity" in our society--that makes sense, since we are a very diverse nation in just about every respect. I personally have nothing against people "unlike" myself (in whatever fashion), but I think in a real survival situation where a sense of community is critical, "diversity" tends to erode cohesion on a community level. Human nature seeks to find The Other and place blame on that Other for whatever in going wrong. I'd fear in a community sufficiency capacity, diversity would tend to be a hindrance, rather than a benefit, more often than not.
My opinion its eastern Kentucky if you're speaking east of the Mississippi. To the west you have the rest of the rural state, to the east you have the Virginia mountains, to the north you have west Virginia and the rural hills of Ohio, and to the south you have lightly populated hills of Tennessee.
Because of the warming effect of the hills it doesn't get quite as cold as other mountain areas, its far west enough to dodge hurricanes. Rainfall is also plenty and steady throughout the year. It's a distance from any known highways like 41 and 81. Cost of living is also some of the lowest in the nation. The catch is there are no desirable jobs. A true off-gridder could live with that.
This is the type of answer I was looking for. Thank you!!
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.
