Are we seeing human subsistence living coming back to our public lands? 

Van Living Forum

Help Support Van Living Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

surfer

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2015
Messages
162
Reaction score
1
Are we seeing human subsistence living coming back to our public lands? 

Because vandwellers share the spirit of nomadism, nature & freedom with native peoples I wanted to share this with you. I hope this post isn't too long (or considered political) but wanted to give plenty of info on this voice of truth for those who share indigenous values & can't watch the series on youtube. 

I became aware of the following proclamation through http://www.survivalinternational.org  who report that "Tribal peoples are being illegally evicted from their ancestral lands in the name of “conservation”" which led me to BBC's  Unnatural Histories series.

Wikipedia's (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unnatural_Histories_(TV_series)) description of the series is as follows:
"Unnatural Histories is a 3-part British television documentary series produced by the BBC and BBC Natural History Unit. It takes a new look at three of the world's most iconic wildernesses; the Serengeti, Yellowstone National Park and the Amazon and discovers that far from being wild and untouched, each has been shaped over time by man.[1][2] It was first broadcast on BBC Four 9–23 June 2011.[3]"

The series Episode list: 
"Episode 1: Serengeti () - First aired on Thursday 9 June 2011. Investigates how the Serengeti became wild through the actions of a colonial disease that emptied the land of the people and livestock that had lived there for hundreds of years. This episode shows how this event allowed the modern vision of Africa as a pristine wilderness to take hold.[4]

Episode 2: Yellowstone ( ) - First aired on Thursday 16 June 2011. This episode looks at the American West and the park of Yellowstone, whose birth was the result of romantic European ideals that were transported to the homelands of Native Americans by ambitious politicians and railroad tycoons.[1]

Episode 3: Amazon ( ) - First aired on Thursday 23 June 2011. The final episode looks at the Amazon rainforest - billed as the world's last great wilderness. However, the discovery of geoglyphs uncovered following deforestation in the 1970s and terra preta, provide growing evidence for ancient cities in the heart of the 'virgin forest'.[5] Ondemar Dias is accredited with first discovering the geoglyphs in 1977 and Alceu Ranzi with furthering their discovery after flying over Acre.[6][7]

The documentary presents evidence that Francisco de Orellana, rather than exaggerating his claims as previously thought, was correct in his observations that a complex civilization was flourishing along the Amazon in the 1540s. It is believed that the civilization was later devastated by the spread of diseases from Europe, such as smallpox. Some 5 million people may have lived in the Amazon region in 1500, divided between dense coastal settlements, such as that at Marajó, and inland dwellers.[8] By 1900 the population had fallen to 1 million and by the early 1980s it was less than 200,000.[8]

The documentary features interviews with Betty Meggers, William Balée, Anna Roosevelt, José Iriarte, Eduardo Góes Neves, Cristiana Barreto, Francis Mayle, Denise Schaan and Michael Heckenberger."

Human subsistence  living on our public lands may not be seen in our lifetime. But hey, they brought back the wolves to Yellowstone! Could human subsistence  living come back to these lands? My wish is that tribes around the world will not suffer the same as our own indigenous people who lived with nature, & that all can live free, all can provide for themselves harmoniously, even as a gypsy vandweller.

If not already, I hope you enjoy the journey of being un-romanticized. 
 
If the public were allowed subsistence on national lands, there would soon be little left for the rest to enjoy.
 
It's illegal and if you are caught doing it you are going to suffer. Hunting and fishing is regulated by the states and in Alaska if your caught hunting illegally they confiscate ALL your stuff! Your airplane, your ATV, your camper, your guns, your tents.

Bad, bad idea!
Bob
 
Just saw an article elsewhere on a startup company using mobile storage units to set up hydroponic farming in cities, in any small land area or rooftops. Expensive, but it works.
And the American Gray Wolf was never reintroduced to our western states......
They "screwed the pooch" so to speak. They shipped in the larger stronger and more aggressive Canadian Gray Wolf. It's decimating the elk herds and cattle. BIG MISTAKE........ :(
 
ccbreder

If the public were allowed subsistence on national lands, there would soon be little left for the rest to enjoy.


I apologize to all for slow responses. I'm not good with the written word (obvious by the responses and my slow response (technical & learning curve on new android platform)), yet I'll try to portray what I saw in my romanticized, idealistic imagination of a wild and free life with nature.

ccbreder, I would agree with you if your scenario is what I think it is, but I think your version and my version of subsistence living in this scenario may be different.

Since Survival International is about preserving indigenous peoples' rights, land, and choice; and BBC's series was about the industrialized societies' romantic creation of "wilderness" by taking out a component of nature, indigenous people, and how the wild and industrial may coexist I started from that base & imagined what it may be like in America. Could the Native Americans regain some of what was taken? Could others partake in the lifestyle? What would it take for it to be sustainable?

The subsistence living I saw was a pre-Columbus way in America, how some aborigines still live on their ancestral lands in other countries, pre-industrialization. My idea was a stone age type of life style to level the playing field with nature, to make it sustainable with nature. I think the industrial age has tipped that out of balance. Thus I don't think many industrialized people would give up modern conveniences and change to a stone age lifestyle. I also gamble that life style would rule out some environments. So I think that may be the way for a "little left for the rest to enjoy" would occur & for a true wild system to work. Was that the type of subsistence living you were thinking?

Even if it could never be done here, how could other countries not invade upon their indigenous peoples, just allow them to be, to be free & wild?
 
akrvbob

I do not condone poaching (if that is what you thought I was threading about), unless in a survival situation. I don't even like culling the herd. It hurts me to put a worm on a hook. Mercy killing, putting my dog to sleep, was the hardest thing I ever done. To me the human consequences of poaching is nothing compared to the loss of something wild and free. They have a hard enough time just with man's encroachment. Did you possibly reply to the wrong thread?
 
If I misunderstood I apologize. Maybe we have a different idea of subsistence living? Subsistence living means to live off of what the land provides by hunting and fishing. Is there some other way to take what you meant other than hunting and fishing on BLM or National Forest or Park Land like Yellowstone?

Bob
 
Very confusing to this old man. Sorry to offend or misunderstand you. i guess.
 
LeeRevell

Dude, you're killing me! And I don't mean in a bad way, you make me think and research.

Yes, I have heard of hydroponics. It is a pretty cool thing, especially those closed circuit ones with a fish pond. But I have not heard of the mobile type you are talking of and I will have to look that up! It would be something I'd get into if I was more 'farming inclined'. I was raised on a farm & decided I didn't want to be married to it: it's a 24/7 job. I told my mom recently after viewing a home stead museum, "Had I been raised back then I probably would have ran away & lived with the Indians! I'd rather go gather what nature provided."

Yes, I knew the American gray wolf was replaced by the Canadian wolf. I did not know they were more aggressive. I had not heard that they were decimating the elk and cattle. So I had to read several articles to find out if what I knew was old news. Researching, I did find a fairly current one that references that topic:
Is the Wolf a Real American Hero?
By ARTHUR MIDDLETON
MARCH 9, 2014
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/03/1...erican-hero.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1&referrer=

The strongest explanation for why the wolves have made less of a difference than we expected comes from a long-term, experimental study by a research group at Colorado State University. This study, which focused on willows, showed that the decades without wolves changed Yellowstone too much to undo. After humans exterminated wolves nearly a century ago, elk grew so abundant that they all but eliminated willow shrubs. Without willows to eat, beavers declined. Without beaver dams, fast-flowing streams cut deeper into the terrain. The water table dropped below the reach of willow roots. Now it’s too late for even high levels of wolf predation to restore the willows.

This bitterness has led a vocal minority of Westerners to popularize their own myths about the reintroduced wolves: They are a voracious, nonnative strain. The government lies about their true numbers. They devastate elk herds, spread elk diseases, and harass elk relentlessly — often just for fun.
...................
With that being said, it kind of bursts my bubble a little more. Which in my mind makes it more important to preserve current indigenous peoples' life style. Taking them out of the equation may change the wild irrevocably. Then we're just left with 'parks'.
 
 akrvbob

No,  in essence you didn't misunderstand. I agree with you on "Subsistence living means to live off of what the land provides". In reality I guess that's what even the industrial world does. But any ways- I owe you an apology for not initially giving enough information  on how my imagination thought that it might be accomplished. I just thought it'd come out in in the wash, which it did.

My general line of thinking was: First, the land would have to be rich enough. Second, it'd have to be a popular vote. Third, it'd have to be government sanctioned. It would probably even have to be regulated. Beyond that, my puny problem solving mind is at a loss. :) I'm better with ideas than problem solving. I was in hopes the ones better at problem solving & interested in this topic would chime in. But that's probably another pipe dream. Besides, if reintroducing wolves hasn't helped like they thought, introducing the human factor probably won't either.
 
The non-private lands here are mostly National Forest, so limited hunting and no farming or gathering wild foods. The rangers and deputies keep a good eye on things. Some self styled "survivalists" think if/when The Big One happens they will go into the woods and "live off the land". If so many bubbas do that they'd decimate the wildlife very quickly.
 
ccbreder

Please forgive me, I miss represented BBC's series. I should have wrote ...took out components (plural) of nature, both animals and indigenous people. ...

While I was rereading the above to see if I made any more mistakes that I should address here, I seen you had made a reply. No need to apologize. I don't know how to make myself understood and that's okay I guess. I'm kind of used to being the odd man out. Thank you for your kindness.
 
LeeRevell

You made a very good point! Agreed, if so many bubbas :) did flock into the woods it would be decimated. May be a hint of imbalance? The earth can sustain us in greater numbers & longer if we keep on & improve on compartmentalizing our water & food (factory farms) to the detriment of nature & ourselves (nature-deficit disorder (Last Child in the Woods book)) but it looks like that'd create a SHTF scenario. Do you think any public lands could support reintroduced subsistence living?

I'm  not sure how to respond to the other half of your reply. Are you just informing me of the current rules?
 
surfer said:
LeeRevell

You made a very good point! Agreed, if so many bubbas :) did flock into the woods it would be decimated. May be a hint of imbalance? The earth can sustain us in greater numbers & longer if we keep on & improve on compartmentalizing our water & food (factory farms) to the detriment of nature & ourselves (nature-deficit disorder (Last Child in the Woods book)) but it looks like that'd create a SHTF scenario. Do you think any public lands could support reintroduced subsistence living?

I'm  not sure how to respond to the other half of your reply. Are you just informing me of the current rules?

I suppose if and when 'something bad' happens, the public lands could be used for farming.  But near to any metro areas, the local authorities would likely claim them.  I see a lot of forest areas having areas cleared for development, but often the planned development never happens, and the land goes wild again.  Nature always reclaims her own.

The 'rules' are simply my own.  I don't have the time or pain threshold to read or tolerate failed English or text speak, so such nonsense gets the poster on the ignore list.  Doesn't matter how good their info might be, I can find that on literate sources.  Comes from being a professional 'documenalist' I suppose.  On every forum site I am on, I seem to amass a large Ignore List.  No loss to me.

One problem our National Forest has down here, is illegal immigrants being used to 'farm' the forests for a certain wild berry.  They are trucked in illicitly, gather what they can, and then are trucked back out.  The Wildlife Officers and Deputies have a hard time trying to keep up with them.  The berry is used to make a prostate drug, and apparently is profitable to the guys running this operation.  So, we often see LEO presence in the woods.
Also, MJ growers are common, and other illegal drug operations.  I make sure anything I do in the forest is LEGAL.
Even gathering dead wood for fireplace use requires a free permit, available at any ranger station.
 
LeeRevell

"I suppose if and when 'something bad' happens, the public lands could be used for farming."
Oh, that's too bad. Too bad that they aren't rich enough for subsistence living.

"But near to any metro areas, the local authorities would likely claim them."
I'm unsure as to why, probably depends on the situation, but I'm sure they would.

"and the land goes wild again.  Nature always reclaims her own"
Yes, it' amazing how she can come back (Chernobyl). Wonder if the  Aral Sea can do the same. Hopefully some undiscovered pupfish or beetle were not lost when these areas were cleared. I've been wondering if in time the water table in Yellowstone will rise allowing the willows & then the beaver to come back or if that is now a done deal.

"The 'rules' are simply my own.  I don't have the time or pain threshold to read or tolerate failed English or text speak, so such nonsense gets the poster on the ignore list."
The rules I was referring to was "The non-private lands here are mostly National Forest, so limited hunting and no farming or gathering wild foods. The rangers and deputies keep a good eye on things." But it does open an opportunity  to ask: You are a moderator that delets/hits the ignore button on posts that have "failed English"? I am trying very hard not to pain anyone. That's why in part my responses may not be as quick as one may expect. It's painful on my end though. :)

"Comes from being a professional 'documenalist' I suppose."
Interesting, what did you document? Are there sources that you would recommend over others?

I have not heard of the 'berry pickers' but have heard of the MJ growers with the illegal irrigation, littering,  pesticides, herbicides, & deforestation.
So you can have a camp fire either from boughten wood or wood from the woods if you have the permit? What is the point of the permit?
 
berry picking is pretty common out west, so is the cultivation of illegal crops. you don't have to worry about the berry pickers, but the cultivators is a whole different story. a lot of the cultivators nowadays are cartel people. in kalifornia you need a camp fire permit if you are outside a developed campground. their point is education, the permit has a lot of educational info about fires on it, mostly common sense(if it was common everybody would have it). the permit is free. so there is really no reason not to have one. highdesertranger
 
surfer said:
LeeRevell



"The 'rules' are simply my own.  I don't have the time or pain threshold to read or tolerate failed English or text speak, so such nonsense gets the poster on the ignore list."
The rules I was referring to was "The non-private lands here are mostly National Forest, so limited hunting and no farming or gathering wild foods. The rangers and deputies keep a good eye on things." But it does open an opportunity  to ask: You are a moderator that delets/hits the ignore button on posts that have "failed English"? I am trying very hard not to pain anyone. That's why in part my responses may not be as quick as one may expect. It's painful on my end though. :)

No 'moderating' here.  I just find it personally irritating and sometimes literally painful to wind up reading something that indicated the writer totally forgot the Written English they were taught in third grade.  Call it a personal foible.  So into the 'illiterate list' they go.

"Comes from being a professional 'documenalist' I suppose."
Interesting, what did you document? Are there sources that you would recommend over others?

My IT team was in the Florida Department of Education.  I created documentation used by others, in my team and others.  I helped write a Standards document used by the Department for  our Mainframe Applications.  I maintained various documents used by the FASTER application that is used to transfer school transcripts between different institutions, and is used statewide.  I was majorly involved in documenting this system for the Commissioner of Education here in Florida.   Whew.....!  When I start listing it all out, even I am impressed!  :)
Pretty good creds for a lowly underpaid Mainframe Programmer/Analyst!
 

I have not heard of the 'berry pickers' but have heard of the MJ growers with the illegal irrigation, littering,  pesticides, herbicides, & deforestation.
So you can have a camp fire either from boughten wood or wood from the woods if you have the permit? What is the point of the permit?

The permit is basically to allow the authorities to know you are known to them, that you know the rules (only deadwood, don't cut anything alive, etc.).  Since it's very likely you'll be checked by the local ranger or sheriff deputy, it helps keep you out of trouble.  It's so little trouble, and is good for the year, I think.  Campgrounds can be picky about wood brought in, but most I have used had no problem with it.  We don't have the non-native insect problem other areas have.
A lot of our national forest land is also blocked to motorvehicle use, and you get a map showing the areas you can legally gather the wood.
I have accidentally walked up on a MJ patch in the woods, and very quickly and quietly backtracked and vamoosed!
   :s
 
Thanks for telling me the point of the permits.

Do campers ever have run ins with the cartel people? I would think the campers would not feel comfortable getting into the back woods, feel restricted to the populated campgrounds.
 
I guess LeeRevell answered my question on run ins. The post was not there when I made the reply. It came up after my reply posted. Very scary.
 
It's very unlikely you would ever have a run-in with pot growers in a National Forest. No doubt they are there, but they are deep in the woods where not many people go. I was a campground host for 4 years in the Sierras and the place was crawling with LEOs because of the all the pot growing. The whole time I was there I heard of frequent busts but never once a bad encounter between growers and campers.

My dog and I went for two walks every day and ran into a dozen bears but never any hint of pot.
Bob
 
Top