# Living Off the Land - Delusions - Blog Post and Book



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

http://woodtrekker.blogspot.com/2013/09/living-off-land-delusions-and.html

This is a great article and it has a lot of the breakdowns of just how much food is required out in the wild.

There's a fundamental disconnect though that he's missing ...

The 3,300 calorie per day requirement is for an active backpacker, carrying a heavy load, hiking across rough terrain in harsh conditions, and building a shelter every day.

A person who had a solid basecamp with an existing shelter and doesn't spend all day in rigorous activity would not have those high of calorie requirements.


----------



## pinfeather (Nov 12, 2006)

This concept is something I hadn't considered before. Just yesterday I watched a partial episode of Alaska: The Last Frontier where a young man was outlining some of his dietary requirements for the Alaskan winter. It was something like "A hundred pounds of salmon, a hundred pounds of (another kind of fish, I didn't pay close attention), two hundred pounds of red meat . . . ". Then, as a fun outing for he and his wife, they spent two days ice fishing and got only two trout. He made a point of stating the trip was just as an outing because the energy laid out for two days of fishing with only two fish to pay for it was definitely not worth it, hunting-wise.

I used to look at our property and say, "Yep, there's bear and deer and elderberries - we could survive here!" Now seeing the flaw in that!


----------



## Ohio Rusty (Jan 18, 2008)

Hunting and having meat is a real issue in the absence of game. This is where trapping, snaring and box traps for smaller animals comes into play. In winter, the lack of vegetables and fruits will make you crazy with want. You body has certain requirements and will let you know when it gets below a certian threshold. If you are in an area south of the snow line, there are green plants, but you have to know which ones have some sort of nutrition. You'll starve to death eating grass, where a cow, horse and deer will not. 

As humnas we are limited to certain fruits. Not always can you eat the fruits and berries birds eat because they are toxic to us. If you have the resources to be able to cellar enough vegetable and dried/canned goods to get you thru winter, you can supplement meats as necessary.

Remember ...every bird on the north american continent is edible ...that includes turkeys, ducks , quail and all song birds. If you were starving .... 3 or 4 skinned out robbins over an open fire would be a welcome addition to reducing your hunger. 

Last but not least ..... they may have nutrition .. 'but I ain't eatin' no bugs' ....
Ohio Rusty ><>


----------



## TNHermit (Jul 14, 2005)

Ohio Rusty said:


> Last but not least ..... they may have nutrition .. 'but I ain't eatin' no bugs' ....
> Ohio Rusty ><>


preach on bro LOL:goodjob:


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Ohio Rusty said:


> Last but not least ..... they may have nutrition .. 'but I ain't eatin' no bugs' ....
> Ohio Rusty ><>


Never say never. 

I went through a phase of my military training where we had to sustain ourselves in the wilderness for 30 days with no food or external support. On day one, our instructor pointed out that the grasshoppers (which were abundant) were edible. We all said "blech".

By day 18, we were expert grasshopper hunters.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Ernie said:


> http://woodtrekker.blogspot.com/2013/09/living-off-land-delusions-and.html
> 
> This is a great article and it has a lot of the breakdowns of just how much food is required out in the wild.
> 
> ...


Thanks for posting that. Definitely very good information.

With regard to a person with a solid basecamp and not spending all day in rigorous activity - I see things a little differently from you. Of course their geographical location, climate/temperature conditions and availability of either a dearth or plentitude of edibles makes all the difference in how much activity and calories a person would expend daily. 

If that person is living off the land then I think they would still be spending a very large part of the day in carrying heavy loads, hiking across rough terrain in harsh conditions while hunting and gathering edibles as well as daily gathering of firewood. As each day passes and they consume the edibles and wood closest to base camp they will have to range further and further away from their campsite every day then return the same distance with their goodies to basecamp. 

That daily activity of walking, running, searching, reaching, digging, preparing, lifting, carrying, etc. etc and having to constantly be mentally alert and aware will still use up a great many calories. Perhaps not quite as much as the person who is backpacking all their possessions, on the move and building a shelter every day, but still enough for the difference in calorie requirements to be negligible.

ETA: - Eventually the person who has the base camp and is living off the land will use up all available resources. They will have 2 options. Pack up and move base camp to a place where there are more resources, and start all over again - or - settle in and start growing their own food and livestock.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

There are many "basecamps" which simply would not consume all of the resources. Say, for instance, a small Indian village on the edge of a salmon-filled river.

The tribe could move up and down the river in order to avoid overutilizing the wood resources, but for the most part I can't see how a small population would exhaust the resources.

This worked pretty well for the tribes PRIOR to the white man's arrival.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

It will definitely be a whole new paradigm for those who have lived after the conveniences and perks of the beast.

But.....as Ernie asserts, there are many ways, means and situations available to the survivor and the children of the Earth. Wisdom, experience and Providence will guide the aware to those holdouts particularly conducive to the most gentle of caloric expense. All else will either lose that pesky belly fat once and for all.....or perish. :shrug:


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Ernie said:


> There are many "basecamps" which simply would not consume all of the resources. Say, for instance, a small Indian village on the edge of a salmon-filled river.
> 
> The tribe could move up and down the river in order to avoid overutilizing the wood resources, but for the most part I can't see how a small population would exhaust the resources.
> 
> This worked pretty well for the tribes PRIOR to the white man's arrival.


You have not factored in that they must work very hard during certain seasons to gather for colder seasons, therefore burning more calories. Then they have to either move to warmer climates for the summer or burn more calories keeping warm during the winter. They also have to be preping during down climates, repairing tools and clothing so they can use their gathering seasons to the best of their abilities. No one ever had down time.


----------



## Allen W (Aug 2, 2008)

Ernie said:


> There are many "basecamps" which simply would not consume all of the resources. Say, for instance, a small Indian village on the edge of a salmon-filled river.
> 
> The tribe could move up and down the river in order to avoid overutilizing the wood resources, but for the most part I can't see how a small population would exhaust the resources.
> 
> This worked pretty well for the tribes PRIOR to the white man's arrival.


It took a lot of land to feed a few Indians, I imagine their population cycled much like the wild animals did.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

painterswife said:


> You have not factored in that they must work very hard during certain seasons to gather for colder seasons, therefore burning more calories. Then they have to either move to warmer climates for the summer or burn more calories keeping warm during the winter. They also have to be preping during down climates, repairing tools and clothing so they can use their gathering seasons to the best of their abilities. No one ever had down time.


I don't mind not having down time.

What I hate is starving to death. 

Though realistically, primitive societies have a LOT more free time than you do. Read "Stone Age Economics" and you'll be ready to return to the jungle.


----------



## bassmaster17327 (Apr 6, 2011)

People also seem to forget that a lot of people will be out hunting for food, unless you live in a state with a ton of woodland I would imagine that after the first month that most animals will be gone.

I have an uncle that believes he could hunt enough food for him and his family from his 20 acres. He reuses to listen to me that he needs to store food and begin raising/growing his food


----------



## Astrid (Nov 13, 2010)

Ernie said:


> http://woodtrekker.blogspot.com/2013/09/living-off-land-delusions-and.html
> 
> This is a great article and it has a lot of the breakdowns of just how much food is required out in the wild.
> 
> ...



This is a great link, however don't forget that if a person is eating nothing but lean protein and their carbohydrate intake isn't significant enough, they will go into ketosis and eventually still starve to death. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_starvation


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Astrid said:


> This is a great link, however don't forget that if a person is eating nothing but lean protein and their carbohydrate intake isn't significant enough, they will go into ketosis and eventually still starve to death.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_starvation


Your information is incorrect, and the link you provide points that out as well. 

The body needs protein and FATS. There is no need whatsoever for carbohydrates. 

In fact, there have been (and are) populations of humans on this planet that have survived exclusively on a protein and fat diet and did not starve to death.


----------



## Astrid (Nov 13, 2010)

Ernie said:


> Your information is incorrect, and the link you provide points that out as well.
> 
> The body needs protein and FATS. There is no need whatsoever for carbohydrates.
> 
> In fact, there have been (and are) populations of humans on this planet that have survived exclusively on a protein and fat diet and did not starve to death.


Yes Ernie, I should have been more specific. I did mention lean meats being a source of causing the "rabbit starvation" due to their being virtually no fat in a rabbit, but should have specified that people can thrive on a diet of protein and fats.


----------



## wannalive (Aug 29, 2013)

doesn't the rabbit starvation concept only apply to wild rabbit.. not domesticated


----------



## Astrid (Nov 13, 2010)

wannalive said:


> doesn't the rabbit starvation concept only apply to wild rabbit.. not domesticated



I would say that wild rabbit is leaner than domesticated rabbit, but even domesticated rabbit is still extremely lean meat. I would plan on storing fats of some type and/or some sort of carbohydrate food. We have established a permaculture garden on about 3 acres of land and have naturalized potatoes, sorrel, jerusalem artichoke, nettles, burdock, asparagus, lots of biennials we allow to go to seed and reseed themselves, tons of fruiting bushes and trees... You could also store 25 lb buckets of lard which would definitely supplement the protein, plus make it easier to cook the rabbit. 

If you wanted to stick to wild game, you could hunt ducks and geese which have delicious fat. If you have never tasted potatoes cooked in duck fat you are missing a treat. Bears also have a lot of fat, but you would want to stick to fall bears that have not been feeding on fish. Butchering a fall bear that is feeding on a salmon stream is one of the most disgusting jobs we have ever undertaken. The meat and fat were so fishy and the oil just coats your skin... I ended up turning the meat into dog food and rendering the fat several times and boiling it in water to wash it until it was even useable. I can't even cook with it and ended up using it only for soap.


----------



## edjewcollins (Jun 20, 2003)

I hear ya on that observation! I saw that episode and thought the same. I have often wondered if they wouldn't be better served trying to put in a greenhouse to preserve more produce, but I don't know if that's practical there.




pinfeather said:


> This concept is something I hadn't considered before. Just yesterday I watched a partial episode of Alaska: The Last Frontier where a young man was outlining some of his dietary requirements for the Alaskan winter. It was something like "A hundred pounds of salmon, a hundred pounds of (another kind of fish, I didn't pay close attention), two hundred pounds of red meat . . . ". Then, as a fun outing for he and his wife, they spent two days ice fishing and got only two trout. He made a point of stating the trip was just as an outing because the energy laid out for two days of fishing with only two fish to pay for it was definitely not worth it, hunting-wise.
> 
> I used to look at our property and say, "Yep, there's bear and deer and elderberries - we could survive here!" Now seeing the flaw in that!


----------



## DaleK (Sep 23, 2004)

Also keep in mind that when millions are starving the rules and ethics of hunting/fishing go out the window. You're no longer competing with another hunter following the rules, you're competing with people that will be using all those methods that currently aren't considered sporting and they'll be keeping everything they get.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Astrid said:


> I would say that wild rabbit is leaner than domesticated rabbit, but even domesticated rabbit is still extremely lean meat. I would plan on storing fats of some type and/or some sort of carbohydrate food. We have established a permaculture garden on about 3 acres of land and have naturalized potatoes, sorrel, jerusalem artichoke, nettles, burdock, asparagus, lots of biennials we allow to go to seed and reseed themselves, tons of fruiting bushes and trees... You could also store 25 lb buckets of lard which would definitely supplement the protein, plus make it easier to cook the rabbit.
> 
> If you wanted to stick to wild game, you could hunt ducks and geese which have delicious fat. If you have never tasted potatoes cooked in duck fat you are missing a treat. Bears also have a lot of fat, but you would want to stick to fall bears that have not been feeding on fish. Butchering a fall bear that is feeding on a salmon stream is one of the most disgusting jobs we have ever undertaken. The meat and fat were so fishy and the oil just coats your skin... I ended up turning the meat into dog food and rendering the fat several times and boiling it in water to wash it until it was even useable. I can't even cook with it and ended up using it only for soap.


A lot of the fat can come from organ meats. Liver is exceptionally fatty. 

I wouldn't have eaten that bear. Granted, I'd love to have a couple of bear skins to throw about the bed, but I'd much prefer to eat the salmon. 

It seems to me the Indians in the Pacific Northwest probably had the most idyllic existence in the entire Americas. Plenty of game in the woods, fish in the ocean and the rivers, mild climate, and a mountain range separating them from the extremely hostile tribes like the Lakota and the Pawnee.


----------



## TNHermit (Jul 14, 2005)

Ernie said:


> It seems to me the Indians in the Pacific Northwest probably had the most idyllic existence in the entire Americas. Plenty of game in the woods, fish in the ocean and the rivers, mild climate, and a mountain range separating them from the extremely* hostile tribes like the Lakota and the Pawnee.*


Wait Wait!! All the Indians were peace loving in harmony with nature types. They never ran a whole herd of buffalo off a cliff just for a few or anything like that. We've been told that!!! Your wrong Your wrong


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

TNHermit said:


> Wait Wait!! All the Indians were peace loving in harmony with nature types. They never ran a whole herd of buffalo off a cliff just for a few or anything like that. We've been told that!!! Your wrong Your wrong


Well, they did live in pretty much harmony with nature, by necessity. There's also no first-hand accounts of them running whole herds of buffalo off of a cliff as a hunting tactic. Keep in mind also that the plains country is kind of short of cliffs to begin with, and you'll wonder how that myth got started.

But there were a number of tribes who thrived on warfare and raiding as opposed to just peaceful hunter-gatherer lives. The horse changed simple people such as the Comanche into long-range raiders. We don't really know what they were like before the Spanish brought horses because we simply don't have records of contact with them. 

The simple agrarian tribes were killed or driven out very quickly. Cherokee, Choctaw, etc. The ones that dwell most in our minds are the ones who resisted the most violently. 

Today there are less than 1% of Americans who have full Native American blood and almost none who live their traditional way of life. In America ... their country. By any standard, that constitutes a genocide.

If in Somali, the native Somalis had been driven out or imprisoned until only 1% of them remained, Bono would be flying in for an emergency aid concert and Jimmy Carter would be before the United Nations demanding something be done.

I know many of you are saying, "It's a shame what was done to the Indians, but that's in the past. I didn't have anything to do with it."

It's not in the past ... it's in the present. The Indians are still here, there are people who desire to live like they did, and the Federal government which murdered their civilization is still here.

It's an ongoing thing, not a relic of antiquity.


----------



## Astrid (Nov 13, 2010)

Ernie said:


> A lot of the fat can come from organ meats. Liver is exceptionally fatty.
> 
> I wouldn't have eaten that bear. Granted, I'd love to have a couple of bear skins to throw about the bed, but I'd much prefer to eat the salmon.
> 
> It seems to me the Indians in the Pacific Northwest probably had the most idyllic existence in the entire Americas. Plenty of game in the woods, fish in the ocean and the rivers, mild climate, and a mountain range separating them from the extremely hostile tribes like the Lakota and the Pawnee.


Love the salmon. We have kings that meander in here on their way to their spawning grounds in the spring, silvers in the summer, pinks in the late summer and another fall run of silvers. We are definitely spoiled in the salmon department.


----------



## TNHermit (Jul 14, 2005)

Ernie said:


> Well, they did live in pretty much harmony with nature, by necessity. There's also no first-hand accounts of them running whole herds of buffalo off of a cliff as a hunting tactic. Keep in mind also that the plains country is kind of short of cliffs to begin with, and you'll wonder how that myth got started.
> 
> But there were a number of tribes who thrived on warfare and raiding as opposed to just peaceful hunter-gatherer lives. The horse changed simple people such as the Comanche into long-range raiders. We don't really know what they were like before the Spanish brought horses because we simply don't have records of contact with them.
> 
> ...


I have great respect for the Indians or should I say Native Americans. Adn what happened to them. But I should debate a few points and say they are as much victims of themselves as they are of the past.  And the casinos are part of it.

As far as running buffalo off cliffs. That is real Maybe not on the plains. I have it in and OLD history book and there are paintings from that era. I suppose they could be frauds but not what I have read.

And lets not forget tribes like Huron's and such that were not some much into horses. So there is regional differences.


----------



## Maura (Jun 6, 2004)

People in the arctic north bury fish, come back and eat the icky thing. The fish goes through a fermentation phase and there will be vitamins. People do survive where there are no or little fruits and vegetables.


----------



## TNHermit (Jul 14, 2005)

Maura said:


> People in the arctic north bury fish, come back and eat the icky thing. The fish goes through a fermentation phase and there will be vitamins. People do survive where there are no or little fruits and vegetables.


People in Philippines bury eggs. called baloots(sp). One guy
took leave and went to "live like the natives for two weeks " he was back in about 4 days violently ill. He barely made it


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

TNHermit said:


> I have great respect for the Indians or should I say Native Americans. Adn what happened to them. But I should debate a few points and say they are as much victims of themselves as they are of the past. And the casinos are part of it.
> 
> As far as running buffalo off cliffs. That is real Maybe not on the plains. I have it in and OLD history book and there are paintings from that era. I suppose they could be frauds but not what I have read.
> 
> And lets not forget tribes like Huron's and such that were not some much into horses. So there is regional differences.


If you read "Black Elk Speaks", you'll see exactly what you're talking about in them being victims of themselves.

There were a lot of Lakota who liked their alcohol and free food, so they went to the fort to live. They were called the "Hang-Around-The-Fort People" by the Lakota who were still free. When Crazy Horse wouldn't make peace, the white men dressed up one of the drunken hang-around-the-fort people in a chief's outfit and made a treaty with HIM. It was then publicized that they'd made peace with the Indians, and when Crazy Horse continued to fight, they claimed the Indians had broken the treaty.

It's not much different than the neutered ass of a man known as "Boehner" who claims to negotiate for free men everywhere.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Ernie said:


> It seems to me the Indians in the Pacific Northwest probably had the most idyllic existence in the entire Americas. Plenty of game in the woods, fish in the ocean and the rivers, mild climate, and a mountain range separating them from the extremely hostile tribes like the Lakota and the Pawnee.


Apparently you've forgotten the Haida and Tlingit who were considered the Vikings of the PNW. They are known to have raided as far south as Baja.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Pops2 said:


> Apparently you've forgotten the Haida and Tlingit who were considered the Vikings of the PNW. They are known to have raided as far south as Baja.


Although they no longer go raiding, the Tlingit still are the warriors of the PNW, albeit somewhat more subtley than in the past. Here is the _"Lingit Latseen",_ the present day _warrior code_ of today's heartland Tlingit in Alaska, Yukon and British Columbia: http://lingitlatseen.com/about/


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Pops2 said:


> Apparently you've forgotten the Haida and Tlingit who were considered the Vikings of the PNW. They are known to have raided as far south as Baja.


Forgotten? Heck. I've never even HEARD of them! Thanks for the names. I'll go look them up. That sort of thing fascinates me.

Though it seems extremely strange to me, it would constitute some proof that there will always be people who would rather steal someone else's fish than to catch one for themselves.

If food was laying on the ground and free for the taking, I think some people would still rather bully others into picking it up for them. 

Being in the Southwest, my knowledge of tribes is pretty limited to the Southwestern tribes and the Plains.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Ernie said:


> Well, they did live in pretty much harmony with nature, by necessity. There's also no first-hand accounts of them running whole herds of buffalo off of a cliff as a hunting tactic. Keep in mind also that the plains country is kind of short of cliffs to begin with, and you'll wonder how that myth got started.


It's not a myth. Several buffalo jumps have been identified. Keep in mind that, do to their size, as little as a 5 ft fall could cause fatal and immobilizing injuries to adult bison. So one doesn't need a huge cliff to have the desired effect. Many river beds on the plains have sheer banks of 8-20" in height.
Living in harmony is the myth. As a predator "native americans" actively hunted competing predators like wolves, lions, lynx, & bear as well as prey species into localized extinction. In addition to the jumps, they used fire (burning tens of thousands of acres at a time) to drive game to posted shooters. In using jumps & fire to drive game, they wasted as much or more than they used. They committed genocide in order to gain new unexhausted hunting grounds or simply to create a safe buffer between themselves & other hostile nations. They practiced slavery and cannibalism.
The noble savage living in harmony with nature is a myth created by white men feeling guilt over the actions of their forebears. It began with Cooper & carried through all the way to dancing with wolves. Although positive in nature it still represents a kind racist stereotyping. The truth is they were human beings, no better, no worse, no different from any other human beings.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Pops2 said:


> It's not a myth. Several buffalo jumps have been identified. Keep in mind that, do to their size, as little as a 5 ft fall could cause fatal and immobilizing injuries to adult bison. So one doesn't need a huge cliff to have the desired effect. Many river beds on the plains have sheer banks of 8-20" in height.
> Living in harmony is the myth. As a predator "native americans" actively hunted competing predators like wolves, lions, lynx, & bear as well as prey species into localized extinction. In addition to the jumps, they used fire (burning tens of thousands of acres at a time) to drive game to posted shooters. In using jumps & fire to drive game, they wasted as much or more than they used. They committed genocide in order to gain new unexhausted hunting grounds or simply to create a safe buffer between themselves & other hostile nations. They practiced slavery and cannibalism.
> The noble savage living in harmony with nature is a myth created by white men feeling guilt over the actions of their forebears. It began with Cooper & carried through all the way to dancing with wolves. Although positive in nature it still represents a kind racist stereotyping. The truth is they were human beings, no better, no worse, no different from any other human beings.


I dunno. I've not seen any of the original accounts where the people themselves spoke of hunting in that fashion. Now granted, no people want to expose themselves in a bad light, but I don't know that it was a common approach.

The truth of it would speak for itself though ... they lived in this region for about a hundred thousand years and it was STILL a beautiful, pristine environment when the white man got here. Yet now, after two centuries ... take a look at it.


----------



## manygoatsnmore (Feb 12, 2005)

edjewcollins said:


> I hear ya on that observation! I saw that episode and thought the same. I have often wondered if they wouldn't be better served trying to put in a greenhouse to preserve more produce, but I don't know if that's practical there.


They had a greenhouse to extend the growing season and a root cellar to keep root and cole crops through the winter. It would cost a fortune to have a HEATED greenhouse during the winter, not to mention the lights that would be needed to extend the short days.


----------



## Tobster (Feb 24, 2009)

Ernie said:


> Your information is incorrect, and the link you provide points that out as well.
> 
> The body needs protein and FATS. There is no need whatsoever for carbohydrates.
> 
> In fact, there have been (and are) populations of humans on this planet that have survived exclusively on a protein and fat diet and did not starve to death.


You are correct Ernie, another Ernie . . . Ernest Shackleton led an ill fated Antartic expedition in the early 20th century. Their story of survival is well documented in a book 'The Endurance: Shackleton's Legendary Antarctic Expedition', they survived for almost 2 years on mostly seal and walrus meat. I recommend that book to anyone who likes adventure and history.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Ernie said:


> I dunno. I've not seen any of the original accounts where the people themselves spoke of hunting in that fashion. Now granted, no people want to expose themselves in a bad light, but I don't know that it was a common approach.
> 
> The truth of it would speak for itself though ... they lived in this region for about a hundred thousand years and it was STILL a beautiful, pristine environment when the white man got here. Yet now, after two centuries ... take a look at it.


Only because they lacked the technology & knowledge to screw it up.


----------



## TNHermit (Jul 14, 2005)

Pops2 said:


> Only because they lacked the technology & knowledge to screw it up.


And the population was miniscule and gave mother nature plenty of time to recover as they were nomads


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Pops2 said:


> Only because they lacked the technology & knowledge to screw it up.


That is a false supposition. You cannot make the assumption that they would have done something had they had the ability to do so.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Ernie said:


> That is a false supposition. You cannot make the assumption that they would have done something had they had the ability to do so.


Name one primitive society that hasn't screwed stuff up once they were introduced to something "new & better."


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Pops2 said:


> Name one primitive society that hasn't screwed stuff up once they were introduced to something "new & better."


Again, another false supposition. New does not mean better.

However, I get what you're saying.

The San Bushmen have pretty thoroughly rejected civilization even though they were exposed to it. Also, I understand there is a growing movement amongst the Maori to return to the old ways.

You also have to consider the hundreds of primitive societies we've destroyed. We simply don't know what they would have done, had they been left alone. Once your rain forest home gets destroyed, it's kind of difficult to go back to your original way of life.


----------



## TNHermit (Jul 14, 2005)

Ernie said:


> That is a false supposition. You cannot make the assumption that they would have done something had they had the ability to do so.


If you have been around all you have to do is go to any third world nation. I seen in PI, Nam, Hong Kong

In Rio the place is highly touted as wonderful untill you go one block off the beach and there you find a hell hole

Medieval people were a whole lot smarter than we give them credit for and they still succumbed 

Greed comes in a lot of forms. And if it was in them they would still be doing the best they could to live that life style on the reservations. But they succumbed to the alcohol and such


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

The third world is caught between the primitive and the industrial. You can't compare the two.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Ernie said:


> Again, another false supposition. New does not mean better.


Hence the quotation marks.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Ernie said:


> The third world is caught between the primitive and the industrial. You can't compare the two.


But it is a fair comparison to 19th century North America.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Ernie said:


> That is a false supposition. You cannot make the assumption that they would have done something had they had the ability to do so.


But you can make a fair estimate by comparing to other significant actions they did take.
For example we know the later turkomongolic peoples completely exterminated the earlier cuacasoid peoples. We know that one or more likely both were directly involved in the extermination of mammoths, camelids & native horses. We know the different turkomongolic peoples committed genocide on each other. We know they used hunting techniques that were wasteful. We know the anasazi outgrew the water resources of their homeland because they treated a few high water years as normal. We know that at some point they worked copper mines in the great lakes area but none of the local nations had metalurgy when europeans arrived. We know that a major city that traded with central america existed on the Mississippi but was gone centuries before Europeans reached the area. We know eastern nations practiced slash & burn farming. We know all of this occurred prior to the arrival of Europeans. After the arrival of Europeans, they made similar destructive decisions, like adopting European tools & metals. They also committed genocides for the sole purpose of gaining fur hunting grounds for trade. Very large numbers of them became addicted to liquor.
With that track record, it isn't an unfair assumption that, had they been technologically equivalent to Europeans, they would have been just as destructive.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Bleh.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

> Living in harmony is the myth. As a predator "native americans" actively hunted competing predators like wolves, lions, lynx, & bear as well as prey species into localized extinction.


What's being discussed in this thread so far has been more or less "historical" information by way of at least oral histories of tribes and cultures in place as Europeans explored and expanded into the continent. If you go back into the Ice Age times when (apparently) extensive original settling from Siberian migrations took place and nothing in the way of direct accounts from humans would be expected to have survived, there's another major correlation: the post-Pleistocene extinctions. North America was *lousy* with incredible wildlife diversity with dense populations, especially huge mammals. Mammoths, mastodons, saber-tooth tigers, giant ground sloths, armadillos, on and on. There was debate on the topic back in my college days in the 60s and I'm pretty sure there still is some ongoing, but the major correlation that jumped out as to *why* so many species died off quickly on this continent is that that was when these humans were wandering around with their technology (various chipped but lethally sharp weapon points) and their brains... developing languages and social organization.

There're also a lot of reports of later tribes at the point of European settlements using not-so-controlled burn fires to create extensive habitats suitable for game populations like deer and bison at the cost of mature forests. I'd recommend a book, "1491" that has a lot of fascinating background of native cultures and the European impact on them. One factoid: recall the story of "Squanto," a NE Indian reported to have advised settlers (Pilgrims? I forget) to plant a dead fish with each corn kernel as fertilizer? The rest of the story is that previously that personage had been taken captive by Europeans more or less as a slave, taken back to *Europe* where he likely learned that fish/corn technique from *Spanish* farmers who were then working with corn from earlier expeditions. Squanto was then returned to the NE continent by way of England, freed, and passed that fish trick back to English Europeans. It didn't originate here in the Americas, apparently.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Well, pay close attention folks.

Sharp spears, desperate measures and herd mentality may be all you have, soon enough.


----------



## mpillow (Jan 24, 2003)

So I'm going to get away from old history and say put up a bird feeder....soon enough you will have birds, squirrels, thunder chickens, maybe a bear, deer, or wild hog. A sack of corn might be $10 (plus a net or shotgun). If you remove feeder after you've caught your self imposed daily limit--the corn should return at least 5 times its weight in meat with few calories expended.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

> ....soon enough you will have birds, squirrels, thunder chickens, maybe a bear, deer, or wild hog


What are thunder chickens?


----------



## Sanza (Sep 8, 2008)

Well Ernie, maybe you'll be reading up about this place too. Lots of information out there about this place, and I'll bet you could uncover some origional pictures of the kill site too.

http://www.canadacool.com/COOLFACTS/ALBERTA/HeadSmashed.html


----------



## mpillow (Jan 24, 2003)

thunder chickens are wild turkeys


----------



## KMA1 (Dec 9, 2006)

Ernie and TN Hermit, Pops is correct about numerous Buffalo Jumps scattered over the plains. One of the most Famous is "Head Smashed In Buffalo Jump" not that far in Alberta, Canada. It is a World Heritage Site and you can google it. There is archaeological evidence of use there for several thousand years, predating the horse. This includes a series of rock piles from the west that were built for men to hide behind until the right time to jump up and chase on foot to funnel the buffalo and keep them running to the jump.

However Pops, the archaeological record shows people were here in NA 12 thousand before present, with a few hints to maybe some as early as 20 to 25 thousand years, but not 100,000.

As for living off the land entirely, I think a lot of people counting on it for survival will not last long. For one thing over a lot of the country there is little of the natural habitat that sustained the Indians. Living off the land, or hunter gatherer type activity takes large areas wwith the exception of those tribe who were able to make a living almost exclusively by exploiting salmon runs or fishing resources on coastal and estuary areas. However almost all coastal fisheries worldwide have been overexploited by modern commercial fishing so that fish and shellfish populations have crashed and are not recovering.


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

all life giving sustenance comes from the earth.....be it by our own hands or others.

a very small amount of people keep the masses of millions alive each day.


some will survive others wont...plain and simple....but the basis of living off the land if having the land base to do it.be it farming,hunting gathering or combo of it all.there a documentary out where archeologist went to a place in middle east where wild wheat still grows and they ran an experiment using stove scythes.one person was able to harvest enough wheat for a year in 2 weeks time for a family of 4.2 weeks time for food for a year!!!!!!.....how long do you work each week to keep food on table?? we really have fallen far.

if it cant be done...then man would have perished off the face of the planet long ago....but the other sad part is all wont survive it...the initial die off will be huge...i know this will sound awful...but theres an awful lot of stupid in our society and lack of real knowledge of the basics of life.but i cant fix it...they wont listen...they are not interested in gardening,hunting and animal husbandry skills.i know each of us cant do it all but we can do huge portions and each specialize in certain things.thats where a community or net work of family and friends come in.somebody like angie will keep my clothes in repair.she will get food and or firewood or whatever her needs are at time of our barter trades.older folks with limited ability...they will be watch outs over garden shooting groundhogs and such....we all can put in a bit of effort to keep each other alive.sally sue and her sheep will keep me in a shirt..or i hope..other wise i will be naked alot and saving my clothes for winter or special occasions.we dont have to do it all ourselves...we need partnerships in rural settings to get by when the shtf.sorry i rambled off a bit.


----------



## plowhand (Aug 14, 2005)

It wasn't to long ago, toadying for another was just a step to working for yourself. A job, historically was just a short term propasition....not a career!

I find it funny, we are so advanced in our think and treatment of others....so civilized. Hah...I once worked for a farm equipment manufacturer...you were only granted/guaranteed leave for the death of a child or spouse....fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, and grandparents didn't count.
It seems to me that we as a nation have been manouvered to think that individualism was right, as long as it went along with the mainstream values. Family, faith, and ethics passed through the years has faded.....it'll cause a great wailing and gnashing of teeth if the nation continues on it's current path. It'll set back surviving on the farm for sure....be like pioneer days plowing with a rifle slung on your back...cept nowadays they can shoot from half a mile away.

As a rule most people don't realize that the land is not an infinite supply base if it's over used. You have to leave enough breeding stock of both animals an plants for the circle to continue.....How long would it take for the people today to clean the woods out.....they have alot easier tools to use than they used to!


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

KMA1 said:


> However Pops, the archaeological record shows people were here in NA 12 thousand before present, with a few hints to maybe some as early as 20 to 25 thousand years, but not 100,000.


I believe they have even found human habitation in SA dating back 30,000 years. But I don't recall ever saying anything about people being here 100,000 years ago.
Never mind, that was Ernie that made the 100K year claim.


----------



## KMA1 (Dec 9, 2006)

Pops2 said:


> I believe they have even found human habitation in SA dating back 30,000 years. But I don't recall ever saying anything about people being here 100,000 years ago.
> Never mind, that was Ernie that made the 100K year claim.


 
Sorry Pops, I should have paid closer attention, I thought it was your post. Yes, there is a site where the researcher has reported almost 30,000 years BP, and another claim of almost 40,000 years, but those dates are not widely accepted as accurate in US archaeological circles. Not to say they are not true, but who knows.


----------



## KMA1 (Dec 9, 2006)

elkhound said:


> all life giving sustenance comes from the earth.....be it by our own hands or others.
> 
> a very small amount of people keep the masses of millions alive each day.
> 
> ...


Elkhound, I will agree with you for those that have the land, knowledge and supplies. And those who homestead now (grow most of their own food, have the land knowledge and supplies to continue to do so) wont have near the problems surviving as others. But those who arte not preparing and say they are going to live off the land, meaning by hunting and foraging, are going to be those who don't make it.


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

hope yall find this of interest.


p.s. i was off it took them 3 weeks to get a years worth of wheat instead of my earlier post i said 2 weeks....i am getting older....lol



[YOUTUBE]CB1UkyLrlio[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

KMA1 said:


> Elkhound, I will agree with you for those that have the land, knowledge and supplies. And those who homestead now (grow most of their own food, have the land knowledge and supplies to continue to do so) wont have near the problems surviving as others. But those who arte not preparing and say they are going to live off the land, meaning by hunting and foraging, are going to be those who don't make it.


i understand what ya saying......heres a thought....some folks that dont have those skills but do have other skills might be an asset to a community. like a doctor or nurse or entertainers....the thought of no music bothers the music lover in me....plus many other skills. plus even though a person lacks something they can still be assets......use your imagination here with me...elkhound has a 10acre field...he cant possibly tend it or plant it alone.he has a tractor and traded for a bit of diesel...acquired several bushel of taters...well..folks could turn out to help plant and chop weeds a bit during growing season and then help harvest that field of potatoes when its ready.a doctor that has only one patient a week can do farm chores in tater patch to keep starvation at bay...he just needs to shown and directed until he learns it on his own.if i became ill i would want him around then....its just a huge benefit to have many variables in a community that struggles.i am sure you know this...i am just rambling on talking into the universe in case my words might spark ideas and hope and more.


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

angie and her sewing skills i want around...my clothes need repairs....my socks need fixing.....i love wool socks and i dont want to be without them..so her skills and a person that has sheep and can spin wool for my socks will get eggs regular,meat or whatever it is they may be short on.

the trading and bartering could be endless


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

[YOUTUBE]fXeWOQ_mTPs[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

[YOUTUBE]YFcHhcej9gk[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## KMA1 (Dec 9, 2006)

Elkhound,

I agree with what you are saying, but that is not "living off the land" as in hunting and gathering. Though I have to agree with you in that all sustenance comes from the earth.


I could not see the pictures in your last 2 posts.

KMA1


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

KMA1 said:


> Elkhound,
> 
> I agree with what you are saying, but that is not "living off the land" as in hunting and gathering. Though I have to agree with you in that all sustenance comes from the earth.
> 
> ...


they are more episodes of the ...stories of the stone age.

i know what you and others say..i guess we should say living off the land on only wild and or native goods...instead of living off the land...maybe..maybe not....but most land based peoples of the past lived on both wild and domestic goods...even if it was only using a stick to poke holes into the the dirt to drop seeds into.i guess the exception would be the far far north peoples who diet was meat and fat mostly.


----------

