Finding an appropriate landbase

Regenerative Subsistence Land
#1

There are some places in the world that may be too ecologically devastated for rewilding after a crash.

What are your thoughts on the places to avoid, and the places to seek out, and what to look for in a landbase? Have you learned anything by trial and error?

I read that in North America, the average population per square mile for the Native Americans was one. Yes, one person per square mile. However, that number is an average for the entire continent; it varies according to bioregion.

That’s all I can offer so far in discussing this. Anyone else?

#2

Heh heh, RANDOM TANGENT WARNING: When I reread those words they sounded very familiar. Couldn’t put my finger on it until I realized that I used the exact same phrase to begin a poem three whole years ago. I found it on my computer; it follows thusly:

“Earth Gravity”

There are places to avoid
and places to seek out.
The places to avoid
are of nothing,
or not something,

voids that will place
so very little pressure on you
that you’ll bloat.

Those are places to avoid.

Other places to avoid
will flatten you.

The places where
you really want to be
are those
where you can maintain
your size and shape

like any normal human being.

I was reading a lot of Hemingway at the time. :stuck_out_tongue:

Um, but modernist misogynistic mopers aside, I do like the last part, it harkens to the freedom of self-determination that one gets from rewilding.

OK, random tangent over. Carry on!

#3

“I read that in North America, the average population per square mile for the Native Americans was one. Yes, one person per square mile. However, that number is an average for the entire continent; it varies according to bioregion.”

That would also depend on what time period you are talking about. Some of what I’ve read in the last few years indicates that the pre European populations were a lot larger than was commonly believed until recently.

In some areas it is estimated that 80% of the Native population died of disease shortly before the appearance of Europeans. These diseases were introduced by the arrival of Europeans and spread like crazy through trade networks far ahead of the European people themselves.

For example where I live, disease came at the people from both the east and the west. Trade between the Plateau people and the Plains people brought the disease from the fur trade in the Rocky mountains. Trade with the west coast tribes brought disease from the sailors exploring the coast and Vancouver Island. It’s estimated that in this area 80% of the Native population was killed by disease before they ever saw a white man. This had a serious effect on the impression that the Hudson Bay Co. people got of the Native culture and population when they first arrived on the scene. Essentially the Native culture had already been devastated before the first white men saw it. And the perception of how many Native people were here before European contact was skewed.

The diseases were indiscriminant about which members of the society they took. The survivors may not have always been the most able bodied hunters or the holders of the knowlege for the people. So much was lost during that time.

Sorry, that’s definitely a tangent. I don’t mean to hijack this.

1 Like
#4

Good topic BlueHeron, this is something I have given a lot of thought and money towards, seeking out a landbase and learning which places are more conducive to gaining the majority of your food from the land and which aren’t as practical for that way of life.

In a landbase, I look for:

-A warm to hot climate, preferably arid or semi-arid.

-Plentiful fruit trees for seasonal food supply and the possibility to grow vegetables.

-Wild meat supply so that birds or deer or fish can be obtained for food supply.

-Potable water from springs or streams, rivers or otherwise some fast-moving water source.

-A low density in population

Some of my observations regarding some areas are:

NW Arabia: From several trips living in the north-west Arabian peninsula and engaging in experimental living in the area, I have come to the conclusion that it has been too devastated ecologically for a practical approach to gaining the majority of one’s food from that landbase. This conclusion has been reached through trial and error going out hunting on the land, travelling with pack animals on the land and seeking out wild plants and water sources on the land.

Practically speaking, the combination of overgrazing (mostly by goats and sheep- as camels tend to be rotated to new pastures more in terms of grazing), an increasing sedentary population, and in some places drought conditions have reduced the number of acacia and other trees to practically none in many areas, as well as the lack of rain reducing the number of wild edible plants and grazing plants available to both pack animals and wild ungulates (also affected by decades of over-hunting) and other game. The oases contain fruit trees and more plentiful water so they are not as affected by drought conditions compared to the surrounding desert but most of the wild ungulates and other mammals have either moved on to areas not affected by drought or survive in pockets here and there in greatly reduced numbers.

Namibia: This area contains a large number of wild ungulates and other species of game, probably the greatest density I have seen compared to all other areas, yet much of the land is fenced and the social situation is rather complicated due to apartheid and colonialism which tends to keep the races separate. There are also many wild birds and smaller game in the area. The coast is full of fish as well. There are not many fruit trees in most of Namibia, much of the fruit comes from South Africa or closer to the border near Botswana where a delicious wild citrus fruit called limon grows, so in that respect the area is lacking in edible flora while it will be many decades before there is a reduction in the vast numbers of wild game. The only other issue would be water, and most of the Namib desert does not contain surface water whereas the neighbouring savanna has many wells and riparian areas closer to rivers assure more of a reliable potable water source.

Mexico: A few trips to Baja have been the most productive in terms of gaining sustenance from the land compared to other places (although I have done more hunting for game in NW Arabia). There are plentiful fruit trees in Baja to assure a reliable seasonal food supply and if dried or otherwise preserved, a year round food supply. There is a low population density, and also many wild plants to utilize for food including prickly pear, agaves and mesquite, as well as oaks and more temperate wild plants in the sierras. There are also fish in the middle of the desert (I seen one large black one that must have been 30 inches long in San Ignacio and many smaller sized ones) in pools fed from springs as well as one of the richest coasts on the planet where seafood is plentiful. There are vast amounts of quail and other game birds in the desert as well as deer in the more rugged areas and in the sierras. Plenty of rattlesnakes and other small game as well. Water wise there are scattered springs and intermittent streams in a few locations.

I’d be interested to hear what other people look for in a landbase and what their observations have been.

#5

On an emotional level … I really, really, REALLY miss the forested Great Lakes region (northern MN/WI). Its ways, its movement, its sounds and textures and temperatures. These photos “tell it like it is”: http://www.movingtofreedom.org/2006/10/10/photos-autumn-in-northern-minnesota-free-wallpaper/ (and the blog looks interesting, too)

I think in a way that I have “double eco-grief” - a generalized eco-grief at the recognition of systemic destruction, and also a grief for the surroundings that I lost upon leaving for college (but can get back).

Maybe I should think about Teaching Drum?? (I am dubious and will have to visit first.)

I think the landbase could support groups at various stages of rewilding.

The problem is finding volunteers in that neck of the woods. :frowning:

I dunno, maybe I should start a thread? Calling Minnesotans?

#6

I grew up in the midwestern States. I hitch hiked out west when I was still in my teens. When I got to the NW that was it for me. I could never be content back east again.

Generally for me, the area between the Cascades and the Rockies, from S. Oregon north into British Columbia, including parts of Washington, Idaho and Montana is as close to paradise as anyhwere on earth.

More specifically, as far as where I would choose to set up a base, diversity is important. Especially in a time of climate change.

So I would look for a transition place. A place where two or more ecosystems overlap. For instance I live in a place where I can drive an hour west and I am in sagebrush desert with prickly pear cactus and rattle snakes, or I can drive an hour east and I am in the interior rainforest with giant cedars and hemlocks. The transition place is where there is the most diversity of plants and animals because you find a lot of what each place has to offer all in one place.
If I was on foot, I could walk to either one of those places in a few days.

Mountains are good too because they offer the diversity of elevation change. In a one day walk, going from valley bottom to mountain top you will go through several different ecosystems and have access to all that they have to offer.

#7

I think it is just about figuring out where you feel at home, and then figuring out how to subside there. I also think that cities are perfectly fair game in this respect, and i hope that those who identify with cities stay there, and figure out how to make them wild spaces for wild people. I know that i have hunted and gathered in an urban environment, and it can be both plentiful and enjoyable. i also think that cities and destroyed landbases usually have an amazing potential for regeneration. just look at chernobyl. i remember living in new orleans briefly, shortly after katrina, and being shocked at how the place was being reclaimed by plants and animals. i expect an ecosystem that is at least a bit fucked, because i myself have been fucked.