A New Jersey couple survived the Alaskan wilderness on a homestead
bbc.com> In April 1964, Alaska was struck by a magnitude 9.2 megathrust earthquake that devastated much of Anchorage.
This is a sidebar that I think is historically underappreciated.
Take a look at this incredible graphic, which goes up to 2005: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes#/media/Fi...
For the period from 1906 to 2005, half of all the energy released by all recorded earthquakes came from just three events, one of which being the Alaskan quake.
Logarithmic scales are scary.
That earthquake in Alaska cracked swimming pools in California!
Indonesia having over 2000 earthquakes a year is wild!
ring of fire, baby
Sounds like they didn't survive the Alaskan wilderness on a homestead, and instead survived in a city or in a provided structure while occasionally heading out into the wilderness and wasting their time producing nothing much of a value.
Are there any successful tales of Alaskan homesteading? It seems like we fetishize those foolhardy lone wolves like this couple or Alex McCandless from Into the Wild, but where are all those people who moved out there and actually managed to live happy, simple lives?
One of my favorite book series is Woodswoman, about a lady who set out into Vermont to build herself a lakeside cabin from scratch and made a living off maple farming. The several books detail her trials and tribulations, but also her joyful swims and happy encounters with the neighbors.
I would love to hear about more encounters like that in Alaska, not just the people who trek out there but never make it.
Dick Proenneke is one of the more well-known ones. He built his cabin all on his own, filming the whole process, as well as his life there. He lived in his cabin for thirty years.
https://www.nps.gov/lacl/learn/historyculture/proennekes-cab...
The film, “Alone In the Wilderness” is terrific.
Plenty. But here's the rub, most that do do not want to be seen, heard, and care very little for the internet. The life also is not simple.
Yeah a friend of mine married a lady who grew up in the Alaskan wilderness. The family was desperately poor yet still had an airplane, interestingly. They were the kind of people who don’t use the internet at all.
There were ~3500 successful homestead claims in Alaska. My ex-wife's dad grew up on one of them, near Soldotna; she and I went out to visit once. It was not seen as an unusual experience in that area.
I don't imagine those folks spend much time writing about their lives on the internet.
These college friends did it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3NWdFll2X8
Not super long term, but interesting!
Sounds like they divorced and then the father died in a car accident while trying to make life in the wilderness work. And the mother moved to the city and never came back, which helped her have a long life with her daughter, so probably that was the better decision.
Sort of tragically ironic that he died in a car accident while trying to live outside of modern civilization.
> wasting their time producing nothing much of a value.
they lived. that is not nil. it enriched their lives.
But, eh, I wouldn't say they lived and thrived there.
Some other people have done the very far out life. Here's one: https://hellscanyon.tours/2022/08/15/all-about-buckskin-bill... is one example.
I think its very feasible.... for people who know what they are doing. This probably requires basically an apprenticeship.
Maybe their value system is different to yours.
Im honestly curious where this hostility is coming from?
Ideas of value are obviously subjective.
I would call it more of an honest statement about what happened there, as opposed to an overly positive one.
Having said that, I do have a long-standing issue with the relatively small group of people who try to go their own way from society without a modicum of understanding about what kind of work and skills will be required. As well as an issue with the larger group of people who cheer on these folks and either enable this behavior or become subject to this behavior themselves.
Where do my feelings on the subject come from? Well, "into the wild" was required reading my freshman year of college. And I was forced to engage in dozens of discussions treating McCandless as a tragic hero, instead of an idiot.
My issue isn't necessarily with people wanting to get away from mainstream society, but it is going about it in an absolutely boneheaded manner. I have an immense amount of respect for people like dick proenekke
That makes sense, and I share your sentiment about the naiveite and idiocy for some of these people. that is to say, I think the dream of self-reliance is a noble one, but simply holding a noble ideal doesnt make someone praiseworthy. Execution speaks volume.
I think what I was most reacting to was your statement "wasting their time producing nothing much of a value". I took this to mean value to the greater community, and I strongly disagree that this should be the main benchmark which people should be judged against. It strikes me as oddly entitled to their labor.
That's fair - when I talked about value I was only talking about what they themselves valued, not any value to a larger group. If they succeeded, the homestead could provide them value even if literally no one else in the world knew it was there.
They were trying to build a house, but they failed miserably. Because they lacked some very basic skills, and the ability to plan. I think most people should realize that building a 5 story A-frame as your first home, by yourself, in the wilderness, is not the easiest of tasks. Maybe try a 1 story A-frame first? Or a log cabin.
Do you not see the irony in your post? Just like the people you lambaste, you also do not have a level-headed opinion, based on a 3rd party account and not personal experience.
I would put "getting my values from editorialized stories and school teachers" as one step below "getting my values from Reddit and Twitter" on the "how divorced from reality are my sensibilities" scale. Better, but not great.
Please, do point out the irony, since I clearly don't see it. I never claimed someone needed to have personal experience in this area to make a judgement. Everyone during the discussions was judging McCandless as he was presented in the book. Whether it was heavily editorialized or not is irrelevant, because everyone who was making the judgements were working with the same information. It could have been 100% fabricated, and it would still be ridiculous (in my opinion) to call him a hero.
Everyone is the hero of their own story, and everyone is an idiot in some way. I think you took the wrong message from that book. But college kids are often idiots, so it’s ok!
There's an obsession with the old ways. As if they were better. As if sitting in a cabin in the woods and breaking your back every day to not die of starvation is some kind of accomplishment. It's not.
I think it obviously is a difficult accomplishment. I agree that some people probably romanticize the "old ways" and more radical forms of self-reliance, but ultimately it is question of taste and interest.
I have enough experience with it to know it is far harder than most people imagine, but still think there is a lot that I think is positive about it.
Is running a marathon an accomplishment?
why isn’t that an accomplishment? who are you to decide what other people get validation from?
Women are not as much attached to the backwoods life as men. I know two that went back to the big city after a few years.
They discuss eating bear, just a reminder for everyone that bear meat is a prime harbor for worms and parasites. On top of the fact that, like expressed in the article, it's frankly not good.
Your last sentence is subjective. I grew up eating bear sausage and it was delicious. Perhaps owing to differences in black bear diet/meat vs Alaskan bear. This article seems to corroborate my suspicions: https://www.outdoorlife.com/hunting/bear-meat/
Trichinosis is incredibly common in Alaska's bear population. As with any kind of game meat, thoroughly cooking to recommended temps is highly encouraged. Plenty of people get away with eating undercooked meat for years, but you don't have control over the randomness of what an animal you hunt was exposed to. Trich is no joke and can seriously injure you.
https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=disease.muscle2
> All bear and lynx meat should be considered possibly infected.
Trichinosis can kill you too. I can't find the story link but I read years ago that one of the few German POWs to die in captivity in the US during WWII at Camp Hearne in Texas died from eating undercooked pork which also sickened a couple of other POWs and maybe one of more of the guards.
With that said, pioneers and mountain men ate bear meat. They preferred bear paws due to the high fat content I think.
yeah, game meat really should be well done, thin cuts that get to temperature all through.
organ products, from game are kinda risky.
> I grew up eating bear sausage and it was delicious.
Isn’t sausage the goto thing when you want to take meat that would otherwise be nasty and turn it into something palatable?
I don’t think you statement contradicts the parent post about bear meat being not good
Correct. That and chili. I grew up without a lot of money and have eaten every game animal in North America and I can tell you that there isn’t any wild game that can beat the cheapest of ground beef for flavor or usefulness.
I disagree, but your odds of having a bad time with game meat are much higher. I liken it to the early days of craft beer. If you wanted an acceptable beer that wouldn't wow you, but never surprise you, you could always drink budweiser. But if you felt like playing six-pack roulette, pick up your local microbrew. Could be awesome, could be terrible, you won't know until you've taken a drink.
Domestic goose is better than wild goose, but grass-fed elk (that is, ranched elk) just tastes like beef. Likewise with grass-fed bison. Truly wild elk has that gaminess to it that I really appreciate. I've a recipe for venison burger casserole that is utterly flavorless when made with ground beef. Bear sausage is only good when its heavily mixed with actual pork, and spiced to hell and back.
Deer and pronghorn that graze on sagebrush actually taste sagey. If that's your jam, its fantastic.
As a hunter, I have to disagree. Properly harvested deer, elk, and bear are all amazing, and I'd take any of the three over the lowest common denominator ground beef. Actual cheap ground beef is garbage.
I buy half a cow every year from local farmers, and I'd put my ground elk up against that ground beef any day (though I do have to add suet because elk is so lean). In fact, nobody that I serve elk to knows that it's elk until/unless I tell them.
If your wild game tastes bad, you messed up somewhere along the line. Get it cold as soon as possible, keep it clean, and the meat will be great.
> I can tell you that there isn’t any wild game that can beat the cheapest of ground beef for flavor or usefulness.
Not even duck? That is a bit surprising.
Sounds like you need a better cook. I love game meat and find most ground beef disgusting.
The main advantage of commercially produced beef, chicken, and pork is that you can eat it rare & raw.
> Your last sentence is subjective.
Sure. I think that's stating the obvious though.
yes your right, the time of year, dictates diet, and general diet influences the meat.
Black bear that feeds on mostly berries, etc. during spring is actually quite delicious.
All the toxins in the food chain end up in the apex predators
> All the toxins in the food chain end up in the apex predators
Is there an analogy for media and information?
It's basically the same process, mathematically.
\rant
Each level up increases the concentration of toxin because the n-th level is eating the (n-1) level which has a higher concentration than the (n-2) level that the (n-1) ate.
Similarly, if we posit that all else being equal [1] a sociopath is more likely to go up a hierarchical level, then the nth level is promoted from the n-1 level that is more sociopathic than the n-2.
I also believe that presidential democracies are more prone to this concentration of sociopaths because voting the higher offices is more divorced from the voter (ie you dont know who you are voting for personally and are more easily mislead). Parliamentary (or congressional seats) democracy is more resistant to psychos. Monarchies are immune (except for genetic inheritance), but of course come with their own set of problems.
\rant
[1] a similar assumption is made for toxins.
This is why you should be careful eating raw fish.
Cooking doesn't remove heavy metals, does it?
It does not.
This is NSFL, but there are numerous pictures and videos of bears trailing tape worms from their anus.
Your first point is much less of a big deal than you think. Cook it thoroughly (easiest way is to simply grind up the meat first) and you’re fine.
I don’t agree with your second point. It’s pretty good, especially spring bear. That said, I avoid bears that eat a lot of spawning salmon in the fall.
People have eaten bears for literally millennia, especially indigenous North Americans. It’s not some recent thing that we are wrong to do. They are a natural prey animal in eg BC, where they live in high densities.
> It’s not some recent thing that we are wrong to do.
Who said it was wrong? I said bears harbor parasites (they do), and that the meat is bad (which is my opinion, I guess).
that smell, when your yard dog, is soaked from the rain, after rolling in fishwaste. thats sorta the smell of cooking bear meat, theres a lot of grease, and fat.
! Dont Cook it in Your House !
it often ends up feeding sled dogs.
A reminder for all the people that are going to accidentally eat some bear?