One the other threads got me thinking. Do you consider someone a real homesteader who doesn't have any animals or one who doesn't have a garden?

I know some of you believe that homesteading is an "attitude". For me homesteading is not just an attitude. If you aren't doing something with that "attitude" then you aren't homesteading.

I also know there is no such thing as the perfect or true homesteader. Some are just more self-sufficient than others; however, there must be some sort of concensous has to at what point you become a homesteader.

Homesteading to me is becoming as self sufficient as you possibly can be - STARTING with provding food for the table. Being free from the grid - does not a homesteader make if you are still buying the majority of your food from the grocery store. When homesteaders in the old days bought a piece of land..what was the first thing they did...got ready to provide to feed the family. If you read about the old homesteading days, you will see that most continued to live in tents or wagons and planted a garden and bought livestock before they even began building their homes.

I also know that homesteading is a work in progress. It is a journey rather than a destination - cause we will NEVER reach the destination. I also certainly am not intending to offend any one who doesn't plant a garden and/or does not raise livestock, so please don't get upset with me, just wondering what your thoughts are.

-- Karen (db0421@yahoo.com), January 16, 2002

Answers

Well, my thoughts are that self sufficiencey comes in many forms. For instance there is a childrens book about the war in which the mother needs to get a coat for her daughter. She has no money, but barters a lamp for some wool from a shepherd, then barters some of that woll in exchange for a spinner to spin the wool then barters a watch for the weaver to weave the wool, and so on until finally the little girl has a beautiful coat and all that had a part in it's making are called together for a meager celebration at Christmastime. Now, did the mother have a sheep farm? Did she spin? Weave? Sew? Did she have a garden? No, but she was self sufficient.

I guess the point here is, does one need all aspects of the production of food to be considered a homesteader and self sufficient; or could one be productive at one aspect, say gardening, and barter for the other things, and still be a homesteader? Further still, if one has animals for food, but does not do their own butchering, are they then a homesteader? What if you have a garden but don't put up the food?

This is an interesting question, but I thing the parameters defining a homesteader are as varied as though defining a homeschooler. There are many many ways of implimenting the desired goal, which is defined by individual circumstance.

Alittle food for thought, thanks Karen.

-- Sandie in Maine (peqbear@maine.rr.com), January 16, 2002.

I don't think so. At least not in the way I define homesteading. For me, the main part of homesteading is being self-sufficient, or at least working toward that. If you aren't making any sort of effort to provide the staples for your family I think you just live in the country but don't homestead. On the other hand, if someone who eats out everyday, lives in an apartment and spends every dime he/she makes on designer clothes and fancy cars but still wants to call themselves a homesteader, what do I care??? To each his own. It's just another label to me. I was just trying to find out how to raise chickens and garden organically when I figured out all this 'homesteading' stuff was what I was trying to do. Nice to know there's a name for it and I'm not just crazy though! :)

-- Stacey (stacey@lakesideinternet.com), January 16, 2002.

I guess I'm not comfortable with putting labels on people or their life styles.

-- Ardie /WI (ardie54965@hotmail.com), January 16, 2002.

Regardless of what society says I don't think we can "DO IT ALL" no matter what life-style we live. We have chickens for eggs and hope to soon have goats for milk. I also have a huge garden. But we will not have any animals that must die to be of use. We are not vegatarians but we just can't raise a baby animal and then eat it. So we plan to buy a cow from my mother in the spring and have it taken to slaughter. We will not see the cow alive. I think you can be a homesteader without doing it all. Yes, it would be great to grow your own vegetables, meat, clothing material(including shoes)but you would still depend on a store for such things as paint, furniture, building supplies, medicine, gas for vehicles just to name a few.So no matter how much you grow yourself you still have to depend on others to some extent. We all just do the best we can with the available resources.

-- Lou Ann in KY (homes_cool@msn.com), January 16, 2002.

Thanks Ardie, you are becoming one of my favorite cheeseheads (I hope the Pac wins on Sunday!) I do not garden and do not have animals (unless I can count the deer, grouse, fish, ducks and rabbits I hunt). But I try to live a simple life on 40 acres in a one-room cabin in north central Minnesota. I am off the grid, pump my own water, shower in a tub on the floor using a garden sprayer, and use an outhouse. Yes, I have to buy food. And being single, I eat out a lot too. I consider what I'm doing just as much "homesteading" as I read about others hear who have all the modern luxuries. --Happy trails, Cabin Fever

-- Cabin Fever (cabinfever_mn@yahoo.com), January 16, 2002.

My husband and I have land, and a log house that is half done (we are living in the basement of what will eventually be a log house, we now have partial log walls with a tempory roof).

What I find a little discouraging is how much money and effort it is taking to even get to the point of being able to have the garden and animals. We haven't lived here a year yet so maybe I just need to give it time. Since we have a long driveway and it snows here, to be self sufficient we had to have a way to plow ourselves out. We bought a used plow to mount on our old farm truck since new plows are very expensive. Still, it has cost a bundle. Then the timing chain broke on our only reliable vehicle - another bundle of $$$. Even though my husband has mechanic skills, we couldn't do the repair ourselves since we don't have a shop built yet (my husband did not want to replace a timing chain in sub freezing temps out on a gravel driveway, and I can't blame him). We need a tractor, but how to afford one? I'd like to have chickens, but I with old vehicles to keep running, a house to finish, firewood to cut, etc. building a henhouse is way down on the list of things to do and pay for. Before I can have animals, I need to get a water faucet out to where I will keep them. We only have one outdoor faucet near the house, and no outbuildings with electricity yet. A lot more time and/or $$$ involved.

Anyway, if I can get a garden in this spring it will be a major achievement, since I'll be starting from scratch (with no way to till it myself). At least I have a compost pile started! I do not think I can call myself a homesteader yet. Maybe when I get my first tomato :-)

Jane

-- Jane in southwest WI (ladyjane@mwt.net), January 16, 2002.

By great uncle who lived pretty much at home and fully functional until he died at 92, I think was kind of a "homesteader". His motto was that happiness comes from "doing more with less". Although he and my great aunt never had a garden or animals, he stopped working at 45 in Chicago and moved onto a few acres in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida back when Florida was not a very popular place to go.

He would go "dumpster diving" and get his beer money by melting down old television transformers and sell the copper to the recyclers.

They lived in a modest 4 room 1 story cinder block house. He built a seperate shed for the laundry and called it the hen house.

One of the things I really liked about him was that EVERYBODY was a friend. It was always fun going out to eat with him and see the reactions he would get from perfect strangers and by the time our meal was over, the strangers were giving him their address or phone numbers and had shared a lot of their life with him. He was a good listener and very kind.

So, I do not hink you have to live in the country to be a homesteader.

-- Gary from Mn (hpysheep@midwestinfo.com), January 16, 2002.

I think you hit the nail on the head Karen, when you said "it's a journey rather than a destination". It took years of "progress" to get us to this point, and I think it would be unrealistic to expect things to reverse overnight. We've been working on our "homestead" for almost 3 years now, things are slowly starting to come together. I still don't have my raised bed gardens, but the orchard is in. We don't have a barn, but we have 7 port-a-huts that work great. Our pasture went without being brush hogged for 2 years, other than what the goats accomplished, because we couldn't afford a tractor, but we have one now. We got rid of the propane heat and now heat entirely with wood. We are to the point where all our meat is raised on the farm, soon the veggies and fruit will be too. Time....we have the rest of what remains of our lives to do our homesteading thing. The journey is the important part, enjoy it!

-- CJ (cjtinkle@getgoin.net), January 16, 2002.

I agree homesteading is a journey, you don't suddenly become on. We have worked for years and are still on the journey.

As for eating the animals you raise. It is never easy. Personally I think it is wrong to eat animals that were raised inhumanly as is the case with most commercial food. I feel we should either be vegetarians or else be willing to butcher our own food. I know my chickens have had a decent life, as have my lambs and pigs. I choose not to eat commercial meat. Ardie is right, we shouldn't label people but sometimes I have difficulty with those who eat Tyson chicken but won't eat their own.

Kim

-- kim (fleece@eritter.net), January 16, 2002.

If you are not a real homesteader then you must be a Sears Homesteader...

Now where did I leave my spangled leather poncho, zircon encrusted tweazers and my pygmy pony...I got some dental floss to attend to.

Sorry.

Oscar

-- Oscar H. Will III (owill@mail.whittier.edu), January 16, 2002.

It's definitely possible to be a homesteader without livestock. Boring, but possible. But without a garden or any kind of crops or other agricultural activity? Not even bees? Or at least alfalfa sprouts? Well, it may be possible but I'm having a difficult time imagining it.

-- Rebekah (daniel1@itss.net), January 16, 2002.

Have you read or are familiar with JD's defination of homesteading? In his defination he mentions homesteading is an attitude as well, meaning in the context (at least I think) as living in a city, etc. I think the defination of homesteading is unique to that person since we are all different.

-- Bernice (geminigoats@yahoo.com), January 16, 2002.

I see the main purpose of homestead centering around the HOME part. The benefits of your labor was to apply to the HOME, as opposed to the restaurants, movie theaters, etc. Mind you, I enjoy in-town entertainment myself, but when I produce and use something at my place it is homesteading. When I sell it at the farmers market, it isn't homesteading it is for fun and profit. Homesteading, for me, really is tied in with the INTENT.

My parents are homesteaders. They are too busy to think about it much, I suppose, but they are.

Some years they have a garden and some years they don't, but even when they have one it is pretty small. They don't keep livestock at all, but they are STILL homesteaders!

My mother wanted a shady yard because in California hot weather is a MAJOR concern. With a 6 kids to feed, they decided fruit trees were much more practical than ornamental, so fruit trees give shade in the back yard. Now that the kids are grown, most of the fruit is given away, or dried and mailed out in christmas boxes. When the kids started growing up and leaving home, the back rooms were re-modeled into a small apartment for guests or for the use of paying boarders. As more and more grandchildren were born, my father finished the attic and put in stairs for it. The medium sized grandkids think that a room only 5 feet tall is just charming to sleep or play in! The kitchen is set up to feed 30. Most non-perishable food is stored in pantrys that have been built into the garage to make room for dishes and pans to feed the small army that the family has become. Mind you, we are scattered all over the country by now, so they don't usually have more than 1 or 2 families visiting at a time, but they ARE set up for the few big get-togethers that we have had!

When it is not in use, the back rooms are shut off to save heat bills, but they usually ARE in use! Right now, my folks are renting to 2 teen-age grandkids who are attending college in the area. After all, why should they rent in town, when they can rent an apartment from the grandparents, and have most of the rent they pay set aside for a down payment on a place of their own when they are ready to leave?

While it is true that my parents have no animals and a tiny garden (aside from the fruit), much of what you see when you go in is made by my parents, who build, sew, paint pictures and paint walls, wallpaper, tile, repair, etc. etc. etc. I would DEFINATELY call them homesteaders!

-- Terri (hooperterri@prodigy.net), January 17, 2002.

Bravo, Bernice!!!!

-- Cindy in NY (cjpopeck@worldnet.att.net), January 17, 2002.

Allow me to give you my perception and you decide for yourself, as all participants here do anyway. IMO "modern homesteading" fits minds that are tired of the rat race , being just a number or a "copper top" powering the "Matrix of current society". We move to the outside of this society so as to use its resourses to uor advantages, while at the same time not being required to exist only as a subserviant of that rat race society. We establish alternatives for ourselves which manifest as self sufficiency skills when viewed from the restrictive environment of established society. "Homesteaders" may garden, raise stock, produce gormet mushrooms, day trade and invest, forage and live in the woods or a host of other outside "normal society" possibilities. The important factors are: happiness with your pursuit, ability to follow the direction you choose without burdening established society or being dependent totally upon it and most of all using the needs, desires, excesses and castoffs of that society to benifit yourself. For example,these possible scenarios: I haul waste vegetables from a local grocer, I charge him 50% less than his previous waste disposer. I process the refuse into worm castings and resell as fertilizer or use to organically grow vegtables that are sold to society dwellers at a higher cost. Society pays me to remove trash, then society pays me for organic veggies, society is oblivious to the fact I am taking their money coming and going and have the alternative of taking care of my own food requirement if they stop buying. or scenario #2. Someone works for many years and invests in stocks. The investment keeps young rat racers working, increasing the stock value. The investor robs his profit , pays taxes back to rat race society and buys his land, then reinvests his base capitol , while hobby raising shitaakes or petunias for sale whle his money is making money and invests his flower profits also to make more money and buy a couple more acres. When the crash comes, he grows food to feed himself while waiting to invest again. Scenario #3: A family buys some land,builds their own cabin, grow their own food, spin their own fabrics, tan their own hides for footwear, educate their children themselves while turning their backs on society. Which would you rate more of a self sufficient type, or would you say they all have pluses and drawbacks? You decide.

-- Jay Blair in N. AL (jayblair678@yahoo.com), January 17, 2002.

Jay, I absolutely love your allusion to the movie "The Matrix". We just watched it for the first time LAST week and were blown away by how awesome it was. Sometimes the trailers for a movie really don't do it justice.

We do consider ourselves homesteaders. We have rabbits solely for the harvest of their "Black Gold" for our organic garden. We also have chickens which started out as another means for getting fertilizer. Since then, we have really enjoyed getting "real" eggs and plan to get some good layers this year. We are mostly veggie but do eat chicken/turkey occasionally. Above all, we consider ourselves to be pacifists. Therefore, at this stage, we feel we cannot butcher animals on our farm. This may not make sense to others but it makes sense to us (and our Highter Power) and that is all that really matters. This might change in the future but after reading threads like the new one from today titled "Does it ever get easier to butcher?" I don't think so.

I have to concur with everyone who says homesteading is an attitude, a journey, an ever evolving process... and it is different for everyone who hears the calling for a simpler life.

-- Bren (wayoutfarm@skybest.com), January 17, 2002.

I call it as I see it. Established society is The Matrix.

-- Jay Blair in N. AL (jayblair678@yahoo.com), January 17, 2002.

I have a strange question, What about us, the people who have always lived in the country, raised our own meat, veggies, etc.? We didn't escape from any rat race or city life, we were already here. Now my question, are we considered Homesteaders or are we considered Farmers (a name given to us 100 or more years ago)? I'm not sure what to call myself, or if I need to label myself at all. Help!

-- cowgirlone in OK (cowgirlone47@hotmail.com), January 17, 2002.

Yes, cowgirlone, why do we feel such a need for labels? I actually prefer the label "countrysider" to "modern homesteader". After all when was the last homestead land grab? However I am Internet connected and country as peanuts in a Coke Cola or a "No Left Turn" intersection bouy put out on Main Street on Saturday morning. Maybe the best label we could use is "Lucky" :>)

-- Jay Blair in N. AL (jayblair678@yahoo.com), January 17, 2002.

I like that label Jay! Thanks!

-- cowgirlone in OK (cowgirlone47@hotmail.com), January 17, 2002.