Would you homestead on a remote island? (Developing docu-series for major network)

My name is Katie and I'm a documentary filmmaker and television producer based out of Seattle, WA. My company has produced content for National Geographic, The Travel Channel, Discovery, etc... (www.psgfilms.com)

I am doing some research for a potential documentary series that would be for a major network. (One of the mods of "permies" suggested I post here!!)

I'm looking for folks that would be interested to homestead (on free land!) on Pitcairn Island. This island in the Pacific has 49 locals living on it (English-speaking descendants of British mutineers and Tahitians), and the government there is trying to build the population back up by offering free land to people to move there.

It's a beautiful place, tons of fishing, and would be a great opportunity for an adventurous individual or family looking to homestead.

I'm trying to contact folks that would be interested in this -- and whom I could then follow and film as they embark on the adventure of a lifetime!!!

If you're interested please contact me and tell me a bit about yourself: katie@psgfilms.com

Thanks!

Howdy Katie , we have a short thread about the island here

Some of us had concerns about the place. Maybe you could comment on that. Have you been there?

The land may be free but its a bugger to get to and if you loose or brake stuff its difficult to get replacements . Are folks going to be paid to do this ?

David

Given the Island insists on 30,000 in assets (NZD) and that would buy a few acres somewhere in the US, I doubt you would be getting much interest from those with the means to homestead by themselves, and those whom you bankroll may well just be in it for the money and leave as soon as the cameras do.

betting there's a few folks who'd go for that regardless of the constraints. Thing I wonder is: will the film crew send rescue boats when the islands submerges if the oceans keep rising?
Rising sea levels threaten to wash away entire nations south pacific
ocean acidification fisheries increased temps, less rainfall
Pew, National Geographic Applaud Creation of Pitcairn Islands Marine Reserve monitoring Bertarelli Foundation announced a five-year commitment to support the monitoring

Miles Flansburg wrote:Howdy Katie , we have a short thread about the island here

Some of us had concerns about the place. Maybe you could comment on that. Have you been there?

definitely some primary security issues for women ...

Pia Jensen wrote:betting there's a few folks who'd go for that regardless of the constraints. Thing I wonder is: will the film crew send rescue boats when the islands submerges if the oceans keep rising?
Rising sea levels threaten to wash away entire nations south pacific
ocean acidification

Don't worry about that. Your part of Uruguay will be underwater before Pitcairn.

Wow, the island does seem to have it's problems. I suppose if you were young and ambitious the homestead might be one thing but all the legal issues going on and the equivalent of child services hanging on everything you do?
Then there's Nat Geo doing their very best to make YOU look like a child abuser in the interest of "entertainment".
Anyone considering this should have a look at these "documentaries". Is this how you want to be portrayed? Maybe have a look at how preppers in general have been treated........

My opinion? If you have a 10 foot pole - get a longer one.

John Wolfram wrote:

Pia Jensen wrote:betting there's a few folks who'd go for that regardless of the constraints. Thing I wonder is: will the film crew send rescue boats when the islands submerges if the oceans keep rising?
Rising sea levels threaten to wash away entire nations south pacific
ocean acidification

Don't worry about that. Your part of Uruguay will be underwater before Pitcairn.

hmmm, 157 feet above sea level here

Pia Jensen wrote:hmmm, 157 feet above sea level here

High point of Pitcairn is at 1,138 feet.

John Wolfram wrote:

Pia Jensen wrote:hmmm, 157 feet above sea level here

High point of Pitcairn is at 337 feet.

doing some research on this and am finding that the projections from various scientific sources show the lowest areas, Montevideo for example, are subject to sea level rise. What references are you using? I'd like to see how you come to your determination. I just don't see how a one or even two meter rise will affect this region.

Here's a topographic map of Pitcairn. I originally said 337 feet, but it's actually 337 meters. If the oceans were to rise enough to threaten the low lying houses on Pitcairn, anything currently 157 feet above sea level would be underwater.

projections for the Amazon Delta are from 1-6 meters of sea level rise. They have a lower profile than my region. I think every country's topography and natural features will ultimately determine which areas are underwater. 157 feet is a far cry from 6 meters. And, we have two centuries for this to be realized if it all unfolds as projected. I'm going to stick my neck out and say, Pitcairn is going to have more immediate and drastic problems due to sea level rise than north west Uruguay will.

I chose sea level rise of 13 meters for northwest Uruguay at this interactive map tool and feel very secure here.

I'm not following you. How is an island that rises over 1,000 feet above sea level going to be submerged by a 1 meter rise in sea level? If the Antarctic ice melts, we would see a sea level rise of about 200 feet which would put your part of Uruguay underwater while Pitcairn would still have plenty of arable land. So, I stick by my original statement that northern Uruguay will be underwater before Pitcairn.

John Wolfram wrote:I'm not following you. How is an island that rises over 1,000 feet above sea level going to be submerged by a 1 meter rise in sea level? If the Antarctic ice melts, we would see a sea level rise of about 200 feet which would put your part of Uruguay underwater while Pitcairn would still have plenty of arable land. So, I stick by my original statement that northern Uruguay will be underwater before Pitcairn.

I see now, you did not like my humor about rescue boats. None of us can predict 100% what will happen, but, I think events like salt intrusion with rising seas is probably more of an issue for people trying to homestead an island with seriously limited resources. So, while the island may, or may not, be submerged (referencing geologic upheavals which may or may not have significant impacts on the South Pacific), the impacts of sea level rise are pretty serious, whether the water reaches your front door or not. especially when combined with less rain and hotter temps. My region will still be connected to other regions. And, if sea level rise is an event which occurs rapidly (perhaps due to axis shifting or volcanic or earthquake activity, or maybe an extra-terrestrial impact) then, there really is nothing to do because none of us will be prepared well for that. So, please excuse my humor, I'm 53, have no kids (so no care about future in that sense), and don't think that in my lifetime, my town is going to fill up with salt water.

Interesting geological history of Pitcairn islands Atoll Research Bulletin No. 322 1989 T. Spencer very descriptive about physical features

this is also interesting Pacific Atoll Living: How Long Already and Until When?

It sounds like a great "backdrop" for a survivor type documentary really. Lots of challenges.

I would rather try my hand in the desert than one of those rocks they call islands! What are they thinking? To top it off they're on tectonic plates that make West Coast earthquakes look like infants.
Just google them and I think most people would rather be locked down in prison than create one of their own by being there. At least you'd have 3 hots and a cot!

Gypsy Brokenwings wrote: To top it off they're on tectonic plates that make West Coast earthquakes look like infants.

Eh What?

They're way out in the middle of the Pacific Plate! even the Hawai'i islands are the result of a localised hot spot heating up the plate floor and bubbling though, not a quake producing crack or split in the crust!

Sitting WAY out there in the middle of the plate is the LEAST likely place to experience earthquakes!


Are you sure you're not talking about the Japanese islands or here in NZ sitting on the Ring of Fire?

Possible future volcanic activity will prolly be the end (or, a new island) out there in the middle of the watery nowhere. lol...

"Since all the swarm-related events have sources closer to the island than expected from previous studies of the Pitcairn hotspot, we propose the activity may be related to a new expression of this hotspot." Pitcairn Earthquake Swarms

Rhys Firth wrote:

Gypsy Brokenwings wrote: To top it off they're on tectonic plates that make West Coast earthquakes look like infants.

Eh What?

They're way out in the middle of the Pacific Plate! even the Hawai'i islands are the result of a localised hot spot heating up the plate floor and bubbling though, not a quake producing crack or split in the crust!

Sitting WAY out there in the middle of the plate is the LEAST likely place to experience earthquakes!


Are you sure you're not talking about the Japanese islands or here in NZ sitting on the Ring of Fire?