Rabbit starvation. If all you eat is one thing eventually you'll die.
Printable View
[QUOTE=jim;640817]Everyone & their brother will be beating the woods for food. Think it gets crowded [depending where you hunt] now, just wait. Unless you are going to pull a Jeremiah Johnson gl.
I have a spouse and a few others in the neighborhood i am committed to. Neighbor helping like minded neighbor.
Better defense in numbers, up to a point. There are a few places we have been offered to BO to, however being on the road after week 1 will not be pretty. Then again assessing the full extent of a meltdown w/out an eye in the sky is not a good option either. . I nor the spouse is humping to the hills with every other swinging dick. I'm standing my ground, at my age if there was a SHTF scenario better to die on my feet than live on my knees. YMMV of course.
Test time. Do a poll of the neighborhood, friends, who don't think like you do, john or jane q public. Ask them, if there was an emergency and they needed to move NOW, where would they go. I believe 60 % easy will say
"The Mountains? "
if you are talking about 6 months to a year later, then i agree. if you are talking about in the short time, say 1-3 months, i think you are nuts. 95% of people will hunker down and try to survive in their house and scavenge for food around town and take it by force from their neighbors. once all of that runs out the city is literally a wasteland with no food, then yes, everyone will head to the mountains. people that don't frequent forums such as this are generally incredibly non self sufficient. also, you don't rely 100% on game. you use it to supplement stored foods. yes, going way out in the middle of freaking nowhere in montana or something would be better, but your life would suck most of the time and if nothing ever happened it was a waste. i don't like being IN THE CITY but i like being near some niceties of modern civilization. the good news is i am perfectly happy in the wild too, so i can survive on my own. but the liklihood of such a catastrophic event is so remote, its not worth living in a place purposefully for that reason. now, preparing food, ammo, and having a plan is not a bad idea.
most people would not say theyd head to the mountains because most people have no shelter, food, water, self defense or knowledge to survive in the wild and they know this. if you ask "where would you go" then yes some will answer to the mountains because they don't know how else to answer. if you ask "what would you do" very few will say theyd pack up and go to the mountains. people on this board, yes. normal every day joe's no.
The over whelming answer would be "Walmart."
I do not hate Colorado as a BO option, I am going to BO to a Colorado location myself. But As One Of The Best Places to BO to Colorado is not as "useable" as other locations could be. In Colorado if you go to the plains you essentially have no water unless you find a working well that is deep enough and not being defended by the owner of the well. There are reservoirs like Sterling and Two Buttes but those will probably be commandeered by the blue helmets and guarded. If you go to the mountains you can find water more readily but unless the stream flows right near your location you most likely will spend a lot of energy carrying water over rocky, non-flat terrain to get it to your secluded location. The closer you are to an open water source the closer you are to people wandering through and finding you. A couple more years of drought here in Colorado and neither the mountains or the plains will be very sustainable for living, the forest fires and grass fires will be much more prevalent and destructive. Read about the Dirty Thirties to get an idea about prolonged drought conditions in Colorado. People salted and canned tumbleweeds just to have something to eat all winter. That is why I say SE Kansas or NE Oklahoma would be more of an ideal BO place. There are small secluded mountains with ample wooded cover that could be defended with small groups of people. There is more water in these locations, even in a drought there are more natural springs so there would be better chances of finding water. If you survived the first weeks or months you could dig a well without having to dig 90 feet or more just to reach the water table. The growing season there kicks the butt of our non-irrigated fields and mountains. There is more game for hunting and trapping in SE Kansas and NE Oklahoma then there is here in Colorado. Less predators such as bear, wolves, and mountain lions to compete with and deal with also. Being a native of Colorado I love it here and have lived both on the plains and in the mountains and have hunted in both areas. If you know what you are doing you could do well bugging out in Colorado. I just understand that other locations would be easier to survive in.
now, preparing food, ammo, and having a plan is not a bad idea.
This we can all agree on.One persons safe area is another one's worst nightmare.
Every time i drive out of town i look at what the area has potential wise, if we needed to go on the move. The pros of one become the con's of one 2 miles down the road.
Hopefully the issues that could bring us to such a scenario do not come to bear fruit.
Realistically only a fool would believe that last sentence.
I can't imagine that's true. They're certainly loaded with cholesterol, but with it, protein. In as little as 3 oz of edible meat off a squirrel you've got at least half a days worth of protein at minimum. Granted, we American's are used to eating a hell of a lot more than the "minimum" daily nutritional values ;). Calories overall, not necessarily protein, will be the hardest thing to accumulate daily.
Me and my buddy did a weekend survival camp just ate what we could shoot or catch, we were very hungry. Brook trout and one squirrel. The squirrel had less meat than a chicken wing. Brooks were good, but not enough. If you think you're going to walk into the woods and survive, you must be one bad ass skilled mofo.
A good place for info is saveourskills.com
After reading this thread, and several others recently, I have a glaring concern that i'm afraid a lot of you haven't considered. At least not vocally on these threads...
My question is this: If you plan to drive to your bug out location, have you stopped to consider the probability (not possibility) that people between your point of origin and your bug out location, will not want you to come where they are? Even if you're just "passing through".
Think defensively for a second... if you live on a country road or secluded area and you were bugging in, wouldn't you obstruct access to your area in any way possible? Even to people "passing through". Deter them before they get there, or make it as hard as possible to get there in the first place, so to speak? Things as simple as glass, nails, and screws in the road will lead to cars blocking it shortly there after.... rocks, downed trees, useless power-poles, concrete medians turned sideways, etc will be plentiful and just having a "4-wheel drive" doesn't do enough.
The way I see it, roads will be impassable one way or another and people are going to be on the defensive when you're intruding on their territory.
One example, and I can just see it now... i70 is blocked by who knows what, in Genessee, Floyd Hill, or at least the tunnel. ha.
You'll be best served to bug in as long as possible.
Not to mention someone occupying your bol before you get there. Or in my case, locals not knowing you because you are never around.