prepardness

[PaulS1950]

Shelter
....clothing, a defensible structure, a place to store supplies,
Water
....to drink, cook, clean, wash, flush toilets (if you have one),
Food
....Ready to eat, preserved meats - fruit - vegies - starches - salt - spices (whole wheat, dried beans, etc.) implements to prepare food - grain grinder - pots and pans - a portable stove (its more efficient than a fire),
medical supplies, heat or cooling, soap (liquid dish soap is good), sewing needles, thread and light fishing line, string and rope, good hunting knives, hatchet and axe, pliers, screwdrivers, socket set, wrenches, plates, bowls, cups, flatware, a 12 ga pump shotgun (small game, birds, and defense) a bolt action rifle for large game, a magnum revolver for tight quarter defense and close range hunting of medium sized game,

Not a complete list (working from memory here) but a fair start.

 

[Mushroom]

What's the bigger picture for preppers, though?

Preppers are a totally different animal. Compare it with somebody who is worried, and somebody who is paranoid in the extreme.

Most people are rather surprised to find out that I have such supplies, and am always in a state to pack up and leave. And that is one thing that really stands out when you compare myself with 99.98% of "preppers". Because my plan is not to hunker down and fight off the mobs of starving masses, it is to get the hell out of the major cities and hole up in a more rural area until things return to normal.

And that is simply because no matter what disaster, things will normally be affected less in a rural area, and services can support the people in the area. Unlike a city like LA, where no amount of city-county-state-federal help can really cover anything but a percentage of the people.

I have seen the tent cities that filled every park in LA in 1994. The porta-johns overflowing and thousands of people packed in next to each other, sickness running rampant. Essentials like baby formula and diapers going for 1,000% it's normal cost. I stayed in one for 1 night, and swore I would never do it again.

Myself, I believe that people should try and be self-sufficient as much as possible. For example, if your house is to badly damaged to live in, having sufficient tents means you can camp out in your own yard, instead of being jammed along with thousands of others in a mass-camp. Having sufficient water containers means you can make a trip to the camp once or twice a day to fill them, not have to stay there.

Although I am also aware that if some disaster does strike, we will not be following it ourselves. My wife is a nurse, and takes care of a patient what is on total support (including 24 hour ventilator). So she would be taking care of her patient. Myself, being in the Army Reserve I would just get into uniform and drive to my base. Because it would only be a matter of time before I would be recalled anyways.

 

[Foxfyre]

What's the bigger picture for preppers, though?

In my opinion it extends far beyong the consequences of a conventional disaster. In my opinion, their almost hive mindset (which isn't a bad thing) is geared towards preparing for an 'event' after which a return to 'normal' isn't possible, or is going to take such a time to achieve that the traditional status quo between government/authority has been altered or irrevocably erroded. And the mindset seems to be that they'll exploit that vacuum for their own ends. Whether they want to increase their own lot in life, or simply want to remould society. Although either alternative isn't mutually exclusive. But this remoulding often presents an image - normally undisputed by those presenting it - that this new society would, by-and-large, be free from excessive authority. Almost analogues with libertarian ideals.

The above may explain why these people, who are prepared to imagine the worst, are maligned and marginalised by the mainstream. They've dared to imagine what they'd have to do in order to survive, as opposed to what they expect the government to do in the event of some event or disaster that turned the world - locally or nationally - on its head. I belive that they're marginalised because they show signs of being capable of breaking their bonds with the grid. Becoming largely less relient on the grid and energy infrastructure in their day-to-day lives. This mindset is spreading, I some people stand to lose a lot of money, power and influence if more and more people eschew the image of a bandana-wearing, paranoid hick who uses the alleged end of the world as an excuse to stockpile weapons, in favour of the increasingly middle-class element who are genuinely concerned with what'll happen in the future after witnessing and experiencing a worldwide economic crash that they though beyond possible on the scale we've all seen.

Furthermore, what are your personal perceptions of preppers once you've seen past the media stereotype?

Personally speaking, I see a group of incredibly resourceful individuals who have dared to imagine the worst, and see no reason why they shouldn't prepare themselves for it. I think that this is a good mentality to foster, as it often manifests itself elsewhere, too. I don't know about you, but going into business with someone who's willing to acknowledge that the worse is indeed possible, and have provisioned for it, seems a lot safer than someone who hasn't or won't.

I don't think those who are planning for the worse are weird or kooks or anything like that. I just take the more pragmatic--maybe fatalistic?--view that unless everybody is a prepper, those who do it are at high risk for getting mobbed by many of the rest who do not plan ahead. It is the same scenario I saw back during the cold war when many folks had dug out and stocked their fall out shelters just in case Russia let loose with a battery of nukes. I simply couldn't see myself safe and secure inside a shelter with terrified, hungry, and suffering neighbors pounding on the door and eventually doing what they had to to do to break through it or come through the roof or whatever.

And after thinking about that a lot, I joined with those who just decided to take our chances. I already had my spot in the middle of a runway that was sure to be targeted all picked out. When the nukes came I wanted to be at ground zero rather than among the survivors.

So now we do have provisions that would allow us to hold out for a few weeks. And we would pool those resources or share with our neighbors until they were exhausted if we had to.

At the same time, I would be prepared to defend my home, person, and family from marauding bands of looters, thugs, and pportunists too. And in the case of a major disaster in which we knew no help would be forthcoming in the near future, you always have mobs like that too.

The dichotomy continues.

 

[Swagger]

What's the bigger picture for preppers, though?

In my opinion it extends far beyong the consequences of a conventional disaster. In my opinion, their almost hive mindset (which isn't a bad thing) is geared towards preparing for an 'event' after which a return to 'normal' isn't possible, or is going to take such a time to achieve that the traditional status quo between government/authority has been altered or irrevocably erroded. And the mindset seems to be that they'll exploit that vacuum for their own ends. Whether they want to increase their own lot in life, or simply want to remould society. Although either alternative isn't mutually exclusive. But this remoulding often presents an image - normally undisputed by those presenting it - that this new society would, by-and-large, be free from excessive authority. Almost analogues with libertarian ideals.

The above may explain why these people, who are prepared to imagine the worst, are maligned and marginalised by the mainstream. They've dared to imagine what they'd have to do in order to survive, as opposed to what they expect the government to do in the event of some event or disaster that turned the world - locally or nationally - on its head. I belive that they're marginalised because they show signs of being capable of breaking their bonds with the grid. Becoming largely less relient on the grid and energy infrastructure in their day-to-day lives. This mindset is spreading, I some people stand to lose a lot of money, power and influence if more and more people eschew the image of a bandana-wearing, paranoid hick who uses the alleged end of the world as an excuse to stockpile weapons, in favour of the increasingly middle-class element who are genuinely concerned with what'll happen in the future after witnessing and experiencing a worldwide economic crash that they though beyond possible on the scale we've all seen.

Furthermore, what are your personal perceptions of preppers once you've seen past the media stereotype?

Personally speaking, I see a group of incredibly resourceful individuals who have dared to imagine the worst, and see no reason why they shouldn't prepare themselves for it. I think that this is a good mentality to foster, as it often manifests itself elsewhere, too. I don't know about you, but going into business with someone who's willing to acknowledge that the worse is indeed possible, and have provisioned for it, seems a lot safer than someone who hasn't or won't.

I don't think those who are planning for the worse are weird or kooks or anything like that. I just take the more pragmatic--maybe fatalistic?--view that unless everybody is a prepper, those who do it are at high risk for getting mobbed by many of the rest who do not plan ahead. It is the same scenario I saw back during the cold war when many folks had dug out and stocked their fall out shelters just in case Russia let loose with a battery of nukes. I simply couldn't see myself safe and secure inside a shelter with terrified, hungry, and suffering neighbors pounding on the door and eventually doing what they had to to do to break through it or come through the roof or whatever.

And after thinking about that a lot, I joined with those who just decided to take our chances. I already had my spot in the middle of a runway that was sure to be targeted all picked out. When the nukes came I wanted to be at ground zero rather than among the survivors.

So now we do have provisions that would allow us to hold out for a few weeks. And we would pool those resources or share with our neighbors until they were exhausted if we had to.

At the same time, I would be prepared to defend my home, person, and family from marauding bands of looters, thugs, and pportunists too. And in the case of a major disaster in which we knew no help would be forthcoming in the near future, you always have mobs like that too.

The dichotomy continues.

I couldn't agree more. And anyone who thinks that they'd be unlikely to encounter armed menaces in a world where law enforcement and service providers (businesses) had abandoned their posts/interests in order to look after their loved-ones and property is detached from reality.

In today's world we find ourselves in a landscape of relative convenience. That convenience manifests itself in the services we largely rely on and the security provided by state-funded law enforcement. In short, the wall that deters and dissuades the wolves from our door. But if what protects us from crime/harm and gives us a more convenient source of sustenance were to crumble, we'd find ourselves in a far, far more brutal landscape where desperation drives us the unprepared to desperate measures.

Take the settlement of the American West, for instance. The settlers heading west from the comparatively safe east knew that they'd be throwing themselves into a hostile landscape where convenience was only encountered by following well-trodden paths. In between trading stations and settlements they were left to their own devices. And in this hostile environment, the expanse of the unsettled territories they would eventually pass throw lead them to prepare for a land where the threat of judicial sanction hadn't fully covered. In short, they knew that they were mostly on their own if they fell prey to bandits. So they prepared by carrying firearms and enough ammunition to counter any armed threat.

The Wild West is/was comparable to a landscape that has seen the removal of involuntary accountability. There were relatively few marshals to track and punish outlaws. Settlers had to live off of the land and rely on any non-perishable food they'd provisioned for their journey west. Anyone who finds themselves in a landscape where law and order had diminished or vanished completely tommorrow would have to adopt a similar mentality and prepare in advance in order to survive.

The men and women who settled the American West and corners of the British Empire were prepared, and unless they didn't succumb to unforeseeable or unavoidable elements or circumstances, they survived. And they carried all the weapons and ammunition they could carry.

I'm not suggesting - although I'm certainly not discounting - that a post-whatever society that has seen the long-term removal of the servces and security we currently take for granted will encounter desparate or opportunistic groups of people/survivers on an almost daily basis, but they'd be fools if they didn't think such encounters were a possibility, or that they could appeal to these groups' mercy. These people wouldbe desperate, and they'd no doubt use whatever means possible to lay their hands on your food and tools you rely on.

 

[Againsheila]

What's the bigger picture for preppers, though?

In my opinion it extends far beyong the consequences of a conventional disaster. In my opinion, their almost hive mindset (which isn't a bad thing) is geared towards preparing for an 'event' after which a return to 'normal' isn't possible, or is going to take such a time to achieve that the traditional status quo between government/authority has been altered or irrevocably erroded. And the mindset seems to be that they'll exploit that vacuum for their own ends. Whether they want to increase their own lot in life, or simply want to remould society. Although either alternative isn't mutually exclusive. But this remoulding often presents an image - normally undisputed by those presenting it - that this new society would, by-and-large, be free from excessive authority. Almost analogues with libertarian ideals.

The above may explain why these people, who are prepared to imagine the worst, are maligned and marginalised by the mainstream. They've dared to imagine what they'd have to do in order to survive, as opposed to what they expect the government to do in the event of some event or disaster that turned the world - locally or nationally - on its head. I belive that they're marginalised because they show signs of being capable of breaking their bonds with the grid. Becoming largely less relient on the grid and energy infrastructure in their day-to-day lives. This mindset is spreading, I some people stand to lose a lot of money, power and influence if more and more people eschew the image of a bandana-wearing, paranoid hick who uses the alleged end of the world as an excuse to stockpile weapons, in favour of the increasingly middle-class element who are genuinely concerned with what'll happen in the future after witnessing and experiencing a worldwide economic crash that they though beyond possible on the scale we've all seen.

Furthermore, what are your personal perceptions of preppers once you've seen past the media stereotype?

Personally speaking, I see a group of incredibly resourceful individuals who have dared to imagine the worst, and see no reason why they shouldn't prepare themselves for it. I think that this is a good mentality to foster, as it often manifests itself elsewhere, too. I don't know about you, but going into business with someone who's willing to acknowledge that the worse is indeed possible, and have provisioned for it, seems a lot safer than someone who hasn't or won't.

I don't think those who are planning for the worse are weird or kooks or anything like that. I just take the more pragmatic--maybe fatalistic?--view that unless everybody is a prepper, those who do it are at high risk for getting mobbed by many of the rest who do not plan ahead. It is the same scenario I saw back during the cold war when many folks had dug out and stocked their fall out shelters just in case Russia let loose with a battery of nukes. I simply couldn't see myself safe and secure inside a shelter with terrified, hungry, and suffering neighbors pounding on the door and eventually doing what they had to to do to break through it or come through the roof or whatever.

And after thinking about that a lot, I joined with those who just decided to take our chances. I already had my spot in the middle of a runway that was sure to be targeted all picked out. When the nukes came I wanted to be at ground zero rather than among the survivors.

So now we do have provisions that would allow us to hold out for a few weeks. And we would pool those resources or share with our neighbors until they were exhausted if we had to.

At the same time, I would be prepared to defend my home, person, and family from marauding bands of looters, thugs, and pportunists too. And in the case of a major disaster in which we knew no help would be forthcoming in the near future, you always have mobs like that too.

The dichotomy continues.

Main reason why I'm trying to convince everybody to prepare. If everyone is prepared for something, long term, you won't get those marauding bands of looters and thugs. Plus, those who are prepared will join together and work together for the greater good. If an EMP were to knock out our power, according to my son and his research, it would knock out all our transformers. we don't have enough to replace them all and most of the country would be without power for about 2 years. We'd have to work together to survive. I sometimes think about moving to the country so I can have some farm animals but the truth is this is my home and I'll probably stay here. If those roving hoards came, we'd be gone, so I'm hoping we'll all be prepared and there maybe instead of turning on each other, will learn to help each other.

 

[Againsheila]

What's the bigger picture for preppers, though?

Preppers are a totally different animal. Compare it with somebody who is worried, and somebody who is paranoid in the extreme.

Most people are rather surprised to find out that I have such supplies, and am always in a state to pack up and leave. And that is one thing that really stands out when you compare myself with 99.98% of "preppers". Because my plan is not to hunker down and fight off the mobs of starving masses, it is to get the hell out of the major cities and hole up in a more rural area until things return to normal.

And that is simply because no matter what disaster, things will normally be affected less in a rural area, and services can support the people in the area. Unlike a city like LA, where no amount of city-county-state-federal help can really cover anything but a percentage of the people.

I have seen the tent cities that filled every park in LA in 1994. The porta-johns overflowing and thousands of people packed in next to each other, sickness running rampant. Essentials like baby formula and diapers going for 1,000% it's normal cost. I stayed in one for 1 night, and swore I would never do it again.

Myself, I believe that people should try and be self-sufficient as much as possible. For example, if your house is to badly damaged to live in, having sufficient tents means you can camp out in your own yard, instead of being jammed along with thousands of others in a mass-camp. Having sufficient water containers means you can make a trip to the camp once or twice a day to fill them, not have to stay there.

Although I am also aware that if some disaster does strike, we will not be following it ourselves. My wife is a nurse, and takes care of a patient what is on total support (including 24 hour ventilator). So she would be taking care of her patient. Myself, being in the Army Reserve I would just get into uniform and drive to my base. Because it would only be a matter of time before I would be recalled anyways.

I'm trying to get ahold of a couple of water barrels so we can collect rain water from our gutters. It makes sense, we could use that water to water our garden and decrease our water bill. But the water barrels are $100 a pop. I've heard of using 55 gal plastic food storage containers some people have gotten for free so now I'm looking for a place I might be able to do that and then make my own rain barrels. I do have a couple of plastic 5 gal water containers and we could get water from a nearby stream or two nearby lakes and if you boil it for 15 minutes you pretty much kill anything in there. Plus there are other ways of making the water safe to drink.

 

[Foxfyre]

What's the bigger picture for preppers, though?

Preppers are a totally different animal. Compare it with somebody who is worried, and somebody who is paranoid in the extreme.

Most people are rather surprised to find out that I have such supplies, and am always in a state to pack up and leave. And that is one thing that really stands out when you compare myself with 99.98% of "preppers". Because my plan is not to hunker down and fight off the mobs of starving masses, it is to get the hell out of the major cities and hole up in a more rural area until things return to normal.

And that is simply because no matter what disaster, things will normally be affected less in a rural area, and services can support the people in the area. Unlike a city like LA, where no amount of city-county-state-federal help can really cover anything but a percentage of the people.

I have seen the tent cities that filled every park in LA in 1994. The porta-johns overflowing and thousands of people packed in next to each other, sickness running rampant. Essentials like baby formula and diapers going for 1,000% it's normal cost. I stayed in one for 1 night, and swore I would never do it again.

Myself, I believe that people should try and be self-sufficient as much as possible. For example, if your house is to badly damaged to live in, having sufficient tents means you can camp out in your own yard, instead of being jammed along with thousands of others in a mass-camp. Having sufficient water containers means you can make a trip to the camp once or twice a day to fill them, not have to stay there.

Although I am also aware that if some disaster does strike, we will not be following it ourselves. My wife is a nurse, and takes care of a patient what is on total support (including 24 hour ventilator). So she would be taking care of her patient. Myself, being in the Army Reserve I would just get into uniform and drive to my base. Because it would only be a matter of time before I would be recalled anyways.

I'm trying to get ahold of a couple of water barrels so we can collect rain water from our gutters. It makes sense, we could use that water to water our garden and decrease our water bill. But the water barrels are $100 a pop. I've heard of using 55 gal plastic food storage containers some people have gotten for free so now I'm looking for a place I might be able to do that and then make my own rain barrels. I do have a couple of plastic 5 gal water containers and we could get water from a nearby stream or two nearby lakes and if you boil it for 15 minutes you pretty much kill anything in there. Plus there are other ways of making the water safe to drink.

Water purification tablets are the way to go. They don't take up much room and they keep pretty much forever. However, in our case, there are no natural sources of water around here--no lakes. No streams. The Rio Grande is at least 5 miles from our house as the crow flies and would be pretty much a muddy mess after a few thousand folks were dipping water out of it. On the mountain we had our own well unless we didn't have electricity so that the pump didn't work. In the winter we always did have snow we could melt for extra water. And we did that quite a bit when the power was out so that we could flush the toilets.

And in a society in which 50% of the people depend on at least some kind of government assistance over and above basic roads and utilities, and a substantial number of those depend on the the government entirely, do you really think there is any chance that all those folks are going to be preppers? Or that they wouldn't feel entitled to our stuff if their supplies were cut off?

I don't think my neighbors would ever become violent. I think we would hold a neighborhood meeting right away, pool our resources, and agree on a plan of action to survive. But the have nots who would almost certainly sooner or later descend upon us--we would have to decide how proactive we would be about that. And I think it could get very unpleasant.

 

[Mushroom]

I'm trying to get ahold of a couple of water barrels so we can collect rain water from our gutters. It makes sense, we could use that water to water our garden and decrease our water bill. But the water barrels are $100 a pop. I've heard of using 55 gal plastic food storage containers some people have gotten for free so now I'm looking for a place I might be able to do that and then make my own rain barrels. I do have a couple of plastic 5 gal water containers and we could get water from a nearby stream or two nearby lakes and if you boil it for 15 minutes you pretty much kill anything in there. Plus there are other ways of making the water safe to drink.

While such barrels can help, I would not try to use that as a source of water for drinking. But it can be used for washing, flushing toilets, and other uses.

One thing that a lot of people do not realize is that after a disaster, the water may be comepletely undrinkable, and nothing can make it safe.

After things like flooding you often have large amounts of contamination running through the water. Oil, gasoline, and various chemicals from anything upstream is now pouring through the water downstream. And no amount of boiling will make it safe to drink.

And in a bad disaster, you add to it dead animals. This also contaminates a water supply and renders it unsafe to drink no matter how long you boil it. Yes, boiling kills the microbes, but not the poison they secrete (this is why botulism is so deadly, it is not the bacteria but the toxins they create).

That is why I encourage having enough water to get you through 3-5 days, then using containers once potable water is brought in to get you through the rest. The average home has normally 20-50 gallons of fresh potable water at all times sitting in the water heater (and another 5-20 in the pipes). After something happens, turn off the water intake to your house (to seperate it from the main water system which can become contaminated). Then turn off the heat source for your water heater, and you can pull the water out from the heater until it is empty. That alone should get you through most short-term emergencies.

But do not rely on "scavenging" water, unless you are in a very remote area and know exactly what lies upstream. Otherwise you will boil the water or add chemicals thinking it is now "safe", only to discover that it was contaminated by something that no amount of boiling or filtering or chemicals will remove.

 

[Sunshine]

Are any of you ready for a natural disaster? If something happened that cut you off from power and water, the roads, whatever, how long could you survive on your own? I recommend everyone have at least 3 months worth of supplies, though I think a years worth of supplies should actually be standard. I've heard a lot of people making fun of "preppers" lately. I've even heard them complaining that they themselves can't afford to "prepare". Well guess what? It doesn't take that much. Buy some extra food every time you go to the store and it will add up. If you can't afford a water barrel, get a big plastic garbage can. Tap water keeps for 6 months and regular over the counter bleach will kill just about anything in there, that's what they use on our city water.

I don't think everyone needs to rush out and get themselves some AK 47s to protect themselves, because if ALL of us prepared for a natural disaster, then the risk of hordes of the hungry taking your supplies dwindles.

I remember being taught in school to prepare for earthquakes, for the possibility of Mt Rainier erupting. Nowadays, people who prepare are ridiculed, why is that?

I keep thinking of the victims of Sandy and how just days later they were begging for food and water from our government. If they had prepared, if their neighbors had prepared, that wouldn't be a problem, EVER! I'm not saying some of them wouldn't have lost their supplies, but if EVERYONE prepared, they could have gone to their friends and neighbors for help instead of depending on a government that seems to care very little for it's citizens.

I've spent some money on long lasting food, I've set aside a bug out bag though it needs a few more things. I'm preparing and have been for over 30 years. It's a constant thing. You rotate your food so it lasts longer. You replace your old aspirin and some of your old medical supplies which also should be set aside. Get a water filter so that if you have to depend on rivers, or lakes or even gutters, you can drink the water. I still remember some guy after Katrina drinking the filthy water from the streets without filtering it. Save up some money and buy a filter.

Does anybody here agree with me, or do you all think I'm psycho? Or is it both?

They started telling us here years ago that the 'big one' was overdue to hit this area. We are on a fault line, the New Madrid Fault, equal to or greater than the San Andreas Fault. Even when I was in TN, we were told to keep some supplies. Then 9-11 hit and my friends in the military told us we need to keep some supplies in case we have to leave our homes quickly.

I keep some food - canned and dried, matches, charcoal, wool blankets (the only kind that keep you warm if you are wet), water, water purification tablets, and a small tent. I keep the car filled with gas. My husband used to say it doesn't cost any more to keep it full than to keep it empty. I would hate to have to stay outside in a tent in winter. But I could.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Not so much what you have as what you know and can do.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4s0nzsU1Wg]A Country Boy Can Survive - YouTube[/ame]

 

[freetek]

Right now, about the only wild plant I know for sure is edible, other than our wild blackberries is dandelions.

Dunno where you live but check with your state natural resources pages for information on plants in your area.
In WV there are classes available with certified instructors who do field trips during the milder weather.

To prepare for a collapse, it's good to have a network of like-minded folks and you may some some here:

wram.com and,
Libertarian Party | Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government

 

[freetek]

I'd say maybe on the order of 30 to 50 as a natural community or "tribe".

These numbers are familiar and seemed to be kind of a limit for communes in general.
Going into 3-digits invites trouble eventually.

One of my common arguments with anarchists is that with no controls at all, the largest and best-armed group would put an end the the limitless 'liberty.'

I wish I could be as optimistic as some in this thread but us pessimists are rarely disappointed and that is why we have a variety of arms with, well, lots of ammo which may be needed to protect provisions for two people for >>6 months.

 

[Underhill]

Are any of you ready for a natural disaster? If something happened that cut you off from power and water, the roads, whatever, how long could you survive on your own? I recommend everyone have at least 3 months worth of supplies, though I think a years worth of supplies should actually be standard. I've heard a lot of people making fun of "preppers" lately. I've even heard them complaining that they themselves can't afford to "prepare". Well guess what? It doesn't take that much. Buy some extra food every time you go to the store and it will add up. If you can't afford a water barrel, get a big plastic garbage can. Tap water keeps for 6 months and regular over the counter bleach will kill just about anything in there, that's what they use on our city water.

I don't think everyone needs to rush out and get themselves some AK 47s to protect themselves, because if ALL of us prepared for a natural disaster, then the risk of hordes of the hungry taking your supplies dwindles.

I remember being taught in school to prepare for earthquakes, for the possibility of Mt Rainier erupting. Nowadays, people who prepare are ridiculed, why is that?

I keep thinking of the victims of Sandy and how just days later they were begging for food and water from our government. If they had prepared, if their neighbors had prepared, that wouldn't be a problem, EVER! I'm not saying some of them wouldn't have lost their supplies, but if EVERYONE prepared, they could have gone to their friends and neighbors for help instead of depending on a government that seems to care very little for it's citizens.

I've spent some money on long lasting food, I've set aside a bug out bag though it needs a few more things. I'm preparing and have been for over 30 years. It's a constant thing. You rotate your food so it lasts longer. You replace your old aspirin and some of your old medical supplies which also should be set aside. Get a water filter so that if you have to depend on rivers, or lakes or even gutters, you can drink the water. I still remember some guy after Katrina drinking the filthy water from the streets without filtering it. Save up some money and buy a filter.

Does anybody here agree with me, or do you all think I'm psycho? Or is it both?

As a backpacker and scout leader, I would say preparedness does not mean hording. It means being able to approach a situation and deal with it. I have the equipment and ability to hunt and fish, even gather some food as needed. I can build a shelter from next to nothing and a fire from even less. I'm confidant that I don't need months worth of food to survive.

There are very few incidents where I can see having a horde of supplies as being beneficial. The most anyone around here has ever been cut off was a week and that during a massive blizzard in 1977.

Much more important to be prepared to sleep without heat in any temperature your area might sustain. Or be able to prepare a meal without gas or electric. These critical skills (among many others) are definitely lacking in many households.

 

[Pogo]

I'd say maybe on the order of 30 to 50 as a natural community or "tribe".

These numbers are familiar and seemed to be kind of a limit for communes in general.
Going into 3-digits invites trouble eventually.

One of my common arguments with anarchists is that with no controls at all, the largest and best-armed group would put an end the the limitless 'liberty.'

I wish I could be as optimistic as some in this thread but us pessimists are rarely disappointed and that is why we have a variety of arms with, well, lots of ammo which may be needed to protect provisions for two people for >>6 months.

And once again, this paranoia-mentality that somehow in a disaster scene the priority is "ammunition". As in the previous poster's "50,000 rounds" or whatever it was. That's juat a bizarre way to look at the world, as if it's inhabited by some species of science fiction monster, just lurking under the surface awaiting the opportunity to pounce. I don't get where that brand of paranoia comes from at all but I strongly suspect it's the "gun culture". Ask the same question in Canada or Argentina or Hungary or India or South Africa and I doubt we'd see anybody thinking of stocking up on "ammunition" for preparedness. Possibly a nominal tool for hunting, that would be about it.

You can't eat ammunition. Nor will it keep you warm, nor provide water. Nor can you shoot the rain and wind to keep it away.. I suggest that if this is your definition of pessimism, you are going to be severely disappointed when it dawns on you just what you wasted your resources on.

 

[Mushroom]

I'd say maybe on the order of 30 to 50 as a natural community or "tribe".

These numbers are familiar and seemed to be kind of a limit for communes in general.
Going into 3-digits invites trouble eventually.

One of my common arguments with anarchists is that with no controls at all, the largest and best-armed group would put an end the the limitless 'liberty.'

I wish I could be as optimistic as some in this thread but us pessimists are rarely disappointed and that is why we have a variety of arms with, well, lots of ammo which may be needed to protect provisions for two people for >>6 months.

And once again, this paranoia-mentality that somehow in a disaster scene the priority is "ammunition". As in the previous poster's "50,000 rounds" or whatever it was. That's juat a bizarre way to look at the world, as if it's inhabited by some species of science fiction monster, just lurking under the surface awaiting the opportunity to pounce. I don't get where that brand of paranoia comes from at all but I strongly suspect it's the "gun culture". Ask the same question in Canada or Argentina or Hungary or India or South Africa and I doubt we'd see anybody thinking of stocking up on "ammunition" for preparedness. Possibly a nominal tool for hunting, that would be about it.

You can't eat ammunition. Nor will it keep you warm, nor provide water. Nor can you shoot the rain and wind to keep it away.. I suggest that if this is your definition of pessimism, you are going to be severely disappointed when it dawns on you just what you wasted your resources on.

It is mostly I believe that it is people wanting a panacea. They do not want to actually have to think of anything, and believe that lots of guns and ammo will let them get whatever they want.

I myself stay far away from those kinds. They are not really interested in survival, as much as surviving off of others. Kind of like grasshoppers living off of the ants.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am married to a former scoutmaster and also helped lead a form of survival training for kids in one of my former lives. So yes, learning what plants and critters you can access bare handed is a good thing to know as well as how to build a shelter against the elements, etc. etc. All this is useful for small groups who are stranded in the wild for whatever reason.

But I was just thinking if all the folks in Albuquerque, population around 400,000 or the entire metro area--another couple of hundred thousand--were all out there on the desert trying to live off whatever game is out there, or whatever plants survived during the winter, or fishing the not all that abundant Rio Grande, I just don't see that as feasible.

And then consider the millions of LA, Chicago, New York City, Houston. All of them hunting or fishing or searching for edible plants at the same time? Pretty chaotic wouldn't you think?

Then again, what happens when you and your neighbors are the only ones in the area who prepared and there are roving bands of hungry and desperate people who are coming to take it from you. What do you do?

I simply can't find any good solutions to any of this. Probably we worker ants could take care of a few grasshoppers who didn't prepare, but I just don't see any good scenarios for a long term survival plan unless pretty much everybody participates.

 

[Againsheila]

I am married to a former scoutmaster and also helped lead a form of survival training for kids in one of my former lives. So yes, learning what plants and critters you can access bare handed is a good thing to know as well as how to build a shelter against the elements, etc. etc. All this is useful for small groups who are stranded in the wild for whatever reason.

But I was just thinking if all the folks in Albuquerque, population around 400,000 or the entire metro area--another couple of hundred thousand--were all out there on the desert trying to live off whatever game is out there, or whatever plants survived during the winter, or fishing the not all that abundant Rio Grande, I just don't see that as feasible.

And then consider the millions of LA, Chicago, New York City, Houston. All of them hunting or fishing or searching for edible plants at the same time? Pretty chaotic wouldn't you think?

Then again, what happens when you and your neighbors are the only ones in the area who prepared and there are roving bands of hungry and desperate people who are coming to take it from you. What do you do?

I simply can't find any good solutions to any of this. Probably we worker ants could take care of a few grasshoppers who didn't prepare, but I just don't see any good scenarios for a long term survival plan unless pretty much everybody participates.

My point exactly.

 

[Mushroom]

But I was just thinking if all the folks in Albuquerque, population around 400,000 or the entire metro area--another couple of hundred thousand--were all out there on the desert trying to live off whatever game is out there, or whatever plants survived during the winter, or fishing the not all that abundant Rio Grande, I just don't see that as feasible.

And then consider the millions of LA, Chicago, New York City, Houston. All of them hunting or fishing or searching for edible plants at the same time? Pretty chaotic wouldn't you think?

This is why I keep encouraging having an evacuation plan as a key part of a survival plan. Yes, if you are in LA when the lights go off forever, you are pretty much toast. But if you can get yourself into say the Sierras, you then would have a good chance.

The problem in most disasters is simply the people who refuse to leave when things go upside-down.

 

[Missourian]

Are any of you ready for a natural disaster? If something happened that cut you off from power and water, the roads, whatever, how long could you survive on your own? I recommend everyone have at least 3 months worth of supplies, though I think a years worth of supplies should actually be standard. I've heard a lot of people making fun of "preppers" lately. I've even heard them complaining that they themselves can't afford to "prepare". Well guess what? It doesn't take that much. Buy some extra food every time you go to the store and it will add up. If you can't afford a water barrel, get a big plastic garbage can. Tap water keeps for 6 months and regular over the counter bleach will kill just about anything in there, that's what they use on our city water.

I don't think everyone needs to rush out and get themselves some AK 47s to protect themselves, because if ALL of us prepared for a natural disaster, then the risk of hordes of the hungry taking your supplies dwindles.

I remember being taught in school to prepare for earthquakes, for the possibility of Mt Rainier erupting. Nowadays, people who prepare are ridiculed, why is that?

I keep thinking of the victims of Sandy and how just days later they were begging for food and water from our government. If they had prepared, if their neighbors had prepared, that wouldn't be a problem, EVER! I'm not saying some of them wouldn't have lost their supplies, but if EVERYONE prepared, they could have gone to their friends and neighbors for help instead of depending on a government that seems to care very little for it's citizens.

I've spent some money on long lasting food, I've set aside a bug out bag though it needs a few more things. I'm preparing and have been for over 30 years. It's a constant thing. You rotate your food so it lasts longer. You replace your old aspirin and some of your old medical supplies which also should be set aside. Get a water filter so that if you have to depend on rivers, or lakes or even gutters, you can drink the water. I still remember some guy after Katrina drinking the filthy water from the streets without filtering it. Save up some money and buy a filter.

Does anybody here agree with me, or do you all think I'm psycho? Or is it both?

As a backpacker and scout leader, I would say preparedness does not mean hording. It means being able to approach a situation and deal with it. I have the equipment and ability to hunt and fish, even gather some food as needed. I can build a shelter from next to nothing and a fire from even less.

The two most important skills for survival, IMO.

A father and two sons froze to death 2 weeks ago here...60 degrees when they left, but the temps dropped 35 degrees in just a few hours.

Father, 2 sons die while hiking in Missouri - KansasCity.com

 

[Underhill]

I am married to a former scoutmaster and also helped lead a form of survival training for kids in one of my former lives. So yes, learning what plants and critters you can access bare handed is a good thing to know as well as how to build a shelter against the elements, etc. etc. All this is useful for small groups who are stranded in the wild for whatever reason.

But I was just thinking if all the folks in Albuquerque, population around 400,000 or the entire metro area--another couple of hundred thousand--were all out there on the desert trying to live off whatever game is out there, or whatever plants survived during the winter, or fishing the not all that abundant Rio Grande, I just don't see that as feasible.

And then consider the millions of LA, Chicago, New York City, Houston. All of them hunting or fishing or searching for edible plants at the same time? Pretty chaotic wouldn't you think?

Then again, what happens when you and your neighbors are the only ones in the area who prepared and there are roving bands of hungry and desperate people who are coming to take it from you. What do you do?

I simply can't find any good solutions to any of this. Probably we worker ants could take care of a few grasshoppers who didn't prepare, but I just don't see any good scenarios for a long term survival plan unless pretty much everybody participates.

Well, if things are that bad, they're screwed. Millions from cities cannot live off the land and/or fend for themselves. This is one of the few advantage of living 100 miles from the nearest city of any size...

But there is being prepared and being paranoid. Hard to prepare for something that impossibly difficult (not to mention incredibly unlikely).