Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My point is they knew well before hand that the blast was coming and they got out of Dodge.
Israeli intelligence agents apparently were aware of what was going to happen but purposely gave no warning as they wished maximum value for themselves (and got it). However, I'm sure they warned their agents who might be harmed.
If I were a young survivalist and looking for an ideal place for relocation (BTW, I'm neither), I would look at the following three locations:
1, The remote, idyllic town of Etna in northern California in the Scott Valley is about as scenic as any place we have been in our years of travel. Etna has a fairly mild climate and 232 days of sunshine annually. However, only 23 inches of rain annually might be a problem for raising certain crops.
2. Cave Junction in southern Oregon receives an average of 60 inches of rain and year and is very nicely situated 1- hour drive from Grants Pass and 1-1/2 hours from the Pacific coast. Cave Junction is located on The Redwood Highway, Rt 199, which goes through some of the most beautiful scenery in America. Brookings on the coast is known as the "Banana Belt" of Oregon, where temperatures occasionally go into the 70s in January. There are vast forested areas south and north of rt 199.
3. Wolf Creek area in the mountains north of Grants Pass would afford remoteness and an opportunity for fishing and hunting, for those inclined. It's also near I-5 for easy access to Grants Pass and Medford going south or Roseburg and Eugene going north.
I've found that Sperling's Best Places is a good resource for obtaining data on just about any area.
You make good points, and we live in Connecticut near the coast next to a Class C stream and I'm likewise planting fruits and tubers.
However, I had a flash vision a couple of years ago of water coming up to our property. I think a good temporary retreat is in the appalachian forests in NorthWestern Connecticut. We will check it out when the weather warms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Submariner
I live in rural Maine, I am not sure where your getting the idea of pollution here.
I grew up farming in a drought prone area. A major region of the USA is drought prone. If you desire to grow crops without pumping water, to raise livestock, etc, then you must first avoid all of the drought-prone regions.
I saw a government map a few months ago that was showing the areas that today have water only because of municipal infrastructure, as compared to areas that would still have water even without any municipal infrastructure. Very few places in the US have natural water in abundance, I live in one of those areas.
I also have issue with the way that 'BOL' is commonly used. It seems that many people use it to mean a temporary hide-out. But say you haul with you 6-weeks of food, then what? Are you going to turn around and go back at that point?
Better in my mind to simply find a place where you want to live. I did. I built a house, planted an orchard, and every year we extend our gardens bigger. Hopefully one day we will be producing all of our own food. Off-grid producing our own electricity. And as I said before we already have plenty of water [but I am not aware of what Ohio pollution your thinking of. Ohio sits South of the Snow-belt. The snow-belt passes South of us. Anything water-borne or air-borne from Ohio is not generally going to be coming this way].
If you are concerned for SHTF emergencies, than maybe you should find a place, go there, and homestead.
Number three- VA/West VA/ TN/ Kentucky
-Many places here farm already and are rural and remote. You will probably have water.
Forget TN. We don't get enough rain to grow good veggie crops and disease and insect pests are rampant. Unless you have access to irrigation and loads of pesticides, it's not the place to bug-out to.
PS on that,... and most of the pesticides no longer work due to strong bug and insect resistance.
He would be standing there pickin his ass wondering how long before a burger popped out wrapped in tin foil..
Personally, I think you're the one fooling yourself here. If push comes to shove I think most people could figure out how to butcher an animal. They might do it badly and not have everything perfectly cut (or even make it taste bad by accidentally puncturing the intestines or something the first time) but, no, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out enough to get the job done. I appreciate that you're trying to make yourself feel better by looking down on other people but you're doing it in a really lame and not very objective or rational way.
Personally, I think you're the one fooling yourself here. If push comes to shove I think most people could figure out how to butcher an animal. They might do it badly and not have everything perfectly cut (or even make it taste bad by accidentally puncturing the intestines or something the first time) but, no, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out enough to get the job done. I appreciate that you're trying to make yourself feel better by looking down on other people but you're doing it in a really lame and not very objective or rational way.
What ever floats your boat though, I guess.
Whatever you might think, Mac is not kidding himself. There are masses of people in this country too ignorant to even cook a decent meal for themselves. They have lived their entire life on food that was either prepared by others or taken out of boxes, cans, and bags. All that before we even get into food preferences(many native Americans starved rather than eat a different diet, when no bison were to be had) and superstitions. I have known city people over the years who adamantly refused to drive to my house in the country in broad daylight because they were afraid they would become lost and fall victim to whatever horror we country folks are immune to. I have known many who are utterly afraid of cattle. Or dogs. Or ANY wild animal. I have had them look askance at me and refuse samples of venison roast, deer sausage, and other fine foods, due to unfamiliarity or the opinion that eating an animal one killed an butchered(especially a wild one) was disgusting. They would skip lunch rather than eat what I offered.
Now, both Mac and I know that not all city-dwellers are incompetent in the ways of nature, but the vast majority are. They will scare game plumb out of the country as they move through it, all the while freezing, dehydrating and starving if it is winter, or roasting, dehydrating and starving while being feasted on by creatures they did not know existed if it is summer. If it is summer, they may drop from dehydration or a dirty-water-related illness(typhoid fever, anyone?) before ever so much as seeing game. In fact, upon hearing a doe crashing through the brush as it flees their rank and noisy intrusion, some of them will flee blindly in the opposite direction, dropping whatever useful items(or not) that they were carrying, in a bid to gain more speed to escape what they believe is after them. And if they suddenly feel lost? They will panic, to be found later after running in circles, shedding even their clothes in their blind panic. Don't think so? Ask the "experienced" hunters who have been found frozen, stark naked in the snow, after walking a circular track and shedding equipment and clothing all along the way. Mac is very much correct about what will happen to MOST city-dwellers once they flee what they know for unfamiliar territory. The fact that what he has to say is not necessarily easy on the ears(especially to those it descibes), does not make it any less correct for all that.
Personally, I think you're the one fooling yourself here. If push comes to shove I think most people could figure out how to butcher an animal. They might do it badly and not have everything perfectly cut (or even make it taste bad by accidentally puncturing the intestines or something the first time) but, no, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out enough to get the job done. I appreciate that you're trying to make yourself feel better by looking down on other people but you're doing it in a really lame and not very objective or rational way.
What ever floats your boat though, I guess.
There is a large portion of this country that does not own hunting arms, does not own proper cold weather gear, and has absolutely no idea how to hunt, so should they manage to overcome those obstacles, and shoot some game, they just might manage to cut it up and cook it too.
I was a rather rank hunter. I've spend several weeks of my life in the woods, and I've never even seen anything that was in season to shoot. Hunting for your every meal is a plan to fail. So what if the average Joe can shoot a deer, he's not going to know how to preserve the meat, so most of it will quickly go bad. Hunting for survival is a calorie game. If you do not constantly find game and procure it, you'll starve to death.
People that are talking about hunting and surviving in a SHTF scenario that lack practical hunting experience to me have absolutely no idea what it will be like. Even if we had a population that our natural resources could sustain, people talking about actively hunting, in my opinion, have no clue what wilderness survival is like.
I'm no expert be sure, and outside of my rank amateur hunting expeditions, my knowledge is based on reading. From all I've read and seen, trapping land and aquatic life seems to be the way they survive. None of the people I've read about lived by hunting alone.
Here's a rainfall chart of the lower 48. Here's a population density map of the same area.
Note how very few parts of the west have a sustainable natural water supply, and the land doesn't lend itself to cultivation and cattle without man made irrigation. I'm sure that the huge dead zone that makes up about half our country can support life, but not nearly on the scale that the other half does so naturally.
When considering the population density, interior parts of West Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, New York, and Maine look the most attractive in the eastern half of the country. Those "attractive" parts of West Virginia, North Carolina and Pennsylvania happen to be very rugged. The only level terrain in those mountains would be a rather narrow creek bed running between the mountains. There's good reason why these parts were never settled despite being in some of the oldest and first settled parts of the country. The "attractive" portion of New York State lies in the Adirondack Park. On the east coast, it looks like northern New Hampshire and Maine are the most attractive options because these two eastern states have the most land that's remote, naturally arable, and has zero to little population density.
I don't really think there's an answer to this thread. After reading the original topic, it seems to point to homesteading away from dangers, and living on technology that's not dependent upon fossil fuel. That requires a lot of capital investment up front or inheriting somebody's organic farm. It also requires a godawful amount of knowledge. If you don't already know how to homestead, that's a huge learning curve. Furthermore, most of the remote areas have no work, so it's nearly impossible to make a livelihood in those locations.
Should somebody manage to overcome some of the obstacles I've touched on, it would require "bugging out" you and anybody in your party dozens to a few hundred and for some thousands of miles through heavily populated areas in a time of national civil unrest possibly on foot nonetheless...
Last edited by bolillo_loco; 03-16-2013 at 02:31 AM..
There is a large portion of this country that does not own hunting arms, does not own proper cold weather gear, and has absolutely no idea how to hunt, so should they manage to overcome those obstacles, and shoot some game, they just might manage to cut it up and cook it too.
I was a rather rank hunter. I've spend several weeks of my life in the woods, and I've never even seen anything that was in season to shoot. Hunting for your every meal is a plan to fail. So what if the average Joe can shoot a deer, he's not going to know how to preserve the meat, so most of it will quickly go bad. Hunting for survival is a calorie game. If you do not constantly find game and procure it, you'll starve to death.
People that are talking about hunting and surviving in a SHTF scenario that lack practical hunting experience to me have absolutely no idea what it will be like. Even if we had a population that our natural resources could sustain, people talking about actively hunting, in my opinion, have no clue what wilderness survival is like.
I'm no expert be sure, and outside of my rank amateur hunting expeditions, my knowledge is based on reading. From all I've read and seen, trapping land and aquatic life seems to be the way they survive. None of the people I've read about lived by hunting alone.
Here's a rainfall chart of the lower 48. Here's a population density map of the same area.
Note how very few parts of the west have a sustainable natural water supply, and the land doesn't lend itself to cultivation and cattle without man made irrigation. I'm sure that the huge dead zone that makes up about half our country can support life, but not nearly on the scale that the other half does so naturally.
When considering the population density, interior parts of West Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, New York, and Maine look the most attractive in the eastern half of the country. Those "attractive" parts of West Virginia, North Carolina and Pennsylvania happen to be very rugged. The only level terrain in those mountains would be a rather narrow creek bed running between the mountains. There's good reason why these parts were never settled despite being in some of the oldest and first settled parts of the country. The "attractive" portion of New York State lies in the Adirondack Park. On the east coast, it looks like northern New Hampshire and Maine are the most attractive options because these two eastern states have the most land that's remote, naturally arable, and has zero to little population density.
I don't really think there's an answer to this thread. After reading the original topic, it seems to point to homesteading away from dangers, and living on technology that's not dependent upon fossil fuel. That requires a lot of capital investment up front or inheriting somebody's organic farm. It also requires a godawful amount of knowledge. If you don't already know how to homestead, that's a huge learning curve. Furthermore, most of the remote areas have no work, so it's nearly impossible to make a livelihood in those locations.
Should somebody manage to overcome some of the obstacles I've touched on, it would require "bugging out" you and anybody in your party dozens to a few hundred and for some thousands of miles through heavily populated areas in a time of national civil unrest possibly on foot nonetheless...
Good post.
I live in a rural area, in this community nearly every one hunts. However I also know that in our nation less than 1% live rural. Most of our nation's population are urban or sub-urban.
I really doubt if American hunters amass a full 1% of the population.
Lets say that 1% are hunters, who take one large game animal each year [bear, deer, moose, or hog], our game wardens track and manage the wildlife populations to try and keep them sustainable and level.
If we doubled the amount of hunters to 2% of our population, the wildlife population in America would be decimated. Not gone entirely but certainly hurt to a degree that it would take a decade of no hunting to recover.
Right now 1% of America hunts one game animal/year. They do not provide all of their families food for a year from that hunt. In many cases, it is more like a couple meals per month for 6 to 8 months. Then they run out of that meat.
In my area, everyone who hunts takes all meat from the animal. The economy has been depressed here for many decades so the culture is one that trophy hunting has became repulsive. However on forums I have discussed this with other 'hunter's in other regions of America where trophy hunting is the norm.
My eldest son moved out to Kansas and has gone hunting with his new friends. They each shot one animal, they cut out their favorite part of the meat and they leave the rest for the coyotes. My son got into an argument, with his friends, as they were leaving 80% of the meat behind. But that is their hunting culture. They leave most of the meat for the coyotes, and then complain that there are too many coyotes. Different regions of our nation have developed entirely different cultures among hunters.
I am not aware of any hunter who is currently feeding his family 100% from game meat.
If the number of hunters maintains at this current level, then the herds can maintain at these levels.
If current hunters began taking twice as many animals; or if the number of hunters doubled [up to 2% of Americans]; then the herds would shrink quickly.
I retired to a state where our primary economic industry is tourism. Over 90% of this state is forest, I live in a forest. The tourism that I 'see' is out-of-state hunters. Some hire guides, some do not. There are urbanites who come here every year and attempt hunting.
Those who hire guides fare much better.
Those who do not hire guides; cross property lines, shoot at homes, livestock and people.
Once I approached a pair of urban hunters who had parked in my driveway, they were loading their rifles and preparing to go 'hunting'. When I asked them about their intent, they told me that 'nobody' owned this land, so they intended to hunt here. They changed their attitudes when I explained to them that they were standing on my land, parked in my driveway, in front of my house, and I was preparing to call the Game Warden.
Other times I have seen 'mighty' urban hunters; that got lost, crossed onto my land, and were shooting at things near my house [mainly my livestock]. Fortunately, thus far none of those guys has actually been able to hit any of my livestock.
As we slide into SHTF; as more and more folks try their hand at hunting, it is likely to get very ugly. Ugly for the game herds, ugly for new hunters, ugly among rural folks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's a population density map of the same area. 
