I'm just curious, but in the event of a potentially long term issue with food supplies, for example an attack on our infrustructure (roads and rail) which interfere with the transportation of food supplies, How many would rely on hunting or fishing to supplement their stored rations?

How far would you have to travel to effectively hunt or fish?

To what degree would you rely on game for food?

I live on an urban peninsula (just a few miles south of San Francisco). The chances of hunting for game are pretty much zip here. I suspect I could fish in the Bay, but I don't think I could reasonably get anywhere there is game.

On the other hand, I hear lots of cultures find dogs mighty tasty.

I don't know how it is in CA but I went to a college in mid-Missouri. Every weekend a few buddies and I would go into the woods and hunt small game. It's amazing how many times we came back empty handed only to find the game we spend all day trying to get running across a busy intersection in an urban area. Cities are full of squirrels and such. I don't have any doubt I would be able to snare enough food even in an urban setting.

I would definitely depend on hunting to supplement my stores. As already mentioned by others, there are plenty of Squirrels, a few Raccoons, & a few Rabbits that reside in my neighborhood. There are also Robins, Blackbirds, and Doves in this neighborhood. Thats why I have a .177cal air pump rifle, w/a scope, AND 5000 pellets AND 3000 BB's for it.

I would have to scout around some (which I will now start doing) to find any ponds that may be near enough to fish. Right now, I don't know of any that are close enough to use except by bicycling and that would still be an all-day affair.

I think it wouldn't take long for the locals to clean out nearly everything in urban areas. Even rural places only have so much game. With hundreds or thousands needing to eat...

I might think the ocean would provide.

Depending on the type of disruption and what major infrastructure is affected, I'd think contaminants would be a consideration.

You ever hear the song by Hank Williams Jr. " A Country Boy Can Survive " the key words are " A Shotgun, rifle and a 4 wheel drive and a country boy can survive " add to that a fishing pole and the State of Pennsylvania where I live and aside from the game being contaminated ( nuke's or chemical/biological ) and I'll be able to last a long time. I haven't been hunting in a few years but I think I still remember how to ( like riding a bike ). The Remington 870 Tactical might just scare them onto the dinner table and save rounds for any two legged vermin.

Robert touched on the subject of there not being enough game to feed everyone, keep in mind that there are a lot of people that don't hunt and wouldn't even consider picking up a gun, reminds me of a series of books I read by William W Johnstone called Out Of Ashes, a group, rather large called the night people or creepies but thats another subject. So I think there would be enough game for a while anyway.


As far as traveling, I wouldn't have to go far, there are lakes, streams and rivers all around me as well as prime hunting ground, I spent every weekend as a child at our camp in the National Forest, hunting and fishing which is a stone's throw away, I still go there at least every other weekend.

So I think It would be quite easy for me to survive on fish and game for an extended time circumstances permiting that is.

Hunting can be a lot of effort, and you risk a lot of exposure in conditions you may not feel to comfortable in. I would set up traps for my game, and let them do all the work. I've snared Pigeons and squirrels using noose foot traps on tree limbs and such. Pets would be another target of opportunity, but likely not as available as semi-wild game. The thing with traps is you can be a lot more discreet about their deployment, you can check them when it is most convenient for you, and they have a higher success rate for the amount of effort applied. They are much more clandestine than hunting or fishing, which could be a big factor when competing in a survival situation in an urban or suburban setting.

Ditto that, thats why I carry snares in my backpack. Thats one thing that I didn't take into consideration when responding earlier. The exposure factor and clandestine as well. Thanks for bringing that out Benjammin.

It's a 20 minute walk to the river from where I live here in downtown Edmonton. One day of fishing could net you enough fish to eat for a week or more. Unfortunately keeping any but one species (Northern Pike) would be illegal and done so at your own risk.

Regardless of the location (and there are lots of fishing spots within a 30 minute drive) I'm much more confident of my fishing ability than hunting...especially considering I've never hunted.

Air rifles are regulated in Canada so that you can't buy powerful ones. The only alternative would be to buy a .22 that I could put in my BOB and start practicing! I've been trying to find out if the US Survival Rifle is legal in Canada. I suspect it's not because it's so easy to hide and has such a short barrel.

Do you count dogs and cats as "game" ?

Without them my area is pretty much limited to squirrels and birds.

Unimogbert

About 15 miles for wild game.



I won't rely on it at all, but I certaintly would attempt to augment my stored rations with it. Lots of people hunt and fish here.

Lots of people own dogs too--I'd have to be desperate before I shot one for food. Somebody might take it personally.

Yes, that is the plan.

In less than a mile I have access to a stream filled with fish, turtles, crayfish and alligators. The surrounding woods are filled with deer, feral hogs, squirrels, beaver, raccoons, coyotes, etc... There is also a deer-breeding operation 1/2 mile away. I also plan on trapping birds and other small game/fish to suppliment our food.

The main problem will be the competition for these resources. My neighborhood is filled with sportsmen so I think the best bet would to organize them into hunting parties that would bring back food for community meals. Fish soup or raccoon stew will give nutrition to more people than fried fish or roasted raccoon.

-Blast

If forced to bug in, it's reasonable to make use of edible animals when the opportunity presents; but IMHO to rely on hunting means that your preparations have been grossly inadequate. In any kind of extended situation, the bulk of your calories will not come from meat; they will come from the beans/rice/lentils/oils/grains you have stored.

People who live well out into the country will of course have better luck (more game and less competition). But people in or around urban areas better not rely on this.

Urban game will vanish in no time. And if you have enough mobility to go farther afield, that means you have gas to spare and the roads are open. You're not really "bugged in" at that point. You don't need to go hunting wild game, you need ready cash and/or tradeable goods; you need to draw on your rural contacts to buy stored wheat/barley/corn or take a share of a beef or pig.

You might also consider putting some rodents to work for you, converting plant material you can't eat in to stew that you can. Rabbits? Meadow voles? These breed rapidly and can reliably supplement a survival diet, even in a suburban back yard. Agriculture beats hunting every time; that's why humans switched.

My plan is to (depending on the situation) supplement my food stores with wild game. The longer I can make my supplies last the better things will be. If it is a bug out situation our primary rally point is some property where we hunt, and is far back into the boonies. We have only run into other hunters in the area 4 or 5 times in the last 7 years. The majority of people hunt within shouting distance of roads. However most of the people who would turn to hunting for survival, would probably stay fairly close to home for two reasons
1. If things are to the point where people who do not normally hunt are hunting to survive, then gas will probably be in short supply to.
2. If things are to the point where people who do not normally hunt are hunting to survive, then people will stay close for security reasons; in emergencies they can respond home or send help for help.

Dougwalkabout,

Don't worry, we have that covered. This thread was specifically about hunting so I didn't see a need to talk about our stocks of rice/beans/oats/nuts, canned goods, our vegetable garden (both backyard and guerilla), or the numerous wild edible plants in the area. Rest assured, we are well prepared.

-Blast

It's illegal to kill or trap squirrels here. You don't think the animal rights activists wouldn't be all over you for snaring squirrels after a quake? :->

You're right, though. There are squirrels and racoons along with dogs.

Lots of practical survival methods are illegal. Trapping is simply much more discreet and you are less likely to get caught doing it than you would be shooting at the wee beasties.

In a survival situation, I really couldn't care less what any animal rights activist thinks, so long as they stay the heck outta my business. If they should attempt to interfere with me, I will treat them like any other hostile competitor, and respond accordingly. I believe in that aspect, I am much better equipped than they are to determine the outcome.

Sounds like a good way to make enemies to me. Fighting with the tree huggers because they don't like the fact you're poaching is a good way to get arrested...or worse.

If it's to the point where you HAVE to hunt who cares. At this point and time they will be your enemy anyway anyone thats unprepared will be because you have equipment and knowlege to trap with and they dont. When you get to the point where HAVE to hunt and your kids are hungry who cares wht the tree huggers think. If and when you get caught pay the fine and be happy.

If you are in a widespread survival situation, so are all the fish and game wardens. So are all the animal rights activists. Where do you think this issue fits in with widespread looting for food and water? Do you think it will be 'business as usual' for these officials?

I live between two rivers, both very polluted. SOL.

Sue

Blast --

My post was intended as general commentary, and wasn't directed at you specifically. (I should be more careful about the way I post.)

Glad to hear you're well prepared.

Doug

If you are that hungry, the tree huggers may be too. Nothing like a few days without food to change your outlook on life.

Although I am in NYC, I do have my beloved sailboat with access to the Atlantic Ocean. I have some basic fishing equipment, but am not really much of a fisherman. If worst came to worst, I figure some of the hardcore fishermen docked near me would gladly trade some of their knowledge and skill for a ride to the good fishing spots, since they will be out of gas.

I already DO hunt to supplement....the Deer in my back yard are delicious!

Thinking about dogs. Considering people would likely become more dependent on their canine's ability to detect and bark at strangers/protection/hunting etc, if you did happen to shoot someone's dog you probably just made yourself a target. Having said that, I think its highly unlikely (in north america anyway) a scenario would develop where dogs, cats, horses, etc, become possible food sources. Not that it couldn't happen, but by the time things get that desperate you're talking serious world wide collapse and at that point you'd better already have long term food resources in place (growing wheat, potatoes, chickens) or you ain't gonna make it. I say that because resorting to dog meat for sustenance means things aren't going well and what little nourishment you get from that type lean/starving-dog meat isn't going to sustain you for long. Definitely not long enough to get your food crops up and running. Just some mind rambling.

Just somthing to think about. All thru history up till the day when bad things happened there were more people saying that can't happen here than there were trying to get the warning out.

Good luck with hunting. If you think your deer woods are crowded in hunting season, just think how it would be with EVERY gun owner out there. Half the households have a gun only about 7 percent hunt,now put all those others out there.

It would not be "hunting" anyway. It would be spotlights and rifles and such .

Small game might work short term. Go to the mall and blast a boat load of geese or the zoo.

Hi Hacksaw,



If the US Survival Rifle you mean is the take-down model now made by Henry Arms then, then yes it is legal to buy in Canada (short barrel but not centrefire), as long as you have a Federal Firearm Possession/Acquisition Licence.

The best price I have seen in Canada is at SIR in Winnipeg for $209.99 http://www.sirmailorder.ca/show_prod.php...f640779618cc473

I looked at the Henry Rifle last summer but decided to buy the Marlin Papoose instead, I think it is a better made, more accurate firearm but it does not compress as small.

Mike

Good question desertrat1,

I live in an agricultural area surrounded by the Boreal Forest about 2 miles away. I would hunt/fish for food if the need came up as I do it regularly now, but I think there would be a lot more competition.

Mike

Hi Sue,



I think the response from Government Natural Resources agencies and Animal Activists will depend on the scale and length of the emergency situation.

In a true, long term survival situation I think the due diligence defence of "I was afraid I (or my family) was going to starve to death" should allow for the reasonable, non-commercial harvest of fish and wildlife.

This brings up another question concerning the harvesting of fish and wildlife in mock survival situations or in training videos. We all know that the most efficient way to harvest fish and wildlife is by means illegal for most sportsmen (e.g. traps, snares, denning, netting, spearing, etc), that is why these means are used by commercial anglers and trappers (its a controlled business not for sport).

What is your opinion on the unlawful harvest of fish and wildlife in practice type survival situations?

Mike

Assuming it is understood that fish and game laws are in place to provide for the survival of the species in question, I think it is stupid and wrong to poach them.

Find a fish farm that is raising the fish and make a deal with them. You can buy stock trout by the truckload, put them in a holding tank, and practice away. It may not be a completely natural environment, but I think you'll find what is effective in the tank will be effective in a pond or stream, more or less.

I've been thinking over how to answer this.

Fishing, skip it, the "fish pond" at my folks turns into a mud flat every summer. Ever since the development went in on the three ridges over, half the ponds have been drying up in the summer. If something makes the bozos evaporate, it might be worth seeing if stays up all summer. But the interesting thing is, I have seen it go completely dry every year for almost a decade, and when the level gets above two feet, there are minnows swimming around. So maybe a minnow trap. Barring that, it is about a mile and half to a decent spot to fish.

Hunting... Yeah, not a problem.

But most of it will trapping. Running traps doesn't suck up all that much time, not when compared to hunting. And you take a rifle with you, just in case.

I would only have to travel about 1/4 mile to one spot and perhaps 3 miles to another, but I'm afraid with the size of the local population, there would be standing room only.

I live on the edge of an urban area. I have fields on one side and houses on the other.

Although there is potential hunting, if everyone else is alive then there'd be too much competition. I don't hunt normally anyway and would be no good at it. I don't own a gun. I'd certainly be willing to have a go, but it's not a significant part of my plan.

If everyone else was dead (eg if bird flu kills them all), then I'd be raiding their houses for their stored food. And supermarkets etc - that's where food comes from in these parts.

Thanks for all of the food for thought on this thread.

Like an idiot, I had not even considered the "competition factor". Although I haven't counted on hunting and fishing to provide food, I now realize why that was smart on my part!!!

Something that many people don't consider is experience. How smart is it to rely on hunting if you've never hunted before even if you own a gun? I know I have the smarts to snare a rabbit but I'm sure there are others who would be much better at it than I would. I've never done so and would be winging it. Even if I caught a <insert fuzzy edible here> I wouldn't know what to do with it to properly prepare and cook it without wasting any of it.

If it is with proper management then I'd agree. There's also the case of a mouse/rat out in your area & the EPA.

I just left western Wyoming, where almost ALL of the locals count on getting at least one elk, and a mule deer or two, just to make it thru the winter...

Good points, you need to have practice and confidence in your chosen method if you're banking very much on it. I have done some hunting, but, I'd consider myself still a beginner.

Fishing on the other hand, that's something we practice quite regularly. Fortunately, I live on the ocean, and for 3 seasons we could very easily live on local salt water fish and shellfish. Usually, we're just "practicing", ie: we are doing catch & release unless we're eating the catch that day. Sometimes there are limits too. Recreational Stripped Bass are limited to two 28inch+ fish per angler per day. Of course, you can feed a family on a decent sized fish, so that's not bad. I think the bag limits would be out the window in the scenario we're talking about here anyway.

As the event prolonged, I’d look to hunting/fishing as a fairly important source of food.

Fishing probably offers the best bang for the buck wrt calories expended vs potential intake. Its pretty easy to throw out a couple of lines and catch enough food for a meal.

Hunting small game would be feasible and having a trained dog increases your potential for success almost exponentially. Hence I would have some major issues with someone viewing my dog as their next meal.

Hunting large game is feasible but you may run into some problems keeping the meat good for a sufficient duration.

I live on the north coast of California. There is wilderness all around, and I can fish both salt and fresh water, as well as hunt both large and small game. I don't think there would be too much competition for subsistence resources ten or more miles outside of town, but one never knows. People have a tendency to panic, and stocking up by way of overharvesting might be a priority for some if not most. Communal cooperative efforts might be the way to go in avoiding resource depletion.

Another issue associated with hunting and fishing is property rights. Whose land are you hunting on...and does it matter if your children are hungry or starving?