In another post I made the following comment:


Because of this, I thought I'd start up this thread to specifically discuss this aspect of emergency planning.

Ideally, I'm hoping this conversation will help clarify when, if ever, heading off into the woods would be a good and practical response to a realistic and probable emergency scenario. So, I would love to hear:

1. What scenario would require bugging out to the wilderness?
2. Why is this a practical and sound response to the situation?

Your thoughts?

The zombie apocalypse? No, an outbreak of contagious disease, civil unrest, or natural disaster that makes a crowded city more hazardous to live in. Escaping to the wild would get you away from people, in the cases where people are the hazard, such as contagious disease or scarce resources. Me personally, I just don't like crowds anyway and am more comfortable in the woods.

I've done my risk assessments and based me "bob" on likely situations for one thing. For example I see the house fire or tornado happening. For those I grab the bob and use it or the knife to get through the window to get out of the house (fire) or in the case of the tornado shelter in the basement and the tools can be used to cut our way out of the damaged house afterward if needed.
The 'head for then hills' situation is highly unlikely but I already have the tools for that. I own 80 acres of 'wild' that I would go to. Its 250 miles away so it may involve sheltering along the way. I'd be using the truck camper most likely.

The secondary reasoning is these are my outdoor/camping bags and tools so those tools are kept there, its partly just for organization.

I see a lot of people put a Stanley Fuber in their urban bob.

Because campsites may be more available than hotel rooms? That's not "the wild," of course, but it's not necessarily unreasonable to bring your camping gear with you during a bugout.

It seems to me that people bugout into the wild in fiction and when they're being chased by the law.

Other than a true TEOTWAWKI scenario, I have been unable to come up with any scenario where objectively bugging out into the woods makes much sense.

The reality is that while there is some romantic notion of "living off the land" in the wild that appears attractive at first glance, it is all but impossible to do.

For me, camping is mostly for training; not for long term.

( and fun)

Bugging out to the woods is what one does when conducting Guerrilla Warfare against hostile forces.

Bugging out, because staying home is no longer an option, may have one camping out until the crisis at home is under control, because motels are not available or affordable.

Bugging in is always the first option, IMO.

Heading off into the wild may not be necessary, but sometimes it may be the only available option. I agree with chaosmagnet, sometimes the campground - or open field may be the only space (think earthquake). That is why one of the first items brought in is tents. There are many situations where you just need to be gone for a while (potential gas leak, train full of chlorine overturned). Why not go and enjoy a few days camping in the wild till everything blows over (sorry, I couldn't pass that one up).

This is why part of my BOB system includes the two packs that are my canoe bags, set up for a two week camping trip. If I have to live in a campground for a few days, I am ready. If I can, I may take the canoe and get lost for the same time. It leaves me prepared to be away from home for up to two weeks without anything else but a small piece of ground.

Respectfully,

Jerry

Most of the stuff I would need in the wild is mostly the same I would need anywhere else. Shelter, water, light, fire, first aid, etc. I believe my BOB is useful in either case.

I tiered system similar to mine.

I have a backpack with "camping" type gear but if I ever would have to "Bug out" I have gear such as a normal suitcase with pre-packed gear.

Wilderness is a plan z. Plan A is getting a hotel down the streen or far enough away to be unaffected by the situation at hand.