I dont know if this has been covered in a previous thread or not But, I have been weighing the pros and cons: In the event of a disaster/ emergency evacuation would I want to head to the nearest designated red cross center and deal with that madness or head for the "hills" and take my chances there?? B.O.B. and psk's in tow of course... <img src="/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

IMO, it would depend on the nature of the disaster and if you had your BOB handy. Reading through the posts over the last few months of hurricane stories, your BOB would have probably been confiscated or at least much of the contents confiscated at the shelter [no knives or weapons of any kind, probably no fire making materials either]. Depending on your level of preparedness, you would probably be better off in the hills.

Head for the hills.

Evac centers or as I like to call them concentration camps are a last resort. For me then only if forced there by armed personel.

First anything not on the approved list will be stolen. And brother that list is very short. If the inspector takes a shine to something of yours. Guess what? It ain't on the list. Of course any food much beyond a small bag of candy will be confiscated to be evenly distributed for the good of all. Got two blankets.We'll take one to give to someone else in need. All things mentioned above are definately not on the list.

All medication must be turned over to them. That way you must go hat in hand to get your regular dosage. The more to control you. And then only at their conveniance not on your schedule.

Basicly think os airport security on steroids.

I would easily fair better on my own. And should be able to find a better suituation.

As much as I'm for immediately saying, "head for the hills", which would be my preference if at all possible, you better make sure you know who's hills your heading into. During Katrina some were lucky and only turned away, others unfortunately were turned away at gunpoint and they were moving along public roads.

Now imagine traipsing across someone's land, someone with a dislike for trespassers and an itchy trigger finger to boot.

If you run into the wrong person in such a situation, things could get hairy real quick.

If worse comes to worse, lose yourself in a big National Park for a while. It would be better to be caught "surviving" there than elsewhere if I had my guess... I didn't say that though. :P

Know where you're going. Check it out ahead of time. Meet the locals. Let others know your intended route.

To the hills! You are on this site. You should have a bug out bag with at least 72 hrs of food available at all times, right?

You know how to boil water to ensure it is safe to drink and toilet facilities are easy to make. Unless you are not capable of walking 5 miles I would say you are better off hiding in the wild.

You can start a fire to keep warm while people in a shelter would be relying on fuel being shipped in or power lines.

-NIM

Given only the two choices, my first inclination would be to head to the hills as well, particularly given the "no firearms" and "no pets" restrictions of the public shelters. However, in my neck of the woods there are going to be hundreds of thousands of people spreading out into the mountains. Add to that the very real possibility that you or a loved one is going to be in need of medical attention far beyond the capabilities of your average FAK. I guess I am going to play it by ear and make my decisions based upon how the situation is playing out. Staying put is always going to be my first choice.

Regards, Vince

Being raised west of the Mississippi and taught to take care of things myself rather than depending on anyone else--heading for any kind of public shelter would be my last choice but I think it would depend on the situation. If it is 30 below I would be trying to get out of the cold but I still would not want to give up the freedoms I place high upon my priority list. I suppose it would depend a lot on what you are prepared for. If all I had was the clothes on my back (heaven forbid) I think even a blanket on a hard floor and anything to eat would be better than sleeping on the street with nothing.

An evacuation center would not accept my pets, so I'd head for my sister's house. Or the hills, if her house was not reachable.

-- Craig

It's not an infrequent topic here. My opinion is that it's unrealistic to make a decision NOW vs THEN (fill in your nightmare situations).

If one is totally unprepared to remain self-sufficient for a reasonable amount of time, there are fewer options. And an unprepared person can be a BURDEN on everyone else. If one lives in an area that is not mostly rural there are fewer options - plan accordingly. And a real world important thing often overlooked in an armchair - setting aside TEOTWAWKI scenarios for now - people who have responsabilities (family, community, work, etc.) should make plans and decisions that factor those in as well.

Thinking about going to a shelter right now makes me uncomfortable - as I sit here at the keyboard, I feel like "no way!". My family is very prepared for the "usual" slew of situations and that includes being trained, practiced, and prepared to help our neighbors and community. But I know that there are potential circumstances that might make a temporary stay in a shelter very attractive for a night, a few days, maybe even (I pray not!) a couple of weeks. If we had to stay in a shelter it would most likely NOT be in my local area. That's not the case for many here - sometimes it may be impossible to get far enough away from, say, a BIG hurricane, eh?

Unless a person already lives "away" from any disaster, out on a remote tract of land, never traveling away for business or vacation, being prepared to spend one - three nights in a shelter should be included in most of our plans, unpleasant as that may sound.

[/Rant On]

In a large scale disaster - such as a hurricane in a densely populated and poorly constructed area - most of the residual shelter population after about 3 days winds up being those that society already "takes care of" to some degree, including those who are totally dependent on "the government". That's a pre-exisiting societal problem and yeah, it totally irks the heck out of me.

But I don't have a real world practical solution to that. I know I can/will squeeze a trigger in an imminent threat situation. But a disaster is not permission for the prepared to go out and shoot all the unprepared. And thinking we should let "Darwin" solve the "problem" is a fantasy - not realistic - nor is it acceptable to most folks when it's real (rather than at the keyboard).

I don't think much of folks who care only for themselves and to hell with anyone else. I am sick of dealing daily with "citizens" who live their lives like that (and drive and vote like that). A disaster should bring reasonable people together, not inspire "every man for himself" attitudes. Decent folks usually do decent things. Other folks do a variety of things. If a person wants to live like that, then I say that person should strip down naked and walk bare footed out into the wilderness, because everything that person wears, uses, and owns was made, delivered, supplied, etc. by someone else. It all depends on a reasonable amount of cooperation and consideration. It's loosely termed "civilization", and it appears that's here to stay in some form.

I think it's fair to write that most folks who post here are of a mind to take care of themselves if at all possible. But a shelter may be a temporary haven for any of us, depending on the specific situation. FWIW, most Red Cross Shelters are not run by drooling rejects from TSA. Statements about faceless Red Cross shelter mamagers stealing a personal possesion because they fancy it are... words escape me... "offensive" is the least inflammatory word that comes to mind.

There is a surprising assortment of tough, competant, capable, and concerned folks - many professionals - who volunteer to help fellow citizens by working with a nationally organized group of volunteers (such as Red Cross). Their political leanings reflect the population - all over the place. A significant percentage are giving up earned vacation time to help YOUR community when it's in trouble. Some of those folks are local and themselves affected by the disaster.

There are also a fair number of folks involved who are there helping because at that point in life, they have more time to give than others. They may be retired, they may be temporarily unemployed, they may be consumed with a desire to do something to help others. And as the vast strain of Katrina-Rita-Wilma has shown, there can be a few folks slip in the door who shouldn't have been allowed. But they are far in the minority; flukes.

A big disaster affects all of us. Even if there was no government assistance, no Red Cross, Salvation Army, SBC, Woodsmen of the World, etc etc etc, a big disaster would make itself felt by everyone who interacts with other people. I prefer to plan to not be part of the problem by being reasonably prepared to take care of my own family, to teach others the same attitude and practice (for example, my children and Scouts), and to be part of the solution by preparing to assist if and when I can. That's my choice; we each make our own choices. And I already wrote how I feel about folks who live like they are the only people on the planet.

[/Rant Off]

Excellent post Tom.

Pete