I would head to the hills. Seeing first hand of what conditions are like at least for the 1st week or so until all of the goverenment contracts are in place and additional help has come in the form of porta - poties, showers and so forth . you would be better on your own without hundreds of people with nothing looking to see what you have.

Caveat emptor:
-If it’s not obvious I am from NYC.
-I lurk here often over the past few years but rarely post.

Please define what "hills" means to you. I would head for the hills, but what I consider the "hills" is a friend’s house in Brooklyn or a buddy’s place upstate or in NJ. If it was a really wide spread disaster I would rent a car or get on a plane from their place and go visit friends or relatives in Seattle or Denver or Dallas or Germany or Hong Kong.

There is almost no emergency scenario that I can imagine where I would purposely drag my family into the woods for an extended period of time -meaning more than a day or two.

I have much more confidence in:
1. My ability to shelter in place.
2. The hospitality of friends and family outside the disaster area (and mine toward them should the situation arise.)
3. The ability of common people to come together to overcome mutual obstacles.

Am I naive?

It seems to me many on this forum are waiting –dare I say praying- for the day when the S hits the fan so they can sprint off to the “hills,” gear in hand, yelling “I told you so” over their fleeing shoulders. I apologize if my perception is incorrect.

Noticing that you are located in Nevada, it would make a lot of difference if you are in the desert area of Las Vegas or the higher mountain areas of Reno/Lake Tahoe or one of the smaller towns. That would have a lot of bearing as to how much water or other supplies you would need to 'bug out' rather than go to a shelter.

I can see the Content and Value of your Point, -even if I personally don't entirely prefer such or Agree.

But as to your renting a car and such, -What if the situation is so Teotwawki or Semi-Teotwawki ("The End of the World as we Know it!"), -that you *Can't* just go out and Board a Plane, Rent a Car, etc!? This is of course what crap hits the fan, or Teo and Semi-Teo situations can often be like! [color:"black"] [/color] [email]gulliamo[/email]

As others have posted, it is possible that a shelter will confiscate certain belongings. However I have an idea that may help.

Get an amateur radio license (ham ticket) and spend $250 or so on a decont 2M radio, portable antenna, and a couple of batteries. Then, you volunteer to work communications at the shelter.

Then, instead of being one of the cattle packed in there, you can get some more private accomidations, and are always clued into what is going on. And, since you have to carry all of this gear, they are a LOT less likely to go poking around in your stuff. It worked for me in Central Florida about a year ago.

I suspect you shelter situation is totally location dependent. We had some of the people from New Orleans here in Phoenix and it was very clean, calm, and orderly. Look around at your fellow citizens at the mall and consider if you want to be crammed in a shelter with them for a few weeks.

I am truly not trying to troll...

What situation might I find myself in where I would be better off heading to the "hills" than to Grandma's house?

My thought process goes something along the lines of… Any kit or gear is simply to get me to a higher level preparedness / comfort / civilization. Meaning my flashlight, knife, poncho, cash, cell phone, metrocard, etc. is simply designed to get me from where I am at to my condo. My emergency kit at home is designed to get me from there to the next safe location – say… bike to friend’s house upstate. Where I could choose to stay or upgrade to a car. If I choose to further evacuate I could then drive to Albany where I could fly to Dallas. Where I could drink Martinis and think about all the work rebuilding we have ahead of us.

If, when it hits the fan it is a total, worldwide splatter, then I am probably better off staying where I know people and leading the organizing committee.

I was in The City during 9/11 and during the blackout. Neither time did I feel any real desire to evacuate long term, but if I did I was more than capable of doing so.

Just a question, but what about those of us who live "in the hills" so to speak. I live in northern Minnesota in a lakes/tourist area. As such if a major incident happens in eastern North Dakota, or southern Minnesota we are in the area lots of people will flee to. So staying put is one of the only options. However as this is a rural area most people have their own wells, septic and homes are heated with wood, propane, fuel oil, etc. So with the exception of electricity we are pretty self sustaning.

That having been said, the idea of taking my family out to camp in -20 degree weather is not fun. If it comes to bugging out and this area is not safe, then I guess I could ship my family to friends in Minneapolis, while I stay and try to assist those that had to stay. I would not put my family into a shelter with the local jail population that happened to be free at the time.

Stay safe.

I wouldn't be so paranoid if everyone wasn't out to get me. <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Imagining what event(s) would warrant me leaving my home and the only choices being relocate remote or go to a public shelter, I would head for the hills. If things are so bad that I need to seriously consider giving up my abode and not being able to stay somewhere else nearby but private, then a shelter is probably no improvement. Likely by that point whatever resources they have are going to be spent, and the area is going to be nearly uninhabitable anyways, so it's definitely pack up and move time.

As far as Tom's extensive post goes, I reckon there's a breaking point for all of us, depending on our own personal beliefs, where a "what's mine is mine" attitude is bound to kick in. I would like to think that I have the forethought and insight to be able to predict when I can declare a surplus to my hard earned goods, none of which was given to me by anyone else, but was earned at great personal cost by me and mine. If I could say with some measure of certainty that I don't need all I got to get by, then I'd be more'n happy to share with the less fortunate, or less intelligent. Most times I don't reckon I am gonna know beforehand if things get so bad I gotta leave home.

Going to Baghdad and laying it on the line for them folks was one of those things where I felt pretty sure that if bad came to worse, my family would make do well enough without me. While I was there, I gave what I thought I could do without, which was a damn sight more than a lot of other folks with more to give than I had. I took an interest in the welfare of the less fortunate there, but I made sure I didn't give up more'n I could do without. That's how I've tried living my life, and I guess if that makes me one of them selfish uncaring types you refer to for not sacrificing when so many around me was doing without, then I stand condemned. The only thing I can think is I sure don't stand alone, for I know darned few folks who give everything they have so someone else will be a little better off. Most of the ones I met in Iraq are now buried.

My point is, I believe just about every person who walks this earth has the capacity for compassion. You or I may not see the fruits of their giving directly, but I've seen some downright hardened, wretched individuals still toss a quarter in the hat of a beggar as they walk by, even though they may not have much themselves. Labeling someone who doesn't meet your qualifications for charity at a particular point in time ascribes to you (and anyone else who would assume such judgement) an attribute that would normally be reserved for deity.

The simple facts is I can't afford more charity than my conscience will allow. The point of me working hard to get a good job that pays me good money is so I can prosper. I ain't doing it at anyone else's expense, as far as I know, and I like to think that the work I do actually helps make this world a better place for all of us. Maybe I am wrong, but I wouldn't know it from all appearances. If I didn't have a family of my own to worry about, I might be inclined to give more from my excess, even though my religion suggests I should also give from my necessity (well there's motivation for that too, but we're not talking theology here, I digress).

I've discovered an important tenet about my life: Committments exist at different levels and there is a heirarchy to them that I cannot escape. My first committment is to my girls. The next is to my community, then to my country, then to humanity, then to my religion, then to me. The reason I am at the bottom of that is because I know full well what to expect as the culmination for my existence. But do you notice that before I can consider what to do for anyone else, I have to abide by my committment to my family. That's why the only way I could go to Baghdad was to make sure they were taken care of regardless of whatever became of me. I did that, and then I moved down the heirarchy. That's why in a crisis situation, I am not likely to sacrifice much, at least not at first, for the "common good" or those in need outside of my immediate responsibility.

I suppose it ain't charity if you're giving to someone you are supposed to be giving to. I'd say it's downright irresponsible to not be able to meet your obligations to those who depend on you because you gave it up to someone you didn't know but took pity on. That kinda sounds like the government, don't it?

I had the oppurtunity <img src="/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> to work in a number of shelters during Katrina and Rita... My vote is Bug Out, I have the resources, experience and tools to bug out so that is my plan. I will however, more than likely be working during a disater.