Everyone talks about bugging out or hunkering down. For you, is there a fairly clear-cut line between the two?

There is for me, and that line determines what I do, how fast I do it, and what I take.

Staying: my best best for most circumstances. Our local list of probable disasters consists of flooding, a hardhitting Arctic Express (dumping four feet of snow on a county that probably doesn't own a snowplow), a cobweb of earthquake faults, two volcanos, highway or RR toxic spills, and fire (home or brushfire).

Staying home would be best for the first four. Travel would be difficult to impossible, so making plans for leaving the area would be pointless. My property is high and has good drainage, I'm out of blast range of the volcanos, a good earthquake would probably knock down many overpasses and many tree-lined roads, thus making travel impossible.

Running would probably be best for the last two. A house fire demands quick decisions and fast moves. It could be done on foot, but a vehicle gives more maneuverability. A moving fireline would be predicted, and give time to collect some things. Running very far would be pointless.

If there were some kind of mass panic, nuclear attack, plague, etc, running at all would probably be pointless. Everyone would probably run out of gas and be stranded with minimal supplies and maximum problems in a strange place. I don't know that I can think of being in any worse position.

Staying, I have more stuff at home, know which neighbors I could probably trust, have shelter, a wood stove & lots of blankets.

So, what kind of problems do you anticipate facing where you are now? If you had to leave, would it be fairly temporary, or unnecessary to go too far, or would you be thinking that you might as well keep moving, because there would be little or nothing to come back to?

Sue