BUG OUT!! evacuation center or the hills??

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

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.

I am in complete agreement with Tom, We as members of our community, be it our professions or just our survivor mentality on this site, Should do all we can to help when needed. The thought of sitting on a mountain top watching my steak cook over an open fire while families are starving and going thru hell would more than likely be something I could not live with. On the other hand taking my time and money to prepare for a crisis only to watch someone hand it away in front of me leaving me no better off than the guy who sat and mocked me for my preperations doesnt sit well either.

I agree with the idea of helping others, however never forget to take care of yourself first... you cannot help others if you are a victim yourself.

I think that who ever seen a evacuation center and have got the abillity to shelter on his own and/or has pets will choose the hills or something alike.
For example here at Germany you´re not allowed to bring your pets to the evac-shelters and the shelters are underequipped and no more state-of-the-art anymore in nearly all cases, even to the end of the cold war the wheren´t in a better state!

My wife and I we´ve choosen a bug-out-place outside the city in the very rual environment for the case we aren´t able to shelter in place.

Molf

VERY well said... I agree 100%

Troy

personally, I think that I would be headed for the hills. I don't live very far from a national forest that is sparsely populated to begin with and I could be there in about 4 hours without heading down a major (4 lane) highway more that 2 or 3 miles at the most. I have a bad habit of taking sideroads on trips just to learn where they go.

That's not a bad habit... it's called free-range navigation practice <img src="/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Troy

Well when you go to school on a old military base they call it endangering your personal safety and ticket you. <img src="/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

"I have much more confidence in:
1. My ability to shelter in place.
2. The hospitality of friends and family outside the disaster area...
3. The ability of common people to come together to overcome mutual obstacles... Am I naive?"

Actually, I think yours is one of the more realistic plans.

First, as has been mentioned before, survival is a group sport. Anyone who thinks it's easy to survive, eat, and guard your "stuff" 24/7 has been watching too much TV. Your judgment on EVERYTHING is going into the toilet after a day or two without sleep.

Second, the "head for the hills" plan isn't taking in the big picture. If there's a big disaster (even localized), EVERYONE will be heading for the hills that didn't check into the local emergency shelter. Even if those hills were empty to start (& they aren't), it's sure going to get CROWDED up there, with every man, woman, child, brother and dog. It's going to look like a popular no-fee campground on a holiday weekend. Game? Forget it! The game will be long gone, for one reason or another.

Third, you simply can't take all that much with you. Sure, it's fun to think about a scenario like that, but I strongly suspect that the reality of living in the cold or wet without a shelter and without a set end to it will get really old, really fast.

OTOH, what if you formed a group with your neighbors, decided on a perimeter that you could feasibly protect, rotate the guard, and combine assets?

I know which I would prefer, no doubt about it.

BTW, if you haven't been paying attention, the National Parks & Forests are where the pot farmers are growing their crop. Unless you're really wood-wise, you may not even know they're there before you've got a bullet in your chest.

The old, wide-open wild west is gone, guys. Better have a backup plan.

Sue

I respectfully disagree.

If you must "bug out" the LAST place you want to go is a national park. This would be the equivalent of jumping from the pan into the fire. Imagine getting out of Nawleans to evade a hurricane, and going to a much more expsed place - a national park.

I truly cannot think of any bug-out situation where you would be better off in the wilderness.

IMHO having a designated place to go, and a plan to get there, is a much more viable solution.

As far as friends and neighbors as part of your plan...

Well, how many of YOUR neighbors would think you crazy until SHTF day, then decide they and you are best buddies? I tend to think the majority would. Otherwise, why do we need a SPECIAL site in order to discuss these topics?

Any idea how much that would cost?

-- Craig

A ham license is about $35 for the license fee, about $20 for the book, and about $10 for the coffee to keep you going while you read the book.

If you want to buy your own radio, a basic 2M mobile rig is about $170 or so. Figure about $30 or so for magnet-mount antenna. Or, you could build your own yagi antenna from some PVC, some cable, and a metal tape-measure -- figure $20 or so. A VHF SWR meter will be about $40. Throw in a marine deep-cycle battery or two, a battery charger, and some miscellaneous hardware, and you are set.

Okay, so it isn't hideous, then.

The exam fee is currently $14. If you studied enough, you could take all 4 tests at once for that amount. I've given tests where people have passed 3 out of 4. You can also study on-line and take practice tests for free.

Sounds good. I'm making a mental note of that. Something to look into come summertime.

-- Craig

Question for Malpaso or other VE -

Is my understanding correct...that actual license exam questions for each class are taken verbatim from their respective [current] published question-pools?

The code element I'm not concerned with; thanks to Uncle Sam 40 years ago, can still copy 35 WPM (I find it's like riding a bicycle...).

Thanks.

That is correct. So, for the Tech test, it is possible to memorize all the questions and answers. However, you can't memorize A,B, C or D, because the answers are never in the same order. There's no way to memorize for the Extra test, the question pool is enormous.

Good to see someone else who likes CW. They keep saying it's dying. Of course they say the bands are dead in the sunspot cycle too. Funny, neither seemed true last weekend in the CQWWCW contest!

I think that as others have pointed out, there are lots of other options other than going to a public shelter vs. "heading for the hills". Sheltering in place, going to friends or family outside the disaster area, etc, are all great options, and ones that most non-preparededness types would use.

Here's another reason to avoid having to go to a shelter for all you altruistic folks. By *not* going to the shelter, you are helping those who have no other resources other than a shelter. If you and your family don't go to the shelter, the shelter has one less person or family to have to deal with. That means that their limited supply of water, food, blankets, space, etc. can stretch a little further for the people who are there and have nothing else.

-Kuovonne

I keep meaning to look into this. Is it still possible to DIY a decent system? How does one get started, got any noob links?

www.arrl.org
www.eham.net

For most scenarios I'd prefer to shelter in place. I'd only move to a different place if I thought I'd be better off there, which I think implies a rather local disaster. In that case I'd try to travel far enough to reach "normal" civilisation, and then check into a hotel or something. I'd rather spend several days doing that, sleeping rough meanwhile, than be a burden on the red cross centres.

This kind of question is really hard to answer in abstract. The weather might make a difference. So might the amount of warning I got, or the nature of the emergency, or what I thought everyone else was likely to do, or what the authorities are telling us to do.

Okay, let's remove some of the gray area now. Since the original premise was "bug out or seek public shelter", let's assume that we are already prepared for an emergency where the normal conveniences are no longer available. That means no municpal water, no electricity, no natural gas, no gas at the pumps, and limited consumable supplies. Okay, most of us can plan for that kind of event, and assuming TEOTWAWKI hasn't occured, we can expect that within two weeks relief will be available. So the "temporary isolation" scenario is not a factor.

But let's suppose something happens that generates a persistent, chronic threat. It could be some exotic disease, or some form of contamination, or maybe just a regional civil unrest or (gulp) invasion. Now this presents conditions that make sheltering in place less desirable. We can, of course prepare for these more dramatic but less likely possibilities, though at considerably greater expense. Nonetheless, these are real risks, which would make normal survival efforts much more complicated if we remain in the area of effect. So the question then will be just how effective is going to a public shelter within or near the area of effect, as opposed to migrating far enough away from the affected area to eliminate significant risk. To my way of thinking, staying near the risk zone is not advisable, no matter what municipal support may be present. Sheltering in place under these conditions doesn't make much sense either. The only logical conclusion is to move somewhere away from the threat.

So now that we've clarified under what conditions we should take flight, the idea of going to a public shelter is only for those who are truly unprepared for life's more mundane hardships, like floods, fires, storms, earthquakes, and such. Sure, these events can lead to bigger problems such as I pointed out earlier, but for situations where the only threat is the loss of utility service or supplies for a limited time, there's just no reason to leave home for that sort of problem. If things ever get bad enough that home is no longer safe, then likely no public shelter nearby is going to be any better.

For instance, when Katrina hit, people fled their homes for public shelter to escape a significant threat. Anyone remember what happened to the superdome during the storm? That was supposed to be a public shelter, right? It sure didn't look very secure to me when the storm came in through the top.

The impression I got from Katrina is that people were advised to evacuate if they could, and the shelters were provided mainly for people who couldn't. The shelter is really the last resort, if you don't think you can make it on your own.

I was just highlighting the "What if you can't get to a Car, etc", angle of it.

And while a large purpose of Kit and Gear *is* to get oneself to a higher Level of Civilization / Preparation, -"Back to the World"!, so to speak, -It is also to keep one Alive and hopefully Well, -*Until* one can get back to such Normal World. "Until and Unless", regarding that. For Until such time, -*that* is your World! This Wild and Natural World, -is of course the Natural, -or Default state, -of Man and Things in Life. take Away any or all of our 20th and 21st century Technology and Conveniences, -and *thats* what we've got! On a Global Time Scale, -it *wasn't* long ago at all!, that we were back in 1600s / 1700s, and earlier times! All the way back to Caveman Days! *Thats* the Far Longer Stretch! Thats the Natural Default and State of Man!, and his World! The Current State and "Progress" of Developed Civilization as we now Stand, -is in many ways a Fine Platform! But its nevertheless just that!, -a Platform, -an Artificial Platform! Pull that rug out from under us, -on which we Rely and Stand, -and we're left with the oftentimes Hard Floor, -of Natural, Wilderness Survival! Yes, -Lets ultimately and preferentially get back to the Rug, Platform, and World, -Gear and Preps can be a Great Assist here. But *Until* this is so achieved, -things more akin to the Stone Age, -rather than the Space Age, -*is* our Default and World in which we find ourselves! I Agree that equipment is to get back to your Higher World and Purpose. But Differ that that is as much as its only purpose. What Counts at least as much, -is in how it Serves you, -*Before* you "Get Back to the World"!

*No* Hard Feelings, Disrespect, or Inaccuracy intended! Please don't so worry!, -and if I've Riled or Offended in any way, -I Fully and Duly Apologize. Such was Not my intention.

Be it either Stay in Place, Bug Out to the other side of the World, or a middle ground of "Going to Grandma's House (however one can or does do it), -These are personal preferences and choices. My own tilts considerably to greatly to the Hills, or some other part of the Country / World. Your's is far more to the Stay Put / Go to other familiar locations, -sort of thing. Just Different personal evaluations and preferences.That's all.

But while you more likely wing it in Place, -I'll more likely be Winging it, -should Due Need ever arise, -in the Hills!

I'm a Country Boy anyway! And like the saying goes, -"You can take the boy out of the Country, -but you Can't take the Country out of the boy!" Urbanized for many years now, -this certainly applies to me! I'm IN the Urban World, -but very much NOT *of* it! I Fondly Remember of "Back Where I Come From!" So "Take me Home Country Roads!", and "Thank God I'm a Country Boy!". Your Roots are probably a lot more Urban than mine. Entirely OK!, -To Each their Own! [color:"black"] [/color] [email]gulliamo[/email]

As good as or better than Lucky Ned Pepper said it in True Grit! <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> [color:"black"] [/color] [email]romania[/email]

Survival *is* first and foremost, -very much about Looking Out for One's Self! Reliance on others, as you speak of, (and such *does* have its Advantages and Points, -some of which you mention), -can run directly Inconsistant and Counter to this! Going it Alone, "Every Person for Themself", -has many an Advantage and Point to it as well!

This being so, -I much Agree with the Spirit and Content, -which people like Tom so mention here. I'm a "give the Shirt Off my Back!", -to one without a shirt, -kind of guy. Very Warmly, Sincerely, and Gladly so! So long as I *have* a shirt to give! So long as I can feasably spare such. To cite the "Comfortably Up on the Mountaintop" example which someone in this thread has given, -I'd feel self consciously Not Right, -if I had, could give, but didn't give, -*to such Worthily Accepting (in Spirit and Manner) of Recipients* But (*...'s*) the Key Benchmark and Criterion here. If on the other hand, -they are a Covetous Mob down there in the Valley, -then Heck, -I wouldn't lose a moment's Sleep or Sweat! While I have it Good! / They Suffer to Heck, -down there! That is a Key Qualification that I would add to the "Fellow Man(kind)" / "We're all in this Together!", -view of you, Tom, and others. Even within a Group, -when it really gets down to some Pinches, -Guess who many group members are going to Look Out for first! Here it will largely to entirely NOT be the Larger Interests and Common Good of the Group!.....!

To your preference, -my Heart is Always There! My Head is or is Not,-depending on the overall Reception and Situation!

Its the Christmas Holiday Season now! Everyone's for the *Reformed* Scrooge Warmly, Sincerely, and Enthusiastically shouting out "Merry Christmas!", -on Christmas morning!

But what if the *Townsfolk* greeted him in the streets below, -with only a Cold, Blank Stare!? Being actually Scrooges themselves! Can even a Reformed Scrooge be here Blamed?!, -if he gets Second Thoughts of "Why do I Bother?!" And considers going back to his Old Self?! See, -the Townsfolk have got their Role and Part to play here too! its *not* all on Scrooge! If the Townsfolk of our Society want to Grab and Grub up all my Stores and Gear! And as much as be willing to kill me to get it, -then I have no Moral Compunction or Misgivings, -about sitting comfortably up on the Mountaintop, -while they suffer and all down below! I'd still *like* to Help! But they've got to play their requisite part in this too. [color:"black"] [/color] [email]Susan[/email]

Gotta agree with ya on that one.

Troy

Please forgive me if this assessment is inaccurate-

It seems that many see disaster scenarios as an excuse for an extended camping trip without the ground’s fees. Do some people see survival scenarios as a chance to run out and test out all their cool, new gear? Possibly a reason to say, "I told you so" while justifying future purchases of even more fancy schwag?

Can someone please describe a disaster scenario that has happened within the past 100 years where I wouldn't be better off (meaning more comfortable and able to contribute to society) at a distant friend's house rather than out camping?

Again, I am not trying to stir the coals but merely to learn and understand.

As you can see from my post above, I can't see one either.

It seems to me that people who think in terms of wilderness survival do not necessarily have the answers when it become a "survivalist" scenario.

The problem is getting to that friends house... <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Is it more difficult than getting to "the hills" or whatever destination is deemed remote enough to provide significant distance between you and said disaster?

In some cases, yes. Civilizes shelter and comfort is nearly always preferable to "hermitizing in the wilds". There are very few plausible scenarios where evading civilization at all costs makes any sense. A pandemic might be one case (the "Outbreak" scenario), invasion another (the "Red Dawn" scenario). Beyond that, and I would question the rationale.

Moving from one Metropolitan area to another, especially in the west, often means passing through wilderness, or at best rural expanses. If it is not possible to make the commute in a day, then you need to be prepared to overnight it or more without the luxuries civilized habitation affords.

The Discovery channel has been airing some interesting, though unlikely what-if scenarios about the Yellowstone Caldera, Tsunamis and such. Sitting and watching these ficticious programs (likened to Cruise's "War of the Worlds fantasy), I was constantly reminded of this forum, and the people who share space here on it with me. I guess we are all a little bit what-if freaks. I found myself analyzing the information, first for veracity, then to determine what countermeasures could be implemented to avoid calamity.

If things ever got bad enough that folks like us are left barely clinging to humanity, then I would hope that all our discussion and preparation makes a difference. I think it is a tonic for us to admit just how truly frail mankind is. It sure doesn't take much to push us over, despite all our intelligence and evolution, we are still more or less at the mercy of nature. Some relatively subtle, nearly indetectable event (in the big scheme of things) can still just about wipe us out.

I am still left wondering if we will ever advance our technology to the point where we can actually have a chance of preventing our demise (the "Armageddon" scenario).

Yeah... good point, the day after 9/11, there wasn't a plane in the sky... <img src="/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

I have to agree with Brangdon,
It would depend on the weather conditions, nature of the emergency...

Keep in mind that the Superdome was an aberation, not the "norm".
In my limited experience and observations based on news reports are that shelters are relatively safe.

Here on the Gulf Coast we've have evacuations from time to time due to hurricanes and I've never heard of any problems.
Hypothetically, knowing what I know now and had I been in New Orleans during Katrina I would've rather had been in the Dome then being one of the bloated bodies floating down the street or isolated and outnumbered by looters. As a nurse, maybe I could've done some good to someone in the dome.

Rescue/relief/medical attention is going to be targeted at the largest concentration of people.

If your out isolated on your own your vulnerable regardless of how well you're armed. There is safety in numbers as a general rule. (There are exceptions of course).

I personally prefer to shelter in place. After that I'd recommend having backup plans for your backup plans. (Where do we go if we can't get to the in-laws, etc...)

Right. I am all for being prepared to move through, and if necessary stay in, wilderness environments. I do not however believe they should be ones destination.

I would respectfully disagree with your statement that there's safety in numbers, especially since the vast majority in a public shelter will be unarmed civilians, but that's just my experience. The Superdome incident is by far not a unique situation. But more to the point, it is indicative of the nonsensical planning and implementation of government agencies whose purpose is supposed to be to keep us safe, but in reality is only there to spend our money. But for the noble, sacrificial, heroic acts of individuals, the whole thing was a bloody sham. That any more than a handful perished is a serious indictment of the gross failure and incompetence of the leadership we put in place to do precisely those things that weren't done.

So you see, going to a public shelter run by people who have a purely political agenda is just asking to become a statistic.

I guess it is all just a matter of perspective. I've grown accustomed to not relying on the government to take care of me that much. Of course, the first rule is "don't live in a place known to be susceptible to such a catastrophe. Kinda like the folks who lived downstream of Spirit Lake and decided to stay at their homes when St. Helens went off; what were they thinking? Harry Truman was no hero, he was a fool.

Ben-
Where can one live that is immune to disaster? I am guessing that this is VERY valuable real estate and would like to invest there!

I would say immune is nigh impossible, but when you know that a place is going to be overwhelmed, you've been told for years it is coming, and you neither prepare to shelter in place for the event, nor relocate in a suitable amount of time to avoid the disaster, then what does that say?

There are no absolutes, but there are places much more suitable than others. Ultimately, I suppose anyplace has it's risks. I am in Denver now, and there's a chance that this area could take an asteroid hit, or be covered in ash if the Yellowstone Caldera went off, or have some errant earthquake phenomena occur, or a terrorist attack. But the risks of such events here are not being predicted with such a great deal of alarm as was provided before Katrina hit.

Let's put it another way. Any sailor worth his salt puts to sea knowing that there's a certain inherent risk in the venture. Likely they will check the weather forecasts, talk to the Coast Guard, or at least check all the emergency gear they will take with them and make sure they are well prepared for the routine precautions. Now, people put to sea all the time, but what kind of individual is going to plan a trip out without checking at least the basics; or if having checked the weather report and hearing advisories that sailing might not be such a good idea, goes out into it anyways? Either this is a person who is prepared for just about anything, or it is a fool.

My wife works for USAA (familiar to some military/ex-military forumites) at their Phoenix location. Reportedly, the decision to construct a regional facility in the Phoenix-area vs. other considered locations was influenced in some measure by the infrequent occurrence of natural disasters of any significance, e.g. weather (no major flooding; few tornadoes; no hurriances); modest earthquake activity, last active volcano 12th century; wildfire hazard geographically distant, etc. All legitimate considerations for a business. Immune though? As said, no such thing.

Drought, OTOH, could be a problem one of these days. <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

One place that immediately comes to mind is a place on the edge of the ocean that is some feet below sea level.

Sue

You know If people dont like the way the U.S. is being run.. real estate in afganistan is REAL cheap these days!!! And there are flights leaving everyday........... Having said that.. I realize along with alot of people this country has some serious government problems.. but take a look at other places in the world right now.. our grass is as green as it gets... imho

Again, I am coming out against neither preparedness nor prudence. But ranking "don't live in a place known to be susceptible to such a catastrophe" as the "first rule" seems a bit high on the list. It seems we can maybe agree that being prepared should be the first rule.

I digress. Sorry.

Been there, done that, not an effective argument. Just because things are worse somewhere else doesn't excuse what is happening here. The implication is that we have to wait until the situation here gets that bad before we can complain, or otherwise seek improvement. That does seem a bit contradictory to the fundamentals this country was started on. There were plenty of folks who ranted about the way things were being done right from the beginning. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that ranting and protesting is what keeps us from becoming like Afganistan.

The grass here ain't all that green anymore. We'd better start working on fixing things, or we are going to end up a nation full of individual agendas. I don't like that idea one bit, but it is quickly becoming the only choice that makes sense.

I'd say the former is an integral part of the latter, but then I suppose I have that luxury. I have to admit, going to Baghdad severely limited my preparedness, and there wasn't that much I could acquire, fabricate, or otherwise produce that was gonna help me if things went sour there. About all I had to keep me out of trouble was my wits and my luck, which must've been enough, cuz I made it home in one piece. Being prepared is an all-encompassing grouping, which encompasses location, gear, mindset, training, etc.

Nope, the first rule is the mindset. If you don't start with that, none of the rest of it will do you much good. That's why my motto is "Chance favors the prepared mind". <img src="/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Very well said... ditto from this corner.

Troy

Tom, Very well said. I would like to nutshell what I have read. People are going to do what they plan to do. The "EDOTHWAWKI" survivalist will head for the far reaches. The "go to my car rental business" will do just that and everyone else will do what they know or think is right. So the question at hand is... WHO IS RIGHT?

I would say IMHO, that at the least have a plan, then have a back up plan. Then USE COMMON SENSE!

My personal plan is to head for the hills (a prearranged place that is out of the elements). Monitor what is happening (otherwise why would you have to bug-out?). When it is safe, return to help where I can. And if necessary - bug out again. It is not one life long decision. It is multiple decisions that are made to each and every circumstance that you are put into.

However - I will always be there to serve my fellow man. I have made a life of it and it is at the core of my make up. If I have to retreat and re-group in order to occomidate that, that is what I will do. EPI

Yep that's pretty much about the size of it. You stay informed, do what you can, and try and make good decisions. Cooperation is desirable, sacrifice sometimes inevitable, and dealing with the ignorance of others is nearly always unavoidable.

I think that by far, the greatest aid you can render others is pre-emptive. You enlighten their views, point them in the right direction, and hopefully they will be ready. It helps them become more responsible for their own existence, which I think all of us want. We all need the help of others sooner or later, but it is by far preferable to know that we first done all we could for ourselves. That's one trait that ought to distinguish us from our children and pets, neither of which are meant to be self-reliant.

You enlighten their views, point them in the right direction, and hopefully they will be ready. It helps them become more responsible for their own existence, which I think all of us want.

I am not sure that I agree that you can enlighten anybody, you can express your view and they may or may not agree with what you are saying. It has been my experience that most people learn by trial and error (theirs or someone elses) and sometimes to drive the point home a hearty "I told you so!" helps as well. The only other way to Enlighten them is to show them (ie: Katrina) and then say I told you so!

I noticed that you and I are roughly from the same neck of the woods. Our views and what we see as very realistic and "do-able" plans, are something that someone in a different region of the country, thinks is a fantasy. We have the options of being within 5 hours of each border and our choice of mountainous Elk Park or flat Ft. Morgan. Our options are as limited as our needs demand. I understand where some of our peers are coming from. EPI

Going back to the thread title, there seems to be a consensus that the public evacuation shelter is best avoided unless you don't think you can make it alone. The debate is mostly about the alternatives. A lot of us wouldn't head for "the hills", but we wouldn't go to the shelter either, unless we were old, ill, pregnant etc.

I recently had a chance to speak with a person who had been "relocated" from a shelter. He stated that the 72 hour emergency bag he had brought with him was confiscated at the shelter, “for the greater good", IE redistribution. I think I’ll depend on me/family and head for the hills.

Yep, sometimes you gotta go to extremes to get it to sink in, but so long as you can control the situation (more or less), just about anybody can be educated. The caveat I suppose is being willing, even if they are dumb as a box of rocks. If they want to learn, then you can always reiterate, re-emphasize, or what have you until they can demonstrate that they get the point. Hiking the fjords of British Columbia educated a certain 16 year old when they thought they knew all about the outdoors from the weekly excursions we'd make into the forest behind our house. It's one thing to be mucking about in the rain and at the end of the day go home and have some nice barley soup and a warm fire and bed, quite different to be sitting at the foot of a glacier with the rain going sideways and trying to find enough big rocks to hold the tent down with, in the dark, then eating cold grub out of a cold tin cup.

You do what you can. Sometimes it's enough.

Maybe I will include a copy of the US Constitution in my gear/supplies. That way, I can explain to the person trying to take my stuff "for the greater good" that a violation of the 4th and 14th amendments are wrong, that he probably took an oath to defend that same Constitution, and that a violation of my Constitutional Rights is a justification for use of force.

And, yes sir, it is loaded.

No one has of yet given a scenario where heading for the hills is a viable alternative. That is, when leaving a city for a national park or any other wilderness area is a better alternative than even a run down motel in the middle of anywhere.

Or is it that "heading for the hills" is a code word for Sis's or Bro's house? <img src="/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

I may be more fortunate than most. 3 years ago my brother in-law and I bought 10 acres in the hills and built a cabin. It is 50 miles away and about an hour door to door. The well is in and we have solar power. The septic system will be added this summer. So, given the choice, it will be the hills. Just remember, I will be there, first!

I agree. Many people seem to be assuming that they will be the only people in them thar hills. No one has mentioned what is likely to happen when half the people from any city ALL head for the same hills! Off the top of my head, here are a few problems you might be likely to encounter:

* Edible wildlife would take off or be killed.
* Many people would bring their pets, which would disappear just before dinner.
* Edible plants would disappear.
* Water supplies contaminated.
* Sewage like you've never seen before will be lying on top of the ground and within easy reach of the waterways. (Even month-old kittens are housetrained better than most humans.)
* People who brought stuff will be attacked by those who didn't, or who ran short.
* Those who have weapons will be using them.
* Dead bodies will be lying all over the place.
* If anyone has an infectious or communicable disease, it will spread.

Home looks better by the minute.

Sue

Hmm,

Actually heading for the hills, as you describe, would require a fundamental lifestyle change for nearly anyone. It would be tough goings, especially in the winter months. Assuming you don't have access to a pre-built fortification (like the cabins I would seek out), you are stuck with temporary accomodations and no sure source of food or water. While that is fun for a weekend and a nice challenge for a week or two, it is grueling for extended periods. Oft times it will require frequent relocation, and everybody's supplies run out eventually.

Things have to get pretty bad down in the valley before the prospect of hitting the trail sounds like a suitable alternative. Take the examples I cited earlier (pandemic, civil unrest, invasion) that would make me flee my home in the first place, and then multiply them so that any civilized location would pose significant risk(global pandemic, world collapse, world war, apocolypse), and that is about what it takes to make heading for the hills a truly viable choice.

Heading for the hills should mean leaving all civilized comfort and convenience behind, with only the stuff you can pack with you to live off of. I believe that was the original intent. It doesn't include heading for the vacation house or that convenient bed and breakfast chalet off the beaten path, it means roughing it, or it should in this context anyways.

Surely any shelter is going to reserve right of refusal. Whatever the constitution says, if you won't give up your gun they don't have to allow you in.

Generally speaking, in the USA only elected officials (the President, Governor, etc.) have the authority to declare a state of emergency, thereby suspending portions of the Constitution. The people running the shelter would not have that authority. But as a practical matter you are correct--if they don't want you in you are not getting in, and once in if they want your stuff they are going to get it. They may face legal sanctions later however.

Regards, Vince

That's pretty much how it works. Now if they come to my home and try to take it, well, we've covered that response before.

<img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

"It doesn't include heading for the vacation house or that convenient bed and breakfast chalet off the beaten path, it means roughing it, or it should in this context anyways."

Why? And why this context? Shelter is shelter, and the tighter against the elements, the better. I think most people could live better and longer in an 8'x12' rustic log cabin than under a tarp or in a hole in the ground.

The criteria here ISN'T how hard you can make it for yourself and your family!

Sue

Homer

I wonder if your scenario is actually "heading for the hills". FYI, this is our way of "bugging out" also: 5 acres in CO w/well and a small cabin.

Otherwise, even in a "Lucifer's Hammer" scenario, I wouldnt head for wilderness if I had a choice. <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

I dont see why. My gear includes short wave radio, kerosene heater, down comforter, MRE's from Long Life Foods, a battery powered TV, etcetera.

Even the dogs and cats get their favorite rations.

I never "rough it" if i can help it.

Could be. My family already has predetermined code words or phrases that tell members where the meet up point or final destination is. This is so messages can be left without telling everyone. It’s also so that certain family that are in positions that get advanced notice can warn rest of us without appearing to.
Technically we already live in the hills, but have alternates if staying home isn’t possible. One 5 acre plot we bought for back taxes about 1.5 hrs away. Sister and brother out of state.

I'm just trying to get a good definition for what the original post was saying. There's heading for the safe house, or the rendevous, or the home away from home, or whatever pre-prepared, more civilized long term shelter situation we can plan for. That's one case that is a possibility in certain scenarios.

Then there's the "ultimate catastrophe" or the "I can't get to anywhere I am going to be comfortable at" scenarios, where you can't maybe choose exactly where to head to, or are familiar with, or you got there only to find out it too was toast situation. What do you do if there's no cabin to get to, despite all your prior planning and investment. That, to me, is more indicative of a bonafide bugs bunny type "Head for the Hills" episode. You take only what you can pack and live off it for as long as possible, forget making to anywhere except away from immediate danger. That is how I was trying to define Head for the hills, the way I thought the originator meant it. Otherwise I am going to be reading my survival books by lamplight in front of a nice cozy woodstove with my dogs at my feet and my wife and kids in the kitchen or beside me.

Is this what we are "prepared" for on this forum? Is this what the OP (mntlvr) had in mind when this thread was started? If we are facing the apocalypse then I doubt the mentioned "evacuation center" would be in business. During the past world wars and global pandemics people, in general, did not head for the hills; and those that did were not really better off than those who stayed in town near a hospital.

That I will definitely agree with. If things get so bad that I gotta leave my home, then brothers and sisters, things are bad!!!

I don't think that is really what this forum is about. But when faced with two extreme choices, both of which are repugnant to me, I will tend to choose in favor of my own destiny as opposed to putting my trust and faith in any government run program. All these TEOTWAWKI and what if scenarios are good for is to get us thinking. Perhaps we have been over-emphasizing the value of that exercise (I blame the media, who espouse doom and gloom to boost ratings). It is prudent to stockpile, fortify, and educate, but not to excess. Burt Gummer is a bit of a fanatic, albeit a mythical hero to many. With all the toys the producers give him, I could afford to be a little eccentric as well.

Perhaps the best lesson we can extract from such activity as this thread has produced is just how fragile our delicate lives are, how much comfort we live in and take for granted day to day.

Agreed. I guess that is why we are all here anyway. To give ourselves a bit of reality check.

We should be cautious to ensure the pendulum doesn't swing too far the other direction. I am always amused by those who spend so much time and effort preparing for or preventing really unlikely events they don't have time to change the batteries in their smoke alarms. Or the people who don't wear seat belts for fear of getting trapped in their car under water.

I think it's interesting to look at the recent experiences from the hurricanes in the New Orleans situation. GIven that many of those who head to the public shelters are grossly unprepared in all respects or they wouldn't be there. And, secondly some of the things that happend in those same shelters, assaults, sexual and otherwise.........I will avoid public shelters as a last resort. But then again, I intend on not being unprepared in the first place, which is the true lesson to be taken from that unfortunate fiasco. JB