I was kind of surprised....

Since Martin closed the Ramboism thread before I got home from work, I had to start a new thread just to say something.

I was surprised (well, really rather shocked) at the rather spiteful attack on DOGSOFWAR.

Excuse me? You didn't get his point? Why on earth NOT??? Was it because it didn't fit in with your little fantasies?

I've been on this board for several years now, and have read a lot of posts with both wonder, snickers and total disbelief. While many of the people here are truly interested in wanting to be able to deal with unexpected situations, for others it appears to be a continuation of Dungeons & Dragons.

And then here comes a guy who tries to point out something that seems to have escaped the notice of some members: that long-term bugging out (or anything similar) is a real PITA.

We constantly have people here talking about literal bugging out and living off the land. And if you don't mind my saying so (but I know you will), that's just a bunch of crap. Really. Oh, you might be able to do it for a couple of weeks, tops, but that's it. This isn't the Old West of the 1850s. Some people can't get past the fact that right this very minute, there are 303,283,474 people in the U.S. OVER THREE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE.

Let's do a little basic math: We've got 300 million people (as a round number), and the whole country goes to Hades. We've got about 9 million acres covered by the National Wilderness Preservation System, and most of the rest is in private ownership. If we assume that half of our population kills the other half and cuts the numbers down to 150 million, that's 16 people hunkered down in every wilderness acre.

Do you see any flaws here, yet?

Now let's talk about water for a long-term problem. How much drinking water can you carry? Plan on bathing? Washing dishes? Exactly how much AquaPure do you have? Enough for a family of four for five years? If you've planted a garden for food, how do you water it if Mother Nature doesn't oblige with an inch a week at regular intervals?

And of course, there's the food problem. Most of our food is grown in certain places with subsidized water (AZ, CA, etc), subsidized operating money, and then shipped long distances. No one in that chain is going to be working for free. No fuel? No food! So, how much food are you taking with you, to share with the other 15 people on your wilderness acre?

And then there's the fuel problem. There aren't endless sources of gasoline, diesl, natural gas, propane, Coleman fuel or charcoal briquets. One-half million pioneers decimated a swath of wood sources in just a few years. And we won't have the luxury of dry buffalo patties for fuel.

Medical care evaporates. Of course, that will cut down the 15 people per acre somewhat. We'll lose all the diabetics within two weeks, all the people with transplanted parts, all the people dependent on continuous medication, and most of the victims of violence due to current conditions. And naturally, waste management will be practically non-existent, and dysentery alone will cut down on some numbers. How much Immodium are you carrying?

If the SHTF on any kind of major level, the lifestyle of America will make a rapid drop to the days of Cro Magnon man, but without the knowledge they had.

DOGSOFWAR knew what he was talking about. Maybe you should have been paying closer attention.

Sorry, Martin, but I had to say it or I was going to explode with wrath. Now you can delete it.

Sue

All very good points:

A nuclear war is the only circumstance that could destroy US civilisation. IF anyone does thinks they can simply go into the woods and become Daniel Boone they are going to find it's not as easy as they think. No one has ever even included a geiger counter in their kit list, so they are obviously not thinking it through. Knowing when you have to leave an area because it's too hot would be the first priority I'd think.

BUT this is NOT a survivalist site. As you summed up so well it's for those "wanting to be able to deal with unexpected situations".
I'm a backpacker. I read this site for tips on how to go safely into dangerous places. Most of the kits here talk about getting by for a few weeks at most. Being able to last till you are rescued afer getting lost, or camp out rather than stay in say post Katrina New Orleans sounds sensible enough. Where are the lists with geiger counters? They are not there because this site isn't for those people.

simon

When I read the original post my first thought, "where's this coming from?", but his sentiments echoed mine so I let it go. I saw nothing on which to comment, just a guy voicing his position. Now I've read the rest of the thread, I must apologize for not jumping in and saying something. I don't think we have any Rambo wannabe's here, at least among the regulars and as has been said, "This is not a survivalist web site". So while I really don't know DOGSOFWAR's motivation for his post, it doesn't matter because in large part I agree.

Not on this forum, but I've read posts on other sites that described a 100# BOB and discussed the idea of heading for the hills to wait out Armageddon living off the land -- those thoughts are out there. Armageddon is going to last a long time and I'd much rather meet it at home. If I ever get lost in the woods I'd love to trade my 15# Camelbak for a 100# backpack with all the goodies, but I'm not going to carry it -- I'll endeavor to not get lost.

My Bug-Out kit is my truck and the goodies stored there. If I can't drive, I'm not leaving. For wildfires I'll hit the road, drive out of the path and hopefully come back in a few days; for Armageddon and Zombies, I'll just stay home so I don't have to hump all the anti-zombie toys

The only thing I'll be carrying is my 15# get-home-bag which is set up to assist in a long walk home from work. I'm in SOCAL, attempting to bug-out for a large scale (all of SOCAL) event is most likely going to put me onto an I-5, I-8 or I-15 parking lot; the smaller roads get packed too. I came to the conclusion quite a while ago that bugging-in is a much better option.

Assuming DOGSOFWAR was as his handle implies and he has come to the conclusion that the creature comforts of home beat living off the land every day, then it seems we agree. It's nice to get out every now and then just to be reminded that camping is for short trips, not extended stays.

Maybe it's because he's a "stranger"/new guy and we just don't know where he's coming from.
--------------------------
Sometimes if you don't have anything good to say, it's best to say nothing, even on the internet.

Susan you and Martin are correct I have PM'ed an apology to DOGSOFWAR and will make it public if he so requests. Also my apologies to everyone else that was offended.

Dogsofwar certainly has a point - living in the rough can be rough and we prefer to not live in the rough.

That apology says alot about your character, Ray, but I saw nothing in your post that warranted it. ....but, that's just me.

I have always said that the idea of long term survival is outside most of our abilities to cope. That was what I said when the original discussion about a long term survival forum took place.
Now, one small flaw in your math Susan, there probably is 300 million people and 9 million acres of designated wilderness areas. However, if everyone was in a dire situation, the concept of private lands means little, so there will be more than 9 million acres to live on. The problem will be defending one's space from people that want your piece of the pie.
While I do beleive someone can survive for years and even decades in the right circumstances, it is not likely an entire population can survive very long when faced with enough adversity and potential hostility.

I personally did not care for Dogsofwar's post. Not that I disagree with him at all, but by posting his experiences he may enlighten some of the Walter Mitty/Rambo types.

In the footsteps of Gunkid, I personally look on those people as a source of supplies, to be looted from their dumbfounded corpses when they realize that living off the land is a hard-learned skill. And that even those with the necessary experience and fortitude can die of hunger and exposure.

To Dogsofwar, I say thanks a lot. Now I have to up my preps.

Yeah I totally agree that Dogsofwar got a raw deal.I feel bad for the guy, He didn't deserve that kinda response. He made some very valid points in his post. Sure it was a bit on the ramblin' side, but we all can't be Shakespeare. I for one wasn't surprised though, some old-timers here seem to get annoyed with so-called "newbies" asking questions that have been asked & answered before. There are some guys/gals here with some real attitude problems as well. I come on here because I've become addicted to checking in several times a day. But these new guys come here because they want to learn from people that have been into preparedness longer than they have. A lot of them get scared off by some of the more aggressive members here. I also apalogise to Dogsofwar, & thank him for his service.

While I was somewhat offput by the tenor of the original post, as it seemded to be somewhat off kilter from the normal threads here, the author raises some valid points about long term survivability. But I don't spend too much time worrying about EOTW scenarios. My own intent in preparing is to allow me to get home and wait out some limited time emergency.

If a truly national calamity hits this country our survival will depend on us working together, probably in small communities, fending for our towns and neighborhoods, making use of each others talents and skills. It simply takes too much energy for individuals to survive by themselves.

Those who think they'll make do by hunkering down and protecting their turf, in my opinion (and I respect that each person has a right to live in the manner they choose) is shortsighted and selfish. Pooling resources, skills, tools, supplies and extolling the values of community, rule of law and fairplay would provide the best chance for the us and the nation to renew and rebuild.

What I would hope is that folks who frequent this forum would be in the forefront of helping others to prepare, pass on their skills and be ready to serve as leaders. My personal challenge is to live up to my own rhetoric (as I stumble in my haste to get off the soapbox).

kudo

I am always amused when "old timers" on any forum consider a "newbie" a rookie or greenhorn. This is a general comment on all forums, although it applies to this forum as well.

That rookie you're talking to is only a rookie because he or she hasn't spent as much time at the keyboard as you. He or she could very well be someone with more experience then most of the rest of us put together, you just don't know.

I suspect most who envision "hunkering down and protecting their turf" have exactly the pooling resources [with like-minded neighbors] plan you mention in mind. Give them credit for not being short-sighted or selfish. Even those that might think they can or would survive "all alone", would most likely end up doing just as you suggest as being the optimum plan for survival.

I am no fan of bugging out. I have nothing whatsoever against Newguys (heck, I was one once). I was just a little confused by the prose of the post. Nothing against DOGSOFWAR personally...

Hi Susan,



Why on earth NOT??

Well simply because DOGSOFWAR's initial post under Ramboism had quite a bit of clever reverse physcology straight off, from the begining, accusing others of being stuck in a Ramboism mentalility, while DOGSOFWAR himself was heavily hinting that he himself was no heroic figure, no John Rambo. But read between the lines and you could well be hearing the fictional disillusioned John Rambo in his retirement home with his feet up in front of the fire.

The post had some unusual remarks,





Is that Cammando (wearing clothes but lacking underwear...) or Commando





Sorry, but Snipers in the woods and grizzly bear attacks in the night aren't really at the top of the concerning issues about surviving in the wilderness.

I'm afraid I just don't really buy it.


Best bit of the movie.

Re-reading this again I think we've all been on the wrong track. He never even mentions living off the land. He thinks opting to head out of town is macho ramboism and necessarily entails endless suffering.
Anyone who's ever camped knows this is not true. Chosing to stay on your rooftop in New Orleans, or Tabasco, or in the path of a California forest fire, won't mean you'll be comfortably sipping wine by your fire, And leaving, then camping out if you can't find accomodation, doesn't mean you'll be shot by a sniper (huh? why would a sniper be after you?) or lugging gallons of petrol for fires (he thinks there is no wood in the forests).
To accuse anyone who points out he's talking nonsense of introducing aggression, is to ignore the whole spirit of his mail, it's a bitter hate-filled diatribe against people who's views he's invented.
His whole mail makes no sense. What was all that about endless courses? or cleaning a rifle for no reason? What does that have to do with being ready to leave and not have to rely on the kindness of strangers.
As has been pointed out it's all projection of his own mind onto others. "I'm no rambo but call myself 'Dogs of Wars...'.
simon

I don't think I said anything wrong, but if I did I'm sorry. Like a few of the posts already point out, the post he made had nothing to do with anything. If it did don't you think it would have went in the right direction instead of south? Just my take on it.

That was my reaction as well, and the reason why I asked him to try to clarify what he was trying to say. There was a signal in there, but it was getting lost in the noise.

Yeah he's trying to pin his grudge against the military on us.
simon