"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