|
|
Post by offtrail on Oct 5, 2013 9:17:00 GMT -7
Some people may think I can stay at home and just live off the land and still have the comforts of home. But even in the old days when people hunted to survive, they had to move with the game. Staying in one place is only temporary, game will become scarce and very weary. I don't think you can compare the caloric needs of an athlete and a person that is trying to survive 24/7. Every day you have to hunt or fish gather greens, nuts and seeds, this must be done at least 2 or 3 times a day. Gathering firewood for cooking and heating has to be replaced. Water when you can find it has to be carried to camp so it can be made safe to drink.If a person can stay at home with a garden and hunt for meat. That person will have a much better chance of long term survival. But if for some reason that person has to bug out to survive, you will at best be living on the edge. Still you must do all that is needed like building shelters, gathering firewood ,water even if you feel tired or sick the body still has it's needs and they must be met everyday. Once you become deficient in your calorie count it will be nearly impossible to catch up. lets not forget the weather and the role it can play when trying to survive. Lets hope we never have to survive long term in the wild but only long enough to find a safe place or a community to call home  Lets take a brief look at some sample of cities in the world for a common thread. I've been a lot of places in my life, and made notes about them all. To a fault, they all have something in common. *Aare River, Bern Switzerland. *Seine River Paris France. *Svislach River Minsk Belarus. *Mälaren Lake and Saltsjön Lake among many water sources in Stockholm Sweden (a review of Stockholm's history will reveal why cleaning water cleaning water is so important). *Moskva River Moscow Russia. *Dnieper River Kiev Ukraine. *Yenisei River, Norilsk Siberia (Northern most city of the world. Also #1 SH*Thole of the world in my estimation. If the heavy metals, chemical, and uranium tailing contamination doesn't get you, the cold and contaminated food will. How the people there survive is beyond me). *Nile River Cairo Egypt. *Berg River/Sonderend River Cape Town S. Africa. *Tapti River Surat India (point of interest, 89% of the worlds jewelry diamond supply is first cut in this city, if you have a rock on your finger, odds are, it started life in this city). *Yangtze River Wuhan China (China's de facto tech center). *Chao Phraya River Bangkok Thailand. *Parañaque, Pasig, Tangos Rivers, Laguna Bay Lake, Manila Philippines. *Ikuta River Kobe Japan *Chillón, Rímac and Lurín Rivers, Lima Peru. I could go on, but I believe that makes the point. Both humans and animals need fresh water to survive. There is a reason every major town and city in the world sprung up around sources of that. It has only been in the last 60 years or so that places have sprung up outside of water supplies due to industrial needs. Places like Punto Fijo Venezuela sprung up due to the oil in the area as an example. With water, typically the food and wood supply took care of itself in the early going of the city. Somebody had to be the first in each of the listed locations, and all others around the globe. Then it become several people, but still they had to forge the land around them. By that guys logic, there would never have been any major cities in the world, much less survival of humans as a whole. I understand what your saying and do agree that people have survived and conquered many hardships. Support I believe is the key to surviving in locations that lack the resources to sustain life. without that outside support you end up with a ghost town and a graveyard. Each time man has been knocked back to just a hand full of people, we have survived so far. But how many times can we start over and expect to survive, like all things in life sometimes you win and sometimes you loose but no one wins all the time.Back in the stone age the resources must have been just enough for them to survive and in some places to thrive. Do we still have those same resources today? The earth is a much different place today, resources that once were are no longer here. |
|
|
|
Post by Cwi555 on Oct 5, 2013 9:25:21 GMT -7
Yes, a few days, maybe even a couple months would be possible, but for longer term, hunting and gathering around here would just not suffice. Poachers already live in the area. The deer in the area would be gone (and mostly wasted, I'll wager) within 2 weeks, maybe sooner. A few folks know something about the plants in the area, but the park couldn't even support those of us who live near it, never mind the hordes in town. Hunters will not wipe out deer. The deer will simply withdraw to areas the hunters can't get to. We see it every hunting season, deer moving to areas they can get around in, but not the humans. Those deer know the woods better than any human. What will kill the deer and other wildlife, are the persons who do not plan for one of the simplest items in life, salt. When it hits them that they need it to survive, they will be out scavenging salt licks. This is not so much a problem on coastal areas, but inland areas. Historically, salt has been used for pay and trade in area's devoid of natural salt domes and not near any salt water areas. We have put back tons of it (literally), as if a eothwawki event occurs here, it won't take long before people start getting sick from lack of salt. It's cheap and plentiful now, it will not stay so in such an event. |
|
|
|
Post by mountainmark on Oct 5, 2013 10:53:04 GMT -7
The article seemed to presuppose a very specific scenario. 1. you are mobile 2. you have time to plan and pack 3. you must follow the laws for game. (seasons and bag limits, no homemade traps) As CL pointed out, there are simply too many variables to accurately and thoroughly come to a conclusion on this. I think it is possible to do. There is food everywhere. But, (as the article intimated) It will be harder than many people think. Especially if you lack the basic skills. Thanks for the post Geron. Definitely thought provoking and worth the debate. Mark If we are talking long term survival then I believe a person needs advanced skills. Basic skills would be fine for a person lost for a few days. Agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by mountainmark on Oct 5, 2013 10:55:23 GMT -7
Yes, a few days, maybe even a couple months would be possible, but for longer term, hunting and gathering around here would just not suffice. Poachers already live in the area. The deer in the area would be gone (and mostly wasted, I'll wager) within 2 weeks, maybe sooner. A few folks know something about the plants in the area, but the park couldn't even support those of us who live near it, never mind the hordes in town. Hunters will not wipe out deer. The deer will simply withdraw to areas the hunters can't get to. We see it every hunting season, deer moving to areas they can get around in, but not the humans. Those deer know the woods better than any human. What will kill the deer and other wildlife, are the persons who do not plan for one of the simplest items in life, salt. When it hits them that they need it to survive, they will be out scavenging salt licks. This is not so much a problem on coastal areas, but inland areas. Historically, salt has been used for pay and trade in area's devoid of natural salt domes and not near any salt water areas. We have put back tons of it (literally), as if a eothwawki event occurs here, it won't take long before people start getting sick from lack of salt. It's cheap and plentiful now, it will not stay so in such an event. Yep. Salt is a must, and one of the few things I lay back in large quantity. Great for preserving food post-refrigeration and hard to come by this far inland. One can only burn so much Coltsfoot! |
|
|
|
Post by angelhelp on Oct 5, 2013 11:44:53 GMT -7
Withdrawal of the deer to a hunter-inaccessible location? If the hunting restrictions are ignored, I really can't think of anywhere around here that's truly inaccessible, physically or otherwise. I understand the difference between withdrawal and disappearance from over-hunting. My point is that for the long term, it seems (to me) that this is not an area that would sustain many.
|
|
|
|
Post by woodyz on Oct 5, 2013 13:15:38 GMT -7
As Anglehelp pointed out one big factor is where you live. North/South/East/West, big city/suburban/country.
Another is the environment where you live, mountains/valley/plateau/desert/forest, spring/summer/fall/winter.
Hunting and foraging are different in each combination.
You need to know what is available to both hunt and find where you plan to be.
Lots of water/forest sources don't contain concentrated numbers of fish/animals, or the fish/animals may be concentrated in the body of water/forest at specific places during different times of day/season/weather. Some plants grow in specific areas, during specific seasons, if there is enough/not too much rain/sun/forage.
If fish/animals/forage are included in your diet you need to know that information now/before you need it.
I think preparing/survival is 1/3 knowledge/skills, 1/3 supplies and 1/3 physical/mental. You can have all of the supplies/equipment in the world but if you don't know how to use them you are screwed. You can be a walking encyclopedia but if you don't have the drive/want to or the physical abilities to use that information you are screwed.
Preparing is getting ready for who/you, what could/might/will happen, where you are/will be, when you are there and why you want to survive the situation.
Just my .02
|
|
|
|
Post by marc on Oct 5, 2013 17:04:11 GMT -7
It's already been said, but the bountiful resources that we see around us now will not be plentiful when a panic sets in. Idiots who have no idea, will kill edible game, cut a small piece of meat, then walk away - resulting in massive waste.
Look at a map of the US at night from space, and see how many millions of people are within "a half tank of gasoline" from you. I remember Ron talking about the safety of the North Woods...... which are waaaaay too close to millions of people who will think that they can make it.
No, they won't make it long term - but they will ruin your plans in the mean time. My point? A super duper remote place that is teaming with wildlife now, will not look the same when the cities empty out and come looking for food.
Tell me how "remote" your area is when "America hops in their cars and goes looking for food."
Just my 2 cents
|
|
|
|
Post by woodyz on Oct 5, 2013 18:33:07 GMT -7
I don't think 2/3rds of the population could even find and kill a deer or tree rat if it was climbing up their leg. And I sure suspect they won't know what to do with it if the do get lucky and kill something. So I suspect you are right they would leave behind most of their kill, but I think your wrong thinking they would present a serious threat to the population.
According to American Hunter Org the Nation wide average for a shot opportunity is 80% while the average kill rate is under 40%.
Most states never reach their suggested/desired goal of deer to be killed during a season. ie; 60,000 license kill 10,000 deer.
Yes some of it is failure to report a kill, just as some of the survey completers report kills they didn't make.
Instead, in my opinion, these 2/3 of the people will kill and waste cows/sheep/goats and other penned animals to depletion long before they hurt the wildlife population.
And, more than likely, 1/2 of that 2/3 will die off from improper food/water storage and prep before the penned animals go extinct.
Which reminds me, if it is a true SHTF or worse, please let the penned animals you run across loose, if they don't have adequate access to food and/or water. Then maybe they won't die of starvation or lack of water and the 2/3 in question won't have it as easy shooting something in a cage.
|
|
|
|
Post by offtrail on Oct 5, 2013 18:44:31 GMT -7
Many animals have been hunted to the brink of extinction and extinction. If it's happened in the past then it surly can happen today. Isolated pockets of animals will be the last to go, forage in situation like this will support few animals. Then you have the problem with gene diversity that could lead to unhealthy animals.
|
|
|
|
Post by offtrail on Oct 5, 2013 19:28:27 GMT -7
Yes, a few days, maybe even a couple months would be possible, but for longer term, hunting and gathering around here would just not suffice. Poachers already live in the area. The deer in the area would be gone (and mostly wasted, I'll wager) within 2 weeks, maybe sooner. A few folks know something about the plants in the area, but the park couldn't even support those of us who live near it, never mind the hordes in town. Hunters will not wipe out deer. The deer will simply withdraw to areas the hunters can't get to. We see it every hunting season, deer moving to areas they can get around in, but not the humans. Those deer know the woods better than any human. What will kill the deer and other wildlife, are the persons who do not plan for one of the simplest items in life, salt. When it hits them that they need it to survive, they will be out scavenging salt licks. This is not so much a problem on coastal areas, but inland areas. Historically, salt has been used for pay and trade in area's devoid of natural salt domes and not near any salt water areas. We have put back tons of it (literally), as if a eothwawki event occurs here, it won't take long before people start getting sick from lack of salt. It's cheap and plentiful now, it will not stay so in such an event. Deer that flee to isolated areas from hunting pressure have their own problems. One being over grazing an area to the point of killing their food source. If it weren't for hunting seasons that allow the deer to come out and graze new areas they would starve to death. Overgrazing by wild animals is very common , I see it every year. You know, deer and people are a lot alike, both if left unmanaged would eat everything to the point of extinction. Think i'm wrong look at the oceans and what has been done to the fishes. Miles of netting now days has the potential of wiping out whole species. Everyone will be out to get theirs and to hell with the future animal population. Is it possible to describe humans without using the word glutton? Sorry for getting off the subject  |
|
|
|
Post by woodyz on Oct 5, 2013 19:28:52 GMT -7
South Carolina has one of the most inbreed populations in the country.................. deer too. Compared to the average KY, IL, or OH deer these look like big dogs. We had the same problem in TX, people wanted a trophy and didn't shoot the inferior bucks, as a result the deer were inferior, again except in managed areas.
And yet I see some very large deer in SC, but all on managed property.
People won't kill the does or the inferior racked bucks, leading to the inferior population.
I have to agree it is possible some concentrated areas could face an extinction of wildlife, but overall it would take more then just the increase in hunters to do it. I lived to see the quail, rabbits, turkey and deer populations go down to next to nothing in KS, but it was land/crop mis-management and weather more then hunters.
I don't know, I may be wrong, but I have seen an amazing number of hunters claim to have never seen any game after I watched some practically rub the hunter on the leg. Others smoking and eating egg mcmuffins and vienna sausages while hunting and can't understand why the only deer they saw were ones too far away (over 50 yards) for them to kill. (while on the same land my 12 year old Daughter was killing every deer she shot at with one shot each up to 150 yards)(although I do remember a few times I had to wake her up and point out the deer so she could shoot it)
And those were the ones claiming to be hunters which is in that 1/3 not in the before mentioned 2/3 of non-hunters.
I guess someone will have to tell me how it came out.
I just had a thought I wanted to pass on, my son (who developed diabetes at 14) almost never see's a deer (sometimes even when I have taken him with me), I suspect it has something to do with his smell due to the diabetes, although I have run deer to him several times and found him asleep, I don't think he ever spent 10 minutes in a deer stand/blind without falling asleep. He was an original car baby for sure.
The fix to that is skunk scent (to the diabetes smell not the falling asleep) every time I fixed him up with some skunk scent he saw deer, but he hates the smell so bad he won't use it.
|
|
|
|
Post by offtrail on Oct 5, 2013 19:52:28 GMT -7
South Carolina has one of the most inbreed populations in the country.................. deer too. Compared to the average KY, IL, or OH deer these look like big dogs. We had the same problem in TX, people wanted a trophy and didn't shoot the inferior bucks, as a result the deer were inferior, again except in managed areas. And yet I see some very large deer in SC, but all on managed property. People won't kill the does or the inferior racked bucks, leading to the inferior population. I have to agree it is possible some concentrated areas could face an extinction of wildlife, but overall it would take more then just the increase in hunters to do it. I lived to see the quail, rabbits, turkey and deer populations go down to next to nothing in KS, but it was land/crop mis-management and weather more then hunters. I don't know, I may be wrong, but I have seen an amazing number of hunters claim to have never seen any game after I watched some practically rub the hunter on the leg. Others smoking and eating egg mcmuffins and vienna sausages while hunting and can't understand why the only deer they saw were ones too far away (over 50 yards) for them to kill. (while on the same land my 12 year old Daughter was killing every deer she shot at with one shot each up to 150 yards)(although I do remember a few times I had to wake her up and point out the deer so she could shoot it) And those were the ones claiming to be hunters which is in that 1/3 not in the before mentioned 2/3 of non-hunters. I guess someone will have to tell me how it came out. I just had a thought I wanted to pass on, my son (who developed diabetes at 14) almost never see's a deer (sometimes even when I have taken him with me), I suspect it has something to do with his smell due to the diabetes, although I have run deer to him several times and found him asleep, I don't think he ever spent 10 minutes in a deer stand/blind without falling asleep. He was an original car baby for sure. The fix to that is skunk scent (to the diabetes smell not the falling asleep) every time I fixed him up with some skunk scent he saw deer, but he hates the smell so bad he won't use it. Deer populations is kept in check by the available food.Without the big farms and miles of good graze they provide deer population will fall back to the day before the pioneers. If that be the case then the size of the deer will also be affected. |
|
|
|
Post by Cwi555 on Oct 5, 2013 21:18:30 GMT -7
I believe the subject is being taken to the extreme. However, there has been many post in this thread that point to the same conclusion albeit not in line with the article in the OP. That being the large concentrations of people. If you want an idea of how concentrated your area is, find it on this picture:  When you have picked out your area, localize and highlight your general surroundings.  The concentration of light noise is proportional to the concentration of people. The Atlanta area consist of 6.1 million people. Chattanooga has 350,000 people, with an additional 200,000 in surrounding counties of Tn. and Ga. Call it 550K. Nashville area is 1.6 million. Knoxville is 700K. Birmingham Alabama is 1.3 million. The obvious problem area is Atlanta. Between Chattanooga, Nashville, Knoxville, Birmingham there are approximately 4.2 million. The Atlanta area by itself is a 1/3 again larger than all off the surrounding cities/areas. If I lived within 75 miles of the center of Atlanta, I'd be real nervous. That is all just raw data. It does not take into account terrain, and other factors. One of those 'other' factors will be how many of that population end up killing each other off in the immediate aftermath, nor how many die from whatever event it was that kicked off TEOTWAWKI. One of the largest threats to anyone in the Atlanta area is the water supply. While there are bodies of water near Atlanta, they have been struggling to supply it's denizens. Not to many are thinking about that. If the pumps go down for their reservoirs, it won't take long for a whole lot of people to die. I place even odds on a water war in the area before a food war. Water is the Achilles heel for a city like Atlanta that has outgrown the ability of the local geography to supply it's denizens water. Assuming something along the lines of an EMP or other power killing event, I give a survival rate of one in ten for that 75 mile radius I spoke of. I also make at least half the travelers headed south and east instead of north. Inside that area the affected population ~doubles. That will leave 1.2 million people left when the dust settles and another 300K dieing off from disease and starvation in the first winter. All of which assuming long term event and no outside support. In short, just the water variable adds a whole new dimension to the equation. Our little area inside the triangle of CNK, will suffer approximately a ~60% fatality rate in the first 6 months (again assuming no outside intervention and no end to the cause). Water is plentiful in the area assuming a person knows how to clean it. Centered around our BOL for a 75 mile radius that will leave a net population of in the same range as the Atlanta area survivors. In the next 6 months, the population in that same radius will outnumber that of the survivors of Atlanta area. From a geographic/terrain standpoint, that will leave a population density for the same area in the neighborhood of what it was just prior to the civil war. Looking at the big picture, the animal population will be the least of the concerns. |
|
|
|
Post by offtrail on Oct 5, 2013 22:01:51 GMT -7
Very true cwi555 the most pressing issues at first will be water then food. Depending on the time of year shelter will also be an issue, staying warm or staying cool. I did for sure get off the subject but it's so easy to do |
|
