# Hunting realization during long term SHTF



## Usingmyrights (Jan 10, 2011)

I was thinking this morning that hunting during a long term situation my be different than we realize. I'm guessing that between what the average family has food wise at home and running to the store for a last minute trip that most families could go a week or two before having to really worry about getting more meat. Now in a true long term situation (a month or longer) we know that gas is going to be nonexistent or hard to come by and rationed. Most Americans now don't want to walk any distance, so a lot of them will probably still drive for short walking distance trips. Now to the hunting part. It seems to me that the masses that are going to "clean the woods out" are going to have a hard time getting there, not to mention getting back with anything. Unless the family decides to bug out I don't really see them hunting much. The same problem goes for us though. Even if we stored extra gas, can we really spare it to run to he woods on a maybe? If we stay for a few days to make sure we got something, then that's time that could have been spent working the garden, securing more needed items around the home, etc. Obviously this wouldnt apply to those that live close enough to a deer population to see them on a regular bases close to home, but for a lot of people this is not the case. Thoughts anyone?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I can shoot a deer daily until they're cleaned out as you put it. In a rural area without power, I doubt the people are going to clean the area out. The wildlife population will take a hit over time. People hunt the lease next door. They'll do the typical hunter thing and set all day long. I can go out certain times of the day and know I'll get a deer in a short period of time.

I don't do that. But I could. I think you're correct in rethinking your long term strategy. The people that live in or very close to the area you're considering, will have a big advantage. I don't need to travel. I can just walk out the door and maybe a quarter of a mile at most. Most times, I could shoot them in the yard and butcher them in the pole barn.


----------



## ksfarmer (Apr 28, 2007)

Where I live, I can likely get a deer from my back porch while sitting in a chair drinking a beverage, and rabbits and small game could be caught by snares or traps within 100 yds of the house. However, I do agree with you, the average person does not have this access to a meat supply. The thing that worries me is how long this plentiful supply will last when the people in the town start spreading over the country side. There will be clashes among hunters on who has the right to be in an area. And, a lot of them are going to start realizing that my cattle look a lot more accessable than deer dashing through the woods.


----------



## Usingmyrights (Jan 10, 2011)

Ks, that's what I mean though. Are the townsfolk really that much of a threat. Is there going to be fuel available for them to even make it to the country to hunt? Again, I'm not referring to those who are already rural. I am as well, and while it sounds like I'm not quite as rural as you guys, I do see deer in the yard from time to time and on a regular basis within a short walk from the house. I guess what I'm getting at is that people usually fit into one of two boats. Either the I'll just hunt for food boat or the all of the townsfolk are going to wipe out out the game boat. In my mind, unless your already rural, don't count on hunting. If you are rural remember that in a major situation that the townsfolk may not even be able to get to your area in any decent numbers.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

People will have to change their ways, many here are just hunting for the kill and to show off by driving around for 3 days with it in the back of the truck. I go to the woods and come back with it all ready to freeze or jerk. I can carry all of a dressed dear, wrapped in the hide, in ziplock bags. 3 trips for an elk. The rest cached until I get back. When I was a kid, I roamed the woods, fishing and hunting small game. I had it stashed for the return trip, fish jerky, deer, rabbit, squirel all cached away. Sometimes I was in the woods for 3 weeks at a time. People don't know how to really take care of meat for longer periods, so much waste....James


----------



## Steve L. (Feb 23, 2004)

Usingmyrights said:


> Ks, that's what I mean though. Are the townsfolk really that much of a threat. Is there going to be fuel available for them to even make it to the country to hunt? Again, I'm not referring to those who are already rural. I am as well, and while it sounds like I'm not quite as rural as you guys, I do see deer in the yard from time to time and on a regular basis within a short walk from the house. I guess what I'm getting at is that people usually fit into one of two boats. Either the I'll just hunt for food boat or the all of the townsfolk are going to wipe out out the game boat. In my mind, unless your already rural, don't count on hunting. If you are rural remember that in a major situation that the townsfolk may not even be able to get to your area in any decent numbers.


I live in a 'rural' area, where I can (and do) hunt in my own back yard. But it's also within a 1.5 hour's drive of around 400,000 people. That's less than a 3 day walk. About a fourth of they could get here in a day's walk, so yes, they are a 'threat'.

Heck, Coeur d'Alene, ID is only one tank of gas from Seattle (pop. 610,000)! There are probably close to 1,000,000 people that could make it there on one tank of gas.


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

jwal10 said:


> People will have to change their ways, many here are just hunting for the kill and to show off by driving around for 3 days with it in the back of the truck. I go to the woods and come back with it all ready to freeze or jerk. I can carry all of a dressed dear, wrapped in the hide, in ziplock bags. 3 trips for an elk. The rest cached until I get back. When I was a kid, I roamed the woods, fishing and hunting small game. I had it stashed for the return trip, fish jerky, deer, rabbit, squirel all cached away. Sometimes I was in the woods for 3 weeks at a time. People don't know how to really take care of meat for longer periods, so much waste....James


Hey James, could you please elaborate.. I think it pertains to the general idea of this thread.
How to trek over a few days, and not lose your bounty.
For example- 
If you've snared some rabbit and/or squirrel, got a deer with you bow, a wild boar, and caught a good basketful of fish.

Geez, just typing that seems exciting! :happy2:
Put it in any order, over 3 days, or whatever you imagine, and tell us how you "stash" your items. 
Clean, skin, butcher, in what order and in what stage would you be able to leave for a couple days. In a hole, in a tree, in the creek.. ?? 

I'm dying to know this. I can't believe this question has not really crossed my mind until now.


----------



## mamaof3peas (Oct 8, 2009)

james, how would you do that? we are very interested in this area


----------



## Usingmyrights (Jan 10, 2011)

How many are honestly going to leave what they know and try to make it in the wild though. They have to have a place to live. If it's bad enough that people are leaving the cities to go huntomg just to survive, I'm thinking that gas is going to be just as hard to come by as food. To people who enjoy the outdoors and hiking, a 3 day walk might not be too bad, to those that sit in an office all day it could really shut them down. It's not like they can just walk and get all of the help they need along the way and once they get to where theyre going. They're going to have to pack their gear the whole way. A three day walk unloaded is alot different than a 3 day walk carrying abunch of weight.


----------



## ovsfarm (Jan 14, 2003)

To hear the old timers tell it, in my rural area, with a fairly low population now and even less back in the 1920's and 30's, white tailed deer were nearly wiped out - just by the local hunting pressure. A lot of people got desperate, greedy, or were just born stupid and went out and shot anything they could with no mind toward herd management for the future. One old neighbor told me that back in his father's day, it was considered a stroke of extreme good luck to even see a deer around here, let alone get a shot at one.

That's one of the reasons I get irritated when some local yahoo today starts shooting their mouth off about how bad the state dept of wildlife is and how those so and so's shouldn't be telling him when he can shoot or how much he can take. It's idiots like that that nearly drove a major food source to extinction. And to give credit where credit is due, it was the government (yes, folks, the dreaded government) that actually protected the deer and did whatever it took to bring them back in abundant numbers.

The old guys have told me that back then, the best way to have meat available for your family was to raise chickens or rabbits and to keep them under lock and key and a vigilant eye. That there were plenty of varmints - 2 and 4 legged - that would raid your hen house or rabbitry if you turned your back. They flat out told me not to expect the local wild game to last for very long if the SHTF again.

This situation was during a time when gas powered vehicles were not widespread in this area, so cars weren't an easy way for the townspeople to travel out to here. Somehow the locals made do with nothing more than horses or their own 2 feet to transport them and their game.


----------



## MichaelK! (Oct 22, 2010)

ovsfarm said:


> To hear the old timers tell it, in my rural area, with a fairly low population now and even less back in the 1920's and 30's, white tailed deer were nearly wiped out - just by the local hunting pressure. A lot of people got desperate, greedy, or were just born stupid and went out and shot anything they could with no mind toward herd management for the future.


History people, history! It's a lot better looking at what actually happened in the past, than sitting in your comfortable chair predicting the future. It's common knowledge that deer and other game species more or less went almost exstinct during the Great Depression, so what makes you think it's not going to happen again? You'd better be prepare to supply 100% of your food needs during a SHTF, otherwise you're likely to go without.


----------



## Usingmyrights (Jan 10, 2011)

I am considering history. People in the 20s and 30s were used to walking everywhere. People today aren't. They also as a whole lack the skill and work ethic that people 80-90 years ago had. Take 10 guys at random from the city, give them a gun and drop them off in the wo ods and half probably wouldn't even know where to start. A few might get a shot and a couple might hit one. Maybe one will get a good hit and harvest a deer. The average guy today is demascalated and lacks the skill and desire to put in the work to harvest a deer. Population may take a hit, but as numbers go Dow the few guys that got lucky will likely move on to easier means.


----------



## Cyngbaeld (May 20, 2004)

I'll probably sing this song till I die (at a good old age, hopefully); get a couple of goats. You can survive well on goat milk, bread and garden truck. My goats produce on not much more than what grows naturally here. I could grow enough corn to take care of that part of their diets. They only get grained when milking to keep them happy about coming to the milk shed and standing for me. Excess milk can keep a few hens fed along with a little grain and even raise some hen hatched chicks for meat.
Forget hunting, get some goats.


----------



## Trisha in WA (Sep 28, 2005)

I think you are underestimating the power of hunger. People will walk. They'll be slow, but they won't just sit on their couches and die because they don't have any fuel for their cars. They might not hunt though...they might try to steal what they need, especially if they don't know how to hunt.


----------



## Usingmyrights (Jan 10, 2011)

What Im not doing is overestimating people's ability. Walking 3 days on an empty stomach is hard even for those accustomed to the outdoors. Desire does not mean ability. As I mentioned, even once in the woods, I think that the most will come up empty.


----------



## PistolPackinMom (Oct 20, 2012)

Trisha in WA said:


> I think you are underestimating the power of hunger. People will walk. They'll be slow, but they won't just sit on their couches and die because they don't have any fuel for their cars. They might not hunt though...they might try to steal what they need, especially if they don't know how to hunt.





Usingmyrights said:


> What Im not doing is overestimating people's ability. Walking 3 days on an empty stomach is hard even for those accustomed to the outdoors. Desire does not mean ability. As I mentioned, even once in the woods, I think that the most will come up empty.


I think you are both right, and by that I mean, there is going to be more than just one or two types of people in this scenario. There will be the survivors and the non survivors, and then there will be all the ones that fall in between.


----------



## cvk (Oct 30, 2006)

Let's get realistic. There are more hunters living in the city than there are hunters living rurally. Some of the most avid and successful hunters I have ever known lived in apartments! Not to mention they are not braindead. They have enough sense to carpool. Many go out into the wilderness for their vacations for weeks on end. Just because people live in town do not under estimate what they will and can do. In a sustained situtation there wouldn't be anything that moves that wouldn't get shot and eaten or netted or caught on a hook and line.


----------



## Usingmyrights (Jan 10, 2011)

I realize that there's very capable people living in the cities, but I think it's safe to say that the numbers are probably less than 5% that have the knowledge, skill, means, etc to exit the city, travel multiple days and harvest an animal.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

There are many areas still, so secluded, so secret, that are way too far from population centers to reach. And there is more to life than little deer. There are grouse, moose, elk, bears, fish, wild fowl. 

I think I am so fortunate to be in one of these areas. If you folks are truly concerned about wiping out the wildlife population, a move should be a serious consideration. Move where it is cold. Move where roads are scarce. Move where the nearest traffic light is 100 miles away. Then you can be assured of long term survival.

I agree, deer where that is basically all there is to take as far as wild game, near population centers, will take a beating, but out in the true sticks, where few will venture, and less will choose to live, life will go on.


----------



## K.B. (Sep 7, 2012)

As with most things, it will likely be different in different places. It is very hard to generalize across the various habitats and population density environments across the US. I've lived in Michigan, Colorado, Illinois, North Carolina and now Oregon. The prevalence and access to game was very different in each of those places. The white-tail in Michigan and black-tail here in Oregon are practically thick enough to hit with a stick... The other places required a lot more looking.

Also, the fast vs slow crash scenarios will all play a role in how much change in habitat occurs in farming/suburban areas. Plenty of variability to go around. 

For my situation, I'm pretty confident that the deer that range across my acreage and the sq miles of federal land around me will make it through the coming troubles. I'm making a point to improve their access to water and browse.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Usingmyrights said:


> I am considering history. People in the 20s and 30s were used to walking everywhere. People today aren't. They also as a whole lack the skill and work ethic that people 80-90 years ago had. Take 10 guys at random from the city, give them a gun and drop them off in the wo ods and half probably wouldn't even know where to start. A few might get a shot and a couple might hit one. Maybe one will get a good hit and harvest a deer. The average guy today is demascalated and lacks the skill and desire to put in the work to harvest a deer. Population may take a hit, but as numbers go Dow the few guys that got lucky will likely move on to easier means.


There are WAY more people now as well. I think its more likely people start hunting eachother then it is that we could have a deep collapse and not decimate the wild populations as happened in the depression.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The white-tail in Michigan and black-tail here in Oregon are practically thick enough to hit with a stick... The other places required a lot more looking.


The deer *populations* here are just as high.
It's the terrain that's more challenging.

It's easy to *see *deer in a hardwood forest vs a bottomland SWAMP


----------



## ovsfarm (Jan 14, 2003)

K.B. said:


> As with most things, it will likely be different in different places. It is very hard to generalize across the various habitats and population density environments across the US. I've lived in Michigan, Colorado, Illinois, North Carolina and now Oregon. The prevalence and access to game was very different in each of those places. The white-tail in Michigan and black-tail here in Oregon are practically thick enough to hit with a stick... The other places required a lot more looking.
> 
> Also, the fast vs slow crash scenarios will all play a role in how much change in habitat occurs in farming/suburban areas. Plenty of variability to go around.
> 
> For my situation, I'm pretty confident that the deer that range across my acreage and the sq miles of federal land around me will make it through the coming troubles. I'm making a point to improve their access to water and browse.


I thought that about my area also, until I started talking to the old guys. Although deer are thick around here now, and were pretty thick back in the early 1900's, but by around 1932 they were seriously dwindling. By 1935, the guys said they were very scarce. By 38 or 39, there were almost none to be found.

Our area borders on tens of thousands of acres of national forest land. I'm not sure when the federal govt acquired that land, but before then it was mostly several hundred acre sized farms.

These days the deer population is so large that they have become a nuisance animal. They destroy gardens, decimate cars, and lately have been crashing through sliding glass doors and rampaging around inside people's houses with alarming frequency. In my immediate area, there is about 400 acres with 4 houses adjacent to about 7000 acres of totally undeveloped national forest, so the deer don't have to interact with us, they just choose to do so. They are pests. (But very yummy pests with a nice brown gravy and noodles!)

My point is that I originally had big plans for my post SHTF meat supply to come from wild game. But the locals who had lived during the Depression let me know that availability of game is not a given so I had to rethink my plan. I certainly intend to harvest wild game as needed in a wise manner for as long as it is there. But I also have a Plan B since it seems that it is quite possible that it wouldn't be there for as long as I had hoped.


----------



## KMA1 (Dec 9, 2006)

Interesting Thread. Yes I do believe that wildlife, particularly deer and turkey populations will be drasticly reduced in a very few years. It has happened in much of the United States before in the absence of game law enforcement. But it will not be primarily the city people, large or small doing it, at least in most of the east and south. We, the people that live in the rural areas are perfectly capable of doing it on our own. See, once the stores close, most rural residents will go hunting for meat and will take it it any opportunity and as much as possible. Face it, most of us are not vegetarians. I hear a lot of people talk about migrating out to the country and living off the land. That might be possible for a very small percentage of people in western states because of the shear amount of Public Lands. However, over most of the country, there is not that much currently unoccupied land. Despite what you see in movies about people escaping to the safety of the country where they can walk out and land is there for the taking, its not. Most rural land owners, like myself, would not take kindly to someone showing up to set up camp in my farm buildings or hunting in my woods. Heck, that will be a problem even in rural areas, cause most hobby farmers or city folks who got out of town think they live rural with 1 to 5 acres. They are mostly just as dependent on the grocery store as people in the city, except they may only shop weekly. They don't grow enough to live on, and will not eat their pet horse. But will be a problem for larger land owners when they can't kill a deer in their 1-2-3 4 acre pasture lot. I think most people migrating out will have only what they can carry on foot and will be begging, or stealing when hard hunger hits, and ready to take anything they can from anyone who is weaker. That is what hunger does.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Here's a picture from last year but "Buck" - this same buck - was just in my backyard. I live in suburban Long Island with 1 acre lots of land per home.


----------



## bassmaster17327 (Apr 6, 2011)

I thinck it would be hard to kill a big game animal after the first year. Monday was opening day of our deer rifle season, from 7am to 10am I heard 37 gun shots, most were single shots so that probable was hit. Some people will kill just because they can even if they do not need the meat or have a way to store it,


----------



## wy_white_wolf (Oct 14, 2004)

My Great Grandfather told me a few stories about hunting during the Great Depression. Seems quite a few truckloads of people would show up in Sunlight Basin on opening day armed with nothing more then an elk tag. One or 2 in the truck might have a knife to cut and skin an animal. They would all hide in the woods waiting for a hunter, any hunter, to shoot an elk and then the race was on. First one to stick a tag on the animal had the rights to it according to Game & Fish. Everyone in the truck would get a share in animals they managed to tag.

The herds in Sunlight and other areas were all but wiped out during the GD.

WWW


----------



## willbuck1 (Apr 4, 2010)

There more people in most rural areas than there were during the depression with less other food sources. They aren't farming. They will hunt out the deer population in weeks not months and definitely not years. Where I grew up I never saw a deer until the late 70's now you trip over them there. With no fridges people will be taking at least a deer a week if they can find it and more during the warm seasons. If I were in a big city and my children were starving would I walk 3 days to try for meat? Try stopping me. 

If you count on wild game for food you are taking a very big gamble on your and your families life. Maybe in some parts of the west but even there the elk and deer took a big hit back then.


----------



## Usingmyrights (Jan 10, 2011)

Walking three days sounds nice, but if youre starving yourself how do you plan on having the energy to make that trek? How do you plan on getting the meat back before it goes bad? Some cityfolk will make the trip and be successful. Most wont.


----------



## Malamute (Sep 15, 2011)

There are many that assume that folks from towns aren't going to make it very far. I see "how many..." and "the average....", but as was mentioned, there are a lot of not average folks in towns. Walking and driving aren't the only ways to get around either. First thing that came to my mind about covering any distacne if fuel was hard to get was a bicycle. Bike riders can easliy cover much longer distances than non-riders can even start to believe. 100 miles or more isn't a big deal. I think it's a mistake to underestimate anyone, or their determination or abilty to acheive goals they have, like getting somewhere to make meat.

I agree with Dale, if you think being close to population centers or more heavily populated states, MOVE! That, of course, isnt always realistic or practical, (it often isnt that easy to make a living in more sparsely populated places, even in good times) but if you really think its going to be a problem, it can often be done.

I'm not really an "end of the worlder" for the most part, but do happen to live in a very rural area, more than a tank of gas away form a large city. Whatever the future may bring, I'd prefer to be here than anywhere else I can think of. I just like it here, even if the world somehow accidently keeps going.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

willbuck1 said:


> There more people in most rural areas than there were during the depression with less other food sources. They aren't farming. They will hunt out the deer population in weeks not months and definitely not years. Where I grew up I never saw a deer until the late 70's now you trip over them there. With no fridges people will be taking at least a deer a week if they can find it and more during the warm seasons. If I were in a big city and my children were starving would I walk 3 days to try for meat? Try stopping me.
> 
> If you count on wild game for food you are taking a very big gamble on your and your families life. Maybe in some parts of the west but even there the elk and deer took a big hit back then.


Maybe some areas, but here rural depopulation has been massive. Whereas in 1930, there would be a home complete with large family nearly on every 160 acres, now there may be a home every 20 quarters or so. And that is what I mean by moving to a location like this. People underestimate how sparsely populated northern areas are. 

As well, because land is cheap up here, it is easy to own enough land for sustainable populations of big game animals. It is a simple matter of conserving the habitat. And a moose weighs 1000 to 1400 lbs, elk, 600 to 1000 and more, not a few hundred like a big deer.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I think some will get cleared out, but I think other areas would not feel much of an effect... 

Places closer to the city and heavier populated areas, and state areas that allow hunting will take a major hit, but all the private land out there probably won't suffer much... Those lands have been hunted for years by the same people over and over, and they are still supporting them.

Part of the reason we are buying property where we are is because it will be a great hunting area, and Darren just confirmed pretty much what I knew... It's all private land, way off the beaten path, and a whole lot of wildlife... So I'll be set, and no worries.. 

I'll also have rabbits and chickens, so I won't need to shoot every little fuzzy critter I see, and I think it's that way with a lot of people living in the country.

I do think though, if it's gotten really bad in populated areas, and SFlewOTF and everyone was out of food for quite a while, I think if my name was fluffy or Fifi, I'd be looking to high tail it to the woods myself. People would probably be eyeballing them real hard..


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

I live in a rural area with tons of wildlife, will the animal population take a hit...yes, but also know that our country is 50% anti gun...that leaves the other 50% gathering food, and the rest to die.

My bug out vehicle will be my Suzuki Vinson 500 4x4...I can haul wood, deer myself and an extra body. It also gets better gas mileage than either one of my vehicles which I will drain my tank to run.


----------



## Usingmyrights (Jan 10, 2011)

People on bikes will be able to cover distance better than walkers. Transporting game would still be an issue. I'm not saying that there won't be a decent number of people making it out from the cities. I'm saying that I think the mass exit that most people think will happen with everyone fleeing to the country is unrealistic.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I could have small game every day if I was so inclined. Much of it would be animals most people wouldn't consider eating even if they did know how to clean and prepare it. Good hunting and fishing is available within a few minutes walk.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

If what had developed around where we live in southern AZ were a lot of surviving people getting really hungry with supply systems collapsed, I think I just might have to look at small to *really* small game to provide just bits of protein supplement. First, I would want to cut down the coyote and bobcat populations so rabbits in particular would be for humans and not so much those other species. Right now, of course, I find it really interesting to have a balanced sort of prey-predator situation, knowing there's a bobcat raising kittens a few houses over, and so on, but I think they'd have to go away if I were wanting to harvest cottontails myself. about the only largish critter here is the javelina (actually classified as "big game" in AZ), but there's only a few small groups of a half-dozen left around the suburbs and of course the word is they taste awful unless very carefully dressed out. They'd be gone in no time flat, and don't compete for anything humans would be gathering. Actually, the most practical source of protein bits, sadly, might be rodents even smaller than squirrels like pack rats and kangaroo mice or rats. Right now we have a half-dozen medium-small Havahart traps that work great for chopping down pack rats when we start seeing droppings and damage around the edges of our house. Baited traps left around into daylight frequently catch quail, doves, and rabbits as well as diurnal squirrels, too. I suspect I could do better with those traps than wandering afield with a .22 stalking things, for as long as they lasted, anyway.

The book "Collapse" had a section analyzing what had happened with the cliff dweller/ Anasazi native societies a thousand or so years back when occasional droughts turned into lasting a century or two, causing abandonment of many dwellings. IIRC, it was the Mesa Verde area where human feces middens were examined for one of those periods of time and a strata was found with small mouse carcasses making up a considerable part of the diet, a lot of the mice evidently being passed mostly whole... sounded like swallowed in one chunk like shucking oysters or something. Possibly cooked or scalded, maybe, but that wasn't discussed, rpobably no way to tell. The point that really hit me, though, was that those little bodies were all *headless*. What was the practical situation, folks out trying to tend crops or scavenging, digging up or ambushing a little kangaroo mouse or field mouse, biting the head off, spitting it out, and gulping everything else?? Maybe before somebody stronger could take it from you?? I suppose if it's *that* bad, you have to be seriously concerned with cannibalism, too.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

The indians did it for months, smoked, jerked, salted, dried, pemmican. All can be done in the field, in the fall when temps get colder meat keeps for weeks. Frozen in a snow bank even months....James


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

Here is a related question.........How much ammo do people in Continental United States, typically have at home for their firearms........? half a box left over from last year, seven rounds left over from two years ago......Do you keep all of your ammo and firearms at home....??? What if your home is destroyed, or has to be rapidly abandoned because of a nuclear plant meltdown.
I wonder what percentage of the population even knows had to bone out the meat in the field, leaving the bones as bait for traps, and packing out only the meat. I wonder.


----------



## MoCat (Nov 7, 2012)

I think that there will be some people who will do just fine hunting and some that won't as long as there is game available. I know people that would fall into both groups. 
Years ago friend was driving around his farm checking things and came upon a van of guys from the city. When he asked them what they were doing they told him that they were pheasant hunting, then they showed him the big black birds that they had already shot. With out batting an eye he told them that there was no bag limit and they could get as many as they wanted. 
The hunters get an A for effort but also fail because they never got a single pheasant. 
Talking with conservation officers I have heard stories about the different animals that hunters have tried to check in. Large dogs, cows, mules, and horses have all been tagged with deer tags.
It is the uneducated hunters that don't know the difference between deer and mules that I am more worried about.


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

jwal10 said:


> The indians did it for months, smoked, jerked, salted, dried, pemmican. All can be done in the field, in the fall when temps get colder meat keeps for weeks. Frozen in a snow bank even months....James


My guess is most people are not living that lifestyle now. Yet many figure they can just jump into it.

How many can just take the wife, children, walk out the door and live for the next 15 years if they are not practicing now. What are wife and kids going to be doing...?

Subsistence lifestyle is hard if you already have 14 caches in the wilderness, stocked with traps, firearms, knives, stoves wall tents, drying racks, each cache stocked for 90 days.

Have you blazed the first 30 trees you plan to fell across the only road in or out....? Why do people assume the locals will even allow then to escape the towns & cities. Why do people assume country boys don't own D-8 Dozer's & Cat 235 excavators, if rural people can build logging roads........maybe they can destroy roads.

How many chainsaws, and chain loops do you have cached in the wilderness, tools, (22) five gallon tanks of propane and 14 Coleman stoves.

Do you have circle back trails pre-built that loop around, so the country boy and his hound dog can be ambushed, as they track you and your family down.

Do you have redundant firearms cached w/ 1,500 rounds at each location....? My guess is the city people will eat best as soon as they learn to stomach a find rump-roast of uncle Bob.


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

People need to spend a lot more time being cold, wet, filthy, practicing skills in the field, and less time talking at the watercooler, about some neat survival skill they read about on the INTERNET last night. "Boots in the Field" train or die.


----------



## Sanza (Sep 8, 2008)

jwal10 said:


> The indians did it for months, smoked, jerked, salted, dried, pemmican. All can be done in the field, in the fall when temps get colder meat keeps for weeks. Frozen in a snow bank even months....James


First of all the smoke would draw unwanted 2 legged visitors and the smell of the meat will draw the 4 legged ones. 
And don't you think wild animals can smell where you have that frozen meat in the snowbank? Don't kid yourself that it would still be there waiting for you!


----------



## Sanza (Sep 8, 2008)

Sourdough you're right about actual experience being important. Things don't always go according to the book and a person needs to know how to improvise.


----------



## Steve L. (Feb 23, 2004)

willbuck1 said:


> There more people in most rural areas than there were during the depression with less other food sources. They aren't farming. They will hunt out the deer population in weeks not months and definitely not years. Where I grew up I never saw a deer until the late 70's now you trip over them there. With no fridges people will be taking at least a deer a week if they can find it and more during the warm seasons. If I were in a big city and my children were starving would I walk 3 days to try for meat? Try stopping me.
> 
> If you count on wild game for food you are taking a very big gamble on your and your families life. Maybe in some parts of the west but even there the elk and deer took a big hit back then.


Yeah. I just did some googling, and it looks like there's about ONE deer in my home county for each person who's living here NOW.


----------



## janetn (Apr 26, 2012)

Interesting thread. Here is my two cents.

Most city folk only hunt occasionally [deer hunting season here is Nov 15th to the 30th] and then there are various small game seasons. Guys go "deer hunting " for the Booze and some man time. Only a small percentage ever even get a deer. Most never even see one, and thats with baiting an area before hunting season starts. The vast majority of the households in the cities dont own firearms, nor do they have much stored up in the way of ammo. Think of all the households who are headed by single women for example. The number of hunters has fallen over the last few decades too. Its just not PC nor is it a family tradition handed down like it was just a generation or two ago. Most city folks have very limited experience trapseing around in the woods. In my area for instance we have an abundance of National Forrest land, We get hunters who get lost every year - I can see some people going to "da woods" and never being seen again. 

Also people tend to stay with what is familuar. In a SHTF senerio a lot of folks will stay put. The known is far less scary then the unknown. Then you have to consider how many calories it takes to trapse through the woods looking for game. If your unfamiluar with the area and the habits of game animals Id suspect that you would be burning lots of calories you could not afford. If these folks get desparate they are already going to be in poor condition anyway. Their are just too many risks for those not used to or experienced in hunting. Now stealing - that is a whole nother story - its IMO much more likely that folks who migrate out of the cities will be looking to score a meal or two by taking it by force. 

Those of us used to living in the sticks dont realise how different it is away from the bright lights . We had some teens come up to our place for a visit. They were absolutely afraid to go out after dark. It was just too darn dark for them. Then add a few coyotes and some strange noises and you got a bunch of scared stiff city folks. I just never thought of how dark it is out here untill then, and of course the yotes singing is something Im used to. Now get me in the city and Im scared and a wreck with all the sirens horns traffic and thugs!

I think the coyotes have killed far more deer than the hordes of city folks migrating into rural areas ever could. Also a lot of deer are killed now by cars. That wont be happening in a SHTF world. 

Now some will hunt and do it successfully, Im not saying everyone in the city cant hunt or wont. But I dont see the numbers in the population of game animals dropping like they did during the depression - our culture is much different. Remember most people in the 30's lived in rural areas and were brought up hunting. That simply is not the case anymore. 

Now for planning purposes I have planned to raise our protein. Hunting will be a bonus. We will also trap - far less calories expended in trapping. All of us should have a plan A-B and C and we all probably do. 

We live in Michigan and deer here are as plentiful as fleas on mangy dogs. They are even in the cities and burbs. The cities also have pigeons squirrels, rabbits ect. I imagine it would be far easier to hunt where you dont have to drive and risk getting lost in the wood ect. But hopefully we will never have to find out what will happen if society collapses. If it does we here will be prepared to weather it far better than those who have not prepared. 

Like I said in the beginning of the post, this is an interesting thread and it will make us think though yet another what if and what will we do........


----------



## Usingmyrights (Jan 10, 2011)

I think janetn explained some of my thoughts pretty well. I grew up in the city, but had a really good mentor when it came to trapping and hunting. I spent a lot of time in the woods and learned a lot by watching the signs. There's so many things that an untrained person would miss or not know what it was. A few hairs stuck in a barbed wire fence, a rub or scrape, what dew claws showing up in a track is, etc. Basic stuff for a hunter, not so much for the person who just has granddads ole shotgun sitting in the corner of the closet that hasnt been touched in 5 years.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

Sanza said:


> First of all the smoke would draw unwanted 2 legged visitors and the smell of the meat will draw the 4 legged ones.
> And don't you think wild animals can smell where you have that frozen meat in the snowbank? Don't kid yourself that it would still be there waiting for you!



When i am in the woods most people don't even know I am there. I can hear city people a mile away and when hunkered down, they walk within 10' of me and don't know I am there. I hunt people down and they have no clue. I have places, stashes, dry sleeping areas all over these woods and nobody knows at all. I have lived here all my life. It is easy to keep varmits out of my food caches. I track for lost hunters, problem animals, desperate people, grow operations, yes even those people who use a GPS and drive up an old abandoned logging road and get stuck in the snow without a clue which way they came in and nothing to keep them from freezing to death. I see it all, all the time. I live in the woods for weeks with only a small pack. I don't sit at home and tell people it won't work. I live it most everyday. I go out prepared for the worst. Even going to the water intakes, I am ready for anything. This is my life, I live it. Not some what if, SHTF, maybe someday thing. I get a call at midnight, I am at the gate at 12:10 ready for 10 days if needed. I AM ready, are you....James


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

Sourdough said:


> People need to spend a lot more time being cold, wet, filthy, practicing skills in the field, and less time talking at the watercooler, about some neat survival skill they read about on the INTERNET last night. "Boots in the Field" train or die.


Cold, wet and filthy will get you dead. I don't train, I live it everyday. People think "oh if I get wet I will go home" nice thought but you could be dead before you get anywhere near a warm place. Last week 2 elk hunters were stuck in the snow, ruptured gas tank, a couple more hours and they would have been dead....James


----------



## K.B. (Sep 7, 2012)

ovsfarm said:


> My point is that I originally had big plans for my post SHTF meat supply to come from wild game. But the locals who had lived during the Depression let me know that availability of game is not a given so I had to rethink my plan. I certainly intend to harvest wild game as needed in a wise manner for as long as it is there. But I also have a Plan B since it seems that it is quite possible that it wouldn't be there for as long as I had hoped.


Lots of good points in there. I did not mean to imply that game will be my ONLY plan for meat (backup plans are always prudent), just that I believe it will still provide an option.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

What makes any of you think even a SINGLE person has to come from the city to make local wild game almost non existent in most areas? There were not mass influxes of people away from the cities that Im aware of during the depression. Yet with a population a fraction of todays population rural folks in many areas wiped out populations of most types of game. 

It will happen even faster now with our higher populations. If populations were the same as the depression there would be some interesting points raised above. But populations are much higher, and pretty much all of that is moot imo.


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

silverseeds said:


> What makes any of you think even a SINGLE person has to come from the city to make local wild game almost non existent in most areas? There were not mass influxes of people away from the cities that Im aware of during the depression. Yet with a population a fraction of todays population rural folks in many areas wiped out populations of most types of game.
> 
> It will happen even faster now with our higher populations. If populations were the same as the depression there would be some interesting points raised above. But populations are much higher, and pretty much all of that is moot imo.


Well, I guess it depends on where you live. I sure don't see a problem.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

silverseeds said:


> What makes any of you think even a SINGLE person has to come from the city to make local wild game almost non existent in most areas? There were not mass influxes of people away from the cities that Im aware of during the depression. Yet with a population a fraction of todays population rural folks in many areas wiped out populations of most types of game.
> 
> It will happen even faster now with our higher populations. If populations were the same as the depression there would be some interesting points raised above. But populations are much higher, and pretty much all of that is moot imo.


There are many places where there is WAY less population than in the 1930's. You are not thinking rural enough. Here, whereas in the 1930's, you would find a family every half mile, you can drive many miles and not see a farmyard. People assume that one rural area is like another. But this is not the case at all. As well, those who live out here now a days, often have no more clue about survival than a city slicker. The people of the depression who lived out in the sticks, knew how to survive, hunt, and thrive. The people now who live out in the sticks, know way less than 80 years ago. Probably 75% of us now live the same as city slickers, with little clue how to hunt and live off the land. That is the reality of large scale agriculture. Again, there is more than a little deer to sustain decent areas. Think bigger!

Cheers,

Dale


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Oh Im not saying there arent places that remain rural enough that there will be game. I live in one actually. Both wild game and cattle out number people for thousands of square miles around me. 

But much of the country the game will be gone very fast just from the rural folks, nothing to do with city folks.


----------



## unioncreek (Jun 18, 2002)

Usingmyrights said:


> Ks, that's what I mean though. Are the townsfolk really that much of a threat.


They will be when they start starving. I look at it over time you will have to travel farther and farther to find game until their depleted and become scarce.

Bobg


----------



## mpillow (Jan 24, 2003)

I'm rural BUT there are already people who poach and sell extra meat for booze and drugs...
numbers will go down quickly for deer.....and likely moose.

chickens and rabbits are easy keepers....but its important to have experience sooner rather than later


----------



## MountainCat (Aug 15, 2011)

Sourdough said:


> Here is a related question.........How much ammo do people in Continental United States, typically have at home for their firearms........? half a box left over from last year, seven rounds left over from two years ago......Do you keep all of your ammo and firearms at home....??? What if your home is destroyed, or has to be rapidly abandoned because of a nuclear plant meltdown.
> I wonder what percentage of the population even knows had to bone out the meat in the field, leaving the bones as bait for traps, and packing out only the meat. I wonder.


That's what I was going to ask... Ok, so these city people might be able to make it out to the rural areas, but what are they going to hunt with? Are they good shots? Do they know what to do with a deer/whatever when/if they do get it? I'd be more worried about people waiting for me to come out of the woods so they could steal what I hunted...


----------



## Usingmyrights (Jan 10, 2011)

unioncreek said:


> They will be when they start starving. I look at it over time you will have to travel farther and farther to find game until their depleted and become scarce.
> 
> Bobg





MountainCat said:


> That's what I was going to ask... Ok, so these city people might be able to make it out to the rural areas, but what are they going to hunt with? Are they good shots? Do they know what to do with a deer/whatever when/if they do get it? I'd be more worried about people waiting for me to come out of the woods so they could steal what I hunted...


I agree with mountaincat. IF they can make it out there what are they going to use? Pointy sticks? Rocks? From working at a gunshop in a big city I can say that less than 5% of our sales were hunting guns. Mostly handguns, home defence shotguns and AR15s. We sold a decent number of sporting clay guns which would carry over to the field well, but other than the AR15s the guns, while capable of taking a deer, aren't well suited for it and would take a skilled person to be able to do so. Not to mention the finding a deer and getting close enough for a shot. Those with the ARs most likely will be shooting FMJs so kill shots are unlikely. Again, this is from experience.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Some of Pop's relatives told him and Mom that they don't know what to do with frozen veggies or any cut of meat that isn't a steak. Those kind of people probably won't last long enough to become a threat. The ones I'll be worried about are those that have some backwoods experience but are too lazy to do their own work. They'll kill off everyone in an area and stay put until the supplies run out, then move on to the next area. Groups like that will invariably include people who enjoy killing and torturing people. 

I know many many people who would never be able to look at a live animal and understand that it is a source of food. Their meat comes in packages, veggies and fruit in cans. If it's not what they recognize as food they'll never be able to feed themselves.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

If things get so desperate that we need to forage for meat I will use a trap line. I keep some traps around for just that purpose (emergency), mostly small game, It would be nice if the small pond had some fish in it, because I wouldn't want to go far from home during a crisis. I would hunt things of opportunity, deer turkeys pigeons....


----------



## just_sawing (Jan 15, 2006)

Interesting thread but I think some just don,t understand.
When I was a kid in the 60 s turtles were only then coming back. Ground hogs were stil a special animal in the old folks heart. Deer didn't,t exist.
If you are in the fifth year of the depression here is what your world exist of. Fat is missing if someone had a fat ground hog you would be invited for dinner the fat on the gh would make a pie or gravy. It also is the only wild game that shoe laces can be made of. Turtles are easy to trap and keep so they are gone also. Your gravy is flavored by a few shavings of Indian chocolate because you don,t have enough bacon. Eggs are a currency that you keep under your bed.


----------



## willbuck1 (Apr 4, 2010)

Usingmyrights hungry people will not be worrying about whether it is the right gun or not. They will take the shot and most likely leave a wounded dying animal that does no one any good since they will not have the skill to track it down. While there are rural area in this country remote enough that city folk will probably never get there almost none of them are east of the Mississippi. I know lots of people with cases of ammo who can't shoot and many who can who don't keep lots of ammo. Eventually that ammo will find it's way into the hands of those who can shoot. In my state there is just a little bit more than one deer per person. 10% of deer population taken in every season. Up that to 30% and population density will suffer. Up it to 50% and deer will disappear in a couple of years. My estimate would be more likely 70% or higher the first year.
The deer population is a little more than the people population in our state but only about 50% of our people live in cities and they are all less than a day from prime hunting ground. Deer will be decimated everywhere but the most remote locations and hard to find there. In the 60's deer hunting here meant a trip to the mountains and you would be lucky to see one then. Now most of the city people have deer traipsing through their yards. Won't last and in my opinion is a reckless gamble to take with one's family survival. Use wild populations to stretch your preps but plan on them not being there. As with all disaster plans you have to plan for the worst not best case. Plans A,B,and C are farther than most people go but I have a D and an E because no plan survives reality and the more plans the more options when things go wrong. I can mix and match plans to circumstances. Improv sounds good in books but contingency plans beat improv every time.
Count on hunting and what happens if you break a leg or get shot? Illness? Get in fight with another hunter over the kill. Rural people will hunt and take game to trade to others for what they want or need. Populations will fall anywhere there are any amount of people.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Those who can hunt and are willing and able to process their take are getting fewer and farther between. And among those that can hunt and are willing to process their own, several will be picky about their choice of meat. I can get a **** or two a night for several weeks, most likely with no competition at the beginning because most people will not look at a raccoon, groundhog or squirrel and see food. Just like the pickled English Sparrows on another thread, most people won't consider such animals as a food source. How many people living near city ponds look at a Canadian goose and drool? How many city people will look at stray cats and think about stir fry? And how many fishermen will use bait that they themselves have collected? Nearly everyone in this country knows what chicken tastes like but realistically, how many can go from a live chicken to chicken noodle soup? Even considering turtle, how many know how to properly clean one? How many can go into the woods and find edible wild plants? It's like gardening, many people dabble but how many can live year to year off the food their garden produces? 

Even if game was still plentiful, many people will still starve because they know nothing about gathering wild food or growing their own gardens. Once the store shelves are empty there will be millions that just lay down and die because they will have no idea how to get food that isn't chips and soda. And let's not forget how many people will get sick from eating improperly prepared meats? How many people can build a fire with no matches or lighter? Then you have the dirty water issue, many will get sick and die from drinking untreated surface water.


----------



## Usingmyrights (Jan 10, 2011)

I agree with Ross that trapping is another good method. I've got a decent number of traps, but want to add some snares. Trapping would probably be one of the better methods of obtaining wils meat.

Will - the point I was makong about the firearms is that most probably won't even get close enough to get a shot off, let alone hit a deer. Having used public ranges quite a bit, its safe to say that the average person can't shoot. Now quadruple the distance, add the stress of hunger, shooting at a living creature and the fact that it moves and you're going to have a lot of misses. This will end up driving. The deer deeper into the woods where true hunters will be after them or turn them nocturnal. Some people will get luckly and hit a deer and then its a toss up on if it lives or dies. I guess having worked in the business I got to see people first hand as far as knowledge and capabilities. The average person is not very gun savy and can't even seem to follow basic fundamentals.


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

Get real..........WAY.....WAY before non-hunters go afield, they will have harvested the easy picking. The people with the chickens, goats & gardens. I mean why risk your life going into the wilderness when you can just wait till the survival farmer comes out to do chores, and tip him or her over, eat them first before they spoil, then move into their farmhouse. If the neighbors say anything.......shoot them and eat them. Why take a risk, when the sure thing is collecting eggs.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

Thankfully the only crisis I've gone through was an Ice storm power outage that lasted 11 days in January. It was enough to tell me you don't have lots of spare time to go hunting when everything else needs doing. Traps hunt for you and let you get on with other jobs. Sling a shotgun to go with you chopping firewood sure, but hunting is a rich man's sport IMO. You can trap fish too.


----------



## NJ Rich (Dec 14, 2005)

I didn't read the many posts but the ones I did look at seemed to agree with my thoughts. I have been thinking about living off what I could catch and fish as far as meat and fish is concerned for a long time..

It is a fact that during the Depresssion and WW 2 many states had deer populations drop to what would be called today as "endangered levels". Some states imported deer from other states to re-establish their deer herds.

Small mammals and fish recover faster than deer and larger andimals such as elk and pronghorns. Rabbits, although not a good daily diet meal, re-populate at a very fast rate. Get rid of their predators and you will have more rabbits. The coyotes here are having an impact right here where I live in NJ. Yes in my yard. They are also taking many deer here and in other areas of NJ.

I will trap; snare and hunt for small animals and migratory birds. I live near the coast and near a couple of fresh water resevoirs. 

I will say when it comes to feeding my family game laws take a back seat. Yes that is illegal but so is watching a child go hungry. Get your harvesting supplies early. Don't wait for something to happen and then try to get traps; snares; nets and fishing supplies. These items should be a part of your preps.


----------



## Usingmyrights (Jan 10, 2011)

The one good thing about snares is that can be made with a few parts from the hardware store. Parts that aren't needed by the average person even in a crisis, so theyre likely to be there.


----------



## farmer9989 (Apr 22, 2008)

You aren't going to have to worry bout, hunting You will be to busy trying to protect what you do have. It will be a lot easier for them to take that because they have seen it on the news all there live


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Usingmyrights said:


> I am considering history. People in the 20s and 30s were used to walking everywhere. People today aren't. They also as a whole lack the skill and work ethic that people 80-90 years ago had. Take 10 guys at random from the city, give them a gun and drop them off in the wo ods and half probably wouldn't even know where to start. A few might get a shot and a couple might hit one. Maybe one will get a good hit and harvest a deer. The average guy today is demascalated and lacks the skill and desire to put in the work to harvest a deer. Population may take a hit, but as numbers go Dow the few guys that got lucky will likely move on to easier means.


Enough people know how to shoot well enough to kill something. Doesn't matter if it's recovered and used wisely or not, it's still dead. I don't know what the city folks are like where you're at but here in MN I can guarantee you enough know how to fish and hunt to make game extremely scarce in your scenario.


----------



## cvk (Oct 30, 2006)

Don't forget all the people that have relatives out in the country and already we are seeing a whole lot of people moving back in with family due to lost jobs or homes. The country could get real crowded faster than you think.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Must be nice to live somewhere where the deer don't/can't get cleaned out. 

Know I've told this before, but during the Depression, ALL wild game disappeared, even squirrels... My father told me of his first deer sighting... some folks came upon a deer track, community found out about it, and dozens of men and dogs hunted/trailed the deer for days till it keeled over dead from exhaustion. They feasted. And it was another 20 years before deer were seen again.... State restocked, let the hunters know if they didn't follow the game laws, there'd be no more restocks. Some years there were no seasons, some just a couple of days, till the harvest numbers were hit.

Skip ahead 20 years, deer were everywhere...one local poacher kept our population in decline, till he was too old to slaughter em anymore.

Let the game wardens disappear now, and the shtf or teotwawki occur, and game will disappear within a week! I'm not a poacher, but I know plenty, and the technique is simple. Rifle w/scope and spotlight... you can clean em out in a hurry.

The only way your going to hunt for your groceries is if whatever calamity struck kills off everyone but you and your family. IF there are humans around, especially country folks, and more especially ********, do not expect wildlife to be around. I don't worry about citi folk... too many (if not all) country boys have heard the song "A Country Boy Will Survive"... that song will be the death of 98% of em.

Trust me, prep as if deer and other game didn't exist... if we ever have teotw scenario, you'll thank me. I plan on hunting, but it'd be a luxury, and not a staple.

Anyone tells you they'll be able to hunt for their grub, if the world ends is delusional. You may live in the middle of nowhere, but realize that there are untold numbers of people who know about your 'nowhere' and have plans to bug out to your backyard and take advantage of it's emptiness.


----------



## cvk (Oct 30, 2006)

AMEN, Texican!!!


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Very wise words, thanks texican.


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

texican said:


> You may live in the middle of nowhere, but realize that there are untold numbers of people who know about your 'nowhere' and have plans to bug out to your backyard and take advantage of it's emptiness.


Always nice to have fresh meat for the bear bait barrels come a walking up the road.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

texican said:


> Must be nice to live somewhere where the deer don't/can't get cleaned out.
> 
> *Anyone tells you they'll be able to hunt for their grub, if the world ends is delusional*. You may live in the middle of nowhere, but realize that there are untold numbers of people who know about your 'nowhere' and have plans to bug out to your backyard and take advantage of it's emptiness.


I still disagree. Saskatchewan is almost as big as Texas. It has only 1 million people, 75% of which live in 4 cities. in the south of the province. There are 100+ million acres of forests, lakes, rivers, sand, and rock in the north. There are countless moose, elk, two deer species, innumerable game birds, rabbits, squirrels, bears. 

I realize it is hard to get ones head around how plentiful wildlife is here, and how few people there are...

To escape humanity, I would only have to get 20 miles north. From here, there is no human habitation to the north, if you choose where to roam. 

My most happy thing, is our cold winters which scare people off!!!

A person can still get away from it all here. There are only a few roads in the north,none of which even reach our northern border, and many areas where being 200 miles from anything resembling human habitation is easy. There are three main roads running north and south that extend any distance into the north, for the entire width of this province. Heck, on my own farm there are places humans have yet to tread, at least since the original surveys. No power lines, no roads, no fences, no people. There are many areas where moose numbers are in the range of two per square mile!!!

My point is, there are still places where one can easily slip away. In the continental US? Not really. Though Claude Dallas did elude the manhunt for a while in southwest Idaho. In Canada's north? Hundreds of millions of acres of unspoiled, rugged, inaccessible without a plane, game and fish and fur filled habitat. Think Alaska without the mountains!

We will thrive, and no, our game would not get wiped out. In the depression years, the game saw some pressure, sure. But that was when there were actual homesteads on every 160 acres pretty well, habitat loss was immense, and with households with huge families. The rural population is maybe 5% of what it once was, and that is not including the tiny family size of today, just a general count of land vs. humans in my municipality.

Mr. texican, I usually agree with you 100%. But on this point, I have to disagree.

Cheers,

Dale


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

farmerDale said:


> I still disagree. Saskatchewan is almost as big as Texas. It has only 1 million people, 75% of which live in 4 cities. in the south of the province. There are 100+ million acres of forests, lakes, rivers, sand, and rock in the north. There are countless moose, elk, two deer species, innumerable game birds, rabbits, squirrels, bears.
> 
> I realize it is hard to get ones head around how plentiful wildlife is here, and how few people there are .....
> 
> ...


Maybe you haven't noticed but I think perhaps most folks in continental USA couldn't care less about what kind of bounty you have in Canada ...... except for this .....




> ..... You may live in the middle of nowhere, but realize that there are untold numbers of people who know about your 'nowhere' and have plans to bug out to your backyard and take advantage of it's emptiness.


If I was you Dale, I sure wouldn't be tooting my horn and boasting about any bounty in my backyard and how the province only has 1 million people. It's like an open advertisement and invitation for millions of other people to invade your territory and take it all away from you when TSHTF and there'll be nothing there to stop them from taking it from you. In such a situation you won't be able to escape humanity even if you move another 200 miles north.

.


----------



## Sanza (Sep 8, 2008)

You forgot to mention the muskeg too farmerDale. ;-D
If anyone is brave enough or stupid enough to come up here we probably wouldn't ever find their bones.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

naturelover said:


> Maybe you haven't noticed but I think perhaps most folks in continental USA couldn't care less about what kind of bounty you have in Canada ...... except for this .....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am not tooting or boasting at all. It is just that people in populated regions feel like the environment is dirty, that a square mile is HUGE, and that deer are big game. 

Ideals of "rural" varies immensely from place to place. People from the fraser valley for example, think it is rural. Others from long island may think it is rural. 

I am simply saying shtf scenarios will vary greatly depending on where you are at the time. And here, there will always be space. There are only a very few even from here who would dare venture into the north. 

Course it depends on the scenario specifics. I sure do not mean to be coming across as a bragger or a tooter! lol Just trying to share the reality that yes, there are places where wild game would sustain you indefinitely, due to terrain, climate, lack of roads, but mostly and most important, a lack of human beings...


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Sanza said:


> You forgot to mention the muskeg too farmerDale. ;-D
> If anyone is brave enough or stupid enough to come up here we probably wouldn't ever find their bones.


Yup, forgot the muskeg! lol

That is the thing, I live at the edge of civilization, and even I would be frightened by the prospect. I can not imagine being from somewhere else and thinking, gosh, looks inviting up there!


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

farmerDale said:


> Yup, forgot the muskeg! lol
> 
> That is the thing, I live at the edge of civilization, and even I would be frightened by the prospect. I can not imagine being from somewhere else and thinking, gosh, looks inviting up there!


I'm glad you and Sanza mentioned the muskeg, it does bear speaking of, as do the several other natural hazards, many of which can't be comprehended by people who've never experienced or even heard of them. 

I wasn't trying to give you a rough time but I did think your post sounded a bit too optimistic and inviting. You say you can't imagine people from somewhere else thinking it looks inviting, and I don't have to imagine people thinking that because I've seen evidence of it in discussions right here on this forum several times, as well as on other survival forums. People posting and saying when the SHTF they're going to head across the border to the bounty in the north when in fact they haven't got any idea what it's really like and what kinds of unimagineable hazards they'd be dealing with besides the winter cold.

So like I said above, when saying how there's not many humans in the north and describing all the natural wild bounty, I think it's only right to also mention the many hazards and obstacles that are alien to the south and are some of _the reasons for there not being many people living in the north_.

But honestly, even if there weren't all those hazards, I still wouldn't be advertising all the good stuff either.

.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

naturelover said:


> I'm glad you and Sanza mentioned the muskeg, it does bear speaking of, as do the several other natural hazards, many of which can't be comprehended by people who've never experienced or even heard of them.
> 
> I wasn't trying to give you a rough time but I did think your post sounded a bit too optimistic and inviting. You say you can't imagine people from somewhere else thinking it looks inviting, and I don't have to imagine people thinking that because I've seen evidence of it in discussions right here on this forum several times, as well as on other survival forums. People posting and saying when the SHTF they're going to head across the border to the bounty in the north when in fact they haven't got any idea what it's really like and what kinds of unimagineable hazards they'd be dealing with besides the winter cold.
> 
> ...


Other than that, there is nothing else good here. AT ALL! There, is that better? ha! Backtracking on my advertising...:whistlin:


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

:thumb: :heh: 

.


----------



## Sanza (Sep 8, 2008)

The wonderful world of internet at it's best naturelover. 

The members here are predominantly american, and they live in a very highly populated country. Of course their idea of a bug out location with game for hunting will be the same as a few other couple thousand people just because of their sheer numbers. 
When people write that there is no safe place that will not be hunted out that is true for there....
But not for all people on this board!

A few of us on this board live in Canada, with a small population and lots of uninhabited land and there is no way that we would run into the same problems. 

I live about a 7 hours drive north of the border, almost right on the edge of the settled area. There are some hamlets and towns and a few indian reserves further north, but not that many. 
I know if SHTF and things get bad, there is no way that this area would be invaded with hordes looking for a good place with abundant food. They couldn't get here in the first place and second most people wouldn't survive.....after all there is a reason it isn't populated.
If any americans actually cross the border they need to be hauling a tank of gas .

So farmerDale has every right to be smug and confident that his area will sustain him through lean times. I feel we have nothing to worry about in this area either. We do start them hunting young here, and kids take hunter training and conservation, and survival in school here. 
This is a granddaughter last fall...


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

farmerDale said:


> We will thrive, and no, our game would not get wiped out.


Just to play the devils advocate here... It also depends what happens. If a true iceage happens (and we really can expect that anytime in the next 1500 years based on past cycles) there will be zero humans or game there. 

Ive been deep into the western side of canada, well past where people live and flown onto a lake in a small plane. amazing place. short of an iceage or massive population shift I have to agree there will always be game there.

I have a deep canada seed collection. I could do really well there once everything grew in.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

I certainly wouldnt be thinking canada couldnt face an influx of people. Unlikely in many scenarios, but definitely possible. During societal upheavals large shifts in population are actually pretty common even where personal transportation was not. 

If I had to guess Id actually expect some number to head north, (dont forget we have a few pretty cold areas as well with people used to harsh winters) and others away from the heavily populated coasts. I expect many to leave the drier desert areas as well.


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

Well, so what if there is a migration of humans north. "The OTHER red meat source is nice tender Humans".

The bottom line is that 99.7% of people will do NOTHING, because they have the skills to do what they do now, and they are to darn lazy to practice new skills. Oh.......they will read about it, maybe even make hard copies. But to really live it.......nope. Most people are sacred poop'less to spend the night alone in the wilderness.


----------



## ldc (Oct 11, 2006)

As an aside to the hunting availability points, here in LA earlier this year there was a Wildlife and Fisheries Game Warden murdered. The first one (I read) since 1905. There was evidence of poaching near where he was found. This sort of thing would be part of a no-holds-barred hunting scenario.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I'm glad you and Sanza mentioned the *muskeg*, it does bear speaking of, as do the several other *natural hazards*, many of which can't be comprehended by people who've never experienced or even heard of them


Here's one most have never heard of, nor considered:

POCOSIN:


> The word _pocosin_ comes from an Eastern Algonquian word meaning "swamp-on-a-hill."


Pocosin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

I'd love to be in a position like FarmerDale and Sanza, on the edge of nowhere. I do have to wonder what the actual populations of deer, elk, moose, etc. are. Hereabouts, deer populations hover around 1 per 25 acres.

When I worked in AK, many of the large ungulate populations were migratory... people see pictures of 100k caribou and think they're 'everywhere'... where in fact, a person tied to one location might go all year without seeing any sign, except for the few days their migrating through. Moose? 1 every 10? 20? or more? square miles...

Canada is lightly populated the further north you go (had a bad hankering for some Yukon acreage for years)...

In the states, the population levels are higher... a caveat I would make to my previous statements would be, IF you can control a vast tract of land, you might make a go of hunting. As in, destroy every bridge 50 miles out, and all the way in, to your kingdom...

One could live off of fish, as long as they had well stocked ponds/lakes.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

texican said:


> I'd love to be in a position like FarmerDale and Sanza, on the edge of nowhere. I do have to wonder what the actual populations of deer, elk, moose, etc. are. Hereabouts, deer populations hover around 1 per 25 acres.
> 
> When I worked in AK, many of the large ungulate populations were migratory... people see pictures of 100k caribou and think they're 'everywhere'... where in fact, a person tied to one location might go all year without seeing any sign, except for the few days their migrating through. Moose? 1 every 10? 20? or more? square miles...
> 
> ...


A few things about Canadian critters.

I am too far south for caribou migration by a couple hundred miles, but woodland caribou are closer though this species is threatened right now.

First, our deer are much larger for the most part than ones further south. I have seen hunting shows where they shoot antlered rabbits down there! lol The population density overall would be proportionately less. Although I am quite sure on my farm the density would probably be in the 10 per quarter range, or around 1 per 16 acres. Varies depending of course on food source and habitat. Average white-tail deer weight around here. Bucks 250-325 pounds, does smaller.

Mule deer are in bands. They roam around in loose herds, and so if you have mulies, you probably have a good number of them, but they are not as consistent in density, as they prefer specific habitat. I would say on my farm I would have 1 mulie every 50 acres, but as far as finding them, they will generally all be in a square mile for the reasons previously mentioned. Mule deer are about 10 % larger than an average white-tail.

Moose: They are anywhere there are trees around here. Last fall while deer hunting, I saw far more moose on my land than deer. Granted spotting a 4X4 truck at a half mile, is easier than spotting a small quad!!! lol. I would guess I would have a density of around 2 to 6 a square mile, fairly evenly distributed. But then I have exceptional habitat vs. outlying areas where more forest has been pushed for farming. As I type this in fact, I am within about 80 yards of a cow and calf moose which are, or at least were feeding in the poplars west of the house. At least they were at dusk. If I tried, I could see a moose or three or eight every day easily on my land. A big cow will weigh 1000 lbs, a large bull should push 1400. A calf in the fall will weigh around 400 -500 lbs.

Elk are also in loose herds depending on the time of year. Again, if you have elk, you have a good chance at good numbers if you have the habitat to support them. I have seen 20 plus on a 120 acre field of my wheat, grazing it as it emerged... I have had 20 acres areas of oats (they love oats), beaten flat before harvest in one night by a herd of around 30. The density is not consistent, again a herding animal, but if they have food and cover, they will stay on your property. I watched one fall evening, as 53 elk walked by my deer stand crossing my pasture on their way to a neighbors green field bales. Needless to say, the next year, armed with a tag, I intercepted them and had some good eating for the year!! A bull elk will weigh from 800 to 1000 pounds, a cow 500-800, and a calf in the fall will be about 250-400 pounds. The best eating wild red meat IMO.

Bears are sporadic right around me, perhaps one every 20 square miles, but in the forest to the north they are simply everywhere. I have them on my land consistently, but again, I leave my remaining trees standing, and so they have good cover.

Ruffed grouse, several dozen feed on my apple trees at this time of year, sharptailed grouse are harder to find, but ever present, hungarian partridge are anywhere there is gravel and cropland, some pheasants, not enough, waterfowl to make your heart stop. We are in a major flyway, and nesting area. Rabbits, squirrels, woodchucks, porcupines, which they say tastes like excellent pork, never tried one yet. 

A moose or two would feed my family for a long time. On my own land, removing two or three moose a year I feel would be sustainable. Throw in an elk, and a few deer of both species, and we should eat like kings. 

But as you say, keeping this land for myself would potentially be a problem, but not many farming folks around here live like the farmers of yesterday. They are generally cityslickers who happen to farm. I do not think many of them would last long enough to challenge us...


----------



## Lamar (Oct 13, 2011)

First off I think its funny how many people are so sure it will work out they way they think that they almost seem to get ill with people offering differing opinions.
That said.
If its a long slow easing to the bottom I can see wildlife disappearing somewhat quickly BUT......
There's gonna be trespassing issues. The folks living in the sticks aren't gonna want people traipsing around on their property. In the GDepression there was a lot more country in this country, now not so much. How will this be handled?
In a full on quick trip to TEOTWAWKI, I wonder how many will make it out of the cities, even smaller ones?
Depending on how bad the whole rape, rob, pillage thing is. How many people are gonna know not to drink creek water or pond water. How many can make a fire without matches or lighters? Most of the matches and lighters will be concentrated with the looters and much will be lost and or wasted. 
I think bad water and infections are gonna take out a bunch of people, and lead poisioning.
So assuming a chaotic sudden collapse, will the reduced population be able to efficiently and effectively take game in the woods once they get around to thinking about that?
How many people have enough ammo to fight their way through or out of town and still have enough to hunt with?
How many deer hunters know how to squirrel or rabbit hunt, or even have a 22 or shotgun with #6 shot?
Lots of variables, the GD is a good thing to have knowledge of but the next one is gonna make the last one look like good times, I think. Too much knowledge has been lost. Back in the 30's most folks were still very connected to the land, even if they lived in the city. Now even people living in the country aren't very connected to the land.
BTW I'm NOT planning on depending on game for meat. I hope to have enough stock to handle it, but I think even a lot of prepared people are gonna have it very, very hard, me included.


----------



## Usingmyrights (Jan 10, 2011)

I try to stay stocked too, but I believe in adding to the stocks or at least trying not to tap into them. Call it selfish but if I can buy my family another couple months by taking a deer I will.


----------



## Liberty'sGirl (Jul 7, 2012)

Here's a thought: what makes people think that they will be allowed/able to hunt. We may go into a Sheriff of Nottingham/Robin Hood era where we are arrested for hunting on the "king's" (EPA's) land. We may all become instant poachers even in our own back yards.

Is that a likelihood? or am I just a worrier?


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Liberty'sGirl said:


> Here's a thought: what makes people think that they will be allowed/able to hunt. We may go into a Sheriff of Nottingham/Robin Hood era where we are arrested for hunting on the "king's" (EPA's) land. We may all become instant poachers even in our own back yards.
> 
> Is that a likelihood? or am I just a worrier?


I think that's a very real possibility in some places. But here is some more food for thought. Over Thanksgiving my nephew and I did some rabbit snaring. We had about a third of the rabbits eaten by other critters before we got to them. Snares were set late evening and pulled early next morning. We had about a quarter mile of fence that bordered a development . Lots of duck unders and sign. No rabbits, but 1 cat. Get rid of tabby.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

We have tons of bears at the ranch and the surrounding National Forest. Too many. 

I stocked our pond with trout, but they were the only ones I could buy- sterile. Anyway, they won't breed in a pond. I would love to stock it with fish that will breed in a pond. We get lots of ducks that visit the pond. We get some that raise their families in the pond.

And the place is overrun with ground squirrels, and rattlesnakes. One thing we have too few of is deer. But all of these critters are tasty. They're protein too.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Liberty'sGirl said:


> Here's a thought: what makes people think that they will be allowed/able to hunt. We may go into a Sheriff of Nottingham/Robin Hood era where we are arrested for hunting on the "king's" (EPA's) land. We may all become instant poachers even in our own back yards.
> 
> Is that a likelihood? or am I just a worrier?


Not a bad thought. But I would wonder who would be patrolling and enforcing these laws? People who would be most likely to join the government and enforce these laws in a vast, empty, and dangerous land, would be the type of nut who would not have a clue on how to survive, right? Depends on the scenario, but rural folks with land that was confiscated, would be least likely to enforce and join the enemy. City folks could be lured into it, but how would they survive out in the nearly empty, unforgiving landscape?

I think the government could sure say they owned the land, but i see enforcement being a pretty tough thing, unless there were armies of these guys...

Who knows? This is a great discussion!


----------



## wes917 (Sep 26, 2011)

Liberty'sGirl said:


> Here's a thought: what makes people think that they will be allowed/able to hunt. We may go into a Sheriff of Nottingham/Robin Hood era where we are arrested for hunting on the "king's" (EPA's) land. We may all become instant poachers even in our own back yards.
> 
> Is that a likelihood? or am I just a worrier?


I have thought of that also and was just talking to my bil about it today. We both currently live in the city (unfortunately). As most we stock up on .22s, bird/buckshot etc. But in this situation where hunting is illegal, a nice pump pellet gun would be enough for squirrel, rabbit and the such. The neighbors/enforcement wouldnt hear it and a huge stock of ammo is dirt cheap. Snares are great but have above mentioned problems plus in a no hunt situation leave evidence and possibly get caught retrieving the snares.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

Of course trapping has been the main method of poaching for centuries. Its quiet and hidden from view and very tough to stop. Poachers get caught because they are too stupid to keep the products of their efforts away from where they live. A freezer full of venison is the evidence the officials look for and find now, it will be what they always look for if enforcement continues after a SHTF event. They won't be opposed to confiscating meat.


----------



## Sanza (Sep 8, 2008)

Dale, is this your place and your moose? When you said you could watch them from your window I didn't think this close....lol


----------



## Sanza (Sep 8, 2008)

Good points everyone.

When we were kids there were some toys we used to play with that are quiet, and because we played with them a lot we got to be quite accurate with them.....
A bow and arrow and a slingshot, and all homemade too. 
Both of those will bring down an animal or bird if you're good enough, so a person doesn't necessarily need guns or snares. When you see the animal, you kill it and you're gone in a minute. Of course if you're in danger of being caught poaching you'd take the animal to another location to clean before you took it home to cook.

Sourdough some of us learnt to hunt through childs play, we played and bettered ourselves until we actually were able to bring meat home before we were out of the single digit age group. We didn't have or need any books to teach us how to hunt, trap or fish. I haven't done it for years now but at least I know I could. 

You're right silverseeds, some places are even colder then here. But when you say people will head north across the border how far are you talking? Will they go 100 miles? Two hundred? I don't think many would go much further north and where we're talking about is 450 miles north of the border. 


Libertys' girl - Right now before TSHTF we're all poachers even on our own land if we don't buy the tags.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

> But when you say people will head north across the border how far are you talking? Will they go 100 miles? Two hundred? I don't think many would go much further north and where we're talking about is 450 miles north of the border.


If there are open roads and if people have gas they will go hundreds of miles and think nothing of it. Heck, I've been known to drive a mere 400 miles north for a weekend just to pick a truck load of fresh sage, never mind going hunting for meat, and I've met lots of other pickers who've driven even further than that.

Every year in this province during hunting seasons there's a mass exodus of hunting parties who leave the border cities in trucks with campers and trailers and head north driving hundreds to a thousand miles for 18 to 24 hours or more in one fell swoop without stopping. They leave to go hunting for moose, caribou, deer, mountain goats, mountain sheep, bear .... oh, and salmon and steelhead, mustn't forget those. It's a fun event for them and the distance driven means nothing to them. If non-desperate hunters will do that here now in the kind of rough, twisting, forested geography and ripple-board mountainous terrain and dangerous roads that we have here what makes you think that desperate hunters wouldn't go even further north than that in Alberta or Saskatchewan on the easy roads and flat open terrain you have?

If there's no food where people are then people go to where the food is. Some may die on the way but many more won't.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Both of those will bring down an animal or bird* if you're good enough*, so a person doesn't necessarily need guns or snares. When you see the animal, you kill it and you're gone in a minute. Of course if you're in danger of being caught poaching you'd take the animal to another location to clean before you took it home to cook.


The vast majority of people, even in rural areas, aren't good enough HUNTERS to kill much with a bow.
The success rate for those who put lots of* effort* into it really isn't even all that high.

*Anyone can fish* though, so I think that's where you'll see the most pressure at first


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> If non-desperate hunters will do that here now in the kind of rough, twisting, forested geography and ripple-board mountainous terrain and dangerous roads that we have here what makes you think that desperate hunters wouldn't go even further north than that in Alberta or Saskatchewan on the easy roads and flat open terrain you have?


The big difference would be in an EOTW scenario, they aren't likely to be able to refuel and resupply along the way.

One tank of fuel may be all there will be for them, and if they plan to return home, that cuts the distance they can travel outward in half.

There are SO many variables it's all just speculation anyway.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The big difference would be in an EOTW scenario, they aren't likely to be able to refuel and resupply along the way.
> 
> One tank of fuel may be all there will be for them, and if they plan to return home, that cuts the distance they can travel outward in half.
> 
> There are SO many variables it's all just speculation anyway.


Okay, you're right about the variables and the speculation. 

Most of the hunting parties I know who do long-distance hunting trips pool their resources, they convoy and they also carry extra fuel with them for in the event they can't refuel beyond the last gas station. Not supposed to do it but they do it anyway. 

But as you say, the big difference may be if it's an EOTW scenario and the distance they go may depend on availability of fuel. They may only go 450 miles instead of 900 miles. 450 miles is really not very far, it's just a day trip.

.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

I guess I should clarify something when I say 450 miles is just a day trip, or that hunting parties here may travel up to a 1,000 miles. Getting there is only the easy part of the hunting trip, they don't just drive there, bag their game and turn around and head back home right away. They go to their hunting camp location then stay there for usually a couple of weeks at the least but often longer. The meat they bring home is usually butchered, smoked, ground up, turned into sausages or canned, or cut up and packaged on site at the camps. 

.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Sanza said:


> You're right silverseeds, some places are even colder then here. But when you say people will head north across the border how far are you talking? Will they go 100 miles? Two hundred? I don't think many would go much further north and where we're talking about is 450 miles north of the border.


Well I didnt mean to say people WILL head north, just that it shouldnt be dismissed just because it would be rough or hard for those doing it. 

If 10 million people decided they needed to head to canada, or perhaps through canada into alaska to survive thats exactly what they will do. How many actually make it is another issue, but many would learn and adapt on the way if need be. 

It all depends what we face, and what people decide they need to do to survive it. Current skills of those involved doesnt matter as much as determination and will. Lack of knowledge can definitely get you killed and it will kill many, but others will learn and adapt... Besides I think percentage-wise much fewer have these skills. But going by raw numbers I bet there are similar amounts that atleast know enough to get by in place of a full knowledge set. 

dont get me wrong, I know how much space is up there. Very few scenarios will leave the far north inundated with people... I do expect some to head away from the Us coasts, some away from the deserts and some to the north if this country ever falls. 

Heck I have plans to head to canada in event of... who knows what. but I have a seed collection sealed up for the long term that I could use well past where most would even consider growing purposeful food as possible or practical. (I have such a collection for every zone) 

I used to dream of disappearing into canada. If I had found a women who would have went with me I might have.


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

beaver,nutria,muskrat,****,opossum,mtn lion(its delicious too),bear,wild hog,javalina,


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The meat they bring home is usually butchered, smoked, ground up, turned into sausages or canned, or cut up and packaged on site at the camps.


I would wager all that work is done by a paid "guide" while the "sports" drink around the campfire, or in a well stocked cabin


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I would wager all that work is done by a paid "guide" while the "sports" drink around the campfire, or in a well stocked cabin


Sorry, you would lose that wager. Perhaps some visiting wealthy sports hunters will do that, but I'm not talking about partying sports hunters. I'm talking about people who live here in towns and cities and do their big hunting expedition every year and have been doing it all their lives to make up the main bulk of their annual meat larder. People like my brothers-in-law, nephews and their wives, friends and neighbours, business acquaintances - who bring back food not only for their own families but also to help supplement the food supplies of their own friends and neighbours who are unable to go hunting. 

None of them are wealthy people who are able to afford paid guides to do the work for them while they party hearty. If they could afford paid guides they wouldn't bother hunting and doing all that work during what could be used as vacation time with the family, they'd be spending their money on vacations, consumer luxuries and meats bought at the store. The majority of people in each hunting party have the same destination that they go to year after year, some of those destinations are closely guarded secrets. They take their own meat processing equipment with them, they take all their own hunting gear and they take their trucks and campers to sleep in on old logging and forestry roads, with o/b boats on top and trailers loaded with gasoline, atv's and enough space left over to bring back the processed goodies on.

Maybe these kinds of hunting expeditions are not something commonly done in the lower 48 of the States? I know that it is quite common in Alaska, even HT member GrammasCabin from Alaska has posted here about the community hunting expeditions and efforts that happen where she lives. Here in BC and elsewhere in Canada, in a country where there is no such thing as food stamps, it is common and is a necessary part of life for many poor and middle-class people who MUST hunt, fish and forage annually to supplement their pantries if they want to eat well.

.


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

Homemade suppressors are VERY easy and cheap to make......DO NOT make one unless you have a Tax Stamp in hand now......but if SHTF those laws are the least to worry about.


----------



## francismilker (Jan 12, 2006)

I've heard my grandma and my grandpa both tell me that during the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl there wasn't so much as a skunk to be harvested. He said city folks as well as country people had all small game cleaned out in a matter time.


----------



## Welshmom (Sep 7, 2008)

I don't honestly think it matters!
If the game is going to get over hunted and wiped out, which I think most agree is very likely except perhaps in the most remote areas, then the take- away is we'd better be prepared to raise our own meat, or barter it, etc. 
Don't matter if it was country boys or city boys. Gone is gone.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

naturelover said:


> If non-desperate hunters will do that here now in the kind of rough, twisting, forested geography and ripple-board mountainous terrain and dangerous roads that we have here what makes you think that desperate hunters wouldn't go even further north than that in *Alberta or Saskatchewan on the easy roads and flat open terrain you have?*
> 
> 
> 
> .


If you think Saskatchewan and Alberta are flat and open, you have only seen or heard about one third of these provinces. Sure, the southern third of Saskatchewan is treeless, fairly level, and somewhat populated. But in the northern 2/3's it is rolling, empty of people, forested, muskeg, rock, cliffs, canyons, waterfalls, dotted with 100 000 lakes, deep gorges where the snow never melts even in summer. 

I am glad people have these perceptions. LOL 

:happy2:


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

zant said:


> Homemade suppressors are VERY easy and cheap to make......DO NOT make one unless you have a Tax Stamp in hand now......but if SHTF those laws are the least to worry about.


I would love some, but can't abide the stamp, and the draconian rules associated with them.

Once the ATF is but a fanciful memory, and we're burning 100 dollar bills for firestarters, maybe...

Saw an ad for the 'oil can' suppressors a few months ago.... seems like the easiest system around... that and a few plumbing fittings and one would be good to go...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Maybe these kinds of hunting expeditions are not something commonly done in the lower 48 of the States?


There aren't too many places in driving distance here to reach a "wilderness" hunting area where guides aren't required.

There are always exceptions to the rules, but in these discussions I try to picture the AVERAGE person in cities.

For every competent hunter there are probably 100 who don't own a gun, or even know how to use one, much less actually HUNT


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

farmerDale said:


> If you think Saskatchewan and Alberta are flat and open, you have only seen or heard about one third of these provinces. Sure, the southern third of Saskatchewan is treeless, fairly level, and somewhat populated. But in the northern 2/3's it is rolling, empty of people, forested, muskeg, rock, cliffs, canyons, waterfalls, dotted with 100 000 lakes, deep gorges where the snow never melts even in summer.
> 
> I am glad people have these perceptions. LOL
> 
> :happy2:


I've seen pretty much all of Alberta but not much of Saskatchewan.

What you describe sounds a little bit like this - the BC interior on a plateau - the video is a slide show of photos of one city boy's hunting trips over the years. He posted it not long ago on one of the BC Hunting forums. It shows the hunters campers and trucks and the trailers and atv's, the tarped campsites, the muddy back roads, hills, the muskeg, snow capped mountains even on the plateau, the lakes, the bush, some of the fish and game taken (or just photographed), his kids and him, and if you watch closely you might even catch the shot of a huge almost human looking footprint next to his own boot in the mud. I think it must have been a grizz.

enjoying british columbia - YouTube

[YOUTUBE]rzpu3sJ8x0k[/YOUTUBE]

.


----------



## Sanza (Sep 8, 2008)

LOL Bearfoot - someone should have told us that we weren't supposed to be able to kill prairie chickens and gophers and squirrells with arrows! 
Seriously now, bow hunting opens a month earlier up here and there are a lot of bow hunters that take advantage of that....of course for a whole month they're the only ones bragging...

Back to hunting to survive... Sure some will head out early, but I think if SHTF most people would stay in a familiar setting until all the food runs out. 
Then by the time they think of trying to hunt game they will:
a) not have much gas to get far.
b) not have a lot of strength left from lack of food, even if it's only a couple of days without. 
c) try to poach the easier animals when they come across herds of cattle that are being protected  Remember it will not likely be armies swooping down on the cattle, it would be individuals or very small groups. Sure they might kill a cow, but they wouldn't live long enough to skin it out.

Naturelover, remember these hunters you talk about will have to take along their wives and children and provide food and shelter for them too. 

I think your hunters you mentioned in post #105 - "They go to their hunting camp location then stay there for usually a couple of weeks at the least but often longer. The meat they bring home is usually butchered, smoked, ground up, turned into sausages or canned, or cut up and packaged on site at the camps. "
really can't "process" any game other then field dressing it until they get it home under BC regulations otherwise they are all breaking the law. Below is the site from the actual regulations with the actual rule about processing wild game.

Wildlife Act


_Possession of carcass
36 (1) A person who possesses the carcass of any wildlife, whether or not the carcass has been divided, without leaving attached the parts required by regulation to be left attached, commits an offence.

(2) Subsection (1) only applies until the earlier of the following:

(a) the carcass is given to a meatcutter or the owner or operator of a cold storage plant to be recorded in accordance with section 71,

(b) the carcass arrives at the person's normal dwelling place and is butchered and stored there for consumption on the premises, or

(c) the carcass is presented to an employee of the ministry for which the minister is responsible or other person specified by the Lieutenant Governor in Council for inspection._


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> LOL Bearfoot - someone should have told us that we weren't supposed to be able to kill prairie chickens and gophers and squirrells with arrows!
> Seriously now, bow hunting opens a month earlier up here and there are a lot of bow hunters that take advantage of that....of course for a whole month they're the only ones bragging...


I realize there ARE people who CAN do it, but the theory here is "city people" will suddenly *all turn into hunters* and wipe out game in no time.

I grew up running the woods with a gun or a bow in my hand, and I've killed lots of animals in many different ways, but there are a LOT of people who NEVER had that experience, and it's not something you learn overnight while trying to avoid starvation


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Sanza said:


> I think your hunters you mentioned in post #105 - "They go to their hunting camp location then stay there for usually a couple of weeks at the least but often longer. The meat they bring home is usually butchered, smoked, ground up, turned into sausages or canned, or cut up and packaged on site at the camps. "
> really can't "process" any game other then field dressing it until they get it home under BC regulations otherwise *they are all breaking the law*. Below is the site from the actual regulations with the actual rule about processing wild game.


 
*Yes*. 

LOL. Sanza, it's BC for crying out loud !!! What did you expect from British Columbians? A bunch of goody two shoes?? :hysterical:

.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

One other idea, if TSHTF in winter, what will the immigrants wear to stay warm at -40? If they did get up here by some miracle in the summer, and then winter came along, I am not too sure many would have the proper attire, or the proper breeding to withstand -40, or even -20 for weeks at a time. I keep thinking of this. It is keeping me up at night for Pete's sake!


----------



## GoldenCityMuse (Apr 15, 2009)

I very rarely hunt. But I could probably take out a few birds with the shotgun if I needed to.

Lots of elk in the mountain areas of NM, but yeah they would be highly pressured in a few weeks.


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

well one other thing...all people who hunt and fish are not capable.heard a biologist say 10% of th fishermen catch 90% of fish caught.

my family survived depression because they had land to have as a base to grow some things.the rest they took from the wilds.they are famous hunters in this area because of their abilities.one thing helped them were hunting dogs they had.they use to make sauerkraut in giant crocks.the neighbors would bring pails over and get a portion because they were so hungry.there gun,dog,traps,seeds and tools gave them daily survival when others were failing.they also stuck together and lived under one roof.


----------



## Sanza (Sep 8, 2008)

naturelover said:


> *Yes*.
> 
> LOL. Sanza, it's BC for crying out loud !!! What did you expect from British Columbians? A bunch of goody two shoes?? :hysterical:
> 
> .


LOL And here I thought all BCers were tree hugging save the animals and environment type of people :whistlin:


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Sanza said:


> LOL And here I thought all BCers were tree hugging save the animals and environment type of people :whistlin:


Well, yeah, you got that right, the majority are environmentalists and conservationists in spades and double spades and can get downright ornery about abuses. It's a point of pride and honour with the locals to be taking good care and conservation of the territory and resources. But by their own practical rules and self-governance, you see, not toeing some nanny line or corporate interests. So there's certain government rules and regulations and locals nod their heads and say yes and fork out the loonies and make declarations where required to keep the peace but then just turn around and do things their own way on the sly anyway. And as long as there's no blatant abuse and trouble, no destruction or imbalance that gets caused in the environment and resources as a consequence then nanny turns a blind eye. 

You can't tell hunters what they can cook up when they're deep in the bush.

.


----------



## Hairsheep (Aug 13, 2012)

I think folks will find, in SHTF type situation, game will disappear fast...Best to raise your own livestock of some form.


----------



## ovsfarm (Jan 14, 2003)

Okay, so we have thoroughly discussed whether city people will be able to reach the country/wilderness and whether they will have the equipment, skills, or stomach to hunt. We have also bragged about how well most, but not all, country people are able to hunt using a variety of methods. And of course, whether or not local wildlife populations will be able to withstand the onslaught.

What we haven't covered is *what if Mother nature herself (or with a little help) takes wild game off our menus?*

What if a volcano or other catastrophy causes a prolonged cooling so that natural food sources die off? Which means that everything dependent upon the forage and nuts and berries (or dependent upon those that feed on this stuff) will also experience a severe die off. What about other extreme climactic changes that happen quickly?

What if nuclear fallout causes a die off of most wildlife (game and nongame) species in a large region?

What if, as the result of an attack, deadly viruses are introduced into wild game species to remove them as a food source?

I am only now starting to ponder these scenarios, so don't have many answers yet. What other situations could potentially kill off or render wild game species inedible?

I think I want to go back to my nutrition charts and review my plant based sources of proteins. I know that many primitive cultures survived for centuries on primarily vegetarian diets. Not my first choice, but I'd like to be prepared to make the switch if I have to.

(It just occurred to me that some here might suggest eating "long pork". But I don't want to do that. First for health reasons since diseases can be spread more easily this way and also because I'm hoping not to even see anyone who isn't family or a neighbor who is part of our valuable community defense system. So let's assume that there's not any "long pork" available either.)


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

These are great questions. I think the further out one is from major centers, the better they will fare in this as well. Regarding the nuclear meltdown, attack or whatever. regarding volcanoes, earthquakes, or some other natural disaster, one must choose wisely where to live if these possibilities freak them out. 

An example is Wyoming. Sparsely populated, hardly any reason to see a nuclear attack, yet volatile potentially in catastrophic eruptions for example. 

Great questions to ponder indeed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> What if nuclear fallout causes a die off of most wildlife (game and nongame) species in a large region?
> 
> What if, as the result of an attack, deadly viruses are introduced into wild game species to remove them as a food source?


You can "what if" forever, but it's pointless if you want to have a* meaningful* discussion about things.

You have to have *defined parameters* to have a useful discussion.
Otherwise, everyone is talking about something totally* different
*


----------



## ovsfarm (Jan 14, 2003)

Okay, here's the specific parameter: wild game is either inedible due to contamination or unavailable due to a die off. Bottom line, nothing to hunt to eat.

What sources of protein could we then begin to incorporate into our diets?

I was thinking out loud about what various scenarios might potentially trigger such a situation, but looking at the same end result. No wild game. And yes, I certainly do want to have a meaningful discussion about this.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Depends where you are located in that scenario. If you are in an area close to a priority attack region, like a large city I would worry. It still comes down to where one is. Here, there is nothing, no reason to attack, no reactors to blow up, no volcanic activity, no earthquakes, no natural disasters, other than a one in 200 year tornado.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Okay, here's the specific parameter: wild game is either inedible due to contamination or unavailable due to a die off. Bottom line, nothing to hunt to eat.


That would be a highly localized occurrence, or humans probably wouldn't have survived either

Are you counting fish as "game"

Did livestock survive?


----------



## Hairsheep (Aug 13, 2012)

naturelover said:


> Maybe these kinds of hunting expeditions are not something commonly done in the lower 48 of the States? I know that it is quite common in Alaska, even HT member GrammasCabin from Alaska has posted here about the community hunting expeditions and efforts that happen where she lives. Here in BC and elsewhere in Canada, in a country where there is no such thing as food stamps, it is common and is a necessary part of life for many poor and middle-class people who MUST hunt, fish and forage annually to supplement their pantries if they want to eat well.
> 
> .


In a situation, where the American Dollar has crashed, and thus fuel prices are hyperinflated, I doubt seriously that Americans will be going north into Canada to hunt.
For one, thing, the average American doesn't walk anywhere, these days...they can't drive, they sit at home.
When hunger kicks in, any creature that moves, will be fair game...cities will become a war zones as folks prey upon each other for available resources and only AFTER all resources are gone will the survivors move on: SOUTH, where its warmer.
Theres few who will stay, in the cold brutal North, I am of an opinion.
Just TOO much work, that has to be done, in order to survive, minus modern 
conveniences.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Hairsheep said:


> .......only AFTER all resources are gone will the survivors move on: SOUTH, where its warmer.


Ya think? I've only got one answer to that.

Drought.

When all resources are gone the survivors (that's people and animals) will go to wherever the fresh water and plants are and that is NOT going to be in the south where there's killing heat and drought.

Just thought I'd throw that in there in case nobody else has noticed what's developing down south.

.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

naturelover said:


> Ya think? I've only got one answer to that.
> 
> Drought.
> 
> ...


Heck even without a drought many in those areas now, even longtime farmers would be hard pressed to grow food simply because of a lack of germplasm that performs in those conditions without heavy irrigation. Exceptions to most everything, but its likely to be a huge factor imo... 

Your right though. People will go where there is food. Many folks know very well how wild it is the deeper you head north. I certainly dont expect many from places with weak winters to consider that an option, but some from northern states will imo. 

Since you mention drought.... Much of the bread basket of the US is not what it appears. Im not sure how this is ignored, (or blamed on weather or climate anomolies when its normal for the area) but the area actually toggles between its "wet" periods and its "arid" one... Since around the civil war its been in its wet period. With a few dry spots like the dustbowl thrown in. Based on past cycles of the area it could head back to being arid for several human generations. If it does the US will never be the same again, shtf or not. You CAN grow under such conditions if you really know what your doing, but nothing like we do now, and trying to sustain massive levels of irrigation will only compound the issue.


----------



## ovsfarm (Jan 14, 2003)

I detailed the parameters last night, but apparently the post got lost. Probably a sign that I don't need to borrow trouble. 

But what I did find today was interesting. I am playing around a bit with some family genealogy research. I read an account of a man from the hills of Kentucky back in the 1840's. He said, "We raised flax and cotton, and the women made all the clothing. The women did the field work, too. The men did the hunting for the meat and to get leather for coats and boots. As a boy, I killed all the squirrels we needed, for a meal, with small stones and rocks. All kinds of wild animals were plentiful then, plenty of wild turkey and lots of pigeons, so many they'd darken the sun at times. *They all left all at once, don't know where they went; some people said they went across the sea*."

I guess he was referring just to the pigeons leaving and not the other species, however, I do know that in the late 1700's that area of Kentucky had both buffalo and elk. By the Civil War, I have read that both were extinct. If that happened then, with such a small human population and such a large amount of habitat, I do think this thread deals with a valid concern.
"


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> When all resources are gone the survivors (that's people and animals) will go to wherever the fresh water and plants are and that is NOT going to be in the south where there's killing heat and drought.


A relatively small portion of the "South" is facing severe drought.
It extends far Northward also.

Nothing here has shriveled up and died, and it's been in the 70's the past couple of days


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

ovsfarm said:


> I read an account of a man from the hills of Kentucky back in the 1840's. He said, ...... All kinds of wild animals were plentiful then, plenty of wild turkey and lots of pigeons, so many they'd darken the sun at times. *They all left all at once, don't know where they went; some people said they went across the sea*." ....... I guess he was referring just to the pigeons leaving and not the other species,


In that time period he was probably referring to Passenger Pigeons - now an extinct bird. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_Pigeon



> The *Passenger Pigeon* or *Wild Pigeon* (_*Ectopistes migratorius*_) is an extinct North American bird. The species lived in enormous migratory flocks until the early 20th century, when hunting and habitat destruction led to its demise.[2] One flock in 1866 in southern Ontario was described as being 1 mi (1.5 km) wide and 300 mi (500 km) long, took 14 hours to pass, and held in excess of 3.5 billion birds. That number, if accurate, would likely represent a large fraction of the entire population at the time.[3][A][4]
> 
> Some estimate 3 to 5 billion Passenger Pigeons were in the United States when Europeans arrived in North America.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_Pigeon#cite_note-6* Others argue the species had not been common in the pre-Columbian period, but their numbers grew when devastation of the American Indian population by European diseases led to reduced competition for food.[C]
> 
> ...


* 




ovsfarm said:



however, I do know that in the late 1700's that area of Kentucky had both buffalo and elk. By the Civil War, I have read that both were extinct. If that happened then, with such a small human population and such a large amount of habitat, I do think this thread deals with a valid concern.
"

Click to expand...

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/natbltn/300-399/nb324.htm

The Slaughter of the Bison




...... The wholesale slaughter of the bison began after the Civil War, at first for their meat -- of which only the tongue, hump and hindquarters were used. During the 70's and early 80's, millions were killed for their hides alone, and the carcasses left to rot. As the railroads penetrated the West, they advertised cheap excursions for "sportsmen" who liked to see how many buffalo they could kill in one day. Eventually the bones, which in many areas covered the plains as far as one could see, were gathered by nesters (homesteaders), and a strange wild breed of men called "bonepickers", shipped East, and used for fertilizer or to make charcoal for refining sugar. Then there was nothing left of the buffalo But a memory. In l900 there were only about 800 left alive. 

The Indians bitterly resented this destruction which meant the end of their way of life. There were years of terrible massacres and bloody warfare, especially with the Comanche and the Sioux. Their ultimate defeat was hastened by the extermination of the buffalo, urged and aided by Gen. Phil Sheridan and the U.S. Army. Today, by careful management, there are about 25,000 bison in parks, reservations and zoos in the United States and Canada. 

Click to expand...

.*


----------



## Hairsheep (Aug 13, 2012)

naturelover said:


> Ya think? I've only got one answer to that.
> 
> Drought.
> 
> ...


I am glad you watch the news(DROUGHT)...I do too...It is abundantly clear that the average US person does NOT....Look who got 4 more years:grit:
Trust me, when I tell you, that MOST will NOT head to the COLD cruel North.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> *A relatively small portion of the "South" is facing severe drought.*
> It extends far Northward also.
> 
> Nothing here has shriveled up and died, and it's been in the 70's the past couple of days


How do you know what parts of the continent are *facing* severe drought?

I'm guessing you didn't see all the maps and topics posted in CE in the summer that showed how extensive an area of USA and parts of Canada were already suffering from severe heat and drought conditions???

I'm aware of what the temperatures are in the south, I've been monitoring it for the past few days. (it's my hobby you know). Is 70's temps normal in your location at this time of year? I see in another topic here that some people in other states are concerned about the unseasonably high temperatures and lack of precipitation at this time. If unseasonably higher temps and little or no precipitation should prevail throughout the winter will you have some concern about what it may foretell for spring and summer conditions?











.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> How do you know what parts of the continent are *facing* severe *drought*?


There are maps for that too
Google "Drought map" and you'll see *half the country* isn't affected at all



> Is 70's temps normal in your location at this time of year?


It's "above average" but it's not "abnormal" for my location

http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/climate/extremes.html


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

-20 here right now. A bit below normal, in the land where climate change is apparently having the highest impact. lol

Could be worse though....

I always go to these forecasts when I see the latest, "the ice is melting, never to be regained" news story.

http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/city/pages/nu-14_metric_e.html

http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/city/pages/nu-11_metric_e.html

Yup the ice is melting. lol


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Hairsheep said:


> I am glad you watch the news(DROUGHT)...I do too...It is abundantly clear that the average US person does NOT....Look who got 4 more years:grit:
> Trust me, when I tell you, that MOST will NOT head to the COLD cruel North.


Im wondering how many prepping or survival forums youve frequented? 

Im trying to think if I ever heard of a single other place people planned to go to if things fell besides the many that said they would head north. 

Of course "most" wont head north.. In a true fall most arent going anywhere. "most" will be dead. 

In fact being in ohio, (Im from NE ohio) Id flee to canada before Id ever dream of trying to stay anywhere in ohio that wasnt perhaps deep underground with no need to surface. I think the chances that you can stay on a homestead, defended or not in a place as populated as ohio is very near zero in a true fall. thats my take anyway. now I live in the middle of nowhere and have places to go well past nowhere. with a dozen plans of what Id try to do if I end up stuck in between. I expect humans to quickly become the main course in such populated places, with many fleeing anywhere they THINK might be safer or has food.


----------



## janetn (Apr 26, 2012)

Where and what people do in a SHTF situation is going to depend on what time of the year it is. In a grid down situation in any cold state folks are going to do one of two things - freeze or head south. People were having fits in the NE with Sandy, and it wasnt even close to winter. You simply cant survive in the northern states in the winter without alternate forms of heat if you dont have electricity. Most city homes and apts do not have woodstoves of even function real fireplaces. 

If somehow the wildlife became comtaminated I would assume the plant life would be also including any gardens, assuming it was spring or summer. So for protien you better have some stored up either plant based or animal.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

farmerDale said:


> -20 here right now. A bit below normal, *in the land where climate change is apparently having the highest impact*. lol
> 
> Could be worse though....
> 
> ...


Actually, climate change is having the highest impact on Arctic sea ice and Arctic permafrost.

Summer 2012 set another record for lowest recorded sea ice loss.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/05/climate-change-scientists-arctic-ice-loss



> The full extent of the extreme loss of Arctic ice cover is due to be revealed on Wednesday (Dec. 5/12) when a premier US science agency delivers its annual report on the polar region.
> 
> The report, overseen by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), provides the most comprehensive review so far of a year of record-breaking and extreme weather events in the Arctic.
> 
> ...


http://o.canada.com/2012/09/21/ice-rotten-to-the-north-pole/



> *Arctic Ice &#8220;Rotten&#8221; to the North Pole, scientist says*
> 
> This year the ice is &#8220;rotten&#8221; practically all the way to the North Pole, says Barber, a veteran Arctic researcher and director of the Centre for Earth Observation Science at the University of Manitoba.
> 
> ...


http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/10/poles-apart-a-record-breaking-summer-and-winter/



> *Poles apart: A record-breaking summer and winter*
> 
> The sun has set over the central Arctic Ocean and sea ice extent is now increasing. While much attention has been paid to the record minimum Arctic ice extent set on September 16, 2012, winter sea ice extent in Antarctica has reached a record high. The Antarctic extent increase is an interesting response to changes in circulation patterns in the Southern Hemisphere.... continued....


http://www.nature.com/news/ice-loss-shifts-arctic-cycles-1.11387



> *Ice loss shifts Arctic cycles*
> 
> Record shrinkage confounds models and portends atmospheric and ecological change.......


 
There's other recent news reports here:
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=arctic+ice+loss+for+summer+2012&oq=arctic+ice+loss+for+summer+2012&gs_l=hp.3..33i29.9187.17797.0.19656.31.18.0.1.1.0.2641.10624.0j2j5j5-1j1j1j2j1.13.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.KrBgxKtkDs8&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=6f39b308abe5e04&bpcl=39650382&biw=1187&bih=495



Be prepared to start hearing more of the new buzz phrase that scientists and climatologists have coined and started using in the past couple of years. 

The new phrase is ....... 

*"Global Weirding Phenomenon" * .... :shocked: .... eep: .... :runforhills:
:trollface

I don't want to hijack this topic with long explanations about what it is and where it's been happening (in a nutshell it's the very extreme, rapid disaster phenomenons that are now occurring around the world in localized places as a consequence and in response to climate change, and which scientists had not been expecting or able to foretell). However, Global Weirding Phenomenon is relevant to the topic because of the exterminating effects it's having on infrastructures and on wild species that humans presently hunt/forage to supplement their food as well as the effects it's having on the livestock and crops that they grow.

.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

naturelover said:


> and which scientists had not been expecting or able to foretell)
> .


That is because we have no data to suggest the portion of a degree the temps rose previously was or is the trigger. Of course our records in no way indicate climate is even odd right now. Our accurate records cover a very short period and our longer term records do not point to current climate as an anomaly. 

Many sources do claim climate is currently odd, including very official sources but they apparently ignore the vast bulk of the data. It will be interesting to see how they back out of this, especially as the sun takes us into a mini iceage, which it will do on its current track if it continues.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Whatever. It would be possible to debate until the cows come home about records, oddities and whatever is the trigger. I can't be bothered with all that pointless bickering anymore because it's just a waste of time. The fact remains that Global Weirding Phenomenon IS undeniably and recognizably real, it's happening in places all over the world now with increasing frequency and severity and it's coming soon to a location near you and me and everyone else, if it hasn't already got to you. It's just another major stressor to factor in now when determining what people are going to do about food when long term SHTF happens. Personally, I think long term SHTF has already happened and GWP's are just the beginning of the roller coaster ride. Most people simply don't recognize it yet. Maybe that's just as well.

.


----------



## Hairsheep (Aug 13, 2012)

silverseeds said:


> Im wondering how many prepping or survival forums youve frequented?
> 
> Im trying to think if I ever heard of a single other place people planned to go to if things fell besides the many that said they would head north.
> 
> ...


How many folks from Ohio do you see walking North in the dead of winter?
How many even own a hatchet, let alone an ax and a saw?
How many have split wood(with a wedge and a Sledge)?
These are the kinds of simple everyday things folks need to do in order to survive in the North, when they have no power or gas.


----------



## Hairsheep (Aug 13, 2012)

naturelover said:


> Whatever. It would be possible to debate until the cows come home about records, oddities and whatever is the trigger. I can't be bothered with all that pointless bickering anymore because it's just a waste of time. The fact remains that Global Weirding Phenomenon IS undeniably and recognizably real, it's happening in places all over the world now with increasing frequency and severity and it's coming soon to a location near you and me and everyone else, if it hasn't already got to you. It's just another major stressor to factor in now when determining what people are going to do about food when long term SHTF happens. Personally, I think long term SHTF has already happened and GWP's are just the beginning of the roller coaster ride. Most people simply don't recognize it yet. Maybe that's just as well.
> 
> .


I agree, its real...Its a natural pattern that has been on earth before...Witness tropical plants fossils found in areas, now VERY cold.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

I watch these forecasts consistently throughout the year. Thing is, the temperatures are often below normal, in fact they are below normal from what I have seen, more than they are above. It behooves me then, that the ice is melting in colder than normal temperatures.

Just saying. 

It is -29.7 here this AM. A bit chilly. lol Which brings me back to the question of whether we will have a very large influx of southerners when it happens.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

naturelover said:


> The fact remains that Global Weirding Phenomenon IS undeniably and recognizably real, it's happening in places all over the world now with increasing frequency and severity and it's coming soon to a location near you and me and everyone else, if it hasn't already got to you.
> 
> .


Not expecting to convince you but.... 

"undeniably and recognizably real"... :teehee: except there is nothing to indicate anything is truly strange. In fact our records indicate it can get multiples crazier, and still be within the realm of normal. this is "undeniable and recognizably a fact" if you look at our actual records. 

You realize we have NO science to even lead us to believe temps would be affecting these things at noticeable levels until several degrees of warming? We have had a fraction of a degree that you MIGHT be able to tie to co2. 

We simply cannot compare the daily moves in weather to our longterm climate records. We can however compare the overall trends, and climate simply gets much crazier then what we have now. Yes i know official sources claim otherwise but the actual raw data undeniably contradicts them. 

Weird how the alarmists ignore what the sun is doing. Which if continued just a few more years would drop global temps abruptly. which unlike warming WILL be devastating to humans. (which our data actually indicate warming would be mostly GOOD for us despite what the alarmists tell us, again the data goes against them entirely-a warmer world has more stable weather and rains not less) 

I saw you mention desertification before. Now that IS a major issue an very real and looming. And will potentially put the worlds breadbaskets to their knees one day. If it progresses further it even has the potential to alter climate and thus weather. 




Hairsheep said:


> How many folks from Ohio do you see walking North in the dead of winter?
> How many even own a hatchet, let alone an ax and a saw?
> How many have split wood(with a wedge and a Sledge)?
> These are the kinds of simple everyday things folks need to do in order to survive in the North, when they have no power or gas.


People arent going to lay down and die. Well many will, but not everyone. I personally know several who plan to head north in scenarios there is to much pressure to defend their homestead. 

If your locality becomes a warzone with no food and rumors of cannibals what would YOU do? Even if you have a full pantry for yourself. in fact the fact it IS so cold up there is now a MAJOR bonus to you in such a scenario. 

guess we will see.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> which *scientists had not been expecting* or able to foretell)





> Global Weirding Phenomenon IS undeniably and recognizably real,


That just shows their* predictions don't mean a lot* because RELIABLE data is too limited


----------



## oregon woodsmok (Dec 19, 2010)

The general population is not necessarily going to do what we here on this forum would do.

I suspect they would head south, because it is warmer, longer growing season, more possibilities of finding food over a longer time period. Or else they will head to the ocean _because that is what the hero always does in the movies_. Not well thought out in any case.

Those of us here, plans or not, are going to be in serious trouble if we are forced out of our homesteads and have to migrate in any direction.


----------



## spacecase0 (Jul 12, 2012)

if we look at the active nuke plants and where the wind will fall from them, 
and the toxic oil dispersant used to cover up the gulf spill, 
and the dry weather (unless it is flooding) in the middle of all the land masses now, 
north still has some good weather and good land, and near the oceans if you can avoid the radiation and other bad things, 
and wherever most people go will be over hunted, and no one will live there, unless they are eating other people.
if you are really thinking you would go to a city where there are lots of people to eat, 
I am sure not many would mind if you only ate the dead...
but it is sure not my plan, 
I want only non GMO food, 
and most people have been eating GMOs


----------



## Sanza (Sep 8, 2008)

Silverseeds can you fully explain how far your "north" is when you say preppers on some sites speak of heading north? 
I still don't believe many will make it up to Canada, or more then 100 miles north of the border.

It takes a lot of wood gathering to make it through a winter up here when you need a fire to keep you alive. Even warm summer nights where we don't need to wear a winter jacket are rare these past 20 years, so a lot of people could suffer from the cold on any given July night .

You also need food stored to survive. Can a person or a small group do that in 2-3 months if SHTF even in the optimal time in summer?

It's too cold in Alberta and Saskatchewan even in summer, and in BC all the self governing poachers would have killed off any wildlife in no time. There's nothing up here to save anybody!


----------



## janetn (Apr 26, 2012)

We can argue climate change wierd weather or whatever you call it till doomsday . The fact remains climates do and have changed for various reasons - history shows this. 

Now their are two hard and fast rules requarding humans. The first is that we are very adaptable, and the second is we as a race take the path of least resistance. Their are of course exceptions to both rules. But they are not the norm. It is for us to figure out how folks will adapt to a SHTF situation and attempt to plan for several different responses. 

One thing I know for certain is that the vast majority of people in northern states cannot make it in cold weather [Im not talking 30s and 40s Im talking teens and below] At some point during a crisis the winter months are going to come upon those living in cold states. I see no other alternative than for the vast majority of those still alive to migrate to warmer climates. They simply dont have the resourses nor knowledge to survive winter in a 1800s society. Therefore I dont see game being depleted. Now if that game is contaminated the whole enviornment would be too, so that would mean leaving the area for a uncontaminated area. You would of course have to have a means to travel out of the area and a stockpile of food to sustain you till you could restablish yourself.

Someone would have to show me a reasonable plan for those living in the cold states that would provide them with heat and food. Heat especially. I frankly dont see one.


----------



## Malamute (Sep 15, 2011)

naturelover said:


> Ya think? I've only got one answer to that.
> 
> *Drought*.
> 
> ...



 Sorry for the drift, but when I saw this post, it reminded me of this for some reason, (Hmm, for some reason the link isnt working right. I paste it in, then it changes when I go to post it. Tried it a couple different ways. What changed recently here? OK, so we cant post youtubes any more? I've tried every way I can think of, the old method doesnt work now, nor any other option. Every way I try it, it gets altered to a dead link when I actually post it.)

(was supposed to be "at last the 1948 show four yorkshiremen" on youtube.)


----------



## foxfiredidit (Apr 15, 2003)

There ya go Mal...I tried it the old way; Delete everything to the left of, and including the =, highlight whats left and wrap in youtube tags. 

ETA...it now says "this video does not exist" Oh well. The Youtube link is; 

ETA...that ain't right either, okay so now I get what you're saying.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAtSw3----o[/ame]

[YOUTUBE]DAtSw3----o[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

I tried every which way to get the video to come up but it won't. However, here is the transcript.

The Scene: Four well-dressed men are sitting together at a vacation resort.
'Farewell to Thee' is played in the background on Hawaiian guitar. 

FIRST YORKSHIREMAN:Aye, very passable, that, very passable bit of risotto.

SECOND YORKSHIREMAN:Nothing like a good glass of ChÃ¢teau de Chasselas, eh, Josiah?

THIRD YORKSHIREMAN:You're right there, Obadiah.

FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN:Who'd have thought thirty year ago we'd all be sittin' here drinking ChÃ¢teau de Chasselas, eh?

FIRST YORKSHIREMAN:In them days we was glad to have the price of a cup o' tea.

SECOND YORKSHIREMAN:A cup o' cold tea.

FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN:Without milk or sugar.

THIRD YORKSHIREMAN:Or tea.

FIRST YORKSHIREMAN:In a cracked cup, an' all.

FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN:Oh, we never had a cup. We used to have to drink out of a rolled up newspaper.

SECOND YORKSHIREMAN:The best we could manage was to suck on a piece of damp cloth.

THIRD YORKSHIREMAN:But you know, we were happy in those days, though we were poor.

FIRST YORKSHIREMAN:Because we were poor. My old Dad used to say to me, "Money doesn't buy you happiness, son".

FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN:Aye, 'e was right.

FIRST YORKSHIREMAN:Aye, 'e was.

FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN:I was happier then and I had nothin'. We used to live in this tiny old house with great big holes in the roof.

SECOND YORKSHIREMAN:House! You were lucky to live in a house! We used to live in one room, all twenty-six of us, no furniture, 'alf the floor was missing, and we were all 'uddled together in one corner for fear of falling.

THIRD YORKSHIREMAN:Eh, you were lucky to have a room! We used to have to live in t' corridor!

FIRST YORKSHIREMAN:Oh, we used to dream of livin' in a corridor! Would ha' been a palace to us. We used to live in an old water tank on a rubbish tip. We got woke up every morning by having a load of rotting fish dumped all over us! House? Huh.

FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN:Well, when I say 'house' it was only a hole in the ground covered by a sheet of tarpaulin, but it was a house to us.

SECOND YORKSHIREMAN:We were evicted from our 'ole in the ground; we 'ad to go and live in a lake.

THIRD YORKSHIREMAN:You were lucky to have a lake! There were a hundred and fifty of us living in t' shoebox in t' middle o' road.

FIRST YORKSHIREMAN:Cardboard box?

THIRD YORKSHIREMAN:Aye.

FIRST YORKSHIREMAN:You were lucky. We lived for three months in a paper bag in a septic tank. We used to have to get up at six in the morning, clean the paper bag, eat a crust of stale bread, go to work down t' mill, fourteen hours a day, week-in week-out, for sixpence a week, and when we got home our Dad would thrash us to sleep wi' his belt.

SECOND YORKSHIREMAN:Luxury. We used to have to get out of the lake at six o'clock in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of 'ot gravel, work twenty hour day at mill for tuppence a month, come home, and Dad would thrash us to sleep with a broken bottle, if we were lucky!

THIRD YORKSHIREMAN:Well, of course, we had it tough. We used to 'ave to get up out of shoebox at twelve o'clock at night and lick road clean wit' tongue. We had two bits of cold gravel, worked twenty-four hours a day at mill for sixpence every four years, and when we got home our Dad would slice us in two wit' bread knife.

FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN:Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night half an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and our mother would kill us and dance about on our graves singing Hallelujah.

FIRST YORKSHIREMAN:And you try and tell the young people of today that ..... they won't believe you.

ALL:They won't!


.


----------



## foxfiredidit (Apr 15, 2003)

Okay, I got to try this video posting again, since I've seen another video that was posted since that one was attempted. 
ETA...hey this one worked. I reckon it was something of a Youtube problem and not one with this site. Yay!!! Sorry that it was off topic. (I'll crawl back under the rock now).

[YOUTUBE]Nnos8pfTq70[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I do have one thing I would like to say about the hunted out wildlife: If there's no squirrel and no raccoon and no groundhog around I might finally be able to get a good harvest from the garden. I hope someone eats the stupid Robins too!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I hope someone eats the stupid Robins too!


*All *songbirds are edible.
It's best to make soup with them to get all the nutrients


----------



## cvk (Oct 30, 2006)

When they get done eatin the wildlife they will be eatin your garden.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

cvk said:


> When they get done eatin the wildlife they will be eatin your garden.


Not if I get them first. Bigger noisier target, much easier to hit. More meat to last longer too. SbbqS


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Ya think? I've only got one answer to that.
> 
> Drought.
> 
> ...



i read an article the other day said if it didnt rain soon they were closing the Mississippi river to all barges.nobody is paying attention it seems....even on here...all those goods shipped will go by truck or not at all.what happens if we have another year of drought.....its going to be disastrous....people are just not grasping how low the water level is right now.wanna see something scary....look at lake meade...its coming and coming fast....wars over water not oil in the future.


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Whatever. It would be possible to debate until the cows come home about records, oddities and whatever is the trigger. I can't be bothered with all that pointless bickering anymore because it's just a waste of time. The fact remains that Global Weirding Phenomenon IS undeniably and recognizably real, it's happening in places all over the world now with increasing frequency and severity and it's coming soon to a location near you and me and everyone else, if it hasn't already got to you. It's just another major stressor to factor in now when determining what people are going to do about food when long term SHTF happens. Personally, I think long term SHTF has already happened and GWP's are just the beginning of the roller coaster ride. Most people simply don't recognize it yet. Maybe that's just as well.
> 
> .


i am with you......its why i am so motivated on getting as much done right now.i am thinking of putting in a plastic cistern right now.anyone that doesnt see whats going on world wide doesnt want to see it.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

I have an aunt and uncle visiting family at the 'camp' on the river at Vicksburg. She was just telling us of the Corps of Engineers having t dredge out a channel so the river traffic could continue for now. I hope we get good rain there, and that the Rockies, both sides get good snow so the rain from the snow melt in the spring will help everyone.


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

AngieM2 said:


> I have an aunt and uncle visiting family at the 'camp' on the river at Vicksburg. She was just telling us of the Corps of Engineers having t dredge out a channel so the river traffic could continue for now. I hope we get good rain there, and that the Rockies, both sides get good snow so the rain from the snow melt in the spring will help everyone.


http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/12/02/mississippi-river-closes-to-barges-recreational-traffic/


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012...News&feedType=RSS&feedName=companyNews&rpc=43


http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20121130/NEWS02/711309895?page=single


http://wqad.com/2012/11/29/drought-decisions-threaten-mississippi-river-barge-traffic/


----------



## terri9630 (Mar 12, 2012)

elkhound said:


> i read an article the other day said if it didnt rain soon they were closing the Mississippi rover to all barges.nobody is paying attention it seems....even on here...all those goods shipped will go by truck or not at all.what happens if we have another year of drought.....its going to be disastrous....people are just not grasping how low the water level is right now.wanna see something scary....look at lake meade...its coming and coming fast....wars over water not oil in the future.



The Rio Grande is dry down here. Went over it yesterday. This summer while we were up at the lakes it dropped 7" over the weekend. We had 4" of rain last year and nowhere near that so far this year.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

elkhound said:


> http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20121130/NEWS02/711309895?page=single





> The focus of greatest concern is a 180-mile stretch of the river between the confluences of the Missouri River near St. Louis and the Ohio River at Cairo, Ill. That's where lack of rain has squeezed the channel from its normal width of 1,000 feet or more to a just a few hundred feet.
> 
> The river depth is 15 to 20 feet less than normal, now about 13 feet deep in many places. If it dips to around 9 feet, *rock pinnacles at two locations make it difficult, if not impossible, for barges to pass.* Hydrologists for the National Weather Service predict the Mississippi will reach the 9-foot mark by Dec. 9.


Too bad they can't just give those 2 rock pinnacles the good old "_Ripple Rock_" treatment. But I guess it would cause damage to infrastructures near the river.





















.


----------



## Hairsheep (Aug 13, 2012)

silverseeds said:


> People arent going to lay down and die. Well many will, but not everyone. I personally know several who plan to head north in scenarios there is to much pressure to defend their homestead.
> 
> If your locality becomes a warzone with no food and rumors of cannibals what would YOU do? Even if you have a full pantry for yourself. in fact the fact it IS so cold up there is now a MAJOR bonus to you in such a scenario.
> 
> guess we will see.


How many is several?
25?
50?
100?
In reality, that is small, in comparison to the actual populations.
Furthermore, "laying down and dying" is not the issue...Having the "tech" and knowledge needed to LIVE is.


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Too bad they can't just give those 2 rock pinnacles the good old "_Ripple Rock_" treatment. But I guess it would cause damage to infrastructures near the river.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


instead of bombing and killing each other we need to use them bunker busters on all rivers....lol

oh we could make instant ponds on ranches too.....lol


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

elkhound said:


> instead of bombing and killing each other we need to use them bunker busters on all rivers....lol
> 
> oh we could make instant ponds on ranches too.....lol


I remember when Ripple Rock was blown up, we lived not very far from there at the time. Our whole town came to a complete standstill as we awaited the detonation at 9:31 a.m. It was 1958 and at that time it was the largest non-nuclear explosion ever to be set off anywhere in the world. The sound of the explosion echoed for hundreds of miles. We all had to open all windows so there would be no windows shattering. It was a national historic event and the first time in the history of Canada that an event like that was broadcast live from coast to coast on CBC television.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripple_Rock



> *Ripple Rock* was an underwater, twin-peaked mountain in the Seymour Narrows of the Discovery Passage in British Columbia, Canada,[1] a part of the marine trade route from Vancouver and coastal points north. The nearest town was Campbell River. Only 2.7 metres (9 feet) underwater at low tide, it was a marine hazard, described by the explorer George Vancouver as "one of vilest stretches of water in the world." It was destroyed by a planned explosion on April 5, 1958.......


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-jif8hYS5Q[/ame]

.


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

boys like big booms.....lol


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

wonder if any sturgeon or other fish floated to the top of what.i think i would have had boat and gaff ready to fill the boat after that blast.


----------



## cvk (Oct 30, 2006)

Elkhound--I am paying attention. Haven't you noticed that there is no drought anymore, no grain shortages, no problems anywhere. If you read several bulletin boards they are more concerned with what is on tv. Nobody is taking the possibility of another year of drought as any kind of a reality. They seem to think if they stuff a few packages of hamburger into the freezer--problem solved.


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

cvk said:


> Elkhound--I am paying attention. Haven't you noticed that there is no drought anymore, no grain shortages, no problems anywhere. If you read several bulletin boards they are more concerned with what is on tv. Nobody is taking the possibility of another year of drought as any kind of a reality. They seem to think if they stuff a few packages of hamburger into the freezer--problem solved.



i am real worried about the drought and all.i am changing a few things here.growing my own feed and getting a new rooster to breed my hens to hatch out my version of factory chicken.i want to add quail and rabbits.one of the best things i have done is growing turnips and feeding tuber and tops.my buddy is having great success with it right now on his flock.i will be trying the mangel beets i got from mypatriotsupply come spring too.i didnt grow milo this year but i will this year for sure.it does well even if its dry and hot and its easy to grow.till and broadcast it and drag a bit.

my chore list is huge.....lol


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

heres what i will be trying...my buddy is raising it for me.

http://www.mcmurrayhatchery.com/dark_cornish.html


----------



## CJ (May 10, 2002)

I didn't read all the responses, but if a SHTF situation long term were to happen, and there was a fuel shortage, food shortage, etc, what makes you think any of those folks would have any ammo or weapons to hunt with anyway?


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

CJ said:


> I didn't read all the responses, but if a SHTF situation long term were to happen, and there was a fuel shortage, food shortage, etc, what makes you think any of those folks would have any ammo or weapons to hunt with anyway?


 Good point-I would imagine a normal city/non-gun person would think if they had 3-500 rds,they were stocked up..Won't last long.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

A good hunter would be able to trap or snare game. A pointed stick will kill an animal in a live trap. But that means the "hunter" would have to be willing and able to clean, cook and eat said animal. 

Scavengers and zombies will kill others to take what they have or will simply pick up what's laying around or isn't protected.

If there is a true shtf situation I won't be wasting my limited supply of defensive ammo on killing small game.


----------



## terri9630 (Mar 12, 2012)

cvk said:


> Elkhound--I am paying attention. Haven't you noticed that there is no drought anymore, no grain shortages, no problems anywhere. If you read several bulletin boards they are more concerned with what is on tv. Nobody is taking the possibility of another year of drought as any kind of a reality. They seem to think if they stuff a few packages of hamburger into the freezer--problem solved.



We are thinking of nothing but the drought and its effects here. We have had less than 2 1/2" of rain this year and the "area" lake (95 miles from here) is dropping visibly.


----------



## BillHoo (Mar 16, 2005)

People who are hunting in SHTF are people who have not been prepping.

A closet full of rabbits or guinea pigs in the big city are more reliable meat.


----------



## Hairsheep (Aug 13, 2012)

BillHoo said:


> People who are hunting in SHTF are people who have not been prepping.
> 
> A closet full of rabbits or guinea pigs in the big city are more reliable meat.


AGREED...I have been saying this all along....In fact, some COULD be raising even more than that, depending on city codes.
For instance, in some cities, goats are pets...Some Potbelly Pigs.
One needs to check their codes!


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

BillHoo said:


> People who are hunting in SHTF are people who have not been prepping.
> 
> A closet full of rabbits or guinea pigs in the big city are more reliable meat.


Some areas sure, but as I said before, maintain habitat and your land will pay you back. And it all depends on where you are located. Most can not visualize the vastness and wildness, and game ridden areas of the forest areas of Canada. For the last three mornings, six different moose have nipped buds behind my barn! A moose should get a family 600 pounds of meat. How many rabbits is that?

To me at least, prepping can include habitat preservation to stimulate and maintain wildlife populations. 

That being said I agree regarding livestock. Chickens, sheep, pigs, rabbits. They all have their place in the freezer. But I would ask, what if there is no feed to be had? Then I will sit on my step and pick off a moose! lol

Cheers

Dale


----------

