It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Best small-sized cities for survival in the West/Southwest

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Idaho, as a state, has one thing going for it. It has a lot of hydro power.
The problem that Idaho has is that it relies almost exclusively on pumped irrigation. Without power/fuel Idaho wouldn’t be able to produce food.

If it’s hydro/power system remained intact, it could do pretty good running on 33% of normal power capability (percentage normally produced by hydro). People would have to change their energy use habits, but it could be done.

Irigation for food, and food refrigeration would take top tier.




posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
My wife and I have just gone through this process. Made an offer on 306 acres in North Texas but that fell through ended up with a better place in North East Washington.

Lived in White River south of Show Low some time ago. Nice country but you had better be on real good terms with the Tribe on the reservation if things ever go south. The South Texas place is too close to the boarder and water can be a problem.

Jarbidge is a neat place, been there, however there is not any thing in the way of any thing there.

I would suggest doing what we did and make at least two trips to the place you think you want to move to and get to know the people. If you are not welcomed and are looked at as an outsider you will have a hard time in the small town.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by waterdoctor
 


That's what I was most concerned about with Show Low to be honest; and another reason why I avoided Utah, I just don't think that after SHTF that demographic groups that aren't welcoming to outsiders currently (like the LDS in Utah and Native Americans) would be cool with an outsider attempting to survive in their area.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Its hard finding a place where you can move in and feel welcomed. We were able to find that place and already have people that we could be friends with. I know a lot of boiler makers at Show Low and once your in with them you are in with them forever. However they are a ruff group and getting there respect is hard.

Jarbidge is a whole nother planet. Have friends that have cabins there but once up there am an outsider. Where we live now is almost perfect however we have too many ghosts here. PM me if you want details.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by rubbertramp
 


how exactly would Boise be locked down ? the only military base in the state is a small air force base an hr east. Are the 20 aircraft mechanics from Mountain Home air base going to stop 250k rednecks from heading to their cabins ? There are dozens of dirt road trails to navigate out of the valley.

and how exactly are you going to leave Stanley and head for arizona for the winter ? There is one road into Stanley and one road out. so unless your going by horseback you arent getting out. and it would be a bad idea to move anywhere with roaming gangs looking to loot your supplies and miitary patrols looking for stragglers that avoided the initial fema camp roundups.

someone else mentioned Truckee California. Bad idea. tons of military personel in the area. too close to major cities like sacramento and reno for my tastes. I dont want that many major population centers that close to me. More people = more police and military. more roads, more jails. ive camped near Truckee in the Lake Tahoo area and you cant go 5 min without running into people.

in the central Idaho woods just north of Boise is some of the most remote wilderness in the country. you wont be running into others even if the entire boise valley fled to the hills. Places like truckee area have more people in that one area than my entire state contains.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by zcflint05
 


I would stay away from the southwest in SHTF.

Too many drug cartels would become the local government.

I'd stay here in the north west. Much more hospitable for someone that wants to hide, and survive. Plenty of animals, rivers, forests and a good climate that would be great for farming.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 


What happens if there is a planet shift?

Just a thought. With weather cycles - earthquakes and all.

I kind of like the SW. With the largest Marine base in the world - - I figure I'm either safe or dead.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Some disasters when they happen..

We just aren't going to survive.

I figure Im better just planning for the ones I might survive in.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
i was just wondering..................by posting a list of cities on an international forum, wouldn't that in itself makes them undesirable places to live?
just wondering



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by Annee
 


Some disasters when they happen..

We just aren't going to survive.

I figure Im better just planning for the ones I might survive in.


Me too. I'm staying put.

But - - I also keep adding to my survival supplies. I've got extra bottles of water - tents - propane stoves - emergency kits - etc etc etc.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by admriker444
 


ok, i'm back. i'll try and explain myself a bit better.
heading south for the winter won't be an issue if, i said if, the ts ever does htf.
anyhow, i mentioned the stanley and salmon areas because of the access to wilderness.

expanding on boise, i go one step further than you.
a few things i seriously want to avoid are borders, railroads and major interstates and highways.
troop movements, machinery, weapons etc......boise is in a bad area, very major r.r. just out of town, it's a hub of major roadways.
it's just way to much for me. if the shtf, boise would be used as the hub it is.
if our government was using the r.r. to transfer and ship weapons, anyone getting even close could be in deep sh*t.
does this make sense to you?



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:56 PM
link   
I find all the talk about situ-X this and situ-X that, and “where to go to survive it all” kind of funny.

There is no place to go where you are safe for all situation-X’s That is just something people have to come to grips with.

In some situations, everyone that is not close to a military base will be dead.
In some situations, everyone that is close to a military base will be dead.
In some situations, the presence of a military base makes no freaking difference.
In some situations, only people on mountains 15,000 and taller will be alive.
In some situations, only people that are 500 feet underground will be alive.
In some situations, only people on remote islands will be alive.
In some situations, only people in remote farming villages, will be alive.
In some situations, only people in heavily industrialized areas will be alive.
In some situations, only the people on the east coast will survive.
In some situations, only the people on the west coast will survive.
Is some situations, no one will be alive!

Some will choose to prepare for this situ-X.
Some will prepare for that situ-X.
Most won’t waste the time to even think about it.
If situ-x does happen, then some people will die, some will live.
Who will it be?
We don’t know, because we can’t see the future.
So worrying about exact situ-X's does little good.

Most of the survivors (if there is any) will be people that didn’t even worry about it. The human population spreads it’s self all over the world. No mater what the situation, there will probably be people in the survival zone. If you are in the survival zone, good. You will probably be surrounded and outnumbered by people that didn’t go there to survive situ-X they are there just because they LIVE THERE!!!!!

If you are not in the survival zone, just hope you are in the vaporization zone, where you won’t feel any pain.

Even if you knew an asteroid was going to hit the earth, you could move to the best asteroid survival location on the planet, but you may still not survive. If the asteroid hits the mountain top you are on, then you are still dead.

The best thing to do is sit your butt down where you are at, and prepare (within reason) for the most likely things that you can think of that will affect you, your family, and your community. Preparing for things that you are not likely to survive from in the first place, is a waste of time.

If you turn into a brain eating zombie, then that stash of poison tipped zombie killing bullets will be of little use to you.

The basics are what count. Water, food, money, communications, transportation, defense, emergency heating, and emergency shelter and clothing. If the SHTF and you survive the primary aftermath, then you will most likely have the stuff to keep you, and your family going. All the other stuff can be sorted out later.

Life is a gamble, enjoy the game.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by rubbertramp
reply to post by admriker444
 


ok, i'm back. i'll try and explain myself a bit better.
heading south for the winter won't be an issue if, i said if, the ts ever does htf.
anyhow, i mentioned the stanley and salmon areas because of the access to wilderness.

expanding on boise, i go one step further than you.
a few things i seriously want to avoid are borders, railroads and major interstates and highways.
troop movements, machinery, weapons etc......boise is in a bad area, very major r.r. just out of town, it's a hub of major roadways.
it's just way to much for me. if the shtf, boise would be used as the hub it is.
if our government was using the r.r. to transfer and ship weapons, anyone getting even close could be in deep sh*t.
does this make sense to you?



you still havent explained how you would plan on getting out of Stanley if ts hits the fan. One road in and out means its very easy to get stopped by a gang or military roadblock. You arent hiking out of there to Arizona. The surrounding peaks are 10-11k high and covered in snow 11 months out of the yr.

Boise has one railroad hub and one tiny airport. Thats much safer than every other state capitol in the country. And sure the military could use those but by your logic then any town with a runway (or a road for that matter as planes can land on them) is dangerous. There are zero military installations in Boise. There is one very tiny air force base 75 miles east of Boise and they cant house 25k troops if the army wants to invade us.

It took the military and FEMA 4-5 days to even begin to lock down and secure New Orleans. And that was just one city. There is no way they could lock down all the major cities (and Boise is hardly a major city) in days. We will easily have likely a week or more to escape the area while the military scrambles to lock down the big cities first (their most logical targets).

the original poster wanted a list of cities of moderate size to consider relocation. Boise and the surrounding smaller towns of 50k people fit his ideal description perfectly.

oh and fyi Salmon and Frank Church wilderness are actually within hiking distance from the cascade / mccall area and as I detailed before much more ideal than the coldest place in the USA. Frank Church wilderness can be reached in a day on foot from the warm lake area east of cascade. and yu dont have to climb jagged 10k peaks to get there like you would face from Stanley.

sorry for getting offtrack op, but posts like the one im responding too are frankly dangerous and ignorant. no sane idahoan would consider Stanley a good place to bug out too. There is a reason why nobody owns a cabin in Stanley and everyone owns one in the McCall / Cascade area... moderate weather, abundance of game, hot springs, etc and your privates wont freeze and break off when you go outside to take a leak

[edit on 4-8-2010 by admriker444]

[edit on 5-8-2010 by admriker444]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by admriker444
 





you still havent explained how you would plan on getting out of Stanley if ts hits the fan.


like i said before, already. if the shtf, i'm digging in, i've responded that i would not be heading for the desert and would be heading into the wilderness most likely, or hitting one of a few areas where i know people, where i know people whom are living off the grid like myself. i don't see what the big deal here is, i know what the poster asked for, and was only speaking of my opinion. i don't like or trust the boise area, for reasons stated. if you do, great, i hope all is wall and safe there.
the one road in and out is a positive thing, i'm heading the other direction anyhow.

i think we should end this here, once someone starts with calling someone elses thoughts and ideas 'dangerous', i'm gone.
i'd call your dangerous, but it's not my job to judge you.

by the way, op, want a nice little town, with lots of wilderness and many positives.
try silver city new mexico and the gila.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by rubbertramp
reply to post by admriker444
 





you still havent explained how you would plan on getting out of Stanley if ts hits the fan.


like i said before, already. if the shtf, i'm digging in, i've responded that i would not be heading for the desert and would be heading into the wilderness most likely, or hitting one of a few areas where i know people, where i know people whom are living off the grid like myself. i don't see what the big deal here is, i know what the poster asked for, and was only speaking of my opinion. i don't like or trust the boise area, for reasons stated. if you do, great, i hope all is wall and safe there.
the one road in and out is a positive thing, i'm heading the other direction anyhow.

i think we should end this here, once someone starts with calling someone elses thoughts and ideas 'dangerous', i'm gone.
i'd call your dangerous, but it's not my job to judge you.

by the way, op, want a nice little town, with lots of wilderness and many positives.
try silver city new mexico and the gila.


I meant no offense.

Im just trying to understand how you plan on surviving the -40f weather there ? the growing season is very short as well.

if the weather wasnt so cold I would agree its an ideal area to hide out. the warm lake area (30 miles east of cascade) is very similiar except it has a lot of wild huckleberries growing and the temps arent as extreme



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by admriker444
 





I meant no offense. Im just trying to understand how you plan on surviving the -40f weather there ? the growing season is very short as well. if the weather wasnt so cold I would agree its an ideal area to hide out. the warm lake area (30 miles east of cascade) is very similiar except it has a lot of wild huckleberries growing and the temps arent as extreme


the weather is an issue, but after spending 10 years basically at 7500 feet on top of a mountain in montana, one figures out ways. it's just a lot more work than heading for the desert for the winter.
for me a lot of it is a matter of disapearing if the shtf. being in a position to reapear and choose my own battles instead of being in a place where problems would first occur.
inner cities first, and then down the line due to population.
another factor, the more extreme the weather, the less influx of people if an exodus does result from something going wrong in urban areas.
the opposit extreme would be somewhere like death valley.
could i survive a summer there, yes, no problem.
would i be comfortable doing it, hell no, no way.
and, i know you meant no offense, just kinda' wanted to keep this conversation civil.
my ideas and thoughts would be dangerous for the unprepared, no doubt about it.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   
All this comes down to is that no place is perfect for every individual. We all have different skill sets, experience, physical condition and levels of preparation. Perhaps the biggest factor is mind set. When I was in my 20's I knew that I could make it in the desert around Tucson, in my 30's the high country of Wyoming and in my 40's the high desert of Nevada. Now we are starting the move to another area.

Population centers would be a bad place unless a person was willing to dump his/her humanity. If a person does not have the needed skills to live off the land they will not make it if they bug out to the wilderness. I have posted before that in the event of a major event that lasted for more than a couple of years the mortality rate would be very very high. At my age, 50's, I figure any thing over 5 years would be doing real good. And based on the posts here and other threads I would say that my wife and I have better kit than most, more experience hunting and gathering and better skill sets. No bragging, just the way that I see it.

We can not plan for every event. Some events will take you no mater what. The key is figuring out the most likely down turns and setting yourself up to weather those in the most comfort that you can.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Hi!
What about Mena, Arkansas? population over 5.600, a hundred miles of major cities, mountains, rivers, forest, good climate, you can grow almost anything...
If you are from Arizona you will freeze in Idaho, cold winters there.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by zcflint05
 

People friendly in No Cal??? hmm maybe I just know to many of them to well :p
For the person who mentioned problems with growing food in Arcata, There are enough small streams and creeks on top of the winter rains which you could harvest that with a little bit of muscle power watering your crops would be no problem.
I think Grass valley would be a great place too.


edit on 17-9-2010 by calstorm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Even if you have an established garden or an established ability to garden, the most important concern in my book is natural resources, namely food that can be hunted and foraged.

Because of this, I would rule out the desert areas. Food can be found there but it is not abundant. California is too densely populated, there will be lots of stragglers.

From there it depends on if you prefer to be in a coastal state or not. The west is tough. Some places are great in some seasons but then have terribly cold and snowy winters. Other places are great but have terribly rainy and dreary winters. All of which make for terrible minimalist survival situations.

My suggestion would be to go a little inland and stay south enough that the winters wont kill you.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join