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.

 

Is hunting a realistic option during civil chaos

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Where do you live? Sounds like I need to plan a hunting trip in your neck of the woods. The deer in Central Florida are numerous but small.


Come to Long Island, NY. And help me fix my Nissan Pathfinder, damaged by the unlucky deer




posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


True enough, my point was it's there...and you might be surprised at how much is there, right under our noses, yet we don't see it.

But your point is well made. Lot's of people, game will become scarce fast.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


That's IF there's lots of people to go off and hunt.

Hunting isn't easy. And if you take a look at society today you will find very few people who know anything other than the easy route.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


That's a fact, alright. But hunger/thirst has a way of teaching people things that ordinarily they might have trouble learning.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   
I appreciate all the input, and respect the people who disagree with the premise of this thread. I am thinking carefully about the insights they offer.

I notice a certain paradox in some of these responses, though:

A) Deer are plentiful, and even though populations may have been near collapse in the past, right now the woods are crawling with deer, so there is plenty for everyone.

.....but on the other hand,

B) Hunting is a skill that few city people are capable of, and so a few more of them out in the woods will not affect my personal ability to bag a deer anytime I want.



I am questioning both of those suppositions on the grounds that they are very convenient for the people who plan to rely on hunting in a crisis. The two beliefs reinforce each other, and tell you that you won't need to evaluate your plans, or give the situation any further thought.

All I'm saying is that it's those areas of cognitive dissonance, those moments of intellectual disconnect, when our biases blind us us to real challenges. The whole point of survivalism and preparation is to treat the worst case scenario as a real possibility.



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by dr_strangecraft
 


It's a pretty broad and deep subject, and basically entirely subjective. I could no more tell seagull about hunting and gathering in his area of Washington state, than I could advise except in the most general way possible someone in the Congo.

Like I'm fond of saying, there just isn't any one size fits all strategy; the best we can do when discussing these aspects of survival is make educated guesses for unfamiliar areas and people with varying skillsets, and qualify these based on our skillsets, our experiences, and where we live.

I will add this: I think a small-town sized group working together is far better than small family groups. More skills, more muscle, and division of labor. Everyone contributes. The hunters hunt, the gardeners garden, and the MacGyvers well, MacGyver.

Where I am there is plenty of game and plenty of freshwater.
edit on 6-7-2011 by mydarkpassenger because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by dr_strangecraft
 

I have ony read the frst post here, and a hunter would me a target, but why would you go after someone with a gun and ammo that knows how to use it?
What if they use a bow? I have a few of them with plenty of arrows.
You will not hear me shoot a deer..with a bow and arrow.
I wish you well with aquiring food if the SHTF.



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
what people seem to forget is one very important aspect...

Weve lived in such a hand me down, processed, lazy society, that when SHTF...

Darwins "survival of the fittest" will kick in.....

There wont be as many "hunters" out there as people think.....and even less that survive because of stupid mistakes and inexperience......

You can "hunt" by setting traps, you can expend little amounts of energy to do so........

We are here as a race because of hunting and gathering, the thought that it expends too much energy to be viable is ridiculous , considering the fact that the only reason we are here as a people is because of it......

Those of us who know how, and know where to go, will be just fine.......survival of the fittest........



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
A look at demographics

Check out these numbers:

a. There are 300 million people in the United States
b. This site www.nssfblog.com... says that there are about 14 million hunting licenses activated each year.

Now, let us suppose a catastrophe on the scale of the Black Death, with 50% of the population in a month or so. The remaining urban population begins to scatter to the hinterlands (just as it did in 14th century Europe). America before the plague has been 80% urban population, or 240 million people. So that means that after the plague’s initial swath, there are still 120 million survivors living in the cities.

With no more infrastructure and food stores to support them, imagine the urban areas descending into the bloodiest form of anarchy, with a 30% mortality rate. Even after the plague, that still leaves 84 million people in the nation’s cities.

Meanwhile, the rural population has declined, but only due to the plague itself, with the disease leaving 30 million survivors.

In order to level out the population density to a 50/50 distribution of urbanites to rural types, 27 million city-dwellers now flee to the country side.

This would effectively double the population of the area where you reside. Of course, the migration would never be complete; there would be bottlenecks and preferential move toward the areas immediately surrounding the nation’s cities. Still, the plague and its aftermath would mean a DOUBLING of the local, rural population on average. And until livestock herds could be built up, a lot of those people creative enough to survive the exodus from urbanity will have hit upon the idea of hunting to feed themselves.

But notice something in the pre-plague numbers: only 5% of Americans were actively hunting in any given year. But after the plague, the number of rural Americans who hunt might be 80% or more (just like it was in the 19th century). If so, then the total number of hunters after the plague would be 45.5 million hunters, more than TRIPLING the total number of hunters.

And none of them compelled to obey hunting regulations regarding season length, bag limits, or legal taking of game.

Even if 2/3 of them are not particularly effective hunters, how would a tripling of the hunting population affect deer herds?



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
No...too many people are planning on "living off the land"....walking around looking for game will get you killed....the only real way to work is to have your gear packed an food in hand...then you can hunker down and hide....going to be waaay too many people moving around to plan on hunting



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Homedawg
No...too many people are planning on "living off the land"....walking around looking for game will get you killed....the only real way to work is to have your gear packed an food in hand...then you can hunker down and hide....going to be waaay too many people moving around to plan on hunting


its easier to fish using limb lines, trot lines, and trap small game without drawing attention during the daytime, you can set up and collect up your harvest in da moon lite



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by anumohi
 


Yes,as long as 22 million other people dont have the same idea



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by dr_strangecraft
 


That is exactly why having meat rabbits is very important, along with some chickens....If your going to hunt the issue is actually firing ammunition......Talk about giving away your position....I believe a crossbow would be your best bet. Nice and quiet



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Starwise
 


Not everyone lives where they can grow and husband...and anyone who relies for their very survival on the availibity of game when 20 bucks a week for a year will give them enough beans,rice,corn meal and honey to feed an army has issues no forum will solve



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms
 


You don't. Ever. Trust water in a survival situation. Ever.

If you aren't sure of the water, boil it, or disinfect it. Common household bleach will do the job. I can't remember just off hand the proper ratio of bleach to water.

But boiling it is the safest bet.



8 drops of bleach per gallon...up to 16 drops if really cloudy.. Ive got a half dozen 55 gallon drums of water and a 13000 gallon pool. I recommend everyone get a pool if you have the space....the water could save your life and buy one of these for local rivers, lakes and streams

shop.katadyn.com... they can filter 13000 gallons at a time!

or you can use charcoal sand and fire....of course the fire will give away your position too if your in hiding



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Darwin will sort this question out sone enough....you either do and live,or dont and die



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Homedawg
 


True enough.

ETA: As for a gunshot, while hunting, giving away your location to the bad guys. How many of you have actually been hunting out back of beyond, and been able to tell exactly where the sound originated? Now if it's volley fire, then yeah, easily enough done. But a single shot? Not so much. Either that, or most of you are a whole lot better at it than I.
edit on 7/11/2011 by seagull because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 03:39 AM
link   
I still say too many are missing the point that 20 bucks a week now(or whatever you can afford) will save you FROM having to rely on/prevent exposure of hunting and fishing....



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Homedawg
I still say too many are missing the point that 20 bucks a week now(or whatever you can afford) will save you FROM having to rely on/prevent exposure of hunting and fishing....


How?

I can fill my basement with beans but they will go bad in 2 or 5 years. What you buy for $20 won't feed an extended family for a month, its shelf life is not that long (basements aren't cool and dry if you had a chance to notice).

You can have a veggie patch, but that's a different story.



edit on 21-7-2011 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 
You are not correct...Rice and beans in buckets,with mylar bags and oxygen absorbers(you can make them yourself)will store for years...but the idea s to rotate...and not everyone can garden but anyone can sprout in a bottle....cornmeal stores well,so does salt,sugar,honey and noodles....you have a point of view and wont change so Im done...do what you want...







 
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join