Can you save someone who doesn't want to be?

reply to post by VelmaLu


Well, I guess it depends on the situation. In a Nuke attack, you might not want to eat some of the wildlife. But you are correct as far as deer and bear and such. But, there are plenty of squirrles. and I make a mean squirrel stew!

I guess it's that I read about so many people thinking they are going to "live off the land" because they are avid hunters or have been successful at fishing in the past.

I think it would be much different with exponentially more people competing for the same food stuff. I liken it to people who think the stores have plenty of food because there isn't an emergency now. But when everyone decides to stock up, the shelves are empty of the three-day supply of food in a matter of hours.

I suspect the same thing would happen to small game. There are plenty of rabbit where I live, but I can see if even 100 people were actively hunting daily, within a month their numbers would be scarce.

Originally posted by VelmaLu
I guess it's that I read about so many people thinking they are going to "live off the land" because they are avid hunters or have been successful at fishing in the past.

I think it would be much different with exponentially more people competing for the same food stuff. I liken it to people who think the stores have plenty of food because there isn't an emergency now. But when everyone decides to stock up, the shelves are empty of the three-day supply of food in a matter of hours.

I suspect the same thing would happen to small game. There are plenty of rabbit where I live, but I can see if even 100 people were actively hunting daily, within a month their numbers would be scarce.

I couldn't help but think of your post while "hunters" made my property sound like Beruit on a Friday night. I believe it will seperate those who know from those who think. Yes, food stuffs would be streched. But that's only if a lot of humans survived as well.

Well, true. However, if some event occurred and a large percentage of the population died off, then you wouldn't need to resort to hunting in the forest, you could simply scavenge for food.

That's what I mean about this "living off the land" fantasy. If even 1/10 of the population in my immediate area starts hunting, that's 100,000 people competing for Bambi. And even though that's in an area of 200 square miles of virtual wilderness, there simply isn't enough game to support everyone.

If you think about the numbers of permits issued now, say one deer per 80 acres. . . well, there's going to be a problem. Fish and game have worked it out mathematically to know how many deer can be killed while maximizing population numbers. And I'm pretty sure those numbers aren't 100,000 permits per 100 miles.

The way I figure it, in order for hunting to be a viable method of feeding yourself post-TEOTWAWKI, 99% of the population would have to be wiped out. And relatively quickly at that, since a slow dwindling of numbers would result in decimation of deer, elk and rabbit population. I can honestly see many species being hunted to the point of extinction in a matter of a few years.

If you think about it, the reason we don't hunt for the majority of our food now, and haven't done so for generations, is because it is not as efficient as farming. Frankly, it makes more sense to simply grow your own food, and raise animals for slaughter, while using your weapons to defend your homestead. . . as opposed to stalking wild game and competing with hundreds of thousands of other people attempting to do the same.

It wouldn't take long before hunters realized that eliminated competing hunters in their area would equal more game for themselves. It's less productive and more risky.

reply to post by VelmaLu


Excellent points!

If a majority of the population is not wipped ot then the dark side of humanity can acount for a good share of deaths as the piliging of stores and such will keep some satisfiyed for a bit. But I think that the restraint that ATSers and true survivalists will show would provide them the advantage.

Most would be robbing stores for smokes and cokes... I'll be in the canned good section with a list.

*only read the question"

first opinion:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1


you cant help somebody who is not willed that somebody help him


continue...

*reading the thread ;-)*

Nia

Originally posted by NW111
*only read the question"

first opinion:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1


you cant help somebody who is not willed that somebody help him


continue...

*reading the thread ;-)*

Nia

That's easy to say, bt when you might be faced with watching the one you love die... It might not be that easy.

reply to post by Jkd Up


i never said that its easy
but its the true that you cant help anybody then.. cause: the own will is stronger as anybody else..
simple stronger as god
so sorry..
***** no*** you cant help**** how hard it is***

Nia

Absolutely not. trying to save someone during a SHTF scenario puts you and everyone around you in danger.

naturally it depends on:

Are they paralyzed by fear?
This person may be savable but if they require too much coaxing and reassurance they can take up valuable escape time. Sometimes they can come around but you have to determine how much time is acceptable to spend coaxing them.

Are they injured?
Should be self explanatory. If they cannot walk they may have to be left behind. if they can walk but require help to do so then again you have to determine the time factor.

Are they unprepared for the journey out of a major city (or other environment) and can they LEARN quickly and follow instructions...?

So many variables...but in essence as a rescuer/family member etc...you have to take all factors in absolute practical consideration as more lives may depend it than just your own.

I can totally relate to what you're saying too. I have a 20 year old daughter who would in all likelihood be a liability and a danger in a SHTF scenario. She is bi-polar and untreated. She refuses to believe anything could ever happen.

She cannot follow orders (will not). She is prone to hypochondria, prone to hysteria, is too slight of weight to carry a pack with more than 10 LBS over any span of distance. She becomes highly and extremely aggressive when frightened. Even to those she trusts. She would not do well in a "shut your mouth and walk" situation at all.

She still laughed at me during our water crisis here (water advisory after a landslide polluted out reserve) - I had enough water to span the first three weeks and it lasted four. She found it amusing that I would store water..."why? we can just go buy it?" *sigh*

Each scenario will be different though and as I said there are so many variables in a SHTF situation...

Thinking about it now I'd say I'd have to leave my girl behind...but IF SHTF you can bet I will try with all my might to get her safe and keep her safe...I hope it never happens so I never have to make that choice.

reply to post by Jkd Up


It might be easier to travel alone, but, loneliness is deadly also. Two heads are always better than one. I say, make her a BOB. She may think you are crazy now, but, will love you all the more later.

You might not be able to help someone who wont help themselves, but I’m damn sure going to try. Luckily, all I’ve got to worry about is myself, my dog, my aging mother and her worthless husband. I figure I’ve got enough food stored to last us a couple of winters, and enough seeds to start a good sized garden on her 1.5 acres. The one thing my step-dad is good for is having guns and ammo, so we should be able to supplement the beans/rice/mountain house that I’ve got with fresh meat to some extent, and defend the homestead if necessary.

They think I’m nuts now, but when TSHTF they’re gonna be real glad to see me rolling up with all my supplies. I’ve even got enough seeds to give to the few neighbors in their somewhat remote neighborhood, so a nice little survival community could be formed. It’s a somewhat easily defended cul-de-sac off of a state highway. Not ideal, but it could be worse. I’ll be giving it a go if necessary. Here’s hoping it won’t be.