Surviving alone or form a group?

Personally I think you would have to have one hell of a compound to support 25 people.'
My place prpbably could provide enough food for me and my 2 kids, I hvve a stocked pond decient garden space pleanty of wood, as well as wildlife to harvest, but throw in another family and the recorses would not sustain themselves.

Im looking more to form a co op type oraganization, however the mindset around here is that the system will never end.

 

i have been through the group setting and it was great intill the second wave of people who we bought into the group was not up to stuff .The major problem was the people who where not family could not or would not see the needs for spending money on inprovement's to the place .

At the end it was a custer f--k and it became a learning lesson in not how to have a group of people .The core group was all family members with small childern and the childern grew up and they married and they bought people into the group that was the problem who did not think or what to work towards something better for there childern if something happened .

So yes i do belong to a very lose group of people in the area i'm at right now but it would be nice to find a group like the orignal family group with it ideas and needs layed out in away that made perfect sense to me and the group

 

Depends on what assets I have and what I am supposed to protect.

 

I've read several first-hand accounts of a variety of actual SHTF situations ... as I'm sure many of us have.

While there are no cookie-cutter solutions to the survival problem ... my bet would be on group survival long before individual survival or even very small group survival (2-3 people).

 

I joined this forum, and one or two others similar to it, to gain insight and get others' takes on situations just like those put forth in this thread. The pages of reading here have been very informative.


My feeling is, no doubt a group of some size and varying skill-sets will be necessary to maintain any kind of long term self sufficiency. When it comes to immediate and bare bones survival, i feel the smaller the group the better. The smaller group would need a much more concentrated set of skills, scavenge & procurement being the goal.

 

Even in the .mil they realize more is better. But. How long can a fireteam maintain 100% security AND doing anything other than hiding/ recon? Burnout WILL happen faster the smaller the number of people. I would say that any more than 25-30 people living in close proximity on a long term basis will have personality problems.
Just my .02

Bob

 

surviving alone or form a group

I would say a handful of people would be able to move more stealthly around and remain more secure. They would also be able to provide for themselves more readily. Like most of us we have families (Wife, kids, parents, grandparents, grandkids, etc). In this case we would have to be a part of a larger group inorder to have some form of security. A larger group would obviously be hard to provide for. The larger group would be more visable to people wishing to have what you have. How large is to large or how small is to small. Also at what point do you no longer accept anyone else. It would be hard decisions.

 

Quality over quantity, in this case.

 

I know in my area it's been very difficult to find people I trust. I see too many of those "zombie" guys that I avoid, so for now it's just a very small group. I just wished I could meet others near my area that aren't into the whole fantasy situations.

 

5 to 6 families of 5 people each (25-30 people) people can be supported on less than 10 acres. The "compound" would be nothing more than 1 acre parcels per family, plus 5 acre "common" land for grazing, ponds, woodlots, etc.

A family of 5 can be fully self sufficient on less than an acre - inclusive of livestock (not cattle - too little return for the investment of land/feed/care, think pigs, goats, sheep, rabbits, chickens etc.), if the area is planned and planted carefully.

Also remember, wood can be harvested from other places not just around where you live and in fact should be. Allows for wildlife populations in your local area.

 

Falcon I have no doubt whatsoever you have everything figured out. 25 people to secure 10 acers would be nice.
10 acres of wildlife wont support 25 people so everyone will be working hard, and sufficent wood will be a problem and during extreme weather the group will be bunking under one roof. Another problem is if your water table is shallow well water will become contaminated and will not be potable. Probably get in trouble for the next comment but here goes 5 wives togeather on on compound yikes yall men will ned a bugout spot to be safe from that.

 

The wildlife is supplemental only. You would have livestock. Each family would have need only to invest a standard work day at a farm, split amongst 5 people. Plenty of time to do what needs be done and have time for patrols, leisure etc.

Wood should be a prep NOW. Cut and stack enough for 5 years NOW and use and cut a years worth every summer/fall. Each family has it's own house, so why would they need to bunk under one roof?

Water wells need to be deep and if you have the foresight, a septic system installed. If that is not an option, your outhouse needs to be at LEAST 500 yards from your water source, and downhill from it. Filtration, chemical sterilization or boiling (or all of the above) will still be SoP for even deep well water. You can never be safe enough.

Men will be performing patrols and long range recon, frequently. . Also each family has it's own domicile.

 

We had a TV reality show here in Canada a few years back, can't recall the title, where two couples, strangers to each other, undertook to live for one year in the Manitoba bush, to pioneer an unbroken piece of land with no buildings. In addition to scratching together a farm, they had to build two rough dwellings. One couple was considerably older than the other - well, there were quite a few fireworks as the two women worked together. Unfortunately, the older woman, while quite a decent sort, was used to ruling the roost at home, with her several sons and husband - all of whom seem to have deferred to her in just about everything. It was her way or the highway, as the saying goes! But I think it could be different in the survival situation with several women. For starters, there would be very little in the way of "entertainment" and the social interaction among the women might be very supportive and helpful. And let's face it, many hands make light work. If one or two women were down with the flu, e.g., the others would help out with the children - that sort of thing. I imagine there would be a fair amount of shuffling about to establish the pecking order but hopefully, everyone would be, as you said, in a survival mode and personal feelings would have to be laid aside to a large extent. However, one big thing that would worry me if I were personally in such a setup - one or more women being "givers", and ending up being stuck with most of the work as the others laid back and let them take up the load. I've seen this happen time and time again at large gatherings, Christmas e.g., when all the work of a huge cleanup etc., was left to the generous-hearted one or two! Oh, yes, there might be problems but hopefully, not so many as to sabotage the entire operation!!!

 

After reading this thread, it's apparent the "Group" has the best chance. (Something I figured out long ago.) Even for cityfolk, there's a definite benefit. The key is knowledge:
Know the people who live in your area. Walk your neighborhood and learn who you live amongst. If you can't walk in your neighborhood, it's time to move.
Know their strengths (and weaknesses) Everyone has skill at something.
Youth have stamina, the elderly have wisdom. Both are excellent assets.
Know your surroundings. If you plan to stay, maps are great tools.

The point I'm trying to make is simple.
Knowledge.
Not everybody knows everything. A group dynamic has greater strength in all aspects.

The Lone Wolf will eventually hit a stumbling block. Too many unforeseeable circumstances.

And that's all i have to say about that.

 

I knowing nothing about Flint, Michigan to comment on the viability of sustaining one's existence in a SHTF situation. However, I do know that there are plenty of small towns/cities within the Pacific NW that people could and will survive a SHTF scenario living off the land in a small town/city and more than likely live and eat better than others living in the country in other states.

I hate to say it but I'd rather try and survive here in a city than in the country in a lot of the other states across this great nation.

Living in the country does not guarantee that you will survive and that everybody not living in the country will starve or perish. There are too many variables to take into account. I assure you that this small town country boy has no intent of leaving here whatsoever.

That's mainly the classification of people I associate with or can relate to myself. Who the heck else is a plumber gonna find for friends anyways, except other construction trash. I'm pretty darn sure I know enough people around here with the knowledge, skill sets and tools that we could rebuild this town if we had too. I am not so arrogant to think that I have all the knowledge, skill sets and tools to make it on my own. There are only so many hours in a day, a person would not be able to keep up with all that is necessary for the long term.

 

Good point and let me remind everyone of the drought we had this year... it was so bad nothing grew in my garden... there were no peaches on the trees, no wild plums back in the woods... what few nuts we had the sequels quickly made off with... A lot of fawns were simply abandoned... it would have been a very hard year if I was going it alone out here in the country...