Does "Bugging-Out" make any sense?

[Bounty Hunter]

I grew up 1/2 mile from the railroad tracks , and twice we had to leave . One time the rail car sitting on a side track started leaking anhydrous. We were evacuated- immediatly. Another time the grain bin at the elevator blew and caught fire, and we had to leave- immediatly, because of smoke and fumes. It took all summer to keep it from flaring up and smoking and stinking.
It is no fun having to leave in the middle of the night, but being prepared makes it a little easier, even if it is the Holiday Inn.
I thought prepping was about the things that may, or could happen, and not examples from the history books anyway.
When you have to leave suddenly and with out notice, it is a big deal, and not everyone can go to the hotel. More to the point, what if you get there and it is full up, because others were sent there ahead of you?

 

[redpitbull44]

I am replying to the OP here, so hopefully this doesn't confuse current conversation.
This is slightly off topic, but I am expanding a little here, to fully answer your question.

I think it is wise to prep on all levels, for all levels of threat, and to do it in systems. My home is a system, my vehicle is a system, my Bug Out Bag is a system, and within those systems, there are sub-systems. They are designed to work separately, as well as together. The idea for me is, make home as self sufficient as it can be, to sustain me and mine. Then, make sure the vehicle can support us away from home for an extended amount of time without tapping into the BOBs. Then, ensure that the BOBs can sustain us for a period of time as well.

The only way I am leaving my home is if it is no longer safe to reside there, due to natural disaster, civil unrest, or some other unforeseen event that would force us out. I'm talking a leave now or we're dead kind of thing. A roving gang of looters wouldn't do it. Neither would local/state/federal/foreign government. Those types would meet...fierce resistance.

When I do leave my home, my vehicle should provide us with provisions storage, as well as shelter and transportation. The only way I am leaving my vehicle is in the unlikely event of a catastrophic failure of one of the suspension or drivetrain components to the point of immobilization. Something as simple as an axle shaft or U-Joint would be a mere bump in the road.

I am picturing a situation that is without law and order. A situation where it may become necessary to actually kill somebody over my home, my vehicle or the gear on my back. I am prepared for that.

Finally, if it came down to hoofing it, if my home has been burned out, my vehicle blew up, and all we had was what could be strapped to our backs, there would still be enough there to survive. What do we need to survive? WATER, FOOD, if its cold or wet out, SHELTER. Fire is handy too.

I know there are people on here that claim to have bug out locations (I say claim because I don't know personally). I think that is wise. I think it wise to not only have BOLs in a few different regions if you can afford it (purchase, stocking, taxes, etc), so that depending on the type of SHTF, you can GTFO to the right place. Not only is it essential to have a BOL, but a full back story if some Gestapo stop you. Also, your BOL may be a friend or family members home, or even something that was a group buy between like minded friends. I don't think it is wise to just head out into the hills, especially if you have more than just you to worry about. The sad part is, there are so many people that think just like that. "When the SHTF, I'm gonna grab my guns and gear and head out into the woods and hide out." Guess what dude, its really easy to find your 98.6* body in a forest from the air. Also, very few people can live without social interaction, so they will be drawn to other people, which will probably result in their demise.

Honestly, my long term goal is full self reliance. No need for outside goods. At this point, I am far from it.

 

[Bill B]

So are you saying that during the great depression when many thousands were on the move that they were out rioting and killing and doing mayhem?

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that they were rioting, etc., just that they had bugged out.
I noticed one thing on this thread, everybody's idea of bugging out is different.
To me buggin out is leaving the place that I'm paying the mortgage on for another place for good. This doesn't mean hiding in the woods living under a bush, I do have contingency plans. Most of my plans do not involve bugging out, but I do have a plan for that in case I need to.
"Prepping" to me is merely insurance so that I do not become one of the nameless huddling in the superdome while the winds rage.

 

[melensdad]

I grew up 1/2 mile from the railroad tracks , and twice we had to leave . One time the rail car sitting on a side track started leaking anhydrous. We were evacuated- immediatly. Another time the grain bin at the elevator blew and caught fire, and we had to leave- immediatly, because of smoke and fumes. It took all summer to keep it from flaring up and smoking and stinking.
It is no fun having to leave in the middle of the night, but being prepared makes it a little easier, even if it is the Holiday Inn.
I thought prepping was about the things that may, or could happen, and not examples from the history books anyway.
When you have to leave suddenly and with out notice, it is a big deal, and not everyone can go to the hotel. More to the point, what if you get there and it is full up, because others were sent there ahead of you?

Right, we all argee about this as rational and common sense behavior. It is NOT, however, what Woodrow was asking in his OP.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that they were rioting, etc., just that they had bugged out.
I noticed one thing on this thread, everybody's idea of bugging out is different.
To me buggin out is leaving the place that I'm paying the mortgage on for another place for good. This doesn't mean hiding in the woods living under a bush, I do have contingency plans. Most of my plans do not involve bugging out, but I do have a plan for that in case I need to.
"Prepping" to me is merely insurance so that I do not become one of the nameless huddling in the superdome while the winds rage.

Agreed that bugging out has different meanings, but in the OP and in his follow up posts, Woodrow VERY CLEARLY indicated the type of bugging out to which he was referring. He was referring to the solitary, in the woods, hills or mountains survival. He was not referring to leaving your house to go to the Holiday Inn for a few days.

I do agree that having preps is a great thing, go-bags, med kits, etc those are all great things for household emergencies like a house fire where you have to grab some essentials and get the heck out. Nobody is arguing that we shouldn't prep and should not have those essentials ready at hand.

What is sort of amazing is the attitudes of some of the primitive bug out types here on INGO (not necessarily in this thread) who think an isolated riot in a town 100 miles away will actually directly affect them. History shows that a riot only 5 miles away won't even directly affect them.

 

[yepthatsme]

Just my two cents. I hope that this might add to the current topic.

There are many examples in recent history where people have had to bug out or flee their homes without facing a natural disaster. The ones that come to my mind are the examples of governments committing genocide on their own citizens. Darfur, Bosnia, Rwanda, Cambodia, China, Germany, Russia, and Turkey are examples of genocide in recent history. Being a citizen of one of those countries during that time in history, you had a choice of either staying and fighting organized government forces or you could flee to a safe area. Personally, I would flee unless I was part of an organized resistance force. Staying and fighting on your own would be suicide.

I think it is interesting that most genocides are committed by governments on their own citizens. Could that happen here? I don't know, but I am prepared to bug out should that ever happen.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gi53kq4vzY&feature=player_embedded



Watch and learn .

 

[ATOMonkey]

What happens when the trucks stop coming?

We depend on a "just in time" delivery of food that rotates over a 3 day supply that is kept on hand. Most food is trucked in from very far away. We have no local supply chain.

There is nothing to compare this to in the history of the world, modern or otherwise.

Our society is individualistic, selfish, and entitled. Most have never had to make do with austere living conditions. This isn't the 30s where most people already lived an austere lifestyle prior to the Depression. During the Depression, food was still easily brought into Urban areas. There will still many parts of Marion county that were farm land in the '30s. Money still had value and was still in circulation. During a hyperinflation event, there will be no economic activity. People will rapidly become unemployed and their savings won't be worth anything. Government will fix the price of food so that people will be able to afford to eat. This will immediately drive all retailers and most producers out of business. The shelves will be bare within a week and there will be no more goods coming. The government will deploy the NG to delivery humanitarian aid, but it won't be enough.

We live in an age where the chronically unemployed have free food, free housing, cell phones, cars, and a monthly income. To say people have an entitlement complex doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.
Over 30% of the population relies on the government for their basic needs.

We also live in a society that is desensitized to violence and has a situational moral and ethical code. There is no right and wrong, only different circumstances used to color in the various shades of gray that cloud most people's lives.

Yes it is wrong to kill. Would it be wrong to kill to feed your child? Most would say no.

Leaving an urban area simply increases your odds of survival when dog eats dog.

 

[Woodrow]

Leaving an urban area during a catastrophic and total collapse of society is a good thing. That wasn't exactly the situation to which I was referring. I don't believe civil unrest in Indiana equals run to the woods and live. My understanding of a "bug-out" is an escape from a society that for one reason or another has become untenable.

A.) I don't think that running to the woods to survive is a viable option for 99.9% of the population. You can live off lichen and deer meat, but not when everyone else is trying to as well

B.) I don't think that there is any scenario in the United States whereby such a solution is necessary. All of the Third World examples are fine, but genocide in a country with no clear genetic disposition is silly. Staying in a hotel or shelter during some kind of catastrophe is also a good example, and it is good to have some supplies prepared, but that doesn't equal flee to the woods.

In my preparations, I have supplies in my car to get me to my home, whether it takes one day or three. From that point, I am protected in my home. If I have to flee and live an agrarian existence, I will admit that I will be in trouble, but I don't see that happening. I don't buy into Doomsday prophesy and I don't foresee the North American situation (let alone that in Indiana) becoming so grave that we will all head for the hills, and I've not seen anything to prove me wrong.

I don't think it's naive to look to history, how else are we to gauge Man's response to any situation?

 

[eldirector]

Leaving an urban area during a catastrophic and total collapse of society is a good thing. That wasn't exactly the situation to which I was referring. I don't believe civil unrest in Indiana equals run to the woods and live. My understanding of a "bug-out" is an escape from a society that for one reason or another has become untenable.

Sounds like we all have slightly different definitions.

A.) I don't think that running to the woods to survive is a viable option for 99.9% of the population. You can live off lichen and deer meat, but not when everyone else is trying to as well

I think we ALL agree on this point. The vast majority of folks would not even try to "run to the woods". Many who did, would not survive. There are very few folks who are actually prepared to go that far.

B.) I don't think that there is any scenario in the United States whereby such a solution is necessary. All of the Third World examples are fine, but genocide in a country with no clear genetic disposition is silly. Staying in a hotel or shelter during some kind of catastrophe is also a good example, and it is good to have some supplies prepared, but that doesn't equal flee to the woods.

There hasn't been for a really long time (a couple of hundred years or so). Will it happen again? Sure. In out lifetime? Not likely.

You might want to amend your plan to include something between "stay home at all costs" and "live in the woods". I'd advocate for a "Leave the house in 30 minutes or less to stay with family/friends for an extended period" plan. That covers you in case your home isn't habitable once you get there, but doesn't mean you have to prep for the zombie horde.

 

[shibumiseeker]

Leaving an urban area during a catastrophic and total collapse of society is a good thing. That wasn't exactly the situation to which I was referring. I don't believe civil unrest in Indiana equals run to the woods and live. My understanding of a "bug-out" is an escape from a society that for one reason or another has become untenable.

A.) I don't think that running to the woods to survive is a viable option for 99.9% of the population. You can live off lichen and deer meat, but not when everyone else is trying to as well

Therein lies some of the confusion. If you assume that bugging out means heading for the hills and living off the land and you base your arguments from that standpoint, it makes more sense. But that's a BAD assumption because to most people who use the term, "bugging out" simply means leaving their normal area of operation. The destination is not fixed to "the hills" or "the next city" or "the relatives" or any such place.

To be sure some folks have the misguided assumption that they'll simply be able to live off the land, a scenario that ONLY works if two factors come into play:

1. They already have wilderness survival skills honed to a fine degree.

2. There aren't hordes of other people trying to do the same thing.

But I'd hazard a guess that to almost everyone here but maybe you and Melensdad and one or two others, "bugging out" simply means going somewhere else. Many of those folks will have a plan where that "somewhere else" will be based on numerous contingents, some don't.

But in your original post, it's not clear to anyone who isn't making the same assumption you are about what "bugging out" means, why you've been so obstinate in refusing to acknowledge the various really good, real world practical reasons why people plan for "bugging out" where "bugging out means simply "going somewhere else."

 

[yepthatsme]

Leaving an urban area during a catastrophic and total collapse of society is a good thing. That wasn't exactly the situation to which I was referring. I don't believe civil unrest in Indiana equals run to the woods and live. My understanding of a "bug-out" is an escape from a society that for one reason or another has become untenable.

A.) I don't think that running to the woods to survive is a viable option for 99.9% of the population. You can live off lichen and deer meat, but not when everyone else is trying to as well

B.) I don't think that there is any scenario in the United States whereby such a solution is necessary. All of the Third World examples are fine, but genocide in a country with no clear genetic disposition is silly. Staying in a hotel or shelter during some kind of catastrophe is also a good example, and it is good to have some supplies prepared, but that doesn't equal flee to the woods.

In my preparations, I have supplies in my car to get me to my home, whether it takes one day or three. From that point, I am protected in my home. If I have to flee and live an agrarian existence, I will admit that I will be in trouble, but I don't see that happening. I don't buy into Doomsday prophesy and I don't foresee the North American situation (let alone that in Indiana) becoming so grave that we will all head for the hills, and I've not seen anything to prove me wrong.

I don't think it's naive to look to history, how else are we to gauge Man's response to any situation?

I have also prepared to get home should a natural disaster occur while I am away. I believe that this is the most likely scenero. I am not prepared to make it in an extreme primative situation for a long period of time. My bug out supplies will only last me for about 3 to 5 days of survival. Hopefully, that will be enough to get me back home or to a place of safety.

 

[Woodrow]

But I'd hazard a guess that to almost everyone here but maybe you and Melensdad and one or two others, "bugging out" simply means going somewhere else. Many of those folks will have a plan where that "somewhere else" will be based on numerous contingents, some don't.

But in your original post, it's not clear to anyone who isn't making the same assumption you are about what "bugging out" means, why you've been so obstinate in refusing to acknowledge the various really good, real world practical reasons why people plan for "bugging out" where "bugging out means simply "going somewhere else."

"Obstinate?" I think it's more likely that I'm just throwing out some examples from history and asking others to explain a mindset as it realistically applies to life in the United States in general, and Indiana specifically. I guess obstinate means I don't agree...

If I go to my mother's house for the weekend, is that "bugging out?" If I go on a business trip, is that "bugging out?" I am associating "bugging out" with some sort of scenario whereby one's current situation has become inhospitable for an indefinite amount of time. If "bugging out" means going somewhere else, then I guess "preparing" means packing?

But here, I'll be as clear as I can:

What will realistically happen in Indiana to make you leave your house with no plans to return?

 

[23mar03]

The only reason that I can "entertain" would be that it is unsafe to stay at your present location and that another known location exists without the same hazards.

 

[WETSU]

QUOTE:
"What will realistically happen in Indiana to make you leave your house with no plans to return?"


This.

As long as Indiana is populated by humans, and governed by humans, I will always plan for this. Anything less is not part of my plan.

 

[23mar03]

And also too risky not to bet my families life on....

 

[eldirector]

But here, I'll be as clear as I can:

What will realistically happen in Indiana to make you leave your house with no plans to return?

Now I'm REALLY confused. Which is it?

a) Realistically make ME leave my house, with no plans to return.
b) Realistically make ME leave my house, and go live in the woods.
c) Realistically make EVERYONE leave their houses, and go live in the woods.
d) Historically make EVERYONE leave their houses, and go live in the woods.
e) Did I miss one? I think I did.

Several folks have answered A. Basically, anything that causes your house to no longer be there. Indiana has LESS opportunities for this than some areas (CA or LA, for instance), but several examples have been given.

I have no real plans for B. To many other (better) options, for me at least.

You don't chose to believe any of the TEOTWAWKI scenerios, so answers to C will likely not fall under "realistic" for you.

D hasn't happened in Indiana in quite a while. Native American tribes were forced from the territory and did indeed live "in the woods", if they managed to live at all, until they relocated farther west. Indiana was a "Union" state so mass displacement of African-American families was not a normal occurrence here as it was in many southern states. However, many did "live in the woods" while attempting to flee north. During WWII, Japanese-American families were rounded up and forced into camps. I suspect many did "flee to the woods" and find safer refuge somewhere else. If US sentiment towards Middle Eastern and Hispanic people continues to worsen, then they may have the misfortune of become another example of "bugging out" to a safer place. Heck, most "Mexican" people have done exactly that (left Mexico on a wind and a prayer), and actually fled HERE.

So, which one did I miss?

 

[shibumiseeker]

"Obstinate?" I think it's more likely that I'm just throwing out some examples from history and asking others to explain a mindset as it realistically applies to life in the United States in general, and Indiana specifically. I guess obstinate means I don't agree...

If I go to my mother's house for the weekend, is that "bugging out?" If I go on a business trip, is that "bugging out?" I am associating "bugging out" with some sort of scenario whereby one's current situation has become inhospitable for an indefinite amount of time. If "bugging out" means going somewhere else, then I guess "preparing" means packing?

But here, I'll be as clear as I can:

What will realistically happen in Indiana to make you leave your house with no plans to return?

I answered that clearly and succintly in my very first reply back on page 1. In this case, "obstinate" means that you keep changing the question you are asking, and by the tone of your posts you are comng across as smugly superior to the folks who believe it is possible. In short, whether you intend to or not, you're asking loaded questions. If that's your intent then that's a reflection of your character, and not a very pretty one at that. If that's not your intent then you may want to examine just why you get the kinds of responses that don't seem to be in line with the questions you are asking.

If you were Japanese in the 1940s, you either left your home without knowing if you could return, or you were removed. Same with some Italians and other ethnic groups. You may not, but I fully believe that these conditions could return with the right "event." There's a clear historical reference for you. If you choose to believe that such could never happen again that's your choice.

 

[Woodrow]

I answered that clearly and succintly in my very first reply back on page 1. In this case, "obstinate" means that you keep changing the question you are asking, and by the tone of your posts you are comng across as smugly superior to the folks who believe it is possible. In short, whether you intend to or not, you're asking loaded questions. If that's your intent then that's a reflection of your character, and not a very pretty one at that. If that's not your intent then you may want to examine just why you get the kinds of responses that don't seem to be in line with the questions you are asking.

Smug, perhaps, but in response to the idea that "bugging out" just means to go away. There is a deeper meaning and a mindset, and that is my interest. Earlier, the example of a rail car was given, I agreed, and you made you little remark, all in good fun. Now you are questioning my character based on the fact that I don't see any event in Indiana that will drive a person out of their home.

I suppose lacking character would explain my differing point of view. I don't think I'm so much changing my question as trying to clarify, as it seems no one understands what I am asking. Melensdad seems to understand what I'm saying, and while I personally know that he and I agree here, he is also one of the few not letting his imagination fuel his point of view. I'll go on the record now though, if the SHTF, I know that his place will be one of the few really equipped to handle most any issue that can arise.

There have been examples given of bad things happening throughout history, you're right, but with the exception of a ruptured tank car, none of them apply to Indiana. Riots? Genocide? Total economic collapse and anarchy? Are those really the lynch pins of your beliefs? Are these the scenarios for which we need to prepare?

Maybe that's my problem, I'm just not thinking far enough outside the box.

Water, food, ammunition, medical supplies, extra glasses and contact lenses, 6 months supply of medication, pet food. I believe in being prepared, I just feel that preparations should be specific.

 

[WETSU]

Woodrow, I have two questions for you.

What is your age?

What is your height and weight?

 

[FWShooter]

The only realistic reason I would bug out of my house completely is when a girl shows up demanding a paternity test and wants me to pay child support.

Past that I plan that I may have to leave for a couple of days such as the ice storm a couple years ago, tornado, fire, etc.

I mostly try to prep for realistic circumstances such as loss of a job, massive increase in price on items that I enjoy such as fruits/veggies/meat/etc., I stock water because of possibility of water main breaks or boil advisories.

If it is civil unrest no way I am going to go outside and deal with all the morons and looters, cover the windows, hunker down, and silently beat the idiots who come through the door with an axe and a bat. Only bust a few caps when I have no choice. Figured I can last easily a month plus in my house without a problem.