It seems to me that when people are considering prepping for surviving a disaster, they are viewing it as if they are the only ones in the equation or at the very least underappreciating the numbers competing for resources.
There is considerable discussion on the value and emphasis placed on bush craft. I cannot help but wonder if that emphasis should not be placed on "urban craft" if indeed there is such a thing.
For this discussion, let us consider a natural disaster (such as Yellowstone blowing its top, the New Madrid fault producing a 9 pointer, etc.) that has stopped the delivery of utilities and interupted the flow of goods to retail outlets. We are talking no electricity, water, groceries, gas and employment. In the case of Katrina, the water was even tainted by waste and petroleum and rendered unpalatable.
I would assume that in a short time frame, gathered stores of food and water may be adequate. Unless one has a pond or well from which to dip, water would quickly become a huge issue.
In a lengthy time frame or short time frame for the unprepared, people would be searching for and attempting to take what they need to survive. In this scenario it would not take too long to strip the forests of any wildlife by those who had the means to leave the cities to get away from the roving gangs.
For those that are thinking that they will be able to hold out in their dwellings and/or plant gardens seems like a tall order. It does not seem that historically forts or cities under seige have fared that well.
If one has to go mobile, storing huge amounts of ammo becomes useless because you can only physically carry so much.
In a seige scenario, which in essence is exactly what this would become whether on the level of a dwelling, a city block(s) or city, it seems that "urban craft" would be much more useful than bush craft. I would agree that one could use many aspects of bush craft such as starting fires and keeping warm and possibly a survivalists mentality, I think it would be lacking in skills that would be most needed in an urban setting...
What say ye?
There is considerable discussion on the value and emphasis placed on bush craft. I cannot help but wonder if that emphasis should not be placed on "urban craft" if indeed there is such a thing.
For this discussion, let us consider a natural disaster (such as Yellowstone blowing its top, the New Madrid fault producing a 9 pointer, etc.) that has stopped the delivery of utilities and interupted the flow of goods to retail outlets. We are talking no electricity, water, groceries, gas and employment. In the case of Katrina, the water was even tainted by waste and petroleum and rendered unpalatable.
I would assume that in a short time frame, gathered stores of food and water may be adequate. Unless one has a pond or well from which to dip, water would quickly become a huge issue.
In a lengthy time frame or short time frame for the unprepared, people would be searching for and attempting to take what they need to survive. In this scenario it would not take too long to strip the forests of any wildlife by those who had the means to leave the cities to get away from the roving gangs.
For those that are thinking that they will be able to hold out in their dwellings and/or plant gardens seems like a tall order. It does not seem that historically forts or cities under seige have fared that well.
If one has to go mobile, storing huge amounts of ammo becomes useless because you can only physically carry so much.
In a seige scenario, which in essence is exactly what this would become whether on the level of a dwelling, a city block(s) or city, it seems that "urban craft" would be much more useful than bush craft. I would agree that one could use many aspects of bush craft such as starting fires and keeping warm and possibly a survivalists mentality, I think it would be lacking in skills that would be most needed in an urban setting...
What say ye?
