Folks get drawn towards the wilderness because A) there are fewer people and B) there are perceived resources - clean food and water. Neither assumption maybe correct.
The deer "overplenty" we see prancing around our pretty little suburban neighborhoods today is largely an artifact pf their essentially 'protected status' by hanging around pretty people doing pretty things and their food supplementation due to munching on local crops and pretty people's gardens. The one thing that often strikes me is when I get really deep in the woods how rare big game are to be had. Yes there are food resources, but range you have to sustain to support a limited number of people is huge. No wonder the native Americans were so war-like - they had to be!
Regarding A - the idea that there are no people in the wilderness would be helpful on the initial escape. You have less frantic fighting to do. Alternatively, you find yourself in less familiar territory. Even worse, you may find yourself not to be the first person to have this idea of coming to this little spot. You just might find yourself the 'invader' rather than the 'defender'. Even worse, the defender may have had time to entrench and you are invading from an unfortified position. There is the option of bartering, supplies and skills for communal stake in the territory. However, you are dealing with the public here. If all the 'twitchers' on these forums are any example of the kind of hospitality you are likely to receive - 'I'd blow them away for just looking at my corner of the lot' then that will be a tricky thing to do.
So I don't know what to do. I think having a great larder with supplies in a low density area might be useful. In fact, the pretty little suburban places, the parts with fewer houses between them might not be so bad a place to be. Raiders/looters are going to go for high density distribution centers and the riches to be had get poorer as the density falls off. At the same time, you aren't so far off from supply places to embark your own raids. This could be a workable scenario if you have a good and long term supply base to work from. Keeping yourself in low profile - e.g. little or no evidence of your living space would be a high priority in this scenario. Don't be seen and heard would be my strategy. You can't kill all the zombies, so why even risk it trying to kill a few of them.
One of the reasons I made my original post is because there is such a tendency to think of things in terms fo complete social breakdown. Certainly you see it in fits and starts here on WSS, but you hear it a lot in the offline 'survivalist' community and in many popular novels. From Lucifer's Hammer on, it's a recurring doomsday theme- subhuman cannibals if not outright zombies. Okay, maybe this has been going on in novels since the Time Machine. Whatever.
I don't think that's a given. I do think it's worth planning for because the more people focus on that as a necessary part of a global disaster, the more likely it is. (And all cannibalism issues aside, I've seen it happen in other parts of the world.)
How good an idea heading to the wilderness is depends on a lot of factors-
Timing is certainly one. If you can see the signs and take a little camping trip - not a full bug out but a camping trip packed with bugout/homesteading gear- you can be early and established.
Danger level is another- We first developed out car/bike/hike bugout plan back when the bio-terrorism scares started getting big after 9/11. I'd always had it in my head that we could "go camping", but that's when I really made plans around the possibility. If you are forting up, bugging in, whatever, it's one thing. If you think safety demands bugging out, then this is one option that I think works well if you can see a possibility coming- and camping is FUN!
Environment is another- Ken brings up a good point about carrying capacity of the environment, but left out specific regional variables. I wouldn't expect a lot of big game down here where I am, but the central valley historically had an AMAZING carrying capacity for hunter/gatherer/pastoral aboriginal populations. Yeah, I'd get tired of acorn flour, but the population density sustainable down here is pretty good. Nomadic foraging wouldn't be unsurvivable, depending on sneak level.- is the population 70% gone for some reason? (Gone, not dead. could be evacuations or forced relocation more easily than a pandemic that wipes out the species.)
Honestly, north of 50, I'd feel much the same- the carrying capacity is low, but if you LIVE up there already, you can probably make it work.
Forting up- I have a very different view of that since our
base level forting up plans are 9 people (counting kids) and go up rapidly depending on locality at that time of some friends and relatives. With the dogs, we could happily fort up the entire culdesac and have enough people for decent watchkeeping and communal chores.
One thing to consider, if you live within an hour or so of a country location, is making friends with a farmer or rancher- go out and help once every couple months with some seasonal task, do some varmint shooting, bring some beer- ask to help can food or for a spot to set up a beer/wine cellar and share some homebrew. Whatever it is- and then figure out a way to approach the subject of
helping them should a bugout scenario ensue. This takes trust, but all societies take trust.
On top of that he buys 1000 round shipments of ammo. Plus, they're out of the way, on a well, generator, etc.
