Posts
Fernando, I looked at numerous areas in California, Nevada, Oregon, and Idaho for a rural homestead. With the exception of some desert areas in NV, nearly all of the areas I looked at have burned to some extent in the past few years.
IMO it is unwise to think that one is safe from crime in a rural area, but one only has one LONG route of escape in case of fire. In the Sprague River/Moccasin Hill fire last year in Oregon, “survivalists” who had chosen the area for its remoteness found their escape route blocked by fire and had to submerge themselves in ponds so they wouldn’t burn to death.
There was a murder/suicide incident in Montana earlier this year where a paranoid “survivalist” killed his family and set his cabin on fire before shooting himself. He lived at the end of a long, rutted dirt road that took 45 min to travel via 4×4 vehicle, and the cops and firetrucks had an awful time trying to get to his cabin.
That road was the only way in or out of his homestead, which was located deep in a forest. He had called a friend and said that he would kill himself, or else nobody might have ever found him out there. Sometimes I wonder what people are thinking to go live in such remote areas.
Before Collapse
Fernando “FerFAL” Aguirre is the author of “The Modern Survival Manual: Surviving the Economic Collapse” and “Bugging Out and Relocating: When Staying is not an Option”.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/fire-in-south-bc-forces-evacuation-of-200-people-including-campground/article25964494/
Craig
Thank you folks for the interesting comments. I sure do agree. I believe many people practice selective risk assessment, simply to justify their personal preferences regarding where they live. They focus on the aspects they would hope such a choice would present an advantage while completely overlooking the disadvantages of living in such places, some of which are far more likely than the extremely unlikely events they are theoretically preparing for.
FerFAL