I've read here and other places about people planning to live off the land if the world goes to hell. I think this is an idea that is useful for augmenting stocks of supplies, but is not something that should be planned for as the primary means of survival.
Any hunter knows most game animals change their habits during the hunting season because of pressure from hunters. While there are some families able to sustain themselves entirely through hunting, fishing, farming, and trapping, these families are a small part of the population. Most hunters out there do it for the sport or to augment their supermarket food, and most states have bag limits or possession limits on the different game animals.
Now imagine 300 million people under threat of starvation because the nation's producers are only providing livestock and crops for their families and local communities. I have read, although I certainly can't show evidence, that in the pipeline from producers to consumers' freezers, we have about a three day surplus of food in this country for every person. Even if this is true, that would be an average, and would obviously be less for those further down the pipeline (i.e. urban dwellers).
If you think about how difficult it can be to fill your deer tags every year, think about how much more difficult it will be when people are out in the woods and even cow pastures with any gun they have, taking as many animals as they can. The herds will be destroyed in a very short time.
Skills that allow you to live off the land are good skills to have in the event you are lost or stranded, but if you intend to be able to survive a complete social collapse, you should look more into long-term food storage now and use game animals as a way to augment your protein.
"I have always been a soldier. I have known no other life. The calling of arms, I have followed from boyhood. I have never sought another." From The Virtues of War, by Steven Pressfield.
5 years 5 weeks ago, 7:59 AM