[neil-v1]

I was wondering if anyone has plans to join forces with others in a SHTF scenario? Is it better to try going it alone with just family and the closest friends? If you would join up, what would be the maximum number of people? Of course supplies have a lot to do with numbers, but I mean if supplies were very good what should be the max number of people? I know skill sets matter as well but I was wondering what most people think. I was thinking the max number may be however many could be of use for security, foraging, growing etc, yet still remain as out of site as possible???

One of my biggest concerns is being able to set up and keep up a good strong perimeter on a security level while being able to keep levels of supplies high enough to maintain a group.

 

[ZoomZoom]

For me, it depends on the level of SHTF.

Max number of people can be quite a variable. In my situation, I'm thinking 40-50 but that's the # of people NEEDED. What needs to be considered is that each has their immediate and possibly extended families. Obviously, kids are welcome but you still need to take care of them but what concerns me is attempts to bring in extended families.

Of the 40-50 mentioned, I'd start much smaller and watch how it develops. Are there rival groups in the area or do the "clans" get along and work for mutual benefits?

 

[Aemilia]

I think having several core/family groups that respected each other and could work together when needed would be best. Some kind of alliance, but not constant contact.

 

[SurvivalNut]

I think having several core/family groups that respected each other and could work together when needed would be best. Some kind of alliance, but not constant contact.

I like Aemilia's idea. Dunbar's number Dunbar's number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is 150 which works for a primitive village, an Army Infantry Company, etc. But carrying capacity (how many people a given piece of land can sustain), guard watches, and work ethic and democratic principles also determine the number.

If everyone wants a vote and majority rules, then half your folk are always PO'd. A governing council may work. Obviously, a family partriarchal group may be more successful than a patchwork group. Likewise a group that assumes patriarchal values may run better.

The security of an area, food availability, and depth of social breakdown all determine the size of the group. Once set, like Aemilia, networking with other similar groups is high on my list.

 

[OldCootHillbilly]

After the dust settles some, i would contact others, out an away from out post. However, I am not plannin on bringin in anybody that isn't already on the list. Who are you goin to trust? What are they after? Food, water, shelter, or do they wan't what you have for there group?

There are huge numbers a folks out there right know what look out fer themselves an nobody else in these times. If it falls apart it's only gonna get worse.

Will mankind survive an rebuild? Ya, I think so, but it's gonna be a long drawin out mess before normalcy returns. I'd trust very few people.

 

[knighthawk]

I was wondering if anyone has plans to join forces with others in a SHTF scenario? Is it better to try going it alone with just family and the closest friends? If you would join up, what would be the maximum number of people? Of course supplies have a lot to do with numbers, but I mean if supplies were very good what should be the max number of people? I know skill sets matter as well but I was wondering what most people think. I was thinking the max number may be however many could be of use for security, foraging, growing etc, yet still remain as out of site as possible???

One of my biggest concerns is being able to set up and keep up a good strong perimeter on a security level while being able to keep levels of supplies high enough to maintain a group.

Going it alone.......bad idea. You need a support structure of some sort nearby. Networking with other like-minded people in your area is imperitive. As far as the size of your group, there are many variables that have already been addressed. In my opinion, the utmost factor regarding the size limitations would be stern rules. The more people you have, the more rigid the command structure and rules have to be. The rules and regulations must be adhered to and punishment for violating same must be carried out to the letter, thereby avoiding conflict within the group. Therefore, with regard to size, don't include more than you can govern effectively. Also, the larger the group, the greater the chance of detection by unfriendly forces.

 

[gypsysue]

Even in an extended family situation, where they gather to one location, individual families need to be recongized, and everyone needs space. Our adult children and their kids are part of our family, but they are also a family unit of their own.

If the SHTF and we end up at the same BOL, those things need to be respected. There will need to be a balance between group rules and codes of living, and family unit rules, etc. Especially in a long-term situation. Certainly at first, survival and safety will be the primary concerns. The biggest problems of compatibility will come later.

There are so many differences and personalities among our family that putting together a successful group will be more of a challenge than selecting a group of compatible preppers to work together after TEOTWAWKI. The kids will want to be part of the group when they're hungry, but assert their independence when it comes to work and responsibilities. They think it'll be a lark to not have to drag themselves to their drudge jobs any more, that it'll be like an idyllic extended camping trip. Hah. Not even close.

 

[OldFashionedMama]

N.E.O.D.F. Web

We'll be meeting up with these guys, at least the ones in my dad's unit. As you can see from the disclaimer (which looks new to me...) there are rival groups we may have to contend with.

 

[Sourdough]

The problem is "NO-ONE" wants to work (most people don't know HOW to work hard manual labor 16 hours a day) & "NO-ONE" is willing to be told what to do. I don't need a bunch of fat/lazy parasites whining and crying because they want it the way it was, HELL most ain't happy now, how much fun will they be if the SHTF.

Would I like to have team members who could work.......Yes. Do I think there is any chance for finding useful, productive, non-parasitic partners........No.

 

[neil-v1]

I am with you on that one. I think it would be very hard to trust most if not all in a shtf scenario. If someone does break the rules and had to be expelled, they could provide valuable intel to some other group. I am more on the lines I think of a very small group of near 8 to 10 people. If that even.

 

[Freyadog]

I will be quite honest. The answer to the question for me is NO. As rural as we are there is no one that we know that is prepping. Maybe a few weeks of food is in the pantries but other than that nothing.

Our son and family live in Philly about 8 hours from us however dil's uncle lives 3 hours from them. So they would go to the uncles place. So my husband would on our own.

 

[saintsfanbrian]

The family has a plan. If you are an immediate member of the family you are welcome to come. If you cease to be useful in one form or another while we are in the scenario you will cease to be on the property. Usefulness will be determined by my BIL he is "spearheading" the operation. The rest of us are supplying money, tools, supplies etc.


Oh and you will be given the co-ordinates it is up to you on getting there. We are not waiting for you.

 

[neil-v1]

I hear ya. I would love to have just immediate family included also, but my sibs live all over the country so that would be hard. I also live in a rural area but it's only about ten miles from a city of 100,000 people, so I think I would have some problems before too long if the shtf. I would need a few others folk's that could maintain a perimeter for security (I think) while everyone else tends to day to day stuff.

Of course my plan is to move as soon as finances allow to a more remote location but the way the world and our country are going now, who knows?

 

[NaeKid]

I currently live in a city of over One Million people. It covers a very large area where the north-end could be having a hail-storm with significant damage being done with flooding and the south-end people could be mowin' the lawns and sun-tanning their bodies.

Anywhere that I live that is within "driving distance" of the city for work will be overrun with those who will "run away" from the problems. The only way that I would be able to protect what I own from others who feel that they would be justified in "using" my resources is with the help of a group larger than the groups coming through my new homestead.

Other than that, I would need to be in an area similar to where GypsySue and MosquitoMountainMan live - far enough away from a major center that people would be less likely to locate them if they were just passing by.

My brother has a place like that deep in a valley in the Kootenays of BC, a great BOL 1/2 way between his place and mine, but, it is a nine-hour drive for each of us. Too far for easy, quick access. Oh ya - we barely know the neighbors who live there full-time. I can just imagine what they would be thinking if a few RV's showed up all of a sudden.

 

[goose]

Would I like to have a group? Yes!

I've thought long and hard about A) having a group coalesce around me, or B) having the necessary skills and/or items to make me valuable to a group.

Just 8 or 10 people is not, I don't believe, enough. You need enough for security, to stand watch, and to have enough complementary skills to support each other.

I want a group where we have mutual dependencies, where we rely on each other. That's the best kind of group, IMO.

 

[NotSoFast]

It depends on the scenario.

Is it a small community living is separate housing that is in close proximity? Is it a retreat for a small group?

If it was a small community, that number could vary widely, but at a miinimum I would think 50 is enough to start with. And who knows about the upper limit although I would think that over 100 things would begin to fray and come apart at the edges. Not to mention security concerns.

But 50 gives you a good number that can watch out for each other, help as needed and can still have a decent life within the community for all. That way you can have rotating guards with days off, yet still be able to farm and work without too much inconvenience.

But if it is a retreat, I think 20 at the outside and at least 10 is a good number. Nine gives you three shifts and ten gives you an extra hand to fill in without putting people on 6 on, 6 off shifts if someone gets sick or injured. I think somewhere in the middle, like 12-15 would be best in a retreat situation.

 

[lotsoflead]

I'd be willing to take in any of our kids without any hesitation , but then a person has to weigh all the problems that they can bring on themselves. , so the prepper has to make some hard decisions right from the start.

example, i tell my daughter to come, she's naturally going to bring her husband and invite her kids,(our grandkids) one of her kids in married, the married kid is going to bring his wife and kids. now all those people who have married into the family have immediate family and friends and they also have family and friends, . these non preppers and nay sayers can be a real problem down the rd,

there comes a time and it better be soon before prices double and tripple that you have to call a meeting with all the people who may be camping on your door step just to let them know that they better start putting into the pot, that you can't be the prepper for the whole county.

the one fact that i would make clear is that when they're on my land and eating my supplies, i'll give the orders and make the decisions.

 

[mosquitomountainman]

I'd be willing to take in any of our kids without any hesitation , but then a person has to weigh all the problems that they can bring on themselves. , so the prepper has to make some hard decisions right from the start.
example, i tell my daughter to come, she's naturally going to bring her husband and invite her kids,(our grandkids) one of her kids in married, the married kid is going to bring his wife and kids. now all those people who have married into the family have immediate family and friends and they also have family and friends, . these non preppers and nay sayers can be a real problem down the rd,
there comes a time and it better be soon before prices double and tripple that you have to call a meeting with all the people who may be camping on your door step just to let them know that they better start putting into the pot, that you can't be the prepper for the whole county.

The way we've dealt with that is that clearance must be obtained in advance and we are expecting those who come to bring necessities with them or store it here in advance.

... the one fact that i would make clear is that when they're on my land and eating my supplies, i'll give the orders and make the decisions.

Agreed. There can be input but the final decisions belong to my wife and I.

 

[Sourdough]

the one fact that i would make clear is that when they're on my land and eating my supplies, i'll give the orders and make the decisions.

Till they slit your throat. You better be a very, very strong leader.

 

[Sourdough]

Agreed. There can be input but the final decisions belong to my wife and I.

And how will you enforce your decisions......? Your only the leader till a more powerful, charismatic leader emerges selling how much easier live would be for the rest with NEW younger leadership.