How much garden space do you need?

In my last post, "The Beginnings of our Garden," a reader asked the following: "36 raised beds is a lot of planting space and when you do double that to 72 raised beds that will be a huge resource. I am jealous. But I still have that question I asked awhile back; how much garden space or raised beds is enough to grow a year's supply of food for a family? Would 36 raised beds do it? I do recognize that you plan to have some orchard trees too and perhaps some grain in the future and of course livestock. But to restate the question how much garden space would be required to raise enough food for four people? Not the perfect variety of food or fodder for live stock but the minimum space that would support a minimum but adequate diet."

This is a hard question to answer since literally everyone's situation is different, but I'll give it a stab. 

Self-sufficient gardens differ from regular gardens in a number of ways. The main things you need to consider are permanence, preservability, and quantity. In other words, what you plant in your self-sufficient garden should fulfill three primary functions:

1. Plants you like to eat
2. Plants you can preserve in some non-electric form (i.e. doesn't require a freezer)
3. Plants you can grow in enough quantity to sustain you

For increased food self-sufficiency, I recommend livestock – chickens, goats, cattle, or other meat, milk, or egg sources.  However if you can’t keep livestock, it's crucial to grow plant-based protein sources such as nuts and legumes. Hazelnuts, walnuts, peanuts, and dry beans are some examples of plant proteins. If you do keep livestock, these plant proteins will help round out your diet.

Another component to incorporate into a self-sufficient garden is perennial plants. Berries, fruit and nut trees, asparagus, certain herbs, and grapes are all examples of perennials which will regrow year after year with minimal effort on your part.

In a self-sufficient garden, you should concentrate on foods you can preserve through the non-growing seasons.  If you're overwhelmed with all the lettuce you've planted and there’s no way to preserve it for next winter, it's gone to waste. (Yes, I know you can dehydrate and powder lettuce, but follow me here.) In warmer climates you might be able to keep a garden going most or all of the year, but in northern climates that's impossible. Instead, we simply concentrate on foods that can be preserved, which captures the garden's abundance to last throughout the colder months until the garden starts to produce once more. This means mostly canning and dehydrating. Some people also freeze or freeze-dry, though those methods use electricity so we prefer not to depend on them.

Probably one of the biggest problems is when people underestimate how much food they eat in a year. When planning a self-sufficiency garden, the basic rule of thumb is this: Grow more than you think you'll need. You may be feeding more than just yourselves at some point.

Offhand I would say a quarter-acre of intensively cultivated garden space would likely go a very long way toward supporting a family of four, especially if it's supplemented by chickens, fruit trees, etc. But this is nothing more than an educated guess, and it doesn't include the land needed for grain, fruit and nut trees, and any livestock you have, from chickens to goats to pigs to cows.

The following material is used (with permission) from an article by "Dr. Prepper" on SurvivalBlog.

To help determine how much food to grow, assume the following facts:

•    One pound of beans = ~2000 calories, one 50-foot row produces 5 pounds of dried beans.
•    One pound of corn = ~ 1800 calories, one 50-foot row produces 10 pounds of dried corn.
•    One pound of hard squash = ~ 250 calories, one 50-foot row of produces 175 pounds of squash
•    One pound of potatoes = ~ 450 calories, one 50-foot row produces 75 pounds of potatoes

Divided out equally as your only diet, for an entire year, you would need the following for one person:

•    Beans – 5 fifty-foot rows
•    Corn – 3 fifty-foot rows
•    Squash – 8 fifty-foot rows
•    Potatoes – 3 fifty-foot rows

Assuming one fifty-foot row is 3 feet wide with a 2-foot aisle, that comes to in total in excess of 4,000 square feet of garden (that's a 63' by 63' plot) needed for growing the caloric needs of just one person. Start multiplying accordingly by the number of members in your family or group and you start to see the magnitude of what is needed for a true survival-type garden. It is quite possible that you may need one-half to two-thirds of an acre to feed yourselves. Also, to reiterate, this is based on providing a minimal diet of 2,000 calories per day, which is not a whole lot of reserve for exertion or stress, and this estimate does not allow at all for crop failure or rotation needs, so you really should plan for a larger garden.

What should you grow? There are a few considerations for what to grow in a self-sufficiency garden:

• Grow what your climate will support. No matter how much you might want them, you can't grow mangoes in Alaska. Become familiar with the USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map, which most seed companies use when listing their varieties for sale. Local nurseries will usually carry what will grow in your area.  You might also talk to other local gardeners to get their advice.

• Grow what your family likes to eat. You might be able to grow zucchini easily – most people can – but why bother if your whole family hates zucchini?

• Grow what gives you the most caloric and nutritional bang for your buck, particularly if you have a limited growing space. Four crops should be in every self-sufficient garden, particularly if you have no calorie sources from animal proteins: corn, potatoes, beans, and squash. All of these food items are versatile, prolific, and store well under the proper conditions. Varieties are available for almost any gardening conditions, so look into what grows best in your area and with your challenges.  Keep in mind relative amounts of harvest. Out of one raised bed, we can grow 30 lbs. of potatoes, but out of that same bed we might get 8 or 10 ounces of dried beans (which contain more protein).

• Most of what you grow should be preservable in some form, whether canning or freezing or dehydrating or freeze-drying or fermenting or cool storage. Remember, if you're overwhelmed with all the lettuce you've planted and there's no way to preserve it for next winter, it's gone to waste.

Naturally all this advice is adaptable for one's particular circumstances, and considering such factors as skills level, pest pressure, space, water availability, physical strength, time, etc. There are a zillion and one different considerations when answering that initial question "How much garden space do you need?", but hopefully this gives you something to think about.

Gradually, then suddenly

An interesting piece came out a few weeks ago on the Sovereign Man website entitled "We're done with 'gradually.' We've now reached the 'suddenly' part."

The article opens by discussing the mathematical concept of logarithms.

He also reviews "logarithmic decay": "The idea behind logarithmic decay is that something declines very, very slowly at first. But, over a long period of time, the rate of decline becomes faster… and faster… and faster. If you look at it on a graph, logarithmic decay basically looks like a horizontal line that almost imperceptibly arcs gently downwards. But eventually the arc downward becomes steeper and steeper until it’s practically a vertical line down."

Think of a river right before a waterfall.

The article states: "In fact logarithmic decay is great way to describe social and financial decline. Even the rise and fall of superpowers are often logarithmic in scale. The Kingdom of France in the 1700s infamously fell gradually… then suddenly. We can see the same logarithmic decay in the West today, and specifically the United States. The deterioration of government finances has been gradual, then sudden. Social conflict, censorship, and the decline in basic civility has been gradual, then sudden. Even the loss of confidence in the U.S. dollar has been gradual… and is poised to be sudden."

This mathematical concept is summarized in "The Sun Also Rises" by Ernest Hemingway (a book I've never read) on going bankrupt: "Gradually, then suddenly."

Right now, on the surface, everything seems fine. We just traveled to California to see my parents and spent days on the road without an issue. All of us are working our regular jobs without a problem.

But underneath, there are odd and uneasy undercurrents. There's a lot of stuff swirling around in the air: financially, politically, and legally. The Rule of Law has been suspended in many areas, and a lot of cities are descending into unlivable chaos. There is a lot of uncertainty regarding the future.

The Sovereign Man's thesis is we can't tell where we are on the logarithmic curve. We could have a long slow slope ahead of us, or we could be teetering on the precipice. However, his conclusion is we are at the "suddenly" part.

What I get from this piece is the need to become independent, as much as possible, for all our needs. This isn't always easy or even possible (just ask my very elderly parents), but it should be the goal of everyone. The more independent we are of these swirling currents of unease, the better.

Just some random thoughts as I work on multiple writing deadlines.

Financial strategies

This morning I read a finance piece entitled "A Nation's Heavily Indebted Consumers Face a Painful Margin Call." The article focused on the Canadian economy, and opened with the following paragraph:

"At the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, with his job as a delivery driver bringing plenty of overtime and the cost to borrow at record lows, James Kebe went on a spending spree. He leased a boat and an all-terrain vehicle, and when his bank offered him a bigger line of credit, he maxed it out.Then interest rates started rising at their fastest pace in generations. And because Kebe’s line of credit had a floating rate, his monthly payments soared, too. The cost of his debt has now outpaced his take-home pay by C$900 (U.S. $660) a month, leaving him with little choice but to enter a form of creditor protection that will see his toys repossessed and keep him on a tight budget for the foreseeable future. 'I've always been able to squeak by until now,' he said by phone from his home in West Kelowna, in the Canadian province of British Columbia. Now when he's at the store, Kebe says his new mantra is: 'Do I need this? No I don’t.'"

I confess I blanched with horror when I read about this man's actions. The phrase "spending spree" tends to do that to me. Why? Because we've been in debt and hated it.

During our child-raising productive years, Don and I were desperately trying to keep the woodcraft business afloat while raising and homeschooling the kids. Money was always tight, and our income was wildly unpredictable. The result? Our savings were practically nil, and we got in over our heads with credit card debt (purchasing necessities, not luxuries). It took us years to climb out of the financial hole we'd dug and start putting money away for our older years.

As a result of our earlier experiences – even now, so many years later – I have a near-pathological fear of owing money. We refuse to ever take on more debt: no auto loans, no credit card debt, nothing. It's cash all the way, baby.

Then a few days ago, I read an article by Daisy Luther (The Organic Prepper) on the subject of FDIC bail-ins.

The article was fine, but as always it was the comments which followed that were even more interesting as everyone chimed in about his or her financial preparedness efforts.

One man wrote: "Our fin [financial] advisor was against us taking $ out of our 401k and paying off our property. We did it anyway. Our peace of mind is off the charts right now."

However a critic replied as follows: "No one thinks they will get 'old' and retirement seems an eternity before it happens, then suddenly it does, some are glad. Then what will your income be? SS [Social Security] can’t meet all expenses. U.S. T-bills now can be bought below par, then 6 months or a year later mature, then take the interest, get more bonds bought at less than value reinvest. They are paying 5% now. Only ones living on SS retirement only are in subsidized housing. Muni bonds are tax free."

Later she added: "Most retirees I know have CD’s in a local bank or credit union they need money to live off interest, also in gov. bonds, muni’s. Nothing else can give an income. If everything goes digital, gold and other metals can only be bought and sold among other collectors. Stores will only take digital like debit cards. 401k’s best be in US treasuries 100%. cashing a 401k will be a big tax hit."

Hmm. Is this woman a spokesperson for government bonds and other traditional investment strategies?

These comments sparked a lively discussion between Don and me because it touches on our own financial reality. Because of the financial uncertainty we experienced in our younger years, we never put money in "traditional" investments. Instead, we've done our best to squirrel away as large a cushion as we could manage on a tight budget. However we did learn the art of frugality to the nth degree. Coupled with our long-term goal to reduce our expenses to the point where we could live on very little, we're far more comfortable than we've ever been.

This touches on one aspect of financial management few people ever discuss (or adopt): The radical concept of drastically lowering one's regular or monthly expenses as a preparedness strategy.

When we had the opportunity to purchase our new (to us) home when we downsized a couple years ago, we leaped at the chance to pay cash and have no mortgage. While it would have been nice to find a place with more acreage, we deliberately limited ourselves to properties we could purchase outright for cash. Now, having lived without a mortgage for two years, I fully understand the "off-the-charts peace of mind" mentioned by the man mentioned above. It's true.

But just because we don't have a mortgage doesn't mean we've eliminated frugality. Yes, we've spent the last two years spending money buying things to turn this property into a homestead – lumber and other construction materials, fencing, and of course our plumbing woes last fall – but that's spending, not monthly expenses. We've continued whittling down our monthly expenses with a "how low can you go" attitude. If the financial bleep hits the fan for us, we can exist on as little as $800/month. If we were completely strapped for cash, we could drop that to about $500/month, possibly less.

Right now Don is receiving a very modest amount of Social Security. I won't be eligible for Social Security for another couple of years. However you can bet we'll keep our living expenses within the range of our anticipated income from these sources.

What did the critic above write? "Social Security can’t meet all expenses. ... Only ones living on SS retirement only are in subsidized housing." Excuse me, but that's baloney. One of the reasons we've whittled down our expenses (including having no mortgage) is to be able to live comfortably on Social Security, or far less if need be.

So what about the strategies mentioned by the critic above? Should we invest in T-bills and other financial opportunities? In our book, no. We don't trust the government not to mismanage itself into insolvency. The repercussions of a government-orchestrated financial collapse are vast and far-reaching, and it means the death of not just Social Security, but all the fancy T-bills and other financial vehicles this woman touts. What will she do once she can't withdraw income from her investments?

In the event of a financial collapse, everyone will be in the same boat regarding economic hardship, and traditional investment strategies may no longer apply. When and if this happens, everyone will have to cope as best they can. But those who are used to living low on the hog at least won't be faced with owing money on things they can no longer afford, or feel deprived when they can't go on a "spending spree."

In other words, considering our past, I feel we're in about as solid a financial position as we can manage, despite our lack of "traditional" investments. (You might say we "invested" in frugality.)

Perhaps a question to ask is this: Are your finances in line with a preparedness lifestyle? Is your lifestyle and spending habits in line with preparedness? Are you financially prepared to lose your job or weather an economic downturn?

The whole idea of financial preparedness is being able to handle, to the best of one's ability, economic blows ranging from the personal (job loss) to the international (a worldwide economic collapse). While we can't make much of a difference on the international platform, there's a lot we can do on a personal level to prepare.

My $0.02.

Three is two, two is one

Last March, if you recall, I went for a long-overdue exam with an optometrist and got a new pair of glasses.

I am absolutely blind without my glasses, and wanted to make sure I had a pair in reserve ... y'know, just in case.

But everyone knows the Rule of Three: Three is two, two is one, one is none. With only one pair of backup lenses, I wanted to get another spare pair.

But holy cow, glasses are expensive – especially glasses ordered through an optometrist. I know I got hosed on the pair I ordered, but at least it meant I got an up-to-date prescription.

In fact, that was something I insisted upon – having my prescription written down. They were a little reluctant to provide it, because doubtless they knew exactly what I planned to do; namely, order glasses online. I took the prescription card home with me and carefully stored it in a place where it wouldn't get lost.

The one measurement every optometrist will always deliberately omit (when providing a client with their prescription) is the pupillary distance – the space between the pupils of the eyes. This allows the manufacturers to add the correct nose bridge to bring the proper focus for each eye. Presumably they omit this critical measurement to discourage ordering glasses online. Aha, but Older Daughter had already looked up online how to do this.

So Don found a form online, sat me down, and measured the distance between my pupils. He measured twice, just to be sure.

Then I logged onto Zenni Optical, selected some frames I liked, input my prescription ... and was kicked off. It turns out the particular set of frames I liked wouldn't accommodate a prescription as dramatically bad as mine.

Okay, onward. I found another online eyeglass provider called Eye Buy Direct and repeated the process. Select the frames, "try" them on the virtual models provided on the website, and input my prescription details. Bing, bang, boom – done. The cost (including shipping as well as a case) came to about $80, dramatically less expensive than the pair I got through the optometrist. But were they any good?

The glasses arrived literally within a week, and the answer is yes, they're great!

"Order another pair," Don urged, so I did. This time I got a discount for ordering a second pair, and my total came to about $50.

Now I have three spare pairs of prescription eyeglasses, which gives me great comfort. And kudos to Eye Buy Direct for an excellent product, cheap prices, and fast turn-around.

Am I the only one who thinks this is misguided?

Some time ago, I came across an article entitled "Former Military Bunkers Are Home for Hundreds of Survival-Minded People."

It seems a development group called Vivos (which develops survival properties in various places around the world) has purchased a huge property containing 575 former military bunkers near the Black Hills of South Dakota. "The 7,000-acre development sits on the former Black Hills Army Base, built in 1942 by the Army Corps of Engineers to store bombs and other munitions during World War II," says the article. "The Army retired the base in 1967 and sold the property and all 575 bunkers to the city of Edgemont, which, in turn, sold it to local cattle ranchers."

The massive concrete structures are being turned into bunkers for survivalists.

There's certainly something to be said for these structures. The location is geographically isolated and seismically stable. The bunkers themselves are spacious (2,200 square feet) and the thick concrete walls are constructed to withstand both internal and external blasts, such as that of a nuclear bomb. Each unit can be custom outfitted in luxury, with the primary disadvantage being the lack of natural light.

According to the website, "Each bunker provides enough floor area, with attic potential, to comfortably accommodate 10 to 24 people and their needed supplies, for a year or more, of autonomous shelterization without needing to emerge outside."

These bunkers are made to last. "Each bunker includes a massive existing concrete and steel blast door, that seals to stop any water, air or gas permeation; air and exhaust ventilation shafts, and a secondary emergency exit. ... This elliptical shape mitigates a surface blast wave, as well as radioactive fallout due to the thickness of the overburden of soil and concrete."

I got curious about this development and did a little research. I've come to the conclusion the whole project is, well, stupid. Well, maybe not stupid so much as misguided.

Why? Because as I see it, literally the only advantages of these bunkers is their ability to withstand the types of explosions and blasts for which they were constructed. But as prepper shelters, they have less appeal – unless, literally, your only concern about the future is nuclear warfare (which, to be fair, is a legitimate concern considering the situation in Europe).

There are, in my opinion, a number of strikes against these bunkers:

• Customers pay a lot, but not for ownership. According to the article, "It costs $45,000 to purchase a 99-year lease for each bunker and about $150,000 to $200,000 to convert it to living quarters." The website clarifies, "There is a one-time upfront payment of $45,000, plus an ongoing annual ground rent of $1,091 per bunker. Bunkers are provided in their as-is condition, without interior improvements, equipment or furnishings, ready for your outfitting." That's a lot of money for an unfinished rental.

• Alternately, customers can pay $15,000 to secure a space in a shared bunker. These are "completely furnished, outfitted, stocked with 1 year of food and supplies, dishware, linens, fuel, water, and bedding, with a deluxe private bunk with keyed access. Perfect for singles, couples and small families to share with others."

• The facilities are still dependent on outside power sources (fuels for generators, etc.). According to the FAQs, "The entire bunker network is off grid, without power supply from the local utilities. Each bunker needs to install a diesel generator with 55-gallon drum fuel storage tanks for the primary ongoing power requirements." With the unfolding energy crisis on both the national and international stage, this strikes me as an enormous vulnerability.

• There is no private water source. According to the FAQs, "Vivos distributes water from our 4,200-foot-deep aquifer well up to a 250,000+/- gallon underground cistern located on a hill within the complex. Water is then gravity fed to each bunker. The initial water line hookup to each bunker is just $3,000. Thereafter, you may freely use as much water as you like, for inside shelterization purposes, at no extra charge, provided you are not wasting the water." However presumably it requires fuel to lift the water from a depth of 4,200 feet. What happens when the fuel runs out?

• Property "per bunker" is limited to 30 feet from the structure.  This limits the amount of space to build any structures such as barns or other livestock facilities – much less have grazing room for animals. Some customers have planted gardens on top of their bunkers, which is probably the very best location for a garden; but additional self-sufficiency options (such as room to house and graze cattle) are limited.

• The USDA Hardiness Zone is 4B, same as most of Alaska. This means gardening is challenging. The hardy people who already live in this region have years of experience in dealing with the climate and have a thorough understanding of what plants will grow and what won't. How long will it take newcomers to the area to acquire that same knowledge? More than one growing season, I suspect.

• Essentially these bunkers are like self-imposed prison cells. Someone could literally trap you inside by bulldozing a huge load of dirt or rocks in front of the bunker doors. Alternately, you could be forced out by Bad Guys cutting your water and/or power lines.

In short, it strikes me that these bunkers appeal mostly to the "Gee this is cool!" school of thinking, rather than the hard reality of what it takes to survive a bleep-hit-the-fan scenario ... unless, of course, the "bleep" is a nuclear holocaust.

And even then, these bunkers have a limited attraction (to me, at least) in the event of a nuclear war. Sure, they'll do a splendid job of protecting you for as long as you stay within their thick concrete walls. But what then?

Let's put it this way: If outside conditions are so dire that you must literally hole up for an entire year, then things will be positively apocalyptic when you finally emerge from your concrete cocoon. Let's say nuclear Armageddon happens and you've survived, thanks to the remarkable bunkers. A year has passed, and you emerge, blinking in the bleary sunshine, and realize you have no fuel for generators or water pumps. Presumably by then your food will be eaten up as well. What's your next step? Ordering something from Amazon?

If people who can afford these bunkers simply want the novelty of living inside a concrete shell, then what the heck, go for it. But they must recognize they are, in many ways, just as susceptible to societal disruptions of goods and services (notably fuel to power generators and well pumps) as anyone else.

Or am I the misguided one here? Am I missing something? Are these bunkers the best thing since sliced bread? What are your thoughts?

The unfolding situation in Europe

We've been watching with great concern the unfolding situation in Europe.This morning we saw a headline: "Back To The Old Days: Europeans Panic-Buy Firewood And Stoves." Since energy prices are skyrocketing to the point of unaffordability, people are scrambling to find some way to keep from freezing during the upcoming winter.

While woodstoves and firewood are an excellent solution, the unpleasant fact is there is only so much wood and so many stoves available; and, of course, not every structure can accommodate wood heat.

Obviously there are a great many contributing factors to Europe's predicament – wars, pipeline sabotage, strikes, economic uncertainty, industrial collapse, political policies – but the combined result is the same: Untold misery for millions upon millions of innocent Europeans across many nations.

Some say what happens in Europe will soon come to America. Yes and no. Certainly people should strive to lessen their vulnerability to issues beyond their control when it comes to critical necessities such as food, water, and heat; but America has a whole different set of issues and circumstances we're dealing with. Whatever befalls us will not necessarily be a duplication of what is befalling Europe.

What Europe does illustrate, however, is the growing cracks taking place worldwide in matters of security with energy, food, finances, etc. What many thought was a solid foundation of rock is revealed to be a foundation of shifting sand.

My conclusions from watching the unfolding situation in Europe is this: watch and learn. There isn't a whole lot most of us can do to influence national or international policies. But there's a lot we can do to help ourselves be less vulnerable when those policies translate to the ground level. Starting now.

If any blog readers are in Europe, please let us know what's happening in your area.

The preparedness paradox

Today I learned about something called the "preparedness paradox," which means preparing for a danger (an epidemic, natural disaster, etc.) can keep people from being harmed by that danger. Since people didn't see negative consequences from the danger, they wrongly conclude that the danger wasn't bad to start with.

I had never heard of this paradox before, but I told Don the first thing that came to mind was the economic crash of 2008. It entirely passed us by. In fact, I was inclined to dismiss its impact since we weren't affected. It really wasn't until much later that I realized how bad it was and how many people were financially devastated.

Breezing through 2008 wasn't a "planned" thing for us; it just happened. There were a number of factors behind this, the two primary ones being (a) we had several diverse work-from-home income streams, so we weren't financially affected; and (b) we had low living expenses due to an extremely frugal lifestyle.

Here's another example of the Preparedness Paradox. Don mentioned a friend of his who worked in the tech sector during the Y2K scare. So many people mocked Y2K as a big "nothing burger," but this tech friend absolutely disagreed. He said they did  a lot of controlled test runs on their legacy systems and they crashed big-time. Had that frantic work not taken place, the results would have been devastating for their large company and a lot of other tech firms. But since those not directly involved in the tech sector were largely unaware of the behind-the-scenes activity, they wrongly concluded Y2K was No Big Deal.

The Wikipedia article uses the example of levees: "Levees are structures which run parallel to rivers and are meant to offer protection from flooding. Paradoxically, their construction leads to a reduced awareness of and preparation for floods or breaches. The perception of safety also leads to unsafe land development in the floodplain which is supposed to be protected by the levee. Consequently, when a flood does occur or the levee breaches, the effects of that disaster will be greater than if the levee had not been built."

Needless to say, the "Preparedness Paradox" is not something to feel smug about. In fact, it's just the opposite: It's a warning not to get too complacent about one's situation.

I find this whole "Preparedness Paradox" an interesting concept. Everyone should make an effort to have, already in place, the necessary responses to the natural disasters to which their area is prone (wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, etc.). It's better to be over-prepared than under-prepared. But does doing so make us less likely to anticipate and therefore handle an emergency?

Have you fallen prey to the Preparedness Paradox? If so, how?

Gardening in cold climates

I have a cyber-friend in Maine named Holly. She lives a very rugged lifestyle. This is her porch:

Through trial and error, she and her husband have figured out the intricacies of gardening in an extreme (Zone 3) northern climate.

Well, she put pen to paper (so to speak) and wrote a piece for SurvivalBlog – and they published it! Way to go, Holly! You can read her essay here.

The unreality of a bug-out location

A few months ago, I read an interesting piece on The Organic Prepper on the subject and importance of a bug-out location. Ideally, this is the fully pre-furnished remote location every good prepper is supposed to have up his sleeve for the inevitable time he'll be departing the urban dystopia.

The scene is always set for the prepper to arrive on his remote doorstep, battered but alive from his apocalyptic journey, and slip effortlessly into a self-sufficient lifestyle and live happily ever after. Or something like that.

The ideal Bug-Out Location, the article tells us, should have the following:

• Isolation from major population centers

• Shelter

• At least one-quarter acre of land with excellent soil (for gardening); more land, if possible, to raise livestock

• A natural water source

• A nearby wood source (forest, etc.)

There's so much to unpack in this article that I almost don't know where to start; but frankly, all I can see is a recipe for disaster if people actually try to follow these recommendations.

The article makes it sound like an isolated shack in the woods is all you need to survive a bleep-hit-the-fan scenario, and everyone is already pre-equipped with the knowledge to grow a garden, protect it from deer or other pests, preserve the harvest, and, I dunno, live happily ever after.

But there is more – so much more – to self-sufficiency than a bug-out location.

If you're fleeing a genuine natural disaster (hurricane, wildfire, etc.), then either the evacuation is temporary, or your home is gone. There is no middle ground. If the former, then you can go home as soon as the danger is over, clean up the mess, and resume your life. If the latter, you'll have to start over, hopefully with the assistance of friends, relatives, insurance companies, and contractors.

I've had friends fleeing wildfires. In one case, some friends had the time to temporarily relocate their livestock to a safe location and literally move everything out of their home lock, stock, and barrel. Thankfully the fire missed them, so they took the opportunity to give their empty house a good scrubbing, then moved everything back in.

In the other case, the fire erupted so fast there was no time to do anything but flee, and our friends lost everything but the clothes on their backs. Their home was burned, much of the infrastructure for their farm was gone, and the only reason their livestock survived is because the husband was able to dash in among the flames and release the horses and cattle to a more distant pasture. Friends and neighbors rallied around to aid them, and they're slowly getting back on their feet.

But these are not the situations preppers talk about when they describe bug-out locations. Instead, they set up the scene for fleeing the apocalyptic bleep-hit-the-fan scenario in which cities abruptly become unlivable. This is the setup for which they urge bug-out locations.

But a bug-out location, to be an effective, long-term, and self-sufficient option, has to be so much more than a shack in the woods with a creek running nearby.

First of all, even with all the skill in the world, it will take – at minimum – three months for the refugee's garden to start producing food. (This assumes they were able to plant the garden in a timely fashion and protect it from pests during the growing season.) But what will they eat until their garden is ready? What if they arrived at their bug-out location in the fall or winter (or even in mid-summer), when gardening isn't possible? Do they have sufficient food storage already in place at their remote location to tide them over?

Besides, most people do not leave urban areas possessing the full knowledge and skills necessary to become self-sufficient immediately. Speaking from experience, it takes years of trial and error. To assume you can arrive, panting and dirty, on the doorstep of your bug-out location, remove the backpack from your aching back, and know what to do next is asking a lot.

Additionally, unless the prepper is willing to adopt a hunter-gatherer lifestyle (in which case they're going to need access to a heck of a lot more than one-quarter acre of property), they're going to need a lot of tools. These must either be pre-located at the bug-out location, or brought with them (and trust me, these tools won't fit in a backpack). The list of tools is formidable and includes everything from gardening implements to a pressure canner. Unless the "bugged-out" prepper has access to the tools necessary to live self-sufficiently, he's going to fail.

This is why these kinds of unrealistic "armchair prepper" articles make me despair. We've been involved in the homesteading movement for decades, and we're still learning, still failing, still trying new things. To give someone false hope that they can waltz – tra la la – onto a raw piece of land with a ramshackle shack and transform it into a thriving self-sufficient homestead within a matter of weeks is criminally misleading.

You're not going to your bug-out location for a two-week vacation (that's called a vacation home). Instead, you're going to your bug-out location to survive an apocalyptic situation.

This is not meant to discourage anyone from purchasing land and developing it into a homestead. Quite the contrary: if this is your dream, I urge you to follow through with all possible speed. But it should be a lifestyle, not a place you think will be ready for you in the bleep hits the fan.

It takes time to develop a piece of land into something that will provide your physical needs. My advice: Get started NOW.

------------------------------------

Don and I discussed this subject, and he wrote the following:

It's possible, when you read the above, you said to yourself, "Gee, Patrice is being a bit harsh."

Well, let me tell you that compared to my take on the article in question, Patrice is being far too kind. I'll begin with the general tenor of the article she references.

The author seems to suggest that everything you need to do for developing and maintaining a successful "bug-out" is outlined in his 1,800-word essay. Aside from this being impossible (considering all the permutations involved in locating, purchasing, constructing and maintaining a viable "shelter" in the wild), the author glosses over so many vital concerns as to make the piece worse than useless, moving it solidly into the "dangerous to deadly" category.

Here's a few of his knuckle busters:

• "In this review, we will assist you in choosing a perfect bug-out location where you will have totally secure retreats and enjoy your stay there."

There is no such thing as either perfection or total security in any bug-out location, especially if you don't live there full time. I don't care how crafty you are in purchasing the land or how stealthily you sneak in one 2x4 at a time to build your "shelter" or how far out into the wilderness you go. Someone local – logger, hiker, moonshiner, weed grower, forester – will soon know you are there and will just as quickly spread the word to others. Never doubt the power of the country grapevine. I suppose it's possible you might set up your shelter inside of a hollow log or under a rock pile and get away with being unnoticed for a while, but hollow logs are hard to heat safely and rock piles are there for a reason, often related to unstable slopes above you.

• "[Your bug-out] has to be located quite far from your main house, as you want to be able to escape from your area when any type of emergency starts. Thus, usually, such constructions are located in very remote areas, but the distance from your residence is not the main characteristic."

Aside from the fact that the author contradicts himself in adjacent sentences, the distance between your residence and your bug-out should be a short as possible based on the reasonable disasters you anticipate. If your main concern is a tsunami, having a prepared retreat inland above the anticipated high water levels is smart. If your fears are at the other end of the spectrum – such as nuclear winter or a planet-killing asteroid strike – your best bet is to make sure that you'll be accepted into God's house (which actually is a good and inexpensive strategy regardless of whatever other plans you make). But assuming your earthly concerns are somewhere in between, you want your established bug-out to be located where that you can get to safely and quickly, if for no other reason than that you can check up on it regularly and do such stocking and maintenance as needed to make sure it will be ready for your use. Realistically, the best-case scenario is to live full-time in your bug-out location.

• "A long distance from your home to the bug-out location is important for your safety" and "That is why the distance from your permanent residence should not be too long and too short as well."

Before I go off on the author too much for the above sentences, he does provide specific distances based on travel methods and potential calamities. For example:

• "Using a vehicle – from 50 to maximum of 100 miles" and “Bear in mind that there can be no opportunity to use gas stations. It means that the shelter should be no further than one tank of gas away.“

The main criteria for this distance to your perfect bug-out seems to be your mileage. (Professional hint: try to find a vehicle which can go at least 100 miles on a tank of gas; might want to avoid an EV.)

• "Walking to location – from 25 to maximum 50 miles"

First off, if you live in a major city, you won't even find yourself out of the suburbs at 50 miles. Additionally, what exactly do you think the other refugees are going to do to you and your large and heavy backpack as you limp by on your blistered feet?

• "If you want to hide from nuclear war or tsunami – 100 miles"

Just stop. Please stop.

I thought I'd go farther in reviewing this article, but I have other more important things to do (Sunday nap).

Just understand that there is nothing in the "expert" article under review that will keep you safe. Absolutely nothing.

If you're rightly concerned about living in the cities during these increasingly troubling times, here is the best advice I can give you:

Get out of there now. Sell out and move to the country. Buy a fixer upper and fix it. Build a garden and raise livestock. Learn to preserve food. Learn a new set of skills. Meet, listen to, and become neighborly with the locals. Find a local job or make one. Attend a church. Join a fraternal organization. Stop and smell the roses. Exercise and learn about your area with long backwoods drives and boots on the ground. Homeschool if you've got kids.

I can't promise you that you'll have the perfect bug-out, since perfection is a goal and not a destination, but at least you travel time will be nil.

And if you plan right, you can take tsunamis off you list of concerns.