Well my post was little more than a cute witticism. But since you have to take it seriously and call it BS, allow me to say: BS to your BS - the woods are wonderful, dark and deep and there are enough of them because in any SHTF scenario that you have ever dreamed about, at least 75% of the US population will be wiped out. That leaves 25%, the great majority of which according to the type of logic you use would be too stupid to head to the woods and thereby remain in city or suburban areas. Now considering all the available woodland in Canada, I suppose you forgot about that, there is more than enough woodland in North America to support the population of survivalists who flee there in your type
of SHTF scenario. You see your problem is that you do not stay consistent, thereby failing to use your own logic to figure things out. This is, as I see it, not adaptability on your part but rather lack of stability. This is why you would likely not survive any such situation.
Now let me say this TICSMYD. Or talk is cheap show me your data. Your data stinks from what I can find. You said:
bs, there's 270million people, and 4.5 million squate miles of the lower 48
According to Encarta Interactive World Atlas 2000 the actual area of the entire USA is 3,717,796 square miles. You are right on for the population when rounded off to the nearest million so this would leave less woodland if your 25% figure is correct, but you seemingly are forgetful of other boonies type land to which many would flee and are forgetting that many would stay in urban areas or even flee to urban areas. Now here are some facts you forgot or neglected to mention and which maybe quite telling as to population densities in certain areas: Urban = 77%, rural = 23%. Most people in an ANDY STYLE SHTF
scenario would never make it to the woods. Many would not even think of going there. There would be more than enough to sustain the real survivalists. Remember too that one man's woods is another man's worthless desert or scrublands - after all the Cleveland national FOREST in the People's RepubLik of Kalifornia is primarily desert. I would readily retreat to such an environment to survive and could do so nicely. I would also be able to survive on the plains or in the swamps. These are all available back country. It is rather comical though how when someone other than you advocates making it to the back country - all of a sudden there is not enough of it to go around. Are you trying to discourage others from going there, or is it just as I figured that you cannot sustain any amount of rational stability in how you view such situations simply because you have some sort of overpowering need to nastily debunk or disagree with the opinions of others.
Of course your own past logic supports my claim that there are enough woods or other back country. Such statements as when you said:
They will die off FAST,so you dont have to stay in your hidey hole very long at all.
Hmmmmm, as you would put it! I guess there would not be so much competition in the woods after all - since they would die off fast. Now the amazing thing about your rationale is that you often spout off about how people should retreat to the woods in a SHTF scenario but not this time. This time you say there are not enough woods - and I ask again is this because you simply have an overpowering need to disagree with others? You have also said that the northern plains would be a bad choice due to the cold, as would the plains in general because of the open country. You have also said that mountainous areas of the western USA are a poor choice because of cold climatic conditions. You also have said cities would be a bad choice as would other urban areas. I guess this leaves you swampland or a houseboat that acts as a submarine since you want to dig yourself a hole in the ground in which to hide away. When you finally make up your mind let us all know which you would select, that way we will all know which area to avoid because whatever you pick would likely be a poor choice.
You know I just reread your post and maybe I have found the answer as to why you seem so unstable to me. You said this:
I've been in the hole, no daylight at all, for many months at a time. Nothing to it,if you have the ability to control your mind.
Maybe that did it to you, that is made you unstable. However there is one thing I am pretty sure it did not do for you and that was to make you more likely to survive a survival situation whereby you have to fend for yourself and find food, water and shelter all on your own. While you are cowering in your hole, barely making it, others will be living there lives and fighting the fight. When the SHTF and when America needs you the most, go ahead hide in your hole like a coward, it sort of fits you from what I have read. Me I will stay in the fight, and if I perish at least it will be for something bigger than me in which I believe and to which I owe allegiance. You really make me sick, so much so you remind me of Dr. Smith from the TV show lost in space, or better yet the Burgess Meredith character in the Twilight Zone episode who winds up being the last guy on earth who now has time to read. Your idea of survival is pathetic in my view.