Location: Zombie Survival & Defense Wiki Discussion Forum

Discussion: Hunting vs. Surviving

Category: Discussion Forum / General Discussion

Report thread
Watch thread
Share this

1 2 | Next

AlexHigginbotham	Hunting vs. Surviving Dec 16 2009, 2:27 AM EST Devilnuts brought up an interesting point in his profile that I think deserves a thread. What are you going to be? A zombie hunter or a survivalist? Personally it would depend on my area and the level of infection. A night of the living dead situation would seem ideal for zombie hunting, because they were slow and scarce. If approached quickly enough, effective hunting groups could wipe out the outbreak before is ever becomes an issue. On the other hand, 28 days later or Dawn of the Dead (2004) style outbreaks would deffinetly warrant a quieter approach. Towards the end of DotD, how many zombies were there roaming the parking lot of the mall? Thousands pretty much. I think it was Ving Rhames that said they might all be flocking to them because of distant memories of shopping or whatnot, but maybe it was them making their presence known by constantly shooting, walking around on the roof, driving around, etc. Both approaches also require a different equipment load. Hunters will most likely be more outfitted for protection, IE some sort of armor, vehicle, and an array of weaponry. Only a day or two worth of water or food would need to be carried, because if there are few enough zombies to let you move around freely shooting through the streets, then you will most likely be able to resupply yourself periodically through scavenging. The ideal number for a hunt team would most likely be 4-6 people, enough to keep 360* awareness and enough fire power to take out the occasional "cluster" of zombies. This method would be way to risky in a large outbreak due to being highly detectable, and no solid plan for escape if your surrounded or overun. It sounds fun, but an outbreak in its early stages that would justify hunting would most likely be somewhat military controlled, and you run the risk of the military/police shutting down your vigilante attitude. Survivalist would be better suited to only carry Post reply 4 out of 4 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you? Keyword tags: None
AlexHigginbotham	1. RE: Hunting vs. Surviving Dec 16 2009, 2:28 AM EST necessary gear for sustain life while trying to outlive the zombies. Carrying the most food, water, medical supplies, etc. that you safely could would outweigh the need for maximum firepower. Everyone should be armed somehow, but carrying a basic pistol or shotgun will suffice to carrying loads of equipment that you will most likely not get the chance to use. Considering your mobility will be extremely hindered, a reliable defencive structure will be the key to survival. If theres more zombies than you can kill, then dont kill them, just make it to where they can't get to you. Like Shaun would say, "Just give em' the slip." Minimal armor and weapons would be necessary, because wasting that shotgun shell on a zombie that you passed in the street on your way to the safehouse may be the last shell you would have had when a zed snuck past your defences in your safe house. Vehicle travel should stay minimal and only used in an emergency, IE "bugging out." For an operation like this to thrive it would most likely require 15 people or more, because you are esentially going to mimic a mini society within your defence. A lot of work will have to be done in a short amount of time, and that takes manpower. Once all is said and done with fortifying a position, set up some sort of system of rules and enact an authority system. 9 out of 10 anarchist communes fall apart due to lack of organization, so it helps to designate a qualified person(s) as a leader. When you deem yourself "safe", then you can try to continue living your life and hope the zombies die off or lose interest in your position, because your not leaving until you know Post reply Do you find this valuable?
AlexHigginbotham	2. RE: Hunting vs. Surviving Dec 16 2009, 2:28 AM EST the threat is gone. Implying this strategy early on in an outbreak will keep you alive, but i feel all effort should be made to supress the outbreak before you are forced to the point of totally isolating yourself from the rest of the world. If you can stop the apocalypse before it starts, you dont have to make the effort of building a new society. I'm not really going to cover travelers or solo hermits, because i don't see how traveling is all that of an effective method of survival. You might end up at a great compound, and you might end up in a situation where you are worse off than you were before. Taking the risk of getting stranded in an unfamiliar area is VERY dangerous, especially when your a walking buffet. As well, crawling into a cave by yourself and forgetting the world exists may keep you alive, but the isolation will make your mind your own worst enemy. Under the stress of an outbreak on top of being alone and unaware of whats going on in the world, you are most likely to lose your sanity before your skin. Comments and critiques are greatly appreciated, as im trying to do this to educate and entertain plausable solutions rather than argue about whose penis is bigger. But if its in question, mine is always bigger :) Sorry for the long thread. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
DevilNuts	3. RE: Hunting vs. Surviving Dec 16 2009, 4:53 AM EST \| Post edited: Dec 16 2009, 4:54 AM EST Right tool for the job. If you are gathering firewood, carry an axe. If you are looting an office building, bring a duffel. If you are "culling the herd," strap that sh!t on. My philosophy is one of risk aversion. The way I see it, survival is all about maximizing your odds of staying alive at all costs. Fighting will always reduce those odds, so to me it is usually not worth it. However, if the population of zombies is increasing, or making it difficult for you to operate outside the wire, then the dynamic of the situation has changed so that NOT fighting is the riskier decision. Once that happens, it may be prudent to put together a hunting party to thin them out, or draw them away from your settlement. You will find that I am always looking for an alternative to combat. But never mistake my pragmatism for pacifism >:) Post reply Do you find this valuable?
timberrattler	4. RE: Hunting vs. Surviving Dec 16 2009, 7:14 AM EST Count me as a student of the DevilNuts philosophy of survival. I will not be looking for trouble but I will be prepared if it finds me. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
SGTGerman	5. RE: Hunting vs. Surviving Dec 16 2009, 8:16 AM EST Hmm what will my strategies be? "He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious." "Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys; look on them as your own beloved sons, and they will stand by you even unto death." "There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare." "You have to believe in yourself." Suppose the chinease weren't so bad thousands of years ago. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
Hell_raiser101	6. RE: Hunting vs. Surviving Dec 16 2009, 10:10 AM EST \| Post edited: Dec 16 2009, 10:18 AM EST "Count me as a student of the DevilNuts philosophy of survival. I will not be looking for trouble but I will be prepared if it finds me. " Can I be a student as well even though part of my plan A goes against it? Later on, once most people are dead and I am building up the uber-zombie fortress, I would start sending cleaning parties out. Clear a building, kill or rescue anything in the building, scavenge the building, take the builing apart for supplies. This serves four functions, it gives the group more place to farm, they can see out further, they have supplies, and they just thinned down the zombie population. (And yes, I did borrow some of those ideas...However I am here to learn, not just waste air.) Can I be a survivalist who takes part in zombie hunting? Urgh, I guess not...I don't know which to pick....Eh, you can figure it out from my statements. Edit: After thinking for a few moments, I am probably a survivalist. I do not plan on looking for trouble, I do not plan on being the uber-zombie-killa..I am planning on trying to survive, and thinning out the zombies around my area after I get some more people in my group would help, would it not? Post reply Do you find this valuable?
LJ126	7. RE: Hunting vs. Surviving Dec 16 2009, 12:53 PM EST I've actually done a considerable amount of thinking on this topic, and out of necessity I would probably be required to commit to combat very frequently due to my location. St. Louis boasts a population of about 3 million and is surrounded by rivers; in fact, a local name of STL is "Three Rivers." The Missouri and Mississippi rivers are rather large and fast moving. Logistically, this would probably keep the zombies confined inside of St. Louis county. In order to ensure long term survival, escape would be necessary. Let's assume that 25% of STL survives to escape and are no longer immediately a concern, 25% decides to stay (for whatever reason) and 50% is either dead or undead-ish, there's a damn good chance that I'm going to need LOTS of ammunition just to get out of Dodge and into an area that is self-sustainable. On the other hand, because of my region's resources (food, water, close proximity of homes) it would be reasonable to assume that waging a full on war against zombies, provided that there was the manpower to do so. You could set up several locations over a 3 mile area and use them as R&R's until a more concerted escape effort could be established. Needless to say, I don't intend on staying in St. Louis forever... but gotta plan for the foreseen future. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
Bipp	8. RE: Hunting vs. Surviving Dec 16 2009, 2:08 PM EST I would be a survivor/hunter, my town and surrounding area has about 3000 people in a 30 mile radios. Most of the surrounding area is farm land. I could see the survivors going out and clearing out any zombies and working with each other to build a defensive base, and large farming, and animal herds. Even if I am part of a small group of survivors I think that with the low number of zombies we would hunt the close by zombies and then set up for long term survival. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
AlexHigginbotham	9. RE: Hunting vs. Surviving Dec 16 2009, 5:34 PM EST It's more or less and attempt to broaden to horizons of people with a set and specific plan. Rather than set up exactly step I am going to take, would it not be smarter to answer all of your "what if" question first? If your dead set plan is to go to X building with Y people and do Z when you get there, what if X building burned down in the panic and Y people were already dead? I prefer having a "what if" outline rather than a specific plan, and always have a backup plan for your backup plan. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
PedroAsani	10. RE: Hunting vs. Surviving Dec 16 2009, 6:29 PM EST "I've actually done a considerable amount of thinking on this topic, and out of necessity I would probably be required to commit to combat very frequently due to my location. St. Louis boasts a population of about 3 million and is surrounded by rivers; in fact, a local name of STL is "Three Rivers." The Missouri and Mississippi rivers are rather large and fast moving. Logistically, this would probably keep the zombies confined inside of St. Louis county." Until they step in the rivers and are swept miles downstream. Plus, what will stop them using the bridges? Not a conscious decision, but more dumb luck on their part. To me, unless the zombie is an immediate and continuing threat, avoid the fight. The noise might draw more, and if you are concentrating on the one you can see, what about the one you can't? Post reply Do you find this valuable?
PedroAsani	11. RE: Hunting vs. Surviving Dec 16 2009, 6:32 PM EST "It's more or less and attempt to broaden to horizons of people with a set and specific plan. Rather than set up exactly step I am going to take, would it not be smarter to answer all of your "what if" question first? If your dead set plan is to go to X building with Y people and do Z when you get there, what if X building burned down in the panic and Y people were already dead? I prefer having a "what if" outline rather than a specific plan, and always have a backup plan for your backup plan." Contingencies are good. Everyone should have them. But the "what if" shouldn't stop you from having a specific plan. The problem is that people seem intent on comandeering a building or area, rather than owning and fortifying it pre-Z day. But ownership gives you a lot more control. Worried about it being looted or burnt down? Well aside from suggesting you choose somewhere less populated and disaster prone, how about security shutters and a fire suppression system? Lowers your insurance premiums on the place, and keeps it intact for when you need it. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
kinelta	12. RE: Hunting vs. Surviving Dec 16 2009, 6:33 PM EST I think eventually, if we want to reclaim our world, we will have to turn zombie hunters. Really, I don't want to share much longer than I have to. After regrouping and finding ways to ensure our survival in the new world, it will be time to get out and remove the threat. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
MajorDamage	13. RE: Hunting vs. Surviving Dec 16 2009, 6:50 PM EST (in perfect cave voice) ugh, snort, me hunt to survive ug Post reply Do you find this valuable?
timberrattler	14. RE: Hunting vs. Surviving Dec 16 2009, 6:59 PM EST "I think eventually, if we want to reclaim our world, we will have to turn zombie hunters. Really, I don't want to share much longer than I have to. After regrouping and finding ways to ensure our survival in the new world, it will be time to get out and remove the threat." Without a doubt. It will turn into a real job. So many people are all gung ho to go out and kill some zombies that they never consider that we'll have to dispose of all those stinkin' infected bodies. I learned that lesson the first time I went deer hunting. The work begins after the shot rings out. As much as everyone would like the bodies to slowly fade away like they do in video games the truth of the matter is that we will have literaly tons of toxic waste to dispose of. Yee Haw what fun. Whos bringing the bleach? :( Post reply Do you find this valuable?
bigtree1138	15. RE: Hunting vs. Surviving Dec 16 2009, 7:23 PM EST think THE PANIC shoppers will have cleaned out the sacks of lime? Post reply Do you find this valuable?
MajorDamage	16. RE: Hunting vs. Surviving Dec 16 2009, 7:30 PM EST (in semi-snooty 'scientific voice) Hunting is not a plan, it is a skill and a mindset (there is a difference) --to some\, this is innate, others it's a choice --it would be oversimplification to say, as a species, we are natural born hunters, clearly some are not Survival is also not a plan, it is either A goal or THE goal (there is a difference) Some will survive just by being in the right place/right time w/right people or 'luck' Some will not survive regardless to preparation and planning Post reply Do you find this valuable?
spamanninen	17. RE: Hunting vs. Surviving Dec 16 2009, 7:34 PM EST I'll be in hiding with my family.... I'm not trying to draw any attention to us... However, if trouble finds us, I'll be prepared Post reply Do you find this valuable?
kinelta	18. RE: Hunting vs. Surviving Dec 16 2009, 7:56 PM EST "Without a doubt. It will turn into a real job. So many people are all gung ho to go out and kill some zombies that they never consider that we'll have to dispose of all those stinkin' infected bodies. I learned that lesson the first time I went deer hunting. The work begins after the shot rings out. As much as everyone would like the bodies to slowly fade away like they do in video games the truth of the matter is that we will have literaly tons of toxic waste to dispose of. Yee Haw what fun. Whos bringing the bleach? :(" Mass graves and big excavators. We might want to save some gasoline for that time. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
LWJ2009	19. RE: Hunting vs. Surviving Dec 16 2009, 8:02 PM EST " I learned that lesson the first time I went deer hunting. The work begins after the shot rings out. As much as everyone would like the bodies to slowly fade away like they do in video games the truth of the matter is that we will have literaly tons of toxic waste to dispose of. Yee Haw what fun. Whos bringing the bleach? :(" That is a def no shi# Mr. Timber. Cleaning the game is the unsung evil that makes hunting a breeze. Its all fun and games until you realize you have 15 birds to clean since your the youngster in the group. I could not imagine having to burn a few hundred bodies at a time or digging the trench and finding the lye to douse them with. Post reply Do you find this valuable?

1 2 | Next

JavaScript must be enabled in order for you to contribute to this site.
To start contributing, enable JavaScript by changing your browser options, then try again.

Home