FEMA/Red Cross Preparedness Booklet Talks About 14 Day Supply of Food and Water

[xoruss]

   The concept of 72 Hour Kits makes me go ballistic. People actually seem to believe the gov't will arrive like a knight on a white horse to kiss the boo boo and make it all better after 3 days? The history of 72 hour kits is that they were a marketing gimmic by 2 Utah-based food storage companies. No more... no less. Sadly even the gov't started believing the hype and recommended 72 hour kits for those who prepare against disasters.
   Apparently someone has decided to change the paradigm. Although the FEMA/Red Cross preparedness brochure says the chances of needing a 14 day supply of emergency foods is slim, they admit it is still a good idea. Amazing...
Russ
Group Curmudgeon

https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/f&web.pdf

[TWP]

B b b b but, you mean FEMA won't have my luxury cabin accommodations with maid service ready in 72 hours?  I want my money back!  The nice gentlemen in black suits explained it all to me when they took my credit card number!  I have the paper work right here!  See, it's signed by John Lennon and witnessed by Ringo Starr.  Oh... Wait...

Group Curmudgeon?  I resemble that remark too.

[xoruss]

TWP,
  I used to alternate between Group Curmudgeon and Group Cynic in one of Jerry's groups.
Russ

[TWP]

So, as seriously as I can be where FEMA is involved;

The difference between having 3 or 14 days of "stuff" in my stockpile is not (IMO) enough to make my survival any better or worse.  My skill set and my training are (again IMO) much more important than how much food/water/shelter I have in stock.

Part of my personal "training" is that I do not trust FEMA.  That is based on both their history and my great unwillingness to put myself under the control of someone else.

Sure, their mandate is to "manage" emergencies...  It is their definition of "manage" which makes me very uncomfortable.

So I'm, supposed to trust that, following their guidelines, my 14 day supply will somehow help them to aid me in a crisis?  What if most people have NO stockpile?  I  think that is very likely to be the case.  Will FEMA decide that I must "donate" my stock and let them distribute it?  How about I use my stockpile to aid me, instead...  I feel much better about how that will work.

If FEMA says: "Go there", I think I will be going somewhere else as soon as they are out of sight.

[rant off]

[xoruss]

At least now they admit..."The system is broken. We can't meet the demand for help. You need to take care of your own self." I can deal with that.
Russ

[TWP]

Agreed:

https://www.hstoday.us/federal-pages/dhs/fema-dhs-federal-pages/fema-administrator-long-knows-system-broken-so-what-next/

[ken_]

"So I'm, supposed to trust that, following their guidelines, my 14 day supply will somehow help them to aid me in a crisis?  What if most people have NO stockpile?  I  think that is very likely to be the case.  Will FEMA decide that I must "donate" my stock and let them distribute it?  How about I use my stockpile to aid me, instead...  I feel much better about how that will work."

It's just a recommendation. They're not asking you to register your 14 day supply with them so they know you have it. I don't want them to "help" me is a crisis either, or know that I don't need their help. I agree skills and attitude are important, but even with lots of skills and a good survival attitude I'm still better off with 14 days worth of water than I am with 3, and better off with 3 than I am with none. IMO, thinking something is wrong just because FEMA said it's right is kind of a reverse normalcy bias.

[TWP]

ken_

I'll be the first to admit that I don't trust FEMA.  For more than one reason...

Sure, they don't ask for "registration" of my prepper stockpile... But I fear that in a crisis, they will resort to confiscation...  Trust not in Alphabet agencies.

Bias?  Yes, I am a contrarian by nature.  NOT in the sense of being "radical" but in the commodities trading sense.  The "road less traveled" is frequently safer, particularly in a PAW or even a lesser crisis.

If FEMA tells me that black is white or that I should travel only in the "approved" direction, I will look for the safest opportunity to go another way.  And I will trust my own sense of what is black or white, not FEMA's...

[ken_]

I don't trust them either, but I still think their advice to have 14 days of food/water is better than the 3 days they used to recommend.

[TWP]

14 days stock is better than a 3 day stock.  Agreed.

My point is that it is still not enough.  The upgraded FEMA recommendation is (IMO) based on their (FEMAs) recognition that they (FEMA) cannot respond quickly enough (if at all) in a crisis.  "Broken" is the word they are using to describe their system.

This is an example of "too little, too late".

Look at the recommendations for preppers (not FEMA's) to have a full year of stocked foods and gear plus the skill set needed to use them.

Not only is that (IMO) more realistic, it means that preppers have a chance to survive a full four season weather cycle and be ready to either revert to life-as-we-know-it if a recovery occurs, or to be able to make a new life under new conditions.

Whether that new life is at the level of homesteaders in the past (pick one; 1 Million years BC, 1200 AD, 1500 AD, 1800 AD etc.) or we just return home and life goes on as before, the point is that more preps are better.

This is prepping for long-term, life changing events.  Anything less that that is covered, by having more than is needed.   Things like home fires, car breakdown, individual life crisis are built into (I hope) a preppers overall plan.

I'm not making the claim that we (my family) are anywhere near this goal.  We're working on it.  We don't expect to need FEMA "assistance" and personally, I don't want it because too many strings are attached...

[pengyou]

But iirc, it was only a few years ago when FEMA was saying 3 days....the fact that they have changed, and by such a significant degree (almost 500% increase) might suggest that all things are not as well in our good ole USA.

[TWP]

pengyou:  I see two ways to interpret this change in recommendations from FEMA:

1)  As you said: "...might suggest that all things are not as well in our good ole USA."

2)  A government agency has recognized and publicly acknowledged that they were wrong...

The first is almost a given fact, based on observed events.

The second is so out-of-character and contrary to normal operation that it might actually be true... If it is not just a false flag to divert our attention from something else.  "Hey look over here!  Our government is really working for you!  (ignore the man behind the curtain)".

No matter what is the case, "prepping for longer term survival" is an understatement because it is so necessary.  Even if never needed, it remains a good idea.