After seeing what happened in NO, I would never evacuate my home

[hatredisnotavalue]

I just came to this realization today. I would heed the warnings, stock up, and batter down, but I would never trust the government to take care of my needs during a time of tragedy. I wonder how many people in hurricane zones will think twice about entering a shelter in the years to come given the treatment of the people at the NO convention center. So many more lives will likely be lost in the future because of peoples' fears of their government's ineptness.

We are self-sufficient where I live, 50 acres to poop on, two wood stoves, plenty of wood, an artesian well, and plenty of room to store TP and peanut butter. And I can oversee the welfare of my pets.

Your thoughts?

[Droopy]

1. I would evacuate

and the sooner the better. If I had lived in New Orleans I would have taken off as soon as it looked like the hurricane was going to hit. I know not everybody can do that. But I'm blessed with about a $15,000 credit line on credit cards and I'd use it. I'd just get in the car and go. I wouldn't stop until I got to Wisconsin.

[uncle ray]

20. your line of credit is your emergency response plan?

best of luck with that!

suppose "your" disaster involves an immediate blackout, followed by disaster? so much for your plan.

[SOteric]

2. How would that help you

in the case of a massive forest fire?

[hatredisnotavalue]

4. We don't have massive forest fires where I live.

plus I live on top of a mountain, surrounded by march land. But I still wouldn't leave my pets. As an aside, I lost everything in a fire in 1998 because of a faulty part in my 1990 Grand Am. I didn't even have a pair of shoes after the fire leveled our home. We lost everything. And again, I still would never participate in a federal evacuasion after witnessing what happened in NO.

[hlthe2b]

3. They have absolutely dessimated the public trust...

If you do evacuate, there is no longer any sense that you will get back in, nor your property protected in any way.

If you can not readily evacuate and must rely on "help," the help may be worst than sticking it out and praying for the best. I fully understand why some of those in NOLA are staying put, although I think it will not be possible for most. I'd be damned if I'd leave my pets. This is one issue that simply MUST be addressed. It is no more conscionable to require someone who has lost everything to leave a beloved dog or cat behind than it is to make them leave "grandpa."

[ismnotwasm]

5. I'd get the hell out

IF,now, IF I could. My husband has MS, and I can imagine a scenerio where it wouldn't be feasable, were I would be stuck, maybe a little older, less strong, unable to move him, whatever (he can walk about a half a mile and can still drive but is unable to work.) The cost of medication, which takes a chuck of our monthly bills we already know will go higher as his disease advances. I'll have less money. Possibly he'd be hospitalized, and I wouldn't want to leave him. So I easily could be one of the ones without an option. Terrified, confused, guilty. I can imagine it all. So If I did have that option, I certaintly would leave. I live in earth quake country and you bet we're looking at what we would do right now to make us safe.

[necso]

6. It depends on the threat.

If the threat is water 20 feet over your roof in a storm surge, then evacuation is a good idea.

If the threat is something that you can pretty well mitigate or defend against like fire (mitigation of combustibles, fire fighting equipment, a water supply, protective foam, etc), then (providing you have taken adequate measures) a good case can be made for staying.

In my personal experience, one can be evacuated unnecessarily -- then kept out long after any real threat has passed -- for no more than just the convenience of the authorities (it's easier to do stuff when people aren't around -- and the fact that you may be doing nothing -- at 2x or 3x normal rates perhaps -- isn't obvious to everyone).

But if you don't evacuate, and the actual event turns worse than expected (like a real firestorm), then you must be prepared to die.

[hatredisnotavalue]

7. I guess I was unclear on my point

My point is is that the next time there is an evacuation warning about a hurricane hitting an area, people will be less inclined to head the warning to go to a sheler because of what they witnessed on TV about the atrocities surrounding the covention center in NO.

[necso]

9. In the worst case hurricane event for NO

(a huge storm surge that overwhelms the levees and roars into town), there is pretty much nowhere that is completely safe. So evacuation (in preparation for this case) means getting out of the area and not retreating to some local sanctuary.

Now, in the event of what apparently happened (apparently levee breaches are responsible for most of the flooding), there are local areas that are high enough to protect from this. But this is a sort of secondary (or second level threat) evacuation, which does not promise safety against the worst case threat.

And while this distinction may be lost on some, I think that the overall message is to get far, far, away -- and to plan on doing it on your own.

But, of course, many who stayed did so because of disability, illness, age, poverty or chance (that is, there can be expected to be people who need to be evacuated, because they are not able to evacuate themselves, or just get unlucky) -- or because they were taking care of such people -- or because it was their job to stay. And, for many of these people, the question is not whether they should choose to evacuate, it is whether they will be provided a means (and a real choice) to do so.

For those who have no (real) choice, there is no (real) choice involved.

[sbj405]

10. I agree. People will chose to stay.Hopefully, the lesson we learn is that

if the government isn't loading every bus/train/plane, then we as private citizens load up our cars with those that do not have the means to leave on their own.

[LynneSin]

8. I would evacuate if I felt that my home was at risk for flooding

Fortunately I have a place I could drive to incase of a natural disaster. I just need my cats, their things and my passport plus a full tank of gas. We could figure out the rest later.

But I would be challenged with entering a shelter only because most shelters would not take my cats. But fortunately I do not live in an area that is high risk for a natural disaster. Worse that could happen to me in this area is a terrorist attack on one of the nearby Nuclear Power Plants and at that point all of it is moot!

[BamaGirl]

11. Those of us who have the means may be more inclined

to evacuate I think. If I feel it's necessary, like a cat 4 is going to hit my part of the panhandle, I can pack up and head to my parents in north Georgia. I'd never go to a shelter tho. I didn't leave for Ivan or Dennis because we are about 60 miles inland and they weren't anywhere near a "direct" hit for us. I waited too late to leave with Dennis really anyway. I won't do that again. I'd rather waste the time and gas driving to my parents that get flooded in. Katrina was the second 'cane this year that had water up to my back step.

[GardeningGal]

12. It would depend on whether or not my pets could come

If they could come with me, then I would evacuate. If they couldn't, then I would not. I will not leave my dogs and cat behind.

[Hardrada]

13. Not a question here. Tornadoes

don't give you time to evacuate (with the possible exception of evacuating your bowels since they are scary). A few minutes to get into your basement seems to be the general rule here in Iowa.

[DemBones DemBones]

14. What scares me is the potential for them to

round us up to quarantine us in some sports arena due to an epidemic.

I trust my neighbors more than the government. We help each other in tough times.

[Beware the Beast Man]

15. Considering I have only lived here 5 years,

I have no sentimental attachment to Cleveland. I would evacuate.

[Bridget Burke]

16. I've seen what storm surge can do.

Anyone living near the coast or in a trailer (or other flimsy housing) needs to LEAVE. Farther from the coast, in strong housing--it's another matter.

Houston definitely floods--but the water subsides quickly.

[Shell Beau]

17. Being down here amongst all of this mess and

seeing evacuees in my town (population has doubled) and seeing how many lost their homes completely, yes I would evacuate. There is no need to die along with your dreams. You can rebuild your life, but only if you are alive. Many who stayed are now dead unfortunately. Even though most of those couldn't leave. But if I could leave, you better believe I would.

[lpbk2713]

18. Always question authority.

That's one significant difference between *them* and us.

[LostinVA]

19. I never evacuated during hurricanes

Including some bad ones. I always figured I was as safe, and probably safer,. at home than in a shelter... it isn't like shelters are some special kind of building. They are schools, stadiums, etc. I was just always prepared with food, water, batteries, medicine, cat food, extra tank of gas for the grill, light, etc.

So, I understand what the OP is saying...

[pitohui]

21. jesus, that is not the right lesson to take away

of course you should evacuate yr home if necessary

plenty of us are alive today because we evacuated our home

how much worse would this disaster be if no one had evacuated?

you don't have to evacuate to a shelter, evacuate to a motel or to a relative in a distant location

i know a man given 10 minutes to evacuate his home in a california wildfire, his home went up like a bomb because of the eucalyptus trees, if he had refused to evacuate, he'd be dead now

there are 50 ppl dead in waveland, mississippi who would be alive today if they'd evacuated

hundreds more in bay st. louis area

god alone knows how many thousands over the entire area

you cannot see to the welfare of any damn pets if you are burned alive or drowned

a mandatory evacuation order is never given casually