SoCal92057 wrote:By the way, Grylls was discredited several years ago. He is a phony.
I don't know if he is a phony or not but planning and putting together a television program to a schedule and budget is not the same as surviving ad-hoc on your own. Having a camera crew sitting around for a few days while one guy gathers and prepares materials then constructs a boat is not cost-effective. Neither is everyone sitting out in the rain at night trying to brief for the next day's shoot when there is an hotel they can go to. He could stay in a shelter, or he could be filmed saying goodnight from half-a-dozen shelters, one after the other.
I enjoy Top Gear but I don't believe for a moment they actually do everything (anything) themselves.
Nor do I believe that David Attenborough spends hours looking for each animal for a two-minute soundbite. He used to. He could. He doesn't.
SoCal92057 wrote:By the way, Grylls was discredited several years ago. He is a phony.
I don't know if he is a phony or not but planning and putting together a television program to a schedule and budget is not the same as surviving ad-hoc on your own. Having a camera crew sitting around for a few days while one guy gathers and prepares materials then constructs a boat is not cost-effective. Neither is everyone sitting out in the rain at night trying to brief for the next day's shoot when there is an hotel they can go to. He could stay in a shelter, or he could be filmed saying goodnight from half-a-dozen shelters, one after the other.
I enjoy Top Gear but I don't believe for a moment they actually do everything (anything) themselves.
Nor do I believe that David Attenborough spends hours looking for each animal for a two-minute soundbite. He used to. He could. He doesn't.
We are not talking about Attenborough or "Top Gear" and it is not for the viewer to be concerned with production costs. I simply do not want to be lied to. Grylls is a phony because he represents living in and subsisting from what he could find in the wilds. It was always obvious he had a camera crew with him. As far as I'm concerned, the crew could stay in a hotel and eat well, but Grylls represented he was not. Had he been honest about where he spent his nights and obtained his food, there would have been no problem. His show would have been simply instructional. Grylls tried to make it inspirational by showing what he was able to accomplish on his own. He did not. Take a look at the Canadian, Les Stroud's show. The name is "Survivorman." If it is not on your television, check out YouTube. He is amazing in what he accomplishes when out for 7 days on his own. You see, it can be done.
By the way, while you are at YouTube, type in "Bear Grylls fake" and watch some interesting YouTube videos.
Last edited by SoCal92057 on Thu May 01, 2014 4:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. - Thomas Jefferson
Problem with woodland is that although it might supply a ready contingent of squirrels for the pot, plus the odd two-feathered treat, the shade produced by the tree canopy really limits what may be found during the middle of the year (assuming deciduous trees here). Although mixed woodland with oak thrown in allows some light to reach the ground - and potentially edible veggie greens to grow - beech woodland has a thick leaf canopy that makes it virtually impossible for the lightweight edible green to flourish under the reduced light conditions.
Coniferous woodland is virtually useless for growing anything edible - veggie leaf greens - since the plants find it hard to tolerate the acid soils produced.
Best solution is to look around deciduous woodland margins (edges) where there is sufficient light for veggie greens to grow, leaf mulch on the ground, and use the woodland for supplying your fuel source.
Living off the land is incredibly difficult even with the ability to kill and eat mammals, birds and fish. Finding food will consume more time than any other survival activity. In a country wide SHTF situation, the hunting pressure on wildlife will result in the squirrels, rabbits and other sources of protein being depleted. Remember, the population density of the UK is approximately 650 people per square mile. If only half that number flee to the wilds, it will still be a crowd of refugees and preppers trying to survive off an ever dwindling source of food. Good luck.
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. - Thomas Jefferson
I have very little faith in the abilities of the average urban dweller when it comes to living off the land. If you remove people in rural environments from the equation and concentrate purely on urbanites and city dwellers, with the exception of preppers, ex services, and fans of Ray Mears, I expect that at least 80% of people won't survive for the first year of a SHTF situation. It's a sad fact, but during the flooding of New Orleans a few years ago food was the last on the list for most urban dwellers. They preferred to loot electrical shops, jewellers, car showrooms etc. What they expected they were going to do with a 50 inch flat screen TV when the power grid was down and most houses were partially underwater beats me. It may sound that I have little faith in my fellow citizens when it comes to basic survival, and that's because I don't. Most people would keel over, retching, if they had to gut a rabbit or pluck a goose. And the last place they would think of looking for vegetable food would be on or under the ground... Vegetables grow in those neat little plastic bags, dontcha know
there was a survey done some time ago and people(adults too not just children) had no idea where their food came from, some thought milk came from chickens and eggs from cows, I kid you not, some guy at a country fair standing right next to me though a calf was a goat! I tried very hard not to laugh!!
I can believe it Lonewolf. I read an online survey recently that dealt with the behavior of people during major natural disasters. It was in the USA but I suspect it would follow closely what would happen in any 'civilised' area during a disaster or a SHTF situation, and it concerned looting. Of all the shops, businesses etc that would be targeted, food retailers were last on the list of places to be cleaned out. If people don't have the sense to lay in a supply of food and clean drinking water, but instead go and loot household items, jewelery, money, booze, cigarettes etc, then the chances of them working out what they can forage for in the wild is dead in the water. I'm not too worried about hordes of city dwellers heading out to the countryside in search of food because most of them won't have the energy to make it to the end of their street
Exactly, I think the "August Riots" of a few years ago shows the mentality of such people,i don't give the general public much chance of survival, as we say around here "they haven't got the brain cells for it!"
In a money-centric society, nicking high monetary value stuff makes sense. You can then have more money to pay higher prices for things you need - more than you could carry from a food-loot. The rich survive, the poor don't, so loot to become rich.
Until necessities become unobtainable and money worthless.
