|
|
Post by geron on Oct 4, 2013 4:50:15 GMT -7
|
|
|
|
Post by cajunlady87 on Oct 4, 2013 7:12:37 GMT -7
Well geron I read the entire article. If I understood it right he is basically scoffing at all other writers who believe living entirely off the land isn't possible as far as maintaining a 3300 daily caloric intake. And now I have to scoff at his writings of so-called logic. His main gears of hunting mentioned are a firearm or archery equipment citing the weight of firearms and ammo burning into existing calories just to tote them around. I will agree with that only if a hunter is constantly on the move seeking prey. Now I'm not a hunter but do know most deer hunters look for signs of deer activity and usually have deer stands to wait for deer to revisit the area as opposed to walking miles trying to locate them. I will also agree as to setting primitive traps like the deadfall and other similar devices being constant failures to procure food. We as preppers do not totally rely on primitive devices only to procure food. The same holds true to the types of firearms one can use. You don't need a 12 gauge shotgun or 22 rifle to bring food to the table. Yes most larger firearms are heavy but a 410 or even pellet rifle can perform the same task to kill smaller prey which are just as nutritious and more abundant. There are many other modern means and techniques to utilize as trapping devices without wanting to use more primitive devices such as the figure four or deadfall trap and most preppers are equipped with these. Lastly, to me, needing to kill 25 squirrels a day to meet daily caloric intake sounds absurd. I couldn't sit down today to eat 25 squirrels and certainly couldn't see myself doing it any other time. Same holds true for fishing equipment. There are so many devices which can be used for fishing without having to settle on just one. Smart prep pers are equipped with these so they don't have to remain near the resource to use them and can alleviate the back and forth cycle of movement to catch fish. I do believe caloric intake will play a vital role in our every day lives to keep going even if forced to live entirely off the land but I also believe too much unnecessary emphasis is placed on the total daily intake in the overall picture. JMO  |
|
|
|
Post by sirderrin on Oct 4, 2013 7:37:48 GMT -7
good read thanks for the link..... |
|
|
|
Post by offtrail on Oct 4, 2013 9:53:24 GMT -7
I have to agree with the article, for most people living long term off the land. No resupply no catches of any kind, just what you can gather including hunting and fishing. Will prove to be impossible for long term survival, providing ample calories day in and day out will become harder and harder. Each day you do not provide the right amount of calories means loss of weight, muscle and less energy. It's not that you will die in the first week of lack of calories. It's more of a cumulative effect, in our present life making up for lost calories is easy. But in a long term living off the land situation replacing lost calories plus providing current nutrients needed will be a slow and painful death. If everyone is in the same situation, living off the land. Then your survival has just become twice as hard, I believe the key word here is preserving. If a person expects to live off the land then they must learn how to preserve the food they gather. This is the only way that I can believe in long term survival. Making meat last for weeks not just days will go a long way in your survival. Learning how to make flour from seeds and nuts will be a must if you intend to live long term off the land. Lets be honest here, most people including myself will find it extremely difficult if not impossible to live off the land long team.
|
|
|
|
Post by cajunlady87 on Oct 4, 2013 11:36:49 GMT -7
OT you bring up a great point about the knowledge of food preservation to keep yourself going for extended times. As to the contents of the article, call me stubborn but we'll just have to agree to disagree and I'll stay positive and do feel I have been honest in my reply that I don't buy into this guy having the whole caloric intake figured out to a science. Even your athletes in training don't require 3300 calories a day to maintain a healthy body, maybe a Sumo wrestler, that's about it. Had he done his homework like he said he did, he would've found out that a young average healthy male can get by on 2000 calories a day and still maintain a healthy body and that as a person ages, working alongside a younger male doing the same activity the older male requires less calories than the younger male to maintain their health. There are just too many variances to consider which I feel would contribute to or take away from the quotient of every day living to maintaining a healthy body even if you're trying to survive in the wilderness.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cwi555 on Oct 4, 2013 15:51:25 GMT -7
Humans have been around a long time, with time itself serving as evidence the guy is wrong.
Granted most of the necessary skills have faded with time, but humans have demonstrated the ability to survive via living off the land.
It is possible, though it would be much more difficult than some might imagine.
|
|
|
|
Post by offtrail on Oct 4, 2013 18:28:20 GMT -7
Some people may think I can stay at home and just live off the land and still have the comforts of home. But even in the old days when people hunted to survive, they had to move with the game. Staying in one place is only temporary, game will become scarce and very weary. I don't think you can compare the caloric needs of an athlete and a person that is trying to survive 24/7. Every day you have to hunt or fish gather greens, nuts and seeds, this must be done at least 2 or 3 times a day. Gathering firewood for cooking and heating has to be replaced. Water when you can find it has to be carried to camp so it can be made safe to drink.If a person can stay at home with a garden and hunt for meat. That person will have a much better chance of long term survival. But if for some reason that person has to bug out to survive, you will at best be living on the edge. Still you must do all that is needed like building shelters, gathering firewood ,water even if you feel tired or sick the body still has it's needs and they must be met everyday. Once you become deficient in your calorie count it will be nearly impossible to catch up. lets not forget the weather and the role it can play when trying to survive. Lets hope we never have to survive long term in the wild but only long enough to find a safe place or a community to call home |
|
|
|
Post by woodyz on Oct 4, 2013 19:21:15 GMT -7
A lot of difference between 1870 and now. A lot of people per square mile in most places, but also a lot of food sources like domesticated animals that were not available back when.
I spent many a 10 day period in the woods/forest/jungle with a # of rice and what I could find and I will admit I lost weight 10 to 20# each time. But I couldn't shoot anything and I had to remain unseen.
Given the ability to shoot and a secure location to return to I think I could still last quite a while. But I still know what to look for and I am willing to eat a lot of things some wouldn't consider.
However, my physical condition will do me in under almost any circumstance within 10 days now. But I am trying to teach others what I know and I can say regardless of what I try to tell them most are not going to make it, they just don't get it. People where long power outages existed, where getting supplies in took more than a week, people from Katrina or Sandy will get it and try to do something about it, most everyone else is going to learn a hard lesson real fast.
It won't take 10 days of no resupply before the lawlessness, riots and marauders start. It will be survival of the meanest or the ones able to hide the best for the first 30 days, and I believe that is coming. I hate it for my Grandkids and my kids who won't listen and are not within range of any of my retreats. But I am done trying to beg them to listen. Hell a third of the people won't make it during full summer or winter with out 10 days of air conditioning or heat.
Just my .02
|
|
|
|
Post by woodyz on Oct 4, 2013 19:26:28 GMT -7
Geron I forgot to thankyou for the link.
And I do think the guy made some good points, but I think getting prepared physically, mentally, and storing ahead of time for the long haul is still the only way to make it.
|
|
|
|
Post by graf on Oct 5, 2013 2:35:53 GMT -7
In reality sure you might go hungry some days in the wilderness, how many haven't in civilization at some point? I agree preservation of food would be imperative to create a food bank. I trap/snare line, fishing traps wild edibles and wild gardens. Many folks in other countries have survived on far less than we have available in North America. Gotta say not really impressed with the article.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cwi555 on Oct 5, 2013 5:43:33 GMT -7
Some people may think I can stay at home and just live off the land and still have the comforts of home. But even in the old days when people hunted to survive, they had to move with the game. Staying in one place is only temporary, game will become scarce and very weary. I don't think you can compare the caloric needs of an athlete and a person that is trying to survive 24/7. Every day you have to hunt or fish gather greens, nuts and seeds, this must be done at least 2 or 3 times a day. Gathering firewood for cooking and heating has to be replaced. Water when you can find it has to be carried to camp so it can be made safe to drink.If a person can stay at home with a garden and hunt for meat. That person will have a much better chance of long term survival. But if for some reason that person has to bug out to survive, you will at best be living on the edge. Still you must do all that is needed like building shelters, gathering firewood ,water even if you feel tired or sick the body still has it's needs and they must be met everyday. Once you become deficient in your calorie count it will be nearly impossible to catch up. lets not forget the weather and the role it can play when trying to survive. Lets hope we never have to survive long term in the wild but only long enough to find a safe place or a community to call home Lets take a brief look at some sample of cities in the world for a common thread. I've been a lot of places in my life, and made notes about them all. To a fault, they all have something in common. *Aare River, Bern Switzerland. *Seine River Paris France. *Svislach River Minsk Belarus. *Mälaren Lake and Saltsjön Lake among many water sources in Stockholm Sweden (a review of Stockholm's history will reveal why cleaning water cleaning water is so important). *Moskva River Moscow Russia. *Dnieper River Kiev Ukraine. *Yenisei River, Norilsk Siberia (Northern most city of the world. Also #1 SH*Thole of the world in my estimation. If the heavy metals, chemical, and uranium tailing contamination doesn't get you, the cold and contaminated food will. How the people there survive is beyond me). *Nile River Cairo Egypt. *Berg River/Sonderend River Cape Town S. Africa. *Tapti River Surat India (point of interest, 89% of the worlds jewelry diamond supply is first cut in this city, if you have a rock on your finger, odds are, it started life in this city). *Yangtze River Wuhan China (China's de facto tech center). *Chao Phraya River Bangkok Thailand. *Parañaque, Pasig, Tangos Rivers, Laguna Bay Lake, Manila Philippines. *Ikuta River Kobe Japan *Chillón, Rímac and Lurín Rivers, Lima Peru. I could go on, but I believe that makes the point. Both humans and animals need fresh water to survive. There is a reason every major town and city in the world sprung up around sources of that. It has only been in the last 60 years or so that places have sprung up outside of water supplies due to industrial needs. Places like Punto Fijo Venezuela sprung up due to the oil in the area as an example. With water, typically the food and wood supply took care of itself in the early going of the city. Somebody had to be the first in each of the listed locations, and all others around the globe. Then it become several people, but still they had to forge the land around them. By that guys logic, there would never have been any major cities in the world, much less survival of humans as a whole. |
|
|
|
Post by mountainmark on Oct 5, 2013 5:55:53 GMT -7
The article seemed to presuppose a very specific scenario. 1. you are mobile 2. you have time to plan and pack 3. you must follow the laws for game. (seasons and bag limits, no homemade traps)
As CL pointed out, there are simply too many variables to accurately and thoroughly come to a conclusion on this. I think it is possible to do. There is food everywhere. But, (as the article intimated) It will be harder than many people think. Especially if you lack the basic skills.
Thanks for the post Geron. Definitely thought provoking and worth the debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by USCGME2 on Oct 5, 2013 7:37:40 GMT -7
Some good points in the article. 25 red squirrels a day is straight rediculousness. I know I get more than 3oz of meat off them buggers and 25 will last me more than a day. I agree with Mount M, it can be done but getting enough game to live on would be tough.
|
|
|
|
Post by offtrail on Oct 5, 2013 8:06:09 GMT -7
The article seemed to presuppose a very specific scenario. 1. you are mobile 2. you have time to plan and pack 3. you must follow the laws for game. (seasons and bag limits, no homemade traps) As CL pointed out, there are simply too many variables to accurately and thoroughly come to a conclusion on this. I think it is possible to do. There is food everywhere. But, (as the article intimated) It will be harder than many people think. Especially if you lack the basic skills. Thanks for the post Geron. Definitely thought provoking and worth the debate. Mark If we are talking long term survival then I believe a person needs advanced skills. Basic skills would be fine for a person lost for a few days. |
|
|
|
Post by angelhelp on Oct 5, 2013 8:33:41 GMT -7
Yes, a few days, maybe even a couple months would be possible, but for longer term, hunting and gathering around here would just not suffice. Poachers already live in the area. The deer in the area would be gone (and mostly wasted, I'll wager) within 2 weeks, maybe sooner. A few folks know something about the plants in the area, but the park couldn't even support those of us who live near it, never mind the hordes in town.
|
|
