Bugging out and Historical Trekking

[August West]

I have been reading posts about bugging out and what you need to carry and it got me to thinking about how our forefathers "bugged out". I am a pretty serious history buff and read a lot about 18th and 19th century America and I think a lot can be learned about surviving by looking backwards. I know a lot of things have changed, game laws, private property and the type and amount of game available, but the longhunters and pioneers of early America went out into wilderness with very little supplies and survived quite well. They had no high tech synthetics, swiss army knives, ferrocerium rods, scope sighted rifles or a bag full of knives, yet somehow they managed to survive.

I have been reading a lot about historical trekking, if you don't know what it is a little googling will bring up tons of info. I don't know if I will ever get into it but it seems to be a great way to find out what you really need and don't need in order to survive. Some of these guys go out for several days with very little gear and all of it historically correct to the 1700s. You want to read about survival read "War on the Run" or "White Devil" both are biographies of Robert Rogers, what those men were able to endure is unbelievable.

Anyway, just rambling, long story short, I think most of us depend on way more gear than we actually need and would probably be better off learning skills and technique instead of questing for unbreakable knives. How much did Nessmuk's pack weigh? I don't remember off the top of my head but it was nowhere near some of the weights I see thrown around here. Chris

 

[Yorkshire Boy]

I think people had no choice but to be tough, life made them that way.

I'd be interested to know the attrition rate of frontiers men, I bet it was quite high.

A bit off topic but I hope you can indulge me
.
I've been thinking a lot about this picture....

My father was born on VE Day 1945, if he was any older then it's quite likely he would've had to bug out of the city.

Can you imagine that happening now? The men at war and the women having to send their children into the countryside to live with strangers so they could avoid the bombing. A small suitcase of belongings and a gas mask each, with a tag around their neck to say who they were and were they were going in case they got lost. That's a real SHTF scenario!

Unlike theoretical scenarios I read where things turn into a "Mad Max" world and everybody starts killing and stealing, my nation pulled together and endured the hardship.

Would/could we do the same again in a national emergency?

 

[MikeH]

They had no high tech synthetics, swiss army knives, ferrocerium rods, scope sighted rifles or a bag full of knives, yet somehow they managed to survive. Chris

If these things had been available to them, they would have gladly used them. They used the highest tech gear available to them at that time. The Native Americans could have laughed at them and said, "why do they think they need all that stuff?" but the truth is, they too snapped up the latest technology as soon as they could get their hands on it.

 

[PhotonSD]

I understand the point of "Know More Carry Less". But I will not turn my nose up at a tent if it is raining. When things go wrong we may or may not have time to pick through our vast supply of goodies to bug out or bug in with, but it will be nice to have a choice. Nicer still recent real world experience, ie backpacking, to know what to leave behind to take the strain off of our tender feet.

 

[Bumppo]

Another aspect of colonial era life is that their daily living routine was what we would consider near survival conditions. They also by culture were raised much more suited to adapt than modern generations. The last generation that really had a previous generation to help them through truly hard times is dying out, and at least in America much of the population has been so dependant on the government that they don't know how to care for themselves.

Practicing primitive techniques is valuable, but not at the total expense of later technologies, or common sense.

 

[Shotgun]

You have to remember though how Nessmuk and these guys setup their camps. Cutting down several trees was not uncommon. Our population is too great to actually do that sort of thing without leveling the forest. So, we have to take a tent and sleeping mat instead of building a Nessmuk shelter. We have to take a stove during burn bans instead of building fires etc.

I truly believe that everyone who goes out into the forest should be able to survive 72 hours with nothing but the clothes on their back but doing that as your main camping strategy is silly. I can't speak for anyone else but like Nessmuk, I go out to relax not to work. Survival is work.

 

[clayton c]

You have to remember though how Nessmuk and these guys setup their camps. Cutting down several trees was not uncommon. Our population is too great to actually do that sort of thing without leveling the forest. So, we have to take a tent and sleeping mat instead of building a Nessmuk shelter. We have to take a stove during burn bans instead of building fires etc.

I truly believe that everyone who goes out into the forest should be able to survive 72 hours with nothing but the clothes on their back but doing that as your main camping strategy is silly. I can't speak for anyone else but like Nessmuk, I go out to relax not to work. Survival is work.

So true, the romantic notion of taking off with gun and blanket is fantasy at best when you are not forced to. Most people I know are extremely high impact in every facet of life, I hate to think what just a couple of them would do to a hundred acres of pristine wilderness practicing Nessmuk or Bridger. Go to a campground after Labor Day or deer season and you can see for yourself.

I do believe that most folks on this forum practice "no trace" camping and attempt to be as low impact as possible. I also know of areas that had never had any human contact of any kind. I know this to be a survival forum, but I'm completely peeved when I see 15 fire rings in a 40 foot radius or a fire hole dug out in the only available tent site. Or to fish an area out of scarce native trout or building a bed of tree boughs everywhere for one lousy night.

I believe this group to be of greater ethics as compared to the average camper, I just wanted to toss this image out there.

 

[DOC-CANADA]

I don't think Chris is advocating selling all your high tech gear, but rather to focus on the learning the skills so you don't have to be dependent on it -something with which, I 100% agree.

Doc

 

[sicily02]

Most if all did not go out with very little they had pack animals and many of them. That seems to have been forgotten. Why I do not know but look at what the people comming west had to have in there wagons. If you did not meet the requirments You could not join the wagon train. Look at Lewis and Clark they started out with a freaking boat that many men had to pull the boat up the river and it was loaded with hundreds of pounds of gear and food stuff and trade items. Trappers had extra pack animals to carry the traps and gear and food items.

People did not go out with just a rifle and a small pack live in the wilderness for loooooooooooooong periods.

Unless you lived near a town you had to carry in supplies.

Kephart and Nessmuk may have had packs the were in the 20 pound range but they went out in the wilds for only a couple of days normally. So do not use them as a guide for going to live in the wilderness. with just 20 pounds on your back.

Bryan

 

[Shotgun]

I don't think Chris is advocating selling all your high tech gear, but rather to focus on the learning the skills so you don't have to be dependent on it -something with which, I 100% agree.

Doc

True I just don't think looking to 19th century technology is the way to do it. Turning the clock back toward the stone age is a better idea.

I just think people like to romantacize about being a mountain man and that's why historical trekking exists. People enjoy it. I've thought about doing it myself but I'm not going to base my survival and the survival of loved ones on out dated technology.

 

[SilverFoxKnows]

I am by no means a hard core outdoorsman but it sounds to me like the same reasoning behind learning to start a fire with a bow drill or making a debris shelter. So if you get caught with your pants down you're not totally SOL. Or as your good, modern gear gets worn out/ lost/ stolen/ broken you can still get by with old school, low tech gear. I don't think I would try to set out with only 18th century gear but it probably isn't a bad idead to know how our ancestors did it.

Frank

 

[jackknife]

There's been some long historical treks that have been made with minimum supplies, but usually were because of some emergency. Thgen of course, you have granny Gatewood. That's one old lady that many could learn from on what is not really needed. Today, the through backpackers on the A.T. carry a couple thousand dollars of the most modern high tech gear. Granny made it with 20 pounds of old school stuff in a gunny sake.

"Gatewood never carried more than 20 lbs of gear and food during her hikes. She simply did not believe in expensive state of the art paraphernalia. “Most people today are pantywaist,” she observed. Grandma G. traveled light, toting simply a blanket, plastic sheet, cup, first aid kit, raincoat, and one change of clothes. Her footgear was also plain, just an old pair of tennis shoes: “Head is more important than heel.” And there were no freeze dried hiker meals for her. Her hiking diet consisted mainly of dried beef, cheese and nuts, supplemented by wild food she would find along the way. "

Reading about her made me feel like a piker.

I think in an emergency, we don't really need half of what we think we do. Least of all multiple firearms and ammo enough to fight a second world war. It may be necessary in the long run to resort to historical means when you just can't carry all that stuff you've been getting for the big SHTF day. When the roads are big parking lots, and you're big 4WD SUV ain't going anywhere, it will come down to what you can carry on your back. Then the old skills will be invaluable.

If you want all the latest stuff, walk the first 50 miles of the A.T. when the through hikers are starting out. You'll find all kinds of stuff cast off along the trail.

 

[g123]

Knowing more is to carry lighter.

One thing I will never sacrifice in my BOB is clothes. Most things can be easily made, but historically clothes were highly valued. I carry all wool in my long term BOB and I have extra socks and an extra set of long underwear designated for sleeping in.

I do not think we place enough emphasis on good clothes.

Geoff

 

[TLR]

Most if all did not go out with very little they had pack animals and many of them. That seems to have been forgotten. Why I do not know but look at what the people comming west had to have in there wagons. If you did not meet the requirments You could not join the wagon train. Look at Lewis and Clark they started out with a freaking boat that many men had to pull the boat up the river and it was loaded with hundreds of pounds of gear and food stuff and trade items. Trappers had extra pack animals to carry the traps and gear and food items.

People did not go out with just a rifle and a small pack live in the wilderness for loooooooooooooong periods.

Unless you lived near a town you had to carry in supplies.

Kephart and Nessmuk may have had packs the were in the 20 pound range but they went out in the wilds for only a couple of days normally. So do not use them as a guide for going to live in the wilderness. with just 20 pounds on your back.

Bryan

And then you also have to look at their life expectancy and just how hard of a life they lived. Down time, vacation time, recreation time and the such are very recent things for most people (since WW2 in USA) Pioneers, settlers and the like scraped by pretty much every day. It was a hard life and a hard way to live.

The romanticism goes away quickly when you start realizing that medical and dental treatments were sparce or non-existent. That many people barely made it through months of the year when game or food stores were lean.

I agree that we can exist on less (I've spent enough time in Haiti to know this) but I don't ever take for granted that it was/is a MUCH harder life than I've ever known.

 

[August West]

I don't think Chris is advocating selling all your high tech gear, but rather to focus on the learning the skills so you don't have to be dependent on it -something with which, I 100% agree.

Doc

Absolutely, I know that going into the woods with a blanket and a rifle and living like Daniel Boone is not feasable in 2010, learning the skills to do so is. I am not getting rid of my danner boots anytime soon but I plan on learning how to make pucker toe moccasins. Chris

EDIT: To further elaborate, if as a hobby you can survive with 18th century technology, in a real situation with modern gear it should be a cake walk. Routinely starting fire with a natural flint and steel with charred wood saved from your last fire, taking game with primitive weapons, building functional shelters with natural materials, making and using a lot of your own clothing and gear, these are some of the skill sets I am talking about. There is a lot of talk of real world, long term scenarios on this site, if that happens, your PSK and BOB are going to be gone pretty quick and primitive skills are gonna get real important real quick. Chris

 

[crossada]

Knowing more is to carry lighter.

One thing I will never sacrifice in my BOB is clothes. Most things can be easily made, but historically clothes were highly valued. I carry all wool in my long term BOB and I have extra socks and an extra set of long underwear designated for sleeping in.

I do not think we place enough emphasis on good clothes.

Geoff

I couldn't agree more. I think in a true shtf situation most items like knives and other cutting tools, cooking pots and pans, weapons, etc etc... can be scrounged from all the vacated properties from other people bugging out.

Good clothing however isn't something most people buy unfortunately. People will pay $100 for a pair of pants with designer holes in them but scoff when they found out how much my Filson cruiser cost. I would hate to face a long term disaster without any durable clothing.

 

[wildmike]

Personaly I find working on learning and perfecting ancient skills fullfiling and fun. Can't think of a better way to while away some hours.

As to bugging out. My bug out philosophy is to take basicaly just what I normaly take camping. With the addition of a couple dozen more cable snares, and a bit m,ore food. If one is likely to be going out into the winter woods you had better include an axe and a Swede saw. Because in the long term scenario you had better make a shelter that you can build a fire inside of, and you would need to be able to generate enough fuel.

The greatest benefit of learning and owning the skills is the independence and self sufficiency one gains as the result. It isn't that one needs to wear improvised clothing every day etc. It is the freedom gained by knowing you could if it was needed.

 

[Erasmus]

Whadaya mean Mountain Men went off into the wild without a sack full of pocketknives?!
That sounds irresponsible and dangerous.

 

[August West]

True I just don't think looking to 19th century technology is the way to do it. Turning the clock back toward the stone age is a better idea.

I don't think we have to go back to the stone age although I do enjoy learning stone age techniques. All stone age cultures that I know of threw down their stone when metal of any sort became available, even copper. No need to mine and smelt, there is enough steel laying around to last several lifetimes. Chris

 

[SouthernCross]

G'day Doc

I don't think Chris is advocating selling all your high tech gear, but rather to focus on the learning the skills so you don't have to be dependent on it -something with which, I 100% agree.

Well put :thumbup:

We are indeed fortunate that we have acess to the latest equipment that Material sciences have been able to deliver to the market (eg firesteels, Mischmetal rods, light weight waterproof/breathable/windproof clothing, MRE's, energy bars, etc, etc, etc....).

Now, that's not to say that people throughout history wouldn't have made use of better technology if it became available (because history shows that they did). :thumbup:

But the fact is, that just because some people didn't have available what others had at the same time didn't stop them from being able to live in the wild.

How was this possible?

To me the answer is simple, they had the knowledge & skills necessary to do so.

The question I currently find myself asking is ....who is better able to survive?

The "modern" person who lacks knowledge & skills and therefore necessarily relies on the latest technology and the fact that in the US, on average SAR appears to be only 72 hours away (please don't get me started on the difference between average & range when it comes to statistics ) .....

...or the person who possesses the necessary knowledge & skills to live in the wild and therefore views modern technology as a convenience rather than a necessity

An interesting historical case study is the difference in what Nth American Indians needed to survive at the time V's what the "Mountain Men" apparently needed to pack in with them inorder to survive

Who was better able to survive? The Nth American Indian or the "Mountain Man" that needed his pack horse with all it's store bought equipment

I know the answer that I am comfortable with :thumbup:




Kind regards
Mick