fire starting

Skintastic? Thanks Subway17, that's now on my next Walmart list of things to buy!
 
Thomas Linton said:
Ah so. The second most common observation of persons found by my SAR organization (all those years ago) was to the effect that they didn't think they would get lost. Well gee.

In general it probably isn't likely, what is the probability of being injured in a car crash vs getting lost while camping/hiking. It is in general a fairly safe bet I would imagine. I know many people who have done this most of their life, thousands and thousands of times, no incidents. It isn't surprising people don't prepare.


(They were surrounded by red oak and beech leaves still on the trees on this early Spring day.)

Know thy enviroment should be one of the fundamentals. Davenport makes this fairly clear in his books, talking about how the different types have different challenges and require different solutions to the same problems and require different gear.

-Cliff
 
Cliff Stamp said:
In general it probably isn't likely, what is the probability of being injured in a car crash vs getting lost while camping/hiking. It is in general a fairly safe bet I would imagine. I know many people who have done this most of their life, thousands and thousands of times, no incidents. It isn't surprising people don't prepare.
. . .

-Cliff

Oh these folks were, overwelmingly, not those with "thousands" of wilderness experiences. More like one's, two's or three's. I recall one mom crying while recounting all dilemmas posed by forks in the trails -- and no signs. Map? What map? Compass? What compass? (At least they made some smoke without taking out the entire Los Padres Nat'l Forest. Not totally hopeless.)
 
Yes but how many people, of that type actually end up in a survival situation, while it would seem reasonable to conclude the more experience the less likely the senario I would wonder if the probably is large even for those with none.

-Cliff
 
Cliff Stamp said:
Yes but how many people, of that type actually end up in a survival situation, while it would seem reasonable to conclude the more experience the less likely the senario I would wonder if the probably is large even for those with none.

-Cliff

Wildeness areas are relatively quite safe for current uses and users. But some are les safe that others due to cluelessness.
 
There are plenty of examples of people who find themselves stuck in the wilderness without intending to ever go there. I've heard of people taking a wrong turn in the desert, driving up the wrong dirt road, and getting stuck up to their axles. Or people out in a rental jeep in the Southwest and getting caught by a freak snowstorm. Or the guy who goes for a little walk up a well-groomed trail, "Just going a mile," and gets lost or slips and breaks a leg with no one to know he's there. In the northern sections of our country, people get caught out in unexpected blizzards all the time. Or they experience engine trouble up the wrong highway at the wrong time of the night. No one around, no one likely to show up before morning at least, and temperatures rapidly dropping .... It happens.

But hands-down, the most likely way to get yourself in a survival situation is to climb into a small single-engine airplane that's going for a cross-country flight over water or mountains. You're just asking for it under those circumstances, IMO. While small aircraft are by-and-large perfectly safe, Murphy dictates that you're going to land unexpectedly on some 13,000 foot peak on the exact day that you didn't bring your survival bag with you.

By definition, a survival situation is a situation that we are not prepared for. If we're prepared for it, then it just becomes an unexpected, and possibly inconvenient, camping trip. Whenever flying over or driving through the wilderness, do try to be prepared to go camping at any moment. That way, you're almost completely unlikely to ever experience a survival situation. :)
 
Bulgron, I'm with you at the start, espceially on the risks of general aviation, but this last part I do not get:

bulgron said:
. . .By definition, a survival situation is a situation that we are not prepared for. If we're prepared for it, then it just becomes an unexpected, and possibly inconvenient, camping trip. Whenever flying over or driving through the wilderness, do try to be prepared to go camping at any moment. That way, you're almost completely unlikely to ever experience a survival situation. :)

Fully prepared people have, through circustances beyond their control (as you seem to contemplate), unexpectedly found themselves with their lives at risk - and survived because of their high level of preparation. Some survived barely and ended up with missing parts, but they survived because of preparedness. (Some, of course, survive due primarily or entirely to good fortune.)

Isn't it the unplanned aspect and the risk to life that makes it a "survival" situation? "Unprepared," being relative, just means less likely to suvive, yes?

Survival in relative comfort, where one would have more likely died if less prepared, is "survival" still.
 
Thomas Linton said:
Wildeness areas are relatively quite safe for current uses and users. But some are les safe that others due to cluelessness.
Though cluelessness is the major part of the problem, thinking that some area is 'safe' is misleading. In Los Angeles (not exactly the backwoods), there are many 'wilderness areas' where well maintained hiking paths wind up into the mountains. But every weekend, some goof will go up there wearing sandals, or without water, or just in shorts and teeshirt. Then, they take a misstep, twist their ankle on a rock or gopher hole because they weren't looking, and nearly die of hypothermia when they can't get down before nightfall. Or better, they fall 500ft down a ravine and have to be helicoptered out. Sometimes in a stokes litter, sometimes in a bodybag.
 
bulgron said:
There are plenty of examples of people who find themselves stuck in the wilderness without intending to ever go there.

There are billions of people on the planet, so in raw numbers there are "plenty" of most kinds of things. Percentage wise though what are the risks for the average person. If you are concerned about survival, meaning keeping yourself alive, where does primitive bushcraft ability actually ride on the list of necessary skills - again in general.

There is a series on discovery now called I should not be alive. It tells of survival situations, people either getting into them by accident, wrong turn, car trouble, or deciding to add some adventure into a trip by exploring an unknown section of river, etc. . What is interesting is that what gets them out isn't skills or gear but just will.

Of course you don't get to hear the stories of the people who don't make it out, so you can't really take anything from those stories in terms of what has value and what doesn't. For all you know for every one person who does what they did and makes it, hundreds die. Which is the problem in general from applying one shot statistics, i.e. Bill ate snow and died, therefore eating snow is bad.

What would be nice on the show was if the had a consultant like Davenport to narrate, but it is obvious it is just entertainment and not educational like the shows Mears does where he does exactly that, this is what happened, this is what the guy should have done.

-Cliff
 
erdvark said:
Though cluelessness is the major part of the problem, thinking that some area is 'safe' is misleading. In Los Angeles (not exactly the backwoods), there are many 'wilderness areas' where well maintained hiking paths wind up into the mountains. But every weekend, some goof will go up there wearing sandals, or without water, or just in shorts and teeshirt. Then, they take a misstep, twist their ankle on a rock or gopher hole because they weren't looking, and nearly die of hypothermia when they can't get down before nightfall. Or better, they fall 500ft down a ravine and have to be helicoptered out. Sometimes in a stokes litter, sometimes in a bodybag.

In the only two statistical studies of wilderness mortality, falls were in the top three recorded causes of death.
 
Thomas Linton said:
Isn't it the unplanned aspect and the risk to life that makes it a "survival" situation? "Unprepared," being relative, just means less likely to suvive, yes?

We're probably just arguing semantics here. In any case, when I think of someone in a 'survival situation,' I think of some in an emergency situation that is likely to kill them. By this definition, a high-speed automobile accident is a survival situation, as is an airplane's engine failing and thus sending the aircraft to earth in a relatively uncontrolled and unplanned location. However, going for a walk in the woods with a compass and map and all the rest of it, and having the knowledge as to know what to do with those things, does not constitute a survival situation.

It's also important to realize that one survival situation can lead to another. For example, given the examples I give above, once the initial "emergency" is over; that is, the cars come to a stop or the airplane lands; then you enter into a new situation that may or may not be a "survival situation," depending on how prepared you are to deal with it. A plane landing deep in the Rockies, but with sufficient gear for the pilot and passengers to ride out the wait for SAR is not, by my definition, a survival situation. They are in no more danger of dying than if they were hanging out in their own living rooms. True, they're probably more uncomfortable. Maybe they're even more stressed. But assuming sufficient preparedness and gear (and assuming no bodily injuries), they should do fine.

It is possible to construct a definition of "survival situation" as being any situation that is life-threatening if you do the wrong thing. You can, if you like, consider stepping out of the bathtub as a survival situation. So I narrow my definition to what I say above: an unexpected situation for which you are unprepared and that therefore poses a high risk of death if you do not take appropriate action.
 
A car crash is not my idea of a survival situation. If your crash causes you to be stranded without food or likely rescue, and you have to engineer your way out, that is a survival situation. Most comon useage is for a situation involving a really bad camping trip type environment.

A survival situation seems to involve some loss of control. So if you decide to free solo Astroman, you are fractions away from falling to your death for the whole climb, but you could be totally in a groove with the whole thing turning out exactly as you planed it. On the other hand, go for a normal drive somewhere, no drama, get out for a piss, lock yourself out of the car, oil pan freezes solid (did I mentione it was cold), you are in a survival situation. Though perhaps not for long.

The whole concept is a little archaic in any area served by a cell network. But it still functions as a lead in to conversation, like a raft debate.
 
Thomas Linton said:
In the only two statistical studies of wilderness mortality, falls were in the top three recorded causes of death.
I'm curious, which studies are these, Accidents in North American Mountaineering? Is there another one? In my 2005 copy of ANAM, the funny thing is the number 4 reason is 'exceeding abilities.'
 
erdvark said:
I'm curious, which studies are these, Accidents in North American Mountaineering? Is there another one? In my 2005 copy of ANAM, the funny thing is the number 4 reason is 'exceeding abilities.'

"Cause" is a slippery concept. Did someone die because of "drowning" or "poor judgment"?

The only two statistical studies that I can locate are:

R. Montalvo, et al, 1998). A study of reported incidents from eight National Parks. It studies injuries and deaths.

Wilderness Medical Society, Epidemeology of Wilderness Search and Rescue in New Hampshire, 1999-2001. This is a study of 457 SAR cases.

A secondary source is at www.wilderdom.com/risk/RiskOutdoorRiskStatistics.html
 
Survival stats are all about cause and effect and unfortunately the stats bounce back and forth between the two making it difficult to assertain the true issues.

Example; Someone gets lost then dies of hypothermia. Is the cause of death hypothermia? or is it illpreparredness or is it the individual stretching beyond abilities and training to begin with?

Stats are subjective at best. There needs to be a better definition to begin with and maybe a multi layered reporting function outlining all the cause and effects to the situation. Only then will you get a clear picture of all the factors involved as there are millions.

Blind luck being a major factor in of itself.

Like all major issues its not one thing but a host of chain effects that lands you into a partcular situation.

Skam
 
Interesting thread. Thanks all:thumbup: .

Among the things in the bottom of my daypack is a small vial of Strike Anywhere Matches www.emergencyresources.com. I melt paraffin wax from a candle in a 'tin' can, dip the matches, holding the wood end with a needle nose pliers or tweezer.

Once the paraffin dries, the match is waterproof, of course.

Once lit, these matches burn hot for a few minutes; Long enough to easily get tinder started. If everything is soaking wet, they can be struck by breaking a rock or splitting wood to expose a new dry surface.
 
This simplification did bother me a bit about the stats in ANAM. One could use the proximate-ultimate cause model, so proximate cause of death could be 'lost footing, fell to death' but ultimate cause could be 'poor judgement (scrambling up a scree slope w/o protection)'.
 
Sodak

It is obviios but just one thing to remember with that bug spray trick.. DEET is pretty toxic stuff. Anything that eats away at my Kydex knife sheath and dissolves the grips on my compound bow can't be good to breath in.

Don't inhale and keep for emergencies, but in a survival situation it will light up just about anything flammable.

Rob
 
Survival is about dying later rather than sooner. There are many ways to die and,equally, skills to delay death of many kinds; none foolproof. Murphy's law can intervene siding with or against the Grim Reaper; And Lady Luck always plays her hand.

Probably, sites dedicated to diet, exercise and medical prevention outnumber sites on survival skills, guns and knives, many times over, and rightfully so. Nowadays, in the first world, more people die from poor health than getting lost in the wilderness. But no amount of fitness, prevention or nutrition can save you if the Big C decides it's your turn.

Similarly, many more people die from car accidents than getting lost in the wilderness. One can change the odds driving more carefully, defensive driving courses, and/or driving as little as possible. But if a PeterBuilt 18 wheeler jumps the divider and hits you head on, you've bought the farm.

Some of the things that play the biggest role in shortening life today may not be the same thing that end life tomorrow! War, natural disaster and disease can change things in a hurry and wilderness/urban survival could become important overnight. IMO, it's good to keep old skills alive because life could become "coarse, brutish and short" in a hurry.

It takes all kinds with different interests because no individual can know or do all. If we were growing up in a tribal setting we would naturally absorb survival, appropriate to climate, terrain and wildlife, from our elders. But in the modern world, we do not automatically learn these things.

In the case of fire starting, some will be thinking of matches and lighters with petroleum products as accelerants, some magnesium or flint and steel. The nature and duration of the crisis will determine which kind of preparedness is the most effective. Starting a fire by rubbing wood to wood in the presence of tinder is a skill hard to master. When practised by and expert, it is foolproof...as long as there is wood around. I wonder if there is anyone on the forum who has made fires with an improvised stick and bow.

Firestarting is a small, but important wilderness skill.
 
You can also use a blastmatch by holding the button down with your thumb, and pushing the end down with your index finger...
Your finger MAY get a little singed, but you can get a fire started that way...
Also, do not forget that a blastmatch IS a firesteel, and that you can use one with any striker that works on any other firesteel...
Almost anything harder than the firesteel, and sharp will do... Broken glass for instance...
 
Back
Top