"Man, Woman, Wild"

I like that they aren't afraid to show failure on camera, like when she got overheated and when they both had to give up because they couldn't find any food and a storm was moving in.

And I like that my wife, who isn't usually all that interested in anything to do with the outdoors, seems to be interested in the show.
 
Skrapmetal said:
I like that they aren't afraid to show failure on camera, like when she got overheated and when they both had to give up because they couldn't find any food and a storm was moving in.

And I like that my wife, who isn't usually all that interested in anything to do with the outdoors, seems to be interested in the show.
Click to expand...
Agree completely. The other Discovery desert shows have been farces. The guys just happen to always find a large running river. It just doesn't happen that way. In an area of Arizona where I spent significant time there were two small springs high in the hills and one small standing body of water (stagnant water). That was it as far as consistent natural sources of waters for an area hundreds of square miles. You didn't just walk along and run into a river... ever.

I also liked that they didn't have producers planting animals, pretending that one is likely to take a turkey with a makeshift bow, will catch a pig within minutes of placing a snare, or will be able to walk around the woods with a club and happen to find game animals that will kindly stand there until you bonk them on the head.
 
I have enjoyed this show. It shows fundamentals of survival plus entertainment of their interactions.

They pulled the plug on the Alaska episode. He made the statement that sometimes even with the right equipment and right training, it all comes down to luck. He stated that without the camera crew and emergency evacuation, they would have died of exposure.

Very enlightning to hear someone with his background speak the truth (not flag down a passing truck or plane and "hitch" a ride)!

I hope this show comes back next season....

Until then I have my DVR.

Nathanial4

===> Beyond Survival has been entertaining as well (Les Stroud)
 
Nathanial4 said:
They pulled the plug on the Alaska episode. He made the statement that sometimes even with the right equipment and right training, it all comes down to luck.
Click to expand...
I don't know if that was luck.

Shelter is the first priority. And they didn't follow that rule. And when they did, they built the wrong kind of shelter. In the Great White North, a leanto is a no go.

But they show different techniques just for the sake of showing different methods. It would be boring if he made the same debris shelter with three feet of insulation and made a fire with a firesteel or bow every time.
 
I think the bigger issue with the Alaska show was the lack of food. They were there during the spring thaw and caught/saw no animals and caught no fish. The slushy snow made movement nearly impossible. He made the statement that during this time there are no planes flying, no vehicles driving and even the animal appear to stop moving.

Without food, a shelter would just keep the body shaded.

Just thought it was nice to "see" failure on TV and not a Hollywood ending.

Plus I like that they carry different gear each time with a different scenario of why the are in the wilderness in the first place...
 
You can tell that they were in genuine trouble on the Alaska episode. The girl was looking like she was in very bad shape after no food for two days and hypothemia.
 
That's two episodes: Chihuahua desert, and Alaska, that one or both "didn't make it".

Two of the most extreme environments there are. And even someone who should know what he's doing didn't make it.

IMO that proves that skill gets you only so far. After a certain point, you need gear, including rations and water, no matter how good you are.

Even Les Stroud's Alaskan foray wasn't in that season.

IMO, as far as the setups, and what they limit themselves to, this is probably the most realistic "survival" show geared toward "When things go wrong" for the average tourist or sportsman.
 
During Special Forces survival training, the first thing they try to ingrain in our fat, western skulls is that food isn't a priority.

You can last for WEEKS without food. (Assumes you aren't a diabetic of course.) To many people around the world, this is their norm. Their belly is always growling. Maybe they eat today, maybe not. When they do, they don't each much. And they don't know when they will eat again.

I will say it again, you can last for WEEKS without food.

Yes, you feel like you have less energy and you certainly burn more calories in a northern climate. But you'll also learn quickly, if you truly have the survivor attitude and the kind of fortitude it takes to "man (or woman) up" to the situation, that the brain can be trained to ignore hunger. It's all in your head.

Do you think soldiers at Bastogne and the Battle of the Bulge had three MREs a day? They had no food, no ammo, and no gasoline. They were eating pieces of their leather fieldgear and footwear. They still fought and won.

Pilots evaded capture in Vietnam for weeks, usually living without food and sometimes without drinking water. Same thing in the Pacific in WWII. Many pilots survived.

If the situation ever comes up, you need to keep up the fight and survive. Don't let your fat, western brain tell you that you die after 3 days without food. It's not even possible to die in three days from starvation unless you are a diabetic. Don't quit as soon as you run out of those silly yuppyish protein bars some young, pretend outdoorsman seem to worship so much.

Hawke's error was building a poor shelter for the environment. They should have built a low shelter of some sort. Very little interior volume. It should seem like a small casket. Maybe even make you feel claustrophobic. Ruth even mentioned that in the Smokey Mountain show. She had noticed the smaller shelters were warmer. And they should have added as much debris on the outside to insulate as possible. I mean three or four feet. All the way around. Block the door with something. Pine boughs or whatever. Heat up before they go into their shelter. Maybe take warm but not hot rocks inside. Their nice down by your feet, in your armpits and in your groin. Or maybe move the fire close to the door of the shelter.

You cannot expect to survive with a lean to that only provides protection from the wind (and only if the wind comes from one direction) and provides zero insulation/microclimate benefits.

Leantos don't work in the great white north unless you have a darn bonfire going all night and even then the side that isn't facing the bonfire will be frozen. And you're SCREWED if a heavy snow or rain comes and puts out your fire. Mother Nature doesn't care if you die.

He should have known that. I'm sure his producer requested the shelter because they seem to be highlighting a couple of different shelters each week.

Dr. Ron Hood (survival.com) says
3 minutes without air
3 hours without shelter (assumes environment which is or could be a threat)
3 days without water
3 weeks without food

These are rough guidelines for survival priorities but they emphasize the correct order in most climates and assume that your not doing something stupid (like walking during the 117 degree heat of the day in a desert). But don't forget the order or you end up spending the night in the north under a leanto and freezing or nearly freezing to death.
 
Last edited:
I just finished watching the last two episodes and I totally agree that there is way to much emphasis on food (this applies to Dual Survival as well). They act as if going 48 hours without food is impossible for the human body. Without some cooked bananas and creepy crawlers how will they ever have the energy to follow the river??? :eek:

I miss the good 'ole days of Les Stroud before he became the host of "National Geographic's guide to soon-to-be extinct (boring) civilizations". Les didn't earn the nickname "Starving Man" for nothing :p

After complications from a surgery, I once went five days without being allowed to eat or drink. I was hydrated via an I.V. Yes, I thought a lot about food but after a few days the strong desire faded. Yes, I did have less energy but I was still able to walk around the hospital with my I.V. tripod in tow and perform tasks that required concentration and focus. Granted I wasn't building shelters or hiking rough terrain but these are two health individuals who can surely go a few days without eating and not experience a physical and mental breakdown. ;)

It's the classic story I guess, this show is for entertainment purposes not educational purposes. Still, it seems to be sending the wrong message on this issue to a population that often won't take the time to sort out fact from fiction. :grumpy:
 
Well, let's look at their audience.

They are not teaching survival courses!! They are directing this at people who rarely, if ever, get out. People who might get out because of the show. If they show food being hard to get (unlike dual survival), if they show water being hard to get, and dangerous to drink without going through a lot of trouble, if they show fire being hard to make with primitive methods, they just might get the hint to go out with some friggin gear.

Yeah, bring some food. Bring water. Bring a water filter or tabs. Bring a lighter (I like the Myke Hawke comes right out and said a few times "You should just bring a lighter.").

It shows that you partner, man or woman, may not have much experience. Even if you do, getting simple things done will be a pain in the sphincter until they get up to speed, which probably won't be during the "event".

I think folks should stop thinking these are instructional videos.
 
You can absolutely stay without food for weeks. But it needs prior training. Some used to having 3 square meals a day regularly can easily be tricked by his brains into depression becuase of lack of food.

With practice it is no biggy. An old man in Ahmedabad, India has been without food for some 20+ years now. Doctors thought he is bluffing. Recently they took him into observation and kept him locked under cameras for 15 days, he did it. Google to read more.
 
Yeah, on some forums where they're talking about bug-out bags, so many people list MREs or homemade MREs as a priority and my focus is:
first aid (because you may only last a few minutes if bleeding heavily)
fire
shelter
water
signalling
fishing kit
 
I know you can fast without food for up to a month. And I'm sure it would have taken the Hawks more than a couple days to waist away.

But I think there is a difference between sitting around fasting at home, rather than trudging mile after mile through slush and snow burning 5000+ calories a day. I can't help but wonder just how long one really could keep enough physical and mental strength up to make it under THOSE conditions with zero food?
 
Actually, they usually violate - and they tell you they're violating - the first rule, which is to stay with your vehicle.
 
Cpl Punishment said:
Well, let's look at their audience.

They are not teaching survival courses!! They are directing this at people who rarely, if ever, get out. People who might get out because of the show. If they show food being hard to get (unlike dual survival), if they show water being hard to get, and dangerous to drink without going through a lot of trouble, if they show fire being hard to make with primitive methods, they just might get the hint to go out with some friggin gear.

Yeah, bring some food. Bring water. Bring a water filter or tabs. Bring a lighter (I like the Myke Hawke comes right out and said a few times "You should just bring a lighter.").

It shows that you partner, man or woman, may not have much experience. Even if you do, getting simple things done will be a pain in the sphincter until they get up to speed, which probably won't be during the "event".

I think folks should stop thinking these are instructional videos.
Click to expand...

I gotta agree here. Too many people are taking these shows as instructional videos.

Not to beat a dead horse but this is a television show. Some useful information but overall it has to appeal to the masses. Thus the show must strive to entertain EVERYONE and MAKE MONEY. We in the self reliance community are just one small part of the masses (unfortunately). If shows like this were more instructional then it would most likely be shown on PBS as opposed to Discovery.

I am pleased to see the show is not afraid to pull the plug on a scenario. Afer reading a couple of books, attending some courses, watching videos, etc. I have gotten the impression it can be easy to buy into the one of the myths of survival. That myth being so long as you have read this book, attended this course, watched this video, have this type of gear, or have this knife (I bought into this one) you can survive anywhere at anytime of the year. I was happy to see the show did not promote that myth. So kudos to Myke and Ruth for pulling out and as well as showing some of the ugliness of being out in the wild (Ruth vomiting).

As Cody has stated it does not matter of much training you have or how much of a bad ass you are. There is no guarantee.

As for the methods used Myke himself stated on his website there is more than one way of doing something and what was done on the show is not the only way to handle the situation.
 
Cpl Punishment said:
Well, let's look at their audience.

They are not teaching survival courses!!
Click to expand...

Yes and no. They purposefully do things to highlight a different way to make fire, a different way to purify water, and several different shelters each time. They are at least showcasing survival skills.

No, they aren't exactly teaching survival but would have been easy for them to explain what they did wrong afterward. Modeling failure is sometimes just as useful as modeling success.

It may have been there. I know that the shows have hundreds of hours of footage sometimes and obviously most of it hits the floor.

Yeah, it's just a TV show and they are just trying to sell advertisements. I know. But certain topics demand being treated with a different kind of respect given that MANY of the viewers use them to learn (or at least as motivation to learn more).
 
Last edited:
In my humble opinion I think that if these shows just get the general public thinking a little more about what they could/should do in a survival situation and how they can make themselves a little more prepared than they are then that's a step in the right direction.
 
One of the most important things ALL of these survival shows show is shelter building of some sort. I think it important and although the shows are not instructional by design, they certainly reinforce the importance of some sort of shelter.

Years ago, when I thought of survival, I thought about building a fire, staying warm, popping a squirrel with a 22, and cooking it. Water was an issue, but most places I go there is enough water that you can often find a "spring" of some sort where the filtration issue is less important. I know this was a rather naive concept of survival. But for the most part, survival meant spending the night in the woods and walking out in the daylight hours even it it takes all day.

So, these shows are good and Man Woman Survival is pretty good overall. At first I was a skeptic on this man and woman survival concept for a show. Ruth adds an element or reality to the whole affair as it is not just "man's business". Myke and Ruth do not climb down or up cliffs or swim across raging ice cold rivers. No wild turkeys or pigs wandering around either which was a possibliity with a number of their scenarios. Bear takes a lot of unnecessary chances, but I think he is the real thing. I think I'd like to have Bear on my team in a true survival situation because he would do what has to be done and has skills that I can only dream about.

SO WHICH WAS THE BEST SURVIVAL SHOW ON HISTORY CHANNEL OR DISCOVER CHANNEL SO FAR? I'm torn between Dual Survial and Man Woman Survival myself as the better shows. Les is interesting and real.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top