Stranded camper saved from starvation

Personally I think chowing down on ya team mate after a lousy couple of days is beyond gratuitous. Strikes me as a wannabe Rambo looking for a “survival situation”.

And if I am correct about that and they were both drowning I'd save his dog whilst laughing at him.
 
For those of you who think it was OK to eat the dog

Put it this way--a man goes backpacking on Monday

Monday Night he Falls down & loses his pack--etc---unable to get out from where he is

So on Wednesday--He KILLS AND EATS HIS DOG?????

That is what this man did

I do not blame him for eating the dog--but NOT AFTER JUST 2 DAYS

Not 2 weeks or 4 weeks after the BEAR attack--but 2 LOUSY days

I do not know anyone that WEAK mentally--do you???

Would YOU kill your LOYAL dog after just 2 days????
If so--Don't buy a German Shepherd as you do not deserve one

If he was skilled enough to plan a 2 month solo trip then he sould have been smart enough to pack a SAT phone to call for help

The dog was the one that should have survived IMHO
 
SubaruSTi said:
Dogs are dumb.
Click to expand...

So are lots of people, including this guy. His dog paid the price. How do you all think it is he was able to kill the dog with a rock? It's because the dog trusted him. Yep, it was dumb in that regard.

Sounds like you had a bad experience with a dog, sorry.

jimh0220 said:
Human life vs any animal life. Human wins. If it were a horse, cow, or pig, you all would not have an issue. Most of you, if typical to most folks here, hunt or fish. What makes a majestic buck more important than your mutt? Your emotions, not the animal.

Some of you need to be in the woods with no food or resources and just your beloved dog, and maybe you'll figure it out.

I have had dogs my whole life, loved them all, but would kill any of them before I starve, or I let them starve.

Just remember, you don't see pet dogs or strays where a famine is.
Click to expand...

I would argue that there are lots of humans' lives that aren't worth the air they breath. Sure, in an absolute you-eat-the-dog-or-you-die scenario then, by all means, eat the dog.

My point is this guy should not have had to do so. He was unharmed by the bear, he killed and ate the dog mere days later. I'm trying to figure out how it was that the bear was able to render all of his gear, to include his canoe, so inoperable that eating his dog was his only recourse to survival. Something doesn't wash.
 
I do wonder why his gear...food mostly, wasn't bear bagged up in the tree??? And when he went walking why didn't he have a small pack or pouch with some essentials with him. I agree that 2 days was kinda jumping the gun but again, the average person will feel insanely hungry after even 24 hrs, then you add the disorientation and panic due to the attack and current situation and I can see how he ended up doing what he did. The point that he might not have been the 'experienced' woodsman they said he was seem likely too.
 
Just for giggles, and avoiding the cheap Hitler shot, riddle me this:

If there is a moral imperative that human life is always more important than animal life how come the creatures on the right win?

problems_problems.jpg
 
I'm gonna have to say, the fact that he ate the dog and was still near death, within hours of dying, means he probably would have been dead without the added calories.

I won't judge him for the timing.
 
brewcitymike said:
I do wonder why his gear...food mostly, wasn't bear bagged up in the tree??? And when he went walking why didn't he have a small pack or pouch with some essentials with him. I agree that 2 days was kinda jumping the gun but again, the average person will feel insanely hungry after even 24 hrs, then you add the disorientation and panic due to the attack and current situation and I can see how he ended up doing what he did. The point that he might not have been the 'experienced' woodsman they said he was seem likely too.
Click to expand...

This ^^ and:

- I think the term "attack" is an exaggeration in this case. The bear found easy pickings and was run off by a dog. If it were an actual "attack", the man would not have been unharmed. Also, once the man killed/ate the dog why didn't the bear come back and eat the rest of the available food, i.e. the man? I'm guessing/assuming the man didn't consume the dog's entrails, bones, and hide - all things that would attract the bear back..

- He was on/near water (i.e. canoeing), why was he dehydrated? What form of water purification did he use that a bear would destroy? Did the bear eat his water containers too? I hear they like the taste of Nalgene..

- How/why would the bear destroy his canoe? Was it inflatable and food stored in/under/around it? In that case I could imagine it getting wrecked and would blame the man for poor food storage.

- He had NO OTHER resources? Did the bear eat his knife, his sat phone/PLB, or did he just not have those things to begin with?

- What was his exit strategy in a worst case scenario? Did he have one? I think not.

Lots of holes in the story.

It always irks me when some yahoo jaunts off into the wild with romantic expectations of a Disneyesk utopia and fails to account for the fact that mother nature will kill you. Then, of course, since he's such an invaluable "human being" we MUST exhaust all possible resources to find and rescue his dumbass.
 
Fasting in the living room and not out on the trail is a completely different set of circumstances. After 4 days without water and you're toast. Food can be fore gone for very long periods, providing one is not dangerously dehydrated. Trying to stay warm at night, and travel without caloric intake changes the rules. Hunger asks no questions.
My guess is he panicked. A persons mind is the biggest demon any of us will ever face. I talk big behind this key board because I have not had to face three months in this mans situation. I'd like to think that eating the dog would not be one of my first courses of action, and has been stated above, I don't think he was the experienced outdoorsman the report claims.
 
I've only had great experiences with dogs and continue to do so but a dog is a dog.

Humans invented dogs.

This thread isn't dog vs human it is to show what this man had to do to survive. He did what it took. I bet most people even ones on this forum myself included wouldn't have made it. I wouldn't want to eat a dog but if I had to I would. I would do what ever it takes to survive but sometimes that is not enough. Sometimes your fate is not decided by eating roast fido, it's decided by the decisions you made in the past, something you cannot even understand that made you die.

It's a bad example because of who he was but Timothy treadwell was mad at a fat airline attendant and decided to get off the plane and go back to his bears. He and his girlfriend were eaten by a bear because of this choice.
 
WILLIAM.M said:
For those of you who think it was OK to eat the dog

Put it this way--a man goes backpacking on Monday

Monday Night he Falls down & loses his pack--etc---unable to get out from where he is

So on Wednesday--He KILLS AND EATS HIS DOG?????

That is what this man did

I do not blame him for eating the dog--but NOT AFTER JUST 2 DAYS

Not 2 weeks or 4 weeks after the BEAR attack--but 2 LOUSY days

I do not know anyone that WEAK mentally--do you???

Would YOU kill your LOYAL dog after just 2 days????
If so--Don't buy a German Shepherd as you do not deserve one

If he was skilled enough to plan a 2 month solo trip then he sould have been smart enough to pack a SAT phone to call for help

The dog was the one that should have survived IMHO
Click to expand...

I am with you completely Billl............

Subaru stop coming just to the edge of trolling already, its really irritating and in poor taste. You know damn well the reactions coming from disparaging mans best friend.......get over yourself and play nice.
 
SubaruSTi said:
I've only had great experiences with dogs and continue to do so but a dog is a dog.

Humans invented dogs.

This thread isn't dog vs human it is to show what this man had to do to survive. He did what it took. I bet most people even ones on this forum myself included wouldn't have made it. I wouldn't want to eat a dog but if I had to I would. I would do what ever it takes to survive but sometimes that is not enough. Sometimes your fate is not decided by eating roast fido, it's decided by the decisions you made in the past, something you cannot even understand that made you die.

It's a bad example because of who he was but Timothy treadwell was mad at a fat airline attendant and decided to get off the plane and go back to his bears. He and his girlfriend were eaten by a bear because of this choice.
Click to expand...

That is circular and meaningless. The statement “a person is a person” is equally circular and meaningless.


I don't grasp the point of statement two. Is it something along the lines of “humans gave dogs life therefore a dog's life is automatically of less worth”? If it is something along those lines how do we apply that reasoning to babies that only exist because they went through an incubator, or people that have undergone heart transplants? The reasoning doesn't seem to hold up if that is your thrust.


He did not do what it took. After those couple of days he was not in that condition. He killed and ate his team mate after a couple of days. That the timer carried on after that is irrelevant. If one guy kills his cell mate on day three, and then continues to be in that cell for a month, it would be absurd to use being locked in a cell for a month as a defense.
 
I think the guy was a dumbass for not having a collapsible rifle. And eating man's best friend after two days. I don't know how I feel about that.
 
Was the dog injured? Maybe he was putting it out of its misery (unable to get it to veterinary care). All in all, there are lots of things we don't seem to know, and confusing details where we do have them. Not to mention cultural and personal differences in how various animals are viewed from a food/companionship/work relationship. I'm not comfortable judging this guy with the information we have - nor is that my job.

I'm glad he survived. Now it's only one tragedy, instead of two.
 
SubaruSTi said:
I've only had great experiences with dogs and continue to do so but a dog is a dog.

Humans invented dogs.

This thread isn't dog vs human it is to show what this man had to do to survive. He did what it took. I bet most people even ones on this forum myself included wouldn't have made it. I wouldn't want to eat a dog but if I had to I would. I would do what ever it takes to survive but sometimes that is not enough. Sometimes your fate is not decided by eating roast fido, it's decided by the decisions you made in the past, something you cannot even understand that made you die.

It's a bad example because of who he was but Timothy treadwell was mad at a fat airline attendant and decided to get off the plane and go back to his bears. He and his girlfriend were eaten by a bear because of this choice.
Click to expand...

Sure, sometimes you run out of options. Sometimes your (poor) decisions remove your options. IMO, based on the information provided, this guy's fate was determined by poor decisions/preparation. If one is going to traipse around the wilderness there is a responsibility to understand what it takes to not die.

Timothy Treadwell is an absolutely horrible example. That guy is an example of the waste of oxygen I referred to earlier. Not only did he get himself killed, no big loss, but he got his girlfriend killed - I have some small sympathy for her.

baldtaco-II said:
He did not do what it took. .
Click to expand...

This.

Survival begins, or should, well before one leaves the comfort and safety of home.

liamstrain said:
Was the dog injured? Maybe he was putting it out of its misery (unable to get it to veterinary care). All in all, there are lots of things we don't seem to know, and confusing details where we do have them. Not to mention cultural and personal differences in how various animals are viewed from a food/companionship/work relationship. I'm not comfortable judging this guy with the information we have - nor is that my job.

I'm glad he survived. Now it's only one tragedy, instead of two.
Click to expand...

I'm comfortable judging it. He had his opportunity to tell his story, as reported. Based on the information provided, it doesn't pass the sniff test.

Leaving the dog out of it entirely, this guy had no business being alone in the wilderness. Life hurts, it hurts more when you're stupid.
 
The 44-year-old is an experienced outdoorsman... Yeah right, if he was experienced he should have known to carry a rifle into bear country. Then he could have just shot the bear and avoided this whole ordeal. I never go out on my land without my .45 and a fixed blade with a firesteel.
 
Sounds to me like someone invented (made up) the story about him eating his dog after 2 days.
 
The bear ate/destroyed ALL his equipment, canoe and food at ONE go? Even if the attack took place one month into his two month journey I highly highly highly doubt the bear ate his AND his dog's food supply at one go.

And frankly eating your dog after only two days? Wow the bear didnt even leave any scraps! Too many holes in the story I dont buy it.
 
I really don't get it, was the man injured by the bear?
Was the man so poorly supplied that the bear was able to completely destroy literally everything the man had? Why would the bear eat or destroy the mans knife? Matches, lighter, fire steel, metal cup etc?



This may be a good warning for the ultra light crowd. You've got to have real skills if you don't bring extra gear.
 
I really find it hard to believe that he was hungry enough to kill his dog after just 2 days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top