Survivorman, sorry...

As far as the camera crew goes, they do state, publicly, that the camera crew goes with him the first day when they drop him off, they take some shots, then leave him.

I wouldn't doubt that afterwards, if they see the need to inject something that is missing, maybe he took a bad shot where he is out of frame, perhaps they go back? I don't know? i don't look at it as them being deceitful, or lying to the audience.
I for one, first time I stumble on the show, and he mentioned that he does the filming, thought to myself, dang, get a non-interfering crew! That way you can concentrate on the matters at hand. But, obviously, that is not their intention. Then it would be just another "Here is how you do it" show.

Using sand as a filter is good if you can build a reliable device, and they suggest 2 to 3 feet worth of sand and/or you have confirmed that your water is tainted, such as in African villages where you can bank a 50% chance on cholera alone....ewwwww.

We are talking filtration of micro-organisms here. Not muck and brine.
Strouyd drank from a pristine stream, which flowed from uninhabited areas.
If the water were murky, sure thing, use your shirt, socks, whatever.
A thick Sock filter does better than a thin shirt anyway.

I would submit, in that remote location, if you filtered the clear stream water through a sand/shirt filter you would probably add more contaminants than you removed. A sand and dirt filter will NOT filter down below 10 microns, and that is on a good day, using plastic buckets and being able to screen and separate filter media into different layers separated by membranous material.

i don't think a sand/shirt filter would do squat for a clear water supply except add more chance for contamination.

I am going to post a an article about wilderness drinking water in a new thread. It should make for a good discussion.
 
I love almost everything about Stroud's show. I recognize that m ost of my own impulse to criticize and nit pick is due to the twinge of jealousy I feel that the lucky bastard is getting paid to do what I have to scrimp/save and plan to do.

As for teaching bad lessons to the uninitiated.... The uninitiated don't tend to leave the highway, so they should be o.k. If they do leave the beaten track they are better off having seen Les's show than not.
 
Shotgun said:
I like the show and honestly I think a layman is better off watching the show then not. The only thing I feel he's "teaching" is to keep thinking. Sure he may make mistakes but point is he HAS survived his ordeals. I can't say I could survive in the desert or in the arctic with gear he had. The way some of you guys talk, he should have been dead the first day of the first event.
Click to expand...

Heck no. Not dead. Just reducing his odds if he were really alone and/or on his own resources by demonstrating lack of thinking or disregarding the logic of his own analysis ("You shouldn't do this but . . . ."). The vast majority of targets of SAR are found alive, alrhough those targets are hardly "expert" as a rule.

I just hoped, from the title of the proram, for a higher level of behavior to be modeled.

Not worth working up a hate. Just disappointed.
 
SkunkWerX said:
Strouyd drank from a pristine stream, which flowed from uninhabited areas.
Click to expand...

He has drank from stagnant water surrounded by animal scat and done far worse things. His biggest problem is that he advocates (through his actions) that you should not prepare for the worse, assume the weather will hold for example, assume that rescue is just around the corner, assume that you can tolerate something so just eat it, etc. .

Thomas Linton said:
Not dead.
Click to expand...

Yes, you can do really idiotic behavior and still live. How many people who go hiking and such never tell anyone where they are going, when to come back, make any provisions for emergencies, etc. . How many of them die. Is this an arguement that you don't need to do any of these things.

I just hoped, from the title of the proram, for a higher level of behavior to be modeled.
Click to expand...

It was obvious to me very early on that he wanted a popular program far more than an educational one. He succeeded as it is the most popular program on OLN. Unfortunately people are using it as an educational one. It would be like watching WWE if you wanted to be an olympic wrestler. Entertaining for the guys who actually studied olympic wrestling but mainly counter productive.

-Cliff
 
Just got back after 10 days. I guess this thread is pretty well dead. But I can't resist a reply to SkunkWerx just the same.

Frankly, I'm surprised Stroud has such a strong following on GT. I would have thought folks using this site would be far more serious about emergency and survival information. I guess the opinion dividing line as far as the Stroud show is concerned lies between those who see it as "good television" in an intertainment mode, and those, like myself, who see it as an attempt to sell itself as a serious survivor program. It does sell itself as being serious.

I just don't see the point of producing a "survivor" program that doesn't take itself seriously, at least serliously enough to provide important, basic information - and avoid serious, dangerous misinformation. It appears to me (and I saw a complete Stroud show for the first time this past week (lost his canoe in Canadian wilderness) more than half of the important incidents in his shows are handled wrongly. The mistakes are frequently serious.

Many of us enjoy anything we can see about wilderness, emergency survival, etc. I just wonder why a true survival program, hosted by a true expert, who would face the usual survival challenges -shelter, warmth, food, and travel) cannot be produced - with clear explanation of the challenges, i.e. You are here at point 'A', because of this circumstance, under these weather and terrain challenges, and seek to go to point 'B' to survive.

It would also be great if such a show would describe in detail the equipment this expert has, why he has it, and how he would compensate without it. That might inspire some folks to be better prepared.

Lastly, the host would be ex-SEAL or other special warrior type with much practical experience. There is something wrong with almost everything Stroud does. He has some book knowledge, and some practical experience, but he's still a tenderfoot attempting to teach those couch potatos. Unintentionally dangerous - though intertaining.

Well, that would be a different show. But that's the one I would watch. That would be a survival show - Stroud is survival light

Drocko
 
Drocko said:
I just don't see the point of producing a "survivor" program that doesn't take itself seriously, at least serliously enough to provide important, basic information - and avoid serious, dangerous misinformation.
Click to expand...

The main point is that it sells commercial space well for OLN, unfortunately there isn't much of a market for actual information because not enough people are so interested. Like most "reality" TV, extreme characters tend to make the shows more popular.

-Cliff
 
Hi guys. I'm tuning into thread way late, but I felt like adding my 2 cents.

Everyone seems to love bashing Les Stroud, and I can somewhat understand that. When I first saw his show, I just about wrote it off right away. I don't think I watched the enite episode. Then my wife was watching it the following week, and I sat down for it. The show grew on me, and I've seen all the episodes at least twice. I would say I find the show more entertaining than educational, but Les does make some good points. Sometimes.

Anyone who sees his show, and believes they can do the same thing is nuts. I view SurvivorMan as I do the many books I have on wilderness skills/survival techniques: Just as a reference. They are a gazillion ways to do things. In Les's show, he usually only covers one way to do something, because he is, after all, trying to 'make it out alive.' He isn't exactly in the position to go through all the possible ways of starting a fire, finding water, etc. Granted, the sho whas turned into a fantaastic marketing tool for OLN (or whatever the chennel is called now), and Les may have become somewhat of a celebrity. But on the other hand, he was able to get this topic out into the mainstream, and for that, I give him credit. He also does his own music for the show, and I give him credit for that, too.

So view SurvivorMan as entertainment. If Les does soemthing that peaks your interest, file it away in your brain, and maybe try it in a controlled environment sometime. Lord knows that most of us on this forum would probably have some gear with us if we were ever in a SurvivorMan situation. Prepare for the worst, and hope for the best.

Touching on a comment made by Drocko:
Drocko said:
the host would be ex-SEAL or other special warrior type with much practical experience
Click to expand...
I saw one episode of 'I Shouldn't Be Alive' on Discovery Channel. The episode dealt with some guys that were lost and hurting in the Amazon. Between telling the storiy, they had segments done by an Ex-US Military jungle survival instructor. He had great things to say about gear, sleeping, finding water, and so on. That was an awesome episode, but not practical info for life here in WI. But it was a military guy, anyways.
 
I too would like to see a "straight up" instructional show about survival produced for THAT purpose.

I think Stroud's show is in the "eye of the beholder". I look at it as Photojournalism, a single person, in a single situation and trials and tribulations he faces. I do not view it as a How To Survive, nor would defend it on that basis.

For those here, in this forum, we are the exception, we are the ones with a pack in our trunk, water, food, a sturdy knife and the all important knowledge we have gained.

What I find interesting about the Stroud show, is people first putting a label on it, then bashing it based on it being wrongly labelled.

Although some other journalists or TV hype people have told viewers in TV land it's a HOW To on Survival, they are the ones who are remiss, but, since they are not in any way shape or form educated about basic survival, you could show them 2 random sticks being rubbed together and they would "buy in" to it , just as would any ill informed couch potato.

The ill informed couch potato is going to be in very bad shape if they find themselves in some of the positions that they view on the Stroud show. They will not have a knife, nor a multi-tool. And most importantly, little if any practical knowledge. Stroud's show is by no means intended to prepare them for being stranded in the Desert/jungle/mountains/etc.

Talking about Stroud's show and bashing it for it's lack of how to, or lack of equipment reviews is an "apples and oranges" issues.

Seriously, I am not defending Stroud or his techniques, but, never once have I heard him state that he is "instructing" or that his show is for "instructional" purposes. Therefor i do not judge his show on those merits.

let me offer an anology or comparison. Norm Abrahms New Yankee Workshop TV show was a "HOW TO" type of show, a step by step, with technique shown and explained. 'This Old House' was NOT a "HOW TO" show, it was a "story" being told of a house rennovation. You didn't watch this Old House if you wanted to learn how to be a builder. It would be the wrong guidance, it doesn't mean that it doesn't have some other redeeming value. It also doesn't mean that you may pick up a few tricks or techniques as they walk you through the renovation process.

Stroud's show is "This Old House" not 'New Yankee Workshop'. It is simply a story that unfolds, survival is it's backdrop, it's the canvas.

I bash NasCar races because those guys often drive unsafely and seldom do we ever get any tips on how to drive properly. I have seen them actually cut each other off, causing horrific accidents, and they call themselves professional drivers? And yet, there are people who will get out on the highway and mimic some of these very same unsafe racetrack moves on a public roadway. tsk tsk.
 
SkunkWerX said:
...never once have I heard him state that he is "instructing" or that his show is for "instructional" purposes.
Click to expand...

Many times he lectures directly to the audience, once you put yourself into a position of an instructor there is an implied responsibility. There is also the issue of how it is promoted, I doubt he is unaware or that nor has any participitation. It also isn't "bashing" to point out the problems with the methods he uses nor the information. Bashing is a vocal attack, this means insults and degredation, not facts and logic which show a contrary point of view.

-Cliff
 
Hey Guys...

Jim Carves into the Tree, with his Cheap POS Ruko knife"

"And finally, if you know so much more and can do so much better, where is your survival show???"

LOL...

Incoming mail Jim

ttyle

Eric
O/ST
 
Normark said:
What's your point ?
Click to expand...

Being able to recogonize a problem is not dependent of actually being able implement a solution. If someone complained for example that a sheath they bought was of poor quality would it be a reasonable contention to point out said user should not complain if they can't make a sheath. Obviosly not.

-Cliff
 
Hey Guys...

Droko and Cliff...

Man I had to go an reread the entire thread, just to try an figure out what was said...

I said that in jest, there was no meaning to it...
Just screwing with Jim...

I understand what you are saying though....

If you don't like the painting, go paint it yourself...
You don't have to be a painter to be a critic...

ttyle

Eric
O/ST
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top