The line has become too blurred

[jimh0220]

It used to be when people wanted to know about survival, they meant how to get the hell back to civilization without being dead. Now, the line between primitive living and true survival skills. When someone asks for a survival knowledge, people tell them all about 'buscraft' skills. When they need a survival knive, it must be a bushcraft knife. Survival advice includes cooking skills and how to build a cabin instead of just keeping warm enough. My personal survival kit fits comfortabl in a fanny pack. Yet people reccomend full sized packs and enough to live for a year to put in it.

Am I the only one that has noticed this? It's frightening that people are thinking that they are the same.

 

[Thomas Linton]

So there is a line - not black and white I think - between primitive living/bushcraft and "modern survival." It's "modern" because in the 1970's and earlier "survival" was primitive living. Boy Scouts used to study how to make clothing and rope, bury food in the ground for storage, gather wild food, set traps, whittle spoons, etc. Larry Olsen wrote their book in the 1970's, and it sure wasn't "modern survival."

Beyond people not being clear what they are asking about ("What's the best knife for survival?"), why is there a problem if people like to learn and discuss different things? There is overlap (fires; navigation).

Don't be frightened. Be clear.

 

[fmajor007]

I agree! There is also a confusion between the skills/equipment required for backpacking and what is required for survival. The differences between bushcraft and survival, as mentioned, really are about the type of outdoors experience/event - much the same as the differences between bushcraft and backpacking (and survival for that matter).

That notwithstanding, too much blurring in the specific skill sets can lead to a false sense of confidence. This is especially true amongst mountaineering circles where too much reliance on "gear" is placed.

I think the "fear" is that folks presume a certain skill level will adequately prepare them for situations which are too radically different than what their skill set is able to deliver.

You don't study Greek literature to re-build a Chevy big-block.....

 

[fmajor007]

Double tap.....

 

[fmajor007]

One additional comment on this subject: This difference in skill set is exactly the difference we see in Les Stroud's/Ray Mear's/Cory Lundin's approach to "survival" and say Bear Grills' or Joe Teti's approach. Each style has merit given the circumstances or even the objectives.

What is possibly more accurate to discuss is which situation is actually encountered and the skill set employed to overcome that situation (rather than a "free-for-all"/one-size-fits-all) approach ....

 

[Codger_64]

I don't see a line. The word "survival" means different things to different people. "Survival knife" is something makers and users are constantly redefining. "Survival training" means one thing to Cody Lundin and another to Ray Mears. It means one thing to a lobsterman and another to a cubicle dweller.

 

[JD Mandrell]

This is why when people ask for recommendations for books on "survival", I ask if they mean "stay alive until rescue" or "wilderness LIVING" skills.

There is overlap, and no set line between the two, but they are not the same thing.

 

[Hammer67]

I don't see a line. The word "survival" means different things to different people. "Survival knife" is something makers and users are constantly redefining. "Survival training" means one thing to Cody Lundin and another to Ray Mears. It means one thing to a lobsterman and another to a cubicle dweller.

Agreed. "Survival" can obviously mean many different things, in many different contexts. If anything, I think that many people's idea of "survival" has become too narrow, too circumscribed by what they read on internet forums and watch on YouTube.

I don't really see a clear line to be drawn here - I see a messy, blurry line at best, with lots of overlap. Why is it so "frightening" that some people don't seem to draw clear lines between the two? No offense, but why should I be concerned with how anyone else interprets any of this?

 

[powernoodle]

The word "survival" means different things to different people.

Yeah, like everything else in life, it comes down to communicating clearly what one's expectations are and so forth. When buying and selling on the exchange, for example, the more communicating that goes in in advance (like who has the risk of loss, etc.), the better the outcome. Same thing when talking about "survival". The meaning is not "univocal", its "equivocal" - it takes on the meaning of the context. I barely survived that church service. I barely survived my car camping trip. I barely survived being lost in the woods for 4 days.

 

[Hammer67]

...I barely survived that church service. I barely survived my car camping trip. I barely survived being lost in the woods for 4 days.

Or, I barely survived being in Manhattan on 9/11, which required an entirely different skill set than when I barely survived being lost north of the Arctic circle in the Northwest Territories, which required different things of me than when I barely survived being trapped in a gale and 40 ft. seas while offshore sailing.

 

[fmajor007]

There is an underlying problem that folks have in contemporary society: No one wants to say *anything* has a "black or white" answer anymore - we want to be all-inclusive so no one's idea is left out - so no one feels bad. There are just too many "armchair experts" who want to play the critic (or 'devils advocate') presupposing their own (oft over-inflated) expertise - particularly on distant internet boards.

Sometimes there are no grey areas so sometimes there really are best solutions, but too often we try to nuance those 1% "exceptions" to a higher, un-realistic place of priority than is reasonable.

Much as Bear Claw Chris Lappe mentions in post #7 above, immediate "survival" (aka keep my rear-end alive until rescue comes along) is different than long-term primitive/wilderness *LIVING* skills. There are some tasks that may be useful in both situations (hence over-lap), but in general these different situations simply require a different set of skills.

The aspect of this that is "frightening" is if someone focuses specifically on a skill set for one situation they may not be adequately prepared for a different situation. Nowhere in car camping is one best served by knowing 3 ways to signal for help whereas if you're 40 miles away from the nearest road, alone and injured, knowing how to signal for help is a profoundly helpful skill to have mastery with. Different situation - different skill set.

 

[Thomas Linton]

I don't see a line. The word "survival" means different things to different people. "Survival knife" is something makers and users are constantly redefining. "Survival training" means one thing to Cody Lundin and another to Ray Mears. It means one thing to a lobsterman and another to a cubicle dweller.

You just explained why there is a line - or perhaps several distinctions.

There is an underlying problem that folks have in contemporary society: No one wants to say *anything* has a "black or white" answer anymore - we want to be all-inclusive so no one's idea is left out - so no one feels bad.

You seem to assume that everyone must meet some standard. Yours? Or what? They have no right to post here? What's going to happen if 'this" goes on? Who is "we"?



To me, the mental skill set is more important that the physical skill set, and the mental skill set applies to almost every crisis,

 

[Hammer67]

There is an underlying problem that folks have in contemporary society: No one wants to say *anything* has a "black or white" answer anymore - we want to be all-inclusive so no one's idea is left out - so no one feels bad.

Trust me - my reluctance with accepting that this is best looked at in "black-and'white" has absolutely nothing to do with worrying about whether anyone "feels bad." Instead, it has to do with thinking that reducing it to "black and white" seems overly simplistic.

Much as Bear Claw Chris Lappe mentions in post #7 above, immediate "survival" (aka keep my rear-end alive until rescue comes along) is different than long-term primitive/wilderness *LIVING* skills. There are some tasks that may be useful in both situations (hence over-lap), but in general these different situations simply require a different set of skills.

Are there really that many people that don't understand the difference between the two? Honestly, I think this is something that most people grasp, at least in my experience.

The aspect of this that is "frightening" is if someone focuses specifically on a skill set for one situation they may not be adequately prepared for a different situation.

This may sound callous, but why should I find someone else's lack of preparedness, or ignorance, so frightening? That's their responsibility not mine. Honestly, if I was going to worry about that, all I would do is worry all day long about the fate of humanity.

 

[fmajor007]

You are a witty one!

Trust me - my reluctance with accepting that this is best looked at in "black-and'white" has absolutely nothing to do with worrying about whether anyone "feels bad." Instead, it has to do with thinking that reducing it to "black and white" seems overly simplistic.

Sometimes, often frequently, the simple answer is the best answer and occasionally the only realistic answer. Personally, i ascribe to the ideology that there is often more than one "right" answer, but not always....

Are there really that many people that don't understand the difference between the two? Honestly, I think this is something that most people grasp, at least in my experience.

I believe you. However, i wonder if those folks you've inquired of are also outdoors-type folks like yourself? I don't believe for a minute that; 1) most people grasp these differences and 2) that even among those who actually do grasp the differences can employ these different skills in moments of duress

This may sound callous, but why should I find someone else's lack of preparedness, or ignorance, so frightening? That's their responsibility not mine. Honestly, if I was going to worry about that, all I would do is worry all day long about the fate of humanity.

I sorta like your thinking (our very sophisticated Rescue Systems prevent a lot of "selective" paring from our number) - though it is good to consider those less informed than the average participant here..... After all, those ignorant of outdoors skills look to places like this to garner knowledge (unfortunately, they do not acquire skill which is a wholly different thing).

 

[Codger_64]

In my time here at Bladeforums, I've seen a lot of people gain knowledge and experience in outdoor skills through reading, participating and experimenting on their own. To their own level of interest of course. Afterall, all people are not alike and they don't live and play in the same environments. And few if any of us were born with much knowledge of outdoor skills. And not everyone has an equal opportunity to practice skills. It's all good. And it comes in all shades of gray, not just black and white.

 

[Hammer67]

I believe you. However, i wonder if those folks you've inquired of are also outdoors-type folks like yourself? I don't believe for a minute that; 1) most people grasp these differences and 2) that even among those who actually do grasp the differences can employ these different skills in moments of duress

That's a valid point. I live in a small town, in rural Idaho, where people are very outdoor-focused, and where the general level of outdoor competency is probably a fair bit higher than average. So my perception may be somewhat skewed.

I sorta like your thinking (our very sophisticated Rescue Systems prevent a lot of "selective" paring from our number) - though it is good to consider those less informed than the average participant here..... After all, those ignorant of outdoors skills look to places like this to garner knowledge (unfortunately, they do not acquire skill which is a wholly different thing).

Yup. It's not that I don't care about people getting good information - I spent 15 years teaching technical outdoor skills, and general backcountry competency, in a lot of different environments (though not for a "survival" nor "primitive living" program). Teaching, and continual learning, have been, and continue to be, a huge part of my life. But that doesn't extend to worrying about others that I don't have any control over. There are always going to be people who, due to being ill-informed or overly confident, or both, will do stupid things. And I'm pretty sure that was true even before the internet.

 

[zcd]

In my time here at Bladeforums, I've seen a lot of people gain knowledge and experience in outdoor skills through reading, participating and experimenting on their own. To their own level of interest of course. Afterall, all people are not alike and they don't live and play in the same environments. And few if any of us were born with much knowledge of outdoor skills. And not everyone has an equal opportunity to practice skills. It's all good. And it comes in all shades of gray, not just black and white.

Well said. I think you can sort of classify certain skills as "surviving" (snares, fishing, shelter, etc) and others as "thriving" (carving spoons, bowls, etc). Not everyone has the same opportunities to learn and practice the same skills..

 

[abo4ster]

Cody Lundin is the only one of the fore mentioned bunch that made his livelihood as an instructor and was published before they made it big on TV. Was the other way around for most of the others out there. I like what he says about all this in his book 98.6* which happens to be endorsed by the National Association of Search and Rescue who knows a thing or two about wilderness survival. Quoting Lundin...

The Modern Survival Scenario

Survival situations come in as many shapes and sizes as there are zits on a teenager, and can last for various periods of time. You can be dead in a couple minutes, hours, days, weeks, or months. However, the average survival scenario lasts for 72 hours, or three days. Statistically speaking, this is amount of time that passes before searchers find you dead or alive – as long as you have someone searching for you. The whole focus of this book is betting on the fact that you’ll be rescued within a three-day period – largely because you bothered to tell someone where you were going. This obviously does not mean that you should give up if your predicament lasts longer, but instead means you will have to try even harder. Never give up trying to survive. If you become compromised in the woods today, the chances are high that you’ll fall into the modern survival category.

Primitive Living

A primitive living situation is a long-term commitment. There is no getting rescued because you’re already home. If you find yourself in this situation, chances are your uncle is wearing a buckskin loincloth chewing on a piece of dried pack-rat meat.

Differences

There is much confusion regarding the difference between a modern survival scenario and primitive living skills. They are completely different scenarios whose main objectives overlap: the main objective in each is to stay alive, one short-term (statistically) and one long-term. For the average outdoor recreationist, primitive skills should take a backseat to learning modern survival skills if learning to survive is the main intention. In other words, discover the magic of making fire by friction after you perfect using matches.

In any event, all modern survival skills originated from primitive skills, and the beauty of knowing both is empowering. If I lose my knife, I can make one from stone. If my magnesium and matches go down the river, I have the potential to create fire with sticks.

To effectively teach modern skills, one should be well-versed in primitive skills as well. Nothing imparts the mindset of being able to do more with less and the possibilities of improvisation like living primitively. Like everything else, however, times change and with that change comes an array of modern goodies that can prove valuable to your survival…

 

[fmajor007]

^ what he said!

 

[BOSS1]

I think there is overlap in the skills...I don't think there is too much useless knowledge when it comes to outdoor experience, unless you're talking extremes (being good at making igloos doesn't help much in the jungle).

That being said, as I've posted before, big difference between 'recreational' survival and the real deal. Outside combat, 'survival' usually means the brown stinky stuff has hit the wind generator. If you lucky, you were already kitted out for a situation (camping/hunting/whatever) and something turned the outing from fun to surviving. Maybe took a tumble down a hill, broke your leg, and there's no cell phone coverage, and you're 8 miles deep in the forest. If you're lucky you've got friends. If not, but you've got good gear, and keep your wits, you can probably make it out.

But often times, 'survival' situations occur at times that are less than ideal. You might have to get by with the folder clipped to your pocket and what you've got on you.

Often times, 'survival' sitations boil down to good 'software' not hardware. Your decision making under the circumstances usual dictates your success/survival or failure/death.

That being said, having practiced skills before, having knowledge, and experience of particular skills will generally lead to better decisions. However, in the real world, it would be foolish not to take every advantage you can if you're actually trying to stay alive...ie, use the Bic if you've got it, don't waste time with the sticks.

FWIW, when I do any kind of hike longer than say an hour down by the river, I take a versipak with enough gear to get me thru a night or two, and an 8" knife, which I seldom use. But if my trip went from fun to un-fun, that's what I'd want to be with me, prep a camp, get a fire going, etc. YMMV.

BOSS