Curious about something...
Why is it that people are so easily critical about Stroud's Survivorman Series? Isn't obvious that his show's basic mandate is to be entertaining? I agree that he sometimes does things that appear to be based on less than stellar decision making, BUT I think that's a key ingredient to the "recipe" of what makes a show entertaining to the "sheeple"....he provides the audience with just enough "adventure" and "simulated real life" to keep their attention directed to his show, instead of CSI.
Perhaps those of us on BF, are simply too biased of an audience? For example, if I was truly lost in the barrrens, I'm not going to waste my energy trying to get myself out by walking - unless of course, no one knows my whereabouts - I feel that I know better. It's grueling to go without real sustenance and still use up valuable calories. However, if Stroud sat in one place for 7 days, the show would not have made it to a second episode.
Regarding Mear's - I've only seen the shows on OLN. I've seen him in Africa, the UK, the US and Canada. Lots of his information is valuable, but he generally has all the tools and ingredients he needs to make whatever he needs. For example, it's great to show people how to make bannock (unleavened bread), but unless you have the flour, salt, lard and baking soda - good luck. So in a way, he easily comes across as competent because of his equipment he has with him - and preparation/editing. I feel that many of his skills he demonstrates almost fall into the category of "how to camp comfortably", rather than "how to stay alive" - but I'm probably biased by only seeing a portion of his documented works.
In my opinion, survival is about "staying alive" - which doesn't necessarily translate into good TV.
In my humble opinion, we cannot truly judge who is the better survivalist based on what we see on TV. It's sort of like trying to pick who will be a better politician based on their campaign speeches....too much entertainment and not enough "real life".
Flame away.
D