Thoughts on Boreal/sub-Arctic winter survival...

[x39]

Having just watched a repeat of our friend Les Stroud doing his Northern forest plane crash scenario, I had a thought. Every morning when he arose, he made mention of the time it took to get warmed up after another freezing night spent trying to sleep. Made me think that perhaps under favorable atmospheric conditions, ie clear skies, moon/star light, it would be better to do one's work or travelling by night, and try to sleep during the warmest part of the day. With snow cover, night time conditions in the North are often quite light, making for easy navigation, particularly along frozen waterways. Also, colder conditions by night would perhaps help keep one from over heating (sweating) during more strenuous activity. Sleeping by day would allow one to take advantage of the warming effects of the sun. Any thoughts pro or con?

 

[trailrider]

Shelter and fire is are the two most important things in winter survival. And then there are decisions to be made if it's better to stay put or to try and walk out of the situation ,every situation is different. In winter I like to build my shelters against a big flat rock face and here in ontario it's easy to find big rocks. I don't like open shelters in winter and I try to cover it as much as possible and seal the entrance at night .The reason I make my shelters against a rock is because I like to keep a fire going inside all night and the rock face heats up and reflects the heat very well. I always make sure I have enough fire wood to last me all night and I make my shelter big enough so I can keep enough fire wood inside for a least a day. More fire wood is sitting outside within a close reach. I like to use live evergreen trees for shelter buildying and I make my shelter and sleeping area as thick as possible to insulate against cold.

 

[skammer]

A few thoughts from my perspective.

In those temps the effort to make shelter and gather wood and water each day while traveling will fatigue you and probably kill you eventually. Winter travel requires at least 3 times the daily calories to maintain energy and weight.

Again, Stroud dispenses ill concieved advice on his show. It is the above reasons why you are better off making a permanent camp in a good location with good resources at hand to maximize your survival odds while burning the fewest amount of calories achieving this goal. He made little attempt to make a decent shelter and get comfortable. Pathetic actually.

The boreal forest is plenty dark and treavelling or working at night invites injury you cant afford. Besides the human body is designed to sleep at night which you want to maximize rest under these condtions.

It is proven more often than not people who are lost and try to find a way out get more lost in the process and gain injury and exhaustion which will not help matters.

Spend your energy getting food and thinking through your signalling methods and tweaking your camp for comfort and survivability.

Hiking out any distance only increases your risk to injury and puts you further away from a possible search team looking for you.

Stay put and get comfortable for the long haul.

The big reason you tell somone where you are going and when you will be returning.

Stroud hiked probably 100 yards and got picked up by a snowmobile after he called in his UTM location via GPS on his SAT phone. Entirely fictional until proven otherwise.

My 3 cents for what its worth.

SKam

 

[trailrider]

That's one of the things that I taught when I was involved in wilderness survival courses: Staying put and making a good shelter and camp is much better then trying to walk out, unless you're 100% sure that you can find your way out and get rescued, but then again some people still decide to walk out and some actually make it and others don't. It's not easy to bushwack in northern ontario bush.

 

[alco141]

interesting discussion, and if you follow what the air force has to say, it would recomend staying with the plane, building your shelter, and getting ready to signal the search planes, he did not suggest that he light one of the planes tires on fire which would create a large ammount of black smoke to signal. hiking out would be an option if you absolutely knew where you were, and knew that you could get there from the crash site. he tries to chop through ice 5 ftt thick, the swedish army carry ice augers as part of their survival gear.

his not building a shelter was a fatal error, he talked about needing a large amount of fire wood, but he was trying to shelter in a broken air frame, i noticed he did not try to make a reflector out of the broken wing of the plane to direct more of the fires heat into the plane. which brings us back to one of my cardinal survival rules:

NEVER GET INTO A BUSH PLANE WITHOUT YOUR SLEEPING BAG, GROUND PAD AND A WATERPROOF TARP.

ALEX

 

[2dogs]

I have never ventured that far north to have opinions like Skammer'. :jerkit: I can only relate from personal experience. Survivorman is an entertaining TV show for some, not for others. Same with any other show. Once again, it is entertainment. It isn't for you high speed low drag spec ops types.

Stay with your transportation or walk out? It depends on if you know where you are and how much of a walk is involved. Does anyone know where you are or where you were supposed to be going? Does the area you are in provide what you need to live for a few days? Do you have the strength and ability to walk out?

I've never flown in a bush plane but I like Alco141's advise. Sleeping bag, pad,and tarp. I would add dress for the worst case scenario, you can undress when you land.

 

[x39]

The staying put part is pretty much a given in most situations. My thoughts had more to do with taking advantage of the sun's heat by reversing sleeping patterns, somewhat like resting during the hottest part of the day in the desert, only for the opposite purpose. I was definitely not trying to start another Les Stroud thread!

 

[RokJok]

My thoughts had more to do with taking advantage of the sun's heat by reversing sleeping patterns...

IME reversing sleep patterns didn't work. I just couldn't get used to it. The consequential chronic fatigue savaged my clarity of thought and ability to focus. YMMV.

Background: I worked a late-night shift for seven or eight months. The shift was fixed, so I wasn't trying to accomodate the instability of rotating shifts. The length of time was sufficient IMHO to establish whether or not the body would accustom itself to the shift in sleeping schedule. In my case, it did not.

I would get home in the 03:00-04:00 a.m. timeframe and go to bed. I had my bedroom pretty optimized -- plywood with army blanket wrapped around it stuffed in the window blocked all light from entering. I lived alone in the house, so there weren't other people's activities to disrupt my sleep.

Nonetheless, by about 08:00-09:00 a.m. every morning I woke up and couldn't just doze back into snoozeland. My body simply insisted that I was supposed to be up at that time of day. (I'm a morning person by nature, 05:00-06:30 normal rise 'n shine time.) But during my "night shift" timeframe, when I got up I wasn't rested by the 4-6 hours of sleep I'd gotten. I found I had to grab a nap in the afternoon to get a bit more sleep under my belt if I wasn't going to be miserably sleepy at work. I felt groggy and logged out pretty much all the time.

In a survival situation such foggy-headedness and its attendant inattentiveness would put you even further in danger.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

IME reversing sleep patterns didn't work.

I used to do it all the time, it isn't uncommon to have to run experiments 24 hours so I used to take late shifts in our lab because it bothered everyone else, and could run weeks sleeping in the day. The first day or so it a bit off, I generally would just stay up 24+ hours to reset the pattern.

... working at night invites injury you cant afford.

It would also be really inefficient, just consider how long it would take to gather materials and make things in low light, and if it gets overcast then you can do little to nothing.

How difficult it would be would be highly dependent on what gear you had, specifically clothing or the means to make it. With the right gear you can ignore temperatures and water isn't a problem in such climates.

The big issue would be food, but that is a long ways off. However with the wrong gear, tropical clothing in a severe cold, you are going to have to work hard to keep warm and you can lose a pound of stored energy in a hard days work.

With other less than optimal tools, no axe, saw or large chopping implement, the caloric drain just skyrockets. Plus location is an issue, move far enough north where wood becomes really scarce and you are pretty much dead without the right clothing as there is nothing to burn and making clothes out of ice/snow is fairly difficult.

In such situations I think you would be forced to try to walk out because it is just the best choice out of a bunch of really bad options and you are very likely dead in each case. They are all pretty extreme senarios however and about as probable as getting stuck by lightning.

-Cliff

 

[skammer]

I have never ventured that far north to have opinions like Skammer'. :jerkit: I can only relate from personal experience.

Dog my opinions are based on experience.

Skam

 

[skammer]

In such situations I think you would be forced to try to walk out because it is just the best choice out of a bunch of really bad options and you are very likely dead in each case. They are all pretty extreme senarios however and about as probable as getting stuck by lightning.

-Cliff

TO walk out is certain death without food and the fitness level to match the temps and snow depth. No easy feat for the best athlete.

SAR will be looking for the wreckage you have just abandoned based on its last known location on its planned flight path.

Skam

 

[Cliff Stamp]

TO walk out is certain death without food and the fitness level to match the temps and snow depth.

No arguement, but staying there when you don't have the ability to survive is problematic as well which is the case I was presenting. It recently dipped to below -30 F here, in such situations, even without a coat, just with a shirt, no gloves and no hat, I could still walk a very long ways before passing out.

However the ability to actually do anything productive decreases fast, your hand will go numb in minutes, and if you stop moving it is *very* difficult to start again etc. . Trying to build a shelter with no sawing/chopping tool is hard and friction fire building with frozen wood is really difficult especially when you can't split it easily.

I experimented with covering my hand (took off my socks and similar) and compared to just trying to warm them against my body periodically, but it was all a case of just going from really bad to not so really bad and I think you could kill yourself faster if you didn't protect the core and tried to keep the hands functional - as the body is designed that way for a reason. I keep meaning to ask Davenport about that, any personal perspective?

In most situations you are better off staying where you are, however I think you can make an arguement for exceptions, especially if you know that no one is going to look for you long after the point at which you would die of exposure. Then there are cases of being medically dependent, I know some people who are but don't actually carry extended pills with them (or matches, or anything else survival wise, it is a general mindset).

If they get trapped they may be forced to walk out again because if they don't they would again be dead long before anyone would look for them even if they could survive the enviroment. Again, not an arguement that walking out is always a good idea, but just that it may be the best option in drastic cases.

-Cliff

 

[skammer]

No arguement, but staying there when you don't have the ability to survive is problematic as well which is the case I was presenting. It recently dipped to below -30 F here, in such situations, even without a coat, just with a shirt, no gloves and no hat, I could still walk a very long ways before passing out.

I experimented with covering my hand (took off my socks and similar) and compared to just trying to warm them against my body periodically, but it was all a case of just going from really bad to not so really bad and I think you could kill yourself faster if you didn't protect the core and tried to keep the hands functional - as the body is designed that way for a reason. I keep meaning to ask Davenport about that, any personal perspective?

In most situations you are better off staying where you are, however I think you can make an arguement for exceptions, especially if you know that no one is going to look for you long after the point at which you would die of exposure. Then there are cases of being medically dependent, I know some people who are but don't actually carry extended pills with them (or matches, or anything else survival wise, it is a general mindset).

If they get trapped they may be forced to walk out again because if they don't they would again be dead long before anyone would look for them even if they could survive the enviroment. Again, not an arguement that walking out is always a good idea, but just that it may be the best option in drastic cases.

-Cliff

There are never 100% hard and fast rules to any situation and yes there are situations where trying to get out could make sense. Ie, a diabetic without insulin who will die anyway etc. etc... I would still be tempted to stay put and build the mother of all fires to signal and stay warm.

Core temp is key so it is important to sort yourself out ASAP while your extremities still function as you loose dexterity quickly thus fire is so important in the cold to keep those extremities working in order to maintain fire and shelter. If you can keep within that cycle of maintaining external warmth sources without burning too many calories you can survive a looong time in the worst conditions.

This is where the benefit of not moving comes in. To rebuild a shelter and fire every day while on the move drains your resources exponentially eventually killing you due to extreme fatigue not replenished by sleep and calories.

Agreed, if you know where you are, sure you can make a run for it but then again you are not lost in that situation and have a tangible goal to move toward.

If it were me I would get very comfortable very quick and settle in mentally for a long wait and burn my calories wisely providing heat, shelter and signalling opportunities and when the opportunity rises food and local exploration for better resources. Striking that magic balance between effort VS benefit is the game here, do as little as you need to no more no less.

If I had a ton of tools and gear it wouldnt be survival but merely winter camping.

To put this into perspective, the effort to just gain water for proper hydration while constantly on the move is enough to sap all your energy by the constant effort to obtain it let alone all the other known and unknown factors you would face. Cold conditions are very much like desert environments and water is key and like the desert over exertion and sweating is the enemy.

These are all things that must be weighed to your present situation which is fluid and must be adapted to as things change. Reading a book that has a static list of things to do "in case of" is dangerous as you must use your brain and think it all through every moment.

Lundin had it right in his body temp philosophy but do not let over exertion be the cause of that core temp loss, its all balance.

Skam

 

[grobe]

didn't one or two of the soccer players in the andes (alive) successfully walk out??

 

[DirkDiggler]

didn't one or two of the soccer players in the andes (alive) successfully walk out??

Three of them did and it took 10 days. Contrarry to what you read in many sources, they were actually rugby players.

 

[Jim Craig]

Grobe and Dirk, that is a pretty good example if you ask me.

I'm sorry Cliff and Skammer, but it is NOT certain death to walk out. It really depends on your situation. There are often unscheduled stops, or changes in flight plan, and some times you just cannot see the wreckage from the air. And in poor weather, such as a white out, or freezing rain, SAR are not going. That is probably the reason for the crash in the first place.

If you have a decent idea where you are, or what the geography is in the area, and have a compass or other means of determining direction, walking out is possible.
If you are out in the dead of winter, find the nearest river you know, and follow it to a road, or find a railway, powerlines, etc.
If you don't know where you are at all, you will still know where and what direction you were going, as well as how long you were travelling, thus about how far you have gone.
If you are somewhere too far to walk out, or just don't know which way to go, or don't know the area, then best to stay put as suggested. But figure on being there a while.
I was involved in a search and rescue when a small plane with four on board crashed between Ft Good Hope and Norman Wells, and that is only 170 kms. Plus we knew the plane had gone about half way, and we even had a signal from the onboard transmitter.
With most of the community on snowmobile, two helicpters and the SAR Hercules, we found the crashed plane in over three days. Everyone was dead. Now, if they were not injured or killed on impact (two were dead instantly two lived for some time, but were severly injured), they could have walked four kms to the MacKenzie River, and walked out. But they would have likely encountered ground searchers before they got to the river, as there are a few trails in the area. And that is in the NWT, in the middle of nowhere. In the southern provinces and in the States, there are roads every now and again, at least more frequently than here. My point? Walking out is not a death sentence. It is sometimes the right thing to do. NOT ALWAYS. But under the right circumstances, it is. (barring blood loss, or broken bones, of course).
It all depends on who, what, where, why, and how. As usual.

IMHO.

Jim

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Agreed, if you know where you are, sure you can make a run for it but then again you are not lost in that situation and have a tangible goal to move toward.

Yes, this is more obvious but I was thinking of situations where you don't know where you are, but you do know that no one is going to come looking for you past the point you can survive. It could be days even at a minimum and you may not be where people think you are.

Elementary tasks such as shelter and fire building are trivial for some but not everyone is so equipped. How many people in general (population wise) could start a fire or build a shelter in drastic conditions, even if they had matches and a knife, how many people could without them.

I was thinking of these people, when you lack the ability or resources to make a fire or shelter walking out may be a better option. Without enviromental protection you will freeze in hours, but you can walk quite a distance in that time.

Now just after a crash or getting stranded in an isolated spot you have little chance of rescue. Even if people know where you are it will take time before anyone looks for you. This of course isn't an arguement not to learn these skills or be prepared.

I think we agree because this :

"These are all things that must be weighed to your present situation which is fluid and must be adapted to as things change. Reading a book that has a static list of things to do "in case of" is dangerous as you must use your brain and think it all through every moment."

is exactly how I feel. Determine your needs, figure out what resources you have and deduce how to use said resources to meet your needs. If you lack the ability to do any of these three essential things life is not going to be pleasant.

One thing which also needs to be considered is that some might feel that staying put is just waiting to die, but actually walking out is challenging the enviroment and exerting thier will to live, this could give them the ability to survive where staying put would not. Everyone responds to situations differently.

-Cliff

 

[gallowglass]

X39,

There's enough light, generally, on a snow or ice field to walk by night, but there is not enough contrast.

It is very very easy to walk off into a small depression and really lower your odds of survival by twisting a knee or breaking an ankle. You are not making a prepared jump when this happens, you are just suddenly falling in midstride.

I have done this, several times. That nice "glowy" illumination of the snow field lures you into a false sense of security as it robs you of your depth perception.

Also, you miss resources and landmarks that you might need and will burn more calories trying to stay warm then you would by sheltering up.

Take Care,
Jeff

 

[skammer]

X39,

It is very very easy to walk off into a small depression and really lower your odds of survival by twisting a knee or breaking an ankle.

I have done this, several times. That nice "glowy" illumination of the snow field lures you into a false sense of security as it robs you of your depth perception.

Also, you miss resources and landmarks that you might need and will burn more calories trying to stay warm then you would by sheltering up.

Take Care,
Jeff

Well said Jeff.

The risk of injury and exhaustion for the vast majority of people does not warrant any kind of trek out in the short term anyway. If planes stop going overhead and you are stuck for a week or more I would then think of options but not before.

A properly thought out and executed signalling plan should be successful.

It is not just aircraft looking for you but rather ground SAR as well.

For those who have never experienced it bush travel with as little as 12 inch deep snow is EXTREMELY difficult and will exhaust even highly fit people quickly. Even with snowshoes its still about 3-5 times more physically tasking than having no snow. Throw in the hydration quotient and the constant firemaking to melt snow, the constant shelter building and the wet clothing and you are looking for disaster.

While it may not be guaranteed death it is very close, unless you find your way out in record time. If you have proper gear (most dont) an in depth knowledge of cold weather survival (most dont) and a high fitness level (most dont) you are better off to stay put and doing the best you can.

I spend about 15 nights per winter getting snow time and even with gear its tasking.

My 3 cents.

Skam

 

[BenchmadeBoy]

I agree with Skammer on how taxing winter travel can be. In Manitoba we can get alot of snow. I spend a fair amount of time in the bush on snowshoes. Breaking trail, manuvering through brush takes a lot out of you, even in fairly light snow. Think about doing it with improvised or worse, no snowshoes. Over-exertion can be just as deadly as inactivity. You begin to sweat, then shiver and things go downhill from there very quickly.

my 2 cents worth