TV progress report – Dual Survival, three episodes in
Well guys, after that first episode I have to admit, I wasn't overly enthusiastic. With all the nonsense going on and obvious attempts of producers to create some TV worthy drama, I had some reservations as to whether this would be a train wreck or not. Now I've finished watching episodes two and three and I am happy again. It seems like the producers understand that there must be an element of bush walkers in the viewership, so they add little tidbits here and there that keep you hanging on.
For instance this past week Dave and Cody were in the jungles of Belize. It was great to see Dave speak of foraging through washed up trash once they got to the ocean. They didn't even make him get eco-preachy when he said "trash can be found anywhere on this planet". I like that they're not turning this into a platform for the green agenda. What I do not like is that every episode has two minutes of explanations as to why Cody does not wear shoes. In a show with roughly 44 minutes of actual TV time this is not necessary. We got it the first time, Discovery: Cody Lundin is a nutjob, roger that.
Cody is not all bad, though. In the second episode he explains how he catches an eel with some improvised cordage and a sock. A sock for cryin' out loud! That was impressive. You'll have to watch the episode for the explanation, I'm not gonna spoil it for you guys that haven't seen.
They are slowly building towards an eventual altercation where I'd assume Dave starts ripping into Cody for being a "bush hippie" and endangering their survival due to his ideologies on clothing and footwear. I hope that when this happens Discovery doesn't paint Dave into a box as he does at times come off as arrogant on the show. Hey, what do you expect from ex-mil guys that are as Dave puts it, "all go, no quit".
In short - Discovery Channel has reeled me back in for maybe three so-so episodes. At that point I'll report again.
Stay away from www.FoodInsurance.com
So last week I'm driving around going about producing my secondary income and I hear a commercial on Sean Hannity's show (not a big fan, was flipping through the AM channels). Sean was plugging a company called "Food Insurance" which sells what is in essence, ready-to-go food kits with a bug out bag. So naturally I was intrigued.
I visited their site to check out the kit Sean was pushing which costs roughly $250 and includes a weather resistant bag, enough food for one adult for 14 days at three meals a day, some quick heat tabs, a small water filter, a "utensil tool", water proof matches, a small FAK, "emergency tool", flashlight/radio, and a cooking tin. Well, that looks great, except for the fact that all the "tools" and such look to be bargain bin junk, a better FAK can be made with $5 at the dollar store, the bag is a straight-up Walmart special that probably wouldn't last a week of moderate use, and it only has food for one person.
This is meant to be a bug out kit, hence the bag. So where are the shelter materials, knife, compass, duct tape or cordage? There is just so much missing from this package and because of the audience and target market, I believe it to be dangerous. To package such a kit and imply it's all you should need in an emergency then sell it to an unknowing consumer should be a crime. This unfortunately has become the American way: cheaply produced goods packaged in a convenient way and priced double what it should then marketed to an inexperienced or ignorant consumer.
For $250 you should be able to purchase basic tools, a good FAK, radio, candles/matches/duraflame log, flashlight/headlamp, and food for four adults for two weeks plus some plastic bins for easy storage and transportation. Why bins and not a bag? Because it will weigh about 100lbs and shouldn't be carried on foot - but moved to a vehicle of necessary. Bugging out on foot is not advisable for most people, especially the kind of person that would buy this pack.
If we multiplied the cost x four adults we're talking $1,000. If I had that much to outfit four adult bug out bags there'd be enough cash left for a used shotgun and basic camping gear, plus the food/tools/FAK/radio mentioned earlier. It wouldn't be the most comfortable set up, but it'd last longer than a week and have tools to cover more kinds of problems one might face.
The food kits they sell are in #10 cans and don't look to be any better than anything Safecastle Royal sells. So why not support a true preparedness-centric business that's deeply involved in the prepper culture if already prepared storage food is on your radar?
I just don't see the wisdom in buying such an expensive kit of such low quality and with so few tools. You can do a lot better for the price.
First Impressions – Discovery Channel’s Dual Survival
dsc.discovery.com/tv/dual-survival/
Note - show image and hyperlink will be added later.
Discovery Channel just recently started airing a new survival-centric show called Dual Survival. The show puts a cast of two survival experts into trying situations and has them live through the scenario until rescued or they walk out. The basic format is similar to Survivorman with Les Stroud, which I really liked (can't stand the production methods of man vs wild) - however, the hosts do not film themselves, a camera crew is provided. Best part thus far is that one of the hosts is none other than The Pathfinder, Dave Canterbury. The other host is Cody Lundin. Who by all means knows his stuff, but is a bit of a nutjob.
The first episode puts Dave and Cody into a scenario where they have ridden a lifeboat onto a small island in Nova Scotia during January. The temperatures during the day hover around 32 degrees fahrenheit and materials are limited. It is never discussed as to just what is in their kits but Dave seems to have his own model Blind Horse knife with him and Cody at one point produces a mylar space blanket.
Generally speaking when you put so much good knowledge in one place, regardless of TV production (entertainment value) practices, there is quite a bit of good advice oozing out. Unfortunately, for educational purposes, the hosts were chosen for their obviously conflicting personalities which in theory, will increase entertainment value. I hope the don't over-produce and turn this show into a drama fest because their is some serious potential here.
The first oddity you will find is that Cody Lundin in all his naturalistic glory chooses to wear shorts in this cold environment and refuses to wear shoes - only wool socks! Now, I do have to admit that his answer as to why he chooses not to wear shoes has some scientific merit, but is not wise and should not be recommended for others. He says to Dave after being called a "bush hippy" that this is his choice and its not for everyone. Great! But please do recognize that you are on national TV, on a survival show, to educate people as to what methods may work in any given scenario. I kind of expected this type of thing from the onset of the naming of the hosts some months back. I hope he doesn't turn this show into a lecture about primitive Earth science and Bio-anthropology.
Now don't think I'm just riding the Pathfinder bandwagon. Though I may be a fan, I'm no fanboy. Dave had made a critical and potentially fatal lapse in judgment when he chose to make a torch and check the traps he had set at night. That kind of practice would move him away from/possibly without means of finding the shelter and Cody. Both are survival no-no's. It was disappointing to see a bushcrafting role model make such a stupid decision.
The show rounded out with some footage of Dave hunting and harvesting a porcupine with a raft paddle he had sharpened into a stake and then fire-hardened, Cody using a gatherer approach searching for small mussels in tidal pools, and an eventual rescue from the Canadian Coast Guard.
I will watch two more episodes of this caliber before deciding its not worth the commercial time. Don't get me wrong, it was ok, but no better than any ol' Survivorman episode I've seen five times already. Let's all pray that The Discovery Channel doesn't ruin this show by trying to make it into "reality TV".
Summary: If you are new to primitive skills, bushcrafting, or general woodsmanship, it will have a lot of educational value. But if you are a seasoned viewer of this genre you may be underwhelmed.
The truth about Vegetarianism
Check out this article from Mother Earth News - The truth about vegetarianism http://www.motherearthnews.com/nature-community/the-truth-about-vegetarianism.aspx
When I was a young, punk kid looking for ways to differentiate myself and cry for attention, I hung out with a crowd of people who fancied themselves to be vegetarians and vegans. They were all young PETA supporters that thought themselves educated on the subject of true conservation simply because they read Animal Liberation and had a few pets. Yet these kind folks would wear leather vans sneakers and skateboard (grip tape uses adhesive which can consist of a mixture of hooves, antlers, and fatty acids), and they would still eat at cheap fast food restaurants that utilize "factory farming" vendors for meats, but they would only order veggies.
Being a Southern boy and understanding a bit about meat production I just never understood what good they were really accomplishing. I mean, even if they convinced the country to stop eating meat, monoculture producers and biotech firms like Monsanto would still exist - destroying vast areas with once rich soil and choking off natural habitats which in turn still kills animals! These companies were the true enemy! Not a hunter who is humanely harvesting an antlerless deer because wildlife resource officers have determined that the herd needs selective culling.
What these animal rights "activists" lacked was good, sound science and an understanding of how the biosphere actually works. Its the sum of all things working in a symbiotic manner. Not simply an emotional and "intellectual" attachment to a cute, oh so cuddly puppy coupled with ignorance and selective science.
To quote the article's author, Lierre Keith, "Not eating meat won't solve our planet's problems." He is absolutely correct and makes a great point later by pointing out that sustainable diets are the only way to make it all work. Again let me quote Mr. Keith, "Life isn't possible without death, and no matter what you eat, something has to die to feed you." This guy is spot on.
With the popularity of the recent documentaries, Food, INC., and The truth about food, I would like to think that more of these people would consider sustainable gardening and permaculture as viable options. If nothing else, support small farms that don't use genetically engineered seeds. But time and time again I see these people rally a protest at an outdoor goods store to argue the morals of culling a herd (a scientifically proven method of improving the biosphere), but never do you see these people outside a Texaco screaming about ethanol production.
I used to laugh at the ignorance of it all and considered them to be harmless fools driven by the need to be seen as different, but now its just sad. The obvious lack of data to support that any of their efforts are saving a number of animals is pitiful. The fact that they don't understand that too many animals in an environment is as bad as no environment makes their logic pathetic.
Now, please understand that I do not support factory farming (though admittedly I could be more selective with food vendors), and I definitely do not support animal cruelty or suffrage. But I see that life is an interdependent thing. I support legal, humane kills and selective culling while we are not in an end of days scenario.
Proverbs 12:10 A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.
First Impressions – History Channel’s Top Shot
The History Channel's Top Shot
I've just finished watching the first episode of Top Shot from The History Channel and I have to say, I like it. For one, I like the idea of firearm competitions. Then when you add physical activity to that and it's just candy. The one thing I'm unsure of is The History Channel putting effort into "reality" based programming. Well, it is hosted by Colby Donaldson of Survivor fame (whom I like), but we'll just have to see how it pans out.
The format is a team-based competition with a split cast of 16 marksmen (and woman) of varying skill levels and weapon specialities. Everybody from Marine Scout/Snipers, IPSC/IDPA competitors, and even Archers are represented. The teams will compete against one another with the winning team being "Immune" and the losing team having to go to "Elimination". The losing team must vote two players to go to an Elimination Challenge where those players will compete in a head-to-head stage, the loser going home. This will continue until only one Marksman is left, to be named the Top Shot.
It appears that the teams will be given an amount of time to practice with the weapons to be used in the challenges away from the other team, with some coaching from professional instructors. Then a competition using those weapon types and possibly multiple stages will be underway. In this first episode the teams competed in a relay "race" of sorts with four stages using four different historical rifles: the Mosin-Nagant, SVT, 1903 Springfield, and the M14. The teams were broken into four shooting groups of two, with each person acting as a shooter and spotter for one stage. The shooting group had to maneuver an obstacle such as a low crawl under wire, a mud slough, rope hang, and a woodrod thicket before progressing to the shooting station. At the station the shooters were permitted to use the structure however they wanted so long as they were behind the station (most appeared to be sandbag posts with windows). Targets were placed at differing lengths. Once a shot was confirmed good by explosion of an incendiary target, the next shooter could take aim, and so on this went.
The first competition was won by the Blue Team. Which forced the Red Team to vote two members into an elimination match. Now here's a good part. The voting is not secret. In this first episode the members of the losing team were taken to the "Elimination Range" where each member had a target with their name on it. Each person must come up to the line and take a shot at whomever's target they wish to go to the elimination challenge, right in front of the team. The two with the most shots on target go to the challenge. This week was a head-to-head long range competition using what appeared to be scoped Remington 700's. Targets were placed at 200, 400, and 600 yards. First to knock out all three wins. Mike Seeklander, a US Air Marshal and FLETC instructor was sent home this week. Pity, because next week looks to be all pistol competitions with the Beretta 92f. We probably could have learned something from him.
That all being said, and it was quite a bit, Top Shot looks to be a good hour of TV with some educational value and good competition based entertainment. Don't let History Channel's deviation from the norm effect you too much. Hopefully Top Shot will not be to History Channel what The Colony was to The Discovery Channel.