Well, actually, I'm not one to point fingers. When I was in the (Canadian) military and we'd go on exercise, I'd stick a book of matches in every pocket - shirt, jacket, parka, pants AND rucksack. No ziplock bags or anything; and I thought I was being prepared. (Even more embarrassing, I probably WAS more prepared than many of the soldiers in my unit. In our defense, I can only say that we weren't in the combat arms; we were an Electronic Warfare squadron, and for most of the guys, it was the only time in their careers that they would serve in a field unit.)

So mine is probably the most uninformed opinion on the forum, and it's offered as such.

I think most of the regulars here would agree with me that the ideal training is a mixture of books and practical experience. Books are great because, to be blunt and callous about it, dead men (and women) DO tell tales. (I'd rather learn from your mistakes than have you learn from mine - no offense <img src="images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> )

Sometimes experience is the best teacher, but other times, experience can be misleading. Your chances of surviving a game of Russian Roulette are a whopping 83.3 %; your chances of surviving two games are almost 70%. More than 50% of people will survive their first three games. If you fall into the trap of thinking "Well, I've done this twice before and had no problems", you may not live the third time to profit from your new-found knowledge. (Sorry, I'm a math geek <img src="images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> , I can't help it.)

I've read books that contained bad advice, and others that contained good advice but were woefully lacking.

Larry Dean Olsen's book "Wilderness Survival Skills", for example, does not contain a single word on how to signal for help or arrange to be rescued. I read that book cover to cover several times, and it was over a year after I bought it that I realised this information was missing.

I have a book written by an experienced outdoorsman ("been there, done that, this is based on real world experience", that sort of thing). He advocates drinking your own urine if you have no water. Why? Because he knows people who did that, and they survived; so he concludes that they survived *because* they drank urine, rather than *in spite of* having drunk it. <img src="images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

I guess what I'm trying to say is, books can be wrong; but experience can be misleading. You and I are probably opposite ends of the curve; I probably put too much faith in books, I'll admit. But do you place too much faith in experience? <img src="images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

To re-iterate, this is probably the most uninformed opinion you're going to get, so take it for what you think it's worth. <img src="images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />