Had 'possum as a kid. I remember it as greasy, but not bad. I ate seagull as an adult. I'm probably going to find something else to eat, before I get hungry enough to eat that again.

To support yourself off the natural materials at hand for a year, you would have to cover a lot of area, even if you were by yourself. Hunter-foragers of the past were nomadic because they had to move with the weather and available food. It would be very hard these days. Traveling by itself is labor- and strangth-intensive, not to mention the time.

It seems to me that it would be far easier if you could find some decent soil and had some seeds, to stay in one place. It certainly would take less land.

So do you think you could make that work for a year?

In a crisis situation, is seems to me forage in rural areas would be reasonable. It wouldn't be legal, and you could face some risk dealing with the landowners, but lots of folks have livestock, crops, and other supplies handy if you are willing to sneak and/or fight for them. This may not fit the premise of the OP, but when it comes to survival, I don't follow rules that artificially limit my chances of success. It is hard enough just having to deal with natural laws.

I know lots of places that are pretty far out in the woods where there is plenty of wildlife, fish, and water. I'd bring my .22 along and shoot whatever meat I needed. As far as anything else goes, I'd get back to basics as far as roots, tubers, and berries are concerned.

"So do you think you could make that work for a year?"

Not at the rate I'm going now!

One thing I don't see in most of these plans are ideas about what other members of your group are doing.
One of the things that makes humans effective competitors with other species is our ability and willingness to co-operate to achieve a goal.
On person might not be able to kill a bison, but 10 people can slaughter a herd of bison and turn a bear into a nice rug.
It is the same for making a camp or plowing a field.
One person can only carry enough gear for the barest of existences.
10 people can carry enough for a decent chance at having some sort of technology.
Then there are the skills and specialties. You might want a skilled forager and a skilled herdsman as well as a skilled cultivator.
If you are really proposing living just off the land you will need a community that can provide a bit of support to the members of it.

The "it takes a village" thing is just not this scenario.

Yes Dweste, it is still something to consider though.

The truth is that the rugged individual does far worse than the social creature.

I stated earlier that I would likely blend small agriculture with medium range foraging, and I left the idea of external inputs out.

However when I see threads like this most people miss even vaguely considering the technology they need to obtain to put their solitude into effect.

As soon as you are going past the sticks and stones level of subsistence then you are no longer living totally from the land. Even just a steel knife requires miners, smelters and a smith with a forge.
If you are going to garden you likely need seeds supplied to you.

Try telling me where the line between subsistence and living off a year's worth of stockpiled supplies can be drawn.
I doubt if you or anybody else can really tell me that.

If we don't want to consider any external input at all then we start talking about being a hermit for a year.

I am fine with considering what a hermit has to do to live for a year. I know what that is like.

No man is an island, John Dunne. I get it. We are all beholding to our civilization and do not exist separate from it.

In an effort to make a workable scenario, only the food was to come from the environment. Everything else is wide open to your planning.

I draw no philosophical lines. This is just a what-would-you-do thought puzzle.