"Seven weeks after striding out into the rugged forests of western Canada armed with a rifle and a fishing rod, Mr Wardle had to be airlifted back to civilisation suffering from starvation." -Mail Online

The Story

I'm baffled at how anyone can try this with little or no training and expect a different outcome. All anyone has to do is watch a couple episodes of Survivorman to see Les Stroud starve for a week. From watching it should be easy to see that even someone with training has a hard time surviving alone in a number of environments.

Even so, perhaps something can be learned from this.

Wow, it never ceases to amaze me when I hear a news story is so badly mangled.

Thanks for the insight, Izzy. I'll take a trip over to your site to check out the footage.

Thanks!

I'll take this new bit of information with some crow and say then that I'm surprised that he did so well then.

I checked your site which is chock full of praise for the "daring explorer". Anybody that goes into the North American woods carrying a riot shotgun is not an expert in my book.

That was my first thought as well. I guess that shotgun just seemed way more visually attractive than a plain bolt action.

I can't help sounding cynical but this whole enterprise is just laughable. Survivorman knockoff minus Les with all his skills and experience.

Like one boxing coach would say, all show no go!

I'm cynical about this type of programme. The film makers win either way, an interesting (if unsound concept)programme if the bloke makes it through or lots of "drama" if he doesn't and the related "breaking news" of his rescue from the wilderness.

That is reality!
I sure hope they have the courage to show it.

There is a reason why so few natives lived in the north.

This whole thing is just baffling to me.

I saw some photos and he apparently was lugging around a cast-iron dutch oven. Whaaaa?

One can understand I suppose when a hapless tourist or hiker gets lost or in over his or her head. That is unfortunate and preventable but understandable.

But when someone consciously outfits himself to head into the back country can makes such bone-headed decisions .... I just do not understand this at all.

Better TV! Haha

I've been watching the clips of "Alone in the Wild" that are available on Izzy's site, and from what I've seen every attempt is made to make it known that the host isn't an expert at all, in any aspect of survival.

From his laughter at seeing a porcupine in a tree to the lack of understanding why his canoe tipped and from his choice in equipment to openly reading from prepared materials on local plants it seems like Ed's ignorance on a lot of aspects of survival and the area he's chosen to survive in appears to be the show's hook.

I might actually enjoy this show. I must admit that after watching the videos I'm now intrigued.

i hope this causes a lot of second thoughts among those who think that they can just go into the woods and survive in some post disaster situation,or that with some sort of "survival kit" they will survive being lost and or injured.it's all very iffy and like the man says about chance favoring the prepared,the word is "chance" and not "survive for sure".
another wake up call to get that PLB!!!

A shotgun is not necessarily a bad choice of tool. Ruggedized riot guns do have the advantage of being tough.

However, you do need to pay attention to your loads. Personally I would carry mostly birdshot for taking small game and birds on the wing, with a few rounds of heavier shot (goose shot)for taking slightly bigger game and a few solid slugs for Deer and self defence against Bears and Humans etc.

Probably load the magazine as 1 birdshot, 1 goose shot and then solid slugs.

Personally I would have taken one look at the porcupine and then shot it.

Dinner.

Yum, yum.

He was lucky the Yukon had unusually warm and dry weather at that time. No frost & few bugs helped, I'm sure.

With all due respect, venturing alone and unprepared into the great unknown does not only show a measure of courage but also some incredible lack or judgment, a.k.a. stupidity.

Sometimes "tough is enough" but as far as most things in life, you really need a bit more than that IMHO. Outdoor survival is just common sense. That guy went into the wild armed to the teeth with semi-useless gear and called it adventure. But people have survived in the far North with far less for ages. Not just survived but lived with their families, you could say they even prospered as far as reasonably possible in such desolate environment. But they didn't make a big thing out of it. They didn't even call it survival or adventure. It was just everyday life.

I normally wouldn't comment on a TV show but I'm getting sick and tired of pseudo serious survival reality programs which are in effect plain old exploitation.

What's more, the audience watching those shows get all the wrong messages. They fall for the hype, the drama and lacking any first-hand experience they can't tell it's all either fake or very much dumb. Where is it going to end? What's going to be THE ultimate survival reality thing? Watching the host die on screen, close up and all? Do you really want to support that kind of TV?

IMO what a good survival show really ought to do apart from teaching some useful skills - ingrain some healthy respect for nature, survival skills and the people who devised them to live even in some very harsh environments. That's one reason why I like Ray Mears - his calm, respectful approach is so refreshing and I always pick up some useful bits of knowledge in the end.

Looks like the Yukon Camping holiday didn't work out too well then, but the Alaska Wilderness Survival Starvation Television Show looks like a sure fired commercial success.

Personally I never venture into the woods of western canada without a reservation -
http://www.grousemountain.com/Winter/dining/the-observatory/

although I suppose a shotgun might work !

I guess it depends on where you are lost. Down here you get two choices
a)subtropical forest: I carry a Winchester .44-40 with hot handloads (I've fired hundreds of this rounds, so I know what they do) and home made shotshells with #7 shot. I've tried this setup and it works for me.
b)Andes foothills. FN .30-06 and .22 Colt Woodsman

So you could manage with a shotgun for a), but you would starve in b)

If a 30-06 is fine in B then so would a shotgun with slugs.

A shotgun is probably the most versatile firearm ever made.

You can take anything from birds to bears, re-load it fast, hold 7-9 rounds and normally they can take a beating and keep on working too.

A 30-06 while fine for big game would never let you take a bird or a rabbit for that matter... at least not with any meat left worth eating.

It's hard to tell from the picture as I haven't seen the show but it looks like an 870 to me. I have an 870 and love it. For in the woods for protection, and general hunting I would go with an 870 20" barrel and mag extension. Smooth barrel, with shot ranging from 00 to bird, slug and a handful of hard cast slugs. Load the mag minus one and at any time you can make your second shot or pump out the first and make your first shot whatever you want.

If we are talking only protection in grizzly country then minimum 44mag... this guy went into the woods to "live". Look at people in the olden days who were on horses and lived in the woods they had pistols on themselves a rifle on their horse and sometimes a shotgun. He wasn't in my opinion over loaded, but he sure as heck didn't need all those things to "survive".

Bear country warrants a pistol of some sort, and for food gathering a .22LR is good. Add a shotgun and you can take down big game at further distances EASIER than your pistol or birds (not that you can't take a bird with a 22 though.)

Anyway... I can see how he thought he'd wanted all those fire arms they are all useful for different tasks but crossover a lot too

Normally the people who live there take a .22 rifle as a survival gun.The main reason is because the shells are so light. You can carry an awful lot of .22 caliber shells in a pocket.

Pistols are not allowed for hunting in Canada and even if they were allowed they are so much less effective than a rifle that no one would take them into the woods with them. They are just dead weight.

Shotguns are usually not counted as a survival gun because of the weight of the shells too.

Survival strategy usually focuses on smaller animals and involves techniques which we would consider poaching.

I was using the term survival in the sense of protecting one self from grizzly, polar bear, charging moose, etc. Not in the sense of using it to survive as a source to bring food to the table.

RE: Pistols... they are fine hunting weapons in skilled hands, and are used for such in the USA. Again, I was referring to pistol as survival as protecting one self and not putting food on the table.

Also, I am not aware of where he went as I didn't read into his story nor do I get TV service. So I am not sure if he needs protection from such animals, but going into the woods alone I would chose a pistol if I was hiking And others depending if I had a base camp etc.

Can you own a handgun in Canada?
The website is confusing because it says certain calibers are prohibited, and then the ones not listed to be prohibited are restricted. Does restricted mean you can't own it at all?? It's written clear you can't own one with a barrel under 4.14" or .32 or .25... the rest are just "restricted".

Well sure.

And for one thing, I hope I haven't come across too harshly. I certainly don't wish anyone ill and I'm glad that Mr Wardle made it back safely. Hopefully the moral of the story will not be overlooked. Maybe the somewhat anticlimactic ending of the show will lead the audience to honestly reflect on the realities of wilderness survival.

You are right, it is confusing.
Prohibited means not allowed at all.
Restricted means you need special permits, and that there is a reason you need the weapon.
For example police and military get a permission to carry a pistol.
Private citizens can get a permit to own a pistol for shooting at a range, but not as an item to carry.
Some private citizens can get a permit to carry a pistol on them if they can show a real need for one.
A gun collector or museum might be able to get a permit to own one.
A museum might even be able to get a permit to have banned weapons on display, but they might need to be made unworkable.

Usually regular people find the paperwork to get a permit for a restricted weapon is so much of a pain that people don't bother doing it.

The thing is that it is not like USA here.
Pistols are relatively rare here compared to the USA where everybody and their dog owns at least one.

Besides, if you are walking in the woods with your rifle in your hand why would you want to put it down and unholster a pistol if a bear is coming at you?
Wouldn't you just shoot it with the rifle?

When I say "Going into bear country" I mean into the specific areas where the bears really are. Places like along salmon rivers, or the town dump.
In those places a person would likely want to have a good rifle or shotgun handy and a partner backing them up with another one.
(12 gauge with slugs or 30-30 caliber and up make a lot of sense then)

Most of Western Canada is bear country.
You don't generally carry a gun for safety, Black bears are not likely to attack and even grizzlies would prefer to run away.
You can get a license to hunt black bears with a gun or a bow.

It's not generally thought that the safety on the Grouse Grind would be improved by 5000 hikers all carrying rifles.

Polar bears are different - if you are outside in polar bear country you need to have a gun - and ideally somebody with you with a gun who knows what they are doing!
Legally you can't have a gun in a national park - so there is a loophole where Inuit guides are allowed guns.

Just a couple of points to be cautious about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America

A good book on the subject of bear attacks
http://www.amazon.com/Bear-Attacks-Causes-Avoidance-revised/dp/158574557X

BC parks advice about bears
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/explore/misc/bears/bearsaf.html

Alaska's advice about bears
http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=bears.bearfax

Points to note are:
Alaska allows park visitors to carry gun while in Canada they are not allowed or must be sealed by the park rangers.

Alaska's department of Fish and Game recommends rifles or 12 gauge shotguns over pistols.

Even in the parks there are certain places bears tend to be much more than other places. Garbage draws bears just like it draws flies.

On the third hand, he had a can of bear spray. I saw that on one of the vids where he was getting ready to pack up his camp and going over his gear.

For me, this brings his firearms choices into question. While a shotgun loaded with slugs is commonly carried for bear defense, when did he plan to employ it? If the bear's close enough that the bear spray has failed, he'd be in close combat with a bear. A heavy caliber revolver would be better suited for use while being chewed on. Or, maybe the bear spray was supposed to be a backup to the shotgun?

I'm not sure what the thought process was. He was carrying a ton of other dead weight. I'd think he'd be better served by a good packable .22LR like a Marlin 39 or Browning auto for food procurement, and ditching either the rifle or shotgun, or possibly both.

I think this puts it in perspective. All fatal bear attacks in North America in over a century can be listed on a single web page, that's not even very long. Try that with fatal auto accidents. I don't think my hard drive is big enough.

I understand you don't need a gun to go for a hike or camp but if I was alone like him again I'd sure as heck have one

I've camped in bear country, I've had them brush up against my tent, I've heard them when I was in camp grounds busting into the trash cans, I've taken their picture in the front of my house... I live in bear country.

It's kind of ironic because this site is about being "prepared" and while statistically bear attacks are rare, and most brown bears run when you yell at them or make commotion (i've seen this first hand) I still would rather be prepared and have a firearm with me and that's just how I`m going to end the argument about carrying or not in bear country.

I stock extra water and food in case the power goes out for a long period of time and I can't get to town.. statistically this may have happened less times in the last 100 years than bear attacks but I still prepare to live through it.

Your comment about the ratio of bear attacks to auto accidents is a nonsequitor.
There are far more opportunities for people and cars to interact.
There are very few auto crashes deep in the woods.
There are very few bear attacks on the highways around major cities.

The list is not quite complete, but there are other points about it that are more interesting.

What I found interesting was how many of the listed bear attacks were recent instead of old.
So long as bears and people are kept away from each other they can't kill each other.

Maybe another reason the attacks seem more frequent is that more people are going where the bears are now. Many more people are in areas that used to be isolated.

It might also be that in the old days when people got eaten they were just counted as lost but now we go looking for lost people and find ones the bears decided to eat.

We also throw away far more trash in convenient dumps for the bears. Bears love eating garbage and being in the dump puts them into close contact with us.

Edit: If you go into the woods and camp on a bear trail then you are right in the middle of their highway. If you cook up a delicious meal of sweet and greasy high calorie food you are baiting the bear right to you.
If the bear tries to eat your food it is just doing what bears do.
It is now the bears food in the bear's mind!
If it is eating its food and you try chasing it away it might defend its food from you.
When it realizes how weak you are it might decide you are its food too.

I am not trying to make it seem like the woods are jammed right full of hungry bears anxiously awaiting their chance to devour human flesh.
That idea would be as inaccurate as the Disneyland view that all bears are harmless, playful, friendly, Gentle Ben type creatures or like Yogi Bear.

Neither view is accurate or realistic.

Bears can, and on occasion, do eat people.
Not every bear hunts humans, most bears find humans scary.
But bears are individuals and you can never be sure what any one of them will do at any time.

Try to resist demonizing or bambifying the bears. The bears are just bears.

I think that's a good point. We prepare for when we're on the wrong end of that statistical data, not for when everything is OK.

Spray is more effective than a firearm, provided the wind favors you and you aren't in a heavy rain. I'd think having both is prudent. And, of course training with them to carry and deploy them effectively.

All true.
It also has to be where you can get to it real fast.
If it is in your pack or under heavy clothes on your belt you can't reach it in time.

"I got respect for anyone who can go into the wild alone even if they're not properly equipped."

I don't.

Would this guy have done all this, even for just cash money, if he knew there were no fly-overs, no one picking up his videos, no Twitter, no one watching for him?

Try this: "I'm a college student and I'm going into the White Mountains of NH. I'm dressed in shorts, tank top and flip-flops, and I don't think I'll need more than that, even though it is late fall, as it's nice and sunny today. I'm carrying a 16-oz bottle of water and a granola bar. My cell phone doesn't get a signal here, but I'll take it with me in case it works farther up the mountains. I also have a PLB, so even if I do get into trouble, someone will come and get me."

Just because this fool had someone else paying the bill and backing him up didn't make him any smarter than thousands of other dorks who depend on SAR to get them out of trouble.

I'll go ya one better: It has to be where you can use it without taking it off your body. Either on your hip, or on a shoulder strap (and you'd better keep the pack on at all times), allowing you to just put your hand on it, tilt it, and spray.

You should train with bear spray the same way police train with their pepper spray. Not only are bears fast, but if you do happen across one of the rare predatory types, you won't see it coming.

I,like Izzy have watched this project from the begaining. And there must be somthing wrong with me, for unlike most of you I viewed the show for it's learning value. I don't care how many guns he had, how many people were looking out for him, or what he had or did not have. What is did enjoy was seeing how he built his shelters, how he got his game and how he cleaned it prior to eating it. I'm sorry but a enjoyable learning show in a outstanding setting. I am sorry it ended so soon.

True, my point was that the bears don't regard the edge of the trees as the end of 'bear country'.
Vancouver is bear country - I see a lot more bears walking on the road than I do in the mountains.
That doesn't mean I carry a cannon when putting out the trash!

Personally I'm a lot more worried about people's pet dogs when hiking

If you viewed it from its learning value, I think a part of that would include learning from his mistakes. I think that's part of the intent of the show, as well.

So, was this already aired? I thought they were just shooting the show and had yet to do the editing and broadcasting of it. I'm definitely interested in seeing it.

Thats why they call it learning, instead of teaching. the learner will see the right and the wrong, maybe not so the teacher.

Also for entertainment and to make $$. If he new it all, and lived like nothing it would probably be dull.

I only got into the discussion about guns and bears because I was distracted by it.

I thought he was actually doing pretty well.
I did not consider his load too big at the start especially since he was transporting it by canoe.

I am very curious about what went wrong with him.
Did he get sick from food poisoning from bad cooking, eating the wrong plants or did he come down with some sort of infection?
Maybe ticks?

Or was he simply not eating enough?

He really goes downhill fast at the end.

Just a foot note on bears and the danger they may or may not pose.

We probably should not assume all the bears are healthy and acting normally. A couple of years ago a Maryland family was attacked in their home by a rabid bear. Not a thought that is pleasant to consider, and I doubt bear spray and making a commotion would deter it. The family that was attacked had to use a shotgun. This is a link to one news report about the incident:
http://www.wtop.com/?sid=1239758&nid=25

The family all had to undergo anti-rabies treatment. On the bright side, they were not charged with a wildlife violation even though the bear was out of season. (really-- its in the article).

According to this news report, rabid bears have been confirmed in Maryland, Pennsylvania and Canada.

I think I read that the success rate on black bears for bear spray was somewhere in the 80s% range. The info I read said it was less effective on blacks than on brown bears.

Even so, and even considering rabies, spray is probably the best first choice. But given that nothing's perfect, I think it's a very idea to carry a gun where bears may become an issue.

The thing with bears is, you want them to stop right away. Bear spray gets that result a lot better than a gun does in most cases. The gun should logically be the back up to the bear spray.

Now, the guy on this show is alone. If he's following the logic of bear spray first, gun second, then the shotgun is pretty useless. If the spray fails, will he be able to bring a long gun into play? (I almost said "to bear" there, but that would have been an unbearable pun.) If the bear continues to attack, I'd say it's likely he'd find himself on the ground. A revolver would be better in that situation. A second person with a gun would be preferable. I'm pretty sure that he and the producers were banking on him not crossing paths with an angry/sick/crazy bear. Or else he had someone just off camera, on the ground, as a safety.

Sounds entertaining.
Hope it comes to DVD for me!

This program has just been advertised on UK TV to start soon, i am sure it will be show there too

That is a good point Susan, even if I disagree with your idea of how prepared he was.
The fact that he failed might just be what I like about this show.
There are a ton of shows that give the idea that it is real easy to go native and just live off the land.
Here you have a guy who is just a bit better than your average Joe and really well equipped.

He had experience as a cameraman on other expeditions which gave him a bit more experience than many of us would have.

He had all the gear a woodsman could wish for.

He had a food supply with him at the start, and even had a good canoe to carry it in.

He only lasted 7 weeks.

If he had been really stuck out there he would not have survived much longer.

He certainly would not have made it through the winter.

Those should be sobering points and hopefully the producers will point them out to the people who might not realize how extreme it is.

A note:
During the Klondike Gold Rush people going into the Yukon over the Chilkoot trail were required to have 1 year's worth of supplies. About a ton of stuff. About 1/2 of their supplies were expected to be food.

I'd only add that the folks enforcing those "rules" in the Klondike also owned the businesses where the miners had to buy their goods.

The rules were actually enforced by the RCMP. That is not to say commercial interests had nothing to say about it but it was not just about predatory pricing.
The year before the rule about supplies being brought in there had been severe food shortages at the gold fields, with everything that goes with that.

I admit I'm turning around on this show. I now want to see it to find out where everything went wrong.

Poor choice of words on my part in my original post, the folks who enacted the rules were the business owners, they graciously let the law enforcement folks do their dirty work for them.

On an sidenote, how many folks here would go along with a mandatory gear and food list before being allowed to venture into the frozen north?

Thats OK JohnE.
I think most people serious about going into a place like Dawson Creek during the gold rush would comply with a mandatory supplies list.
Try to keep in mind that the people heading through the only pass available were not just going for a holiday.
They were all on their way to become multibillionaires (at least that was the idea) and the RCMP were in control of the pass.
The RCMP simply did not allow anybody unprepared through the pass.
The miners were just as capitalist as the suppliers were and the grub stake was just an investment.
I think most people getting into a business adventure today comply with demands that are just about as hard on them.


You know, the RCMP didn't really care where the supplies were bought. The miners could be outfitted in Victoria, Seattle, San Francisco or Skagway. That didn't matter. All that mattered is that they were equipped to survive for one season in the gold fields.

All bush pilots have a mandatory gear list they must have before takeoff. And if I am not mistaken ANY pilot or plane mut have the same gear. This is one that Doug would know by heart. And I also think that the RCMP also inforce that rule.

So expand that notion, should users of national parks/forests be required to have a minimum of gear/food/water before being allowed to go into the back country?

[Thread hijack warning:

Perhaps this fine chap should have spent a little time with the locals before he beamed in. There are many fine Yukon traditions to help you get into the spirit of the place. For example, there's the sourtoe cocktail (google it, love it); dunked in four ounces of Black Bush Irish whiskey, it set me straight promptly. I have the official card in my wallet. Next time I'm up there, I'm doing the whole foot.

My uncle runs a Yukon winter trapline, solo, and has invited me to tag along. Think I should go?

Now back to the original thread.]

We no longer have the same problems JohnE.

Today there are very few places more than 1 or 2 days travel from a city. You might not be able to drive but you can usually fly in and out instead.
It is a surprise how large of planes land on some of the remote airstrips.

We are not mounting massive migrations of self employed individuals into remote areas either.
So the result is that such a regulation is not required because of logistics and it is not worth doing because there would not be enough people going into a truly remote area to worry about it.

Today companies doing exploration or construction work work have quite a few minimum requirements that they have to meet.
These requirements are almost all concerned with providing adequate medical resources and transportation to a medical center to deal with accidents.

The idea of taking a years supply of food in for a construction camp or mining camp would be a bit weird anyhow.
They are all resupplied on either a 1 or 2 week schedule.
A 1 week resupply schedule for food is the most common now.

By the way JohnE, mines feed their people really well and very seldom work them on more than 18 or 21 day shifts.
Many sites use a 14 days in and 4 days out schedule or a 3 week in and 1 week out rotation.
The days of signing a 6 month contract and not leaving the camp until the contract ended were finished about 20 years ago.

I'm not referring to mining in the Yukon. I was hoping to expand on the ideas that have been discussed in this thread as well as in others about people being unprepared before they go into the wild.

Given the number of stories posted about here, at least some people have some very real problems, ie, lost in Death Valley, lost at a ski resort, etc.

Should those folks have been required to show proof of adequate supplies/equipment before being allowed to head off on their great adventure? Should anyone? Would it have helped?

We should start a new thread about just that topic then JohnE.
We have been walking all over Nic's thread so hard I feel a bit embarrassed about it.

Please post as a new thread.


It is actually a good topic in its own right.

You're right, apologies to Nic.

No worries. A topic goes where it goes.

"Those should be sobering points and hopefully the producers will point them out to the people who might not realize how extreme it is."

I wish you were right, but right now at least 10 unprepared guys are getting ready to head north inspired by another failure.

Why does a love of camping in the UK mean an ability to live off the land in a harsh cold environment where the natives where required to move extensively to live and their population was controlled by the limited food supply?

Did he do any real survival training in the Yukon?
Did anyone try to finds out how many calories he could hunt in the area each day? and then see how far it was below his BMR?
(PS I have a nice chart that actually tells you the calories of native foods and with it you can cross reference your 'catch' to see how many calories you are actually consuming.)
Did anyone look back at all the other failed attempts and see if he could be sent out better prepared?

I cannot believe that so little preparation was actually done by these so called 'professional' filmmakers.

Bruce,

Can I get a copy of your native food/calorie chart? That sounds very useful.

-Blast

I'd like to see that chart myself, BZ. It sounds very useful, especially in this forum.

I think we might be a bit harsh regarding Mr. Wardle's performance. While it is true that he has made mistakes, most of which have been thoroughly discussed here, and that some of the expert survivalist may grade his performance as average, I daresay that I would be most pleased with myself if I spent 50 days in the Yukon and still had a week's food supply, a credible shelter, and some equipment left over with which to persevere. What I can't imagine, and am holding the mirror up to myself and the rest of us for introspection, is the degree to which we could stand suffering both the isolation AND fear for that long a period.

Individually, isolation and fear can have devastating effects on a person's psyche. Ask the multitude of psychotherapists who deal with the aftermath of clients and patients who have failed to negotiate with their fears, or whose repression of memories of isolation manifests itself in a variety of unhealthy ways. Talk with prisoners who have spent extended times in isolation, even though their meals and shelter were provided. Talk with people who suffer from debilitating fears such as claustraphobia.

If one or the other can produce such drastic effects, then imagine them both. Together, they can produce terror of which Hitchcock would be envious. Despite the flyovers and minimal human contact, living 20 to 22 hours of each day in an environment that makes you afraid has to be a tremendous mental challenge. It's no wonder that he was "mentally losing it", then or now. The week prepared him a little; this experience probably prepared him a great deal. I strongly suspect that prior experience, or perhaps specific, arduous training, is the only way one could survive under those conditions.

Watched the last episode last night - it was tiring watching a grown man crying and bubblin for almost an hour. He didn't even have an Fear Liath Mor circling his camp during the night, just some cuddly critters.

On the whole I think he did very well. I was surprised with some of the equipment he had with him.

The program highlighted the mental and physical aspects of a trip like this very well. It also highlighted how difficult it is to feed oneself from a wilderness environment.

Something that some people that I have talked or read of forums have neglected to consider is the process of starvation. Some of the most in depth and up to date medical research carried out on starvation was done on the IRA hunger strikers in the Maze prison, Northern Ireland. After 56 days the heart rate dropped to dangerous levels, the body started to shut down and eyesight is lost. This drop of function was seen in all of the hunger strikers at the same rate.

An interesting fact about this case was the fact that the hunger strikers were doing it to force a political change and not as an attempt to commit suicide. This is an important fact because these people had not given up their will to live; they were being driven on by their cause.

I hear you ask what the hell has the effects of starvation in an isolated prison population that are laid on their beds got to do with a guy on TV in the middle of the wilderness?

It all has to do with energy expenditure. The prisoners after the initial unrest just sat around and laid in their beds and didn’t expend much energy. Ed didn’t have that luxury, despite having some food and some very good equipment. His energy expenditure well exceeded his calorific intake over the 50 days. His workload significantly sped up the downward spiral towards starvation; despite having some food available. Watching how he lost weight was exactly the same as what I have seen in populations in famine areas in Africa.

It was extremely interesting to watch Ed’s mental side go down, just the way it is reported in real survival or long turn high stress situations. The physiological effects of this sort are numerous but they are all recognised and recorded. Each effect is normally recorded in every scenario but at different levels. In this case it was fear of his surrounding, the unknown and bears as well as the chronic effects of loneliness and the need of contact with other people especially his loved ones. All this compounded by the anxiety of watching yourself waste away with the lack of food and knowing your body is not functioning as it should. Similar experiences have been report so many times by people that have been in real situations.

I think this program was an excellent look into the physical and mental stresses of a man driven to the edge.

ok, so here's my 2 cents worth - after having seen ONLY about 35 minutes of the show - not realizing it was the subject of this thread - and NOT having read most of the previous posts since seeing a few minutes of the show.

a journey to everest as a producer / cameraman with a large group of support staff doing almost everything for you in no way prepares you to go out in the pristine wilderness by yourself.

they are two vastly different challenges and experiences. in this regard, he was doomed from the start.

i wondered how this would end as the show began - the man was almost tearful as the plane flew away after dropping him off. again, i had serious doubts this would end well.

i believe it's extremely difficult to focus on the necessary elements of survival if one is continually setting up camera shots and talking to the camera as if it were a real person. of course it's used to great effect, but i sense it really drives home the total isolation they experience.

i did say they. i've observed les stroud exhibit a similar type of behaviour on his show. at best, he's not exactly cheerful. that may be his personality, but at worse he seems to me to be truly depressed. lack of sleep, lack of food, lack of human contact, constant situational awareness, and constant camera setting and dialogue appear to affect him greatly.

nevermind other feelings about him, i don't see that type of behaviour in bear g. could it be the group of people supporting him, not having to set up the cameras - only to mug for them - etc. could have that much affect? no isolation here, folks.

i do believe that isolation is the key aspect of ed's shortened adventure. i do believe that if cameras weren't involved, a person could better focus on the necessary tasks at hand and survive.

boy, that was too long.

i agree - from what i saw - and as such, a much more realistic demonstration of what the average person would face than the two current name brands.

[quote=Todd W]If a 30-06 is fine in B then so would a shotgun with slugs.

I don't follow your line of reasoning. Are you saying a shotgun slug is the equivalent of a .30-06 bullet?
I'd like to see you shoot a deer at two hundred yards with a shotgun.. (you'll never get any closer in that terrain)

Five things that prevented me from taking this guy seriously at all:

1. He was crying on day one about being alone
2. He couldn't shoot a squirrel with a 12 gauge from a close range.
3. He took oatmeal? Beans would've been far superior choice, especially with rice.
4. He was using a 12" dutch oven as his primary cooking container. Why on earth would you want to pack a dutch oven that size for just yourself? Whole boiled fish is unappealing. There's a reason why you don't see many references to fine Scottish cuisine these days I think.
5. Hammock and tarp. Unnecessary if you are also building wilderness shelter. He had ample resources, tools and time to construct a proper shelter rather than a useless lean-to.

The man had no business up there doing what he did. He was unprepared mentally, physically, and intellectually for the job, and was doomed to failure. What he called a hardship I would've called a decent vacation.

Alone in the Wild <> Alone in the Wilderness. Prenneke had the right formula.

I watched the final episode last night. My conclusion: Pathetic.

If I didn't have a mountain of stuff to deal with, I would be very tempted to fly up to where he was same time next year and show him how it's done. If they let me pack 100 lbs of gear and supplies up there as he did, I would have a friggin' picnic every day! I darned sure wouldn't abandon that canoe.

Now winter time might be a different story. Don't know as I'd care so much for the Yukon in December, especially without a decent permanent shelter.

I got to see the last two episodes. I'll say I was rooting for the guy (as one would tend to root for an underdog) and was disappointed when he called for rescue.

In having watched Survivorman episodes countless times, I'm reminded of how Les constantly brings up the will to survive as being a key aspect. Seems to me this guy just gave up. Granted, Les' shows were for only a week at a time.

So tell me this: What would be more interesting/entertaining to ya'll - not from a "I want to learn something" attitude, but from a "I want to be entertained" attitude - watching a rookie try months alone in the Yukon or watching a pro like Les Stroud for months alone in the Yukon?

Les would probably still have to deal with the loneliness issue, and would likely be amusing to watch babble into the camera (though I think he'd last a lot longer and handle it better, it's just fun to watch him treat the camera like Wilson). However, with the gear this guy was allowed, it'd be very much just an extended camping trip for Les.

As for which show I'd rather watch: I'd rather watch an intelligent, prepared person deal with the problems presented by the situation. I don't think there's an unoffensive way to say it, but this guy just struck me as weak-willed and more than a little foolish. I don't think he's the kind of person I'd like to be around in any high-stress situation.

I have to agree with Brian.

If there is no story, entertainment should be at least informative. IMO.

And drauma and trauma alone do not a story make.

And yet Transformers 2 made $832,633,084 worldwide. Ugh...