To be blunt, Im not a fan of Cody Lundin. I never read his books so I cant speak to them or the knowledge of his they contain. I can only speak towards my knowledge of him in the media such as news and television.

While The key to survival shows is showing unprepared experts (oxymoron) in survival situations to show just how "anyone" can survive with nothing, I Find the overall message Cody exudes with what he says in Dual Survival and his image to be harmful.

This goes above his barefoot and lack clothing image. In my opinion he comes off as "Having nothing to start with is better" on the show. Everything he states about himself feels very arrogant and condescending.

While I originally thought Dave was going to look like the extremist now it seems like Cody is. I believe it was suppose to come off as a balancing act between two opposite extremists in the same field but now it just feels like Dave is the normal preparist and Cody is the Wacky Extremist.

We Have already seen People attempt to Copycat previous Survivalist shows and more often then not sadly perish, Would it be crazy to say we may start seeing people attempt to copy cat Cody and venture off with even less on them removing shoes and long/warm clothing as well?

I'd be pretty surprised if Cody has convinced the lemmings to march en masse, and barefoot, off a cliff. Dual Survival is "Big Time Wrestling" and he's been very clear about that in interviews. I have read his books, and one of my best friends trained with him for several months in the Arizona desert. I can promise you he really knows his sh!t.

I also lean more towards Dave philosophy than Cody's but Cody has made it very clear , repeatedly, that he doesn't expect others to do what he does. He said that he trained himself for years to go barefoot and it is not something others should simply follow. So, IMHO, he has done his part.

What I saw in Dual survival is that it was Dave who saved the day repeatedly. While I am even less courageou than Cody, but he showed reluctance several times, when it was necessary to climb down a liff or such high risk situation. It was Dave who assured him and convinced him to go ahead. THAT IS what I noticed in Dual survival.

In addition, I noticed Cody's passive gatherer attitude when it comes to food, which I prefer ( I have a soft heart and couldn't kill a chiken ) but still I didn't like Cody ... err.. going too far eating bugs & worms ..etc. even if substitutes maybe available. He was so undescrimiating that sometimes he does tasteless stuff. One time he sucked water out of his wet socks although better water was available with Dave !! I didn't like that.

I do respect both gentlemen. And sorta understand each one's philosophy. I think

I'd love to go on one of Cody's courses. His books are great and he clearly has a lot of wisdom to share. I appreciate his cautious approach and his improvising, make the most of what you've got available in the smartest way possible attitude. Especially as a Scout Leader and mom, I do have a hard time with "Do as I say, not as I do" though. His message can get quickly lost when he delivers it in a Nova Scotia sea-side winter wearing shorts and wool socks.

Like any TV production, the survivalist shows need to attract and hold an audience. They are therefor e trying to entertain, not instruct. The situations are obviously contrived, and highly unrealistic.

I think it would be interesting if reality TV tried to do a reasonably realistic series about a volunteer search and rescue group. I hesitate to even consider that, because they would probably foul it up royally.

I thought Cody Lundin's books were well done. On his website, he talks about the "Dual Survival" show and that viewers should beware:

http://www.codylundin.com/survive_tv.html

It's just a TV show. Entertaining and bringing back viewers is goal #1,2,3. I personally don't have a problem with Cody's personality (and I liked his When All Hell Breaks Loose book), but many/most TV shows with more than one cast member need an unlikable character. People like to dislike people on TV or like to see some friction on-screen. Actually, I'm sure there are plenty of people who dislike Dave and like Cody. At times, I get annoyed by Dave's disparaging attitude toward Cody.

Cody is an expert on aboriginal culture and primitive living. It's not surprising that his approach seems "extreme" but that's probably because his paradigm of "normal" out in the bush is not the same as ours. It may not come out in the show, but to me, Cody is more about living in the bush while Dave is more about surviving the bush and getting back to civilization.

I'm slowly building a little website that is a directory of survival schools. During this process, it quickly became clear that there are two distinct "schools of thought".

One focuses on primitive skills, oriented somewhat more towards the art and enjoyment of mastering those skills. They tend to pay less attention to what one should carry other than perhaps a knife.

The other is more oriented towards modern techniques and equipment.

Natuarally there is much overlap and either type of school will better equip you to survive.

wow. all of you have really provided some well thought out conclusions on Cody. I'm not saying that snarky or sarcastic. Seriously, they are all very well put.

I like Cody. I've read his books many times. I have bought and given away at least a dozen of his 98.6* book to first time prepper/ want to become EDC types. There is great humor in his books that is not seen in his on-screen personality. I have met Cody as well, when we were both in our local REI. (He lives in N. Arizona, me Phoenix area). I admit it was years ago and I geeked over him, showed him my EDC that was based quite a lot on his book and he couldn't have been nicer, more humble or pleasant. Yes he was barefoot.

I find his written works impressive, and I find the show mostly enjoyable. For myself, good footwear is one of the foundations of being appropriately equipped to survive. I'm a lot more likely to be ready for the environment in that and other ways than the character he plays in Dual Survival is.

I don't know him personally but that's pretty much the way my friend described him. He wants to live with nature, not fight it as Dave advocated. Cody does live in a house but it's off grid; no well, limited use of electricity, etc. And he does spend a lot of time living off the land using just primitive tools and skills.

I too would love to be able to study under Cody Lundin. There aren't a lot of people with his depth of knowledge and experience with regards to aboriginal skills. Probably the only guy I'd rather train with would be Ray Mears. He's also skilled in the primitive stuff but I like to wear shoes!

I have read two of his books (two of the first I ever read on kit building and preparedness) and found them insightful. I find Dual Survival more entertaing that most other shows on TV (though it's no Survivorman). I imagine myself more like Dave (heck, we're both from southeasten Ohio and he's like a lot of my old high school buds).

I'm a bit torn when considering Cody's philosophy. As others here have noted, I feel he's provided ample disclaimer on not to follow his lead re: his almost lack of preparedness -- at least gear-wise -- what I would almost call a lack of common sense (like I or anyone I know would go on a hike without shoes, Really?).

But, at the same time, I can appreciate and respect his choices. When faced with a significant, perhaps long-term hardship, I think Cody is well prepared, especially from a knowledge standpoint, from his daily minimalist lifestyle. Say the grid goes down for an extended period, no relief is available, I doubt Cody would even notice. Does he even need much money? He could probably susbsit for years starting out with $1,000.

A couple thing I've taken away from the show are:

• Knowledge is key. Knowing how to make the situation bettter with whatever you can find is invaluable. (Cody)
• It's still smart to have some basic equipment ahead of time and be experienced in how to use that equipment. (Dave)

I feel that since most of us probably don't have the luxury of being prepared in that way of life and with the level of experience Cody has, we would certainly notice. I have no idea if Cody has a wife or family, if he does, I am sure he had his lifestyle before he had them, so they knew going in what they would be accustomed to.

I know much of my preparation is as much or more to support my wife/kids/immediate family rather than my personal well-being. Having to work at a "regular" job daily to make ends meet, having a wife (who also works outside the home) and kids to provide for, kids to put through traditional school and college, a mortgage to pay (way too much mortgage given the way the economy has fallen), a car loan to pay, insurances, ever increasing taxes and tax rates to contend with.... and then somewhere along the way I decided I better start preparing for some level of self-sufficeincy.... it's like I''m in so deep, I just want to survive another day.

So, given that I have basically set goals to keep my family fed and sheltered, get my kids educated, and maybe get a little enjoyment out of life along the way, should natural disaster or whatever threaten that, it's a lot more costly for me to preare than someone like Cody.


So, to your point about "Harming the message", I think if people let themselves fantasize or perhaps romanticise that they could just be like Cody, I would agree that they would likely be in for a rude awakening, or, unfortunately, much worse.

To your point about balance, I think many will see it that way. I've certainly concluded quite a while ago, it's not a matter of either / or, or which one is wrong or right. Rather's it's how we blend the knowledge with the tools.


Actually, isn't that often an underlying theme of many of the discussion here, especially when wanting to help those new to the forum, that it's both; knowledge and equipment? One without the other is meaningless to me - a waste of time and resources. So, I think for many people who tune into the show purely for its entertainment value, they may not quite "get it" and I would like to see more emphasis in the show on pounding home the idea that it's got to be both.

A good way that I've found to convy it, and it's how i got my wife to start supporting my (now our) efforts to be a bit more self-sufficient, is to disucuss it in terms of insurance (something I had to be taught long ago). This was a woman who literally used to complain if I bough an extra can of baked beans or soup to have on hand. "it wasn't on the list" is what I would hear as she looked over the grocery receipt. Being so frustrated, I finally discussed with her about all the insurances we had: home, car, health, life, disability, etc. When she agreed that they were valuable, then it was realtively eas to say, should we have some "food insurance", a few extras now and then to have on hand. We've been able to build from there.

Perhaps, for what it's worth, the show could build on that.


Regards,

buckeye


P.S. This post is why i don't respond much, I tend to ramble on quite a bit. Apologies, but it's late, I'm tired, it's been a long year already (yes, I know it's only the 11th day) and when I get this way I tend to wax a bit philosophic.

This is the reason I joined up to this forum Well thought out level headed thinking is hard to come across anymore on the net.



There is a reason they are called lemmings



As Bacpacjac Stated The Do as I say not as I do Attitude is very difficult to accomplish especially with the way Cody acts on the Television show. I often get the feeling he comes off as "Im gonna tell you not run out barefoot but hey look how much better Im doing then him in this situation" Which as an example is rare in the show since he is usually slowing down or completely changing the course of travel simply from this. Not to mention his constant "Im transforming Dave to be like me" attitude.

I also agree that Dave Saves the day Multiple times. I feel Daves Idea Is "Survive to get rescued is the main goal do what you need to get out" And Codys Idea is "Survive to be one with mother nature then rescue may come soon or w.e it doesnt matter let me eat my Bugs and Berrys"



I honestly think today While TV may not Convey the truth it speaks louder then Books.

He mentions Jacques Cousteau in the 60s But Did he forget in the 50s he was hell bent on learning by destroying?




While I Completely Understand and believe in what your saying towards learning about difference approaches I dont think its very smart to deliberately handicap oneself when life is at stake and displaying this form of thought while at the same time teaching to survive sounds contradictory.




100% agree.



I Highly Suggest Checking out some of les strouds work outside of survivorman, "Off The Grid" and "Snowshows And Solitude".




Which is exactly my point. Its hard to think the people who set off to copycat Man Vs Wild Or Survivorman do anything but Fantasize about such things.

Not to hijack the thread, but I wish to see a future season of Dual Survivor starring Dave and (David Wendell). David is into primitive ways , somehow like Cody, but seems he will get along with Dave in a better way, and viewers will concentrate on the survival part of the show, not the hillarious differences, and will not be distracted by some of Cody's unconventional views.

first impressions can often be misleading.

after reading cody's book called "98.6" my flaky impression of him did a 180.

i consider that book one of the most useful survival guides i've read over the last 50 years.

additionally, cody isn't suggesting leaving your PSK or other technology behind. in fact, his book does a great job of showing how to put the basic kit together for the least cost, allowing anyone to be better prepared.

as Phaedrus said above: "Probably the only guy I'd rather train with would be Ray Mears."

I've seen those fine programs and they're great! Not the equal of "doing" alongside but as close as I'll ever get a chance to get!

I'm with you on this. It is important to be aware of alternative, more "primitive" techniques, because they will often come in handy. It adds more depth to your skill set and gives you alternatives when modern technology isn't available.

Lots of fairly objective studies of "primitive" technologies show that they are actually pretty effective. A freshly knapped edge on a chert or obsidian flake is often extremely sharp - in the case of obsidian, it is sharper than the edge on a steel tool - the drawback is that it is extremely fragile and resharpening is required after just a few uses. Resharpening is not a big deal if you know what you are doing. Stone axes are very effective at felling moderate size trees, but require entirely different motor habits from those employed with steel axes.

Of course, steel replaced stone rather quickly when it became available to groups the world over, so modern tech definitely has something going for it. So live with modern technology, but be aware of old ways. You can find the river with your GPS, or you can watch the flight of flocks of birds - both will get you there.

I concur. I fit more into the modern technique school of thought, but I would love study more of the primative skills. It's like learning defensive shooting skills, but no unarmed or medical skills, or being a programmer but not knowing how a hard drive works.

What I get uncomfortable with is when an instructor goes too far into one or the other. Modern skills does involve turning a surplused M113 into an RV, but.. yeah, no. Likewise, the "you have a knife and a pair of pants" school of thought is just extremist.

On the topic of Lundin, he's kind of a mixed bag. Philosohphically, I agree with a lot of what he says, and when he's not playing a charactiure (sp) of himself he's not in the knife and pants school of thought. Still, I want shoes on my instructor. I've stepped into and on things I wouldn't otherwise be able to, and been very glad to have them. That, and I hate hot weather, a desert would pretty much end me.

Some of the courses offered by his organization are pretty hardcore hunter/gatherer stuff (at least according to the course description). But Lundin communicates over and over again the importance of carrying a modern PSK and at any moment using whatever works best.

To be frank, some of the "back to nature" and "the more you know, the less you carry" school of thoughts makes me sick. Nothing wrong with a skilled person making do with a pair of pants and what nature provides, but those that are capable of such stunts have spent years and years learning and training. Before you spend time learning all the finer points of making a bow fire and finding tinder when it's wet everywhere you should have a black belt in using lighters and vaseline cotton balls.

On the other end, you have the "all you need is your altoids tin box PSK and a space blanket". Equally wrong. A PSK must be adjusted to fit the environment. A space blanket in a pocket is sorely inadequate for many environments.

Cody has a very well balanced and well thought out balance between old and new, mixing knowledge about physics with ancient skills - whatever works best for the moment.

Hear, hear. Contemplation of making a fire by rubbing two sticks together usually spurs me to buy more firesteels, stormproof matches and Bic lighters. I have them all over the place - car, coats, packs, purses, bike bags.

Ideally, I'd have the knowledge to survive with no gear and the good sense and good fortune to have plenty of gear.

My sentiments exactly, Dagny.

I understand that these shows are showing us that it can be done, I just think good planning and preparation so that it doesn't have to be done is a more sensible approach.

My take, Dave and Cody=Survival WWE. Cody is way too proud of his courses, the prices are triple the market rate and from what I have heard from a few that have gone, they are nothing above and beyond. One gal did say that she had the impression Cody would have prefered everyone wear a mirror around their necks so that Cody look at himself at all times.

He may be able to make fire with a hand drill but he lacks a lot of serious outdoor skills that most, like Ray Mears, Les Stroud and Dave Canterbury DO know.

Well, I don't know much about Cody's courses but some U-tube clips ( lost in Arizona desert & Lost in Nova Scotia ) shed some light, and I can say I was NOT impressed.

But in any way, if he was indeed master of survival, he really downgraded himself in Dual Survival. It looked like Dave was really stuck babysitiing Cody. Only in a few cases I was 100% on Cody's side like when he warned Dave from "stealing" honey from a bee hive. In most other cases, I think Dave saved the day. And this opinion comes from a passive guy who is a tree hugger like Cody.

In a few cases , Cody had to swallow his pride and cover his freezing , bleeding knees with some hide. And it was Dave who pointed that to Cody and was always worried about him.

The worst thing - IMO - that Cody did was to do "tasteless" stuff like burbing everytime he ate something, or drink water squeezed of his socks (although other water was available). It was OK to add a few laughs around the show, but that should have been split between the two.

I would have expected Cody to seriously take an advantage of the show to furthur promote his philosophy of "the more you know, the less you need". That would have really made a marvellous show. He did that a few times like when he made a shelter that Dave admired, but in most cases, he was a drag, IMHO. If the show director has put him in that role, he should have refused, and if he has put himself in that role, I think at least he should have provided alternatives to Dave. Poor Dave, was struck with him in most situations.

Remeber the episode when Cody got sick ? They were in the desert where he has most expertise, and it was expected he would be helping Dave in that episode, but ....

Remeber the episode when they found a truck in the middle of nowhere, and Dave was trying to trap to trap some animals but Cody was insiting to keep banging on the truck for "attention", causing the animals to run away !!!

Was that him or the producer ???
Either way, he downgraded the primitive school , IMO.

Arrogance Will harm a message faster then image. Its Very Surprising how fast people overlook a persons arrogance. To brag about how primitive you are and how you dont wear shoes becomes quickly moot and arrogant when you have to make sandals out of a tire because your feet hurt. THEN try to cover that point up by bragging about how your primitive skills let you be resourceful and innovative as your cutting up a piece of recent technology to prove you dont need...recent technology....indeed. Walk closer to mother earth to be one with it...except when your feet hurt cause mother natures attacking you with all kinds of stickers and deadly creatures and stabby dangerous things.

You can brag all you want about how in certain situations your lack of shoes is being beneficial over wearing shoes.....Untill you realize SHOES COME OFF!!!!

I Full agree with everything you say. I honestly think selling out does not help either image OR message. To get a chance to prove your methods on a wide spread form of media such as television and then do the exact opposite speaks a lot to ones personality.

Its Very easy to sell out for fame of ones profession and it cant be pushed to 100% blame on the person himself. What makes it easy to blame the person more then the act of selling out is what they do after they sell out. Watching and listening to Cody on more forms of media then just television (minus his books) and then reading what he posted on his website about survival instructors and television it becomes very easy for me to push about 99% of the blame on him and 1% on the television industry.

Not to mention how easy it is to be a martyr. This is what I read when I look at his post on his website, Screw everyone including me...But listen to me cause im great....but not on television.....and some of the other videos ive made with film crews......actually listen to me on TV because im being great but at the same time funny and entertaining....well wait no it gets heavily edited by the producers to portray something different........ACTUALLY!!! Im great period its everyone elses fault I dont look great.....

I just thought about it and would like to state again that while Im not a fan of his practices nor condone the less is better idea Im not arguing against his Knowledge OR the ways of primitive skills. I believe primitive skills are key to basic survival and while can be a primary form of survival the changes and improvements in the field with technology and new knowledge are just as important. Its not a contest of who can do what with or without what, its a matter of live or die period.

What I AM attempting to argue is Image and how it can harm the message of learning these things. What would a person think of primitive skill learning if the first expert they see is a certain person acting in certain ways. Cody was the first example and person I picked to present this issue since he is the first person I have seen on television who primarily promotes primitive skills.

If anyone else has knowledge of another survival instructor who primarily promotes primitive skills as a comparison OR a instructor who promotes other forms of skills that may have a negatively effecting image (Bear grylls if you want but he is a dead horse at this point) we can widen the field of thought on the subject.

+1

Actually, I have some feeling of sorrow that we have to say this about Cody. I personally agree with him on many counts like ( less is better ) for example. I also do not like to destroy nature unnecessarily like excessive hunting ..etc. I also would take the path with least resistance ...etc.

So, I feel sorry at his lost chance of showing the viewers what they can gain from his teachings.

Actually the other day I was watching some U-tube clips for Dave ( about building inexpensive bushcraft kits ) and I can say that I do respect Dave even more ... Although he is the gung-ho type of guy in the show ( a little intimidating sometimes) but he managed to also show the practical , down-to-Earth side of his personality. So, he is a good example where the image HELPS the message

Marketing is evil. Marketing has convinced us that we need to buy bottled water in a country with fabulously good public water supplies. Television shows are pure marketing endeavors. We have seen in previous threads that Blast and DR has passed up opportunities because the promoters wanted to market the teotwawki aspects of the discipline: these are ets kind of guys, not seeking to advance themselves at any cost. They have integrity.
Televison survival shows are about marketing, brand awareness, and viewership. Expecting good advice from such is unwise as it is unwise to base personal decisions on political talk radio or warner brothers cartoons. Any discussion of them, positive or negative, furthers the aims of the marketers involved, cuz it improves brand awareness and increases viewership.

If cody's and dave's behavior is viewed as a marketing exercise, it all becomes perfectly sensible, even inevitable.

+1 Nursemike.

Similar to what I had posted earlier. There's been a lot of great and informative comments made so far.

But regarding the original question about whether image harms the message for this particular TV show, I think that's not the right question to ask because I don't think the aim of the TV show is to convey or promote an accurate message about survival (or Cody's philosophy of survival) any more than the reality show Survivor's message is to show how to survive out in the wild.

With just about any TV show, image is the goal--good, bad, or ugly doesn't matter as long as it draws viewers. The message/content is almost irrelevant. I mean, how many shows about "survival" have we seen come and go that espouse some really outrageous, ridiculous, dangerous, or impractical things over the years.

And plenty of nice folks end up appearing like jerks on TV, and often that's a deliberate choice in how scenes are acted, how situations are set up, in the editing, etc. (I have no opinion about Cody's personality in real life because I just don't know him.) People like to dislike people on TV (e.g. the simultaneous disgust/fascination so many have with the weirdos on Jerry Springer-type shows) or to see fireworks on camera. Maybe Cody's role on the show is supposed to be the lumbering Neanderthal vs Dave's cool, ex-military persona who rags on Dave and saves the day?

Couple of points about this:

1) Anyone with half a brain watches these programs and gets real thoughtful about their kitlist.

2) Cody seems to have had an effect on David C because David's mantra now is " Conservation of Resources." That is to say don't use your lighter if a bowdrill will do or a knife if you can knap a flint. Have them, but conserve them because they are difficult to replace.

3) In my view no-one on this forum or the producers of any of these programs owe the "lemming" any duty of care. Fair warning is given. At the beginning of each program and at various times during it. If they choose to ignore those warning then so be it.


Only thing that I personally want to give "lemming" is a tall unscalable cliff. Very deep water, a diving board, and a sign half way down that say's " Darwin Was Right."


Now if I could just figure out a way of charging them admission...

Izzy, one of the reasons I liked Man,Woman, Wild was that Myke was very honest about how hard it was to do survival tasks and would mention it in the show.

I recall when his wife got really sick in the desert and he had to start a fire. He was very frustrated it took him 90 minutes to do it in an emergency situation and said so on camera

...I'd change out of business wear into boots, jeans and flannel before teaching outdoors/ prep skills...Its authority, believability and meeting people's expectations.

Jeans? In my mind, that translates to "Looks" good and authentic and not knowledgable once someone understands what they're doing." It would lose credibility with me but probably play well with the unitiated. Dress, shoes and a cotton dress shirt, maybe not, but wool or synthetic dress pants and matching suit jacket would find higher esteem in my eyes.

WAY betterthan shorts though, no matter the climate

What were the other reasons?

[u][/u]I have to admit that i do wear cotton too, usually partnered with wool and fleece. It's comfortable and can be pretty tough. I carry wool or fleece as back-up. I'm no techy. I meant no disrespect. I have noticed though, that I do measure my teachers by such things. (see the cruise thread)

There's a pbs video about a guy named Dick Prenoke, called Alone in the Wilderness. He made a good go of it in Alaska and he wore blue jeans that's a good recommendation in my book.

Forgive me. It's winter here in Canada so my lens is frozen. :-)

haha. Okay, I got fished in with that turn of phrase. No, really, I liked M,W,W. Another reason is that Ruth provided a good foil to Myke. She was a 'straight man', which provided the show the means to actually explain survival technique rather than just watch a guy or two guys divide labor and go about it with practiced care.

FWIW it was released by the Hawkes that they stopped filming the show, the final couple episodes are coming out right now. It was too hard for them to do it together and raise their son. The filming was long, injurious and exhausting. Which IIRC is pretty much the reason Les stopped doing Survivor Man.

Cotton isn't cotton... T-shirts, jeans and the like have absolutely no purpose outdoors. They're the real target for the "cotton kills" slogan.

An outer shell layer of thightly woven cotton is wind proof and can actually be somewhat water resistant (for a while). In cold climates (dry snow) it breathes much better than goretex and the like.


When I was a kid, skiing above the three line required heavy-duty COTTON anoracks. There was no alternative, and how to impregnate the cotton to make it more water resistant was a hotly debated topic.

Of course, Goretex and other membranes really shines when things get wet... when snow turns to sleet and rain, a cotton shell won't kill you if it is a heavy-duty old school anorack we're talking about - but a modern material shell layer will work much better.

I was just poking fun, and actually, I agree with you. I watched every episode and found the methods that Myke demonstrated to be useful and well presented. Ruth was a great choice as his survival partner, as she is herself intellegent and resourceful, albeit in a different environment.

I was able to relate, as my wife and I go to some very remote places every summer and fall, and anything can happen. Although my wife and I have never been in a true survival situation, we have had minor equipment or prep failures, weather situations, animal encounters, differing opinions, and mini-health issues while afield. The interactions presented in MWW were realistic IMO.

It didn't hurt that Ruth is a beautiful and articulate woman though....just think if his partner was say, Rosie O'Donnell. We could then watch Myke practice his best SERE skills on the second episode, and never be seen again.

One of the things I find interesting and enjoyable about DS, MWW, as well as the espisodes of MVW when Bear took out Wil and Jake, when Les went out with his hunting buddy, and when Ray took Obiwan to the jungle ... is the interplay between the two survivors. Ego IS an important factor in survival situation. Differing philosophies and risk tolerences WILL come into play. Different levels of experience and skill competency and confidence IS going to shape things.

Someone said earlier in the thread that watching these shows should make us think about our kit list. They also make me think about the personalities and relationships that are going to be involved. I often joked that I stopped building fires when I started camping with boys. (Meaning my husband and our best friend and camping partner.) When those two guys get together the camping is great but I can just sit back and watch because they do it all. I can often relate to Ruth dealing with Mike.

Good points -- Jeans are NOT appropriate for the outdoors. Another image vs. utility situation