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?