Just asking a leading question here, but what if there was a website where people who have attended survival schools could post reviews?

You're asking for a reviewing process. Naturally there is value to something like that, but we'll need people who can evaluate the knowledge being taught, the quality of instruction, and the cost of the course compared to other similar courses. Alas, people who can do this are usually not students who might take the course, and this is the problem with consumer reviews.

Consumers tend to evaluate based on their experience: did they *feel like* they learned something useful, did they *feel like* the course was worth their money. When they're complete beginners, it's hard for them judge: did they learn good stuff, and did they get enough of it for the money. They could potentially be mislead by instructors who can give them a good experience without giving them good knowledge.

I think we keep running into the problem of industry standard.

I pesonally do not see a need or value on having a quote system. Each and every instructor has his own style and type of skills that he will teach. Taken from years of experiance in the field which is irreplaceable.. You can not learn all the skills needed from a book. You can read read read all you want. But without getting out there and practicing one a regular basis. You'd just be an arm chair survivalist. Which means you'd be pretty damn hungry cold or dead in the field in a reall long term situation.

You can study people like

Dave Cantebury, Les Stroud, Larry Dean, Tom Brown, Bear Grylls, Condy Lundin, or any of the hundreds of others that just aren't as well known but excellent teachers..

Look at their history. Who's been teaching the longest with the best track record. Or who's just internet flash or television flash?

Each and every one of these men will teach you in complete different methods, styles and techniques.

Does that mean it's bad that each one is different? I don't think so. As long as you do your research on who's going to teach you the most.

I wouldn't trust my life to bear grylls anymore than I would a girl scout. He does ignorant stuff on his show just for ratings. Does or would he do any of those things in a real survival setting. I highly doubt it. I'm sure most of his antics are at the prodding of producers trying to gain viewers.

Any of the others have great methods and skill sets. But are all different and where ever your going to be put in a situation at. ie. area you live or travel in. Is the type of survival you may want to put your time, and money into learning.

ie. I've spent years studying and practicing for the boreal forest and midwest to east coast timber land. Since that's where I live and travel too the most on quote survival, extended very little gear treks or stays.

I will be the first too admit I lack alot when it comes to desert survival of any kind. Other than what I've studied in a book. Hence If I were going to pay someone to teach me something that I do not have a skill set in. I'd go straight to Cody Lundin.

He's been teaching for years in arizona and is highly skilled in desert survival.

If I wanted to learn more about timber land east coast woodland to midwest woodland living. I'd enroll in the some classes with Tom, Since he's been in business and teaching since the early 70's. Think he's had plenty of time to know his stuff and have it down packed.

What it breaks down too is there's so much to learn and so many different styles and method. That if there was a corriculim. You'd be losing out. There's no way you can cover so much material from so many different cultures and land types in one central method. Like how we're taught in modern school systems.

Just my two cents ;]

This is unfair to the Girl Scouts, who actually work hard to be safe and smart in the outdoors. Two of my daughters are Girl Scouts and they'll tell you to dress appropriately for the weather, wear sturdy shoes, stay in groups, stay on known trails, watch their back trail (to make sure they know what it looks like to get back to camp) and carry a whistle.

If they get lost they're trained to hug a tree and blow the whistle.

I defy you to find an episode of Bear's show as sensible as they are.

Hahaha you are correct sir. My apoligies to the girl scouts. Bears an idiot though.

And along with the useful knowledge you can acquire in a course or from books, is a it of actual experience; in deserts, acclimatisation is rather important - it takes time- ideally, several months. Fortunately, the desert is not always inhospitable. The low country around Tucson is delightful in January and February, quite pleasant for the next couple of months, and only turns hot in summer. By then, a newcomer can both learn and adapt.

I am the opposite. I am comfortable in deserts and western mountains, but eastern woodlands and swamps, etc. are terra incognita. I once took a short trip in the Okefenokee Swamp. I was impressed that it was the exact inverse of a desert. You were surrounded by water (containing alligators) and dry land was rare and highly prized.....

That's what I was trying to get at in part of my post earlier. With the different areas and eco systems. Skill sets have to change greatly. As I've said I've spent years studying and pushing myself too my limits in the actual field along with a vast library to do research with. But quote dirt time is crucial for every skill.

I can see maybe the need for a basics course rudimentary type of organization. But beyond that. There literally are too many variables.

Just read this post and found it remarkably interesting and in some ways right on topic with this post we're commenting on.... I'm new here to this forum so my apologies if this link is not allowed..But it is a good read.


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

Interesting, but he takes somewhat of a bitter tone, railing against backyard classes and internet trainers. He's right, of course, that there are probably too many imposters in the field, but I think there is a place for backyard,internet, and campground training classes. I will stick my neck out and say that these engender more interest and enthusiasm in the general population than any other format. How is that bad? The youth of today are more isolated from the wilderness, and anything that exposes them is a good thinng.

My interest probably stems from Cub Scouts where we learned simple camping skills and crafts from our Den Mothers, mostly in backyards or parks. I have spent the following 50 years recreating in the wilderness as a counterbalance to my urban-based vocation. I have taken the little nuggets I was given in Scouts and expanded greatly on them during my lifetime, as I range through the lakes, swamps, and rivers in boreal forests of the northern states.

I watch U-Tube video reviews of outdoor equipment and techniques to while-away the winter blahs. Some of these are amateurish, repetitive, and maybe even incorrect. That said, some of them are well done, with excellent production values and well presented and correct information. I have never seen a video that was 'dangerous'. If a thirteen year old kindles the fire of a lifetime recreating in the woods by making a sappy U-Tube demonstration of fire starting or knife throwing in the back yard, who cares? If a magazine article regurgitates the same-old same-old, maybe it catches the attention of a newbie. Cody wasn't born an expert, and he must have passed through the phases he detests somehow.

It would be hard to imagine an outdoor training class where nothing of value is learned. If nothing else, it is fun to spend a day in the woods and watch other people learn these skills. To assume that persons who take a campground survival course would automatically think they are ready to parachute into the Borneo wilderness with only a SAK and a match seriously insults the intellegence of most people. Do we judge it all on the few dim-bulbs or copy-cats that might abuse the training?

As in all things, gather your information from multiple sources, be patient and discerning, and don't go beyond your experience, training, and common sense. It is possible to have fun in the good times while simultaneously preparing for the worst of times.