I've started watching this series after reading some comments at ZS. I believe these guys may not be in the same class as Les Stroud but they are all very adept in their own Neck o'the Woods. Not having any experience with mountain lions, bears, and wolves, I certainly identified with the three who tapped out because of the fear, those critters generated. I can also agree with Joe's decision to tap out when his firesteel was lost. I am now at the point where 4 men are left. I fully expected Sam to have tapped out early and I'm reminded again that one can't judge a book by it's cover.

The show provided a list of 40 items allowed of which 10 could be chosen. It looks like most of their load out was cameras and batteries. The terrain is tough coupled with 12.5' of rainfall per year. I'm understanding the participants received one week's notice of the region they were going to be placed in. I found some participants were placed at a distinct disadvantage by being inserted late in the day whereas others were inserted early and had time to scout around better for a camp spot to set up.

I have many more thoughts but I'd like to hear from others. I have experience in swampy areas, very cold areas, but no experience in cold, swampy, rainy areas such as Vancouver Island.

One thing the show definitely points out is the proprietary knowledge and experience required to get by in a given environment. Having grown up playing in that kind of environment, I would be at much greater advantage than the group they inserted. But I have relatively little experience in a swamp or an arid desert environment, so would struggle much like most of these guys have here.

Loneliness seems to be a big problem for these guys. The psychology of survival is often more important than the physicality for the vast majority of us. Funny how many people would struggle terribly with loneliness like this, while others seem to thrive in it. Dick Proeneke didn't seem to have much trouble with loneliness. I wonder how he would've fared on this challenge?

With an axe and a saw in that environment, I'd have built a friggin nature fortess the first three days in. Generally speaking, humans are not prey for black bear or mountain lion, unless they do stupid things, like cleaning, cooking and eating fish where you sleep. Set up a few trip line whackers and you can deter any of those predators fairly easily while you sleep.

I have watched this show since the first episode and overall found it a bit better then similar reality shows. Make no doubt though, the location where this was filmed, is rugged and unforgiving and would severely test any person if he/she ever found themselves in a real survival situation.

As this west coast type of environment is home to me, it was easy to readily identify the many mistakes that the participants made. That said, all of the chosen participants are from the mid to eastern Canada and USA regions so as not to give anyone of them an advantage in this environment. To give the participants some credit, I would probably make many mistakes if I had to survival in their eastern environs...

On another forum that I read, one of the members there was involved in supplying the boat and transportation logistics for the series participants and production company. The below is some background info on the series that he has provided to date.

- Filmed in November 2014 on Vancouver Island near Quastino Sound and Winter Harbour

- All locations were boat access only.

- All locations where the participants were placed were pre-scouted in September to ensure a nearby water (fresh or salt water) and food source.

- Each participants picked a number out of a hat to determine their location.

- The production company provided a survival expert to first make sure they all had the basics to survive.

- As the participants quit and were picked up by the recovery crew, none knew if they were the 1st, 4th, 7th etc participant left. Only the last person left was told.

- A lot of the location background footage was filmed before the participants arrived in order for the participants have minimal contact with the production company.

- Each participant was supplied with cameras, batteries, SD cards etc which were at the respective locations before the participants arrived.

- Once per week, the participants were visited and checked by the executive producer, a camera tech and a medic for no more then 20 minutes per visit.

- Possible 2nd season for the show depending TV viewership results.

I don't normally watch "reality" TV but I have been following this show lately. Overall, I am quite impressed. Granted, it is a TV show but never feels overdone or contrived in the sense of Bear Grylls & Co.

We get to see real people with a varying degree of skills and experience trying to cope with some very unforgiving environment. It was surprising to see several guys "tap out" within just a few days. But I have enormous respect for the 4 guys who have managed to stay out there for a whole month completely on their own.

That's a pretty tough challenge in just about any enviroment. More so if you have to film yourself all the time and lug around camera gear. One of the guys even made an improvised canoe. So I am really excited to see how things are going to develop.

From Big Ben: "With an axe and a saw in that environment, I'd have built a friggin nature fortess the first three days."

My thought has been to have picked the 5LBS of rations so as to have time to build a shelter (& other infrastructure). I envision building a pup tent frame and additional poles spaced along each side. Tie a tarp over the frame. Then attach poles down each side like the framework of a brush shelter. Attach additional poles across the ends (a doorway at 1 end).

A canteen is also a choice that few chose. If you make 2qt's of water, refill that 1 or 2 qt canteen (i don't know what size canteen is allowed), make more or drink/cook what is left over. I think dehydration influenced many poor decisions or at least complicated many tasks.

From Big Ben: "Loneliness seems to be a big problem for these guys. The psychology of survival is often more important than the physicality for the vast majority of us."

The loneliness factor affects me but it doesn't bother me since there are no witnesses. I can be as strange as I wish to be for entertaining myself!!

The critters would definitely have gotten my attention. I don't understand why no one has made a 6-8' spear/fighting staff. Are there rules against defending yourself against being a critter's dinner????

I agree on the tapping out (parlance for quitting for those who have not watched the series.) All the participants have varingly levels of outdoors experience and I was very suprised how many of them tapped out in the first week. I think there were many factors at play such as the isolation, unfamiliar environment, weather, that all contributed to the early exits. The one participant that lost his Ferro Rod, he was utterly devastated and was easy to tell right away that he was not going to continue and I could not help but feel for him.

Also when Mitch lost his gill net, I was expecting him to tap out. Earlier in the same episode, I had seen him with the net strung across the ground on low tide and thought that it was not secured enough, especially on the bottom as the tide and currents there are strong and would not take much to pull that net away.



In one of the episodes, I think someone mentioned or it was an onscreen info text that said how many much filming was being done? I know that Les Stroud mentioned once that the amount of filming he had to do for each Surviorman episode was around 100 hours which then edited down to about 45 minutes for TV viewing. I would guess for this series, it would amount to somewhere around the same. However a couple of the participants such as Alan and Lucas definitely seem to have more screen time then the other 2 remaining guys.

That improvised canoe was almost genius and I would really like to know the amount of hours that went into crafting it. Same also for Alan's fish basket / trap.

As the series progresses, it is interesting to see how the remaining 4, despite setbacks, are adapting more and more to their environment.

I have a feeling who will be the last person but I will not know for certain until the last episode airs.

They were all limited to no more then a 2 quart pot / bottle. I have advocated for years that carrying a pot is far more important then the oft suggested SS water bottle that in theory, could double for a water and food cooking vessel. For those who think the SS water bottle is adequate, watch this show and you see how important and how much more versatile having a pot is. The participants had everything from a kitchen pot to a Zebra Stainless Steel Billy Can (which I always have with me) to a frying pan. Though, I have to admit, I would like to know where the frying pan and a couple of other oddities suddenly came from...

This website has a list of all particpants and what they chose to carry based on a list of 40 approved items provided by History Channel.



In the first few episodes, I think the whole bear and cougar scare was over-produced by the production company. Yes, Vancouver Island has a large population of bears and cougars that some participants actually seen in their respective campsites. Keep in mind though that 1000's of people camp out on Vancouver island in tents in the wilderness every year without incident.

Also as the newer episodes are aired, there is not much mention on the bear and cougar issues so maybe it was an attempt to get initial viewership up?

As for defending with a sharpened spear, not sure how this would work and also there are probably wildlife legal issues on the to contend with.

That said, the Coho Salmon that Alan caught is a wild Salmon as there is still an Adipose fin on the fish. Not sure what the regulations are on the Island but around here, only Adipose clipped (hatchery) Coho Salmon are allowed to be retained from June 1-Dec 31. Also that Dungeness Crab he caught in the gillnet is extremely small. If I were to retain that crab and got inspected by the DFO, (Department of Fisheries and Oceans) people, along with costly fine, I could stand to lose my fishing licence, gear and possibly have my vehicle impounded.

Furthermore, the Tidal Fishing Regulations state: It is illegal to sport fish with nets, including dip nets, minnow nets, gillnets or cast nets. Not sure what type of permits and permissions the production company obtained, but I imagine there was a lot of red tape to jump through in order for the .gov to relax the regulations for the participants.

Speaking of nets, I literally cringed when Alan carelessly pulled that crab out of the gill net and ripped the netting apart. I would be a lot more careful - as a gill net, even though it is easy to see that it is a cheaply made net, it is worth its weight in gold 5x over in a survival scenario such as depicted.

for more info on the gear they were allowed and what each picked:

http://morethanjustsurviving.com/alone-season-1-survival-gear/

I did find it curious that many participants invested little effort in building a solid shelter. Only one of them attempted to build a log cabin but gave up soon due to a very strange reason (not being able to find proper clay for an indoor stove?!).

One of the guys was even camping in a plain tarp tent situated right at the shoreline in what seemed like a dangerously exposed place for a long-term campsite. In fact, I was amazed that his shelter wasn't blown away by the wind but somehow it made it through a bad storm.

In general, I would've expected the participants to accomplish more within that time frame but I suspect the horrendous weather and lack of food simply sapped their strength. Also, the filming must've taken a lot of effort that could have been spent on tasks more conducive to actual survival. But hey, it is a TV show.

Another thing I noticed - at least three guys tapped out due to being "stalked" (more like spooked) by a bear or cougar. The same participants were also clearly upset about the lack of a firearm, even though they were issued bear spray and flares. The way it seemed to me they simply could not handle the thought of being out in bear country without a firearm, the idea being ingrained so deeply that they were basically programmed to fail from start.

Which IMHO was a flawed approach. Admittedly, it's easy to sit in front of the computer and analyze other people's decisions with the benefit of hindsight. However, relying on any single item so much that simply not having it at hand is enough to make you give up doesn't strike me as the right attitude in a survival situation.

I can see how a firearm would be a powerful asset if used for hunting (though then again, many participants brought along their bows and arrows but never had a chance to use them). As far as protection against predators though I'm not sure a firearm would give those guys much more than a psychological sense of security if push came to shove. It looked as if some of them never even camped in bear country before, neglecting to follow such basic rules as camping well off the trails and storing food away from the shelter. Anyway, the other participants did just fine without a gun and the hostile wildlife didn't seem to bother them much.

Also think part of the reason why some left early was the inability to make fire. I think with one they would have been in a better place mentally with some protection against the animals and physically from being able to drink.

The filming was done last October/November. Some of the contestants remarked that they were considering being their for American Thanksgiving or even Christmas. None of the contestants know when the others have tapped out and conceivably even the last person doesn't know the fate of those who have tapped out before them -- it may be a case where they don't know who survived the longest either.

I've camped on the island in the middle of summer - ie. the dry season. I can't imagine living there during the wet season with nearly constant rain and hard to find dry combustible material. The wildlife is either tiny like mice or much larger like black bears, wolves and cougars. Very little in the way of small to intermediate game for a food source. Black bears vs grizzlies as virtually no grizzlies have made it over to the island from the mainland. If it had been a year of a "red tide" bloom, the shellfish would have been contaminated with the toxins and unsafe to eat.

The website is pretty anemic as far as information goes. It says they have a list of all the items each contestant has -- that is an extreme exaggeration. If you watch the participants videos of what they brought and the rationale why, their item lists vary more than what the website mentions.

The type of trees is an issue. There appears to be very few smaller trees in the area with most of them the size of your waist and above. To cut down this size of tree and haul by hand would be very tough. The one guy who did think about building a log cabin gave up on that idea given the amount of effort involved.

Alan is quite the character -- able to spout off Shakespeare in the woods and his philosophical discussions are spot on. He seems to be a gold mine in being so eloquent of the psychological aspects of the experiment are a boon to the show.
From that standpoint I hope he makes it the longest.

So as it turns out, the show is not quite what it is made out to be.

After reading on another website, I spent some time comparing the maps that are displayed on the TV show where the participants are located then matched them in Google Earth and also via a paper map from a BC recreational map book that I own.

Participant Sam was about a mile from a village and about 1/2 that from some seaside homes.

Participant Mitch was across the sound and slightly NE of Sam. Depending on his exact location, it is conceivable that he could of seen the smoke from Sam's fires and on a clear night, if he looked further SW, he may seen the lights from the same village that Sam was close to.

Participant Dustin was about a 1/4 mile from an active Forest Service road that leads to a provincial park.

The seemingly fan favorite, participant Alan was in an inlet 1-3/4 miles overland from the above village. This inlet is popular with boaters and kayakers and I would not be surprised that he had not been seen and visited at some point by boaters.

Admittedly 4 other participants that I placed on the maps, were camped further out but not as far as the show makes it seem they were.

Given their closeness to civilization, the saying goes "where there is people, there is garbage" it would perhaps explain the appearances of extra tarps, the frying pan, the green plastic shopping bin and so on. The rules were though, the participants could use anything they found which included debris that had floated over from the 2011 Japan earthquake and Tsunami.

I must say though, despite the above findings, give credit to the participants for sticking it out as I hope that in their quest that they kept true of their goals and rules that they had to follow. I will continue to watch the show if anything just to find out who ended up winning.

Seems rather contrived and artificial....

This shows almost always seem contrived to me, which is why I don't watch them. But then I don't watch much TV in general, as I think it tends to rot one's brain.

This illustrates just one reason why these shows seem contrived to me. They always seem to focus on a lone individual, or at most a very small group.

The Native peoples (or "First Nations"), who inhabited the Pacific Northwest Coast for millennia before "discovery", did all sorts of things using really big logs. They built seagoing canoes, Totem Poles, houses big enough for 50 people.... But they had a well developed society, and collectively could tackle tasks like handling big logs. They most certainly weren't trying to live there as isolated individuals.

The tarps were part of their base kit provided by the producers that they didn't have to select giving the participants more choice in the kit selection.

Those villages are pretty darn small - probably no bigger than a dozen homes belonging to First Nations and may not even be used all year round. Quatsino has about 90 people; Winter Harbour 20 people. Any decent location manager could have bought their silence and non-interference in a heart beat. Regardless the area is pretty remote. I don't think the area is used much by kayakers in the late fall but GE shows a large commercial fishing structure in the area and of course commercial logging in the area. The "park" is more of a tree preserve than an developed area and designated to protect old growth forest.

They were each given 2 tarps. 1- 5x7 and 1 12x12. However as I noted and so did others on various forums and websites, at least one participant is seen with no less then 3 tarps. How/where he got that 3rd tarp/ plastic sheet which is seen in the first episodes - is the question.


Winter Harbour definitely has more then 20 people regardless of what Wikipedia states. Regardless if is 20 or 100 people, the fact of the matter is, having participants camped out a mile from the village while under the guise of being in the middle of nowhere, questions the integrity of the show.



Another website mentioned the same but also brought up the fact that the area around there and park is fairly active with hunters and fishing even during the fall months. Also one of the resorts there explicitly state on their website that the road there is actively used by logging trucks every day.

Also did you notice that the location that Joe was placed in during the first episode does not match the location where he lost his ferro rod and called it quits. In the 2nd episode, there is a clear overhead shot of his area which does not have a beach. In fact, Joe clearly says in episode 2 that he "wished I had a beach" then said; "there is no beach." When he was extracted after quitting, his location clearly has a beach and it has been suggested that his location had been swapped with the departed Josh between episode one and episode two.

First attachment shows Joe's location with no beach. Next 3 attachments shows Joe's location with a beach. You be the judge...

All in all, there are enough discrepancies that I do not have faith in this show's intent and integrity.

Now that is a disappointment. Just when I thought I'd finally found something halfway decent on TV.

Staying within a mile or two of villages and seaside homes sounds a lot like Bear Grylls... Not quite "real" wilderness survival. That said, some of the critique may be a little unfair. You can see that the four remaining participants have had a pretty rough time. All have lost a lot of weight. Especially Sam, he used to be pretty chubby but is now almost a completely different person. That didn't look staged to me.

I'm not familiar with the terrain, I have no idea what things are like on Vancouver island. Checking out Google Earth though the area does look pretty remote. Note that when Wayne tapped out in the middle of the night it took the rescue team over three hours IIRC to reach him, despite covering much of the distance by road.

I've been under the impression that each participant was equipped with a GPS location beacon to keep track of their movement (and presumably keep them away from the local settlements or other participants). As far as possible contact with third parties such as hunters or hikers, I have no idea how that worked out.



It was made pretty clear that Joe moved a fair distance since Day 1. If you watch the early episodes he was struggling to find a good place to camp until he found that beach. So that in itself didn't look too suspect to me.

I saw that Joe has been walking through the swamps, searching for a better place to camp for quite a while, and at some point has found that beach. There is a video fragment, I think at the end of the Ep1, when he has discovered it, and started developing his camp.

So far (I'm at Ep3)- not bad, imo. Just wish there is more footage from some of the participants. But, perhaps, those just don't bother to do selfies concentrating on survival tasks. I wish filmmakers will once start using drones for filming that kind of shows. That would be safer for "actors" as well.

Instead of watching these staged clunkers, you can learn far more about real survival by studying actual case histories of persons thrown into stressful circumstances more or less unexpectedly, and their success or failure in coping with conditions.

After all, if I am given two tarps as part of my basic kit for a "survival" situation, it is just rough camping, especially if I will be visited weekly by an EMT. I don't get that level of medical attention even back in civilization....

A good read of "Deep Survival," among many others, will be far more instructive than any number of hours watching "Alone[almost, but not quite]"

I am not critiquing the participants. I think that most did well and should be commended for what they put themselves through and suffered many hungry, wet, cold days and nights during their time there. Tonights epsiode revealed much more details on the participants that tapped out and also some sneek peeks on the 3 remaining episodes of the series.


Judging by the time required, my best guess is that the rescue team may have driven the gravel road from Port Hardy to Winter Harbour?



In episode 2, it shows that Joe did not start moving locations until day 3.

I stand by my assertion (and at some point, may be proven completely wrong) that Joe was moved. During episode 2 - Day 3 at 2:20 pm, Joe crosses the river and starts his move. At 4:54 pm, he announces that he found the beach. That beach at the new location (Longitude 50°29'2.72"N / Latitude 128° 1'5.33"W) looks to be about 7-8 miles over some very tough terrain and certainly not doable in just over 2 hours. In the scenes before and when the rescue chopper lands, take a close look at the beach and surrounding land then compare to the above coordinates in Google Earth.

Anyway, I done speculating and will try and hold off on any critiquing for the last 3 remaining episodes which look they should be good.

Teslinhiker, I hope my post didn't come across the wrong way. I think you made some good points and I wasn't trying to pick on your comments in particular. I'm simply making some general observations in hope it contributes somehow to the discussion at hand.

It is just a TV show so trying to read too much into it might not really be worth the effort. But personally, I can say "Alone" has been of the more interesting shows to follow. Granted, it is closer to "rough camping" than real survival as the more cynical minds among us might say. But then, the same could be said about Les Stroud.

However, that does not in any way detract from the basic premise IMHO. Going out into the woods with little gear and no food to see how long one can last is to my mind foremost a controlled experiment rather than a true survival situation. Still, it is an interesting and highly demanding test of skill. Maybe "Alone" isn't quite what it's made out to be. Perhaps I'm naive, but so far it didn't seem outright staged. Were the participants cheating? I'm not sure, they seemed genuinely hard pressed and losing something like 20+lbs in a month shows pretty clearly that they were getting no outside support as far as food. So the show reminds me a lot of Les Stroud, who I'd rate among the few "real" experts in the world of "survival" TV. But again, to each his own. YMMV.

As far as Joe, I have checked the first three episodes once again. The way I see it the story goes like this:

Episode 1: Joe moves from the shore toward higher ground looking for a better campsite. About an hour later, going through difficult terrain, he finds a game trail and more open ground where he builds a tarp shelter in the late afternoon.

Episode 2: Joe spends Day 2 at the shelter but is unable to find firewood or food, hence his idea to go looking for a beach on Day 3 at 9:58 AM. At 10:31 he is scouting the area along the river bank and is confronted by a bear. He returns back to camp, packs his gear and starts moving. At 4:54 PM he finds the beach.

Taken at face value, I see nothing inherently wrong with that timeline. Running into the bear around 10:31 AM Joe decides to get straight back to the camp, which is evidently close by. It takes him maybe an hour to pack his stuff, so he could well be on his way around noon.

At a first glance, the editing does make it seem as if he only started moving at 2:22 PM. However, note that whenever the story moves to another participant the sequence starts with an introductory shot and reference time displayed on the screen. That particular time does not necessarily refer to the starting point of the sequence but more like somewhere in the middle of the scene. Confusing perhaps but necessary if you need to condense several hours of slow paced action into a short video sequence.

Anyway, supposing Joe sets off around 12:00 that gives him plenty of time to cover some distance. At 2:22 PM he is somewhere along a stream climbing up toward higher ground. He is filmed at the beach at 4:54 PM. Joe is clearly very happy now that he's found a good spot "after so much hiking" uphill and downhill "with all his gear".

Just how far the beach was from the original landing zone I can't really tell from the show. But looking at the maps in Episode 1 (at 27:18) and Episode 3 (at 11:43) his location doesn't seem to have changed much, which is a little odd. I wonder if the location markers on that map are really accurate.

BTW... Clearly having way too much time on my hands and thinking about those coordinates I took another close look at the terrain on Google Earth. If I'm right, Joe's landing site was at 50°30'12.61"N, 127°52'39.60"W in a small marshy estuary. There's a road just North of the estuary, which was never mentioned in the show. And something that looks like a small logging camp barely half a mile East.

Joe proceeded North, established a temporary campsite somewhere in the woods. On Day 3 he continued further North along a creek, passing by a small lake and reached the far end of a long inlet with the beach at 50°31'12.72"N 127°54'2.98"W. There is a distinctly shaped hill just East of the beach across the inlet, which can be identified pretty easily from the footage. The overall distance between the starting point and the beach is only 1.5 miles, but over fairly rough terrain.

I'm betting that Lucas will be the last man standing as he keeps himself busier than the other 3. Making a stringed musical instrument has improved his morale a great deal.

I dunno. I think it is between Lucas and Alan (haven't looked at the spoilers yet to see who actually won).

Hmm, why don't you just ask Joe. He has a Youtube site and posted several vids on his experience. (At least 3 of the guys have posted videos on the adventure). He seemed like a pretty up front guy on the messages I sent him. His NDA may prevent him from saying everything but would likely answer if he could. I do know that the contestants were given a lot of leeway of where they could camp -- one said his area was several miles in all directions.

Just watched Episode 9. Two more participants out, I thought one of them at least would last longer. We also got to see Sam's first attempt at bowhunting. Not much luck in that department though. There just doesn't seem to be any game in that environment. So the bows and arrows are pretty much dead weight.

With the last episodes focusing more and more on personal drama over content the show has lost some of the initial appeal IMO. Nevertheless, now that the last two men standing have gone beyond 40 days out in the woods you can see the effects of malnourishment and general physical deprivation very clearly. Heck, the show should be titled "Weight Loss Camp".

INdeed. Weight loss camp for both of them. INteresting how one of them was the youngest while the other was, I think, the oldest.

There is plenty of game on the northern part of Vancouver island. The feeble attempts at snaring any were disappointing. Several of the contestants were unwittingly able to draw game into their camp where it could've been snared and dispatched fairly routinely. For all their effort, I was surprised no one even attempted to catch one. But then none of them were from that area, so I guess they don't eat bear etc where they are from. They certainly had plenty to work with to get the job done.

Hmm, the only mammals that seemed to be in abundance were black bears, cougars and wolves, plus a few mice. Not sure if there are actually rabbits or deer on Vancouver Island? Or really any other kind of game commonly hunted for food? IIRC the contestants were not allowed to bring metal wire for snares, which would be a considerable handicap.

Given that the contestants were not particularly familiar with the local environment and had no access to truly effective weapons (eg. a high-powered rifle or shotgun) I am not surprised they had little luck as far as hunting.

I guess one could bring down a bear with a good bow, possibly a compound, maybe a very powerful longbow or recurve. But it would take some luck and a lot of guts no doubt. Not an easy thing to pull off if you're alone, hungry and exhausted. The participants were apparently very limited in the kind of archery equipment they could take. Most seemed to be carrying a 45 to 50lb recurve plus wooden arrows only. Insufficient for bear hunting IMO.

Perhaps, they were restricted on game/fish gathering? Also, I saw that only one of them (Alan) selected the snare wire: http://www.history.com/shows/alone/cast/alan-kay , but he has mentioned once (in the ep.9) that his loops in the grass never took anything (I'd rather put them on the trees for squirrels and alike).



I think, he was either too lazy, or already exhausted after the rainfalls period to research trails and make enough traps (same with Sam Larson, who made just 4-5 simplistic falling traps, when 20-30 are needed typically). By the way, our beloved LM Multitool was available for pick up as well, but only one guy (Wayne) took it...

Personally, I would be relying solely on the ocean, as the game is definitely looks quite aware of hunters, even squirrels (ep.9s bow hunting attempt) seem extremely cautious. The tide, soil, and abundance of the construction wood - looks perfect for gradually building a massive stationary fish trap, i.e.: http://preparednessadvice.com/uncategorized/how-to-trap-fish/#.VdStbPlVhBc the gill net and basket trap, which were proven to work there, are toys compared to that.

Also, I know for sure, that place must be abundant of edible mushrooms. That would be the first thing to research and prepare for, as soon as they knew the approximate area (they've been told that 2 weeks before the journey).

The list of 20 items they could choose 10 from is (number on the right is how many times it was claimed by Alone folks):


My 10 items would be:
1. Ferro Rod (10)
2. Large Knife (khukuri) (1)
3. Axe (10)
4. Leatherman Multi-Tool (1)
5. 300 yards single filament line with 25 assorted hooks (10)
6. 3.5lb wire (1)
7. 2 Qt Pot (10)
8. 12×12 ground Tarp (6)
9. Extra Tarp (1)
10. Sleeping Bag (10)

Not taking and why:

2. Regular Knife (9)
- Large figured blade of khukuri is very versatile + 2-3 LM knifes - should be more than enough.

5. Saw (6)
- The axe provided is good. I'm good with axe even with 1' wide logs.

7. Sharpening Stone (2)
- LM has good files.

8. Sling Shot (2)
- Hunting is time consuming, will relay on snares, or make a bow or a sling for small game.

10. 550 paracord – 20m (5)
- fishing line gives more than twice as much cordage: 300m>160m (20m*(7 strands+1 shell))
- plus hooks for fishing, bird traps, fishing spear tip (get 3, anneal, straighten with LM, quench).
- The fishing line has a large plastic spool as a bonus.
- Tarps could be the source of thick cordage as well if needed.

13. Canteen/Water bottle (3)
- the pot provided is good, has larger volume, and pan lid;
- can make a bark/log canteen using LM, or rig the water transporting/storing pouch/pool from the second tarp.

14. Gill Net (4)
- too small, tide traps are way better. Can be made from the fishing line if absolutely necessary.

15. Bow & 6 Arrows (4)
- Can be made with wood and fishing line. But hunting is still seems ineffective there.

19. Bivy Bag (2)
- Good while you're in the process of making the stationary shelter, but a cocoon with similar or better properties can be rigged from the second tarp, which is more versatile as well.

20. Emergency Rations (3)
- Just eat plenty before you go (cheating? 10 items limit out of 20 fixed list is cheating too)...

This is more like would you choose for a sparsely equipped excursion in the woods rather than what I think of as "survival"- a situation that arises when you are faced with an unanticipated stay in a wild environment for an indeterminate period of time.

I think it would have been more interesting if your choices would have been constrained by weight - What would you take if you have no more than three pounds (or whatever) of gear...

Under the 3 pounds survival on Vancouver Island? That's easy: PLB, bic, and a full Glock 21 (if not naked and afraid)

Is that an official list? I am asking because I checked again on the History Channel website and didn't see any distinction between "large" and "regular" knives. As far as I understand, those participants that decided to take a knife (9 out of 10) were allowed to pick pretty much any kind of design regardless of size. Most seemed to prefer somewhat smaller belt knives but Alan had a kukri and Lucas used a custom knife with a large, hefty blade.

As far as making your own hunting bow and arrows... It can be done but it is a pretty demanding process. It also requires proper bow wood, hopefully seasoned. Fishing line is not ideal for a bow string. And making arrows that fly true and hit hard is another challenge. Frankly, I don't think it's a realistic proposition for most people.

It's not official, just compiled from the BIOs. Check the Joe Robinet's pack - it states "Large Knife" vs just "Knife" for others. But you might be right about Khukuri being just a regular knife, and something like machete - a large one...
Update: In the Ep.1 at 19:40 Joe is using a simple mora like knife, though. Also his tarp looks different from Lucas one, called in his BIO "Ground sheet". So that's another candidate for item #20 then.

For the bow. I agree that with the fishing line and random wood it could be underpowered, line is stretching with time, and so on... However I don't think the game, possible to take there, could be larger than a rabbit. Anything larger most likely will engage with you in "close combat" by itself, so you could score a meal much easier than wandering in the woods with a bow if you got a heavy spear with body stopper and some courage:


Surely, even a simple bow or crossbow making requires specific knowhow, but it is doable. However, if you never made a serious one - it could be more beneficial just stick to what you are proficient with (i.e. make a sling, maybe an atlatl, or just a cross-throwie...). Anyhow, the location seem to have animals aware of hunters, so traps will be way more effective.

If there are that many predators like cougar and wolves, then there must be plenty for them to feed on. In any case, building deadfalls and impalement snares for large predators isn't that complicated, and there was certainly plenty of material in the forest to do it with. Baiting was obviously effective, and cordage would only be minimally necessary. You could try to snare deer, and there are deer on Vancouver Island aplenty, but it would be much easier to get a bear using primitive trapping methods. With baiting, you wouldn't need to build a dozen either.

Also, tidal traps for fish makes lots of sense too.

It is legal to hunt black bear in Alaska with a 40 lb recurve. It is legal to hunt brown bear in Alaska with a 50 lb recurve. People do it. It can be done. It is not generally considered unethical. Shot placement is important, but that is true regardless of how powerful a bow you use. In a survival situation, I would prefer to set a trap than to hunt. Higher success, less risk, and less work.

No idea what rules the contestants were given, so maybe trapping big game was out. But they were breaking game rules anyways, and in a survival situation I wouldn't care about what hunting/fishing rules I might break trying to stay alive.

I am reminded of a statement I made to my wife some time ago about the show survivor; something to the effect that were I a contestant on an island with other competitors and playing for $1M, the producers would find all the others the morning of the second day with their throats cut, and me asking where my $1M was. Knowing what the rules are is important.

From what I've been reading bears in that region feed mostly on fish. Bear hunting with a 40 lb recurve... I'm sure it could be done. Even with DIY deadfalls Rambo style and whatnot - in theory. Doing it solo in unknown terrain sounds a little risky though so I wouldn't blame the contestants for not trying.

Historically, bear (and also boar) hunting in Europe was often done with a heavy lugged spear, but usually with a pack of trained hunting dogs and a number of well armed assistants for backup. It was considered the riskiest and manliest form of hunting, practiced more or less exclusively by the noble classes who were trained almost from birth in hand-to-hand combat and military skills. I don't think anyone on "Alone" had that kind of background.

Hunting with improvised weapons sounds pretty cool but it's not exactly easy. I've made a few bows in my time, some good enough for hunting. But it takes a lot of time and effort. Very easy to screw up, especially if you try to rush the process.

Making a bow that hits hard enough is one part of the challenge. Accuracy is an even bigger concern. It's remarkably difficult to make arrows reasonably matched in spine and weight without access to a good workshop and first-rate materials. Meaning that your DIY bushcraft arrows will be all over the place. Besides, even with good equipment and quality arrows serious accuracy with a traditional bow is hard to achieve unless you practice constantly. Many people have a hard time keeping their arrows within a pie plate sized target at 20 yards. Hardly good enough for small critters like rabbit or squirrel.

A good compound bow is a different story. I feel confident that I could take just about any game in the Northern hemisphere with my 70 lb Hoyt. I can shoot it pretty well and it hits like a laser with good carbon or FMJ arrows. With a slow 50 lb recurve at half the kinetic energy, not so much. Even less with a DIY bow and arrows hastily crafted out in the field. And I'm simply not proficient with a sling or atlatl (not that I haven't tried, it's just beyond my skills). I'm sure there are people out there far more adept with primitive weapons but for most of us it's not a particularly realistic option. YMMV...

I think shot placement with archery is more important than kinetic energy, under nominal conditions, when hunting. However, hunting would be less desirable than trapping it seems. In any case, I would also prefer my compound bow to my recurves, even for hunting small game.

Using fish to bait the traps makes sense, as all the predators there and other scavengers would probably go after it pretty quick. I'd think with the right combination of DIY and bait you could harvest a lot of critters in fairly short order.

Not knowing what the rules were, I suspect there was probably some discussion about what could and could not be done to secure big game. Since the contestants were already breaking hunting and fishing rules, hard to say what they felt comfortable with. In a real survival situation, things would be quite different from what they did on the show.

Now that the season is over, I wonder where they will go next?

Well I'm certainly glad Alan won. My wife and I were rooting for him. Shows you that maturity and a sense of humor are important.

I find it very amusing that because the participants were all given two tarps before they chose their ten items someone posted that they were simply doing "rough camping."

The casting videos for the participants are up on the history channel youtube channel. Alan has a youtube channel called AK Guardian, and Mitch has an excellent channel called native survival. I was familiar with Mitch through his channel for awhile before he was recruited for Alone. I presume that some of the participants were found by the producers through their channels.

Absolutely, but it is a tricky argument. I'm sure one could kill a bear with a perfectly placed .22 bullet, or an arrow shot from a modestly powered recurve for that matter. But that kind of accuracy is difficult to achieve consistently. Using a more powerful weapon gives you a little leeway and helps ensure humane harvesting.

Using a 40 to 50 lb recurve for bear hunting may be legal in some places but it is not something I would recommend or attempt myself. A good broadhead shot from a modern 60 to 70lb compound bow will likely pass clean through most big game, bear included. This will result in massive bleeding and usually a quick, humane kill. A lightweight recurve does not come close in that department.

A high-end modern 70lb compound can shoot a 500 grain arrow at maybe 275 fps, which gives about 85 ft/lbs of kinetic energy. A 40 lb recurve might be able to shoot a 400 grain arrow at 180 ft/lb, so the kinetic energy is a little under 30 ft/lbs (way less than the 50 ft/lbs minimum often cited for big game - bear, moose, elk).

It's really a massive difference and while I do agree that a heavy modern compound is overkill for most game in our hemisphere it's good to have some extra power just in case.

Agreed, it was not unexpected by any means but I enjoyed the show right to the end. The last four participants all demonstrated some real guts and outdoor skills. But I felt Alan was always a cut above the rest, being able to get food fairly consistently. He also had a decent shelter, not too complicated or energy consuming to make but effective enough.

I think Sam's biggest issue (apart from not finding enough to eat) was his tarp tent. Not solid enough to withstand the heavy wind and rain and built in a spot completely exposed to the elements. I can't really understand why he never bothered to improve his shelter.

Anyway, it's easy to sit back and comment on other people's actions, especially with all the bad rap associated with reality TV. But if anyone thinks that two months of "rough camping" in the woods is an easy thing to do maybe you should try it yourself one day. I find it pretty impressive that four guys out of ten lasted as long as they did, particularly given the time frame (late fall/winter).

Binge-watched all ten shows, the short clips on the website and compiled my own aggregate list of what everyone carried before I discovered others had also done this. Searched news for interviews, etc. Watched Joe's, Wayne's and Mitch's 10 list YouTube videos, and Joe's tapped-out video.

Some thoughts:

Joe made the point that everyone took much the same equipment because many of the items available for choosing were just stupid as choices. A comb? Really? Mitch made it clear in the video that everyone brought their own choices for the ten items and, as long as the producers OK'd their choices, they pretty much were able to take their preferred items. Mitch brought his heavy 0º canvas/down sleeping bag with bivvy shell under the belief that would count as one item. When he arrived onsite the producers told him they would be two items. He felt he needed both parts to be effective, so that left him down one item.

The locations were pre-chosen and the participants drew lots to determine where they would stay. Some locations were clearly better than others. Some of the guys who tapped out early had large animal scares immediately after arriving on-location that discouraged them. It wasn't a true survival run in that they had bi-weekly 20 minute visits from a doctor (medical check) and a camera tech plus they had a satellite phone to tap out so in the back of their minds they knew they didn't have to do this. Joe in particular said (when he lost his fire steel) that he knew it was just a matter of short time before he was going to have to tap out because he didn't think he could outlast the others and collect the $500K so no reason to keep going.

The camera tech explains how they were able to get fresh batteries and memory cards, replacement equipment if it broke, etc. -- If they couldn't film themselves there is no show that would seem to be pretty important.)

I wondered where the frying pan came from since it was a special item but perhaps they were allowed to select it as their "pot". According to the load list everyone had two tarps, a 20x20 and a 10x10. Then they could select another 12x12 tarp as a special item and one of the guys (Lucas) doubled up by selecting an extra 12x12 tarp -- so he had four.

Props to the four guys who lasted the longest. Alan was the real find for the show -- so entertaining!

"Props to the four guys who lasted the longest. Alan was the real find for the show -- so entertaining!"

Entertaining - how appropriate! competitive elements and all, but nothing bad can really happen, what with sat phones and periodic medical checks. It might be disturbing if anything really bad happened...

Back in the early 80s, southern Arizona was slammed with an unseasonable, poorly predicted storm on Easter weekend that kept us SAR types very busy for several days. As the situation clarified, we were thankful that, while there were several close calls, our victims had suffered no fatalities.

That is, until later that fall, when a hiker in a remote canyon in the Baboquivari Mts. stumbled onto a pitched tent, camping gear, and a corpse. Among his belongings was a volume entitled "Survival Made Simple" but evidently no simple enough. He lacked the requisite sat phone and EMT check and was actually dependent upon his own resources.

What is this "survival" anyway, that is in the title of this forum? It has many manifestations, of course (recovering from a hurricane, adrift at sea, lost in the woods, etc) but key are the elements of isolation and unexpectation- you don't arise some morning and say "I think I will go surviving this afternoon" - you were just planning a short hike.

Personally, I have done a bit of rough camping, mostly in my feckless youth when I was learning. Later on, I dealt with the consequences of the survival epics of others, not all of which ended well. Some were the stuff of nightmares.

Real survival isn't a competitive sport or it would be an Olympic event. As entertainment, it is carefully staged rough camping. Relax and enjoy!

As with modern firearms, the common advice is to shoot the most powerful gun/bow you can be consistently accurate with. We are comparing apples to oranges a bit here in that the generally accepted minimum for hunting big game with a bow is 40 to 50 lbs draw weight, whereas the commonly selected draw weight is 60 to 70 lbs. As mentioned previous, I would much prefer my compound bow over my recurve because it has sights and is more powerful. If I had a choice, I would take the compound every time, regardless of what I was hunting for. But not everyone can draw a 60 lb compound bow, regardless of the letoff, and so a 40 to 50 lb draw weight has been established as minimums for hunting north American big game. Simply put, that is the minimum legal and ethical limit the govt imposes on the public (ethics being a subjective and personal decision). But I think you would agree that a 100 lb draw weight would be superior for hunting big game to a 60 to 70 lb draw weight, provided you can draw and shoot that weight reliably with a subsequent increase in arrow weight and broadhead size, all things being relative. Ethically, you should use the biggest/best/most powerful you can reliably shoot, and the government concluded that a 40 to 50 lb draw weight shooting a minimum sized/weighted arrow is ethically reliable enough. Lots of people hunt brown bears with 30 caliber firearms; I wouldn't consider it. That's why I have a 375 Ruger and that's all I will use to hunt big game up here with a rifle, because shooting any big game up here could result in having to also defend against a brown bear attack. My wife cannot hunt reliably with that gun/load, and cannot handle much more than a 30-06 power factor, so her ethics are necessarily at a level below mine. I'm okay with that if she is, and people do hunt big bears with even less than what she uses.

Having taught hunting ethics for a number of years, I would recommend to anyone that they learn to use the most powerful legal tool they can master to dispatch game with. Proficiency and consistent shot placement is the most important consideration, within the legal restrictions imposed on caliber/weight/power. If the weapons choice turns out to be more than you can handle, then it was a poor choice.

The fact remains that a 40 lb recurve shooting a legal minimum arrow weight and broadhead can and will reliably take black bear and cougar if the hunter does their part, as the fish and game departments in many jurisdictions have determined. It is not the most ideal choice, unless that is all you have or can handle. A 70 lb compound bow shooting a heavier arrow and a bigger broadhead is not ideal either, when compared to a 100 lb bow, unless the 70 lb bow is what you have and you can shoot it well.

In any case, I would prefer to trap big game rather than hunt if I am in a survival situation. Baiting a bear/cougar/wolf in that environment is as easy as catching a fish, and there are a number of deadfall/pit/kinetic energy trap ideas that would've been easy to implement with the materials available and a couple days of work. Whether or not a bow and arrows were brought, there was plenty of food to be had if any of them would've been willing to go after it. But again, we don't know what all the rules were on what they could do, and in a real survival situation, it would be no holds barred.

Agreed on pretty much all counts, but let's not wander too far off the subject. My point is that the contestants were apparently limited in the choice of bow and arrows. Namely recurves in the range of 45 to 50lb and six wooden (!) arrows.

I'm not sure I really care about the legal limit, I simply don't believe the above setup is good enough for bear hunting. Especially if you're alone, malnourished and unfamiliar with the area.

None of the contestants tried hunting dangerous game with the setup they had. I don't blame them, I wouldn't either. Expecting otherwise would be unrealistic IMO. YMMV...

Yep, in this situation the bow/arrow selection was not ideal, nor were the rules of engagement. In a true survival situation I would use whatever I had, even that equipment if need be. Real survival isn't the same as legal hunting. Setting limits for what you'd do to get by is setting yourself up for failure, which is where I think we are comparing apples to oranges in this argument. For how this show was set up, it was unimportant.

I would make a lousy contestant for these sorts of things. Like I stated in another recent post, I don't play by the rules in a survival situation, whether real or simulated. If killing will get me the win, I will kill. Probably best the producers avoid fellers like me. LOL

I agree with you Big Ben!

That's true, in an all-out survival situation people tend to take much greater risks (out of sheer desperation I suppose). From what I've read, the participants were actually allowed to hunt game, bear included. But none of them attempted that in practice, probably because they felt the risks were too great. And I can't blame them, they still had the sat phone to "tap out" when things got worse than they could handle.

That said (and talking in general, not directed at any post or opinion in particular), I don't think that takes anything away from the show's basic premise. "Alone" was foremost a challenge to see how long people with varying backgrounds and outdoor skills could last in a relatively tough environment with which they had little or no previous experience.

It was not a true survival situation by definition (e.g. an unexpected disaster). Nor was it really presented as such, at least in my opinion. It was made pretty clear that the contestants could quit whenever they wanted. They also had regular medical checkups. That in itself is a good thing IMO. In some ways the show was already close enough to a "Hunger Games" scenario for my liking. No need to push people into absolute extremes (getting badly hurt or killed) purely for entertainment or "educational" purposes.

Regardless of the above, the basic premise seemed real enough. Whether you call it rough camping, surviving or simply staying in the woods basically on your own for a longer period of time is a very serious challenge pretty much anywhere on Earth. It really is hard if you have to make your own shelter, gather food and try to tough it out for a month or two. I don't think that most people who post here, or the majority of outdoor enthusiasts in general, have ever tried that themselves.

Hence I believe it would be a little out of line to denigrate the contestants or overly criticize their choices. We weren't there, so it's hard to judge other people's actions under the circumstances. Also, having that sat phone at hand was no doubt a very powerful factor because the contestants knew they could quit when they wanted to do so. On the other hand, a sat phone does not guarantee your safety per se. The contestants still risked real injuries. You can get mauled by a bear faster than you can dial a number on a sat phone. How is a rescue team arriving a couple of hours later going to help other than zip your remains into a body bag?

IMHO, these are serious concerns all too easily overlooked these days when reality shows and live video feeds make everything appear fake and occasionally less dangerous than it really is. The way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if "survival" shows get even more "real" to satisfy the increasingly demanding viewers. Sooner or later, participants will get hurt, possibly killed. I'm not sure that is a good thing at all.

"Alone" seemed to strike a pretty good balance between "reality" and trying to keep the contestants reasonably safe within a controlled experiment. But it still exposed the contestants to real risks, starvation and difficult weather conditions, which was becoming very apparent toward the end of the show. I wonder how many people would willingly expose themselves to that kind of pressure. So I have a lot of respect for the guys who walked the walk and pushed themselves to the best of their ability.

Tom L that is an excellent analysis, with which I 1,000% agree.

Tom L, you make some excellent points. However, analysis of "real" survival situations typically highlights the overwhelming importance of the intangible "will to survive."

The most vivid example of this WTS is this example from 19th century Arizona along a desert trail known s the Jornada del Muerto, for some obscure reason:

A prospector traveled 150 miles in temps reaching 120F, losing 25% of his body weight and crawled the last eight miles completely naked. He didn't bleed from his wounds until significantly hydrated. He did everything wrong but did have significant WTS.

I submit that a sat phone and the knowledge that you BP will be checked soon (hopefully by a beautiful/handsome EMT) kind of warps the WTS factor. You are correct that we are not trying for a "true" survival situation in Alone, thank heaven. At least,not yet. Don't give the producers any ideas.

I am pretty sure you are correct that few, if any, of us have deliberately gone into nature, underprepared, intending to stay for a long time. Why should we?

Many of us have gone out to face palpable challenges - reaching a summit by a tricky route, running a river, doing science of one sort or another, responding to a SAR request, and so forth. Plenty of opportunity for unexpected adventure and for real survival conditions. I have enough war stories to illustrate the point. The prudent person selects versatile gear that will help if survival rears its ugly head.

The other factor involved in successful survival is knowledge of the country and its resources. I would do better in the desert than many, but I would face a learning curve in the PNW or in any jungle. I would almost welcome survival on the California Channel Islands, my most recent stomping grounds - plentiful natural shelters, lots of sea food in the tide pools, and plentiful edible plants (once you have learned what to look for). If you don't bone up on unfamiliar territory, you are asking for trouble.

I think it amusing that apparently one of the prohibited items was a map - a pivotal and essential survival item (probably more important than a knife) and an item that would have gone a long ways to easing their situation. How artificial can you get?

[/quote]I think it amusing that apparently one of the prohibited items was a map - a pivotal and essential survival item (probably more important than a knife) and an item that would have gone a long ways to easing their situation. How artificial can you get? [/quote]

Having a map? That would kind of contradict the premise of the show - it is titled ALONE.

I don't know about that. I have hiked miles and miles for days and days all by myself - the technical definition of "alone," but I have almost always had a map, typically a 24,000 scale USGS topo map. It shows all kind of useful things, like water sources, likely travel routes and the like.

I would characterize hiking without a map (and a few other nice goodies) as "Unequipped" rather than "Alone"

Perhaps this could be the inspiration for yet another reality show.....which will show the results of going into the woods without the right stuff.....

Thinking it over, the reason any of this matters is that, despite the primary objective of the series being entertainment, there is a distinct educational component, since the typical person taking this all in will regard it as realistic and a good example to follow. We should be truthful and accurate, because what is depicted on the screen will be regarded as "reality" and a good example.

Thinking about the value of maps - years ago we wanted to climb Picacho del Diablo, the highest point in Baja California. All topo maps of the area were classified (this was about 1964 oe so) so all we had was a fairly useless aeronautical chart.

What fun we had! We did get Picacho climbed, but it was quite an adventure - my closest exposure to real wilderness.

I understand your point of view and it is a perfectly valid argument for someone stranded in the wilderness whose primary concern is getting back to civilization. That kind of (hopefully short-term) survival situation generally calls for solid land navigation skills plus a good measure of physical and mental toughness, particularly if one is required to cover a long distance in order to reach safety.

Honestly though, that is not what "Alone" was about. The show was nothing more, nothing less than an experiment at long-term survival limited to a relatively small designated area where the participants needed to build a shelter and procure sufficient water and food to last for as long as possible.

Is that premise artificial? Maybe, if one assumes that the only chance of wilderness survival lies in getting back to civilization. But the contestants were trying to achieve the exact opposite. They set out to test their skills and survive in their designated area for as long as they could with the gear they were allowed to bring. That is an entirely legitimate challenge IMO. Why would it not be legitimate? Or any less legitimate than say, mountain climbing? Besides, the basic idea is not too different from what the early colonists, mountain men and trappers were facing in the old days.

We've all contributed our own personal views on "Alone" here. The discussion has grown into a pretty long and (to my mind at least) stimulating thread. Both positive and negative opinions have been expressed, which is to be expected. However, I don't think it makes sense to dismiss the show as artificial simply because its premise is not what one would like it to be. Note that the show is called "Alone", not "Wilderness Survival 101" or "Escape from Vancouver Island". There are other TV series with different premises, some (like Ray Mears) pretty darn good and instructive.

As far as "Alone", it is what it is. A televised outdoor challenge, not that badly done as far as reality TV goes (for a bad case of heartburn think of Bear Grylls!). And it does have some wider educational value IMHO. On the one hand, it helps dispel many popular survivalist/new age fantasies about the ease of living off the land. On the other hand, it shows how ten outdoorsmen from different backgrounds failed or succeeded at putting to the test various bushcraft and wilderness survival skills.

Good summation. I guess we can leave it alone for now (for better or worse)

all have been lackadaisical in their prep for this show. The definition of insanity is "doing the same things over and over again, while expecting the results to somehow be different. The contestants have all taken the same gear, done the same things, with the same result, starvation! An intelligent person would, you'd think, after 3 years, have figured out that something different needs to be done.

I hope that they dont continue the 2 person aspect, cause it inhales sharply. If they continue to go to Vancouver They need to make a big wooden mortar and pestle, and use it to juice the kelp. Fish, game, seafood offer no carbs. They are not supposed to harm living trees, so that rules out stripping cambium. The lack of carbs manifests itself with their depression, apathy and poor decision making. In a couple of hours, they can juice enough kelp to be about 400 calories to the good (as vs what they burned getting that quart of juice)

If you win this by smarts and skills (as vs being fat and lucky) it will clear you another 1/4 mill $ over the next 2-3 years, in endorsements, classes that you teach, sales of books and videos, on top of the 1/4 mill that you clear for the win. It must be nice to be able to just blow off retirement type money, cause you sprained your ankle a bit!

As far as bear threat goes, if they were really scared, why not bring a hammock, make a ladder and spend their first night 15 ft up in a big tree? The next day, find a suitable tree and make a sleeping platform up in it. If you know to have the hammock be a 2-person model, made out of paracord, you can unravel it, access the 7 inner strands and weave enough netting to feed yourself fairly well. The fishheads and guts will make a big enough pile to bait in a bear, which you can then arrow from a tree platform/blind. They give you a trail cam, which will tell you the best times to be up in that blind. Set up the shot to be less than 10m and there will be almost no risk involved, as long as your broadhead is really sharp.

Use the duct tape and a chunk of tarp to wrap up the camera gear vs the moisture. Tape the seams of the hard Pelican camera cases, and use them as pontoons for an outrigger log raft. This lets you service your many (netting and sapling framed) crab traps, your gillnets, etc, and it will let you move down the coast if your drop off point is really lacking in resources. the paracord will let you make an anchor, out of big rocks, or a 'sea anchor" out of your spare clothing. Those 2 items really help remove the risks associated with rip tides and rogue waves. Tie everything to the raft, including yourself, and have a cutting instrument ready, so that you can cut yourself loose if need be.


By choosing to take something that can make netting, you can do so as you sit in your sleeping bag, under your tarp awning. If you've caught enough fish to create a bear bait before you're done weaving all the netting (ie, you've also taken a gillnet made out of paracord) you can do the weaving as you sit in your tree blind.

You'll need to previously have boiled-off seawater every day, for a couple of weeks, in order to have recovered enough salt to reliably preserve that fatty bear meat.

I dont agree about the map. Nobody had maps of our west, guys survived it. There's far more needful things,in order to have which I'd cheefully give up a map (and a compass, too). Straight lines rarely mean a bloody thing to a forager. You move along the water or the edges of vegetation changes, along ridges, etc.

the entire 'number of items' thing is bs. the real limitations are fitness, bulk, and weight. I might be able to run with 40 lbs, better than you can with 20 lbs. My 30 items might well have less bulk and weight than your 10 items.