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.