Sorry for the huge delay, but better late than never. I met Cody Lundin at the Denver Airport on 16 August, '04. I was returning for 3 months spent as a backpacking guide in New Mexico and was making a connecting flight. Anyhow, I decided to go look at the mountains one last time (for at least a few months) out of a large, plate glass window. I was walking towards the window and I spotted Cody. We talked a good fifteen minutes about survival kits, his excellent book, and the general unpreparedness of most individuals. He had to leave to make his flight back to Arizona, which was too bad. This guy is awesome--he walks the walk and talks the talk. I really am fired up about taking one of his courses and am even thinking about going barefoot more often.
I hope the picture comes out; you can always cut and paste into your browser if it doesn't work (remember to remove the image brackets). Or shoot me an email over at: tim.cole@selu.edu

[img]http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/users/41671a2aze4464634/f727/__sr_/db6b.jpg?phjN1ZBBlsVqTWeW[/img]

So, was he barefoot in the airport?

Yes, he was barefoot. I presume the TSA didn't have any suspicions of a shoe-bomb.

I spent a few hrs with Cody just over a yr ago when he was filming a suvival episode for the discovery channel I was involved with.

I can second the opinion that the man does in fact walk the walk and was barefoot the whole time I saw him.

Flip

<img src="/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

what does this mean ?
That he says what he thinks and does what he says ?
Or that he really knows what he talks about ?

Thanks for explaining this expression..

It's a common saying over here. It means that he knows what he's doing, and he's been around. Basically, when he says something about survival it's because he knows from experience, it's not something he read somewhere else.

I've been hearing some great things about Cody Lundin over the last couple months. I've also read his book. I'm going to have to try and take one of his classes in the future.


Robert

Thanks.

His book is now on my list of "books to buy soon" ....

>>and was barefoot the whole time I saw him<<

For those with an interest:

http://www.barefooters.org/hikers/

http://members.aol.com/bhthom/hikertxt.htm

If someone says that they do something, or that they can do something, that would be considered "talking the talk."

If they actually do what they have said, or actually can do what they have said, then that would be considered "walking the walk."

Actually, I came to really, really hate this expression.

In an on-line forum that I participated in long ago, this expression was used constantly by (there must be a name for this, it's so common) the local dominating clique that browbeat, ridiculed and shouted down any dissenting opinions.

Their contention was that no amount of "book learning" or documentary evidence could prove anything, that the only worthwhile way to come by any knowledge was through personal experience, and that any documents that contradicted their personal experience of what worked and what didn't was just flat-out wrong. No one who didn't (in their opinion) "walk the walk" had no right to say anything on the subject, no matter how much documentation they had backing them up.

Well, you've got to respect that, in a way.

Unfortunately, the subject of the forum was not survival, it was history.

History? HISTORY? That's about the only subject where there is no such thing as personal experience- you've got nothing BUT documentary evidence. Or are they talking about having personally examined "primary documents"?

Not only does the person in question know what they're talking about, but they know it bacause they've "been there and done that", they're not just spouting off something they've heard or read or seen on T.V. (Gawd-awful annoying).

Troy

Just my 2 cents...

Flying barefoot is marginally better than ladies who fly with nylons & heels. But both, IMHO, are extremely bad ideas.

Call it old habit, but as a pilot I always dress to egress, even if I'm a passenger. I insist my wife also do the same.

In the event of a crash, wouldn't you want your feet protected from *very* sharp shards of metal, pools of corrosive liquids, and fire?

Let's try this picture thing again. Sorry about the confusion with "walk the walk, etc."

[img]http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/users/41675d16ze3c52a64/timthegunslinger/__sr_/b6b7.jpg?pfWfXaBBcilnugfL[/img]

It looks like it doesn't work if there is a line-feed between [image] and the start of the URL. Bug in the forum apparently.

Being a newbie, I've been intently reading Cody's book during the last few weeks. I am certainly struck by his appearance. The gear he recommends for a survival kit makes lots of sense, but I particularly interested in the mini survival kit knife package that the book describes and that he is shown wearing around his neck in a photo in the book.

Anyway, I came across this web site:

http://www.caliberdt.com/~bill/Cody2004/

It gives photos and descriptions of Bill Quall's experince taking a survival course from Cody. Sounds great.

Anyway, I was surprised to get to the middle of the pics and lo and behold, there is a pic of Cody wearing that mini-survival kit knife setup around his neck.

I'll have to admit, though the material in the book is solid and made lots of sense, I thought the pics were probably setup for the book, but seeing him wear that knife around his neck in Bill's pics really impressed me.

Cody must live one heck of a life.

Oh, I also found a web site that mentions a series of Discovery Channel videos about survival that Cody helped create. Has anyone seen these? Are they available for purchase anywhere?

so I guess for historians to walk the walk they must be what... ..dead?? <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

There's a group among what used to be called "living history" folks (reenactors and docents, mostly) who now advocate "experimental archeology" (I didn't make up the term, folks.. I think Ivor Noel Hume is responsible for this one).

The original idea is that if you do what they did then, with the tools and materials that they had then, you can learn things from the process that you cannot learn from the documentary evidence.

I'm NOT saying that the idea doesn't have merit- it does. But there are a great many ways for it to go astray, and one of the more obvious (one would think) is to ignore the documentary evidence that does exist because it seems to contradict personal experience gained in this way.

The problem is that "personal experience" of history can never be more than a very rough approximation- we cannot become historical people in historical settings, with different pasts, experiences and skills, and we cannot leave the 21st century people that we really are behind, with all of our prejudices, foreknowledge, and cultural biases. No matter how much we try to "recreate" past events, the past cannot be resurrected, and our efforts will always fall short.

The documentary evidence, on the other hand, is the real people of the past speaking directly to us FROM the past.

So... all of this would seem pretty obvious, but it's a free country, and there just had to be groups who reversed the priorities, who contend that when their "recreated" personal experience contradicts documentary evidence, that evidence is wrong.

There are indeed such groups, mostly small and largely ignored, but even a small group of verbal bullies and their sycophants can easily dominate an on-line forum.

That's what happened. These particular dear folks were fond of just stating what the "truth" of history was without any contributory evidence at all ("woodsmen would have all worn brown"), and when someone pointed out contradictory evidence from primary sources, that person was loudly criticized for daring to contradict those who "walked the walk", i.e. KNEW that woodsman wore brown, because THEY wore brown, and it worked for them. Post hoc ergo ante hoc.

Thanks, PL, that explains a lot. The problem with documentary evidence is that some things that "everybody knows" don't get written down, like how to light the gas lights without getting blown up, or the proper way to sharpen a quill pen. These experimental archeologists are trying to fill in those blanks. But you're quite right, it's still guesswork. Re-creational, as it were.

I agree entirely, it is a valuable tool for filling in the blanks, and I enjoyed the process (and the learning) immensely when I did that sort of thing (I could be persuaded to do it again, in fact).

There is an obvious problem, though, when it goes beyond "filling in the blanks" to "overwriting" other evidence.

And, I hate to say it, but there are other problems as well. Experimental archeology may, for instance, come up with one or two good ways to sharpen a quill pen (to use your example), but experimental archeology cannot ever demonstrate or prove that that's the way it WAS done.

It's entirely possible.. even likely.. that our ancestors knew some tricks, now lost to us, that took generations of THEIR ancestors to learn... and it's even remotely possible that a modern counterpart might stumble on to a different, or even better way to do something than was known at the time. There was probably nothing preventing colonials from making, say, fire pistons, other than the fact that nobody had thought of it.

But the bottom line is that the best possible result of experimental arecheology is to demonstrate how something could have been done, how we think it's likely it was done, but it can never have really conclusive results. Other forms of research can.

I bet you have learned a wealth of American slang from this forum. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I'm a big fan of the saying "Learn from other people's mistakes, because you'll never live long enough to make them all yourself."

Even in survival, practical "hands-on" experience can lead you astray. As Laurence Gonzales said, often "experienced" simply means "someone who's gotten away with doing the wrong thing more often than you have. " (Quoted from memory)

It is probably true, though, that a lot of what gets written in "survival" manuals is put together by people who read it somewhere else and never actually verified it experimentally.

you're right ............ <img src="/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

More specifically.. a lot of what is written in survival manuals is read in and reproduced from "FM21". <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> I have seen the same information reprinted so many times (often even verbatum) that I lost count a long time ago. Fortunatly it is good, solid infomation so it does me no harm to read it over and over since it helps to stick it in my long term memory. <img src="/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Sounds like historical recreationists.

Love those Authenticity Nazi's.

Rena

ok just a question because i dont know much about cody in general aside from his books that i plan to get.

but how can you realistically walk everywhere barefoot?

aside from the filth and various dangerous objects in the street waiting to cut the bottom of your feet or cause a nice infection or worse.

there has got to be some problem with hygene and general foot skin care from taking all that abuse.

Barefooting in general:

http://www.barefooters.org/

Barefoot hiking, specifically:

http://www.barefooters.org/hikers/

http://members.aol.com/bhthom/hikertxt.htm

Focusing on the natural history of humans, they have been walking around without footwear much longer than with footwear . . . and survived.

In his book he specifically mentions carrying Lanolin and Krazy Glue to fix the cracks in his feet.


Robert

Hey PL .. great links. I didn't know there were so many others out there like me. I guess I won't be doing much work today with all this interesting reading to do. I always thought I just had sort-of a "Buddha meets Huckleberry Finn" complex. <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I have been somewhat of a barefoot nut ever since I first read Huckleberry Finn as boy... or maybe it was Tom Sawyer. Either way, I spend lots of time barefoot. I am barefoot basically anywhere/anytime I can get away with it. I don't hike barefoot or walk through the snow barefoot or anything that extreme but I probably could if I wanted to. I have some pretty thick pads on my feet. I think that is what a lot of non-barefotters forget. If you go barefoot for long enough you get a pair of pretty leathery pads on your feet. I can walk on lots of terrain (jagged rocks, extremely hot or cold concrrete, etc) that my wife and friends can never handle for this exact reason. When walking barefoot at the lake or beach or somewhere else where others are barefoot, I am often asked "how can you stand to walk barefoot here" as they hop around on one foot trying to put their sandals back on. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> But all you have to do is feel the bottom of my feet and that question is pretty much answered. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

It is amazing how tough your feet can get. Mine aren't what they used to be. I cut down a lot on going barefoot while I was living in Kansas City. There are just way too many nasty things on city streets for me to feel safe walking them barefoot. Now that I'm out of the city, I'm going barefoot a lot more again. Even when I wear shoes, they are normaly moccasins with thin soles. Just to give you an idea of how tough your feet can get, I used to put out cigarettes on the bottoms of mine with no discomfort.In college it was a good way to impress girls and make guys looking for a fight think twice.

Leo

Brian,

Glad you're enjoying the info. There's a lot out there, and you are very far from being alone.

I go through periods of trying to pursue this.. it's been a little while now. I've done 4 or 5 day hikes barefoot, up to 10 miles, and more in soft mocassins. It's slower (for me), but usually worth it, because you see so much more. You're not aware of how much noise shoes or boots make until it's gone, and suddenly wildlife is everywhere.

I'm usually barefoot in my own house, often around it, sometimes driving, but I'm too self-conscious to do it much in town.... and I've never been able to deal with one "barefoot" phobia.. a less-than-sanitary men's room. Yick. Sandals have their uses.

Speaking of which, I'm about to give 4 pairs of Tevas to Purple Heart. I never got a pair that wouldn't cause blisters in less than 5 miles. I got one pair of Chaco sandals, and I'm NEVER going back.

I love walking barefoot. Unfortunately, I broke my foot snowboarding a few years ago, tearing some ligaments that hold my arch up. It's supposedly fixed, but it hurts if I walk without my orthotics too much. I still walk barefoot as much as possible though.

Also kind of tough in the winter in MN. Your feet tend to freeze to pavement below 0 F, so you always wear boots outside in the winter. You have to re-toughen your feet every spring.

You might want to take a look at Chacos too... they have a very contoured footbed (Z1 or Z2) with pretty high arch support (at least it seems that way to me- really subjective stuff), and it's solid rubber, not EVA, so it doesn't break down flat over time.

http://www.chacousa.com/products/performancedetails.cfm

I've got some minor complaints about them- they take some breaking in, and run a little heavy- but they work a WHOLE lot better than any other production sandals I've tried.

i lovew walking barefoot i always have but i have bad cracked callouses on my feet that when they split are awefull to deal with.

and walking outside in NYC barefoot is something i dont think id do because of the hazards.
but in the country etc im totally barefoot.

I never liked walking in sandals of any sort, even before I broke my foot. I'm not even going to try, but I appreciate the suggestion. Have you tried "SuperFeet" footbed inserts? Those help me a little, and that's as high as a production arch I've ever seen. The arches on my orthotics are quite a bit higher.

Thanks, but other than the occasional stress fracture from running, I've never had any foot problems at all. I can walk for up to 10 miles barefoot without problems (and have), but prefer the Chacos around town when the weather permits.

On pure aesthetics, I much prefer sandals to shoes (hot, closed leather boxes), but I don't wear them when it's not socially and climactically appropriate, and in my lifestyle, that doesn't leave nearly often enough.

I went on a two mile barefoot hike two days ago after work. The soles of my feet are already pretty tuff from being barefoot on a regular basis around town and at the lake so it really wasn't uncomfortable except for the first 100 yards near the trailhead where the park staff has poured gravel over the trail. I read at http://www.barefooters.org that gravel is a great way to condition your feet too so I was more than willing to endure that first 100yards. Anyway as far as my hike went overall... let me just say this... "WOW!!!". You're not kidding about seeing a lot more animals and getting a lot closer to them without spooking them. I hiked a trail that I have hiked many many times before and this time I walked right up on all kinds of furry little critters that I had rarely if ever seen on that trail before, and I wasn't even trying to be quiet. It was a very enjoyable experience. It was a very good feeling to pull in to the state park on the way home from work, hop out of the truck, take off my button-down shirt and my shoes and socks and venture out on the trail with just my jeans, t-shirt, and my normal EDC/PSK gear. I don't want to get to "mystical" sounding but it felt great for other reasons also. I'm not sure that I can really explain that part of it though... however, the words "liberating" and maybe "enlightening" do come to mind. Anyway, thanks for introduction to barefoot hiking! I would recommend it to anyone who is already a competant and experienced hiker and/or outdoorsman who is physically able to do it safely. It was great! I foresee a lot more barefoot hiking in my future... maybe even today!!! <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Brian,

Thanks for the kind words, and I'm really glad you're enjoying it... and I'm impressed that you had the courage and open-mindedness to try it.

I can't tell you how many folks I've tried to tell about the amazing difference in what you see, but their eyes glaze over, or they get dismissive, or even defensive.. they just don't believe it, or don't want to hear it. I learned not to even try to tell them about the difference in how it feels, they just start treating you as though you're weird(er).

I agree with everything you've said about it. I find it a little slower, but... why are you out there? Is it to make time down the trail, or for the experience?

And thanks for reminding me. It's been too long...

PL

I imagine I will get interesting looks and/or comments the first time cross paths with somene else on the trail. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I habitually hike in Otomix wrestling-type shoes with a thin, soft rubber sole. I think of them as high-tech moccassins.

Anyway, I just wanted to mention that in additon to being able to sneak up on fun, furry animals like bunnies and deer, I find I can also sneak up on Eastern Diamondback Rattlers. It cuts both ways.

Fortunately, along with decreased pace comes increased time for vigilance.

And don't forget to look behind you from time to time.

Bear

It's already happened to me, more than a few times. No comments yet, but "interesting" looks, for sure. Like, borderline fear that I might actually be dangerously insane...

Best suggestion I can make is, if you get too self-conscious, paint your feet black, and no one will notice. <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Presumed Lost:

You have to be careful about painting your feet black in todays "politically correct" world.

Look what happened to Ted Danson when he was dating Whoopi Goldberg.

Bountyhunter

Snakes are something I am all too familiar with, having grown up playing in the woods in an area (SE TX) litterally infested with many varietys of poisonous and non-poisonous snakes. I hear ya loud and clear. Of course all shoes really do is 1) let the snake know youre coming ahead of time so you dont sneak up on him and force him in to a defensive posture and 2) "maybe if you're lucky" you'll get bit on the foot rather thyan the ankle and the fangs won't penetrate through the shoe. Of course the advantage of barefoot hiking seems to be (and obviously I'm a newbie barefooter and could be way off here) that you are in fact muuuuuuch more attentive and aware of where, when and how you step as you're walking along so you "should" be a lot less likely to step on anything you don't want to step on.

ROFLMAO

And while we're talking snakes...

As I walk along a forest path, I scan as far ahead as I can, then walk a little less than that distance, then scan ahead again. I don't like to walk with my eyes down on the path all the time, and periodic scanning seems to work.

The first two times I encountered diamondbacks, I was one step away from them. That is, I had to stop my step in mid-air to avoid stepping on them, then teleport back a few yards. (I'm not kidding. I have no idea how I retreated from one step to three yards away. It just happened.)

By the third encounter, I was skilled enough at scanning ahead that I saw the snake from three or four steps away. It's not that I saw a snake, either. Some pattern-analysis routine in my brain detected too regular a pattern on the ground ahead and sent a warning message in an adrenalin envelope straight to my consciousness.

How do you deal with a snake you encounter? It does no good to throw things at it. That only makes them angry. And I couldn't hold a stick that was long enough for me to feel safe pushing a diamondback off the path.

The only thing that works is to back off twenty paces or so, then approach the snake at a normal pace, but stomping as hard as you can. Evidently they can't hear very well, but they can feel the vibrations, and are interested in avoiding being stomped on.

Bear

Ok, seriously...

Well, when I first did this there were a couple of times I was self-conscious enough to put on footwear. I think every time I've done a barefoot hike I've carried either soft mocs or flip-flops in the pack or shoulder bag, partly because of obstacles (gravel roads, long paved areas) but mostly because of that one really big hazard- the men's room in the visitor's center.

Another advantage of going barefoot is that, because you're making so much less noise, you can also hear other things much better (those who haven't tried it won't believe any of this). It makes it much easier to hear other people coming on the trail, so you may have time to put something on your feet for the meeting if you want.

I vividly remember one such meeting... I heard a gaggle of loud girl-voices coming. They were driving a couple of deer in front of them, and the birds and squirrels all disappeared. I stepped about 20 yards off the trail and listened to them come, giggling and jabbering. It took them a long time to actually appear, the noise was carrying that far. When they got to where I could hear what they were saying, they were complaining that there were no animals in "these woods". I was in plain view, but just stood still. Not one of them, or the lady "guiding" them, ever saw me.

Curiously, I find people seem more disturbed if I'm going barefoot with long pants on than they do if I'm wearing shorts. I have no idea what that's about.. one of those strange social things, like the fact that crowds seem to give me LESS "personal space" when I'm wearing a hat.

I have a lot of mocassins, I've even made my own, but these days I generally pack one of the pairs I mail-ordered from Hillbilly Mocassins in Branson, MO. They make them up to order, so you can get a good fit, and, unusually, you can get SOFT mocs (their elk is the kind tanners call "orthopedic elk", and it's good) with NO hard sole and NO sole padding (tell them you don't want foam). This makes them pretty good (quiet) for wear on the trail or around camp, they attract no attention from people, and they pack flat and light when you decide to go barefoot. I also keep a pair in the car for long drives, as they are very comfortable once broken in. They will, of course, wear out quickly on pavement. I have one pair with buffalo-leather "canoe" soles that wear much better on pavement, but I don't like them nearly as well, they feel too much like shoes.

I'll just stay barefoot and let the strange looks roll in. Should be quite entertaining for me. I think I'll just stay out of the mens room too. Funny how that is about the ONLY place I can think of where I always absolutely must have shoes on. <img src="/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

After encountering probably hundreds of poisonous snakes in my life (and even having one as a pet when I was a kid) I have found that the best way to deal with them is to leave them alone. For example if Im on a trail and come across a sunbathing snake then I go off-trail to go around him. If the brush is too thick for going around then I wait politely for him to continue on his way. The real kicker is Water Mocasins. They (atleast in SE TX) are territorial, kinda like dogs, so when you see one it's best to move really far away, however when you encounter one in the water, while swimming, this is not always so easy. Fortunatly I have never heard of a snake biting someone under water so if they are going to bite you, you should be able to see it coming. Maybe they dont want lungs full of water. I know I wouldn't. I hate those things. I'm glad I live in N TX now and spend all my time in N TX C TX or SW TX I don't miss Water Mocasins at all! <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Non-poisonous snakes are another story. I have been bitten more than once by non-poisonous snakes but this could have been avoided as well if I had been concerned (but I was not).

Isn't the potential for fecal contamination the same in toilets as it is on the trail?

Do the sitting deed indoors, then go out into the bushes and pee on your feet for disinfectant purposes.? <img src="/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

If you think walking barefoot would draw attention to you, just imagine being seen peeing on your own feet.

Bountyhunter <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I do it all in the woods and (before I'm asked) no I do not blue-bag it. I find it ridiculous that of all the various animals in the wood, I am the only one expected to pick up my feces and carry it around in a bag with me! Ah but that's a topic for another day, another thread, another forum.

Ya know... as gross as this may sound to a lot of people, it is probably relatively effective... we probably don't want to get in to a big discussion about uropathy and holistic medicine though either... atleast not right after lunch! Ewwww <img src="/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />