I agree with what has been said here. Some people think the whole fishing tackle & snares concept to be a little "boys life'ish". On the Other hand Hank Williams Jr said it best "A Country Boy can Survive!" For this Country Boy the fishing line, hooks, etc stay in my kit. Just becuase I'm stranded and awaiting even "certain" rescue; why wait hungry for days on end? Not to mention these items take up almost no room and weigh next to nothing.
I acctualy had a guy on a hunting forum tell me that he did need to worry about constructing a shelter, becuase there were few situations a credit card and a cell phone couldn't get him out of.
I thought to myself, Unless this guy is hunting in his back yard, he is an idiot. Someone will probably pull his dead "ars" off a mountian someday. <img src="/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

I used to carry one extra-large orange garbage bag, but after reading this article, i'm going to take two.

They make great improvised shelters, and they are light and cheap. I still won't bring a survival blanket, too flimsy and ought to tear in the wind or simply during manipulation.

A heat sheet seems nice, I just didn't come across one yet in stores.

I like the article. I like it mainly for the fact that it's an article that contains a lot of wisdom and is brought to public attention via a popular magazine.

Do I believe the "forget about food because almost no one dies of starvation" idea is correct? Not really. To me, that's like saying "almost all rescues happen in 72 hours or less, so there's no need to prepare for more." As soon as one of us takes this mindset, good ol' Murphy will make sure our butt is the exception to the rule.

Is food the last item on your list of things to worry about? Absolutely, but it's still on the list. Snares, fishing tackle, and rations don't take up much room, and they sure as hell make all the other activities you have to do in a disaster much more tolerable.

In my opinion, this article is meant for the people who constantly neglect preparation. This article should not sensationalize the low priority of food by telling people to ignore it altogether. Unfortunately, that is sometimes what it takes for the uneducated general public to understand a concept. On this forum, I don't think that applies to many of us. We're more the type that want to turn a disaster into "nothing more than an impromptu camping trip" (as quoted from Doug's articles).

I guess I don't read as much into that Grizzly Adams jibe as some here. I agree that food should be lower in priority that other things. I'd be more concerned about shelter, warmth, signalling, and water. Only AFTER those things are covered would I move on to finding food. I carry enough spare food to cover my needs in the short term (I hope!) "Initially, other things are more important" is the point I think the article's authors were trying to make. Maybe headlined less than optimally in an attempt to grab your attention, but a valid point none-the-less. I thought the article was quite good myself. Especially considering it came from a magazine not normally associated with outdoors survival.

I found the red X on the wing (first photo) to be interesting. I seem to remember that an X on a wing meant that the crash was "old" but could not be removed. Perhaps someone with SAR could comment on that.

I see that they pooh pooh the bow drill, but then go on to recommend a magnesium block ("metal match"), saying that "The 5400 F blaze ignites even damp tinder." While both are certaintly better than nothing, neither would be my first choice. Magnesium shavings are absolutely miserable to work with. Why don't they recommend carrying a Bic or two in their kits? To their credit, they do recommend the excellent REI Stormproof matches.

I don't mean to be too hard on them. As I said, overall it's a good article. But if we take the time to make suggestions for improvement, then maybe the next article will be better still. I'm pretty sure this website gets a lot of hits from writers looking for ideas.

I know there is a "Rule of 3", and someone expanded it to something like:

3 minutes without air (I can't hold my breath that long!), 3 hours without shelter, 3 days without water, 3 weeks without food, 3 months without "Wilson", 3 years without rescue.

I'm sure that 90%+ of us here are prepared for at LEAST an unplanned overnight. I'd also wager that 80% of the population arent. With that, I think that putting out the basic "Fire & shelter first" information is good. I'm sure we all have easy access to at the very least fishing tackle, even when venturing to the local supermarket (I pack my PSK everywhere, just like my wallet). So, this article surely isnt intended towards us. IN all honesty, I probably wouldnt be too concerned about aquiring food until probably day 2. And, even at that point, I may set up a fish line or snare or two, but, the largest source of food are most likely insects. No one wants to eat bugs though, cuz of fear factor <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />. But, after day two, I'd probably start fishing & snaring, due to sheer boredom. After all, you can only sit around in front of a fire for so long <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Hypothermia (IIRC) is a result of your bodies inability to maintain internal temperature. Your body maintains internal temperature by burning fuel (eating). I am no Doctor or Medic but when I had hypothermia I managed to get into a tent and bag and still couldn't stop shaking. With great difficulty I was able to heat a quart of water, make powdered chocolat milk and drink it down. Because it was warm? Because it was fuel for my metabolism? I think a little of both.

Jon

I didn't quite understand this part: "Think of an automobile--even one mired in snow or mud--as a survival ark. It is windproof, waterproof and an excellent source of insulation . (You can tear up the seat cushions.)"

I am kind of assuming that if you're alone, you can sleep in either the front or back seat, and rip up the other one for insulation. But if there are more than one of you, it seems that ripping up the seats would be counter-productive. I'm not exactly sure what the seat stuffing is made from. If it came out in sheets, maybe.

And if you made a brush shelter, you could fill it with the seat stuffing and spend your time pulling it apart and fluffing it up as insulation to put around you, like a hamster's nest.

But that isn't using the car as an 'ark'. Cars themselves aren't insulated, other than a fraction of an inch of foam attached to the headliner.

Am I missing something here?

The references to food not being necessary: This may have been to assuage the worries of the non-prepared, to indicate that food was not a main priority.

Personally, I would think that having food with you would tend to calm most people. In a possibly life-threatening situation, you need to focus on the important stuff, like shelter, fire and water. If you've got food, that's one less thing you'll be stressing over. And you know that most people would worry about not having food, esp if they had children with them.

My basic opinion on these magazine type articles on survival, if well done, give your average American something to think about, without pushing them over the edge into "that's too scary to think about" country. If it pushes a thousand people to actually buy a $4 6-volt lantern, a couple of disposable lighters and two cheap mylar blankets from WallyWorld and put them in the car, they are ahead of most of the pack. And who knows, it might get them thinking more about it, and lead them them to ETS!

KI6IW: "I found the red X on the wing (first photo) to be interesting. I seem to remember that an X on a wing meant that the crash was "old" but could not be removed. Perhaps someone with SAR could comment on that."

That could be true. The first page of the article says that the magazine had the wrecked Cessna towed to the site for the survival scenario. Someone probably "dinged" (that's what they call it!) their plane, and PM gave them a few bucks over salvage for it.

Sue