I've probably started to make a reply to this thread about three times, then stopped and really couldn't finish because the point I was trying to make was incomplete.

Now that I've finally gathered my thoughts, it all boils down to the fact that I think the "technique versus equipment" is a moot discussion. Knowledge (technique) and equipment go hand-in-hand. Almost all survival equipment that I can think of is used to improve upon previous existing technique.

For example, let's examine the survival necessity of water procurement and preparation. The "basic" technique (without equipment) is to either build a filter with layered sand, clay, and so forth or find a natural container and boil it. Equipment, like a purpose-built water filter, purification tablets, and camp cups/pots simply make it easier to accomplish the same task.

This basic idea seems predominant in many categories of survival:

• Shelter: foliage versus a tarp; animal hide versus a sleeping bag.
• Fire: Rubbing sticks together versus a match.
• Food: Beaning a rabbit with a stick versus an MRE.
• Tools: Flint knapping versus a knife.
• Medical: Aloe and a leaf versus a band-aid.
• Signaling: Screaming versus a PLB.

Granted, some of these "primitive" techniques are not discussed as much as the necessary knowledge that comes with using modern equipment. However, a lot of those most basic techniques are very difficult to teach verbally. (I dare you to go out and give it a shot after simply reading a description. <img src="/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />) All of this equipment that is discussed was created because "necessity is the mother of all invention". Using primitive technique, while time honored and true, is not your "best" option under the stress of a survival situation when proper equipment can save your butt so much faster and effectively. Should the basic techniques be learned? Absolutely, because when all else fails, you'll always have something to fall back on.