Survival Training Certification

Since there is no agency or laws governing (in either the USA or Canada) Certification for Survival Training does anyone see a real reason to either offer it and or not offer it. As well can anyone come up with a compelling reason why Individual Survival Instructors and Companies should get together and create a ‘Standard’ for Certification?

i.e. Would it be worth the effort?

Good question.

I think that it might help if such groups created a standard amongst themselves, just like sports or other recreational organizations have, as there are quite a few people who have been injured or worse during ill-fated "training sessions".

How such a standard would be created/implemented, or even how effective it'd be, I've no idea...

When I'm not using my first aid kit to minister to beautiful ladies or saving ETS from idiot body armor spammers, I'm a network security consultant. In my line of work, certification is important because customers expect it, and the manufacturers whose products we sell demand it. For example, to be a Cisco Gold Partner you need to employ a minimum of four CCIE-certified individuals. For even a medium-sized Cisco reseller the difference between Gold and Silver partnership (which only requires two CCIEs) could be millions of dollars a year in profit.

You're not facing the same kinds of pressure, you're looking for ways to differentiate good instructors. Historically they've done so via resumes (former Army Ranger, graduate of SERE, SAR Team Leader, etc) and word-of-mouth.

Another major difference is market size and recognition. IT is a very large industry and there's a lot of money in it. Survival instruction is much smaller, and there isn't nearly as much money or name recognition. You'd need to have really good marketing to make this work.

I think the term "survival" has a lot of meanings to various people, in varied scenarios. Most situations call for getting through an unexpected night or handling an unexpected delay in reaching relative safety. An injury could be involved, a navigation error, broken down trasportation, a wide variety of situations caused by a wide variety of reasons.

I think it would be difficult to certify a school or an instructor because the techinque could vary so much between areas, regions and reasons for being in need of "survival" skills. For instance, a pilot flying over Alaska would need skills and gear that differed greatly from someone dayhiking in the desert in cool weather. Some skills are always the same, but many are totally different. What would be the basic criteria to certify an instructor on? Basics or terrain and climate specifics?

Another aspect that could play in is legal issues. A "certified instructor" that teaches primitive skills later is sued by a student that injures themselves in a way that could be linked to that instruction. A grey area, potentially.

To determine if this would or would not be useful, it would be helpful to know for what purpose you envision a Certificate in Survival would serve.

Pete

It may be hard or impossible to draft a standard curriculum for all survival schools (whatever variety of survival they aim to teach). But one of the motivations for having certification is legal, and it may make some sense to create some sort of structure to prevent student deaths.

I hear from a friend of a friend a long time ago, that in the UK martial arts schools have to go through some sort of approval process that is mostly concerned with safety. This may be the role of professional organizations or of the government: making sure that people don't die from instructor's gross negligence or incompetence.

You could still get hurt from the training, but just not from potential idiocy. After all, yoga is big business with certification structures, and people get hurt regularly because of the inherent dangers that are just coming to light.

One reason to not do it would be to avoid .gov taking it over and charging exorbitant fees to continue your certification. That would be the natural progression. It might be best to not create this monster.

It takes money to set up, administer, and operate any such certification system. And generally when it comes to such programs, I would argue that it's often not for the sake of the students, but really for the benefit of the instructors. The certification then becomes a way to exclude instructors with differing ideas or a way to limit the number of instructors. Material that doesn't fall neatly into some "standard" curriculum can too easily be labeled "wrong" or "dangerous" or whatever. I think certain topics are amenable to a certification process and make a lot of sense, but I personally don't think "survival training" (whatever gazillion possible teaching points that includes) is one of those topics.

Of course, no one wants totally unqualified mall ninja types to be teaching a survival course with their own wacky survival mumbo jumbo, but I would think word of mouth would quickly weed those schools/instructors out without any sort of organization required to do it. And there's no reason why someone needs to be ex-military or had to have trained at certain survival schools or certain other pedigree to be a competent instructor with good information to pass along. A housewife who is into scouting and the outdoors, for example, could be an excellent "survival" instructor and the perfect teacher for many folks.

But hey, caveat emptor and if someone still wants to fork over their hard earned money to be taught by a particular instructor, that should be their right to do so. And if those students like the class and recommend it to others, then more power to that school/instructor, even if others may disagree with what is being taught.

The field of "survival" is rather hazy and vague, as previous posters have pointed out, both in terms of skills to learn and widely differing environments. While schools can be helpful, there is nothing like varied experience. Another issue is that survival is basically very simple and basic - fire, food, shelter, and first aid- handle those issues well and you will be in pretty good shape, most of the time. Many analysts have pointed out that one of the key ingredients is a successful scenario is "will to survive" and there are some astounding examples of that. How precisely would a key ability like that be taught?

I once had the dubious pleasure of retrieving the corpse of an individual abandoned by his companions along a remote trail. His "buddies" fled to a lower elevation, reaching the trail head successfully, and then called in the emergency. Subsequent investigation revealed that the victim's two companions were recent graduates of a winter survival course, something hard to believe because the narrative of their trip was a comedy of errors, with an extremely tragic ending.

I guess I am just a bit skeptical of schools of this ilk. I would be less so if the subject matter were better defined, as well as what constitutes proficiency.

I think the BSA model might be one way to look. They have well defined classes and criteria for just about everything they teach.

The NRA has a similar well defined set of classes. The NRA training model has the advantage of being usable either by volunteer instructors or for profit, and seems to work pretty well both ways.

The reality is that most "survival" schools don't seem to be real businesses. They seem mostly to be set up by guys who are barely hanging on financially with lots of PT instructors and not much in the way of facilities. I don't know that they can afford to come up with something more uniform, or that they would be willing to do so. Many seem like pretty serious control freaks. Getting a majority of them to agree on much of anything might not be that easy.

I forget who did it but there is some group that has setup some kind of web site to teach a set of bush craft skills. I looked at it and it looked like there could be a lot of cross over.

I am not real sure just what you want to certify either. Are you certifying that each member of the class has learned certain skills? or that the instructors are capable of teaching certain skills? Or that the instructors are actually teaching the skills and the students are learning them?

...and what if the certifier is very book learned and the certifiee is a highly experienced backwoodsman with outstanding communication skills and teaching credentials -- someone like Ron Hood (RIP). What if the certifier didn't like Ron Hood's curriculum? Who certifies who?

Just curious how you chose Ron Hood, and how do you know his curriculum is any better than the next guys? I am not doubting you and he has a big following (or rather had), but that does not really mean all that much. Most of being certified is as much about marketing as anything else.

One of the problems with this kind of thing is you have guys who will look you straight in the eye and suggest carrying condoms and tampoons in your survival kit. And the sheep go for that kind of nonsense. Is that the kind of guy you really want teaching the class?

How about a guy that walks around barefoot? is he a good choice for an instructor?

I chose Ron Hood because he was an outstanding communicator with teaching creds. IIRC he had an advanced degree in education. I don't know that "his curriculum is any better than the next guys". Where did you read that? But who is to judge?

I'm saying/asking "who certifies the certifiers?" Who writes the standards? Who decides what is or isn't worthy of being in a survival curriculum?

I believe some of the small-time certifications in any field are just money grubbing scams where certification can be had by anyone for doing some online 'courses' and paying a large fee.

Market forces can and do control these operations:

I'm not a survival expert, but if I were to enroll in a survival school, I know more than enough to recognize good instruction. Probably, many who attend these classes would already have some background knowledge gained from scouts, military, EMS, or personal experience. If I felt I did not get my money's worth, I would demand a refund, or post complaints on Facebook and the forums I visit, and tell everyone I knew that this guy was a ripoff. A few people doing this and the business dries up for the imposter.

The other prong is that if I rely on training I receive and it proves to be harmful to me or mine, I may have a reason to file a civil suit. Just one of these could put a small operation under.

Third, these instructers would be foolish to offer classes without insurance, and the insurance risk managers will have much to say about the curriculum, and even if the school survives.

College accreditation does provide a definite degree of legitimacy. However, would any of claim that college courses are always useful and worthwhile (some are, some aren't, and some just provide credit hours)?

Even with a heavy military background you are not assured of competency. I remember quite a few years ago an ex Green Beret had a survival training camp for juvenile delinquints and ended up killing one. Obviously certification was needed to weed him out. I agree that it would be an uphill battle.

don't the people at SURVIVOR suggest to thier contestants that they take a CERTIFIED survival course before leaving the US? Perhaps they could be taught to dress for where they are going lol.

From what I understand about the process of getting a course accepted by a college, it does not mean as much as you might think. It is a long, drawn out, and tedious process that probably drives away the more casual practicioners though.

Having said that, I am not sure that survival classes are appropriate for actual college credit. It seems more vocational school, or adult education in nature to me. I suspect getting it accepted for that type of school probably is somewhat simpler, but still requires enough work and has enough oversight to drive off most of the totally unqualified would be instructors.

At first, a survival certification sounded like a good idea. However, the more I think about it, the more a "Survival Certification" sounds like something that annoying guy from The Office would get and hang on his wall.



That pic sums up my feelings better than any words I could write here. I don't mean to offend anybody.

The word "survival" is so broad and means so many different things to so many different people. Each meaning is no less important than the other. You can get a survival certificate and still be totally useless in many situations, which may be dangerous if you think your cert gives you authority and responsibility. It's not like getting a snowboarding certification, or a martial arts certification, or some other certification that is a lot more specialized than "survival".

I think that the varied type of survival training and the varied or lack of standards is the biggest drawback to a National or International Standards.

I suspect the lack of money to be made by doing so would likely kill it as much as anything. Licensing and certification is mostly about trying to artificially restrict a market to keep prices up. But this market is such that it is doubtful it could survive higher prices.

I was looking at your web site and noticed an interesting word in one of your equipment lists. It uses the word "toque". I had to look it up to find that it is some kind of hat. Do Canadians actually use this word? I have not had to look up a word in a long while, but that one got me.

BTW, on the same equipment list "water bottle" is misspelled as "water bootle". I least I think it is a typo. Maybe that is another Canadianism.

Yes, toque is a very common Canadian word. When it's really cold out you don't wear a hat, you wear a toque.

For example, go over to mec.ca and punch "toque" into the search engine and you'll get a lot of results back ... something like this:

Yep, that's the common term. Though when chatting with 'Murcans, I just add "watch cap" to save time.

There can be no standard of certification unless we work out this toque vs. cap business. Now I propose we outlaw toque for survival and restrict its usage to culinary. This has the support of the Chefs' Alliance. Who's with me?

I think it would be wise to cede the proper naming of cold weather gear to us Canadians, no?

Now I think you're one toque over the line.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ejvcd-JeVCQ

How about we vote on it?

Okay, after helping derail this thread I now feel obliged to post something on-topic

I'd tend to think that this type of certification is something that would need to be driven by government demands. I look at it like first aid training; corporations and other groups operating in certain spaces need to have a dictated amount of certified first aiders. This provides the motivation for the standards & levels of certification to be set and then multiple players in the training space can develop programs that meet those standards in whatever way they feel best for their target customers (for example, my wilderness first aid certification is accepted by provincial authorities to be equivalent to or surpassing Standard First Aid).

That said, there are other disciplines, like IT (my field), where there are various technical certifications which can take off but only if both the individual and (more importantly) employers believe that it is beneficial for the individual to hold such a certification. Personally, I don't believe such certifications are good indicators of skill so I don't value them highly; though I have recently got more but simply because it helped our company from a corporate partnership perspective.

To get a wilderness survival certification off the ground from this non-government mandated perspective, it would require some really good marketing to get the corporate buy-in to create the demand (I think, at least).

Actually, what could be really helpful other than certification is some form of industry association that survival schools could be a part of (even if an informal one). I've seen interesting courses offered by various companies and it would be nice if there was some way to know if the school is well thought of in the industry.

That said, even this requires a certain level of marketing and education to the potential client base but it may be a bit more easy to do than coming up with a certification to offer to the clients.

I think you are still dealing with the same problems. The majority of these schools are not real big and I suspect not horribly profitable. What incentive would there be for these guys to come together to form an association that would take up their time when they could be out hustling?

My guess is whoever would start such a trade group would want to have control over it permanently and that would doom it to being mostly irrelevant in the long run.

I wonder how big the entire industry even is. I doubt there are more than a few hundred instructors making a FT living at it. It may not even be that big.

I think there is a list of survival schools on this website somewhere. Why not just email them all and see if there is any interest? I'd be curious how many even still exist.

Just asking a leading question here, but what if there was a website where people who have attended survival schools could post reviews?

You're asking for a reviewing process. Naturally there is value to something like that, but we'll need people who can evaluate the knowledge being taught, the quality of instruction, and the cost of the course compared to other similar courses. Alas, people who can do this are usually not students who might take the course, and this is the problem with consumer reviews.

Consumers tend to evaluate based on their experience: did they *feel like* they learned something useful, did they *feel like* the course was worth their money. When they're complete beginners, it's hard for them judge: did they learn good stuff, and did they get enough of it for the money. They could potentially be mislead by instructors who can give them a good experience without giving them good knowledge.

I think we keep running into the problem of industry standard.

I pesonally do not see a need or value on having a quote system. Each and every instructor has his own style and type of skills that he will teach. Taken from years of experiance in the field which is irreplaceable.. You can not learn all the skills needed from a book. You can read read read all you want. But without getting out there and practicing one a regular basis. You'd just be an arm chair survivalist. Which means you'd be pretty damn hungry cold or dead in the field in a reall long term situation.

You can study people like

Dave Cantebury, Les Stroud, Larry Dean, Tom Brown, Bear Grylls, Condy Lundin, or any of the hundreds of others that just aren't as well known but excellent teachers..

Look at their history. Who's been teaching the longest with the best track record. Or who's just internet flash or television flash?

Each and every one of these men will teach you in complete different methods, styles and techniques.

Does that mean it's bad that each one is different? I don't think so. As long as you do your research on who's going to teach you the most.

I wouldn't trust my life to bear grylls anymore than I would a girl scout. He does ignorant stuff on his show just for ratings. Does or would he do any of those things in a real survival setting. I highly doubt it. I'm sure most of his antics are at the prodding of producers trying to gain viewers.

Any of the others have great methods and skill sets. But are all different and where ever your going to be put in a situation at. ie. area you live or travel in. Is the type of survival you may want to put your time, and money into learning.

ie. I've spent years studying and practicing for the boreal forest and midwest to east coast timber land. Since that's where I live and travel too the most on quote survival, extended very little gear treks or stays.

I will be the first too admit I lack alot when it comes to desert survival of any kind. Other than what I've studied in a book. Hence If I were going to pay someone to teach me something that I do not have a skill set in. I'd go straight to Cody Lundin.

He's been teaching for years in arizona and is highly skilled in desert survival.

If I wanted to learn more about timber land east coast woodland to midwest woodland living. I'd enroll in the some classes with Tom, Since he's been in business and teaching since the early 70's. Think he's had plenty of time to know his stuff and have it down packed.

What it breaks down too is there's so much to learn and so many different styles and method. That if there was a corriculim. You'd be losing out. There's no way you can cover so much material from so many different cultures and land types in one central method. Like how we're taught in modern school systems.

Just my two cents ;]

This is unfair to the Girl Scouts, who actually work hard to be safe and smart in the outdoors. Two of my daughters are Girl Scouts and they'll tell you to dress appropriately for the weather, wear sturdy shoes, stay in groups, stay on known trails, watch their back trail (to make sure they know what it looks like to get back to camp) and carry a whistle.

If they get lost they're trained to hug a tree and blow the whistle.

I defy you to find an episode of Bear's show as sensible as they are.

Hahaha you are correct sir. My apoligies to the girl scouts. Bears an idiot though.

And along with the useful knowledge you can acquire in a course or from books, is a it of actual experience; in deserts, acclimatisation is rather important - it takes time- ideally, several months. Fortunately, the desert is not always inhospitable. The low country around Tucson is delightful in January and February, quite pleasant for the next couple of months, and only turns hot in summer. By then, a newcomer can both learn and adapt.

I am the opposite. I am comfortable in deserts and western mountains, but eastern woodlands and swamps, etc. are terra incognita. I once took a short trip in the Okefenokee Swamp. I was impressed that it was the exact inverse of a desert. You were surrounded by water (containing alligators) and dry land was rare and highly prized.....

That's what I was trying to get at in part of my post earlier. With the different areas and eco systems. Skill sets have to change greatly. As I've said I've spent years studying and pushing myself too my limits in the actual field along with a vast library to do research with. But quote dirt time is crucial for every skill.

I can see maybe the need for a basics course rudimentary type of organization. But beyond that. There literally are too many variables.

Just read this post and found it remarkably interesting and in some ways right on topic with this post we're commenting on.... I'm new here to this forum so my apologies if this link is not allowed..But it is a good read.


http://www.codylundin.com/choosing.html

Interesting, but he takes somewhat of a bitter tone, railing against backyard classes and internet trainers. He's right, of course, that there are probably too many imposters in the field, but I think there is a place for backyard,internet, and campground training classes. I will stick my neck out and say that these engender more interest and enthusiasm in the general population than any other format. How is that bad? The youth of today are more isolated from the wilderness, and anything that exposes them is a good thinng.

My interest probably stems from Cub Scouts where we learned simple camping skills and crafts from our Den Mothers, mostly in backyards or parks. I have spent the following 50 years recreating in the wilderness as a counterbalance to my urban-based vocation. I have taken the little nuggets I was given in Scouts and expanded greatly on them during my lifetime, as I range through the lakes, swamps, and rivers in boreal forests of the northern states.

I watch U-Tube video reviews of outdoor equipment and techniques to while-away the winter blahs. Some of these are amateurish, repetitive, and maybe even incorrect. That said, some of them are well done, with excellent production values and well presented and correct information. I have never seen a video that was 'dangerous'. If a thirteen year old kindles the fire of a lifetime recreating in the woods by making a sappy U-Tube demonstration of fire starting or knife throwing in the back yard, who cares? If a magazine article regurgitates the same-old same-old, maybe it catches the attention of a newbie. Cody wasn't born an expert, and he must have passed through the phases he detests somehow.

It would be hard to imagine an outdoor training class where nothing of value is learned. If nothing else, it is fun to spend a day in the woods and watch other people learn these skills. To assume that persons who take a campground survival course would automatically think they are ready to parachute into the Borneo wilderness with only a SAK and a match seriously insults the intellegence of most people. Do we judge it all on the few dim-bulbs or copy-cats that might abuse the training?

As in all things, gather your information from multiple sources, be patient and discerning, and don't go beyond your experience, training, and common sense. It is possible to have fun in the good times while simultaneously preparing for the worst of times.

Links to information are fine. Links to commercial endeavors that are offtopic, or that you are connected to financially, are not fine. Even if you were Cody Lundin I wouldn't think of this link as being inappropriate in this context.

Don't hesitate to PM me any questions if you're not sure about what is or is not appropriate here.


chaosmagnet

Well said.

What I've done is teach kids the elementary basics about staying safe and getting found if they get lost. I'm "qualified" to do that, and a lot of the kids seem to enjoy getting out and doing things once they've heard my talk. I'm guessing it's because they're less fearful.

I fully agree that backyard and youtube teachers are great. People need to learn these things. (that were once common knowledge)

And yes I know he sounded a bit peaved in part of his post. But there is another message in there as well. And that's if your looking for a proffesional taught course. Do your research, to get taught correctly and in what's going to suit your. Your age, skill level, enviroment..

A general basics course with a fairly strict guideline that all course would teach wouldn't be a bad thing. But again so many different factors come into play. That having them all run by one handbook or code. The student would be greatly missing out on lots of good info/neccasary info.

[And too my earlier link and post... Nope absolutely no ties to any teacher/school affiliation of any sort. Just thought that article was along the same subject line as this conversation is all. ]

I'm self taught from books, field time, grandfather and dad. Growing up a midwesterner spending my time in the woods instead of an arcade. And ex military (which in reality the military didnt' teach me anything other than to achieve the goal I'm after.

I'd have a really hard time paying anyone to teach me skills that I believe I already posses and am fairly proficient at. Unless, of course I'm able to find time to do a desert experiment for a few months. Then I'd really consider paying to be taught the skills I'd need for that enviroment. As I don't believe you can learn everything from a book.

In the interest of accuracy, let me point out Lundin is not dismissing the backyard classes because they do not impart survival techniques such as making fire, but because they cannot teach the survival mindset:



I think this echoes a good question that hikermor raised earlier:



I think this is an important question. Has anyone here taken a class with Lundin or any of the noted survival instructors? How is this sort of stuff taught? Can we learn it in other venues?

If anything I believe the will to push on and succeed or live. Was instilled in me more deeply in the military than in everyday life when I was younger..

I have not taken any course with anyone. But I push myself to my own limits when ever time permits.. ie.. getting dropped off in the country in the middle of a below zero snowstorm to camp out alone.

Flying into canada for 14 days and getting dropped on almost 100 miles away from my truck with no food or weapons, other than a knife and tomahawk. To canoe back to my vehicle in the states.

Taking off on canoe or bike or hiking trips with no food shelter. Just as a test to see what I'll come up with.

Or taking off on a two week motorcycle trip with only enough cash to pay for gas. No food money what so ever. So I have to forage at my campsites for anything I'm going to eat..

I think putting yourself in a situation and frame of mind is the most important part. Water,fire shelter, food.. Foods the hardest part of the equation most of the time. Unless your fairly proficiant with edible plants. And or other fast easy ways to find game.

But once you've accomplished these things. Being out there turns into normal routine most of the time. Rather than oh crud I'm lost and don't have anything.. Get in the frame of mind that every want you could ever need in life. Is provided for you in nature. You just have to train your mind and body at how to use your resources in ways that man has forgotten for the most part.