I guess it is all about context, isn't it. The thing is we are conscientious about what is put out there in the media. We compare Bear to guys like Doug and Les, who would not ever advocate much of what Bear purports, not because it is right or wrong, but simply inappropriate for the layman. There is some redemption in Bear's wild demonstrations, that being the notion of inspiring people to step up to the challenge at least and try to survive. "What one man can do, another can do" was the mantra of Anthony Hopkins in "The Edge", and I have no doubt no one in the survival business is going to recommend fighting a bear with sticks, but the notion that you do what you gotta is in that message somewhere. That Bear is able to do what he does, staged or otherwise, can have some meaning in inspiring otherwise intelligent folks to think for themselves, to at least try and do something within reason, or maybe even take a risk, bearing in mind their known limitations and that all men are not equal to the task at hand.

Bear's actions on the show would be foolhardy for most folks put into survival situations. He demonstrates extreme actions, which can be construed to exemplify that more is perhaps possible than first appears, if we are willing to think a bit and perhaps prepare ourselves for when the time would come. If you have to kill the bear, then it is good to know it can be done, and with less than you would ideally like to have to git 'er done with. That doesn't mean putting yourself deliberately into that situation. It means 'Never give up, never surrender". It means not believing in the "No win scenario", gees can I come up with any more theatrical cliches for ya.

Should Bear and his buddies make a buck or two by striking while the iron is hot? Hey, I won't knock the guy for marketing himself. If people weren't willing to pay, then that'd be that. I wouldn't confuse making a living with bad endorsements. His knife will get the job done just as much as any other. If people want to pay the $700 for it, that's their deal, and you really can't hold it against him, or you would have to condemn the whole danged lot, including Doug.

So yes, if you wanna compare him to some public service standard, then he will come up short, and is criticizable on many counts. I don't think that is the context of his production, so I take it for what it is and don't hold it against him too much if he seems to be excessive most of the time. Les Stroud he ain't, and I don't think his objectives are similar. Is he entertaining? Yeah, that's seems pretty obvious, so just take it for what it is, and realize that what he's selling is just food for thought, and not necessarily universal altruisms.