Know Your Limits - Man Who Planned Year Long Survival Challenge Found Dead a Month Later

yet another example of those who can do .. those who cant teach .. unfortuneatly he failed the lesson .
lmao people like bear grylls wouldnt last two days out here in the jungles of s.e asia .. doubt he'd last much longer elsewhere if it was necessary for him to survive.

bear gryll's is never more than 100 meters from a hotel.

survivor man goes on a week long camping trip in the wilderness and then is medivacted with i.v drips and saline solutions back home.

this guy apparently doesn't know television is fake.

a clue should be bear grylls crossing the sahara desert with a quarter canteen of urine.

That truly is a damn shame... I would've tried to burn the whole damn mountain down if I was freezing to death.

Originally posted by Frogs
Unfortunately wilderness survival is one of those things that when it doesn't work out like on TV it can be very bad.

Yes it can. I like to go bush by myself for a week or two. I try to go once a year but it's been 18 months since last time.

Some people's idea of adventure is going to a caravan park, while other's is a bit more risky. I've nearly died underestimating nature before, and it made me wiser from the experience. I would rather die doing what I love than living in fear that I might die my whole life.

Bag Bear Grylls all you want, but I'd love to see anyone here climb Mt Everest after breaking your back in three places. I've just finished reading his autobiography "Mud, sweat and tears" and the guy is one of the most mentally tough people I know of.

At least he lives his life and has fascinating stories to tell.

reply to post by daaskapital


I watched a PBS documentary here in the US about some folks who went to live in the MIdwest USA as they did in the 1800s ... I had to laugh when the 'experts" were teaching them how to build their cabins... the so called experts had them using a broad axe for finishing hewning the logs axe if it was a felling axe.....

face it ... with the knowledge we have today you may go back to living a rural lifestyle but there are many mechanical devices that would make life easier.....

Originally posted by Expat888
lmao people like bear grylls wouldnt last two days out here in the jungles of s.e asia .. doubt he'd last much longer elsewhere if it was necessary for him to survive.

You do know he's an ex SAS soldier, don't you? I think he would survive 2 days there fine.

remember hes following advice from someone who drank his own piss
the worlds a better place without him

If it's that hard to live off the land then how has the human race survived many ice ages?

Originally posted by NuclearPaul

Originally posted by Expat888
lmao people like bear grylls wouldnt last two days out here in the jungles of s.e asia .. doubt he'd last much longer elsewhere if it was necessary for him to survive.

You do know he's an ex SAS soldier, don't you? I think he would survive 2 days there fine.

No, Bare isn't ex-SAS, that is just hype.

reply to post by g146541


8 days without electricity in Florida after one of the hurricanes in 2004 made me apprieciate modern living.

**you got read the post of my respondee to understand my point

Man is a thoroughly domesticated animal at this point. The comparitive lack of wildlife in contemporary Scotland would certainly be a major contributing factor, but hardly the most important one.

I had a minor interest in Survivalism a few years ago, but I've all but given it up, now. I am the archetypical dependent civilian; a single kidney, a difference in leg length of three inches, autism, and other neurological issues which cause me to be almost completely devoid of reflexes or motor co-ordination.

So I've stopped trying to psychologically compensate for the level of dependence which my situation inevitably implies, by trying to pretend that I'm something which I can never be. At 35, I've finally moved out of home, and am currently semi-homeless in an area where I have no family present whatsoever; but the other people here are decent, and food is not impossible to find.

Our society tries hard to impress us with the Kshatriya ideal; the idea that, particularly as a male, you are fundamentally inadequate if you are not military. In this day and age, however, just getting through the next 24 hours alive and sane can be enough of a victory in itself for many of us, even in the industrialised world.

Keep it in mind, people. Real Survivalism doesn't necessarily mean being out in the woods somewhere. Given our current ecological conditions, that environment might well make your survival less likely than being in a city. The only real advantages that rural living offers now, are less exposure to the State, and a smaller likelihood of being killed by other human beings; but unless you are growing your own food, it does not necessarily offer any logistical advantage.

I've also said it before, and I will say it again. Most Survivalism is primarily motivated by worship of the military, and a desire to vicariously emulate them among civilians. It is a serious mistake to fall for the stereotypical imagery of the bowie knife and camo face paint. My own definition of Survivalism is knowing how to dynamically adapt, to the best of your ability, to any situation that you find yourself in. That might mean the wilderness, but on an increasing basis, it actually doesn't.

Truth be told, I actually get the feeling that the real reason why most of you want to bug out to the mountains, is because you think that getting away from everyone else, would make your lives a lot easier. I can turn that on its' head.

Living in the middle of a contemporary Western city, with psychopathic police around you, finding food that isn't genetically modified or otherwise purposely designed to prematurely kill you, and avoiding death either from violence or disease? There's a real Survival challenge.

He should have followed Ray mears instead- poor dude, it must have been quite lonely.

Originally posted by 4hero
No, Bare isn't ex-SAS, that is just hype.

The only hype is that he wasn't in the SAS. Created by people who simply don't want to believe it so they can pretend he knows nothing about survival.

In March 1997, he joined the British Army and after passing on his second attempt United Kingdom Special Forces Selection (where he claims he was one of four to have passed out of his group of 180), from 1994–1997, he served in the part-time United Kingdom Special Forces Reserve, with 21 Regiment Special Air Service, 21 SAS(R), as a trooper, survival instructor and Patrol Medic.

en.wikipedia.org...

If he was lying about this, it would offend anyone who has passed SAS selection. You would have heard them speak out about it.

A point that I don't think I saw yet is that the tv survivalists are not attempting to engage in long term survival under adverse conditions. They are trying to show how to survive long enough to be rescued or at least find more suitable conditions. The guy in the story was crazy in that he should have at least started his challenge during warmer months in an attempt to prepare for the coming winter. Starting in winter, resources may be almost non existent.

why does anybody listen to bear gryllis his shows are all about him doing crazy stunts. i really liked the one where he saw a hotel on other side of lake that was inwinter he decides he should cross lake by floating across instead of walking a mile around lake. if i am not mistaken the idiot had to get rushed to hospital with hypothermia.
yes he was in sas but you got to realize these guys are picked because they are a little crazy because sane people couldnt handle stuff they got to do self preservation instincts would take over. yes him and some other guys crossed atlantic in a dingy he never does his stunts alone. now somebody was inspired to try to live off the land during a highland winter guess what this poor guy died. if i was going to try to live on side of montain in highlands for a year i would have 30 or 40 cords of dry wood a a freezer full of meat a shed full of dry goods ie ceral
cans of beans .

This is why I don't frequent the survival forum more often.

For half a century I have seen similar failures, with of course far less severe consequences. Near me are certain houses that tend to get a new owner/tenant every year or so. There's nothing wrong with the houses (some are the nicest around), but there is something wrong with the area: it's not in the city.

People move in, wanting to "get back to nature" or "live simply" or "take life easy". They move in and everything is fine for a couple weeks. Then they leave something edible outside at night and someone's dog decides to take advantage of it. They realize that the pizza delivery service stops 5 miles away, and they have to meet the delivery guy halfway. The wind changes direction and brings a reminder that some people grow food around here, including cattle and swine. They don't like the taste of well water, preferring the recycled sewage they are used to.

Something small always happens, and it's downhill from there. Within a year, they go back to their city life, or at least somewhere a little closer to it. The house sits empty for a little while and the whole process starts all over.

Now that is a far cry from what this guy pulled, to be sure, but really it's the same thing as well. He probably had this whole scenario figured out in his mind about how things would work once he hit the sticks, and someone forgot to inform the sticks.

Humans are weak. We have no real natural weapons... teeth are not sharp enough, mouth doesn't open wide enough to take a decent bite out of something. Our nails are flimsy thin little things instead of claws. We have precious little fur compared to other species. Our eyesight is pretty good, in color at least, but not the best in the animal kingdom. Our other senses are poorly developed: smell, hearing, even tactile has severe limitations. We are laughable trying to run or climb or swim compared to other species. Our muscles are weak for their size. We have allergies, maladies, a myriad of potential medical issues from what other creatures take in stride. We have no survival instinct to tell us what to do. All we have is our intelligence.

With that, we can learn how to anticipate the reactions of less intelligent animals. We can compensate for lack of fur with clothing or enclosures with fires. We can make our own claws and teeth from sticks or rocks or even bones... and make them sharper, make them strike from farther away, make them more versatile. We can even improve our senses through technology. But that also means we need the technology, and that means we need... others.

Out here, where there really is no civilization, people survive and even thrive not on brawn or skill, but on each other. We pride ourselves on our independence, yes, but also we understand how important each of us is to the others. In the city, a flat tire beside the road without a spare means you call someone to come help; out here the same situation stops every other vehicle that passes and someone sticks their head out the window and asks "You guys need help?"

Fall on hard times in the city, and you contact charities for aid. Fall on hard times here, and things just seem to miraculously happen... everyone seems to suddenly need help emptying a stuffed freezer, or everyone's garden is producing too much for them to eat, or grocery bags will miraculously appear on your front porch. The elderly have plenty of company, because everyone who knows them is concerned that something bad might happen, and they stay close. It's the same dependency on others as in the city, even more so because there is no requirement for financial repayment... the repayment is through paying things forward.

Once you go into a lone survival situation, all that is gone. You have no one to call upon. If you fall, you either get up or you don't. If some predator decides you're lunch, either you outrun them, outfight them, or digest. If the weather gets too cold, you either get warm or never get warm again. If you get sick, you either get over it or you don't.

That's a whole different ball game than living in a city, a suburb, or even way back in these mountains like I do.

Bottom line: everyone who knows anything about survival knows this one rule: never do it unless you have to. If you can manage to live around others, that is your best chance to survive. No one knows every skill needed to survive on their own, and while a handful might manage it, it is foolhardy to try it for laughs. I can go for a week in this mountain easily, but I prefer an easier life... that's why I have a house.

Learn what you can, and shy from some of the modern conveniences if you wish... but take those steps slowly and remember that looking-glass with the swirling images in your living room is for entertainment... not for life-and-death information.

And please... don't move farther away from the city than you really want to be.

TheRedneck

kinda hard to burn mountain if vegetation is scarce wilderness expert for region said if he tried it when montain still had forests he might have made it

the redneck has it absolutely right. if there ever is shtf situation the way you are going to survive is by community coming together not by trying to go out and live all by your lonesome like grizzly adams.

reply to post by TheRedneck


Wow very well said. And that's where most of the differences come from in regards to liberal/conservative ideologies. Both are for the most part region specific because of the differences in environment and lifestyle. Both are right about their views in their specific viewpoints (perspective). I know your comment didn't have anything to do with it but I felt it explained what causes those differences rather well.

Back to the subject, most think of TV as a representation of some reality out there which is it not. It is a simulation of reality that is highly edited and directed to show a particular viewpoint. It romanticizes and demonizes. Survival shows are great because they can be very informative but it is foolish to believe that all one needs to be a survivalist is to simply take notes. That like someone learning MMA or boxing simply from watching tapes, without any sparring.

That's one of my major beefs with TV in that it is a major brainwashing tool. There certainly positives to it, but most over look the negatives (especially in "whole picture" thinking) which are plentiful.

reply to post by TheRedneck


A good point about "moving to the country". Like many things on TV how its depicted likely doesn't meet with reality and people can end up disappointed.

Mrs. Frogs loves that "house hunters" show. A few months ago I watching it with her and the couple looking for a new house had moved to the country a year ago. They thought it would charming, they thought it would be simple, they thought it would be good for the kids, they thought it would be relaxing.

Turns out after a year they'd discovered that chopping wood, growing their own food, having to drive 30 miles to the nearest town - and that town basically closing down by 7pm was way more work and bother than they wanted to go through.

I remember the husband's comments - "It wasn't charming, it wasn't relaxing, it was just a never ending stream of work, boredom and pains in the butt! You may think it'll be great to grow your on veggies. Trust me - its far, far easier to just be able to drive 10 mins and buy them."

Like you said - it ain't for everybody.