History Channel’s ALONE, The Most Realistic Survival Show… Or Is It?

You guys have probably noticed that I have said very little about the popular History Channel show Alone. For those of you not familiar at all, the premise of the show is that several people are dropped off in the “wilderness” with a limited amount of gear and are left to survive there for up to a year. The one who lasts out the longest wins $500,000.

There are two reasons why I haven’t posted much about the show. The first is that I think all of the contestants deserve some degree of respect. Granted, some were not able to last even a handful of days, but just being willing to put your life on hold for an extended period of time just so you can test yourself is quite something. These guys are amateurs, and as such have made a sacrifice to be on the show. Now, it seems a few of them are now trying to push their own survival/bushcradft schools, which will of course bring a higher level of scrutiny and expectations; but that’s for another post. The second reasons is that I am not a fan of Monday morning quarterbacking. Things are just different on the ground. Many things look like a good idea when you are in the woods, that seem silly when watching it at home, and the other way around. On top of that, all this footage is heavily edited, making it hard to know exactly what happened. So, in this post, I will try to keep such comments to a minimum.

The reason I decided to write this post is because of the huge number of emails I have received asking me to comment on the show. In particular I have received a number telling me how the show represents true bushcraft, or real survival, etc. Many people I have spoken to have what I believe to be very misguided ideas about what the show actually is or what happened during its course. In some respects Alone is a very “real” show, in others it’s nothing of the sort. If you haven’t been dealing with production companies for some time, it may be hard to tell which is which. So, here is my attempt to draw some distinctions:

What Was Not So Real:

Stranded in the wilderness: location, location, location

The first thing that caught my attention a while back was the location of the show. We all know it’s Vancouver Island, and most people assume that the contestants were dropped off in some sort of untouched wilderness. Well, based on an early map shown by the History Channel, and based on the research of a few guys, it appears the exact location is near Winter Harbor on Vancouver Island, approximate GPS coordinates of 50.5057662,-127.9784363. Now, here is what that gives us when plotted on top of the satellite view of the area:

  

The above map is small, but even from that picture your eye is probably detecting large clearings and roads right next to the contestants. Here is a closer view of Mitch’s location:

Here is a closer view of Joe’s location:

Here is a street view of Sam’s location:

These locations are approximate, but based on the map from the History Channel, they should be fairly accurate. You can do your own search on Google Maps Satellite View or Google Earth using the above coordinates.

Is that what you had in mind when you were watching the show? Did you know that every one of the contestants was less than an hour’s walk from a road, town, or clearing? Did you know that some of them were in actual campsites?

Now, to be fair, these are logging areas and logging roads. They don’t exactly see a lot of traffic and were probably not in use at the time of filming. Even so though, did you see any of that on the show? Did any of the contestant hunt the edges of the clearings or roads? Did any of them go into town for a beer? 

When I first discovered this, I figured that is the reason why none of them moved about much. Walking in any direction for about an hour would have taken them into a clearing or a road. I though that, until I saw their gear lists. Then I decided that the reason they couldn’t move about was because they couldn’t move the huge amount of gear they had.

Gear, gear everywhere

So, the premise of the show was that these guys could only bring ten items with which to survive. They could chose these ten items from a list of 40 items that was provided to them. On its face it may seem like a challenging task. Well, the History Channel released the gear lists. You can look for yourself here. Here is a brief summary:

Items that were carried that did NOT count in the ten items (I have removed the filming items from the lists, i.e. cameras, etc):

• 1 canister wild animal repellant
  1 air horn
  1 backpack
  1 emergency flare
  1 satellite phone
  1 emergency personal flotation device
  1 first aid kit (military type – tourniquet, wadding, ace bandage, alcohol, plastic bag, etc)
  1 small mirror
  1 20×20 canvas tarp
  1 10×10 canvas tarp for camera gear
  1 head lamp
  1 gps tracking device
  1 emergency rations pack to include water and food
• 1 woolen sweater
  1 pair of gloves
  1 trapper’s hat with ear protection or toboggan
• 1 pair high leg Hunting boots
  2 pairs of Outdoor Pants (can unzip into shorts)
  1 t-shirt
  2 fleece or wool shirts (a hooded fleece is approved)
  3 pairs wool socks
  1 hat (brimmed, wool or baseball)
  1 bandana or shemagh
  1 pair gloves
  1 light outdoor jacket
  2 pairs underwear
  1 rain jacket and rain trousers
  1 thermal underwear (long)
  1 pair of gaiters
  1 pair of Crocs, Teva sandals or Keen sandals
  1 toothbrush
  1 pair of prescription eye glasses
  1 personal photograph

And, we still haven’t gotten to the ten (10) items. None of the above gear counts towards the ten items. Now, here is the gear list from which the contestants could pick their ten (10) items:

• 12×12 ground cloth/tarp (grommets approved)
  8 mm climbing rope
  550 parachord – 20m
  1 hatchet
  1 saw
  1 axe
• 1 multi-seasonal sleeping bag that fits within provided back-pack
  1 bivi bag (gortex sleeping bag cover)
  1 sleeping Pad
  1 hammock
• 1 large (no more than 2 quart) Pot, includes lid
  1 steel frying pan
  1 flint or ferro rod set
  1 enamel bowl for eating from
  1 spoon
  1 disposable lighter
  1 canteen or water bottle
  1 bear canister
• 1 bar soap
  1 8 oz tube of toothpaste
  1 face flannel
  1 40 m. roll dental floss
  1 small bottle bio shower soap
  1 shaving razor (and 1 blade)
  1 towel (30” x 60”)
  1 comb
• 1 300 yard roll of nylon single filament fishing line and 25 assorted hooks (No lures)
  1 primitive bow with 6 Arrows (must be predominately made of wood)
  1 small gauge gill net (1.5 m deep x 6 m long and 2 inch [50 mm] mesh)
  1 slingshot/Catapult
  1 net foraging bag
  3.5 lb roll of trapping wire
• 5 lbs of beef jerky (protein)
  5 lbs of dried pulses/legumes/lentils mix (starch and carbs)
  5 lbs of biltong (protein)
  5 lbs of hard tack military biscuits (carbs/sugars)
  5 lbs of chocolate (Simple/complex sugars)
  5 lbs of pemmican (traditional trail food made from fat and proteins)
  5 lbs of gorp (raisins, m&m’s and peanuts)
  5 lbs of flour. (starch/carbs)
  2 lbs of rice or sugar and 1 lb of salt
• 1 pocket knife
  1 hunting knife
  1 leatherman multi-tool
  1 sharpening stone
  1 roll of duct tape or 1 roll of electrical tape
  1 small shovel
  1 small sewing kit
  1 carabineer
  1 LED flashlight
  1 pair of ice spikes

Now, for someone who doesn’t spend a lot of time in the woods, the above list may not seem like anything special. For those however, who do backpack, camp, hunt, or otherwise spend time in the woods, it is clear that the contestants had a huge amount of very useful gear. In fact, what was depicted as a survival challenge on TV, was a well equipped camping trip. The only true survival element of the show, the lack of food, seems to have been completely self inflicted by overconfident contestants. Let’s dive into it a bit deeper.

Let’s look at a standard camping set up that can be put together from the above list:

• 20x20 tarp (didn’t count towards the ten (10) items). It should be noted that 20x20 is a huge tarp. For most campers and backpackers a 10x10 tarp is considered large.
• A four season sleeping bag
• A sleeping pad
• A backpack (didn’t count towards the ten (10) items)
• A 2qt pot
• A lighter/ferro rod. Considering the trouble all of the contestants had starting a fire with their ferro rods, a lighter might have been a good choice.  
• A head lamp (didn’t count towards the ten (10) items)
• An axe
• All the clothing you could ever want (didn’t count towards the ten (10) items)
• A bag of food (didn’t count towards the ten (10) items)
• A mirror (didn’t count towards the ten (10) items)
• A first aid kit (didn’t count towards the ten (10) items)
• A toothbrush (didn’t count towards the ten (10) items)
• A bandana (didn’t count towards the ten (10) items)

So, the above list is pretty much a complete backpacking/camping set up. It’s approximately the amount of gear I carry when I go on any trip into the woods, and provides for a comfortable and pretty ordinary camp.

I have managed to put together the above list and have only used five (5) items from the forty (40) items list. Realistically, since you have an axe, and don’t plan on traveling, the sleeping pad is not needed, which will bring you down to four (4) items from the list. So, that will leave us with six (6) more items to chose for our ten (10) items list.

Considering that the winning contestant won by lasting just under two months, a smart choice might have been to bring extra food. The provisions list had some excellent choices. Here is what I would have picked:

• 5 lbs of biltong (protein)
• 5 lbs of hard tack military biscuits (carbs/sugars)
• 5 lbs of chocolate (Simple/complex sugars)
• 5 lbs of pemmican (traditional trail food made from fat and proteins)
• 5 lbs of gorp (raisins, m&m’s and peanuts)
• 5 lbs of flour. (starch/carbs)

The above food would have allowed one to comfortably stay in the woods for months. If you rationed out the food even slightly, a contestant could have spent many months in the woods without ever trying to look for food. Keep in mind that this food is on top of the food that was already provided to them that didn’t count towards the ten (10) items. Update (9/16/15): A comment was just posted by Stefany Kay, who represents to be a wife of one of the contestants, and ha provided some additional information. According to her, the contestants could only pick one food item from the category. That would have leveled the playing field much faster. 5lb of pemmican can be stretched out to about two weeks, but not much longer. After that all of the contestants would have been in the category of “a camping trip without food”. I have no way of independently confirming the information, and the History Channel hasn’t published that limitation, but it would make sense. 

Now, realistically, thinking even longer term, I would have replaced one of the food items with the fishing kit.

Personal choices aside however, this was a camping trip in a wilderness area what wasn’t exactly as wild as we were lead to believe. Add to that some other minor things like the fact that the contestants weren’t in complete isolation. They were regularly visited by medical crews, especially towards the end when they were literally starving to death. Some parts were also reenacted for the camera, etc.

What Was Real:

The above aside, some aspects of the show were quite real.

Experience at individual wilderness skills does not equal wilderness experience

The first aspect that was very real is that it clearly demonstrated the difference between backyard bushcraft/survival vs. actually having experience in the woods. Now, I know “backyard bushcraft” has a negative connotation, and my intent is not to start a fight about it. The difference I am trying to point out here is that between being skilled at individual tasks that you practice in a controlled environment and actually spending time in the woods. There is a difference between being an expert at individual wilderness skills, and being a wilderness expert. While there is clear value to practicing skills in a controlled environment, such skills do not translate well into actually spending time in the woods. There are many people who are world famous experts at flint knapping, at friction fire lighting, etc, who have never spent a night in the woods. The difference is clear, it’s very real, and it was made obvious by the show.

Considering the above abundance of gear, the fact that so many contestants couldn’t last even a handful of days in the woods, on what was pretty much a camping trip, is mind blowing. It shows the reality of what it takes to spend prolonged amounts of time in the woods. These are people who considered themselves skilled at bushcraft and survival, who have YouTube channels, who want to open bushcraft schools, etc, yet they couldn’t do what any self respecting backpacker can accomplish without even a second thought.

Some of the things we saw early on were clear indication of people who had not spent any significant amount of time in the actual woods. Things like obsession with bears, or preoccupation with making fire when you have a seeping bag, a tarp, and all the fresh rain water you could drink, are indicators of lack of wilderness experience. For anyone who spends any time in the woods, having bears around you is a common occurrence, and so is staying out for prolonged periods of time without a fire. Now, these guys are actually very skilled at individual tasks. I have seen some of them show significant skill at making feathersticks, building fires, etc. However, that is not the same as having the experience of being in the woods.

Alone very clearly demonstrated that difference, and in that respect was a very real show. That aspect is often eliminated from other “survival” shows where you have large crews, set up challenges, and nights in the hotel room.

Not everything that is edible is food

The second aspect in which the show was very real was that of food procurement in a long term survival/bushcraft situation. As outlined above, each contestant had a full camping kit with them. Many of them also chose to bring hunting and fishing implements instead of extra food, presumably because they were confident in their ability to find food. As such, the main real survival/buschraft aspect here was the procurement of enough food to sustain one’s self long term. The only thing they had to do was find enough food. The show was very realistic in showing the difficulty of doing that.

According to People magazine, Alan, who won the show and arguably did the best at finding food sources, lost 60lb in the two months during which the show lasted. That is a clearly unsustainable rate of weight loss. Even if the rest of the contestants hadn’t tapped out by that point, I imagine the production company would have shut down the show because of the danger to the contestants. I am told medical teams were regularly checking the contestants especially towards the end. This type of starvation is dangerous and can not be maintained long term. In fact, they all seemed to have been on track to confirm the old saying that one can last three months without food. Add to that, from what I have been told, the contestants were on tribal land, which removed many of the hunting and fishing regulations and restrictions we have otherwise, although not all of them. I think this the actual restrictions on hunting and trapping are an important factor, that hasn’t been released by the History Channel. 

The fact that all of the contestants had such a hard time finding anywhere near the necessary amount of food, even though they had few other concerns, considering that they had large amounts of camp gear to provide for their other needs, is a very real aspect of the show. I think people often overestimate their ability to find sufficient calories when in the woods, and they certainly underestimate the amount of calories one needs.

So, How Real Was It?

So, how real of a survival show was Alone? I think the answer is somewhat, but less than most people think.

The location certainly wasn’t what many of us imagined, with easy access to roads, clearings, established camp sites, a town, etc. All of the contestants also had complete camping set ups, eliminating any “survival” challenge other than possibly procuring food. A smart contestant also had the ability to bring 30lb of calorie dense food, which could have comfortably lasted them several months while they napped under a tarp in their sleeping bag. In many respects this was a camping trip in an area that has seen noticeable use by people. For a contestant who chose to bring food, it would have been a very, very regular camping trip.

What was real was the litmus test provided by the woods. It is very different to practice a skill at home, and then translate all those skills to time spent in the woods. There are many backpackers who have no idea how to use an axe, make a feather stick, or make a fire with a ferro rod, but they routinely spend extended amounts of time in the woods. Here in many of the cases we saw the opposite, people who had individual wilderness skills that they had practiced in a controlled environment at home (in that I’m including the woods behind the home), but lacked the experience of actually being in the woods for significant periods of time. With the above gear, there is no reason why anyone should have tapped out within days other than lack of experience when it comes to actually being in the woods. I think the show showed that reality very well. It also clearly showed the difficulty of long term survival in terms of food procurement. It is just not as easy as people think. If things had continued they way they had been going, I don’t think any of the contestants would have made it past three months without serious damage to their bodies.

Personally, in terms of “realness” I would rank the show below Survivorman and Naked and Afraid, but above all the other survival garbage we see on TV these days. Les Stroud has been doing a similar thing, but I think he is a lot more honest about the production aspect of his show and why he is doing what he is doing.

Anyway, these are my thoughts on the show for those who were asking. Ultimately I was very disappointed when I discovered the information about the location and the gear list. I though I was watching a show that turned out to be something else entirely. With the amount of gear they had, I think it was less of a survival challenge, and more of a psychological endurance test.

Rifle Scope Basics For The Hunter

Last week I was contacted by Logan from Best Rifle Scope Review to write an article for them. I don’t have sufficient knowledge on the subject and I don’t do this for compensation, so I declined, but we did have a nice chat. I figured that I would instead write a basic intro to rifle scopes based on what I know from my personal use. If you are an experienced shooter, there won't be much here for you, but if you are just starting out, this may give you some basic info.

The Rifle Scope

These days there is a huge variation when it comes to rifle scopes. You can get anything from red dot scopes for quick target acquisition for applications like three gun competitions to computes assisted scopes that will calculate and adjust for your bullet trajectory for when, well, you want to shoot at stuff that is really, really far away. You also have everything in between. 

Since my main focus when shooting, is hunting, I have decided to focus on the more common options for a scope that could be used together with a standard hunting rifle. And while there is a vast number of considerations that could be taken into selecting a scope, since here we are talking about the basics, that’s exactly what I will try to cover.

So, you just bought your first rifle. You have selected the appropriate caliber and action for the game you are planning on hunting. Now you shift your focus to the next counter and start looking at the scopes. Shift your gaze away from that two foot long night vision scope, and focus on the standard scopes. The first thing that you should notice is that there are two main variant: a fixed magnification scope and a variable magnification scope. Each can be a good option depending on your rifle set up.

• Fixed Power Scope

Your first option will be a fixed magnification scope.

   

A fixed magnifications cope is exactly what it sounds like. It offers a fixed magnification. The Weaver scope you see in the above picture is a four (4) power scope. That is a pretty standard magnification and offers a lot of versatility. Such scopes will have a designation that features two digits such as 4x28. Each number represents specific information about the scope. The first number is the magnification power of the scope. In this case “4”. This means the object will appear approximately four (4) times larger when viewed through the scope. The second number represents the diameter of the objective lens (the one opposite of where you look), measured in millimeters. In this case that’s “28” millimeters. The larger the objective lens, the more light it can gather, and the clearer the picture will be especially in low light conditions or under large magnification. 

The Weaver Classic Rimfire 4x28 Scope you see above is a fairly good representative of the scopes in this category. Their main advantage is that they are small, light, and clear. They are a very good match for small caliber rimfire rifles. I have mine mounted to a single shot .22LR rifle. While it is always tempting to go for more magnification, make sure your scope doesn’t too greatly exceed the capability of the rifle or your skill level. With the above rifle I take realistic shots of up to 50 yards. At that distance, with the above scope, drilling a target should not be a problem.

• Variable Power Scopes

The second basic option you will have is a variable magnification scope.

A variable magnification scope will allow you to adjust the amount of magnification provided by the scope. The Nikon scope in the above picture is a pretty common example. Such scopes will have a designation that looks like 3-9x40. The “3-9” in this case represents the variation in magnification provided by the scope. Here you can adjust the magnification from a power of three (3) to a power of nine (9). The lat number, just like with the fixed power scopes designates the diameter of the objective lens in millimeters. Variable power scopes generally have larger objective lenses because higher magnifications require more light for a clear sight picture.

Adjustment of the magnification is typically done by rotating a ring near the eye piece.

 

It is important not to get carried away when selecting such a scope. The desire always seems to be to get more and more magnification, but that can be very counter productive. Too much magnification can be worse than too little. With too much magnification you will have a harder time acquiring your target and once on your target, you may end up seeing nothing but a close up shot of a patch of magnified hair. A scope like the Nikon Prostaff 3-9x40 that you see above will serve the needs of most beginners. If you hunt in an area where you have wide open lands and long distance shots of over 200 yards are common, then more magnification may be needed. I have the scope mounted on a .308 rifle. It is good practice to turn the scope to low magnification, four (4) power or so, before going hunting. That will let you get on target quickly. If you need to acquire an animal at longer range, you can turn up the magnification later. 

Mounting The Scope

Now that you have picked out a scope, the next step is to attach it to the rifle. The first thing you should make sure is that your rifle is tapped for a scope; meaning that there are small screw holes pre-drilled that will accept the scope components. Most modern rifles should come ready for a scope, but it’s something you should double check.

The process will require two pieces of gear, a rail or base, and scope rings. The base or rail will screw onto the rifle. The scope rings will attach to the base/rail, and then hold the scope into place. Rails/bases and scope rings come in different variations, so be careful when selecting components. Here are two examples:

As you can see from the above picture, the first base and scope ring will be incompatible with the second set. Unfortunately, you will have to look at compatibility charts provided by manufacturers to make sure all of the components work together. Additionally, both the base and the rings come in different heights depending on how much clearance you need for the scope. It is extremely frustrating to mount your scope only to realize that the bolt on your action can’t clear the scope.

Once you have the components, the mounting process is simple. The rail or bases screws onto the rifle with the provided screws.

  

The scope rings then attach around the scope, and are in turn tightened onto the base.

Leave the scope rings slightly loose around the scope so that you can adjust it into the right position. Make sure that the vertical and horizontal axes of the scope are actually vertical and horizontal.

Additionally, you will want to move the scope back and forth in the mount until you get a clear sight picture from the position in which you typically hold your rifle. Your eye should not be touching the scope, and it should be at such a distance when you holding the rifle that no portion of the sight picture is obscured. There are much more complex issues involved here like parallax adjustment, but for a beginning set up, I don’t think it is worth mentioning anything more than to make sure that when the scope is mounted, and you hold the rifle the way you ordinarily would, the picture in the scope is not obstructed. This will require moving the scope back and forth in the scope rings.

Sighting In A Scope

Now that you have selected your scope and have mounted it, you have to sight it in. Without this final step, the crosshairs you see when you look through the scope are meaningless. You have to adjust the set up so that the crosshairs align with where the bullets are impacting. 

The issue is more complex than it appears at first glance. The problem is that the scope and the rifle barrel will never be truly parallel to each other, and that bullets fly in an arc, not a straight line. The result is that when you sight in your scope, you have to sight it in at a specific distance. Once done, you will know that with this rifle, with specific ammunition, at a specific distance, the crosshairs on the scope will exactly match where the bullets are impacting. When shooting at different ranges, you will have to compensate by aiming higher or lower than the desired impact point, or with more advanced scopes by dialing in the corrections into the scope.

The first step however is to sight in your scope. The first decision you will have to make is at what distance you would like to sight in your scope, i.e. at what distance do you want the crosshairs to match the bullet impact site. The answer will depend on what type of hunting you do, and what type of rifle and ammunition you are using. There is no point in sighting in a scope at 200 yards when you are shooting .22LR ammunition which will never be used at such range. I sight in my rifles at 50 yards, even my .308. The reason is that I generally hunt in northeastern woodlands, and I virtually never have visibility of over 50 yards. As such, most shots are taken under that range. If you are hunting in wide open areas, where you are routinely taking 200 yard shots, than perhaps that would be an appropriate distance to sight in your scope, assuming you are firing the proper ammunition.

So, you have picked a range at which you want to sight in your rifle, let’s say 100 yards. You go to a rifle range, set up a bench with sand bags, position your rifle, take aim at your target at the 100 yard mark, and fire. What ends up happening is this:

   

You intended to hit the target at the crosshairs, but the bullet impacted at the red X. You fire a few more shots, with the exact same result. Now what? Well, now you have to adjust the scope so that the cross hairs align with the spot where the bullets are impacting. The adjustment will be done with the scope turret. In the middle of your scope will be a horizontal and vertical cap. Once you remove them, you will see adjustment dials.

  

On most scopes there will be an indication of the adjustment increments that can be made. On the above scope, each click moves the cross hairs 1/4 inch at 100 yards. If you are sighting in at a different distance, you will have to extrapolate the amount of adjustment (for the above scope, you will get 1/2 inch adjustment at 50 yards, and 1/8 adjustment at 200 yards). By looking at your target you can approximate exactly how far you need to move the cross hairs. Assuming that in the above made up picture of a scope sight, each marking represents an inch, you would have to move the cross hairs right about an inch (4 clicks at 100 yards) and about inch and a half up (6 clicks at 100 yards).

Make the adjustments and fire again. Continue to make small adjustments as necessary until you start to group hits at the location of the crosshairs.

Now, the above is the ideal example of sighting in a scope, and of course there are many other methods. This is just the one I use. Unfortunately, on many occasions, you will mount a new scope, go to the range, set up your bench, fire a few shots, and not a single one will land on the target. How do you make adjustments then? Most people then start making wild adjustments in the hopes of getting a bullet somewhere on the board. There are two much better ways to deal with such a scenario.

If you are at an indoor range, start by sighting in your scope at a very short distance. Bring the target in at 15 yards, and repeat the above process. The closer target will make sure that the bullets land on paper so you can make your adjustments. Once that is done, move the target back to the desired distance, and refine your adjustments.

If you are at an outdoor range, many will reserve the short distances for pistols only. As such, you will not be able to use the above technique. In such a situation, instead of aiming at the target, pick a spot (small pebble, piece of paper, etc) on the sand backstop or on the ground near the target. Fire at that spot and look to see where the bullet impacts the sand. There will be a visible puff of sand or dirt that will go up when the bullet impacts. If it is two feet to the right of the spot where you aimed, then you know in which direction and by approximately how much to dial in your scope. Once the bullets start impacting the sand near the area where you are aiming, you can transition to the target and refine your sighting.  

Lastly, now that you have sighted in your scope at a particular range, let’s say 100 yards, what do you do when you need to shoot at different distances. If you have watched any movies about snipers, you have probably seen them adjust their scope right before shooting as their spotter calls out distances and wind conditions. Some precision scopes have turrets designed for exactly such use. However, for the average user with a normal scope, that is not a viable approach.

The most common technique used by hunters is a D.O.P.E. (Data On Previous Engagements) chart or ballistics chart. Such a chart estimates based on the physical properties of the ammunition, the path the bullet will take, and consequently where it will impact at any given distance.

As I mentioned earlier, bullets travel in an arc. The moment the bullet is fired, it starts to decelerate and to fall towards the ground. When you sighted in your scope at 100 yards, you intersected that bullet arc at a particular point.

 

Generally speaking, if your scope’s line of aim intersects the bullet arc at exactly 100 yards, then at 50 yards the bullet will be impacting higher than your point of aim (the crosshairs), while at 200 yards, it will be impacting below your point of aim. The exact shape of the ark depends on the ammunition you are using. A .22LR will have a much more pronounced arc that a flatter flying bullet from a cartridge like the .17HMR.

There are ballistics calculators available online which will give you the exact point of impact for your specific rifle and ammunition combination to any given distance. I find however that for the average hunter, just taking a few test shots at the range will give you a good picture of what adjustments you will need to make to your aim when in the field. If your rifle is sighted in at 100 yards, fire a few shots at 50 yards, a few at 150 yards, etc. Note how far from the point of aim the bullet hits. If you see that at 200 yards your bullets are consistently impacting an inch below your point of aim, then in the field just aim about an inch higher than your desired target when shooting at that range. If you like, make yourself a chart recoding the drop for reference in the field. Again, if you are hunting at very long ranges, more precise calculations will be required, but for general use, most people can make reasonable adjustments without too much hassle.

Now, these are the basics, or at least as I know them. There is much more you can do and learn on the subject. If you have the above covered however, you should be able to get out in the field and conduct a successful hunt, at least from the sighting perspective.

Trip Report: Stoppel Point Airplane Crash Site 8/22/15 – 8/23/15

For my trip this past weekend I decided to go look for another one of the airplane crash sites that litter the Catskill Mountains. According to my research, there would be two crash sites located near Stoppel Point in the Windham Blackhead Range Wilderness in the Catskills. I did some research on the crash sites. It indicated that one of the sites would be easy to reach. It would be easily accessible from the trail which I could follow up North Mountain. The second crash site is supposed to be near the same location but at about 2800 feet down the north side of the east side of the ridge between North Mountain and Stoppel Point. I was able to find only one report confirming the existence of this second site, and it was reached following the recovery route from the base of the mountain. I figured that I would aim for the easily accessible first site, and then I would try to descend down the mountain to look for the second one. I simply wouldn’t have time to attempt the second site from the base of the mountain.

In the above map the blue line indicates my approximate path up the mountain. The two Xs show the approximate locations of the two crash sites. The yellow line is the path of my attempted descend to the second crash site.

So, I started out fairly early in the morning. It would be approximately five to six miles to reach the first crash site, and I wanted to have enough time for an attempt on the second one. Parts of the scent are very steep, so I wanted to leave a good margin.

I found the trail and started following it up the mountain.

 

With the heavy rain we have been getting on and off the past few weeks, the mushrooms were out.

So when I was done with the mushroom photo shoot, I got to some of the tougher sections of the trail. Right before reaching the rock outcrop known as North Point, I stopped for lunch.

From there it was a short push up to North Point, which marks the beginning of the ridge to Stoppel Point. It also gives a very good view of the Hudson River as well as North and South Lakes.

I continued to follow the trail along the ridge. It was easier going because the elevation changes were minor, but the trail itself was very rocky and a real ankle twister.

After making steady progress for another hour or two, I reached the area around Stoppel Point.

From there it was a short distance to the first crash site. The airplane was largely intact. I couldn’t locate the engine, but the fuselage and wings were intact.

Now it was time for the hard part of the trip. It was nearing 3 o’clock, and I had just enough time to trace back along the trail to the approximate location of the second crash site, and try to descend down the mountain in search for it.

There are two challenges in attempting to find the second crash site from the top of the ridge. The first is the extremely steep slope; the second is the extremely dense ferns. The combination is particularly tough because it makes it impossible to find a good line down the slope. I spent nearly two hours trying to make my way down. I would descend twenty to thirty feet, reach a sheer drop off, then have to trace back, try another approach, go down a bit further, and repeat. After two hours of trying, I had managed to descend only about a quarter of the way to the supposed crash location. This is what I saw the whole way:

As you guys know, I’m not opposed to doing stupid things, but this got too dangerous even for my liking. It became clear to me that even if I managed to make it down, I would not be able to climb back up. I would have to then descend all the way down the mountain and then make my way around it. That wasn’t in the plans, so I turned back. Now, I’m sure there is a route down, it’s just that it’s impossible to see. It’s hard to know if a particular route would lead all the way down, or if it will dead end at a vertical cliff fifty feet further down. Any way, it took me another hour to climb back up, and another half an hour to find the trail because I was so turned around. This boys and girls is what defeat looks like:

Any way, I got back up and traced my way along the ridge for a bit, and then set up camp for the night.

I still had an hour or so to kill before sunset, so I made myself a pine resin candle from some dead moss and well, pine resin. That got my spirits up.

After that it was off to bed. I got up before sunrise and quickly packed up. My goal was to get back to North Point to catch the sunrise.

From there I made my way down the mountain, looking for water sources. I had finished the last bit of my water in the morning. I eventually found a small seep not too far from the top of the mountain, and stopped to fill up one of my bottles.

Nothing to do after that, but make my way out. It was very disappointing that I wasn’t able to reach the second crash site, but I still feel that the risk would have been too great if I had kept going. I think it will have to be the subject of another trip where I give it a try from the base of the east side of the ridge.

Dave Canterbuby Announces New Survival Show on National Geographic

Have you missed seeing Dave Canterbury on TV? If you have, then good news. In a Facebook post published on Friday, Dave announced that he will be involved in a new show on National Geographic called Dirty Rotten Survival. You can see the post here.

 

The show is to premier on September 15, 2015 at 10 p.m. Here is the description Dave provided:

“ANNOUNCEMENT-The time has finally come for me to announce an NEW show I will be involved in that will Air beginning Sept 15 at 10/9c on National Geographic Channel. Dirty Rotten Survival is an outdoor adventure trek seasoned with a dash of grit, “man-genuity,” and a whole lot of MacGyver’ing. National Geographic Channel challenged a survival savant, an engineer-inventor and a construction guru to hit the road and test their mettle by competing in location-inspired outdoor challenges across several states using a different, limited set of tools in each episode. The series will turn the survival genre on its head while our three experts work, laugh and — sometimes — suffer through each “stately” challenge. Thank you all for your patience and support!”

My hope is that the show is more lighthearted fun rather than scripted drama. I would love to see something along the lines of the old Junkyard Wars.

Backpacking Boots and Why I Use Them

In recent times there has been a movement of sorts to transition from traditional backpacking boots to more minimalistic footwear like trail runners or hiking shoes. The obvious benefit to such a change is the reduced weight of the footwear. Switching from boots to trail runners can remove several pounds from your feet.

Surrounding this obvious benefit have been a lot of assertions and speculation about other advantages and disadvantages with respect to boots and trail runners. I find that most are largely an attempt at rationalizing the choice after the fact.

The biggest point of contention has been the issue of ankle support, with each side claiming that their chosen form of footwear is better at preventing injury. Boot fans assert that the higher boot provides support for the ankle and keeps it from overextending thereby preventing injury. Minimalist footwear supporters (using the term very generally) claim that the lack of constraint on the ankle allows for more natural movement preventing injury. Recently there has been a claim that this also prevents knee injury because it allows the ankle to bend rather than the more rigid knee.

In my personal experience this is all hooey. Unless you are wearing boots with extremely rigid sides, i.e. something like mountaineering boots, your ankle will twist just the same. On the other hand, trail runners and their “more natural” movement do nothing to prevent an injury. A twisted ankle is a twisted ankle. The argument about trail runners preventing knee injuries makes even less sense because it inevitably assumes that boots actually provide ankle support, thereby transferring the stress to the knees. Since an ankle can roll in the boots as well, this is a non issue for your knees. Athletic research seems to support this as well. Testing between high footwear with “ankle support” and low footwear has shown no statistical difference in the ankle injury rates or frequency. See Prevention of Lower Extremity Injuries in Basketball: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses, Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach, June 26, 2015; High- Versus Low-Top Shoes For The Prevention of Ankle Sprains in Basketball Players, Am J Sports Med July 1993 21 582-585

Another, lesser point of contention has been the belief that boots have thicker, stiffer soles than trail runners. Each side then extrapolates perceived advantages from the assertion to support their theory. The problem with this side of the debate is that there is such a wide range of soles on both boots and trail runners that the overlap is massive. You can indeed find boots that have extremely stiff and thick soles, and you can find minimal footwear that approximates the feeling of walking barefoot, but most fall somewhere in between. You can find boots with relatively thin, flexible soles and you can find very rigid shoes. So, for me this is a non-issue as well. Same thing goes for the durability of the soles as well. You can find durable and non-durable soles on both types of footwear (within reason).

So, you are probably wondering at this point, if trail runners (or other minimal footwear) are lighter, and I do not believe that boots provide any additional ankle support, why wear boots?

I have several reasons:

1. Even if money was not an issue, I simply have no desire to have a dozen pairs of backpacking shoes/boots. Between my mountaineering and wading boots, I already have too many. My general backpacking footwear has to be usable year round. It has to work on a summer hike, as well as when I’m snowshoeing in winter. When I’m knee deep in show, I just prefer a boot. Gaiters or no gaiters, for me the boots just do a much better job of making sure my feet are not covered in snow.

2. I have actually found footwear that works for the terrain I usually encounter, and it so happens to be a pair of boots. Now, it is not the fact that they are boots that makes them well suited to my needs. I can probably find other shoes that will serve me as well, but footwear is such a personal thing, and finding the perfect fit and function is so difficult, that once you find them there is a resistance to start looking again.

3. On a more practical note, while I find that boots do not offer me any ankle support when it comes to sprains and rolling injuries, they do a great job at protecting my toes when going downhill. When you are walking downhill, especially on rough terrain, your foot has a tendency to slide forward into the shoe, putting pressure on your toes. This can lead to injuries, and more than one lost toenail. Boots allow me to better secure my ankle and heel and prevent my foot from sliding and impacting the front of the shoe. This has been a big issue for me.

So, what boots do I use and why? My choice has been the Solomon Quest 4D GTX. My reasons are as follows:

1. They fit me. This tends to be a highly overlooked issue when discussing boots and shoes. All of the technical issues mean nothing if a boot does not fit well. Different models will fit differently, not just in terms of size, but also in how they are shaped. For example, I prefer a boot with a wide toe box, which the Solomon Quest 4D GTX provide.

2. I need GoreTex boots. There has been a lot of debate when it comes to GoreTex lined boots. Some people prefer more breathable, non-waterproof boots. The thinking is that your feet will get wet anyway if you are in a wet environment, and non-waterproof shoes will dry much faster, which they do. The reason I go with GoreTex lined boots is that there is a wide range of weather conditions between dry and completely wet. Sure, on some trips the environment is so wet that water will get into my boots no matter what. However, most of the time I am going through puddles, mud, small streams, etc. without being knee deep in water. In such conditions, which are more common where I live, waterproof boots work great. Keeping swamp water away from your socks and the inside of your boots while walking on the side of a muddy body of water is priceless in my book.

3. I like footwear with thick, yet flexible soles. Where I usually backpack I have extremely rocky terrain. Thin soles do not work for me. I need footwear that can mitigate the impact of each little rock sticking into my foot. On the other hand, I like flexible soles which provide me with better grip and articulation. The Solomon Quest 4D GTX fit the bill for me.

And that’s it for why I use hiking boots rather than more minimal footwear as well as some thoughts on what I look for in a pair of boots. Of course, the above considerations work for me in the environments I typically encounter. Things will differ for each person. Also keep in mind that here I am discussing general backpacking footwear. There are more specialized pursuits like climbing where specific types of shoes/boots have clear advantages and disadvantages. That however is a different post.

High Efficiency Cold Weather Expedition Stove System

Last winter I did a post about a cold weather stove system I was putting together…still in progress. It is yet to prove itself in long term testing (hopefully this year), but the overall design was reached after a lot of time spent looking over expedition photos from people like Willy Goutvik. His double wall pot design has become widely used in cold weather expeditions these days.

Well, Thomas Ulrich has now developed an integrated stove system which utilizes the Goutvik pot. The design is nothing new. It incorporates elements that have been used for a while such as the double wall pot, a white gas stove and a base with integrated wind protection, but this is the first I have seen a complete system that is commercially available.

                                                         Image by Thomas Ulrich

The system is based on a MSR XGK white gas stove. In the pictures it looks like the old model, so I’m not sure how it fits with the new one. The base is made from carbon fiber and uses a 3 litter aluminum double wall pot. The stove base weighs 9.9oz (280g) and the pot weighs 26.5oz (750g). Of course to that you have to add the weight of the stove and fuel bottle. The stove system is supposed to use 1/3 less fuel than a standard set up, which seems to fit the reports I have read of similar DIY set ups.

The system is clearly designed for polar exploration style trips. It is most conducive to transport via a sled. It doesn’t seem like a good system for someone carrying their gear in a backpack, but the concept can certainly be adopted to such use.

The stove system is available for purchase here. The price is “upon request only”, which in my mind translates to “it’s going to hurt”. 

Weedless Lure Set Up Tutorial

I know I’ve been doing a lot of fishing posts lately, but I just wanted to show you a lure set up I use quite a bit when spin fishing. It is a set up designed to be used in bodies of water that have a lot of weeds and would snag up a different lure. I find it works great in any type of water however, and It’s been my go-to lure for about a year now. I’ve used it successfully on bass, perch, and pickerel.

I start with a gummy lure and an offset shank hook. In the above picture you see a Havoc 4 inch Pit Boss lure, Skeet Reese Design, and a #4/0 offset shank hook. You can use a regular hook of a similar size, but it works better with the offset shank.

I start by piercing the tip of the lure with the hook and then pulling the hook through about a quarter of an inch into the body, just enough distance to fit in the offset part of the shank.

The next step is to align the hook next to the body of the lure. Note where the back of the hook crosses the lure.

The place where the back of the hook crosses the lure is where you need to thread the tip of the hook through the lure. Note, it’s not the place where the tip is, but rather where the back of the hook is located on the lure. That will require bending of the lure.

The last step is to take the tip of the hook, align it with the top portion of the lure, and lightly burry the tip into the body of the lure. Some lures even have a groove in that area so you can just hide the tip of the hook in it.

You might be asking yourself how such a set up, with a hook that is hidden would actually hook a fish. After all, if the lure will not get hooked on weeds, why would it hook a fish? The reason it works is that when fish go after the lure, they hit it. When they bite down on it, usually with speed, the hook pops up and embeds in the fish. I’m yet to have a hit on the lure that didn’t result in hooking of the fish.

So, if you fish in an area where you lose a lot of lures by catching them on woods, logs, etc, a set up like this one might just do the trick.

A Ban on Trophy Hunting? Be Careful What You Wish For!

By now you have undoubtedly noticed all of the righteous outrage over an American dentist killing an lion in Zimbabwe, which turned out to have been part of an ongoing study, and was allegedly taken in an illegal manner. In the past few days another woman who is a big game hunter has also come under attack for trophy hunting in Africa. As a result, there has been a huge amount of posturing, airlines are banning international transportation of trophies, politicians are grand standing, the hunter’s house has been vandalized, etc… and of course PETA is calling for the dentist to be hanged. 

A 1909 image of Theodore Roosevelt, pioneer and leader in wildlife conservation, on a hunt in Africa.

Of course, we all know that this will last about another week and then everyone will forget about it all together. Do you remember the big outrage over rhino hunting a year or so back? No? Well, neither do most other people. Let’s be honest here, virtually every person who is currently “outraged” and is calling for the death of hunters on their favorite social media outlet has zero interest in wildlife conservation. Your average person who is now signing petitions to outlaw big game hunting has not donated a single dollar to wildlife conservation, has not spent a single minute doing any wildlife conservation, and other than in the past week has not had a single thought pass through their head regarding wildlife conservation, not to mention that they know nothing about what that would entail. 

And we all accept that. It’s part of the news cycle these days. People like to feel important, and there is no better way to do that than to join a pseudo social cause and then preach from the top of a soap box. It will last until one of the Kardashians does something “more deserving” of our attention. 

There is however an unfortunate consequence of all this silliness. Ordinarily this flavor of the week activism is only a mild nuisance and a source of entertainment, but in situations like this one it can actually cause a lot of harm. This is the consequence of people who know nothing about a subject, trying to force “change”.

I can certainly go though all of the factual issues regarding hunting and show why the outrage is misguided, but there would be no point. For those interested the information is readily available. For those not interested the data will make no difference at all. However, let me ask this: if you are one of the people calling for a ban on trophy hunting, what if you actually get what you want?

What if you actually manage to ban trophy hunting or big game hunting? On a more personal level, what if though your individual efforts you manage to stop that next big game hunter from going to Africa and shooting that animal which now all of a sudden you have great interest in? Sure, you will be happy, but have you considered the consequences?

Are you going to replace the money that this big game hunter was about to bring to that particular region of Africa? A lion hunter pays about $50,000 just for the right to hunt, in addition to the money spent on the ground to actually make the hunt happen. A rhino hunter can spend upwards of $350,000 for the hunt. So, you won! You prevented that hunter from going to Africa on his hunt. Did you raise the equivalent amount of money to donate to that region of the country instead? No!? Well, then what overall impact do your actions have on wildlife conservation in that area of the world? Okay then, instead of donating the money, are you going to move to the area and volunteer your time as a game warden? A few years of working for free in the area should offset the money lost due to the hunt being canceled. No? Hmmm… 

Sure, you saved the life of that one particular animal, but your action have likely caused the death of dozens. While everyone is being melodramatic over Cecil the Lion, dozens of lions, rhinos, and elephants have been killed by poachers during that exact period of time. According to the World Wildlife Fund, in 2014, 1215 rhinos were killed by poachers, and in 2012, 22,000 elephants were killed by poachers. Who is outraged about that? The answer is no one because that is not the current flavor of the week.

There is no way around it. Wildlife conservation costs money. Game management cost money, protection from poachers costs money, getting landowners to open up their lands to big game costs money. Without the money, conservation can not exist. See for example Trophy Hunting of Black Rhino: Proposals to Ensure Its Future Sustainability,Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, 8 (1) 1-11, (2005); Potential of Trophy Hunting to Create Incentives For Wildlife Conservation in Africa Where Alternative Wildlife-Based Land Uses May Not Be Viable, Animal Conservation, 9 (3) 283-291, (2006); Economic and Conservation Significance Of The Trophy Hunting Industry in Sub-Saharan Africa, Biological Conservation, 134 455-469 (2007) (P.A. Lindseya, P.A. Rouletb, S.S. Romanach)

So, now that you have won, and prevented a dozen hunters from going to Africa for their big game hunt, what are you going to do to make sure that those dozen animals along with two hundred others are not killed the following week by poachers and by landowners who now no longer see an incentive to allow those animals on their land? Nothing?! Because your job is done, and now you have found a more fashionable things to be outraged over with your friends?

Like it or not, hunters are one of the largest driving forces behind wildlife conservation. They have a vested interest in making sure wildlife is flourishing and are willing to spend money to make it happen, in addition to the time they are willing to invest to learn about the wildlife in question and its habitat. Have you done that? Are you willing to do the same? If the answer is “No”, then you may want to reconsider exactly what outcome you would like to see. Even the most uncaring hunter, through the Pittman–Robertson Act (Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937) pays 11% tax on hunting equipment (rifles, ammunition, etc) which goes directly to state wildlife conservation. That averages over $300,000 annually in wildlife conservation funding that comes directly from hunters just from equipment purchases.

And if your answer is that somebody else will do something about it, then you are perpetuating the problem. Guess what, no one else is going to do anything. Even with all of the outrage these past few weeks, and with every celebrity getting on the band wagon, the Oxford’s Conservation Research Unit, the people who were studying Cecil the Lion have received donations in the sum of $150,000. For comparison purposes, a recent rhino hunt in Namibia went for $350,000; that’s just for the right to hunt that one rhino. The “evil” dentist of recent fame spent about $55,000 for that single hunt. According to the WWF, in 2000, Namibia alone received $11,000,000 (that’s eleven million dollars) in fees from trophy hunters.

The only alternative that ever gets mentioned as a revenue source is “photo tourism”. It is usually mentioned by people who have never contributed a single dollar to wildlife conservation through photo tourism, and have never even fully worked out the theory of how it would actually replace hunting in terms of revenue. And let’s be honest here, your average family of four from Paris or Ohio is not going to go to the backwoods of Zimbabwe or Chad, sleep in bunk beds in a local’s farm house, just so they can spend two weeks in the dirt trying to get a photograph of an apex predator. Legalized hunting is not what’s keeping them from spending tens of thousands of dollars in those areas of Africa. Those tourists are in a resort somewhere where they can see animals from a guided tour bus in the easily accessible parts of a local park. When in 2013 Zambia outlawed lion hunting, photo tourism did virtually nothing to offset the loss of revenue from trophy hunting. Exact same story played out in Botswana. Photo tourism already exists. It works well in the area where large numbers of tourists want to go on vacation. With or without hunting, photo tourism will continue to stay in the areas where it currently is, and bring in the revenue that it already brings. It will not miraculously expand to compensate for the revenue loss from a ban on trophy hunting. Not only does the plan make no sense in theory, but all the empirical evidence we have in places where there have been bans on hunting, show that photo tourism, while viable in its own right, will not replace revenue generated by trophy hunting, and it will certainly not bring that revenue to the areas of the country where the hunting is taking place. 

Let’s face it, money talks. If people are willing to spend huge amounts of money to legally hunt an animal, both the hunters and other interested parties will find a way to make sure that animal flourishes and that it’s protected. And that is exactly what is happening. Since legalizing rhino hunting, the white rhino population in South Africa has increased from less that 100 animals to over 11,000. Same is true across the board in Africa, not to mention local examples like deer, turkey, buffalo, and elk populations in the US.

Eliminating that funding and those conservation efforts and incentives, patting yourself on the back, and then doing nothing to replace those resources because you have somehow done your “very important” job and now it’s somebody else’s problem, does nothing but hurt wildlife conservation.

I completely understand if someone does not like trophy hunting. We are all entitled to our feeling about the subject. The question is, if you want to stop that trophy hunting, what are you going to do to replace the resources that were being contributed by those big game hunters? If the answer is “Nothing”, then be careful what you wish for. Preventing one animal from being killed during a legal hunt can easily lead to a dozen others being killed by poachers due to loss of funding, and restricted habitat. Yes, activism can be fun, but be careful what you wish for. While next week you are going to move on to the next cause, the animals that will be impacted by your actions can not do the same.

There is no question that trophy hunting is a viable and useful wildlife conservation tool. Virtually all of the available research confirms that, and courtiers that have embraced the approach like South Africa have seen significant gains in the wildlife populations, while countries like Zambia and Botswana that have banned such hunting have seen devastating results. There is also no question that we currently do not have a viable alternative to replace the contribution that hunting makes to wildlife conservation. Ecotourism already occupies its own niche, and while it is great, it can not replace hunting when it comes to wildlife conservation as the two are not mutually exclusive. So, if hunting is beneficial to wildlife conservation, and we have no alternative at the moment to replace it, then what effect does trying to ban said hunting have on the wildlife we are trying to protect? What “good” are we actually doing?

Personally, I am a hunter. While I am not skilled enough to worry about trophies, I have absolutely nothing against trophy hunting when it is done in a lawful manner. While emotions can easily get out of control in such situations, I try to keep my outrage away from people who are willing to spend their life savings to lawfully hunt an animal under government supervision, and instead focus it on poachers who kill thousands of animals without making any contribution to wildlife conservation.  

For a more personal perspective on the subject of lions in Zimbabwe and on absurd American media trends, check out Goodwell Nzou’s “In Zimbabwe, We Don’t Cry for Lions”, New York Times, Aug 4, 2015.

Also worth a serous look is the TEDx Copenhagen presentation by Mikkel Legarth from Denmark, co-founder of Modisa Wildlife Project, working on wildlife conservation in Botswana. You can watch the presentation here. He explains in a very accessible way the actual consequences of hunting restrictions on the lion population in Botswana. 

A recent article by The New York Times also offers a balanced, non-reactionary perspective on the issue: “Outcry for Cecil the Lion Could Undercut Conservation Efforts” by Norimitsu Onishi, New York Times, Aug 10, 2015.

Mykel Hawke Suing Discovery Channel Over Joe Teti Fiasco

So, in the finest tradition of woodsmen these days spending more time in court and the corporate boardroom than they do in the woods, Mykel Hawke has filed a lawsuit against the Discovery Channel relating to Joe Teti. You can see the press release here.

As I mentioned two weeks ago, the Discovery Channel has already canceled Dual Survival because of something that allegedly happened with co-host Joe Teti. The rumor mill has it that he killed a dog and then threatened the crew to keep quiet, although that’s not confirmed yet. The dispute between Mykel Hawke and Joe Teti however goes further back than that.

As far as I know it started right after 9/11. From what I understand at the time Mykel Hawke was Joe Teti’s commanding officer. After the attack, Teti did not reup, but rather chose to work as a contractor. That upset Hawke. Then there was some gamesmanship regarding being picked for different shows on Discovery. Hawke blamed Teti for taking a job from under him, and for a helicopter crash that occurred during filming of a show Teti had pitched to Discovery. Then when Joe Teti became a co-host on Dual Survival, Hawke questioned his assertions of being a veteran of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars where he was technically a private contractor. Apparently at that point Teti threatened Hawke, which lead to restraining order against him. That was followed by Teti suing Hawke for defamation, a suit that is still going on. Now Hawke is suing the Discovery Channel because allegedly he warned them about Joe Teti being dangerous but they took no action.

Got all that?! Go bushcraft®! Who needs soap operas when you have survival shows.

Am I just being naive, or was there a time in the not so distant past when people who were interested in woodsmanship spent their time in the woods rather than on litigation, marketing, and corporate maneuvering? Seems an unfortunate consequence of selling woodsmanship as a product.