|
|
Post by LowKey on Oct 3, 2015 7:41:41 GMT
Let's have a little chat on a subject that gets hashed over quite a bit on the interwebs; foraging for your food in a survival situation. Opinions out there will go from one extreme of the spectrum to the other with some claiming that they'll be just fine, "heading to the hills" with a BOB and a few days worth of food and a rifle and that so equipped they can live almost indefinitely. The other end of the spectrum will state that within 24 hours of a major disaster every wild edible plant and every living thing that can be eaten will be gone, devoured by all the other desperate people, leaving the land looking as if it's been worked over by successive waves of locusts, army ants, and the IRS. In reality it's not that simple. It's going to depend on how plentiful wild sources of food and water are in the area, and how many people will be competing for those resources. It's also going to depend on your skills in identifying what you can eat and your ability to procure it. Just because you're in a resource rich area doesn't mean you'll have it easy if you're competing with the population of NYC over a 50 sq mile area. Under such circumstances the it might very well look as if the area had been hit by "Locusts, Army Ants, & the IRS" . If you have sufficient skills, a place with less abundant resources but very few (or no) competition might be just fine. The High Plains in the American West come to mind. A place like Southern California, with relatively low levels of wild food (I am discounting human agriculture, hence the use of the word "wild") with a high number of potential competitors for those recourses in an emergency would not be a good place to be if one needed to forage for your food during a crisis. At the opposite end of the spectrum, you have a those rare places with few people and abundant resources...... like this.Aside from being an interesting read, check out the photos. *edited to add* I found the linked site through another board, thought it would be worth posting over here. |
|
|
|
Post by AngelOfWar on Oct 4, 2015 2:48:26 GMT
Well, I think the "everyone going to the woods", while is quite possible, I think a LOT of peopl under-estimate mother nature,AND, over estimate their skills. I've put a LOT of time and effort into learning wild edibles, etc., and am JUST NOW getting comfortable with that "pipe-dream", and actually being able to make it myself. I learned a lot, taught myself more, and have a good wealth of knowledge stored in my noggin (which is EMP proof BTW), have practiced enough to know what's hard, what isn't, when certain things grow, etc..
If a lot of "arm chair preppers" do do this, they are going to find out in short order that it's harder than it looks on youtube. People will become violent in short order, and, then the killing will start...whether they kill themselves, or others.
If that is part of your plan, or your Plan-B, start getting out there and exposing yourself, and doing these things NOW...if it's hard now, imagine how hard it will be when you have thee mental baggage of losing your house, maybe some family members, and others are out there trying to get your stuff. Yer matches will run out. You BIC will run out of lighter fluid. Practice/learn that stuff NOW, while things are easy...er.
Next time you kill a snake in your yard? Cook that sucker up so you get over that mental barrier NOW.
My observations...late summer/fall is the best time for easy wild edible in SC. Better have a plan to preserve your stuff. Try going all winter with no sugar...yeah, yer bodies gonna be hurting...same with salt.
|
|
|
|
Post by dannusmaximus on Oct 4, 2015 13:40:23 GMT
Barring exceptional climate and exceptional skills, there are SO many fails with the idea of trekking off into the wilderness to 'live off the land'. In no particular order, and off the top of my head...
Stuff that grows in the woods is generally the nutritional equivalent of eating a plain green salad. Negligible calories. Our boy in Lokey's example lived in a very fat area with not much competition, arguably an ideal place to live off the land. He still lost 20 pounds in two months.
Eating stuff that grows in the woods can kill you if you don't know exactly what you're picking.
Stuff with enough calories to make a difference (nuts, berries, etc.) are seasonal and rare in most AOs. ALSO, after eating a gallon or two of berries (if you're lucky enough to find them), your gut will NOT be happy with you.
Yay for fish and game! Don't undercook it, you'll get parasites. Don't forget to wash your hands after you kill and clean them, you'll get parasites. Don't wash them with water you haven't treated, you'll get parasites. Did I mention parasites...?
Not saying it can't be done, but throw in the stressors that AOW spoke about, throw in horrible (HORRIBLE) weather about 48 weeks out of the year in my area, throw in the head to toe poison ivy rash that is inevitable if you spend most of your time scrounging in the underbrush for food, THEN throw in competition from nature and other folks for the resources... "Bugging out", especially into the woods with just a pack on my back and my dick in my hand, is so far down my list of what to do in a disaster that I can't off the top of my head think of a situation that would make me do it. As long as I have a house, I'm bugging in.
|
|
|
|
Post by LowKey on Oct 4, 2015 16:16:57 GMT
Barring exceptional climate and exceptional skills, there are SO many fails with the idea of trekking off into the wilderness to 'live off the land'. In no particular order, and off the top of my head... Stuff that grows in the woods is generally the nutritional equivalent of eating a plain green salad. Negligible calories. Our boy in Lokey's example lived in a very fat area with not much competition, arguably an ideal place to live off the land. He still lost 20 pounds in two months. Eating stuff that grows in the woods can kill you if you don't know exactly what you're picking. Stuff with enough calories to make a difference (nuts, berries, etc.) are seasonal and rare in most AOs. ALSO, after eating a gallon or two of berries (if you're lucky enough to find them), your gut will NOT be happy with you. Yay for fish and game! Don't undercook it, you'll get parasites. Don't forget to wash your hands after you kill and clean them, you'll get parasites. Don't wash them with water you haven't treated, you'll get parasites. Did I mention parasites...? Not saying it can't be done, but throw in the stressors that AOW spoke about, throw in horrible (HORRIBLE) weather about 48 weeks out of the year in my area, throw in the head to toe poison ivy rash that is inevitable if you spend most of your time scrounging in the underbrush for food, THEN throw in competition from nature and other folks for the resources... "Bugging out", especially into the woods with just a pack on my back and my dick in my hand, is so far down my list of what to do in a disaster that I can't off the top of my head think of a situation that would make me do it. As long as I have a house, I'm bugging in. Dannus, you know I respect you, so forgive the following. While some areas what you wrote is %100 true, in others it is not. Let's try to dump the dogmatic arguments of, "you can't survive out of your pacK" AND ""you can survive with just a knife". It depends on the environment you find yourself in. It depends on how much competition you have for the resources in your area. It depends on your skills, Don't assume that because the gentleman in question lost 20 lbs that he was starving. Met any folks that live a substance lifestyle? I have. There aren't many fat ones, but none of them are starving, not are they hungry. The guy lost 20lbs of excess fat. In all honesty, both yo and I would be a happy to loose those same 20 lbs. I know people who live in that area year round......they aren't starving, and they don't go to the grocery store more than once or twice in a year. Now, I can see people starving to death trying to live off the land in Indiana.......far too many people there for the area to support with just wild food sources. As far as parasites and disease, those only flourish where they have ample hosts. Get away from large considerations of hosts and you get away from large concentrations of parasites. Outside the box guys, outside the box. Let's avoid answers based on dogma and actually work out the factors for a given AO. This is what I what I refered to |
|
|
|
Post by dannusmaximus on Oct 4, 2015 18:07:04 GMT
Fair enough, my friend.
Factors for my AO (SW Indiana):
Awful, awful weather for the bulk of the year. Either cold/wet or brutally hot and humid. I personally don't think you can take climate out of the equation if you're attempting to live a subsistence lifestyle. Dealing with the elements is a physiological strain as well as an added work load - - for every minute and calorie you spend chopping firewood so you don't freeze to death, you are NOT searching for food. Similarly, for every minute you are sitting under a tree trying to regain strength and fighting mild dehydration because it's godawful hot, you are NOT looking for food.
Stuff that grows wild is here, but again, it's the nutritional equivalent of eating salad day after day. Good for vitamins, not so much for calories. Berries are very seasonal and get hit HARD by wildlife (I suppose if you're killing the wildlife for food that might help the berry population?), nuts are also very seasonal and a huge pain in the ass to collect and shell relative to the energy you get from them. Digging for wild tubers and cattail roots is also seasonal, although the energy you get from eating them will possibly outweigh the energy it takes to get them.
Wildlife is pretty abundant, but it's of the very small game variety. We do have whitetails, but game that size will be knocked out pretty quickly if everybody and their brother is out hunting. Lots of good fishing, but some of the most polluted water in the country due to agricultural and industrial runoff, not to mention sewage. I don't know if a daily diet of fish will get you sick or not.
Parasites are endemic in wildlife, density is an issue, but not as much as you would think. I took a parasitology class in college as an undergraduate, and we spent many hours busily dissecting 'wild' mice and other small critters like frogs, squirrels, etc. Every single one of them had liver flukes, various nematodes, etc. Not necessarily zoonotic, but some are. Add in waterborne parasites and I stand by my assertion that such infections are a practically unavoidable part of subsistence living.
The poison ivy thing is a real deal around here. It is thicker in this area than anywhere else I've ever been. I would be completely out of commission if I had to spend my time foraging in the woods.
I think I am looking at more of subsistence eating as more of a holistic survival problem, Lowkey. If a person can retire to their reasonably clean, comfortable, temperature controlled domicile at the end of a day of foraging and hunting, getting reasonably clean water to drink, performing basic hygiene fairly easily and whatnot, the it is maybe pretty doable to get your food from hunting and gathering. If you are doing the hunter/gatherer thing, though, AS WELL as dealing with marginal shelter, constant low grade infections, myriad environmental stressors, poor hygiene, etc., it becomes another thing entirely.
|
|
|
|
Post by omegaman on Oct 4, 2015 19:25:52 GMT
Plenty of misconceptions regarding "living off the land", and previous posters all made some great points. In terms of long-term survival, it would be damn near impossible. A couple of points (some of which may be redundant) I want to add based on my observations and experiences (not that this makes me an expert, but I am wildlife biologist, I spend alot of time in the woods, and my military background includes jungle SERE--so I feel I have a reasonable understanding of natural systems and how humans fit in those systems) are:
-Availability: Resources are going to differ spatially and temporally, i.e. depending on where you are and what time of year. The notion of "nuts and berries" survivalists is always entertaining because those resources are seasonal. Nut-producing trees typically mast in the fall and berries in the spring. So, even if you know the whereabouts of "good producers" and manage to harvest a substantial crop before the wildlife, these resources are not available year-round. Regarding wildlife, if multiple parties take to the woods to live off the land, how long until typical charismatic game animals become diminished or elusive, thus, not available? It has happened before. Wild turkey and white-tail deer populations were practically extirpated in the Eastern U.S. by the 1950's due to habitat loss and un-regulated hunting. Wild edibles? Most of our native flora has been displaced and replaced by invasives or more generalist early successional species that thrive due to landscape-scale anthropogenic disturbance, yet have little value to us as a food source. The landscape that supported indigenous peoples is long gone. Even the industrial-scale agriculture in the midwest would be of little value. Grain crops need to be mill-processed and most of the corn grown is for the commodity market (i.e. not tasty sweet corn). Besides, these are high input systems that require vigorous soil manipulation and seeding annually.
- Skill level: Beyond just knowing wild edibles and a little about hunting, one would need to be able to maximize these skills beyond just opportunistic meals. Trapping would be an essential skill for living off the land. AOW alluded to the next part, and that is getting comfortable eating a variety of "unconventional" meats and treats. I would focus on small game trapping and get comfortable with the idea that rodents may be your best source of protein. What if you do kill large game? One would need to know how to smoke and preserve meat to truly maximize the effort and the resource. There's also skinning and tanning hides. None of these are skills that most of us (including myself) have ample experience in. Let's go back to wild edibles for a moment, too, and just realize that it takes tremendous skill and patience in learning plants, not to mention a functional understanding of botanical nomenclature, anatomy, and ecology required to identify species in the wild. Concurrent with the aforementioned skills would also have to include basic bushcrafting skills for making and sustaining fire, building traps, aboriginal weapons, and wood processing.
Recently, the TV show, "Alone", probably highlighted these realities more so than previous "survival" shows. The dude that won was the guy that immediately realized that seaweed, kelp,and limpets was what was on the menu--every day. That said, I think those near coasts and estuaries have the best chance of living off the land. Fish and shellfish are readily abundant and require fairly little skill in obtaining. I have become a firm believer in the raw power of the cast net. Furthermore, year-round availability would offset the seasonal nature of inland food resources. However, I would foresee coastal areas becoming "crowded" and eventually degraded.
So, my take on "living off the land"? It should be part of a strategy to get you from point A to point B with more sustainable and long-term supplies and resources. Ideally, "bugging in" would be the best option most of us should strive for. Essential items for living off the land, either out of a ruck or permanent location would include heirloom seeds, traps (I like the collapsible "Sherman" metal rodent traps), and a small game-getter firearm (.22LR or .410). There is plenty of food "out there", but it is not as easy to procure as many think, especially with any sort of regularity and/or consistency.
All of these points can be further expounded upon and refined, but these are my initial thoughts and opinions.
|
|
|
|
Post by LowKey on Oct 7, 2015 14:02:47 GMT
Great post OM, but I have exception with one statement you made unless you had this qualifier in mind, " In terms of long-term survival, it would be damn near impossible."
I'd sat that should read, " In terms of long-term survival, it would be damn near impossible in most developed areas."
That would probably cover a huge percentage of CONUS, with perhaps some small remote pockets of land. Wilderness areas of Adirondack National Park( maybe), Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in Minnesota. Parts of the Florida Everglades.
If your skills and knowledge of local flora and fauna are good you shouldn't find it too difficult to survive indefinitely in those areas IF the area doesn't undergo a massive population surge due to other refugees.
Now one of the bigger losses to the East Coast in the way of wild edibles has been the death of the Chestnut trees due to a fugal infection. Seasonal, yes, but an example of wild edibles that have been wiped out by our actions.
*edited to add*
Let me explain what I ment by developed areas.
Anywhere people live, including farmland.
Anywhere large scale agriculture is, or has, taken place....that include grazing lands teh size of some states, If we push cattle there it isn't really wild any more.
Anywhere that large numbers of people go camping (lots of national parks).
I wasn't meaning to imply just suburbia, ect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gingerbread Man on Oct 13, 2015 12:57:46 GMT
Ok, wow, missed all this thread, I haz sadz.
Here's my take, eating wild edibles may help get you from here to there but you will die if you go long term. Yes, death. You will not make it. There isn't enough calories or nutrition on the hoof or on the plant. You will get a disease, you will starve and you will probably get your head caved in if you do find anything of abundance by someone taking it from you.
The only long term solution if you're going to do that is to have a large source of food prior to/or be in an area of abundance away from any population source. A coastal area with a large amount of easily found high protein game like fish and muscles. Net casting, digging for clam and muscles and fishing. It has to be low calorie expenditure with high reward. Fish traps and the such. Another food source in marshes and wetland is frogs. Not toads. Generally, there are more than a few species of frogs that are edible. Turtles are only good if they've been very well boiled.
And you're going to need loads of help. You need some one to keep fires going, gather wood, cook and smoke. Also someone or a crew well versed in cooking what's been caught correctly. Once you've established a hunting gathering crew and system to store it, you better have another crew getting right on to farming. Most crops in the best weather take 3 months. Then you better get some animal husbandry going.
Coastal areas you could probably farm fish and clams for easily picking. Goats, rabbit, chickens and pigs would be the best since they're garbage eating machines and generally require little care and are quite resistant to disease.
But the biggest hurdle will be your fellow man. They will pray on you, they will take what you have and in a long enough duration, they will make you work for them. And I've heard loads of people talk about making spears and bows for hunting. Here's something they never hit on, some animals will fight back. Deer and pigs will now, go after them with a spear and see what happens. Not to mention the packs of dogs that will be out in force. You think that medium to large sized breed that's cute and nice when it's well fed isn't going to be out looking for food when it's hungry? There are just too many dangers in the world takes that drastic of a turn to mingle with the environment. You think you can evade thousands of people looking for the same stuff you're looking for? Try fishing and digging clams with a few thousand other people. And where is the fresh water at the coast again? Sorry, I'm being douchy.
There will be so much competition for limited resources it's not even going to be viable to "live of the land". The only logical course is to have at least one year of food, the ability to filter water and seeds to get going once you realize the shelves aren't getting restocked. Manual farm tools would be great to have; picks, shoves, hammers, nails, wood, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by LowKey on Oct 13, 2015 15:25:37 GMT
In SC you're probably (like %99.9) correct.
My place, completely off the mark.
Without a doubt the single most likely monkey wrench in the works is/are other people.
How much they've altered the area you're in.
How many of them are there trying to live off the resources present.
How many of them show up wanting to take it from you.
Having enough calories on the hoof or on the plant is going to depend on where you are and how many other folks are competing for it.
See, this is where I start getting a bit twitchy.
The answers aren't, or at least shouldn't be, "one size fits all". The folks who survive via subsistence hunting and fishing on my island would be amazed to hear that there isn't enough calories on hoof or on plant.
There may be very few places left where it's possible to do so, but they are still out there. If you're in one, or bordering on one, it might be worthwhile to learn what is available.
Addressing the quite valid issue of two legged predators trying to kill you and take your stuff it's a very valid concern but they're going to try and do that to to take what's in your vegetable garden and chicken coop.
I'm I trying to imply that anyone should go back to the silly old 80's-90's survivalist-cum-wolverines idea that they should plan on an INCH bag and bugging out to the hills/mountains/forests/swamps to live a nomadic lifestyle? Not a chance in hell. I want my preps on a level whereby in any disaster I'm watching things unfold via satellite broadcast on my big screen TV while eating popcorn and drinking beer, waiting for dinner to be served.
I'm looking to get people thinking about what's available right where they are, whats available on their possible/probable evacuation routes, and what's available in the area to which they'd be heading, and how many other people are likely to be headed the same place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gingerbread Man on Oct 13, 2015 17:10:58 GMT
Yes, your A/O is going to be way different than mine based on available food, competition and interpersonal conflict.
I have moderately high population density.
I have a very good availability of food however there would be high competition for those resources.
You'd have low competition.
My strategy is going to be different.
|
|
|
|
Post by dannusmaximus on Oct 13, 2015 18:53:06 GMT
The takeaway from this thread? LowKey lives. Everybody else dies. LowKey and his ancestors inherit the earth. God help us all...  |
|
|
|
Post by LowKey on Oct 13, 2015 19:10:33 GMT
The takeaway from this thread? LowKey lives. Everybody else dies. LowKey and his ancestors descendants inherit the earth. God help us all...  But seriously...one of the things that caused me to start this thread; the dumb ass no bloody clue "We'll head to the desert and ride this out" "plan" of "Mr. Mommy-Man" Travis Manawa. I don't care how much food and water you've packed (either in your home or in a BOB), those supplies are finite. If you don't know how long it will be until things blow over (and how the hell do you know that in the middle of things going pear shaped?) then you shouldn't be counting on your supplies lasting all the way through. Another part of it is the knee-jerk response to assume everywhere (and everyone) is in the same boat that we are. The answers and responses become dogmatic, not reasoned. If you're forced to bug out, it's probably best to bug out towards someplace that has a chance of proving you with food and water even if "disaster relief efforts" fall short. Learn where those places are in relation to what you might be forced to bug out from. If you're bugging in, you're absolutely right you should be planting a garden (should have already done that) and been raising some rabbits and chickens. Still helps to know what you can glean off the local environment. |
|
