Reality check/Wild edibles.

[Rick]

Let's assume we did have a sudden need to forage for food. Let's assume we have a sustained national drought that lasts for a couple of years. Let's also assume the drought only affects domesticated plants leaving wild plants untouched.

You can bet that some areas would see wild plants wiped out. A large number of knowledgable folks could have a devastating impact on local biology.

Most areas, I would imagine, would see far more human suffering than wild life suffering simply because no one or few individuals possess the knowledge to take advantage of the natural bounty.

Still other ares would readily sustain the human population because of the amount of wild plants required.

The fact is all of you are correct to some extent. But there are so many variables across such a vast landscape that there are sure to be different levels of success and failure.

WE - Once again, my friend, you are right on the money. Those of us that actually use wild foods as part of our normal diet have a pretty good understanding of how much we really don't know. But it sure is fun and tasty learning!

[Sarge47]

Let's assume we did have a sudden need to forage for food. Let's assume we have a sustained national drought that lasts for a couple of years. Let's also assume the drought only affects domesticated plants leaving wild plants untouched.

You can bet that some areas would see wild plants wiped out. A large number of knowledgable folks could have a devastating impact on local biology.

Most areas, I would imagine, would see far more human suffering than wild life suffering simply because no one or few individuals possess the knowledge to take advantage of the natural bounty.

Still other ares would readily sustain the human population because of the amount of wild plants required.

The fact is all of you are correct to some extent. But there are so many variables across such a vast landscape that there are sure to be different levels of success and failure.

WE - Once again, my friend, you are right on the money. Those of us that actually use wild foods as part of our normal diet have a pretty good understanding of how much we really don't know. But it sure is fun and tasty learning!

So you're suggestion for the membership is....?

[Rick]

As usual, sweets and preservatives.

[adalel]

Sarge I agree with you that if a large segment of society understood how to use wild plants and were not too squemish in there uses, the wild edibles populations would be devastated. There in lies the problem, they don't. IMHO maybe 1% might. The people today are two to three generations removed from the land. It times years to learn WE in all four seasons and how to process some of them into an edible, digestible, or nutritious form.

[Sarge47]

Sarge I agree with you that if a large segment of society understood how to use wild plants and were not too squemish in there uses, the wild edibles populations would be devastated. There in lies the problem, they don't. IMHO maybe 1% might. The people today are two to three generations removed from the land. It times years to learn WE in all four seasons and how to process some of them into an edible, digestible, or nutritious form.

Hmmm, good point. But trust me on this, when people get hungry enough, they will take what they want, or try to, from those who have it. I have a personal story about this I might want to tell someday.

[wareagle69]

sarge i have some things to process and think out before i respond but stay tuned

[crashdive123]

Over use of any natural resource will have a negative impact on that resource. There are several (many?) areas of the world where wild edibles are a normal part of the lifestyle. Why aren't the wild edibles depleted? There may be several reasons. Good stewardship is certainly a possibility. Also possible is that the size of the population that is dependent on the wild edibles does not stress them to the point of extinction. Now - add a sudden influx of many, many more consumers and what will happen to the wild edibles?

[Rick]

There have been a couple of "recent" events that have stressed mankind's ability to manufacture food. Perhaps the best example is the Irish Potato Famine. The year was 1845, a time when we would considered wild edibles a significant part of the diet. Yet, thousands still perished and more left Ireland to prevent starvation. We're never safe it seems. The next disaster is just around the corner.

[crashdive123]

Look at the dust bowl from the 30's. Although the concern (about food) pertained to crops - wild edibles weren't growing either.

[Rick]

The little ice age and the year without a summer are both examples. But as you point out, most of the environment problems affect both domesticated and wild plants.

[Nativedude]

Sarge,

I understand what you are saying, but in a situation where we would have an EOSAWKI, there is a HUGE majority of the population that knows nothing about flowers, plants and wild edibles (other than what is available in the supermarket) and wouldn't even know where to begin in harvesting W.E.'s in the wilds. So, I don't believe that there would be an over-harvesting of W.E.'s to the point of extinction. And by the time that the uneducated learned about W.E.'s it would probably be too late for them anyway?!

But, just out of curiosity, I have posted a thread with a poll, to see how many here know their W.E.'s and think that they could sustain off of them. Here is the link to the poll: "Wild Edibles Poll"

Now, here, on a survival forum, we will see just how many people that practice survival and/or primitive living know their W.E.'s by their answer.

And, with a good amount of positivity, I can say "most of the populations of major cities (NY, CHI, LA, H'wood, etc") would perish. Why? Because the majority of the people in those areas live in their limited "do it for me" environments, are helpless, too pampered and know very little, if anything at all, about the wilds and W.E.'s.

Also, if we were to be attacked with any type of nuclear, biological or chemical substance, most likely, the plants would be contaminated (as well as, the water) and we would die from lack of both!! JM2C

[endurance]

Before fossil fuels played a role in agriculture 92% of the US population was involved in agriculture. Now it's about 2% of the population. Before fossil fuels played a role in agriculture the planet's population was under one billion, now it's about 6.7 billion. Over half those people came into existance since I was born because of newer farming technologies including fertilizer, pesticides, refrigeration, and modern harvesting & transportation.

When we run out of cheap oil this planet will no longer be able to sustain more than about one billion people regardless of how much knowledge we retain. Using some modern agricultural lessons, like the plow, might make the survival of one billion possible, but without it, as a hunter and gatherer society, the population would probably be one third to one half that number or about the population of the US.

Given that we reached peak oil about two or three years ago, the next couple decades should be rather interesting.

[Pict]

It is a total myth that the redneck revolution is going to sustain itself by hunting. If our current population was forced by circumstances to live of the wild game population it would be gone in a few short weeks.

With the economic downturn, if it gets serious enough, you will see a large increase in legal "meat hunting". If it gets bad there will be an increase in game law violations by legal hunters, taking an extra deer, shooting out of hours, too close to homes and roads etc. Good hunters will push the limits so to speak. Bad enough and people will start outright poaching, out of season, killing to sell, stuffing the freezer etc. All of this is going to seriously affect deer populations over the next five years.

In an end of the world type scenario, when even current non-hunters are trying to kill game you can expect the game population to be wiped out in short order. Currently there is only a fraction of the population hunting a portion of their food under game laws that are mostly obeyed and enforced. When 300 million people are doing full it full time to stay alive it is another matter entirely. Mac

[Rick]

And I dang sure don't want to be in the woods when it happens. I would image anything that moves will be shot at.

[wildWoman]

If you have a thorough knowledge of plants, you actually will know where to find them. You can look at a part of the landscape, see if it's north/south/etc exposure, and tell by the trees that grow there what kind of soil it is and what plant community is likely to be found there.

I don't know if we're better off overall than in the 1700s. Most people in the western world seem to just get fat and depressed from all the leisure time at hand nowadays.
In the old days, life was harder physically but I'd guess that mental or attitude problems that stem from a relatively pampered life were fewer.
Sure, we live longer and die of fewer of the stupid little things because we get whisked to a hospital faster. But when I look at how many people waste away over years from cancer or Alzheimer's, I really don't know if striving to get older and older until the body disintegrates is better than falling ill and dying at a younger age.
I for one would rather forego years of diaper wearing in a nursing home; I'd rather drown or get eaten at an earlier age then.

Seems to me, we just traded in some of the old problems for a whole whack of new ones.
And in a way, what's the point? It all boils down to that our food, shelter and water has to come from somewhere, we all have a need to love and be loved, and feel safe. I don't think we need all this fancy knickknack for that.

[Rick]

To your concern of wasting away from a disease like cancer. I guess the real difference is the ability to garner a much high level of comfort while the process takes place. In the 1700's (In fact in the 1900s in many cases) you simply died a horrible death. At least today you can pass while the pain is adequately managed to ease your suffering. It was bad enough watching my father pass while his pain was (mostly) managed. I can't imagine what it would have been like for him if nothing could have been done to ease his pain even a little bit. But I get your point.

[endurance]

@ Pict, I agree, especially with large game and in states with higher population density. Wyoming and Montana might have a chance of maintaining enough antelope, deer and elk that they could return to normal levels, but the rest of the southern 48 would be in big trouble. I do see small game as a greater constant. Their rapid reproduction rate give them a fighting chance. For that reason, if I could have only one gun, I'd go with a .22.

In Denver there's already a return of the family chicken coop in some parts of the city. Folks are starting to realize that with food prices on the rise, a few egg layers can pay for themselves pretty effectively. It also gives you a constant supply of barter material if it comes to that.

[Rick]

I saw a couple of deer herds out feeding this evening. Seven in one group and five in another. I thought about this thread when I saw them.

We have a breeding population of squirrels at our house. I'm probably the only one around here that would consider them as a food source if needed. But I doubt they would last very long in a real time of need.

I guess you know you're a wilderness survivalist when you see your local squirrels and think, that one's nice and plumb, that one's a little lean......

[Ken]

In Denver there's already a return of the family chicken coop in some parts of the city. Folks are starting to realize that with food prices on the rise, a few egg layers can pay for themselves pretty effectively. It also gives you a constant supply of barter material if it comes to that.

Quite often I drive through a very upscale section of a little town in Rhode Island. The town was the birthplace of the Rhode Island Red. There, in front of one of the many million dollar homes on the road, sits a large cooler in a wagon. In the morning the cooler is filled with about three dozen cartons of Rhode Island Red eggs @ $4.50/dozen. By late afternoon, it's empty.

Remember this guy?