How Many Here Could Survive On Wild Edibles Tomorrow If TSHTF?

[wareagle69]

well one last thought i have on this and it has already been touched upon and that is of the test some items that you can test may not show up and yet come back to haunt to later. the best suggestion is to seek out competent qualified instructors, i personally recomend leaving the test alone. it would not be the first time that the army was wrong or that someone taught a doctrine that they did not beleive in but were compelled to teach, for anyone new learn long and hard.
i agree with native dude to a point, start with books with color pics but as you progress you will find that they lack much in detail, instead look for color hand drawn pics much better, and even better yet get you own artist sketch pad and color pencils and drw them yourself. does not matter if you can draw as you will be the one looking at the drawings and as you draw you will focus on certain things and will be able to recall much better in the future

the end

[RBB]

Extremely subjective question - open to so many variables there is no way to give an objective answer.

The answer would be something like "IF."

"IF I could poach enough deer quicker than my neighbors."

"IF there is a good wild rice season this year."

"IF fox are down and rabbits are up."

"IF there is a good berry season."

As for living off cattails and rock tripe - the energy expended gathering is hardly replaced by the food value you gain. Anyone who thinks they can live off lambs quarter and Indian potatoes - good luck. They are supplements - not a living diet.


Just my opinion

[trax]

I voted option 3, can I vote again now? Still just trying to keep the democratic process working here. I understood the question to mean without hunting and fishing, that's why I voted 3. RBB is on the money about variables though, but bear in mind that people lived off wild edibles here for thousands of years, the environment and population bases have changed a lot since then, though. Where you are is a huge consideration.

[tsitenha]

Question does not allow for reality. aboriginals were hunter gatherers...ate what ever they came across even to the point of managing their travels to access wild edibles in their seasons.
Knowing what to eat is not enough, being able to access edibles in quantity is what is needed.
Supplementing your food intake with even rudimentary agriculture greatly enhances your survival abilities.
I am not a deer or a mooze so I can't graze at will and get enough just from the vegetation at hand.
I would need to hunt for meat also.

[wareagle69]

wait a minute i am confused, for those of you who say you do not know your wild edibles but could exsist on them, how is that possible, you don't know what you are doing but could live off of them?, yet those of us who say we do know them very few said they could survive off of them. please clear this up for me eh

[crashdive123]

wait a minute i am confused, for those of you who say you do not know your wild edibles but could exsist on them, how is that possible, you don't know what you are doing but could live off of them?, yet those of us who say we do know them very few said they could survive off of them. please clear this up for me eh

I thought that was a bit odd as well. I'm curious to see the answers.

[Durtyoleman]

Unfortunately my knowlege of W.E.'s is lacking...mostly due to lack of another to train me who knew them well enough to trust risking my health. I could possibly survive by experimentation if I had no choice useing common sense and the few plants I do know but would not want to test it without need. I read up on this subject often and study pics of various plants to try to remedy this lack but as we all know nothing beats first hand experience. So I had to answer in the negative. But in a shtf situation I'm killin palms law or no.

D.O.M.

[Batch]

Durtyoleman,

You might try joining the Florida Native Plant Society.

http://www.fnps.org/

Membership is $35 a year and includes newsletters and magazine. You can team up with members who have more knowledge from a local chapter.

There is also a book called "Florida's Incredible Wild Edibles". It only has line drawings. But, it does contain some good recipes.

I just joined the FNPS after reading "Surviving the Wilds of Florida" by Reid F. Tillery.

Kinda hard to find good info on South Florida...

I am a wet behind the ears rookie. But, I'm working on fixing that problem.

[Ted]

I know I can live on w.e.'s no problem! So can anyone! If you answerd you know them but don't think they would sustain you, your wrong!

Some must be cooked thats a given, but the ones that don't and can be eaten raw, have way more nutritional value the anything you eat out of a can. For instance I read once one cup of wild violets has more vitamin C than a whole bag of oranges! Thats just the tip of the iceburg people!

It is a fact that if you ate the weeds you pull out of your garden raw, you'd get more nutrition from them than you do the vegatables you keep after cooking them!

Just think about wild herbavors, all they eat are raw w.e.'s! I now your think'in well I'm not an animal,..... wrong,... we all are! I also believe humans were ment to be herbavors! Look at the teeth we have, not made for tearing flesh thats for sure!

[Mischief]

The survey specified WE's not WE plants
Therefore fish fowl game and plants all work

[Ted]

The survey specified WE's not WE plants
Therefore fish fowl game and plants all work

Well if anybody doesn't know they can eat of fish, fowl, and game. I feel very sorry for them, very, very sorry.

[Durtyoleman]

The point of the survey was to ask if you knew the w.e.s well enough to survive.I could survive for a short time on what I know but I would not thrive long term...one needs to know it well for a healthy diet. And while game and fish are wild edibles I believe they were refering to plant life specifically.

D.O.M.

[Nativedude]

wareagle69 wrote: "wait a minute i am confused, for those of you who say you do not know your wild edibles but could exsist on them, how is that possible, you don't know what you are doing but could live off of them?, yet those of us who say we do know them very few said they could survive off of them. please clear this up for me eh"

If you don't know your WE's, but you're with someone whom does, and they can tell you which to harvest, are you willing to, and could you eat them to sustain yourself?

[Nativedude]

Mischief wrote: "The survey specified WE's not WE plants
Therefore fish fowl game and plants all work"

WE's = Wild Edibles is a term used for "wild edible plants". If it were directed towards animals, then it would be denoted as wild game, not wild edibles.

[Trabitha]

While there are lots of fruit orchards and farms in the area - I don't think that is what you are asking. I would have trouble - now, add fish or wild game and I would do OK.

Agreed. I think it's just too difficult to sustain your needed calorie intake on wild edibles alone. Without SOME form of animal protein I think anyone would struggle.

[crashdive123]

Agreed. I think it's just too difficult to sustain your needed calorie intake on wild edibles alone. Without SOME form of animal protein I think anyone would struggle.

My biggest issue is that I am not knowledgeable enough with wild edibles. I know that I walk past food every day without realizing it.

[Trabitha]

Personally, even with the knowledge that I DO have...I would have to stumble on a large patch of legumes to thrive in any way...

[Mischief]

WE's = Wild Edibles is a term used for "wild edible plants". If it were directed towards animals, then it would be denoted as wild game, not wild edibles.

That may be your interpretation,however,WE is a general term WE Plants is specific
Peterson field guide "Edible Wild Plants"
"Edible Wild Plants" A north american field guide


Yeah I know you are going to site some books that only say We,and I will return with the dictionry meaning of W & E and string then together for you.
If you want a survey on Wild Edible plants then say so
Let us agree that we don't agree and drop it after you get the last word.

Ted the comment was a point of grammar

[crashdive123]

Wow. He was the original poster in this thread. There was some confusion as to what he meant. He cleared it up. It wasn't a challenge to see who had what definition, but rather a point of clarification to the original post. Why so antagonistic?

[Mischief]

Wow. He was the original poster in this thread. There was some confusion as to what he meant. He cleared it up. It wasn't a challenge to see who had what definition, but rather a point of clarification to the original post. Why so antagonistic?

Who me or Ted ?