I can never break it down under four items EVER.
OK, someone please explain for me, what I am missing here. If the objective is be alive at the end of 10 days or 30 days, with the least amount of items. You don't need any food to still be alive after 30 days. You need water, and semi-stable core body temperature. So one hell of a sleeping bag and water. Or are you-all thinking about adding body weight, or having some meals......? I am not looking for a fight, I am just questioning assumptions like the need for a knife. Remember "Blue Tarp Amy" did 11 days lost in Alaska NAKED.
I think the best 3 items to have would be all three "Charlie's Angels"
Alaska to Florida, for how long, who knows...
Although I didn't answer previously, my choices would include a knife. Just like using a framing hammer to frame out a wall, a knife would allow me, or at least make it easier for me to accomplish certain tasks. I will admit that I look at it from a much different perspective than you though. If I had the temperatures you experience my list would be different.
I'm surprised your three didn't include a margarita, a beach towel and some shades.
Tracks Across the High Plains...Death on the Bombay Line...A Touch of Death and Mayhem...Dead Rock...The Griswald Mine Boys...All On Amazon Books.
well you may be able to survive 30 days without food but your organs could be so damaged they couldnt save you. also you would hav a hard time doing things like getting water and the fire wood you would need to boil it with if you havnt eaten in a week or 2. also it will make it harder for you to stay warm if you dont eat. all and all it dosent help your chances.
Unless you were anorexic anybody can go 30 days with no food. Americans are so fearful of missing one meal. Look at all the LARD-ASSES, most Americans need to go 30 days with no food. America is full of fat lazy people, who empower the pharmaceutical industry.
you are making this much to simplistic. it matters a lot what your environment is. you burs way more calories in a cold climate than a warm one for example. ive seen documentaries on people who were lost in the cold mountains without food other then one candy bar for only 4 days and came back so skinny their mom didnt recognize them. yes it can be done but only in the right environment and if you drink lots of fluids and you dont have a lot of walking or work to do. people have starved in less time then that. just because you see some documentaries about a few people who did it dose not mean you should run around telling people anyone can go 30 days without food and then go on a rant about how people so fearful of missing a meal and act like those people who dont think it wise to temped fate and bring something to help them get food are fat lazy fearful people. it will at the least help you function better if you eat witch will increase you chances of survival a lot, so even without the likelihood of starvation its still a good idea to try to eat because even if you cause of death isnt starvation it could still have been effected by lack of food. if i dont eat for a couple days i get cold very easy. once i went with 800 (and im 5'6) calories for a month and i was still very active and it made me dizzy every day that whole month. dont you think me getting cold and dizzy would effect my chances for survival?
No, NOT if all you had to was stay alive, do nothing but sleep in a monster warm sleeping bag 24 hours per day, only get out of the bag to drink water, pee and poop, then get back in the bag. To me I look at it as staying alive only, not hiking about, not exploring, just be in the bag, expend minimal calories. Hibernating if you will.
People in the concentration camps endured more and went for months at hard labor, on near no food. I think the record for no food is in the hundreds of days. I am not talking about being healthy after 30 days, but I am talking about being alive, with the least amount of tools.
i supose not in that situation but there arent a lot of situations where you could do that and expect to be found within a reasonable amount of time. realistically i dont think it would be a good idea to just lay around and hope someone will find you. id at least want a signal fire. if your talking about a situation where you cant get back from your camping trip cause your boat sunk but someone knows where you are and will look for you there a couple days after you didnt show up, well thats not a survival situation, its an extended camping trip. i guess what im saying is im having trouble thinking of a survival situation where doing what you described would be practical.
Last edited by Sourdough; 09-19-2009 at 09:39 PM.
you could but it would be a gamble. if after 3 weeks your not found you will be to weak to save your self and then it will be in their hands if they find you in time. you may have crashed in the woods and are not easy to spot. you could be a long away from water and you may not know where it is or maybe you hurt yourself to badly to get it. even with the tracking box air plains still get lost for long spans of time. it would have to be such an ideal situation, almost not a survival situation. and it seems unlikely that it would go so perfectly. i wouldn't count on it. that would be a very big gamble. so if everything falls perfectly into place that you end up with such an easy situation then yea that would work but im not counting on it. even in an ideal situation things can go wrong and i dont think any one is a pansy for wanting something to help them get food.
OWL GIRL, Do you much experience crashing aircraft.......?
Jeeze, there are some wrecks up there that weren't found for decades. I'm not waiting that dang long. I'm not Bear Grylls.
Tracks Across the High Plains...Death on the Bombay Line...A Touch of Death and Mayhem...Dead Rock...The Griswald Mine Boys...All On Amazon Books.
Bookmarks