Hey, I agree with you. I'm not correcting anyone's writing; I'm simply pointing out that to claim that "if you don't know every wild edible you die" is an overstatement -- and equally dangerous. There are methodologies to survival outside of "living it," and it's not rocket science. We are all at different levels of training, and to me it's better to respect that than talk down to people. No offense intended, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by LowKey
I do support the edibility test. I learned an abject lesson in Phoenix last year. I suddenly found myself in a desert environment that is completely outside my knowledge base. If I had to try and survive in that environment for any length of time the edibility test would have been the only tool I could have relied on in order to eat.
Nothing takes the place of knowledge and experience but it sure taught me how quickly you can find yourself in a foreign environment and you don't have to go all that far to find it.
First, there are a lot of "professional" (and I use this term loosely!) survival instructors whom teach the "taste & wait" technique. As well as, instructors that say "watch what the animals eat", but let me tell you, with 30 years of teaching experience, I have NEVER and I mean NEVER said to any of my students either of the aforementioned statements. The best thing to do is get a book on wild edible plants (with color pictures) and carry it with you, at least until you learn the wild edibles in your area.Quote:
Shankfisher wrote:"You should be careful what you condemn. This is a general rule, widely taught by professional, credible survival experts. As for mushrooms, the answer is simple; I was trained simply to not eat mushrooms. And as for the edibility test being crap, well, this is exactly what you'll encounter in E&E training. Certainly real expertise trumps the test, but nevertheless, this is not "crap" advice. YMMV.
Second, on a forum like this, giving ANYONE advice to try any plant, is at least, dangerous. There may be some newbies that take the advise posted to heart, and could become sick, deathly-ill, or even possibly die from what they've read on here. Again, the best advice is: "get a book on wild edible plants (with color pictures) and carry it with you, at least until you learn the wild edibles in your area."
I do agree with WE. Watching what the animals eat DOES NOT assure that we can eat the same things. There are MANY foods that animals eat, that if we ate them, would make us very sick or even possibly kill us.Quote:
Wareagle69 wrote:"No need to be careful condemning not eating what animals eat. you don't know me so let me give you a heads up. i am also well trained as an army ranger been around lots of operatives, i have been to wild edibles schools and train with one of the best in the world in allan beauchamp also train with a native elder and a woman who lives in the bush, while a fellow named tammarack song will suggest watching the animals to learn from them, we do not eat what they eat, we eat them. i would like to know who has trained you. sorry to say you are way off and would likely harm someone here with your info, i am sure you feel strongly about what you have been taught, but personally you might want to do allot more research when it comes to wild edibles, this is not something that i study it is what i live, please do not read more into this than is intended i mean only to educate you, and help you along in your training. if i do not mean any offense with my post."
My Lakota Elder guide taught me to break the leaf or stem in half and rub it on your arm and wait to see if you have a reaction. If not, then rub a little spot on the inside of your lip and/or tongue and wait. If no reaction then eat a very small piece of the leaf and, again, wait.
Now, just because you didn't have any reaction doesn't mean that you can't get sick from that particular plant. Eating a small quantity may do nothing at all, but consuming a larger quantity may make you nauseated, sick, deathly ill, or even kill you. Everything in moderation!
Lastly, I have a lot of respect for the military. I have very close, personal friends in the military. But, just because the military teaches something does not make it "gospel"! I have been to and observed a couple of military survival courses. While they were okay, I wouldn't teach their curriculum on a daily basis. I have had men and women, whom are active Navy, Marines & Air Force, go through my 14 day survival course. I mean the courses where thy have nothing with them except the clothing on their bodies. All of them stated that they learned how to actually "stay alive" if a survival situation arose, and that they could survive "without" any provisions if hey had to! And I've had many referrals from them for other Mil. men & women whom have taken and are going to take my course.
Yes, obviously this is true . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by Nativedude
First, I never gave anyone any advice to try any plant. Please do not rephrase my statement and try to make a point. I find that quite offensive, on a couple of levels.
And yes, of course, simply eating what animals eat without an edibility test is not recommended -- not the least of which because animals and humans don't digest food anything alike (ever seen a cow's stomach?). And when your Lakota elder gave you instructions -- you just repeated the edibility test I have spoke of already. Again, why you feel the need to repeat that -- and yet mock the "professionals" who teach the same thing, I don't know.
Look guys, there is no one here to impress. If you've got advanced training in eating wild foods, great. But twice I now I have heard of folks with training from NAs as if that IS "gospel." I know some NAs who will tell you they know nothing about skills in the wild. So trotting that out does not impress either. If you have some skills, good on you. I hope that works for you, but don't condemn. And certainly, please, treat people with the respect and close reading they deserve. That's just basic courtesy . . .
With all due respect, Shank, WE would get my vote before anyone else, be careful who you "diss".:smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by shankfisher
Who did I diss? And how exactly did I diss them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarge47
Even Les Stroud, when he had a lot of Wild edible "plants" nearby said that they, alone, would not sustain him for the 7 days that he would be out in the wilds & that he needed to find a way to add meat or fish to his larder. I agree that the plant-life is important, but cannot be used as the sole diet. Like WE says, watch what the animals eat, then use it as bait to trap them! (or something like that.):cool2:
Yeah, sure. Upthread I specifically said: "You'll find something to eat if you can do that testing. You can then eat a bit and keep your strength up to wait on a rabbit, squirrel, or fish trap. To live forever? No."Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarge47
This looks like you're "dissing" WE, IMO. If I had to choose 1 person to pick out of all the members of this site to help me survive in the wilds, WE would be that person. However, just remember, this is only MY opinion.:cool2:Quote:
Originally Posted by shankfisher
I don't get it. He was dissing the exact advice as "crap" that Nativedude put in his post. Was Nativdude also dissing WE?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarge47
I've spoken my piece, I'm just saying that WE has the credibility with me over anyone else on this site. It sounded to me like you were putting him down a bit & I mentioned it, that's all. I don't know you that well, so I guess I'm just watching & learning. BTW, I didn't see, Nativedude dissing WE over it, they were just exchanging opinions. It's not the advice that I'm reffering to, but the way things are being said.:cool2:Quote:
Originally Posted by shankfisher
First, I'm not mocking any one. But there are people whom claim to be "professional" survival instructors, yet the things that they teach can be detrimental to their students health and well being. And edible plants is NOT a subject to be taken lightly, nor are mushrooms!Quote:
Shankfisher wrote: ". . .why you feel the need to mock the "professionals" who teach the same thing, I don't know. . . .there is no one here to impress . . .
Second, As I stated before, There may be some newbies that take the advise posted on here to heart, and could become sick, deathly-ill, or even possibly, die from what they've read on here.
Third, I'm not trying to impress anyone. I'm trying to convey and impress upon others what I wrote in my second sentence!
I guess I should have been more specific in what I was referring to what War Eagle wrote.Quote:
WarEagle wrote: ". . .while a fellow named tammarack song will suggest watching the animals to learn from them, we do not eat what they eat, we eat them."
When it comes to survival, I never throw caution to the wind when it comes to others safety and well-being.
My knowledge of wild edibles, as I have stated before, is limited. That being said, I do not see that Shankfisher has offered any advice that would be contrary to what others have said, or harmful. I believe that the universal edibilty test has it's place, albeit a latter stage resort to sustaining yourself. Native Dude's teachings from the Lakota Elders sure seems to be along the lines of the universal edibility test. As with many things, knowledge is power - and learning more about wild edibles will improve your chances of survival in the wilds.
You know, the official side of this site speaks the UET (because, of course, it is just a publication of US Army FM 21-76). The fact is, there is safe and sorry, and I'd rather be safe than sorry. One should only eat something one has not tested and is not familiar with if one is starving and has exhausted all other options.
And, you know, it isn't JUST plants that'll kill you fast, there are also those that'll kill you slow. Something that'll give you kidney or liver failure you don't find out about until you've been out for 6 months.
Then you all are talking about who is professional or not, let me tell you a story about a professional.
So, we have hardwood floors, and we had cleaning ladies. And the cleaning ladies forgot one day to put the guard on their vacuums when doing the floors and so the beaterbrush tore off the gloss finish. I knew what caused it, the marks exactly matched the bottom of the vacuum. I insisted they pay to have it fixed. This woman, Vanessa, the manager of the cleaning company, came and insisted that because she was a "professional" interior designer and she had seen lots of hardwood floors she knew that the marks were from the original install and not her vacuums. (I let it go how she is a "professional" interior designer and yet is managing a cleaning company.) She called "her own" flooring installer to get his opinion, and he sided with me, saying he knew of no tool that could have caused the marks and that it was obvious a vacuum. She tried again "but but... I'm a professional interior designer." He wouldn't back down, boy was that fun. Later when he came back to do the work at their expense he confided that he wasn't very fond of Vanessa, and I admitted neither was I.
The moral of this story is, people call themselves professional all the time, much of the time they are not, or even if they are, it doesn't necessarily mean they're experts or know what they're doing. In the end, a professional is merely someone who has convinced someone else to pay them for something, it doesn't mean they are good at it.
One of my fortes as a webmaster is Search Engine Optimization, and I'm an expert at it, and for years and years, and still now, I'd see people on webmaster help forums simultaneously asking basic SEO questions while at the same time touting their "professional SEO consulting business" in their signature. Or blatantly touting things that have been proved to be false, such as say a doctor nowadays recommending bleeding to treat a fever. And in fact, some large and successful sellers of services would be making these mistakes, proving that knowledge on a topic and the ability to sell that topic to another person aren't always in a direct correlation.
So in the end, considering that, arguing about who is more "professional" is somewhat pointless. Especially in a field with no accepted standards. Let it be, and just do what you think is best for you, and let others take risks if they desire.
Afterall, if someone you meet on the Internet does something wrong, you'll probably never even know. It might make the local paper "Lost Hiker Dies After Accidentially Eating Poisonous Mushrooms" but you're a thousand miles away and don't get that paper.
That is pretty close to the UET.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nativedude
That doesn't make sense. Your elder taught you the edibility test above, but you don't teach it to your students, then you tell them to get a book and learn wild edibles, to carry the book until they do, but then neglect to tell them how to find wild edibles if they are in an unfamilar environment, left the book at home, or have lost it. I understand the UET isn't the safest thing you can do, but I'd rather be armed with the knowledge that might keep me alive if I'm going to die without food than not have it because someone thought it would be a liability because they didn't stress the dangers enough or whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nativedude
Seems like there's a difference of opinions here on the validity of the "edibility test." My thoughts are let everyone make their own decision on the matter. I don't see it as a "debatable" topic, & will tell you that, in all probability, I will never use it. If I don't know for a fact what it is I'm eating, then I'm not going to eat it & that's that. You all can knock yourselves out & if you ever have to use it, hopefully you'll come out alright. (urp.):cool2:
Here are a couple of sites that might help folks along the learning trail:
http://foragingpictures.com/
http://www.sacredearth.com/
Nice links. Thanks, Rick.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
Good links - thanks.
Not possible in many areas of NA. The local natives lived on a diet of 95% Meat and Meat Products. So way can anyone say they could live off Wild Edibles in this area. You will never achieve your BMR. Maybe in some areas of the US, but not here.
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
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
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by wareagle69
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.
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...:sneaky2:
I am a wet behind the ears rookie. But, I'm working on fixing that problem. :online2long:
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!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mischief
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.
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?Quote:
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"
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.Quote:
Mischief wrote: "The survey specified WE's not WE plants
Therefore fish fowl game and plants all work"
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by crashdive123
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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...
That may be your interpretation,however,WE is a general term WE Plants is specificQuote:
Originally Posted by Nativedude
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
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 ?Quote:
Originally Posted by crashdive123