I will admit it right up front: I am a survival show junkie. I love programs that demonstrate survival skills. I love learning from them and matching my knowledge against the people on the program. On the other hand, I’m not blind to the faults of these shows, however much I enjoy them.
I’m not talking about misinformation, although I have seen ‘experts’ make errors, and occasionally make beginner mistakes (one expert and his spouse contracting giardia leaps to mind) that make you cringe. Generally, the information that gets presented on these shows is fairly accurate, since no one wants to get sued.
The problem with many of these shows is that almost all of the situations are hopelessly unrealistic. For one reason or another, these programs present a best case scenario of someone’s ability to survive in a variety of wilderness situations, and are often misleading. Let’s look at a few of the unpublicized facts about these shows that make them less than ‘real life’ situations.
The first of these is the pick of season in which the show is filmed. Often our professional survivor is shown harvesting local plants as food sources. This is okay if you are there at the right time to harvest that resource. But if you are too early or too late, the ample harvest they demonstrate may have not appeared or already vanished. Seasonal availability also applies to animals. Hibernation or migration of a species might make it unavailable to you, however many of them you see frolicking in the woods on the television.
Additionally, while a plant or animal may indeed be found generally in a particular region, local microclimates or other conditions such as soil salinity or lack of habitat might mean that the flora and fauna you want just doesn’t hang out just exactly where you are.
Another issue of season is that these programs are often filmed in weather that is not at the extreme that might be experienced by an actual survivor. It is one thing to survive on a deserted Pacific island in good weather, another entirely when a storm is pushing four foot waves across the entire island. And really, how many people are likely to be shipwrecked in calm seas and clear skies? There are lots of examples, but the fact is that filming in extremes of weather is difficult and expensive, so it just isn’t done. And thus we get ‘ideal’ weather in many survival shows.
Another issue I have is with tools. Almost always our brave presenters have some sort of tool at hand. Usually the tool of choice is a knife big enough to actually chop down saplings. Otherwise, a smaller knife or a multi-tool seems to be standard. Really, the tool is not as important as the fact is that the average Joe no longer carries even a pocketknife. Demonstrating survival skills using a knife to someone who may not have one seems ludicrous when you think of it.
Yes, everyone should carry a knife. I in fact carry two, a Swiss Army Knife and a small fixed blade knife. Neither is suitable for heavy work, but as with most people, a bigger knife is both not legal where I live, nor practical in my every day life. The reality is that unless I’m definitely going out hiking or camping, then my larger knife stays at home, where it will do me no good in the sort of situation portrayed on survival shows. I believe most people carry less than I do, most of the time. So show me some survival shows without the huge beginning advantage of a large knife.
Yet another issue I have with these shows is the level of fitness and acclimatization that the presenters possess. At least one show I can think of has a presenter that routinely demonstrates acts requiring a very high degree of fitness, coordination, and agility far in excess of those qualities possessed by the average person. Most people attempting to replicate those feats have a much higher probability of failure and won’t have a film crew to call for medevac after they hurt themselves attempting it.
Even the degree of acclimatization possessed by people is misleading. One show has a minimalist primitive skills survival instructor. While he seems to manage in all sorts of terrain and climate shoeless and in shorts, most of us would be frozen and crippled long before we ever toughened up and acclimatized.
Finally, there is the issue of knowledge. For example, it is one thing to know the basics of primitive fire making, and another thing entirely to be able to accomplish it. Often, there are details of construction or technique that are not shown, and even then, experts can take hours to get fire, or might even fail entirely. Imagine then the chances then of Joe Average making a fire? The same applies to many other skills.
Granted, the onus is on the watcher to practice and perfect the skills before they are needed, but if you don’t have all of the information; it is magnitudes of difficulty greater to learn the skill. But then an hour long program on the fine points of using a fire plow or bow drill don’t make as interesting watching as some guy jumping out of a helicopter onto a shark.
Another thing about the knowledge demonstrated by the presenters: They are instant experts. While they may indeed be expert at survival in their own area, they are often portrayed in interesting and exotic locales, again to make the program interesting and exciting. There is usually a local expert that gives them the Cole’s notes version of what hazards and resources exist in the area. Like any sort of crib notes, it can mean deeper, crucial knowledge is omitted and the viewer will be unaware that they don’t have all the information.
I still love these shows, and there is much to be learned, if you want to learn. Just be aware that what they are doing is driven more by entertainment than anything else. You need to go farther than the limits of the shows and practice and develop your own skills and most of all, keep the reality of survival separate from the best case fantasy of television.
It’s just common sense
No comments:
Post a Comment