"And Elisha said unto him, Take bow and arrows..."

Elisha I'm not, but I’ve previously written and posted a couple of articles on primitive weapons. The first article concentrated on pretty basic stuff like throwing sticks and such, the second on a more advanced ones, like the sling. This third one is about bows, which are likely at the top of the heap in non-gunpowder weapons.

There are several good arguments for including some sort of bow in your planning. The first of which is that the bow is likely the most lethal of the non-firearm weapons. Using modern arrows tipped with razor-edged broad-heads traveling at a couple of hundred feet per second, you can count on penetration and killing damage if you hit the target properly.

The second reason to choose a bow is range. Generally, you can place an accurate shot out to 40 or 50 yards without an unreasonable amount of practice, and an expert bowman might take a shot on a large target like an elk out to 70 yards, but as accurate arrow placement is critical in dropping big game, shorter is usually better. Still, the bow outranges everything else except firearms.

Another reason to consider bows is the question of maintenance and ammunition re-supply. Generally, arrows can be recovered and reused without the need for additional equipment and supplies, unlike firearms. They are simple to maintain, and what parts you need are cheap and easily replaced by most people. This may not be strictly true in the case of some compound bows that require ‘tuning’. Still, the likelihood of you being able to maintain and repair your bow are far higher in my opinion than your chances of being able to maintain firearms and a supply of ammunition over the long term.

Of course, even the most careful archer will lose or break arrows and strings or even the bow itself. The advantage the archer has is that with again a not unreasonable amount of practice and skill, he can manufacture ammunition, parts, or the whole weapon! Other advantages of bows include the near silence of operation and the low carrying weight of the weapon and ammunition.

That said, taking a bow to a gun fight is usually bad news for the bowman. Despite their occasional use by special forces and guerillas, the likely defensive use for bows is limited to the occasional silent ambush. The more proper role for the bow in survival is as a supplement to firearms. As mentioned previously, ammunition will eventually run out if things are bad enough for long enough, and having a bow and some skill in its use will push the day when you fire your last bullet further into the future.

There are three broad classes of bows to choose from. The first of these is the compound bow (see picture above). Using a system of eccentric pulleys, the compound bow allows for a ‘let-off’ of a certain proportion of the bow’s draw weight, making it easier to wield a more powerful bow with less effort. They tend to shoot arrows in a flat, fast trajectory, and are a popular choice.




The second type of bow is the ‘simple’ bow, either re-curved or longbow style (A re-curve is pictured here). Simpler in construction, they require more skill to use, but generally are lighter than a compound bow and easier to maintain. Essentially having only two components (the stave and the bowstring), they are deceptively simple in structure. This type of bow is also the ‘easiest’ to manufacture from available materials.

If I was choosing between these two types my choice would be the traditional bow over the compound, but I’ve shot and enjoyed both.



A third type of bow you might want to consider is the crossbow. The crossbow has two main advantages. The first is that the draw weight is far higher than with the other two bows, giving the bolts (not arrows!) a lot more kinetic energy upon release. The second is that it most often has a rifle style stock and trigger, and is sighted much like a rifle, so the transition from rifle to crossbow may be easier for some people. It also retains most of the simplicity of the traditional bow, and both crossbow and the ammunition for it can also be built from scratch.

The downside is that due to its high draw weight, the crossbow is more difficult to reset, which leads to a slower rate of fire. It also tends to weigh more than traditional bows, and that combined with the difficulty of cocking it may make the crossbow a less than ideal choice for people of smaller stature. Additionally, it can be somewwhat more complicated mechanically, although this depends on the maker.

Finally a word about the ammunition for bows, whether arrows or crossbow bolts. There are many different types available. There is of course the traditional razor edged broad-head, which will do fearful damage to any living thing hit solidly. Additionally, there are ‘blunts’ for hunting birds or other small game, as well as arrows designed for fishing, complete with attached fishing line. These tips are usually interchangeable, and make the bow a very useful and versatile weapon.

So there you have it. Bows don’t replace firearms, but they are an incredibly efficient and economical addition to any survival ‘battery’. So give some thought, and see if you can’t get in touch with your inner Robin Hood…



Originaly posted December 03, 2010 @ MPN

Review: Dual Survival

I’ve just finished watching the first season of a show called “Dual Survival” on the discovery Channel. It features the usual device of putting people in a nasty environment which they then survive while teaching you the tricks and tips of doing so. The difference here is that the show does not dump a single individual a la Les Stroud or Bear Grylls, but rather two individuals working together.

The individuals are Dave Canterbury (at left, above), an ex-military type with a lot of bush experience hailing from the American Northwest and Cody Lundin (at right), a primitive skills survival expert from Arizona. The two men have somewhat differing approaches to survival, which is part of the interest.

Together, they work through a variety of survival scenarios, with the two of them mostly agreeing on how to proceed, but sometimes in sharp disagreement. A good example is when Canterbury goes after honey from a possibly Africanized honeybee colony over Lundin’s protests. He gets the honey, but gets stung multiple times. The lesson, as Lundin puts it: “Do dumbass things, suffer dumbass consequences”

There is a good deal of talk about cost/benefit of survival actions when it comes to food (Calories expended vs. benefit received) that I haven’t seen on most of the other survival series I’ve watched. There is also a reasonable amount of talk about survival psychology, which is a topic that interests me a lot.

In addition the gear and operating styles of the two men are very different. Lundin is a primitivist, and improvises a lot of his gear. In fact, throughout the season, he is barefoot and wearing shorts throughout each episode. He feels this is actually an advantage overall, forcing him to slow down and be more aware of and in touch with his environment.

Canterbury is more of a hard charger in your face type, and seems to go to higher risk situations more readily than Lundin. He tends to feel survival is a battle to be fought with Nature, in contrast to Lundin’s more adaptive approach.

As far as techniques go, the show doesn’t present much you haven’t seen on other programs, although watching the ease with which Lundin operated a fire drill compared to Canterbury’s palm blistering efforts is instructive.

Overall, I feel the show somewhat misses the mark in presenting differing approaches to survival situations, although that isn’t really their fault. Often, there is only one sensible way to proceed. I think the idea of a team of two is interesting, and something I have not seen before. All in all, it’s a watchable show, but it’s not going to give you any Eureka! moments.

Originally posted November 22, 2010 @ MPN

Gimme shelter

So let’s talk a little about shelter. I believe that most preppers are a bit complacent about it, believing they can rough something up in a hurry if the need arises. In Manitoba, lack of shelter can kill you far quicker than a lack of food or water, perhaps in as little as an hour or so in the right season.

Ok, for a start, if you have a home now, is it weather-worthy after a crisis? What do you need to do to keep it secure and livable if the grid is down? Most importantly, what is your alternative heat source, off grid? If it is not a wood stove, you’re likely in big trouble here in Manitoba come winter, as most of us simply can’t afford to store an alternate fuel like heating oil, nor have an extra furnace sitting in the basement. Like gas and most of the other fuels refined from oil, it will eventually go bad, unlike wood. I suppose if you had to, you could look at burning coal, wood pellets, or something like that, but you need either a big supply laid in, or easy access to a source.
Now, what if your home is destroyed? It can happen for a variety of reasons, manmade and natural. Or the ‘loss’ might even be your decision to relocate to a safer place, so plan for alternate accommodation. The cheapest and fastest shelter possible is a good three or four-season tent and the gear to go with it (sleeping pads and bags, etc.). Cooking can be a wood fire, but heating your tent with it is pretty difficult. Tents, while great temporary shelters, are not a long-term solution in my opinion. They have too little space, too little insulation, and no way (usually) to heat them. One exception to this is the old miner’s/trapper’s tents made of heavy canvas and intended for use with a small wood stove.

I suppose you could consider the traditional First Nations dwellings as upgrades of the basic tent idea, but they are not really superior to the trapper’s tent, in my opinion. The only other tent I can think of that might be winter-worthy in the Canadian Prairies is the Mongolian yurt, but like the traditional teepees, the usual materials for them are unlikely to be ready at hand for quick construction.

Without a tent, you had better be able to construct expedient shelters from available material. There are a number of styles you can use, from simple debris shelters to fairly elaborate lean-tos (almost a half hut, actually) that will provide temporary shelter. These are good as far as they go, but are stopgap measures and unsuitable for long term habitation.

Whether a tent or expedient shelter, you won’t last long in the conditions the prairies can dish out without constructing something more substantial. The next step up is building with sod to create a ‘soddie’; or digging down or into the earth to create a dugout type shelter, or using wattle and daub to construct a hut similar to one that might have existed in the Middle Ages. Or you can use a combination of these techniques.

An interesting variation/combination is the burdei, used by the early Ukrainian settlers in Western Canada as temporary housing, although larger, more elaborate versions were used in Europe as permanent dwellings. It was created by digging out the sod, excavating a dugout approximately 1 meter deep and 2 wide by 4 meters long. Then a frame of logs would be erected, over which the saved sod would be laid to create a roof.

For heating and cooking you might have to make do with a fire pit in the middle of the floor and a hole in the roof for venting the smoke, but you’ll be reasonably snug. More time and materials makes you a fireplace and a chimney, but this might be beyond the expertise of some.

If you live somewhere where the material is easily available, you might even consider a corban or some variation of it. Examples of these beehive shaped monastic huts (see picture above) can still be found standing in the British Isles and parts of North America hundreds of years after they were built. With dry stone walls up to 1.5 meters thick, they required plentiful time and material and a certain expertise in constructing the roof. If a survivor decides to build a hut in this style, he might be well advised to consider thatching rather than the traditional stone roof. No one knows how many monks might have gotten closer to their god through faulty roof construction.

At this point, we’re talking pretty much permanent dwellings and the dugout, soddie, burdei, corban and other construction methods mentioned can be used to create comfortable long term dwellings. The next step up is the log cabin, but the building techniques require a bit more skill. Great if you have the ability, logs, tools and time, but this is asking a lot of the skills of the average refugee or survivor.

A word is in order about the scale of the shelters and dwellings I’ve mentioned. These are not large. In fact, for heating purposes, the smaller it is the better. A typical hut made of sod or wattle and daub might be only 100 square feet, of even less. Living in that amount of space might be a strange notion for those of us living in our McMansions of thousands of square feet. If you don’t think that it is possible, check out the replica ‘soddie’ at the Manitoba Museum. It’s amazing how little space you really need to survive.

Furnishing your habitation can be accomplished with a little effort, and tables, chairs, beds and so on can be made from available materials.

So far I’ve assumed you are without resources other than natural materials. Realistically, this is unlikely. There will be everything from abandoned cars to complete houses available as shelters, and even in an area that is largely been turned to rubble, there are generally structures that can be repaired, or at the very least, materials that can be salvaged for building. So think now what you would build, and how you would build it. What tools would you need? What skills? And always the most important question in Manitoba, how will I heat it?

How comfortably you live during and after a crisis is dependant on you. If you are adaptable and resourceful, life need not be “nasty, brutish, and short”. As survival expert Ray Mears put it: “If you’re roughing it, you’re doing something wrong”. What he didn’t say was that you need to acquire and practice your skills now, and not when you actually need them to survive.

That means ensuring your present home will be viable in a loss of power situation. It means learning the skills to maintain your present home, and learning skills to build a new one if need be. So get out there, take a course, do some DIY around the house, build a lean-to, a soddie, or a log cabin. Make a fireplace out of clay and river cobbles. Get ready now.

Originally posted November 10, 2010 @ MPN

Crops, Consumers, and Cash

It must have been a hard fall for everyone. Posting has fallen off sharply on the other blogs on CPN, and I'm starting to feel a bit like Cassandra these days. Signs seem to point toward a major economic hiccup occurring sooner than later, and time to prepare is getting a little tight. Yet the activity on many boards, not just these, is declining. My hope is that people are too busy preparing to read blogs....

But if you aren't, take a look at the chart at the head of this article. That shows you the price increase in some basic foodstuffs along with things like gas and heating oil over the past year, and it's a bit of an eye opener. Consumer prices haven't risen too sharply here in Manitoba to reflect these increases as yet, but I believe that they will. Even if you aren't fully committed to the idea of food storage, perhaps you might want to lay in a few extra nibbles, just in case.

Getting food in our society is a delicate and fragile dance of producer, processor, transporter retailer and consumer. It doesn't take much for this dance to be interrupted, especially at the supply end by Mother Nature.

Here is an article that details 5 threats to different crops:

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/5-dangers-to-global-crops-that-could-dramatically-reduce-the-world-food-supply

The author of the article seems a bit paranoid and the tone of the article is faintly hysterical, but the problems are real, and worth knowing about. Another article, somewhat less end of the world-ish, but perhaps more sobering:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/oct/25/impending-global-food-crisis

Talking more about price volatility than hyperinflation, it nonetheless makes a scary case for food storage. In Britain, the cost of food has risen 22% in just three years. That should make you stop and think!

I urge everyone to think about their food situation. Make sure you've stored as much as you can. Just a few dollars dedicated to this every week will build you a respectable reserve in no time.

The other thing I urge you to do is think about gardening. Yes, I know it is winter in Manitoba, but start planning and practicing the art of producing your own food NOW. Almost any yard or apartment balcony can produce a startling amount of food with the right techniques.

It might not be a matter of life or death. It might just be a matter of enjoying cheap food while everyone else devotes more and more income to purchasing food. Or it might be a matter of enjoying fresh nutritious veg when everyone else is armwrestling over wilted carrots at the grocery store. I don't pretend to know where things are headed, foodwise. I DO know that without the ability to produce at least some of your own food and stores of what you cannot produce, you are a hostage to whatever fate throws your way.

Do something about that now.

Originally posted November 01, 2010 @ MPN

Gray nineties

I’ve recently read James Wesley Rawles book Patriots. Or rather, I’ve read the original shareware version that he once published called ‘Gray Nineties’ and has since tried and failed to erase from the web. From what I can gather from other glowing and not so glowing reviews, the present incarnation of the book has at least two problems that are additional to my version. One of the problems is a wonky time line, in part due to attempts to incorporate 9/11 and Mr. Obama. The other is that recent versions apparently are quite the list of ‘recommendations’ for Mr. Rawles various sponsors and advertisers. So that caveat expressed, let’s press on with the review.

As entertainment, it’s so-so. Rawles is not the greatest writer of the 20th century, but to give him his due, he has said so himself. He’s readable, and reasonably interesting, but the story tends to bog down in technical details, which I’m sure fascinate some people, but tend to harm the narrative. Character descriptions and overall characterization is weak, to the point that I had trouble separating the characters from each other without a bit of thought.

Even so, the first three quarters of the book are fairly enjoyable. He loses me when the story turns into the standard paranoid ‘throw off the chains of oppression; defeat the evil UN overlords’ crap. In my view, it would have been a better book had he stuck with the story of his survivors.

There are a few other issues that bother me as well. Mr. Rawles’ über-survivors never seem to face a crisis for which they haven’t prepared, including evacuating their base and forming a resistance movement, which makes the book a bit of a bore to me. Ho-hum, the survivors triumph again using superior preps, firepower, and tactical planning. I suppose there might be people well enough off to be as prepared and trained as the characters are portrayed, but in many, many years of prepping, I’ve never met any.

There seems to be perfect group unity as well, with nary a whisper of internal dissent or disagreement. It’s all very antlike, even somewhat socialist in nature. At any rate, it is unrealistic, as anyone that has seen any kind of small group dynamic in operation under stress can tell you.

Finally, I’m a little troubled by a couple of incidents portrayed in the book where the characters seem to be stopping, searching and dispensing justice to those traveling past their retreat. Perhaps I’ve misread the location where the incidents take place, but it seems to me it is a public road running past the fictional retreat. It seems a little contrary to Mr. Rawles’ views as espoused on his website and elsewhere, but perfectly in line with setting yourself up as a sort of medieval baron dispensing 'justice'.

This book is often promoted by enthusiastic reviewers as a how-to-prepare manual clothed in a novel. Perhaps it is if you have unlimited time, money and personnel it might serve as such, although as many have said, reading about it and having the training to do something are two entirely different things. It reads more as a creepy little personal fantasy to me.

I think if you’re looking for a book to prepare your mind for a serious societal collapse, you might be better off with the recently published ‘One Second After’ by William R. Fortschen, or ‘Lights Out’ a free e-book on the web by an author calling himself ‘Halffast’* on a similar topic. Neither of the protagonists of these stories is well prepared, and I think there are far more lessons to be learned from their mistakes than from the super prepared characters in Rawles’ novel.

Overall, I’d say that if you can borrow a copy of ‘Patriots’, go ahead and read it. On the other hand, if you’re going to lay out some money, you might be better prepared for a crisis by taking the cash and buying a few cans of tuna fish than by buying the book.

*The free version of this book has since disappeared. The author, like Rawles, has published the work in a version that must be purchased.

Originally posted October 24, 2010 @ MPN

'Wilderness' retreating

Well, I’ve just returned from my annual retreat in one of Manitoba’s wonderful provincial parks. It was great, once again a time to relax and clear my mind and feed my soul. One night, sitting around the campfire, the discussion turned to the big What If? Once again, someone raised the prospect of retreating to the ‘wilderness’ of a provincial park. Just in case there is someone out there thinking that this might be a good idea, let’s look at why (in my opinion) it is not.

The first ‘pro’ that was raised around the campfire that night was the isolation of the park, a complete fallacy. While in the event of a major crisis, it might be a very good idea to get out of the cities, thinking that tens of thousands of other Manitobans that regularly visit the parks won’t have the same idea is naïve. You’ll be isolated all right, along with hundreds or even thousands of others with the same idea. Which brings me to part two of that idea: Most of the parks in Manitoba aren’t really isolated. There are good roads or even highways to most of them, as well as communities nearby that service the tourist trade. There are some parks that are hard to get to, but they are mostly in the northern reaches of Manitoba, with fewer resources and harsher climates.

The second problem concerns non-natural resources such as medicines, tools, ammunition and so forth. As discussed in my last post, sooner or later you’ll be looking at running out of something, and the likelihood of being able to buy, trade or make what it is you lack is even slimmer in the provincial parks than in many other locations. So assuming you get the isolation you were looking for (unlikely) you aren’t too liable to find too many others to trade with for resources. And if the more likely scenario of having thousands head for the hills occurs, what resources there are will quickly vanish with no way to replenish them. You’re screwed either way.

Yet another problem is the idea of using natural resources. At least one person around the fire that night was convinced that they could live off the land in the unspoiled wilderness. This is perhaps the most enduring fallacy of survivalist thought. The fact is, it’s not that easy even where game is abundant. It takes a lot of time, skill and physical effort to sustain a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, and even if I wanted to try it, a provincial park is the last place I’d like to attempt it. Generally, the more southern parks tend to be pretty heavily managed and manicured, mostly bare of larger game, and what little there is would be quickly hunted out. The same goes for the smaller creatures.

Even gathering plants would be iffy. While there are many useful plants in Manitoba, most of them don’t produce an appreciable amount of food energy versus the effort and time it takes to obtain and process them. It’s going to take a whole lot of burdock or cattail root to keep you from starving to death, and even then, they are available only during certain seasons.

I can hear some of you say that you plan to garden when you get set up. Even that can be a difficult proposition as many parks contain unique environments that are just not well suited to growing crops. And what will you be eating as you wait for your garden to grow? What if it fails?

I don’t want to discourage anyone from wilderness retreating, but a dose of reality is needed. Provincial parks are what city folk think of as wilderness. Even rural and farm dwellers really have little idea what wilderness is really like. In reality, the paths are few, the resources hard to obtain and the living far from easy in most unspoiled wildernesses.

If living in the woods were that easy, humanity would not have invented agriculture and the technologies to go with it. We wouldn’t need communities or social groups. We’d all be a bunch of modern day Jeremiah Johnsons living the good life. Truth is, the mountain men were dependent on society for markets for their goods and as a source of supplies. And they died from accident, disease, starvation and conflict at a far higher per capita rate than many others.

Don’t get the idea that I’m discouraging people from finding isolated areas to which to retreat, or from planning on hunting, fishing and gathering as activities to supplement their food stores. I think it’s a good idea. What isn’t a good idea is to think a provincial park is the place to do so, or that they can rely on resources in the countryside to take the place of proper preparations now, especially the stockpiling of food.

If you must have your woodland fantasy of a cabin by a lake in the deep woods, fine. Just make sure that the cabin is stuffed full of your preps.

Originally posted October 15, 2010 @ MPN

Review: The Colony Season 2

I’ve just watched the final episode of the second season of The Colony on the Discovery Channel. It repeats its format of isolating a group of people (see picture) and asking them to deal with the aftermath of a simulated catastrophic event, in this case a deadly viral outbreak. It is what is termed an immersive experiment, where the ‘reality’ is present 24/7. Almost all of the individuals come to regard the simulation as reality, to a greater or lesser degree.

This season is different than the last one in that the participants have a much larger area to deal with. They are put near the coast of Louisiana in a supposed safe area by a fictional disaster relief agency, and told to cope until further help arrives. The area is largely ruinous, but there are some ‘seeded’ resources and plenty of abandoned buildings in which to poke around.

As in the first series, there are outsiders that attack and harass the group, and I was rather surprised with the level of physical violence allowed. People got thrown around, shot at and entangled by net guns and at least two members of the group were pepper sprayed. There was also an abduction that was very traumatic for the individual captured.

While watching the group build nifty projects like wind generators is fun, the important thing to watch for is the psychology of the cast. You can watch the effect on and the group’s attempt to control a less than stable member. You’ll see a supposedly solid group member abandon the group at the first opportunity. As I said in my review of the first season, the ability to lead and to handle internal conflict might be the single most important skill you possess. The psychological makeup of a group will have much more to do with its survival than equipment or skills.

As a side note, it is interesting that the youngest participant is 22, the oldest in his seventies. I think both extremes of age did very well in the experiment, for the most part.

Other points that get driven home: Starvation is faster than you think. The experiment lasts about fifty days, and almost all of the people involved lose a significant amount of weight, one of them losing 38 pounds! It’s a great reminder that food has to be a priority, and that living off of the land is far harder than it seems, especially in urban and semi-urban environments. Had they not been started off with a certain amount of food, I doubt they would have made it.

It also makes the point that people try to be security minded, but most people in a survival situation cannot spare the time or labour to keep themselves safe. A late comer to the group is an ex-recon marine/sniper. He observes the group for several weeks before joining, living in the same smallish area without being spotted! As a way of introducing himself, he walks unnoticed into the group’s encampment, sticks a knife with a message on it into a board and walks out almost before he is noticed.

One note of unreality is the absence of firearms of any kind. In a real life situation, it is almost certain that there would be firearms present, and most of the confrontations portrayed in the show would have resulted in the death or wounding of many individuals. I think that the viewer has to keep that in mind as they watch the show, and draw lessons accordingly, at least from a security standpoint.

Another point of unreality is the skill mix that the participants have. That said, the show is a useful tool, if only as something to get you started on thinking about your own situation.

Originally posted )ctober 5, 2010 @ MPN

An Uncomfortable Subject

When should you loot? Or more palatably, when should you salvage? It’s a little discussed topic in the preparedness world, though almost all of us think about it. Most of the talk and too much of the thought is confined to shooting down the theoretical Rawlesian Golden Horde as they try to seize supplies from those that have prepared for whatever disaster occurs. That said we all realize that at some point we may find ourselves in an extreme situation, and in the case of a big enough crisis, taking goods that are not legally ours may need to be considered. We might well be part of that horde.

The fact is that in a sustained crisis, where the flow of food and manufactured goods might be interrupted for many months or years rather than days, weeks or a few months, you’re going to run out of something you desperately need. The methods you have to obtain that something are these: make, grow, trade…or loot/salvage.

The problem is that you can’t make some things, such as AA batteries. I very much doubt that there will be any for sale or trade either after a few months. So is it okay to loot the AA batteries out of the smoke detectors in an abandoned office building? Is it dependent on whether you want to keep your cool little flashlight working or if that is what you must have to keep your Steripen functioning to supply safe water for your kids?

Then there are things you can’t grow here in Manitoba. Citrus fruits are a good example. If you’re out of Vitamin C and scurvy is rearing it’s ugly head, is it OK to smash the vending machine in the employee’s lounge in that same office building to get at a few cans of 5-Alive or V8?

One can always hope to trade for what you need. I believe that ad hoc marketplaces will spring up pretty quickly, in fact. The trouble is that these will likely deal in goods that are relatively plentiful, otherwise there would be no surplus to trade. The likelihood of finding Amoxicillin, decent painkillers or ammunition will be pretty slim after a while. Since these sorts of high tech goods cannot be made or grown either, you are left with a choice: Do without or loot (or salvage if you prefer).

Sooner or later, unless you and yours are sitting on an honest-to-god mountain of supplies, you will likely face this choice. What you decide is up to you. For myself, I’ll loot if I absolutely must. It’s not a decision I’ve made easily or lightly. My fervent hope is that I have prepared well enough or that the duration of any crisis is short enough that I will not be forced into it.

The reality is that if a crisis is deep enough or long enough, sooner or later I’ll likely be searching abandoned homes for a few Tylenol or a forgotten can of beans. I’ll eventually find myself in that abandoned gas station looking for a patch kit for a tire, or a battery with a charge left in it. I don’t like to think of myself scavenging on the remnants, but I’ll do it if I have to keep myself and my family going. And you need to decide now whether you will or will not scavenge before you have a need to do it.

If you’ve decide to scavenge rather than, to quote Heinlein: “starve like a gentleman”, you need to think about when it is ‘right’ to do so, and what the parameters are going to be. Is it OK to root through the neighbour’s house after they’ve piled everything they can into the car and headed for the hills? How about the batteries and V8 mentioned earlier? Are the abandoned public buildings or businesses in the pool of potential sites? What about gas and batteries in abandoned vehicles and the contents therein? Will you go so far as to loot corpses?

How long will you wait to begin searching? Leave it too late, you may find nothing left. Start too early, the remnants of the civil powers will most likely execute you on the spot. And in between, you’ll be competing with others every bit as desperate as you are for the ever diminishing amount of resources.

It’s not a comfortable subject, but it’s one you need to think about now, not later. Figure out now what level you’re willing to go to for survival. Better yet, use the idea of having to do this to think about exactly what ‘must have’ would send you out into the streets. Is it little Suzy’s asthma medications? Vitamins to fend off deficiency diseases like scurvy? Or something else entirely? Double or triple stock them from your current levels!

If that isn’t possible, consider stocking something as a barter item. Booze and tobacco are likely safest and easiest, but if you have the ability to stockpile something that others likely cannot, consider doing so as a trade good, even if you feel it is unnecessary for you or your group. It’s not a sure thing, but having something to trade might get you the last of what it is you need.

There’s no foolproof way to avoid what I’ve described, but thorough prepping now will reduce the need to do so later if the situation arises.

Originally posted September 23, 2010 @ Manitoba Preppers Network.

7000+ books to help you survive

I recently downloaded a bit torrent of that name. It had engineering, survival, medical, gardening, physics, and chemistry books all in pdf form. I looked through them and for a start; I think the count was far short of 7,000. It was more like 1,000 or so, to be generous. After looking at the titles and reading a bit of a few of them, I dumped all but three or four. The rest of those books were useless to me.

Why they were useless came down to a whole lot of reasons. The first reason was duplication. Of the books in the survival category, I had seen all but one small pamphlet previously. The sad fact is that much of the same information (and often disinformation) churns around endlessly on the internet. Once you’ve done a bit of research, you’ll find the same old stuff popping up over and over.

Many of them were useless because they were military manuals. While the military does produce much good information, knowing how to set up anti-aircraft artillery in the mountains is going to be of very limited use to me here on the prairies. Additionally, many of the manuals refer to equipment and weapons I’ll likely never possess. So the care and feeding of the M1 Abrams tank is not really a relevant subject.

Many others were useless due to their age. While I might someday have time to master early 1800’s level chemistry, I doubt that it will be either quick or easy. Trying to reproduce the equipment mentioned, learning the names of things and ingredients, and master the techniques of an archaic manual will be time consuming, frustrating and likely dangerous. Not to mention that some of the knowledge is just plain wrong or hazardous. We no longer see arsenic as a medical ingredient, for example.

That is not to say that all of the books I looked at were archaic. In the medical section there were dozens of up to date texts, full of excellent information. What good that book on radiology is to me without the X-ray, CAT, or MRI scanners, I don’t know. Perhaps I can develop X-ray vision if I squint hard enough. Even many basic procedures refer to equipment I’ll likely not have.

That was the issue with many of the books in the medical, engineering, chemistry and physics sections. They were useless without modern plants and the equipment they contain. There is no use having the pdf. for a Machinist’s Handbook without the lathe to go along with it.

Finally there was the issue of size. Yes, size does matter, especially when it comes to information. Many of these texts were well over 500 pages long. Some books were even longer. The ability of a person to absorb and retain useful knowledge from even one lengthy book is limited, never mind several hundred. While I believe preppers are smart people, I think most of us have our hands full with the basics, plus trying to develop a bit of expertise in one or two other areas.

Finally, I have issues with electronically stored information. You might be a genius able to build a generator out of an eggbeater and a bit of copper wire if only you could read up on it, but it does you no good if you can’t access the information because EMP has fried your computer or the power grid is down. Sadly, printing out and storing hundreds of books that are each hundreds of pages long isn’t a reasonable option for most of us.

My advice is to not worry about having ALL of the information. Make sure you have good BASIC texts (on paper!) for gardening, cooking and canning, medical, and whatever other areas you feel are really essential. Don’t bother trying to amass a bunch of useless knowledge that is dependent on our present highly complex and interdependent society. DON”T try to become Heinlein’s superman, you just don’t have time enough to learn everything about everything. DO try to develop one or two skills that you can barter for other skills, but don’t go crazy.

Most of all, remember that beyond a certain point, reading and thinking about preparedness is NOT getting you prepared for anything. Get away from the computer and do what you’ve read about. Learn how to use a compass, practice some carpentry, get practical experience in gardening, take a course and store some supplies. You have enough information to do that right now!

Originally posted august 31, 2010 @ MPN

Revelation 6: verses 5-6

I’m not religious, but the imagery is appropriate...

If you read a lot of news, you’ll likely know that Russia is banning the export of wheat for the remainder of 2010. The Russians have lost at least 20% of their crop, and are ensuring that there is no homegrown shortage. As Gwynne Dyer wrote in a recent column about this: “If anybody starves, it won't be Russians.” At least, not yet.

I believe that we are likely at the maximum population that our agricultural capacity can carry. It’s likely that without heavy inputs of fertilizers, water, and pesticides that we are far exceeding what the planet can actually feed. Global warming or not, we’ve seen how vulnerable our food supply is to the weather.
Here in Manitoba, a bumper crop around Portage La Prairie has seen upwards of four inches of rain on it in places. If you get just the wrong breaks, that crop might rot in the fields. Add that to the smallest acreage of wheat seeded on the Prairies this spring since 1971, and you have the potential of another major exporter limiting its exports.

The ‘reserve’ of wheat around the world is now about 50 days, down from three times that not that long ago. It would not take too much more bad weather or failed harvests to shrink that number further. Indeed, it may shrink anyway as the world population continues to increase. So what is the bottom line for you?

Right now, likely nothing at all. Oh, you might wind up paying a bit more (or a lot more) for flour and products made with them. There might be food riots in faraway places like Mexico or Pakistan, but nothing like that here. Life will likely trundle along without much notice of the increasingly thinner margins that are developing between the plenty we still enjoy, and the famine that much of the rest of the world endures periodically.

So as you butter your toast, bite on that bagel, or chow down on that bowl of Chocolate-Frosted Sugar Bombs, give some thought to the future. Maybe an extra bag of flour in the larder isn’t such a bad thing. It might just keep one horseman from your door.

Link to the Dyer article I quoted. A worthwhile read:

http://vueweekly.com/front/story/grain_wars/

Originally posted august 20, 2010 @MPN

Review: Electronic Armageddon

National Geographic’s Electronic Armageddon is an interesting watch. It is a good starting point for those wanting to learn about EMP, both natural and manmade. There is a lot of good basic science in the program, but nothing that a person of average intelligence can’t handle.

The program covers the likely effects of an EMP event, and does a reasonably good job of explaining the consequences. It gives you a good idea of just how pervasive the microprocessor has become in all areas of our society, and how dependent we are on those tiny circuit boards to keep running. Especially interesting is the brief examination of its use in the food processing industries.

The focus of the program in my opinion is with the effects on the power grid, and the consequences of its loss. It is pointed out that many areas we humans inhabit would likely become untenable. The example given is Las Vegas, but Manitobans would do well to think about how they might fare if they lost power during one of the harsh winters we endure. I doubt all million or so of us have alternate heating sources!

For me, the most interesting part of the show was the statement that one in ten vehicles would stop running. Typically, the ‘expert’ survivalists would have you believe that you are back to the horse and buggy once an EMP hits, and this isn’t the case it seems, although the program shows a simulation where almost all cars are out of service. It’s an internal inconsistency that no one seemed to notice.

This information that vehicles seem to be less vulnerable than once thought has been around for a while. In fact, the 2008 report of the EMP commission in the US (link here) detailed the results of its testing on vehicles subjected to a simulated EMP pulse. It seems to indicate that EMP is not necessarily certain vehicular death.

What does that mean for you? Is the family sedan certain to run? Is it still necessary to equip yourself with that pre-microchip pickup truck? I wish I knew for sure. You can’t ignore the fact that your vehicle might be one of the one in ten damaged and unusable. The best thing to do is read the report (follow the link above) and decide what is best for you in your particular situation.

What seems to be certain is this: If there are major infrastructure failures and supply dislocations, the majority of people are quite likely to be more mobile and able to travel far greater distances in search of the necessities of life than previously thought. The isolated retreat is less isolated, and the safe distance from a major urban area is now orders of magnitude greater. This should have a big impact on your survival planning.

But watch the show…you’ll like it.

Originally posted august 02, 2010 @ MPN

Basics

A lot of space on too many blogs is devoted to creating exhaustive lists of absolutely necessary (according to the author of same) gear that you must obtain to have even a slim hope of survival. While it might be nice to be a well-to-do über-prepper sitting in your fortified retreat atop your mountain of supplies, it isn’t going to happen for the vast majority of us. Not ever.

In fact, I’ve come to believe that many of these lists and the survival sites promulgating them have a negative effect on those people that are tentatively finding their way into the world of survival and preparedness. Many people are simply overwhelmed with the items and quantities they are supposed to obtain, and are defeated before they are fairly begun.

What follows is yet another shopping list. The difference is that this one is short, inexpensive to obtain for the most part, and fits in a backpack. It doesn’t guarantee that you’ll survive, but it will shift the odds in your favour.

3 large contractor grade garbage bags (one clear plastic) - you can make everything from shelters to sleeping bags with these. The clear bag is for obtaining water by transpiration.

100’ parachute cord (or – 50’ cord/50’ nylon rope) - for tying stuff up or together…like a shelter.

Emergency space blanket - Get the heavier reusable version if you can.

Metal cup for cooking - Or a small aluminum pot, whatever works for you, plus utensils.

Water bottle(s) - a place to keep water you’ve treated.

Lighter + matches and fire starter/ tinder - multiple lighters, matches in a waterproof case.

2 candles - couple of tea lights, or some pink ladies.

Knife (fixed blade) - a good, sturdy, multipurpose blade. Avoid Rambo knives.

Whistle - a signaling device

Compass and Map - generally only useful if you’ve actually practiced using them.

Flashlight (or Headlamp) - I like the shake & charge flashlights or wind & charge types.

Med kit - Don’t forget your personal meds.

Disposable poncho - generally cheap and one use, but if you can’t afford better, get several. It’s easier to stay dry than to get dry.

Sunglasses - Surprisingly necessary in all seasons.

Sunscreen & insect repellent - Makes life merely miserable instead of unbearable in sunny & buggy locales.

Sewing kit - Take twice what you think you’ll require. You’ll wind up needing it.

Paper money and coins - Surprisingly useful in obtaining necessary goods, even in a crisis. Not infallible.

Multi-tool or Swiss army knife - Both if you can afford the money and weight, but one at least.

Can opener - Get a P-38 style one, nothing simpler or lighter out there.

Snare wire - Essential force multiplier

Flexible / collapsible saw - I like the collapsible saw option. Better all round, but more expensive.

Energy bars / dehydrated food - As much as you can afford and stuff into your pack. Look for high nutritional value and low weight.

Water / Water treatment - lots of options, from filters to chemicals - and you always have boiling as an option. Always carry or store as much water as practical.

There you go. If you’ve got that much in a back pack, and a back pack for each person, you’re likely miles ahead of the neighbours. You can add to it as you see fit, and expand your prepping as you are able to do so and see a need for. Do what you can afford, and don’t let the ‘professional’ preppers intimidate you and keep you from doing what you should do to be a bit more prepared.

Originally posted July 25, 2010 @ MPN

singin' in the Rain...

Usually I hesitate to recommend that people lay out a lot of bucks on high tech gear, much as I love the stuff. Generally, there is a cheaper or simpler alternative to cutting edge equipment. But in this case I’m going to make an exception. I’m going to recommend a piece of gear I own and have used quite a bit, given the year we've had with the weather here in Manitoba.

The item in question is the Integral Designs Silponcho Tarp. This nifty bit of kit is a poncho made out of silnylon. Silnylon is a fabric made by impregnating a thinly woven nylon fabric with liquid silicone from both sides. The resulting fabric is lightweight, waterproof, and because of the silicone, the nylon is much strengthened making it more resistant to tearing.

The weight is ridiculously low at 280 grams ( a bit over ½ pound) and when rolled into it’s stuff sack, it is not much bigger than a hiker’s water bottle. The poncho covers you from head to knees, and unlike most ponchos I’ve seen , keeps your arms dry due to its width. It snaps together at waist and thighs, and has a drawstring hood. An added bonus is the shockcord on the bottom edge that allows you to snug the poncho around your pack. Did I mention that the poncho is big enough to cover your pack, allowing you to lose the weight of a pack cover?

The poncho has a second use. There are a dozen nylon loops around the edges of this poncho. Given that it is 1.5 meters by 2.4 meters in size, it is large enough to set up as an awning to cover an eating space, or it can be set up in a variety of ways as a shelter. Just remember to flop the hood face down!!

The only downside is the price, a hefty $73 CDN when i purchased mine. I personally think this is worth the money. Shelter is important in a survival situation, and this item allows you to be carrying shelter or at least an important part of a shelter for little weight or space penalty. As a poncho, it will keep you dry, and as many survival experts will tell you, it’s easier to stay dry than get dry.

Further, it takes up so little space it is easy to fit into a bug out bag, or to carry in the car in case of emergencies. It is available from the integral Designs website, or from MEC.

edited to add; I was wearing this yesterday to walk my dog. Still feel it's one of the best pieces of kit that I own

Originally posted July 20, 2010 @MPN

And the Winner is...

Last week we discussed alternatives to the traditional G.O.O.D. vehicle and noted the strengths and weaknesses of each. This week, as promised, we will look at what are likely the most versatile bug-out vehicles of all. In my opinion, such as it is, these are the most flexible options available.

The first of those options is the horse. Humans have used horses nearly as long as we have had anything we can call civilization, and in fact, the horse is largely responsible for our success as a species. The ability to use the horse as personal transportation and for haulage has been pivotal in the success or lack of it in any number of societies.

The horse certainly has its weaknesses as a method of bugging out. It requires accommodation near you, it can fall prey to disease, theft, hunger and thirst. It requires skill to handle, train, ride and care for, and it and its gear can be expensive to acquire and maintain. They are also quite large. Not as large as an SUV, perhaps, but certainly harder to hide than a person. But then there are no perfect bug-out vehicles, are there?

There are quite a few strengths to consider as well. Primary among these is mobility. I strongly feel that having the ability to get off of the roads, both large and small, is paramount to a successful bug-out. The stealthier you can be and the farther you can stay from others will determine how quickly and safely you can get where you’re going. As well, a horse can go where no vehicle could ever hope to be. Rivers, steep slopes, swamp, deep snow, and forest are all navigable by a horse to a far greater extent than any vehicle.

The second advantage of the horse is fuel. All vehicles are limited by the amount of fuel available to run them. A horse is self-fueling on the landscape around it for much of the year. Even in winter, there is vegetation to be found under the snow, and grain can be carried as a supplement.

By the way, your horse will still start after a natural or man-made EMP. Also, you can’t eat an SUV if you’re starving….

Another advantage is load capacity. While the horse is a large and strong animal, it has a smaller load capacity than most people think. Most equine experts recommend that horses not carry a load equivalent to more than 25% of their body weight. This means that a larger riding horse of 500-600 kg (1100-1300 pounds) shouldn’t be required to carry more than about 150kg (330 pounds) for any length of time. That might seem like a small load, but if that load is you and 50 kg (110 pounds) of gear, that’s not bad at all. That is at least as good as a bicycle, and maybe better.

That load can be increased if a cart or wagon is employed. The horse will be able to pull three or four times what it could carry, making for a very respectable payload. The vehicle is relatively simple to maintain and repair, and is nearly as reliable as the horse itself. However, the increased payload comes with a tradeoff in mobility, which might make it a less appealing option.

Another option can be seen by looking at the picture accompanying this article. You a riding horse and two pack horses means you're hauling in 350 kg of gear (~700 pounds), which is not too shoddy.

Horses are a relatively quick mode of travel. While they don’t walk all that much quicker than humans, a trotting or cantering horse is significantly faster, and at a gallop reaching 40 to 50 kph (25 to 30 mph), there is no comparison. And speed, combined with the ability to avoid the more traveled routes might make the difference between making it to your refuge in good time, or not making it at all.

Those are just the high points, and before you jump on this option, do a LOT of research, and ensure you have all the necessary skills required.

The final bug-out vehicle is you. Over the centuries, humans have proved that they can cover amazing distances, navigate the most inhospitable environments and difficult terrains, travel through almost any weather from blizzard to blistering heat, are stealthy, reasonably fast (12 to 20 miles a day is not uncommon among seasoned hikers), and keep going when food, water and hope are all but exhausted.

Our main weakness is that we can’t carry a lot. When you limit it to a sustainable 25% of bodyweight, it means a 90-kilogram (200 pound) man is carrying only about 22 kilograms (fifty pounds) of load. That’s not a lot, especially if you are carrying shelter, weapons, clothing, and medicine besides water and food. And the smaller the person, the lighter the load.

Again, like the horse, you can get around that by pulling or pushing a cart, or pulling a pulk in the winter. And like the horse, it can negate your primary advantage, mobility. The lack of capacity can be negated somewhat by pre-positioning supplies in caches, or by being very careful in what you carry. With a little forethought, a week of food can be carried. Hikers on the West Coast Trail do it all the time.

So there you have a number of alternatives to the traditional SUV bug-out vehicle. Whether you have that and stick to it, or perhaps have or will select one or more of the alternatives I’ve mentioned is up to you. The main thing here is to select, using your best judgment, the method you think has the highest probability of success for you and yours.

Don’t let me or anyone else convince you we know best. Think about your own situation, make a decision, and act. Oh, and have a Plan B to get out. Just in case.

Originally posted July 10, 2010 @ MPN

Alternative Bug Out Vehicles

Let’s continue our discussion of bugging out. Previously, we listed the reasons why the usual bug out vehicle (typically a 4WD SUV or truck) was far from a sure bet to get you to your safe haven. We’ll look at alternatives to the classic bug out vehicle, and you’ll notice everything is smaller than an SUV, as everything that size or bigger has the same problems.

First, we have the motorcycle. For me, this vehicle still possesses most of the disadvantages of its four tired cousins, and sacrifices the major advantage. The motorcycle is still subject to needing fuel and decent roads for the most part, is subject to breakdown, and lacks cargo capacity and inherent stability. That said, it is more maneuverable than a car, can possibly negotiate routes blocked by traffic or debris, and might get you to your haven faster than anything else. Still, it wouldn’t be top of my list.

Next up is the ubiquitous four-wheeler. Made by a variety of manufacturers, they are all touted as off road vehicles that can get you where you need to go. To a certain extent, this is true. The machines tend to be light, agile, and small enough to go where you’d never get to in a car or truck. That said, they are no handier in thick brush than anything else, are as stopped by deep water as easily as a bigger vehicle, and are subject to your range being limited by fuel. They have the advantage of being able to carry a goodly amount of gear, and tow even more on a trailer. This might be my choice if I had a secluded off road route I had reconnoitered beforehand and knew was passable for this type of machine.

These vehicles also come in a light truck style with a small cargo bed. This might be worth looking at as well. Regardless of style, the four-wheeler must give way to the snowmobile in winter.

Snowmobiles are the off road recreational vehicle of choice for many Manitobans and a working vehicle for many more. They are likely the speediest way to bug out in the winter, and have all of the advantages of the four-wheeler. The snowmobile can maneuver across country in conditions that will stop almost every other vehicle dead, or limit them at the very least to maintained roads. The ability to tow cargo sleds is important, as carrying shelter, fuel, food, and other supplies will be of paramount importance in a winter bug-out.

Again, they are limited by terrain to an extent, although less so than most of the fairer weather choices. The main problem I have with these is the distressingly high breakdown rate when used hard.

There are other specialized motorized vehicles that may or may not make a good choice of bug out vehicle. Getting your hands on a Flex-Track might be ideal for some preppers’ purposes, or a railway capable vehicle might be just the ticket for others. These options would be situation specific, and a highly individual choice. So let’s move on to the only non- motorized vehicle worthy of consideration.

The venerable bicycle is the obvious choice. The motor is you, the fuel something you consume anyway, and your ability to repair mechanical breakdowns is high. The cargo capacity can be quite amazing all things considered. The Viet Cong moved massive loads by bicycle during the Viet Nam war, and while you might prefer to ride rather than walk pushing a bike loaded with hundreds of pounds of stuff, your cargo capacity is not bad, considering. Panniers front and back, frame and handlebar bags, a backpack for you and a trailer for the bike allow a decent if not overwhelming cargo capacity.

Limitations are the need for at least some sort of trail, lower cargo capacity than other options, and a lack of speed. Crossing water is still a problem, but solvable by either preparation or pre-positioning (I know one person that has an inflatable raft cached at a likely crossing point!). Bicycles are pretty much out of the picture for winter, as well.

You’ll notice I haven’t included aircraft. While the ability, financial and otherwise, to get a pilot’s license is beyond a lot of us and the possibility of owning our own aircraft is an option open to even fewer, it is not my primary reason for discarding it. The likelihood of getting to it, and then being allowed to even take off seems iffy in a major crisis. But again, it may be a solution for a few in specific circumstances. Of course, there is always the flying car option (see pic above).

Likewise, I’ve ignored watercraft of all types. I believe you are too restricted in your path, too exposed to hostile intent, and since many cities and towns are located on rivers, it is too much like having to bug out multiple times. Again, this situation I feel applies to the majority, and may have exceptions. It’s up to you. The purpose of this article is to make you think about what's best for you, not rule anything out.

Next, we’ll look at two of the best bug out vehicles available!

Published originally July 01. 2010 @ MPN

Wheels and Reality

Almost every other column or article on survival seems to concern the bug-out vehicle. If it’s not what constitutes the perfect bug out vehicle, then the article is about the perfect load for the vehicle, the perfect accessories, or the perfect plan on how to get into it and get out. All good as far as it goes.

The problem is that the chances of a successful vehicular bug-out involving a longish distance from one area to another area are pretty iffy at best. These plans always seem to assume that the writer and his merry band, jaws firmly set, will manage whatever small inconveniences that occur to arrive safely at their destination. Unfortunately for those that will need to leave a major urban center, this isn’t likely. Let’s look at the reasons why:

Vehicle Failure: Whether a blown piston, EMP, or simply one too many flats from broken glass and rubble, the possibility of your bug-out vehicle letting you down is significant. You can reduce the chances of failure by keeping your vehicle well maintained and having a certain amount of spares and tools on board, but you can’t eliminate it.

Lack of Fuel: This to me is a high probability scenario. Fuel shortages might make it impossible to have enough fuel on hand. If you do have fuel, traffic jams that have you crawling along wasting fuel and unplanned detours can conspire to make what seemed like a surplus of fuel into a shortage. Obtaining more along the route will be exorbitantly expensive, if not impossible. Seem unlikely? Just look at the evacuation of New Orleans to see all of the above in action.

Infrastructure Destruction: If the route to your safe haven crosses even one potentially fallen bridge, one underpass that may be flooded, or one road along a hillside that might be buried by avalanche or swept away in a mudslide, you can be stopped dead. We forget that our vehicles depend on carefully prepared and maintained roads to function. The next time you drive anywhere, imagine the bridges you cross are down, the underpasses are blocked, the pavement heaved or washed away. Imagine your route blocked bumper to bumper and side to side with abandoned cars. How would you proceed?

Weather: In all of that post-apocalypse fiction did you ever notice how the end of the world always occurs in the warm, dry summer? How about if it comes during a January blizzard? In Manitoba, the possibility of having to make it from point A to point B in bad weather is pretty good. What happens to you if your vehicle is stuck in the snow and out of gas five miles from your destination in -30C? What happens to your supplies if you have to leave them in your vehicle in sight of a main road because the dirt road to your safe zone is a sea of mud because of rain?

Government Action: In a crisis, governments will do their best to control the situation. Often, this will result in curfews or bans on travel into or out of certain areas. Vehicles, perhaps yours, might be requisitioned by emergency services or police, and items seen as hazardous to the public good, such as firearms, might be confiscated. A vehicle loaded to the max with goods might make you look like a looter to an overworked cop, and there is a possibility that you might be arrested and held until the authorities ‘sort it out’. Perhaps your goods and vehicle might even still be there when they let you out, if it’s not too late by then.

Civil Disorder: While I’m not a ‘Golden Horde’ fantasist, the likelihood of some opportunistic crime and looting taking place in the wake of a really big disaster is almost certain. Being caught in a riot and having your vehicle disabled, or being ambushed and robbed of everything you own are possible scenarios. The greater the scale of the crisis, and the longer it continues, the greater the chance of civil unrest.

So there are just a few ways you might wind up without your carefully prepared and stocked bug-out vehicle. Not that I’m advocating that you should abandon a plan involving a vehicular bug-out. Just that that you are not assured of making it where you need to be by driving. You need to have a plan B. And maybe a Plan C as well. Next we’ll look at Plan B and the alternatives to the bug-out vehicle.

Originally posted June 22, 2010 @ MPN

Review: The Alaska Experiment

I can’t say I’ve seen Season One of this program yet. In fact, if not for a passing reference on another website, I’d never have heard of it at all. The first season is titled The Alaska Experiment; the second season is called Out of the Wild: The Alaska Experiment (obviously an unsubtle but deserved shot at C. McCandles). I have watched Season Two, and I have to say, it is worth a watch for anyone seriously interested in survival and the psychology thereof.

The premise for the second series is this: Nine people are put through a three day survival course, set down in the wilderness of Alaska, given a variety of equipment, and made to walk some 50 miles or so to civilization. None of them are survival experts, and while of course there are camera crews and safety people present, almost no assistance is given to them. They are given maps to take them from point to point, but they are not told exactly how long the journey will take.

The eight hour-long episodes are not a comprehensive guide to the techniques of surviving in the wild, although there are lessons to be drawn. The group makes good and bad choices, and sometimes the bad choices will make you wince, such as back packing a 20 pound Dutch oven and a snow shovel through the bush, or making an unnecessary climb up a steep mountain carrying very heavy packs, just to get a better look at the terrain, although they have a perfectly good map with their route marked on it.

Sometimes, it’s an error of omission, such as not making a handle for an axe head they carry, relying on a small hatchet for chopping firewood. Or not taking the time to change footwear before crossing streams, resulting in cold, wet feet.

But the main thread of the series concerns the search for food. Other than a small amount of food left at various shelters for the group, they have to provide for themselves and by and large, are unable to do so in the amount needed. The program states that in that sort of environment and doing the work that they are, the men need 4500 calories per day, and the women need 3200 calories. Almost all of the time, they are unable to get even close to this amount. The consequence of what becomes weeks of slow starvation, physically, socially, and psychologically, are eye opening.

In fact, the most interesting part of the show has to do with the psychological aspect of this experiment. Of the nine initial participants two drop out very quickly, in my opinion because they cannot integrate into the group. Others drop out later from the psychological effects of hunger and the physical toll of long term survival.

The effects of hunger, especially the lack of carbohydrates, on the participants’ abilities both mental and physical, are startling. At least one of the participants lost a pound per day through the course of their travels, and towards the end, the ability of those remaining to do even the minimum amount work necessary to stay alive is badly eroded. Even worse is the erosion of the mental strength to survive, and it is more the loss of the will to survive than the physical toll that causes the participants to drop out.

This program should be a must-see for anyone that thinks they can survive by hunting in a long term survival situation. More importantly, it should be seen by everyone that does not understand that the will to survive is paramount, and that maintaining that will is harder than you think.

Added: I’m presently watching Season One. The format is different, four stationary groups of two or three, but it looks to be just as instructive in the realm of group psychology, will to live, effects of hunger and so on. I’m going to go out on a limb and recommend this one as well, although I’ve only seen the first three episodes.

Originally posted June 16, 2010 @ MPN

Nine Meals From Anarchy

WINNIPEG - Unprecedented wet weather across the Prairies has dampened the crop forecast.
The Canadian Wheat Board said in its preliminary crop outlook released Friday that about 7.7 million hectares will be seeded to wheat — the smallest area since 1971. The barley crop is looking at its worst seeding since 1965 with about 2.7 million hectares planted.
Three million to five million hectares could go fallow this year in Western Canada because the fields are too wet, said the board.
"The excess rain has washed away the hope of seeding for many farmers," said Bruce Burnett, director of weather and market analysis.
It's been wet from southern Alberta through Saskatchewan and into eastern Manitoba. The board said the region had record wet weather from April 1 until early this week. Burnett said it was "by far and away" the wettest April and May since 1900 for the area around Saskatoon.
"This is an unprecedented event in Western Canada. Certainly in the last 40 years we haven't seen conditions over such a large area this bad," said Burnett.

full article here:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100611/business/wet_crop_outlook_2


Over the years, the world has moved towards less and less food in reserve. A little more than a decade ago, the world was estimated to have 180 days of grain in reserve. In the last few years, levels have fallen to about a third of that. It's not a situation to panic about, but consider what happens if we have a bad year worldwide....

It's food for thought, anyway.

Originall posted June 11.2010 @Manitoba Preppers Network.

Beyond Sticks and Stones

A short while back, I posted an article on different types of primitive weapons, and why acquiring skill with at least one is a good thing. This is a continuation of that article, but instead of sticks, stones and slings, we’ll now be looking at the so-called primitive weapons that don’t depend on muscle power alone.

In reality, it is a pretty short list, but these weapons are probably the ones you should consider most seriously. They tend to be more accurate and more lethal in even minimally practiced hands than anything we’ve discussed so far. They also have the greatest probability of putting meat on the table, although there are some drawbacks.

The first weapon up for discussion is the humble slingshot. Yes, Dennis the Menace’s armament of choice is as close as you can come to an ideal ‘primitive‘ weapon, in my opinion. A commercial version is my preferred option, where the power is supplied by surgical tubing and a wrist brace is provided for a steadier shot. Accuracy is fairly easy to achieve in a short time with a reasonable amount of practice. Size and strength of the user are not an issue, unlike some weapons.

The device is light and portable, easily stowed in a pack. Ammunition can be deadly ¼” or 3/8” steel shot, or even .177 sized pellets used to create a shotgun effect. However, even a reasonable amount of practice will allow you to become very good at selecting small stones suitable as ammunition, ensuring that you never run out. If you’re careful enough in your selection, accuracy and range will be nearly as good with ‘primitive’ ammo as with the steel shot.

A decent slingshot is capable of bringing down birds as large as a duck, and animals as large as rabbits, but are pretty much useless against anything larger. They are almost silent in operation, and have an effective range of about 20 meters or so.

Since they are so quiet in operation, a ‘shot’ will not betray your presence in an area. Should it come to a situation where you need to hunt for food, this means you aren’t being advertised to others in the area, whether other game or other hunters.

It is a ridiculously inexpensive weapon, the price of slingshots ranging from ten to forty dollars, with accessories and replacement parts such as spare tubing and steel shot being dirt-cheap. I stock several spare assemblies of tubing and pouch, as well as a supply of steel shot for hunting, but the complete kit including slingshot cost me less than fifty dollars. But you needn’t think that a commercially made slingshot is the only way to go.

While the commercial models are nice, a handmade slingshot is ridiculously easy to make. A bit of surgical tubing, part of a bicycle inner tube or other elastic material supplies the needed power. Add a forked stick and a bit of material to form the pocket and you have yourself a slingshot kit. As with other primitive weapons we’ve discussed, the slingshot allows you to be armed with only basic materials and a little ingenuity. It might not be quite as good as a commercial models (no wrist brace, for example), but a little practice will allow you to make s slingshot fully capable of doing the job.

As handy as it is as a hunting weapon, it is not very worthwhile as a defensive option, despite the use of it by the IRA against the British. While a headshot might indeed stun or even kill an opponent, bringing a slingshot to a gunfight is usually just another way of showing why guns are at the top of the charts in killing people.

That aspect aside, the combination of simplicity, reliability, silence, accuracy,ease of use, lethality for small game, availability of ammunition, ease of repair and the ability of almost anyone to create one out of the simplest of materials make the slingshot a ‘primitive’ weapon everyone should consider having in their preparedness and survival plans.

Just make sure Mr. Wilson doesn’t find out you have one…

Originally posted June 10, 2010 @MPN

Review: Apocalypse Man (ure)

For some reason, I’m hitting some programming lately of the prepare-for-the-end-of-the-world variety. I’m not sure of the reason for this ‘surge’ in interest (Hey, any wave at all on a flat pond is a surge, right?) but sadly, some of the offerings are pretty much crap. The History Channel’s Apocalypse Man sits right at the top of the heap.

We are treated to yet another ‘expert’ in survival, an ex- military type named Rudy Reyes. Over the course of the program, he proceeds to swing off of bridges, scamper through deserted buildings, and forage for scraps in the guise of teaching us useful skills for survival.

It’s hard to know where to start with reviewing this, as so much of it is contrary either to my personal philosophy (such as going into a city after a major disaster), or simply unrealistic (no bodies, no survivors). I’ll try, though.

The majority of the show features Reyes alternately sneaking about and climbing up or over something while dropping gems like: “Try not to let obstacles like this stop you…”.

Wow, there’s a revelation.

There is very little in the way of hard information in the show, and some curious omissions. One of which is that the program never shows him obtaining or purifying water that I recall. However, there is some laugh value in places. His comment about finding some cans of food in a basement (“That’s sustainability!”) had me rolling on the floor, howling with laughter.

Much of the airtime is taken up with him rigging a radio beacon, and finding diesel for an emergency generator at a hospital. The last was quite amusing, as he advises you to turn of the breakers so as to not light up the building and advertise your presence to potential hostiles. Apparently the roar of a running diesel generator or the smell of its exhaust fumes is untraceable.

The list of silliness goes on, and if you’re willing to waste an hour, there is lots more advice to make you shake your head.

My problem is that this sort of 'catch the wave' programming is at best useless and at worst, downright harmful. It perpetuates the backpack survivor myth in the worst way. It offers almost no practical advice to someone that wants to begin prepping. Unfortunately, I think as things get a little worse, we’ll see a lot more of this kind of opportunistic programming.

Pesonally, I'm sorry I wasted 42 minutes on this.

Originally posted June

Mr. Blogger's Neighbourhood, Part Deux

In the first installment of Mr. Blogger’s Neighbourhood, we discussed being aware of the potential threats in your region. Today I want to talk to you about another side of being well acquainted with your locality, whether in a small town, a large city, or the middle of the wilderness. I want to ask you if you know, really know, your neighbourhood, whatever form it might take?

The reason I’m thinking about this is because recently I was very surprised to find a route in my local area of which I was completely unaware. This surprised the hell out of me, because I’ve always felt that I’ve thoroughly explored and knew the lay of the land wherever I’ve lived. I’ve made a point of ensuring I knew every way in or out of the area, what resources might exist nearby and so on.

When I first moved into the area, I conscientiously walked every point of the compass, noted all of the significant features and out of the way trails I could travel, and the places where I might hole up if the need arose. I checked the availability of resources, animal and vegetable, as well as making sure I knew where I might find useable water. I even mapped (using google) those areas that were off limits for one reason or another to fill in any blank spots in my knowledge.

These are all steps I feel that any reasonable person should take in becoming prepared, and I was fairly confident that I had covered all the bases. (Confidence is the state of mind where things are most likely to rear up and bite you in the backside, by the way...) Over the next few years, I wound up travelling most of my immediate area regularly in the course of recreation and the travel necessitated by my daily routine. And routine is what got me.

Although I kept up with changes in most places, there was one area that I never got back to, for a variety of reasons. I was aware of and noted changes in most of my neighbourhood, but got into a rut and failed to make regular checks of the area I had not regularly travelled. Thus, it came as a shock when an errand took me through the neglected sector and I found a footpath had been cut through some very dense brush down to an area of the riverbank I had considered inaccessible to all but the most determined. The wide new path (which took quite a bit of work for someone to create) led along the bank for quite a distance until it was only a short and easy push through some grass and up to a hill that overlooks one of my usual rambles. As I stood atop the hill, I realized that I had gotten over confident, and resolved to make sure I recheck all parts my area at least quarterly.

I realize it doesn’t seem like a big deal, but awareness of your physical surrounding is at least as important as situational awareness regarding people. A change in geography might be minor and of no consequence, or it might mean that an escape route you planned on is cut off when you need it, a resource you had counted on has disappeared, or that you are less secure and safe than you think.

Changes can occur for a variety of reasons. Shortly after I resolved to recheck my local area, we had quite a bit of weather here in Manitoba. We had lots of rain and lots of strong winds. I went for a walk the next day and found that several of the trails I frequent, while passable with work, were partly blocked by fallen trees. Some low lying areas were flooded, and a lot of detouring ensued. The flooding will cure itself, but some hours of quiet cutting with my collapsible saw will be required to restore some of my routes. On the up side, I can use the firewood.

I’m not advocating that you play Rambo Hood and spend all your free time traipsing through the countryside here. I am saying that it is worth your while to get off of your couch and/or usual path, out of the rut, and see what’s new in your area. Heck, it’s even fun. Grab your bike or your hikers, your favourite dragoness and a picnic lunch and make an afternoon of it. It will relax you, entertain you, and perhaps make you a little fitter. It will certainly make you much more cognizant of what’s going on around you, and thus better prepared. And being prepared is what it’s all about.
Welcome to the neighbourhood.

Originally posted June 2, 2010 @MPN

The Odd One Out

The other day, I was walking along a local stream where people often fish. As I strolled along, the discarded bait boxes, beer cans, broken camp chairs and general litter got me thinking about survival. Is litter a strange thing to inspire me? Maybe not.

Survival and preparedness require one very important trait: The ability to look at the possible consequences of your actions and the actions of others. The ability to look toward the future and think: what if? The fishermen on the shore of that stream don’t understand this.

The section of stream bank accessed by so many locals is on private property. Sooner or later, the landowner will tire of the mess and close access to the area. All that the fishermen have to do to prevent this is give some thoughts to the consequences of what they do there. Sadly, they will likely not do this, and they will be barred from the land.

As a species, we also seem to be unable to think about the consequences of our actions. The last few years are full of examples, from financial meltdowns to blown out oil wells. That inability to foresee the likely end of actions seems to hold true for the majority of individuals as well. Very few people think beyond instant gratification.

The fact that you’re reading this blog indicates that you are one of those few people. There are always a few atypical individuals that can think beyond the next meal, the next day or the next month. Those are the people that survive tornadoes, do not need to be rescued from floodwaters, and do have the spare capacity to help the less fortunate and less prepared.

I could wish that more people in our society are like that, but it just isn’t the case. The general rule seems to be live for today, get what you can and to hell with the other guy. It is a worrisome trend that portends serious consequences.

As a society, we seem to be unable to turn aside from courses that seem destined to bring about, if not catastrophe, then very hard times indeed. Reliance on diminishing oil supplies, lack of concern for climate change, and a general reliance on an ever more fragile economy seem to concern the average person no more than a rain shower on the other side of the world.

So. Are we doomed? It’s hard to say. As much as this article is about seeing the future, no one can. It’s really about possible futures and being prepared to prosper, whatever that future brings. So keep being that one in a thousand that has some food and water set by, or an alternate heat source, or skills that others have lost.

Originally posted May 28,2010 @MPN
Keep being the odd one out.