Review: Dual Survival Season 2

The bloom is off of the rose. Season 2 of Dual Survival has run its course, and I have to say, while I sort of liked the first season for various reasons, the second leaves me wondering if I can somehow get the time back I have spent watching it.

The disillusionment started right off of the bat in the first episode. For some reason, they decided it was a good idea to demonstrate how to cauterize a wound using black powder. So Dave Canterbury slashed his own arm, and Cody Lundin dumped on the powder and lit it off. It did cauterize the wound, although I wonder if the procedure caused more additional trauma from burning than it was worth.

Furthermore, the slash was not of a severity that couldn’t be treated with direct pressure and an improvised wound dressing. Not that I am advocating Canterbury maim himself for television, but I am concerned that they may leave the impression that cauterization is the treatment of choice for a wound of such limited severity. On top of which, it ticks me off that in none of their scenarios (in which they play the part of the typical persons) does anyone ever carry a first aid kit. Wouldn’t it be nice to have some CELOX coagulant in a first aid kit? On the off chance you don’t happen to be a black powder hunter with powder horn at the ready?

Overall, the series continues the well-worn format of hypothetical situations used by almost every survival show out there. The pair proceeds through a variety of situations, but there is little of novelty or interest in them. What originally promised to be differing viewpoints of how to tackle a survival problem seems to have degenerated by the last episode of the season to two cranky old men bickering. The differences that arise seem to have little to do with their varying styles and more to do with the personalities involved.

Canterbury is very much the push-on, hard charger type of personality whereas Lundin is innately cautious. I believe that over two seasons, the difference in personalities is causing friction, and indeed, some of the talk-to-camera asides are far less respectful and civil than in the first season.

The difference in style is wearing to the viewer as well. Watching Canterbury make a high risk descent down a steep valley had me half cringing and half hoping he would fall a punishment for his bull-headedness. Frankly, I can do with a little less testosterone and a little more common sense and information.

Lundin’s insistence on bare feet and shorts is becoming similarly annoying. He might get away with this behavior in his home turf in the American southwest, but it strikes the viewer as pig-headed stupidity as he gets his legs and feet damaged in multiple shows in varying terrains. If bare footedness was such an advantage, shoes would not have been invented over 5,000 years ago.

There isn’t a lot of new information in the second season. Follow rivers downstream to find civilization, stay dry, and stay hydrated and so on. Lots of the basics any show of this type has presented, and very few new concepts or ideas.

While I felt the show was, overall, worth watching in the first season, I can’t make the same recommendation for the second season. I really feel that if you took the twelve hours watching this show a would take and instead spent twelve hours practicing any survival skill at all, or even spent it organizing your preps, it would be time far better utilized.

Unfortunately, the show seems to have been renewed for a third season, so I’ll be watching at least twelve more hours of it.

Originally posted July 24. 2011 @ MPN

Review: Doomsday Preppers

Doomsday Preppers is a show that recently aired on the National Geographic Channel. It examines the preparations of four families for disaster, and assesses their readiness. Whether it is any use as a ‘how-to’ guide is highly debatable, although some excellent and even ingenious ideas are shown.

The first family shown is a suburban couple in Phoenix, Arizona. The husband (pictured above) is certain that there is going to be a coronal mass ejection in 2012 0r 2013, and is preparing for that. Unfortunately, he comes off as a bit of the stereotypical obsessed prepper, and has a tendency to throw around the usual catchphrases like ‘grid down situation’.

Their focus is self sufficiency in food, and he has converted a backyard swimming pool into a greenhouse/ aquaculture facility, and is raising everything from fish to chickens and goats at his suburban home. His setup is kind of interesting, although it is never explained where he plans to get his water if the grid goes down. The main problem I see with his situation is that his operational security is pathetic, and while he might have a plan for defending himself, his wife and their two small children, it is never shown.

The second family is that of a family also in Phoenix, and the emphasis is surviving economic collapse/hyperinflation. The family shown is pretty reasonable in their preparations, although again the operational security is pretty funny. They are shown getting a pallet of food delivered at night to preserve the anonymity of their food stores, from prying eyes, although I believe a semi offloading pallets in the middle of the night is going to be a bit noticeable no matter what. On the plus side, the family is armed, and practices with the weapons, even the kids, and they also seem to make an effort to acquire other skills.

The third group is a group of up to four families preparing for the collapse of society, although only two are shown. They live the retreater’s life on about 50 or 60 acres of woodland and pasture. They store food, power at least one vehicle by gasifying wood, and seem well prepared defensively. Again, the main problem seems to be their high profile in the area and questionable security. One of the men of the group is ex-military and seems to me at least a little overconfident in their ability to keep themselves safe.

The last family depicted is preparing for a nuclear war. They have built and stocked a fairly elaborate underground shelter and seem well prepared for immediate survival. The fault I find is that while the shelter seems well thought out, he seems to have no infrastructure or plans for the long term. There appears to be nothing but the shelter where he is, and he doesn’t elaborate on any plans for after he and his family leave the shelter.

On the whole, the program is an interesting glimpse at part of the prepper/survivalist movement, although some of the people come off as a little strange, especially the first family. This program really won’t do anything to enhance the image of preppers, and might actually reinforce some stereotypes.

It’s worth a watch for the few interesting ideas presented, such as the use of the empty swimming pool, but if you don’t get to see this, it won’t hurt your chances of surviving any.

Originally posted July 03, 2011 @ MPN

Reel Life Survival

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

Review: Man. Woman, Wild

There is yet another survival show out there. I find it interesting in that it takes a step away from the rugged he-man of some shows (Man vs. Wild, for example) or even two men (Dual Survival). This show features a married couple, Mykel and Ruth Hawke. Mykel Hawke is an American, the usual ex-military, ex-special forces type. Ruth Hawke is a television journalist from England, and apparently a survival newbie.

While the show follows the timeworn and familiar format of “we’re stranded in the desert, on an island,” etc. and most of the principles and skills being taught are basic and familiar to anyone that has watched almost any show in this genre, it has some features that intrigue me.

For a start, there is a female involved. Almost all of these shows involve beefy males showing you why they are manly by eating bugs and why you’re a wuss for puking at the thought. Her reactions to some of the situations have a distinct feminine viewpoint that is somewhat refreshing and interesting. Seeing that half the world is female, there is a good chance you might end up trying to survive with one of the fair sex, and it is worthwhile to see how at least one of them copes.

Additionally, we are seeing how a married couple interacts. Not everything is nose rubs and cuddles, and again, the psychology of a male/female pairing working together is interesting. While at times the Hawkes are so cute together it makes you want to puke, you do get a bit of a look at how their marriage dynamic works in a survival situation, good and bad.

Another interesting thing is that unlike many of the survival shows out there, at least one of the presenters is new to survival. Ruth Hawke is presented as someone wanting to learn the skills, and that works on two levels. One is that often things need to be explained at a very basic level to her since her level of knowledge is so low, and thus we get the actual basics without a subtext of assumed knowledge.

Another thing that is refreshing is her reaction to some of the skills she learns (She takes a childlike delight in boiling water with hot rocks), and her disgust at some of things she has to do to survive.

The show also has going for it the fact that unlike some shows,the Hawkes fail. In the initial season, at least one of their ‘missions’ results in failure when they cannot achieve their goals and Mykel Hawke considers them dead, had it been a real situation. In at least one other episode, one of them would likely have died, had there not been a crew on hand to intervene in a medical emergency.

All in all, it is a somewhat different take on the usual hair- chested approach to survival. While it has its faults, it is worth watching for the male/female dynamic and female viewpoint alone.

Next week it's back to our tool series.

Originally posted June 20 , 2011 @MPN

Beyond Basics

There is a lot of interest in survival and preparedness these days. The airwaves seem to be full of series and specials teaching you how to survive, and there are others that have come and gone that are available for download and even whole Youtube channels with hours of information and how-tos. It’s a good thing, isn’t?

I wonder about that. Let’s start with the internet experts posting their ‘expertise’ on the internet. Brilliant thinkers that are packing a full sized can of WD-40 in their bug out bags to keep their folding knife lubricated, or astoundingly bright lads that think there is nothing wrong with packing two pounds of spaghetti sauce in a glass jar in their backpack. If it’s not that it’s some nut telling you how to carry a fancy EDC bag that weighs 15 pounds.

You can’t make this stuff up. Because of the surge of interest in preparedness and survival, instant experts abound, and much of the information out there is at best of little value, at worst dangerous.

Not that there isn’t good info out there. There is tons of it. Dual Survival, Out of the Wild, Man, Vs. Wild, Man, Woman, Wild…the list goes on and on. Sometimes I wonder if there is still enough wilderness for all of them to survive in while they film their programs. Unfortunately, while they are (usually) competent and delivering solid info, they are covering the same ground over and over again. How many times do you need to be shown how to make a fire drill, or to build a shelter, or any of the other basics you see?

We need to teach beyond the basics. Basic skills are great, but that is all they are. Basic first aid? Good, but EMT training is better. Basic firearms knowledge? Good but gun smithing is better. The list goes on. I know in the past that I’ve said that becoming a master at all skills is a hopeless pursuit, and I still believe that. Spending money on books, tools, and supplies you aren’t skilled enough to use is crazy. But sitting with the same BASIC skills and thinking that they are enough to see you through is just as crazy.

Let’s start teaching and demanding more in-depth material for our prepping. We won’t become masters of all subjects, but perhaps we can become competent journeymen in a few, or at least promising apprentices instead of novices.

Originally posted June 05, 2011 @ CPN

Review: After Armageddon

After Armageddon is a program produced by the History Channel, and presents a hypothetical end of the world scenario (pandemic), as experienced by one family, with commentary from a wide variety of experts. While it was broadcast some time ago, it is available for download from a variety of sources.

The family in question is portrayed with little or nothing in the way of prior preparations, and possess no exceptional skills, other than that the father is a paramedic. It runs through an escalating series of crises, from the beginning of the pandemic through a ‘bug-in’ phase to a bug out scenario and finally a rebuilding scenario.

Interspersed with the dramatizations are commentaries from various experts that give basic survival information, speculate on how various scenarios might develop, and give examples from recent disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. It is nicely balanced between the commentary and the dramatizations, so neither bores the watcher.

There are some incidents portrayed in the dramatization that will make the longer term prepper wince, and I know the overall lack of preparedness by the family made my teeth grind as almost anyone can be better equipped than this family just from what is around the average house, but overall it is a decent show, and likely a good way to introduce family or friends to survivalism and preparedness.

I was also pleased to see that the psychological aspects of coping with such a crisis were not neglected in the show, and there was also some decent discussion about what form a rebuilt society might take.

As this is Preparedness Week, it might be worth sitting down to watch this and role play through the show. Look at each crisis that occurred in the show and assess whether or not your preps are good enough to cope. Dissect each decision that the family makes in the show and see if there was an alternate case of action that would have served them better.

Overall, After Armageddon is a decent exploration of the SHTF scenario. I can recommend it without any caveats except this one:

After you watch the show, get off your butt and make Preparedness Week a real high point in getting further along in your preparedness.

Next week we'll return to the Apartment survival series.

Originally posted May 01, 2011 @ 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