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: 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

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