Alone in the Wild

[BOD]

Come on guys, we are arguing at cross purposes.

Most people acknowledge that his wilderness experience is genuine especially about living off the land. Maybe its even tougher knowing whats around the corner

What is upsetting for many is that there is a Bear Grylls retrospective quality about the presentation and talk up by C4 as he wasn't truly far away from civilisation.

While 5 miles away from a lodge is as tough as 50 miles the viewer wants authenticity which is a quality lacking across the media spectrum. If authenticity is not possible then some transparency - perhaps a shot of him leaving the lodge to be flown to the drop-off site and an explanation of the "rules".

The cute little CYA mention of Tincup on the website is not adequate. Show it on TV

All that is being asked for is transparency.

 

[Zammo]

I don't think it would be much of a problem for C4 to stump up the cash to close the lodge for the whole of the time they were there filming, they tend to have fairly big budgets.



Channel 4 can be contacted regarding programme content here:

http://help.channel4.com/SRVS/CGI-B...14712,K=8972,Sxi=0,USETEMPLATE=contact_ve.tem

 

[tjwuk]

I agree totally about not loosing the plot over a TV prog'. I am just glad that Davina Mccall isn't hosting it!

 

[tobes01]

I'd be well up for dropping Davina in the Yukon for 3 months. No need for a camera, I'd just enjoy not having her leering out from my TV...

 

[forestwalker]

(My other issue with the show is the way it perpetuates bear panic, which is a bad thing all around, but I'll spare everyone those observations on that point other than to say, folks, bears are not your enemy.)

Ever so true. In almost every case of bear attack here we have hunters as the target (free running dog looking for moose finds bear, then either the handler gets to close before discovering the difference, or the dog runs back to papa for help when the bear has gotten PO:d).

With that, I don't see that I've got anything else to offer on this topic other than arguing and that's plain bad manners, so I'll bow out beyond this point and spare you all my long posts on the topic.

Do it as the interesting one we have been having on food budgets and group size.

 

[TeeDee]

I'd be well up for dropping Davina in the Yukon for 3 months. No need for a camera, I'd just enjoy not having her leering out from my TV...

Hey we both know your joking. Davina Rocks! ( apart from th lame shampoo ads. Forgive her .)

Now as a substitute i would offer up Amanda Holden.

And for giggles factor i would like to see Boris Johnson give it a go.

 

[hog]

What about the poor bears?

 

[Big Geordie]

Maybe Boris Johnson will turn up in a bear costume borrowed from our chief scout. No wonder Ed is terrified of being associated with Bears !

You have to wonder just how terrifying the bear briefing must have been, to have left him in such a state. And was it deliiberate to produce better television? I feel that he disintegrated too quickly for a man used to the outdoors, albeit not solo before.

I would buy him a dram or two.
G

 

[TeeDee]

I wonder with Ed being a film maker primarily , if the following incident affected his perception of Bears more then it should have?

http://www.yellowstone-bearman.com/Tim_Treadwell.html

 

[harryhaller]

Although I greet a program which de-romantices the survival thing, nevertheless, this programme does seem weird.

Firstly, the series is designed to be pessimistic. Some of the sound effects and music seem to come from - or belong in - a Hammer HORROR film. The survival trip started on the 3rd July (day one) and he's already talking about the problems of being "alone". Day 2 - the mosquitos.

Day 4 He breaks down into tears because he saw a plane. Day F-O-U-R !!!

Hello muddah, hello faddah,
Here I am at Camp Granada.
Camp is very entertaining,
And they say we'll have some fun if it stops raining!

...

Take me home, oh muddah, faddah.
Take me home, I hate Granada.
Don't leave me out in the forest,Where
I might get eaten by a bear!

Hello mother, hello father by Allen Sherman

Yes the bears - is he allowed to shoot them? (or will there be an inquest to see if he really was attacked?) And if he shot one in self defence (your honour) - would he be allowed to eat it?

Any way, he goes along shouting out so that the bears can hear him - but when he sees a bear, he starts whispering into the microphone - in case the bear can hear him?

This isn't a documentary about survival - this is a documentary about Ed Wardle. Why are we always looking at him - why isn't he pointing the camera elsewhere and talking "off"? His emotional state seemed questionable right from the start - and I don't think he was being genuine.

But the real dumb thing about it all is, why did they do this in Canada, and not just over the border in Alaska, where I suppose you are allowed to shoot big game in order to eat? (or at least somewhere where hunting is allowed).

It is on this point that the whole series collapses - the man who already within a week is complaining of loss of weight, stares at a Carribu, admires its beauty and then says that he's not allowed to shoot it - this is crazy - better said - this is totally phoney, because one of the basic factors for survival has been artificially removed (by Canadian Law in that region) - they may as well have filmed this in the Scottish Highlands!

No, this is show business - what else did you expect?

We know that one mustn't be flippant about survival - but that is NOT what this programme is about. Although he is supposed to stay out in the wilderness for 3 months, he makes no attempt at building a permanent shelter, nor does it seem that he was, or got himself, informed about where the best hunting, fishing was.

But why did they choose a place where it is illegal to shoot big game ????

Guess.

 

[pete79]

Although I greet a program which de-romantices the survival thing, nevertheless, this programme does seem weird.

Firstly, the series is designed to be pessimistic. Some of the sound effects and music seem to come from - or belong in - a Hammer HORROR film. The survival trip started on the 3rd July (day one) and he's already talking about the problems of being "alone". Day 2 - the mosquitos.

Day 4 He breaks down into tears because he saw a plane. Day F-O-U-R !!!



Yes the bears - is he allowed to shoot them? (or will there be an inquest to see if he really was attacked?) And if he shot one in self defence (your honour) - would he be allowed to eat it?

Any way, he goes along shouting out so that the bears can hear him - but when he sees a bear, he starts whispering into the microphone - in case the bear can hear him?

This isn't a documentary about survival - this is a documentary about Ed Wardle. Why are we always looking at him - why isn't he pointing the camera elsewhere and talking "off"? His emotional state seemed questionable right from the start - and I don't think he was being genuine.

But the real dumb thing about it all is, why did they do this in Canada, and not just over the border in Alaska, where I suppose you are allowed to shoot big game in order to eat? (or at least somewhere where hunting is allowed).

It is on this point that the whole series collapses - the man who already within a week is complaining of loss of weight, stares at a Carribu, admires its beauty and then says that he's not allowed to shoot it - this is crazy - better said - this is totally phoney, because one of the basic factors for survival has been artificially removed (by Canadian Law in that region) - they may as well have filmed this in the Scottish Highlands!

No, this is show business - what else did you expect?

We know that one mustn't be flippant about survival - but that is NOT what this programme is about. Although he is supposed to stay out in the wilderness for 3 months, he makes no attempt at building a permanent shelter, nor does it seem that he was, or got himself, informed about where the best hunting, fishing was.

But why did they choose a place where it is illegal to shoot big game ????

Guess.

Alright then. I'm going to straighten you out here. I've already commented on this in another thread, and there appears to be some confusion on the legislation of yukon hunting.
Firstly. Anyone in Yukon (resident, tourist, guy living in the woods a short distance from Tincup fishing lodge) can shoot a bear "in defense of life or property". There would be questions asked by government fish and game officers, but you could do it. You would have to provide the fish and wildlife people in government the head, and hide (with claws attached) after killing a bear in defence. What happens to the bear meat is not mentioned in the legislation, so I suppose you could eat it (but if you are then eating the bear it may call into question your motivations about killing in defence).
Secondly. You can shoot big game in Yukon. If you can't, then why haven't I been locked up yet? Residents and non-residents are allowed to harvest big game. Everyone has to adhere to seasons. Woodland caribou (the only caribou species where Wardle was kicking about) season is Aug 01 to Oct 31. A large amount of Wardles stay did not coincide with caribou season, or moose season, so he couldn't shoot them for that reason. Also, non-residents have to be supervised while hunting big game, by a registered, trained Yukon hunting guide. Wardle, as a non-resident, would have had to have a hunting guide with him, and adhere to the seasons for big game species ("Alone, except for a registered, trained Yukon hunting guide, in the wild" doesn't have the same ring to it). If Wardle were truely alone, and starving, he could have shot any animal he wanted (as the Yukon wildlife act allows you, resident or non-resident, to kill anything to prevent your own starvation), but he wasn't alone; he had a sat phone for emergency and there was a fishing lodge a short distance away so he could bail out whenever he wanted, starvation was never a real possibility for him. Non residents are allowed to shoot and hunt small game (porcupine, ground squirrel, and hare), year round as long as they possess a valid non-resident small game hunting licence.
The hunting laws in Alaska are pretty much the same. If Wardle were in Alaska, and wanted to hunt big game, he would have had to have a non-resident hunting licence, and a registered big game guide along with him.

Incidentally, people keep mentioning he was shooting at squirrels. Is this the case? (I haven't seen the program)....because that is illegal, squirrels are classified as furbearers in Yukon and can only be taken on a trapping licence (which non-residents cannot acquire), not a hunting licence.

 

[harryhaller]

Thanks for the info, Pete.

It seems that we - or Ed Wardle - were misinformed. I will check, but I am sure that he said that hunting big game was restricted to First People.

Yes, he did try and shoot a squirrel - he missed.

Finally, we see that the whole premise for the programme was false.

If I understand you correctly, then residents can hunt within the season. Therefore, only residents could take part in a programme called "Alone in the Wild", since for a non-resident the scenario is totally phoney - "survival or non-survival" (phoney, of course, in the context of this programme with all its safety checks) is replaced by "allowed or not-allowed".

BTW - is there anywhere in Canada (or Alaska) where one is free from hunting restrictions and can thus really live off the land?

 

[pete79]

Thanks for the info, Pete.

It seems that we - or Ed Wardle - were misinformed. I will check, but I am sure that he said that hunting big game was restricted to First People.

Yes, he did try and shoot a squirrel - he missed.

Finally, we see that the whole premise for the programme was false.

If I understand you correctly, then residents can hunt within the season. Therefore, only residents could take part in a programme called "Alone in the Wild", since for a non-resident the scenario is totally phoney - "survival or non-survival" (phoney, of course, in the context of this programme with all its safety checks) is replaced by "allowed or not-allowed".

BTW - is there anywhere in Canada (or Alaska) where one is free from hunting restrictions and can thus really live off the land?

The first peoples hunting is a little different from that of non-native people. First nations have traditional rights which allow them to hunt any animal, of any sex and age, of any species, at any time of year, provided they are doing so within the traditional territory occupied by their nation. Game seasons, and restrictions upon the sex and age of animals harvested, applies to non-first nations people only.

The shooting at a squirrel: If it's a ground squirrel, that's OK. If it's a red squirrel (the tree variety), then he's broken the law. You need to be a trapper, with a trapping licence to take squirrel, and I think you have to trap them, not shoot them (but I'm not certain on that last point).
Wardles hunting of porcupines, ground squirrels and hares (small game): Non-residents are allowed to acquire a small game hunting licence, and hunt small game (porcupine, ground squirrel, and hare) unaccompanied. There is no closed season for porcupine, ground squirrel or hare, and both residents and non-residents can hunt them year round. Non-residents CAN hunt big game, but only within the open season for a big game species, and only with a big game hunting guide. Apart from the tree-squirrel misdemeanour, Wardle was sticking to the law on that one.
I don't know of anywhere in Canada or Alaska where there are no game hunting restrictions. I don't know about other parts of the world.

Have a look at this if you really want to learn more about it: www.environmentyukon.gov.yk.ca/huntingtrapping/documents/hunting_regs_0910web.pdf

 

[charadeur]

Being out and knowing you could get to other people within an hour or two is not the same mindset as knowing you have a two or three day hike to find help. To be so isolated you don't even see any power lines, airplanes, or any signs of humans ever being there before. That is not being elitist. It is just honest to say it is not the same. Sorry it just is not and those who have done it will know what I am talking about.

 

[superc0ntra]

I hope this airs in Sweden, it sounds interesting. Otherwise I hope I can find a UK proxy server so I can watch it online

 

[BushTucker]

Oh what a shame, jesus 50 days alone and what seemed no experience, the guy is lucky to have the energy to call for assistance.

My hat goes off to Ed Wardle, bloody good try mate, sorry it didnt go as planed.

 

[Asa Samuel]

He made a good point about not being able to shoot the moose. If he was able to he would've made it a lot longer if not all the way.

 

[Stryker]

I think Ed Wardle showed huge spirit, and deep humanity, and I found it really touching that it was his basic need for human contact that prevented him from staying as long as he wanted to.

I, like most am an armchair bushcrafter, with ocassional woodland forays, and would dearly love to undergo the challenge he did.

How would I do?

Top marks to the bloke I say.

Stryker

 

[Doc]

I reckon Ed's ability to feed himself was constrained more by law than by lack of skill. He shot at least two moose, one caribou and a few swans with his camera, and I daresay could have killed and eaten them if he had been allowed to.

The psychological side is interesting. Fifty days without human contact is a long time. Sig Olson made some observations about 'perimeter men' living for extended periods alone. He came to the conclusion that short periods of solo travel are beneficial, letting you focus and think, and perhaps also making you appreciate human company more. But a long time alone seems to diminish us in some way - with some being more sensitive to this than others.

 

[firecrest]

well done Ed:You_Rock_

No such thing as failure if you are still alive!