are we still allowed to be survivalists?

[leon-1]

survivors need to do it - crafters just want to

Nope, survivors are forced into it, the very nature of survival is just to get by in a situation that they have no control over, they extend thier lives, when your skills or knowledge run out you die.

Crafters do it because they want to. Bushcrafters place themsleves in an enviroment where they can exist, they practice skills that are not just getting by, but more primitive living skills. In some cases they use state of the art equipment on kit that has a very old design. They also practice arts like carving, weaving, cordage making, tracking, pot making and so on and so on.

The initial skill set looks very much the same, but the later depth of knowledge is considerably different. As I said before when you cease to just extend your life day by day and start to exist in an enviroment you are living that life and in that life you will need a broader skill set than those used just to survive.

Bushcraft is the learning process for that skill set and as part when we all start we are survivors and no more.

 

[crazydave]

I disagree there actually thats still trying to make bushcraft touchy feely when actually its just the opposite

http://members.tripod.com/selousscouts/bushcraft.htm

we used to call it fieldcraft but its the same thing which is why I dont think there should be the two camps, the rm and lofty books are clones of the early aircrew books if anything tamed down a bit on the gory stuff like hunting - I still think its a political thing as lofty could just as easily be selling the sas bushcraft manual.

survival manuals aren't just teaching how to live for 3 days but for if needed forever - anything where you are bowing to nature is survival and thats what we are doing - you choose to go into the woods but you also choose to try and live off the land not cultivate it therefore its survival.. I find the only difference between ray and loftys books are photographs which does help in the plant id's. I think HFW's cook on the wild side and river cottage programs did as much for bushcraft if not more than rm walking through the amazon.

I think survival has been linked to escape and evasion which is a totally different kettle of fish.

The different name doesn't bother me - but the definition I think does I guess. I'm happy for either description but they should acknowledge each other a little more - ray made his living teaching survival and writing survival books that gave him the frame work to add to and make it more comfortable - like computers good ideas spread quickly and you find everyone copying each other as a exsoldier I watched the series over the years and watched as the kit changed as he had the money, the experience and connections moving from poncho and bivvy bag to hootchie and hammock for example - we are all doing the same.

forces guys do I admit not like ray very much and maybe for good reason as it seems to drive survival into the dark as a military art when it isn't and never was. If anything the military have kept it alive allowing us to adapt it to a wider audience.

Every excercise, trek and scout camp I have ever done I have used a survival skill from firelighting to first aid, sewing and improvisation. bushcraft in my opinion needs to go back to basics a little as there's loads of little tips and tricks out there.

bow drills are great but can be hard work - even ray uses it for demonstrate it can be done but generally relies on flint and steel. its good to know but even the indigenous peoples prefer a lighter.

Improvise, adapt, modify and overcome - we share the mantra's, and the mentality so why not the same shelf?

I guess I'm using my int head to look for ways to increase the basic knowledge of all members - simple things like not using your hammock in winter for example there's a lot of stuff that can be passed on but isn't for fear of tipping the cart.

I know it might be going over some old ground but I read the old discussions and they all seemed to stop - I think its a weakness of this forum software and many others as it doesn't branch the posts allowing independant discussions without trashing the thread. All forums have the weakness of during a discussion another topic is brushed then everyone joins in on that wasting the original points raised.

I hope it makes sense - I'm not out to cause trouble just open the spectrum a little bit - fresh blood and all that- no doubt this will carry on when me meet and over a pint or two

 

[Goose]

Survivalists know what what works.
Bushcrafters understand why it works.

A sweeping generalisation I know, but most bushcrafters I have met always seem to want to learn and understand a little bit more.

 

[Lurch]

Only a matter of time before this thread turns ugly.....

 

[crazydave]

Only a matter of time before this thread turns ugly.....

:swordfigh

cant see why - its just a basics topic - if it gets ugly then its normally from the side that cant justify their side of the topic or it will burn itself out and go quiet.

both sides however have a valid place so there's no reason why it should as after all one was born from the other - the discussion I suppose is a bit chicken and egg or who's god is the true god - look what trouble thats causing at the moment.

I could argue that a survivor has to know how and why many different things work so they can pick the best for the situation or indeed the desperation. what I am trying to stress though is that there shouldn't be a difference, survival skills should be taught incase the bushcraft goes wrong and bushcraft should be taught for when the survival goes right either way it should start as survival like rm did then progress

Infact I mainly feel that bushcraft is survival via a spin doctor and has more in common with pre 1950's camping or scouting for boys - at the end of the day we all like living in the woods and even go about it the same way with mostly the same kit.

The bushcraft tag has made it more approachable and has certainly expanded the available kit and increased our knowledge. its still survival though

always end with a smile to show you are taking it in the spirit by which it is meant

 

[Bisamratte]

I see bushcraft as living comfortably in the woods(or elswhere unspoilt by man).

I see survival as getting out of uncomfortable situation in the woods(or elswhere unspoilt by man) as comfortably as possible.

does that make sence???

 

[Toddy]

Dear Crazydave,
You appear to be hung up on the *survivalist* name tag. As already explained, this isn't a survivalist forum and deliberately so. The perception of the majority on the site perceives two different outlooks, and despite repeated attempts by survivalists to convince us otherwise, our opinion doesn't appear to change

Most of us on the forum have never met Ray Mears, don't either adulate or denigrate the man, but you seem to have issues with his success. Why? because *his* business *is* successful while many Survival schools struggle to exist?
Bushcraft has an appeal that survivalism lacks; you can be a survivalist if you choose, most of us long moved on from that narrow view of things.

And yes, that is a smilie

Cheers,
Toddy

 

[Tadpole]

:swordfigh

cant see why - its just a basics topic - if it gets ugly then its normally from the side that cant justify their side of the topic or it will burn itself out and go quiet.

both sides however have a valid place so there's no reason why it should as after all one was born from the other - the discussion I suppose is a bit chicken and egg or who's god is the true god - look what trouble thats causing at the moment.

I always end with a smile to show you are taking it in the spirit by which it is meant

I don’t think it’s a chicken and egg thing. All we (both camps) are doing is re-learning stuff our grand and great grand parents knew and used in everyday life, from using flint and steel to light a fire, to picking, preserving, gathering wild foods growing in the woods and hedgerows.
If you read the biography of Jack Hargreaves you well see him talking about doing things as a lad (meaning a pre-teen) that we would not allow our children to do now. He would go off in to the woods and hunt for food, both animal and vegetable. As a child he knew more then most of us do now about bushcraft. He did it because he had to; a rabbit for the pot was a much needed addition to the family food supply.
My great grand-father, as a boy would spend days and night out hunting/poaching fish rabbit etc for the table, he learnt because he had to. It was a necessity. We are lucky that none of really need to hunt for the table. And by need I mean “no rabbit = no food.” type of need. I’m trying to relearn skills that were second nature to my grand parents and a life line to my great grandparents.

 

[crazydave]

so its all lifecraft then - neither bushcraft nor survival but research archeology

I'll go amend my cv then

 

[Tadpole]

so its all lifecraft then - neither bushcraft nor survival but research archeology

I'll go amend my cv then

After all is said and done, when the dust settles, bushy types and survivallist will be the ones eating, sleeping, generally enjoying being alive, no matter what it is called.

 

[Martyn]

hmmmmmm

The problem I have with survivalists (and i do confess I am predjudiced), is I cant get my head round the motivation.

From what I can see, survivalism is about making it through short term periods of extreme hardship, bought about by no choice of the person involved, till they can make it back to civilisation. I can understand why someone would learn some skills if they intended to go on an exped into far flung corners, are in the military, or perhaps if they fly a light aircraft over uninhabited regions etc. That makes sense. That's about the limit of sane survivalism for me.

What I dont get is why someone should be "into it"? Why would someone want to make it a focus of a large portion of their time? Unless ... they are the type that fantasises about the apocalypse with a "bring it on" mentality. These are the people I would term survivalists and i do think they are nutters. There motivation for being "into it" just seems rather silly-mid-off to me.

Bushcraft, by contrast, is the study of low impact, ancient ways of living, it's passive and eco friendly, with no desire or fantasies of post apocalyptic struggles with nature.

Sure, they are many skills that overlap, but it's the mindset that differs significantly. If you are into building a perimeter and stocking your bunker with MRE's and surplus S10's then you shouldnt be too surprised if the park bench starts to look a bit lonely.

It's a free world and you can call yourself whatever you like, but I can also think whatever I like. I do think that people who are into survivalism are wierdos.

 

[C_Claycomb]

Man...I want a yawning smilie

Can someone tell me whether any of this thread has a purpose other than stirring and trying to create a debate where there wasn't one before?

Personally, I think that the question that Crazydave posed to begin with..."Are we still allowed to be survivalists?" has been answered very well. Yes Dave, if that is what you wish to call yourself, or think of yourself as, or even how you wish to think of all of us.

However, it would seem that the majority of the members here do not wish to be called survivalist. There are many reasons for this, some of which have been very eloquently layed out, and only one of them has anything to do with the perception of the general public.

Given the above, and given that Tony set this site up under the banner of "bushcraft" and not "survival", it would be courtious not to argue over the matter trying to convince others of the inescapability of your logic in order to brand them with a label that they neither want, nor agree with.

 

[Martyn]

After all is said and done, when the dust settles, bushy types and survivallist will be the ones eating, sleeping, generally enjoying being alive, no matter what it is called.

dust settles?

If you mean "after the apocalypse", then I doubt anyone will get to choose. If Britain is turned into a nuclear wasteland, I rather hope the first bomb lands in my garden.

On the other hand, paddling down a quiet river, sleeping under the stars and cooking on an open fire is altogether more appealing.

 

[Martyn]

...it would be courtious not to argue over the matter trying to convince others of the inescapability of your logic in order to brand them with a label that they neither want, nor agree with.

Very well said.

 

[C_Claycomb]

so its all lifecraft then - neither bushcraft nor survival but research archeology

I'll go amend my cv then

I know you were trying to be funny, but I think you are right, other than the jibe about archeology . It is all LIFECRAFT The only difference is the circumstances under which you apply the skills.

So, just taylor your CV to the particulars of the job you are going for

 

[falcon]

Mmmm.......I certainly can't understand why people want to get heated about the semantics of this......as I see it (and others have expounded very eloquently previously) the skills used in both bushcraft and survival are identical and who can really decide which came first....? What I would say in terms of the popular image, is that RM changed his branding from World of Survival and Extreme Survival just a couple of years or so ago to Bushcraft and therefore moved away from Lofty et al in terms of marketing. Non-bushcrafting friends of mine all, without exception, admire RM for what he DOES rather than what badges he's worn......it's his (and others') skills that I respect too.. If we can all master the skills, then we can apply them in whatever circumstances they are required.......

 

[Toddy]

so its all lifecraft then - neither bushcraft nor survival but research archeology

I'll go amend my cv then

I think a better definition may be experimental archaeology than research archaeology

Research archaeology = "The systematic study of past human life and culture by the recovery and examination of remaining material evidence, such as graves, buildings, tools, and pottery."


"Experimental archaeology is the controlled replication, reproduction, or reconstruction of an artifact or a series of related artifacts and the processes involved. This strict definition implies intentionality and a program behind the act, as well as a certain critical stance towards the evidence, the experiment, and the results." R.A. Rosenfeld

http://www.butser.org.uk/iafexp_hcc.html

Someone recently quoted (Mors Kochansky, I think) that our present level
of bushcraft knowledge and expertise is equivalent to that of a retarded child of our hunter/ gatherer past. Kind of humbling

Cheers,
Toddy

 

[British Red]

Well said falcon. When you break it all down I don't know where any of these catch all titles for interests starts and ends. Is firemaking bushcraft...yes...survival...yes.....lifeskill...yes. Ditto shelter building. Hunting...hmm not sure you could describe a driven shoot as Bushcraft, but fieldcraft and stalking probably. What about winemaking? Is it bushcraft if its elder and just cheap plonk if its grape? The silly thing is we all enjoy (a lot of) the same activities and often tend to fall out over titles or badges or names rather than the specific of the activities we enjoy. I don't count myself a bushcrafter or a survival enthusiast (or a shooter or a wine maker or a soap maker or a photographer or a cook or any of the other things I do). I have been called all those things by others though. To me, I'm just me. The activities are just things I do. Tony had to call his forum something. Bushcraft is as good a term as any and better than most.

Now lets talk about the case of blackcurrant wine I just bottled - halfway between alcoholic Ribena and port....anyone fancy a glass (or a Crusader cup)

Red

 

[Toddy]

Now lets talk about the case of blackcurrant wine I just bottled - halfway between alcoholic Ribena and port....anyone fancy a glass (or a Crusader cup)

Red[/QUOTE]

Oooh how's the head the next day though?


OFF TOPIC

By the bye, you know about this Pine tar soap that folks have raved about? I've just found out it's made from Stockholm tar, and I can get my hands on gallons of the stuff from the boatyard.....want to play and see if we can get the recipe right?

Cheers,
mary

 

[British Red]

Ask me tomorrow I'm only sampling that bit you always get when you bottle up - somehow I never get a complete 12 bottles - 12 and a bit or 11 and a lot but never 12.

Now stockholm tar - that'll be fun. Don't think its on my charts anywhere so we'll have to wing it on the saponification ratio...got to be worth a go just for the icky mess alone!

Do take some photos

Red (sorry for OT)