it seems almost an odd question to ask, a bit of a moot point. but as a couple of people have pointed out, there seem to be a few negative connotations associated with "
survival". perhaps a few folks would like to see themselves and/or the "bushcraft" movement as it might be, disassociated with the "survivalist" ideal. :shock: but where does one end and the other begin?
to my mind, "survival" or survivalism is a much bigger field than simply wilderness skills, surviving a shipwreck or plane crash. the other term synonymous with this is preparedness, aren't the boy scouts supposed to "be prepared"? yes you've got the camo clad "grab your guns and run for the hills" brand of survivalism. try a search for frugal squirrel and you'll find 'em. then you've got the self sufficient crowd, homesteaders and the like. remember that TV program the good life? then you move down the scale to simply having a bugout bag or a bag with a change of clothes and a few insurance documents. maybe some people just have a few candles, some stored water and a few extra tins of food round the place. perhaps you could include the combatives crowd, those concerned with surviving the commute to work, through the tube stations and poorly lit car parks of the big cities.
it boils down to real world survival, and fantasy survival. perhaps there is a little grain in all of us that would like to be shipwrecked on a desert island, with just enough kit to make it challenging, but not too austere. for real world survival, we'd be better off doing a first aid course and a self defense course, and make sure the spare tyre in the car is ok, along with a torch and a first aid kit an so on.
so it seems to me that bushcraft is just one small aspect of survival. it's a great hobby, whatever you call it. survival, bushcraft, fieldcaft, wilderness skills, earth skills.... i don't think you can say that one is less or more.
just my .02 as they say.
btw gary, bearclaw bushcraft sounds cool.
cheers, and.