The importance of the knife

[santaman2000]

Well i disagree sort of.

Extreme survival would be being in an environment or eco system which you have no familiarity with. For example me being stuck in the middle of the kalahari or brazilian rainforest. Less extreme would be an environment i'm familiar for example Temperate and some forests further North...

Perhaps our definition of extreme is a bit different. My definition is, "any situation/scenario which is life threatening. While stationed in Nevada, I was very, very, very familiar with the desert environment (I lived there 5 years and hunted, fished, camped, hiked, and rode horses there) For several months I had a daily drive to my duty location on a 70 mile stretch of highway. Any breakdown along that highway could have left me stranded anywhere from a few hours to a few days. My familiarity would have only been helpful in making me aware of the importance of shade and water. Leaving the car to look for either would only have the effect of making rescue more difficult. However as I said earlier, in such a situation, having sufficient water would be more important; a knife large enough to dig with would be helpful in finding a cooler spot under the sagebrush but not essential.

 

[Scottishwanderer]

Decent sized forests ( the ones i have experience in) have both huge and small trees, most of the forests that i have been to in Canada had so much fallen trees or dead standing trees that an axe wouldn't be required. I think in these environments an axe could be detremental to surviival as it would take more energy to cut it down than to push down with a pole.

Even in my practicing woodland in scotland has so much fallen trees that an axe or knife wouldn't be needed.

2 foot thick is simple enough to push down and up to 4 feet can be burned down without huge problems. These methods in the environment i specify are a lot more energy effecient than cutting.

As for forest of decent size not having small trees that depends on your definition of small tree and decent size.

For me small is under 2 ft thick. Which is plenty thick for surviival purposes

 

[Scottishwanderer]

Walking across the road could be dangerous.

Being 10 miles from town with no gear and a storm blows in is a bad situation.

Being 10 miles from town with no gear and a storm blows in with a broken leg is very very very bad.

Being 100 miles from town with no gear and a broken leg is extreme.

 

[Scottishwanderer]

In survival - quite high, it's an important tool.

In camping - hardly necessary

In bushcraft - quite useful but not essential

I would change that to

Survival- low, very early man probably had no cutting tools, ver early lany most likely lived in discomfort due to poor quality sleep, inadequate food etc etc

Bushcraft however is what got man where he is now, when man first got a cutting tool he could make better dwellings, make better traps, secure bigger game, make bowls and spoons, and in general increase the standard of living.

The knife and bushcraft is the key. The knife with a knowledge of bushcraft made us human.

 

[Stew]

The original question is still too broad to give a real answer, hence my question in post #2.

 

[santaman2000]

...As for forest of decent size not having small trees that depends on your definition of small tree and decent size. For me small is under 2 ft thick. Which is plenty thick for surviival purposes

"Small" depends on your location. Two feet (or even 1/2 inch) thick is plenty for survival purposes; but if it ain't there. it just ain't there.

 

[santaman2000]

Decent sized forests ( the ones i have experience in) have both huge and small trees, most of the forests that i have been to in Canada had so much fallen trees or dead standing trees that an axe wouldn't be required. I think in these environments an axe could be detremental to surviival as it would take more energy to cut it down than to push down with a pole.

Even in my practicing woodland in scotland has so much fallen trees that an axe or knife wouldn't be needed.

2 foot thick is simple enough to push down and up to 4 feet can be burned down without huge problems. These methods in the environment i specify are a lot more energy effecient than cutting...

There are three problems with burning down a tree.

1. The whole purpose of downing the tree is to get firewood, so just how do we start a fire to "burn" down the tree to begin with?
2. These trees are extremely resistant to fire; they actually depend on it for their life cycle so it would take a hot fire to accomplish it (See #1 above)
3. A fire hot enough and large enough to actually burn down a living pine would likely be hot/large enoough to start a forest fire out West (or here in the South for that matter)

The problems with "pushing" down a living pine:
1. They are pushed over by hurricanes here in the South BUT Not easily even by them (and we have them rooted in soft or sandy soil) Out West they're rooted in more solid caliche or rocky soil.
2. A 2 foot diameter pine or pinyon tree here is approximately 30-50 feet tall with a tap root about 1/3 to 1 times that distance into the soil (so about 10-50 feet deep) Not so easily pushed unless dead (and even then if it turned to fatwood it would be near impervious here)

 

[santaman2000]

I would change that to

Survival- low, very early man probably had no cutting tools, ver early lany most likely lived in discomfort due to poor quality sleep, inadequate food etc etc..

It should also be remembered that very early man didn't live very long. Any impairment in speed, strength or agility pretty much doomed him.

 

[santaman2000]

Walking across the road could be dangerous.

Being 10 miles from town with no gear and a storm blows in is a bad situation.

Being 10 miles from town with no gear and a storm blows in with a broken leg is very very very bad.

Being 100 miles from town with no gear and a broken leg is extreme.

Now I think we're on the same sheet of music. The last one is life threatening and thus extreme. The first three, not so much so (possibly in # 3 unless there is a good chance of rescue)

 

[Scottishwanderer]

Santa

I realised about 5 seconds after posting this that it was a silly thread due to the variables.

In the environments i have experience in the methods i mention work well in your environment the don't.

This is the nature of the shizzle.

If you wan't a fire do you have to cut down big trees, section and split them to get a survival fire in your area? just out of curiosity.

 

[Ex member - Bilgerat]

Many Many different opinions.... Probably hardly any with real survival experience behind them...

(Andes Plane crash, Shipwreck, Jungle combat ambush).......

Usually carry a small folder most places....

When I go camping I always take a knife.... Even if it only to open ration bags with....

When camping nowhere in particular I take a Machete...... Very Useful (In fact probably the most used tool on the planet).

When In the Lost Wilderness in Colorado I took a .38 Revolver.....

 

[santaman2000]

Santa

I realised about 5 seconds after posting this that it was a silly thread due to the variables.

In the environments i have experience in the methods i mention work well in your environment the don't.

This is the nature of the shizzle.

If you wan't a fire do you have to cut down big trees, section and split them to get a survival fire in your area? just out of curiosity.

The short answer is NO, I don't have to cut down a large tree in MY area. Not for a campfire anyway ( a household fireplace is another story to feed) But my area at the moment is the Southeast and as I said there is skads of dead wood on the ground here.
I was referring to the pinyon forests where I've camped in northern Nevada. Deadwood is available there also but not in quantities that would be reliable for a survival situation. Realistically you wouldn't be able to cut down a large tree (2 feet diameter or more) with a knife either. But you would be able to cut of the lower limbs you could reach.

I actually agree more with rik-UK. What you really NEED is a blade of some type. Just what type is most useful depends on exactly where you are. A knife just happens to be the most general purpose type.

And BTW, it's not that the methods you mentioned WON'T work here. They might. It's just that they aren't necessarily dependable.

 

[santaman2000]

Many Many different opinions.... Probably hardly any with real survival experience behind them...

(Andes Plane crash, Shipwreck, Jungle combat ambush).......

Usually carry a small folder most places....

When I go camping I always take a knife.... Even if it only to open ration bags with....

When camping nowhere in particular I take a Machete...... Very Useful (In fact probably the most used tool on the planet).

When In the Lost Wilderness in Colorado I took a .38 Revolver.....

LOL. Good answers; though in Colorado I would prefer a bigger caliber (something big enough to deter a hungry Grizzly)