2 hour documentary about a hammock camper alone in the wild for 3 months.

**Fish<><** · 09-01-2012, 23:13

It was more of a documentary about the psychology of the average person in nature than it was a survival type of doc. I enjoyed it to a certain degree, but it was not what I was expecting. The fact that he couldn't take big game screwed him, and if I had been there...I wouldn't have filmed an ''illegal'' act. That elk woulda been my dinner for a month.

Thanks for the post OP.

**Jcavenagh** · 09-01-2012, 23:13

Heck, I couldn't even last 4 days alone in the wilderness. And that was with plenty of food. I felt nutzo and hiked out. I get the loneliness of someone who always has people around.

**Bellke** · 09-01-2012, 23:30

I've only seen the first episode but like a few comments others have made, I wondered just what he thought he was doing. I'm not sure I would consider it a survival situation, more like an extended camping trip considering all the stuff he took I also wondered about his mental prep before heading out. It's more than just supplies. You have to be mentally and emotionally prepared and he was neither.

I don't think much of his ability to actually survive either but all that being said, I want to see the rest of it. Even more, I wish I had the opportunity to do the same.

**Kyle** · 09-02-2012, 01:28

Another one that will agree he was ill prepared. Even if it was supposed to document the mind of a "normal" person, he was unprepared. It was his "boyhood dream," he had decades to prepare, to gain the knowledge he needed for three months in the wild. Far as I could tell, he knew how to set a single trap, how to fire a gun (though apparently not very well - only things he killed was two porcupines up a tree at near point blank, and missed a squirrel at short range... d'oh), how to cast a line, and a few native plants he could eat. Far from enough.

Given that, however, I think he did well. I, as a few others have said, doubt I'd be too horribly affected by the solitude... except my wife. In 6.5 years, we've been apart for like 36 hours once. I don't know how well I'd fare without her for 50 days, let alone three months. I'd kill for an opportunity for us to attempt something like this together, though, given a year or two of preparation. I can't even imagine the liberating feeling it must evoke. Gettin' off that hamster wheel someone else mentioned. Alas, I fear the closest either of us will ever get is a thru-hike of the AT, and even that is doubtful.

All in all, I enjoyed it, even if I questioned a good few of his decisions. Lol. I did have to laugh at Bruce, though, that was pretty funny.

**Cadenza** · 09-02-2012, 02:10

Originally Posted by Fish<><

The fact that he couldn't take big game screwed him, and if I had been there...I wouldn't have filmed an ''illegal'' act. That elk woulda been my dinner for a month.

I don't remember seeing an elk. Moose and carribou, yes.
But agreed. Turn camera off for the kill.
I'd turn it back on to see Bullwinkle backstrap roasting on the fire.

And,.....why waste energy setting (and checking) snares if you haven't at least seen a rabbit in the area?

**XSrcing** · 09-02-2012, 02:34

He was wearing a freaking $600 pack!

**robbie g** · 09-02-2012, 07:52

It was a great "SHAME" for him and the Canadian government for him not to complete his endeavour and the government not to allow at least 2 big beast kills , as it is one of the hardest things to live off small game and leaf you have to be very experienced at foraging and setting all sorts of traps etc, we all know he went in their unprepared but what a untrained person such as him has achieved is brilliant "CRYING" for those of you who do not know is a way of release but most of all it the most basic human emotion that stops us from what the doctors call solo madness when you do not cry then is the time to worry %0 days alone in the wilderness is a long time especially if you have a "REAL FEAR" in his case not the Bears but being EATEN . Too many people look on not finishing a challenge in life as a failure where as we should look on it as an success he made the right decision for him at the right time as he felt he could not look after himself well enough to even just SURVIVE ..

**TheCoyote** · 09-02-2012, 13:07

Originally Posted by robbie g

It was a great "SHAME" for him and the Canadian government for him not to complete his endeavour and the government not to allow at least 2 big beast kills , as it is one of the hardest things to live off small game and leaf you have to be very experienced at foraging and setting all sorts of traps etc...

I don't care what they say, I would have taken that canoe and rife (he had a rifle and a shot gun) and got that Caribou. I talked to a Widlife Officer about a year ago. I asked what are the limitations to taking game in a survival situation. His response was

In Ohio there is no law stating you cant do what you need to survive, it does not matter what season it is, if you come across something that is in season or not, if the meat will keep you alive by all means take it

He then asked why I asked. I said

Well because I do minimal trips every year and always wondered if something happened and I was lost and needed food if there would be a consequence to taking something out of season to stay alive

His last response was

Do whatever it takes, that's all that matters

This question came up in a conversation we had at the boat dock about how we do hiking and bush crafting.

Jeremy

**robbie g** · 09-02-2012, 13:29

I agree the problem is he signed an agreement stating he would not shoot big game , for me he should have made the call to ask as the situation was serious to be allowed to shoot one to carry on but as i say hie FEAR kept him from pushing out further to hunt more , i would have taken the caribou and faced the consequence after the the trip had ended , but as humans we are all different that is what makes us so unique , in our decisions we make , we must learn to live and stand by them "Right or Wrong " for "Good or Bad "..