bushcraft myths

[cbr6fs]

im am not dissing the guy in anyway shape or form and i do not appreciate the snide comments just sharing my opinion. The way the video was filmed doesn't exactly make people interested in what he is talking about therefor most people would just turn off the video and he wont get his point across.

No idea what "dissing" is but there certainly were no snide comments here, just pointing out that English is not this guys first language so it can often be difficult to intonate for non native speakers.
Add to that a local accent and it gets even tougher.

If you look through his videos he has filmed, produced, edited and uploaded nearly 80 vids so far all the ones i have seen are in the English language.
All are interesting to me, and i have gained some knowledge from many.

We are not talking about some poncey top gear here, he has made videos to try and help fellow bushcrafters.
IMO we already have more than enough theatrics rolled up in Bear Grylls.

Keep up the good work.
No opinion on these specific vids as i've not really heard any of those myths given as black and white, more a guide to be used with common sense.
But your other videos have been fantastic.

The fishing bait vid especially.

Where do you come across this knowledge, is from books, internet or local practices?



Cheers
Mark



To make my point try listening to an extremely thick west Midlands accent, compare that to say a Edinburgh accent and that difference is marked.

 

[Martyn]

The knife tang thing has made me happier to have a Mora Clipper. So much talk about full tang made me feel that I had to upgrade as soon as possible.

Well full tang knives are stronger, it's provable. The thing is, when you say something is stronger, many people take that to mean better. If you make 3mm thick knives and I make 4mm thick knives, I can say my knives are stronger than your knives and I could probably prove it - it's a very powerful sales technique. All I have to do to steal your customers, is make my knives stronger than yours. We are all kit junkies and want the best, strongest kit we can get. So we end up with full tang, sharpened pry bars that is largely a result of marketing competitions between makers. We buy into it, we believe it will do something for us and we buy the knives. Who can argue the logic if they are provably stronger? In reality, the Scandinavians have been making knives with rat tail tangs for centuries and then using them as a tool for daily life. Maybe if you wanted to hammer one into an oak tree and then use it as a step ladder, it would fail - but is that the purpose of a knife? Last I looked, the purpose of a knife is to cut things. If it does that, it's adequate, if it does it well, it's all you need. Your Mora Clipper is all the knife you will ever need. Look after it, dont abuse it and it will serve you just as well as any other knife. Of course it wont be the only knife you ever have. You will want something else, but it'll be because you want it, not because you need it.

 

[mountainm]

I don't think it was said full tang knives weren't stronger, just that they weren't necessary.

 

[Martyn]

You've lost me?

 

[Andy BB]

What a bunch of contrary people some of you are! I've seen many of bushcraftmyway's videos, and I think they're excellent and thought-provoking. As far as these particular two go, I like the idea of challenging some fixed "truths" and pointing out that they are guidelines rather than absolutes. Keep up the good work, and thanks for all your efforts.

 

[rik_uk3]

What a bunch of contrary people some of you are! I've seen many of bushcraftmyway's videos, and I think they're excellent and thought-provoking. As far as these particular two go, I like the idea of challenging some fixed "truths" and pointing out that they are guidelines rather than absolutes. Keep up the good work, and thanks for all your efforts.

What he said

 

[Elines]

What a bunch of contrary people some of you are! I've seen many of bushcraftmyway's videos, and I think they're excellent and thought-provoking. As far as these particular two go, I like the idea of challenging some fixed "truths" and pointing out that they are guidelines rather than absolutes. Keep up the good work, and thanks for all your efforts.

Spot on - seem to me that the strongest criticism anyone could make of the videos is that the thread should have been called:

"Things that people commonly believe but which are not necessarily true in all circumstances"

and I think calling it 'Bushcraft myths' is better as - apart from anything else - it fits in thespace for the title

 

[Corin]

Well full tang knives are stronger, it's provable. The thing is, when you say something is stronger, many people take that to mean better. If you make 3mm thick knives and I make 4mm thick knives, I can say my knives are stronger than your knives and I could probably prove it - it's a very powerful sales technique. All I have to do to steal your customers, is make my knives stronger than yours. We are all kit junkies and want the best, strongest kit we can get. So we end up with full tang, sharpened pry bars that is largely a result of marketing competitions between makers. We buy into it, we believe it will do something for us and we buy the knives. Who can argue the logic if they are provably stronger? In reality, the Scandinavians have been making knives with rat tail tangs for centuries and then using them as a tool for daily life. Maybe if you wanted to hammer one into an oak tree and then use it as a step ladder, it would fail - but is that the purpose of a knife? Last I looked, the purpose of a knife is to cut things. If it does that, it's adequate, if it does it well, it's all you need. Your Mora Clipper is all the knife you will ever need. Look after it, dont abuse it and it will serve you just as well as any other knife. Of course it wont be the only knife you ever have. You will want something else, but it'll be because you want it, not because you need it.

SO true and so well put!

 

[Huon]

What a bunch of contrary people some of you are! I've seen many of bushcraftmyway's videos, and I think they're excellent and thought-provoking. As far as these particular two go, I like the idea of challenging some fixed "truths" and pointing out that they are guidelines rather than absolutes. Keep up the good work, and thanks for all your efforts.

Agreed! I don't think the style is miserable either. I got an impression of dry humour rather than misery .

I enjoyed these!

 

[Hoodoo]

I enjoyed the videos. I do think most of what was covered is already common knowledge but it's good to have these things plainly stated as some of those ideas are still touted, although rarely. The universal taste test is a good example. The idea that is it better than nothing is really not a good idea. "Nothing" is better. You can go a long time before starving to death in the wild. Rule of three eh.

About a decade ago I was working with some folks from the US Forest Service and we were discussing some seeds of wicopy that had been gathered for chemical analysis. Few organisms in the wild feed on the plant so it seemed logical that the plant might be chemically defended so we had a natural products chemist who was analyzing all parts of the plant, including the seeds, looking for potent secondary chemicals. So, they had just brought in a big bag of these seeds and I looked at my two forest service friends (John and Bill) and asked them if they had ever tasted the seeds. No was the reply. So, I grabbed one of the seeds, about the size of a soybean, and began chewing it. It was delish, I replied. So, John and Bill both grabbed a seed and began chewing. I swallowed mine, John swallowed his, and Bill, being the smarter of the three, spit his out. I returned to my office and in about 15 minutes I was feeling kinda funny. Kinda dizzy. I immediately went to Bill's office and asked him how he felt. He said he was fine but John just left for the doctor's.

One seed. Tasted good. No burning. I was lucky that whatever chemicals that were in the plant were not stronger. It was a stupid thing to do and I don't recommend the "universal test" to anyone. Better to go 3x without eating, imo.

 

[Martyn]

I enjoyed the videos. I do think most of what was covered is already common knowledge but it's good to have these things plainly stated as some of those ideas are still touted, although rarely. The universal taste test is a good example. The idea that is it better than nothing is really not a good idea. "Nothing" is better. You can go a long time before starving to death in the wild. Rule of three eh.

About a decade ago I was working with some folks from the US Forest Service and we were discussing some seeds of wicopy that had been gathered for chemical analysis. Few organisms in the wild feed on the plant so it seemed logical that the plant might be chemically defended so we had a natural products chemist who was analyzing all parts of the plant, including the seeds, looking for potent secondary chemicals. So, they had just brought in a big bag of these seeds and I looked at my two forest service friends (John and Bill) and asked them if they had ever tasted the seeds. No was the reply. So, I grabbed one of the seeds, about the size of a soybean, and began chewing it. It was delish, I replied. So, John and Bill both grabbed a seed and began chewing. I swallowed mine, John swallowed his, and Bill, being the smarter of the three, spit his out. I returned to my office and in about 15 minutes I was feeling kinda funny. Kinda dizzy. I immediately went to Bill's office and asked him how he felt. He said he was fine but John just left for the doctor's.

One seed. Tasted good. No burning. I was lucky that whatever chemicals that were in the plant were not stronger. It was a stupid thing to do and I don't recommend the "universal test" to anyone. Better to go 3x without eating, imo.

Good point and sage advice. But I dont think I've ever heard this test talked about by RM or anyone else, as being a risk free test. In every case it has been discussed as "this might stop you being poisoned" and never as "this will stop you being poisoned". It's always been discussed in the context of how did the ancients find out what was edible and what wasn't? In the old days, where people were often nomadic, they may move to an area with an abundant crop that looks to be edible, but have no available reference. At some point, you either have to take the plunge and try some, or forever ignore something that could be a valuable and rich source of calories. It's also a lengthy process, that really takes a few days to do properly and I cant really imagine a situation where that might be a good plan, other than the aforementioned nomads. Though it has to be said Hoodoo, in one sense, the test worked for you. By eating only one seed, you minimised the risk, got a little sick but learned that the seed was forever off the menu. Not the result you wanted, but you did learn about the plant. I absolutely agree though, I'd rather go hungry than take chances with stuff I dont recognise.

 

[Hoodoo]

Good point and sage advice. But I dont think I've ever heard this test talked about by RM or anyone else, as being a risk free test. In every case it has been discussed as "this might stop you being poisoned" and never as "this will stop you being poisoned". It's always been discussed in the context of how did the ancients find out what was edible and what wasn't? In the old days, where people were often nomadic, they may move to an area with an abundant crop that looks to be edible, but have no available reference. At some point, you either have to take the plunge and try some, or forever ignore something that could be a valuable and rich source of calories. It's also a lengthy process, that really takes a few days to do properly and I cant really imagine a situation where that might be a good plan, other than the aforementioned nomads. Though it has to be said Hoodoo, in one sense, the test worked for you. By eating only one seed, you minimised the risk, got a little sick but learned that the seed was forever off the menu. Not the result you wanted, but you did learn about the plant. I absolutely agree though, I'd rather go hungry than take chances with stuff I dont recognise.

Don't forget Martyn that a) I was lucky (stoopud but lucky) and b) all those aforementioned nomads are dead.

 

[woodstock]

That is not what he told me at our last meeting.

Your not field testing Ray are you John if so can I have him when your finnished along with a marino buff

 

[John Fenna]

Your not field testing Ray are you John if so can I have him when your finnished along with a marino buff

Will do mate - but it will cost ya!

 

[hog]

Cant argue with that, you speak commonsense, great videos.

 

[xylaria]

I enjoyed the videos. I do think most of what was covered is already common knowledge but it's good to have these things plainly stated as some of those ideas are still touted, although rarely. The universal taste test is a good example. The idea that is it better than nothing is really not a good idea. "Nothing" is better. You can go a long time before starving to death in the wild. Rule of three eh.

About a decade ago I was working with some folks from the US Forest Service and we were discussing some seeds of wicopy that had been gathered for chemical analysis. Few organisms in the wild feed on the plant so it seemed logical that the plant might be chemically defended so we had a natural products chemist who was analyzing all parts of the plant, including the seeds, looking for potent secondary chemicals. So, they had just brought in a big bag of these seeds and I looked at my two forest service friends (John and Bill) and asked them if they had ever tasted the seeds. No was the reply. So, I grabbed one of the seeds, about the size of a soybean, and began chewing it. It was delish, I replied. So, John and Bill both grabbed a seed and began chewing. I swallowed mine, John swallowed his, and Bill, being the smarter of the three, spit his out. I returned to my office and in about 15 minutes I was feeling kinda funny. Kinda dizzy. I immediately went to Bill's office and asked him how he felt. He said he was fine but John just left for the doctor's.

One seed. Tasted good. No burning. I was lucky that whatever chemicals that were in the plant were not stronger. It was a stupid thing to do and I don't recommend the "universal test" to anyone. Better to go 3x without eating, imo.

The taste test is a pretty much a myth. It started as training for the USAF that risked getting stranded on pacific islands for months on end, outside of that senario it is obsolete. It often gets quoted over here as the "SAS taste test", but they use high energy biscuits for long range reccys and of the various survival stratagies plants rate quite low, where as going hungry is part of basic selection.

touching smelling and tasting a plant can give a lot of information, but only when you have prior knowledge of what cetain chemicals smell like or taste like. I do wonder how humans ever worked out food like cape gooseberry and tomatoes where edible,and every now and then a known wild food is found to be just abit more toxic that we thought, it has happened with comfry and sweet woodruff. There is always more to know about plants.

 

[Martyn]

The taste test is a pretty much a myth. It started as training for the USAF that risked getting stranded on pacific islands for months on end, outside of that senario it is obsolete. It often gets quoted over here as the "SAS taste test", but they use high energy biscuits for long range reccys and of the various survival stratagies plants rate quite low, where as going hungry is part of basic selection.

IIRC, it's described in the SAS survival guide, so it's probably reasonable to assume Lofty Wiseman used to teach it.

 

[Martyn]

Here we go....

 

[tamoko]

I think "myths" was wrong word.
But you can make cool comment "false!" )))

"80% heat from your head"?

I do not know about 80%.
But % myths probably come from US military study done in the 1950s, which actually reflected German hypothermia research in Dachau.
http://www.bordeninstitute.army.mil/published_volumes/ethicsvol2/ethics-ch-15.pdf

"When the neck and occiput were cooled the
loss of temperature was accelerated. This
acceleration, however, had to be accompanied
by whole body cooling because if only
the neck and the occiput were cooled, there
was only a slight loss in temperature, 0.8°C."



And in FM 21-76 pg.148
"BASIC PRINCIPLES OF COLD
WEATHER SURVIVAL"
"You can lose 40 to 45 percent of body heat from an unprotected head and even more from the unprotected neck, wrist, and
ankles. These areas of the body are good radiators of heat and have very little insulating fat. The brain is
very susceptible to cold and can stand the least amount of cooling. Because there is much blood
circulation in the head, most of which is on the surface, you can lose heat quickly if you do not cover your
head."
http://www.ar15.com/content/manuals/FM21-76_SurvivalManual.pdf



One question, to "SAS guide/manual".

Is one MoD. gov. SAS manual like FM 21-76 existed?

 

[Hoodoo]

There seems to be no doubt that the huge claims about heat loss through the head are a bit exaggerated, but this is one where I would not throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is some physiological basis to this. When the body is cold, it begins to restrict blood flow to the extremeties. This is one of the reasons your fingers and toes get cold so quickly at low temps. However, because the brain needs oxygen, blood flow to the brain is not restricted. And with blood flow goes the heat from the core of the body. So, imo, cover up in the cold!