Bushcraft vs. Survival.

[SkunkWerX]

I'll give you a new word: "Survival Craft"

No, no, it's not a 3" thick lexan bubble you crawl into to protect yourself.
It's sane people developing the skills, acquiring the equipment and knowledge needed to survive various situations.

When I think of BushCraft and FieldCraft I think of Mountainmen, Daniel Boone, 19th century Fur Trappers, and the the Louis&Clark Expedition, people living off the land in a pristine wilderness. Wilderness is the key, read on.

When I say SurvivalCraft, I mean a blending of the old and the new. The wilderness and the concrete jungle. There are many older skills that can make survival so much easier. Anyone who has practiced BushCraft/FieldCraft will be much more capable of surviving a Wilderness ordeal. (Wilderness).

But how about an urban ordeal? Chemical spill, evacuating a city, a building collapse, etc. etc. You can know all the BushCraft there is to know, but, if you can't get out of the city or subrubs into that Wilderness, it will be of little good.
And what of Survival in Place? Bugging IN? What if staying put is the best thing to do? Bushcraft in your condo on the 15th floor? That houseplant doesn't stand a chance!

If I had to write the first book on "SurvivalCraft", there would be chapters devoted to Bushcraft, but there would also be chapters devoted to life at sea, urban environments, artic environs, the desert, jungles and even within ones own home.

Surviving in a concrete jungle after an earthquake, natural or man-made disaster can be just as serious, and just as immediate as dealing with our natural surroundings in the Rockies.

The bottom line: Be Prepared. (That mean skills, knowledge and equipement.)

 

[Thomas Linton]

Beats "Bushal" I suppose.

 

[Codger_64]

"Outer" and "Woodcraft" were two of the earlier terms from the early 1900's, Marbles took the names for two patterns of his knives. And "Woodsman" from Cooper's Leatherstocking tales circa 1830's-1840's. "Outing" was in fact an outdoorsman's magazine for some time. Bushel? Suraft? Oh, come up with another alphabet soup name. DSSIDD. Doing Stuff So I Don't Die.

 

[pinetree]

Bushcraft to me is Nessmuk - how to live in the wild. I have learned a lot by studying and practicing brushcraft (survival plus in the wild) and I think they overlap a lot when thinking about wilderness survival, e.g. how to build a fire that produces and reflects heat rather than burns as much wood as possible. Or, how to make a good shelter. With bushcraft/wilderness survival, I like a hatcher or 12" machete, a medium fixed blade and a folder or short fixed. I would pack a 22.

As for the big knife, little knife; try some survival skills with a big heavy knife, such as carving triggers for snares or to whittle fuzz sticks... Again the machete/hatchet/tomahawk and a med/small fixed blade are better. I don't travel with one knife. To me, my BK11 or Mora is more practical than a BK7. I even find my Grohmann #4 a little big at times.

IMHO wilderness survival has been taken over by the tactical craze. In most situations a decent SAK is sufficiant. Save the weight and pack a couple power bars.

tjg

 

[Thomas Linton]

IMHO wilderness survival has been taken over by the tactical craze.

Shhhhhhhhhhh. We don't want "them" to find us.

[

In most situations a decent SAK is sufficiant. Save the weight and pack a couple power bars.

tjg

Yes, but you might want that axe you mentioned if the God Murphy shows up. We wouldn't want wilderness survival taken over by the SAK craze.

 

[stevetexas]

Gentlemen,

It seems to me that no matter where you go in the world, except for the far north and Scandinavia, whether it's to Africa, Asia or South America and look at what the indigenous people are doing you continually see this...

If a man only has one knife it is a large one in the 12"-18" group. It might be called a parang, machete, golok or something else but he has it and it is his most basic possession.

I have seen Africans doing all kinds of intricate bushcraft with a knife like that.

BTW, to them, survival and bushcraft are the same thing.

http://www.rrtraders.com/weapons/maknife.htm

Steve

 

[Buck268]

I doubt many English people would consider paying $400 dollars for a sharp piece of metal (busse) with a handle attached.
They are more likely to buy a quality $10.00 Machete and spend the balance on some good clothing or boots.
If and when you hear stories about how someone got lost and the quality of their "blade" saved them then I guess the Brits will wake up :yawn:
Their elite soldiers (SAS and Paras/RM Commandos) do extensive live of the land exercises in the Desert and Arctic and Jungle etc, never heard a mention of Busse's or SOG etc.
Anyway be good.

I'm one of those with the tought-process that a machette and smaller (quality) knife is of far more value than a single large blade. I've used my machette quite a bit and while it wont split wood as well as even my ka-bar USMC knife, it sure can chop and can even hold a decent 'whittling' egde (1055 cold steel panga).

In any case, I would definately rather have my machete and just about any of my pocket knives (whether locking or slip) with high quality outter wear (hat to boots) than a $400 custom and a pair of sneakers and ball cap!

 

[Liam Ryan]

I think most of us agree on the difference between bush craft and survival.
Bushcraft is willingly and knowingly entering the woods and doing what you do best, with the gear you have chosen and you think is the best for you and whatever skills you wish to practice.

Survival is what you do in the woods or wherever when you hadnt planned on being there, and maybe do not have the luxury of your favourite implements. Furthermore you find yourself hoping you had practiced enough of the skills in scenario 1 above.

 

[mrostov]

Interesting take. Incorrect but interesting. The animals I eat while survival training very much dissagree with you.

Survival is just that survival. Death while waiting for rescue is not survival no matter how you slice it.

Do I need to know how to whittle a button or spoon to live? I doubt it.


Skam

It's not incorrect, in my opinion you're just applying the terms in a manner that isn't taking in the whole scope. Sometimes the dividing line is blurry, so splitting hairs is a waste of time. Call it what you want, but nowadays people do tend to differentiate so when you talk about things like this using the different terms can make communication smoother.

If your survival training means living off the land for an indefinite period, then, IMHO, it's bushcraft. Bushcraft, fieldcraft, woodcraft, woodslore, whatever you want to call it, is also a form of 'survival', but it's sustainable survival.

If you have passed the threshold into a sustainable existance in your environment, then it's no longer just mere 'survival' in the sense that such topics are commonly taught as under the scope of 'survival', but a means of actually living an alternate lifestyle while living off of the land.

For example, people like the Red Cross and Coast Guard teach 'survival', while people like Tom Brown and the MacPhersons teach 'bushcraft'.

As for knives, IMHO, you should have a larger blade and a smaller blade. In N. American, depending upon your climate and terrain combined with personal preference, you may carry a bowie, machete, hatchet, axe, kukri, etc, but you should also always have a smaller knife with you as part of your personal, always on you kit. For example, if you are of the type that is into large bowie knives, you should also have a smaller knife like a Buck 110 on your belt.

There is no one knife that does everything.

The mountain men of the 19th Century hit the nail on the head when they said that they could tell a greenhorn by how few knives he had on him, and his biggest knife was too small. These were guys who lived it for real, 24/7/365, and they usually had at least two or three knives of different sizes on them at any given moment, plus maybe also a hatchet/tomahawk, not to mention any firearms they were carrying and whatever else they had stashed on their mount or pack animal. About 1/3 of these guys didn't survive their first 24 months in the wilderness, so anyone smart and wiley enough to last generally didn't mess around by limiting their gear, such as with the illusion of the 'one, true, ultimate, survival knife'.

Yeah, you can survive with just a Mora, but a Mora and an axe or a machete makes sustainable living in your environment a lot more achievable. For example in Mexico and Central America, it was the tropics so machetes were common as dirt, but if anyone had a decent small knife it was often some small folding pen knife, well used and treated as an important possesion. Decent small knives seemed to often be at a premium and always there was the need for one. I usually had a Buck 110 on me and it was the object of much lust and envy.

Probably the oldest style of 'survival' knife in continuous use is the khukuri (kukri) of the Himalayas, using a blade style first introduced into the region by Alexander the Great. Even today the Himalayas are a rough place, and men often live or die by their knives. If you look at a real khukuri you'll notice that it's a system for practical bushcraft, not just a single knife. With a traditional khukuri, whose blade is often 9" to 14" long, the scabbard usually has a smaller utility knife, like a Mora or smaller, a small sharpening steel that many mistake for a second small knife, and often a small tinder pouch.

Here is a mid-19th Century khukuri (kukri) and it's scabbard kit with the small knife (karda) sharpening steel (chakma) and tinder pouch. This knife was probably forged with steel originally from a salvaged railroad track imported from India to the south.

Here is what a new, Nepalese made khukuri from Himalayan Imports looks like. This one is of the 'WWII' style and it was forged from the leaf spring of a Mercedes truck.

Here's some more pics of older khukuris.

 

[Shotgun]

Nessmuk, obviously someone who loves and cherishes the outdoors, actually recommends stripping bark from live trees. Doing such nowadays (whether in Britain or the Americas) is unthinkable. During Nessmuk's time, the forest was considered to be an inexhaustible resource - but now it no longer is. Stripping bark from live trees is culturally unacceptable.

Very true. In a survival situation I might employ some of Nessmuk's tricks but even he saw the sign of the times. Something of the dwindling deer heards even back then brings a tear to the eye.

It seems to me that no matter where you go in the world, except for the far north and Scandinavia, whether it's to Africa, Asia or South America and look at what the indigenous people are doing you continually see this...

If a man only has one knife it is a large one in the 12"-18" group. It might be called a parang, machete, golok or something else but he has it and it is his most basic possession.

I agree but wonder what you call "the far north." Seems every where in the US, except for Hawaii, there's the axe in there somewhere.

The mountain men of the 19th Century hit the nail on the head when they said that they could tell a greenhorn by how few knives he had on him, and his biggest knife was too small. These were guys who lived it for real, 24/7/365, and they usually had at least two or three knives of different sizes on them at any given moment, plus maybe also a hatchet/tomahawk, not to mention any firearms they were carrying and whatever else they had stashed on their mount or pack animal. About 1/3 of these guys didn't survive their first 24 months in the wilderness, so anyone smart and wiley enough to last generally didn't mess around by limiting their gear, such as with the illusion of the 'one, true, ultimate, survival knife'.

Very interesting.

Great discussion. I'm learning a lot and reinforcing my thoughts on a system rather than a one all be all. Wether it's a Nessmuk trinity or a NASA "3 is 2, 2 is 1, and 1 is none," seems like a few blades is the consensus no matter what those blades are as long as they complement each other.

 

[Codger_64]

The mountain men of the 19th Century hit the nail on the head when they said that they could tell a greenhorn by how few knives he had on him, and his biggest knife was too small. These were guys who lived it for real, 24/7/365, and they usually had at least two or three knives of different sizes on them at any given moment, plus maybe also a hatchet/tomahawk, not to mention any firearms they were carrying and whatever else they had stashed on their mount or pack animal. About 1/3 of these guys didn't survive their first 24 months in the wilderness, so anyone smart and wiley enough to last generally didn't mess around by limiting their gear, such as with the illusion of the 'one, true, ultimate, survival knife'.

There are a lot of misconceptions about what we now call "Mountain men". Most of them were trappers hired by the fur companies. Their "kits" were selected by brigade leaders and supplied from company stores against future wages. Many were very unprepared for "woodcrafting", having come from the Eastern settlements to St. Louis with not much more than the city duds on their backs, or whatever kit a boatman or runaway plowboy might carry with him. There were some woodsmen among them to be sure, but the freetrappers were an exception, not the rule. And because of the distances traveled, they rode horses, and had pack horses. You can carry a lot of cutlery, firearms, powder and lead on a packhorse. There were no "Green River" knives. Basically we are talking the period 1820-1840. Russell's Green River Works didn't begin making those scalpers/skinners/camp knives until the 1850's. The factory wasn't even built until circa 1834, and then made chisels and axes. According to Mr. Levine, "The "mountain man" angle was part of the company's publicity hype in the mid-19th century, with no basis in fact. Russell had not yet shipped any knives at the time when the last of the free trappers found other employment.

Codger

 

[Horse]

"Interesting take. Incorrect but interesting. The animals I eat while survival training very much dissagree with you.

Survival is just that survival. Death while waiting for rescue is not survival no matter how you slice it.

Do I need to know how to whittle a button or spoon to live? I doubt it."

What a class act....

 

[skammer]

"Interesting take. Incorrect but interesting. The animals I eat while survival training very much dissagree with you.

Survival is just that survival. Death while waiting for rescue is not survival no matter how you slice it.

Do I need to know how to whittle a button or spoon to live? I doubt it."

What a class act....

Class has nothing to do with survival.

Skam

 

[StuToffee]

Another factor,and only you will know what I am talking about,is that hiking up such as Kinder Scout is hard enough without lugging along a knife that weighs a ton strapped to your other kit !!!

Blimey, youve got THAT right. You wanna lug as little as possible up that B*****d.
Fancy you knowing Kinder Scout, when youre ALL the way over on Vancouver Island!
I LOVE the Peak District, but, like many moors & mountains the weather conditions up there can change SO quickly!

 

[fnc]

Nessmuk, obviously someone who loves and cherishes the outdoors, actually recommends stripping bark from live trees. Doing such nowadays (whether in Britain or the Americas) is unthinkable. During Nessmuk's time, the forest was considered to be an inexhaustible resource - but now it no longer is. Stripping bark from live trees is culturally unacceptable.

You are making a very broad statement.

There are many times and places where killing live trees and stripping
bark are acceptable. You can probably think of some cases.

We (in the USA) are starting to think of a forests like we think of
city parks or museums. We are making the mistake of taking good
practices too far.

 

[stevetexas]

Here is the problem, some children are being taught that the things that brought us forward as a people in the past were wrong.

They are being taught that what the fore fathers and mothers did was wrong.

In the past, I did not understand why Empires ended. Now, it seems clear......they end from inside, the children kill it after they are taught to hate their parents.

S

 

[fnc]

stevetexas,
I agree.

All who are concerned,

Yes, we are all taught to hate, in specific and small ways, and we are
taught to hate in very broad and sweeping ways. We are taught to
hate ourselves, the civilization/culture, philosophy, religion, history,
ancestors. We are taught not to reproduce and not to defend ourselves.

We are taught that we should do nothing without a license or at least
official permission and then we should not even temporarily impact the
remotest wild place.

We are taught that we have no right to favor ourselves, our families,
our friends, our neighbors, our race, or our nation. But we are taught
that anyone foreign to us, has these rights.

This PC crap comes so constantly and from so many directions, that
some will penetrate even the old and experienced. Of course, kids
will absorb it; however you can fight it.

Plant some seeds of doubt, by showing a few contradictions or factual
errors. Then give the kid a challenge: find some mistakes for himself.
Also, show kids how an individuals are hammered down when they
bring forward an alternate views; they already know this, but need to
be reminded, because at this juncture, they will tend to go public.

 

[fnc]

Very true. In a survival situation I might employ some of Nessmuk's tricks but even he saw the sign of the times. Something of the dwindling deer heards even back then brings a tear to the eye.

I too have an emotional response, when I see documentaries about the
1900 era. Deer and Canadian geese were being wiped out, but they are
over populated in many parts of the USA, now. This is especailly true in
and near cities and towns. I also understand this, I cannot bring myself to
shoot the deer that frequent my backyard, even though it is legal and the
deer are over populated.

If you give it some thought, you will find lots of places where young trees
need to be taken out; you can practice your woodcraft on these.
You do not need to make a mess or spoil anyone's enjoyment.

 

[Fonly]

Thats one point of conservation, that many people who dont hunt, dont realize that its not just about shooting an animal. Nor is it about just getting out in the woods( which I a big part, but) When people dont take the correct actions, things become over populated, to many deer and the foods gone for smaller animals. Then animals above them on the food chain eventually move, or die away. Of course this has been tought to many people, but their are many people out there who ask, "how can you kill a poor deer, or a cute little bunnie?" well, thats not the only aspect to the equation. Conservation is very important to me, And as I suspect to many others,But many dont realize natures beauty, and or its threats, thats why we need to educate others on the importance of it.

theres my little rant

 

[stevetexas]

Gentle men and women,

Consider this, humans are and always have been omni eaters.

Humans eat both meat and veggies. That is natural. That is what we are.

Some silly people try to pretend that we are total vegetarians. That is not natural. It is also not very healthy, long term. Humans can not get all of the nutrients we need without Meat.

Another view can be found here....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism

I like Lots of Garlic on my meat.

Steve