# Living Off The Land: Delusions and Misconceptions About Hunting and Gathering



## BillS

http://preparedchristian.net/living...ons-about-hunting-and-gathering/#.UliSjNKsiSp

It's a very long article. Here's about a quarter of it:

The Following article was written by Ross Gilmore and is reposted with his permission. The original article can be found here at his site, Wood Trekker.
From time to time I will see someone say that their bug out plan is to head to the woods and live off the land. I have always thought that this was a bad idea, but only had conjecture to back up my opinion. Rob has done a fantastic job of crunching numbers and shows just how much someone would have to hunt and gather to bring in enough calories.

Living Off The Land: Delusions and Misconceptions About Hunting and Gathering

Ah, living off the land. Thriving in the wilderness with the use of your skills. It is the ultimate goal of many bushcrafters and survivalists. Numerous posts have been written on forums about this subject, and as soon as one ends, another is started. Of course, actual evidence is rarely presented. We often fall back on positions such as "our ancestors did it, so clearly I can do it", or "I was out last week and saw a bunch of cattails and barriers, so my food sources are secure".
The problem is not made any better by so called experts in the field, who fuel the myth that they are feeding themselves in the wilderness. I vividly remember watching Andrew Price, host of A-Z of Bushcraft in one of the episodes, waking up in the morning, walking a few feet next to camp, gathering a few berries, and then turning the the camera and saying "breakfast is served". Ray Mears, aside from his excellent series, Wild Foods, has numerous instances where he gathers meager resources and then implies that his food requirement have been met. Of course, none of them ever bother to calculate or present actual caloric values, or discuss the long terms consequences. Similarly, people like Dave Canterbury, who discuss at length hunting in wilderness living conditions, never actually do the math of how much game has to be killed to justify the weight of that shotgun being carried, or whether the numbers would work out at all.
For the past year I have been attempting to gather some actual numbers on the subject, so we can have a more meaningful conversation about what it would take to sustainably feed a person in the wilderness, and consequently, what tools may be suited for the task. I must admit, I have been slacking with the project because of its tedious nature. Last week however, a reader referred me to a source related to the Chris McCandless post, which provided me with some of the information I was searching.
Samuel Thayer, author of the books Forager's Harvest and Nature's Garden, wrote an essay related to the starvation of Chris McCandles titles Into the Wild and other Poisonous Plant Fables. While much of the essay focuses on disproving theories of poisonous plants, the last section discusses actual caloric requirements for a person living in the wilderness, and what resources that would require.
So, let's assume a scenario where a person will be going into the wilderness with the intention of living off the land. He will practice wilderness self reliance, he will thrive in nature, and whatever other cliché you want to insert here. Let's also assume for the moment that there are no hunting or fishing regulations that we have to comply with, and let's assume that the person has all necessary equipment, including hunting and fishing tools. What would the person need to procure each day in order to live in a sustainable manner for a prolonged period of time?
Well, the first piece of the puzzle is the required calories. Citing Michele Grodner's Foundations and Clinical Applications of Nutrition, Thayer calculates that a male who is physically active under wilderness living conditions would need approximately 3,300 calories per day. This number seems consistent with calculations done by long distance backpackers, who usually aim for a bit over 3,000 calories per day. So, to maintain one's physical condition, and prevent weight loss, the person in question must consume about 3,300 calories each day. Of course, there are other nutritional requirements, but at a very basic level, to prevent death from starvation in the long run, this caloric minimum must be met.
The above caloric requirement for wilderness living should not be confused with accounts of short term survival, where a person stays in the wilderness, slowly losing body weight, until they are rescued. We have plenty examples like this from series like Survivorman, Naked and Afraid, etc. Those are not examples of sustainable hunting and gathering situations, and we should not have any delusions about the long term applications of such a starvation diet.
So, sticking with the 3,300 caloric requirement per day, what would it take to meet these caloric needs?

Sources of Calories
Meat
First let's look at animal products, something to which I will jointly refer to in this post as "meat", but should be understood to include both protein and fats. Meat can vary in caloric content anywhere from 40 calories per ounce for lean meat like squirrel and rabbit, all the way to 60 calories per ounce for very fatty meat like salmon. Using these numbers, we can roughly calculate the caloric value of each animal, and how much of it we would need to meet the our daily caloric requirements.
Red Squirrel: as Thayer calculates, at an average of 2.8 ounces of meat per squirrel (Michele Grodner's Foundations and Clinical Applications of Nutrition), it would take 25 squirrels per day to meet the caloric requirements, or if also eating the internal organs and brain, about 16 squirrels per day.
Rabbit: at about 16 ounces of meat per rabbit (Michele Grodner's Foundations and Clinical Applications of Nutrition), you would need about 4 of them per day, or 3 if eating all of the organs and brain.
Salmon: assuming you are catching Sockeye salmon, they average 6 pounds (96 ounces) (Kenai Peninsula Borough Commercial Fishing Industry State Records, 2012). Since salmon meat is rich in fat, we can assume 60 calories per ounce (USDA SR-21), which would mean one salmon would give you 5,760 calories, or a little under two days of food.
Clams: clam meat varies in caloric density from about 33 calories per ounce to about 42 calories per ounce. (Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference, 2013). To satisfy the required 3,300 calories per day intake, you would need about 5 pounds of clam meat per day (using 40 calories per ounce for the calculation). In order to get 5 pounds of clam meat, you would need about 320 medium size clams. For each ounce of meat, you need about 4 medium size clams. (Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference, 2013)
Raccoon: while many people would not eat raccoon meat due to its high content of parasites, it is technically edible. The meat is fatty, averaging about 72 calories per ounce. (USDA SR-21) The weight of raccoons varies widely from 10 to 25 pounds for adults. The average listed size is about 25 pounds for an adult. That should provide approximately 10 pounds of meat once it is gutted, skinned and deboned. At 72 calories per ounce, such a raccoon will provide about 11,520 calories. However, keep in mind that these numbers reflect the calories if the animal is cooked to preserve all of its nutrients. In order to make it more palatable, people usually cook raccoon meat to remove most of the fat. If you do that, the caloric content will drop significantly. Assuming you save all of the fat however, a 25 pound raccoon should provide sufficient calories for 3.5 days.
Turkey: a good size turkey will yield about 10 pounds of meat (160 ounces) when processed. The caloric value of processed turkey meat is about 45 calories per ounce (USDA SR-21). Therefore, a turkey will produce 7,200 calories in total, or a bit more than 2 days worth of caloric requirements.
Deer: a mature buck typically yields about 70 pounds of meat (1,120 ounces) (University of Wisconsin study 2006). Venison is a lean meat, with about 53 calories per ounce (USDA SR-21). The meat of a mature buck will therefore give you 59,360 calories, which will be sufficient for 18 days of food at the 3,300 calories per day requirement. If you are eating the internal organs as well, that will probably get pushed to about 20-21 days of food.
Black Bear: a large black bear will produce about 100 pounds of meat (1,600 ounces) once processed. Bear meat has about 43 calories per ounce. (USDA SR-21) So, a large black bear will give about 68,800 calories total. That would be sufficient calories to satisfy the caloric intake for 21 days. 
The table below gives a general summary of the results. The numbers you see in the last column for animals needed each day to meet the caloric requirement, the number in parenthesis represents what is needed if internal organs are preserved and eaten as well as the meat.


----------



## camo2460

The numbers presented cannot be argued with, but the implication being made is that being a hunter/gather is not a viable option and that anyone attempting to practice such a life style will starve to death. Is the life style easy? No it is not, that's why hunter/gathers generally lived in groups and all contributed to the effort. Can a single person survive/thrive alone in the wilderness? yes, it's not easy but it can be done, if one has an understanding of the wilderness and how to use it to your advantage. Sort of like learning to swim: first you learn how to float using the dead man float, face down in the water arms and legs relaxed. What this teaches is that the water will support you if you relax and not fight it. In other words you have to swim obeying the waters terms. The same is true of wilderness survival/living. If you go into the woods with just a tee shirt, jeans and sneakers the odds are good that something bad is going to happen, because you have disobeyed natures rules by not thinking ahead and being prepared. This concept that I am trying to explain is hard to understand with out actually living it, which I have done off and on for many years and for extended periods of time.


----------



## tugboats

A very cogent article. Living off of the land (land you do not own or farm) is at best an iffy situation. You can maintain yourself for some time but most people do not have the aptitude or the skills to provide game in the quantities needed to maintain themselves. There will be a depletion of game or fish in a very short time in any given area. Unless one is fishing in a Great lake or huge impoundment the numbers and quality of the fish will go down. Fishing on a huge body of water is the most productive methodology but you will be in competition with many, many others plus the added downside of being seen by all of the people on the shore.

I intend to subsidize my nutritional needs with wild game and fish but I will not depend on that type of resource for my basic needs in the long term. Short term (under two weeks maybe) fish and game will keep me from going backwards too fast. But, if the situation went on longer than two weeks the caloric deficit would have a detrimental effect on my body.

The assumptions many people make are based on good conditions. Rarely do they take into account high winds, rain, sleet, a two foot snowfall or sub-zero temperatures. Game is affected as adversely as we are in those conditions.

If I shot an elk or a deer and there were 50 other people in the woods hunting for food I think I would have a lot of competition getting my animal out of the woods. The sound of the gunshot would be like ringing the dinner bell for every other unsuccessful hunter within a half mile. If I shot it with an arrow and had to track it how many other hunters would detect my movements in the woods. Would they claim my animal before I could?

In my opinion fishing would be a more viable option based on calories returned and energy expended but even then I have come back to shore “skunked” on multiple occasions. My food supplies (based in multiple locations), gardens and other resources will be my go to stash.

Tugs


----------



## hiwall

Also you have to consider a portion (maybe alot) of big game meat could spoil before you could eat it. 
I found this on drying meat very informative.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x6932e/x6932e02.htm


----------



## Iafrate

Having lived in the bush for 25 years, I find this an interesting thread. We get our meat from the wild, moose, occasionally caribou, ptarmigan, grouse, salmon, dolly varden rabbits etc. This is only part of the equation. We also garden, summer and winter in our green house. When we go into town on occasion we will buy steaks or ribs, but most of our grocery purchases are staples that we can make stuff with, breads puddings among others. To live off the land is much easier when you have a fixed location as opposed to being nomadic. Our biggest concern is if we don't get our moose. That means we have to stock up on beef, chicken& pork from town. 
Aside from staying fed, the other big concerns are keeping warm in winter, both indoors and out doors, as well as keeping hydrated. Planning your strenuous activities to coincide with natural cycles helps. ( Sunrise, sunset). When doing strenuous stuff being aware of perspiration and weather conditions is paramount. When looking at these matters one has to figure out the interconnectedness of everything. A holistic approach will serve you the best.


----------



## BillS

I thought there was a lot of interesting stuff in the article. I never thought much about the high calorie requirements or the difficulty in getting enough calories. Not only based on the food but also based on the fact that your body won't tolerate large amounts of fruit at one time. You can see why primitive societies adopted farming. Hunting and gathering is an incredible amount of work.


----------



## redhorse

Thanks for sharing BillS. Very good read that puts living in the woods in perspective. I'm sure it can be done, but like Tugboats said, there will be a depletion of available foods post SHTF until enough of us die off an nature restores herself. At least for most of us with more than 2 neighbors per square mile or more.

That said, even farming requires huge amounts of calories. Putting up hay is super labor intensive. I'm positive I burn way more than 3,300 calories a day doing that, and that's just moving the bales that were made with machines. I can't imagine what amount of calories would be needed doing it all by hand or plowing/harvesting a field/garden with a horse or ox. Certainly close to double what a backpacker burns, or a hunter packing a gun.

Yes I realize the food yields are MUCH better with farming, this article just got me thinking about how much food I THINK I have and will need, and what I will need to grow. The 2000 calorie per day recomendation will be out the window. 

There was another thread that said something about the value of keeping an old tractor running. Me thinks they were spot on. I'm sure it won't last forever, but would give you an edge while it was up and running.

I still do plan on supplementing my food stores with what comes out of the wild as much as possible. I may have an addiction for bambi backstrap, steaks and jerky


----------



## crabapple

I enjoyed this article,both articles.
I define living off the land in a hunter & gather state as not gardening or husbandry of any kind. I also believe it is not possible to do this.
1) It will be hard enough to do by yourself or in a little band of marry men. But you will have other bands hunting you grounds, who will be able to harvest as well as protect their right to do so.
Forget about trying to harvest & protect your hunting ground if you live with in 20 miles of a large city or even a small city/3 little towns.
Your hunting grounds will be over run with wannabes that are hunger, but have no weapon or skills. They will stomp on wild vegetables till they are dead, looking for food, while scaring every living thing in a mile of them away.
2) History teaches us the the hunter & gather way is harder then the farmer. That is why only a few,small groups still live this way.
Humans stop H&G to grow crops & fence in animals, because it was easier in good as well as bad times.
hiwall & Iafrate are right, that we need to do more then just hunt,kill then eat. Food storage is very important, H&G did not need much storage, because they found so little, they moved on the find more.
So a garden or orchard & animal husbandry of any kind makes you a farmer, not a hunter/gather living off the land.
3) To say a farmer lives off the land, is the same as saying people who buy from a store live off the land. They food dose not come from outer space.
I was raised on a farm & love the land, but lets get real about TSHTF, & H&G type living without a garden,greenhouse or animal in pens,pastures.


----------



## FatTire

I just have to wonder who is delusional about it? Anyone who has spent time in the woods at least once gets a taste of how precarious it can be. Every once in a while we get a newb here asking about BOL's, and they quickly get their eyes opened. Anyone who gives it serious thought sees 'living off the land as an iffy situation. Those that dont have many options, but have thought it thru know it will be hard. Its not their first option, but they develop skills that will make it doable, rough n miserable, but survivable.

To say it cant be done is just silly, many have done it, clearly it can be done. Those that have carved out a spot deep in the wild know its not for everyone, takes hard work, skills that most dont have, and a particular mindset.

so again, other than newbs just starting out, where are all these delusional people that survival writers are writing about? I just dont see it. Articles like this always just seem to me to be say "hey lookie how smart n awesome I am"


----------



## BillS

I don't know how anybody living off the land survives a northern winter. Let's assume you have a cabin with a fireplace. Cutting, splitting, and hauling firewood would be a full time job for someone. You probably couldn't have a family with only two adults. You might need four adults so there's more people to gather food to cover what the woodcutter doesn't bring in. You'd probably have an all meat diet for months at a time if you could get enough game.


----------



## Navajo

First off, it would be very difficult. Especially is several thousand other people show up at your favorite mountain lake campsite where you saw all those deers.

Plus you would have to learn to eat in a different way and different things than you have ever experienced. ( meat parts isn't the only edible parts of an animal ) Unless you have searched out and practiced finding the many natural growing plants that many consider weeds in the country side. Much of it is edible. Unfortunately most ranchers and cattle growers and such have sprayed all but grass into extinction in the surrounding countryside near the ranches and cabins people frequent.

So moving to the countryside is has become a very iffy proposition anymore. likely the meat won't last long and natural vegetation has been removed , due to them being considered a weed. Now there are places in very remote, very rugged parts of the country where few people venture, and mind you if you have not trekked for weeks to find those places, I would say that come SHTF time and you try to find your own spot in the back country, you will be too late and likely be shot at before you even get close to a location with adequate food and water, and shelter.

So either plan ahead and stop with the boat cruises, and amusement park vacations start hiking into some really remote areas, find a nice cave, bury a few caches and start learning how to eat what is available in these location. 

Cause if you wait , you will likely die of starvation and that is a long drawn out process.


----------



## BillM

Louis and Clark spent the winter close to a very large Elk herd . The men lived primarily on Elk meat. They each ate an average of seven pounds of Elk per day to keep from losing body weight .

Boone lived of the land when he went on his long hunts but he was a market hunter who killed up to seven hundred deer in a single winter hunt. I don't think the hunting opportunity's are the same for us today.


----------



## *Andi

FatTire said:


> I just have to wonder who is delusional about it? Anyone who has spent time in the woods at least once gets a taste of how precarious it can be. Every once in a while we get a newb here asking about BOL's, and they quickly get their eyes opened. Anyone who gives it serious thought sees 'living off the land as an iffy situation. Those that dont have many options, but have thought it thru know it will be hard. Its not their first option, but they develop skills that will make it doable, rough n miserable, but survivable.
> 
> To say it cant be done is just silly, many have done it, clearly it can be done. Those that have carved out a spot deep in the wild know its not for everyone, takes hard work, skills that most dont have, and a particular mindset.
> 
> so again, other than newbs just starting out, where are all these delusional people that survival writers are writing about? I just dont see it. Articles like this always just seem to me to be say "hey lookie how smart n awesome I am"


I agree...

To say it cant be done is just silly, many have done it, clearly it can be done..

And there you have it!!!


----------



## Roebears

It amazes me that people don't give any thought to the fact that every piece of land has a owner/tenant willing to defend there land at any cost. The problem may not be just living off the land, but not getting shot in the process.


----------



## redhorse

Roebears said:


> It amazes me that people don't give any thought to the fact that every piece of land has a owner/tenant willing to defend there land at any cost. The problem may not be just living off the land, but not getting shot in the process.


Not everyone lives in a high population density area. There are still plaenty of places in the US with huge tracts of uninhabited land. I'm sure there are a few people from those areas on here.

I'm not saying living off the land is by any means easy, or that I would survive solely on my woodland knowledge, but we as a species would not be here if it weren't possible. How old is farming really? A few thousand years? A few hundred generations?

I'll say it again though, this article was a great read for me if only to bring into perspective the calories we need to survive, farming or living in the woods. We can't sit in a basement and live on canned ham and beans forever. Sooner or later there will be work, and lots of it, be it farming, hunting/gathering, or both.


----------



## millertimedoneright

This does put into perspective how hard it would be to live a sustained existence off the land but I don't agree with the calorie level stated that is needed to survive long term...3300 calories may be needed for a hard days work but with careful planning and energy management one could easily survive off half that living in a decent climate...I have a friend who intakes 1200 calories a day and has done so for many years...this article also only mentions taking wild game and says nothing about supplementing any form of plant life along with the game...one or two small game animals aren't much but if u throw in some edible plants, a nice tea, and a few wild berries one can easily have enough to survive...the wilderness provides a sustainable environment as long as overcrowding doesn't occur and is managed correctly...


----------



## FatTire

Roebears said:


> It amazes me that people don't give any thought to the fact that every piece of land has a owner/tenant willing to defend there land at any cost. The problem may not be just living off the land, but not getting shot in the process.


Ok.. which people think that? Not saying you are wrong, just that the only people ive seen voice opinions like 'ill just live off the land and it will be easy' is newbs and people who have never given it any serious thought.

I see people post stuff like this all the time, and ive always wondered who they are posting it for. I get it when newbs are asking about BOL's, but this is a prepper site, where most here have been doing it for years, and very few are under any delusions.


----------



## *Andi

redhorse said:


> Sooner or later there will be work, and lots of it, be it farming, hunting/gathering, or both.


WORK!!!!

Say its not true...


----------



## k0xxx

I live in a fairly rural area, with most of those surrounding me have any where from 10 to 160 acres, and most would be very proactive in keeping others off their land in a SHTF situation. My guess is that, except in the sparsely populated areas west of the Mississippi, wild game would be decimated within a years time as it was during the Great Depressions. For that reason alone, any hopes of living off the land would not last very long.


----------



## Sourdough

The best chance for living "OFF" the land is in South-East Alaska. And it would be living off the sea life plus deer & bear. Almost no humans. But PIZZY rainy weather


----------



## tsrwivey

k0xxx said:


> My guess is that, except in the sparsely populated areas west of the Mississippi, wild game would be decimated within a years time as it was during the Great Depressions. For that reason alone, any hopes of living off the land would not last very long.


I think the same thing, but then I think "how many people actually own a gun, have adequate ammo for it, & can actually hit the broad side of a barn?" I still don't know which thought is right.


----------



## cowboyhermit

Like mentioned before, to suggest a hunter gatherer lifestyle is not effective on a fundamental level is ridiculous, and in fact most studies suggest that there is often MUCH less "work" involved than pre-industrialized agriculture.

Agriculture is exceptional at feeding more people per unit of land however, and therein lies the problem. If a person is in a secluded part of Canada for instance, where there is no real likelihood of competition for wildlife then it is completely feasible. Obviously for most people this will not be the case.

I take issue with a few things in the article; looking at the deer for instance. I will not argue the amount of meat because deer vary widely in size, northern animals tend to have more body mass for example. However the statement that deer is a lean meat can be misleading, the meat itself is indeed lean (making drying very easy) however at least in northern climates there is often several pounds of fat at a minimum inside the deer (outside of the meat). Each pound of fat is capable of providing enough calories for a day easily. I would assert that a normal whitetail or mule deer in our area will easily feed someone for a month.

Which leads me to my main issue with the article, does the fact that a deer is enough food for a person for a month seem onerous to anyone? A month to kill 1 deer
Besides the fact that other animals such as the elk already mentioned, but also moose, brown bear and other large animals will yield exponentially more that a deer, shooting one per month in an area devoid of competition should not be difficult in any way. Using a bow makes things a bit more challenging but not by much.

Then we get to the smaller animals and the key becomes trapping and opportunity, you don't go hunting for squirrels in a survival situation but if you see one it might be worth a .22 shell, barely. With small game the best way is trapping, talk to a trapper and you may be amazed with the numbers that are possible with a small amount of labour expended. I will not give the numbers of muskrat I have caught in a winter but suffice it to say I would not have gone hungry.

Fishing is along similar lines (pun intended) line fishing is not very efficient but fishing with multiple lines, fish traps, icefishing, and nets are a different story entirely.

Anyways, I am a farmer who lives and breathes agriculture but that doesn't mean I don't realize other methods can be effective in particular circumstances. I may even envy the hunter gatherer's less than 20 hour work week in times of weakness


----------



## unbill

I knew a large man who probably weighs about 260 lbs if he weighs an ounce
and there was no fat on him. One day he showed me pictures of himself after he
was released from a Nazi prisoner camp and I was shocked at what I saw. He told 
me he was down to 110 lbs in that picture. He said he stayed at that weight for
a long time. He also said he would cut wood everyday with the other prisoners to
keep from freezing. My point is the Human body will adjust to conditions as he was proof since he received very little food from the Germans. Your calorie intake
numbers are way off. Even when a person goes on say a 2000 calorie diet they 
start out losing weight fast in the beginning and as your body adjust to the lower
calorie intake you start to lose weight a lot slower. This is because the human
body senses the decrease and starts to protect itself. Many Americans eat under
1500 calories or less a day and live active lives and many eat a lot more and are
heavy with active lives, To suggest the calorie intake you listed is needed to
survive is not true.


----------



## Caribou

It is possible to live off the land. It is not possible for tens or even hundreds of millions of people to live off the land. While meat would be a mainstay of such a subsistence the body will require some nutrients from vegetable sources. While gathering berries and other wild plants in season will be important you will also probably need to think about going after things like mouse food. Mouse food is collected by digging up mouse dens and stealing the food that the mice have laid aside for winter. We need not only calories by vitamins and minerals as well.


----------



## *Andi

Caribou said:


> It is possible to live off the land. It is not possible for tens or even hundreds of millions of people to live off the land.


But how many of the millions have the know how to live off the land?


----------



## Sourdough

*Andi said:


> But how many of the millions have the know how to live off the land?


Few.......VERY Few, even in Alaska.


----------



## crabapple

There are a lot of Boy Scouts out there who could last the Spring,Summer & Fall.
I still think that you can not live in the wild after TSHTF.
But I think you can live on a plot,(5 acres per family of 6)with fruit & nut trees,berry shrubs,grape vine, perennial vegetables & 3-4 season gardening. I hope I am right on this one, cause it is my main plant.
A few thousand pounds of dry goods will last just so long.
The land needs multi-mineral supplement now, because with no trucks or UPS you can not build the soil later.
You can plant wild plants to, if their is some you like.


----------



## readytogo

*Alone in the great outdoors;bolony*

The notion that someone can make a go of living a healthy life in the woods alone is and has never been documented in today's time, the human race is design to live in a commune, without outside touch or help is very unlikely a human will survive, even Dick Proenneke had the help of Babe Alsworth, a bush pilot friend of Dick, brought in food and supplies that without them he would have never made it, he also hunted and fished. He even volunteered as back country interpreter and naturalist in Lake Clark National Park, so he was not alone. Many have the notion to go out in the woods and make a good out of it ,well just ask a farmer how is life today, even with all the tools of his trade working the land is not easy , anybody who has a simple garden knows that , if you don`t have the necessary tools and support you will never make it , hell just finding pure drinking water will be a task ,I don`t know about anybody out there but eating wild animals , or whatever tree bark is edible eventually will kill you , of course that can change quick like if in the other side of the mountain you have a Burger King , then I`ll be glad to call you my neighbor ,good day.
ps.don`t forget the pepto bismol


----------



## *Andi

bolony ...

Well alright then ....


----------



## Tirediron

Ok so if you can't live off the land where does your food come from ?? Do aliens bring it from a galaxy far, far away ?? People who know what they are doing would do just fine, people in the city who have hardly ever left would starve in the middle of a feast. there is more to eat in the "wild" than tree bark. Survival shows like survivorman, spin things for TV drama, if Les the granola crunching idiot was living all comfortable in the bush the show would go no where. 
Can the average pants around their knees gang banger live off the land ? I doubt it. Can an experienced woodman do ok , yea probably , especially if he gets a decent trade network set up. Wild meat is a lot more nutritious than beef that has had an allergic reaction to a grain only diet to satisfy a market that wants Marbled meat, fat belongs next to the skin. Duh


----------



## hiwall

I don't like when the kids ask what's for supper and turn their noses up when I say pack rat soup.


----------



## Caribou

readytogo said:


> The notion that someone can make a go of living a healthy life in the woods alone is and has never been documented in today's time, the human race is design to live in a commune, without outside touch or help is very unlikely a human will survive, even Dick Proenneke had the help of Babe Alsworth, a bush pilot friend of Dick, brought in food and supplies that without them he would have never made it, he also hunted and fished. He even volunteered as back country interpreter and naturalist in Lake Clark National Park, so he was not alone. Many have the notion to go out in the woods and make a good out of it ,well just ask a farmer how is life today, even with all the tools of his trade working the land is not easy , anybody who has a simple garden knows that , if you don`t have the necessary tools and support you will never make it , hell just finding pure drinking water will be a task ,I don`t know about anybody out there but eating wild animals , or whatever tree bark is edible eventually will kill you , of course that can change quick like if in the other side of the mountain you have a Burger King , then I`ll be glad to call you my neighbor ,good day.
> 
> ps.don`t forget the pepto bismol


You might want to read "Forty Years in the Wilderness" by Dolly Faulkner


----------



## Caribou

*Andi said:


> But how many of the millions have the know how to live off the land?


There are tons of people with hunting experience. Whether or not they could make a living for themselves and their family they could certainly deplete much of the wildlife and chase the rest into remote areas.

I live in an area that has about 2.5 to 3 square miles per person. The land would only support 1/3 of the current population. The land will only support a certain number of people without cultivation and animal husbandry.


----------



## drhwest

Population density in the Continental United States will be a major issue. I see a lot of people make comments on here about people in the city dying off in mass. I do not believe this will happen unless it is a nuclear strike. Humans are incredibly adaptable and the weeks following a catastrophic event will exemplify that trait. I believe that many will eventually leave the city and seek refuge in the more rural areas of this country. There will undoubtably be constant conflicts. People protecting their land and others trying to take things by force, but eventually there will be some sort of equilibrium. People will learn to live off the land much faster than some think. People that have advanced survival skills will most likely find themselves in positions of authority or leadership and this will help others settle into new roles of hunting, gathering, growing, etc. I am sure tens of millions will perish from starvation, disease, and aggression, but I am pretty certain a majority of the population will survive by adapting to their environment.


----------



## millertimedoneright

You are assuming that everyone will survive to live off the country and you assume everyone will live the hunter gatherer lifestyle...the fact is many will die off in the first few months and the majority of the rest will turn to a farming and trade lifestyle...once the ammo is gone 95% of those living off the land will either die or turn to a community lifestyle leaving the woods for the woodsman...their is so many species of edible animals that reproduce with great speed(rabbits, hogs, etc) that without guns and ammo their will be plenty to eat if someone knows how to trap or hunt with a bow...


----------



## dixiemama

People have to be willing to adapt and change. If they refuse to learn how to provide for their family, they will not survive. We are pretty rural here; many people own over 10 acres, still more have over 100 that's been in the family for generations. Doesn't mean they will all survive. Many keep the grass cut on all those acres and cldnt tell the difference between half runner and shucky beans. Not saying they won't change, just don't see it happening. 

In my immediate area, a hand full would survive the first few months on their own and my help from neighbors. Most are elderly and have knowledge to pass on. The others, lets just say they voted in the last election. If EBT went down in KY, it would get ugly fast.


----------



## k0xxx

At least in my opinion, if things got to the point of a total societal collapse and the North American population had to resort to a hunter/gatherer lifestyle, I'd expect something in the range of a 75 to 90% die off rate. Personally I don't see that happening short of nuclear armageddon or some other global extinction type event. Even in a total economic collapse of the western world, I believe things would be more like post collapse Argentina or Soviet Russia, where most people eked out an extreme poverty existence.


----------



## mosquitomountainman

Don't forget market hunters. They were the reason so much of our wildlife was depleted and the concept of game management/conservation was brought into play. You don't need thousands of people hunting to deplete the wildlife, you only need a percentage of that who are skillful hunters doing it for profit.

I personally believe that a total collapse of society would bring casualties in the range of 75 to 90 percent within the first year. A huge percentage of the population is already dependent upon medications to remain alive. When those dry up they will die off. Many of those who believe that they can survive a hunter gatherer type life simply overestimate their abilities. The same is true of many who believe they'll just throw some seeds in the ground and feed from the abundant harvest. If you don't have a sustainable and workable/realistic plan to feed/water, clothe, house, defend and treat yourself (illness and accidents) you probably wouldn't make it. That means you've already done most of that stuff yourself so you know what works and what doesn't. 

One of the best lines I ever heard was from a guy who tried shooting a bow and arrows for the first time and was honestly distressed with his poor shooting. He said, "It's harder than I thought. I hit a lot better when shooting a bow on my wii in my living room." It makes a person want to scream :gaah: and go :brickwall:.


----------



## BillS

millertimedoneright said:


> This does put into perspective how hard it would be to live a sustained existence off the land but I don't agree with the calorie level stated that is needed to survive long term...3300 calories may be needed for a hard days work but with careful planning and energy management one could easily survive off half that living in a decent climate...I have a friend who intakes 1200 calories a day and has done so for many years...this article also only mentions taking wild game and says nothing about supplementing any form of plant life along with the game...one or two small game animals aren't much but if u throw in some edible plants, a nice tea, a*nd a few wild berries one can easily have enough to survive*...the wilderness provides a sustainable environment as long as overcrowding doesn't occur and is managed correctly...


According to this site,

http://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/usda/blueberries?portionid=32990&portionamount=10.000

10 blueberries have 8 calories.

I find it very difficult to believe that someone could live off the land off the land with a 1200 calorie a day diet. Maybe the guy doesn't do physical work or he's 5'2" and weighs 110 lbs. Something isn't right there.


----------



## redhorse

BillS said:


> According to this site,
> 
> http://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/usda/blueberries?portionid=32990&portionamount=10.000
> 
> 10 blueberries have 8 calories.
> 
> I find it very difficult to believe that someone could live off the land off the land with a 1200 calorie a day diet. Maybe the guy doesn't do physical work or he's 5'2" and weighs 110 lbs. Something isn't right there.


I agree BillS. I'm 5'3 and 115 and I know I go at least double 1200 calories in a day. I don't keep track, but I do eat A LOT. I would be sacrificing muscle if I put myself on a diet. What can I say? I spend a lot of time taking care of animals, crops, and gardens, plus hiking, riding, splitting firewood, etc.

Berries aren't available for very long either...

But I still believe you could live off the land if the area was remote enough and you had the necesarry skills.

I will be stuck on the farm unless forced out. We are rural, but not rural enough. Day one after SHTF is get to the stores and buy up all I can with cash, day 2 is to shoot anything that moves and can/dehydrate it. I think wild edible plants will be around to harvest later.


----------



## BillS

drhwest said:


> Population density in the Continental United States will be a major issue. I see a lot of people make comments on here about people in the city dying off in mass. I do not believe this will happen unless it is a nuclear strike. Humans are incredibly adaptable and the weeks following a catastrophic event will exemplify that trait. I believe that many will eventually leave the city and seek refuge in the more rural areas of this country. There will undoubtably be constant conflicts. People protecting their land and others trying to take things by force, but eventually there will be some sort of equilibrium. People will learn to live off the land much faster than some think. People that have advanced survival skills will most likely find themselves in positions of authority or leadership and this will help others settle into new roles of hunting, gathering, growing, etc. I am sure tens of millions will perish from starvation, disease, and aggression, *but I am pretty certain a majority of the population will survive by adapting to their environment.*


I don't see that at all. There isn't enough food in rural areas for everyone coming from the city to eat. Most people aren't capable of the radical changes necessary to survive. I expect mass murder and mass suicide after it hits the fan.


----------



## hiwall

Large numbers will die from lack of water or from Dysentery from drinking water without boiling it. 
If many try to live off the land they will all have camp fires and many fires will 'get away' from them and burn large tracts of land. That will certainly make things worse.


----------



## musketjim

Read an interesting article on Marjory Wildcrafts website considering living a strictly hunter/gatherer lifestyle. Anthropologist studies showed that in North America, the native Americans in central California took about 10 sq. miles per person. Of course agriculture changes everything and she has some excellent articles on that. But considering the skill sets required for both, I think the typical American is screwed.


----------



## k0xxx

mosquitomountainman said:


> ...[snip] The same is true of many who believe they'll just throw some seeds in the ground and feed from the abundant harvest. If you don't have a sustainable and workable/realistic plan to feed/water, clothe, house, defend and treat yourself (illness and accidents) you probably wouldn't make it. That means you've already done most of that stuff yourself so you know what works and what doesn't... [snip]


I know someone that thinks like this. About a year ago, I finally convinced him to do some preps. In that time he has stocked up on toilet paper, Ramen noodles, a couple of cases of bottled water, and a variety of seed packs. I tried to convince him to grow a garden, but he's convinced that he do that when he needs to. I told him that if the S ever does HTF, I _may_ trade him a little food for his toilet paper.


----------



## millertimedoneright

I wasn't saying one could live off only berries apparently u completely missed the point of my post...I was saying the article was only stating facts abt calorie intakes from animals and didn't mention any form of plant life being added to the table...a few small animals and some gathered plants could easily feed one person or maybe a few...a few traps don't require much calorie burn...hunter/gatherer lifestyle isn't abt killing animals it is abt using any available means that nature gives u...animals/bugs/plants/etc an use all that to sustain ur life...y'all talk abt losing weight is the only way to sustain a low calorie intake...do u honestly think we will all be fat and happy in a shtf situation?...a healthy person will be extremely skinny compared to what healthy is now days and calorie intake will be much less than what u need right now...their is many countries where they work 14 or more hours a day on less than 1000 calories and usually have to walk miles to work...what is actually needed to survive long term and what we think is needed is much different due to our spoiled lifestyles that makes us accustomed to lavish meals and extreme calorie intake in every single meal...


----------



## BillS

People on low calorie diets who work a lot are probably starving to death. All you need is a good dose of the flu and you're probably dead.


----------



## redhorse

millertimedoneright said:


> I wasn't saying one could live off only berries apparently u completely missed the point of my post...I was saying the article was only stating facts abt calorie intakes from animals and didn't mention any form of plant life being added to the table...a few small animals and some gathered plants could easily feed one person or maybe a few...a few traps don't require much calorie burn...hunter/gatherer lifestyle isn't abt killing animals it is abt using any available means that nature gives u...animals/bugs/plants/etc an use all that to sustain ur life...y'all talk abt losing weight is the only way to sustain a low calorie intake...do u honestly think we will all be fat and happy in a shtf situation?...a healthy person will be extremely skinny compared to what healthy is now days and calorie intake will be much less than what u need right now...their is many countries where they work 14 or more hours a day on less than 1000 calories and usually have to walk miles to work...what is actually needed to survive long term and what we think is needed is much different due to our spoiled lifestyles that makes us accustomed to lavish meals and extreme calorie intake in every single meal...


Not being rude.... I'd like to see some studies regarding what the 3rd world lives on. I know it isn't much and they have to work very hard to eat. Do you have anything for reference?

I just know personally, I work hard around the farm and with my hobbies, and I need a lot of calories to maintain my body weight. Certainly more than 1000 calories per day.

I was once told at 5'3 and 107 pounds that I needed to drop 12 pounds if I wanted to be a jockey. (they want you at 100 pounds or less for your 'bug weight' for the first year) I couldn't do it without starving myself and losing muscle. When I started losing muscle mass, I started having trouble reining in a race horse after a work or gallop. I couldn't do it, so I just excercise ride now, where you can weigh a little more. I am just using this as an example, we will need some sort muscle mass to hunt and farm. Even just taking a deer without benifit of a horse, quad, or truck to get the carcass home requires some sort of good physique.

I am happy, but by no means fat. I just eat a lot :dunno:


----------



## catdog6949

*How the Trappers and Mountain Men did it.....*

New trappers were issued a,"kit"(most of these were staked by a company), this included;

Pack board w/leather straps or pack basket
Tarp (Shelter/ cover to keep gear packaged on packboard)
A couple dozen traps (very heavy)
A bottle of Beaver Castor( lure)
Cooking pot
Cup
Spoon
Lead melting pot
Dipper (for above)
Xtra lead balls for rifle
Xtra powder
Caps or flints (depending on type of fire arms)
Axe
Pliers
Bedroll 
Change of cloth's
Spare pair of boots
Flour
Sugar 
Salt
Other seasoning
Coffee/tea
Cornmeal 
Oats
Dry meat
Salt pork
beans

Possible bag;

Fire kit/ tinder/flint/steel
More lead balls
Patchs(for guns)
Lube
Misc personal items
Small mirror
Straight razor
Shapening stone
Hanging outside hole pick, charging horn, patch knive hung on leather strip.

Wore;

Shirt
Pants
Underwear (maybe)
Over shirt
Hat
Blanket coat
Mitt's

Carried also;
Rifle
Pistol(usauly same caliber
Large knive
Skining knive
Smallhatchet
Misc. Items

This weighed over a hundred pounds .Now they often had a horse, some didn't, they would usauly go up if they worked for company (company usauly outfitted them on credit) as a group. Once in the wilderness they would dispurse, finding areas too trap and winter seperatly.

Find a central location based on water and feul(wood) availability, scout out trap lines once they set up a base camp. Now the company sometimes would biuld a fort near their men, in case they needed to retreat due to indians, health etc., but they would only go there when they were finished trapping.

Now there were free trappers who traded with the company, or traders nearer to population centers. Now these Mountain men, trappers, would winter with those supplys they carried out and the carcases of the trapped animals, also deer, and bear.

Sometimes they traded with indians, watched and learned from the indians, plants were also gathered. Once situated they built temporary cabins, for the winter and hunted larger animals, processed their trapped animals, lived a very hard existence!

Come thaw they made there way out to meet up with company buyers and pick up supplies and have their parties. Some met and befriended indians and married them. Made their lifes easier.

Then they would go back out to do it all again. These people survived out there, indians survived, Explorers took years too travel too west coast and returned! Yes it is possible. Its not easy though.

The problem is today human man an woman, want things too be easy, so some will die, by giving up, disease, stupidity,mistakes, others that would pray on them, but I do not believe as many will try the wilderness, because they are too soft!

Cat and turtle


----------



## musketjim

I misspoke a little on my previous post when I said most Americans would be screwed. I must put myself in that category. It's one thing to play for a few months at the BOL with the garden and fishing, trapping etc. But it's quite another to have to live like that indefinitely especially in interior Alaska. Sometimes my arrogance comes thru and I need to apologize for that. I would struggle like everyone else, and one bad harvest, bad hunting or fishing season or even injury or illness that could lay up anyone could hit me also. Everything changes then. We all can only do what we can do. Keep improving and hope for the best.:cheers:


----------



## cowboyhermit

There isn't a lot of hard data on hunter-gathering calories and energy expenditures, most records are simply observations with many culturally biased conclusions.

Recent studies have shown that hunter gatherers expend very modest amounts of energy (much less than early agriculturalists) and time.

http://news.yale.edu/2012/08/02/hunter-gatherers-expend-same-calories-average-americans


> Using state-of-the-art technology to measure the daily energetic expenditure of the Hazda, a foraging people of Tanzania, Wood and co-authors Herman Pontzer (Hunter College) and David Raichlen (University of Arizona) discovered that even though these last remaining hunter-gatherers in Africa are quite physically active, they expend on average no more calories in a day than the adult population of the industrialized world.


http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0040503









http://www.economist.com/node/10278703


> Not only had hunter-gatherers enjoyed plenty of protein, not much fat and ample vitamins in their diet, but it also seems they did not have to work very hard. The Hadza of Tanzania "work" about 14 hours a week, the !Kung of Botswana not much more.


Pastoralists and pastoral farmers enjoyed similarly low amounts of "work" with the benefit of being able to feed significantly more humans per unit of land and especially marginal land.


----------



## millertimedoneright

If you want to see what some people live in then research it...if u think some of these villages in Africa an other poor nations are eating 3000 calories a day then go ahead and believe it...my point that seems to keep being missed is we do not need 3000 calories a day to survive...we would all love to have that many calories for sure but it ain't needed...their is people who would be grateful for a handful of rice...obviously the less u ate the more unhealthy u would be but survival is abt surviving not being fat and happy...


----------



## Caribou

The body has the ability to adjust to different caloric intakes. There are numerous survival stories where people survived on a raft with little food. The longest I can recall was 47 days. I have friends that both eat an enormous amount of food. He is a mountain of a man and she is short and skinny. They have different metabolism rates. He could get by on half the food that she eats.


----------



## Rokko

Hardly anybody will be living off the land. More like they'll be looting and pillaging. Don't forget that in a nuclear disaster, all vegetation will be toxic. People have romantic ideas about how to survive. Test your survival savvy at http://Survival-Quiz.com with where you can have fun learning a serious subject.


----------



## k0xxx

Vegetation will not be toxic. Radioactive fallout would be the concern, and it can be washed from the surface of mature fruits and vegetables. Some types of vegetables may be harder to clean and it may be better to avoid them, such as broccoli, brussel sprouts, etc.


----------



## Iafrate

k0xxx said:


> Vegetation will not be toxic. Radioactive fallout would be the concern, and it can be washed from the surface of mature fruits and vegetables. Some types of vegetables may be harder to clean and it may be better to avoid them, such as broccoli, brussel sprouts, etc.


Yes vegetation will be toxic because fallout will percolate into the soil and be taken up by plants, it will also be taken up by the herbivores that consume the plants.


----------



## Caribou

Iafrate said:


> Yes vegetation will be toxic because fallout will percolate into the soil and be taken up by plants, it will also be taken up by the herbivores that consume the plants.


Dirt is one of the things used in a water filter to reduce radiation.

The radiation from a bomb has a very short half life so after three months you have little to worry about.

While a near ground burst is quite possible a very high altitude burst will cause more damage and require a far less sophisticated guidance system. I believe this to be a far more likely threat.


----------



## Tirediron

Rokko said:


> Hardly anybody will be living off the land. More like they'll be looting and pillaging. Don't forget that in a nuclear disaster, all vegetation will be toxic. People have romantic ideas about how to survive. Test your survival savvy at http://Survival-Quiz.com with where you can have fun learning a serious subject.


Oh how I love it when a newbie come strutting in to tell us all the secrets we couldn't figure out on our own


----------



## redhorse

Tirediron said:


> Oh how I love it when a newbie come strutting in to tell us all the secrets we couldn't figure out on our own


It appears Rokko has been around longer than you Tirediron lol. But he only has 2 posts, and both of them urge us to go to his website http://Survival-Quiz.com.

Hmmmm, I'll pass. Blah. Say something worth while or go away. :gaah:


----------



## Tirediron

2 posts is a newbie in my book, and I find it very difficult to believe that anyone has all to a dynamic question like survival, especially to the point that they can offer a quiz, the situation can be so different just by changing a couple of variables or particapants. :scratch And the link to the quiz doesn't seem to work??


----------



## alergyfree

readytogo said:


> The notion that someone can make a go of living a healthy life in the woods alone is and has never been documented in today's time, the human race is design to live in a commune, without outside touch or help is very unlikely a human will survive, even Dick Proenneke had the help of Babe Alsworth, a bush pilot friend of Dick, brought in food and supplies that without them he would have never made it, he also hunted and fished. He even volunteered as back country interpreter and naturalist in Lake Clark National Park, so he was not alone. Many have the notion to go out in the woods and make a good out of it ,well just ask a farmer how is life today, even with all the tools of his trade working the land is not easy , anybody who has a simple garden knows that , if you don`t have the necessary tools and support you will never make it , hell just finding pure drinking water will be a task ,I don`t know about anybody out there but eating wild animals , or whatever tree bark is edible eventually will kill you , of course that can change quick like if in the other side of the mountain you have a Burger King , then I`ll be glad to call you my neighbor ,good day.
> ps.don`t forget the pepto bismol


Hmm, I beg to differ http://www.dickproenneke.com/DickProenneke.html


----------



## Paltik

millertimedoneright said:


> I wasn't saying one could live off only berries apparently u completely missed the point of my post...I was saying the article was only stating facts abt calorie intakes from animals and didn't mention any form of plant life being added to the table


I read the article an in addition to talking about game, it talks about the nutritional value of such things as berries and cattail tubers.

The article the OP linked inspired me to do some more research on this topic and I wrote an article of my own a few days ago. It bears remembering that there is many more times the population in North America now than there was 200 years ago when native Americans "lived off the land." Back then, groups would have to migrate constantly as the consumed all the game and forage in an area. Tribes would fight over hunting grounds. The Lewis and Clark expedition, probably almost as good at bushcraft as many of us </sarcasm>, had to trade with native Americans for food (including dogs). And Laura Ingalls Wilder's family left the Little House in the Big Woods when the game got scarce.

With our greatly bigger population, I'm still betting we'd eat up the readily available game and forage early in the season and then all starve together when it runs out, causing a collapse in our population. (Elsewhere, of course, grain will be rotting on the stalk; so much of our current economy depends on communications and "just in time" transportation logistics.)


----------



## mosquitomountainman

The sheer number of people will require agriculture to survive. There aren't enough "natural" resources to feed everyone.

The second aspect people haven't looked at is how many people know how to forage and how to utilize wild foods. 

This was brought home a couple of years ago when our local food bank could not find takers for several cases of frozen blueberries. The people using the food bank did not know what to do with them! Seriously!!!! They were refusing the frozen blueberries because they didn't know how to use them as food. They were surprised when someone suggested throwing them into pancake batter or muffins and even then refused to accept them! They have the same problem giving away garden produce.

The food bank offered cooking classes to teach people how to use raw ingredients for cooking (instead of mixes) but no one attended. Most, it seems are quite content with their ignorance.

Now think about what the average person will do if you hand them a bag of corn or wheat! Or, God forbid, a live chicken! Worse yet, how many will know how or when to harvest grains or garden produce (if they can get any to grow to maturity!)? Most of these people are going to starve while surrounded by food! At least the dogs will be fat from eating human remains.


----------



## crabapple

I agree, MMMan.
That is why simple gardening is so important to do now.
Forget the hundred of dollars you are saving or the cleaner,fresher foods. 
And I am not talking about fruit trees,shrubs,vines or grains.
Just simple vegetables & a few herbs will go a long way to saving you.

You need all the above, but everyone needs to start some where.
To grow wheat,oats & other grains one will need 1\2 to 1 acre, a hand plow, a mule,horse,ox that is broke to plow.
You could work a small plot with only man power, but it would be long hard work with little return in a good year.
White potato flour sounds better/ easier, maybe cattails if you have a water shed that will hold water after each rain fall.


----------



## millertimedoneright

I plan to utilize local game with a garden and livestock...I would never try to live completely off wildlife but it could be done...the majority of our population wouldn't be trying to live off the land they would be looking to the government for handouts therefore I don't see wildlife being decimated to the point of starving those living off the land...their is a lot of species that produce quickly(rabbits, hogs, etc) that could become a staple on many tables for generations to come...I just don't believe their will be enough sheeple left to hurt their populations...I also firmly believe once families and friends begin to manage good hunting grounds they will do like the native Americans did and protect them at all costs...a small garden and some scavenging plus some local wildlife will be what feeds most of us that are prepared and know how to survive...me personally I'm in the planning stages of beginning my homestead to include solar, personal well, wood stove, well insulated energy efficient home, 30+ acres of available garden space, 10+acres for goats, chickens, rabbits, etc, and sitting next to 27,000 acres of natural forest land loaded with deer, hog, rabbits, squirrel, alligators, and fish...I always advise people to plan for any possible means of surviving...it's like investing DIVERSIFY when it comes to planning for a shtf situation especially on your plans on gathering food and water


----------



## stanb999

The article was good... The 3000+ calories a day, everyday, and always is utter non-sense. 

Over 1 million calories a year... the meat of ten moose for one person, a family of 4 needs 40 moose. Do you eat a heard of cattle each year? That is laughably ridiculous. Most hunter gatherer societies partied 1 day a week, worked 2 days a week, rested 4 days a week. You as a modern human work so long and hard because you get 50% taken in taxes.

Party day... 4000 cal.
2 hunt days 5000
4 rest days... 8000

17 thousand a week or 2400 a day Is a much more reasonable figure.


----------



## redhorse

stanb999 said:


> The article was good... The 3000+ calories a day, everyday, and always is utter non-sense.
> 
> Over 1 million calories a year... the meat of ten moose for one person, a family of 4 needs 40 moose. Do you eat a heard of cattle each year? That is laughably ridiculous. Most hunter gatherer societies partied 1 day a week, worked 2 days a week, rested 4 days a week. You as a modern human work so long and hard because you get 50% taken in taxes.
> 
> Party day... 4000 cal.
> 2 hunt days 5000
> 4 rest days... 8000
> 
> 17 thousand a week or 2400 a day Is a much more reasonable figure.


I don't find it laughable at all. Personally we eat about 3 cows, 4 pigs, a couple goats, and at least 30-40 chickens, a few domestic turkeys, a couple domestic geese and ducks. That is the livestock. We also eat 4-6 deer, a ton of rabbits, squirrels, wild geese, wild turkeys and ducks, any snapping turtles I come across, crawfish, and the occasional frog legs. That is for 2 of us, admittedly with some some shared throughout the year with family and friends.

This doesn't account for all the grain, nut, dairy, and fruit/vegetable calories we consume each year.

We might not consume a whole herd of cows, but we sure do go through the meat and other calorie sources when you add up everything consumed. Its hard work keeping up with a farm, garden, and animals. 2400 calories a day would not do it for us. Maybe in the winter when all the food had been put up for the year, hay put up, and firewood cut, but definitely not for Spring, Summer and Fall.

I gotta agree with you on your comment that we work so hard because 50% of it goes to taxes. Ain't that the truth?


----------



## stanb999

redhorse said:


> I don't find it laughable at all. Personally we eat about 3 cows, 4 pigs, a couple goats, and at least 30-40 chickens, a few domestic turkeys, a couple domestic geese and ducks. That is the livestock. We also eat 4-6 deer, a ton of rabbits, squirrels, wild geese, wild turkeys and ducks, any snapping turtles I come across, crawfish, and the occasional frog legs. That is for 2 of us, admittedly with some some shared throughout the year with family and friends.
> 
> This doesn't account for all the grain, nut, dairy, and fruit/vegetable calories we consume each year.
> 
> We might not consume a whole herd of cows, but we sure do go through the meat and other calorie sources when you add up everything consumed. Its hard work keeping up with a farm, garden, and animals. 2400 calories a day would not do it for us. Maybe in the winter when all the food had been put up for the year, hay put up, and firewood cut, but definitely not for Spring, Summer and Fall.
> 
> I gotta agree with you on your comment that we work so hard because 50% of it goes to taxes. Ain't that the truth?


Really, your claiming to consume even more calories. Perhaps 2 times as many. Just the cattle would be in excess of the amounts given in the article. A rough guess on the yield of the animals above would give 8 pounds a day or 8000 calories for you and your wife. Add 300% more for a balanced diet... so your north of 20000 calories a day each. What are you hauling the fire wood on your back from miles away running the whole time? Plowing by hand... Literally digging with your fingers? Why make stuff up? 

Just the cattle would top 2.2 million.
The hogs would be north of 500 thousand.
the chickens are 50 thousand
another 50 for the miscellaneous.
210 thousand for your deer.
A ton of rabbit... that would be 2000 pounds with a yield of approx 500 pounds or 375000

Must we add a bit of potatoes? If you eat 1/4 of your calories as protein( a diet high in protein) your eating north of 10 million calories easily. Enough food for a family of 8 per the article... People don't eat that much.


----------



## redhorse

stanb999 said:


> Really, your claiming to consume even more calories. Perhaps 2 times as many. Just the cattle would be in excess of the amounts given in the article. A rough guess on the yield of the animals above would give 8 pounds a day or 8000 calories for you and your wife. Add 300% more for a balanced diet... so your north of 20000 calories a day each. What are you hauling the fire wood on your back from miles away running the whole time? Plowing by hand... Literally digging with your fingers? Why make stuff up?
> 
> Just the cattle would top 2.2 million.
> The hogs would be north of 500 thousand.
> the chickens are 50 thousand
> another 50 for the miscellaneous.
> 210 thousand for your deer.
> A ton of rabbit... that would be 2000 pounds with a yield of approx 500 pounds or 375000
> 
> Must we add a bit of potatoes? If you eat 1/4 of your calories as protein( a diet high in protein) your eating north of 10 million calories easily. Enough food for a family of 8 per the article... People don't eat that much.


Wow. Magus needs to get out his troll spray. Or did he give it to NaeKid? I definitely need to get some.

I did state that we shared with family and friends. Not a huge portion, but I try to help where I can. I'm not sure if you were aware or not, but food doesn't exactly grow on the grocery store shelves. Make stuff up? No, I assure you, this is what we raise/hunt every year. If you took the time to search my threads and other posts, I'm sure you'll see plenty of pictures as evidence, including my 4 pigs for this year just a couple weeks ago.

I said a 'ton' of rabbits. Not literally a ton, just quite a few. I like about 5 for every time I make supper with them so I can have left overs. Sorry the number can't be more specific, it just depends on the year.

Your figures are also a tad off I am thinking, or you are using the max weight of an animal. The article didn't mention livestock counts. Also, there is a BIG difference between live weight, and the actual weight of the cuts you get from the carcus. Then subtract the bones in some of those cuts. I am not in a survival situation at the moment, and we most certainly do not eat any of the organs at this point except for beef liver on occasion. Don't just spit numbers out at me from a google search and accuse me of making stuff up.

Our cows are butchered young, anywhere from 700-1000 pounds. An adult, fully mature steer/bull/cow can easily weigh twice that or more. Mine depends on the year we have had. How was the weather? Did it rain plenty and the grass do well through the growing season? Or was it dry, they didn't get a lot of good forage, hay prices are up, and I want them in the freezer/cans before I have to start dumping lots of cash into feeding them. Usually we make enough hay for the horses and goats to overwinter. I do not overwinter cows typically. Some years I need to start putting hay out in August, last year I didn't until mid December.

Pigs are butchered at about 250 pounds, I get somewhere around 100-150 pounds of meat per hog. An adult pig can get MUCH larger than 250. It depends on the pig. It seems like I get a runty one every now and then that doesn't grow as well as its siblings.

30-40 chickens? Thats only 2 or three a month? The duck, turkey, and geese round it out to us having poultry about once a week in my house, with leftovers for lunch.

Deer, huge weight difference there to. Could be a small young doe, or a big old mature buck. 100 or more pounds of weight difference. It's mostly made into jerky and summer sausage for camping snacks, I do save the back straps, the rest is usually ground.

I don't get a ton of meat from the goats, usually they are just kids from freshening the does that I butcher early fall or winter. I have no use for the kids except to eat them.

The rest makes up about 1 day a week in meat for dinner. Just depends on what season it is.

So, yes, this is what I raise. This is what a lot of people go through if you talked to anyone that raised a good portion of their own meat. And yes, I personally go through a ton (not literally 2000lbs) of calories per day. The article was well written and researched. I'm sure the author didn't pull his figures from thin air . I'm not sure if you were aware, but different people have different metabolic rates, and different caloric needs. I'm youngish. I work hard. I burn a lot of grub. I do not 'make up' the grub I consume.


----------



## dixiemama

In redhorse's defense--- I usually make 2lb of meat, regardless of the cut, per dinner for a family of 3. My husband is 6'6", 300lb and does what he can around the house with a bad back. Bub is 4'10", 100lb and eats like he's never gonna see food again. We easily go through 2 deer, whole hog, cow and at least 2 dozen chickens in a single winter. You have to factor in bacon, ham, sausage, hamburger, steak, stews, roasts, etc. Thanksgiving alone is 2 turkeys, a ham, 3 different stuffings, 5 different veggie sides not to mention desserts. Christmas is just as much (with more desserts). 

Really keep track for a month on the weight and amount of all the meat you eat---it'll surprise you.


----------



## redhorse

> What are you hauling the fire wood on your back from miles away running the whole time? Plowing by hand... Literally digging with your fingers? Why make stuff up?


I did a simple internet search of xxxxxx, from xxxxxx, xx through information that he has posted from his site. I would like to point out a few things that support my opinion, and defend my recent posts in this thread.

I am female, the wife of the household, just to clear that up. I ride horses, bike, hike, camp, garden, and farm. I have a full time desk job.

Both myself and husband are physically fit. This is not because we are work out fanatics, we are just very active in both our hobbies and what gets done around the farm. I once had a treadmill that I traded for a few hundred bales of hay because it never, ever, got used. (partly because I am prone to falling of of the darn machines). I do not have children, yet.

Stan, and most of his family that appear in pictures on his and his wife's facebook, are not exactly in tip top shape. I am putting that nicely. I am not trying to be mean, although I may have a bug up the 'ol pooper from being accused of 'making stuff up'. Take a look at yourself before you jump down my throat!

It is a well known and proven fact that persons with more muscle mass that participate in rigorous (sp?) activities, burn quite a bit more calories than people that lead a more sedate lifestyle. There is an obvious difference in the fitness level between myself and hubby, and Stan and his family. This is most likely where some our differences in opinion lay, although he will not ackowledge this. I am not 'hauling the fire wood on my back from miles away running the whole time'. Nor am I Plowing by hand... Literally digging with my fingers'. I suspect, however, that I participate in quite a bit more phsyically demanding activities than my accusor.

In the event that we are all forced to be 100% self sufficient, the fitness level of everyone is going to change. We will all lose a some of those extra pounds we are carrying. Depending on the time of year, I don't think we will be sitting around having 'party' or 'rest days' to often. Maybe I'm wrong, but when we can't be lazy, and 'just order pizza' anymore, our gardens, livestock, farms, and hunting/scavaging activities will need to be ramped up, and thus more calories will need to be consumed. Everyone is different, but muscle burns more calories than fat as soes higher activity levels.

Food and supplies are plentiful at the moment. There are a lot of people out there that just don't realize the amounts of both we go through willy nilly. Sure, a lot of us here grow a good portion of our food. How many of us still need to go to the grocerey store? Myself for one. Hopefully more of us will be aware that it might not always be there, and what can be done to keep on living. I hope I can aquire enough skills before SHTF so I can do so.

Sorry for the post if it offends anyone. It was not my intention. I love a good discussion, but not name calling and false accusations against forum members.


----------



## stanb999

redhorse said:


> I did a simple internet search of xxxxxx, from xxxxxx, xx through information that he has posted from his site. I would like to point out a few things that support my opinion, and defend my recent posts in this thread.


Redhorse, name calling is fine. I certainly don't mind. It is what it is. That is how debates are won.  Lets see how you look in a decade and a half. My 20's were a lifetime ago. I didn't know much at that time also.. Funny tho, I thought I did.

P.S. it is inappropriate to post actual names of fellow posters. I don't hide... but linking things for Google is poor form. You are on my ignore for this most serious infraction of decorum. I hope you don't do this to others.


----------



## stanb999

dixiemama said:


> In redhorse's defense--- I usually make 2lb of meat, regardless of the cut, per dinner for a family of 3. My husband is 6'6", 300lb and does what he can around the house with a bad back. Bub is 4'10", 100lb and eats like he's never gonna see food again. We easily go through 2 deer, whole hog, cow and at least 2 dozen chickens in a single winter. You have to factor in bacon, ham, sausage, hamburger, steak, stews, roasts, etc. Thanksgiving alone is 2 turkeys, a ham, 3 different stuffings, 5 different veggie sides not to mention desserts. Christmas is just as much (with more desserts).
> 
> Really keep track for a month on the weight and amount of all the meat you eat---it'll surprise you.


We kinda do. In that we keep the freezer full. We are at 1.75 pounds per meal. The kids are still in the don't eat stage. So it's mostly me.  

The thing is I don't disagree with the fact that making it in the forest is mostly impossible. The article is largely right in the end. Just not the reason they give.

facts ignored in the article.

#1 hunter gatherer societies "worked" 10-20 hours a week. Hardy super hard work all the time. Most of the time was spent in leisure.

#2 We don't forget how to farm if SHTF.


----------



## dixiemama

What farm are you working only 10-20 hours a week? We only have 5 that is garden but when we had it going (destroyed by landslide this year), we worked at least 6 hours a day during the week and daylight-dark on Saturday. If we weren't actually in the dirt we were maintaining tools, acquiring more seeds, researching new foods. It was a full time job!


----------



## stanb999

dixiemama said:


> What farm are you working only 10-20 hours a week? We only have 5 that is garden but when we had it going (destroyed by landslide this year), we worked at least 6 hours a day during the week and daylight-dark on Saturday. If we weren't actually in the dirt we were maintaining tools, acquiring more seeds, researching new foods. It was a full time job!


Agriculture takes much more time.... Boat loads. But it is much more sure. Can you harvest animal from the pasture? The harvest is absolute. The yield... Not so much. The animal may die , it may be lame it may not thrive.

It seems to me that with all the preppers the forest will be full. Will you migrate to the city for peace and quiet?


----------



## *Andi

Agree to disagree and move on ...

When the SHIF ... we will have the answer (but rather to late)...

:surrender:


----------



## dixiemama

Acres was left out of my post-- we had 5 acres. 

It could just be me and a few others but we prep so we DONT have to depend on the wild for sustenance. Too many ppl will be trampling through the forests that the animals will migrate further away. Also, if we have enough preps that we don't need to hunt as much, the herds can slowly rebuild to pre-colonization numbers so there is more than plenty for everyone who survives. 

Is it just me or are there others who think like this?


----------



## hiwall

I agree 100% that the herds will slowly rebuild but likely take ten to twenty years.
Many people would be dead by then so hunting pressure would be severely reduced.


----------



## stanb999

dixiemama said:


> Acres was left out of my post-- we had 5 acres.


I knew what you meant.


----------



## redhorse

I'm positive my metabolism will slow down with age. My point was that I wasn't 'making stuff up' or that 3000 calories a day as stated in the article was crazy or 'laughable'. We are just all different and have to plan according to what we need. 

It is good to see Stanb999 has ignored me, and removed the links to his personal websites. I'm typically not one get into arguments, but don't like being called a liar either. His tone seems to have changed for the better at least. 

It seems like a lot more people hunt, or try to these days. HAs anyone else noticed this? I've noticed way fewer turkey than normal. Maybe there is a disease that has their numbers down, but I wonder if it is all the additional hunters. I see dead deer on the road, but not many in the woods. Could be nothing, but who knows. The entire back quarter of our local Walmart is all hunting equipment and Duck Dynasty merchendise this year. I've never seen it have half that much hunting stuff. But of course no ammo besides 12 gauge target loads.  

Our property borders a lumber company's land, which is a couple thousand acres of forest that they select cut avery ten years or so. It is leased to hunters now for the first time. Most of the farms on our road that have woods have been leased also. It's becoming a lucrative money maker for some people. I hope there will be good game left in ten years, and that's just because of licensed hunters, not a SHTF event.


----------



## dixiemama

We have our whole back side of the property fenced to prevent hunting. The animals can get in but people can't and I check it every week to make sure too. We border a strip job and am within walking distance of another so there are opportunities for hunting. Our Walmart have seen an uptick in hunting purchases but we haven't seen any more hunters than usual; mainly wannabes who have no idea what they are doing. 

If the herds come back in 10-20 years, I hope to be alive to see it! We have 6 months now and are slowly whittling away at it to make it a year. Factor in seeds, livestock purchases in the spring and we should make it, God willing.


----------



## stanb999

redhorse said:


> I'm positive my metabolism will slow down with age. My point was that I wasn't 'making stuff up' or that 3000 calories a day as stated in the article was crazy or 'laughable'. We are just all different and have to plan according to what we need.
> 
> It is good to see Stanb999 has ignored me, and removed the links to his personal websites. I'm typically not one get into arguments, but don't like being called a liar either. His tone seems to have changed for the better at least.
> 
> It seems like a lot more people hunt, or try to these days. HAs anyone else noticed this? I've noticed way fewer turkey than normal. Maybe there is a disease that has their numbers down, but I wonder if it is all the additional hunters. I see dead deer on the road, but not many in the woods. Could be nothing, but who knows. The entire back quarter of our local Walmart is all hunting equipment and Duck Dynasty merchendise this year. I've never seen it have half that much hunting stuff. But of course no ammo besides 12 gauge target loads.
> 
> Our property borders a lumber company's land, which is a couple thousand acres of forest that they select cut avery ten years or so. It is leased to hunters now for the first time. Most of the farms on our road that have woods have been leased also. It's becoming a lucrative money maker for some people. I hope there will be good game left in ten years, and that's just because of licensed hunters, not a SHTF event.


Your just pissy because I get more hits on my web activity than you do with your horsey gear. Maybe you should make catchy videos like me. :wave: Just PM me for tips. I get lots of traffic even tho I'm a middle aged fat white guy...

Something to consider. The Coyote is returning in a big way. These are northern yots, larger than their south western cousins. Turkeys, other game birds, and small game have really fallen in numbers. If you know how harmful house cats can be... A coyote pack is ten times worse.

There has also been a return of the bobcat and fisher here in PA. They could be affecting small game numbers in your area as well.


----------



## redhorse

Hey I thought you were ignoring me? Not pissy, I don't even have a web page to get hits on. I have enough on my plate lol. 

I do like you're wife's blog, and keep up with it. Yours site was just pics, no offence.... but I do love your hoop house thread here. 

We do hear the coyotes almost every night. It sounds like a good sized pack. They are open season in Ohio, but I've never tried calling them in. The donkey has killed two out in the pasture over the years, but I almost never see them alive. They have always been here, so I'm not sure if they are responsible, but there sure is a healthy pack roaming the area. 

We aren't supposed to have bobcats, but neighbors have caught them on trail cams. I'm pretty sure no fishers, but what a neat critter.


----------



## stanb999

redhorse said:


> Hey I thought you were ignoring me? Not pissy, I don't even have a web page to get hits on. I have enough on my plate lol.
> 
> I do like you're wife's blog, and keep up with it. Yours site was just pics, no offence.... but I do love your hoop house thread here.
> 
> We do hear the coyotes almost every night. It sounds like a good sized pack. They are open season in Ohio, but I've never tried calling them in. The donkey has killed two out in the pasture over the years, but I almost never see them alive. They have always been here, so I'm not sure if they are responsible, but there sure is a healthy pack roaming the area.
> 
> We aren't supposed to have bobcats, but neighbors have caught them on trail cams. I'm pretty sure no fishers, but what a neat critter.


Life is short.. Time is tight. I frankly knew I wouldn't remember to ignore you so what's the point? P.S. I have over 50,000 hits on my youtube... And I don't show my booty.  Imagine if I did.

Your not far from the PA border so.. I'd be shocked if you didn't have both. Pa gives permits for Bobcats and Fishers to all who wish to have them.

We don't have Mountain Lions in PA. They are in the Adirondacks and Catskills. Right next to PA. lol


----------



## FatTire

Unless your making a living off all those hits, i dont see the point..


----------



## stanb999

FatTire said:


> Unless your making a living off all those hits, i dont see the point..


Your right!


----------



## Meerkat

Just be careful in them woods, Yosemite may be there too.


----------



## dixiemama

bobcats, coyotes and foxes are real big here. Haven't killed anything yet but a real nuisance.


----------

