wilderness survival sources of food

[Kingoftheflock]

if you were in a wilderness survival situation, and lets say you got everything situated, what would you eat other then plant substances? i mean what would be a good idea to catch an animal/fish without any modern tools besides a knife? i was thinking traps and spear fishing but i dont know.

[dixieangler]

Probably cord snares (wire would be better) for small game like squirrels and rabbits, catching insects like hoppers, shellfish, frogs, turtles, snakes, etc., and primitive fishing pole to catch fish or fish traps. Spearing small gators also. This is not long term survival, only short term. I would not be able to live off of small game and fish alone just like I would not be able to live off of plants (good source of carbohydrates and vitamins with some protein and fat) alone or these in combination over a long time. Eating most of the animal parts of the small game other than the intestines would help to provide more nutrition than the lean meat alone. Ever hear of protein starvation or starving by just eating only lean meat? Deer meat and fat would go a long way to getting the nutrition (protein and fat) needed for longer term survival or "wilderness living". Fat or more properly "fat meat" is nutritionally important for the human body over time. Fatty types or lardy types from hogs, bears, and gators are not "fat meat" so do not provide the necessary fat nutrition. Deer or cattle fat is "fat meat" or real fat.

[Kingoftheflock]

yea and you wonder why being a vegetarian is somehow good for you.

[Bernoulli]

Ever hear of protein starvation or starving by just eating only lean meat? Deer meat and fat would go a long way to getting the nutrition (protein and fat) needed for longer term survival or "wilderness living". Fat or more properly "fat meat" is nutritionally important for the human body over time. Fatty types or lardy types from hogs, bears, and gators are not "fat meat" so do not provide the necessary fat nutrition. Deer or cattle fat is "fat meat" or real fat.

Protein or rabbit starvation is generally caused by not having enough calories to sustain body temperature when it's cold. Fat has 9 calories per gram regardless of where it comes from. Trappers' and homesteaders' survival through the winter was dependent on getting a fat bear in the fall to have enough fat to get through the winter. The (crazy) guys who skied across Antarctica ate 12,000 calories a day (pure butter supplying lots of that) and still lost 50 pounds apiece. If it's really cold, you can fill up on rabbits and trout and not get enough calories to sustain life.

[dixieangler]

Trappers' and homesteaders' survival through the winter was dependent on getting a fat bear in the fall to have enough fat to get through the winter.

Hmm. Then maybe what I have been hearing and reading are wrong about the lardy type fat that comes from hogs, bears, and gators as not being "fat meat" or "real fat".

[LDS]

down in the mid south, where the long hunters operated, they made their money on three main products; Deer hides, smoked buffalo toungue and rendered bear fat.

Good bear fat would produce a nearly clear lard, which was a basic part of their food supply. The lard of bear and hog was added to almost every food they prepared. Still is in some areas. Most REAL southern cooks would not pretend to serve a vegatable dish that was not "seasoned" with a big chunk of pork fat (we are talking about a chunk the size of two playing card decks) or simply by pouring in lard or bacon grease.

Most subsistance farmers counted on a hog per person to get through the winter. That was standard from the first settlers until folk stopped raising and killing their own livestock. That was besides whatever chicken or foraged foods they could acquire, mostly rabbit and squirrel. The backwoods people carried their long guns with them everywhere they went right up, till the mid 20th century, just in case they saw something that needed shooting. When I was working the farm I carried a long gun everywhere as a foraging tool. My favorite was a little ss 20ga that bounced around in the truck. A couple of shells lived in the ash tray and I brought home a lot of goodies.

[Bernoulli]

I've never killed a bear, and have no intention of doing so. I got my information from the Bradford Angier series of books many years ago. One interesting point he made was that a grizzly bear was particularly prized because once the fat was rendered, it would not solidify again. If you decide you have to have some bear fat, be careful; bears are almost guaranteed to carry trichinosis.

A certain amount of fat is essential for human health. If you don't get it from an animal, long term survival will be difficult.

[coon4492]

if you were in a wilderness survival situation, and lets say you got everything situated, what would you eat other then plant substances? i mean what would be a good idea to catch an animal/fish without any modern tools besides a knife? i was thinking traps and spear fishing but i dont know.

Well I would just use snares for small game but you said no modern tools except a knife so therefore I would find a good rabbit stick and kill as many small birds with it as possible as well as any rabbits or squirrels I came across. Hitting those small song birds with a simple stick is easy enough if your rabbit sticks long enough and the right weight. Sometimes the birds fly away just before the stick hits the area but thats not common from my experience. Rabbit sticks are very simple to make and use but I would also recommend making a few traps as well. Here are my favorite traps that I would use in a survival situation and they would only require a knife (except the john mcpherson trap which needs cordage natural cordage would work) I like the bait stick deadfall trap mentioned on this site alot. Its very simple to build and it works well enough to kill something. I'm also fond of the jonh mcoherson style trap its not as complicated as it looks I made it successfully on the first try. The only down side to that trap is that it needs a little cordage so you would need natural cordage.

[dixieangler]

Isn't that JM trap trigger great? A little loop of cordage, a fixed stick support, and a rolling trigger stick shaved flat and pointed on the opposite side. Just enough of the little pointed end under tension on the cord loop. Very simple for a lot of different traps and very effective. My three favorites are probably the simplest. Rolling trigger, Paiute trigger, and John McPherson trigger. Just remember the more of a "hair trigger" the trap has, the better it works. Problem is that they get set off real easy by just about "any" disturbance so set a lot of them. Having said that, I would use simpler fixed snares more than spring or trigger type snares. I guess it would depend on the type of animal I was setting it for and the available material on hand to build it. I don't think elaborate or more complicated traps work any better than simple ones.

[coon4492]

yea I've gotten away with making some half ass 2 stick triggers before that get the job done. It was an arapuca bird trap and I stuck a bait stick between the cage part and the supporting stick. When the animal bumbed the bait stick it dropped down on it. Unfortunatley the design of the arapuca wasnt made to hold large rabbits so I kept finding destroyed piles of sticks were my traps were. This trigger system didn't cross over with rocks as a falling weight when the bait stick fell the supporting stick caught the rock and held it up. I just use the john mcpherson style trigger for deadfalls I also favor the rolling trigger too for other traps. Dixieangler and I must think alike when it comes to primitive trapping.

[dixieangler]

Using a Paiute trigger for a spring snare can be done also so its not for deadfalls only. If you ever happened to see Bear Grylls Man vs. Wild show from Baja, he uses a Paiute trigger on a spring snare to trap a polecat. The trap is effective but I would not want to trap a polecat. As you could see from the show, the negatives outweigh the positives of trapping polecats among other things he does on that show. Just not worth it to me. Judging whether or not the negatives of a risk outweigh the positives or positives outweigh the negatives is something that we all have to decide every day but we need to choose wisely. Will the risk physically impair your ability to continue to survive and could you cope with that impairment if the benefits are greater than the handicap? Is the risk life threatening? Sometimes desperation of the need (food, water, etc.) may become so bad that the risk becomes acceptable anyway. When you are starving or you are so dehydrated for example, the risk probably won't matter to you at that point (it becomes apparent that you will probably die anyway if you don't take the risk). But it never hurts to think a little deeper before we jump in to the risk.