You are going on a wilderness adventure...

[Missourian]

Thats kind of the impression I got. City boy WAY out of his element.
If the fool hadn't found the bus he wouldn't have survived as long as he did.
And I asked the question....if the damn bus could make it out there,there had to be a way back. And if the bus was there it's not like he was a hundred miles from nowhere.

Idealistic moron???? ....Yeah.

Got himself killed for it,the spruce grouse up there are a dumb as rocks you can just about walk right up to them,should have never starved.

He slowly starved because he ate a plant that poisoned him and made it impossible for him to digest food.

He was trapped by a rising river and therefore could not get out to get the help he needed.

Pretty crummy way to die, eh?

But he had plenty food, he just could not digest it.

It turned out that that information was false...creative license by the author.

As far back as 1997, Dr. Thomas Clausen—the biochemist at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, who examined the wild potato plant (Hedysarum alpinum) for Jon Krakauer—concluded after exhaustive testing that no part of H. alpinum is toxic. Neither the roots nor the seeds. Accordingly, McCandless could not have poisoned himself in the way suggested by Krakauer in his 1996 book Into the Wild, and in every subsequent reprinting of the book over the next decade.

Likewise, Dr. Clausen’s analysis of the wild sweet pea (Hedysarum mackenzii)—given as the cause of Chris’s death in the current Sean Penn film—has also turned up no toxic compounds, and there is not a single account in modern medical literature of anyone ever being poisoned by this species of plant.

::: Terra Incognita films :::

​

McCandless's daily caloric intake was substantially less than his daily caloric expenditure even before his rice ran out. When he exhausted his supply of rice and couldn't cross the river...he starved to death.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

(My bold) I don't know, the book's author didn't say if jerky was the goal for McCandless. Certainly cutting it into chunks - instead of strips - wasn't the way to go. He was trying to smoke the meat, but McCandless noted that it wasn't working - he couldn't generate enough heat/smoke? Air-drying strips is what the author reports would have worked - that also works in Navajo country. Certainly a whole moose would have solved McCandless' food problem, & helped with the slow poisoning problem.

By the account in the book, he was brilliant. He wrote software - his dad was a big name in SAR radar, McCandless played 3 instruments well, sang well, was a good student (when the subject interested him), was a prize-winning long-distance runner. He overestimated his survival skills, especially for the AK environment. But he was young ...

Just smoking the meat wont do it.Thats just BBQ. And you're right about cutting into strips not chunks.
You dont want it any thicker then A quarter inch or it wont dry properly.
And yes you can air dry meat. It's just a lot easier to use smoke and some mild heat to help with sanitation and to speed the process. And of course it's pretty tasty that way to,assuming you dont use the wrong type of wood.
I've seen people place sliced meat between two return air filters then hang it in front of a fan to dry. The filters and the wind keep the bugs off and the fan speeds the process.

When I make jerky the actual drying process takes about twelve hours in a dehydrator.
If I make it in the smoker the old fashioned way I increase the heat slightly so the meat doesnt get to smokey and I make sure the logs have burned down to coals. Just like in BBQ it's a good idea to have a secondary fire to pre-burn your wood to avoid the thick bitter smoke you get with a fresh log. Thin blue smoke,not billowing white smoke is what you need.

This is how you smoke to preserve:

Google Image Result for http://arcticrose.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/hung-salmon.jpg

You will note the necessity of brining the fish first, then air drying...before you smoke.

This is why you need a gun that will stop a bear. Because trust me, bears will come to visit. And anything else that likes to eat meat or salmon.

When you are subsisting, you have to be able to take advantage of feasts when they are presented...you might go months before you catch another salmon, so if you can catch 300 in a month or 15 in a day, you have to be able to make use of them.

You don't have to build a shack, btw. You can just make a little lean to or whatever...big enough to accomodate a small, constant fire. You need the smoke, not the heat, with this method.

I don't know what's up with that link...I did a search on traditional smoking and I came across this site which is awsome, but it's showing as a google image. But the site is cool.

It's the same process I described. When making jerky or any other type meats in a smoker,nitrates(sodium nitrate)are used as a curing agent. In the case of beef, the nitrates and seasoning soaks in at a rate of about a quarter inch every 24 hours.

A good example of a cured meat you can buy at the grocery store is corned beef. Which is a pure salt/nitrate cure. Let it soak in fresh water for about two days to get rid of the salt and throw it on the smoker for about 12 hours and you have pastrami.

You can dry meats without using nitrates as long as they're thin but they wont last as long, and with thick cuts of meat you have to use nitrates and be sure you let them soak in.

 

[Swagger]

When it comes to defending yourself against large predators, you're going to need something you can draw with ease and will send a heavy slug towards the threat. In terms of negotiating with weight, rapid deployment and the number of rounds you can realistically carry, I'd have to go with something like a .44 revolver.

If you found yourself in the wilderness for an indeterminate amount of time, conserving ammunition would be priority. I'm a seasoned archer, and could quite easily make a bow with enough draw weight to bring down deer and other large game. I even know how to make a bow string with nettles and other fibrous roots and plants.

 

[hoosier88]

MO - Thanks. Information is good. I hadn't thought to check to see if there was more info out there.

So, McCandless' lifestory falls prey to Hollywood? It's a good story, I don't see the point to embellishing it. But then, I'm not making movies, nor writing docudramas.

Sic transit gloria mundi, I suppose ...

 

[Missourian]

My first thought when I saw that was....why the hell didnt he gather wood and prepare his smoker BEFORE he shot the moose.
I was watching that reality show filmed about living in the wilds of Alaska.
That guy had it down. His wife was fishing while he made a smoker with three limbs and a small tarp. They smoked a shitload of salmon in a few days then headed home.
And if I remember correctly McClandless didnt do any fishing. The guy was woefully unprepared.

I rented the movie the other night...he had a fishing pole and fish net...as far as I know, he didn't use it.

He has a map too, but no compass.

I don't think he stood a chance of preserving read meat in that environment without salt.

(My bold)

I read the book - Into the wild. The author says McCandless was too optimistic, but he'd survived in desert for months @ a time with just rice & whatever he could hunt/fish/edibile plants he could ID. He had a copy of a book on AK plants & edible bits. He'd also asked advice on hunting, preserving meat. Unfortunately, the advice he got (in the MW) was to smoke the meat. He had problems with flies, maggots, etc. The author points out that the way to do that in AK is to air dry the meat, cut into strips.

There was actually an old surveying bridge - more of a zip line & basket, really, upstream. McCandless didn't have a large-scale topographic map, which would have shown the bridge. So he retreated to his bus, & waited for the river to recede.

I'm not sure you could even dry meat sliced thin in that environment without salt...too much time is required to butcher the meat and too many flies are present.


Dipped in a 14% salt solution, the meat would resist insects, bacteria and mold.

​

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I rented the movie the other night...he had a fishing pole and fish net...as far as I know, he didn't use it.

He has a map too, but no compass.

I don't think he stood a chance of preserving read meat in that environment without salt.

(My bold)

I read the book - Into the wild. The author says McCandless was too optimistic, but he'd survived in desert for months @ a time with just rice & whatever he could hunt/fish/edibile plants he could ID. He had a copy of a book on AK plants & edible bits. He'd also asked advice on hunting, preserving meat. Unfortunately, the advice he got (in the MW) was to smoke the meat. He had problems with flies, maggots, etc. The author points out that the way to do that in AK is to air dry the meat, cut into strips.

There was actually an old surveying bridge - more of a zip line & basket, really, upstream. McCandless didn't have a large-scale topographic map, which would have shown the bridge. So he retreated to his bus, & waited for the river to recede.

I'm not sure you could even dry meat sliced thin in that environment without salt...too much time is required to butcher the meat and too many flies are present.


Dipped in a 14% salt solution, the meat would resist insects, bacteria and mold.

​

Getting it prepped fast enough would be a major problem. Wonder if you could use a smokey fire to keep away insects? You would most definitely want to start with the backstrap.

 

[earlycuyler]

I was reading this thread (http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...e-stupid-but-can-we-make-them-pay-for-it.html)...that referenced the book "Into the Wild", in which the story culminates with Chris McCandless' adventure, unprepared, into Alaska's last frontier...it got me to speculating about, if I could only take one, what firearm would I take on an extended solo wilderness adventure.

So I ask you, if you could only take one gun into the wilds of the backwoods, what would it be?

Chris McCandless is an example of Darwen in action. That said, he did kill a moose with a .22 . For me, I think I would like a .270 Winchester bolt gun from any company. The ammo has been getable through the fake shortage, its been used to kill every animal on the continent, and the recoil is such that a lightened and shortened model wouldent kick hard or burn your face off when you shoot it.

 

[earlycuyler]

When it comes to defending yourself against large predators, you're going to need something you can draw with ease and will send a heavy slug towards the threat. In terms of negotiating with weight, rapid deployment and the number of rounds you can realistically carry, I'd have to go with something like a .44 revolver.

If you found yourself in the wilderness for an indeterminate amount of time, conserving ammunition would be priority. I'm a seasoned archer, and could quite easily make a bow with enough draw weight to bring down deer and other large game. I even know how to make a bow string with nettles and other fibrous roots and plants.

Natural fiber strings suck bad. Get one wet and you will see. That said, I would feel okay with the bow,but I want my carbon fiber arrows and my D-97 string. .44 mag ? Sure, for when I fall in the woods and need to make noise. This round is awesome in a lever gun though.

 

[chikenwing]

Got himself killed for it,the spruce grouse up there are a dumb as rocks you can just about walk right up to them,should have never starved.

He slowly starved because he ate a plant that poisoned him and made it impossible for him to digest food.

He was trapped by a rising river and therefore could not get out to get the help he needed.

Pretty crummy way to die, eh?

But he had plenty food, he just could not digest it.

It turned out that that information was false...creative license by the author.

As far back as 1997, Dr. Thomas Clausen—the biochemist at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, who examined the wild potato plant (Hedysarum alpinum) for Jon Krakauer—concluded after exhaustive testing that no part of H. alpinum is toxic. Neither the roots nor the seeds. Accordingly, McCandless could not have poisoned himself in the way suggested by Krakauer in his 1996 book Into the Wild, and in every subsequent reprinting of the book over the next decade.

Likewise, Dr. Clausen’s analysis of the wild sweet pea (Hedysarum mackenzii)—given as the cause of Chris’s death in the current Sean Penn film—has also turned up no toxic compounds, and there is not a single account in modern medical literature of anyone ever being poisoned by this species of plant.

::: Terra Incognita films :::

​

McCandless's daily caloric intake was substantially less than his daily caloric expenditure even before his rice ran out. When he exhausted his supply of rice and couldn't cross the river...he starved to death.

He didn't need to cross the river,what he needed was a map and some common sense and some real survival skills
He had nether.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

He slowly starved because he ate a plant that poisoned him and made it impossible for him to digest food.

He was trapped by a rising river and therefore could not get out to get the help he needed.

Pretty crummy way to die, eh?

But he had plenty food, he just could not digest it.

It turned out that that information was false...creative license by the author.

As far back as 1997, Dr. Thomas Clausen—the biochemist at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, who examined the wild potato plant (Hedysarum alpinum) for Jon Krakauer—concluded after exhaustive testing that no part of H. alpinum is toxic. Neither the roots nor the seeds. Accordingly, McCandless could not have poisoned himself in the way suggested by Krakauer in his 1996 book Into the Wild, and in every subsequent reprinting of the book over the next decade.

Likewise, Dr. Clausen’s analysis of the wild sweet pea (Hedysarum mackenzii)—given as the cause of Chris’s death in the current Sean Penn film—has also turned up no toxic compounds, and there is not a single account in modern medical literature of anyone ever being poisoned by this species of plant.

::: Terra Incognita films :::

​

McCandless's daily caloric intake was substantially less than his daily caloric expenditure even before his rice ran out. When he exhausted his supply of rice and couldn't cross the river...he starved to death.

He didn't need to cross the river,what he needed was a map and some common sense and some real survival skills
He had nether.

Somewhere in this thread it was mentioned the guy spent months in the desert.
So he does have some survival skills. To bad they didnt apply in the Alaskan wilderness.
And the whole thing about the compass and map? Thats beyond ignorance.
I would have known what was going to be around me for miles in every direction before I even started.

 

[koshergrl]

Yeah a compass doesn't do you any good, nor a map, if you don't know where to go.

 

[squeeze berry]

Check this out...

Over/under 12/30-06, 12/308, 12/762x39 and 12/.233 with wood furniture...a little pricey @ MSRP $745...but intriguing...

https://eaacorp.com/portfolio-item/mp94-series-combo-shotgunrifle/


PS....the new Savage model 24 (the model 42) looks like a POC.

I have the .222 over 20ga model with a 3X9 and see through mounts

that would be my choice

I like the .22 mag cartridge in some applications as all around for 1 ctg

 

[chikenwing]

It turned out that that information was false...creative license by the author.

As far back as 1997, Dr. Thomas Clausen—the biochemist at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, who examined the wild potato plant (Hedysarum alpinum) for Jon Krakauer—concluded after exhaustive testing that no part of H. alpinum is toxic. Neither the roots nor the seeds. Accordingly, McCandless could not have poisoned himself in the way suggested by Krakauer in his 1996 book Into the Wild, and in every subsequent reprinting of the book over the next decade.

Likewise, Dr. Clausen’s analysis of the wild sweet pea (Hedysarum mackenzii)—given as the cause of Chris’s death in the current Sean Penn film—has also turned up no toxic compounds, and there is not a single account in modern medical literature of anyone ever being poisoned by this species of plant.

::: Terra Incognita films :::

​

McCandless's daily caloric intake was substantially less than his daily caloric expenditure even before his rice ran out. When he exhausted his supply of rice and couldn't cross the river...he starved to death.

He didn't need to cross the river,what he needed was a map and some common sense and some real survival skills
He had nether.

Somewhere in this thread it was mentioned the guy spent months in the desert.
So he does have some survival skills. To bad they didnt apply in the Alaskan wilderness.
And the whole thing about the compass and map? Thats beyond ignorance.
I would have known what was going to be around me for miles in every direction before I even started.

Yes he did and almost died then,if he had a map of the area he would have know what was around him.like the ranger cabin on HIS side of the rive just a few miles away.

The guy had put himself in danger in the dessert and all but died,he had NO skills or sense.

 

[whitehall]

I was reading this thread (http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...e-stupid-but-can-we-make-them-pay-for-it.html)...that referenced the book "Into the Wild", in which the story culminates with Chris McCandless' adventure, unprepared, into Alaska's last frontier...it got me to speculating about, if I could only take one, what firearm would I take on an extended solo wilderness adventure.

So I ask you, if you could only take one gun into the wilds of the backwoods, what would it be?

There are backwoods and then there is Alaska. Carrying a gun in many "backwoods" areas in the lower 48 might get you time in the slammer.

 

[koshergrl]

No, not really.

 

[whitehall]

The first step is to determine if it's legal to carry or possess a firearm in the area you are considering and then you have to consult the state hunting laws. It's illegal to carry a modern weapon in some areas and times of the year restricted to black powder. It's complicated but you have to know. In Alaska you have to consider self defense so you need a weapon that can take down a large bear. A .44 mag used to be the preferred sidearm for defense against critters but other more potent stuff is on the market. In the lower 48 it's more about self defense from crazy humans or maybe taking an animal for food or shooting a rabid raccoon. There are few weapons that can efficiently do it all but a 4 inch barrel .38 and a cut down 20ga. shotgun might be the way to go. Again you absolutely need to be aware of often conflicting regulations and laws.

 

[Survivalist]

I've both read and watched "Into the Wild." McCandless, aka Alexander Supertramp would be the wrong person to get advice on going into any wilderness. He did pack in a .22 rifle, but was too foolish to pack a saw or a hatchet. When he killed a moose, he was too unprepared to harvest the big animal, and most was wasted. He was more of a progressive hobo than a true survivalist. He took over an abandoned bus made into a cheap cabin, but then vandalized two nearby cabins that offended his twisted ideas of nature.

For this thread to have the same relevance, you'd have to be limited to what YOU could pack in under your own strength. Otherwide I'd have everything I needed choppered-in.

That being said, for the same Alaskan wilderness, I'd get a can of bear spray and a lightweight 12 guage pump with a few pounds of birdshot, small game loads and buckshot.

 

[Missourian]

I've both read and watched "Into the Wild." McCandless, aka Alexander Supertramp would be the wrong person to get advice on going into any wilderness. He did pack in a .22 rifle, but was too foolish to pack a saw or a hatchet. When he killed a moose, he was too unprepared to harvest the big animal, and most was wasted. He was more of a progressive hobo than a true survivalist. He took over an abandoned bus made into a cheap cabin, but then vandalized two nearby cabins that offended his twisted ideas of nature.

For this thread to have the same relevance, you'd have to be limited to what YOU could pack in under your own strength. Otherwide I'd have everything I needed choppered-in.

That being said, for the same Alaskan wilderness, I'd get a can of bear spray and a lightweight 12 guage pump with a few pounds of birdshot, small game loads and buckshot.

Isn't bear spray a one and done? Use it once and it's gone?

Not what I'd call a long term solution.

I've certainly been pretty hard on McCandless over the years, but I used his situation as an example of the circumstance I'm refering to...long term survival without resupply in a predator rich environment.

A pump action shotgun would be a good choice, and likely as close as we're going to get to a one gun solution, but 12 gauge ammunition is both bulky and heavy...not especially conducive to long term survival without resupply.

IMO, the ideal one gun solution for this situation does not exist, or if it does, it is so esoteric and expensive, the average outdoorsman couldn't afford it.

 

[Survivalist]

I've both read and watched "Into the Wild." McCandless, aka Alexander Supertramp would be the wrong person to get advice on going into any wilderness. He did pack in a .22 rifle, but was too foolish to pack a saw or a hatchet. When he killed a moose, he was too unprepared to harvest the big animal, and most was wasted. He was more of a progressive hobo than a true survivalist. He took over an abandoned bus made into a cheap cabin, but then vandalized two nearby cabins that offended his twisted ideas of nature.

For this thread to have the same relevance, you'd have to be limited to what YOU could pack in under your own strength. Otherwide I'd have everything I needed choppered-in.

That being said, for the same Alaskan wilderness, I'd get a can of bear spray and a lightweight 12 guage pump with a few pounds of birdshot, small game loads and buckshot.

Isn't bear spray a one and done? Use it once and it's gone?

Not what I'd call a long term solution.

I've certainly been pretty hard on McCandless over the years, but I used his situation as an example of the circumstance I'm refering to...long term survival without resupply in a predator rich environment.

A pump action shotgun would be a good choice, and likely as close as we're going to get to a one gun solution, but 12 gauge ammunition is both bulky and heavy...not especially conducive to long term survival without resupply.

IMO, the ideal one gun solution for this situation does not exist, or if it does, it is so esoteric and expensive, the average outdoorsman couldn't afford it.

I'm not sure if the can is resuable---I'd assume it is---like hairspray. From what little I've heard, there have been no bear attacks on anyone who's sprayed them. Bears are not like the predators in the hood. Bears don't give hopped-up on PCP to give them super strength and ignore pain.

Bear's have attacked pleanty of humans even after being shot multiple times. Guess the bears' noses are more sensitive than their ears or torso.

I certainly would ditch your 9 shot .22 for this mission.

 

[JoeBlam]

I had a Savage .22Mag/20ga at one time; wish I'd kept it. I feel my Winchester 190 is as good as the Ruger 10-22....15LR tube load...but it hates HPs. I've got a NEF 3" 20ga single shot and a .357 barrel insert for it....22" barrel, light, probably what I'd take if I didn't take the Mossy 500.....that's the only BEAR stopper I got.......300 rounds of .22, 100 rounds of .357 doesn't weigh much. In Vietnam I carried a combination of CAR-15, Ithaca 37, Thumper, .45 Colt, .357 Ruger revolver and various hand grenades... Wish I still had a couple frag grenades...I wouldn't worry about a BEAR with them.