[pct-l] The Dark Side of "Survivor Man" & "Man Versus Wild"

[Brett]

Those who worry about young and impressionable bucks getting stupid in 
the backcountry may have a valid argument, but for the most part are 
missing the point. Of necessity, these shows are staged and have a wide 
margin of safety. Heck, it's television, and these guys need to live to 
see another paycheck. The actors are presenting survival *scenarios* - 
stuff that could happen, and how to respond. The voiceover narration for 
Mv.W says as much: "Bear does these things so you won't have to" (sic). 
Often it's obvious that the survival scenarios or demonstrated solutions 
would be avoidable in the real world - walk around the lake rather than 
swimming, downclimb through the forest rather than the slippery 100ft 
high cascade, consume the pulp of prickly pear in the desert but avoid 
eating the scorpions. But all the same, some interesting and potential 
valuable skills are taught, the shows ARE entertaining and very 
watchable, and above all, I think, inspiring. I'm left to look somewhat 
anew at the natural environment; my sense of connection to the 
wilderness is heightened.

Dark side?

- blisterfree

 >>I had a similar thought while watching that episode.  He comes to a 
lake (not all that big) and sees a trail/road on the far side.  Instead 
of walking around the lake, he swims across the lake risking hypothermia 
and drowning. As he is swimming he tells us how cold and tired he is 
getting.   How stupid is that?  But as you say, it makes for more 
dramatic television.  Some expert.
Marion