I also like all of these shows. Les Stroud's show is probably more realistic, but it is certainly not very exciting as entertainment. I refer to him as the "starving man". Gryllls takes too many risks which I think he does for the entertainment value. But I still think he is the real deal. He caught a lot of flack when it was discovered publically that he was motelling it verus sleeping out in the wild as presented in the show. But the show is still pretty instructional overall. Mykel Hawke is pretty good overall and I look forward to his new show on the Outdoor Channel. He does know this stuff and takes a very realistic approach to survival. Dual Survival (Cody Lundin and Dave Canterbury) was an okay show. I got tired of the macho stuff Canterbury chose to do for entertainment value. He of course is gone from the show when it was discovered that he totally mis-represented himself. Lundin is the real deal and especially good in desert environments. I like the instructional scenes the most from Dual Survival.
Food gathering in the wild can be very difficult. I suspect I would starve. A 22 rifle would really come in handy.
Never heard of Mykel Hawke but will definitely look him up now. My first thought was that because he's on the Outdoor Channel and not one of the "mainstream" channels, it might be worth watching.
I hadn't heard about Dave Canterbury's misrepresenting himself. Let me guess, not quite as much military background as he let on? That was my thought when I first watched the show. Having spent an awful lot of time with the real deal, he came across more as a wannabe. The whining, the inability to be more of a team player, and just his tactics. I chalked it up to the fact that he had to work with Lundin, an obvious hippy, who probably smells. Though as distasteful as I find Lundin, he does know his *expletive deleted*it and I did learn a few things.
I still don't think food gathering in the wild would be difficult. But I ate as much wild game as domestic meat when I was a kid, had skinned my first squirrel at the age of four, caught my first fish at six, and grew up in a rather hardscrabble environment. Starving in the wilderness honestly doesn't concern me - if I have at least some gear, preferably a .22 rifle and a rod with spinning reel. And a knife.
As to getting lost. I agree with Tallpine. If you have half a brain, you can walk out of most places. I'll concede to getting confused at times with regard to having the wrong mindset. I have to stop and think here because the ocean is in the wrong place, and had trouble in Ohio because the river flowed west, not east like the Savannah. But once I stop and clear my head, it's easy. I've never been lost - there've been times when I had to figure out where I was, but did so quickly. That's also why my first priority when I'm in a new location is to study a map and commit the lay of the land to memory. Everyone laughs at me for it. "Why do you want a map? You have GPS on your phone, or just look at Google maps on your computer." Nope. I want to see the big picture then turn it on it's side and see it from ground level, if that makes sense. The only places I could see myself having trouble are in a vast desert with an unbroken landscape (but I'd still have the sun and stars/moon), or in a place like the Grand Canyon or some of the rocky landscapes in West Texas where there are fewer waterways. And the biggest danger there would be morale because I've never found those landscapes inviting and I'm fully aware of how vast it is. It could begin to seem hopeless after a time if I didn't keep a firm grip on my attitude.
