Carry more in your pack or break laws for survival?

[BRTreedogs]

Dude's holding himself accountable and the reaction is to pile on and call him an idiot? Very strange thread

I just think he’s being illogical.
IMO he is saying survival, but implying discomfort.

There a big difference between I’m cold this sucks.

And I’m gonna die with the next … minutes.

 

[7RemMag]

This thread should be locked and thrown into the illegal camp fire that the OP would definitely not ever make to save his own life if needed.

I’ve been told that the moral high ground can get pretty chilly from time to time….

 

[7mm-08]

I have not read all the posts (past page 4), but I can guarantee everyone, including the OP, this - if you are on the verge of death, you as a human being, have to understand that we are all nothing but evolved animals. All animals have an undeniable, involuntary survival instinct. OP's claim that he has a hill to die on are nothing more than his assertion that he KNOWS what he would or would not do. Principled as his argument may sound, it is nothing but hyperbole since he has never been put to that test. Nature and evolution make an undeniable argument that he would fail as none of us are that fatalistic (unless we are suicidal).

 

[average]

I just think he’s being illogical.
IMO he is saying survival, but implying discomfort.

There a big difference between I’m cold this sucks.

And I’m gonna die with the next … minutes.

He's definitely took his idea to the extreme but this thread could've been productive and went into adequate shelter, rain gear, chemical warmers, ECT.
A fire doesn't have to be a necessity, that idea was mentioned in the "fire in rain" thread instead of being discussed here. OP should've directed the conversation better I guess

 

[fngTony]

I agree with most of that, but the bans are not on off that quick. Usually the county commission has to remove the ban and they announce the date. I also don’t want anyone following my lead on anything.

I hunt a unit where the county line runs through the middle of it and there’s been a few years where one side wasn’t under restriction when the other was.

How about we let this thread rest and get back to episode 138 of the Robby and Ryan show—Modern Manscaping for Muleys

No thanks

 

[MuleDeerMike]

He's definitely took his idea to the extreme but this thread could've been productive and went into adequate shelter, rain gear, chemical warmers, ECT.
A fire doesn't have to be a necessity, that idea was mentioned in the "fire in rain" thread instead of being discussed here. OP should've directed the conversation better I guess

We just had a thread that was productive, respectful and that discussed all those things, then the OP here chimed in with this same line of thinking(?) and ruined it.

 

[npm352]

I'd do whatever I needed to survive. If the last Dodo bird meant not starving, he's getting a bullet. If starting a fire in a fire ban area means I don't freeze to death, I'm starting a fire.

And I once I shoot the last Dodo bird, I'm already in enough trouble that I'd start a fire then, too, to cook it.

 

[Jethro]

It’s hilarious how many people waste energy on OBVIOUS TROLL BOTS THAT JOINED YESTERDAY

What does this mean? I’ve seen the bot comment a lot lately about people posting. Do you really think OP is not a real person typing his posts?

 

[Macintosh]

It seems idiotic to intentionally not bring an ultra-basic item that weighs +\- nothing, all because you are worried about a hypothetical on top of a hypothetical, ie one out of a million times you have a true emergncy, and of those emergencies one out of a million times you let your emergency fire get out of control.
The cost of not having the fire when needed is high, the cost of bringing a lighter is ultra-low. You can still choose not to use it, but if you actually need it you’ll have it. Its not like you will be careless with it, either—that regulation is to guard against idiots, not because its impossible to utilize a flame without accidentally starting an out of control fire…in this case the conditions that justify the ban (super dry) also more or less preclude needing the fire in the first place (ie only needed if wet). Even if that sudden storm and cold front doesnt bring the area out of a drought, it’ll still be wet and not “tinderbox” conditions, and theres a good chance you can stay with the fire and not let it spread. Just dont be an idiot and all will be fine. It takes so many stars aligning in exactly the wrong way, all at the same time, for this to be approaching one iota of an issue, that it surprises me it’s even a topic. Zero-% chance I choose to be unprepared based on a temporary regulation like this.

 

[WCB]

Honestly seems like most of you add "and break your leg, get hurt". run out of food etc. If none of those happen and you were just worried about dying from exposure? also if I end up in court with a jury... I have already lost.

That is because you should be reasonably prepared for worse case scenarios. I don't bring quick clot for a small cut on my finger. I bring a band aid. But I have quick clot on back up incase something goes south.

Same reason I bring rain gear, extra gloves, a space blanket, and small tarp shelter in my pack at all times. It gets cold, windy, starts to rain or snow where I have to even temporarily take shelter or hunker down I got that set of tools. White out blizzard, injured in those conditions, have to spend the night in terrible conditions...out comes the true SURVIVAL back up. My matches, lighter, firestarter, etc...

You are basing this off of someone in experienced getting the sniffles and lighting the mountain on fire. Everyone else is talking true possible death. But if you don't value your life beyond a few dead branches and a stern talking to...have at it.

 

[Pacific_Fork]

What does this mean? I’ve seen the bot comment a lot lately about people posting. Do you really think OP is not a real person typing his posts?

Hard to say for sure. Either way it’s an account that was just created to stir the shit pot and people are wasting their energy arguing with it.

The AI bots are incredible at what they do. Now why would they come on a hunting forum and who created them? Or are they a real person working in a factory? One could go down a few different rabbit holes on that one…

 

[TaperPin]

I wish my hunting buddies would take more personal accountability. “Wow that looks good.” “I should have packed some of that.” Beggars.

 

[Jethro]

Hard to say for sure. Either way it’s an account that was just created to stir the shit pot and people are wasting their energy arguing with it.

The AI bots are incredible at what they do. Now why would they come on a hunting forum and who created them? Or are they a real person working in a factory? One could go down a few different rabbit holes on that one…

Could be, I don’t know. I really thought he was just another FNG that ask our opinion, then proceeded to tell us why his opinion is better than ours.

 

[Pausekey]

I mostly read and barely post, but on this one I just couldn't resist.

I think the dramatic reaction to the OP's opinion is because it just flies in the face of human nature, behavior and morality. Its basically robot like thinking with regard to the adherence to the law, coupled with a terrifying rationale of not being able to even posses an item for fear of use. While the specific example is fire starting material, the logic behind not bringing it leads to plenty of areas where one might back themselves into a bizarre corner.

For example, if screams and cries for help were heard on private land, would trespassing then be valid? I think most would say yes, the circumstances of the situation would demand it. By that same logic most would defend an emergency fire in a fire ban.

As many others have pointed out, the laws of man are not immutable and have many, many grey areas and loopholes. This is as intended and not a flaw. The human experience is tricky, constantly changing and extremely complex. Adaptability and preparedness are key, and the law rightfully recognizes this is often the case. Jury nullification, while less common today than years ago, is yet another check on laws being applied unjustly or penalties not fitting the crime.

It boils down to approach. It goes without saying that the OP has an admirable approach to obeying the law and and not wanting to risk a fire during a fire ban. But the absolute language of it just doesn't sit well, and frankly seems a bit goofy when a life could be on the line.

 

[ReaptheHeat]

Why would I turn myself in after having a fire???

 

[Shraggs]

My gosh, the most ridiculous stubborn thread ever, 8 pages and no MHG

 

[Dave0317]

Not wanting to completely derail any other topics I am starting this thread. Not sure what to name the thread, but this is named how I see the issue.

I think that it is more important to ensure that you have everything that legally allows you to self rescue yourself from inclement weather during hunting. Obviously we all know that sometimes there is nothing you can do and God is gonna call you home. But where are people willingly to draw the line for survival. I will carry more items with me that allow for self rescue and no items that are not allowed. So in this case the item that caused a dust up is fire starting items when fires are banned. FS and BLM will not cut you any slack if you start a fire during fire restrictions. Obviously, with all the people hitting the SOS on electronics today, there is a pretty loose consensus on “life threatening”. And that seems to make people believe they can do and go wherever they want.

So my simple premise is that if I am responsible for myself out in the wilderness during a time that fire is banned, I am not going to rely upon fire to save myself. And since I will have to carry other items that make me more able to survive, meaning more weight, I am not carrying anything to make a fire.

Is this the only line that people are gonna cross that is fine, but my comment is where you draw the line? If you are willing to simply have a fire, why not be willing to take an atv back into the woods to save yourself? Why not trespass to make it easier to a road? Why not do whatever? And do you do something full willing to turn yourself in after for any law you broke? Or your assumption is you did it and you didn’t get caught so no harm no foul?

I will not be surprised if I am alone in this. I am just wired that way. I am not willing to be lazy or unprepared. I do a whole lot of things others don’t do because I would rather deal up front and not after. But this is not something I care what others do. I will say it again, that I have said before, I have literally seen 100’s if not a thousand violations of hunting laws in my lifetime. I have only called a warden 2 times, first was a rifle poached bull during archery and later for someone being completely belligerent about being in a 4 point draw unit with an OTC license. Never got a call back, so decided I won’t call CPW anymore for any offenses. So in short I don’t care what anyone else does out there.

When fire bans are in effect, is there a law saying you cannot carry/possess items capable of starting a fire? I was under the impression you just couldn’t actually start a fire.

What if all your extra safety margin items fall into a creek with you?


I carry a gun everyday, but shooting things around town is generally prohibited.

Some common sense and good judgment is required to be a responsible outdoorsman and citizen.

If I can legally possess two forms of fire starting, I’m carrying it, fire ban in effect or not.