Carry more in your pack or break laws for survival?

I read through some of this stuff. I think the premise is fairly silly to begin with. If I were to use the "follow the law" rule as the OP states, I would be dead by now for getting creamed by a car. I have no idea what I would do if I were in a crosswalk and the light said don't walk when you are in the middle of the street. Guess I'll wait until it says walk again.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk
 
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.
If it requires a fire to live, I’m building a fire. Why anyone wouldn’t is beyond me.

The Guberment isn’t God. So, allowing them to determine if I live or not isn’t going to happen.

You must be young /er. You certainly don’t understand the value of life to have asked this question.
 
I agree a lot of the laws are ridiculous. I think auto park in cars and back up cameras and cell phone laws are all overkill. But as a law abiding citizen I am not gone break them. Somehow in CO we have a lot. We have people that voted to have wolves released in my backyard. Not in your backyard. But I can’t do anything about those. But I will take extra gear to not need a fire. Because I have to carry extra gear I don’t carry fire stuff. Obviously if I am camping and carrying everything I have a stove and a way to start it. But when I leave camp for a hunt, weather a spike or base camp, if I can’t have a fire I don’t have fire starting stuff with me.

If you had a family member in the car with you and they had a medical emergency, would you drive them to the hospital at exactly the speed limit, or would you drive as fast as you could to save them?

I know what I would do.
 
IMG_7915.webp

I’ve never been in a situation where I needed to start a fire to survive. But I’m not going anywhere in the backcountry without at least two means to start one.

This thread is based on a logical fallacy that the only way to prevent an illegal fire in a non-life threatening situation is to remove access to firestarting materials. There’s another option called self restraint that doesn’t leave you in a situation to die if things turn unexpectedly south.

It’s dumb to go into the backcountry unprepared. Looked at alternatively, if SAR had to pull someone out of a desperate situation caused by their willful choice not to carry basic survival equipment, I’d think they could be liable for the cost of the rescue. Is that gonna be cheaper than a ticket for an illegal fire that didn’t burn down the entire forest because you’re not a moron starting uncontrolled fires?
 
Everyone commenting in this thread should refer to the Shoot2Hunt rewarming drills. Or other rewarming drills. Easy to google them. The OP question is a good one and valid regardless of your position on it. The high level of scorn for it is astounding to me. Too many comments making it into a diatribe against the system and the personal rights of rugged individualism. “Me first” if you will. It’s not an either/or proposition. It’s a this/and proposition. The reality is that it’s a part of a bigger question: which to me is what is the best way to survive? I have been through enough situations that I choose to be prepared for all scenarios. It’s not hard to do. They make this cool new stove called a jetboil ( less than a pound) A few hot cider or hot chocolate packets, a freeze dried meal, an extra under layer, a very warm over layer and a simple space type blanket is a far better choice than fire. Full stop. Even if you forgot or chose not to bring your rain gear.
 
Back
Top