Tree Caches
Matt McGreggor
in Vietnam) where a boy was stashing bags of food and slingshots in
trees. I hadn't ever really considered this approch to caching, but I
figured someone out there must have experiance doing it.
Matt McGreggor
http://www.ipaterson.ca
Nick Hull
McGreggor) wrote:
> I just cought a snippit of 'Tour of Duty' (show about a squad of GIs
> in Vietnam) where a boy was stashing bags of food and slingshots in
> trees. I hadn't ever really considered this approch to caching, but I
> figured someone out there must have experiance doing it.
Sounds interesting, but when the leaves fall the stash sticks out. Maybe
in a cedar tree?
--
Committees of Correspondence Web page:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/
- free men own guns, slaves don't
Loner
1. Your tree could get vaporized by an atomic explosion miles away.
2. Natural forest fires could wipe 'em out and continual rain will
eventually get thru most coverings.
3. A lightning strike would kill your stored electrical goodies and any
stored gas. Kaboom! A tree full of metal objects makes 4 a great lightning
rod!
4. Critters (from ants 2 birds 2 squirrels) will make a concerted effort to
destroy the edible contents.
5. As already stated, they're relatively easy 2 spot, unless you've done an
excellent cammo job, then U have 2 keep going back 2 make sure your cache is
safe and still cammoed. Repeated activity in 1 area draws unwanted
attention.
I could think of more reasons but I'm only on my 2nd cup of coffee :-)
Underground or cave caches R probably your best bet, but can still get
messed-up with moisture and critters.
Good luck,
Loner
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.336 / Virus Database: 188 - Release Date: 3/11/02
oakmulge
"Loner" <sea...@icehouse.net> wrote in message
news:ZcLj8.10012$A%3.8...@ord-read.news.verio.net...
place, but rather what you have stored between your ears that will mean the
difference in survival. By all means try to give yourself tools to work with
and give yourself options but in the final analysis it's what you know or
don't know that will make you or break you. Hit two rocks together at an
angle so that you knock a sliver off one of them. Now check it out by
shaving the hair on your arm. Now see how long it takes to make your knife
do that. Knives are good to have in a survival situation, or any other time
for that matter, but it's not time to panic if you find yourself without
one. Good luck.
Loner
Survival skills R learnt, not inherited. However having a cache full of
survival goodies beats the hell outa stone knives and animal skin clothes.
It makes the difference between living like a Neanderthal versus weathering
out the storm in 'relative comfort'. I'll take the latter TYVM.
Regards,
oakmulge
think you missed my point. Preparation means mental preparation also. When
our "goody" bags run out all we have left is what we know. Learn all you can
while you can. There are already forces at work that are designed to inhibit
learning. Look at how many websites relating to EMP have been pulled. Hell,
look at how many high school graduates are illiterate. Why do you think
there was such stiff penalties on teaching 19th century blacks to read and
write? I stand by my advice. It's valid.
schon
Survivalism seems to fall between two extremes,represented on one side by
"primitive,back-to-basics,stone knives and hand-spun cordage" on one side
and "Maximum usage of modern technology" on the other.
While the primitive approach has much to recommend it,requiring little or no
equipment,it could be argued that for most of us making use of the vast
resources of our industrialised society might be the way to go. The stone
knife example would work,but for most of us it would be more convenient to
simply sharpen a piece of widely available metal , in the unlikely event
that a knife was not to hand.
It should be remembered that the great trapper/mountain men who lived close
to nature also made use of what was then the latest technology ,the
muzzle-loading rifle.
Even indigenous people trained from birth in survival skills don't hesitate
to incorporate modern materials in their crafts .
Maybe survivalism could be defined broadly, making maximum use of available
resources which would include everything from rocks to techno-junk.
Schon
oakmulge
"schon" <cldo...@optusnet.net.au> wrote in message
news:3c8fc8dc$0$28436$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
That stone knife thing was thrown in as an example. Try it. While you're
sharpening the metal or maybe even trying to find the means to sharpen the
metal, I will have already completed the job you were trying to sharpen the
metal for. You can always find a couple of rocks. Can't always find metal
suitable for knife making. The point is confidence comes from knowing how to
do what you have to do with, seemingly, nothing to work with. The very term
TEOTWAWKI implies a permanent change. I shoot black powder for that reason.
Yeah right. Like the fact that it's so much fun has nothing to do with it.
Anyway, what are you going to do when you shoot your last bullet, you can't
get any more,and reloading is not an option,as in nothing left to reload
with. I'll be making my own black powder and pouring my own lead balls. Got
more lead stored up than I can ever shoot and plenty of molds. You can put
100% of your faith in your technology if you want too. I have my share of
that too (night vision, etc.). Just not going to bet my life on it when a
little learning can stack the deck in my favor. I wish you well.
Loner
2 quote U: "When our "goody" bags run out all we have left is what we know".
Hmmm? Thought that was why I have hunting, fishing & trapping supplies in
my primary and secondary caches. Twas not my intention of sitting in a tent
and waiting 4 food 2 come 2 me.
2 quote U again: "There are already forces at work that are designed to
inhibit learning. Look at how many websites relating to EMP have been
pulled. Hell, look at how many high school graduates are illiterate. Why do
you think there was such stiff penalties on teaching 19th century blacks to
read and write?"
doctorate in the subject.
Don't know anything about "forces at work" but U may pick up some G2 on 'em
@ alt.fan.starwars.
As 4 school grads being illiterate, blame whomever U will. They will
probably B the 1st casualties. Where I come from U don't get 2 graduate
without being literate ...by test. And as for 19th century AFRICAN
AMERICANS not being allowed to read or write; sorry pal right about that
time my ancestors were enduring the potato famine in Ireland. It killed off
half of them. Now that's down and dirty no frills survival 4 the rest.
This is getting WAY off anything that has 2 do with tree caches so I'm outa
this thread.
Been phun.
Laterzzz...
oakmulge
"Loner" <sea...@icehouse.net> wrote in message
news:IjRj8.10060$A%3.8...@ord-read.news.verio.net...
Loner
Good luck. Just hope we're all able to stay put where we have our things to
do with. No guarantees on that. Those things are just my normal recreational
items and I guess I sort of take them for granted.I don't live within 50
miles of a city and I'm pretty well dug in but, like I said, no guarantees.
We're all heading toward the same end here, that being survival. You sound
like you take a lot of that second nature. That's the way of us rural types.
Rural, hell I live in a 250,000 acre national forest. As for the EMP thing,
when I tried to gather information a while back all I could get anywhere I
went was the white screen that said page not available. Maybe I had browser
trouble. Hell, I don't know, but I went everywhere else I wanted to. I
didn't do a Google search though. Not trying to spread false info here,
that's just what I ran into. Just trying to impress on the city folks that
want to survive and fit in,LEARN. That way they can provide thier own and
not try to take mine. Seems like a lot of good folks here trying to figure
out how to live in strange surroundings and get it right.Either you are
misunderstanding me or you are just trying to feed on conflict. Either way,
I'm done with this conversation. Good luck. We don't have to agree for me to
wish you well and mean it. Ed
schon
Using MY example (muzzle loading rifle) for YOUR argument? How did that
happen?NO FAIR! :-)
Seriously,I don't think anyone thinks that TEOTWAWKI means that everyone
will be reduced to the "cave-man/sharp stick" level of existance. While it
makes for some bad science fiction stories it would be very hard to uninvent
the ability to read (certain inner-city areas notwithstanding),the basic
technical skills that many have ,the ability to plant crops..etc. If you go
to a place which is not unlike the dark side of the moon,such as Adam Khel
Darra (not sure of the spelling,its on the border of afghanistan/pakistan)
you will find a whole village of tribesmen making modern firearms with hand
tools.(If you ask them nicely,they'll even make a muzzle-loading rifle for
you)
A full-scale nuclear exchange with a follow-up of take-your-pick biological
and chemical attacks would be incapable of killing everyone.While it would
be disastrous,even if there was a 90% casualty rate (very unlikely) it would
not mean we'd be reduced to clubbing each other and howling at the moon. The
survivors would be scavenging stuff for generations,and within a couple of
centuries tops we'd be back at the same sorry state that we are now .(Having
an open season on lawyers and politicians may improve the stock,but thats a
whole 'nuther story)
Schon
Skip Hammond
> Tree caches may not B the best way 2 go for several reasons:
good reasons snipped
> I could think of more reasons but I'm only on my 2nd cup of coffee :-)
> Underground or cave caches R probably your best bet, but can still get
> messed-up with moisture and critters.
> Good luck,
>
> Loner
You are thinking in terms of a permanent or long term cache. I can think of
a couple of situations where a tree cache could be very useful.
1) You are in the Everglades, a Louisiana swamp,or anywhere else where
water is at or near ground level. No caves and burying or digging up a
cache would be very difficult. A steel ammo can, with extra paint for rust
resistance could be a solution. Could use moss to camo.
2) You are not looking for long term storage, but just need a place to leave
your stuff while you recon. You may need a place to stash your gear or
weapon(s) so you can enter a FEMA or Red Cross Shelter in search of medicine
or a friend/relative.
Advantages of tree cache are fast and easy to prepare and access, raises
gear above water/ flood line. For short term storage it is less conspicuous
than a freshly dug hole, even if you are careful about replacing the sod
when you are done.
You don't need a shovel to access a tree cache. You could even hide your
shovel in a tree and use it to dig up a buried cache nearby. Be a real drag
to dig up a buried cache with fingers and stick if your shovel was lost.
oakmulge
"Skip Hammond" <eham...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:64F392C6BC869768.2C9AA771...@lp.airnews.net...
I'm a little frustrated here. I've said nothing against caches. They are
very necessary. I use stump holes at my favorite camping sites to rathole
canned food. Throw leaves on top and nobody's the wiser. Who goes around
running thier hands dowm stumpholes? I just try to look further ahead than
that. How do any of us know that we won't end up in a survival situation
with nothing, as in robbed and dumped naked in the middle of nowhere. I
know,,,,what are the odds of that happening? Not much, but that was off the
top of my head. Think of all the things your wildest imagination can dream
up and still, if it ever happens to you that you end up with nothing and
trying to survive, it will still be something you never thought of. Sorry,
wasn't trying to steal your muzzleloader line :-) . I just prefer to shoot
black powder. Started as a hobby but seems to me that proper preparation
will leave me able to shoot when most others are out of ammo. I thought we
were supposed to share our survival thoughts here for the benefit of all.
Wasn't trying to open up a can of worms. I've been as respectful as I know
how to be with everybody. Not like a lot of what I've seen on this NG, with
the name calling and such. Am I missing something here?
Skip Hammond
"oakmulge" <oakm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:55Qj8.67449$Nn6.3...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
>
>
> "schon" <cldo...@optusnet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:3c8fc8dc$0$28436$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > (snip)
> > Survivalism seems to fall between two extremes,represented on one side
by
> > "primitive,back-to-basics,stone knives and hand-spun cordage" on one
side
> > and "Maximum usage of modern technology" on the other.
> > While the primitive approach has much to recommend it,requiring little
or
> no
. The very term
> TEOTWAWKI implies a permanent change. I shoot black powder for that
reason.
> Yeah right. Like the fact that it's so much fun has nothing to do with it.
> Anyway, what are you going to do when you shoot your last bullet, you
can't
> get any more,and reloading is not an option,as in nothing left to reload
> with. I'll be making my own black powder and pouring my own lead balls.
Got
> more lead stored up than I can ever shoot and plenty of molds. You can put
> 100% of your faith in your technology if you want too. I have my share of
> that too (night vision, etc.). Just not going to bet my life on it when a
> little learning can stack the deck in my favor. I wish you well.
>
Like you, I have tried to learn something about the truly primitive skills
for those awkward times when technology is not available.
Just one question. Are you shooting flint or percussion? I have read posts
by "buckskin survivalists" who never seemed to consider that their
percussion rifles depend on a technology that requires an industrial base.
I have felt that there may be some merit to the idea of a single shot
cartridge rifle in a caliber that could be loaded with improvised powder and
cast bullets. Something like the NEF break open in 45-70. More reliable,
faster reloads, more water-resistant than muzzle loader and modern primers
will store as well or better than percussion caps. Otherwise, only a
flintlock or matchlock offers a renewable ignition system.
oakmulge
"Skip Hammond" <eham...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:23973DB08E51A798.D05038EB...@lp.airnews.net...
Wish I had a good flintlock. My budget dictates that I buy used from those
who tried it and didn't like it . Deep discounts that way. Just haven't run
across one yet. You're right though. I bought a case of percussion caps for
Y2K and haven't made a dent in them yet. 5000 rounds is a lot of black
powder shooting. If I ever use all of them up I have an army field manual
that tells how to make them. If all else fails, I'll remove the nipple and
make a matchlock or maybe if I'm lucky improvise a flintlock. I'm pretty
inventive and a packrat. I know I could buy the flintlock hammer and
mechanism to put on one but for what they cost I can add a gun to my
collection. Another plus is that here they aren't considered firearms and
you don't have to do the paperwork.
ReMoVeSpAm
Newsgroups: misc.survivalism
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 01:08:41 GMT
>I just cought a snippit of 'Tour of Duty' (show about a squad of GIs
>in Vietnam) where a boy was stashing bags of food and slingshots in
>trees. I hadn't ever really considered this approch to caching, but I
>figured someone out there must have experiance doing it.
Try this
http://bvsd.k12.co.us/tag/mountainmen.html
Halcitron
Check your six and know when to duck.
Fire career politicians.
D.R.I.P -- Don't Reelect Incumbent Politicians
ernie...@bigpond.com
<oakm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>"Loner" <sea...@icehouse.net> wrote in message
>news:C1Nj8.10036$A%3.8...@ord-read.news.verio.net...
>> Acknowledged that there is no substitute 4 initiative and improvisation.
>> Survival skills R learnt, not inherited. However having a cache full of
>> survival goodies beats the hell outa stone knives and animal skin clothes.
>> It makes the difference between living like a Neanderthal versus
>weathering
>> out the storm in 'relative comfort'. I'll take the latter TYVM.
>> Regards,
>>
>> Loner
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>> Version: 6.0.336 / Virus Database: 188 - Release Date: 3/11/02
>>
>>
>Suit yourself. I'll take both. I have done plenty of preperation also but I
>think you missed my point. Preparation means mental preparation also. When
>our "goody" bags run out all we have left is what we know.
Agreed.
>Learn all you can while you can.
Extremely good advice!
> There are already forces at work that are designed to inhibit
>learning.
IMHO, the greatest might be TV. Am somewhat surprised that some
conspiracy theorist hasn't claimed it to be a "Commie plot" to
undermine the free world. Has certainly done a lot to foster
illiteracy.
TV, in the main, is simply mindless entertainment. However, once an
individual learns to read, he has only himself to blame if he remains
ignorant. Books are still available. As is the internet.
It isn't enough to just read, though. There is a lot of false
information on the net and there are some crap books. People have to
learn to try to separate what is true from what is false.
It amazes me how many people on the net, including some on this group,
refuse to believe in encyclopedias and other recognized reference
sources.
In some areas, where the truth isn't known, such as the mechanism
behind the magnetic field of the earth, this is reasonable enough.
There are a lot of scientific questions that are not resolved.
However, if someone tries to argue that the value of "Pi" is 3 rather
than ~ 3.1415926535897932384626433832795, or claims that there is
"no difference" between Nazism and Communism, then all they do is
demonstrate there willful ignorance for all to see.
...And, of course, it is exactly that. "Willful ignorance". A
stubborn rejection of obvious truth.
I assume that some have noticed that this group isn't what it was
prior to Y2K. A lot of the brighter people seem to have decided to
drop out of it. One of the latest being Lawrence Glickman.
He had some fairly "controversial" opinions, but, then again,
brilliant people often have controversial opinions.
> Look at how many websites relating to EMP have been pulled. Hell,
>look at how many high school graduates are illiterate.
An easy cure for that. If they are illiterate, then don't graduate
them. We don't in Australia. _Every_ secondary school [high school]
student, from both public and private schools takes the same statewide
examination which tests them on core subjects such as English,
History, Math, etc plus a couple of their chosen electives. If they
fail it, they don't graduate.
Happen to have an old set of examination reprints for Physics from
1983 to 1990. These exams are not "fill in the blanks" or "multiple
choice". They are all essay types. Have picked a page with no
formulas on it to give you an idea of how it runs.
Perhaps some US high school graduate or college freshman or sophomore
give the group an idea of the difficulty?
All the student knows is that the Physics exam takes 3 hours. He can
probably assume that it might have something about the behaviour of
gases, but no way of guessing what.
As these exams can determine the course of the rest of the student's
life, the pressure is pretty high as they approach, and the printing
and distribution of the papers to the various test centers is under
very tight security.
This is just _part_ of the physics elective exam. The core exams in
history, English, math etc which all take are of similar difficulty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kinetic Theory of Gases (6 1/2) Marks
Begin your answer in a new book. Answer _all_ the following parts.
Marks A - 2 1/2 marks B = 2 marks C = 2 marks
(A) "One of the fundamental assumptions of the kinetic theory of gases
is the continual heat motion of the molecules in the gas. Even though
there was no direct experimental verification of this assumption, the
theoretical development progressed rapidly . . . " from I. F. Zartman,
_Physics Review_ 37, 383 (1931)
(i) Scientists such as Bernoulli and Maxwell contributed to our
theoretical understanding of the kinetic theory of gases. Choose one
of these two scientists and explain his contribution to our
theoretical understanding.
[ii] What experimental confirmation of Zartman's followed the
theoretical development?
[B] Experimental work by Boyle and Gay-Lussac (published by Charles]
contributed to an understanding of the behaviour of gases under
certain conditions.
Describe the behaviour of a gas according to:
[i] Boyle's law
[ii] Charles' law
[C] In the 1870s Lord Kelvin and J. Loschmidt stated the
"reversibility paradox". Give a statement of this paradox and
explain how it is resolved.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
As you can see the 18 year old had to have a fairly reasonable
vocabulary to even fully understand the questions, and has to be able
to compose an essay type answer to satisfy the examiner. As some
examiners were pedantic old bastards like me, a misspelled word or
two, sloppy writing, etc. could lead to a severe downscoring even
though the answers were acceptable.
High school graduates are expected to have a reasonable command of the
English language.
> Why do you think there was such stiff penalties on teaching 19th
>century blacks to read and write? I stand by my advice. It's valid.
Would agree.
-- Ernie
[Australia]
Geoffrey L. Hardin
Matt McGreggor wrote:
Well, I might suggest a few things here, being a person who has placed
numerous caches out and about for over 12 years now.
The show you saw was fiction. It is/was based upon a wartime scenario.
I, personally, don't know of any use of tree caches, but that's neither
here nor there. Artistic license being what it is, it may be that the
film crew was just lazy and didn't want to use a buried or submerged
cache (they might have to get their fingers dirty).
For a short-term situation (say, a couple of days), a tree cache might be
useful IF you can camouflage it well enough. There are large trees and,
to be honest, most people don't waste time looking carefully in trees.
Most of the stuff you've heard and/or read about with snipers and
ambushes in the trees has little basis in reality. You're more likely to
face mines or other booby traps from trees.
As others have pointed out, squirrels and the like would be VERY
interested in getting at what's inside the container, which should be
made of metal. Squirrels (aka Tree Rats) will chew through just about
everything else if it's left there long enough.
A tree cache would also have to be small unless the trees in your area
are VERY large. You could try to hide and camouflage it in a crotch or
inside a hollowed out trunk/limb.
The container would have to be very durable to not only withstand the
tree animals/birds/bugs but waterproof as well.
In all, a tree cache is a poor place to hide your stuff for any length of
time.
An in-ground cache is much superior to an above-ground cache. The
in-ground cache is much more easily camouflaged, much better protected
from the elements, can be made to just about any size and, most likely,
much easier to recover, even when you are injured.
Just try getting that tree cache if you have a broken arm. I can always
use one hand or even a leg to access a properly buried in-ground cache.
Just some thoughts, hope they help.
Geoffrey L. Hardin,
geo...@abcs.com
Big-T
<SNIP>
>For a short-term situation (say, a couple of days), a tree cache might be
>useful IF you can camouflage it well enough. There are large trees and,
>to be honest, most people don't waste time looking carefully in trees.
>Most of the stuff you've heard and/or read about with snipers and
>ambushes in the trees has little basis in reality. You're more likely to
>face mines or other booby traps from trees.
Yep, most people never look up, especially in rough terrain where they
have to watch their step to keep from falling/slipping.
>
>As others have pointed out, squirrels and the like would be VERY
>interested in getting at what's inside the container, which should be
>made of metal. Squirrels (aka Tree Rats) will chew through just about
>everything else if it's left there long enough.
Squirrels can be a pain, but this depends allot on location. In very
high elevations at the top edge of timberline and above. (over 9,000
ft.) there are dam few mammals. Mostly just fish and bugs.
>
>A tree cache would also have to be small unless the trees in your area
>are VERY large. You could try to hide and camouflage it in a crotch or
>inside a hollowed out trunk/limb.
>
>The container would have to be very durable to not only withstand the
>tree animals/birds/bugs but waterproof as well.
>
>In all, a tree cache is a poor place to hide your stuff for any length of
>time.
>
>An in-ground cache is much superior to an above-ground cache. The
>in-ground cache is much more easily camouflaged, much better protected
>from the elements, can be made to just about any size and, most likely,
>much easier to recover, even when you are injured.
>
>Just try getting that tree cache if you have a broken arm. I can always
>use one hand or even a leg to access a properly buried in-ground cache.
I have experimented with both in-ground and tree caches. IMO they
both have their place. While the in-ground in more secure, it can be
a real pain in frozen/rocky ground with several feet of snow on top
of it.
In the west here we have the Pacific Coast Trail that runs from
Mexico to Canada. The trail tracks mostly the higher elevations where
they exist. On 2-3 day trips I have taken spur trails that intersect
with the PCT and planted caches for future extended trips.
What works pretty well is a two bag system. Vacuum pack food in bags
and split it up weight wise into two camo bags. A couple to 5 pounds
each. At the upper edge of the timber line, move off any traveled
trail at least 100 feet, and toss a weighted line over a tree limb.
Disconnect weight and tie first bag to line. Pull it up towards limb.
Then tie second bag to other end of line. Push up second bag with
stick/rifle etc... Doing this will lower the other bag. The idea is
to get both bags about 12 feet off the ground. To recover just get
stick and push up one bag to lower the other to be in reach... Note
that after heavy snow you may not need a stick to recover them.
If you loose a cache no big deal, you are only out a few bucks. I
just do many smaller cashes just in case. That way I do not have to
come out for resupply on longer trips and it keeps my pack weight
down.
YMMV,
--
Big-T... Visit me at http://www.30cal.com
--
A skeptic is a person who, when he sees the
handwriting on the wall, claims it's a forgery.
Strabo
Trees have one big advantage to which you've alluded, seldom are
they noticed. Where ground caches are vulnerable to accidental
or intentional discovery, a tree cache is unlikely to be discovered.
Most of the country has trees suitable for a serious cache. And I don't
mean merely throwing a bag over limb or lodging a metal case
in a crotch but long term concealment. A cache may be a natural opening
or an opening can be made in the trunk or a large branch.
I have used PVC pipe in a natural partially exposed tree cache in squirrel
territory and had no problems but there is a better method.
An opening can be made for a pipe cache in a trunk near ground level
by removing a rectangular section and cutting away a sufficient internal
portion of the wood and replacing the bark and cambrium once the
pipe is inside. This 'cover' will regenerate and if done right, say on a
100 year old white oak with heavy bark, no one will know the difference.
The pipe and it's contents will be protected from everything and
will remain a part of that tree until it rots or is cut down.
You can also dig under a tree creating a cache more protective than
burying in open ground. Easier to find as well.
oakmulge
"Strabo" <str...@flashnet.com> wrote in message
news:3C94451D...@flashnet.com...
Ouch!!! What a way to treat a 100 year old oak tree. Please reconsider that.
CanopyCo
writes:
>An opening can be made for a pipe cache in a trunk near ground level
>by removing a rectangular section and cutting away a sufficient internal
>portion of the wood and replacing the bark and cambrium once the
>pipe is inside. This 'cover' will regenerate and if done right, say on a
>100 year old white oak with heavy bark, no one will know the difference.
>
>The pipe and it's contents will be protected from everything and
>will remain a part of that tree until it rots or is cut down.
This is similar to my hidden lights.
1. Poke a hole into a tree big enough to hold your light. This can be done by
stabbing the tree with a chain saw or using a drill. Be sure it points down
slightly to prevent it from filling with water.
2. Push a pipe into the hole. This prevents the tree from growing and trapping
your light. I used an old flash light housing for the light. (you can also hide
keys, money, ect in these)
3. Run your wire down the tree and hide it behind vines glued / growing to the
tree.
The longer it is there, the better it grows in and hides it. Use a wooden plug
and it looks like a limb that failed.
ReMoVeSpAm
>I just cought a snippit of 'Tour of Duty' (show about a squad of GIs
>in Vietnam) where a boy was stashing bags of food and slingshots in
>trees. I hadn't ever really considered this approch to caching, but I
>figured someone out there must have experiance doing it.
You can reverse-engineer the design of a live-catch trap, and use metal fabric
and steel mesh concept, to construct a container that would be resistant to
rats, cats and squirrels. Place food in heavy plastic bags and lock inside.
Cover with a poncho to disguise the shape and hang it up in the tree canopy.
Walter Daniels
I've left this in, because it wanders around the actual point, :-) A
'true survivalist" does both. She has "modern technology" available,
when and where it is best. Not just for convenience, but where it
actually makes sense to have it. He also has knowledge of, and
useable" "primitive" tech on hand. There is not dependence on just one
way of doing things. He may have guns available, but she also knows
how to build flint tip spears. She has Bug out foods, but knows how to
forage edible wild foods. If supplies are lost, for whatever reason,
they can be replaced with makeable equivalents.
Just knowing how to shoot a bow is one thing, but knowing how to
build one and shoot it is another. A "gun" is a tool, not a magic
wand. It is a means of delivering force, against something at a
distance. You can potentially achieve the same thing with a bow and
arrow, a spear, a sling, etc. If all you know is how to use a gun,
when you run out of ammo, you are SOL.
>Schon
Walter Daniels FBN Graphics Promotional Consulting.
Is your advertising working with your marketing to help with your selling? If
they aren't working together, you may be spending too much.
http://www.digiserve.com/fbngraphics
*******fbng...@earthlink.net**************
schon
Walter Daniels <fbng...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3ca09a4d...@news.earthlink.net...
> I've left this in, because it wanders around the actual point, :-) A
> 'true survivalist" does both. She has "modern technology" available,
> when and where it is best. Not just for convenience, but where it
> actually makes sense to have it. He also has knowledge of, and
> useable" "primitive" tech on hand. There is not dependence on just one
> way of doing things. He may have guns available, but she also knows
> how to build flint tip spears. She has Bug out foods, but knows how to
> forage edible wild foods. If supplies are lost, for whatever reason,
> they can be replaced with makeable equivalents.
>
> Just knowing how to shoot a bow is one thing, but knowing how to
> build one and shoot it is another. A "gun" is a tool, not a magic
> wand. It is a means of delivering force, against something at a
> distance. You can potentially achieve the same thing with a bow and
> arrow, a spear, a sling, etc. If all you know is how to use a gun,
> when you run out of ammo, you are SOL.
>
>
>
>
>
> Is your advertising working with your marketing to help with your selling?
If
> they aren't working together, you may be spending too much.
>
> http://www.digiserve.com/fbngraphics
> *******fbng...@earthlink.net**************
I probably didn't express myself too well, but that was actually the point I
was making with the last sentence of my post .
("Maybe survivalism could be defined broadly , making maximum use of
available resources which would include everything from rocks to
techno-junk")
Schon
Gunner
wrote:
Which..is why this motto hangs in several rooms in my home
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give
orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem,
pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently,
die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
- R. A. Heinlein
-------------------------------------------------
This Message is guaranteed environmentally friendly
Manufactured with 10% post consumer ASCII
Meets all EPA regulations for clean air
Using only naturally occuring fibers
Use the Message with confidance.
(Some settling may occure in transit.)
(Best if Used before May 13, 2009)
Az_Redneck
wrote:
>>
>Which..is why this motto hangs in several rooms in my home
>
>"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
>butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
>accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give
>orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem,
>pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently,
>die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
> - R. A. Heinlein
>-------------------------------------------------
>
Hey, I got 15 out of 21 on the above...I have a problem with dying
gallantly though....It was Gen. George Patton who once said " No
soldier ever became a hero by dying for this country, he became a hero
by making the other son of a bitch die for HIS country" or something
along those lines..Gallantly, hell no..Fighting with all I have even
if it's dirty, hell yes! No honor when someone is trying to kill you..
Sorry you S.F. guys..Not my motto....
Skip Hammond
"Az_Redneck" <redne...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3ca2ba90....@news.c2i2.com...
> >butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
> >accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give
> >orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem,
> >pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently,
> >die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
> > - R. A. Heinlein
> >-------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> Hey, I got 15 out of 21 on the above...I have a problem with dying
> gallantly though....It was Gen. George Patton who once said " No
> soldier ever became a hero by dying for this country, he became a hero
> by making the other son of a bitch die for HIS country" or something
> along those lines..Gallantly, hell no..Fighting with all I have even
> if it's dirty, hell yes! No honor when someone is trying to kill you..
> Sorry you S.F. guys..Not my motto....
"If you are ever in a fair fight, your tactics suck." I forget the
attribution, think it was a former SEAL
schon
Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:h685auc9kd430dcfl...@4ax.com...
Did you know that Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" is on David Hackworths
recommended reading list for all soldiers?
Schon
charles krin
<cldo...@optusnet.net.au> wrote:
>
>Did you know that Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" is on David Hackworths
>recommended reading list for all soldiers?
>Schon
Don't know about "Hack's" list...but I've got much more respect for
the Commandant of Marines Reading List...where it also shows up...
and I suspect that most of the folks on us.military.army and
alt.folklore.military have read it more than once...
ck
--
country doc in louisiana
(no fancy sayings right now)
Strabo
That attitude is precisely why the US is not respected.
Skip Hammond
Who do you propose to enforce the "rules" on a battlefield? Referees from
the UN? Fair is for sporting contests and games with a referee.
Every tactic of war is about taking "unfair" advantage of your enemy. If
your life and the lives of your family depended on the outcome of a fight
with a psycho wielding a knife would you give him a fair fight? Or would
you use a gun or baseball bat and attack from behind to ensure victory?
Gunner
Huh? I dont care if we are respected..just feared.
You really think we should stand toe to toe with some group of
brainwipes and slug it out? Hope you have no family in the military to
come home in a silver cigar case.
The role of the military is to break things and kill people. Diplomacy
carried to the ultimate end. Its not to fuck around being fair. War is
never Fair..but it can be Just.
Gunner
Skip Hammond
"It is better to be feared than loved" The Prince, Nicolo Machiavelli
'Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggie" until you can find a rock.'
I guess that some here don't grasp the fine arts of statesmanship and
diplomacy. But I am glad to have it reconfirmed that the Gunner does.
Ray Keller
The only rule in combat is I win by whatever means necissary!
--
Ray Keller
rayk...@theriver.com
http://personal.riverusers.com/~raykeller/
"You don't expect governments to obey the law because of some
higher moral development. You expect them to obey the law because
they know that if they don't, those who aren't shot will be hanged."
-Michael Shirley
Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other
terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ...the
unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or
state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the
hands of the people.
-Tench Coxe, 20 Feb 1788
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and
strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a
woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound
I would prefer to live in a free society than
a drug free society - even if the latter could
actually be achieved.
tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com
ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com ab...@earthlink.com u...@ftc.gov
spa...@spamcop.net
Strabo
The defense-of-family analogy doesn't apply. If you view your enemy as
a "psycho wielding a knife" you've already put yourself at a
disadvantage. As the quoted 'Seal' who may emphasize having an edge
without attaining the mental discipline to follow through.
I'm referring to the attitude, not necessarily tactics. "Kill 'em all
and let God sort 'em out" looks good on a t-shirt but does not win wars.
The bravado soon wears thin. Wars are usually won by attrition
not by gung-ho cheerleading.
It may seem like a fine distinction, but preparing for war is
preparing to die, for you and your enemy. If you are not prepared
to die, which very few American military (or police) are, then you
are unlikely to select or apply the appropriate technique. To wit,
the 'spray and pray', 'overwhelming force', reaction/response of
today's military and police.
Preparation (the right attitude) sets the proper frame of mind so that
the appropriate tactical advantages can be recognized and effectively
used without causing the permanent psychological damage that is common
today.
But I don't dispute your point about having an edge.
Strabo
Yes, war can be Just, but only if your side believes it.
We have a problem with terrorists today because of an arrogant
attitude combined with dirty diplomacy that has turned most
of the world against the US. If it weren't for the fact that the
US also controls the world's economy (another sore point), we would
*hear* the criticism instead of seeing it smashed into our buildings.
I tend to agree that between the two, being feared is a strong
deterrent, especially for the individual on the street. But for
the country, respect is better because it decreases the likelihood
of being attacked in the first place while maintaining in others,
the fear of reprisal.
I didn't use 'fair'. I agree that having an edge is important
although there's more to winning wars than having B1 bombers.
You might want to check my response to Skip.
Skip Hammond
>
>
> Skip Hammond wrote:
> >
> > "Strabo" <str...@flashnet.com> wrote in message
> > news:3CA41782...@flashnet.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Skip Hammond wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Az_Redneck" <redne...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:3ca2ba90....@news.c2i2.com...
> > > > > On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 20:50:13 -0800, Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net>
> > > > > >
Sure it does. Any conflict that involves life or death has no rules.
Except maybe bullfighting, and the rules are only for the matador, not the
bull. If the survival of a person, family, tribe, etc. hinges on the
outcome of a fight (battle, war), then that person is foolish to approach
the conflict as a sporting contest with rules. I view a psycho with a knife
the same as any other enemy - a target. The problem is to engage the target
while minimizing his opportunity to engage you. It doesn't matter if the
target is armed with a knife, crowbar or gun. The tactics may change, but
the objective does not. I want (myself, family, squad) to survive the
encounter. What happens to the other guy is his problem.
> I'm referring to the attitude, not necessarily tactics. "Kill 'em all
> and let God sort 'em out" looks good on a t-shirt but does not win wars.
> The bravado soon wears thin. Wars are usually won by attrition
> not by gung-ho cheerleading.
That T-shirt paraphrases the orders of a medieval bishop who was confronted
with hostages driven before an advancing army during one of the religious
wars. He was quite serious and willing to kill the hostages in order to win
the battle. I think he did win the war. But I did not bring up that
slogan, and that was not the point of my post.
> It may seem like a fine distinction, but preparing for war is
> preparing to die, for you and your enemy. If you are not prepared
> to die, which very few American military (or police) are, then you
> are unlikely to select or apply the appropriate technique. To wit,
> the 'spray and pray', 'overwhelming force', reaction/response of
> today's military and police.
Preparing to die and accepting the possibility are different things. I did
not mention spray and pray, and generally consider it to be among the
tactics that suck. Overwhelming force is nice to have when you can achieve
it, and would be in the category of tactics that do not suck. In the
context of the police, it often means that the bad guys do not have
opportunity to resist and are taken alive instead of dead.
> Preparation (the right attitude) sets the proper frame of mind so that
> the appropriate tactical advantages can be recognized and effectively
> used without causing the permanent psychological damage that is common
> today.
The right attitude is to accept that you can be hurt or killed and to fight
until the other guy cannot fight any more. Permanent psychological damage?
If you are referring to post-traumatic stress disorder suffered by the
survivor of a gunfight, I think that is mostly psychobabble. Some who are
forced to kill, do suffer guilt feelings, and anxiety over whether there
could have been a diffferent way to resolve the situation. Those whom I
have known, just looked at it as an unpleasant necessity and got on with
their lives.
Walter Daniels
wrote:
>> > > attribution, think it was a former SEAL
>I'm referring to the attitude, not necessarily tactics. "Kill 'em all
>and let God sort 'em out" looks good on a t-shirt but does not win wars.
>The bravado soon wears thin. Wars are usually won by attrition
>not by gung-ho cheerleading.
>
>It may seem like a fine distinction, but preparing for war is
>preparing to die, for you and your enemy. If you are not prepared
>to die, which very few American military (or police) are, then you
>are unlikely to select or apply the appropriate technique. To wit,
>the 'spray and pray', 'overwhelming force', reaction/response of
>today's military and police.
there is a Klingon Set of proverbs appropriate here.
Motto of Klingon Warrior: "Today is a good day to die."
Motto of _old_ Klingon Warrior: "Today is a good day for the enemy to
die."
Note the change of focus on who is going to die *today.* The OKW, is
still prepared to die, but more prepared for his enemy to die. _Big_
difference.
It's similar to my attitude, if attacked. "One or both of us is
going to get hurt, and probably go to a hospital. How do you feel
about hospitals?" :-)
>Preparation (the right attitude) sets the proper frame of mind so that
>the appropriate tactical advantages can be recognized and effectively
>used without causing the permanent psychological damage that is common
>today.
>
>But I don't dispute your point about having an edge.
Walter Daniels
<eham...@airmail.net> wrote:
>"Strabo" <str...@flashnet.com> wrote in message
>> Skip Hammond wrote:
>> I'm referring to the attitude, not necessarily tactics. "Kill 'em all
>> and let God sort 'em out" looks good on a t-shirt but does not win wars.
>> The bravado soon wears thin. Wars are usually won by attrition
>> not by gung-ho cheerleading.
>
>That T-shirt paraphrases the orders of a medieval bishop who was confronted
>with hostages driven before an advancing army during one of the religious
>wars.
ICBW, but I believe it was at the siege of Acre, during a crusade.
He was asked how to distinguish between the Christian inhabitants and
the occupying Muslim troops. He was asked, because "taking" a towm
involved "sacking" it. If you don't know what the term actually means,
I won't describe it here. Let's just say everyone *wishes* they had
died, in the battle. *I* would not want to justify that attitude to
God.
I expect He would not look on me in a kindly manner, no matter what
excuses I came up with. BTW, his actual statement was, "Kill them all.
God will know His own."
> He was quite serious and willing to kill the hostages in order to win
>the battle. I think he did win the war. But I did not bring up that
>slogan, and that was not the point of my post.
>> It may seem like a fine distinction, but preparing for war is
>> preparing to die, for you and your enemy. If you are not prepared
>> to die, which very few American military (or police) are, then you
>> are unlikely to select or apply the appropriate technique.
>Preparing to die and accepting the possibility are different things. I did
>not mention spray and pray, and generally consider it to be among the
>tactics that suck. Overwhelming force is nice to have when you can achieve
>it, and would be in the category of tactics that do not suck. In the
>context of the police, it often means that the bad guys do not have
>opportunity to resist and are taken alive instead of dead.
>
>> Preparation (the right attitude) sets the proper frame of mind so that
>> the appropriate tactical advantages can be recognized and effectively
>> used without causing the permanent psychological damage that is common
>> today.
>
>The right attitude is to accept that you can be hurt or killed and to fight
>until the other guy cannot fight any more. Permanent psychological damage?
>If you are referring to post-traumatic stress disorder suffered by the
>survivor of a gunfight, I think that is mostly psychobabble. Some who are
>forced to kill, do suffer guilt feelings, and anxiety over whether there
>could have been a diffferent way to resolve the situation. Those whom I
>have known, just looked at it as an unpleasant necessity and got on with
>their lives.
I thimk it may actually come down to, deciding *before* hand,
whether or not you can kill. Some cannot, under any circumstances.
Some can, without any problem. I decided some time ago that there are
times when I could and would. They do *not* involve, "Because I wanted
to." It means my lfe, or someone elses, is in danger.
I will still grieve that I had to take a life, but I know I did all
*I* could, to prevent it. As I have been told. "The day it _doesn't_
bother you, is the day you stop being Human."
>> But I don't dispute your point about having an edge.
Walter Daniels FBN Graphics Promotional Consulting.
Skip Hammond
> >That T-shirt paraphrases the orders of a medieval bishop who was
confronted
> >with hostages driven before an advancing army during one of the religious
> >wars.
>
> ICBW, but I believe it was at the siege of Acre, during a crusade.
> He was asked how to distinguish between the Christian inhabitants and
> the occupying Muslim troops. He was asked, because "taking" a towm
> involved "sacking" it. If you don't know what the term actually means,
> I won't describe it here. Let's just say everyone *wishes* they had
> died, in the battle. *I* would not want to justify that attitude to
> God.
>
> I expect He would not look on me in a kindly manner, no matter what
> excuses I came up with. BTW, his actual statement was, "Kill them all.
> God will know His own."
A google search turned this up:
http://www.manbottle.com/trivia/index.htm
It is attributed to Arnaud-Armaury, the Abbot of Citeaux, and "spiritual
advisor" to the Albigensian Crusade.
Pope Innocent III ordered the Albigensian Crusade, to purge southern France
of the Cathari heretics. It began in the summer of 1209, with their first
target - the town of Beziers. The Catholic faithful in Beziers refused to
give up the Catharis among themselves. The crusaders invaded. When
Arnaud-Amaury was asked whom to kill he replied "Kill them all. God will
know his own." They did. The crusaders slaughtered nearly everyone in town,
over 20,000, either burned or clubbed to death. Thus they achieved their
goal of killing the estimated 200 heretics who were hiding in the town among
the Catholic faithful. The brutal crusade continued on for the next twenty
years. Eventually the Catholics devised a new approach for dealing with the
remaining Cathari heretics in France. It was called "the Inquisition".
.
Short lesson on sacking:
Mongol general, watching the fire, addressing his troops,
" How many times I got to tell you guys? Rape and pillage, THEN burn!" :-)
H L. Falls
Skip Hammond <eham...@airmail.net> wrote:
<snip...>
>Short lesson on sacking:
>Mongol general, watching the fire, addressing his troops,
>" How many times I got to tell you guys? Rape and pillage, THEN burn!" :-)
Whereas among the vikings it was "Pillage, burn, THEN rape -- it's
more romantic by firelight!" <;-)
--Landon