This story is (gasp) another example of poorly written, poorly researched, tear-jerkingly liberal journalism.
The guy was an experienced outdoorsman.
He was on a planned two month canoe expedition.
The area was the far NW portion of Quebec...the Canadian Shield is VERY hard to live in, regardless of survival training.
The guy has not really been interviewed, as he was within 1-2 days of death when found. He will require weeks, if not months, of hospital care. He could not eat or drink when found.
His family reported him missing about two weeks after his expected return...they were not unusually concerned by a late return at first, they knew his abilities. He was eventually found by a search and rescue helicopter crew.
Because of his inability to be interviewed, the timeline of events is murky as to when he killed the dog, but it certainly was not after only three days.
The fact that he was so close to death when found shows that his eating the dog saved his life. What more can be asked of a dog?
Unlike so many of those on this thread, I think the guy conducted himself pretty damned well.
Still didn’t bring a firearm into the wilderness. That’s nothing short of sheer stupidity in my books. I don’t go anywhere in the Alberta outdoors without some kind of firearm.
“What more can be asked of a dog?”
I don’t have any issue with the dog. My issue is with the guy. Story says 3 days so until there is something else I’ll go with 3 days.
People who go there by themselves alone and without adequate equipment shouldn’t expect sympathy when they get into trouble.
The guy was an experienced outdoorsman.
No experienced outdoorsman I know of would go into the wilderness for two months without being armed.
The guy was an experienced outdoorsman.
Plus, no experienced outdoorsman would leave his food supplies in easy reach of bears. And no experienced outdoorsman would be incapable of finding ANY food.
Diogenes, do you know the origin of the word “cynic”?
:)