Toronto Sun:
Outdoorsman Marco Lavoie, rescued Wednesday after three months in the deep woods near James Bay, made the heartbreaking decision to kill and eat his beloved German shepherd to stay alive.
A source close to the amazing story told QMI Agency that Lavoie, 44, sacrificed his dog when he became stranded at the Nottaway River, roughly 800 km northwest of Montreal.
A bear had eaten Lavoie’s food and destroyed his boat in mid-July, leaving him alone with the dog.
A few days after the bear attack, the person who spoke to QMI on condition of anonymity said Lavoie used a rock to kill his dog before eating the pet.
By the time provincial police airlifted him out three months later, Lavoie was barely able to speak or eat. He suffered hypothermia and dehydration and had lost about 90 pounds.
Survival expert Andre Francois Bourbeau said Lavoie did what he could to live.
“He survived because he made good decisions. Eating his dog was one of them,” said Bourbeau, author of a survival guide.
Bourbeau has researched hundreds of similar stories, some of which include cannibalism.
“You have to be desperate, but there’s no shame in (eating the dog),” said Bourbeau. “He had to use reason.”
The survival expert says that after 30 days in the wilderness with no food, Lavoie’s body would have gone into shock from starvation.
“Hunger squeezes you so much that you would accept food that’s not normally possible,” said Bourbeau. “You can crave slugs and bugs.”
Lavoie is an experienced hiker who often spent weeks in the wilderness by himself. But the Nottaway River is considered too dangerous even for the hardiest outdoorsmen.
Andre Diamond, a Waswanipi Cree who lives on an island at the mouth of the river, said he warned Lavoie to stay away.
“He said it didn’t scare him, but it’s not a river to travel alone,” said Diamond. “Other adventurers have gone there over 20, 30 years and never came back.”
I don’t want to sit in judgment of the fellow for what he did. My dog is one of my best companions, my friend, my partner on hikes, camping trips, and walks, my travel companion, and partner for playing at night time and on the weekends. She is sad when I leave, and overjoyed when I return. I would have made a different decision concerning the dog, but as I said, I don’t want to sit in judgment of the fellow.
But I do have one bone to pick, and it has to do with the downright obscene and objectionable expectations of people who travel into the wilderness. As to the statement “he survived because he made good decisions,” I would respond, “he almost died because he made awful decisions.” My demurral goes farther than the dog – it goes to preparation for the trip.
Had he carried weapons (a good, scoped bolt action rifle and large caliber handgun such as a .44 magnum revolver), the bear would be dead and eaten, the gentleman would still be alive, and he would be hugging his dog. Instead, he apparently had to watch as a bear nearly cost him his life. Furthermore, if he had access to firearms, it is quite possible that he could have killed game (fowl if he had carried a shotgun, small game, or even large game with a rifle or shotgun with slugs) to eat instead of eating his companion.
Let’s suppose that Canadian law prohibits the carrying or even ownership of weapons such as the ones that I mentioned, and let’s further suppose that shooting the bear would have been illegal (or in other words, there is no such thing as a bear tag in that Province of Canada).
It doesn’t matter. The trip nearly cost him his own life, and it is immoral for the Canadian government to make or enforce such laws. Immoral, obscene and unrighteous laws not only need not be obeyed, but they must be disobeyed. When a government makes unrighteous laws, it has become unrighteous.
