"Many experienced outdoormen—and all reasonable hiking organizations—contend that one of the greatest dangers in wilderness travel is a practice that permeates this book: walking alone.
They may have something, too. But once you have discovered solitude—the gigantic, enveloping, including, renewing solitude of wild and silent places—and have learned to put it to creative use, you are likely to accept without a second thought such small additional dangers as the solitude imposes. Naturally, you are careful. You make darned sure that someone always knows where you are, and when you will be “out.” You leave broad margins of safety in everything you do: hurrying (or not hurrying) over rough country to make up time; crossing (or not crossing) the creek on that narrow log; inching past (or not inching past) that perilously perched boulder. And when it comes to the all-important matter of luck you keep firmly in mind the Persian proverb that I have already quoted “Fortune is infatuated with the efficient.”
But if you judge safety to be the paramount consideration in life you should never, under any circumstances, go on long hikes alone. Don’t take short hikes either—or, for that matter, go anywhere alone. And avoid at all costs such foolhardy activities as driving, falling in love or inhaling air that is almost certainly riddled with deadly germs. Wear wool next to the skin. Insure every good and chattel you possess against every conceivable contingency the future might bring, even if the premiums half-cripple the present. Never cross an intersection against a red light, even when you can see that all roads are clear for miles. And never, of course, explore the guts of an idea that seems as if it might threaten one of your more cherished beliefs. In your wisdom you will probably live to a ripe old age. But you may discover, just before you die, that you have been dead for a long, long time."

--Colin Fletcher, _The Complete Walker III_

I don't think it is a matter of safe vs. unsafe. It is certainly safer to hike with a companion than to hike alone, and a female hiking alone is less safe than a male. Of course if she has a Glock and a couple of spare mags maybe not so much!

Dangerous - as in lack of a backup to assist you if you break a leg, twist an ankle or some other injury? Dangerous as in the lack of having the extra person who can communicate with others if you have a problem? Dangerous as is solo hikers tend to be attacked by wildlife more often than small groups? Dangerous as if you are pinch locked in a crevasse and have to cut your arm off to get free? Yes, yes, yes, yes.... and yet NO.

As often as I go out solo on a hike, I've found that even on fairly remote trails, I usually see at least one other person out there who either passed me or we meet along the trail. In some very popular areas, you simply cannot get away from the others for too long (Mount Robson Berg Trail for example). I've never had a violent wildlife encounter even though I've seen plenty of wildlife up close and almost personal. I hike a lot in bear country - not the wussy little black bears but sizeable hungry grizzly bears. Had a lone wolf walk past my camp with not so much as a "how do you do?" And moose/elk that were just plain curious to see me out on the trail even the moose that I could have reached out and touched!

Do I worry about an injury? No, not worry, but at least I have some concerns. The most common type of injury or likelihood of me experiencing is a twisted/broken angle or a banged up knee! So I am a slow hiker, slower than most people because I like to enjoy nature. I can walk and sniff and listen and photograph and contemplate with much more efficiency and enjoyment than I ever could with partners or with a group. There are certain benefits of hiking alone, plus the knowledge of being self reliant that simply outweigh the negatives about being out by myself. The alone factor can be partially compensated for by having proper support equipment and first aid knowledge.

Not that I don't like company - no I really do. I enjoy group hiking as well and being able to chat, share the experience and snuggle up with a partner in a confined tent is also enjoyable. But I am not afraid of being alone or by myself in the least and in fact relish it.

When I hear people question the sanity of solo hiking I really question whether their concern is for the lack of a safety cushion or the fact that the person is by themselves? Are they themselves afraid of independence and being alone and is that the real reason why they question the sanity of solo hiking? Is it because they themselves have never been alone much less camped/hiked alone that is driving their understanding of a soloist? Before one can criticize hiking alone, "walk a mile in my shoes" in the most literal of senses.

As for this particular gal who was out on a day hike by herself - more power to her. Yes she made some mistakes but she also made some good decisions and kept her head. I hope she continues her quest for solo adventures. Female vs. male soloists - I would think we've matured past our sexist Tarzan attitudes haven't we? The dangers to a female in the woods are only marginally more dangerous than for a male, IF AT ALL. Women tend to me more conservative and are less at risk taking than men and therefore I think they are safer than most people give them credit for. Less likely for them to chose to boldly and blindly walk in circles and more likely to sit and pause for a while to figure out how to resolve being lost as one example.

Better to be the solo gal in the mentioned article than to be a dumbass like Bear Gryllis who has a backup team and sleeps in hotel rooms at night.

I almost mentioned this on the thread about the delayed hiker, but I was afraid it wasn't exactly on topic. Maybe it would fit better here.

I not only like to hike and canoe alone, but I also tell the people who know where I am not to call for rescue on the first day I'm missing. I would absolutely hate to be rescued unless I really, REALLY needed it. Worst of all would be to come walking out fit to find a rescue going on, like that girl did.

I like to explore when I go in the woods, and I always carry enough extra gear to spend the night if I have to. To me, the risk of getting lost and spending that night is just one of the hazards that I willfully accept. To tell the truth, I would feel embarassed to be rescued. I guess you could call it a "macho" thing, although I don't consider myself a particularly macho person. It's just that it would seem an insult to my judgment and woodcraft skills if anybody thought I needed to be rescued.

I realize it's kind of foolish in a way, since there are various kinds of emergencies that could happen that aren't my fault and that could kill me before the second day comes around. But it makes me feel more comfortable and makes my trips more pleasant - I don't rush to keep to any schedule or worry about a delay if something keeps me in one place for longer than I expected, or fret if I get lost. I guess I gain a little safety back by never hurrying and never making rushed decisions.

Does anybody else feel like that?

(Note: I'm not recommending this to others and I don't look down on people who do prefer to be rescued right away - and I'm always willing to help look for anybody that's overdue. This is just a personal preference that applies only to myself, and a few of my friends who I know feel the same.)

The most negative thing I have experienced due to hiking alone has been loneliness.

On the other hand, stay within your limits...and if the presence of another bothers you, stay out of its way.

Common sense is a good guide.


I am confident enough in my skills that I don't fear needing assistance.
I only wish to like people more so I can carry a more complete expeditionary "kit".
I really do like the team idea, but it is yet only a dream.

You beat me to it. :-)

Fletcher pretty well sums up my thoughts on the subject.

Walk softly and carry a big stick.

I say if you are comfortable out there and enjoy doing it, then go for it. Trust your gut.

from reading this first-hand account on another thread here - about the bear attack and escape - it makes me wonder whether two people, as opposed to the solo hiker in this case, would have fared as well. obviously the spray made the difference here. but w/o the spray, and two people? makes you wonder..

then again, when it comes to hiking with a buddy, i don't have to run faster than the bear, i just have to run faster than my hiking buddy!

Probably would have been the same, one guy would have survived

Is hiking alone safe? No. Is driving a car safe? No. Is walking into a school filled with germ-infested children safe? No.

It depends on what level of "un-safe-ness" you are willing to tolerate and still enjoy life.