i don't think this question has a yes-or-no answer, but i'd like to know some of the varied thinking that you all carry around.

it's my contention that hiking with another person may or may not have a slight advantage over hiking solo.

i will assume that the solo hiker carries the necessary tools to stay out overnight.

i will assume that the solo hiker leaves with another person or two the who, what, where, and when of the day's planned hike.

i will assume the solo hiker travels and does not deviate from the planned hike.

as mentioned in another post, many misadventures carry immediate consequences - falls, drownings, extreme medical events (heart attacks, etc), animal encounters. not much can be done by another person or plb about those.

as an example, hiking with another they fall and have a serious head injury. do you go for help or stick around to keep the person safe and to keep predators away? how is either decision any better than the outcome for a solo hiker who suffers the same injury?

i'm thinking - perhaps incorrectly - if you are missed after not checking in, help should find you w/i 24 - 48 hrs. and that if none of the major events have occurred you will be rescued. cold, maybe. uncomfortable, maybe. hungry, maybe. but not dead.

your thoughts?

Definitely safer and smarter with two or more people. However, I have hiked alone on close to home dayhikes, with all the precautions you mentioned.

There are times when having a friend on the hike might not help in certain circumstances. But there are more times when having a friend WOULD help. I can't think of any non-contrived circumstance where having a friend would HURT. Therefore, having a friend is the smarter thing to do.

Good topic bsmith,

I was going to respond to the PLB thread but yours is more to the point about traveling alone.

I sometimes hike or camp alone, usually when I want to test my survival ability in a certain enviroment or season. I often hunt alone and prefer it, only seeing my companions in the very early morning and again after dark at camp. I am a far more successful hunter this way (other that when doing drives) and being alone really helps me absorb nature to the fullest.

About 50 to 75 days a year I work alone in the forest of Northeastern Ontario, sometimes I am on the highway corridor, other times I am deep in the bush by ATV, snowmobile or boat. My employer provides me with lots of communication methods being; 2 way radio, cell phone, Sat phone and PLB but sometimes an emergency can happen very quickly and leave you exposed to the elements.

Many examples come to mind but a common one here at this time of year is going through the ice. The best thing to rescue you is a Partner with a throwbag, but with a flotation suit and ice picks self-rescue is possible. After you get out then you need to call for help (an on-person waterproof PLB is a real asset), and get yourself warm ASAP; get to your vehicle, break into a cabin, start a fire, whatever it takes. A Partner is also beneficial at this "Get Warm Again" stage.

After an accident a Partner is also important, you may be injured to the point where you cannot call for help or if you do it may be a long time arriving. It is during this time that a Partner can protect you from the enviroment and administer 1st Aid to keep you alive.

A partner may also keep you from getting into trouble, an extra pair of hands or eyes can prevent the incident from ever happening (e.g. freeing a snowmobile stuck in the slush).

I spend a lot of time alone in the bush, I try to be as safe as possible and plan/prepare for anticipated emergencies. I also really enjoy being alone, but as I move into middle-age I realize that it would be safer if I had a partner more often.

Mike

No - is what I'd counsel friends and family, especially the women.

Redundancy rules in my survival preps, starting with hiking companions. Especially in regard to women hikers/backpackers (I'll stipulate that I am a woman hiker since "Dagny" is apparently gender-vague to some).

If I can't move, I'd like to have someone along who can.

There have been some spirited ETS discussions on this topic, as it relates to real-life tragedies and rescue situations that have occurred.

I can see the appeal of solo to some adventurous souls, especially the peacefulness of it, going at your own pace and less noise to scare off wildlife that I enjoy photographing. Solo could be more soulful.

And even if you'd rather hike with others, it's not always easy to find someone who wants to go where you want to, when you want to.

A guy friend in DC is an avid solo backpacker, logging hundreds, possibly thousands of solo miles in the U.S. and Europe -- much of that on the AT, PCT and in the Alps.

Out of regard for his wife and his own safety, he is meticulous in his planning so she knows where he's going and when he's supposed to be there.

Know the risks, be prepared.

The quick answer is that hiking solo is more hazardous than hiking with a pardner or a group, but that is not always true.

How capable is your pardner? Can your bud render competent first aid or hike out, if necessary (note your buddy is now hiking solo and you now are on your own).

It is not unknown in a group for an individual to go along, not paying much attention to circumstances, and then become separated from those who were. This person is now SOL. It well might have been better for the individual to have hiked alone. They might then have paid attention to the route and the situation.

Many people do go out solo and they do not necessarily die in great numbers. One tends to be more cautious and careful. It is necessary to leave info with a reliable person, stick to your planned route, and agree on a time to press the panic button. PLB technology does improve the situation to some extent.

Who is better prepared - the soloist with a FAK, together with training and experience, or a group of any size with neither?

It all comes down to skills and capabilities. Some groups are clueless, and can be more poorly prepared than an individual hiker.

Good topic!

I imagine hiking alone is a lot safer than driving down the average freeway. It's just that hiking, since it's in a "wild" place is a associated with danger.

Having said that, I think it's generally safer to hike in groups of two or more. If I get in a jam, I'd for dang sure want other people to be there.

I fell and broke my rt. femur in the Canadian backcountry in 2001. I was well equipped and well prepared. I went into shock, didn't think straight, and was just sitting there. Thank God that there were other people. Someone said, "hey, Jim, maybe you should put your extra clothes on to stay warm." I was so out of it that I hadn't thought of putting on my extra clothing even though it was -9C out at the time.

All of my survival thinking is usually based on the assumption that my brain will be functioning in a rational fashion. Given injury, hypo, or hyper thermia, rational thinking is a poor assumption. It's safer to go with someone else.

Still, I do go out hiking alone once in a while. Risk can be mitigated as mentioned in other posts in this thread and by:
1. Sticking to trails
2. Going out in decent conditions
3. Staying in more popular areas

Of course, I love going out in the snow, doing cross country routes, and getting away from it all, but the more one goes toward the more adventurous, the more risk one assumes. You'd better know what you're getting in to.

Personally, I don't think that solo hiking is an automatic "no, no" but rather is something to be done judiciously. I particularly object to the line of thinking that when something bad happens to someone who was out solo that they somehow deserved it since they were out alone. I don't buy it that anyone who goes out alone is a complete idiot. Read the writings of John Muir some time. Are these beautiful poetic passages the musings of an idiot? I think not.

HJ

I've went Solo,Many Times,& I've also Rendevous'd Solo.I've also had Many close sightings of Predators,When going Solo!One person makes Alot Less Noise than 2 or more,& Animals in General,Have Less Fear,As Well! I 've Alway's tried to get Friend's to go Along,but when I'm ready to Go,I don't need to hear the Malarkey/Excuses/etc.,I'm Good to Go,& I'm Gone!I usually Avoid The Black Diamond trails that require Rigging/Rope,But I have used them on Occasion,to acheive my Destination!I'm Also Not, an Ultra-Lighter or Explorer when going Solo,It is Exhilerating for the Most part!

Yes.

Simply stated, you're probably right. There IS an advantage. However, depending on environment, experience, and equipment, I'd say the advantage can be very slight. Which is why man folks say "the heck with it." Going with a partner, for marginal benefits, may be outweighed by factors such as route, timing of the excursion (I'm off this weekend, you're not, I'm going!), etc

I've gone hiking solo. A few overnighters solo. But honestly, I appreciate the company of 1 or 2 others. It's not a thought-out, "safety" issue as much as it is, carry less weight, someone to talk to, easier to get camp set up, etc.

No question, contest, discussion necessary. Hiking alone is freedom. Hiking with somebody(ies) is not.

I hike solo quite a lot. Every year I do a 10-14 day section hike on the Appalachian Trail, usually solo. It's a bit by choice and a bit by circumstance. My kids are grown and I just don't have buds to hike with for that long. I could probably find a companion through the hiker sites or on the trail, but frankly I really like the solitude.

That being said, it's the AT. Fairly highly traveled, extremely well annotated trails, campsites, water sources, even trail ups/downs. I have gone several days without seeing other hikers but if I had a problem I'm fairly confident it wouldn't be too long before someone came along. I don't think I would be so quick to hike solo on a less documented and traveled trail.

I'm a careful hiker, including how I step over logs and climb. I carry Doug's Survival Kit plus other selected items. My wife knows my itinerary and I check in by cell at least every other day. I sign every trail register. I greet other hikers and exchange names.I don't go off trail and no shortcuts.

Hikermor raises a good point - in some cases you could be less safe with a buddy because you may take more chances!

Great thread - I look forward to what others say.

I like that!

Yes.
I regularly hike, ski, road bike, trail run, snowshoe, mountain bike, flat water paddle, jeep and climb solo on trips ranging from a few hours to several days. I'd get out a lot less if I had to find a partner every time I felt like going outside. I've never had any serious problems in more than 20 years of solo activities. It could happen someday but that possibility isn't enough to keep me sitting inside or just doing "safe" things alone.

Three benefits of a hiking buddy:
- Another set of shoulders to carry the load.
- A conscience when you are about to do something needlessly stupid.
- Someone to outrun in case of a bear attack.

Things can very quickly go wrong in the wild. A buddy can do for you what no other piece of gear can: they can call for help when you are unable to do so. Aron Ralston and Bill Jeracki would still have their limbs had they decided that a buddy was an essential piece of gear.

And now, a cautionary tale:

Years ago when I was much younger and dumber, I went on a three-day, solo, ultralight hike in the Santiam Wilderness in Oregon. I think my pack weighed under 15 pounds, and that's counting food and fuel. The only flashlight I had was on my Swiss Army knife, which also happened to be my only sharp. For shelter I had a bivy-sack sewn from Tyvek and a space blanket for warmth. I think the heaviest piece of gear I carried was a water filter, because I'm too impatient to wait for tablets to do their work.

It was wonderful. I didn't see another human being for three whole days! I don't think I've ever felt quite as free and easy as I felt when that Oh-my-God-I-just-climbed-four-miles-in-one-hour feeling set in. It's amazing what you can do when you abandon sanity and charge head-long at the wild.

But when I arrived at Chimney Peak ahead of schedule, I decided to climb it. There was a trail most of the way up, but it got progressively more wild as I neared the top. On the way down, I lost the trail.

That area of the Santiam Wilderness is basically two halves of a large ravine leading down to the headwaters of the Santiam. By the time I was able to find a landmark after scrambling my way down the peak, I had completely separated myself from any reasonable hope of returning to the trail without some rope.

What followed was a day-long scramble following a tributary down into the ravine, slogging wet through the creek as I descended about 1500 feet over the space of about a mile. I camped at the river that night, completely exhausted.

On day two I waded several miles up the river, and then scrambled up the other side of the canyon only to find a critical bridge that I had intended to cross had been washed out by a storm earlier in the year.

Then I attempted to follow a deer trail over the mountain and quickly got rather hopelessly lost. With night approaching I stupidly began to run, hoping I could find a vantage point to get a bearing. I lost the light, and it was overcast, so with no other alternatives, I settled in on a ledge, made my peace with God about perhaps not getting home, and tried to get some rest in the rain.

That night my pack was visited by a large mammal with big teeth. I'm not certain it was a bear -- I just woke to a very loud, very mushy chewing of my rucksack. I grabbed the safety whistle on my neck and nearly hyperventilated while blasting it until those deep, moist sounds moved on down the hill before I drifted off to sleep again.

In the morning I woke to clear skies and found Chimney Peak mocking me from across the ravine. I took a bearing, picked my way across the hillside, and found the Forest Service road I had intended to walk out on. I actually arrived at my designated pick-up location well-ahead of my ride.

I wouldn't trade the experience that I had, especially considering that one of the imponderables that became crystal clear that night on the ledge was that I hadn't told my girlfriend that I loved her, and that I deeply wished I had. I later did, and today we're married. Given that I'd rather be with her than without her, I won't go it alone in the wild again without a buddy.

I know that I was both overconfident and under-prepared when I left for that trip. While I was an experienced hiker, my youth led me to accept some unnecessary risks. I deviated from my plan just over one hour into day one. I made increasingly foolish decisions until I had a clear-headed moment at daybreak on day three. Any number of times, particularly during the jaunt down the ravine, I could have fallen and knocked myself unconscious and been unable to get out of there. Even if I had been carrying proper gear, even if I had stayed on course, if something critical and debilitating had happened to me, I wouldn't have come home alive.

Excellent post djlmwh, Thanks for sharing your experience. Mike

I can't think of any downsides to going with another person.

With all things being equal, you each carry your own gear. You may share food/cooking/cleaning.

I fall and break my leg, otherwise ok - Partner calls for help, makes camp, we wait.
I fall and have some sort of head injury, but am ambulatory - Partner calls for help and shelters me, worst case guides me out.
I fall and am unconcious, not able to move. Partner secures the area, calls for help - and in worst case scenario, shelters me and beats feet for help.

If I'm alone in first case, possible second, I call for help and wait, alone. In third case, I'm hosed - the chipmunks devour me and I am never heard from again until some hunters stumble across some bones 10 years later.

I will go on short hikes, in the local area, solo, but nothing overnight.

All good responses. Thanks to Dagny for the ladies' perspective. Here in the SouthEast we've had a few lone women attacked on trails.

The whole "solo or no?" question has to be rooted in what you want to get out of the experience. If the sole issue is safety, then never go in the woods at all. Beyond that, know the risks, know thyself, and reap the rewards of prudent adventuring.

One big thing I'd say to my fellow solists is this: be MORE willing to back off than you would if you had partners. IMO the threshold for bailing on "the plan" has to be lower for the soloist.



Word! Years ago I rope-soloed a challenging 2 day big wall climb. It went off without a hitch (get it...?). The closest I came to dying was on the drive home when a guy ran a stopsign and almost crashed into me.

I would agree there is no "right" answer. The odds of you getting the help you need are far better when you have someone with you. But, doesn't the odds of something happening to either one of you double? I was hiking/camping with a buddy, I fell and was trapped between 2 rocks in a small section of a river we had crossed two days earlier... he froze up on me. Make sure you carry someone capable of helping should the need arise.

I once told my wife that when I'm old and decrepit, to drive me into a forest, drop me off facing west, and let me turn into bear poop.

I guess chipmunk poop isn't too bad an alternative. No nursing home for me, thank you very much. I'd hang myself with my catheter.

this is a subject that comes around a lot at BWCA.COM the canoe tripping site.lots of us see solo canoeing as a "art" so to speak.not at all like base camping with the fishing buddys for a week or going out with the family and the dogs,which i also do.
the same ideas about being alone apply out in the canoe and on the hiking trails,i think a canoe is a bit safer than walking over rocky,muddy,closed in paths all day.in a boat your sitting down and have a better view and the only danger is bad water you can always get off or falling on a portage which being the only way between lakes means someone will be along sooner or later,you hope.everyone will tell you the drive to canoe country has more hazards than the adventure it's self and i'm sure the same holds for hikers.the women at bwca are avid solo trippers of all ages and post some great story's.everyone gets a case of the "hebby-jebbys" at first but get over it after a trip or two.
sum up---solo.big yes!!..the dangers are over rated by the Safety Sam Gang.



not only is there no one else on this lake i had not see anyone else for several days and would not for several more.

Welcome to ETS, djlmwh. Great account of a harrowing experience.

I'm from Hood River and my only solo hiking was a relatively brief foray on the well-traveled PCT/Timberline Trail while staying at Timberline Lodge on a return visit.

No way I'd be venturing into the Oregon wilds alone -- especially not after reading your story. That is big, big country.

Thanks for the contribution.

Day hikes and overnights, usually solo for the solitude.
Longer hikes than that, with buddies for the company.

All the precautions assumed are good ones and I do them.

I hike alone most of the time. My former companions have been taken over by their children's soccer leagues.
So if I'm not willing to go alone I'd nearly never go.

Hiking with someone isn't an automatic good deal. If you and your partner are matched, or your partner is smarter/fitter than you it's good. But if your partner can't be counted upon to be sensible and a true partner then you might be better off alone.

Some folks will not be able to help you when you need it. Some may invite trouble by doing stupid things that you wouldn't do. (climbing stuff, jumping stuff, wading water, etc)

And there is the phenomenon that the bigger the group, the dumber the group decisions ("hey, if that doesn't work the group can carry me out, right?")

I fired a guy as my hiking parter because he had no more responsibility for the outcome of the day than his Cocker Spaniel. I decided I was better off hiking alone than hiking with him. (He took it to heart and got some training to be a Sierra Club trip leader.... )

Hiking alone isn't perfectly safe. But neither is painting your house, walking the dog, or driving to Grandma's house.

Nice analysis, Night Hiker.

I appreciate the thoughtful comments of everyone. I appreciate the fact that people took the time to go beyond the surface and to probe a bit.

The drawbacks of group dynamics have been alluded to in earlier posts. Indeed, there have been studies that have reported that groups are more likely to have accidents in the wilderness. Some of it may be due to peer pressure. Some of it may be due to "I'm with a group; I feel safe" thinking.

In other words, the idea that solo travel is in and of itself more risky isn't necessarily true. The idea that it's safer to travel with a group assumes that the individuals don't relax their vigilance when they join a group, a poor assumption.

It sounds like for most of us the issue isn't whether or not to go solo. Maybe the issue is more where to draw the line as to which trips we'd be willing to do solo.

For me: A walk in the local canyon on the established Forest Service road where I know that I'll see a dozen people? No problem. I do it solo all the time; it's my regular training hike.

A remote cross country ramble on steep, rocky, loose ground in patchy snow conditions? I'd think twice about doing something like that solo.

HJ

hey hj, i couldn't have said it better. thank you for that.

i've been reading all of the responses and i do very much appreciate the time you all have spent responding to my question. i will post more when i have more than a few minutes.

Solo - yes

Caution - of course

Preparation - Essential


I'd like to offer my nickels worth regarding leaving your trip plan with a responsible person. Not enough of us do it but we know we all should.

So, take a look at my suggested plan at www.outdoorquest.biz. Select the Links button/tab....its the first link at the top of that page. Its just a .pdf file and a free download.

Also, I suggest you visit the SAR Volunteers Association of Canada's web site at: www.sarvac.ca. Take a look at their recomendations.

Great posts. Thank you to all. Blake

Succinctly and well put.

I like the trip plan form you have. I usually do mine by email. I send it to my wife and my sister. One of the things I like about email is that it can then be forwarded to SAR if need be.

I include an ACME Mapper link that shows my intended route. If you haven't seen ACME Mapper, it's worth knowing about. Here, for example, is my route from last Saturday.

A little over a year ago, I ran (very) late on a trip. I had underestimated the length of time it would take quite seriously (it had been about 20 years since I had been in the area, and the trail had not been maintained for some time). My wife called SAR and forwarded them my email which contained an ACME Mappper link similar to the one above. I finally got to a point where I got cell service and called my wife. She let me know she had called SAR. I called SAR to let them know I was OK. They sent a truck down a service road to meet me part way into the backcountry. I apologized profusely since I had caused a SAR call out due to my bad estimate of time needed. One of the SAR guys replied, "yes, but at least you were exactly where you were said you'd be. We searched for a guy a week ago and spent hours before we realized that he had directed us to the wrong place." The SAR guys were actually quite pleased to have such an easy "rescue" even though I was thoroughly embarrassed.

Interesting thought: if I had had a SPOT with me (or Sat phone or HAM radio), all of that might have been avoided. I did by the way have a PLB, but a PLB wasn't very helpful in that particular situation.

HJ

I counsel others to take all the standard advice:

Groups of three [are] ideal. Three gives you one down, one to take care of the victim, and one to go for help. Two people can also pretty reliably carry out another even if the largest in the group is the one who can't walk. The divide between two and thee is often the divide between what a large animal, or human attacker, will take on.

Tell responsible people vital information. Stick to trails. Carry a cell phone and/or PLB. Etcetera.

That said, I've been known to do none of that and go out on my own traveling light (not quite ultra-light) and fast using experience, native resourcefulness, and local knowledge to make up for any shortfall. I usually carry twice the food I need and some way of carrying and treating extra water. Those few times I ran into problems I worked around it without resort to outside help.

I turned an ankle pretty bad once and got a large laceration that bled pretty good. I was on a early fall three-day hike (expected temperatures better than 55F) and a freak cold front came through, dropped a hell of a lot of rain, and pushed the temperature down to the teens. It even snowed a bit. I hiked out wearing every stitch I had with extra insulation from natural materials making up the difference. Short of the proverbial "two broken legs" sort of event, in which case they find my bones, I make do. I don't advocate anyone else do the same.

Corrected for wording. What can I say? I write my first language like it is my second.

I don't think there is one right or wrong answer; it depends too much on the person's abilities, their amount of experience & preparation, and their goals. If a person is prepared and stays within their limits, they will be safe probably more than 99% of the time. This lets people choose whether they go solo or with people. I tend to think the safety factor is better with one or two other people.

For what it's worth, most newsworthy incidents involving hikers in my area happen to solo young men who have gotten lost. They are invariably "experienced with the outdoors" yet never have a map, compass, clothes, or extra food & water. I've not kept track, but I can only remember one incident that happened to a group, this being a mother & daughter who ended up staying a night in the woods unprepared.

More rarely I hear about shootings or assaults that happen to hikers, usually solo women or women who didn't stay with their group. I have no idea if being in a group would have saved any of those victims. I tend to think that most attackers aren't looking for a fight, and thus pick easy targets.

Personally, I almost never hike solo because the outdoors is fun & beautiful, and is therefore better when experienced with someone. Hiking alone would be like watching a game or going to a movie by myself: it becomes flat & pointless. And that's coming from a guy who's a bit of a loaner.

On the flip side, take my father: he's an avid Alaskan outdoorsman who once stated "when I die, you'll have to come look for me." He's elderly, yet still tromps around the mountains by himself every weekend. I don't know if he prefers hiking solo, but that's the way he wants to go.

Depends entirely on the people involved - time for a war story from way back when:

We received a call late in the evening from two hikers who had hiked out from the Galiuro Mountains, AZ, stating that their companion was hypothermic and had been left behind - as it turned out they gave his location accurately.

We responded immediately, reaching the trail head about 10 PM (quite a long drive from Tucson). Three of us immediately set out on snowshoes, traveling over about two feet of snow the last two miles to reach the location about 3 AM. Here we found the body of the victim - frozen stiff by the side of the trail where his companions had left him. No sign of any attempt at assistance (tent erected, fire built, etc). When he became distressed, his companions stopped, turned around, and departed the range by a longer, lower elevation route.

I later talked with the brother of the victim, giving him as much information as I could. i learned from him that the party had become wet the night before, sleeping out in the open without setting up the tents they were carrying. I was also told that the two surviving companions had recently taken a winter survival course after getting into difficulty on an earlier trip. I guess you could say their training was effective - after all, they did survive.

Be careful in your choice of companions. There is nothing inherently safe about a group vs solo.

Note also that this is also a situation where a PLB would have been of questionable value.

Yikes! What a horrible story! Turns out he certainly made a fatally poor choice of traveling companions! It's mind-boggling that anyone would leave an obviously hypothermic person alone, just lying with no shelter on the edge of a trail. Obviously that's your point but I still wonder why no effort was made to warm him or create a shelter? Especially if they had tents.

I will make an effort to avoid "friends" like that!

I guess it may have helped if the victim would have deployed it the instant he realized he was in trouble. Although if he couldn't be rescued by air he was probably already a goner.

Of course, without realizing it, he was in danger the moment he agreed to take the trip with those two companions.

So were charges pressed in that incident? If nothing else, I'm suprised something along the lines of negligent homicide wasn't considered.

Not sure if it would stick in court, but in today's America, I'd be very suprised if no one tried.

Good question, and I don't know for sure. I know the brother of the victim was (obviously) upset, and in a mind to do so. I am positive he had ample grounds to sue. However, none of us were ever contacted about any kind of testimony.

One of the tricky things about hypothermia, and I have started down this slippery slope a couple of times (there are those who say I am always on it), is that one of the first things to go is your ability to reason, just when you need to analyze and solve problems. His companions were obviously not thinking very clearly, and they were probably hypothermic.

I solo hike and solo camp but my itinerary is pretty tight and I use SPOT to update DW. Normally though I just solo hike. 90% of my camping is with a group.

Similar to the post I made in the PLB thread, most everyone is willing to take more risk when they know there is a backup plan, like your hiking buddy and/or a PLB. The simple fact that most of us carry gear in the back country causes us to accept additional risk. At the same time, we're willing to accept some form of additional risk because we believe we're properly prepared to handle that risk.

All in all, going solo is riskier. Overall, your chances of getting out of anywhere alive is greater in a group. There are always cases where that is not the case. But they are the exception and the same may not hold true the next time around.

For the wise, it boils down to risk tolerance and what you are willing to accept. For the unwise, stupidity leads them astray. We will all have times when we make foolish actions in the spur of the moment, that may even go against our risk tolerance level. In those moments, we may get excited by the rush; however, we must also accept the resulting consequence, whether good or bad.

Like others, I enjoy hiking solo. Enjoying the backcountry in its pure form, quiet and at my own pace. But I choose my solo routes where I know I will occasionally encounter others as well and I make sure my wife knows where I'm going. Groups get me into remote areas. We still spread out from base camp or at our final destination. But we know the general area each other will be and have the means to communicate.

Of course the anal-retentive will then question whether the 3rd person going for help solo is thus increasing the danger because they are now hiking alone..... (but I'm just pulling your chain)

I was overtaken by a somewhat unexpected Spring snowstorm when hiking alone last Spring. I had more than sufficient clothing and knowlege to cope with it but I also was acutely aware that my safety margins had just dropped dramatically. I was 1 mile short of my goal and 5 miles from the car. I immediately turned back to the car and walked very carefully all the way back mindful that getting hurt under those conditions could be fatal - even with a detailed hike plan and a specified SAR callout time given in the plan. It was still a satisfying outing :-)

I feel plenty safe hiking alone. I am well prepared and actually find it easier to navigate and "stay found" when not distracted by conversation or interaction with others.

My take on this is that a party of four is optimum; this leaves two to go for assistance, or whatever, while one tends the victim. This all depends on circumstances.

For low and low moderate risk hikes and backpacks, I have no problem taking off solo. Trails, popular areas, and cell coverage all are low risk. I have turned around on both solo day hikes and backpacks where I felt the risk was too great.

Safety with hiking partners are dependent entirely upon the skill and common sense of your partner(s). A partner skilled in land navigation, camp skills, first aid, and having their head firmly planted on their shoulders is a blessing to hike with. I've hiked with others that either been blithering idiots (toted more alcohol then water into the desert) or yahoos that were as likely to end killing themselves as getting you killed trying to rescue them (free climbing up the side of a waterfall).

Wow. Just that is just so unbelievable. AND what bad judgment they had all made not to put up any shelter which got them wet in the first place. I hope that poor guy's companions did have a touch of hypothermia. If not, they're the just really poor examples of humanity with whom I'm embarrassed to share the gene pool with.

HJ

Booooring.

Oh, you've hiked with Bear Grylls?

HJ

Whatever is optimum really depends on the group and less dependent on the numbers. I'd say anywhere from 3 to 5. More than five and it's get harder to get everyone syncronized.


I am surprised there aren't anymore "never-go-alone" advocates here. It seems we all share the same basic views about risk awareness and risk tolerance. You all said it so well I can't think of anything further to add

One is none, two is one, three is a spare?

Going solo is a different, often profound experience of the wild and your place in it. I say be safe, be prepared, but do it.

Besides other people do annoying things like talk, or get injured ....

Okay, one more comment and I'll leave this alone just so as not to veer any further OT. In a way I agree & hope they were somewhat hypothermic, just because that means they weren't just despicable people. But even so what possessed them to sleep in the rain/wet when they all had tents? That's just baffling to me. Especially if two of them had winter survival training! They had no excuse for not knowing the risks of getting cold and wet and not taking steps to stay out of trouble.

Okay, rant off![/rant!]

I can't add a whole lot to the thoughtful comments already made.

I have done most of my hiking solo, dayhiking and backpacking. I don't think it's for everyone, but in some ways I prefer it. There is a meditative aspect and a rhythm to moving through a landscape that I can rarely find when being pushed/pulled by a group.

I do find that I am extra conservative and walk with greater awareness when travelling solo. I also move a bit slower, since I'm carrying a bit more weight. I don't push quite as hard to make the hard target of a destination on a map; if I need to stop and make a rough camp where there's water and a view, I will. The destination is a place in my head as much as anything. I will also turn back if there's a creek crossing that's just a little too wild or a little too much fresh evidence of wildlife or I smell snow on the wind. No heroics, and no social pressure to push on when prudence suggests otherwise.

I learned my craft before cell phones, sat phones, and PLBs had coverage in my wild places. Though as I get a bit older, I might consider throwing a rental PLB in my pack if I'm going off the beaten path. The idea still seems invasive somehow, but I accept that there are situations that cannot be fully anticipated no matter how careful I might be.

I don't know about hiking, but I do know that snowboarding with a buddy is probably about 10 times safer than snowboarding alone. If you have a serious crash in the back country, you can have all the best equipment in the world, but a snowboarding budding is most likely going to be able to keep you alive. A buddy can go get rescuers, help you move out of powder snow if you physically can't, etc. - been there, done that, have the T-shirt.

Yeah, winter conditions really up the ante, particularly if you're in avvy country.

HJ

Agreed. I have frequently hiked/backpacked & hunted alone and continue to do so. Other activities get dramatically more dangerous solo. Travel over glaciers, cayoneering, and a number of other activities too frequently create conditions where the solo adventurer is at a HUGE disadvantage.

Yes yes YES a thousand times Yes.

Solo hikers have many advantages - from being able to travel at their own pace, being able to make changes to the plans on the fly and best of all they are better able to witness with stealth and quiet the various animals in the wilderness.

hey, i'm back.

i have been able to read all of your posts several times.

what i take away is that hiking solo is a personal decision based on personal beliefs and on external factors.

where i hike is very different from where many of you hike.

and then we have all of you hunters who are out there by yourself in order to bring home the meat. solo, vs group hunting, wins the day in my book.

i also noticed in the thread that if not solo, then solo with a partner and then becomes solo with two partners and then higher numbers and then on to a group hike. which several posters pointed out could be counterproductive in that groups might take chances whereas a solo would not.

although i certainly see both sides of the arguments you all have put forth, for me i'm not convinced 1+ or more has an advantage over solo.

for me, i'd prefer to hike solo. but i am fortunate to have a hiking buddy who i can spend 8 - 12 hours a day with - without annoying each other or feeling like we're having to take care of each other.

thank you for all of your thoughtfullness and great ideas.

I have done most of my hiking solo (or with my beagle) but it is not 100 miles from nowhere, or on trails that are especially difficult. I am more concerned about getting her out if she gets hurt.

Most cases if I had a major problem there is cell phone coverage where I hike, although sometimes it is spotty.

I guess I never really thought about it much. I think it is more dangerous walking around in my neighborhood on our morning walks these days. Everything is icy and snow covered, and where there are sidewalks, they are often not cleared of snow and I end up having to walk on the street.

At 5:30am there is not that much traffic but I am not sure just how alert people are to pedestrians.