Paw prints could also indicate feral dogs, which have been known to roam in packs. Never underestimate them.

J-I, you are assuming the car is still upright, and such is not always the case. It may be on it's side, upside down, in water, etc.

Also, maybe the only psycho in the picture is the guy the woman was dating and she ignored the signs, the guy who dumped her on the crest of the Continental Divide and took off in her car...

Sue

I got this information from an old DOS program called Wolftest. It is a program which tests a person's knowledge on wolves. It states facts every time a question is answered and provides a source for each claim. I made a couple of attempts to run it, including running it on a 32-bit distribution of DOS. I will see if I still have a 16-bit distribution of DOS to run it on.

Jeanette Isabelle

There was nothing to indicate that the car was in an accident. Furthermore I said "I can think of only three possibilities where leaving the car would even be an option." I listed a road block, mechanical failure and a highway turning into a parking lot. An accident did not even cross my mind.

Jeanette Isabelle

I have friends that live in Montana,about 80 miles south of Canada,They see Wolves very often,Almost on a daily basis!This scenario doesn't mention it's location so,It could be Anywhere!The re-introduction of Wolves to America(Canadian Wolves),Their success has brought their numbers way,way up,& The fact it is Unlawful to shoot them,has allowed for a Great many of them to spread out to far beyond the predictions of The Fish & Game Dept.,It's all a matter of a short time when they make their debut into more populated area's,that will probably be their demise,as well!Susan mentioned Wild Dogs of which is a More likely scenario within this scenario,I have seen packs of dogs while hiking here in the local mountains though they were quite far from me,Both times,I have seen their tracks & remains of carcass Many times!Nothing gets ruled out in this scenario as,There are no rules!

The keywords I used were: "most people". This can also apply to most people who will never see a bear, cougar or a wolverine in the wild either. However if you live in an rural area where there is larger population of these animals, then yes you may see them on a regular basis. On the other hand, someone who lives in downtown Billings Montana and only gets out of the city a couple of times per year may never see a wolf in the wild.

For example, where I live, there are no wolves, but an awful lot of bears in the local mountains. Given the large human population here, I would easily guess that it is a very tiny fraction of a percent of the people who have seen bears in the wild. And I am not talking about those who only see bears when they wander into backyards in search of food or the bears that people see on the side of the highway.

Getting back to the original post and thread...
How this applies to this particular scenario, the OP did not state where it is taking place other then in some hills. This could mean anywhere which does not necessarily mean that wolves are an established presence there. It would be better for each person to think of the area where they live and the areas they normally travel in and apply each possible threat, whether these threats be wolves, bears..or humans.

I think part of the point of the thread is showing that there is no easy answer to the situation. It's just impossible to make judgments about a person given absolutely zero information besides existence.

It kind of passes through several possibilities, among which are what sort of benefits or dangers the second person might pose, and ends up at that: If the hypothetical woman feels she'd be in greater danger with the stranger, she should pass on. If she feels she would be safer, despite the risks, with another person somewhat knowledgeable of survival, she should make herself known.

Given the other variables, the third option, saying hello and/or getting a chance to know the camper without committing to stick around the camp, does not necessarily exist. But that can be explored:

Pretend the camper is a nice guy who happens to be alone in his camp, and will pose no danger. How can she tell he is actually nice, or just pretending? There's no way to know.

Pretend he's a deranged lunatic who will relentlessly pursue her for harm. She has no way to realistically get away, assuming she's some few days' walk from the road, hungry, and exhausted, while he is well-fed on fish, and presumably better rested (considering it's a longer-than-one-night camp, he'd be more likely to set himself up for at least slightly more comfort). She's more likely to tire before she's safely away. But again, there's no way to know.

I can certainly say I have no way to judge a person with no knowledge of that person, and have no idea what I'd do given a similar situation. I could only hope, should I decide to say hello, that the camper is a member of this forum; I'd be among at least reasonable folks then.

Hmm. Not replying to anyone in this thread in particular. Just want to point something out:

I'm a man. While not during disasters, I have often camped and hiked alone. I have never had any trouble meeting other solo campers, either in public campsites, or in the backcountry. Both men and women. Some have become close friends after chance meetings on the trail, and others I've never heard from again. One became a long-time girlfriend. All made the trip more interesting.

Every time, it has also made the trip more comfortable. Invariably, we each made different packing decisions, and were able to share food (making dinner more interesting), share camp cleanup responsibilities, and once, share guard duties against a recalcitrant and creative black bear that really wanted to get to our food that we had hung as well as possible.

I guess my point is that not all guys alone in the wilderness need to be feared (I like to think of myself as one, and I 'm sure most of the men on this forum would fall into the same category). And teaming up has the potential to make life much easier and safer.

Should that Canadian woman in the motor home this past winter have hidden from her rescuers? They were just a couple of hunters, not police or SAR guys....

The best solution, of course, is to not end up in that position, but things happen.

I do believe that most people are good, but safety comes first and a single woman faces inherant risks in being so.

When I'm out, I'm generally friendly but cautious, especially in the wilderness and seriously when I'm alone in the wilderness. I'm rarely in that position anymore, mostly because of my safety first mentality.

When it does happen, which isn't often, I don't give away info or hints to it, except perhaps to mention my husband (in a "he's present or soon will be" sort of way.) I set-up camp to look like there are at least 2 adults using it but don't go much further than that. If I'm on the side of a boonie road with a flat, I know how to fix it, accept help when I need it.

If I needed help, I'd probably lean more towards trusting and accepting, crowbar in hand and my knife on my belt, but Iwould try to find some sort of trusted authority first.

Absolutely! The trick is how to differentiate between Norman Bates and Chuck Noland.

The OP has set up the situation after "a disaster hits", and that could alter the situation from an everyday car breakdown or getting lost. There are some people who will do the right thing no matter what the situation (like everyone here at ETS ), and there are others who may feel that overwhelmed or non-existent law enforcement gives them the opportunity to act in a way they've often wished they could, with no personal repercussions.

If you could watch the person for while (unseen), it might give clues to his personality. For instance, if I saw a man who lashed out when his fish fell off the stick into the coals, kicking and screaming, I'd pass on making myself known to him. If he failed at doing something, but patiently kept trying, that might indicate a more stable personality.

But like so many other things, luck (good and bad) always plays a part. If you desperately need help, you simply have fewer choices, and there's really no getting around that.

Sue

I'm with Sue. An emergency or disaster that effects more than just me makes it more likely that some "bad guy" will take advantage. Just look at the recent Vancouver riots. Emergency = stretched policingm = dismissal of morals by a few = more risk.