Possible scenario

I thought I started a thread about this scenario but after some search, it was something else.

Lets say a disaster hits, and a woman finds herself in the hills with her BOB. She was travelling by car and due to blocked roads ..etc. she had to leave the car. She camps using her BOB contents, and a few days down the road, her supplies run low.

Then as she is moving, she notices another survivor fishing or chopping wood. She sees him and he doesn't.

Now she faces a dillema of joining him, or moving on. He may be a good guy, and cooperating is defintely better than anyone of them going it solo. However, he may not be such a good guy, and she maybe at risk.

What do you think ? Should she say "Hi" , or quitely head in the opposite direction ?

Very hypothetical, for sure. Might just as well flip a coin to make the decision. Important variables would be her sense of self-sufficiency, ability to take care of herself and maintain control of the social situation. Some kind of cautious interaction first, like leaving a note, etc. might be better than just stepping out into the open.

More likely she would first encounter a group, hopefully of mixed sex, which would have better odds than a group of guys.

Mostly when the situation comes around, if it ever does, we will just all have to deal with it, considering all the host of variables that will be in play.

Is he fishing or is he chopping wood? Which is it? What is his setup like? What items does she still have in her BOB?

Jeanette Isabelle

I'd be very hesitant. A single person alone is vulnerable and, as a single woman alone, I'm even more vulnerable. (Something that runs through my mind when camping alone even in a non-emergency situation.) I'd keep a low profile and try to sustain myself as long as possible while continuing to move toward home or another known safe house.

I agree extra caution is needed hence why I requested more information before answering.

Jeanette Isabelle

Hikemore basically summed up what I think about this scenario and I agree that meeting a group of people of mixed sex is generally safer. Also as Bacpac stated, a single person (female or male) is more vulnerable and to take that one step further, this applies to almost any survival situation

That said, in my area and my experience, there are a lot of single female hikers and campers who are by nature, are wary of any other people. However once they size you up and decide on how safe they feel, most women are receptive to talking and sharing notes about their hiking, camping etc. (Met an ex G/F this way and she nor I, worried about who was carrying a hidden hatchet...)

Would this be different in a disaster type situation where the woman may not of had much prior solo outdoors experience? It probably would and I would think that a woman would avoid any one single point of contact and probably seek out people in a group as their first choice.

Very Difficult to tell what would be the proper thing. The best would to be the STOP principles would apply greatly here. Evaluate your situation, Are you personally injured in anyway? Are you Lacking in Important supplies? Do you Have a way to defend yourself? Do you have a way to see without being seen the other persons situation such as a pair of Bino's? How far are you from other people or man made structures? Do you know where you are and where you are going intimately? Are there Other people at this destination that you know who should be going there or be there already? Are you Dehydrated or Starved (You may very well forget enough food and have been traveling long enough/in weather that could cause this)

Some questions that may provide more reason to avoid may be,

Does This person Look over the top prepared to the point they could be a danger? Do they have multiple large firearms in view? Are they Dressed in a fashion that presents a militaristic or "Mall Ninja" manor? Is their campsite surrounded by trigger devices for signaling presence such as Empty Cans on strings? Do they have any Large "Scarey" Lookin dogs? Do these dogs have items on them such as choke chains that often provide clues to their behavior?


At the Time It would be up to you to ask yourself the questions and figure out acording to the answers wether or not to make contact with them.

The other issue is HOW would you make contact with them? They may very well be Antsy and trigger happy from personality or just from previous situations they have encountered during the Disaster.

There is no SET is stone situation/What if Role play from what I read. This sounds to be just a What should a person do if they came across another singular person who already has a camp set up. Atleast I believe this would be more productive and helpfull since this is a very realistic and possible issue one can come across. The questions they should ask themselves and what they should consider to observe for key information of the other person.

I agree with Frisket that this is a STOP situation.

I suppose I would suggest going through a Rule of Threes review to decide if you are in danger of, or already are, violating any of them. If you are, then you are already in perhaps mortal danger and I would tilt toward careful contact. If you are not violating any of the Rule of Threes criteria and are not currently at risk, then contact is optional and I would tilt against contact and in favor of continued self-rescue.

If contact is optional, then I suppose you should try to do a risk-benefit type analysis. I am not sure what factors I would use in such an analysis, and await the discussion - especially from the female point-of-view.

In any contact scenario, I would think it prudent to keep some of your resources hidden in case Plan B becomes a necessity. I would also suggest carefully considering when and where contact is initiated, and concur some careful pre-contact observation is in order.

A Flaw I see in this is If you leave anything behind You may very well write if off just as you would it being stolen since you may have no way of running back to that spot and obtaining it again without putting yourself in further danger. When someone threatens your life Im sure Your last thought would be the "proper" direction to run.

Also you just made me bring up another factor just as important as if you contact them. If And when you DO contact them How do you handle yourself and what you say. Things I personally wouldnt do Is mention What Exactly I have all together on my person. Keeping your PsP thats in your cargo pocket and that Sidearm in your wasteband Holster a secret may prove smart. DO NOT Inform them of your Path or location of your hopeful destination. They may very well Follow you and get the jump on you if they decide to stay on different paths.

Things you may very well want to think about telling them is people you are expecting to meet or people that are "not to far behind or on their way" in the same direction you are taking. Even if this is a lie it may keep this person on better behavior with the risk factor of retribution. Especially if these people are men with descriptive features/professions even if this is a lie aswell. They may think twice if you say your 6 foot ex Cop Brother isnt to far behind you. Tho This may very well be the called bluff issue as well. You would have to depend on the situation not lasting long or being far enough away they wouldnt be able to follow/find you.

I cannot answer until I have more information.

Jeanette Isabelle

EXACTLY! We'd need at least this amount of caution before approaching in any way.

Dweste just what are the "rule of threes"?

I'm a man and don't think like a woman, so I have to punt, but I would assess the situation using SAM and DOC (Strength, Armament, Mobility, Deployment, Orginazation, and Command).

Strength - physically is he large or small, what is his demeanor, if he is calm and unconserned he may be part of a group that he is relying on for security. Where as if he is more observant and looking around he is more likely alone.

Armament - What is visable? He has his tool be it axe, or fishing rod and one could assume a fillet knife at a miminum.

Mobility - It was said he was either fishing or chopping wood, giving the appearance he will be staying put for at least some time. Does he have a camp set up or is his pack laying on the ground indicating this may be just a temporary stop?

Deployment - Does he have a camp set up? Is there any visible evidence that he is not alone, like two cups, plates or packs out. Again his demeanor. Also what is the lay of the land? Can you approach with an advantage to either escape or fight if needed?

Organization - If he is solo then this is moot, however is there any indication he is part of a group? Like a walkie-talkie, or some other communication device.

Communications - Is he communicating, and if so how and with whom? Again what is his body language telling you?

Lastly when in doubt go with your gut instinct. IF SOMETHING FEELS WRONG IT IS. don't question it just react and believe in yourself. Your subconscious will pick up clues your thinking brain will try to rationalize away.

In many circumstances, you may die from: 3 minutes without air, 3 hours without shelter, 3 days without water, 3 weeks without food, and, some say, 3 months without human contact.

I don't see as disaster situation is more dangerous that any similar situation in every day life. If alone how do you estimate risks. As feminists very correctly point out rape is always a consideration and risk. Men alone or in groups are always something of a risk. Vulnerability and the presence of alcohol add to this risk. As do many other factors.

It has been noted that in a disaster situation, and until things regularize, many confirmed predators will tend to take fewer risks because they are out of their normal environment and comfort zone. Wind comes up, the creek rises, tornado plows through town, or a wildfire threatens and predators tend to go off their feed because the normal clues that keep them safe are mixed up. Unable to tell where super-predators are they take fewer risks. Even their normal complacent and unaware victims are stressed, hyper alert, jumpy.

After Katrina NOLA experienced a reduction of violent crime. Even the police, those few still on duty, noted that many of the neighborhood thugs were to busy helping family and friends to maintain their violent ways.

None of this suggests that predators, or opportunists, can't or won't act up and take advantage of a situation. As always you have to stay aware and trust your instincts.

I think there are no easy answers. Excessive suspicion, pushing people away who might help you, can hurt you as much as unwarranted trust. Always pays to have allies and people covering your back. Trust can be provisional. I don't trust myself unconditionally so I think it is unreasonable to see people as trustworthy or not. It is something that constantly being renegotiated as the time and situation changes.

Great thoughts here

Just a small detour in the subject: what about if it was the reverse. The surviving guy accidently finds this woman fishing or cooking on her stove/campfire. Do you approach ? Do you leave ? Or do you think ( same as above scenario ) ?

My answer, just my answer. There is strength in numbers. I am an old guy ( 55+ yo ), not attractive enough to be raped LOL and could share a few bits of supplies and skills with someone else. So, I would approach, but first would make some noise like coughing etc. I don't want to be facing a startled person with a gun . LOL ... Nor do I want her to freak out and run in the opposite direction and injure herself.

I will give her enough time to say (Hi) or ( STOP right there!)


Jeanette

Forgive me as I didn't quite understand the ( more info ) thing.
Maybe another strong cuppa coffee would help, LOL .

This is a possible ( hypothetical ) scenario that CAN happen. It is not an investigation of a true story that DID happen. I would agree that giving judgement about something that happend in reality needs more info, but for a hypotehetical scenario, we generally investigate the multiple possibilities with options...

So, if he was choppping wood, She should ...
If he was fishing , she should ...

I think

BTW, something like this DID happen in our neck of the woods. A guy was travelling in remote areas alone to join some freinds camping. He stopped for some tea and before moving noticed something far away. They were two lost girls( 5 & 12 yo ). Apparently their family was camping and they went to take a leak and lost their way back. When the two girls saw him approaching in his jeep, they just froze in their place.

Maybe they were too exhausted to run any way. Or maybe seeing a car approaching means ( rescue ) in the subconcious, more than seeing a man sitting at a campfire ! I don't know.

After some radio communication, their family was found and they came for the girls. The family campsite was 16 miles away !!

I armchair hypothetical situations a lot. I never come to a conclusion for any of them based on such information you provided.

Jeanette Isabelle

It really depends... is she doing okay on her own, or is she desperate to revert to second-class citizen and have him take care of her?

For that matter, is HE a TechnoNerd who has no idea how to start a fire, find dry firewood, pick berries or catch a fish, and he needs a mommy to take care of him?

You know that line in The Addams Family movie: "I'm a homicidal maniac -- they look just like everyone else." Ted Bundy had no problem finding victims, because he didn't look dangerous.

If you don't need them, pass quietly, and look for a group, although there aren't any guarantees there, either.

Sue

I agree with Sue: if you don't need him, pass. Neither your "instinct" nor your observations will tell you if he is or is not someone who will be motivated to try to harm you. Ted Bundy is a good examply - but AFIK very few such monsters looked scary enough to raise concern among their victims. I've read numerous "profiles", and I don't believe your observations regarding whether he looks like a choir boy or a creep would be much help.

Therefore you must assess his capacity to harm you. And your capacity to defend yourself. And the risk of injury even if you sucessfully defend yourself. And the risk if you don't take the risk... and go off on you own.

Thanks, all I could think of was the gun fight average of three rounds, at three feet and under three seconds. That just didn't fit with your post.

Ted Bundy ...
I just learnt about him. WOW !!!

OK.
Given all the possibilities in a survival situation, do you think that a surviving woman should include birth control pills in the BOB just in case she ends up with someone who would not take no for an answer ?

Condoms ?

It would be better to include a D-Cell Mag Lite.

Jeanette Isabelle

I'm with J-I.

But if she hasn't been taking regular birth control pills, taking one that day isn't going to do anything. And I don't think most women routinely carry morning-after pills. Well, mostly.

But it's better to avoid him and try not to even let him know you're nearby.

Sue

Look up Jeffrey Daumer & Richard Ramirez too!

IMHO, the first line of defense anyone has is intuition. Humans have a great ability to ignore their guts, make excuses, and deceive themselves but, assuming you can avoid the worse of the above, it is pretty hard for anyone really dangerous to avoid the condemnation of that little voice that issues warnings. Sociopaths tend to play off peoples weaknesses to avoid potential victims digging deep enough to see through their superficial charm.

Intuition isn't infallible but it is, when it allowed to work and be herd, is a finely tuned machine based on thousands of years of evolution.

The second line of defense is having friends around. Males are never entirely safe. Many a wife, daughter, sister, and coworker has found out that people you can trust for years can have a dark side. Friends can compensate for the momentary or long term failure of one in a group.

Physical defense is a pale third choice. A lot depends on how comfortable, and capable, of putting up a fight you are. Even seemingly decisive weapons like a .38 are not a sure thing. If you are not willing to use deadly force on short notice it tends to get taken away. An acquaintance ran a rape prevention seminar and she had a story about being a girlfriend with a .38 and it being used to pistol whip her. Almost killed her.

She spent weeks in the hospital and months in therapy getting over it. Part of her recovery was getting trained in Krav Maga and teaching rape prevention classes. although she seldom mentioned it she also became quite a shot with a pistol and had won several competitions.

She was the one I picked up intuition and friends as the first and second lines of defense.

As a friend of mine often said, "I've shot down more men than the Red Barron." Kira would never let a smooth-talking snake near her.

Jeanette Isabelle

That's a pretty big assumption. I don't know about other countries, but here people are pretty much trained to take people at face value, and I do mean 'face'. Good-looking people are considered safe, and uglier people are considered dangerous. I've known at least three psychopaths in my life, and all of them were extraordinarily good-looking. People fall for their lies and manipulations like a puppy following a bowl of hamburger, and they do it repeatedly. People are even indoctrinated to fear dark-faced dogs in comparison to light-faced dogs.

And how many times have you heard about a man killing his wife or kids, or a chronic wife-abuser, where all the people who know him said, "Oh, it can't be true, I've known him for years"? Even when confronted with the bloody remains and the bloody killer, they are staunch defenders of the killer/abuser.

Sue

Sue, you are sooooo right.

About 30 years back, an old friend told me his sister married a guy, and I met the guy . If my friend didn't tell me he is his brother in law, I would have feared coming close to him. He was that ... unattractive. !!! A few weeks down the road and a few lunches and dinners together, I learnt how great a guy he was.

ON the other side of the coin :
A few years later, I heard in the news from the U.S. that a mom drowned her kids ( I think she let her car roll down a lake while the kids were in it, or something like that ) . When I saw her picture, I said ( She did !!??? ) She was good looking by my standards. Even later, when I started to believe the story I started to feel sorry for HER, and almost forgot the poor kids !!

You are right, and our ignorance is very cruel sometimes.

Art, I have to side with Susan on this. Neither one's "instinct" nor initial (i.e., not over prolonged periods) observations will tell you if he is or is not someone who will be motivated to try to harm you. You won't detect a psychopath. Unless specifically trained, "experts" are correct 1 of 3 times in most studies. With specific training, most predictions barely beat a toss of a coin (51%)unless a protracted professional assessment is done. Even then, the misses are plentiful. The most accurate data is the person's history: he isn't going to tell you that in the woods.

I stick to my opinion: you are NOT going to be able to determine if he would harm you. You have to decide if you can adequately defend yourself should he attempt to do so, and if in doubt, pass him by.

I think it's a judgment call. If the woman's situation is getting to the point where her life is in danger, then contacting the man is probably the smart option. It would be handy for her to have a small pistol or a knife in her possession.

But it's definitely not true that guys who are alone in the wilderness are all a bunch of rapists and violence-prone criminals. A lot of friendly guys might choose to be alone ... just because they want some peace of mind for a few days. Many would be glad to help in that situation.

Your scenario does point out some of the extra concerns that a woman has when she finds herself alone in the wilderness.

Pete #2

This is a fascinating thread, and I am always interested in understanding women’s perspectives to the extent possible. I would agree with Jeanette-Isabel, in that the observer in the original scenario would be able to ascertain more information than is provided here. With all due respect to Chisel, let’s add some details and see how that influences the decision-making process…

You, as the woman in this scenario, come across the camper while he is chopping branches for firewood, using a small, adequate axe. His technique is not stellar, but is more proficient than clumsy. Based on your estimation, he is amassing enough wood for 24 hours. His particular appearance is average, neither attractive nor repulsive. He appears to be about 6’, 1”, about 200 lbs., mid to late 30s. The only detail of distinction is his short-cropped haircut. His clothes consist of Timberland boots, cargo jeans, flannel shirt over t-shirt. The clothing appears rather new but slightly ill-fitting (a bit too large for his frame). He is not wearing jewelry of any kind.

His campsite is haphazard, as there doesn’t appear to be any evidence of organization to it. As examples, there is no bear line, and the tent is too close to the stream. You can spot a large cooler, a full backpack, a large tent that is set up slightly lopsided, a rock fire bed with a dutch oven and stand over it, a medium-sized storage box (you cannot see the contents), and a video camera. There is also a handtruck, but no sign of a vehicle or tracks leading up to the campsite. There are no details that indicate how long he has been here.

Now that his chopping chores are complete, you watch the “woodsman” as he attempts to fish. His technique appears to be clumsy – his baiting is heavy-handed, and after finally catching something edible, his fish-cleaning abilities leave a lot to be desired. He has a tendency to mutter to himself, and occasionally snickers. He does not seem to be using any electronic entertainment devices, and the video camera remains unused.

While watching the man, you eat the last of your rations, leaving you with no food. A quick inventory reveals that you have your K-bar knife, fire-starting kit (although your quick-lighting tinder is gone), signal mirror, whistle, compass, paracord, a small tarp, sleeping pad, 3 changes of clothing, 2 small l.e.d. flashlights, canteen w/ fitted cup, water purifying tablets, snare wire, folding saw, general road map, and a medium first-aid kit, all within a backpack. At this point, you are fed, hydrated, and uninjured, but are aware of growing fatigue and anxiety from the uncertainty of the situation. You have a vague notion that civilization is at least a three-day walk away, assuming you take the right direction. You also know that the stream is flowing neither towards nor away from the direction you think you ought to walk, meaning that this might be the last source of water that you encounter. During your brief walk before encountering the camp, you have noticed signs of multiple canine-like paw prints throughout the area. The number of prints makes it impossible to tell whether a single animal has tracked here multiple times or if a pack is involved, but the size of the prints indicate a fairly-large specimen or group. You have not seen evidence of recent droppings or kills, nor can you tell how fresh the prints are. No human prints accompany those of the animal(s). The weather is mostly cooperating – cloudy with no signs of oncoming rain, but the temperatures are on the cool side and will be chilly overnight. You have about two hours of daylight left.

What will you do? What details are present or missing that influence the decision either way?

Based on what you and the original poster have said, this woman is clearly not me. I am detecting some negative signs, some neutral and some positive. However, one positive sign can easily be dismissed by other factors. Other things, like height and weight, do not play a role. The negatives are overruling the positives. The canine tracks do not appear to be a problem.

The woman made a crucial mistake by using up all of her tender. I would check the map to see if the creek goes to any civilization even if it takes longer.

Jeanette Isabelle

If the woman is in the position of needing help, she's probably going to have to approach the guy, right or wrong. If she dies of exposure, starvation or thirst, or dies by his hand, she's still dead.

But even if the woman does have to approach him, it doesn't mean she has to stay there, and it doesn't mean she has to completely trust him. Be careful, keep your awareness turned on, keep your survival equipment on your person so if you suddenly have to leave, you can. Don't leave all your thinking and decision-making to him, you still (presumably) have a brain, so keep it working.

Sue

I am a city guy . so I won't be able to draw many conclusions from the description. However, even a wilderness-challenged guy like me would know that having a dutch oven means he didn't come alone with his gear in a backpack. He must have arrived in a car and someone has taken the car, or maybe has used the car to drop the gear for him.

So, someone else knows about the guy and the spot.

Clumsy fishing and camping skills ?
hmmmm
Looks very much like me. A city guy in need of a few days alone, and perhaps dropped there by wife or brother. Only thing is, is he as nice as I am ,LOL, or is he a psycopath ??

BTW, even "weird guys" are not necessary dangerous. Someone like me needs a few days of relaxation, and may frown at seeing someone in that quiet lonely spot ( Oh, no ! Not even here I can have some peaceful time). But I would definitely help her if needed. So, someone should not rush to draw the Ka-bar when the guy does not look cheerful.

Canine prints with no human prints maybe a pack of wolves ! Yikes. This tilts the decision towards sticking with the guy. However, it may have been a dog or dogs belonging to the guy(s) who drove away from the site. So, back to square one.

I'm looking at the original post as if I am the woman. I can think of only three possibilities where leaving the car would even be an option:

The road is blocked.
I ran out of gas or have mechanical failure.
I'm on the highway and there is traffic jam so bad that everyone has to park their cars.

If the road is blocked, turn around. If I am in that traffic jam, now an impromptu community, stay in the car. If I am in the stalled car, what I do would depend on where I am. I'm not in a bad neighborhood. Otherwise, I would not be anywhere near that camper. If I am on a major road, with enough cars on it, I would await help. If I am on a deserted road, I may need to venture out depending on how much daylight I have left. If I did not pass any signs and there are no signs in the immediate area and if the surrounding area looks hospitable, I may venture out one mile.

I come across this camper. I probably do not see any indication he is able to help. He may have some useful information but it is probably not worth the risk. I head to my car with some knowledge about the local area which I could use. If there was a fork in the trail, I may try the other direction, still no further than a mile from my car. If there was not a fork in the trail, I would return to my car.

If I still have plenty of day light left, or if I did not venture into the local area, I would walk in the direction I was driving, looking for signs. If the map in my car covers the area I'm in, I bring it with me.

Jeanette Isabelle

Wolves in America would not present a problem unless they have rabies. A fear of humans has been ingrained in their breeding after centuries of dealing with them (us humans).

Jeanette Isabelle

A pack of Wolves is a VERY Real threat,Anywhere in the USA! Fear ingrained in their breeding?Where are you getting your info from?I can see it now,kinda' like the guy in the movie Jurassic Park,of whom crashed the jeep & is confronted by a pack of little dinosaurs,"Uh Uh, Nnnnice doggie! Here fetch!"

A quote from Wikipedia........."Retired wolf biologist Mark McNay compiled 80 events in Alaska and Canada where wolves closely approached or attacked people, finding 39 cases of aggression by apparently healthy wolves, and 29 cases of fearless behavior by non-aggressive wolves.[17]"

Here's more

http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.html

Mark McNay's report has to be interpreted with an abundance of caution as it is just a collection (not a study) of reported wolf encounters. Many of the wolf encounters in the report rely on witness's anecdotal recollections and as we know, this is not always accurate when it comes to reporting such things. Many times, people are their own cause of the encounter/attack due to their own ignorance. Like any wild animal, wolves can be conditioned to having people in their environment which usually results in the death of the animal because it is been too conditioned to humans.

In McNay's report, this is a prime example: (the wolf was shot later)

During the mid-1970s wolves commonly received food handouts from construction workers and truck drivers along the pipeline. Those practices contributed to habituation and food-conditioned approaches.
A construction worker had been feeding pieces of sausage to a wolf. As the man placed a piece of meat into his own mouth the wolf leaped toward the man's face, apparently in an attempt to obtain the food. The wolf's teeth closed around the man's nose and mouth, causing superficial abrasions.

In any case, the chances of most people even seeing a wolf in the wild are slim.

Furthermore the odds of being a "victim" of wolf predation anywhere and especially this outlined scenario are astronomically slim.

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.