No I am not, however your original and seemingly blanket statement of "hiking solo is dangerous" did not allude to gender being a devisive factor of whether solo hiking is safe or not. That being said and not wishing to further hijack the original OP's contribution and link to the news article. I have started a new post and topic here on peoples thoughts of solo hiking.

Not sure where you're going with this, Dagny. It could be interpreted as an inappropriate comment. Suggest you clarify.

The women hikers I know are mentally and physically tough, better trained in wilderness medicine, and carry bear cannisters with 8-10 good shots. They are neither helpless nor vulnerable.

Yes Lifeview, she did practice what is preached.

She got off on a wrong trail and when she knew she was not getting back that night was prepared to stop overnight and come back the next day.

I wish they all turned out so well.

_____________________________________


Inappropriate? Women I know are more concerned about being raped than any man I know. The genders tend to have different perspectives on personal safety.

I am a woman who frequently camps at a campground near where two women backpackers were murdered by a lone male on the Appalachian Trail a decade ago.

I also live in a city and while walking home alone from work was attacked by a man at 7:00p.

So I have reasonably concluded that hiking alone on the Appalachian Trail and walking alone after dark in the city is dangerous, especially for a woman.

If my daughter wanted to go hiking on the AT or a more remote trail, I'd very strongly urge her to hike with a group. And definitely not hike alone.

Hiking alone is perilous not just because of a random serial killer or rapist (rare but out there) but the risk of injury from a fall. I have one bum knee and two bad ankles so I'm not comfortable hiking alone for that reason alone.

God bless solo hikers, but I think it's safer to hike with others. And I think it is dangerous for a woman to hike alone.

So shoot me.

While hiking alone can have serious drawbacks, and while being raped can be more of an issue for a woman, a just-plain-psycho can be a danger to anyone, male or female.

If there are at least two people hiking together, one can break his/her leg, and the other can pound his/her head in with a rock.
Assuming that neither is armed with anything more than a knife.

But leaving rapists and other psychos out of a hiking picture (they're relatively rare, after all), it's simply a fact of life that hiking alone is more dangerous than hiking with at least one other person. If it's a danger that you can live with comfortably, fine. It's an individual decision.

I have hiked alone with just a dog, and had no problems. Most of my dogs have been shepherd types with dark faces (everyone 'knows' black-faced dogs are mean!). I really do focus on a guy whose first question is, "Does the dog bite?" ("Only when someone bothers me.")

There are actually many advantages to hiking with a dog: they're willing to go wherever you want to go, they don't talk all the time, they're in no particular hurry, and eating anytime is always a good idea.

Sue

My favorite answer to the "do your dogs bite?" question, is "Not yet".

Of course the all time best reply to the question of whether a particular dog bites is in the original Pink Panther movie, the real one with Peter Sellars in it.

John E

Dogs are the perfect hiking buddies and the best security system. My dogs are why I took up camping and hiking as an adult.

Pity most national parks don't allow them on trails.

Shame on you for leaving people hanging. And thank God for google.

"Does you dog bite?"
"No."
Sellers pets dog; dog viciously bites his hand.
(Angrily) "I thought you said your dog doesn't bite!"
(Calmly) "That is not my dog."

I don't know that I agree one person is in more danger from a psycho than a couple or a group is. First they have to spot you, and they're more likely to spot a group than a solo. Second, they have to approach undetected, and a solo hiker is more likely to be alarmed at the sounds of someone approaching than is a member of a group, who is hearing others on the trail anyway. Third, a member of a group is more likely to be distracted by talking or other interaction with his/her group, and the psycho can take advantage of the distraction to get close enough for his chain-saw atack. Fourth, as any beach monster movie watcher can tell you, when danger is near, one member of the group is likely to hear something strange and go off alone to investigate. Fifth, the most numerous known psycho population near our hiking trails (mother bears foraging on one side of the trail with cubs on the other side) are more likely to be alarmed if a group of people come between her and her cubs than if a single person does.

I'm not trying to talk you into doing something you don't want to do. If this risk makes you uncomfortable hiking alone, then I agree you should stick to groups. It's no fun being scared, even if somebody else thinks you have nothing to be afraid of. But for women who are trying to make up their own minds, I would encourage them to evaluate the risks in the woods RELATIVE to the risks in the rest of their lives. If you were evaluating a neighborhood to live in, one double murder 10 years ago would probably rate as a pretty safe neighborhood. Why be 100 times safer in the one, small part of your life that you love, than in the rest of your life?

Bilojax, I think you're making too many assumptions based on movies.

"... they're more likely to spot a group than a solo."

Most people will be using a trail. Unless you're doing the E&E routine, and traveling across country in heavy cover, they're going to see you even if you're three feet tall. It's the motion that catches the eye in a still background.

"... they have to approach undetected..."

Again, no. The best attack under trail hike conditions is a direct attack from the front. Approach, smile and nod, grab or stab.

"...a solo hiker is more likely to be alarmed at the sounds of someone approaching than is a member of a group..."

An attacker doesn't have to approach -- all they have to do is get ahead on the trail, wait, and step out. It isn't like movie attackers that seem to come thrashing through heavy brush.

"... a member of a group is more likely to be distracted by talking or other interaction with his/her group, and the psycho can take advantage of the distraction to get close enough for his chain-saw atack."

Any single attacker who goes after a group would seem to me to be so totally unhinged (really rare) that all bets are off, but still, he's going to have to go after them one at a time, and he's never going to know if they are armed, know some serious self-defense, or if he's attacking a case of group-PMS.

"...one member of the group is likely to hear something strange and go off alone to investigate."

Only in the movies, sweetie. Divide and conquer. Most real people know there is more safety in numbers. Even the Mall Dolls know that.

"... the most numerous known psycho population near our hiking trails (mother bears foraging on one side of the trail with cubs on the other side) are more likely to be alarmed if a group of people come between her and her cubs than if a single person does."

I don't think number makes a difference. If she's worried about her cubs, I doubt that she will differentiate between one and several. The difference I do see is that if the victims scatter, one may get attacked and then MomBear will collect the kids and take off, and the others can then assist the downed hiker. But predicting bears is a real crapshoot, and many people who deal with them regularly will tell you that every bear is an individual and you will never know how they will react.

You'd best not base your survival skills and defenses on movies and TV, as the producers don't know squat and wouldn't know a good decision from a bad one.

Sue