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

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

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

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

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

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

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