[at-l] Best vs. Safe [was: Re: (no subject)]

[Jim Lynch]

My suggestion to not hike alone was not a reaction to this tragedy, but 
a statement of a common hiking "rule" that is promulgated on several 
sites and documents:
ATC .. "don't hike alone..."
National Park Service.. "Always hike with at least one companion..."
US Forest Service.. "Travel with a companion."
(I'm sure there are more..)

I too revel in solo hiking and I don't intend to stop.  However, I'm 
fully aware of the risks involved and take steps to mitigate them.  But 
my risks aren't everyones risks and each of us must make our own 
decision.  There are hiking situations that I would try to have a 
partner or small group (somewhere that I'm not familiar with would a 
good example).  Is my motivation fear or prudence (and is there a 
difference)?  imho balancing things and coming down on a decision to not 
go alone  may often be the most prudent course of action.
    I have gone on hikes when I would have rather had a partner, but 
none was available.  In one instance all of my hiking friends suggested 
that the particular hike called for two or more, they were all busy that 
particular weekend.  Weighing things, I decided to go anyway.  Was I 
foolhardy or did I appropriately evaluate the risks and benefits? 
    Basically it all comes down to hyoh. 



Carla & Dave Hicks wrote:

>At the risk of offending someone I beg to differ.
>
>I'm on board with sad, angry,  pissed-off, etc.
>
>However, to react to this tragedy with the decision "to hike with at least one 
>other person" bothers me.  Deeply.
>
>I have two different responses to that reaction, if the decision is driven by 
>fear, or by the quest for "safety".
>
>But first, don't get me wrong.  If you like to hike with someone, if that's 
>you thing, GREAT!!  Do it.  Enjoy yourself.  Knock yourself out.  HYOH (Hike 
>Your Own Hike).
>
>But please don't do it out of FEAR.  If you enjoy solo hiking, don't give it 
>up out of fear.
>
>Now back to my two different responses to the fear reaction:
>
>1) Giving up solo hiking (if that's what you enjoy) out of fear, differs only 
>in degree but not in substance to becoming a recluse, holed up in an armed 
>stronghold out of fear to go out into the world.  The fear to go out on the 
>streets of Kenya or Iraqi would be one thing.  Ditto, hiking w/o heavily armed 
>and well trusted escorts in many places in the world.  However, that same 
>level of fear and the same response to fear is doesn't work here, IMHO.
>
>2) If we let fear of actual degree of danger stop us, we would far sooner hike 
>solo than to drive to the trail, or to work/school, or shopping, or Church, 
>etc.  We would hike the AT solo far sooner than enter our own bathroom.  We 
>live with far more dangerous situations every day because we have become 
>accustom to the activity and acclimatize to the danger to which it exposes us. 
>It is normal, it is routine, it is expected, etc.  That commonality, that 
>normality, of traffic deaths and falls in the bathroom is why they don't make 
>nationwide news.  Ditto, those who stay"safely at home" only to die in a house 
>fire.
>
>Sad, angry,  pissed-off, etc -- you got it.
>
>Afraid to solo hike the AT and related trails -- no way.  Yep, no place is 
>100% safe.  But the AT and most other trails are some of the safest places we 
>can be.
>
>As always YMMV and of course HYOH.
>
>Chainsaw
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "KGJ" <jplynch at crosslink.net>
>To: "Jim Bullard" <jim.bullard at gmail.com>; "David Addleton" 
><dfaddleton at gmail.com>
>Cc: "AT-list" <at-l at backcountry.net>
>Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 12:51 PM
>Subject: Re: [at-l] (no subject)
>
>  
>
>Its very tragic.  The bottom line is that no place is 100% safe.  Even as safe 
>as the AT and other trails are, its best to hike with at least one other 
>person.
>
>
>SNIP
><< 
>
>
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://patsy.hack.net/pipermail/at-l/attachments/20080106/3272888a/attachment.html