[Cdt-l] hiking alone?
seanstaplin at gmail.com
Wed Dec 1 19:40:29 CST 2010
For hiking a partner is not necessary...ever. --it can happen anywhere
anytime. I prefer to hike and scramble alone for the reason of self
reliance. Something that I feel is in short supply in all facets of life
these days. In fact it can be safer to be alone.
On 01/12/10 9:01 AM, ks1007 at aol.com wrote:
> yes, I'm not a hiker but I feel that I must weigh in on this thread -
> I'm sure that hiking alone has its' merits but I think there are times
> when a partner is necessary - case in point - "goatman" dan johnson
> slips and fractures his ankle and leg in the gila's - he is the second
> to last nobo and the last nobo aussie dave isn't taking that route -
> goatman was lucky that he had a SPOT with him and that's what saved
> his life - if he would of had a partner they could have gone for help
> - I know that hikers are doing the trail because of the solitude and
> not having to keep a schedule - even though you may not like it, when
> you get to NM the trail angels keep track of you - one of the other
> things that may have saved goatman was that he called julie the night
> before - if he wasn't there in 3 days from emory pass we would have
> discussed what to do which most likely would have been to call out SAR
> you never know when something may happen
> *el coyote*
> *Keith and Mary*
> *Trail Angels*
> *Deming, NM*
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim and_or Ginny Owen <spiriteagle99 at hotmail.com>
> To: brianle <brianle at nwlink.com>; cdt-l <cdt-l at backcountry.net>
> Sent: Tue, Nov 30, 2010 5:17 pm
> Subject: Re: [Cdt-l] trail partnership: all or nothing?
> Brian -
> The main reasons for hiking together are for safety in bear country or
> because you just like
> hiking together or for navigation purposes (4 eyes are better than 2
> eyes). Being joined at the
> hip is a good idea if you're a married couple or looking for "safety"
> in "bear country" or partners
> who want to hike together, because there are a number of places where
> a wrong turn could
> send you in different directions and leave one or both of you kinda
> "floating in never-never land".
> Note please that hiking "together" in bear country means EXACTLY
> that. It doesn't mean hiking
> 5 minutes - or even 30 seconds apart. If you're that far apart, the
> bear considers you to be alone.
> And you are. Smile
> Truth is that "bear country" generally isn't nearly as dangerous as
> most people think. But I don't
> try to convince people of that - they have to discover it for
> themselves. Just keep in mind the rules
> for not irritating (or attracting) the bears and don't get overconfident.
> But if you want to hike together sometimes, and apart other times, I'd
> suggest hiking out of
> town together, separating at some point on the trail and then meeting
> at the next town. You'd
> probably want to decide on a specific motel or restaurant for your
> rally point in that next town.
> Our website generally doesn't give that kind of information, but
> Yogi's book probably does.
> You could, of course, hike part of the day together and part alone.
> Just don't count on sharing
> gear or food in that case because then getting separated leaves on of
> you a little short of ....
> something, be it food, water, shelter, fire.....whatever. Keep in
> mind the words to the song -
> God bless the child who's got his own.
> Have a great hike,
> > From: brianle at nwlink.com <mailto:brianle at nwlink.com>
> > To: Cdt-l at backcountry.net <mailto:Cdt-l at backcountry.net>
> > Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 13:41:29 -0800
> > Subject: [Cdt-l] trail partnership: all or nothing?
> > Consensus is that if you don't want to hike the CDT literally alone, you
> > start with one or more partners and you stay close together the
> whole time.
> > I like the fellow that I plan to hike with a lot, but I've also quite
> > enjoyed weeks of hiking alone on both PCT and AT, and even when
> hiking with
> > one or more partners I've often hiked much of a given day alone, joining
> > back up at lunch and at night. I realize that the CDT is different
> in this
> > way, that you have to stay close to stay together at all, but the
> idea of
> > being joined at the hip to anyone for months of hiking concerns me a
> > What I've not seen anyone suggest is the idea of periodically
> splitting up
> > for a while and agreeing to meet back up at or near a particular
> trail town.
> > This seems like it would be a good compromise on the CDT to me,
> i.e., have a
> > trail partnership, but have some significant "alone time" stretches. I
> > suspect that both of us would appreciate some time apart, and enjoy each
> > other's company that much more when we reconnected.
> > The only downside I can see would be if one person ended up waiting
> quite a
> > while for the other, and perhaps not being 100% certain that (for
> > reason) they're actually going to show up. I suppose another downside is
> > the risk that, for whatever reason, the designated reunion spot
> wouldn't be
> > a good/pleasant/safe/whatever place to hang out for the needed amount of
> > time. Have any past CDT thru-hikers tried this approach ("meet you at
> > this particular motel in a week or so"), and any observations if so?
> > TIA ---
> > Brian Lewis / Gadget
> > http://www.postholer.com/brianle
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cdt-l mailing list
> > Cdt-l at backcountry.net <mailto:Cdt-l at backcountry.net>
> > http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/cdt-l
> Cdt-l mailing list
> Cdt-l at backcountry.net <mailto:Cdt-l at backcountry.net>
> Cdt-l mailing list
> Cdt-l at backcountry.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Cdt-l