As the older I get, the less friends that I have to backpack with. There are still many areas that I really would love to visit in the Sierras but without partners it is kind of tough. This year 3 different solo hikers have come up missing in Yosemite; two have died, while the other (which was this week) walked out with a sprained ankle after being reported late to his job. How do the rest of you view hiking solo? I am thinking about breaking from the pack and trying my hand at doing solo journies to fill my time in the backcountry. Safe or sane?

Edited by kennyhel77 on 09/13/2005 16:22:20 MDT.

Ken, there is an additional risk to going solo. If you fall off a cliff, get struck by lightning, or have a heart attack, there is no one there to give you a hand. Having said that, most of my trips in the past twenty or so years have been solo. I find that I feel a much greater connection to the natural world when I go alone. If you decide to travel solo, be extra careful when doing things like crossing streams and talus fields. And, of course, leave a detailed plan with someone who cares about you.

Solo hiking is fantastic. I can't get enough of it. I like hiking with my wife almost as much, but a few days alone on the trail really heals the mind. Yes, it's riskier than hiking with a partner. But still not as risky as riding a motorcycle, for example.

thanks for the comments guys. I have thought long and hard on this issue. For one, I like day hiking by myself. If I could lend this to going on multi day hikes in The Sierras then that would be great. I agree that it can be a unique experience being in the backcountry alone. I agree that a detailed itenirary is a must. If only I could bring my wife on trips then the need for solo would not be an issue. Unfortunately hiking 3000 ft elevation gain over a pass is not what she considers fun. Also, I am a social person that loves company so the interaction part would be tough to deal with. Still, I do think that it would be a great experience!!

I don't know this for certain... but I'm just guessing (pure guess) that statistically speaking, the car drive to the trailhead is probably more dangerous than a solo on-trail hike. Now if you're rock climbing or canyoneering or whatever... that probably changes.

Ken, you make a good point about the psychological aspect of going alone. A friend planned a solo week-long trip in the Wemimuche Wilderness based on my enthusiastic recommendation of solo travel. She turned around after two days, being lonely and scared. I learned that everyone is different and that only some personality types enjoy long periods of time alone. It's probably best to try soloing on a quick overnighter. You may really like it or else find that it's just not for you.

David, that's exactly the argument I make to my wife. It would be great if someone who knows the statistics could chime in here.

Oh yeah a overnighter would be the ticket. I am actually planning on doing a 17 mile loop on familiar trails (Emmigrant Wilderness) just to see how I respond. My idea is to "hike to camp" rather than "camp to hike" meaning that most of my time would be hiking. Good debate.

I've also wondered about the statistical probability of staying home and cracking your head on the coffee table by falling off the sofa while reaching for another potato chip.

Edited by Dondo on 09/13/2005 21:53:27 MDT.

probably pretty good especially in my household......doh!!

most of mine is done alone. however, these are shorter treks (overnights & 3day/2night max) and in areas that i know well. also, there are many (not all) places out here, where you can actually get cellular service, so there is a way to call for help if you're conscious. that and a GPS (assuming you can get a decent satellite fix due to tree cover) is all that one needs for a speedy rescue here. the geographical area is rather small in many cases (like i kid people from larger states - "Montana, what part of Connecticut is that in?" - you get the point i'm sure). so, if you ever get lost, you just walk - eventually you'll hit a road if not a farm, a house or little town. it's certainly not like that in many other States. now you do encounter more people - which can be either good or bad, depending upon the people you encounter. to date, haven't encountered any dangerous ones. however, having said that, things have sure changed over the last 25+yrs, meaning that the type of people, in some cases, that you meet out here in the woods are not someone you might want to share an AT shelter with - hence my preference (among other reasons) for stealth camping.

in short, i think each situation is different.

BTW, Ken, how did the two solo hikers die? dehydration? a fall? foul play? bear? (being eaten after dying doesn't count).

Edited by pj on 09/14/2005 02:32:45 MDT.

two hikers have parished in Yosemite this year. The Yosemite news site has not divulged how they died. Both were early season June to July. The snowmelt and runoff was extremely dangerouse this year due to higher than normanl snowfall. Possible creak crossing drowning? Two hikers in a two month period (both solo) is kind of rare.

thanks Ken.

My preferred style; have done it for years.

However, I have to know the limits of my skills and be ready to turn around and go back when faced with any situation where the risk is greater than the potential gain. Risks - not stretches to one's skills - that I might take in company with others I will not take when alone.

Ego must be firmly controlled, because as has already been stated, help can be a long time coming - if at all - when you're alone. I spent one terrified afternoon all alone on a glacier telling myself repeatedly "I didn't come out here to die". The mountain heard me and let me live. Lesson learned! Discretion is the better part of valor.

The trail or mountain isn't going anywhere. I can always come back another time and try again.

Wandering Bob

Edited by wandering_bob on 09/17/2005 10:06:41 MDT.

Bob, good insight. I too have thought that if or when I do hike solo, that what you said about limitations and ego and keeping both in check. Even in groups I tend to error on the cautious.

Ken,
Long-time solo guy here. A few ideas:
1) Find out if you tolerate and enjoy solitude. Try a few days alone in a low-risk environment.
2) Decide what level of risk you are willing to assume to do the things you want to do. Are you willing to die in the woods? Can your loved ones handle that? Do they respect your choice? The family issue is really hard for some folks to work out. Or maybe it doesn't matter to you.
I know this means understanding the relative risk of hiking solo against driving to work every day. Human beans are incompetent in assessning risk, and that goes even for policy wonks. Don't expect some factual statistic to give you an answer. Is air travel really safer than driving? By miles, yes, it is; by time spent in the air versus driving, no, it is not. Does that make any difference? It's up to you.
3)Assess your general risks and capacities: a)What do your recent physicals show? How do you honestly feel? Did you tell your doc that your heart that sometimes races? What about that pain you call indigestion? b) What are your physical limts? Do you have a high tolerance for pain? Do you stay calm when you are hurt? Can you self-rescue? These are things you have to answer for yourself with brutal honesty. I don't mean can you gnaw your arm off if trapped under a boulder, but more realistically, can you keep yourself alive with a broken femur until someone comes along?
A corollary to this is: will your family doc give you serious pain killers for your first-aid kit? They can keep you from going into shock and let you cope with the tasks you need to perform if you are injured. A few Percoset or Demerol can make all the difference.
4) Assess the risks inherent to every particular trek you consider undertaking in light of your capacities -- rejecting any tendency to set up a macho competition inside your head. Remember, if you are alone, there is no one around to dis you for being a chicken. (The corollary is, there is no one to hear you scream.) Bob's advice about ego is wise.
Bob mentioned stealth camping. Wise advice. My heirarchy of responses for dealing with the occastional nasty, dangerous folks I have encountered is don't be noticed, then fast feet (run away), fast thinking, and fast talking.
5) Get *trained* in wilderness medicine (as opposed to reading about it.) Then you can keep a minor problem from becoming serious and deal with serious injuries/illness so as to suffer fewer lasting effects.
*Solo resume' (not a brag, just to let you know that I have a little experience in this): by canoe up the Rio Grande, from the Gulf, by bicycle around the perimeter of the U.S., by foot on the AT (partly solo), the Big Bend, the Wiminuche, Pecos, Gila, Ouachita, numerous less august trails - over 40 years. Serious injuries: zero. Serious illness: zero. Treks terminated due to illness or injury: zero.

Edited by vickrhines on 09/18/2005 10:15:54 MDT.

"by time spent in the air versus driving, no, it is not. Does that make any difference? It's up to you."

Is that really true? Isn't the figure for average car fatalities per year up around 50,000 or so while commercial airline fatalties are probably in the low hundreds? Not that it matters. When it comes to things like this, perception is more important to our loved ones than reality. Which is perfectly understandable.

Edited by davidlewis on 09/18/2005 11:29:28 MDT.

Yeah, I read that in one of those 'it ain't the way you think' books about statistics. I dunno. The point is, folks are not good at assessning risk, and even the statistical wonks who are supposed to get it right are mostly guessing. I agree with Mark Twain, "There's liars, there's damned liars, and then there's statistics.'

thanks for the reply Vick. Makes a lot of sense. I have the luxury of having a Big Basin State Park within an hours drive for me so I think that will be my first test. I have been doing the lightweight thing now for two years and I am becoming real interested in try uber-lite, and this might be a way to do it...close to home.

Ken,
Like you, I would like to know, for example, if the oft-made claim is true; 'it is safer on the trail than living in even a small town.' Given that the greatest danger is almost always people, that pseudo-fact may be true. But who knows? I figure it's almost nearly but not quite hardly possible for a clever statistician to put dern near anything over on sophisticated skeptics, and a lead pipe cinch to 'prove' anything to most of the rest of us. So there. You want to try solo. Good. Maybe you will like it. If so, enjoy. If not, then you will have learned something useful. It's a no lose deal.

Vick,

I want to be the guy you pay to hike solo if you are going to do a scientific study.

Vick I agree. Won't know til I try. Which I will do once my next two trips are completed in the next month. Thanks all for such great insight, I appreciate it!!!

Ken
I don't know if you remember the climber who got pinned and had to hack of his appendage a little while back to save himself...we try these things and try to balance the risks and do the best we can. Given the choice of not going or going solo, I'll pick going. Everything we do in life sooner or later bumps up against our comfort zone. I know couples who cannot go out to eat if they don't sit in the same booth at that favorite restaurant, try a few benign trips locally and you'll know pretty quick. I also have one friend who now packs a satellite phone.

Larry,

I think that you are talking about Aaron Ralston, who wrote Between a Rock and a Hard Place about his experience in Canyonlands.

Rich

Hi Ken,
Like yourself, I have found that as I age I am finding fewer and fewer partners to backpack with and am faced with the choice of not going or going solo. I have chosen the latter. I have found it to be a deeply satisfying way to be in the Sierra. Like a couple of the posters above, I have found myself in a state of super alertness that translates into instinctive caution in potentially dicey situations. After I became used to this, a lot of my initial reservations about going solo, especially off trail, just sort of evaporated and everything just seems to flow. But I suspect each individual is different in that regard. That said, when I did a 9 day solo route in Sequoia NP this September that involved 3 days off trail, I took a personal locator beacon, mainly to put my wife's mind at ease. You might keep that in mind if the peace of mind of "those left behind" is an issue. They can be rented for about $60/week and will fix your position within about 50 meters and transmit back to a national rescue dispatch center within minutes. They then dispatch the nearest search and rescue team to extract you. This assumes your location has a clear line to the satellites required to do the triangulation necessary to fix your position. Best of luck with it.

Thanks for the replies. Tom I am at that juncture too, especially when wanting to do trips in SEKI. I have some wonderful backpacking friends that are great to do trips with, but with new families starting every year and new babies on the way, I have been regulated to small, short trips with my wife. Our hiking styles and goals are completely different. This adds to bickering and such. Not a way to spend time in the outdoors. The other option is solo. I have some great places to try this out, Big Basin State Park, Castle Rock, and a couple of others in the San Francisco Bay Area. I like day hiking by myself so I hope that if I hike long enough into the day that down time in camp will be minimized. I have a tendency to want to end trips early if I am a days hike out from the Trailhead sometimes. Beacons and sat. phones will be a mandatory item, as well as a detailed route description.
Another concern for me is that most of my friends that backpack are only into doing 5-7 miles per day and not stretching the limits a little.

Awesome thread, definitely worth discussing.

Statistics: the NPS has the best stats. They don't turn up anything meaningful. Mainly because not enough solo hikers are out there dying to provide us with good data, but also, because the experience they've had varies wildly from newbies to the most seasoned vets who simply had a bad day in the mountains.

Climbing statistics are more telling, for climbing routes at least, and they can shed some light on the subject. Solo climbers tend to be more competent, more confident, and more able to assess risk and tuck their ego away (while they're climbing at least, all bets are off back at the bar). As such, at least from glancing through the past 10 years of Accidents in North American Mountaineering, few are true "solo" accidents.

Personal experience climbing: I've gotten myself in stickier situations with groups than I ever have solo, with one or two exceptions. (Especially when Alan Dixon is my climbing partner. We somehow have this thing for climbing and descending in the dark.)

Now, translate all this to backpacking: I think that generally, solo hikers in remote mountainous areas are generally more aware of the risk than those folks that go in groups, and barring the occasional disaster by which boulders pin limbs requiring you to chew your way out of the wolftrap, solo hikers are able to suppress their ego some because no one is watching and they tend to play it fairly safe. However, for more experienced backpackers, going solo means more risk because they may do things that they wouldn't do with others less experienced than them.

I don't think twice about going solo, although I used to: Freedom of the Hills and BSA theology ingrained the awful risks of going solo and it took me a while to deal with that mentally. I do think twice, three, four times about going solo in grizzly country, and in avalanche terrain (winter) and am far more aware of the risks. As such, I try to be extremely careful in both of those situations. I can avoid avalanche conditions in the winter. I can't avoid grizzlies, because you never know when one is around the corner.

The benefits of solo for anyone far outweigh any risks: finding emotional solitude now and then is good for your health. Going solo doesn't mean taking big risks. A simple 3 mile overnight hike close to home on an easy trail is a whole world better than staying at home worrying about what happens if you break your ankle while hiking alone.

If anyone hasn't read "Death in Grand Canyon", I highly recommend it. I learned a lot from it. The authors have compiled a list of all known and recorded deaths in Grand Canyon and describle many of them and how they happened. Many of the deaths are not backpacking related, but it's still interesting. Interestingly enough, they come to the conclusion (just a theory) that people tend to take MORE risk when travelling alone... because there is not that other person there to say "wait a minute... I don't know about this". They theorize this because most of the hiking deaths were solo. In any case, as I recall (it's been 2 years since I read it), most of the deaths were avoidable. I hate to say it because accidental death is a tragic thing and one doesn't like to speak ill of the dead... but most of the deaths were caused by lack of knowledge, recklessness, and yes, sometimes, just plain old stupidity... saddly.

The dumbest death was the case of the man who walked over to the Rim Trail to take a picture of Bright Angel Lodge... he stepped over the low stone wall on the rim side of the trail... and with his camera to his face... he started walking backwards to frame the shot and... yup... litterally stepped off into the abyss. Of course, that doesn't tell us anything about solo backpacking... that was a tourist... but I share that with you anyway because it's so unbelieveable. Rangers will tell you all the time that deaths occur at the rim because people have a Disneyland mindset.

Oh, and by the way, statistically speaking, the most dangerous thing you can do at Grand Canyon is to fly over it. I flew in and I believe it. The air there is quite thin (due to the elevation) and most of the planes are small twin engines flown by newer pilots who are trying to get their miles in. And to top it off, the airspace there is some of the most turbulent you will find in North America. I can attest to that! The little Cessna I flew in on was tossed around like a cork on the ocean... I swear there was one bump where I thought the plane was going to invert. I was pretty green for the last 45 mins. of the flight... I didn't lose it... but I came so close a number of times (you know that sickly sweat feeling you get in your mouth just before tossing your cookies... lol). Next time I go, I'm renting a car!

Edited by davidlewis on 10/22/2005 06:24:46 MDT.

>...and sat. phones will be a mandatory item...

Qualcomm Globalstar GSP-1600 satellite phone: 13.2oz (375gm)
Cascade Designs SealLine waterproof zip case: 1.8oz (49gm)

There's a new, cheaper Globalstar SAT-550 phone that weighs 12.6oz (claimed). For me, keeping in touch is the price of going so I can't complain too much about carrying that extra pound.

About those globalstar phones...

I used one this last summer, and they are useful gadgets, but aren't a universal solution (what is?).

Anyway, they work fine and the latency (if you've used an Iridium or other satellite phone you'll know what I'm talking about) isn't noticable at all. You need to be careful when talking because sometimes you can lose the signal by changing the orientation of the phone. They won't work very well at all in heavy timber or in deep valleys, and if you are in Northern BC or Alaska the satellites are very low on the horizon so you have to take that into account -- and the "talk time" at high latitudes might be very limited (if there are no other satellites visible when the one you are relaying through drops below the horizon).

Having said all that, here near the 49th parallel I've generally been able to get a signal -- you need to get a feel for when the phone will work. It is a generally useful gadget. So far the major use the phone has been put to is to coordinate getting rides from trailheads. It has worked extremely well for that (sure beats hitchhiking).

The downside is that when I've hiked with others, it is this wonderful toy and everyone wants to call their girlfriend or their mom or somebody. That isn't why I bring it :(.

if I were to hike solo, the peace of mind that my wife would have would be priceless. Debating a week long trip next year and a Sat. Phone or a Beacon are the two items I will have to chose from to be able to go.

If your hiking in the high mountains couldn't you just take advantage of the extensive amateur network of repeaters that dot the countryside?

Altitude (ie LOS) is a HUGE advantage for shortwave operation. When I was in Killarney park I was able to tap into the "local" repeater VE3RMI which was 40 km away transmitting at 1.5W. The guy at the other end said my signal was S9+.

Seems to me studying for your HAM basic qualification and purchasing a 5 W HT is not only cost effective (no charge for transmitting, usually no charge for autopatch if its an emergency) but probably more effective period in potential rescue situations.

That, and you get to pick your callsign.. something you keep until your "key goes silent".

John.

I agree with John that a 5 watt HT works great. The only problem is in very remote locations you may not get a repeater, but you can talk with any SAR team, Park Ranger or local law enforcement in the area. Granted some frequencies may be restricted, but in a true emergency, it has been overlooked.
I always bring my Icom IC-T90. A nice little 8.5 ounce insurance package.

A 5W HT is truly a multi-purpose item in the bush. There are so many features built into an 8 oz package that most people don't ever get around to READING about them all (much less using them).

For example, with my Yaesu VX-6R I can:

1. Check regional weather from Environment Canada.

2. Set the unit to act as a relay node if others are in the area using shortwaves (thus eliminating the need for repeaters if you are in a spread out group).

3. Program the unit to send a distress signal if I'm unconcious (usually your handle in CW at max TX)

4. Use it as an LED lamp (there is a tiny ultrabright LED built onto the face of the unit)

5. Use the LED lamp to transmit visual CW in your choice of 3 colors. (Either program your character string or TX CW in real-time).

6. Set-up a TX/RX base camp at a home frequency if I bring my ultra-light monofilament dipole + short run of coax. (You can really extend your TX range as a dipole is bi-directional and not omnidirectional like a standard whip antenna).

7. Scan local bands for activity and join in local nets. Usually, you are welcome to... even if you're not a member and its always good to periodically let other HAMs know what you're up to. HAMs seem to have a great memory for these things.

8. There's got to be an 8, 9, 10.... I just haven't gotten that far in the manual yet.

;-)

I agree- with a decent antenna (read: not the rubber duck that comes with it) you can get some real mileage from a 5W HT on 2 meters. APRS is also an option, if you can hit another APRS node, even just from a few spots such as peaks, you can have your buddies watching your call sign on a map from the comfort of their armchairs.

On a related note, are any other hams looking to do the Colorado 14er event (14er.org) next year? I saw it in QST a few months ago and keep thinking about what I'll be doing in August next year. It's really spurred me to investigate lightweight antennas.

I understand the thinking about hiking alone, especially as we age (I'm retired). This summer I was lucky enough to find others to hike with.

One died of a heart attack in Yosemite.
I stepped on a sluggish rattler. The snake got away!
I no longer feel comfortable hiking off trail alone.

Edited by mt2mt@sbcglobal.net on 10/31/2005 16:51:20 MST.

Hiking solo is very rewarding and is my preferred way of being on the trail. You go when you want to go, stop when you want to stop and having all that solitude is pretty cool. When you hike alone you also have a greater opportunity to see wildlife which is always a big plus.

I would also recommend a trip to somewhere you're familiar with as a warm up or two. This way you at least don't have to deal with the potential anxiety of unfamiliar surroundings while you focus on solo hiking skills. Half the fun of a sucessful solo hike is once you're finished you really feel that you've accomplished something.

I agree with an earlier post... know your limitations. Always take adequate time to prepare for a trip and do your research. There's always a chance for unexpected trail conditions and weather but again if you're prepared it can be very rewarding. Always let someone you know your trip plans... trailhead, trails, hiking direction, etc. Finally, when you're out and you encounter a situation that may exceed your ability or level of experience, listen to the little voice in your head (thanks Mom). You can always tackle it again another day.

My last trip was 4.5 days on the trail in the Aldo Leopold Wilderness area in the Gila National Forest in NM. This was the most remote backcountry trip I've done yet as I saw no one else the entire time I was out. The second day out I encountered very poor trail conditions and bushwhacked for 10 miles but did get to my end-of-the day destination but it was a challenge I was comfortable taking. It was a beautiful hike and I got to see lots of elk, deer and even saw bears for the first time in the woods.

Edited by Obdewla_X on 11/06/2005 20:44:24 MST.

I do day to muti-week long solo hiking/running/climbing trips. I enjoy the solitude and communion with nature but I'm also very social. In the Sierra there are enough people on major trails that I often have to choose between the joy of moving quickly and the joy of chatting with interesting people.

I do solo technical rock climbs in wilderness but I'm experienced at risk assessment management, know when to push through my fear, know when to retreat and have no dependents.

I leave a highly detailed trip itinerary with a highly detailed person who cares for me. I include route descriptions, maps, equipment and clothing carried, my level of experience, time expected to call in at end of trip, exact time to call authorities if I don't call, phone # and email of authorities to email this note to, description of my car with note in zip-loc bag under windshield wiper with actual departure time etc. I also develop relationships with Ranger Station office personel as well as backcountry rangers (it doesn't hurt one bit if rescuers know and like you). I do this by visiting with rangers in the field and assisting with rescues and visiting field offices regularly to chat, buy maps and books, mention my name each time with an identifying characteristic such as,"I'm the guy with the 5lb. pack" or "from Monterey"or "the old, bald guy who likes to run the trails" etc.

However, in the words of Arlo Guthrie, "That's not what I came here to talk about". The main contribution I'd like to make to this thread is that we rented a satellite phone for a trans-Sierran ski trip last spring. The snow was mushy and 3 days in we turned around. We had no cell phone coverage the entire trip. We pressed a few buttons and we were talking to our shuttle driver to tell him to pick us up at our departure trailhead in 2 days-not on the far side of the range as we had originally planned.

When I move up to the mountains and do alot more adventuring, I expect that I will pony up the 600 bones to purchase one of these bad boys and similar amount for annual service. When I'm writhing in agony with a broken femur or appendicitus that $600/year,14oz. phone and 6oz. GPS will look real cheap.

Cheers, Al

Ken,
Here's a surprisingly little known Bay Area Gem. Henry Coe, a collection of former ranches deeded to the State of California, is the largest State Park in N.Ca. It's just a few miles east of Hwy 101 at Morgan Hill. It consists of rolling, grassyhills, oak stands, and little poison oak. You can easily hike for several days without using the same trail. It has a network of trails and fire roads. Be aware that it is hot and dry in the summer. Head for the cooling coastal breezes of Big Basin or better yet the High Sierra when the South Bay starts baking.

Cheers, Al

Thanks Alan. Have thought about Coe too. Some of the trails are pretty steep and it does get quite hot in the summer. Better for early spring when I am jonesing to get out. Thought about a Sat. phone but I am leaning towards renting one mainly for the reason that you stated on your ski trip. Great idea calling a shuttle to a different spot or different time. That is money well spent and weight that could really be worth it. One other place that I want to try is Nisene Marks too.

Ken,
It took me awhile to track down a sat phone rental source but these folks were worth the effort - we were pleased with product and service.

Day Wireless Service / Benecia / (415) 747-2029
PHONE: Qualcomm GSP-1600 Tri Mode Portable Phone / 7.75"x1.75"x2.25" / 13.8 oz with battery / battery: rechargeable 7.2
V polymer lithium-ion / house charger / auto charger / 3.75 hour talk time / 19 hour standby / -4 to 131 degree F
SERVICE: Globalstar
FEES: $75/week / $20 shipping & return shipping with label pre-paid box / $2/minute
GOVERNATOR RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN FUND: 7.25% tax

Another thing I do on both solo and group trips into wilderness: Each person carries a sheet of paper with every person's emergency medical and contact data and the same information on a separate sheet for each person's data along with a short pencil, zip-loc bag and 4 small safety pins inside a larger zip-loc bag. In the event of evacuation, put that person's data sheet inside the smaller zip-loc bag and pin it to their inner clothing where it is protected from abuse, weather and helicopter prop wash. When they get to medical treatment personel all their critical medical and contact person data will be pinned to their torso in a transparent bag. This proceedure can avoid critical; even fatal delays in the injured receiving prompt treatment. And it leaves the remaining party members with data sheets for contacting family members and responding to a possible second emergency.

Thanks Alan. I appreciate the source. My first multi day trip is this summer (Tuolumne to Cedar Grove in SEKI) and I know that a sat. phone will put my wifes fears to rest.....a little. Great idea with the medical information too, I never thought about that.

I will be checking out the sat. phone servive. Thanks.

Another satellite vendor is Outfitter Satellite. I've rented from them before, and ended up buying from them too. Globalstar (GSP-1600, 13.2 oz) is $35/week, 15 minutes free with 1 week rental, $0.99/minute (or less) prepaid, or $1.59/minute if not. The nice thing is that if you're not planning to use the phone (or maybe just one call), then you don't need to buy any airtime.

http://www.outfittersatellite.com/rentals.htm

SealLine makes a heavy-duty zip-lock electronics case that is very protective (Electronic Case 2, $23.95 MSRP, 1.8 oz untrimmed).

http://www.seallinegear.com/cases.asp?Action=ElectronicCase&Category=ProtectiveCases

Otherwise, I suppose a gallon zip-lock would be a bit lighter.

Douglas,
That's less than 1/2 price of my source. Thanks for the lead.
Al

Do any of you guys hike solo in Griz country? I have been hiking solo for 3 years now in the pnw. I have no problem hiking in black bear territory and often do even with my 7 year old daughter. We have even had them in camp in the Olympics. I first began hiking in small groups but ended it quick based on the fact I never was with a group that had any goals or interests in common. Some would want to average 4mph, some wanted to stop and smell the flowers. All are good but in a single group, it created a lot of animosity. I want to keep it solo and am looking at relocating to Montana. I just wonder if solo hiking in Montana, even in between the parks, is a good idea solo?

Thanks for any replies.

Johnathan,

I live in Bozeman and most of my regional hiking is in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, much of it solo.

Hiking in grizzly country is just like hiking in black bear country.

Until you actually see one. Then you wake up.

You really wake up when you have an up close encounter, and by the time you experience a charge, you pretty much realize that humility and recognition that you are not in control takes a front seat to any preconceived notion of security.

Hiking is not so bad, per se.

Hiking at night, on the other hand, is just plain scary. That doesn't mean I don't do it, but I'd be a fool to pretend that I didn't have some terrifying night hikes in the Yellowstone area as a result of spooking a bear off the trail or hearing large animals crashing through nearby brush.

Then there is the whole camping thing. Normally it's not so bad, unless you know from fresh sign that there is a grizzly in the area, then you sleep...not so sound.

But...

It's extremely cool. Knowing that such a magnificent animal is part of the ecosystem you're enjoying, and knowing that you aren't top dog in that ecosystem, it's just a neat, humbling, deeply satisfying experience.

Whether it's a good idea or not depends on your perspective and values and what you want out of wilderness.

For my wife, it's not a good idea. She doesn't hike in griz territory. She doesn't like it, and she doesn't enjoy the stress.

For me, being solo in the proximity of a grizzly bear is incredibly rewarding. I love it.

To minimize your probability of an encounter, you can select your hiking destinations accordingly. There are lots of bears in Yellowstone National Park, and in the western half of the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness, and the Teton Wilderness. There are fewer bears in the eastern AB Wilderness and the Washakie Wilderness, but they are there. There are very few in the neighboring Wind Rivers, Tetons, Spanish Peaks, etc. So, bottom line: lots of places to hike where you can avoid them if you like.

I don't hike much at all but most of it is solo. I go to places I have dreamed about for years and just because no-one else has the desire is no reason not to do my little adventures. My skills are very limited but what keeps me safe is knowing my limitations and being careful. The one time I got out of my depth I retreated with my tail between my legs but alive ! ( I lost the trail and even though I stopped immediately and knew it was within 5 to 10 metres of me, it took 30 minutes to find it).

Grizzlies.
I saw 12 bears in my 11 weeks in Alaska in 1996. But not one of them while hiking. I did the 'gravel in two soda cans clanging on the belt trick' and it must have worked. I met some people doing all the wrong things and it's a wonder more people aren't eaten !

As an Australian, I still find it wierd to be where land animals can eat you ! Down here it's just snakes and spiders (ho-hum) and a few sharks or crocodiles if you go for a swim !

>As an Australian, I still find it wierd to be where land animals can eat you ! Down here it's just snakes and spiders (ho-hum) and a few sharks or crocodiles if you go for a swim !<

Haha, as a dutchman I still find it weird to be where there is a chance you'll be eaten at all. The fiersest animals i have to deal with are mosquitoes, the worst one being the highland midge. I deal with those by hiking after midge season.

I'd love to see a bear in the wild once.

Eins

Thanks for replying so fast guys! I was hoping you would reply Ryan since I knew you lived in Bozeman even before I joined Backpacking Light. I have talked with Chris (Suge) Willett a bit about his CDT. He did indeed run into a grizzly on the trail and it seemed to be the same experience as a black bear. As far as humility and not feeling in control, that leaves the minute I leave the truck weather or not I see anything. Now I have never had a charge from a black bear but came wihtin 15 feet of one in the Enchanted Valley in ONP. She was up on her hinds checking me out when I looked over and discovered how close I had gotten by getting to "relaxed". I have not been that "ralaxed" since. That was at the beginning of my solo hiking and have had just unexplainable experiences that nearly paralleled the birth of my daughter. Hence I am hooked and although my wife is the driving force of this move, she is terrified of me out in griz country solo.

>> what keeps me safe is knowing my limitations and being careful.

This is the difference between hiking in grizzly country (or hippo country, if you're a canoeist) and hiking in non-grizzly country: that being safe and knowing your limitations and having all the skills in the world takes you only so far!

Sure, there are lots of things you can do to manage grizzly bear encounters (or hippo encounters), but in the end, it's the animal that makes the final choice and you don't always get to participate in the decision-making process...

I did see a 13th bear in Alaska . . . sort of.
I was hitch-hiking to Exit Glacier and a pick-up truck stopped for me.
As I swung my pack up and into the rear tray I saw there was a full bear skin spread out ! I managed to avoid the meaty bits around the edges.
It was a black bear that had been causing problems and had to be dealt with, had been killed just hours before.
Hitch-hiking always throws up the unexpected.

One perspective on bears is that they are like other animals -- dogs, for instance -- that read your body language in deciding what to do with you.

You are likely to have more problems with a bear if your body langauge sceams "Fear!" than if you feel confident.

So, if you are not confident alone, or not confident seeing a grizzly while unarmed, then consider arming yourself, be it with rocks & sticks, bear spay, or perhaps heavier gear. Or stay in non-grizz country most often.

Some of us enjoy the excitement of knowing grizz are near, even if we never see them.....

Ryan Jordan stated "Freedom of the Hills and BSA theology ingrained the awful risks of going solo and it took me a while to deal with that mentally."

There is tremendous truth in this statement. As a scout, I always heard the "rule of threes", one to hike for help and one to stay with the victim. Of course the response was always, "what if" the one hiking out was injured got hurt, etc, etc, etc.

Ironically, it was also the BSA that initiated me to solo hiking. As a ranger at Philmont Scout Ranch, we had to hike out solo to get back to base camp and pick up more crews. Some of my most vivid memories were of backpacking a couple of days with just myself to care for as I made my way way "home" to base camp. A hike plan and arrival time were all left with Ragner HQ and the sheer number of scouts tromping the backcountry made this much safer than one would imagine, but it was a great way to begin soloing, with a very intense safety net built in.

Now I mostly only hike solo, as I teach and take my long breaks to cover long sections of trail. I can't imagine repeating my AT through-hike with a steady partner. The experience of near total freedom was just too liberating without responsibility for someone else.

As for hazards such as grizzly bears and swollen streams, I tend to be pretty cautious when I travel solo. I've dealt with both as a NOLS instructor, and there IS a difference in perception (and I believe in reality as well) when facing these dangers alone. I'm honestly more nervous about stream crossings while solo than bears. With bears there is a psychological element to both parties. A rushing early June stream just doesn't care how prepared or non-threatening you look. I will give both as much space as I can manage when I hike solo.

Edited by Bearpaw on 11/18/2006 13:58:15 MST.

Arctic Grizz: hungry, curious, and above all grumpy....

Edited by romandial on 12/04/2006 23:18:19 MST.

Nice pic. Even at the distance involved, the hump b/t the shoulder blades looks visible if i'm not mistaken.

Please tell us more about the "grumpy" part. At home with my wife, i usually inject a little levity to diffuse an otherwise tense situation. However, i doubt if the bear got a bit worked up, like i can get my wife worked up, i would be better off using levitation instead of levity! What did y'all do in this particular case?

Also, as i'm not really familiar with anything to do with the Alaskan landscape, i don't really have a frame of reference for estimating distance from the bear. So, how far were y'all.

The grumpy part....arctic bears seem to have a more difficult life than the coastal brownnies. Coastal brownies are well fed and happy. Artci bears seem hungry and testy. They follow you and run overa nd test ypu to see if you are prey and that is unnerving.

Coastal brown bears like on the Alaska Peninsula and Kenai, by and large (of course with exceptions -- e.g. Tim Treadwell!) do not run over and challenge every human they meet, which seems to be what Arctic bears do. Again, I think one the are hungry and two they rarely get shot at by humans so they check us out.

No doubt grizz can be playful, but this one -- maybe 50 yards away? -- came running for us from a quarter mile or more away and then pushed on us. We had no choice but to stand our ground and yell and wave our poles and our one puny can of bear spray.

Maybe this doesn't belong here as it was a "we" situation -- but even if an only "me" or solo situation, standing ground and being fearless (or pretending to be) is a language even a grumpy bear understands. And as you can see there is nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. Once the bear left we left too, in a hurry, and keeping out of sight.

That is what I would have done if solo as well -- that, and cleaned my pants.

Edited by romandial on 12/05/2006 11:24:53 MST.

Judging from his Avatar photo, Mr. Dial is hinting to his employer that he doesn't make enough to buy new laces. If that doesn't work for him, maybe we can take up a collection for some Kevlar laces?

Please, all collections, donations, and pay raises accepted!

Heh, but don't those Saloman shoes look pretty good after 600 miles of off-trail walkin?

Edited by romandial on 12/06/2006 22:27:02 MST.

Well, considering they were downhill ski boots when you started, there doesn't seem to be much left. Seriously, I love my Pro trail shoes because the little flare-out around the heel prevents almost all of those dreaded ankle flip outs, at least for me. Did you like the skinny little laces, or would you prefer a more conventional lacing system?

Robert,

Both shoes' laces did wear out -- but i was able to tie a little bowline to fix em. This was a small bit to pay for the convenience of the tie-less cordlock and fray-less laces.

I am sold on them, but I know others are not. Erin M's husband Hig, for example. Or Jason Geck: here are his shoes after 550 miles. I would not have traded mine for his, nor he. To each their own. Shoes, like food and river crossing techniques seem to be a pretty personal decision.

And the Salomans for comparison.....

Edited by romandial on 12/08/2006 00:48:48 MST.