For so many years I have truly enjoyed reading post after post and enjoyed many a hiking adventure through the camera and words of many in this forum. The one thing that stands out though as alarming is the amount of people that solo hike despite this being a common warning of what not to do when you head into the wilderness and the frequency of so many lost and injured in the woods as a result of this very odd phenomen.

There are so many ways to find like minded hiking partners online and certainly, after a couple or 3 hikes you make new friends who are always open to an outdoor adventure. I get the solitude, I get the quiet, I don't get the risk factor for yourself nor that of those having to go look for solo people when they don't come back(that's if anyone was even alerted to you being gone somewhere?) I cant hardly think of anything I do that isn't more enjoyable in the company of someone e;

It's a free world, we outdoor gypsy's follow nature faithfully through many paths as part of how we love to live. Is solo hiking the end all to beat all really?

The problem is finding people with similar habits. I am not a strong hiker and cannot hike for hours on end. I'm also not your typical hiker who's goal is to make it to a certain destination all the time but likes to ramble around here and there; observing nature and taking photos. I also go to sleep very early and wake up early whereas most do the opposite. I am an early morning person who likes to start out hiking at 5 or 6 am (during summer).


People get lost even hiking with a group. So far, I've never gotten lost after solo hiking for 37 years considering I've done a lot of bushwhacking. This is where preparation comes in. Although there are greater risks, I've become more aware of them while solo hiking.

Well, it's February time, busy with work all day and then decide at 8pm to put up an all-nighter push for Wedge NE arete via a rarely-done Rethel Ridge approach for the next day. The method will be snowshoes (not skis). Leave home at midnight, start at trail-head 5 hours before sunrise, bushwhack all the way up in dark and the route estimate will be 15-16 hours... Good luck to find a volunteer to tag along...

Or. It's -20 and Christmas time, loaded with a 2-day pack with no clear destination in mind. It'll be one of the few. Would to drive up to Pemberton and decide randomly from there. Again, snowshoes, full on bushwhack. Would love to hear anyone else interested in this type of adventures...

Let along to match fitness, attitude, timing, work, family and all those last minute issues... In the Rockies we have the Kane's scrambles and then 11,000ers which no matter what type of scramblers/mountaineers you are, you're likely interested in. In the coast there isn't any list like that to group different people together...

For most of my hiking career the hikes consist of deciding last minute or at the least the night before to head out on a 10 hour non-stop hike with no stops for water breaks or lunch. I drink and snack on the fly and if I take any pictures I am probably still moving when I take the photo. Its hard to find those types as well although they do exist. I just never had a rolodex of good people that I could call on short notice that would want to go.


That doesn't mean I exclusively hike solo about it does amount to about 75% of the time. I would also comment that I don't believe it is any safer to hike in a group. It is not the number of people that matter but the preparation, planning, route taken, decision making and leaving your itinerary with someone just in case. Case in point, 2 snow shoers lost on Cypress. It didn't do any good to be in a group. Look at the SAR rescues, just as likely to be a group as an individual that they are looking for. In most cases it is a lack of preparation, planning, carrying the essentials, leaving a route plan with someone that gets people lost and then difficult to find them. Do not assume that it is safer travelling in groups. I have yet to see actual stats back that statement up.

Great points solo75.

I'll add that, in some cases at least, group trips are more hazardous - rockfall danger when scrambling lose gullies is one example, even in a very small group. Then for instance ad-hoc meetups, or even organized hiking clubs, where people don't know each other & besides potential for social issues there are also different abilities and levels of preparedness that can quickly turn whole thing into nightmare.

Some years back I was on a trip to Little Temple through Calgary Outdoor Club. A guy who should not be on the trip in the first place (not adequate equipment, level of fitness, etc) tumbled down grassy slope on descent. Disoriented. Couldn't move. Had to run to Louise warden office to get help. Whole trip that should have been awesome day out turned out to be a disaster.

That being said, I certainly don't advocate hiking alone, specially not for less experienced people or when venturing on multi-day trips far in the back-country. But if you know your abilities, if you don't take unnecessary risks, and if you are prepared (10 essentials, communication, leave whereabouts with friends, etc etc) solo hiking means enjoying level of freedom that is never possible in a group.

If I waited for other people to hike with I would never get out. Forty years ago I had some hiking friends but as time went by they all dropped to the wayside for one reason or another. Especially difficult if trips are last minute, like Stephen said, which most of mine are. My wife made me buy a Spot Locator a few years ago. That keeps her happy.

I solo hike pretty much every day (retirement is great!) with my dog. I am sensible about it, if I know I will be going out of cell range I let someone know where I am going. Otherwise, what is the problem? I get to set the pace, stop when I want, take photos when I want, explore a side game trail if it looks interesting. I carry the 10 essentials.

I also hike with a group on Wednesdays, and I find that much more annoying than hiking by myself.

I'm like Solo75. I have my own pace and my own way of doing things. I'm well prepared and trained. I always have enough gear and supplies to spend at least one night in the bush, considering the time of year. I do hike with a few, specific people when things work out but most times it's just me and my dog.

I've thought about the types of situations that could possibly come up where a hiking partner would literally "save my life" and they are quite unlikely....not impossible of course, but not likely.

I've done a few solo trips over the years, including 10 day backpacking trips off trail solo. It's not something one just leaps into, it's something that you take the time to develop the skill sets that let you travel safely alone.

And there is just something about being out alone in the wilderness. Where the only human sounds are the sounds of my breathing, the sounds of my footsteps and even the sound of my own voice as I talk and sing to myself (something I discovered, after 3 days totally alone I have full-on conversations with myself). The wilderness just seems larger and somehow even more beautiful.

I don't believe hiking alone is less (or more) safe than hiking in a group for the simple reason that I've never seen actual evidence for it. I've heard plenty of anecdotes, but the vast majority of accidents I've heard about involved groups and were caused by group think and other group dynamics. Then again, that's another anecdote.

Does anyone actually know of some real data that shows hiking alone is more dangerous than hiking in a group? I'm inclined to think it just seems intuitively more dangerous and so the idea has morphed into "fact", in much the same way that people think bears are more dangerous than the drive to the trailhead, even though the latter is far more likely to kill you.

I enjoy hiking alone as much as I do hiking with someone, but for different reasons, and believe both have their benefits and risks.

This definitely rings true for myself as well. Also what Steven and Dieter said. When I started out I often had Friday's off and it was tough to find partners who could change objectives at the last second (most people really hate changing their minds about anything ). I like to be "mean and lean" both in planning and execution of my trips. If the weather changes last minute, I'll drive an extra 300km to get better weather.

I like being alone in the wild. Everything looks sharper, smells stronger and takes on more meaning when I'm alone or with another strong hiker who doesn't need to be right near me the whole time (i.e. Steven, Phil etc). I notice way more details when I'm solo. I often miss goats, sheep and bears when I'm busy chatting with a partner.

I find it puzzling why so many people seem to only go out with huge groups as a social gathering. Don't they miss the quiet and stillness of the wilderness when there's 10 people chatting around them all day? I work with people all week and just want to escape civilization on the weekend!

I have to admit part of it is that it costs a lot for me to go out for a day or even more, a weekend. It takes me away from my family. If I go on a week day it literally costs me (and my family) tons of cash since I get paid hourly. I want to maximize my time out there - not have to run around calling for heli-rescues because someone tripped on a grass slope.

It is tough to find partners with the same commitment level too.

You know what Steven did when he dislocated his shoulder while descending Mount Sir Douglas? He popped it back in and then proceeded to downclimb 40 degree ice with two axes! You know what Eric did when his knees locked up 2km from the bivy site on Recondite? He yelled for a bit, then popped 2 Advil, took a few deep breaths and continued on. The next day he climbed Recondite and hiked another 20km. That kind of stamina and determination isn't easy to find!

Technology has made it much safer and easier to travel solo. Sat phones, Spot devices and GPS units have certainly made my wife a lot happier about me travelling by myself. She doesn't like it when I come home with stories of charging Grizzlies though...

Who knew the responses here would echo mine?

Going solo allows you to go on your schedule, at your pace (be it fast or slow), take time to set up photos, or randomly break into a downhill trot. It allows for quiet reflection, or building personal confidence.

That said, I also really enjoy hiking with a friend or two when we can manage to coordinate our schedules. Joint experiences, conversation and tales of adventure between breaths, someone to bounce ideas off of, or mooch a yummy snack.

Either way, it's good. With regard to risks, well, they exist, but you can mitigate them with proper equipment and education.

One aspect when it is safer to be in a group is in respect to wildlife. Groups make more noise so you run far less chance to surprise a bear.

Social preferences aside (i.e. "loners" vs "social butterflies") I think perception that it is safer in a group is born from inherent fear of the unknown. I.e. "I don't know what it is out there, so better stick together". But once you've been out for awhile & gain experience, this becomes much less of a factor.

I like what Vern said in respect to technology; like it or not (some don't) GPS has made navigation much easier; Spot devices can be used as wilderness 911, etc.

I can't agree more. I work outside in construction around lots of rules, people and noise. Hiking is a precious escape for me. I have enjoyed the few group hikes I have gone on, but you are not fully in tune with the environment with all the chatter going on. Even hiking with Katie isn't truely solo because I have to pay so much attention to what she is up to (which I enjoy doing).

While solo, every sound, smell and sight is noticed, As alhike said on a group hike I was on with him, there is a conversation going on in the wilderness. You miss out on much of that in a group. If one has ever hiked with a dog and really paid attention to them, they may have noticed how dogs take note of every sound, sight and smell along the way. They respect that conversation going on around us. As an example, a bird in distress off in the distance always gets Katie to stop, listen closer and take note. There is probably a good reason for us to take note of a bird in distress and dogs know that. A group doesn't appreciate conversations like that. I love listening to that conversation. : )

There is also an element of understanding relative risk. While there are several possible scenarios where being with another person could be advantageous (and vice versa), by far, the most dangerous part of a hike (regardless of being in a group or solo) is the drive to the trailhead. People ask me if I'm afraid of bears or cougars, I respond by asking if they're afraid to drive to Banff for the weekend as from a risk perspective, statistically, both tasks are almost the same.


More people were killed or injured by vending machines last year than by Grizzly bears in the last century