Go it alone or in a group?

going alone or in a groupIn hiking, camping, and preparing for an emergency, one of the questions that is asked is whether it is better to set off on your own, or find and stick with a group of fellow adventurers/refugees.

If you have a family, the point is moot, at least as far as emergency preparation.  You will be evacuating with your spouse and kids, if any.  And if you are new to any outdoor activity, I would highly recommend being part of a group until you have acquired the skills and experience to safely get there and back.

In any event, there are pros and cons on either side.  Here are some of the reasons to go solo:

-You experience the outdoors on your terms. You set the pace, when you are tired you rest, when you are hungry you eat.  If you want to spend the morning fishing or napping, no impatient companion will be nagging you to move. No arguments over what to eat for dinner or which campsite is better.

-People are different.  You have a hearty appetite, others eat like birds.  Some folks in the outdoors find a way to bathe every day; others don’t worry about being clean beyond (hopefully) their hands.  If you hike or evacuate with them and share the same tent, things could get unpleasant after a few days.

-Being solo brings some true rewards.  With no conversation to hold up, you often notice more around you.  The sights, sounds, and smells of the backcountry are often subtle, being solo means you can take them in.  I find that a solo hike is a great way to resolve a dilemma by holding a conversation with yourself.

-It’s a lot harder to hide a family or a scout troop than just yourself. Stealthy camping contributes to both your outdoor experience and that of others passing by.  And in an emergency situation, the ability to be unnoticed may make you safer.

On the other hand…

-Safety. I have hiked many a mile by myself, all but a few on established trails, and didn’t start going alone until I felt comfortable with my skills and abilities. Even long time hikers can get into trouble, sometimes fatal.  A prime example was Pastor Mark Turner, a very experienced lifetime hiker who embarked on a solo trip in Wyoming’s Wind River Range in 1998.  While negotiating a boulder field around a lake, a rock shifted, trapping his legs.  He was both off trail and had decided to take a different route than the one he had planned, so rescuers spent days looking in the wrong places.  Another hiker found his body fifty days later, still pinned in place by the boulder.   A pair of hikers means one can go for help, three means one can stay with the injured party; four or more means the rescuer won’t be alone on his hike out.

Safety, part 2.  Sometimes the very existence of a group can deter trouble. Troublemakers are far less likely to pester a large group, especially one with several adults.  And for those campers who lay awake in their bags all night, certain that every rustling leaf betrays an imminent attack by fanged death, while such attacks are rare in any case, they are all but non-existent on groups of four or more.

-Company.  Just as being solo has its rewards, good company can help you pass the empty hours after supper and on the trail.  And the larger the group, the more opportunities for pleasant conversation. In an evacuation, there is a good chance you will go somewhere and stay there for some time.  There will be many more empty hours to pass than if you are moseying down the trail all day. Did anyone think to bring a deck of cards or a travel chess set?

Sharing of tasks.  On a hike or in an emergency, things go faster if someone gets dinner ready while someone else sets up the tent.  Sharing can be informal or written down.  In a family group, best to have it all written down in advance so little Suzy doesn’t whine about always having to do dishes.