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

[Leslie Booher]

And sadly, hiking together didn't save the elderly (did I really say that?  I'm not so far from that myself!) couple who were murdered in the Pisgah Nat. Forest in the fall.  You'd have thought they would have been safe, too, since they were there for each other.  I admired them for being out there hiking in the first place.  Last I saw, they were trying to link their murders to this one.  I don't know how that's turning out, though.  

anklebear
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Carla & Dave Hicks 
  To: KGJ ; Jim Bullard ; David Addleton 
  Cc: AT-list 
  Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 2:29 PM
  Subject: [at-l] Best vs. Safe [was: Re: (no subject)]


  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
  << 

  _______________________________________________
  at-l mailing list
  at-l at backcountry.net
  http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/at-l/attachments/20080106/fdcbd486/attachment.html