Bushwalk Australia

I do love a solo trip, but am seeing more and more advice/warnings that recommend strongly against solo due to the risk/s. I guess it's just one's own value judgement, especially if appropriate safety precautions are taken. I appreciate that going solo doesn't have benefit of extra/s for emergency response, but a well-planned route (with understanding of terrain and weather), first aid knowledge/gear, navigation skills/equipment and an EPIRB will minimise risk. I guess age is a factor, the incidence of heart issues, stroke etc aren't well managed alone.

How do you weigh up the pros/cons? Have you modified your approach?

Nope Still mainly solo when I get the chance to get out.
Prepared to take my chances, always have been

Interesting if there are stats on rescues solo v group.

I'm risk averse when walking regardless, but more so when walking solo. I wont walk across a log over a creek. I've abandoned walks due to rock scrambles that aren't technical, but the exposure presents too high a risk. I will go off-track but nothing serious. There are a lot of things I wont do, or be extra careful when doing it. The number of times I've crossed a slippery creek on all fours and thought, I hope no ones watching Even backwards down steep descents sometimes.

Just do what it takes to stay safe and don't listen to the worrywarts. If they don't want to go, they don't have to.

I should have also posted that I'm a very cautious walker and CC skier, I don't take many unnecessary risks

Moondog55 wrote:Nope Still mainly solo when I get the chance to get out.
Prepared to take my chances, always have been

+ 1

Aushiker wrote:

Moondog55 wrote:Nope Still mainly solo when I get the chance to get out.
Prepared to take my chances, always have been

+ 1

+2
I don't take stupid risks, but life is for living and there are no certainties (except that it will end eventually).

I think most people are more at risk of diabetes, heart disease, etc. from junk diets and too little exercise than they are from going for a bushwalk. There is a point at which risk aversion crosses a line and puts people MORE at risk because they are unable to cope with anything out of the ordinary. IMO, Australia crossed that line a long time ago.

I mountain bike, rock climb, sea kayak, surf kayak, trail run, all solo and will not stop until I can't. My best days in life ever have been the days I was out doing something "risky". Life is way too short to let the fear mongers frighten you.

Its nice going with company sometimes , but I do feel alive when solo , my only main concern is a snake bite with or without company I think a PLB is great but getting plucked out of the bush and getting treated before its too late is 50/50 depending on where you are .??

For solo walking I am more meticulous with my planning and a little bit more circumspect about where I go, but that's about it. On a multi day walk I might look at potential escape routes because I've had occassions where I've had to turn back when the weather turned really bad. I've had the odd gear failure over the years so I take newer gear when going solo. Slips/trips/falls is a big concern so like Crollsurf I avoid rock scrambles and walking across logs if I can. I've never worried about possible heart issues or stroke, I get my regular check ups and if there's no obvious problems I reckon I'm good to go. I've been prepared to turn back or modify my plans when things looked more dicey than expected on the track. I always carry a GPS to tell me where I am and a PLB to tell others where I am if necessary, that's about it.

Like others, I will take less risks when walking solo, and probably venture to less difficult to escape areas, but I wouldn't not go.

There's obviously a very small subset of incidents where a group of fellow walkers could save you, where a PLB can't. But I think it's small enough to run with.

The ever increasing nanny state risk aversion mentality makes solo walking seem fraught with danger and only for the foolhardy. In reality it is as safe as it can be as long as proper care is taken.

For over 20 years nearly all my walks have been solo. A bit more care is needed, but that's all. Walking solo means that I can start and stop when I want, and go at my own pace. Not many others would be able to start walking before dawn, or reach camp at 10.30 am. In a few places there's room for just one tent. I have many decades of bushwalking, a PLB, a GPS, a map, and a compass, plus spare maps. The riskiest I have ever had was a flooded Kosciuszko creek crossing, only obvious when I got half way. Another person would have been nice. The cyclists crossing the creek a few days later would have had even more fun,

JohnnoMcJohnno wrote: [edit] Slips/trips/falls is a big concern [edit]

They can happen of course, but here's tip based on a recent (solo, as per normal) experience I had. If you fall heavily you may feel a bit of pain, but still be able to walk back to your start point, albeit a little slower than normal. Don't sit down and have lunch, or whatever, on the way. Just keep moving. On recommencing the walk after being stationary for a while you may feel the pain when walking will have increased very substantially.

Solo walking is much safer.
You don't assume someone else in the group knows where they are going.
If you don't feel 100% it is much easier to change plans, take easier options, take the day off.
Less chance of being hit by falling rocks on steep slopes. Less chance of being hit in the head by branches when following someone.
You take more care, and less risks.
Don't get kept awake by snoring.
Wider choice of campsites when you are caught out.

peregrinator wrote:
Don't sit down and have lunch, or whatever, on the way. Just keep moving. On recommencing the walk after being stationary for a while you may feel the pain when walking will have increased very substantially.

Thanks - good tip.

Biggest one for me, when I was solo walking more and doing long distance solo walks in remote areas, was having something like a SPOT tracker. It wasn't so useful for me, but gave those at home some piece of mind that I was still ok. If I had fallen off a cliff, at least they'd know where to look. A PLB won't really help you get found, but you're not being found for your sake, more others in that scenario.

Like most commentators, I take things much more carefully when hiking solo.

I still much prefer hiking solo, mostly because I like to make my own schedule, rather than waiting for others.

Happy to talk to others if we happen to cross paths, but I’m happiest when I get a campsite to myself.

I always carry a PLB and think things through twice if they are at all risky.

Allchin09 wrote: A PLB won't really help you get found, but you're not being found for your sake, more others in that scenario.

SPOTS seem great because you can actually send a message at the end of each day so folks at home can track you but a PLB WILL get you found. PLB's send a satellite signal to AMSAR. I have had a friend found while sea kayaking because she set off her PLB. What use would they be if they "won't help you get found'?

Without even trying to be funny, walking solo in the bush is a million times safer than walking solo through StKilda or Fitzroy after midnite

Allchin09 wrote: A PLB won't really help you get found,

PLB stands for Personal Locator Beacon! It does help you get found even without a GPS function the 406 MHz satellite signals will give a broad location. Then the local 121.5 MHz signal can be used to locate you. If you chose to pay a little more on buying a PLB you can opt in for a GPS equipped PLB that should give a location to the accuracy of the GPS via the 406 MHz satellite contact.

You can set a SPOT to automatically update your position. A plb you have to set it off. If you have a catastrophic fall you won't be doing that.

CraigVIC wrote:You can set a SPOT to automatically update your position. A plb you have to set it off. If you have a catastrophic fall you won't be doing that.

Maybe true but to me a catastrophic failure means being dead anyway.

Moondog55 wrote:

CraigVIC wrote:You can set a SPOT to automatically update your position. A plb you have to set it off. If you have a catastrophic fall you won't be doing that.

Maybe true but to me a catastrophic failure means being dead anyway.

Pretty much true, Moondog. Unless maybe you're half dead!

Just restating the position that was put above. I don't necessarily think this makes a spot better than a plb but the principle is true. With the spot it will be relatively easy to find you in all cases, including if you suddenly die whereas the plb is useless if you are unable to set it off. It's not necessarily a small thing to save a potentially long and difficult body recovery for volunteers and your loved ones but, as I say, not top of my mind for reasons.

Moondog55 wrote:

CraigVIC wrote:You can set a SPOT to automatically update your position. A plb you have to set it off. If you have a catastrophic fall you won't be doing that.

Maybe true but to me a catastrophic failure means being dead anyway.

That's exactly why I activate tracking whenever I go solo off-track. If I die from a stroke (or a fall) my body can be recovered with a minimum of fuss. Otherwise an extensive search would be needed, and if my body wasn't found it could cause years of uncertainty and anguish for my family.

My InReach Mini, set to a two-hourly tracking interval, works for this purpose.

Just want to say I have enjoyed immensely the responses to the OP but I am a bit worried that some folks go out actually thinking they are going to keel over dead, and I thought I was a half-empty type of person. On the other hand, keeling over dead might be better than mouldering away in an aged care home.

sandym wrote:Just want to say I have enjoyed immensely the responses to the OP but I am a bit worried that some folks go out actually thinking they are going to keel over dead, and I thought I was a half-empty type of person. On the other hand, keeling over dead might be better than mouldering away in an aged care home.

Keeling over dead doesn't worry me, but it does worry the rest of the family.
If I drop dead they want to be able to find my body quickly, before I get eaten by the devils.
I use an InReach, so they can find me if I am unable to set off an alert. I frequently walk in places where I might not see anyone else all day, so I can't rely on some passerby finding my body.

If I walk with someone else,then that is two people I have to look after!

To a certain extent, actions are based on probabilities, consequences, and cost. During the pandemic when supermarkets had limited stock it made sense to build up consumables at home as it was probable that there would be further shortages. The consequences of running out at home justified the cost. It's quite probable that I will lock myself out, so there are spare keys. Having a few months of spending as cash manages the probability of income loss, expense increases, or a combination. The cost of the cash is income and capital gains foregone when investing in shares, and I'm very happy to do this. A big cash reserve got me through the pandemic.

Bushwalking is similar. taking a GPS and PLB are becoming the norm for people who go bush often. The GPS makes navigation much easier, and will probably be used a lot. A PLB is a last resort to be used when help is urgently needed. The consequences of not having a PLB at such times are serious. Like most people I have not activated a PLB. A SPOT or similar device gives more security, but like the PLB will not be needed. The chance of a solo walker suddenly dying off-track is remote. A question then arises - is the cost and weight of a SPOT or similar device justified? Similar questions could asked about other gear, like carrying a stretcher, a very big first aid kit, a spare tent, and an extra day of food on a weekend trip. I have seen all of these. One person had so much spare gear on a three day he had to stop walking just 30 minutes from the start - his pack was extremely heavy, nudging 30 kg.

Lophophaps wrote:A SPOT or similar device gives more security, but like the PLB will not be needed.

A SPOT or InReach has lots of uses apart from extreme emergency, and probably should always be carried by solo walkers.

If you cannot use your planned route, so you take a major detour, or you are held up and will be late getting out, you would not use a PLB, but your family would worry if you don't turn up at the right place and time. But with a tracking system, they can see where you really are and not be too concerned.
You can also send a message with a brief explanation of any changes in plans.
In our case we have interstate relatives who take an interest in our walks, and might be tracking us in real time, not because they are worried about us, just interested in where we go. So we even give the car its own beacon, so the family can see us while driving, and when we are walking they can check how far from the car we have gone.
Then we write up our travels for other family members, using the InReach track to explain our wanderings.

So, for us, an InReach for everyone, including the car is standard practice, but I can see that others might think that was overkill.
However, we had one walk a few years ago, where there were four of us, and only three InReach beacons, and the one person without a beacon became separated from the group, lost, and had to stay out overnight. They self-rescued next morning by retracing their route, but we had Search and Rescue teams out most of the night trying to find them. So now if we have anyone without a beacon, they are not allowed out of sight of others who have one. But when everyone has their own beacon they can all go at their own pace, stop and start whenever they want, and enjoy themselves alone in the bush.