Thursday June 13th 2019 " A Rough day up on the Rock Pile"

[DayTrip]

But I think there's a difference between leading a group and just hiking with 2 friends even if 3 people is technically a group.

I think that is a very valid point and distinction. I think it is easy to assume a bunch of people together on the trail is a "group" but it is not the same as an organized, pre-planned event by a trip leader or organization, possibly where members paid for the leadership. Expectations I think would and should be very different in each case.

 

[dave.m]

GreyJ and DayTrip,

Note, I said if I had been in your (DayTrip's) position, I would have asked that the strong person stay as potential help.

I've actually been in this situation before and had a person leave a group on their own. Even as a group "leader" (<- whatever this means), there is no way to force anybody to do anything so the reality is, people will end up doing whatever they want. And, similar to the situation you (DayTrip) described, the person in my group took off to pursue their own goal.

The primary distinction I'm drawing out is the you (DayTrip) were cool with that (my read of how you described it) and I saw my person's decision as negatively affecting the group that I remained responsible for.

Let me put this another way... I've been on trips where we were all experienced enough to travel solo and new it and have made loosey-goosey decisions on staying together for this and going separate ways for that. IMO, this is an ultimate sign of respect and confidence in the abilities of each other and in general, I have no problem with that. This said, in face of harsh conditions (which include potential for exhaustion or hypothermia, among other things), I do think that groups of 3 are more resilient than than 3 separate solo hikers.

 

[skiguy]

I do think that groups of 3 are more resilient than than 3 separate solo hikers.

I agree with your premise of this line of thinking although it is not full proof. Not that any rescue situation is. Yes you do have someone to stay and be with the individual whom needs the rescue. But what about the individual whom is now solo going for help. Would not four be even a better number. What if the lone person going for help gets injured. Now all three people in the original party are in danger. Where is if there was a fourth they could still potentially go on. Yes albeit now the fourth is solo going for help and the third is still in need of rescue by themselves. Although with four the overall odds are better than three IMO of an overall successful rescue.

 

[DayTrip]

GreyJ and DayTrip,

Note, I said if I had been in your (DayTrip's) position, I would have asked that the strong person stay as potential help.

I've actually been in this situation before and had a person leave a group on their own. Even as a group "leader" (<- whatever this means), there is no way to force anybody to do anything so the reality is, people will end up doing whatever they want. And, similar to the situation you (DayTrip) described, the person in my group took off to pursue their own goal.

The primary distinction I'm drawing out is the you (DayTrip) were cool with that (my read of how you described it) and I saw my person's decision as negatively affecting the group that I remained responsible for.

Let me put this another way... I've been on trips where we were all experienced enough to travel solo and new it and have made loosey-goosey decisions on staying together for this and going separate ways for that. IMO, this is an ultimate sign of respect and confidence in the abilities of each other and in general, I have no problem with that. This said, in face of harsh conditions (which include potential for exhaustion or hypothermia, among other things), I do think that groups of 3 are more resilient than than 3 separate solo hikers.

The distinction I was getting at was more legal, i.e. a person in a paid or officially organized group may be under contractual obligation to follow the leader's direction to reduce liability, defer to the leader in decision making, etc, and said leader is expected to properly assess conditions, provide proper gear and make effective decisions. If I get left behind in a scenario where I paid a guide to organize the trip, provide gear, assess the status of the group members and do the decision making for me I think it is very different than me telling two friends I'm with to go ahead. I'd be quicker to apply the "negligent" label to the guide in the paid scenario than I would to my friends even though it is very similar. Does that make sense? Not sure I'm explaining myself correctly.

 

[Mike P.]

So when I hike solo, do I have a fool for a leader or do I have anarchy in a group of one?

A grandfather and two grandsons, ages 19 and 14, is not an organized hike with a leader.

When I started, I was not looking at finding an organized group or leader to help. (Possible TMI warning) I was a 29 year old who had walked in the local woods hunting without getting lost and had done some local in town trails. A divorce led to realizing I hadn't really been anywhere, other people had done State Capitals, Ballparks, etc. I liked the walking in hunting but grew to dislike the rest of it. I had started with State Highpoints, however the woman who would become my current wife was more important than the High Point of IA, IL, IN, FL, etc. I loved the new hobby, so I just stayed in the Northeast. I started on the trips that likely wouldn't kill me. (RI, MA, VT, ME, CT, NH, NY)

On my first Washington trip, I was just back in the trees on Lion's Head when a grandfather and two grandchildren passed me on the way up. Granddad was in his mid 60's and the two boys were not 19, closer to 14. Ten minutes later, one of the boys ran past me saying his grandfather had fallen. Like I said, I'm glad this had a happy ending, it's a little too deja vu for me.

Small groups of friends don't think of a walk in the whites from late Spring to pre-labor day hikes as something requiring rules what-if scenarios' etc. If they have just a little experience, they haven't thought about lost of visibility or multiple trails at junctions. Those of us in the choir know better, now, we did not always know.

So much is available on-line, people can say they researched the hike on-line & that means nothing. (The old days if they said that they read the intro and the trail pages in the WMG, you know what they read) How many meet-up groups, Facebook groups and Instagram pages reference Washington? (1,000's? more?) Warnings probably range from WMG-like to we came, we saw, we kicked it's butt, it was easy, everyone should do it.