I normally do stuff alone. Everyone else pretty much summed it up for me

Dingus Milktoast wrote:I think its hard to find partners because we select objectives that will be hard to find partners for... precisely BECAUSE it will be hard to find partners.

Self-fullfilling prophesy in other words.
DMT

When I plan the next day's objectives, my thoughts are busy with planning the adventure. First I get curious, then I get excited.
On hikes and scrambles, I don't think about being alone, I think about taking care of myself.
On the drive home, I think that my friends would love to be where I've been and see what I've seen. But later when I get to invite them, usually they're committed to something else.

This "Self-fullfilling prophesy" thing is certainly not what I'm asking for, but it's clearly what I'm getting.

So I'm preparing for a hike tomorrow. Through the "North Creek" canyon, into a circle of mountains like a big cauldron. I'll stay the night, under the stars, and hit the summits (three maybe) the second day. Then I'll get back out, and go home.

I've mentioned this to a couple of folks. They say "good for you", or "wow", or "maybe next time".
So I'm alone again.
And I don't mind. I love it up there.

I'm no interesting enough to do solo trips. I have one solid partner that I do most of my trips with and I generally avoid large groups and technical trips with people I don't know well. I do feel safer with company but there are situations where I'd feel safer going solo. If the choice was roping up with someone I didn't necessarily trust or doing a less interesting route alone, I'd go alone. I'm not a very social person and am even less so in the mountains but having a partner out there is a big part of the experience for me.

I'm about 1/2 and 1/2. Partners are nice and you can get larger objectives with higher technical difficulties done with partners but solo can be said to be more of an accomplishment.

Solo too can be more spontaneous because of schedules. There's also some routes that work better as a solo because of difficult/limited protection. Solo can also be faster and more efficient.

I’m neither antisocial, nor spontaneous, and I go about 90% partnered, 10% solo, but I am inpatient. When I solo, I generally do it to so I have freedom over my schedule. On a solo trip I’ll talk to almost everyone I see and have had great fun with that.

Larger groups frustrate me. You’ll get going, then ten minutes later someone has to stop to take off their coat, five minutes after that another idiot does the same thing. Ya didn’t know you’d warm up when ya started moving???

But I wonder if group decision making is better? On my last trip I got to a point on the route that had been described as 4th or low 5th. Even though I just climbed past a route that looked easier, I headed right up it. When I hit a move harder than 5.easy I dumped my pack, down climbed, regeared, and went right back at it. I got a few feet higher this time, then I got stuck again for a few minutes. Finally I made a move way above my free solo comfort zone and progressed on to easier climbing. In retrospect, I should have retreated to the easier route I’d just passed. I think any of my regular partners would have pointed that out to me. Do two minds work better then one???

dan2see wrote:

Dingus Milktoast wrote:I think its hard to find partners because we select objectives that will be hard to find partners for... precisely BECAUSE it will be hard to find partners.

Self-fullfilling prophesy in other words.
DMT

...This "Self-fullfilling prophesy" thing is certainly not what I'm asking for, but it's clearly what I'm getting.

So I'm preparing for a hike tomorrow. Through the "North Creek" canyon, into a circle of mountains like a big cauldron. I'll stay the night, under the stars, and hit the summits (three maybe) the second day. Then I'll get back out, and go home...

Well I did my "North Creek" canyon. Hiked for 5 hours up the dry creek. There's no trail, just animal tracks. Climbed the canyon into the cauldron. Set up my camp, and headed up to the ridge. Powderface Valley all green below me on the left, Rocky Mountain grey limestone on my right. Hiked this ridge, from one mountain to the next but did not head for the summits because of time.

Sunset at 8:00 pm, sunrise at 8:00 am. Twelve hours of sack-time, fabulous milky way, stars between the stars, and shooting stars, too!

Next day explored some of the drainages coming down off the mountain slopes. Some are full of rubble, three of them are water-fall cascades, dry, perfect for solo rock climbing.

Hiking back down, I saw the tracks of 3 deer who went up to the top and came back down, and a bighorn sheep who is still up there. I found this perfect grassy paradise and napped there for an hour while my gear dried in the sun.

So you SP readers who think solo is not a wise idea -- think again, there's a lot of value, just being there. Sure, it's remote, and difficult. But I love it up there.

BTW:
Notice, I did not actually tell you the location of this trip. I will say, it's a one-hour drive to the city of a million people, and thousands of people drove past, almost in sight of my site while I was up there, but nobody came to see it up close.

There's that self-fulfilling prophesy. I don't really understand that, but it's clear that the prophesy is powerful.

(Edit to add)
Back in the city, it's hard to stop bragging about the great time I have. Sorry, SP!

Solo is great for freedom and spontaneity. Just me and the rocks and land. When I solo I get revelations from the greater universe and things in my mind resolve.

With others is fun too, sharing the whole thing. The right partner on the right climb can't be beat.

SpiderSavage wrote:Solo is great for freedom and spontaneity. Just me and the rocks and land. When I solo I get revelations from the greater universe and things in my mind resolve.

With others is fun too, sharing the whole thing. The right partner on the right climb can't be beat.

It's all good.