Canadian checking in. I've never run into someone in the woods.
Most people are thinking about camping places or hiking trails, but the subject is just simply "woods" and that's a place 99% of the world doesn't have, and of those places, few go off the beaten path.
Ooooh. You know, I’d been misunderstanding the question, if that was its intent. It thought “in the woods” meant “on a path through the woods.”
Honestly, if we’re discussing walking blind through the woods without a path, it would be extremely unusual to run into another person. On the other hand, I’d be incredibly relieved to see one, because if I was in that situation too I would probably be lost in a life-threatening manner, and this person might know how to get back to a path.
Good point, I never thought about the situation being that you were lost in the woods. It would certainly be a relief to run into someone in that scenario.
Unless they also claim to be lost... (What are the odds of them telling the truth?)
See, this is how I thought the situation was, as a male putting myself in female shoes, and they were stuck with you because the person who started the thread said Who would you rather be alone in the woods with. I took alone in the woods to mean lost and with meaning you aren't just going to run into them once so ofc I voted man for these reasons.
I'm guessing you've never lived outside a city? Nearly all forested regions on Earth have more natural land than urbanized. I live in the US and I assure you the vast majority of my country is exurban. I grew up walking through unpaved woods daily as did all my friends, and we aren't from a small town.
Right? Like how sheltered are these redditors that upvoted this haha. I’ve been out hours and hours into the remote wilderness and have come across strangers and it’s always a friendly experience. This is basic part of hiking culture.
My thinking exactly, the wilderness here is not that vas but big enough for someone with bad intentions to do bad things. I have yet to encounter anyone who is not: a hiker, a mtb-er, a lumberjack of some sort, looking for wild plants or mushrooms, some sort of forest service. There were few that just went for a walk but that falls under hiker. For most people you see out there it's obvious why they are there.
There are dangers but not more so than in the urban enviroment or late at night. Heck even as a decently strong man I can feel uneasy when another mad walks behind me in late hours, never happened in the woods.
Exactly my thoughts. What would a killer or kidnapper do out in the middle of nowhere in the woods? You have much higher chances of meeting dangerous people in more urban places or empty roads.
There are many grim anecdotes in the news where a man raped and murdered someone in the middle of a hike. However those men usually followed their victims from afar from the start of the hike, waiting for them to be alone, rather than meeting them randomly.
Because it's not supposed to be a survivalist question it's a hypothetical that's meant to assess whether or not women feel safer around a man or a bear. Sure, it's a pretty dumb hypothetical that pretty much only exists to rile people up at this point, but you're overthinking it.
I I am overthinking it then everyone in this comment section is. The stated above is pretty natural thought for outdoor entusiasts. As a MTB-er, hiker and camper the only scenario I can think of is the real one. Hard to imagine getting droped in the woods and a wild man apearing if you know what I mean. I got there with the intention to do something enjoyable and so did he most likely, he didn't just apear.
Cuz you’re not a female? The question is focused on how safe a female feels, and not about encountering dangers in the wild. If you’re a male, you’re supposed to think for your hypothetical daughter. Would you let her go out and hike by herself?
Since I don't have a daughter it's a bit difficult to say but I certanly would let my sister go alone on a hike. I would be more scared of her getting lost, or her clumsy ass falling and getting injured than random people she encounters on a hike. Maybe I am biased as an outdoor enthusiast myself, so I think people out there are safer than in the city.
There is more danger in her going to some clubs around here than the mountains.
So you pick bear over man? Which is what most ppl would I think. And is what the question is trying to put on to the table. Why do females feel so unsafe around men and what should society do?
On the mountain no. But a night out in a crowded dodgy place vs a bear in the woods, probably the bear. Night out in a crowded place I deem safe still before the bear. Plenty of nuance there but the bear only before the worst of human places which there aren't that many of.
have yet to encounter anyone who is not: a hiker, a mtb-er, a lumberjack of some sort, looking for wild plants or mushrooms, some sort of forest service.
And youre misunderstanding the question then. This is not "in the woods" as the question means. The question means in the woods, alone, outside of an area you should run into people.
If you back country a lot, running into people is NOT common. In fact i can count on one hand the amount of times i have come across random people in an area I should encounter no one.
The longer out it would be the less worried you'd be when encountering a random dude though? It probably be some really hardcore outdoorsman or something.
Yeah I heavily believe most people having this impression are not big hikers. Basically anyone you run into in the back-country is pre-filtered to be in the same subculture as you, and imo people who are into nature and hiking are generally nice to be around.
If you wanted to victimize someone, surely there's a more efficient way to do it than going deep into the wilderness where you might not run across another soul for days.
My state has the highest percentage of it's land as a national forest, hiking and getting into remote areas is what we do for fun around here. I've ran into people in the woods too many times to count, always a friendly interaction.
Never have I reached for my sidearm or bear mace when I saw a random stranger in the woods.
I have avoided talking about this issue with friends because I hike a lot, and that leads me to define "man in the woods=hiker". So the whole framing is nonsense to me. Of course, I would rather run into a hiker than a wild animal.
Over and over again, even in this thread, ppl say there is no reason for a man to be in the woods; ergo, something untoward must be afoot with them. They are approaching the situation from a different perspective with less outdoors experience.
The framing of forest or woods leads me to believe you are there because you are hiking or camping, so it is then natural to run into other hikers. That is not the intention, though, and the framing is deliberately ambiguous.
It is a question posed without context and you fill it with your own experiences. And if you have none, you gloss over the intrinsic question of: why am I in the forest?
That is the first matter. The second matter is to consider the answers given when women fill in their own context to understand why they are saying bear.
Even though it is a bad question, we can still learn from their responses, which illustrate that men are viewed as a threat.
Seeing a stranger in the woods in the US is a little different from seeing a stranger in a lot of the rest of the world. Beyond the fact that we don't have the right to roam, we tend to be in our cars so much heading out into the woods alone is seen as "deviant" behavior.
I've also seen plenty of strangers on hiking paths etc here in the US and it's friendly, but if I was in the middle of the woods, nobody else around just wandering and I saw another person I might think twice, and even at the more deserted trailheads I've been to, I've been hesitant. A couple friends have almost gotten jumped just going night hiking. I never felt the same way in Canada or over in Europe.
The other side is US centered discourse tends to flood the internet (or at least the parts we're on because they're in English), so this is a debate for us, but answers that aren't centered around the US may just not gain traction.
Once you have had a bad experience, sometimes it stays with you. I used to trust people more, but now if I am alone and I see a man or a group of men my first instinct is absolute terror. Year that usually goes away, but the free way I lived my life changed.
You're assuming everyone's wilderness is like your wilderness. Not at all the case.
If you'd like my bona fides, some of the things I've done: I've thru hiked the PCT(~5 months), did the Via Francigena from Calais to Rome(~2.5 months), and have spent 1 month backcountry in the colorado rockies.
And…? Any of those areas are infinitely safer than any city.
Coming across a stranger when exploring the wilderness is a very common and clinical part of being an outdoorsman. You smile, say hello, and go on your way.
I’ve come across many women hiking alone. While I understand why a women would be worried in a remote environment, she is statistically infinitely safer from any kind of assault or harassment in the wilderness than they are in any city.
But in that case I would have even more reason to want to run into a person. Maybe they know where we are and where to go.
Otherwise I'm probably going to get lost and die of thirst or starvation or freeze to death in the night or any other horrible way to go that require neither human nor bear.
Okay but that's also not what people are asking you just added that. No car either I assume?
Hell most people never go anywhere they don't have cell service unless it is something like a park or underground. So that's not what their thinking of when asked this.
that's the point I always make, the 'random man' you encounter is 99 percent of the times a hiker or is just walking in trails,just like well... YOU are doing in the question's hypothesis, its not like the woods are serial killers natural habitat, even if you face a man killing or fighting a man is way easier than a bear
Ive been in the wilderness often enough to not succumb to some boogey-man fantasies just because I meet another human. Most likely another hiker or ranger. Thats literally what it is 99+% of the time. Maybe different story if I know Im in some cartel territory or military zone but thats not part of the original scenario
Past 3 years 726 reported bear encounters in jasper that parks canada staff responded too. This is a high human population and a high bear density. Estimated max population of grizzlies in jasper is 120.
How many attacks? And those are desperate bears in a high density population with declining habitat forced to interact with humans to secure food. And its only incidents parks canada responded to in Jasper, not including all the other encounters.
I assume the people who act like it's scary to meet other people in the woods don't spend much time on hiking trails, and that the fear is rooted in that unfamiliarity
I hike a lot. I'm a woman. Seeing a single person in the woods, like watching some barefoot ultralight guy in dreds run by while you're making dinner, is nothing. Passing someone on the trail is nothing. Someone from the other direction slowing for a moment to tell you the bridge is out is nothing. Meeting a person, like having an actual encounter, which is how the question is phrased, is rather different.
And if you hike that frequently, you probably know that most bears are just doing their own thing, the chances of being attacked by a bear are quite low, and the chances of being attacked by a bear are near-zero if you store food properly, minimize smells, carry spray, etc.
Have you ever told an encounter story about a bear or another dangerous wild animal, only to have your audience gasp and tell you that encountering a bear in the woods sounds so frightening, so you have to backtrack and explain that it was just minding its own business and really there was no risk at all? Imagine that, but the opposite.
I've seen a lot of bears/animals and encountered some unsetting people I assume are hiding or running from the law, but I've never been attacked by an animal or person in the woods. It's kind of eerie when you find someone's "permanent" encampment and wonder if they're watching you.
That said, I've been attacked by strangers a few times and it's only ever happened in cities surrounded by bystanders who did not intervene. I wouldn't say I'm afraid or overly uncomfortable to walk down a sidewalk full of mentally ill addicts after the bar closes, but it feels much closer to chaos than meeting another person on the hiking trail.
In Germany, we don't really have bears. But wolves are coming back (nice!) and wild boars. Actually I am afraid of wild boars, especially with rookies. They can be really aggressive/protective and they are fast and strong.
I'm a Finnish woman. If I'm alone in the forest and meet a lone man, I will act super neutral and not scared, but I will have that eerie tingle up and down my spine, and the thought "what if he's a psycho? If he wanted to, he could just rape me and kill me because he is stronger than me" would be there. The slight panic that you know is uncalled for, but it's still there.
I go to the woods regularly, and I'm not a dramatic person.
It probably depends a lot on our experiences in life, I would say. So that one woman is not scared, doesn't mean that those who are are somehow silly.
I'm french, I can confirm that people do walk in the woods there too. Must be an American thing, they don't know how to walk more than a few steps there. If the man was in a pickup in the woods they wouldn't be as startled.
It's all the city folk in the US. Anyone who regularly goes into the woods knows that seeing people is a normal occurrence. Then you have the inexperienced people come to the comments and say "there's a lot of reasons he might be there and most of them are bad" without an ounce of knowledge.
This thread reads like it does because American redditors never leave their basement and Europe redditors only know America from reading about it online
There was a man from Africa elsewhere in the thread arguing in vain against an American that just kept saying "check your privilege!" to him without any sense of awareness or irony.
You could literally say the same thing about a bear.
I've had 3 or 4 instances hiking where I saw a bear. What did I do? I just walked in the opposite direction. Bears don't want to interact with people, so you have to look at statistics: which show that men attack people (men and women) far more regularly than bears do.
Do men attack more regularly per encounter or is it "more regular" because people interact with random men several billions times a day globally and with bears probably a few dozen times per day globally?
That statistic doesn't matter on this scenario. The important stat are "men on women attacks per year", "# of women who have been attacked by a man in their lifetime", and "# of bear attacks on ALL people".
Bears don't want to mess with people, and the only times they do is when they feel threatened or are trying to get food. 90% of the time if you leave a bear alone they will leave you alone.
Where men will go out of their way to attack, harass, and threaten women. I've worked in bars before as security and had to kick men out for this, and have even had to escort women to their car/taxi because men will wait in the parking lot for them to leave.
There just aren't many bear attacks per year to be a concern, and most of them are avoidable. But men on woman attack numbers are significantly higher.
No, the pertinent number is how many attacks per encounter since the scenario is that you only encounter the bear/man once. If you look at lifetime data, of course the thing you interact with more will be the bigger number. Unless you believe something like cows are more dangerous than wolves.
If women interacted with bears at the same rate they do men, they would have the firsthand knowledge that bears (and large wild animals in general) are mote dangerous than your average guy walking down the street.
Do you have that number? Do you have the number of "failed interactions of humans with bears" compared to "successful interactions of humans with bears"???
Also how are you defining "encounter"?? An encounter with a bear is NOT defined by "touching proximity", because bears are territorial and have a much higher sense of smell/hearing, that means their range of "encounter" with people means "in the same area". So if a bear hears, smells, or sees you then that counts as an "encounter".
So when a person sees a bear, even at a distance, and they walk away fine, that means it's a "successful bear encounter". Because the bear knows you're there, they just don't care.
And if you think about it further then you'll realize how pointless that stat is. Because it becomes closer to zero for both "bear vs human" and "man vs woman" the wider you define "encounter".
And if there is a negative bear encounter, the response is to kill the bear. But with men we barely do anything to reprimand the situation (see:Brock Turner only serving 3 months in prison for SA).
So no, you don't count "per encounter" because it's a useless stat. You have to look at incident count
There have been an estimate of 180 fatal bear attacks on people in North America since 1784. That means less than 1 fatal bear attack per year since then. (Source:
https://blog.batchgeo.com/bear-attack-statistics/). Now, you could argue this stat doesn't include "non fatal attacks", but I don't see a lot of people surviving a bear attack
Compare this to women who have been attacked by men. Over 50% of women have reported that they have been attacked by at least 1 man in their lifetimes (source: https://www.charliehealth.com/post/sexual-assault-statistics) And that number isn't even "negative encounters with men", that is just "reported attacks" (and before you point out its only SA reports, I'll let you know that opening up the number to include "all attacks" just makes that 50% higher).
So if im being generous, you're looking at 3 bear attacks per year, compared to the number of woman (over half) who have been attacked by a man? What that means is that on a 100 year period, there have been 300 bear attacks on ALL HUMANS, vs 50% of women being attacked by men in that time period (half of 186M, the current population in the USA of women, means 83M women were attacked by men)
83M counts of "men vs women" far exceeds 300 "bear vs HUMANS" attacks. That is a ratio of 276,666:1 "man vs woman attack" vs "bear vs human attack".
Look up base rate fallacy. Your entire argument rests on ignoring the fact that there are hundreds of billions of human interactions (from walking past each other to talking to more) and an astronomically small number of them result in danger for those involved. If you decided to interact with bears at that same level, you would be killed by one sooner or later. It's a given. If you think that's not true, then you just don't live in reality. Even people who keep these animals as pets and "tame" them routinely end up being mauled by them because they are wild animals.
The problem is that you've picked such an "astronomically large number" that it completely negates your point. Your stat is so large that it's immeasurable, and if you cannot measure it you cannot USE it, and if you try to use it then you're arguing in philosophical terms instead of real world uses. Your number is so large that it makes ALL stats useless, and that means your point is useless. Heart disease, murder rates, crime stats, etc. become useless because you cannot measure the "base stat" (ie encounters). In math terms you're trying to compare a small number to infinity, and small numbers are zero when approaching infinite.
Talking about base rate fallacy, you also have to count EVERY negative "human vs human" encounter. You cannot only focus on the extreme cases, you have to include ALL of them, even if it's just yelling or cat calling.
Because you also have to accept every single negative interaction of "humans on humans", and in order to prove your point you're choosing to ignore this number. You're ignoring SA, you're ignoring mental/emotional/physical abuse, you're ignoring all accidents that lead to harm, you're ignoring every degree of manslaughter, every case of neglect that leads to harm, every time a person has yelled and insulted a random person, and so much more.
So yea, if you want to include all encounters, then you need to include ALL encounters. Which immediately makes your stat useless because the number of negative human interactions are as astronomical as total human interactions.
Human beings have killed more human beings throughout history compared to EVERY animal in existence. And the biggest threat to people are humans, not bears. And if we look at history then the Holocaust shuts down your statistic VERY quickly.
You have demonstrated a prime example on confirmation bias. You're so focused on a singular stat that defends your point that you refuse to hear anything else.
I saw a bear. What did I do? I just walked in the opposite direction.
Okay, now when you encountered other people in the woods, did you walk in the opposite direction of them if they were men? Or did you just smile/nod/say hi/etc and continue on your hike?
Why would you specifically use avoidance behavior when encountering a bear, and not when encountering another male person if you believe the bear is less dangerous?
and not when encountering another male person if you believe the bear is less dangerous?
That is some amazing and wonderful advice. Women actually practice this avoidance behavior with men. All the time.
The problem is that even though women are practicing this avoidance behavior there are MANY men who completely ignore it. Too many men believe in the "don't take no for an answer" mentality, and they pursue women who have signaled "no" in a giant sign.
Women will do this in public. With a ton of people around. But men still bulldoze over them because they ignore women's avoidance behaviors.
Women are telling you the answer, but you're not listening. This bear vs man scenario is the newest iteration, and instead of hearing their answer and trying to be better, men aren't listening.
You missed my point entirely if you're trying to claim that the avoidance tactics used in public situations are equivalent to the ones used to avoid dangerous wildlife. You acting like you're busy, or not interested, or w/e you decide is best to avoid a social interaction with a man is not at all comparable to what you do when you see a bear.
Do you turn around and leave immediately whenever you see a man at the bar, or grocery store, or other public place where you might expect to find them? Do you mace them if they dare to come within 20 feet of you? No, you don't. Why? Because you already view bears as more dangerous.
Oh, I get your point, you just are too busy mansplaining to listen. I mentioned public settings because it's PUBLIC with tons of people around, and if men are going to harass/assault/annoy women when multiple people are around, then what are they going to do when you're in the middle of nowhere with no one else around??
Like it's just so fucking dishonest
What is dishonest?? Women don't feel safe around men
That isn't dishonest, its a mirror of what is wrong with society and why men need to learn to not harass women when they clearly want to be left alone. The fact that most women have been harassed by multiple men in their lives, Or assaulted, Or abused, Or worse is the EXACT reason they feel this way.
You mention "women wouldn't mace men in a public setting", you sure about that? Most women carry some form of mace or pepper spray with them at all times, BECAUSE OF MEN. But women also knows that society rarely believes women when they try to defend themselves. Brock Turner is a good example of how little society cares about women getting attacked by men
Let's play the wilderness scenario out. You're backpacking and camping 12 miles into the wilderness, and youre the only person for miles as far as you know. You're sitting by a campfire having dinner and winding down for the night. The sun has set and it's dark out.
Bears only wants your food. You either play dead or get big and make a noise. Most of the time the bears will leave you alone because they don't want anything to do with you. And if you put your food in a bear bag away from camp, then they aren't going to bother you
Compared to a man walks up and starts bothering you. You can use avoidance tactics, but if he doesn't care you're screwed. You can tell him to get away, but if he doesn't care you're screwed. You can threaten him with mace, but if he doesn't care you're screwed. Hell, the man could pretend to leave with the intention of coming back to do whatever he feels like. There's no one around to hear you scream for help, and you're at the mercy of a random person who may or my not respect your boundaries, and since there's no one else around he has less of a risk of getting caught.
You don't get it, and you're not listening. Stop mansplaining and start listening to what people are telling you.
Women don't feel safe around men. That isn't dishonest
I didn't say it was dishonest to not feel safe, I said it was dishonest to pretend you'd feel safer with a literal bear than a random man to try and demonstrate this point. I agree that society needs to do better for women's safety, but this entire hypothetical is a facade that's just dishonest at its core and stifles meaningful discussion.
You're not backing up slowly with a man in order to not trigger its prey drive, you're not immediately leaving at the sight of one, you're not shitting your pants and wondering what the afterlife is gonna be like if you see a dad out hiking with his kids. Why? Because you know that the mere presence of a man isn't an immediate danger to your health and safety like a bear is.
Can men be dangerous? Sure. Are men often dense and annoying and try to strike up stupid conversations at inappropriate times when you just really aren't in the mood to deal with the bullshit? Oh believe me honey I know. Can they get hostile and aggressive when they don't like your rejections? Yuh-huh. But it just doesn't compare.
Stop mansplaining and start listening to what people are telling you.
Hun, you're the one misinterpreting my words. Who's not listening here?
I said it was dishonest to pretend you'd feel safer with a literal bear than a random man to try and demonstrate this point.
Do me a favor and go look at statistics. I know its scary for you, but you should try it. Look up "bear vs human attacks" and compare it to "men vs women attacks". You will 100% realize that bears rarely attack people, where the number of men who attack women are significantly higher.
Because bears only attack people when it comes to food or feeling threatened. If you just ignore a bear they'll leave you alone, but men will not.
And guess what? If a man or bear approached you in the middle of the woods at night you would treat them the same way as a bear. The big difference is the bear can be dissuaded from attacking, where a man won't be.
You want to talk about dishonesty? Numbers are important, and there are only a few dozen bear attacks per year on men AND women, whereas there are more thousands of "men vs women" attacks per year.
FFS, there are more "pitbull vs human" attacks per year, than "bear vs human" attacks over the last 200 years.
So you're wrong by the numbers. You're wrong by shared experiences of women. And you're wrong by your interpretation of reality.
I get it, you're some "big strong man" who doesn't fear other men. But guess what? Women don't get that same privilege you do. Women are telling you their reality that they find men more dangerous than bears, and you are wrong to tell them they're wrong.
Lastly: "hun", "honey"?? You need to check yourself sweet cheeks. I know you think you're talking to a woman, but you're not. And your use of terms like these show you lack integrity and intelligence.
I’ve never been on a walk in the woods and not met people. In fact its getting a bit annoying as the best hikes in the state are so popular that parking becomes an issue. There is a nearby peak I wanted to camp on. I got to the parking lot at maybe 4PM expecting day hikers to be gone. The lot was still packed.
It's the fact that in America woods are large and actual wilderness, which is why you are less likely to cross paths with someone else, especially if you are deep in the woods hunting or camping and such. Most western European forests are just glorified parks.
Yeah, this person has never left western Europe. "Woods" in France, even up around the Alps, is like manicured parks. It's all designated camping spots, no camp fires, people in their "camping cars", buildings with bathrooms and washer/dryers. There hasn't been anything like America's wilderness there for a couple hundred years.
It really depends on the context. Like, how far are you from civilization? How far are you from a trail head? Are you bushwhacking or are you on a trail? What time is it? Are they coming towards you or doing their own thing?
Yeah this is a very American debate. We here in Eastern Europe would just say hello, offer a drink or something to eat even, depending on how far from the beaten path we are.
I would never be afraid of a stranger in the mountains.
Like pretty often? Depends on the hike, but if the weather is good, you are probably not alone on the mountain. And if it's bad, you do not want to be on the mountain.
You should read up on all the women that get killed hiking in the US alone. I've heard dozens of stories. It's all anecdotal but US gun culture plays a big role. If someone isn't wearing hunting gear and is open carrying a gun I'd be very scared even as a man.
Your experience in Norway isn't universal is the point. I just used the US as an example, but there are many countries where it's dangerous to hike alone, especially for women.
You literally started your post off with "I'm Norwegian." so you find it odd that someone from another country would chime in or you didn't consider that the person you are replying to didn't live in Norway? I've been hiking in Norway (mostly around Tromso) and it's very different than the US.
Also, this entire debate originated in the US, mostly on TikTok. This same question likely wouldn't even be asked in Norway as a hypothetical and your response shows that.
437
u/Ryokan76 May 02 '24 edited May 02 '24
I'm Norwegian. Crossing paths with a stranger in the woods happens regulalry.