Avoid walking in circles in the wild

[DanP]

Is it true that if your right foot is dominant, that you'll walk in a circle to the left? I think it was Ray Mears that once suggested that every-some-many-steps you should step twice with your non-dominant foot in order to compensate. It could also have been Bear Grylls.

I suggest to mainly ignore the advice given on "survival TV series". Some of the advice can be good, some of it can be pure rubbish. Take the same attitude as you would take in approaching study of string theory from Nova PBS. There are legitimate seminars where you can learn protection, navigation, routefinding , and the decision processes involved.

Take for example the episode in which Grylls does 'surviving" in Romania. Some of the advice offered in the episode is idiotic, and can (read: will) get you killed. The whole episode was filmed in a very popular hiking area of Western Carpathians, and no time he (or should I say the whole production team) was more than 10 minutes away from mainstream trails. Some of the most wildly looking scenes where filmed exactly on very popular touristic attraction points. The Mountain Rescue closed the trail for the duration of scene shooting, so no tourists accidentally ruin their production in the "untamed wilderness".

They run a whole show in production of their episodes, they pay utmost attention to personal security, never put themselves in real risk, they fly helicopters from one location to another (which in the show will look continuous ), and they take good refreshing night sleeps safe from elements:P

In a word: It's an entertainment production. It's money. It's not survival.

 

[Monique]

I wasn't planning on killing a camel and then curling up inside of it, if that is what you mean I know the Bear Grylls show is overproduced, but it is fun to watch. I was just wondering why you would end up walking in circles. If you realize that you have a preference to walk around objects a certain way and that could make you walk into a circle, the least you can do is be aware of it and try to balance it.

 

[DanP]

If you realize that you have a preference to walk around objects a certain way and that could make you walk into a circle, the least you can do is be aware of it and try to balance it.

Simplest levels of education in navigation and using environmental clues will eliminate the need to count your steps. Best thing you can do if you plan to spend time in wilderness is to get primers in nav/routefinding/decision making

This is my point.

 

[Monique]

Alright, I really was not planning on counting any steps. When I was young and we went into the woods my dad always marked our path, so that we would be able to find our way back. We only walked into a circle once, which really was a big surprise. I have never really been in a wilderness, but if I am I'll make sure that I'll be able to find my way back.

 

[DanP]

With all the variables that affect how strong that tendency is, I'd be really amazed at someone that could actually compensate by inserting an extra step with the non-dominant foot, but it might be possible for a person that knows their gait very well, always wears the same shoes while hiking, always carries the same pack with the weight in the pack always distributed exactly the same, disciplined enough to ignore sand blowing in his face, etc. Like I said, I'd be amazed (and really impressed) by anyone that could use that technique successfully.

I agree. When you add to this morphology of terrain (rivers, natural barriers, closed basins,
terrains too dangerous to negotiate directly and countless other variables) you end up with nothing. I would share your amazement on successful application.

In practice many of the situations in which you get lost and later **** hits the fan are caused by a series of small problems (more often than not related to decision making) which are ignored until they compound.

 

[DanP]

I have never really been in a wilderness, but if I am I'll make sure that I'll be able to find my way back.

You should try, IMO wilderness is awesome. Even trailing through the relative safety of a national park route or a popular hiking area is very relaxing IMO.

Btw, your signature quote is the best ever I seen on online forums.

 

[Monique]

You should try, IMO wilderness is awesome. Even trailing through the relative safety of a national park route or a popular hiking area is very relaxing IMO.

Btw, your signature quote is the best ever I seen on online forums.

I really want to visit http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2008/09/most-alien-looking-place-on-earth.html" . There are two things stopping me, first the violence against tourists in Yemen and second the fact that I have absolutely no experience with wild places. When it comes to traveling I really am a control freak and want to know what I can expect. With this place I have a hard time making a judgement of how to plan the trip. Besides that, my boyfriend is the opposite and doesn't want to plan anything on vacations and to make it even more difficult, he only wants to sleep in hotels. So Socotra will have to wait for a few years, something that is on my list is to visit the National Parks in California and drive up to the Grand Canyon. I definitely can handle that and it will be a good learning experience

I once attended a seminar of a scientist studying DNA repair, he quoted Lewis Thomas and the quote stuck to me. In the field we consider DNA damage as harmful, but without it we wouldn't be here. There are organisms that are way better than us at repairing their DNA, so the capacity to blunder slightly is indeed a real marvel.

 

[Moonbear]

If you are in a hilly area, walking in one direction may require you to walk up and down hills.

If you are around hills, staying in the valley between them would save you energy, keep you close to a potential water source, and hopefully lead you out of the mountains eventually. The only exception I could think of is a single mountain surrounded by land that also slopes up and away in all directions, so you would keep circling the mountain. But, if you came off the mountain, even if you go the long way around it, you'll eventually encounter the road or trail that led you onto it in the first place.

And since others have mentioned Bear Grylls, the best thing about that show is that they seem to go out of their way to find excuses to get him wet in freezing cold temperatures so he has to strip naked to get the wet clothes off him and warm up by a fire.

 

[DanP]

The only exception I could think of is a single mountain surrounded by land that also slopes up and away in all directions, so you would keep circling the mountain. But, if you came off the mountain, even if you go the long way around it, you'll eventually encounter the road or trail that led you onto it in the first place.

Generally, following water courses is a good idea.

Since we speak about exceptions, most exceptions are found in mountain ranges which contain water soluble rocks. Here you can face some surprises such as:

1. Rivers which the source as a resurgence and several kilometers further they vanish again.
2. Blind valleys, whose water is captured either through a cave system , either through sinks inaccessible to humans
3. Closed basins, which due to the nature of karst sport their own hydrological organization.
No course of water will flow out from such a basin on surface, (nor will any get in) and depending on the geology, they can have multiple water sources flowing in different directions at surface. The underground network is of course organized, the water sources are generally collected in a single underground system which will come again to the daylight as a karstic spring, generally at very bottom of the mountain range.
4. Valleys which are easy to follow at start , but soon they develop into canyons, cascades,
and other friendly phenomena which will make them a hell to negotiate. We have a fair share of accidents in my preferred mountain range in such valleys.