Could we have a case of apples and oranges here? I've never hiked west of the Mississippi, but I'm wondering if the wilderness areas in Bill's area are significantly smaller than the wilderness areas in Lori's area? That would make a difference in the risk level they each have. Yes, it's possible to get hopelessly lost in even a tiny bit of wilderness - but the risk of doing so is probably a lot less than in a huge area. As you come east, even "wilderness" areas are more heavily traveled, making the risk of being hurt and not found for days somewhat smaller. Likewise, hiking in the woods is different (I assume) from hiking in the Sierras or other western areas. So, I'm wondering if both of you are on the same page, generally, but the miscommunication is coming from slightly different frames of reference?