Should we close tracks or mandate the use of PLBs?

[paul_gee]

What are your thoughts?

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/ct-edi ... 626-ghyt3j

New Zealand's Department of Conservation (DoC) changed their system a few years ago by placing responsibility back on the individual. Where before one would fill out and submit their intentions to the local DoC office, they are now required to file their intentions with their own responsible person.

I think the last thing we should think about doing is closing tracks. And I agree with the coroner that it is "impossible and impractical to mandate the carrying of rescue beacons on the trail". Though this should certainly be promoted through education programs.

I'm not familiar with Kosciuszko myself, but perhaps communication at the various touch points could be amped up? How are they marketed - the same was as other, lesser tracks? Are there deterrents in place? Is meaningful information provided?

What I find interesting is that this has made the news in this way. Each year in New Zealand people succumb to the ruggedness of the back country. Is it more of a rarity in Australia? If so, perhaps we're doing something right? Perhaps nothing needs to be changed?

That said, an intentions system of some sort is a great idea. Is the new system in NZ working?

[photohiker]

Hi Paul,

There is no way we can do either. How would we police such a rule?

There are thousands who do the day walk up to Kosi each year according to your article, if there was a major problem with people doing that then they would be talking about all those lost, not just the enigmatic disappearance of Prabhdeep in May 2013, ~2.5 years ago.

I think there should be a logbook at the start of any frequently used route. I agree its up to the walker to advise friends and/or authorities of their trip intentions, and if they are a frequent walker its no big expense to have a PLB in their pack. I certainly do.

[Lindsay]

While the coroners comments re. the updating and maintaining of the NPWS websites are valid, short of having a ranger at every trackhead examining the kit and assessing the experience of walkers the only way to keep down the number of ill equipped and unprepared walkers is through education. Closing tracks should not be an option. Of course there will always be those who fail to take the necessary precautions, like the man who was the subject of the inquiry, but in the end it all comes down to personal responsibility and all the legislation in the world will not help there.

I don't think NZ has any more or less incidents on average than Australia, but their system of walker control does seem better in some ways. I have used both the old and new systems in NZ and have no preference either way, but I can see a problem for an overseas walker who probably has no one local to leave intentions with. (I think some hostels and campsites will take intentions forms though)

[stry]

Neither !

Make your own, hopefully sound, decisions, and manage the consequences.

[johnw]

I tend to agree with Photohiker. I'm in Jindabyne at present and been day hiking in Kosciusko NP for the past 3 days. I'll probably be doing the circuit concerned tomorrow or Friday. There are one or two inaccuracies in that article, in particular there is no metal walkway from Charlotte Pass, it starts from the top of the chairlift from Thredbo. I used the walkway yesterday to access an off track walk in the Rams Head range (yes I had my PLB with me, topo maps, compass, adequate gear and I know the area quite well). They could easily implement the scheme mentioned as it already operates in the Blue Mountains as a joint effort between Police and NPWS, including free loan of PLB (albeit the PLBs were donated by a local company). But given the hoardes that walk these tracks is either organisation funded and resourced to operate it? I think this is an overreaction to the loss of one individual, without meaning any disrespect to the gentleman or his family.

[Gadgetgeek]

At the end of the day, people are going to make choices based on their past experience. I don't recall if I've seen anything regarding the gentleman's service record, but if he was a member of the Canadian forces (I assume from the photo) then he would have done some cold weather training. This might have led him to feel he was more able than he was, or maybe that training gave a false sense of security (going alone, no extra equipment) That simply means that someone else could end up in the same situation because they misjudged it. If a ranger has to assess all walkers, who's liability is it if they clear someone who gets into strife? no easy answers.

I think that some manner of log system could have made the search possible much earlier, but would it be early enough? Would people use it if they were just going to hike up the track a couple of Kms? The goal to minimize casualties in bad conditions is a good one, but I can also see that as the system becomes more robust people leaning on it harder, so when it does go bad, it goes very bad. I think people from other places quickly pick up on the "She'll be right" attitude of the locals and don't realize that Aussies at least have no normal sense of risk evaluation. I think its because you flirt with death so often! But that attitude backed up with personal responsibility works, less so when it means people don't get a good idea of the actual risks. I've been caught out by that a couple of times, thankfully no harm done, but that mentality of letting everyone evaluate the risks for themselves can lead people wrong.

I don't know that there are easy answers, besides better info to tourists that NZ weather can be deadly. I think someone who grew up in Canada might think that others don't know what a real snow storm is like, when the reality is few canadians actually know what a real blizzard is like.

[Strider]

Who wrote this article? There is no author cited.

[bumpingbill]

Who wrote this article? There is no author cited.

It's an editorial

[bumpingbill]

To steal a recent link from another thread on this forum (the helicopter rescue one in Tasmania), a line from Westpac Helicopter rescue captain Joe Cleary in this article sums the issue up best IMO.

"Mr Cleary said he recommended bushwalkers let someone know where they were going, walk with a partner, take an EPIRB, do their research and carry gear appropriate to the conditions."

[Mark F]

The moment you start placing responsibility on the Parks Service to monitor the individual movement of people you make the Parks service liable to be sued if anybody goes missing. A web based trip intention system is equally madness as there will always be some who don't clock off at the end of the walk - when do they start searching? Too soon and vast amounts of money are wasted, too late and they will be bashed by coroners who have never left a city pavement. I would much rather continue with the existing system, possibly with additional information for day walkers, and not waste park's very limited resources trying to prevent a once a decade event.

[Strider]

Who wrote this article? There is no author cited.

It's an editorial

I know.

[wayno]

Doc close great walks tracks at will when they consider the risks too great for the less experienced to risk assess the situation for themselves. At least they tell the public they are closed. Legally that needs to be done by the director or minister and it almost never is done by them. The local office makes the decision. I was told by one regions officer not to do the routeburn with avalanche risk. I told him I was very experienced and would risk assess for myself. He didn't respond to that message. Im in the south island. Storm this morning above the bushline. One Aussie in jeans. No wet weather pants. Another with no wet weather gear. Six degrees. Misty. Wind fifty k. You market walks to the masses like doc do and you bring in more muppets. A German was rescued the other day. Alone. No detailed intentions left. No beacon. The hostel owner where he was staying raised the alert when he didn't return over night. Big search. Found having fallen over cliffs. Cut. Broken arm couldn't move. Technically difficult route with good local knowledge needed... Not far from a tourist town... Traditionally in NZ the onus was completely on the people going bush to ensure their own safety and some suggest that be made part of the nanny state now. I never revealed to my parents what happened on my trips to the bush when I was young because I knew they would have played nanny state. And that's not what my life is about. The answer is to educate and encourage people to upskill or go with experienced people and learn. You can't stop people going bush I'll prepared

[johnw]

You can't stop people going bush Ill prepared

You hit the nail on the head.

[neilmny]

You can't stop people going bush Ill prepared

You hit the nail on the head.

Can't do much about those that drive up.
You could stop them loading on the chairlift with thongs on or very inappropriate clothing.
But then the chairlift company wouldn't make their money...........

[Moondog55]

I'm with Stry
Neither
What we need in this world is more risk not less

[Xplora]

The death of one person does not justify thousands having to make adjustments. How is it that it takes a number of deaths or serious injuries to have the road authorities do something about a dangerous stretch of road. It is sad but people die. Not many have died in this area in the past 20 years during the green season so it is hardly a problem. This person’s family have made a great deal of noise from the very beginning and want to throw blame on everyone else except the only one responsible. The family could have caused more loss with the outlandish and irresponsible reward offers. An intentions system is useless if you walk off the intention. It is also useless for the area in question as authorities would be tracking down hundreds of people who forget to sign off. Mobile phones work well in most of this area so a PLB would not be required. Make that mandatory and then you have the day walker setting them off because they are tired. Providing more information for people will help those who are responsible and take heed but it will do nothing for those who think they are invincible. Put a fence around a cliff and they will climb over it. Making information more available is OK but there is also an assumption that with information there is understanding once it is read. Most changes coming from a Coroner’s enquiry are about limiting liability for future events.

It concerns me a little how this forum at times may unwittingly encourage reckless endeavours. I know there is also a great deal of good information but is there understanding? We are largely anonymous and this may give us an illusion that we are not accountable for the information posted. Our level of experience determines what we do but someone else reading it could be enticed into exceeding their abilities. Could this forum or a member be held accountable for the death of someone because of advice given or information posted? Quite possibly in this day and age. I don’t say that would be right but some people seek to apportion blame where it is not appropriate and from some of the things I have read on these pages I would say a good barrister could make a case. Again I stress I do not say this would be right. I must admit I shied away from giving advice to an overseas member looking for walks to do solo on his holiday. No disrespect intended to Mr. Brand but we have only his word that he is experienced. I think from memory someone offered to walk with him and that was very responsible and a good gesture. I hope he has had an enjoyable trip and is safe. I am sure also he is a person who would take responsibility for his own actions.

Twelve months ago I came across a couple of young fellows walking the mountains. The weather was bad and as we chatted they told me their intentions. I summed up they were not overly experienced but enthusiastic, young and fit. My comment to them was they seemed a bit ambitious with their intended route and time frame but it was not up to me to stop them. Fortunately they abandoned their plans after getting displaced and soaked overnight and I caught up with them the next day on their return. Maybe on reflection the gentle push in my words helped them make a good decision.

My advice is to be careful what you put in print on the web as it is there forever.

[wayno]

There a couple of fatal outdoor adventure sport incidents in NZ that killed foreign tourists. One from river sledging. One from a sky diving plane crashing. There may have been another incident. Together there was a lot of lobbying from the deceaseds relatives that sparked the govt to. Set up an audited certification process for all professional outdoor recreation organizations. The companies have to pay all costs. It costs thousands and has to be done every few years. You have to pay any travel and accom costs for the auditors... It put a lot of small companies out of work. Esp educators. Drove up the price of courses. But river sledging already came under the jurisdiction of the maritime safety authority. Sky diving under civil aviation. The audits were duplicating expensive bureaucracy. Stupid knee jerk reaction by govt. Skiing got an exemption from the audits. There are over ten thousand injuries a year in NZ from skiing. So the audit isn't achieving a lot. Hurts those who haven't caused the problems... The govt understands stuff all about the realities of outdoor adventure and how best to deal with it.. A foreign hiker died on an NZ track. Her family lobied to have a park ranger taken to court for allegedly advising her about an unofficial route she took. The route didn't exist. And the ranger wouldn't have advised her of its existence. The prosecution failed for lack of evidence. Govts sometimes don't have a clue how. To deal with these situations. The ranger was extremely experienced and conscientious. And they put him through the ringer for nothing..

[South_Aussie_Hiker]

Back to the OP, I agree that you just can't simply cater for every idiot out there. Mandate PLBs or gear checks, and you'll have people sneaking into tracks around check points.

I'd like to see the provision of the free helicopter rescue service only on the proviso that you can show you were adequately prepared and equipped for your trip. But as I've said before, this is not a viable solution, because people will hesitate to request a rescue through fear of financial penalty - which could lead to lives being lost.

It's just a terribly difficult situation, caused by nothing other than a society which wraps people in cotton wool and doesn't teach them to take responsibility for their own actions.

[wayno]

The accident was nothing to do with jumping. It crashed on takeoff. That was a civil aviation matter

[South_Aussie_Hiker]

No it's not, you're missing my point.

That takeoff, that aircraft, that pilot - are essentially all unregulated by the CAA.

[DarrenM]

Better signage at the main trailheads is the big one for me. The best one I ever saw was at Guthega a few decades ago and it was large, mentioned death in big, bold letters and was impossible to ignore.

There has been next to nothing over the years and what is there is simply too small and not raising anyone's attention. Sure, plenty walk past signage no matter what but it's all about education and the small knee high signs at various places with tiny writing is not helping. Simple and large eye level signage with must have items and current weather report (and warnings) at all trailheads. It's such a cheap option to get people thinking over policing gear checks etc.

The numbers of those getting lost or worse is rather small given the overall figures on users in the park but closures and mandatory PLB's etc is the wrong answer.

[wayno]

No it's not, you're missing my point.

That takeoff, that aircraft, that pilot - are essentially all unregulated by the CAA.

ah, I see.
the aircraft is one of a few Fletchers that are aerial top dressing aircraft that have been modified to take parachutists. its a low profile, you have to crawl into the aircraft, you can no more than sit upright in it on the floor. apparently they had too many people sitting towards the back putting the centre of gravity too far back, when the pilot took off, it put the aircraft into too steep a climb the pilot couldnt recover from, causing it to stall and plummet into the ground.

[Xplora]

No it's not, you're missing my point.

That takeoff, that aircraft, that pilot - are essentially all unregulated by the CAA.

ah, I see.
the aircraft is one of a few Fletchers that are aerial top dressing aircraft that have been modified to take parachutists. its a low profile, you have to crawl into the aircraft, you can no more than sit upright in it on the floor. apparently they had too many people sitting towards the back putting the centre of gravity too far back, when the pilot took off, it put the aircraft into too steep a climb the pilot couldnt recover from, causing it to stall and plummet into the ground.

Please do not take this the wrong way but perhaps this should get back on topic. I do not mind discussion on the fringe but aircraft takes it a bit further than that. I hope I have not offended. Maybe you have a way to bring it back.

[stry]

Better signage at the main trailheads is the big one for me. The best one I ever saw was at Guthega a few decades ago and it was large, mentioned death in big, bold letters and was impossible to ignore.

There has been next to nothing over the years and what is there is simply too small and not raising anyone's attention. Sure, plenty walk past signage no matter what but it's all about education and the small knee high signs at various places with tiny writing is not helping. Simple and large eye level signage with must have items and current weather report (and warnings) at all trailheads. It's such a cheap option to get people thinking over policing gear checks etc.

The numbers of those getting lost or worse is rather small given the overall figures on users in the park but closures and mandatory PLB's etc is the wrong answer.

Simple, cheap, as effective as anything else; and puts responsibility where it belongs - on the individual passing the sign.

I like it !

[South_Aussie_Hiker]

Signs are a good deterrent. The ones on the Overland Track are good, but then they don't work all the time.

On a cost vs effectiveness basis, they'd have to be one of the better ideas going around.

[GRLillistone]

Anyone going out bush needs to make the same decisions they would in any other aspect of life. In this context, simply learn how to navigate, pack the required equipment and use common sense while in the bush.
I'm strongly against any kind of enforcement of red tape.
I have never carried a PLB and don't intend to ever carry one, nor do I give people an exact route that I plan to take, because I know what I'm doing and understand that due to terrain, weather and other variables I quite often get delayed and/or change my route as a common practice.
I also acknowledge that my safety is MY responsibility and no one else's.
Any legislating against these occurrences of walkers becoming lost will have negligable effect as more people will simply carry on doing what they've been doing all along.
I'm not being arrogant - I'm simply being a realist.

[peregrinator]

. . . I'm strongly against any kind of enforcement of red tape.
I have never carried a PLB and don't intend to ever carry one . . .

Is there meant to be a logical connection between these juxtaposed sentences?

And what about the pertinent juxtaposition between this post and the next forum topic, snake bite?

[GRLillistone]

None.

[north-north-west]

Oh Gawd.

As a along-time scuba diver, been there, done that. This sort of write-up happens after every individual fatality from any sort of outdoor activity. The diving industry has been regulated to a fare-thee-well because of a very small number of fatal incidents that have, in the main, been due to human error. We don't need to see bushwalking going down the same path
You CAN NOT prevent people making mistakes. You CAN NOT legislate against stupidity, ignorance or over-confidence. We see that almost every day with vehicle accidents, with almost all due to driver error.

What is it about the human species that makes it so afraid of negative consequences to other people of them stepping outside the bounds? Without risk there is no growth. As long as the risk is to the person making the choices, let them make them. If they want to try to push their limits without endangering others, let them.

Educate as much as possible about potential consequences, but the individual making the decisions has to bear the responsibility for the outcome. Maybe we should be changing the way we teach our children. Make sure they learn they have to accept the consequences of their behaviour, right from the get go, rather than wrapping them in cotton wool and shielding them from every teensy little hurt and disappointment.

[newhue]

We see several Asians drown on Australian beach each year and don't consider much else besides more awareness. This Canadian soldier should have know better having an understanding of cold and how quickly weather changes in the mountains. If he chose to be bigger than nature than that was his choice, and unfortunately for him paid the price. Imagine going for pleasant walk in Canada where bears are present, and because one has done a bit of walking here in Aus, no more thought was required. As mentioned before; more risk is what we need and I agree. Less polish on the artificial safety and more upfront realities of being ill prepared in nature. A log book record is ok and that is if you don't wander, an PBL might help save you as well, but ill prepared in a blizzard Superman better be at hand; because choppers and help don't do out in it.