Bushwalk Australia

I have just been reading the latest Confederation Of Australian Bushwalking Clubs magazine "the Bushwalker" http://www.bushwalking.org.au/mag.html (2010 V35 No 1) and there is a very interesting article by Leonie Bell titled Adventure Activity Standards (page 13), the article is about the new Adventure Activity Standards that are being proposed to cover the commercial outdoor industry but there is some concern that this legislation could be forced on Bushwalking clubs, it is unclear if this legislation could eventually affect Bushwalk.com activities.

The editors comments on page 3 are worth a read too.

Tony

I can't see how any introduced "standards" could affect bushwalk.com activities in light of the Disclaimer at the bottom of this page.

As well, there is the pink section at the top of this page.

Unless I overlooked something, the article refers specifically to bushwalking clubs. This is a public forum for the purpose of discussing bushwalking.

Some people may use this forum to arrange a walk with others. As such, it should be reiterated that (quoting) this site is not a walking club, and any walks arranged using this forum or any other page are entirely the responsibility of the individual walkers. Each walker is entirely responsible for themselves and should plan to walk independently, even if walking with other people. Any cooperation between individuals is entirely the responsibility of those individuals, and should be clearly communicated between themselves, and has nothing to do with this site's administration and moderation team. No element of cooperation should be assumed.

Thanks for the link though, for those of us that are in clubs, it's an interesting read.

Here's a direct link to the newsletter.

Been reading some more. I particularly like Roger's take on it, the entirety of page 15.

Having read his quoted bit from the NTIS website, a short version...

Step 1. Evaluate the emergency.
OK, let's say some participant is having a heart attack. Middle aged overweight person clutches their chest with a groan and falls unconscious to the ground banging head on a rock when falling.

Step 1.5. Assess injuries and treat appropriately.
OK, apply CPR and fix the split head where he landed on a rock.
But, how could there be 4 steps more important than this?

Moving along, Step 3.6 - Notify, where required, emergency services.
There's a heck of a lot to do before calling an ambulance isn't there... Shouldn't that happen FIRST?

What does Roger think of that scenario?
How could that plan from the NTIS site possibly be right? In an emergency when a person is obviously injured to the point that emergency services are going to be required immediately, wouldn't that be the first step? Phone or PLB, I thought that should happen first.
Maybe I should do their recommended training so I can alter my thinking on these things.

A survey was doing the rounds last winter. Funny how these things go. A course is implemented, standards suggested, volunteer adherence to standards and then a mandatory (either legally or commercially so) set of regulations follow. Commonsense doesnt prevail as by the end stage there are people with an interest, institutions, tutors, managers and so on. Once one commercial operator (or perhaps even club) agrees to standards others have no choice but to follow suit.

In relation to commercial 'adventure activities' it may make a positive contribution to 'tour guide' being a more professional occupation? However to implement such measures through regulation demonstrates a lack of understanding of the 'industry'. As one involved in recruiting people for this type of work several factors come to mind:

* There is a small enough 'pool' of suitable candidates from the general population nevermind narrowing it down any further..
* The most desirable attributes are not learnt in a course. They are as likely already held going into one as they ever will be..
* The industry is already very highly regulated through standards for compliance with the various agencies in gaining commercial concessions..

This has been coming for a while, I have many other opposing thoughts on the matter and am worried it will see an end of the 'traditional' stepping stone that guiding work has provided or a narrowing of a skills base far wider than that afforded by Any 'course'. Nothing taken away from those involved (in Tassie). The existing courses are a good source for people with an interest in this type of work. I dont believe this should be at the expense or detriment to the industry, of not accessing those with a different background. Perhaps the instigators should be held to 'demonstrate' examples of how this will make the experience (or industry) better? Overwhelmingly, all I ever hear is praise for the various operators and their guides...? And the 'softener' to introduce these regulations will be 'recognition of prior learning', made easy or just another obstacle with its own set of forms and processors?

The author (at least) shows understanding of the implications.

Thanks for the link, Tony. I'll have to look through it properly when I get a chance.

I just wanted to briefly point out (similarly to what Tasadam has already done) that there are no activities of bushwalk.com. People are free to use this forum to organize their own walks if they wish, but this forum is effectively nothing more than a public notice board for people to post about their walk proposals and has nothing more to do with such activities than that.

Even our anniversary walks are just my own private celebratory walks to which others are welcome to come along as well.

Hi Adam,

tasadam wrote:Been reading some more. I particularly like Roger's take on it, the entirety of page 15.

Having read his quoted bit from the NTIS website, a short version...

Step 1. Evaluate the emergency.
OK, let's say some participant is having a heart attack. Middle aged overweight person clutches their chest with a groan and falls unconscious to the ground banging head on a rock when falling.

Step 1.5. Assess injuries and treat appropriately.
OK, apply CPR and fix the split head where he landed on a rock.
But, how could there be 4 steps more important than this?

Moving along, Step 3.6 - Notify, where required, emergency services.
There's a heck of a lot to do before calling an ambulance isn't there... Shouldn't that happen FIRST?

What does Roger think of that scenario?
How could that plan from the NTIS site possibly be right? In an emergency when a person is obviously injured to the point that emergency services are going to be required immediately, wouldn't that be the first step? Phone or PLB, I thought that should happen first.
Maybe I should do their recommended training so I can alter my thinking on these things.

I hope that the Adventure Activity Standards see the light and keep the new regulations to the commercial outdoor activities but what I am worried about if enough private walks or outdoor activities go wrong like the fairly recent death of a person who was with a private group canyoning in the Blue Mountains, then we might see some attempt to broaden who the regulations cover.

As for your Heart attack scenario, it is a very frightening and possibly a real example that some of us could face. I have had some heart problems in the recent past and I have looked into what actually have to be done if this actually happened to me or my walking mate, I have done some CPR training and I have discussed this scenario with ambulance officers and doctors.

Step 1. Evaluate the emergency. Standard response in any situation.

Step 1.1. Assess injuries and treat appropriately. This where things can be tricky, in a recent heart related PLB activation medivac in the local KNP it took 45 minutes for a local helicopter to fly by to check on what was going and another 30 minutes for the medivac helicopter to arrive and start treating the patient and that was in open treeless country. OK do you set the PLB off first or is that few second or more like a minute or two finding and setting off the PLB more important than to start performing CPR. Another point is that if the heart attack person cannot be stabilised reasonably quickly is it possible for one person to perform CPR for 1 hour 15 minutes or longer, my investigations came to the conclusion that performing CPR is very hard work that one person would probably not be able to do CPR for this length of time.

In the end it looks like that the people making the new Adventure Activity Standards will have to put a lot more work into them.

Tony

In any emergency the first priority is preserving life. When that is taken care of the other stuff such as calling for emergency services can be dealt with. In an ideal situation there would be enough people around to do this almost simultaneously. However if you are alone with the victim a call for help may have to take a back seat to keeping him/her breathing. Having said that, these procedures as laid down by NTIS are a ridiculously bureaucratic nonsense and a classic example of committeethink. The KISS principle is not being applied here.

Something I would like to emphasise:

My bushwalks are NOT 'adventure activities'!!!
They are peaceful NON-adventure holidays.
I therefore deny that the AAS can have any relevance to me.

Cheers
Roger

rcaffin wrote:Something I would like to emphasise:

My bushwalks are NOT 'adventure activities'!!!
They are peaceful NON-adventure holidays.
I therefore deny that the AAS can have any relevance to me.

Cheers
Roger

That's actually a very good point. Many walkers would not classify most of their walks as adventure activities, but merely as leisure or recreation. Where would people draw the line on what is an adventure activity? A walk in the city park? A walk around a national park visitor's centre? It would be interesting to find out how they define it.

A rough guide should be that if a bushwalk becomes an adventure something has gone wrong.

Hi all,

I am on the committee of one of the Sydney bushwalking clubs and this whole issue has become a right pain......

Personally I believe Roger says it all in his editorial on page 3 of 'The Bushwalker'. (The Official Publication of the Confederation of Bushwalking Clubs NSW Volume 35, Issue 1, Summer 2010)

Roger says;

"I do not accept that the Standards have any relevance or applicability to Confederation Clubs. I would argue that we should simply
inform the AAS people that we do not accept that they have any legal applicability to clubs of volunteers. We should not lie down and be driven over."

Sounds simple to me.

Melinda

Rejecting the 'standards' is a good start. Problem I see however is that these have little to do with common law and individuals trying to sue... The way I understand it is more along the lines of 'why didnt you' rather than 'you had to' when it comes to the crunch... (ie. if these standards are taken up by Anyone, or perhaps even the fact that they have been proposed, then they are as valid to Everyone when it comes to the courtroom... (?))

As a casual observer (not currently being a member of a bushwalking club) the best the clubs and the members can do is constructively get involved in providing feedback on the proposed standards - they are certainly doing this which is a great thing.

Many years ago when I was in [REDACTED] I was very fortunate that I was not seriously injured or killed during an abseiling incident. This incident was caused by negligent behaviour. I am supportive of any initiatives that reduce the risk of incidents like this occurring. It's also important to recognise that accidents can also occur in the most sedate activities.

I really struggle with standards as they tend to be developed by a personality type I dislike, Vogons. The trouble with unfortunate events is their causes are nearly always clear with twenty-twenty hindsight so the Vogon can sermonise about the event in hindsight but not provide a sensible way of predicting them instead they develops clumsy approaches and by the time all things are considered to avoid issues people have die of old age or given up.

Imagine this, older somewhat overweight person signs up to do say the Kokoda Track and is knocked back. They sue for discrimination and win so the provider of the services is vilified. The person is accepted into the walk and dies of heat stroke so the provider of the service is vilified.

In accounting we have numerous standards that get reviewed and replaced every time a major corporation collapses with the claim that this will stop the next. Err? no it does not!

Give me a tour company with experience and common-sense any day over one driven by bureaucratic rules. Sure there are sensible duty of care requirements but also they need to be considered in light of all considerations and one of those considerations is what is cost. A classic example is immunisation for diseases. The medical authorities have to trade-off bad outcomes against not doing it or consider that more lives might be saved by directing limited dollars elsewhere.

I much prefer the approach that the tour company is accredited and then has the ability to select and train its staff to a level that means it can meet its duty of care. Standards can and have actually resulted in a lower standard of care as they give the ability for a company to claim "they were only following standards". I would be prepare to bet that less people are injured or killed as a percentage doing say the overland track with a tour company compared to independent travellers and groups. Make the cost too high and people will go it alone.

Still as much as I rant I see the Vogons arriving with concerned faces and twenty-twenty hindsight to shutdown yet another activity that enables people to break free of bureaucratic shackles.

Cheers Brett

Brett wrote:I really struggle with standards as they tend to be developed by a personality type I dislike, Vogons.

'Scuse my ignorance but I didn't know what vogons are (bogons I know). So for others equally handicapped, here's extracts from Wikipedia

'The Vogons are a fictional alien race from the planet Vogsphere in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series by Douglas Adams. Vogons are slug-like but vaguely humanoid, are bulkier than humans and have green skin, although the movie has them have greyish white skin . Vogons are described as mindlessly bureaucratic, aggressive, having "as much sex appeal as a road accident" and the writers of "the third worst poetry in the universe". They are employed as the galactic government's bureaucrats.
Vogons are one of the most unpleasant races in the galaxy. Not actually evil, but bad-tempered, bureaucratic, officious and callous. They wouldn't even lift a finger to save their own grandmothers from the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal without orders signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters.'

It's very difficult, but if you really try, you can enjoy Vogon poetry while strapped into their poetry appreciation chairs.

So would it come to pass that you followed all the standards but still had and accident and there were costs that you could sue the standards writers for allowing your accident to happen?

If a leader of a party has an injured member of the party; if the leader shows a lack of appropriate concern, fails to administer the appropriate first aid, fails to have adequate recovery plans and then fail with an appropriate follow up and genuine concern for the injured member/s of the party ... then they deserve to be crucified.

If all of the above are thoroughly dealt with ... the injured person will also respond appropriately, be there more requirements on leaders or more stringent requirements matters nought. It still remains about caring for the party.

For 12 years I worked as a professional guide ... not once did I have a problem. Nor did the company that I worked for, Bush Travellers. Not once. We had our share of duffers who travelled with Bush Travellers. I had lots of explaining at 2.00am that a mosquito bite isn't a tick embedding itself, but "Don't ever fail to wake me to always be sure."

When disclaimers were being signed as a requirement of insurance, if asked, "What am I signing?" I always said to the clients, "This disclaimer means nothing, because you cannot sign away your personal rights. This is just something our insurance company wants to dissuade you from cutting into insurance company profits." People appreciated being told the truth. Without having full insurance there were no guided leisure permits of course. The real leaches and embedding ticks the industry contends with, have not ever been into the bush.

I once sent the old NSWP&WS a letter requesting statistics on injuries and legal action after injuries, it is now only 10 years on and they are still to reply to my mail. It is a shame that the bushwalking industry is lumped with river rafting and all the other adventure activities. The Victorian Tourism Operator's Association relased the actuarial insurance findings for several years, and it is like this; for every elderly person who has a heart attack on a Woman's Day type tour of the outback, 22 people die river rafting in Aust, NZ and NAmerica. Blame the river rafters for what is happening. The insurance industry is leading this, it is all about revenue collecting ... what's happening to the industry is far from the true actuarial reality.

I dare say if you sent the same type of letter as I did to your local parks Vogons, requesting similar statistics on deaths, injuries and ensuing litigation ... you will be waiting just as long as I am, although you will receive an immediate fob-off by email. Some pube will no doubt say, "We cannot reply for privacy reasons". Yeah right!

If anyone has statistics, on accidents death and litigation that is forcing the changing of our culture ... it would be good if you would post them.

Any NP Vogons out there who dream of being whistle blowers ... put a pea in your whistle.

Warren.

Hi

I am always interested to see any statistics on bushwalking and have seen none. Probably the leading reason for rescue is things like heart attacks, trips and fall, etc rather than the more dramatic events that fill the news. As for disclaimers they do have an effect in limiting claims and can head off many claims. When doing law at Uni negligence was often split into, slight, gross and criminal. Disclaimers can work on the slight but not on the other two classes and nor should they.

The problem is what is reasonable. In Switzerland I bumped into the their SES type leader that worked on retrieving the bodies of the young Australians and collecting their parents from the airport and walking them through repatriating the bodies. Needless to say it was a very sad time for him and his team. I asked him his thoughts on canyoning and he was rather coy as this pursuit was developed by the skiing industry to support employment in the off season and has become very popular with the young so a great success in stopping villages becoming ghost towns in summer. So read, strong economic motives to allow this activity. His personal opinion is mucking around in canyons is just asking for trouble and personally hates having his team in them rescuing people especially if the weather looks fickled. It is interesting to note that the cause of the deaths was put down to an inexperienced leader, or was last time I heard it was. To me this is the typical cop-out. Accident happens therefore ipso facto the team leader was at fault and as they were not a murder then it must be because they are inexperienced. I tremble when I see vogons behind standards as this just does not work. Every time a major corporation goes belly up the accounting standard setters jump into gear producing even more paperwork with the claim that this will stop the next collapse. Hogwash.

As far as I am concerned a person guiding groups for twenty-years should be the best judge of what is reasonable not a nameless committee which might have a special financial interest. Um? basic question, is there only one practical provider of training and certification, if so, then would they not have a financial motive to complicate things, like the building registration scheme that Mr Green fell fowl of in the fine state of Tasmania. .

Cheers Brett

PS ever noticed that colours are popular in Tasmania politics, Green, Gray, White, Brown, etc

Some interesting stats/research here - some Australian, some overseas. A bit old (3 - 4 years ) but still interesting

http://wilderdom.com/risk/RiskOutdoorRi ... stics.html

It'll end up like the recreational diving industry, paperworked to death. Last time I was at Portsea I had to sign three different waivers just to get on a boat. It's insane.

One more good reason for walking alone. There's no-one to blame - or to worry about - but yourself.

north-north-west wrote:It'll end up like the recreational diving industry, paperworked to death. Last time I was at Portsea I had to sign three different waivers just to get on a boat. It's insane.

One more good reason for walking alone. There's no-one to blame - or to worry about - but yourself.

Nice to do but not as much fun when you "go on a big trip" and need help to remove a Leech from where you can feel it but not see it
corvus

tastrax, thank you for posting that site. This fear and doom mentality of the great outdoors, was put in perspective on that site.

Here in Canberra last year, 22 residents and surprisingly in the year before, 22 residents were bitten by snakes when opening their letterboxes or moving wheelie bins. Here in the ACT we even have snake alerts on TV thank the gods or "we'll all be ruined." said Hanrahan ... but no wilderness first aid qualifications are needed for living here in the Bush Capital ... how oddish? I must send a memo to Minister Danger Man.

Maybe Canberra should be shut down because it appears administratively too dangerous a place to live. I'd support a total shut down of our Nation's Capital. I suggest moving the National Capital into a much safer Vogon-free place like Wodonga. Wodonga is where the National Capital rightfully and historically belongs.

Administrations' fear of the great outdoors ... is well, out there. What else can a cynic say? The bush starts with B ... then so does the word BOO!

Captain Cook says, "I name this bit of dirt Terra Australis." OH&S says, "No Captain, Terror is too dangerous a place poke your flag, you might stab yourself in the foot, stand back or be fined." Captain Cook then says, "Lets not discover this continent then, I'm returning to the boat." OH&S then says, "We'll go and write a policy covering that Captain, please wait and fill out this 10 page disclaimer covering the non-discovery of the East Coast of Nanny Australis, then you can return to your boat. Actually, no, you can't return to your boat, your boat is made of wood. Wooden boats are fire hazards."

Captain Cook then walks off and discovers Royal National Park ... with Park's Administration feverishly following behind taking notes.

Oh dear, a rock fell on the road, shut down the Blue Mountains, shut down all of NSW!!!



What New South Wales needs is a falling rock sign. ... better still, New South Wales needs more legislation, prohibiting the falling of rocks. Lobby your local Member.

Warren.

WarrenH wrote:What New South Wales needs is a falling rock sign.

You haven't been along Alpine Way lately, have you? There are two or three there. Maybe you should sue the local council for not placing the signs near that rockfall.

Dear Scavenger, aka north-north-west.

I once read one above the Wollondilly River, when I was looking for some skipping stones to play with, while researching Barrallier's 1st Route. I hope this helps ...





I think that the new adventure activity standards should have a mandatory requirement for all adventure activity leaders to know the complete history of their working region. Including the ecology, the biology, botany, the indigenous history in particularly first contact, the earth science of the region, historic roads and trades, the explorers, and effects of global warming pertaining to the working region, just for starters.

What are these bullship standards about again, only OH&S? It really is a shame. Is there a course in how to wash one's hands?

Warren.

I quite like rocky road

WarrenH wrote:

I think that the new adventure activity standards should have a mandatory requirement for all adventure activity leaders to know the complete history of their working region. Including the ecology, the biology, botany, the indigenous history in particularly first contact, the earth science of the region, historic roads and trades, the explorers, and effects of global warming pertaining to the working region, just for starters.

Warren.

The trouble is Warren, what would be a fair rate of pay , given the knowledge required, to capture said persons brains and being for even a casual time frame?
Here begins the roundabout

Maybe we should structure the Bush Adventure Standards with the control of overpopulation in mind?

And mark all letterboxes on all remote area maps, they are clearly havens for dangerous snakes, much more important than falling rock signs.

And then there has to be a sign warning about the potential dangers to drivers of so many signs . . .

Nuts wrote:In relation to commercial 'adventure activities' it may make a positive contribution to 'tour guide' being a more professional occupation? However to implement such measures through regulation demonstrates a lack of understanding of the 'industry'. As one involved in recruiting people for this type of work several factors come to mind:

* There is a small enough 'pool' of suitable candidates from the general population nevermind narrowing it down any further..
* The most desirable attributes are not learnt in a course. They are as likely already held going into one as they ever will be..
* The industry is already very highly regulated through standards for compliance with the various agencies in gaining commercial concessions..

This has been coming for a while, I have many other opposing thoughts on the matter and am worried it will see an end of the 'traditional' stepping stone that guiding work has provided or a narrowing of a skills base far wider than that afforded by Any 'course'. Nothing taken away from those involved (in Tassie). The existing courses are a good source for people with an interest in this type of work. I dont believe this should be at the expense or detriment to the industry, of not accessing those with a different background. Perhaps the instigators should be held to 'demonstrate' examples of how this will make the experience (or industry) better? Overwhelmingly, all I ever hear is praise for the various operators and their guides...? And the 'softener' to introduce these regulations will be 'recognition of prior learning', made easy or just another obstacle with its own set of forms and processors?

The author (at least) shows understanding of the implications.

My son (15) is keen on a career in this area. Do you have any advice for him? How have others obtained employment in the industry? What sort of qualifications are helpful/necessary? Thanks, Julie.