Bushwalk Australia

I have just returned home after a 7 day hike. It was so good to feel sunshine on my skin and beautiful fresh forrest air in my lungs.

I am just catching up on a current topics here and noticed someone said about being an experienced walker.

OK what makes a person experienced? I have done a fair bit of walking here in the west of oz, and I would say I am experienced for my walking conditions. But put me into "Tasmania - experienced walkers only" and I am sure it wouldn't take too long to show my lack of experience for the area. I have done the OT but I did judge that no harder than some of the Bibb Track but hiller.

This kind of feeds into the walker that lost his life recently up near Penguin (I think) the pastor/mission chap. It was said he was an experienced walker but in what conditions?

Is there a standard to achieve? I know map reading and compass skills aside as these would be the barest minimum required to step out into the wilderness.

I look forward to others definition of experienced.

Ro

Only thing that makes you experienced is experience!! Sounds silly I know but it's true. You learn to read the terrain/conditions. The more you look at maps in the field the better you get at judging what certain shrubbery and map patterns will look like. The more your out there the more you learn. And as far as I am concerned it is a never ending lesson.

ILUVSWTAS wrote:Only thing that makes you experienced is experience!! Sounds silly I know but it's true. You learn to read the terrain/conditions. The more you look at maps in the field the better you get at judging what certain shrubbery and map patterns will look like. The more your out there the more you learn. And as far as I am concerned it is a never ending lesson.

Well said ILSWT I agree,get out there and do it to gain knowledge.
corvus

Thanks Corvus.

Yep do a nike and "JUST DO IT"

I can read a map and know that the day will bring hills or flat walking but what about snow, rain, flooding rivers? All those things we don't get. And I try to nike it as often as I can in as much terrain as I can

Rivers are different. Can be very dangerous. I've never done anything over waist height, but if the waters flowing you want to think twice about it.

I know of some people who find a nice long thick stick and link arms holding the stick with the biggest guys on the outsides. If one person falls you can hold the stick and use it as a bar. Just need to make sure you dont all go at once.

With rain or snow you just gotta pack accordingly for it, even in summer if your out for more than one night.

I think there is a difference between experienced and skilled. When we talk about an "experienced" walker we usually mean somebody who has a lot of skill. Sadly, it is possible for people to have a lot of experience (i.e. done a lot of bushwallking in general) but still be very lacking in the skills required for a particular situation. So skills matter more than experience in my opinion.

The other key point is that the necessary set of skills varies with location. Knowing how to properly secure a tent in deep snow is not a relevant skill for walking in a desert.

Off the top of my head, the skills that I think are needed for walking in Tasmania include:

• Navigation (map reading, compass use, GPS use, identifying landmarks, estimating distances)
• First aid
• Camp site selection (eg. not too close to a creek that can rise suddenly)
• Pitching a tent in strong winds, rain, and snow
• Avoiding hypothermia (and recognising and treating hypothermia!)
• Leech and tick removal
• Food and water management (there are places in Tassie where you can walk for a day or two without coming across any water)
• Keeping gear dry in your pack (not always obvious to people used to dry conditions)
• Basic weather knowledge (is that a storm approaching?)\
• Route selection if walking off-track
• Decision making - especially in a crisis. Knowing when to turn back is a vital skill in Tassie if you ask me.

So I'd say don't worry so much about experience in terms of how many walks you've done, but do think about what skills you have, and what more you could learn. (I have nowhere near the climbing/scrambling skills I'd like for example. And I've never pitched a tent in deep snow - though I have woken up to find myself surrounded by it!)

Cheers,
Alliecat

Thanks Alliecat, that is a great summation. Yes it is the acquired skills that makes the difference. I have been a scout in my distant past, a scout leader in the not so distant past and a walker for years, but in comparison to the some walkers of relative newness but in far more adverse conditions I am a virtual newbie.

Now I just have to get to Tasmania more often.

It's not about how much you've done, but how much you've thought about what's happened and what you've learned from it.
Of course, the more you've done, the more learning opportunities you've had. You never know it all, so you never stop paying attention to what's going on and thinking about implications.

north-north-west wrote:It's not about how much you've done, but how much you've thought about what's happened and what you've learned from it.
Of course, the more you've done, the more learning opportunities you've had. You never know it all, so you never stop paying attention to what's going on and thinking about implications.

Absolutely!!!!!!!! Could not agree more.

Cheers,
Alliecat

alliecat wrote:I think there is a difference between experienced and skilled. When we talk about an "experienced" walker we usually mean somebody who has a lot of skill. Sadly, it is possible for people to have a lot of experience (i.e. done a lot of bushwallking in general) but still be very lacking in the skills required for a particular situation. So skills matter more than experience in my opinion.

I agree and was going to add a similar post but use the word "competent" instead of "skilled". But either word is suitable. I have seen a lot of very experienced walkers that are unfortunately incompetent. Being able to map read, work out the lay of the land, being able to route find, being able to negotiate off track country in difficult conditions - eg white out or snow or storms, being able to light a fire in the rain - and keep a party warm, knowing when it is wiser to stop rather than push on, being able to force a pass or work out a way through a cliff-line if necessary, being able to walk with care to avoid injury, knowing how to lift the morale of a party in difficult conditions when you have to keep going - these are good skills to have and are ore important than being experienced. Being fit is also important. Some young and inexperienced walkers seem to naturally have these skills.

Dave

I agree with the above, but would like to add one thing. I find that knowing yourself and knowing your limits is an important characteristic of an experienced/skilled walker.

IMHO You can afford to get as much experience as possible but you can never afford to get cocky about it!

Shortly after my wife and I finished the Overland Track in heavy snow last winter, having walked to Lake Oberon with me a few years before that, she asked me what it takes to be considered an experienced bushwalker. I told her that I reckon anyone who's walked to Lake Oberon and done the Overland Track in the middle of winter in heavy snow is an experienced bushwalker (she then felt quite chuffed, I think, and I certainly chalked up some points). However, when it comes to competency, I would feel exceedingly uncomfortable about her attempting to lead a group, or walk solo, on a difficult track (not that she's likely to ever do such a thing). So I agree with others about the distinction between experience and skills/competency.

Experience is the best way to learn skills and become competent, particularly in the company of people who are more 'experieced' (ie, skilled/competent), but it doesn't guarantee it. And of course competency can also be restricted to a particular range of circumstances (ie, environments, weather conditions, etc), in some (most?) cases.

There are a lot of good examples here of what makes an experienced bushwalker. My opinion is if you feel like you are an experienced bushwalker, you are, (with the exceptions of just being cocky!) I have done a fair bit of bushwalking in my 18 years of life, and also know first aid, map reading, survival skills etc. But I don't know if I'd call myself experienced yet.

I think it's hard to define experienced. There's my 2 cents

Living long enough for your mistakes to become anecdotes may be one qualification. Boy do I have some tales to tell!

Making the same mistakes more than twice makes you either dead or stupid, making a mistake once makes you experienced. i may be somewhere in the middle on that one as I am still breathing and still have all my digits

I could not say it better Moondog55
Learn the skills needed and get out and do it.
Learn from trial and error ( Dont take unnacssery risk)
Be reasonable for yourself and others .
Learning and doing it make you more experienced.

'Experienced' is a relative concept isn't it?

Someone who has done the OL track multiple times may be described as 'experienced' right?
My mother has done the OL track over 20 times & on that particular 'track' I would describe her as experienced;
she knows the area well, knows the distances / terrain & can judge accordingly in any conditions & has never had any problems.
Having said that she has never done it in the snowy depths of winter...another 'experience' altogether.

Track walking could also be divided into several sub-categories; partially tagged, partially tracked, defined pad, rough track etc. etc.
But track walking is one concept or relative term & off track walking is an entirely different thing...right?

I think someone like Dave (Noble) has much 'experience' in difficult country & is probably a well rounded 'experienced' walker.
Ditto with some of the senior Peak Bagging members of the HWC whom I have been priveledged to walk with off track; Paul Geeves, Andrew Davey etc.

Having done many multi day walks & many hard day walks myself, on & off track I would descibe myself as an 'advancing apprentice';
there is always something to learn when walking in rugged, remote & trackless country & I think 'experience' is something that is slowly developed over time. Each walk throws something different at you & each walk something is learnt, good or bad.

Not to harp on old threads but were the 3 young blokes from Canberra attempting the New River to Federation route 'experienced'...I don't think so or else helicopters would not have been involved in that mis-adventure. Experienced in their minds - maybe, experienced in their 'relative' comfort zones, probably...experienced in some of the most difficult terrain in SW Tasmanai - definitely not...sorry guys, just trying to make a point.

I was told at Architecture school that to think of oneself as an architect before the age of 50 was to fool oneself; 'experience' being paramount to professionalism. Is 'hard' walking similar?

I hope to one day be a well rounded and 'experienced walker', but until then the apprenticeship continues...happily

Don't know about experienced walker but I know what makes a Great Walker in the eyes of our Government Department.

Simple,

According to what is written on this sign I recently Photographed at Fraser Island, if you look like this, your regarded as a great walker.

Should I point out to the Sir-Humphrey-in-charge-of-signs that it is possible to be well-prepared, self-sufficient AND a solo walker?

stu wrote:'Experienced' is a relative concept isn't it?

Someone who has done the OL track multiple times may be described as 'experienced' right?
My mother has done the OL track over 20 times & on that particular 'track' I would describe her as experienced;

Maybe we could start a new 'where am i (OT)' lol:


They are good points Stu, experience is all relative. You could do a 1000 day walks and have no idea when it comes to pitching a tent. Spend a lifetime in Tassie and be hopeless in the desert.
On a forum, you may appear 'experienced', based on how many questions you answer, photos uploaded or successful searches you glean info from... Its a classic case, I know a couple of old timers who have an incredible wealth of knowledge that is never 'documented' (or they have never bothered with photography). They have it but, sadly, as the years roll by; find it harder to recall. I'm sure they never climbed a peak for anything more than the view.. well probably not in their later years as the hormones settled anyhow...

Visitors to the state who write guidebooks and bloggs get peoples ear, perhaps they Are worth listening too, i suspect it is as much cause they are the loudest voice. Whilst, the sources i have read seem ok, the odd fact is clearly wrong, ive had people cite guidebooks they are carrying to question something ive said. I do get things wrong but it is curious the power of the written word.

Its a good question, experience in any particular situation (ie especially when your doling out advice) would seem most relevant. Perhaps intelligence of the giver and taker is more important but then that cant be taught can it. When i was in my 30's I would have acknowledged that I realised how little i knew in my 20's, now im starting to understand more exactly what that means and the consequences.

So I guess the imput would be that 'experience is relative' and leave it at that even with how little it says. Personally, i'm happy at the end of the day (and for the sake of an 'argument') to concede that i have No experience, especially when it comes to giving advice specific to any particular walk. Its funny how ego takes a back seat with age but here it is more the possible consequences of how that advice is taken.

Experience is all relative ...

One can have 30 years of different experiences ... OR ... ONE year of experiences repeated 30 times. In my book, the former is "more" experienced that the latter.

Now, I have spent 10 years "walking" in the Army Reserve, and a few days on the OT. I have lots of experience, but only a single wilderness walk. I'd class myself as VERY new at this.

Well, I was called an "experienced walker" in a report on the SMH about four fellows lost on the Colo. That lasted until I pulled my posting from here and made some negative comments about the ethics of journalists. After that I was demoted to "rafting assistant".

Great thread

It's one that I have often talked about during 20 years with Parks in Tas and Interstate, and try to deal with in a practical way regularly at Mt Field.

We often get folks ring in or rock up to the front counter and announce that "we are going to do the Western Arthurs". My first question is normally "have you any idea what you are in for?"
"Not really but we have bushwalking experience"
"Where has your experience been ?"
"We have done Wineglass Bay and the OT"
"take a seat..."

After which the conversation usually revolves around getting them to think about other less daunting possibilities, and mostly they take the advice. You get a sense pretty quickly when talking to the punters as to weather they are going to cope with what they are proposing. I have also found that some people with a massive amount of experience elsewhere, are very keen to take on any advice provided as they have learned that regardless of all that experience, stuff still crops up specially if you are in unfamiliar territory. Some others that have a little experience, know it all and still plow into the great unknown. I suppose this is one way to gain experience.

For myself, I probably would regard myself as pretty experienced at multi day solo walks in the Central Queensland Sandstone Belt and the coastal ranges up that way. When I came to Tassie, I think that experience told me not to get too cocky, so lots of little day and overnighters to get a feel for the place, specially the weather. After a couple of years I've been able to marry this (still limited) local knowledge with the experience that I already had, to the point where I feel comfortable doing solo wanders in the Arthurs, Anne Range etc with out much problem. I suppose the one thing that I've learn't from experience, is when to bail out, or to admit that something is beyond my abilities.

Three young French fellas appeared at Mt Field. New boots (Nike), packs (Kmart), light rain gear etc and announced that they were doing the Western Arthurs traverse. After a fair bit of convincing, I suggested they do an overnighter on Mawson Plateau at Mt Field to try their gear out, probably an hours walk from the carpark. They arrived back the next afternoon almost in tears thanking us for the advice. They had a bit of mildly interesting weather come across which flattened the tents, soaked the sleeping bags and all their gear.

They are now that little bit more experienced....

Cheers

Binder

Good post binder.

ff

flyfisher wrote:Good post binder.

ff

+1

johnat wrote:One can have 30 years of different experiences ... OR ... ONE year of experiences repeated 30 times. In my book, the former is "more" experienced that the latter.

In general terms I would too, though with rogos mention of 'something read on here' cant help but wonder whether 'experience' has the same meaning, ie experience related to others (advice given) than anything that would help 'you'?

And, this being the case, In practical terms (even assuming that the author isnt telling porkies), pretty much anything said has to be taken with a grain of salt. Its probably safer to take advice from a wide variety of sources. In the case above, if the second has done any particular walk and first hasnt then it makes the experience of the second far more relevant (assuming they both have their head 'screwed on' equally).

It probably only matters in practical examples (and It should probably be '30 years of repeated experience' to be fair?) though i'd rather a knee surgeon than a gp if both had been at it the same length of time


They were Young, French and they Took advice Binder... c'mon...

ps have you seen the docos on the cold war experiments, seeing just what (and how much more) people could be made to do when instructions came from someone in a uniform

They were Young, French and they Took advice Binder... c'mon...

Apparently they weren't let back into France.

... wait... is it after 5... is he allowed a sense of humor?...yes..yes it is.. ok then,

4.30 Nuts, 4.30.....