Windy Tops

Tag: musing

  • That Freedom Camping Thing (Part 2)

    Following my post a few weeks ago regarding the Freedom Camping Bill (yuck! I hate that name!), I’ve finally gotten around to authoring my submission. Submissions are due on June 29th so if you have anything to say, you’ll need to be quick. You can submit directly online by following this link, and I think it’d be great if anyone with an interest did so. (I really don’t care if you agree with me or not, I just think it’s important that people’s views get considered.) You can view the Bill online at the New Zealand Legislation website.

    I’ve included my submission in the rest of this post. It was something of a rush job in the end, and I re-wrote about two thirds of it this evening having given myself a few more days to think. I hope it came out okay. [Update 7.55pm, 28-6-2011: There were a few grammatical and cut/paste errors towards the end that really annoyed me, so I made some small changes and resubmitted. Hopefully they’ll take the revised one instead.]

    Freedom Camping Bill Submission

    A submission for the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider in relation to the Freedom Camping Bill.

    This submission is based on the Freedom Camping Bill at its first reading.

    Thanks for the opportunity to submit on the Freedom Camping Bill.  I think the intent of the Bill is a good one, in that it aims to give local authorities and DoC the practical ability to police their own bylaws. That said, I also think some parts of the Bill need careful reconsideration.

    The concerns I raise relate to how current wording of the Bill might affect back-country tramping and (in particular) tramping clubs that presently spend some time camping on road-sides. This is despite the Bill’s introductory text which claims that it does not target back-country users. I also believe the wording includes some inconsistencies which should be clarified.
    (more…)

  • That Freedom Camping Thing

    “Freedom Camping” is a term that’s been around for about as long as New Zealand’s been a popular international backpacking tourist destination. Along with its sibling term “Freedom Tramping”, the two typically refer to camping or tramping without the structure of a camp-ground or a guided walking company.

    I really hate both terms. The “freedom” prefix implies that camping and tramping aren’t already free and independent things to do. Camping and tramping were free and independent long before tour operators and journalists decided to explicitly label them as such, as if independence was a more novel thing than paying thousands of dollars to have a multi-day guided tour in an area that’s completely free to enter courtesy of New Zealand citizens. I’d much prefer that camping was camping and tramping was tramping, and that the operators and journalists could have adopted a novel term for what they do rather than what everyone else does. “Premium-priced guided walking” would have worked. Whatever.

    Sadly one of my two pet hate terms is about to be formalised into New Zealand Law, thanks to the incoming Freedom Camping Bill 2011, which was introduced to parliament a couple of weeks ago. Without this Bill being passed it’s only been possible for local authorities and for the Department of Conservation to pursue the annoying breed of Freedom Campers through courts, which is often far less practical than simply handing out fines (like parking tickets), and so its progression is much to the joy of a lot of local body authorities who should soon be able to police their areas more effectively. DoC and Internal Affairs published a joint Regulatory Impact Statement with reference to the Bill, which can be read here.

    It’s likely that the Bill will be pushed through fairly quickly because the government is keen to get it in before hoards of freedom-seeking transients arrive from overseas for November’s Rugby World Cup. Scanning through the text of the Bill, it seems unlikely that this law change will strongly affect back-country tramping experiences, but there’s some crossover potential and a few things to be aware of, perhaps even concerned about, which I’ve listed below.
    (more…)

  • PLBs and SPOT Beacons

    I’ve found it interesting to read about the search in the Waitewaewae catchment area of the Tararuas over the weekend. Summarised, a police officer was overdue when setting up a SaR exercise which had been intended for next weekend. He and his dog were reported overdue at 9pm, about 10 search teams went in the following day, a location signal was received at 2.40pm, and an Air Force Iroquois winched him and his dog out of dense bush shortly afterwards. It turned out that his intended route had been taking longer than estimated, being very wet and with lots of tree-fall. Despite being relieved to be lifted out, he’d be prepared to be stuck for longer.

    What I find most interesting is the media’s reporting of his use of a “Spot-Me” device, although I think it’s far more likely that they meant to say he was using a SPOT Beacon. (Google tells me that a “Spot-Me” device would be a kind’a dumb thing to take into the Tararuas.) The technology in use is interesting because whilst PLBs and SPOT Beacons both report positions and can be used for locating a person, they work differently and are generally intended for different purposes.

    Unfortunately the reporting’s been unclear and inconsistent about exactly what technology was in use here, but it seems clear that a SPOT Beacon was in use, although a Herald article from this morning specifically states that he also had a “Personal Locator Beacon”, which probably means a 406 MHz Personal Locater Beacon (PLB), the current standard for requesting a rescue. Some sources (such as that article) state that both beacons were activated on Friday night despite no signal being received until the following afternoon, whereas other sources (such as this article from the DomPost) state that the “Personal Locator Beacon” wasn’t activated until Saturday afternoon. [Edit: Thanks to Heather, there’s now a more complete and detailed description of the sequence of events in the comment thread below.]

    Whatever actually happened, it’s a nifty excuse to discuss the differences between a SPOT Beacon, and a 406 MHz PLB. SPOT Beacons are sometimes touted as drop-in replacements for PLBs, but they’re really not. Despite having learned informally, I’m not an expert on the differences between these two devices, so if anyone notices any errors or omissions in what’s below, please feel welcome to leave a comment and I’ll do my best to correct things. (In this respect, thanks Craig.)
    (more…)

  • A little about fundamental legal access to conservation land

    I have to mention just how glad I am that New Zealand parks aren’t subject to the same kind of bureaucratic mess that seems to have been occurring with National Parks throughout the USA over the past few days. In short, the US Congress has been having trouble reaching agreement on the budget, meaning the Federal Government may have needed to shut down for lack of funding. Among many other things, this suddenly put the immediate future of 394 National Parks throughout the USA is in doubt, along with all employees, the businesses and surrounding communities that relied on them. Thankfully this bureaucratic mess has been averted with an emergency budget now having been passed, but it wouldn’t have been unprecedented for such a shutdown to go ahead. Similar shutdowns occurred in 1995 and 1996.

    The USA’s a big place, and I imagine the real consequences vary from state to state, but I’m fairly sure that for fundamental legal reasons (detailed below), this kind of park closure crisis couldn’t easily happen in New Zealand at all.

    Some local examples of the USA’s National Park problems include:
    (more…)

  • Ngauruhoe Rock Falls

    There’s been a story in the news lately about a chap walking on Ngauruhoe having been struck by a boulder coming down the mountain, despite trying to dodge it, and having a broken leg. As Stuff points out, it probably could have been worse if he’d not seen it coming.

    What I found at least as interesting was the last three paragraphs in that article which note that there have been three similar incidents on Ngauruhoe since November. All required helicopter rescues and two involved head injuries. The head injuries were probably (and I’m guessing) as a consequence of people falling and hitting heads rather than directly having had rocks falling onto heads from above.

    What the article doesn’t touch on is the source of the rocks that caused the injuries.
    (more…)

  • FMC Bulletins now available online

    Something I meant to write about a few months back (but became distracted) is the recent achievement of Federated Mountain Clubs in managing to get all of its FMC bulletins online, and available for download, all the way back to FMC Bulletin 1 of May 1957, when then-President Bill Bridge introduced the newsletter almost as an anti-climax.

    As of late last year, all older bulletins have been scanned from paper to PDF form, and the current online archive now contains 182 issues and is growing.

    The archive is available here, and a complete downloaded collection of bulletins from the beginning amounts to approximately 360 Megabytes. Most of the older bulletins are only photo-scanned at this time and thus aren’t text searchable with regular tools, but it’s still a great resource.

    This is awesome. It’s a great history of many things back-country in New Zealand, and browsing through the bulletins I’ve found it interesting to compare what made the issues of the day (mining, roads, dams, fears of user pays with Rogernomics and the new Department of Conservation, support for the re-naming of Mt Taranaki), and how the style has changed over the years. Accident Reports, for instance, were once presented in a somewhat more direct way (often naming names) than today’s bulletin’s Back-Country Accidents section.

    There’s a lot to get through, and I think the lasting benefit of this will be a large library of information on back-country issues now being more easily available when researching past events.

  • Drawing a line with daywalk safety

    I’ve been following the recent story in the news about a man who spent a night in the Tararuas, ill-equipped. He’d planned to walk around a loop within a day, apparently near the northern end. For some reason, reportedly cloud, he became lost, and eventually ended up coming out the other side of the range. From the description, he appears to have had only light clothing, and not much else within a small daypack. He was fortunate on this occasion, but it got me thinking.

    Sometimes it can be a thin line between having a great day out and a potentially serious accident. As with any overnight or longer excursions, all sorts of things could occur that might prevent a person on a daywalk from reaching an intended destination. It’s common with overnight tramping to have safety plans such as alternative routes and back-up shelter, or at least give the environment and terrain more respect. I think such considerations are often overlooked with daywalks, especially with the temptations to cut weight and volume, and fit things into a smaller and less encumbering day-pack.

    All this said, it’s not too unusual for same-day trips to be treated differently, or somehow less likely to result in problems, even though the amount of safety equipment being carried is typically much less than a multiple-day excursion. I guess it’s the same decision making logic that causes people not to bother taking portable shelter when the plan is to stay in a back-country hut, as per The Hut Fallacy. Presumably, the man described in the news didn’t seriously consider that a mis-hap could occur and he might not make it out on the same day. Maybe he’s done the same thing 100 times before—plenty of people have favourite walks of a similar nature, and nearly every occasion they’ll have no problems. If this is the case, though, he’s not alone in making that judgement.
    (more…)

  • Huts: Untold stories from back-country New Zealand, by Mark Pickering (review)

    Huts, by Mark Pickering

    This is the second book I’ve read by Mark Pickering, the first having been A Tramper’s Journey, which I liked (the review is here). He’s written many books, and this is a topic that Mark Pickering is especially suited to, having a strong interest in huts and having visited over 1000 back-country huts already. His latest book was released in time for Christmas 2010. Huts: Untold stories from back-country New Zealand retails for $50, or $49.99 if you take the effort to shop around.

    Production quality is generally nice, with good authoring and editing, although see my comment below about printing. This book is very heavy. It’s a paperback, but don’t let that fool you. It’s 384 big pages on good, glossy paper. Large numbers of photographs, often using half a page at a time, ensure the text isn’t too dense and the reading remains quite easy. Reading one or more chapters in a short sitting is very feasible. The weight and dimensions mean it’s not the sort of book that would typically be stuffed into a pack for weekend reading, except by people who like to show off.

    Background

    The title suggests that this is a book about huts. It is, but it’s even more-so a book about the history of the back-country, and how all of the 1000—1500 back-country huts (the exact number depends on one’s criteria for counting) came to be. The blurb on the back of the book begins with “If huts could talk, they could tell the whole history of the back-country”, and this is a good summary of what you’ll find inside. It’s a history built around the structures which, today, are mostly used for recreation.
    (more…)

  • Terminal faces

    Radio New Zealand has the most detailed online report I can find about the coroner’s recommendations that follow the January 2009 accident where two Australian tourists died under the collapsing terminal face of Fox Glacier.

    The Coroner has recommended “restricted access” to the Fox, and possibly the Franz Joseph Glacier terminal faces, suggesting a new law and measures such as instant fines for people who get too close without a guide or some kind of official authorisation. So far the Department of Conservation has said it’ll consider the recommendations, but needs to discuss them with the Minister of Conservation. It’s already made changes to the signage, and worked with tourism operators to increase awareness with members of the public of the danger around glaciers.

    What this recommendation seems to be suggesting is that legal restrictions against approaching the terminal face of Fox Glacier, and possibly Franz Joseph Glacier, should be put in place because those parts of the New Zealand Conservation Estate have been made so accessible, and because many people (informed or not) hop the recommended safety barrier.

    It’s a terrible thing for all concerned when accidents like this occur, but I agree with Richard Davies, the President of Federated Mountain Clubs, who is strongly speaking out against what the coroner has asked for. Some of his comments are relayed through the first link at the top of this post. Richard is right when he points out that imposing legal restrictions for access would set a dangerous precedent. If such restrictions can be put around the terminal face of Fox Glacier, what’s to stop them from going elsewhere, and where does it stop? Would we see restrictions in something like walking up to the Crater Lake of Ruapehu, also popular with tourists, just in case the volcano burps again as it did in 2007? Why is it fair to issue fines to people who choose to take these kinds of risks, and how is that reliably enforced without missing scores of people acting silly for the wrong reasons, yet catching people who break the rules whilst being suitably careful?
    (more…)

  • Commemorative feature naming and South Ridge

    I’m not too surprised that there’s reported resistance to renaming South Ridge on Aoraki Mount Cook to be Hillary Ridge. The official proposal and request for submissions by the New Zealand Geographic Board, complete with a report of considerations and policies on applying names, is viewable here.

    Ed Hillary did some awesome things, both in mountaineering and outside it. He held some strong viewpoints and didn’t hit it off with everyone, but he did much more with his life and influence than simply be in the first climbing team to reach the top of Everest. I think there’s little doubt that many people are much better off than they’d probably otherwise be. As for the naming of a feature after him, I’m not so sure.
    (more…)