Ah, the old problem of the more the government does to try and protect people the more you end up restricting peoples freedoms.
Unfortunately in this day and age relying on people to make sensible choices for themselves is not considered the polictical savvy thing to do.
While I imagine that there are plenty of people out there that could, with advanced warning, avoid an risk located within a limited area theres probably also the occasional person who would decide to stand under the potentally unstable rockface and poke it with a big stick.
While that might make for an interesting darwin award I imagine DOC feels that they might get in a little hot water if such an unfortunate event was to occur.
That being said I do feel that I should be allowed to take calculated risks if I so desire and if one day I end up flattened by a ton of rock that its probably going to be my own fault and I would feel insulted if anyone but myself were held to blame, theres a lot to be said for personal responsability after all :)
I think it really depends on the track. This particular one is a short family walk with sections of cantilevered boardwalk around a cliff face (if I'm remembering correctly!). At a certain point, a natural environment becomes an engineered environment. At that point, DOC feel liability or at least responsibility.
I guess the problem is that we, the public, make assumptions when we use a structure, consciously or unconsciously, and different users will make different assumptions. For example, an inexperienced person may assume anything without warning tape on it is safe, whereas a seasoned tramper might make their own judgement about a backcountry bridge, because they know how quickly things can change.
Conversely, I didn't agree with DOC's closure of the Young Valley due to the natural (but dangerous) dam formation. http://www.odt.co.nz/news/queenstown-lakes/26373/landslip-dam-access-opened . It is certainly a good idea for DOC to warn us of hazards, but I don't agree that it is their role to protect us from nature at all costs.
I tend to agree with pmcke... closures spell interference to me. Then again take some aftershocks, this current storm pattern, springs rains on loaded slopes, warming temps and playing dodge the avo (or rockfall) tends to get more complicated. Bearing in mind of course the current storm event is after the closures were initiated. But DOC does have to play lowest common denominator when considering the abilities of conservation estate users.
Well, on public land, for me it's like this:
A: If the sign says "Closed" without explaining the reasons for the closure, I feel "nannied" and not treated like an adult. I normally simply ignore anyone treating me like that, so I go in and happily make up my own mind, at my own risk, which I'm fairly capable of. If DOC wants people to do as their signs say, they would be well advised to make sure the sign states a good reason that people can understand.
B: If the sign gives a reason for the closure and that reason makes sense to me, say, because some rare bird is currently nesting in that area or DOC is reworking a track and would like people not to trample it down again in the meantime until they are finished, I stay out, of course.
C: If the sign gives a reason for the closure and that reason does not makes sense, or it doesn't apply to my plans, e.g. "Huts closed" while I'm tarping anyway or "bridge destroyed by flood" while I'm not planning on using the track and the bridge; or if the reason is a particular risk like rockfall, avalanche, flooding or whatever, I do as in a), go in and make my own decisions, at my own risk.
Let me say that on top of being quite capable of looking after myself, I also usually get local information about the current situation in the area from good sources before a trip, so I rarely end up standing in front of such a sign not knowing quite a bit about what acutally lies behind it.
Generally, I consider many closure signs on public land to be recommendations only and mainly a way of DOC (or whoever put them up) to keep themselves out of legal trouble. That's fine by me; I'll still make my own decisions.
I know that's probably as opposed to the current politically correct view as it gets, and that this will annoy the hell out of some people, but they are entitled to stay on their preferred side of the sign. No one will ever tell me what risks to take and which ones to avoid. It's my life.
DISCLAIMER: On private land, this is a different matter; a land owner can expect people to respect closure signs without giving reasons. (Of course, the question to what extent and in what locations private land ownership should be allowed in the first place is a huge topic of its own again.)
Happy trails!
Matt
Your risk.....your life...that's fine except for those that may have to rescue you if it all goes pear shaped, then it's their lives that you put at risk, not just your own.
Yeah, that's a common argument, to say that an individual taking risks is exploiting others. But it's intrinsically invalid.
How do you want to judge which kind of risk taking is "acceptable"; and therefore, who should get help and who should be left to their own devices?
Someone may get caught in a storm without appropriate clothing on the "open" Tongariro Crossing track; and someone else may walk past a "Track closed due to bridge damage" sign without any intention to cross the river at all, and need help with a sprained ankle later on. Do you really think that the second person's risk taking was unacceptable, and the first person's behaviour was ok just because "the track was open"?
If you stop sending ambulances to those who have unhealthy lifestyles and bad driving skills, the fire department to those without smoke alarms, and the police to those who go to inner city bars on Saturday night, then I will be ok with you not sending a rescue team for me either if I ever get in trouble in the mountains.
If despite my previous arguments you still want to go there, be prepared for a very complex discussion. It's much more complex than just looking at the risk of an activity. Even if you could judge the risk of activities objectively and put a number on it, you also need to take into account not only what risk someone takes, but how they take it. Are they skilled, informed, careful, prepared, equipped, experienced? Do they take measures to limit the damage in case of a mishap? Do they make a possible rescue job easy for rescue parties? And how do you outweigh one risk that someone takes against another area of their life where they may take dramatically lower risks than the majority of people? You can continue this ad infinitum without ever getting to a valid conclusion.
Absolutely everyone does risky things that could be avoided: By avoiding to live. At this point in time at least, we still have the freedom to make that decision for ourselves. Remember though that rights that you don't exercise will get taken away from you sooner or later. With that in mind, let's take some risks and live!
Happy trails everyone!
Matt
I'm not adverse to complex arguments however I would prefer it if you stuck to the point in question and didn't bring in the rest of the universe.
I agree with the right to take risks however I do not agree with taking risks just for the sake of taking risks, as is in this case. Given that a 'closed' sign has been issued I would tend to assume that it is for a reason, albeit they didn't make that reason explicit to you personally. What, I wonder, is wrong with taking someone else's word for it, after they might.....just might, know more than you about the dangers ahead, or is that out of the question?
When suggesting that rescuers are going to be put at risk by searching for or rescuing someone, you are assuming that the the rescuer is going to put himself at risk.
Having been a SAR Team Leader I can tell you that there is no way are SAR team is going to take unacceptable risks. The first consideration for a SAR team leader is the same as any tramping trip leader, the safety of your team comes first.
Also I have never noted on a SAR operation that there is ever any animosity towards those who they are looking for, even if they have done something stupid. I guess all those who have gained experience in the mountains, have done some stupid things in their past and survived. There, but for the grace of god go I.
There is more a feeling of solidarity with the subject, like a parent looking for a lost but loved child. We want to bring him back into the fold so that he too can learn from the experience that he has just had.
I am not assuming anything and nor am I suggesting that rescurers have any animosity towards those they rescue, what I am saying is that if warning signs are given, for whatever reason, and these may well be for reasons that we are not aware of, then it would be irresponsible to simply ignore them, and that if it does go belly up, for whatever reason again, then I question what right someone has to put the lives of those who'j job it is to rescue them. And yes I fully understand about one's rights to do whatever they wish and that rescue services chose to do their jobs too, but this should not imply that we also have the right to act in an irresponsible manner.
I have also been involved in SAR in Scotland and know all about risks people take, however just because the risks are neither obvious, nor known personally, it then doesn't give license for one to purposfully ignore them. The danger signs are there for a reason.
Key characteristics of tramping are independence, self-reliance, and self-management of risk. This mindset clashes with a sign posted on a track saying "closed" and giving no further info. I think a typical tramper will see that and say, "Ooh! Something interesting has happened...I'll just go and investigate". When we leave the cities we leave behind our willingness to do what we're told. I'm not arguing either side, just saying making an observation. :-)
