Canterbury Tracks Closed

I agree with this observation, however I still don't think it is justification for ignorance. I've been as guilty as the rest but with hindsight I realise that I simply didn't have the right to do that..........but I did. I see a sign on the highway that says 'Stop', and somehow I'm not that tempted to ignore it and see what happens, or put at risk either myself or others just for the sake of asserting my right to do as I wish........I kind of guess that there's a good reason why I should stop.......maybe it's for my benefit? I'm not really against risk, but what I am against is irresponsibility on the grounds of 'it's my right to do what I want, and there ain't nobody going to tell me otherwise'.

To me, saying "closed" with anything as general as a "track" isn't great. What about the line 5 metres to the right of that track? "Closing" a track doesn't even make sense when considering the nature of New Zealand's back-country and how it's legislated, and the word "closed" suggests DoC sees its role as the gatekeeper over land that's supposed to be for public use, rather than a role of a caretaker on behalf of people who use it. I haven't read DoC's legislative mandate recently, but I'm fairly sure it's not supposed to be allowed to order people off the land unless it's for other reasons under its mandate, like protecting flora and fauna. I'll welcome a correction. I'd be all for DoC restricting its terminology and increasing its specificity so as to refer strictly to the structures with which it augments the rest of the environment, and to strongly recommend rather than order. (eg. "Blah Hut is closed. Don't go inside.", or "The track has suffered extensive slip damage, and we strongly recommend trampers take extreme care, and anticipate not getting past.") They do it enough already with water supplies at huts. In the earthquake cases DoC probably couldn't be specific, at least until it'd had a chance to check for damage to facilities and structures. Maybe it needs a better phrase like "Warning: engineered track not operational -- take extreme care, including on engineered structures".

Getting back to a topic from earlier in this thread, there are now a couple of posts on DoC's blog that give more detail about the earthquake's impact: * Historic heritage hit by earthquake: http://blog.doc.govt.nz/2010/09/15/historic-heritage-hit-by-earthquake/ * How the Canterbury earthquake hit DOC: http://blog.doc.govt.nz/2010/09/16/how-the-canterbury-earthquake-hit-doc/ The second link has more details and photographs of the Sharplin Falls Track.

I would say with the Sharplin Falls track its more about the unstable rock above the track than what has already been wiped out. Experience in tramping, opinion or attitude isn't going to determine whether or not you get hit by a piece of falling rock, its pure chance. As for tracks being closed but what about 5m to side of it, well DOC would rather you keep to the tracks to avoid damage to the vegetation. I'm a bit surprised by some of the attitudes on this thread; being able to access and enjoy the wilderness in this country should be seen as a privilege not a right.

Hi Syncop8r. With the 5 metres to one side comment I meant that tracks are just artefacts of where people have pushed through in the past to get to popular places, completely legally and just as it's still legal and common for people to explore off tracks. DoC's taken responsibility for maintaining some tracks to make it easier for people and (as you say) to help protect surrounding areas from large groups. Traditionally when there's damage along any common route, though, people just find a way around it and eventually create a new track in the same way the original track was created in the first place. Saying "track closed" is an easy way of making sure families don't take their prams along it, but it contradicts a fundamental rights for people to walk through New Zealand's public land without being nannied about where they can and can't go. There's nothing along the Sharplin Falls track that's not comparable with all the same risks one might encounter when travelling through any off-track parts of the back-country. Experience and attitude *will* make a difference with getting hit by a piece of falling rock because such people should know to stay clear of the danger. No doubt many people would decide not to bother continuing, others might try to find a way around that avoided the damage or a completely different route to the falls, but it would have been their decision. It shouldn't be up to DoC to second-guess people's skills and experience, especially if it's going to assume the lowest common denominator. I think DoC does a great job in most ways and it has many conflicting interests to deal with. Like pmcke expressed earlier in the thread, I'm concerned with how DoC sometimes talks to people as if it can restrict people's rights to make their own safety judgements. It's not a specific problem with Sharplin Falls, it's something that comes up over and over.

I can't help thinking that much of what is being expressed here is more to do with DOC than it does with the actual topic of risk, and as such is perhaps best served in another thread, however I should like to perhaps disagree with the asterix'd *will* and associated comments above. Experience and attitude is absolutely no guarantee that you *will* not get hit by falling rock, trees or anything else for that matter. To highlight my point I should just like to digress and point out the number of bodies that scatter the high mountains all over the world, all, or perhaps most, of which are those of 'experienced' climbers and adventurers, with vast 'experience' and a 'can do' attitude, who unfortunately died for reasons that their 'experience' and 'attitude' could not prevent. Now I know this will spark retort, however I simply use it as an example of how having experience and a confident attitude is no protection when your numbers up. Granted that it 'should' prevent people from getting themselves into dangerous situations in the first place, does however place a great deal of logical strain on the notion of 'should' as being the real determinate in this situation. It simply moves the goalposts, that's all.

Matthew: Well said! I personally would even suggest that it could be a good idea to take some of that unwillingness just to do what we are told back into the cities when we go home. This thread shows just one more way in which the forum that you provide for all of us here is valuable. Discussions like these are very important and have a direct effect on the development of the political landscape regarding land use in New Zealand. If no one talks about things, and if no one makes use of the rights we still have here, then these rights will disappear sooner or later, so it's important that we keep them alive. izogi: You're speaking my heart with pretty much all you say! Thanks for acting as one of many "caretakers of our backcountry rights" by exercising them. syncop8er: Disagree. It's not pure chance; it depends where you walk, since rocks only fall downwards. That said, of course in some places you can't walk around rocks above them; but even then, experience can minimise the risk, by walking one by one and without stopping until you are out of the falling line on the other side. And I strongly disagree with "being able to access and enjoy the wilderness in this country should be seen as a privilege not a right". Why? Just because almost all other countries have managed to kill off their wilderness? Who "owns" this country, or any country, for that matter? Quite the opposite would apply in my not so humble opinion: The right of individuals and organisations to manage or even own land should be seen as a huge privilege. As an anecdote, I ran into a commercial guide in a national park a while ago who didn't take the time to introduce himself but got very aggressive right away in letting me know that I had no right to be there, camping at my self chosen locations, and that this would be his workplace, so I couldn't just do as I wanted. Despite me telling him that I had confirmed with DOC in person that my intended trip was ok, he even went as far as lying to me that DOC would prosecute me if I didn't stay in huts, and if I hadn't booked a hut, I would have to go back to avoid ending up in court. Then he wanted to have my name and address; that's where I said that I wasn't really interested in this conversation anymore, and walked away, with him yelling after me that he would send a helicopter to track me down. What a sad person. normclimb: It's not me bringing in the whole universe - it was right there in the topic right from the start. You can't tell people to follow signs without questioning and expect that advice not to have to do anything with complex society issues; it has to do with that a whole lot. Your highway sign comparison is invalid, since on a highway things happen so fast that you wouldn't have a chance to "see and find out for yourself" in a reasonably safe way. On a track on the other hand, I can indeed advance slowly and carefully and critically check out my environment, and I have the time to make decisions to continue, stop, or go back. Plus, ignoring a sign on the highway, you would most definitely put other people at risk, which I don't on the track. I'm not advocating to "do as you please" at all, but when no one else is involved or at risk, that's the very latest line after which no one else can tell me what to do anymore. Well, they are free to try, of course :-) I think you are misunderstanding something: I would never go past a "closed" sign just to reconfirm for myself that I can do what I want; if that was the effect of a "closed" sign on my person, I would compulsively have to trespass whenever I see a closed gate. if I go past a "closed" sign, I do that for a reason - usually because I want to go somewhere that lies behind it. I am not going because of the "closed" sign, but despite it. > I agree with the right to take risks however I do not agree with taking risks just for the sake of taking risks Well, fortunately, neither you nor anyone else has the right to decide for what reason someone is allowed to take a certain risk. I hope it stays that way. It's a very, very slippery slope to decide what someone else is allowed to do, and going that way can lead to a world that none of us want to live in faster than you can imagine. As to the signs: Signs are put up for many reasons, and in many cases, the reason given on the sign is NOT the reason why it was actually put up. Following signs that you don't understand by default without even questioning them or trying to find out what they are about is advice that basically translates into "let others do the thinking for you, they know what is good for you". I think we all know that that is not a good mantra to live by, for a million reasons. It is a good idea to be a little bit more critical whenever someone - yes, even and especially "reputable" organisations - tells you what to do or what not to do than just to comply witout further consideration. There is an ever growing level of control and mind steering, changing the world we live in at a breakneck pace to the point where in a few generations, people won't really know anymore what "being an individual" means. I for my part will do what I can to slow that process down. Since you still seem to question what right someone has to ask for help or rescue who walks past a warning sign, please let me refer you back to my previous post. Of course there are outstanding and extreme cases, like people walking right up to a glacier face and then getting killed or injured by falling ice; but the majority of cases is not so clear at all. So every time someone asks your question, there is only this question as an answer: What right do other people have to get help who take different but no less intense risks in their lives, with the only difference that those risks may be more common and therefore unquestioned by the majority of the population? If you want to go on with this discussion, please don't evade this question. I have to say though that I'm probably not going to stick with this discussion too much longer, since there simply is no conclusive and objective, let alone fair way to do what you are trying to do. Unless you can clearly and based on logic explain how you want to define the line between responsible and irresponsible behaviour, you are simply applying double standards. I have never met anyone yet who was able to make that argument in a logical way. For the record: I would never ask anyone to put their lives at risk for me. I would never expect a chopper to take off in a storm, or people to venture into dangerous terrain for my sake. And as far as I know, rescue parties don't do that anyway, which speaks for them and their professionality. Cheers, Matt

normclimb, what's your point exactly? What you are saying now simply means that there is no zero risk activity, no guarantee that nothing will happen. We all know that, and we are happy to accept that. Even adhering to a sign will not protect us from that fact, by the way. If I turn back because of a sign, I could just as well end up in a car accident that I wouldn't have had the following day because the accident opponent wouldn't have been there. Also, I couldn't care less about how DOC feels about certain things; I'm not bothered by them, I'm not for them, I'm not against them, but I do appreciate most things they do in their difficult job. What I am bothered by is when people advocate the idea that "blind compliance" is a good thing; that worries me a lot. Matt

You speak loudly of 'validity' and yet singularly fail to demonstrate how anything I have said is in any way 'invalid'. You also sayt that there is "simply is no conclusive and objective, let alone fair way to do what you are trying to do". Firtly I would ask why there should be and secondly what it is that you think I am trying to do, other than discuss the issue, albeit it would seem not to your liking. And please don't patronise me with vague remarks about logic, unless of course you wish to elaborate on where there is a logical inconsistancy within anything I have so far said?

I think I have made quite logical points in my posts before; I'm not sure why you don't seem to see them. But I don't like the tone this whole thing is taking, and as I like this forum a whole lot, I think I will not pursue this here any further - especially since you repeatedly don't seem to want to reply specifically to any of the things that I have said. I'm pretty sure that most people are able to follow my arguments, and if this discussion has stirred some thoughts about the topic, it was already worth it. My hope would be that more people take more of their lives into their own hands, and delegate less of their life decisions to other people and organisations - be it in the bush or in the city. Cheers, Matt