How many tramping deaths is OK?

I also had issues trusting some government entities when backpacking overseas. I don't think it's the case in NZ where this is concerned, but it's easy to get the impression that governments are just trying to drive tourists to certain places and highly moderating information for their own benefit, instead of helping visitors to find what they really want from the experience. One way or another the tourism industry is about maximising profits from visitors, after all. Ever been to an i-Site in NZ and noticed how virtually all information on offer is about paid attractions? Since those are the ones who can afford to produce the info, after all. Provided tourist info is often very biased. Which is why travellers often get into a habit of spending much more time looking at independent guide books and talking to each other to learn about where to find what they *really* want. I don't own the book, but here's the first part of the Lake Angelus Track description from Amazon's Look Inside of Lonely Planet Hiking & Tramping in New Zealand (2014). Unfortunately Amazon only lets me see page 191. "Lake Angelus Track: Difficulty = Moderate. Track Standard = Tramping Track and Route. Summary: An epic ridge walk, an alpine lake-filled basin and one of NZ's flashest above-the-bushline huts. Despite its relative short length, this tramp rates as one of the best in the country, boasting all that's good about Nelson Lakes National Park. In fine weather, the walk along the Ridge is spectacular - seldom do tramps afford such an extended period across such open tops. The views will blow your socks off, as they will again as you....." Go figure. Does anyone know how it ends?

Google Books has some more: https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=t-KuBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT420&lpg=PT420&dq=Lonely+Planet+Hiking+%26+Tramping+in+New+Zealand+Lake+Angelus&source=bl&ots=ZgSEhG5swm&sig=wbFgKyjAqkeZHU95mHi9zDGhFoo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBmoVChMI8-PikufoxwIVZ9umCh33qQH4#v=onepage&q=Lonely%20Planet%20Hiking%20%26%20Tramping%20in%20New%20Zealand%20Lake%20Angelus&f=false including this note about Robert Ridge (OCR copy): ROBERT RIDGE BAD WEATHER ROUTE The route along Robert Ridge is spectacular in good weather, requiring little more than a good head for heights and confidence walking over rough terrain as it winds its way along sharp ridges and through vertiginous scree slopes, However, the whole length of the ridge is exposed to winds from the southeast, with few places for shelter on the lee side, In bad weather, with low visibility, it is easy to become disorientated and wander off the route, Check with the Nelson Lakes Visitor Centre for the latest track and weather conditions before you set out and if the weather is poor, do not attempt it. Should weather conditions prevent you attempting the above route, it may be possible to reach Angelus Hut safely via an alternative route: from Mt Robert car park, walk to Speargrass Hut (three hours) and then take the Speargrass Creek Route (three hours) up to the junction with Robert Ridge, 30 minutes shy of Angelus Hut. If the weather improves, you can always return to St Arnaud along Robert Ridge, rather than taking the Cascade Track.

Thanks. I can't see which page number that maps back to because of the way in which Google's adapted the text, but I'm struggling to match the two unless the book has two separate sections on the Lake Angelus Track. Both seem to claim to be the 2014 edition, though, unless some automated process in Google has gotten it mixed up with an earlier edition. If I have a chance to get near the library or a bookshop, I might try to find the real book.

Obviously zero deaths is always the preferred outcome in any situation. However, when a level of risk is involved and you are dealing with uncertain and sometimes unpredictable variables (weather, people) some deaths are unfortunately inevitable. To me the question then becomes not so much how many deaths are acceptable but what level of investment/involvement to prevent the inevitable deaths is the parent state (govt/DOC) willing to undertake. There is a broad spectrum of options here from doing nothing (eg maintaining not back country hut/track infrastructure and having no organisation overseeing it) to heavily legislated. (All back country is national parks and entry is only allowed through permits, after going through strict training to ensure you are "qualified" to go where you are suggesting and with someone else deciding if weather and route conditions allow you to make the trip you have planned). Obviously (hopefully) the aim is to fall somewhere in the middle of this spectrum and I like how the current system works. There is a wealth of information available via internet and guidebooks which can give anybody - either domestic or foreign - great ideas about potential trips. The party can and should have this information verified for accuracy, modified as needed and updated for current route and weather conditions by DOC for anyone who chooses to take the time to contact them. This is obviously a choice that not everyone makes, or, some may even choose not to listen to information they are given if it conflicts with their intentions. However, I feel that people should be allowed to make choices and suffer the consequences of these choices. I know this sometimes puts others at risk (such as SAR) if rescues are required. However, again, people make a choice to join SAR and they know the risks they are putting their hand up for. It is an incredible move to know you are likely at some stage to risk your life for others but that is a choice they have all willingly made. I worry that increased legislation of our outdoors will ruin the experience for everybody as society once again tries to compensate for the lowest common denominator. Even when we do this there is always some idiot who manages to push the bar even lower so sometimes I think you just have to draw a line and let survival of the fittest play a role to some extent.

i was up on robert ridge in summer heading for angelus, storm came in, i couldnt walk in a straight line with the wind, and i froze my backside off and abandoned the walk in before the descent to angelus. the track follows right on top of the ridge most of the way. is only for experienced trampers in bad weather.

@Dodgydave Well expressed. Exactly how I feel about this as well. The critical concept here is 'informed choice'. If I knowingly choose to press on past my last point of safety into deteriorating weather - I get to wear the consequences. If a wire bridge I'm crossing has a hidden fault and it collapses under me - then the fault lies elsewhere. "However, I feel that people should be allowed to make choices and suffer the consequences of these choices." Too much of the time modern life strips us of the chance to make real choices for ourselves, and older I get the more I value the outdoors as the opportunity to reassert my personal agency and autonomy. Interestingly while I'm in Australia I've had several very experienced people tell me how they believe Aus has gone too far down the regulation and protection path, and that they think NZ has balance about right.

what country requests people are trained before they let them into a park? I"ve never heard of it. given its completely counter to the NZ philosophy of free access to the wilderness for all, it would never see the light of day in NZ. but in real terms yes it is better if people are trained you can't mandate it for the outdoors. its not like the roads or firearms , usually it doesnt put other peoples lives at risk when the unskilled get into trouble. and will it dumb people down to thinking because they are trained and approved to go to certain places that nothing is going to happen to them because their training has fully prepared them for whatever happens? of course the reality is have your wits about you or you may have a nasty surprise. the NZ outdoors can have a bite to it and people are going to get caught out, people get attracted to the outdoors by media and get in over their head. its not going to be an easy answer and we wont stop the deaths. if you dont have your wits about you when you step out onto a road there are consequences.. yeah the wilderness the risks are always so obvious. you can try and educate but you wont reach everyone or not everyone will learn enough.

@PhilipW I agree that being the outdoors is a great way for people to experience the opportunity to make choices and face the consequences that is not currently available in so many other parts of our lives. I would hate to see our parks/back country end up being legislated to the extent say our workplaces are. @Waynowski The Robert Ridge is always an interesting place and a classic example of where people need to gather all relevant local information before embarking on a trip if they are not familiar with the area. The trip to Lake Angelus is obviously widely publicised and is a highlight of the Nelson Lakes NP so gets a lot of visitors. Growing up in Marlborough I have walked the ridge multiple times and on a fine summer's day it (at least to me) is a pleasant doddle and offers few obvious dangers. However, given its altitude and exposure it is obviously prone to bad weather which can come on quickly if you don't know what to look for. Then it can be a nasty place. In winter it is obviously a different proposition with snow and potentially ice and requires specific skills. In the fringe seasons, such as now, you have to be prepared to encounter all these conditions.

One interesting thought. Of all the high profile esspecially tourist incidents how many have been on or very near major tracks?

Without having specific numbers I would imagine it would be fairly high. That would be a function of high use/popularity with international visitors and general ease of access combined with a lack of respect for the conditions and lack of experience of many walkers based on the first two reasons. As we are all well aware just because a track is a "major" track doesn't mean it is easy and safe in all seasons and conditions.