Missing tramper on Cascade Saddle

It certainly looks like a case of 'here we go again' on the Cascade Saddle. Straightforward enough under normal conditions, positively lethal when wet. As most of us on this site will know, and as DoC try their best to warn. Stories abound of the unprepared overseas hikers in the NZ back country, and part of the problem is that experience gained in Europe or the US can be totally misleading. Here is different! NZ 'tramping' may not involve real 'climbing', but is rough, remote and the weather wickedly changeable... Once came across a young, fit, and capable US rock climber setting off solo from Carrington hut wearing a pair of heavy, plastic, alpine climbing boots. While no doubt perfect worn with crampons to tackle some icy gully, they looked a real handicap for a straightforward summer plod up to the Falls hut! And with the owner admitting to no river crossing experience... But as far as we could find out later, he got back OK. You meet all sorts of bods (and luck!) in the hills. From experience, Swiss helicopter rescue (this for a badly twisted ankle) is swift, efficient and $2000 for a short straightforward hop. No doubt more if difficult. You are expected to be insured, the Swiss have no sense of humour when it comes to money...

If there's a strong call for it, perhaps, keeping in mind that the DoC estate is only one of many places where SaR operations take place. Searches for lost tramping tourists are probably also a fairly small proportion of the overall expense on SaR, albeit a high profile one that fuels the media and debate about expenses. Maritime SaR rescues appear to be another biggie, but as I mentioned earlier SaR also spends a lot of low profile time just searching for people considering or commit suicide, and alzheimer's patients (and the like) who've wandered off. The Minister of Police might have a closer jurisdiction than the Minister of Conservation. Plus, as I mentioned before, how can you measure and put a fair price on the sacrifices of volunteers and their employers, much of which goes unmeasured? There may be things to learn but I kind-of think we need to be clear about what we want and what sort of people we are before taking other models too seriously. Personally I'd hate to ever see fences and admission fees for conservation areas as happens in some other countries. There's also a lot that could be said for figuring out how to more effectively communicate with tourists, and how to best help them get the experience they want for the price they want without taking the risks that some tourists do. I see DoC warnings all over the place about being careful and doing the right thing, but many backpackers I've met get their main info as piecemeal information from other backpackers as they transiently float around the country, which can often be opinionated and misleading. There will always be a few idiots (not commenting on the guy whose circumstance sparked this thread because we know nearly nothing about it) just as there are with New Zealanders, and that's part of it. The Police in particular *can* decide to charge someone for SaR, particularly if they're judged to be wasting police time. It's just very rarely considered because of the precedent it sets. A couple of years ago a chap was rescued from the Ruahines three times in a short space of time, from almost the same place in similar conditions, and the Police were commenting at that time that they were thinking of charging the guy. I can't immediately find the reference but I think it even came up in the forums around here.

This whole question of who should be allowed to do what, and who then makes that decisions, is a whole can of worms that just gets bigger and bigger the more it gets prised open, however, in my humble opinion, it is without doubt a debate worth having, and one which I feel is tailor made for a forum such as this. I hope it just manages to stay on track and not get too sidetracked. There will always be 'idiots' who for reasons known only to themselves, chose to put themselves, and in doing so, others, at risk buy venturing into situations for which they are perhaps not best qualified. The problem is, and always has been, how does one determine the limits of one's own capabilities without testing them. The follow on question that then arises from this is, who should be held responsible if it all turns pear shaped and who consequently pays the bill? I fully understand and appreciate the need for insurance, but most insurance policies do not cover tramping, whether in NZ, Europe or anywhere else. So whilst this has been alluded to in some of the previous posts it's a bit of a red herring to suggest that simply having travel insurance all will be well and you're covered in any emergency....you aren't. Specialist insurance companies do insure for outdoor activities, however, as with all insurance policies one has to read the small print first. Doing any adventure activity comes with a risk, and much can, and has been made of the debate between personal choice and responsibility to others, and no doubt this will continue long after this current situation has been forgotten (I should also like to add that I too am hopeful of a good outcome here). But I think the overriding debate concerning who makes the rules and who breaks the rules will be one that most likely will out live us all.....!

interesting thread. Have they found that dude yet? Personally, I think its obvious really. NZs currant system is a joke. Foreigners come here by the thousands now (post LOTR) the back country in our neck of the woods (sth lakes) during summer and the majority of them come UNINSURED. Why? because the SAR is free, and ACC pays for any and all injuries. Shit, I dont know, but I bet if they die here they (or their family..) are well hooked up. Thats NZ for you. Mainland UK policies, without the EU bank balance. Solution to this problem, no ACC for tourists. They get insurance like they would need in 98% of the rest of the world. Without insurance, no rescue, simple. oh, news was just on, still no sign of that guy.. It snowed out there on Fri night, not heavy but reasonably low (about 800m in upper greenstone) that makes it harder for SAR. If these guys carried a PLB at the least, I mean travelling solo thru new country in winter? hello :) that guy who died below Mt Lois the other year suffered a fair bit by the sounds of it, I wonder if the concept of taking a beacon went thru his head as he lay there, poor dude, I know he was travelling ultra light but for what 300 grams? shit I would get one.

I think your 'solution' is a little draconian if nothing else.....don't you think? Re insurance: Do you actually read the other threads.....?

"The Queenstown Lakes District Harbourmaster sent a helicopter up the river and rescued a couple of kayakers after an empty kayak had floated down-river. Then he sent them a $4000 invoice because as far as he was concerned, there was no space in his budget for this kind of thing. People had just paid the invoice on other similar occasions, but these two chaps point-blank refused, " Would they of been billed if they had refused rescue? I think this comes under the term unsolicited goods" ie the same as when you buy something from a shop then a few months later something else arrives with an invoice. No easy answers to this one and another thing to think about is that we cant afford to have people dieing in the backcountry just because they couldnt afford rescue. No good for the tourist industry. Maybe Tourism NZ should pick up the tab on tourist rescues.

Damon, do you have any actual numbers that objectively show how much foreign backpackers cost the system compared with New Zealanders, and perhaps compared with how much money is brought into the economy through them being here in the first place as a consequence of getting outdoors being so cheap and easy and unbureaucratically? I don't, but I'm uneasy accepting that the current system is a joke without having actually seen real numbers to back it up. Isolated reports of backpackers doing silly things doesn't really do it for me. ACC also covers more than just self-inflicted accidents - it fits in with the entire mechanism of removing the right to sue in favour of the government prosecuting those at fault for accidents. While something could probably be redesigned, it's more complex than just cutting it off for tourists.

Geeves, yeah it would probably fall under something like that and I never heard what happened in the end. To me it just sounds as if they had a few problems, someone showed up with a helicopter offering a ride, and they accepted it without a second thought. It's the inconsistancy that bothers me most -- suddenly the cost of a rescue depends on the situation of the person doing the rescuing rather than the situation of the person being rescued. If we all need insurance then we need a proper framework for it because as normclimb pointed out, it's not something that insurance companies deal with much right now.

Oh, and if backpackers do any work our rent any cars or anything like that while here, they're either paying or subsidising ACC. There's another complication.

true should we discuss the benefits of not rescuing tourists on a new thread and keep this thread for keeping tabs on the missing tourist on cascade saddle?