Media coverage

Hi @stunted. Do you mean the bubble in the graphic of this Herald article from yesterday? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11753514 Yes I agree that's most likely just un-alert media who probably don't know much about the range they're reporting on, probably commissioned someone to produce the map based on early information, but never updated it when more info was released and have simply re-used it.

Minimum group size of 4 is nonsense might be nice, but not essential for nearly all conditions that might occur

Often police are restricted on what they can say. That restriction would extend to Sar leaving only people with limited facts able to comment. Unfortunately that all means that until the coroner says otherwise we are unlikely to know more. If they had met with an accident ie fall we might of heard. If they had been cooking in a closed tent the bodys would have been together. That leaves hypothermia and medical issues of which hypothermia has to be the likely option.

It sure is nonsense (imho). It annoys me because it's very imperative and instructional. It's stated as if there's one specific way to be safe which everyone must heed, whereas I'm not convinced there's a single method to be safe, even if there are plenty of ways to mess up. But it's typical of standard tramping club advice from two or three decades back and when communication, short of mountain radios, was rare, and it made far more sense to always have a policy where someone could stay with an injury whilst two others went for help. (Still a useful thing today, but situations where that's important for people to be able to walk out are likely less frequent, especially with emergency communication.) But it's also typical of the random advice that media pick up when they pick a random person who's willing to say stuff. Even when authorities speak, though, the advice is often simplistic or inconsistent. PLB rescues frequently involve authorities from the RCCNZ who most typically say "get a PLB because then we can rescue you".... and I personally also find that quite annoying because while PLBs are awesome, the advice is also very simplistic. All the RCCNZ sees is people who press a button and need collection, and so its advice is often blind to the events that lead up to incidents which might have prevented them from happening. Police quotes by comparison, usually after SAR ops that didn't involve a PLB and possibly involved lots of methodical research and search, tend to be more of a nature about how preparation is important. Police implied that more info would be released about this incident after the autopsy was complete, so I'm hoping we'll get some more detail without having to wait for the Coroner.

That message about not doing solo trips seems to be well known by non-tramping folk I have encountered and the rule about having 4 members in the party is familiar to quite a few non-trampers too. Of course life isn't that simple. If I waited to go with 3 others, I would either have to do club trips which are quite restricting at times - hidden agendas etc. or give a lot of tramping a miss. I think we all do practices which could hasten our deaths whether it is eating sausage rolls or otherwise.

Going tramping with a bigger party, be it with a club or simply more experienced people is pretty good advice to beginners though aye? The Outdoor Safety Code might have this a little wrong..."know your limits"...there's that old saying, "you don't know what you don't know".

Once upon a time I saw something from DOC which advised against any more than about four people (I think) in a group due to the damage large groups cause.

Solo-ing is all good if you are fit, experienced and well-equipped. For me it's not as much fun as hiking with (the right) others, but it's more of a buzz. Thinking ahead, assessing conditions, weighing your options even more proactively than normal. Not something you'd say in earshot of noobs though!

I guess my main gripe is that it confuses the goal with the method. The goal is to have a reliable way of attracting help when needed which doesn't create new significant risks (within the context of where the trip is taking place) by putting individuals in new and risky situations whereby they'll be alone and isolated if something goes wrong for them. Historically this safety problem in isolation is one of the key problems that tramping clubs formed to solve. The TTC president's preferred method is to always go out in a group no smaller than 4, and ensure the party is equipped to tend to an injured person until help arrives. This way if someone gets hurt, they needn't be left alone, nor would a duo of people who walk for many hours or more out of the park to raise the alarm for help. This isn't foolproof but it's a reasonably secure backup plan. But it's not the only way. A party with a PLB or a sat phone, a cellphone in some areas, or even none of these if they're in an area where meeting other people frequently enough is likely, will have a method of requesting help without needing to leave a disabled individual at all, as long as they're also prepared to wait for that help. Even a solo person, whilst possibly being more restricted in assisting themselves without others to help, can still request outside help because the additional precautions mean they're not isolated. As with the group size method this isn't foolproof but it's a reasonably secure backup plan. Add to this, as @honora noted, sometimes there is also simply a conscious acceptance of extra risk, often in exchange for a desired reward of being away from a large group. I prefer groups for multiday trips, but that's more of a social preference than a safety preference. I get sceptical seeing statements which declare that there's only a single correct method of doing things, especially when they don't refer to the goal they're trying to achieve and explain why they're superior to other possible methods.

When it comes to safely advice nothing is ever black and white, there are many many factors that play a part. Sure the risks are a bit more when you are on your own but as long as you realise this, accept it and make your decisions accordingly it is OK, lots of us do it. Having 4+ people isn't always - more than one person can get hurt, you can all get misplaced, end up on the wrong/different sides of a river type thing. Biggest advantage to having more people is having more people to snuggle up to if its real cold. From a personal perspective I like to always have some form of shelter with me even if its just a large plastic bag. I also always carry a torch, to be able to keep walking when you get caught out by darkness can get you out of potentially unpleasant situations. I don't tend to take extra food though as I have a bad habit of eating it whether it is needed or not - figure I have enough reserves anyway.... No one has mentioned it but I am pretty sure there is cell phone coverage up round Alpha. Unfortunately once hypothermia kicks in it is next to impossible to make sensible decisions. Izogi - yes it was the Herald article I was refering to.