This is fun.

But yeah, this doesn’t mean that DoC will restrict camping in those places. I don’t remember the details of the previous Great Walk rule, but if it was only 50 metres then it might still be the case unless DoC’s issued a notice. Note also that various other legislation means DoC can restrict camping and even complete access in other situations, which makes lots of sense in the case of things like wildlife reserves. For the most part it’s not meant to restrict access unless there are good reasons, though.

If there is some way to add an image to this forum let me know and I’ll scan that small section of the map and post it for you.

I possibly have a slightly later edition somewhere with all of the contours printed but if so it is in another box somewhere. (I also had a couple of the “Tararua Forest Park hunting maps but again, they have not surfaced yet. They were more centred on the Marchant-Tauherenukau area of the Tararuas so had more detail).
Again, if I come across either of these maps I will attempt to scan them and post a better image for you.

Of further possible interest is another track; Just down the track from Dobsons to Canyon Creek the track runs up over a lower peak marked as 656 metres. Just down the track from there the map seems to show a sharpish right turn.
From approx. that point, the track used to continue almost due East down to where Wiersma Stream meets the Tauherenukau River.

My map also shows where Allaway Dickson hut was sited. it was of course, printed before Tutuwai hut existed, but shows a loop track from the site of Tutuwai a little way way up the Mt Reeves track and coming back down to where Reeves Stream meets Tauherenukau.

Getting the track sorted between Seddonville and Mokihinui Forks could be a task and a half from what I remember but it’ll be interesting to see it finished. I’ve only been there the one time, and I remember a few small sections that seemed very dodgy just to walk through given how they fell away.

This makes much of Meridians evidance out of date. More people are using the area than they estimate, and you don’t have to chopper into raft the river. Their evidance relys heavily on the Mokihinui Track being in a poor and deteriorating state.

I agree but I’m not sure what the answer is for huts that are so popular, unless it’s to tell people outright that they simply can’t book and that they might need to be prepared to stay outside no matter what. And true enough that was the way until now… I guess DoC’s catering to people who like predictability of knowing where they’ll stay and who don’t like to risk being crunched in with too many other stuffy smelly people. I’m concerned that being able to book some of these huts may give some people a false sense of security, as if they don’t need to carry their own shelter regardless. There’s already too much of that attitude around and it risks encouraging it further.

And yes, it sucks that regular tickets and the hut pass are de-valued through this, and I’ve noticed people grumbling about it in other forums, especially when so many of the alternative huts are also under threat of removal. I think it’ll be interesting to watch what comes from the hybrid booking system that the Wairarapa Conservancy is trialing for the Holdsworth-Jumbo loop, letting people book a bed for priority if they like, but still allowing others to show up without a booking, at the risk of being demoted to the floor, or whatever. There still doesn’t seem to be much there to dissuade people from booking out all the beds in the huts at a fairly low price, then not bothering to show up.

In hindsight I was miffed that DoC’s accountant either couldn’t or wouldn’t differentiate between expenses for huts on the ticket system and huts on the booking system. Saying that $16.5 million was spent on “all huts” it nearly useless in understanding what fraction of that was spent on huts being predominantly funded by the $1.3 million from the ticket and pass system, given that Great Walk huts and the several other booked huts are likely very blown out in proportion for how expensive they are to operate. I s’pose it complicates matters that some huts are on different systems depending on the time of year, but I have trouble imagining that most booked huts would be paid for by anything other than the expensive pre-booked ticket revenue.

Cheers, and be sure to remember the half hour smoko below Reeves!
Mike.

Neither of these are on a great walk and neither is privately owned. Any idea as to what criteria is used to exclude some huts from the annual system just because more people walk past?

Pre-booking is fine if the hut is your destination. The hut is never my destination. Its all about the journey for me, and sometimes it is a long journey. Hard to book Angelus Hut for a precise night for example if you begin at Lewis Pass.

Even with a hut pass, I still prefer to camp providing it is not storm conditions, where camping while feasible isn’t so pleasant.

Nah, the website doesn’t inform LandSAR (or the Police for that matter). It doesn’t automatically inform anyone at all, unless the person using it has set things up correctly. (Probably that’d be a pain for the Police having to interpret and act on the 95% of alerts from people who just didn’t bother to switch them off when they got back.)

There are a couple of websites involved. The AdventureSmart website (to which DoC’s referring people) doesn’t do anything whatsoever. It’s purely an informational website, so far only for English-speaking people, that tries to guide people into making their own arrangements, whether it’s by filling in a printed intention form and giving it to a trusted contact, or by filling in an email template and having it emailed to a trusted contact, or by going to another approved website (the only one on the list is RoughPlan) which lets people enter their intentions, nominate a trusted contact, and provides some extra automated functionality for reminding that contact to act if something expires.

RoughPlan’s an awesome tool for people who already understand and appreciate the process and how trusted contacts work (pop over and take a look if you haven’t already—you could use it for organising trips), but it’s not a replacement for the expertise and experience that DoC staff would have added to the process of making sure intentions are actually recorded usefully. The website’s only as smart as the person using it. It doesn’t guarantee that someone’s chosen a reliable contact, or made sure their contact knows what to do and when to do it, or understands what it means when an English-language RoughPlan email pops into their inbox at 11.30pm somewhere in Paris, or even that their contact knows they’ve been nominated. RoughPlan doesn’t notify anyone on a panic date unless someone actually tells it to, so the person using it needs to clearly understand that they have to do more than just go there, fill in some details about where they’re going, and hit save. Personally, I’d also rather not want to rely on such a tool alone to send an email on a panic date—really you need a contact who’ll be pro-active and realise themselves that something’s wrong whether they get an alert or not.

If there were web access (which I understand is being worked on), maybe DoC staff could still help people to fill in the forms and make sure the information’s useful, but what can they do if someone turns up without having any reliable trusted person they can nominate? That’s maybe the situation where it’d be good to have another service (maybe a business?) ready to go, that’ll accept intentions and take a nominal fee in exchange for panicing and notifying emergency personnel in an intelligent way when people don’t report in, but as far as I know it doesn’t exist.

I think making own arrangements is fine, and it works everywhere else in NZ (except where it doesn’t, obviously), and maybe DoC has a good point that it confuses people when some visitor centre’s take intentions whereas others don’t, but I guess the biggest problem here is that it’s being pushed through in a way with no adequate replacement, and all those one-time-tramping tourists will just keep doing what they’re doing and be less safe in doing it.

@Stormy, thanks for the thoughts. If you’re looking for a suitable rope (of which I know nothing), Brian Wilkins (in his article linked above) identified a specific rope that he thought was really good because it’s relatively light, floats, and doesn’t absorb much water. He also pushed a system that involved a harness made of tape, which is something I’m still having trouble latching onto in my head but I guess that’s where training comes in.
Good point, @Jamie, about how the courses focus largely on safe places to cross. Obviously that’s an extremely important part of river safety that kind’a trumps a good crossing technique in many ways.

Mutual Support is certainly something that’s counter-intuitive for anyone who’s not seen it. Some months ago after I explained the gist of it, I ended up in a debate with a group of mostly Americans regarding crossing techniques (scroll down on that page), and was eventually given a lecture by someone stating that it all sounded like something intended only for experienced “search and rescue personnel and, not for the rest of us Joes”, and that mutual support sounded “less like good stream crossing tips than a recipe for getting soaked, provided no one gets hurt”, followed by a lengthy explanation of how chaotic water could be and that a line with someone directing themselves into a battering ram position on the end to break the current might as well be a recipe for disaster, or something like that.

Certainly that’s a big reason why it’s important to get on a course and regular refreshers from time to time and find out what happens when things go wrong. In such a forum I suppose there would be some fundamental differences globally in things like typical river styles and common equipment. eg. New Zealand’s one of very few places, I think, where it’s common to have a reasonably large pack with a full-on waterproof pack liner that turns the pack into a flotation device, and this influences the recommended crossing techniques, even things like leaving hip-belts fastened so as to secure the mutual support, albeit whilst being ready to unfasten them if the pack becomes a problem.

Picking up on what Amelia said about needing a refresher on a regular basis, it reminded me of the comments I’ve often heard regarding rope use for climbing, in that people tend to lose the skills if they’re not using them (and so need a refresher from time to time if they’re in that group). Technical climbing is something that so far hasn’t interested me very much, except maybe the subset of skills that might be useful around glacier travel some day, but from time to time I’ve thought an AIC or other rope-style course could still be interesting just to help recognise when ropes are useful or essential, and as importantly when they’re of no use at all. I’m thinking the same about rope skills in rivers, and in some ways it’d be nice if the MSC did offer advanced courses that included water-based rope skills, partly to have a better understanding of rivers and what makes a rope safe(r) if it is used, and to some practical experience in a controlled environment of how horribly bad things can get when ropes go wrong.

And hey, as Jamie put it it’d be another item in the toolbox and maybe I’d use it some day, and I guess therein lies the danger that MSC seems concerned about, that teaching anything about rope techniques presents a risk of validating all rope use, and opens the likeliness that sooner or later, people (trained or not) will start using it badly and they’ll suffer for it.

I, too, have been in situations where crossing more than two abreast in a fairly well pumping river was not an option. Thankfully on most of those occassions it was just Mark and I, who know each other well enough to handle such a circumstance.
We had one trip, however, where after overnight rain, a stream crossing had become quite challenging (still doable though), and we wound up both standing in the stream for about 10 minutes to help a less experienced party across by showing them footing and being their “third leg” in effect. Hard work! But still faster than belaying individually with a rope.

Personally, I wouldnt carry a rope on a tramping trip, because you would also need other gear to go with it. But then I dont do back country epics where I am likely to come across rivers that cannot be crossed in mutual support very often.
Mutual support also has the advantages that it should be faster in most situations to actually get across (which is excellent in average weather – the less time the party spends standing around wet waiting for the rest to cross the better) and it is probably both easier to teach and to remember – as Gazza (who obviously has some experience) says above: its something you would need a refresher in on a regular basis as you probably wouldnt use it that often.

It sucks to hear it’s still going, although I guess that’s still better than it going ahead. Last time I submitted on a power company plan, and read the other submissions, it was brilliantly clear how the energy corps were doing their best to completely overwhelm the councils and re-write their laws from them (certainly a very ‘we can handle all that detail for you’ sort of attitude). There’s tens of millions available in money to burn in hiring policy analysts and legal experts to write their ideal laws and argue their case. It might be that often there are good points being made, but I get concerned about how DoC in particular is handling its recent funding cuts, and what this does to its legislated advocacy role long term. DoC is really the only organisation with the resources necessary to critically analyse some of the submissions that come from energy companies , and mining companies for that matter, from the perspective of environmental longevity and to take it the full distance and keep all the stakes in the open submissions process where people can see them. Environmental advocacy is about much more than publishing a blog that reminds people the environment exists, but unfortunately the Conservation Act doesn’t define it too clearly, I don’t think.)

I don’t remember suggesting a boycott, though I can see why some people would do that. (I’m not entirely sure it’d work for myself, given how abstracted New Zealand’s generators are from the retailers.)

As someone who has learnt their rivercraft in the last 15 years I perhaps have an anti-rope bias…the teaching has worked well.

This discussion has made me think about situations when I might use a rope as an extra tool in my outdoors toolbox. After all there is no difference in the inherent value of risks taken climbing a mountain or crossing a river.

However, for beginner or intermediate courses, the current approach which focuses much more on where and whether to cross a river, rather than how, seems to be serving the purpose of keeping people safe.

I was lucky enough to catch up with a group of four less experienced trampers with no river crossing experience who were attempting the first river individually and without footwear, after explaining the process of mutual support and going through a short training exercise we crossed all rivers slowly and without incident. I would consider these rivers to be in “low flood”, they were no deeper than mid thigh, usually around knee height and lower than other rivers I have encountered with more experienced people. What made them dangerous was the velocity of the water.

The key issue which immediately became apparent during the crossings was finding an area wide enough to walk 5 abreast or even 3 abreast through. It simply was not possible to find such a passage, large rocks blocked every crossing and getting around these rocks was a significant challenge for the group to shuffle around.

It was very timely to arrive home early this morning to find my copy of the FMC Bulletin in the post.

Being an experienced “rope user” (I am not sure what the correct term is for someone who has spent many years abseiling, rock climbing and mountaineering?) I am firmly of the opinion that using the rope method in these situations would of been significantly safer.

The use of a rope would have allowed the belayer to “lower” the fording member downstream so they could easily avoid the large boulders walking in the eddys behind them while providing the necessary support against the current.

While I do not believe that the rope method is suitable for all river crossings, I do believe that it has it’s place as a suitable support mechanism and should be taught as an alternative.

Principally I would agree that rope skills are a must to have for this. I would not give a rope to a novice and say belay me while I climb this cliff any more than I would trust them to belay me when I cross a river.

I long ago stopped carrying rope on my tramping expeditions, now I will be looking for a suitable one to carry.

Assuming, based on my limited knowledge of rope stuff, that we are talking about the following situation:

“The crossing comprises of a combination of depth, river speed and unsecure footing that makes me believe that a solo crossing is unadvisable but a group mutual support crossing is do-able”

If I believed that there was adequate and safe run-out room for the rope to catch me and swing me into a safe landing spot I suppose I would consider a rope crossing as well (which I imagine as being someone I trust anchoring the rope while I cross, as I said there are probably other methods but the only other ones I can recall require someone having already gotten across to tie the rope to something solid).

The question I suppose is really “does a rope crossing allow a safe crossing in a circumstance where a mutual support method does not?”. I don’t consider myself knowledgeable enough to answer that question. I would assume that a mutual suppoet method offers greater stability and less chance of being swept away while a rope crossing offers a better recovery chance in the event you are swept away.

But all this is just speculation based on some training i did over 10 years ago, memory get rusty and techniques change.

Pop quiz arising from your final sentence: With suitable training, do you think you’d be happy to cross a river with a rope in a typical situation in which you’d already think it reasonable to use mutual support? Or would a rope (even with the “right” technique) make it less safe?

I think part of his argument is that although some rivers are simply too dangerous to get into (and perhaps that doesn’t change irrespective of the method), using ropes correctly in situations when crossing is acceptable provides more safety than mutual support in the event that something goes wrong. A related one of his points was that if a river is “safe” to cross, why even bother to take these measures such as mutual support and/or ropes at all? (That exclamation would be, uh, section 1.e.2, titled “Hip belt grasp method” underneath his reference to the “North Canterbury Tragedy”.)

If the two techniques really are equal in all safety respects, then mutual support is probably more convenient because (as you’ve noted) it doesn’t require all the extra equipment to be carried.

This is just me speaking without any real river authority beyond a perpetual-student level.

I have done some swift water rescue training a few (quite a few) years ago and found the use of ropes to be quite useful in certain situations. I can remember two uses (and I am sure theres a few more I have forgotten):

1) As mentioned in an article a person tied to a rope stands a good chance of being swung back into the river bank if they get swept off their feet.
2) A rope can be thrown and secured in such a way as to provide support and help free a person who gets pinned by the water because their feet have been trapped and they are being pushed over by the force of the water (I think theres a term for this situation but I have forgotten it)

That being said I wouldn’t feel confident in using a rope for either of those situations without some practice beforehand or a refresher course, preferably both. In addition I probably wouldn’t carry rope of significant width and length to be useful in either situation on a standard tramping trip.

In the end I would like to think I would simply choose not to cross a river where I suspect such techniques would be required.

You mention playing Cricket. Last year a friend and I (mostly the friend) were trying to rally together some highland games at Totara Flats (on this occasion). It didn’t work too well… it ended up raining and the peasants just wanted to sit around in the hut yabbering to each other. We couldn’t find anything decent enough for a caber toss. Maybe next time.

Nobody else has this responsibility, either, but maybe it needs to be clearly mandated either for DoC to do it, or for one of the tourism bodies to take over. Writing to the Minister is probably a good starting point.

I just happen to also think that tourists are an exception. If New Zealand is to be marketed as a big tourist destination of which “going tramping” is often a major a part of the visit, it has to be anticipated that there will be many short term visitors of low experience and incorrect expectations, an often unpredictably youthful mentality and approach, and presumptions that getting outdoors in New Zealand will be a similar safe and government-managed activity to many of the other countries they might have visited on the way here. With such a tourist drive, it’s reasonable for them to expect that every bluff they could reach is fenced off and every route shown on a map is well tracked and signposted, and cellphones will always work, and where the weather is predictable and tame. It’s irresponsible to presume that simply telling tourists to take care of for themselves, or giving them a list of things to do and watch for, will reliably result in it actually happening.

If DoC is no longer interested in catching foreign tourists in the key places where they frequent, to at the very least create a record of where they’re going and when to worry if they don’t return, then perhaps someone else needs to start doing it.

“A road end intentions book is only useful if somebody actually goes to check it.”

That’d be why, at least for the last 6 months, DoC in Canterbury has apparently not been replacing intentions books at road-ends, reportedly claiming at the user-group meeting that SAR isn’t their area.

Another memory; Playing a game of cricket down on Totara Flat by the river on a large-group day trip hike.

Was Dobson’t Hut, which Doug also mentioned, about where the current track junction is, east of spot-height 705? (This one.) If so it’d explain the old roofing iron that was left obscured in the dracophyllum near there.

I guess I can see why DoC wants to get out of the business of acting as people’s trusted contact, which seems to be what’s happening here if I understand Graeme correctly. This is how it works in nearly all the rest of the country, after all: DoC will provide intention books in huts and often at road-ends of various sorts, but people are responsible for themselves when it comes to finding a trusted person who will actually look out for them, record the detailed intentions, and raise an alarm if they don’t return.

It does seem, though, that DoC has decided to pull the plug very suddenly on the trusted-contact thing, at least at Arthur’s Pass, without nominating any adequate replacement system that will actually cater to the mass of dis-organised international tourists to that area who don’t speak reliable English, and who don’t have convenient reliable contact people they can trust with this kind of information for them.

In my opinion, at least, these sorts of visitors often need someone local with expertise to be there for them as a trusted contact, irrespective of everything that’s bleated about how people need to be responsible for themselves and sort themselves out, because that simply won’t happen given the types of people who come visiting. If it’s not DoC which does this, there needs to be an alternative service provider they can use instead.

I’m sure that one day you will get the kind of employment which will make you very happy.

All the best for the rest of your life and your own!

Paul.