Printable View
Are you a fan of backcountry huts? The University of Waikato has an ongoing Civil Engineering research project looking to increase hut user safety, and we would love to hear about your experiences and opinions. The survey (linked below) is 5-minutes, completely anonymous and would influence the design and development of a solution.
https://waikato.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_cFINQFSEI1AQqKW
the problem with doing so....is this
if a problem area is identified,its easier/cheaper to shut/demolish hut than fix it....... after the cave creek disaster(look into the behaviour that caused structure to fail rather than construction) the Dept of consternation sent field staff out to rip out/down many many perfectly safe boardwalks etc all over the country because"they might be unsafe/not up to standard" and folks using said walking tracks were once more up to tits in mud etc
influencing design and development of a solution is fine and dandy creating a problem in first place to do so is the stinking thinking that the H&S bullshit artists use to justify thier jobs and its ruining this country.....we are dumbing things down to cater for the 5% that should have died in accident before thier 21st birthdays...yes thats harsh but the other 95% of population doesnt need to be told/legislated/supervised in how tie shoelaces or whipe arse after taking a dump.
K1W1s of the previous 5 generations were renowned worldwide as #8 wire solution finders..we rolled up sleaves and got stuck in,finding a way to get the job done..that is being beaten out of us to extent that in big industry a fully qualified electrician is NOT ALLOWED to change a lightbulb...I shit you not...its not thier job and a sub contractor has to come in and do it costing hundred bucks for a 2 minute job.
thou must wear safety glasses any time your outside a building
thou must wear seatbelt in area of 15kmph maximum speed even if only going 15mtrs forward
theres 3 egzamples for you. so sorry no I wont be filling in survey.
I sure am, never felt unsafe in a hut, and have always enjoyed them for what they are. I think some people expect a luxury stay in the bush not shelter from a storm. double edge sword because a lot of huts will just get closed as doc clearly has a focus on most used huts and tracks and the rest are just left too it. Far better to have a shit hole of a hut to hunker down in then stuck making a shelter out of a hollow tree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor
Thanks Taylor, good to see that you've reached out to hunters. Survey completed.
you are dead right Mickey Duck what's wrong with corrugated iron cladding - ply wood lined - bench for cookers- six bunks - water tank - long drop 50 meters away whats wrong with that - nothing -that's what we had for years and what was wrong - nothing -Quote:
Originally Posted by Micky Duck
Quote:
Originally Posted by 199p
Or Burnt down!!
Survey done
Sent from my SM-A226B using Tapatalk
Done.
Funny when you think about that getting to and from huts can be 100 times more dangerous than any hut ever would be.
Good luck with the research. Been there (10 years ago :/ ) and I still remember what my project was about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor
Done.
The 'safety' aspect of this survey appears to be focused on the fire places.
done,
ps we need to keep fire places for those extra cold nights or to help dry wet clothing.
I would consider keeping the fire place essential to back country safety in winter.
Z
Hi @Taylor, it would be helpful to understand the motivation of the research a little - unless that might skew the results.
As noted above, huts have historically come about as a protection from the elements for NZFS, cullers, musterers, and hunters (among others) - there'll be a wealth of information in books and articles in a library near you. I understand the demographic and 'experience' of hut/bivi users is probably changing somewhat, but it should not be forgotten that while a beaten up old bivi might not meet the standard of say an office worker out for a weekend tramp (complete with camping coffee plunger and milk frother), it would 100% meet the standard of someone caught in bad weather and at risk of hypothermia. There is a very real need for them.
Words like 'safe' and 'standards' have very different meanings and implications for different users in different scenarios. It is important that the original reason for building these huts/bivis is not overlooked. I hope this is reflected in the findings of the research. I daresay you will find some very valuable data (in the form of cracking yarns) from some of the ladies, gents, and others on here who have used huts extensively over their careers, and have probably been mighty glad to stumble across one from time to time. Some examples highlighting this in the link below:
https://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co....ng-snow-95985/
I can totally understand the concerns voiced above when considering potential outcome of a study like this, and what it might mean to a bean-counter behind a desk who may not appreciate the full value in a dinged up, mouse infested, tin and Hessian hut, and who doesn't often have the need to ponder the very basic tier of Maslow's hierarchy. Recommendations will hopefully consider education and notification - or any alternative to removal, which would unlikely help anyone.
Also, respectfully, could I suggest you review your survey intro for typos and grammar, or if it is not your strength or difficult for you (just a fact of life for a lot of people!), ask someone else to proof read it for you. For a piece of academic work, it was a bit hard to follow in places.
Best of luck with your studies, please post the outcome back here when you're finished! There'd be many on here interested in reading it.
Keep the shacks I say, I come there for the experience, not for the luxury, don't want the bells and whistles.
agreed the only huts I can moan about are a few with old sack bunks - not many around but that kind of bunk was a painQuote:
Originally Posted by Old_School
I have filled it out. I think the best way to keep the old huts is to fund the groups who use them to maintain them and let DOC focus on the tourist huts.
A few still operate that way. Ones that have a historic connection with X,Y,Z tramping/skiiing/mountaineering clubs I believe.
Done
The Permolat group is working alongside DOC and done a great job restoring the huts, i couldnt care less about the tourist huts either. I dont even call them huts, they are way to big to be considered a hut anyway.
I like how you called DOC the department of conservatism in the blurb at the beginning. Survey done
I can think of six people killed while in huts. There may be more but those are the six I know of. Four were because the wire tie downs were not up to scratch.
How many huts did those 6 fatalities involve?Quote:
Originally Posted by wobblyboot
Lake Daniels 2 deaths from memory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shearer
Landslide
DoC did a lot of landslide assessments 20 years ago from memory again. I found several huts closed, locked and with hazard signs on them at the time.
Sadly they hadn't put up signs to advise this at the trail ends.
But the conservation estate is full of hazards and they are very hard to eliminate
Personal responsibility is the final safeguard
If that fails then Darwin's Theory kicks in
Two, four at Barron Saddle when the number eight wire broke in a storm and two in the hut up the Motueka River which was swept off its concrete slab.
Ok. Didn't know about the Motueka river. What was the hut?Quote:
Originally Posted by wobblyboot
I think it was called Bushline but not entirely sure.
There are a lot of huts named Bushline spread around.