article on selfie taking and off track walkers in blue mtns

[wildwanderer]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-03/f ... h/12406892

Agree with the part about selfie takers.

The bit about offtrack and experienced walkers being high risk for rescues seems a bit confused. I suspect the researchers definition of offtrack and experienced is not the same as many experienced walkers would define it.

[north-north-west]

According to the study "experienced"" walkers are those who have been to the NP more than once. They aren't experienced, they're just repeat visitors looking for a bigger thrill. It takes a damn sight more than two or three straightforward tracked daywalks to be an experienced bushwalker.

[GregG]

Yes, nature can be cruel. Further proof of Charles Darwin's ideas about survival of the fittest.

[mandragara]

The idea that an experienced walker is someone who has been to a park more than once is laughable. So I can do Bob Turner's track in the Wollemi NP twice, then undertake a North-South Traverse of the park as I'm now an 'experienced' walker?

I suspect the researchers chose this criteria in order to have an adequate sample size in order to draw statistically meaningful conclusions. At the expense of those conclusions being meaningful in an absolute sense.

The suggested 'solution' of capping the number of visitors to the parks is an odd suggestion. How would that change walker behaviour?

Yes, nature can be cruel. Further proof of Charles Darwin's ideas about survival of the fittest.

Nature is indifferent. Nature put a cliff there, it's out fault if we fall off! Leave poor Mother Nature out of this

[GregG]

Yes, nature can be cruel. Further proof of Charles Darwin's ideas about survival of the fittest.

Nature is indifferent. Nature put a cliff there, it's out fault if we fall off! Leave poor Mother Nature out of this

Haha, the shortcomings of not having a sarcasm indicator in written English, I suspect that we both are saying the same thing Mandragara but using a different set of words. Most but obviously not all people view nature as inexorable. A situation is not going to become any less dangerous because someone has an overwhelming desire to post themselves on social media sitting on the edge of that cliff. This study appears to suggest that measures should be adopted to protect risk takers from their own ( stupid) decisions, for me the big question is how do we do that without covering the world in bubble wrap ( is Christo still around?). It is said that the two most prevalent things in the world are hydrogen and stupidity, in which case we are going to need one hell of a lot of bubble wrap. A good site to check out is https://darwinawards.com, highly relevant to this discussion!

[GregG]

Ooops, too late for Christo, he died a few weeks ago.

[rcaffin]

I don't see Nature as being inexorable. I see Nature as being utterly indifferent to me.

Cheers
Roger

[Neo]

I'm all for natural selection...
Also like helping (city) people get out to learn some.

[clarence]

I wonder what the correlation was between risk taking behaviour and frequency of instagram posts.

When the researchers make suggestions like limiting visitors to national Parks, I reckon they don't have much of an idea.

Clarence