protocol of bushwalking clubs

[scubabob]

As most of you are aware, i live in Victoria but i frequent this forum pretty well on a daily basis - great site, heaps of info, friendly and well, you treat me with respect as a newbie.

Now, I have wanted to join a club here in Melbourne to get some "hands on" knowledge rather than learn everything on the net or 'trial and error'. Problem is it seems that i have to go on several walks with them first and wait for up to a year before i can become a member. Is this standard protocol for bushwalking clubs and if so, why?

[tasadam]

Sounds strange to me but I'm not a member of any of the clubs so I am not sure of their protocols.
It would be an acceptable thing to do to check the links section and contact some of the local clubs through their web sites and ask them yourself, giving you the opportunity of asking them why if they do have such funny rules. If you find out, feel free to come back & share why with us.

A year of waiting?
(taken from http://www.john.chapman.name/links.html )
Bushwalking Victoria The Federation of Walking Clubs of Victoria is also fairly large representing about 70 clubs with 12,000 members. The web site is still growing and contains useful links to local clubs.

12000 members and a year each of waiting? Thats 12,000 years of waiting........

[ben.h]

As strict as it seems, this appears to be a common thing (I'm not a member of any club either as most of my walks are "as far as I can go in up to 12 hours" type of walks ). Check out the "Hobart Walking Club" rules for prospective members: http://www.hobartwalkingclub.org.au/html/prosguide.htm
Thats hardcore.

I guess "shopping around" would be a good idea because, as an example, the "Pandani Bushwalking Club" (another popular Hobart based walking club) doesn't have the same strict requirements. Check them out here: http://www.pandani.org.au/

[walkinTas]

Scubabob, it is common to have a requirement that you do a few walks before you join. It does depend a bit on the club and why they were formed. Still, most of these clubs are friendly and will welcome you, but before you join they like to get to know you a bit, and to give you time to get to know them.

So if you want to join a club, go for it. Go along, do some walks, meet the people and then decide if you really want to join that club. If not, try a different group.

[tas-man]

I joined the Brisbane Bushwalkers Club in 1969 and they had such a requirement than that new members were required to attend a "new members" weekend and at least three other walks in their first year of membership to become "full members" of the club. This procedure seemed to be a general rule amongst the "serious" bushwalking clubs at the time, and was aimed at imparting knowledge and raising the level of experience of new members, as part of their induction into the particular club they had joined. Another aspect was that if someone's membership lapsed and they later rejoined, they would have to go through the new members process again unless waived by application to the clubs executive committee - an incentive to promptly renew your membership if wanting to remain active I believe that in the early days of the development of bushwalking clubs, constitutions were simply adapted from existing clubs, and this process of inducting new members was probably spread in this way. When I moved to Tasmania in 1994 and joined the Launceston Walking Club, I was surprised to find that they did not have any such requirements - you paid your fees and you were in! This has become an issue in recent years with the tightening of insurance cover conditions for bushwalking clubs provided through and arranged by the national peak body representing all bushwalking clubs. The move has been towards no longer having trip "leaders" responsible for a club walk, but "co-ordinators" arranging the activities of a group of "peers." Clubs are now required to have a process of developing the skills of new members to the point where they participate as peers, being responsible for their own welbeing and safety when on club trips. The Launceston Walking Club has argued at state level against having to implement such a probationary membership system, and so had to document their process where "co-ordinators" discuss their proposed trips with newer members to assess their previous experience and level of ability, and provide formal feedback on the observed competence of new members to other co-ordinators, so that newer members do not go on walks that are beyond their fitness and abilities. Each club develops is own culture of walking, but in this era of potential litigation, clubs are being pressured towards conformity on how to pass on their knowledge and bushwalking skills to new members, while minimizing the risks and liability to the club and its insurer.

[Speculator]

As most of you are aware, i live in Victoria but i frequent this forum pretty well on a daily basis - great site, heaps of info, friendly and well, you treat me with respect as a newbie.

Now, I have wanted to join a club here in Melbourne to get some "hands on" knowledge rather than learn everything on the net or 'trial and error'. Problem is it seems that i have to go on several walks with them first and wait for up to a year before i can become a member. Is this standard protocol for bushwalking clubs and if so, why?

It seems to be that they do have these sorts of conditions. I was recently considering joining the N/W Walking Club, they require you to register as a prospective member for 6 months (I think), and attend a certain number of walks before becoming an associate member... or something like that.

L8r.

[Joe]

Most clubs will let you pay a nominal fee (to cover their public liability) and walk along with them though. So its not a big deal. I have been invited along on many of the NWWC walks by members. I reckon if you find a member and strike up a conversation you will find that the perceived arbitrary nature of the rules is a lot more flexible.

[mikethepike]

This topic on was all over in a short flurry about three years ago though one aspect of it confuses me.

Tas-man wrote:

The move has been towards no longer having trip "leaders" responsible for a club walk, but "co-ordinators" arranging the activities of a group of "peers." Clubs are now required to have a process of developing the skills of new members to the point where they participate as peers, being responsible for their own wellbeing and safety when on club trips.

How much if any, does this change in terminology actually affect a walk's modus operandi? After initially 'coordinating' (arranging) a trip, does the 'coordinator' morph into a trip 'leader' once the walk is underway or is the ‘coordinator’ making decisions based on the outcome of the majority viewpoint following the peer group discussion? That’s a bit what it sounds like. A kind of bushwalking democracy. (A nice change from autocratic leadres though).

And finally, does this change from leaders t o coordinators still have any relevance to clubs anywhere in Australia? And if so, are the old style leader and new style coordinator under the same legal obligations with regards to duty of care?

[Snowzone]

Hi Scubabob, As a fellow Victorian I would suggest looking for a club on the Bushwalking Vic site; http://www.bushwalkingvictoria.org.au/join_a_club.htm
Most clubs have a policy of two or three walks to join which is a good way to try them out anyway. This makes sure your not wasting your money by joining a club with a group of people your not campatible with or that have a program that is not really what you want. No point joining a club that only does day walks if your into extended walking.
I've not heard of having to wait a year to become a member This seems a bit extreme but I'm sure in Melbourne there are plenty of clubs to choose from so check their websites first

[walkinTas]

Might also be timely if I remind everyone associated with a bushwalking club anywhere in Australia, that you are very welcome to post Club details on our CLUB PAGE on the wiki. You can also send details to any of the moderation team and ask us to post them on the wiki for you.

[tas-man]

This topic on was all over in a short flurry about three years ago though one aspect of it confuses me.

Tas-man wrote:

The move has been towards no longer having trip "leaders" responsible for a club walk, but "co-ordinators" arranging the activities of a group of "peers." Clubs are now required to have a process of developing the skills of new members to the point where they participate as peers, being responsible for their own wellbeing and safety when on club trips.

How much if any, does this change in terminology actually affect a walk's modus operandi? After initially 'coordinating' (arranging) a trip, does the 'coordinator' morph into a trip 'leader' once the walk is underway or is the ‘coordinator’ making decisions based on the outcome of the majority viewpoint following the peer group discussion? That’s a bit what it sounds like. A kind of bushwalking democracy. (A nice change from autocratic leadres though).

And finally, does this change from leaders t o coordinators still have any relevance to clubs anywhere in Australia? And if so, are the old style leader and new style coordinator under the same legal obligations with regards to duty of care?

The whole idea of the public liability insurance led changes to club walk "leadership" arrangements was to remove, or greatly reduce, the "duty of care" that walk 'leaders" are encumbered with. Yes, it is intended that the walking group is a group of peers that can democratically agree among themselves about the trip details as they go, but the club's nominated co-ordinator acts as the club representative for the walk as far as recording names of those on the trip to pass on to the club's contact officers, and collect and divy up transport levies and such like. The co-ordinator and other experienced members may keep an eye on newer members who say they have the requisite skills and experience for a particular walk, to confirm they are managing OK on their first trip or two. It has been a cultural change that is taking time to transition in our club anyway. I would be interested to hear how other clubs around the country are managing.

[flyfisher]

There is an informal group that frequents this forum and which has about 12 participants, some of who go on various walks here and there.
These walks are organised on a consensus basis with somewhere between 4 and 10 on any stroll.
The duty of care is shared and although in the background, it is very much present.
This makes for a very relaxed and informal arrangement which has to date worked extremely well.
There is no designated leader for any walk and we are very much a democracy.
long may it continue.

[mikethepike]

The whole idea of the public liability insurance led changes to club walk "leadership" arrangements was to remove, or greatly reduce, the "duty of care" that walk 'leaders" are encumbered with. Yes, it is intended that the walking group is a group of peers that can democratically agree among themselves about the trip details as they go, but the club's nominated co-ordinator acts as the club representative for the walk as far as recording names of those on the trip to pass on to the club's contact officers, and collect and divy up transport levies and such like.

Thanks Tasman for the feedback. The recipe you give for club walks is how bushwalking should be IMO, i.e. all group members taking an interest in the walk as well as responsibility for self and the group members. It's very easy in a more formal setting for the leader to do everything (decide route choice etc) and for some members to just tag along such that, if the other members magically disappeared, they would have almost no idea where they were. And I know if that situation myself, that when you get tired, it's very easy to sit down and leave all the thinking on route choice etc to the leader. That's OK of course but the experience is better for everyone if each remains involved. I've introduced quite a few people to extended bushwalking and while I was the one deciding nearly everything, I never considered myself as the 'leader', just someone with more experience. I think that the less hierarchy there is in bushwalking parties, the better.

I would be interested to hear how other clubs around the country are managing.

My bushwalking club has recently taken the opposite approach to yours in response to recent rumblings about risk management and liability. It has introduced a program of 'leader endorsement' as another layer on top of formally progressing members from prospective to full membership. In my opinion, the 'fault' in the leader endorsement process is that it seems to have some ideal about how leaders should be but has no stated boxes to tick apart from the obvious things involved with organizing a walk group. I think that this approach risks the club acquiring a dull group homogeneity and persona. Not everyone likes everyone else's style, so pick the walks that suit you, but don't seek to regulate it. Why be so precious about it? A style that isn't liked apparently is one that is too casual. Provided you get the basics right (party makeup , gear etc), there's nothing very hard about a group of people going out into the bush for a few days. If you do have a group leader, and most newcomers to bushwalking probably like the idea, I think that the two essential qualities are a quiet approach if things get uncomfortable and a sense of humour.