SISTEMA DE NÚMEROS ENTEROS

• SAR Incidents

Hunters (all types) were the subject of 80 SAR operations during the 2007-08 year. These represented 21% of all SAR cases for the outdoor recreation activities targeted in this report20_{. Of these around 85% (68) were related to big-game hunting, including 51% from}

deer hunting and 27% from pig hunting. The distribution of SAR cases by hunting type is summarised in Figure 14, which also shows the recent trends in occurrences for these different types.

There is no data available on hunter numbers and effort related to each of these specific hunting types so relative incident rates cannot be calculated for these individually. However it is possible to compare other combinations of hunting types based on participation estimates from SPARC’s Active New Zealand Survey (SPARC 2009a)21_{. These are presented in}

Table 3 opposite, where it is clear that there are differences in the rates of SAR incidents between hunting types. The hunting types used here reflect those used in the SPARC survey, and the categories under which SAR cases were reported. These figures clearly show that deer and pig hunting were represented in a higher proportion of SAR cases than were other forms of hunting. The main question is the extent to which this occurs.

Figure 14: SAR Incidents for Different Hunting Types (2005-2008)

Based on the hunting participant estimate from the SPARC survey (10,118) the incident rate of over 6 SAR cases per 1000 participants (Table 3) is the highest of all outdoor recreation activities considered here. Some may consider the SPARC participation estimate low,

20 _{Including tramping, hunting, freshwater fishing, mountaineering, snowsports, and mountain biking} 21 _{Refer Section 1.3 for description of the methodology, which explains why we use this estimate.}

especially when compared to the commonly cited figure of around 40,000 based on Nugent (1992) estimates. But even when that higher estimate is taken into account in Table 3 the resulting rate of 1.5 incidents per 1000 is still considerably higher than for hunting (all), and in fact is still the highest for any of the outdoor recreation activities considered here.

Table 3: Hunting SAR Incident-Rate Estimates (2007-08)

Activity Type SAR incidents

(2007-08) participants Estimated Incidents/1000 participants

Hunting (all) 80 150,343 0.532

Hunting - other 17 143,598 0.118

Hunting - deer/pigs (Active NZ estimate) 63 10,118 6.227

Hunting - deer/pigs (estimates after Nugent) 63 40,000 1.575

These figures are indicative and are based on best use of the limited data available. If we had better measures of true activity effort such as ‘hunter-days’; ‘total days hunted’, ‘participant days’ etc22, then a more accurate estimation of activity-specific incidence and relative risk would be achieved. The last calculation of national hunting effort was conducted in 1988 (Nugent 1992), which estimated that for around 40,000 hunters there were actually over 770,000 days of hunter effort. Calculation of SAR incidents relative to this more accurate measure would be much preferred and much more useful.

However irrespective of total rates, one reason that hunting appears to have relatively higher rates of SAR incidents is that it is a widely dispersed activity. Unlike much other backcountry recreation activity it is often undertaken in remote rugged areas where few other recreational users would be present. Given the tendency to have small parties or to hunt solo, the potential for requiring assistance may be relatively higher.

The highly dispersed nature of hunting is reflected in the locations of SAR hunting incidents shown in the SAR-Hunting map (Map 3). These are widely dispersed across many very remote mountainous areas of New Zealand with little apparent clustering, apart from a general North Island concentration in the Central North Island around the Kaimanawa- Kaweka Ranges, Huiarau-Ikawhenua Ranges, the South Waikato Hills around Tokoroa, Mangakino and Te Kuiti, and in the Rotorua-Murupara area. Cases are generally widely dispersed elsewhere with only very small clusters in areas such as the western Tararua Range north of Wellington, the Richmond Range near Nelson, and the Longwood Range near Invercargill. Opportunities to expand on and drill down in to such spatial information would provide much more site specific value.

• Injury Incidents23

While ACC categories did not distinguish different types of hunting, the ACC records collected for hunting overall showed it had relatively low levels of notable injury rates. During the 2007-08 year there were 114 new ACC claims for notable injury related to hunting overall. These comprised 0.43 percent of all new ACC claims from sport and recreation injuries in 2007-08. At this level hunting was comparable to fishing, boxing, softball and ice skating (refer Table 2, Section 4). Looking more specifically at the six main outdoor recreation activities targeted in this report24, hunting injury claims represented only 7 percent of that outdoor recreation sub-group (refer Figure 5, Section 4).

Based on SPARC overall hunter participation estimates (SPARC, (2009a) these 114 cases represented an incident rate of around 0.76 per 1000 hunters (Table 4). Compared with other outdoor activities this rate was most comparable to that for tramping (0.62) (Refer Table 2, Section 4).

Table 4: Hunting ACC Claim Rates (new claims in 08) Activity Type ACC claims (new

2008) Participants (estimated) Claims/1000 participants Hunting (all) 114 150343 0.76 • Incident summary

From a search and rescue perspective hunting represents a range of different challenges and issues. Hunters are a far more dispersed activity group than other outdoor recreationists. They are also more likely to be found in less popular outdoor areas, and away from commonly used tracks and locations. Much of the activity during the hunt itself will be off-track in rugged and forested conditions. In addition, while groups may travel to hunting areas and camp together, on the hunt itself they may sometimes be going solo. While hunters may be more likely to have greater backcountry experience than most other recreationists, the potential for injury in rough conditions compounded by remote off-track locations is higher.

In risk terms this may mean they are likely to be subject to higher levels of accidents and injuries than would back-country trampers. The search component of SAR operations may be more prominent for operations involving hunters compared with trampers, most of who would be on recognised track and hut systems if injured. While rare, the added risk of firearms-related injuries does increase the possibility of life-threatening situations beyond the usual range of outdoor recreation risks.

8. TRAMPING