Special Report
Will New Zealanders have to pay access fees to go tramping, trout fishing, deerstalking or bird watching or other outdoor recreation on their national parks and public conservation lands?
That is the proposal being floated by government, i.e. Department of Conservation and conservation minister Tama Potaka.
Government recently released two discussion documents. Minister Potaka described the content as being “the biggest potential changes in conservation in more than three decades.”
But there’s been strong reaction.
President of the New Zealand Federation of Freshwater Anglers Casey Cravens of Otago said the proposal flew in the face of the egalitarian philosophy around trout fishing.
“The laws of New Zealand specifically forbid the charging of fishing rights. It’s part of the egalitarian culture that the early settlers ensured,” he said. “With the current crisis around cost of living for families, the proposal is insensitive and poorly timed.”
Casey Cravens pointed out that just recently Fish and Game NZ carried out a study, in conjunction with the University of Otago, examining the link between trout fishing and wellbeing.
“The research found angling prompted feelings of happiness, helped connection with self, others, nature and place, and allowed a break from stress. It also created opportunities for different generations of family to come together and learn from each other,’ he said. “Besides it shouldn’t be forgotten by the Minister and DoC that by law, the department’s obligations include a statutory responsibility to foster recreation on the public estate, arguably equally to it’s responsibility for conservation.”
Unjustified
Chairman of the Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations Andi Cockroft of Wellington said the suggestion of the Department of Conservation charging New Zealanders for access to public lands such as National Parks and conservation lands is not justified and is repugnant.
“The idea is totally out of step with the egalitarian culture of equal opportunity for all irrespective of wealth and ethnicity, the European pioneers set out to establish. The pioneers sought to avoid the feudal system of the home country where the best outdoor recreation, particularly fishing and hunting, was by way of access money – directly or indirectly – the privilege of the moneyed upper class.”
Andi Cockroft said presumably the motivation behind DOC’s proposal and Minister Potaka is simply a revenue gathering exercise.
“DoC’s bureaucracy can certainly do with scrutiny and reform as to wasteful spending.”
Forest and Bird, reacted strongly and said, “Connection to te Taiao (nature) is a fundamental part of being a New Zealander. All New Zealanders should be guaranteed the ability to connect with our natural environment regardless of how much money they earn.”
The Department of Conservation (DoC) has always complained of insufficient funding faces unprecedented financial pressure to manage its biodiversity and recreation-enabling responsibilities. Already DoC charges hut fees.
This could be the thin edge of the wedge.
Readers may recall the National government with John Key as PM and Treaty minister Chris Finlayson handed the Urewera National Park to the Tuhoe tribe without the permission of the owners, the people. DOC’s salaries are paid for by the taxpaying public as is Tama Potaka’s. Haven’t the public paid via their taxes? Why should the owners have to pay twice?
In any case there are important society-related aspects as mentioned, i.e. egalitarianism.
The Minister shd at least have the dignity to say “sorry, oops, we don’t have any money and are scrabbling to find a way to pay for a Department that has way too much stuff and land to look after, all thoughts and suggestions on what the heck to do would be greatly appreciated, as we are out of ideas.” Dept of Conservation appears to now actively work against the interests of the NZ public, worshipping at the altar of Gaia rather than working for the people who pay their salaries. Time to clean house.
we dont want lairds of the land (like they have in england) the lairds been the nz govt here wanting us to pay for fishing etc on our land,rivers etc, doc and the govt is paid for by us tax payers, we own them,what a load of old bollocks unreal neil in blenheim
Yes, the thin edge of the wedge. We have lost much access over the last 15 years or so, miles too much. I pity our young people. Oh, for freedom to roam!!
The managers and staff of the Department of Conservation seem to be assuming some things that are not correct.
1. They assume that they DOC is a business enterprise.
A business is a privately owned organization that provides desired goods and services in return for payment from WILLING BUYERS. DOC is funded by taxation to manage our communally owned property for the benefit of the people whether they are willing to pay or not.
2. They assume that the lands and resources they are managing belong to DOC and refer to them as DOC LANDS. They and too many of the rest of us have forgotten that these assets belong to all of the people of New Zealand.
3. They have decided that the individual “users” of these communally owned assets have to pay for access to them. They ignore the truth that these “users” are also owners of the assets that have paid by taxation for DOC to manage them.
4. They have decided, without the consent of the majority of the owners, which species of plants and animals should be allowed to live in our communal property and which should be eradicated at our expense.
5. They are waging a war to eradicate some species and using highly toxic chemical weapons of mass destruction without the consent of the majority of the owners of the resources they are supposed to be managing.
The Department of Conservation is not a business venture that owns assets and sells desired goods and services to willing buyers.
It is a government bureaucracy that is supposed to manage public assets and provide the people with desired benefits in return for the money they pay through taxation.
A large amount of the money provided is being spent to try to achieve what is called the PREDATOR FREE AMBITION that has been imposed on the citizens of New Zealand without the approval of the majority.
The cost of this experimental project was initially estimated to be 9 BILLION DOLLARS and a return of hundreds of billions of dollars in extra revenue from tourism and agriculture was also predicted to offset the costs.
The current estimate of the cost is over 18 BILLION DOLLARS and there is no evidence of any economic or social benefit for the citizens of New Zealand that are forced to provide this money.
The proposal that individual citizens of New Zealand will have to pay again if they wish to access their own property is evidence that the “Predator Free” ambition has failed and is NOT AFFORDABLE!
There is also no evidence that this “war” against “introduced species” has been or ever will be successful. Each time an area is poisoned to reduce the populations of possums, rats, mice, deer and other “enemies”, the survivors just breed up and replace the casualties.
How much more money will the productive working people of New Zealand be forced to pay (by taxation and access fees) to fund an experiment to eradicate “introduced species” from their own public property and without the agreement of the majority to do so?
How much pollution of our environment with extremely toxic chemical weapons that harm and kill all organisms that metabolize oxygen, including insects, micro-organisms and “native species” can we afford to pay for?
How many more BILLIONS OF OUR DOLLARS are we willing to spend to try to achieve an ambition that even the promoters of agreed was probably impossible?
Spending money to try to achieve something that is impossible, unaffordable and not agreed on by the people that are forced to pay for it is not conservation.
Conservation is defined as avoidance of the waste of resources and this Predator Free project is and will continue to be a waste of public funds and other resources until enough sensible people demand an end to it.
The objection is NOT to trying to protect “endangered species”. They are other less destructive, safer and more affordable ways to preserve them.
The objection is to the excessive and escalating waste of the incomes of productive working citizens of New Zealand that provides them with no benefit in return for their money.
Predator Free Limited is controlled by a cartel of vested interests.
Stated ecological outcomes have not been independently been assessed. It is a social engineering project.
There is no accountability for it’s actions on private title, it is out of control similar to Auckland City rush hour traffic. Rude, aggressive, unwarranted haste and associated collateral damage.
Regards
Andi Cockroft is right the suggestion of the Department of Conservation charging New Zealanders for access to public lands such as National Parks and conservation lands is not justified and is repugnant.
Undeniably and given the cost of living pressures on NZ families, the proposal to charge Kiwis will mean they will be “priced out” of their own backyard.
It’s pretty heartless by Minister Tama Potaka and DOC’s head oiffice bureaucrats.
It will effectively creates a two-class system, those who can afford it and those who can’t.
Charge all people entering NZ other than NZ passport holders a couple of hundred dollars, if they can’t afford it then there’s less pressure on public land facilities.
New Zealand is ruled by a Democratically elected Government – basically that means ruled by the people for the people.
The Government of the day does not own the land and its resources, those are owned by the Crown.
Thus land and its resources are a public asset, over which, via the Democratic process, are managed by the people of New Zealand, and in their interest.
Access the the Crown Land ought not to be restricted. Charging to enter – have access to –
is a restriction, and ought not to be allowed.
It amounts to little more than a subtle means of imposing another tax.
It’s not new coming from DOC bureaucrats. In 2017 Department of Conservation (DoC) director general Lou Sanson publicly said New Zealand could follow South American countries in charging for access to national parks.
Sanson came up with some screw-ball ideas at times such as when he accused hunters of liberating sika deer in north Taranaki (they had been there for years and probably Sanson wouldn’t recognise a deer if he tripped over it). He fired up imagined threats from the public over DoC’s mass poisoning policies. The result is some DoC offices are closed to the public during working hours. So much for public servants, operative words.
What the Minister of Conservation Tama Potaka and DoC need to realise is that New Zealand was founded by people who had deliberately abandoned a feudal society built on privilege and a pecking order to one based on social equality and opportunity for all.
That kind of society is shown by a resistance to commercialising the outdoors and is written into the laws around fish and game and charging for rights/access to those recreations. There are modest licence fees for trout fishing and hunting.
The society in the UK the early settlers escaped from was and is one that is NOT founded on equality but on privileges bestowed on the wealthy upper class by accident of birth or by possession of wealth.
It’s in NZ’s egalitarian society’s ethos that as of right the public have ownership of fish and game, of national parks and publicly owned preserves such as forest parks and conservation land.
I’ve witnessed DOC “at work” and as a taxpayer have seen some big wastage and mispent public funds.
I fully support Charli Baycroft’s comments especially number 2. They are NPOT DOC’s lands.
Tony reminded us of just how far Lou Sanson was from any kind of understanding of the real effects of DOC’s approach to saving the environment.
I was surprised to learn from an academic researcher who’d been among the 1080 scientists and they genuinely believed in their propaganda and could not understand why anyone would be opposed to the use of 1080.
Opponents of NZ’s liberal spreading of rat bait have eventually had to accept that you can’t fight nonsense with logic.