Victoria University of Wellington Tramping Club
Welcome to VUWTC Sign in | Join | Help
in Search

VUWTC News

Mr Ryburn and the student trekkers make it into the Herald

Trampers, farmers in step over report

5:00AM Thursday March 08, 2007
By Paula Oliver  and Mike Houlahan

Original article in the herald 

Farmers and tramping groups marched in step yesterday, praising the walking access report for endorsing a negotiated approach for people wanting to enjoy the great outdoors.

Federated Farmers were pleased the panel ditched "right to roam", instead favouring an access commission to negotiate agreed routes for trampers across public land.

Federated Mountain Clubs said such a commission would ensure public access to publicly owned land.

"The panel's proposals are well thought out and achievable," Federated Mountain Clubs president Brian Stephenson said.

"We are delighted with the outcome, and we think the whole thing is good news for everyone."

Trampers and farmers had previously been at loggerheads over using farm tracks to get to scenic locations. Most clubs arrange use of private land before trips, and Federated Farmers spokesman Bruce McNab said most farmers welcomed visitors.

Craig Ryburn, chief guide with the Victoria University Tramping Club, said student trekkers generally encountered few access problems, but in some places getting to tracks was becoming an issue.

"It is something that needs to be looked at because it is getting worse."

Mr Ryburn had had few problems with farmers, although on one tramp in the Ruahine ranges a farmer had used a chainsaw to fell poles meant to mark an access route.

"I think it's a minority of people, who are more naive to the situation than anything, who tend to spoil it," Mr Ryburn said.

"I can sometimes see the farmer's point of view, but at others times I can't see the issue with five or six people wandering across their land to get access into somewhere. Most people who go through aren't going to cause damage to fences and will leave the gates as they found them."

Hugh Barr, secretary of the council of outdoor recreation associations, said in the short term nothing would change for trampers, but in the long-term, maps showing access to public land should be more readily available.

He hoped the panel's proposals could mean better access for trampers to beauty spots, especially to forest parks and some coastal tracks.

"With a public access commissioner there's a chance he may actually get around and chat to people and see if there isn't some room for movement in these sorts of things," Mr Barr said.

"In significant places where public access is blocked at present, then negotiations might be able to come up with better compromises than we have."


Dissent over public access

A member of the independent panel which examined land access issues has broken away from its recommendations - saying they do not go far enough.

Bryce Johnson, an advocate for anglers and outdoor recreationists, said: "It [the access commission] cannot negotiate from a position of strength and cannot guarantee an outcome when other parties refuse to negotiate."

Mr Johnson said yesterday he had filed a minority view to the panel's final report and pointed out that he was the only member of the panel with an outdoor recreation advocacy background and all the other members had identified "rural" connections.

People wanted a "champion" for public access and so the agency should have the authority to pro-actively initiate and settle, and determine new and "lost" access rights.

Mr Johnson urged the Government to address situations where landowners "unreasonably" retained rights of veto over public access.

- Paula Oliver

Published Thursday, March 8, 2007 10:23 AM by Hannah

Comments

 

Quentin said:

I do disagree with Craig on the extent of the difficulties. This summer I have had a number of access issues that have thwarted planned trips. Here are two:

1. I was twice denied access to Cheviot Downs hut in the Takitimu Forest Park by the farmer who controls the only road access to that area (which includes the Excelsior Peaks). First time the reason he was hunting in there and he wasn't letting anyone else in for safety reasons , and the second time I pushed him and it became clear he was refusing everyone point blank to keep his exclusive hunting block for him and his mates. I told DOC and they said others have found the same, DOC has even been excluded sometimes, and they will look into it.

2. We wanted to access Arthur's Pass National Park through Mt White Station land, and were refused. Significant areas like the Mounds of Misery, Esk River, Ant Stream are difficult to access from the other side. Perfect upgraded huts like Lochinvar Hut and remoter ones like Andersons Hut are inaccessible without crossing Mt White. And they're a Pastoral Lease, so the land belongs to the NZ people anyway!

In other places, access has been good especially where easements have been negotiated post Tenure Review. And I have chatted with landholders who grant access but have to deal with poaching, vandalism and so on.

I think the policy needs more teeth - if farmers have veto rights, then they can simply close the door and set up their safari parks if they want. Like with most things, most will be reasonable, but a few won't and the policy should concern a process for forcing the latter to negotiate. Private property rights are never pure and sacrosanct, they are always subject to conditions and at times sacrificed (e.g. public works or mining), usually with compensation.

Cheers, quentin

March 8, 2007 1:35 PM
 

CraigR said:

Hey Quentin,

I still stand by my comments - you'll note I said that generally there aren't too many problems for members - true - the majority of trips members want to do they can without any difficulty of access, but there are issues and they do seem to be getting worse in some places.

However I did get caught a little off guard by that interview - the guy called me on my cell phone on Wednesday avo, and I had a chat to him then. In hindsight I'm not sure if I should be providing comments on behalf of the club, as it is difficult to gauge everyones feelings on issues, or represent a diverse range of opinions. I will bring this up at the next committee meeting because I don't want people to feel I'm misrepresenting them.

In terms of the policy - I refused to comment on that, since I hadn't read the latest report, and felt that even if I had, it was a more contentious issue, which would be even harder to represent the club on.

Cheers,

Craig

March 9, 2007 8:47 AM
 

Quentin said:

Craig, no sweat. You are correct that generally the club doesn't have problems, but the further afield one goes, the wider the problem. I don't have an issue with you misrepresenting the club - my post was a little stronger in 'disagreement' than I intended.

It is interesting that media reports had FMC praising the outcome ...

March 12, 2007 11:55 AM
Anonymous comments are disabled

My News Notifications

Syndication

Post Calendar

<March 2007>
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
25262728123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
1234567
Powered by Community Server, by Telligent Systems