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.
The pioneer European working class settlers set out in the New Zealand colony an opportunity to escape the UK’s class-based inequalities.
Consequently in new Zealand there was freedom to hunt and fish, in contrast to the United Kingdom where only the aristocracy could access the best fishing and hunting by paying expensive fees.
For the early settlers, fishing and hunting were not simply sports, but a vital way to put dinner on the table. Today, with increasing costs of living, fishing and hunting continues to be an important source of food and also a harvest in game management terms. Thus, fishing and hunting has firmly remained in the sphere of the “working class” and not just the wealthy upper class.
DOC’s proposed charging fees is against the egalitarian spirit handed down from the early settlers.
I just don’t follow DoC’s thinking.
In DoC’s access charter it says “the public has a right to access public conservation land and waters, including for recreational hunting and fishing. We will guarantee this access, and where there needs to be restrictions that limit access, we will clearly explain why. Recreational hunting and fishing access will be underpinned by a fair system that ensures equitable opportunities for all New Zealanders.”
Equitable opportunities?
Why then DoC’s latest plan to introduce access fees?
Besides it’s against the Wildlife Act and Conservation Law Reform Act which outlaw the charging for shooting and fishing rights.
What’s up Doc?
I’m strongly opposed to the proposals!
Two very good comments before me, but mine is a question.
Where is Fish and Game NZ?
It should be rearing up over this for it undermines the very foundations of public owner-ship of fish and game reflecting the egalitarian society.
Going Over Board , This is New Zealand not the U.K. ! //// Is DOC is under CRAP Management ? Even if they Levy just Overseas Tourists, & leave Kiwis alone, they must remember It’s NOT cheap to arrive in NZ , as apart from Eastern Australia, we are so bloody far from anywhere ? so we must be very careful not scare, European/ British & North American Tourists away.
DOC is taxpayer-funded to administer public land, and facilities / assets thereon.
What is being proposed .. as regards Kiwi’s .. is to charge us for what is ours .. and for what we have already paid for.
Simply unacceptable.
We pay for fishing licenses already through out New Zealand, paying for the use of huts in my mind is reasonable in regards to maintenance costs.
As a guide in Taupo region, we have to pay an additional 7% and upwards of our gross income to the local Māori to work in the central plateau, the government said OK the lake and rivers that run into it are yours, and that’s that.
So this is no surprise, they will do what ever they want, let’s bend them over and screw them a bit more.
Peter
Turangi
“User pays” for access to hunting and fishing opportunities will become the norm unless enough people become politically active to oppose the trend.
The “authorities” of the Department of Conservation regard it as a business venture that entitles them to extort money from citizens as payment for access to our commonly owned public property and resources in it.
Any fool can predict that the requirement for hunting permits will result in fees for permission to hunt on public property. I do not recall many people asking to have to have these permits, they do not benefit the people that are forced to have them and they will definitely have to be paid for.
Private businesses like Hunting HQ are already commercializing the access to private properties that used to be freely granted by farmers.
We are required to purchase licenses from Fish and Game even though we receive less benefit in return for what we pay.
One of the ambitions related to the Predator Free project is to allocate specific areas for specific recreational uses that require payment for access.
There will be tramping, camping, picnic, bird watching, fishing, hunting and other other “facilities” managed by DOC for enjoyment by paying customers.
We will be manipulated by propaganda to believe that this is all necessary for the preservation of some threatened species of birds (because birds are “nice”) but the real agenda is authority, power and money as always.
The estimated price of the Predator Free EXPERIMENT was 9 BILLION DOLLARS and there was a predicted return of great profits from increased tourist and farming revenue.
The current price is estimated to be well over 18 BILLION DOLLARS and there predicted return has not and never will occur.
Continuing to pursue the Predator Free Ambition is going to be an endless repetition of poisoning ecosystems in which populations of rats, mice, stoats, possums and deer “bounce back” because the survivors of the chemical weapons reproduce at a great rate.
The cost of persisting with this lost cause will continue to increase and divert productive working people’s incomes to this unwinnable war, from other uses such as medical services, education, infrastructure and productive enterprises that benefit the people whose money is spent.
Conservation is defined as the avoidance of waste of resources but what we have is a MINISTRY OF WASTE and destruction that we cannot afford to keep paying for.
What our money is being so wastefully spent on is projects that the payers were never properly informed about or agreed to.
The majority of citizens that are effected by and forced to pay have never consented to this wasteful spending of their money and should not be forced to agree to pay for access to property which we all own in common so that more of our money can be taken and wasted.
The politicians and bureaucrats in our government have forgotten that we are their EMPLOYERS and not their SUBJECTS and we ordinary citizens need to put them in their place by becoming more responsibly actively involved and influential in the political process of choosing who represents us in our government.
Choosing to be “apolitical” is agreeing to be governed by a minority of oligarchs that do not care about the rest of the people or their wishes.
New Zealanders should not have to pay for access to public property which all New Zealanders own. The proposal is so bad in principle.
But a culture has developed in the Department of Conservation that it is “DOC Land”.
It isn’t “DOC Land”. It belongs to you and me.