Yee haa, another one bites the dust!
June 29th, 2005 at 9:20 am by David FarrarAnother Government plan has bitten the dust, thanks to Opposition parties and sector groups.
Labour are backing down on forcing farmers to provide public access near waterways.
Amazing what an election will do.
How many days will it be until Labour do their next backtrack? Will they have any policy left by the time of the election?
No tag for this post.
June 29th, 2005 at 9:38 am
That
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 9:43 am
Excellent news, thanks for blogging this.
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 9:52 am
They are not backing down they have moderated its edges and left themslves plenty of room to impose the policy should the Greens insist on it and Peter Dunne. Therefore National needs to say that the only way to guarantee this policy will not fly at all is to vote National as Labour could yet impose it.
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 9:59 am
Take a big bow Gerry Eckhoff. No politician has done more (or even come close to doing as much) to get it this far. Add it to the FART tax Gerry.
Tim, and others, don’t be fooled into thinking National aren’t into land grabs too. Despite the rhetoric they supported Nick “your land” Smith’s bill to do a remarkably similar thing. Along with Labour and the Greens. What does that tell you?
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 10:01 am
Had to be a no-brainer surely? Not much chance of selling it an anything other than allowing rabble to stomp & drive around your farm (even if that wasn’t what would happen).
Personally, I’d have thought there’d been more trumpeting of biosecurity concerns – isn’t that just such a neato way to spread foot & mouth & other rural nasties around NZ after returning from your farm holiday in far flung spots?
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 10:03 am
Tim is quite right in that this is a tactical retreat, rather than a reversal. No doubt after the election they will try again, if in power.
Rich – nothing can compare to Helen go from proclaiming closing the gaps as the most important cornerstone policy of her government, and then a few weeks ago announcing they will no longer fund on the basis of race.
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 10:08 am
What Labour will do if still in power after the election is amend Nick’s bill in select committee to exactly match what they want then pass it through. That way the Nat’s can take the blame for the controversy.
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 10:19 am
Another one bites the dust ? – you mean the National policies as well. Like the one about cutting off the DPB for mothers who have new children- and for those who dont go to work when the oldest gets to 14.
Of course improving the poll ratings amoung women might have something to do with it, ( poor Catherine Rich had to take the can for opposing something Don later changed his mind).
As for the polls , NP has changed its mind over the release of its detailed tax cuts 3 times now.
Vote:You would know this too David since you have your people phoning up every night and passing the results to Dons office who then tell him what to say. Quell horror that labour does the same !
You protest too much, but I hope Curia is making plenty of money doing Nationals polling- that is if its truly independent from the NP ?
June 29th, 2005 at 10:32 am
ADF, If National is using donors money who cares how independent Curia is? It is stupid to try and load polling anyway. Skewed polling doesn’t do anybody any good.
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 10:35 am
Never ceases to amaze me that no matter how many times Ztev/Auto-da-fe is banned, he always comes back to make personal nasty snide comments.
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 11:28 am
Im only saying that Curia , more than likely does NP polling, of course David is the best man for that and I would doubt he is skewing anything, the idea is ridiculous . But of course the results get to Dons office the next morning ( your clue about working nights was the tip off here), thats why parties pay for their own polls , they dont wont to read it in the newspapers if its not good. Plus they want to keep secret targeted polling which gives u turns in policy. Blind freddy can see labour is doing this , but so is national,its called being professional, it also wins elections .
Vote:Sorry if you see this as being personal Aarron , but you of all people should know this-( winning elections by listening to the voters)
ps it was a guess that Curia may share some directors with NP MPs or party officials , nothing wrong with that, who else does DPF mainly associate with ?
June 29th, 2005 at 11:47 am
Curia is 100% owned by DPF Group Ltd which in turn is 100% owned by me, and has a sole director – also me.
We have lots of clients, and it is always up to clients to confirm if they use us, not vice-versa.
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 12:43 pm
very interesting indeed…when will National be withdrawing support for comrade Nick’s bill?
This whole thing is a yet another example where an ACT MP’s work is attributed to the CR, and National claim the victory as their own, and reap the gain in the polls. Perhaps Curia could do a targetted poll of Farmers to see their response to Nick’s land nationalisation/theft bill, and whose effrts were expended to get this backburner position.
Vote:This issue is not over by a long shot, and will rear its ugly head again after the election
June 29th, 2005 at 1:04 pm
Curia is very happy to do a poll of farmers, if someone will pay me for it. I’d do a poll of Southlanders on what they like about Auckland if someone will pay me for it.
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 1:11 pm
This land access thing has got me worried. One of these ‘significant’ waterways happens to be my family’s water supply. I’m not inclined to allow the local hepatitis support group to have its annual nature trek through there. I might have to have a word to Dr Smith.
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 1:46 pm
Autocafe, there is a fine distincion between being a dickwith and being a fuckwit. I’m not quite yet sure where to place you but decision time is closing fast. At 10.19 you say “…uria…..is doing NP’s polling” and then at 11.28 you say “…more than likely is doing NP’s polling,”
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 1:52 pm
There is reasonably open access to countryside in the UK, with a network of public footpaths that cover most of the country. There is free access to countryside in Scotland, with an (informal?) agreement between farmers, landowners, and the public that as long as walkers close gates, don’t disturb animals, and stay away from buildings then people can go where they want. In both countries the country is full of people walking at the weekend.
And yet I’ve never heard of even one case where hepatitis has been transmitted from a walker to a farmer via contamination of a water supply.
I don’t think that allowing the public to access things like waterways is that big of a deal. Theoretically this might be against property rights. But overseas experience shows that there is no reduction in value to the property owner, so why get upset about it? Urban property owners put up with far more serious property encroachment from things like pollution from passing traffic without making it a property rights issue.
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 2:11 pm
BJ – Nick’s bill is not to do with access, but to do with sales to overseas oweners.
It would only affect those who are selling land to foreigners, and basically it means that if one had title to some of the what is considered queens chain, you might have to not include that in the sale to a foreigner, and instead sell it (with independent valuation) to the Crown.
There is a legitimate debate about Nick’s bill, but too many people try to portray it as something it isn’t.
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 2:41 pm
Even if the govt is going to buy the land to be yeilded to Queens Chain at the same rate the foreigner is prepared to pay, there is the undeniable fact the offer price will be considerably lower than if this land theft legislation/bill didn’t exist. In reality, would you be prepared to pay full market price, if you knew that the government are going to take the front 5 m of your property and allow Helen Clark to stroll through at any old time she so wishes?
Vote:For me personally, the thought is abhorent, and that doesn’t even take into account the malarky I’d have to deal with from the SPCA for subjecting my livesock to such stresses.
June 29th, 2005 at 2:56 pm
The hepatitis example was just hyperbole. The property I live on has about 30ha of Tawa forest in a valley with a couple of significant waterways running through it. The well from which we pump our household water is within five metres of the source of one these creeks. We tend not to let people into this area of the forest, even though it is the most beautiful. My grandfather has an agreement with DOC to maintain walking tracks throught the rest of the forest though, and it is all protected.
I just don’t see why we need special one size fits all legislation covering the whole country. Why can’t local government handle access issues? Who is backing Sutton’s proposal? Who is really going to benefit? I don’t get it.
What’s more, an American chap has just bought the adjoining property, which one of the streams flows through. I’d just like to know who is backing this? Is it a United Future/Outdoor rec thing? Is it both major parties courting them for a coalition?
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 3:03 pm
“and instead sell it (with independent valuation) to the Crown.”
How very socialist. We all know that the best independent valuation is the market. The fact is the land (that is bought by the individual) will be devalued due to the mere possibility of people walking along the land.
And the whole “when sold to foreigners” thing makes me feel even worse about it. It’s very nationalistic and so is Winston Peters.
Hang on a moment I’ve just accused Nick “your land” Smith of being both a nationalist and a socialist in the same post. Better stop now before I go any further.
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 3:23 pm
David, you know what I mean. I don’t want kids, pets or dead possums or anything else in my drinking water. We have the same system as England. What you are talking about is formed roads running through private land. It’s nothing to do with waterways.
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 3:40 pm
If I buy a piece of land I consider that I have also bought the right to decide who strolls about on it.Call me simple but that’s it.EOS.
Vote:If worst comes to worst and Labour is re-elected,I would simply ignore this pernicious legislation,when it was inevitably enacted.Have Kiwis never heard of “civil disobedience”?After all,what’s the worst that could happen to landholders if they ALL banded together and said to Helen “Nah, bugger off.”?
June 29th, 2005 at 3:58 pm
It’s kind of hard Mara to be civilly disobedient when you are trying to sell your piece of land to someone from overseas (they have the type of money your willing to accept) and Nick Smith comes along and says “no – you must sell that to me, at this price”
Come on National party people denounce the bill for what it is.
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 4:22 pm
Mara… civil disobedience works both ways. Consider Kinder Scout, the flattish topped high point in the UK Peak District. There were a couple of public footpaths in the area, but the landowner forbid people to step off the footpath on to his land. Even tho it was nothing but scenic peat bog without grazing, agriculture, or buildings.
Thousands of ramblers protested this back in the 60s or so. They’d walk up in a very long single file. Then all stepped off the path simultaneously. Even hundreds of police couldn’t arrest them all, especially considering arrested people had to be carted several kilometers to the nearest vehicle.
Now you can wander freely around the top. You can bounce on the peat, catch the amazing views from the rocky escarpments, and be on your own most of the day. None of which degrades the owner’s enjoyment of their ownership.
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 5:05 pm
Nice to see National getting back to their roots – the landholders vs the rest of us. Those are pretty good odds for the rest of us. Keep it up, Don!
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 5:14 pm
All I can say is that I am very glad that I am not in Nick Smith’s electorate, as I couldn’t vote for him, due to the piece of government sponsored theft that he is proposing. As for you David, what is your membership number- you must be a card carrying commie to support such and anti property rights position? 1st step 5m, then 1000m…nationalisation in the name of the group/commons
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 5:27 pm
Reasonable people can disagree on Nick’s bill, but I do wonder if those who regard it as communism (which is silly) also regard as equally abhorrent the ability of the state to purchase land so roads can be built?
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 5:38 pm
Can you explain then DPF why it only applies to land sold to foreigners?
If it is of such national importance that the state owns this land then why not get the sticky beak into each and every transaction?
To liken this to buying land for roads is absurd. The whole “for the national good” argument is just a lame duck excuse for a land grab. It’s the same thing Sutton was talking about and which you have cheered the demise of DPF.
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 6:38 pm
This one is a deep piss off. All you gloating pricks KNOW PERFECTLY WELL that it was not a “land grab”. I have seldom seen an issue so grotesquely misrepresented by the Opposition parties. An overdue and sensible piece of legislation, backed by more than six years of research, consultation and a full Commission has been badly hurt by a bunch of opportunistic power-grabbers willing to say anything to get back into power:
1. They utterly mischaracterised it as “wander at will’. You know perfectly well that isn’t true. It was all about clarifying access rights to the existing Queens Chain waterways, negotiating to fill out those gaps in the system that had high “Access Values” and to codify standards of behaviour and responsibility when availing oneself of this right. Face it guys…your political masters went out and made claims quite to the contrary…and you love them for it. What word does this bring to mind? mmm… Liars.
2. It is misrepresented as a “land grab”. Another absolute lie. The Queens Chain is a reality. It has existed for over a century. Succesive govts have neglected it to the point that many land-owners came to believe it did not exist…and now when someone calls them on it…they bleat “land grab”. And another round of scaremongering results in this mess…. Hypocrites.
3. Funny how the Nats were willing to castigate the govt when it consulted with Maori over the seabed and foreshore issue when that was claimed to be a “land grab”; but when the boot is on the other foot with white, Nat voting farmers making exactly the same illegitimate “land grab” claim…they back it to the hilt. Racists.
If you guys had any honesty you would just come out and say what you really want…that that you want to totally repeal the Queen’s Chain, so as you can grab back the 70% of it currently in public hands.
Actually what I see is a National Party that is not only getting it’s policies written in Washington, but it’s political strategies from them too. It’s the same lying scaremongering Karl Rove playbook that got Bush into power, and may well do it for Brash too.
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 7:06 pm
Pundito… As I’ve pointed out, public access to privately owned land works perfectly well in England and Scotland. If that is “communism”, then it is civilised communism that has existed quite happily for hundreds of years and I’m happy to be associated with it.
Now I expect you’ll want to respect my property rights. Your vehicle exhaust won’t blow on to my land. You won’t make any noise that could be heard on my land and therefore reduce my enjoyment of it. And you won’t object if I want to build another SkyTower and turn out to be your neighbour. Let me know if you’re compliant here, or joining me in communism.
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 7:30 pm
This afternoon I went down to check out some of our streams in the bush. Hell, the vegetation is so thick 5m from the waters edge that you would need a machette to get through it.
So does someones ‘right’ to use the queen’s chain enable them to start slicing through native vegetation? What about erosion? Some of those gullies are pretty steep, so can we sue people for trampling on the ferns that hold up the bank? I guess not, because it’s their ‘right’ to go there.
We have walking paths set aside for people to use. We don’t need arseholes coming in and running roughshod up the tributaries because it’s suddenly their ‘right’. Jim Sutton’s bill stinks. They have only put it off so they have something to dangle in front of United Future and Outdoor Rec when it comes time form a coalition.
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 7:34 pm
No I am SO pissed off I am going to explain why. Unlike those of you who are gloating over this for political reasons, I am hurt and angry for personal ones.
I did my first tramping when I was 12 years old. That was almost 40 years ago. Since then I’ve walked and tramped and wandered over huge parts of this country that I love so deeply. In my mid 20′s I did a solo winter traverse of the South Alps, Milford to Anatoki. I’ve a huge stack of unpublished photos of thousands of bits of backcountry corners and places most of you will never see. Walking to me is a fundamental part of me, it is huge part of who I am and how I see myself.
In those 40 years I’ve seen access, to waterways and some farmland become more and more of a problem. The Queens Chain has been deliberately neglected to the point of almost nullity. Finding out who actually owns a piece of land in order to spend 10 minutes cutting across a corner, or up a creek bed for a kilometer or two, is often impractical. Legitimate recreational users were looking forward to legislation that clarified the situation.
Personally I would have prefered the European or even Scandanavian model of public access to private land, but I was willing to compromise and go with far more modest legislation proposed. It seemed workable in the NZ context.
But now even this has been gutted. And for what. The nats lied and twisted the whole thing until it became politically unsupportable just before an election. Your leader lies for political gain. He’s done it over an easy matter like this…and he’ll do it again over something far deeper.
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 7:54 pm
Utter bollocks BJ. In 40 years of tramping in this country I have NEVER seen anyone use a machete to navigate even the densest bush.
The legislation was all about clarifying existing rights, and negotiating practical, responsible access.
Good on you for setting aside walking paths. If these are in fact clearly signposted and pratical to use, then 99.9% of anyone who wants to go anywhere near your land will use them, and not go wandering off to trample and ferns or cause erosion in gullies. So where was the problem?
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 8:49 pm
Hey BJ I lived in the bush for years – 70km dirt road to get in,no power, no phone,no newspapers, no tv, no radio, Kiwis in your backyard at night. Loved it. But it sounds like you’re getting a bit of cabin fever to me.Logix is right about the paths.
Logix – Love the passion.:)
Don’t agree with your political analysis though.Its Labour thats done the U-turn.
Allah protect us.
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 8:59 pm
Logix, you haven’t seen this bush and you didn’t answer the question. If vegetation is blocking the route does it stop people from clearing it, clambering over it or crushing it? It’s insanity to have a path formed within five metres of a waterway. That’s the most delicate area ecologically. People need to stick to the tracks the owner has put in place or stay away.
Vote:If there are stock in an area then they should always ask the farmer first.
June 29th, 2005 at 9:31 pm
Yes BJ the Queens Chain (QC) concept was always a bit of a compromise. Of course the 5m nearest the waterway is not always the best place for access. The QC originated at a time when most immigrants to this country were aware of English system, and the long history of class struggle for the ordinary people to establish a balanced and workable public access to the outdoors. The debate ran for centuries in Europe and was deeply embedded in their awareness.
As a result in NZ we got the QC…a 20ft/5m strip of land next to all significant waterways. Probably a bit of a horses-ass of a compromise, but it’s been there for over a century, and it is what we have to work with. Given that NZ farmers would never countenance a more liberal arrangement, we attempted to simply clarify the QC, and set in place the framework to formally negotiate access, and put in place a clear code of responsiblities for those who wished to avail themselves of this right.
Now you don’t even get that.
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 9:37 pm
David: You say “There is free access to countryside in Scotland, with an (informal?) agreement between farmers, landowners, and the public that as long as walkers close gates, don’t disturb animals, and stay away from buildings then people can go where they want.”
Surely this is what we already have in NZ? Most farmers are fine with you if you pay a bit of respect. What they don’t want is a codified right to come onto their land even at night, close to their buildings, when you are large groups of yobbos (I know, one person’s yobbo is another person’s brother, but the right to make that choice is part of private property rights). I don’t see that as being unreasonable.
Basically this bill was another example of Labour attempting to remove decision making power from the people, and replace it with decisions made centrally by the gummint.
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 9:48 pm
Precisely, paul. No legitimate, respectful hiker is going to benefit from this. It just gives the yobs license to use your property to sneak into the pine forests to hunt pigs etc. That’s what Sutton’s bill seems to be about; buying the pig hunter vote. There are about 20,000 of them in NZ from what I hear.
Vote:Most of them know people who will let them hunt on their properties but there are a lot of rambos out there too.
June 29th, 2005 at 10:01 pm
Logix:
Well, that works both ways. I come from farmers on both sides of the family, and most townies have NO IDEA the damage a careless tourist can cause.
I assume someone whose has been tramping as long as you have, and from such an early age, practices basic country etiquitte. Most people do, and in the overwhelming majority of cases farmers are highly reasonable. But, as so often happens, it’s the minority who screw it up for everyone.
And I know you don’t want to hear this, but the Government and various lobby groups have nobody but themselves to blame for the negative public reaction. You know, if I was constantly slagging you off as an ignorant, lying “anti-Kiwi” Labour Party tool, I’d expect to have the arrogance repaid with interest. Sutton didn’t even have the guts to front his own policy, instead Fish and Game etc. were taking the heat.
I know Don Brash is the convenient scapegoat for EVERYTHING in your book, but how about Labour takes a little responsibility for his arrogant disdain for us peasants.
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 10:22 pm
Listen to yourselves… a kiwi replay of English landed gentry scoffing on about lowlife poachers and the like.
As for your idea about absolute property rights, there is no such thing. You are not a tiny petty sovereign state on your little patch of dirt. If you think for a moment you will realise that there are a whole range of things the state intervenes on in regards to your use and occupation of your land. The Queens Chain already exists as a public right over 70% of waterways. I could if I felt bloody minded enough find your patch of ferns next to your creek and trample them to my hearts content…with legal impunity. The proposed legislation would in fact clarify that such behaviour as out of bounds. By trying to bury the issue all you are doing is perpetuating the current unsatisfactory arrangement.
What I wanted to see was that existing access to be properly signposted, tracks marked where needed and responsibilities defined.
Yes I ask landowner’s permission where it seems rational to do so, but so often the landowner is not living anywhere near the land, nor is finding out who they are all that easy. Yes most kiwi landowners are decent about it when asked…but experience has shown that an increasing number of non-kiwi landowners, have a quite hostile attitude.
OK so the current loose arrangement has kind of suited landowners and recreational users in a kind of kiwi rural way. But the times they are a changing and as a nation we need to make steps to formalising this issue. As a recreational user I was happy to see this legislation as a practical workable arrangement, if less than perfect…but from landowners, nothing but noisy outrage and bluster.
At no point was the legislation intended to give yobbos unrestricted right to wander at will wherever they liked, and doing so is a wilful misrepresentation.
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 10:29 pm
Sorry about the crap grammar in that last post. I’m tired and pissed off..time to head for the pit.
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 10:52 pm
To quote from my post on the issue:
Q. What is the real, REAL reason they want this “right”?
Vote:A. The hunters are taking tourists up rivers to fish and hunt for hundreds of dollars and don’t want to split any of the money with the person whose land they are actually hunting on.
June 29th, 2005 at 10:54 pm
Trample my ferns and you’ll get what’s coming to you(a bloody great lawsuit). I don’t care how tired you are. No seriously mate, even though you are a naive labour hack you must realise the potential damage this could cause. This bill will do nothing to stop yobs wandering as long as they stay five metres from the water, which is difficult to ascertain where I live because of long grass/ferns etc. And that’s the worst place for them to wander as you yourself admitted. The bill was indefensible in the form Sutton presented it and I bet it gets whittled down to cover only major rivers like the Waikato and Motu which lots of people want to access. I’m happy to see it fall by the wayside.
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 11:06 pm
DPF: apart from bridges, when does NZ build roads on rivers and lakes?
Vote:The issue about recompense for new roads is bogus in this example. The land taken in infrastructure projects is suitably fenced off from the public so the remaining area is clearly demarcated.
The issue of right to roamhs many negative facets, of which most have been conveniently hidden from the general public. Have the govt allowed TV to remind the public that it was Raomers who transported Foot and Mouth farm to farm in the recent UK disaster. (Given that F&M is rampant in parts of Asia, and the ease of access to such parts, it is not inconcevable that these free roamers could become the vector of disaster for NZ’s economy).
Logix, by all means come on down and try to build a sky tower in my backyard. You might have a few problems withthe local council and Transit nz (I’m not even allowed to build a self contained apartment for visitors because the govt stole my right to such freedom without recompense).
Logix your argument fails about the QC, because there are parts of it that are simply not scalable within 5m of the waters edge, and so trespass must happen if the obstacle is to be overcome. These are the situations where landowners rights are run roughshod over. For every good tramper who takes care to minimise their effects, there are many who don’t and just cause havoc. (Give that guy down in Castlecliff Wairapa a call and he’ll cite many instances of livestock theft/ abuse/ escape, littering, fence damage, pathway/track demolition by way of 4wders, etc.
If it means so much to you, then what is so unreasonable as to simply ask the owner for permission to cross their land?
The other issue is, who is expected to pay for the installation and upkeep of millions of km of track for the benefit of a minority of individuals- The trampers, the taxpayer or the landowner?
June 29th, 2005 at 11:25 pm
Disclosure: None of the entities that I control own waterside property (the stuff that I did have was sold by communal members without my knowledge or recompense- the legal fees to get my families dues would have just made the lawyers wealthier, and left everybody out of pocket). So for those of you who will argue that I am the one being selfish here, there is your pre-emption.
Vote:June 30th, 2005 at 9:18 am
What is apparent is the current situation is not workable. The QC is a dreadful old compromise, that is full of holes.
For a start it only covers 70% of waterways…but which 70%. It’s not marked on the NZS maps and it’s never apparent on the ground. As BJ correctly states it’s often not the best place to be walking anyhow.
As pundito states, the topography around gorges and bluffs frequently means that you are going to be more than 5m away from the water.
Then there is the related matter of “paper roads”, many of which are marked on maps, but again the legitimate use of them is compromised by locked gates, buildings, plantations and “private no entry” signs.
Asking landowners’ permission is not always practical. It’s not always straightforward to ascertain who they are. Sometimes the actual owner lives many km away, on a totally different block, or has a day job in town and is just not around to ask.
Most landowners recognise that it is the decent thing to allow responsible people access to pass over their land, tacitly acknowledging that the public do have a legitimate claim in this respect. But there are those who don’t, and just as there are a minority of yobs who spoil it for the majority, there is a minority of landowners who are equally unhelpful to your cause.
The question of biosecurity is a bit of a red herring. It is possible that walkers could become unwitting vectors for F&M, but do farmers, farm workers, stock agents, contractors and the like, who are far more frequently on your farms and in much more intimate contact with stock, never take overseas holidays? Yes it is a potential problem, but certainly not specific to roamers, and can be controlled in the event of a F&M outbreak, by simply declaring the region affected off-limits for the duration. I am not going to dismiss your concern in this respect, but I would demand to see some solid research and convincing evidence before I gave it a lot of weight. Until then my reaction to this is pretty much along the same lines of kiwi apple growers locked out of the Aus apple market because of bogus fears about fireblight.
Personally I believe this issue will not go away. There are far more than 20,000 pig hunters in this issue. Add up all the trampers, fishermen, canoeists, rafters, mountain bikers, and skilled hunters out there. We all have a strong and legitimate interest in how we manage access to the backcountry and waterways.
And most of us get rightly pissed of with ignorant people who abuse access. In Europe there is a very well understood code of etiquette in this respect, and a key part of the proposed legislation was to formalise and ensure increased public education in this respect. When most people damage your fences or gates, disturb stock and cock things up it is largely out of ignorance. Only a minority of stupid young boys typically go out of their way to maliciously damage property, and whatever laws are passed will mean little to them.
Taken as a whole the current situation regarding responsible and legitimate access to the backcountry and waterways needs reform. Both from the landowners and recreational user’s perspective. Gloating over the demise of this rather timid little step in the right direction is not going to make landowners current problems one wit better. Nor is it going to make us responsible recreational users just shutup and go away.
Over and again we have pointed out that in the UK and Europe they have far more liberal public access to private land than we were even contemplating in this legislation. And no-one has honestly addressed the very plain question of why, if it works in Europe, more populated and intensively farmed, why we cannot devise an arrangement that works here in NZ.
This reform was long overdue. What really makes me angry is that it was scuttled by an opposition that spread lies about it. Nowhere but nowhere did it propose “roam at will”. They lied about it, and you are taking pleasure in that.
Vote:June 30th, 2005 at 12:47 pm
Here is a scenario for you:
Vote:I am in Wellington and want to go to Auckland. I plan to travel by road. My problem is my car just died as I happen to be passing the Avis car park. I can’t find an attendant, but there is a fully fueled car with keys in the ignition. Should I take it? It it theft?
June 30th, 2005 at 6:50 pm
pundito,
I will answer your question, but I expect an honest attempt from you to answer mine.
The difference between stealing a car, and walking over a piece of backcountry land in a responsible manner is:
1. At no time is the owner deprived of his or her beneficial use of the land.
2. The land will for all reasonable and practical intents, be in exactly the same state after I walk over it, as before.
Neither would be true if I hijacked your hypothetical Avis rental car.
Now answer my question:
“And no-one has honestly addressed the very plain question of why, if (very liberal public access to private land) works in Europe, more populated and intensively farmed, why we cannot devise an arrangement that works here in NZ.”
And bear in mind that the Europeans and English do understand “property rights”.
Vote: