Firstly Matt I should like to thank you for the discussion, and I am not in any way taking all this personally. I agree with you on much that has been said, however disagree on other matters, which is both our ' right'.
I also agree that if it has 'stirred the pot' a bit then all the better for that.
The authority to close tracks that they use is Sec 13 of the Conservation Act http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1987/0065/latest/DLM104265.html?search=ts_act_conservation_resel&p=1
but it refers to closing an area. Is a track an area?
Thanks for digging that up!
"the area or any part of it"
...so I assume as a track itself occupies a certain amount of land that can be measured in square metres, at the very least a track is a "part of an area", so they can close the track as such.
BUT if they choose to close the track, as far as I can see that only applies to the physical track itself and there is no reason why that would automatically mean that any other area than that immediately covered by the track itself is closed. If they want to close an area, from this legislation it sounds like they'll have to specify - like on a map or in similarly specific ways - which area they close. So closing a track would not imply that you're not allowed to enter the area by bush-bashing.
I suspect that my above interpretation is correct; but that for the sake of simplicity, they simply "close a track", because they know that that will keep out about 98% of all trampers, since not very many are comfortable walking off track.
I find the "reasons of public safety" concerning. That's a clause that seems to allow them to decide what is too dangerous for me. Nonetheless, as long as they don't specify an area and only close the track, that only refers to the track; and since I rarely hear of area closures, that's not a practical concern for anyone who goes off track.
Interestingly, "the Director-General shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that members of the public are made aware of the closure AND THE REASONS for it". So that's good for starters.
Much of these regulations are reasonably difficult in practise anyway: If I enter an area by bush-bashing to begin with, I would not be aware of any area closure, unless they put up signs all along the edge of that area, through the bush and forest and over gravel and snow fields. So I might very well be inside a "closed" area without ever having had a chance of being aware of its closure.
Plus, let's be honest: How many people do you ever meet if you go bush-bashing? The chance of meeting anyone who could feel in the position to try and cause you trouble is pretty slim in many areas.
Of course I assume that if you should happen to run into e.g. a ranger in a closed area, their reaction will depend on the reason of the closure as well as on what exactly you are doing, and how you are interacting with them. If it's closed "to protect the public", most rangers I know would probably warn you, but feel that it's your own risk; if it's to protect the area, most rangers would probably take your presence more seriously.
But again, what can they do if you walked in on an uncommon route without seeing any signs? All you can do is to offer politely to leave the area, and they can hardly disagree with that offer.
Matt
Hi everyone.
normclimb - Thanks for your comments. I didn't wish to imply that experienced people were immune to accidents. Sorry if I was unclear, but I do believe people should have freedom to be responsible for their own safety and make their own decisions about navigating their way through public land. There are obvious complications in this, where some people will extend themselves beyond their abilities. In the Sharplin Falls case it was probably much easier to simply slap up a Closed sign given how most people using that track probably anticipate a safe DoC-guaranteed experience. I don't know how to solve this problem, but it's still the conservation estate and I'm very uncomfortable with DoC to simply be telling people across the board that they can't go there, even if it's legally unenforcible. If they mean to say "danger past this point", then that's what they should say.
mariku - thanks for the comments.
pmcke - thanks for finding that legislation. It looks as if the Minister of Conservation is needed to authorise such a closure. Section 13(1)(c) makes it legal to do this for safety reasons, but it doesn't appear to let DoC, or any local conservancy for that matter, simply slap a Closed sign up somewhere without Minister approval. I presume this is mostly used so the Minister can authorise the closure of regions for which it's vital to keep people out so as not to damage the ecology. Reading further, section 39(1)(a) officially makes it an offence to enter an area closed by the Minister.
HI may not be the place to put this question but does anyone know if docs fixed the ford - bridge across the Grey river at the mount gray river picnic area yet so cars - 2wd can get across as it was taken out awhile ago by some heavy rain and trees coming down the river?
izogi,
now that's where it's getting interesting.
So does that mean that any sign that doesn't explicitly say that it was authorised by the minister isn't worth the plastic it is written on whatsoever?
Or has the minister the right to "delegate" his ability to authorise such closures to someone at DOC, so they can in fact put up signs legitimately?
Matt
Probably no delegation if it doesn't specifically say so, because that steps around the point of the law. It'll mean the Minister needs to sign something to officially make an area closed.
I think the problem is a case of ground-level workers dealing with practicalities of weighing the responsibility DoC's given itself for people's safety, not wanting to be blamed for any accidents but without understanding or accepting of the law. To fix it properly, DoC needs to acknowledge its role as a caretaker rather than a gatekeeper, and make sure that every new employee at every conservancy is instilled with the understanding of what their role is and the fundamental rules they should be following. It also needs to make sure there are approved ways of dealing with this kind of thing that staff can use, besides lying to people that areas are "closed", for which their responsibility will be defended by the department if there's any accident.
Okay, new info. According to the Walking Access Act 2008, which may be more relevant here, section 31(1) states:
A controlling authority may close a walkway if it is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the walkway should be closed—
*(a) for safety reasons; or
*(b) during an emergency; or
*(c) for maintenance or development work on the walkway; or
*(d) at the request of the landholder of land adjoining the walkway.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2008/0101/latest/whole.html?search=ts_act_conservation_resel&p=1#DLM1244151
So I take back what I said in the previous post. I suppose DoC can close access to a walkway, as long as the various hoops have been jumped through to ensure that it's officially recognised as a walkway by the Walking Access Commission. Other parts of the act specify what's required.
Hi again izogi, thanks once again for researching this, must have taken you some time to find it.
So unless we have overlooked some legislation that applies, DOC does seem to have the right to close WALKWAYS, but not AREAS. That makes sense and is relieving.
For practical purposes, that leads to two questions:
1. Which tracks are considered walkways, in this legal sense?
2. And, finally: What is the maximum penalty for using a closed walkway?
Just out of interest and without any actual practical implication (unless you're very unlucky to "get caught" while crossing a closed track on a bush-bashing trip):
How is this legislation intended to be applied to bush-bashing trips? Does that mean I wouldn't be allowed to cross a closed track - the closure of which I wouldn't have a chance to be aware of in the first place anyway - so that closed tracks, legally, cut the landscape into separate pieces? The idea is kind of ridiculous, but it seems to be the case from all I can see at the moment.
Cheers,
Matt
Well section 24 states that for land to be considered a walkway, an official notice has to be published in The Gazette that declares it as such, and also that anything considered a walkway under the previous NZ Walkways Act 1990 remains a walkway.
You can search The Gazette at http://online.gazette.govt.nz/ , but the online edition only goes back to 1993. No notices appear under the Walking Access Act 2008 and only a few declarations show up under the New Zealand Walkways Act of 1990. My guess is that most official walkways would have been declared before the first online edition of the Gazette.
Personally I wouldn't worry about crossing a walkway closed in this way if you just happened to stumble upon it.
