DOC to backtrack on some changes nationwide

I'm not sure I mind if DOC doesn't maintain millions of tracks anywhere and everywhere, though certain facilities like huts and bridges in various places that mightn't be in the most popular areas can be quite important and worthwhile. With @waynowski's example there might be fewer official Tararua tracks, but there are still countless spurs and ridges and river routes around the Tararuas which people still use, and which often have old markers or improvised markers or less official ground trails. I'd definitely like for DOC to recognise and act consistently with people still having rights to go to places which aren't official DOC-maintained tracks, and be reasonable in working with people and groups who want to maintain their own tracks and routes, including providing the occasional resources and expertise when necessary because sometimes good facilities in strategic places are still needed for a useful track to work. The Huts and Tracks Fund seems a good step towards this. I'm fine with the way of thinking that we all really need to be actively involved as a community if we want to keep the network that we have, instead of just demanding that the government does it all. Track Closed signs really annoy me, though. There are heaps around Egmont National Park, for example. Even if DOC's specifically referring to its own maintenance of a track when it puts up a sign, it still comes across as DOC telling everyone that it's illegal to walk past the sign.... which if anything probably just encourages a culture of visitors thinking that they're not allowed off tracks, and expecting DOC to be responsible for their decisions.

Is "Track closed" also a blanket measure to say "Things aren't right and you use at your own risk" ?. The flip-side of "Nobody warned us" ?.

Thing is, sometimes there are excellent reasons for DOC to advise people about what's ahead. If DOC was saying "please stay on the marked tracks because we're trying to protect some rare plants around here" then I'd be far more likely to respect it. But in some areas they just say "Track closed", and there's no information besides 'trust DOC' about why people shouldn't just barge on ahead anyway. If you briefly ignore that DOC can't actually lock people out of a track because they can't lock people out of the land (okay, sometimes they can with many hoops), is it "closed" because there's a washout? Is it "closed" because there's some delicate flora ahead which DOC's trying to protect? Is it "closed" because a tree's fallen down even though 95% of people could easily climb around it? Is it "closed" because DOC's underfunded and no longer wants to vacuum up the twigs? Here's a sign in Egmont National Park, around the corner from Waiaua Gorge Hut. https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8568/15739096313_6ed71972f9_z.jpg [Flickr link if you need a bigger rendition: https://www.flickr.com/photos/83154423@N00/15739096313/in/album-72157650467732525/ ] Some time ago there was a bridge straight ahead, still shown on some maps, across the northern branch of the upper reaches of the Waiaua River. (MapsPast link -- http://mapspast.org.nz/?zoom=14&x=1686036&y=5646908&layerid=NZMS1%2F260%201989 courtesy of @madpom -- but for some reason I can't get it to link direct to the 260 series from 1989.) Today, the main track diverts up-river slightly where there's no bridge but a reasonable ford. Very closely behind where this sign is, and I guess potentially able to catch someone out if they're paying less attention than they should be or if it's dark, the remaining track goes straight over a vertical bluff that's maybe a 10 or 20 metre drop. It'd be *great* if the sign said something useful and informative like "DANGER BLUFF", or "BEWARE STEEP DROP", or anything which would alert people to what the actual problem is. Instead it just says "WARNING TRACK CLOSED. DON'T GO HERE!" There's nothing to help people self-assess whether the sign's talking about something relevant to their own skills and abilities.

the people who decide to authorise the making and putting up the tracked closed signs must know what the rules are around closing tracks. despite this they have another rational. maybe DOC look at the types of people in an area and their general experience, if they are worried too many people won't cope with a rough badly maintained track they think, lets put a closed sign up to keep out the people we believe will end up getting into trouble to make life easier for them and the authorities. maybe its a crude way of risk management... like when they "close" the milford track when theres heavy flooding.. if that is the case maybe they see the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? or something along those lines? i was looking at doing a track where it was "closed due to avalanche risk" i had an email conversation with a head ranger who told me the track was closed. I responded I was experienced in being in those conditions and could risk assess the situation myself and would make my own decision about whether to proceed or not... he never bothered to respond to my email... legally he had no comeback and I had a valid argument and he couldnt really argue his standpoint anymore... DOC could just put a sign up saying the track isnt being maintained anymore, or hasnt been maintained recently. proceed at your own risk or if you are experienced navigating on rough tracks.. effectively that is the state of a "closed track"

A leaked survey shows staff at the Department of Conservation feel underpaid, have little confidence in their senior managers, and more than half of those surveyed are thinking about looking for a new job. http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/280604/doc-staff-in-the-doldrums,-says-survey

Just to be clear those signs are not on fringe routes, but core track network, ie RTM track. The actual state of the track amounts to sections of uncut knee high grasses, some shrubs hanging low, the odd fallen tree. I read this as some kind of protest from regions directed at national office about track maintenance funding. "See, we have to put these signs up, thats how bad it is".

"the people who decide to authorise the making and putting up the tracked closed signs must know what the rules are around closing tracks. despite this they have another rational." I think in DOC's administrative mindset, tracks don't have much legal standing anyway compared with areas of land (tracks are just an abstract line of maintenance) and so saying a track's closed means nothing more than that DOC's not bothering to maintain that line any more, or DOC no longer wants to vouch for visitors' safety (as if it ever really was). It's just DOC's chosen terminology for saying that it's no longer recognising or maintaining that abstract line. If visitors mis-interpret that to mean access to the land beyond is illegal then ... well ... people are easier to manage when they stay within nice tidy boxes and who cares if they're only there because they'e been deceived about their rights? But DOC and/or the Minister actually do have real powers to genuinely close access to land in certain circumstances, so sometimes these signs can be very confusing if it's not clear whether the access is genuinely closed or if it's just DOC making stuff up.

"so saying a track's closed means nothing more than that DOC's not bothering to maintain that line any more, or DOC no longer wants to vouch for visitors' safety (as if it ever really was). It's just DOC's chosen terminology for saying that it's no longer recognising or maintaining that abstract line" Not so sure on this. About 2 years ago they made a big thing about closing Block 16 and Bull Mound track into the Tureniku and they aparantly went to the extent of removing all the track markers etc. The reason stated was that both tracks end at a ford of the river which can be a little hairy. On the other hand though when the dry weather track was created from Holdworth to Totora flats all that was done to close the old track was a log across the track at each end and reposition the orange triangle. The old track definatly isnt maintained and its a clamber over a few old slips and treefalls and Totora stream still isnt nice to cross if high but still quicker than the new track.

So its still perfectly legal to go onto tracks that doc have said are closed. Obviously, if its due to kauri dieback you wouldnt go there, but otherwise if its just closed with no reason/due to lack of maintenance, its legal? I mean, obviously you are then taking responsibiltiy for yourself and doc absolve all responsibility, but I didnt think they took any responsibility for the safety of those using the track system anyway?

Hi @Size12. It's possible for a defined Area of a Conservation Area to be closed under the Conservation Act, or for a defined Area of *some* National Parks to have access restricted if they have a bylaw which allows this (several do but many don't). But closing a track, or even saying that it's closed, doesn't even make sense because it's still legal to access the land immediately to either side unless that area's also closed off. Tracks themselves barely have a legal status in either of these Acts, except for a few brief mentions about how and where DOC's allowed to construct tracks but without clearly defining what they are. DOC uses the access-restriction ability for implementing its no-camping policy within 500m of Great Walks, but as written in the bylaws it more specifically defines it as an area rather than a track, by stating that camping's not allowed within the area defined by being within 500m of the line drawn on the map in the bottom drawer of a filing cabinet in the basement of a specific regional DOC office somewhere.