tramping info for NZers

Just did a check through the current diary which goes back to mid 2013 and 80% of the time there were no other parties at the huts or camp sites I/We used. This time period covers mainly Nelson/Marlborough/Canterbury & West Coast trips. If only West Coast was included I/We would have had the huts to ourselves well over 90% of the time. I'm sure if I went back thru older diaries there would be times when no other parties shared huts for periods of forty hut nights. In recent years I've gone in to the scrub many times here on the West Coast and not met another soul. It obviously depends where you go but there are plenty of places left you can go where you will meet very few people and are unlikely to have to share huts or camp sites.

various parts of fiordland and aspiring parks, and nelson lakes are having the huts overloaded with tourists, the tararua huts are also getting overloaded in a no of locations. the north end of the north island, various huts have been overloaded and several have recently been turned into bookable huts to stop the overloading... plus several new huts have been made bookable even though at least one of them is seldom ever over subscribed...

Always amazes me why there aren't more huts in the NI, considering the population. Less National Parks and Conservation Areas?

I've heard that too Wayno but I was pointing out that there are still areas where there is currently little pressure on facilities. Madpom and Hugh also illustrated that point. I'm a bit self selecting in that I steer clear of Great Walks & other popular areas at what are likely to be busy times. e.g. JH & I went in to Angelus Hut straight after a snowfall and were the only ones there. Winter on the Heaphy or Kepler and there are few people about. JetNZ the high concentration of huts in the SI and particularly the West Coast has to do with historic deer destruction programmes and the harsher climate. (perhaps also more pressure from the likes of "Permolat" to preserve old huts) More huts in areas currently without huts esp in the NI could be a partial answer to overcrowding of some huts? Personally I don't like the big lodge type huts that have gone in some areas and don't like that as a solution though DOC are currently doing this. I think this makes the overuse worse! With smaller more basic facilities people might spread themselves around a bit more and be less likely to cause pressure on what have become popular areas?

With smaller more basic facilities people might spread themselves around a bit more and be less likely to cause pressure on what have become popular areas? Good thinking. The same effect can be seen at Holdworth, Atiwhakatu, and Totarara Creek in the Tararuas. There is no doubt that the provision of more facilities has seen a marked increase in use. In one sense this is very much a good thing and I don't think there is anyone arguing to roll this back. At the same time we used to be a lot clearer about the concept of 'wilderness' areas that are deliberately maintained as low access, minimal facilities places that retain that remote, untouched character and 'worth the hard effort to get to'. As the tourism business finds increasing profit from our Conservation estate the tramping/hunting community will find itself in a fight on this issue.

At some of our 950 odd public huts, on some nights, there are more people who want to sleep than there are mattresses. ? What do we want to do about it? Historically - I spent a night in a hut once on a very wet night on a long weekend, counted 60+ people trying to fit into a 24 sleeping-place hut. (There were no mattresses provided at Tutuwai in the years it was a new intrusive monstrosity). Another time we had 12 people sharing six undersized bunks - but no one offered to sleep out in the storm on the rocks of shipowner ridge. I don't recall anyone considering it a 'problem' as such. A bit later on - we paid a bunch of people to go manage the situation (who got called DoC) - without necessarily giving them much specific directions about what we wanted done. They've used a couple of approaches around our estate but the most common response was to build bigger huts, much bigger huts, mostly at the places where at the time the noisiest complaints were coming from. There are quite a few of us, who are not happy about aspects of the situation regarding hut usage and some of the other interacting factors involved in Promoting Conservation, Fostering recreation and Allowing tourism on our lands. With the benefit of experience, hindsight, and a wider world view - What do we want to do about busy nights at certain huts now?

@madpom - you actually met RHS (and mandy?), I am so jealous. There was a period where I wasn't seeing new entries from RHS and I became quite concerned that something had happened to someone I had never met yet still felt connected to from all the logbook entries. While I personally don't like to spend my time on the well manicured tracks and in the massive huts they serve a purpose as loads of people do use them and get to enjoy the great outdoors. Even in quite developed areas it is not that hard to step off the main routes to get away from the crowds and there is plenty of remote country left in NZ. Just spent 9 days in Westland and didn't see anyone else until we met one person walking in about an hour from the road end.

@JETNZ , @glennj, @PhillipW - good positive stuff! My piece was written to go in the discussion after Wayne's.

Encouraging and supporting people to use a wider range of our existing facilities seems like a sensible idea. Personally I would prefer to see no more great walks, or huts that sleep more than 4 - 20 people. And much more emphasis on conserving the experiences and facilities we have, and supporting more people, where ever they happen to be born, to go and benefit from our backcountry.

Yes. Met RHS and Mandy at xmas in Snowy hut. He keeps an eye on the place & does repairs. He'd been having some health issues so less active and widespread. The dog was lookin a bit old & stiff too!