Just noticed this proposal being heavily supported by FMC; explicitly in front of the public in time for the upcoming election.
The concept feels hugely exciting, but given the extensive area involved I wonder how an already underfunded DoC would manage.
This post has been edited by the author on 25 June 2017 at 14:28.
So who do I meet in that area at present? Hunters (often with dogs), horse riders, 4WD enthusiasts, snowmobilers, mountainbikers, x-county skiers, gold fossickers. All of whom (except the skiers) will presumably have their activities severely curtailed by a national park. Reckon FMC have consulted the current user base?
Really sounds more like a case for a conservation park to me, given the wide recreation base ... a la Oteake / tussocklands. That would provide protection but not ruin a great playground for those of us who currently use the area.
Real challenge is joining up all the current fragmented network of CA's, public-access-covenant land, etc. Stuff slowly dribbles into crown hands as properties go through Tenure Review, but there are gaps everywhere with pastoral leases in between and no public access. FMC make no mention of how they suggest that land is obtained.