Closed Tracks

Another closed track instance has come up here locally. After all the winds last week a windfall came down on a local track about 100m from the start and there was part of the trunk suspended in supplejack above the track. DOC identified the problem on Friday, didn't have time to clear it so closed the track for the weekend and then cleared it promptly on Monday morning. Top marks to DOC for identifying a hazard and then dealing with it as quick as they could. The closure effected the whole track with a sign at the other end which would have been about 2kms from the windfall. The windfall would have been inconvenient to a family group who might be pushing a pram up the track but was nothing special to a tramper who would simpily go around it. I have asked the question if track closure was the appropriate thing to do. It means that anyone who uses the track is techically committing an offence. We were running a pest control operation at the weekend so anyone who used the track was in breach even though most of the work was done off track so a windfall on the track was the least of our worries. It would seem to me that a warning of the hazard would be a suffient way for DOC to discharge their health and safety obligations yet allow those who wish to assess the hazard themselves if they wished to. I am not sure if a legal mechanism to do that exists so I have emailed the local oficial to ask if that is possible.
Just checked my email and have one from the local Area Manager and as far as she is concerned there is now power by the Department to close tracks. Interesting. Then why say the track is closed?
I assume you mean "... there is no power..." ?
Yep, sorry. typo. I meant "no power"
Hi again, this doesn't entirely have to do with the topic of this thread, but I thought it's interesting to know for those who find this thread interesting: According to the conservation act, DOC has "the mandate to FOSTER the use of natural and historic resources for recreation, and to ALLOW their use for tourism". That draws a very clear line between the (mostly but not only) non-commercial use of DOC managed land by people living in New Zealand, and the use for commercial tourism, and priorises local recreation over tourism. Not sure how many people at DOC are aware of this, but I think it is a wise piece of legislation and should be followed. Looking at many things DOC does and the strategies they develop, I'm not so sure they focus on this a whole lot though. Money makes the world go round I guess, and DOC has a very difficult job with this mandate. Matt
Thanks for the info, pmcke. It sounds like the kind of thing that some of the bigger recreation organisations like FMC and the Alpine Club may be able to attach their names to and influence change if volunteers are ever available to drive it. I wonder if this means that no DoC track is a designated walkway under the Walking Access Act 2008 or the NZ Walkways Act 1990 from which the later Act inherits all the previously designated walkways. As best as I can tell with my limited experience, none's been legally designated since 1993 (very few at all in fact, let alone by DoC), and before that the online data's not easily available. I just assumed that DoC might have designated 99% of its tracks within a month of the 1990 act being passed.

Sign in to comment on this thread.

Search the forums

Forum The campfire
Started by pmcke
On 27 September 2010
Replies 5
Permanent link

Formatting your posts

The forums support MarkDown syntax. Following is a quick reference.

Type this... To get this...
Italic *Italic text* *Italic text*
Bold **Bold text** **Bold text**
Quoted text > Quoted text > Quoted text
Emojis :smile: :+1: :astonished: :heart: :smile: :+1:
:astonished: :heart:
Lists - item 1
- item 2
- item 3
- item 1 - item 2 - item 3
Links https://tramper.nz https://tramper.nz
Images ![](URL/of/image)

URL/of/image
![](/whio/image/icons/ic_photo_black_48dp_2x.png)
Mentions @username @username

Find more emojiLearn about MarkDown