Junction Tops - Cascade

I would be keen to go exploring. A www.tramper.co.nz forum expedition? With petition to follow to try to emphasize the importance/value of these remote tracks for trampers and hunters alike..... Too Idealistic??? - may be, but keen for a look anywho!

Yes, you're right, Pmcke. I just stick to reinstating overgrown NZFS tracks that lead to remote huts and bivs. If they don't get visitors, they get removed so we've saved a few from that fate so far.

There's a lengthy 12 page thread over at Fish n' Hunt about Air Charter Taupo having lost the contract. http://www.fishnhunt.co.nz/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1281938466 I don't suppose much can easily be done about it, but in the one time I made it into the Kaimanawas I remember thinking that the private land boundary was designed quite badly in the first place. The boundaries are a bunch of overlapping triangles cut out of the middle of the range that pays no attention to the actual topography. Annoying corners of private land just happen to jut over otherwise handy ridges, making it necessary to go around silly ways just to get between points A and B on public land. From the landowners/leasers perspective, I think they'd love it because it creates a much larger buffer of public land that's harder for non-paying clients to get to than what they'd have if the land boundaries had been drawn up more sensibly. If you're a high enough paying client for Air Charter Taupo, I suppose you can walk between the public and private land wherever you choose. I've heard that in the past, NZFS workers used to just ignore the boundaries of the East Taupo Land Block and waltz straight over the private land, even encouraging "public" tracks over it, until the owners cracked down on it. There aren't excuses for trespassing, but even re-negotiating small parts of the boundaries could do a lot for making the public parts of the Kaimanawas more accessible. Ideally there would be much better access negotiated than what's available right now... I hate seeing mountain ranges and not being allowed to visit. It just feels wrong.

What actually happened was that Air Charter Taupo did allow trampers across the land until relatively recently. Then when renegotiating their lease they found that they were bidding against someone else and ended up paying a lot more than they had in the past. Air Charter then asked DOC to help share some of the cost as trampers were using their land as part of the Forest Park. When this broke down we ended up with the permit system. Air Charter have always claimed to be the good guys as they say that if the alternative lease holder had got the block they would have closed it to everyone. I don't believe this new lease holder is the same as was bidding before and I don't know what their attitude to trampers will be. I gather there are some delicate negotiations going on. But whatever, it is private land and they are as entitled to exclude people in exactly the same way as you do in your own back yard at home. We have to get used to that. The boundaries are purely an accident of some NZFS cartographers pen sometime a long time ago. My position has been that, access granted or not, the Forest Park is effectively split in two by the private land. There is a thin sliver that connects the two halves but no track going along it. I think it would be prudent to have a route forged through there so that if access is denyied, or even just charged for, there is an alternative for trampers who wish to remain within the boundaries of the Forest Park. But I think it is up to us to locate that route. I have been meaning to do it for years, just haven't got around to it. DOC I think are reluctant to do too much development in this park because, as they say in the Management Plan, people prefer it because it is LESS developed. And they have a point there, hence the budget for new tracks does not go too far.

Thanks for the history note, pmcke.

"But whatever, it is private land and they are as entitled to exclude people in exactly the same way as you do in your own back yard at home". Yes, in this country with the huge influence of the farming lobby the landowners have the right to exclude trampers. In a lot of countries, they don't have that right. I live in the front of 3 houses on our section. We get strangers walking up and down the drive a few metres from our doors and open garage all the time. We don't accost them because we know they're not there to commit crimes, just as trampers aren't. We also get strangers knocking on our doors (mormons, sales people etc.)and we don't get high and mighty about that either. When the farming lobby is sufficiently weakened, we'll have the right to tramp through their properties as long as we don't interfere with stock, crops or property as hikers can do in Britain and most of Europe. Also, I used to live in a corner section in Wgtn. Samoans in the neighbourhood frequently cut across our lawn and round the side of the house as we didn't have a fence. We knew they were just using our section as a shortcut and never made an issue of it. We assumed this is what they did back home. It was no big deal to us at all.

At least some of the farmer people I've spoken to see their biggest concern is around liability laws in New Zealand. There's a big perception out there (I'm not sure if it holds or not) that if someone has an accident on your property, even if they're trespassing or trying to burgle you or growing cannabis on your farm without you knowing or whatever, you can prosecuted into bankruptcy for it. I have no idea if fixing these laws (or the perception of them) would do anything to loosen up the farming lobby's intrest in fencing off property, or if it'd simply expose other excuses. I'd guess it's complex and every farmer has their own concerns, at least a few of which would simply be non-negotiable unless the law forced it. If anyone could explain or elaborate a bit more it'd be interesting.

Most farmers I have found are pretty good. You ask nicely and generally the permission is given. The OSH arguement has been negated. Apparently it is quite clear in the legislation that a farmer cannot be held liable for any normal outdoor hazard. They would only be required to advise you of any unusual hazard. Anyway it is a long time since I have heard a farmer mention the OSH thing. In the case of the East Taupo Lands Block, the leasee is hiring out exclusive hunting blocks. So you can understand that they don't really want trampers wandering through. Talking to Arthur and Christine a few years back, one of their big problems was finding people in their private huts eating all their food. Bit hard when you are trying to hire these places out. Not all trampers and hunters are quite as respectful of other peoples property as you and I