ruahines

Hi redstag, Simple answer is: There is a legal marginal strip up Te Ekaou stream. A quick look at both the WAMS Public Access Areas maps, and the LINZ property title maps confirms this. This is a 'static' marginal strip - which is to say that it is a separate crown-owned parcel ('title') of land and not part of the neighbouring farm. As with all crown-owned land there is a legal right of access. The complexity is: Because this is a 'static' marginal strip it no longer aligns perfectly with the stream-line (if it ever did) and as such the only way you will know if you are in the crown-owned (width: 1-chain either side of the surveyed river centreline) marginal strip, or on the neighbouring private farmland is if you can download a map with the marginal strip on onto your gps / phone to confirm as you walk that you are remaining within it. I have done this a lot in the SI, and it is practical, if slow going becaseof the need to constantly check the gps and correct my line. The other complexity is that the landowner may not be (or pretend not to be) aware if the marginal strip - so in those circumstances I tend to make absolutely sure I have the data on a GPS with me, and I am running a track log to prove if necessary that I have remained at all times in the crown land and never entered the farmers private land. I don't currently have a public-land layer for gps/phone for the north Island to offer you (I have the complete South Island layer). Maybe someone else can help with that if you need it. If you really get stuck, get back to me and I can set one to generate - it takes a couple of days of computer time for me to to download the maps and run one off.

thanks for that Madpom i think i can down load something onto my phone. or else spend the money and get a new GPS, ive looked on the Wams map before and can clearly see the marginal strip, i might contact doc and get their take of it ,thanks again for your info

I don't know the area and if there are issues with the landowner etc, but have you checked with the landowner of the surrounding land in question? Maybe they wont mind you crossing their land to get where you want to go?

The landowner let me go up their farm track which takes you pretty much right to Te Ekau hut. Worth contacting them as they seem pretty reasonable about access.

Obviously, every land owner is different but I can see this as how a reasonable land owner can get annoyed when they encounter someone crossing the land they own (feel free to debate "own" all you want). Imagine the following conversation (cutting quotes from previous posts with no offense meant to posters); Land owner: "Hey, who are you what are you doing on my property." Tramper: "I am not on your property. I am on a 10m wide marginal strip up the Te Ekaou stream to access the Te Ekaou hut." Land owner: "Er, ok. Well I'm just trying to run a business/farm/whatever here and it would have been good to know you were coming through." Tramper: "If like me you had taken quick look at both the WAMS Public Access Areas maps, and the LINZ property title maps you would know this is a 'static' marginal strip, Which is to say that it is a separate crown-owned parcel ('title') of land and not part of your farm. As with all crown-owned land there is a legal right of access. I have contacted WAMS and they have confirmed this. I have also downloaded a map with the marginal strip on it on to my GPS and phone [waves GPS and phone for emphasis and in case this country yokel is not aware what said devices are] to confirm this and to ensure I am walking on this 'strip' at all times so you can't stop me and I don't need to tell you what I am doing." Land owner: "Er, ok. Seems like a lot of work when you could have just looked me up in the White Pages and called to ask permission. I am pretty reasonable about access and have a farm track which takes you pretty much right to Te Ekau hut so you can save all the f****n' around." Now I don't know what steps the OP has taken already, but contacting the "land owner" would obviously be a great start. Even if access is initially denied I have often found I can come back at another time or an alternate option can be suggested.

Can't even come close to agreeing with you there @dodgydave. Landowners all over New Zealand have anexxed land that they do not own and are farming it (or parking trucks on it or building sheds on it or ...) for free without even having paid a cent to or asked permission off the true owner. In this case the true owner being the crown as representative of the people of NZ. That much, I can tolerate as a practical compromise for all concerned where the true owner is not actively putting the land to productive use. But to then say to the true landowner of that neighbouring land either 'no you cannot cross your own land' or 'you should ask me before crossing your own land' goes beyond taking the micky. Any landowner can fence off their property boundary, if they wish to avoid conflict with users of their neighbour's land. In the case of marginal strips (but not legal roads which have an exemption to fencing cost attribution laws) they can claim 50% of the costs of doing so off the neighbour (the crown) as is the case with any legal property boundary. There is no difference in law or moral right in this situation compared with a farmer (or haulage yard, or any other business) occupying half of your lawn and then telling you you cannot access it without their permission. All that said - none of this is specificaly aimed at the landowner at Te Ekaou. This specific landowner may well be fully law-abiding and worthy of my respect - I do not know them and have had no dealings with them and do not wish to in any way prejudge them.

I am not saying "you can not cross". At not stage did I say that I said "I can see how a reasonable land owner may get annoyed". In fact to quote my own post the land owner said "I am pretty reasonable about access and have a farm track which takes you pretty much right to Te Ekau hut." I am saying "have you tried asking first?". Sometimes common courtesy — even if the other party does not "own" the land in the technical sense of the word — beats being the smartest person in the room/paddock/internet forum. If the land owner is being unreasonable and you feel your life will be improved by exercising your rights to the full extent of the law then by all means go for it. Not my concern. I am just suggesting — if the OP has not done this already — that making a simple phone call to an apparently co-operative land owner may be better for themselves and the future access of others than proving how smart they are by legally circumventing the need.

@dodgydave I hear you being the voice of reason and compromise and respect you for that. I just can't bring myself to ask someone who has stolen something for permission to use the thing they have stolen. It just legitimises what was always an illigitimate act and makes me feel complicit in their act. It just makes every other similar act of unlawful annexation in futute seem all the more justified to the squatter. But yes .. by compromising on my own morality I could certainly make my life easier. And you are right to suggest avoiding the moral maze completely to the OP as a practical way forward by avoiding the illicitly occupied land completely and asking to use the nice private farm track leading straight to the hut.

@madpom I respect you for some of the amazing trip reports I have read and obviously every person should have the right to act how their own moral compass leads them. However, that seems like a very short-sighted and high-handed view to take if your actions either 1) endanger yourself, others or their livelihood or 2) end up making it harder for others to access the same land in the future. Here are two examples I would like you to consider (I may get some legal terms wrong here because I do not any expertise in these areas so please excuse my ignorance) 1) My brother is an owner in a very large dairy farming operation in Southland. Their land borders rivers with legal fishing access and some I guess you call them paper roads (?) continue past where any tracks/roads end. The farming operation has zero problems with people accessing these areas at any time they choose. However, what they do ask is people call my brother or their farm manager before doing so and they have signs to this effect everywhere. It is simply because they farm thousands or cows who are being moved around the property and have many employees who are operating heavy machinery on the farm(s). All they are trying to do is minimise the risk to employees, animals and the anglers themselves. Is it really such a moral compromise to have the common courtesy to help everyone remain a bit safer? 2) The area I grew up tramping in was lucky that the farmer who bordered it was very generous with access. However, when he sold many people did not contact the new owner to let him know they were coming through. Many — and I would say almost always wrongly — claimed they had the right to be there. He looked in to it, saw yes there is a paper road (but it is impossible to follow in any practical sense) and a Queens chain/marginal strip up the river so he simply said. "Right you smart alecs you get you public access and you can do it up the bloody river". So anyone was free to trudge for a day literally up the centre of the river (because good luck trying to walk the banks). Now instead of being able to drive to the edge of the bush you got a day walking up the river instead. Now, in the interests of full disclosure, the farmer was an ass and he may have shut down the farm track access anyway at some stage. However, my point is is it really worth making everyone elses access options worse just because your moral compass labels this farmer a criminal? I have no real interests in who owns the land. I have an interest in common courtesy, allowing the person who, shall we say occupies the land, to be able to do this in a manner that is safe to all people and livestock and that the future access options of others are not harmed by self-serving individuals. Sometimes winning your own personal battle may make you feel good but ultimately many will loose the war if reasonable land occupiers decide to make life more difficult for everyone because for some weird reason they dislike being referred to as criminals.