DOC invites monorail submissions

But you could also note that the majority of New Zealanders live in cities, and have very little interaction with the environment outside cities. Adding an easier form of transport to a more remote place really doesn't mean a lot to many people, unless they're convinced of why it's important not to do so. Having shifted to Australia for a while, I've found it introspectively interesting as how dis-interested I am in Australian politics in general, and often Australian news in general. (A house exploded around the corner from where I live the other day, but if it wasn't so close I probably wouldn't have noticed.) Obviously I know it's important, but it also really doesn't feel like my country. Weirdly happening to have dual citizenship, I'll still be forced to vote here thanks to Australian electoral laws. I'm curious if there are studies about the effects of immigration on NZ back-country culture. I might be very wrong, but the impression I've had is that whilst in the past, newly-arrived immigrants would sometimes reach smaller towns and more regional areas, they'll often now end up coming from a massive international city (the sort where it's very difficult to escape from the city or have a clue what it's like outside), and shift straight into a New Zealand city. The places with the most help and existing communities for immigrants to settle in and get used to life in New Zealand tend to be within cities.

If your first paragraph means that DOC and govt get away with all this stuff because most people live in cities, rarely leave them, stupidly assume that doesn't concern them, and therefore don't care, you are right. That explains why doc and govt can do it with little resistance, and it's a pretty sad picture of the majority of the people in my opinion. I'm pretty certain that that mechanism applies to immigrants no more or less than to non-immigrants. What you say about that sounds like quite a bit of xenophobia to me, which is quite common of course. I'm an immigrant. I live in Christchurch. If you look at my posts, you see that I have a very healthy interest in pretty much everything that goes on in New Zealand, and I am trying hard to do my bit wherever possible. This is my home. I love this place. I am grateful to be able to live here. Trying to do my bit to improve the place is common sense to me, and the least I can do. I think you would be hard pressed to find any statistically significant difference in how much immigrants care compared to non-immigrants. The far overwhelming factor is living in cities, and there are no big differences there. The immigrant worry is what politicians and companies want you to think about, so they can continue what they do without being hassled by you, and count on you to vote them into office for yet another round. What really is destroying our backcountry is the way govt and doc manage tourism, and how they fail to manage the nature that we have (and everything else, for that matter) in a way that is even marginally sustainable. This has nothing to do with immigration, and everything with corporate interests steering government and doc, as well as with the general population allowing that to happen. The idea that "real kiwis" (whatever that is in the first place) are taking care of their country, but I'm afraid that that's not the case at all. Unless we start to be honest with ourselves and admit that we are far from "clean green", both in our actions and in our heads, and actually begin to change, New Zealand's backcountry is going to be sold out in a decade or two. Cheers, Matt

Sorry, copy-paste error from my text editor into the forum window. Last paragraph was meant to be: The idea that "real kiwis" (whatever that is in the first place) are taking care of their country better than immigrants is common in New Zealand, but I'm afraid that that's not the case at all. Unless we start to be honest with ourselves and admit that we are far from "clean green", both in our actions and in our heads, and actually begin to change, New Zealand's backcountry is going to be sold out in a decade or two. Cheers Matt

Well I'm sorry if I offended you. New Zealand's entire history involves repeated waves of immigration and changing culture and ideas as a consequence. I'm really just curious of the latest trends as a whole are creating a difference in how people view the back-country and environment. Ultimately, sooner or later, government policy follows the public mindset, even if there's a lag of a decade or three, although sometimes those in the government will also seek to change the public mindset for one reason or another.

what the immigrants want is a generalisation, we get our share of immigrants comning here who care about the environment, but i couldnt tell you waht percentage they are of the entire population of immigrants.. they may still be a minority. theres still plenty of immigrants who are here simply becaue they can get into the country and or they prefer our cities to the cities whre they came from, while they might like our scenery, a lot of them arent really going to stop and think about monorails or tunnels in places they may have only been once. they might actually think its a good idea to see more of our scenery.... hte cast majority of people who go to milford sound are visiting from overseas who are rushed in and out as fast as the tourist operatrs can manage they won't be here long enough to get involved in the politics... DOC have had to back down in the past over policies that were unpopular, when they were removing back country huts, there was a major backlash and they turned around and started restoring old huts and cut back on the plans to remove huts... to a certain extent doc will listen to what people wnt if anough people speak up about plans like hte ones discussed here.

Hmmm. I was really only meaning to suggest that there might be benefits in encouraging and making it easier for city-dwellers (who want to) to get out and really experience the rest of the country rather than being trapped in urban environments all the time. As in making it available to them. For someone who's never done it before and doesn't know the tricks, it's very expensive to get from a place like Auckland to the Milford Sound, or even just to the South Island. The international tourist trade's made sure that's expensive for New Zealanders, if nothing else has, unless people happen to know exactly what they're doing. Just finding the time off work to do anything like that meaningfully will definitely be prohibitive for many people, especially if they'd rather spend it on something else (going overseas, visiting family, whatever). If people don't see the stuff in their own country then it should be no surprise that it's often not relevant for them. To be fair New Zealand's outdoor environment is nearing the most protected it's ever been, especially if you compare it with what the Ministry of Works and the like did until about the 50s or so --- using god-like government powers to usurp regions decided to be good for damming or building roads, etc, with virtually no consultation or rights to challenge. 60 years ago, there would have been almost no debate about a monorail or tunnel. It was all about treating the wilderness as an expendable resource for building the economy, and from another perspective that *does* also have something to do with NZ's stereotype way of life being as it is. It also just happens that despite being the most protected, today NZ's outdoor environment is the most destroyed and vulnerable as it's ever been, and that's the difference between now and a few decades ago. The place has never reached an equilibrium, so it's no surprise that the whole thing's still busy tumbling over irrespective of what's done.

izogi: No worries, you didn't offend me at all. I just strongly disagree with what you said, and I'm pissed that politicians are still so successful at playing the imaginary "immigration problem" card to cloak all sorts of dirty things they do. Not meaning to criticise you as a person in any way, by the way, just trying to point out that this is something we all need to be very aware of. What I mean is: If you're interested in immigration because you are interested, that's of course absolutely fine! But if your intention is to understand what is happening to our backcountry, looking at immigration is not going to lead you to the core issues of that. Honestly: Way too many kiwis think that because they are kiwis, by their own definition that means that they are not part of what destroys our country - but that very notion prevents them from being honest with themselves and changing the many things that they DO do which actually DO contribute to many negative developments. I think it works the other way round: If you take a good look at yourself and strive to improve what you do to contribute to keeping New Zealand a healty, sustainable and enjoyable place, THEN you are a kiwi. We don't need to be afraid of change, and we don't need to be afraid of keeping things as they are. Some things would be better if they stay the way they are, others would be better if they change. Change or non-change are free from any value until applied to a specific context. That's what the whole USA fell for: They bought the idea that "change" in itself was something valuable and worth having, without asking what kind of change they were to expect. (Not saying by the way that the Obama government is bad, but certainly not good, either. Merely pointing out that the whole campaign about "change" without putting any solid context to it is phony and meaningless.) By the way: The same thing is happening in many other countries, and I had the exact same assessment of the situation in my home country as well, long before I came to New Zealand. So I didn't adopt that view because I am an immigrant myself. waynowski: "the cast majority of people who go to milford sound are visiting from overseas who are rushed in and out as fast as the tourist operatrs can manage they won't be here long enough to get involved in the politics..." I totally agree, but that has nothing to do with immigrants, and everything with tourism. For every immigrant that you will find travelling the country at any given point in time, there are probably thousands of tourists. How many of the immigrants have what view on our backcountry doesn't play any significant role, because their numbers don't matter compared to the tourists. So the "immigrant problem" just isn't one. It's tourism and how it is managed, and that is solely driven by govt, doc, and the population allowing them to do what they do. You cannot be serious about putting removing a backcountry hut that is visited by very few hardcore trampers a year that leave no trace on their way in and out at the same level of building a monorail track through the wilderness! That's a joke, right? Sorry, but again I hear a lot of xenophobia speaking through all that. Politicians do an excellent job at spreading xenophobia, and it's an excellent tool to keep people from looking at the real questions. Everyone is scared of everyone else and busy worrying about those things, while politicians and corporations do whatever they want while no one is looking. It doesn't have to be that way. We allow it. Cheers, Matt

Oops, our last two posts crossed. "there might be benefits in encouraging and making it easier for city-dwellers (who want to) to get out and really experience the rest of the country rather than being trapped in urban environments all the time" With that, I totally agree! I just don't think building a monorail, allowing more choppers, quads, 4WD's, boats and other motorised access is the clever way to do that. All that that does is foster the idea that nature is something that can be consumed like fast food - but just like with fast food, the regrets come with a delay, only then it's too late. I would rather opt for more funding to get people into tramping and similar activities that are actually "active". I also agree with your statement that the tourism industry is making New Zealand nature financially unavailable to large parts of the nation. Although there are ways around that, if you know how. The more remote and self reliant you do tramping, for example, the cheaper it usually gets - no hotels, no huts, no helis, no boats etc. Long distance transport remains an issue though financially. But most people don't have these skills. Maybe funding for more education in this direction could help people help themselves break down the financial barrier by way of knowledge and skills? Along the lines of more funding for locals for scouts, tramping clubs, skills training courses etc.? Maybe it would be a good idea to introduce some kind of two tier pricing system for many outdoor related things, to give people who live here a better chance financially to use our wilderness for recreation. After all, that's the main directive of DOC, so at least DOC should have an active interest in making a financial differenciation between tourists (who they may indeed need to get as much cash from as they can) and locals (who have the RIGHT to use the backcountry for recreation, but are currently more and more blocked from it by financial barriers). "If people don't see the stuff in their own country then it should be no surprise that it's often not relevant for them." Agree, althugh that shows lack of foresight, because even if you don't go bush yourself, the backcountry is intrinsically important for everyone in the country, I think I don't have to explain the many reasons. But you can't force people into choosing the backcountry over their TV or an overseas resort holiday. So why do they prefer to spend their time otherwise or elsewhere? What has changed (if it actually was different a few decades ago)? "60 years ago, there would have been almost no debate about a monorail or tunnel. It was all about treating the wilderness as an expendable resource for building the economy, and from another perspective that *does* also have something to do with NZ's stereotype way of life being as it is." Very insightful, thanks! "despite being the most protected, today NZ's outdoor environment is the most destroyed and vulnerable as it's ever been" Ok, so how can that be? One of the two doesn't seem to be true, and I fear it's the first half of that statement. Maybe, NZ's outdoor environment only SEEMS more protected than ever. Matt

Hi Matt. I'm not batting for a monorail or tunnel, sorry if I implied that I was. I was meaning that if the millions of people in cities were more exposed to the environment and being able to get outdoors, they might actually care if a monorail or tunnel was built through it. The fact that there's even a big public controversy about this is what's very different from 60 years ago. Right now, or at least until about 2008, NZ's outdoor environment *was* more protected than it's ever been for about 1000 years. That's just not enough to save it.

It would be a shame if Kiwi Burn was ruined by the monorail. Its a great spot as area areas of the beech forest near by and the area is enjoyed by families, hunters and tourists alike. I can see why people want a shorter route to Milford . . the trip round from queenstown is a pain and people who are on a short trip to NZ are sort of stuck with it. Not sure the tunnel/monorail options are the answer though. As a 'tourist' myself all be it a longer term one I find all the DOC bashing etc a bit sad. They provide some fantastic services/resources under sometimes difficult financial circumstances. They might not always be right but who is? This comment from waynowski did annoy me a little, "even doc fix the milford track walk so you have to keep moving through the track each day." I live in Te Anau, 1000's of people ever year do the Milford, many miss out as the track is booked solid all summer from so far ahead. To some its a life long dream. If DOC didn't 'fix' the itinerary on the track the logistics of the transport to and from would be a lot more difficult, certain huts would be used much more than others and I think you would loose that special feeling that you are on a famous journey.