Te Araroa Trail forums

izogi, I also love the idea of there being walking routes between significant places, especially ones that are off the road. A lot of people don't think the North Island has much to offer in terms of great scenery when hiking. Sure, it's different to down South but that's what makes it interesting. But there are plenty of breathtaking places in the North Island, and I had plenty of great experiences in beautiful places on the trail last season.

Yep, I'm not at all meaning to suggest that there aren't, but from @waynowski's account I do wonder if some people go in expecting something different, particularly based on the image NZ projects of itself in tourism circles overseas, and then find themselves disappointed.

The section through Canterbury seems to be mainly on recently retired pastoral land. Frank and I have a little mini-project where we do sections of it as part of loops/circuits. That's when we aren't busy doing our other projects; track-cutting and "top of the topos". It's pretty dull stuff compared with the main divide but the concept of spending months walking the 2 islands is great. They can't make things too extreme for the loopies after all.

I remember when there was a focus on the route near Wellington, several of the local councils suddenly started jumping up and down competing for attention, wanting to ensure it was routed through their patch, I think because someone imagined some kind of magical national funding. A bit of a shame considering the general coolness of the Te Araroa project. I might be imagining it and it's probably only an issue when near the more populated places, but it did cause me to wonder how much politics may have been involved in deciding the route in other places.

A few thoughts from an American hiker... * It's spelled Appalachian -- Google is your friend * The three major long-distance trails in the US (Appalachian, Continental Divide, Pacific Crest) took a loooong time from from inception to refinement/finalization. And the CDT can barely be described as finalized. There are, of course, re-routes on all of these trails over time as need/opportunity arises. I think the TA will be a far better trail in the future as it is honed, but realistic expectations on that ETA should probably be maybe 10-20 years from now. * I don't understand the comment about long-distance trails having costs to the hikers & therefore bringing in income. None of the US trails cost a penny to hike, and neither do the European GR's * Waynowski's recurring theme that tourists (esp. Americans?) expect the TA to be like the AT (and others) is not true. As I posted here not too long ago, anyone who spends 1/2-hour researching the TA will find that it's raw, unfinished, and does not incorporate the bulk of NZ's hiking jewels. * Still on that note, a significant minority of US hikers who attempt the AT haven't a clue what's involved as far as pack weights, caching, mail drops, the trails relative lack of access to urban re-supply locations etc. You should read Bill Bryson's "A Walk in the Woods" to get a feel for this. A hysterically funny book, by the way. The point being that this is not about unrealistic tourist expectations -- this is about individual hikers (from whatever country, even Kiwis) who either do proper research (most serious hikers), or who don't -- i.e. "hey, that sounds fun, let's strap on a pack & go!" * The TA is not (nor is it designed to be) a wilderness hike. It is closest in concept to the European GR trails, where portions on roads, or bike paths, or going through towns or cities is necessary to connect the dots. * On the above note, and perhaps to point out how far TA has come in a relatively short time, Google the American Discovery Trail (ADT), which is an east-west GR/TA-style trail that (aside from a rudimentary implementation) has not really progressed an iota since it was begun about 10-15 years ago. TA is way ahead of the game in comparison. * The expectation that tourists will come to NZ to hike the TA is almost farcical. A few hard-core hikers will, but that's it. And (as far as I know), the people behind the creation of the TA don't have that unrealistic expectation anyway. People do not come to the US to hike the ADT -- they do come to hike the AT, CDT, or the PCT -- but those are "wilderness" trails, which the TA is not. And people do go to Europe to hike the GR's, but that's different as (1) there's no "wilderness" in Europe, and (2) you get a stupendous payoff on a GR as you are immersed in architectural & cultural history as you hike a GR. Not true in the US or NZ. * Denigrating the TA because you personally have no interest in it, or find the scenery mundane, or think the NI is boring, while a valid personal opinion, certainly offers nothing constructive to the "what is the TA" & "how can we make the TA better" topic. The existence of an independent TA forum is a great thing, which will undoubtedly lead to long-term TA improvements. * There's an (obvious) topographic challenge in NZ with any long-distance trail concept. You can't hike NZ from top to bottom in a wilderness setting largely due to the freakin' Alps , and other mountainous challenges. This involves technical climbing skills, something that is not required on the AT, CDT, PCT, or even the alpine sections of GR's. Hikers (generally) are not climbers. In NZ, climbing is (at least on this website) seemingly as popular as hiking, which obviously makes sense given the terrain & climbing opportunities. And many climbers don't care much for hiking, so that might explain at least some of the ambivalence many here on NZT probably feel towards the TA. In the US, the two activities are less intertwined -- I suspect most US climbers have little or no interest in the AT, CDT & PCT. * Budgetary crunches do trickle down & impact even volunteer efforts, but I think there's a mis-conception that the AT, CDT & PCT are somehow funded. To my knowledge, that is almost entirely untrue. These trails are refined & maintained almost entirely through volunteer efforts. Certainly, if these long-distance US trails were dependent on the US version of DOC (NPS -- Nat'l Park Service, but only in the parks), then these US trails would either not exist, or would be hopelessly overgrown & abandoned. If the TA is to succeed, it can't depend on DOC. Anyway, sorry for the length of this post, and I suppose some of it sounds like a diatribe, but (in my opinion) the existence of this new TA forum should be welcomed rather than used as an opportunity to bash the TA.

my comment stands, not everyone has picked up the same information about te araroa, perhaps some walkers havent done enough homework which is probably the case but for some reason there is still a number of people doing te araroa who find the track a lot harder than they expect... the fact is some foreign tourists who tramp in nz are doing so as much to take advantage of the huts and camp sites for a cheap way to travel. rather than specifically wanting to go to the huts because they specifically want to do those tracks or visit that specific area.. rather than research the tracks, its where are the huts and camp sites so yeah the organisers of te araroa arent to blame for that. but somewhere along the way the message about how rough the trail can be isnt prominent enough for all to pick it up. no offensce to people overseas. i've met a lot of americans and europeans who know what they are doing and can handle themselves in teh roughest terrain, but we get all sorts coming to nz and theres too many people who dont have the experience or equipment to cope with the tracks they take on... there are dozens of rescues every year done for these sorts of tourists.... so you can argue caviat emptor. (buyer beware, so to speak) but you have to have it stated somewhere for those people , this is a rough track for those with experience in navigating and who are prepared to cap out in the elements...

this was a thread to inform us of another forum about the TA on a general tramping site, no one said it was a thread about making the TA a better anything. not everyone who tramps in nz is that interested in doing the TA so you're going to get different opinions.. i started tramping in nz 35 years ago and i've seen a HELL OF A LOT of ill equipped ill prepared people taking on more than they can handle, any track that gains publicity attracts all sorts and will attract those ill prepared people. part of my problem is i've been spoilt for choice and experience over the years. much needs to be done to just get the right information out there about what tracks are suited to what experience levels as we've discussed on this site already about getting a better track rating system.. all summer most weeks there will be a story in the paper about ill prepared trampers who had to be rescued, it will be a constant job to try and minimise that happening... i dont deny anyone their opinion that te araroa is a great track, if you believe that , i respect your opinion and i believe you, but for me, the te araroa doesnt hold much attraction. and anyone looking at the te araroa needs to make sure they arent looking at it through rose coloured glasses because of some scenic photos they've seen, if you've done your home work and the TA is for you, i have the utmost respect for you and what you are doing. but i want to make sure theres objective information painting both sides of the picture to make people THINK about what they are undertaking... i know ther are a lot of distance hikers who are very thorough and smart and experienced and know what they are getting themselves into my opinions were more aimed at those who havent really looked at the less than rosey side to the trail. i've tramped a lot of really nasty tramps in nz and i wouldnt trade the positive experience i've gotten out of it but, i've seen others who have been put off tramping by the same experience.... people need to target appropriate tracks for their ability, and expereince as well as their ambition... and dont be surprised if you decide something like the TA is not for you.

to a lot of hikers. a great track is a challenging track so people can talk here all they want about te araroa being a great track. as long as anyone under taking the te araroa realise it's a challenging track then it's all good...

Well, not to belabor the point, but if you read my post more closely, you'll see I never said TA was a "great track." In fact, I chose not to hike it when I came to NZ for some of the same reasons you have listed. I was attempting to add insight to a few aspects of TA that I thought might have been misunderstood by some (including comparisons to other long-distance trails), but I may have failed miserably in that attempt .

huh -- there was supposed to be a (wink) after "failed miserably in that attempt", but it didn't get posted for some reason. Anyway -- kia ora -- I wasn't trying to be contentious.