The past and future of Great Walks
Original post
I'm uncertain of the entire history. Great Walks tend to be themed around tourism, which DOC doesn't have a legal mandate to promote. So, the only rationale I can really see for the creation of more Great Walks is to structure any already-existing intensive tourism to protect the places which people are visiting, or to create a beacon for all those people who might otherwise go and visit less safe and less managed places. I agree with @waynowski's statement that turning something into a Great Walk really causes an area to lose something. It becomes much more tame, and at the same time becomes a much higher expense for DOC.
On the other hand, there are plenty of lesser-themed walks which DOC's investing in to help promote recreation, and unlike tourism that is one of its mandates. The Holdsworth-Jumbo circuit's gotten lots of investment in the last few years, because it's so handy to places like Masterton. It's much easier now for locals to get their kids into somewhere like Atiwhakatu Hut, or nearby camping, and probably around the rest of the circuit. I don't see why it should need to be a Great Walk, though, and I also don't think it really fits a Great Walk profile very well. (Weather too unpredictible, potentially very dangerous at random times, and so potentially catastrophically inconsistent with the conveyor belt inexperienced tourism which Great Walks tend to attract.)
@nzbazza: National Parks? Well, if they were created anyway then I don't personally see why they shouldn't be in places that aren't National Parks. There are plenty of interesting and unique places that aren't National Parked. They're often less protected on paper, but that doesn't make it right. In some cases, the designation is a consequence of politics, or the branch of the government (Lands & Survey or Forestry Service) which happened to be managing the land 50 years ago. In the end, DOC just inherited it all. NP's stayed NP's under the National Parks Act, whereas all Forest Parks automatically became Conservation Parks under the Conservation Act. With 30% of conservation land still having no clear designation as Stewardship Land even though it was meant to be properly reclassified 25 years ago except that nobody got around to it, it shouldn't be unexpected that there might also be plenty of Conservation Park land out there that could have as easily been made a National Park under different circumstances.
Just my thoughts. :)
27 comments
Yep, nothing wrong with it.
I just don't think DOC should be spending its own money (which we give it for those specific reasons) trying to attract people to Northland for tourism reasons, at least unless there's some other reason.
If people are already going to Northland, then by all means spend what's needed to look after Northland in the face of all those people.
I have no problem with the great walk concept per see, we need a range of outdoor experiences for people of all levels of ability. What i dont like is the slow crept of Great Walk standards/policies on other tracks. I like bridges and half decent tracks, i dont like 40 person huts.
We just have to accept that succesive governments want to make money from our outdoors. Unless you want to vote for a hard core Green style party you are never going to have any respite regardless of Right/Left policies. It is now a fact of life.
If we dont like crowds we need to get drastic. Dont go to Mt Aspiring NP, Nelson Lakes etc. instead go to the Olivines or Adams Wilderness. There are opportunities galore for quietude there.
We just have to accept that succesive governments want to make money from our outdoors. Unless you want to vote for a hard core Green style party you are never going to have any respite regardless of Right/Left policies. It is now a fact of life.
Another thought on this is that money has to come from somewhere. The greens would have little choice apart from selling access as they close down other revenue streams
Taking somewhere like Angelus as an example, are there alternative ways of solving the problem of excessive popularity without adding that hut to the Great Walk style booking system?
The numbers on all this stuff have been murky when I've tried to look at them, but my impression has often been that Great Walks and similar facilities tend to cost DOC money rather than make it, even if it can have positive financial spinoffs for surrounding businesses. At best, payment might help to offset something that's become much more expensive because of what it is.
@izogi - I know the conservation act is explicit, but the reality is, DOC is promoting tourism/supporting communities(business) thru providing tracks etc. senior mangers have made that clear.
it could also be argued, that tourism is simply exploiting the facilities that DOC provide.
Those same places do fulfil the aim of fostering recreation, and its a fine line between to two.
Places like Powell-Jumbo don't make a "profit", and the great Walks may do, but its complex, the spin offs occur in business/communities as well. Great walks might be lucky to break even, I expect.
There is a creeping over development occurring, and anyone prefering basic facilities has to go further to get that.
The downside, is less priority given to low use remote places, and the current drive to pass these onto volunteers.
While volunteer participation is a good thing, they could be being used as a reason for DOC to do less. (while they push more $$ into the front country/high profile "gateways".)
The Tararuas is fortunate in few huts and tracks are ear marked for closure, whereas say the Ruahines, a large number are being redesignated "minimal maintenance" (which means, eventual removal)
doc dont need to make back all the money they spend, they are given money from taxes to build infrastructure, any money they make back is a bonus, all they really have to worry about is covering ongoing costs that may not be fully covreed by their budget and anything they make over and above operating costs plus their budget is profit..
Realistically we would all need to be paying hundreds of dollars a night just to visit the backcountry for it to pay for itself. Not just staying in a hut but actually sitting foot into a park. It happens overseas and in fact is the norm.
Successive governments know this but because it is unpopular to mess with the outdoors quietly ignore the problem. Also, we are basically broke, forget the platitudes about a rock star economy, it is pure BS, the coffers are empty folks. Our economy is like a giant Ponzi scheme, they keep shifting the $ around so it looks good, but underneath it is a chaotic mess.
Ideology also plays a part, we live in a user pays system ergo you need to pay if you want to use the outdoors. Its not just the National party and its cronies but the left block as well, do we honestly believe that a Labour/Green government would be any different.
One of the problems is non compliance: how often do you go to a hut and find you are the only person paying the fees, i strike it all of the time. International tourists are notorious for this (sorry but its true especially Isreali's, I know I know but it is TRUE), but it is also a problem with kiwi trampers.
My worry is that we will end up like the US and Europe: crowded locations, fees for everything, commercial interests over private. I see a point in the not too distant future where you will need to pay an annual fee to visit parks, where solitude will be a thing of the past. I dont think anyone wants this, not us and not government because that will kill off the tourism market, they come for the scenery not bungy jumping etc.
The question is, what do we do about it.
I don't think we are likely to end up like Europe. In Europe there are millions of people in what is actually a very small piece of land. A quick look through the tracks posted on this website show just how many tracks there are.
IMO, it is only right that we pay fees. Many people seem to think that $55 a night for a Great Walk is extraordinary. I have done most of the Great Walks and they are extraordinary. Given it is so difficult to actually get a spot on some of the Great Walks then I think charging people is logical. Why should people who are willing to pay more not get their place? This seems fairer to me than having some sort of lottery system. I don't see the problem with making money off of our outdoors because the alternative would be making no money and still having the same problems.
As I understand it, the Great Walk system was set up to allow DOC to manage some of our most used tracks. It should be kept to that purpose. As it is the Great Walks allow a lot of people to view the outdoors. The fact is that there are 4 million people in New Zealand and only about 7,000 people are able to walk the Milford each year. Therefore a lot of people would be missing out. I think governments need to encourage people to access the outdoors.
I suppose if creating more Great Walks allowed more people to tramp then that is a good thing. There is currently no Great Walk near Auckland and that is our biggest population centre. I just feel that people should choose whether or not to make something a Great Walk rather than the government. The Hump Ridge and Banks Peninsula Track are examples of tourist tracks which have been successful despite not being Great Walks. I think the people of Northland should look at that model.
Anyway, I feel like in a country as varied as NZ there should always be a tramp for everyone. I have done a lot of tramping but there are still so many great trips I still have to do.
NZ has a high no of international trampers visiting this country, putting extra burden on the dwindling Doc resources.
a reasonable portion of international visitors are coming here to tramp because of the high reputation of our scenery and infrastructure.. we wont need the population of overseas countries to end up with similar demands being placed on our resources.. plenty of times i've been in huts full of up to dozens of international trampers with little if any other NZers in them. tax payers are subsidising these people as they use the infrastructure and there is very little tax payer dollars to go round because of the way the current govt have cut DOC funding, if the govt arent going to recover the money needed to maintain the infrastructure from overseas tourists they should reconigse the value to the overall ecomony these tramping toursists bring because if it wasnt for our great tramping there would be far fewer of them and they should allocate money to support the infrastructure as much out of supporting Tourism if not the conservation estate which the govt seem reluctant to fund any more than they feel is absolutely necessary
Personally, i would like to see a $10 green tax on every international visitor who enters the country. The funds to go directly to DOC. How many millions per year would that raise for them and provide funding for a myriad of worthy projects.
Honestly, an extra $10 is not going to stop someone visiting New Zealand.
There were just over 2.8 million visitors to New Zealand in 2013.
Search the forums
| Forum | Tramping partners |
|---|---|
| Started by | izogi |
| On | 18 November 2014 |
| Replies | 26 |
| Permanent link | |
Participation in the forums signifies acceptance of forum rules.
In order to manage spam, new members are limited to 1 post every 10 minutes.
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 |
 |
| Mentions | @username | @username |