RE: IN THE NEWS

I noticed the NZ Herald reports the "Mountain Safety Council yesterday welcomed the increase". http://www.nzherald.co.nz/department-of-conservation/news/article.cfm?o_id=258&objectid=10656337&pnum=0 The rest of the article is silent on any explanation of why the MSC welcomes it, although a comment at the end has an MSC representative saying charges are justified and noting they're still free for people under 18. I don't understand why the MSC would be any more than indifferent at best about fee increases. The last few FMC bulletins, in contrast, have been sprinkled with people complaining about hut freeloaders who abuse the honesty system, don't pay a cent and don't write in the books, while everyone else subsidises them. I sent DoC an email last night to request a copy of the report for the annual review of hut fees (if it exists) that led to this increase, or otherwise just the relevant numbers. I guess I'm just keen to see how much they cost to maintain compared with how much revenue the hut passes and tickets bring in. All I can find in the June '09 Annual Report is that "hut maintenance" cost about $16.5 million for the year up until then, but the numbers in that report were fairly broad.

I get the impression that the hut passes and tickets we buy are merely a token gesture and no way equate to maintenance costs. I think treasury wants us to pay something towards the maintenance out of principle. For the active amongst us, the AHP is a no-brainer but surprisingly there are some years where I don't get "my money's worth" as I stay in so many grotty huts and bivs that incur no fees.

That's what I thought too (token gesture). It's probably just part of all parts of the government being told they need to find places to save. I'd love to know what kind of difference the price-raising is expected to make. I'm still bemused about the MSC stance, in that there actually is one, or why they were asked at all by the Herald. It's like asking a driver training company what they think about vehicle registration charges. Maybe it's relevant if there's a reason to think driving behaviour is a consequence of the ACC levy, but surely it'd make more sense to ask the AA or similar.

Yes, I'm puzzled. I can't get the connection either...

Referring back to the hon. Kate Wilkinson's address to the Peninsula Tramping Club there is a reference to it in the blogosphere - http://pundit.co.nz/content/kate-wilkinson-conservation%E2%80%99s-lame-blue-duck

For Dunedin trampers, this item in the Otago Daily Times http://www.odt.co.nz/regions/otago/116682/silver-peaks-track-be-made-safer

Yippee. More warning signs in huts. They'll have to start making bigger hust soon to fit them all in! 'It was also planned to install panels in the hut to advise people about appropriate equipment for their tramp, he said.' Npow I think about it .... Can we roll them out nationwide? And can I have the job of installing them all?!

Bigger huts aren't needed, only appropriate priorities. With a good priority framework you can easily and unambiguously decide which signs are less important and able to be sacrificed with absolute fairness. DoC apparently already does this, such as where the Environmental Care Code makes way for the giant glow-in-the-dark FIRE EXIT sign at the 2-person Mid-King Biv: http://www.flickr.com/photos/83154423@N00/4594351541/in/set-72157624030683256/ (last May). As far as that ODT article's concerned, I have trouble seeing the logic in telling people what equipment they should have brought with them *after* they've arrived. But they do it for hut tickets, and clearly we can see how well *that* works.

Really pleased to read about the upgrade of tracks/markers and the replacement of Yellow Hut etc. I think it is well overdue as this track is so near for Dunedinites esp. overseas students. I guess an information panel once they've got there is better than nothing. After all, they may decide to venture out again into the outdoors after Silver Peaks. I imagine it's a first-time destination for some people.

More info on the Silver Peaks on the DOC website. Firstly the results of a survey http://www.doc.govt.nz/getting-involved/consultations/closed/silver-peaks-use-survey/ and then the actual plan for upgrades http://www.doc.govt.nz/about-doc/news/media-releases/changes-planned-to-silver-peaks-scenic-reserve/ Personally I can see the need for Stage 1. It is often foggy there and there are a couple of places where it would be easy to go down the wrong ridge between Pulpit Rock and Silver Peak. See my track guide at http://www.tramper.co.nz/?2831