'Please correct this information' feature?
Original post
Ainslie's request for information about access to The Zoo to be corrected has resulted in some interesting general debate and I personally have appreciated the opportunity to hear everyone's views on the big picture of access around NZ and the world.
However, I can't help that suspect that in the small picture of tramper access to the Zoo the whole thing has had a much less positive outcome. I feel we have taken a sensitive situation where a landowner was unhappy enough to want inaccurate information clarifying / changing and instead of diffusing the animosity, have only increased it. I feel the chances of any tramper gaining permission to cross Ainslie's land have only decreased as a result of the whole process.
That is not to say that I think we are wrong to debate the issues, but I think that the landowner need not have been exposed personally to that debate - unless that was what they wanted.
As such, I'm keen to hear Matthew and other's opinions on whether the site should have a feature that allows a landowner to request that information be corrected without the need to expose themselves to the 'robust debate' we have seen in the forums. This could be a link somewhere in the hut / track page allowing a landowner to flag the information as incorrect - effectively a feedback form that would result in a message to the site moderator(s) and maybe the author of the article in question. I realise that that is work for Matthew - both in creating and monitoring such a feature, but given that he's had to monitor and police the debate anyway ...
I'm not sure if I even like this idea myself - it means decisions about the accuracy of information get made away from public scrutiny, which worries me ... but it also may avoid making already sensitive situations worse. So thought I'd throw it out there ...
Thoughts?
30 comments
@geoffnet
Fair question. I guess I would politely ask if there was some specific reason why they had turned me down, and if so was there another time that would suit them better or something I could do to mitigate their problem.
If I still got a flat no, I'd be unlikely to be rude about it, or get confrontational in person, and I'd most likely flag the trip away. But I'd certainly be thinking about what could be done at a community, or institutional level to get to a more positive result in the long run.
I hate causing confrontation and aggro for the fun of it. In the short-term it always makes people more positional and difficult to deal with. But this does not mean we should also roll-over as a community. If we don't ask for reasonable access, and believe in ourselves ... no-one else is going to do it for us.
Philip,thats a good response right there.
Ask first,if its yes... then go ahead,be responsible and enjoy.
If its no....turn around and go somewhere else.
I was worried this thread was going to advocate walking on their land (fiefdoms? really?)and taking the chance anyway what with all the analysis of the trespass act,WAMs etc.
Hopefully others share your position that despite not agreeing with their right to refuse access,you'd respect their wishes.
No need to add any more grumpy farmers out there!
I do not think that the trip Ainslie objected to had any meaningful influence on the number of people crossing his land. That is because it was a hard trip with committed swims down the Waima Gorge, and so would of had very limited appeal. Changing the trip to a moderate trip to the Zoo and back, if anything will attract more people to the area, and a fair number of those people will on their own initiative climb a nearby hill for the view knowing full well that the hill is private. That is what is happening now, with people influenced to go to The Zoo by DoC's website. See this photo blog https://ninadickerhof.smugmug.com/TrampingandmountaineeringinNew/Kaikouras/Sawcut-Gorge-and-Isolated-Hill/
@geoffnet
Well yes fiefdom might seem like a strong word, but what else is might you call it when the landowner of a large backcountry block unilaterally demands to keep the public out just because it suits their beliefs? If it looks like a duck, and sounds like one ... then quite likely it is one.
This is the point this debate pivots on. I'm most certainly not alone in believing that the public at large do have a right to enter private property for the kind of purposes we are talking about. It's not an absolute right, and it comes with a responsibility to not cause damage or nuisance.
This is not an extreme nor especially radical idea. It's commonplace in other countries, and until recent decades was de-facto practice in New Zealand. It's supported by Common Law, and the Trespass Act itself allows for it.
Now in the interests of achieving good-will, negotiated, non-grumpy outcomes the tramping community has generally not pushed the point. We've let a lot of places get locked up and been pretty passive about it in order to avoid antagonising landowners.
But look at the situation in the Ruahines and tell me if you think this approach has worked for us.
Whatever happens a bull running at a gate will only ever get through if the gate breaks. In any access issue getting anti and attacking will rarely have a positive effect.
We are only ever going to win if we approach a landowner accepting that the land is theirs and any access will be on their wim and their conditions. If they say no then we are not going through.
" If they say no then we are not going through."
And in the long run that will mean less and less access. I'm not going to be critical if your comfortable with that, but it's not going to stop me, or people like Bruce Mason who came before us and spent decades fighting to retain what we currently enjoy.
You might also want to take another look at the Kinder Scout trespass and consider the effect it had.
@geoffnet: "I was worried this thread was going to advocate walking on their land (fiefdoms? really?)and taking the chance anyway what with all the analysis of the trespass act,WAMs etc."
I'm not going to advocate that, mostly in the interests of not ruffling people and creating more antagonism between owners and users. I like to cross other people's land on good terms with them, and really don't want to be under threat of being trespassed off it. But when some land-owners advocate their own rights over others, inconsistently with what the law actually says, we really *do* need a proper and serious discussion over where this is going and how to deal with it legally and practically.
If the law was going to be changed in such a way as to guarantee reasonable public access to public land, perhaps in exchange for stronger legal enforcement for owners wanting to lock people out of areas which aren't necessarily so critical for accessing public resources, then maybe it's a point worth discussing.
There is a problem That we all know and accept. The problem has been around for a long time and is never going away completely. We have to accept that and work for the best outcome we can.
We can either accept what is happening which will result in large tracts of Doc land that can only be accessed by helicopter or by concessions owned by the adjacent land owner. It has already been shown to happen in the East Kaimanawas and the Doc land behind Gloriavale. In the case of Gloriavale they even went to the extent of trying to stop the road leading to there place. Hopefully they were not successful.
Or we can negotiate peacefully with the landowner and come to an arrangement Wams are best placed to do this but cant be everywhere although an access for all should be able to be identified by them. Sometimes though access to a club could be the best result available as often someone knows someone etc. Before suggesting these informal setups are elitist they are sometimes a start to be built on First one or 2 people then one or two clubs then all of FMC etc. Glenfidic is often a good lubricant for these negotiations (maybe not Gloriavale)
The third way of course is the bull at gate method That may end with you getting through but invariably will result in the land owner building a stronger gate.
Anyone suggesting method 3 is possibly doing more harm than good
And then the owner changes and we're back to square one geeves. It's a bit the same with huts, unless we have in place a high level strategy that protects them in the long run, slowly but surely we lose them one by one.
In the long run I believe we need to build a critical mass capable of taking the issue into the political domain and getting the law changed in a way both landowners and outdoor users can live with.
As much as I'd be right on board with the Glenfiddich approach, I don't think we should completely discount the Kinder Scout one either.
Essentially I'm drawing a distinction between my willingness as an individual to avoid confronting landowners and respecting their wishes, and our right as as community to argue for and lobby our case.
"And then the owner changes and we're back to square one geeves. It's a bit the same with huts, unless we have in place a high level strategy that protects them in the long run, slowly but surely we lose them one by one. "
The above unfortunately is true but the better approach is through the likes of FMC and WAMS.
Wams has already done great things for fishermen and deerstalkers and even sorted one or two 4wd accesses but has done little for tramping. Why? Because we have sat on our hands and never asked for there help. We dont get something for nothing
Search the forums
| Forum | This website |
|---|---|
| Started by | madpom |
| On | 20 March 2016 |
| Replies | 29 |
| 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 |