No new back c. huts because of increased tourism.

its not something DOC would want to make an official statement about because of the negative response it could create. based on their recent statement about prove your useing huts by filling out logbooks they are looking to reduce hut numbers. you just know that some huts wont get enough use to meet whatever criteria they set. some huts are so remote its hard for them to get much use

If you stop in for lunch fill out the book. That will show use. However Ive heard it said that they calculate use from the number of tickets left and valid passes in the book They might take a listy of pass nubers to cross reference but I doubt it probably meaning all usage is measured from the hut tickets. It fair enough that money gets spent where it is generated but what do they do when the no people using a place excedes the capacity of that place. I know they build bigger huts meaning even more people can visit these overcrowded places. Its not just sleeping spots that are the attraction to these places

but you have parks like Aspiring where the park plan states no increase in hut facilities. no increase in bunk no's and several valleys in the park have huts that are overflowing in summer.. they are bringing in a booking system for the rees dart instead of expanding the no's, the dart hut gets double occupancy some days. then trampers go an overload other huts in the area instead and nothing is alleviated...

@deepriver, do you have a link or reference for that quote? Thanks. Edit: Never mind. I've found it. http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/destinations/nz/79128593/historic-tent-camp-replica-built-at-kahurangi-national-park

"DOC Senior ranger of recreation/Historic Neil Murray said the Department was not building any new back country huts because of increased tourism. "We are concentrating on maintaining one of the largest back country networks already. We spend our budget proportionally based on use so much of it goes on the places like the Abel Tasman, Great Walks and the Totoranui Camp ground, for example." Don't think that's DOCs official policy. Might be how they are interpreting it, though, locally The priority for track/hut upkeep is far more complex than just "use". DOC have inspection systems that assess condition, work needed, to keep the facility to their prescribed standard. Low use huts/tracks still have to meet those standards. What does happen though, some get assigned to "Minimal Maintenance", which means community to it or they end up having to be removed. hense the Outdoor Recreation Consortium funding. There is a view among DOC staff that low use Minimal Maintenance low "priority" huts are getting undeserved funding ahead of the Core network of facilities that must be kept to standard Neill Murray was a bit out of line I think

each park has its own management plan, as I mentioned I know Aspirings plan is not to expand accommodation.. I"m not aware of official plans anywhere else which put limits. expansion has been happening a bit in fiordland and the north of the north island. DOC have said they want to have more facilities in the regions where most people live...

I think much of DOC policy went out the window with being forced to cope with the environmental impact of increasing intensive use in certain places and no additional funding to do so. That money has to come from somewhere, and the most obvious place is other parts of the recreation budget that won't result in so much environmental damage if its funding is reduced.

Problem with that is its very short sighted. Take for instance Reese Dart. They cap the numbers with a booking system on the huts but I dont believe they can restrict track users not using the huts. 2 possible outcomes A: the people keep coming but bring there tents and camp (and everything else) where they please B: they go to a nearby similar location where the single poorly maintained 4 bunk forest service hut suddenly is coping with 40 a night

We stayed in the 'new' Dart hut a couple of months after it opened (2001?). If I remember rightly it only had an increase of 1 or 2 sleeping places over the old one (individual bunks as oppose to sleeping platforms which you can always jamb a few more onto). It was packed with people sleeping everywhere, under, and even on top of, the tables! Thus already not big enough as soon as they built it! When I queried the resident DoC man he said they had built bunks because "that's what people want these days". Oh deary me, next we will have en-suites in the huts because "that's what people want". lol