No new back c. huts because of increased tourism.

The issue of hut capacity is a tricky one. Luxmore hut is 54 bunks according to DOC. But this doesn't stop the hut being filled to capacity and just creates additional servicing costs that DOC are now claiming, they cant afford. Build more huts in these places, and they will probably get filled to, IMO should there be a limit on hut capacity, and once the hut is full, sleep in a tent. or go somewhere else? From what I've seen, most TA walkers carry tents, so in theory those users shouldn't be causing a problem Bigger huts can just increase servicing costs, rubbish/sewerage issues

the booking system for some huts is essentially DOC saying, once the bunks are full you can't come in, usually its done in places where the huts get way over crowded without a booking system and or they are charging top dollar as on the great walks...

Bigger huts should have more economy of scale, and if they are being used to capacity or even over capacity then all logic would conclude that servicing cost should be lower per occupant then higher. Most busy huts have wardens, so people not paying should not be much of a issue.

which seems to be where things are going. Huts being triaged. those that are on the money earning list. those on the keeping their head above water list, and those on the money loosing list that may be removed... DOC themselves could contribute to the removal of huts considering they are stopping the maintenance of some tracks as well.. unfortunately now we're playing a waiting game, we dont know when and how many huts could be removed. i seem to recall at one stage some years ago, DOC wanted to remove half the huts in the ruahines. but that hasnt eventuated so far due to protest and increase in volunteer work..

I guess New Zealand was a much different place during the sixties and seventies when most of the forest service huts were built. They were fantastically designed which meant most have survived with little maintanence or modification. But the environment being as it is, and construction having a finite time limit it would seem that they may have had their day. As they were nearly all built within ten years of each other, and being of basically the same design and construction. It unfortunately means most would reach their used by date at the same time. Maybe it is unreseonable for a small, but extremely passionate group ( of which I am one). To expect in this day and age, to have a 1000 huts managed and maintained by a government agency. Perhaps the glory days of New Zealand tramping and hut culture is at an end. And a more tourism, economically driven attitude to the backcountry is the future. This is not what I would like to see. But it may be in all reality where we are at. It may mean, over time, a larger un modified expanse of New Zealand backcountry across the country. No huts no tracks no man. Those who have sufficient skill and motivation will have, potentially the grandest of wilderness experiences imaginable. Take a tent.

what a lot of people don't realise is that the forest service huts werent just put there for hunters. the reason so many were built was because tramping and mountaineering was seen by the govt as an activity with long term benefits for peoples health and wellbeing and it made for a more productive population and it was seen as an investment in NZers health and happiness. So the govt put their money where their mouth was. but now its just a case of pay for it or loose it... no looking at the long term consequences of peoples health. my last job i was surrounded by obese people with no interest in exercise or sport... are we turning into another generic westernised country of sedentary people divorced from the outdoors? already there are too many young people who spend too much time watching TV and playing computer games instead of engaging in physical activities and they eat too much unhealthy food. the long term consequences for the health of our people are bad enough, we dont need huts removed from the back country or tracks removed.. its going to end up with the most expensive huts left and less incentive for people to get out there. it used to be you could stay in most huts for free. i'm not sure how much tramping i would have done as a teen if i was having to pay for huts, i didnt have a lot of spare cash, i remember one trip having no spare money for camera film...