legal land access issues

Trouble in Cowboy Paradise could derail national cycleway http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/west-coast/82394990/trouble-in-cowboy-paradise-could-derail-national-cycleway

Hmm. I'm not sure which specific land they're talking about around Whitecliffs. Looking at the NZ Primary Parcels Database, the bulk of the land which it goes through seems to be listed (not sure if I understand it) as not conservation land, at least since 2003 when the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Act vested a block of it in the Te Runanga o Ngati Tama Trust (but this wouldn't have been in place in the 1980s when the walkway was established). They seem to be talking about the northern end, which is a bunch of separate land blocks. There's a legal paper road from about spotheight .50 (over White Cliffs), heading north-east in a mostly straight line back to Clifton Road. https://data.linz.govt.nz/x/5fpDw9 Does anyone know the detail of exactly which land they're talking about?

Weirdly, DOCGIS at http://maps.doc.govt.nz/ seems to be showing the bulk of land surrounding the track over Whitecliffs as "public conservation area" (not the northern part which already has the paper road through it), even though the LINZ primary parcel data seems to imply that this hasn't been the case since 2003. Does anyone know what's going on here? Edit: and the WAMS also seems to agree with LINZ. The only Conservation land shown is along the coast, and no specific legal walking track is shown across the hilltops (which doesn't mean it doesn't exist, of course). It *does* show the paper road at the northern end, leading into Clifton Road.

Caught this on the radio this aft, would be a tad concerning if the whole walkway was to remain closed. A super walk, I walked the southern half to just beyond the paper road and back this summer returning mainly along the beach.

Russell Gibbs has posted his own side of the story on Facebook at https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=119198708517704&id=100012827257313&hc_location=ufi , with a link to a bunch of documents.

Briefing Paper: Mt Pisa, Doc & the Hunting Issue http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1607/S00324/briefing-paper-mt-pisa-doc-the-hunting-issue.htm

from that article "Mt Pisa and its principals believe that public warning signs – at the very least – should be printed on all DOC signage leading into the conservation area. Websites and all other promotional material should similarly advise of the danger. This would warn unsuspecting recreational users that armed hunters may be operating in their vicinity. Similarly, hunters need to be warned – when both getting their hunter’s permit and entering the conservation area – that unsuspecting tampers, hikers and bike users may be in their target range. Many of whom will be tourists, international and national, and unaware of the dual usage of the estate." On one hand they see it as an obligation on them under health and safety law but on the other how does Doc reserve fit under H&S and how is this different to any other piece of Doc land. Its easy for all of us to say hey we know there is hunting here so lets wear clothes that dont look deer like and stay on tracks as hunters are not allowed to hunt on track. Likewise hunters (should) know the rules stated on the permit etc so is it an issue. Signage isnt that silly an idea though in a tourist area. Lets make the sign in 27 languages just to make sure they can read it despite knowing they wont even see the sign let alone stop to read it

Hmm. Two stories where we can get the 'truth from the horses mouth' from just one side of the debate. My reaction to the two varied from 'how terrible of DOC. can't blame the landowner' to 'wow! Talk about spin' based on how much I'd heard / read from other sources. I guess the lesson of the story is treat all press releases with healthy scepticism until you can confirm some facts.

Uhuh. I wasn't meaning to lend any authenticity to Russell Gibbs' side except to point it out as what he's saying. There remains a much bigger problem around access rights generally. I still think it's strange that DOCGIS and LINZ apparently disagree on the status of a major block of land according to their public GIS systems. According to LINZ, as I noted, that status changed in 2003. Does DOC get its info from that dataset when it decides it's issuing concessions for what it believes to be conservation land?