charge for access to national parks?

So they invest millions in marketing the outdoors to make tourists come and then they think there's too many people coming to the outdoors? Maybe they should put more of the marketing money into the land management…

i think its more about making more money off the tourists to bullet proof the tracks and facilities against them more, because the govt arent going to give them any more money out of the current tax take that comes from tourists in the first place, look at what they are doing on the great walks ......

Is anyone here attending Sustainable Summits, and has there been any clearer info on what's been discussed? It's very difficult to discuss the concept of charging for access without clear detail on specific proposals. Simply saying "let's charge for access" isn't very meaningful. To the same extent as some existing proposals, we already charge for one form of access (hut use). It has good and bad points. There are plenty of ideas out there of how "it" could be done. eg. Entry gates. Changes to the hut-fee/pass/booking systems. Changes to accommodation access, camping restructions. Requirement for carrying a conservation pass. Conservation levy on entry. Each has pivotal issues for discussion (and most have been discussed to death in these forums and elsewhere), but the issues and reasons for liking and disliking are often radically different depending on what the actual proposal is.

unfortuanate as it is national parks are a resource that has the ability to make a lot more money than it is so maybe we need to acept an eventual charge. Only traps are that the difference for locals will be eroded away and how to police it. Could be a valid employment prospect for several hundred revenue collecting rangers

Trying to charge access to National Parks and popular areas seems fraught with dangers, and difficulties of enforcement re: day trampers. I think a small departure tourist tax is probably the simplest method, most countries seem to have one, and will be only a tiny proportion of NZ visitor fares. Difficulty would be to make sure it gets used for that purpose than instead into the general tax pot.

charging for access to parks is widespread overseas and by and large works in generating a lot more revenue, in the states if you're caught without a permit where you need one you can end up with a very large fine.. their conseration dept have the laws and powers of police to evict, arrest or imprison, although their rangers can be armed and with handcuffs as well.

@waynowski I assume you aren't supporting that kind of regime. DoC Rangers with guns and handcuffs is the absolute antithesis of everything our outdoors culture is about. A simple airport arrival/departure tax (I just paid several in the order of U$30- 50 in SE Asia over the past month) would solve the problem easily. And I'm quite happy paying the current Annual Hut Pass fee; but the core of the problem is a tourism industry that profits from selling access to our Conservation Estate, but pay's nothing towards the upkeep of it's core asset. Any half competent tramping club committee would have solved these simple administrative/funding issues years ago; but this government doesn't really want to.

I tend to agree. I don't really care too much about how other countries choose to run themselves. It's always useful to look elsewhere for ideas, but those places aren't New Zealand, and just because others do stuff in a certain way doesn't mean we also should. We're fully capable of making up our own mind. "the core of the problem is a tourism industry that profits from selling access to our Conservation Estate, but pay's nothing towards the upkeep of it's core asset." To be fair to it, the tourism industry would naturally argue that's not entirely true, because operators pay concession fees which go directly to DOC. Similarly, many New Zealanders claim they should have access for cheap or free when others shouldn't "because we pay tax". And tourists, if they bother to argue, often claim they spend money and pay GST and draw back very little in government services from it. None of it is enough compared with what we want, of course. Maybe concessions aren't high enough. Maybe not enough tax is actually allocated to the estate. But so much of this conversation is simplified.

i'm not advocating we adopt wholesale what other countries are doing, i'm just pointing out how things can differ overseas, for better or worse. we can cherry pick aspects of what other organisations do overseas if we do thorough research into its likelihood to be effective here.