charge for access to national parks?

I know. I'm just saying that a majority of overseas travelers aren't paying at all.

I got chatting to an (off duty) DOC ranger in a certain well used hut on a certain alpine crossing a couple of months back. DOC has done an informal survey at said hut and discovered only 20% of users were compliant (in possession of hut tickets or annual pass). 80% are enjoying the facilities free of charge, and it's predominantly foreign nationals.

Exactly! And that BS has got to stop! Every time I do a simple overnighter, I take extra stuff with me to leave in the hut; a bag of kindling, a box of candles, extra food. Stuff that will be appreciated. However, it really gets my goat knowing that mostly freeloading parasitic stains on the underpants of life will be benefiting from my goodwill. It's getting to a point where I may stop doing it.

Here's how you do it: every F.I.T coming to NZ have to purchase a hut pass or some sort of NP pass on arrival.

@krieg. Don't know the figures, but I'd guess the majority of the passenger arrivals into NZ are not tourists on a long stay, but businesspeople here for meetings, sales, etc. So you end up with business travellers (and in the end businesses) paying a tax for stuff they're not using. So an inbound passenger tax may come up with wads of cash, but it doesn't fit the bill of 'user pays'.

Ok. Inbound passenger figures are more skewed towards tourism than I expected. About half are here for tourism. And a proportion of the 'friends and family' visitors probably do a bit of tourism too. <table> <tr> <th>Purpose</th><th>2012</th><th>2013</th><th>2014</th><th>2015</th><th>2016</th></tr> <tr><td>Holiday</td><td>1,229,840</td><td>1,224,288</td><td>1,323,296</td><td>1,460,608</td><td>1,695,696</td></tr> <tr><td>Visiting friends & relatives</td><td>856,400 </td><td>855,408 </td><td>890,160 </td><td>927,248 </td><td>984,912</td></tr> <tr><td>Business</td><td>252,144 </td><td>255,616 </td><td>259,632 </td><td>270,432 </td><td>281,312</td></tr> <tr><td>Education</td><td>51,344 </td><td>49,936 </td><td>53,728 </td><td>60,064 </td><td>63,440</td></tr> <tr><td>Conferences & conventions</td><td>50,112 </td><td>57,392 </td><td>57,520 </td><td>58,464 </td><td>63,872</td></tr> </table> http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/Migration/international-visitor-arrivals-jun-16.aspx

the international grapevine tells the backpackers that you can get free accommodation in NZ tramping huts in most circumstances. and those wanting to bludge will look at that option... unfortunately its situation normal.. you pay your taxes to benefit them. see some galling situations, some guys who had overnighted for free in a great walks shelter turned up at the hut wanting to dump a massive bag of rubbish. I told them they couldn’t so they dumped it at the road end when they got out instead, and others will leave their rubbish on the tracks anyway… they want to max out on the benefits and not contribute

"Backpackers pay for three things: skydives, bungy jumps and alcohol (slightly simplified, but not by much)." Do we know how much this adds up to per backpacker? They still bring and spend money. It's more a question of how much it costs to accommodate them, and how much of that money filters back from those who profit from them.

something like bungy jumping and other adrenaline sports arent cheap , up to $200 and its pretty quick to do, i'd expect theres a lot of profit in it, think how many nights you could pay for in huts with the same money. some people are prioritising a quick thrill over paying their way. i avoid adrenaline sports because i can do so much more for the same money doing other activities. bt others prioritise the adrenaline rush above so much other choices.

Personally I'm happy the 'packaged thrill' seekers go bungy jumping and sykdiving. I dont really get much from conversations with them and I'd hate to be bumping into them in the backcountry. Which suppose make the point that I never _have_ bumped into that sort of person in the backcountry ... so do begin to wonder if there's much validity in this thread's assumption that they're feeloading on our hut system. My point: I never bump into bckpackers in the back country huts. Occasionally on front-country tracks and definately in drive-in campgrounds and picnic areas. But backcountry: no - I never see backpackers there out to freeload. Who i do bump into in the backcountry are: Te Araroans ... who whilst i do agree they should pay more for their use of an extensive, expensive trail, can hardly be accused of doing it easy. I'd guess almost all buy a 6 month pass ... which is ridiculously cheap but that's our (DOC / NZ's) fault, not theirs.. And 'hikers' who come here to hike/tramp and do all sorts of naive things like being at one with nature and the such. Yes - we need to figure out a fair way of making them pay a fair share of upkeep, but these are not 'backpackers' freeloading by exploiting huts as free accommodation - they are hikers using huts for what huts are supposed to be used for, a place to sleep whilst exploring and experiencing our backcountry.