Hut Fees

I hear and agree with almost everything written here but at the end of the day I think do your bit and pay the five buck but fee. It's the price of.... Well you can't get much for five bucks these days. I keep every stub and write the hut and date on them. It's fun going through the shoe box and remembering all the fun memories of various tramps. It's a small price to pay for the privilege.

Hut fees paid for the use of the majority of the huts (remote/low use one) do not pay for the total maintenance cost of those huts In the Tararuas, high use ones (Powell, Totara flat, Jumbo, 22Y, Mitre Flats) produce 75 percent of the forest parks income Overall, hut fees income doesn't fund all of the upkeep of the depts. many huts Hut fee income received by DOC, is part of the departments annual budget, and that income is used to do department work The income is used for hut upkeep. because doc has to top that amount up, there isn't really an issue when hut fees began, lower north sland clubs owned/maintained most of the huts in the Tararuas. the total hut fees take was pooled and divied up between club to do upkeep. DOC huts were in that pool also, and had to "bid" for a share. 3 major huts were built from this Pool also, plus Alpha, Jumbo, Powell extentions no other region did this, but as they are topping up huts (the difference between income and total hut costs), it doesn't really matter with the big cash injection govt gave doc to make everything safe, huts got a share of that. But its gradually whittled away, and now doc staff are claiming poverty again. In the end, huts cost far more than the income received. Re tax payers built the huts. That's true, but those past taxes don't pay the ongoing upkeep cost. but hut fees doesn't even cover ongoing upkeep of all huts anyway, and there is a big contribution from DOC core budget as well. with increasing commitments to biodiversity protection (pests etc), there is a reducing recreation/huts budget. with cuts to docs funding, this will get worse

"In the end, huts cost far more than the income received." After filtering out the mansion huts on separate booking systems, ticket/pass/receipt revenue for the whole network covers roughly 40% of operating expenditure for the whole network, according to figures I pulled from Annual Reports and OIA'd about a year ago. http://www.windy.gen.nz/index.php/archives/3592 Year ending June 2014, the most recent available at that time, was $1,606m revenue and $3,721m expenditure. (This didn't include capital expenditure or overheads, like building new stuff.) Over the past 4 years, there appears to be a trend of revenue increasing by a few hundred thousand $ each year, perhaps as a consequence of increased tourism. "with increasing commitments to biodiversity protection (pests etc), there is a reducing recreation/huts budget." I may be wrong but I don't think this is the case, or at least it's not quite so simple. DOC is funded separately for its Recreational Opportunities and for its Natural Heritage, and a few other things like Historic Heritage. The government decides how much it wants to spend on each of these, and then it's (usually) DOC which gets the bulk of each bundle of money for providing those outcomes. DOC will put in bids for how much money it wants each year for each outcome, but it can't simply shift money around between the two without risking Treasury getting mad. At the very least, it's Cabinet Ministers who make the decision and not DOC. For political reasons they might decide that the total amount to DOC as a department should stay the same, but they could as easily take money from something like Health or Education or Transport or Taxes or Borrowing and put it into Natural Heritage.... just as they could take money *out* of Natural Heritage, but doing so wouldn't make it okay for DOC to start spending its Recreation allocation on NH just because someone inside DOC thinks it's a good idea.

I find it quite amusing - no, bitterly hilarious - that so many people bitch about hut fees. Quite a number of huts, not just the Great Walks huts, are maintained to a higher standard than a lot of backpacker's etc, and sure as heck they have better views! A bed in a standard backpacker's dorm will cost around $30-$50 a night, depending on where it is. You get little more in the way of facilities than what you get in even the most basic huts. So why is it people gripe about paying for accommodation - which is exactly what you're doing - when you walk there instead of drive? I seriously don't think Kiwis understand just how incredibly lucky they are to have the hut system they do. Nowhere I've ever been has anything similar. Australia sure as heck doesn't! I am happy to pay. I just renewed my annual hut pass the other day. I don't even want a discount; $122 to stay in most huts most of the year is a BARGAIN!!! I love you guys on here. You all know that. But seriously, quit bitching about paying a few dollars for accommodation, and for that matter, accommodation in areas and as part of a hobby/lifestyle that you truly love. Want an expensive hobby? Take up skiing, or scuba diving or some other such thing. Tramping is CHEAP. We think nothing on spending hundreds of dollars on a bit of gear in order to shave a few grams off our pack weight, and yet we bitch about paying $5, $15, or even $54 for accommodation with some of the most astounding views on Earth. The reason I don't want to do Great Walks in season is not because of the fees. I had no problem paying the in-season fees on the Whanganui last year when my mate and I rafted down her. I avoid popular tracks in season because of the numbers of people. Personally, I think that annual hut passes are ridiculously cheap. Nightly hut tickets are also stupidly cheap. Yes, the system is getting rorted. But that doesn't mean that we who appreciate and utilise NZ outdoors the most shouldn't do the right thing. I have a good friend who is on a working visa who works at an outdoor education centre in the North Island. She is my favourite tramping partner, and she has stayed in many huts, including practically every hut in the Tararuas, and many huts in the South Island. But she doesn't pay for hut tickets, despite me CONSTANTLY hounding her about being so freakin' cheap! I push her to buy an annual pass, and she keeps saying she should, but hasn't. It's at the point now where I don't want to tramp with her anymore. Because here is someone I know and like who is rorting the system that I vocally support. It needs fixing, yes. But it's what we've got, and I firmly believe in user pays. So. Don't be a tight-arse. Buy an annual hut pass, and be done with it. It truly is four-fifths of bugger all. Don't want to pay $54 a night for a hut? Stay off the Great Walks in-season. It's a no-brainer really. Besides, I doubt many - if any - of the regular contributors here even DESIRE to do the Great Walks in-season. I'm a pretty laid back guy, especially out in the bush. But my giddy aunt, does it get my goat when people don't pay! So those who don't want to pay, set up your tent, and don't use hut facilities.

remember companies with concessions to guide or drop people off inside the parks have to pay a fee for every customer to DOC. i dont know if that money goes diretly back to the track they are on, or the parks general coffers or DOC's general coffers, but given the more popular great walks tracks are maintained to a very high standard, well above most tramping tracks then at least some of that money is going back to the local tracks part of the issue some people have is the high no of overseas tourists put pressure on the huts and tracks and they dont pay as much as NZers do since we pay a lot more in tax over time that goes towards maintaining the tracks.. once apon a time there were a small fraction of the tourists and we didnt have to pay ... the govt of the day

"Want an expensive hobby? Take up skiing, or scuba diving or some other such thing. Tramping is CHEAP. We think nothing on spending hundreds of dollars on a bit of gear in order to shave a few grams off our pack weight, and yet we bitch about paying $5, $15, or even $54 for accommodation with some of the most astounding views on Earth." Another comparison worth making is the cost of getting to the start of the track in the first place. For me to drive to either of the closest tracks to me and back is about $25 in fuel and people say we are spoilt for choice in Wellington and so close to the trails. Then there are the other vehicle costs to consider which would add another $2 to $3 to that figure. To go further that Kaitoke or Catchpole and fuel costs mount up to the point that a hut ticket doesnt really factor into the cost. Try going half an island away to tramp spending $100+ to get there then moaning about a $5 pass You could always hitch hike but have you ever hitch hiked along a road to a road end on a road that gets 5 cars a day?

@izogi - do those figures include staff time? I think DIC account for that separately to operating costs... but could be wrong.

On that topic, did you guys notice the $2 price increase on conservation campsites? Last month I went to Mangahuia campsite (Tongariro) and it was $6, today I checked and it is $8. Seems that all standard conservation campsites are now $8 pp: http://www.doc.govt.nz/parks-and-recreation/things-to-do/camping/facilities-and-fees/ 3 years ago it was $5. That seems like a big price rise for me, especially as you can't get a pass for those campsites unless you rent a campervan.

the fiordland great walks hiked their hut fees from $30 a night to $50 overnight a few years back

@Kreig, spot on. Zero tolerance for people who don't pay up to use huts. It would test any friendship for sure. I mean come on, presumably that same friend paid good money for the gear they carry and wear. Isn't shower facilities included with a standard backpacker's dorm?