Should NZ's Great Walks be privately-run?

But are they really losing money on them or is it just clever accounting to move 'loses' from other areas into the great walk budget.

peak season the routeburn would be taking in over $7500 a night in DOC hut fees. the private huts can have 80 people a night on the track, paying $500 a night and up, each.... although most of that isnt going to DOC. DOC are getting a reasonable cut...

Great walks are maintained to a Bently standard but charged at a BMW rate. Of course our regular tracks are maintained at a trabat standard and charged at a ford fiesta rate

DOC have created a dilemma for themselves. Massive ongoing capital investment needed, oversized huts that have servicing costs DOC cant afford, track standards that are a bottomless pit for money, constant promotion, creating more use, more servicing and asset upkeep costs. Then try to get volunteers to look after huts and tracks that DOC supposedly cant afford to. Because they don't meet some bean counters idea of what the economic threshold for funding these assets. Perhaps those major tracks would be better run privately, and the $ savings redirected into the rest of the recreation assets that often are being ignored. The accountants will be happy with that, NOT

the great walks are black holes for money.... and at the same time we have Doc warning that they would audit hut use and remove huts that weren't getting enough use. we're waiting for the results of the audit to see just how many huts they get remove... my guess is it will be over a hundred and maybe over two hundred. they aren't building tin forest service huts any more... they are now high spec buildings. so the dollar doesnt stretch nearly as far... the routeburn is now literally a single lane road to routeburn flats and half way up to the falls.... you could technically ride a mountain bike over most of it if you have a reasonable level of skill. i'm betting someone has ridden a mountain bike over the kepler at night for the challenge... i think i read steve gurney admitted to riding the hollyford track.... most of the milford is dead easy for a mountain bike, although the pass wouldnt be for a faint hearted rider...

DOC are not threatening to remove huts, quite the contrary, they are very focused on how best to maintain what we have, and by and large are doing a great job of that. The Great Walk privatisation proposal is a straw-man, slipped in there to distract eyes from the specifics of the border tax/bed tax proposal.

DOc have stated earlier this year that they will remove huts that dont get enough use. its not the first time they have stated this, its taken a lot of work by volunteer organisations to prevent removal of huts in the past

any hut thats not paying its way either gets fostered off onto a community organization be it a deer stalkers tramping club or whatever (I know one maintained by 4wd clubs) or struck off the maintenance budget. Then several years later it is deemed unsafe and uneconomic to repair and its gone.

"Wouldnt we love to set up a business where we can do what we do and make money when a large chunk of costs is picked up and paid for by someone else (in this case Doc)" How about the railways being sold dirt cheap to Wisconsin Rail where they did no maintenance and ran it down, then sold it back to the government! All these stupid ideas for monorails etc. that aren't economically feasible are meant to be then taken over by the state with the original builders making the big bucks while we're left with the lame ducks running at a loss such as the gondola and tourist trams in Christchurch.

I personally think that foreign tourists should pay top dollar to hike the great walks. It's win win all around. They can start to make a profit or at least pay for themselves. It will also potentially mean less foreign tourists doing them so less strain on the infrastructures. I think they should charge much less for kiwi tourists. Just to encourage kiwi to get out there and see the best our country has to offer. I love huts like most kiwi trampers but I think there are a heck of a lot out there. They used to be justified as bases or refuges for the deer cullers . Which not only had an important ecological role but also a financial one at various stages. As much as they hold a special place in our hearts maybe if we want the more remote ones to be maintained we need to have groups like permolat doing it. We as individuals need to support these groups financially and physically. I don't see it as DOCs role anymore. A lot of young back packers come here and expect to live on the cheap, partly to off set the great expense to fly all the way here. But also because of a long precedent has been made from waves of previous back packers who have done so here. That's just what they expect to do here. I personally would like to try to stop a lot of these types of tourists from coming here in the first place. A great way to do this is if the prices of our great walks became out of their reach. Campsites around the country could let out a sigh of relief.