Should NZ's Great Walks be privately-run?

A border tax is fine as long as it's possible to agree on who gets the money. It might work, but without some careful and clear planning I'm not convinced it'll solve all the problems some people seem to expect that it will. The fundamental issue is more that New Zealand doesn't prioritise the welfare of its conservation estate. Some of us probably think DOC should get money from a border tax, but even then there's probably disagreement about whether it should be spent on infrastructure for tourists or conservation for saving snails. Meanwhile councils think they should get it, to help cope with tourist impact as people travel through. Commercial operators probably think it should be spent on whatever infrastructure directly helps their operation. Vehicle rental companies probably think it should go into the road network. Other random people who have little direct interaction with tourists probably think we should just take the money and spend it on our own stuff like health and education and welfare, because we should be profiting from tourism and don't owe tourists anything back if they'll pay the money just to come here. Is there any clear evidence that when tourists are made to pay more directly for stuff, that they'll actually spend more money in total during their visit? Or do they just spend less money on other charging attractions once they've arrived? If the approximate spend is about the same, we already have the rest of the tax system to distribute money back into public assets.

@izogi I can only speak of myself. Some years ago in planning a trip and not quite yet at the departure date, I was contacted and advised that I needed to pay an additional $150 due to legislative changes in respect of one place I was going to visit. It was a sum of money that was the equivalent of less than 1% of the total travel arrangements. Did I because of this change my plans? No! Did I spend any less whilst in the country in question? No! Would I have spent the extra money if I had been faced with having to pay an extra $150 for an event/adventure or entertainment that I had previously costed and thought it was fairly priced? Probably not. In answer to your last paragraph, if I am representative of human nature in any way, then there are any number of tourists that will not pay extra and some who will.

Most of the damage and wear on the infrastructure is caused by weather, not by the number of walkers. You could increase the number of walkers tenfold, and it would not increase the maintenance cost by nearly that amount. One torrential rain event would cause more track damage then a decade of walkers. If they want to become profitable they need to find ways to increase the numbers of walkers, and with more walkers the cost of maintenance per walker would become lower due to economy of scale while gross income would be higher.

some tracks get thousands of day walkers, theres very little money to be made from day walkers unless a large number are guided or are paying something to DOC to get public transport into a national park

weather does damage tracks but hut size and condition very much depends (and is dependant on) the numbers using the hut. I supose the big question though is if on a track like Tongarero crossing the maintenance budget was halved would everyone still use it. If the budget was slashed to the point where it was maintained as no more than a polled route would they still come?

"theres very little money to be made from day walkers" I reckon if someone could solve the problem of how to hire out good footwear, decent raincoats and good advice to people half way though the Tongariro Crossing, after they've finally realised they need it, there's potential for money to be made.

well constructed walking track, are designed to handle heavy rain etc. Very few are designed to this standard, however. heavy foot traffic, does cause wear and the need to do repair. Just the same as all roads do. Apparently the biggest cost on the Route Burn, is continually metalling. "The cost of dealing with toilet waste is only a small proportion (3 per cent) of the $9,181,276 that DOC spent on managing Great Walks in the last financial year." Be nice to see a breakdown of the actual costs. DOC seem to be have the data, (usually they claim they cant break likes of hut costs down). But the info seems to be drip fed, whenever DOC wants to publicize something. For a concessionaire to take over, a profit is needed. Costs would presumably increase. question is, is DOC required to run these assets at a profit. Seems the Business Model needs sorting. Assets have been created, that always were going to run at a loss. This seems ok to me, there is a mandate for DOC to encourage recreation. (and allow tourism) Seems tourists are being blamed for DOCs underfunding. (when DOC/Tourism heavily have marketed them) Or perhaps they have got too ambitious and should have thought more about the long term costs of these tracks. All seems like poor planning

i remember the tongariro crossing when it was just a poled route... it was a slippery muddy rock strewn climb up on to south crater, the track would be a mess and most people wouldnt want to walk it if it wasnt maintained to a high degree. the walk up the valley would be a mud bath if it wasnt for the board walks...

It seems like one camp wants to blame everything but the foreign tourist and the other wants to blame the foreign tourist. Seriously what would be the state of these great walk tracks if no foreign tourist walked them? The fact is they cause a huge amount of infrastructural damage. I've done a few of the must do global hikes. Everest base camp. Inca trail to Machu Picchu. Santa Cruz. Torres del Paine. These tracks are over loaded with foreign tourist and are doing a huge amount of damage . The routeburn and tongariro are counted amongst these trails. Look DOC need to focus on these great walks. Our endemic bird life and protection of our forest and coastal areas. If it means we have to roll overseas tourist to do this what is the problem? Seriously? They come here to enjoy our clean green natural pure environment. That's what we sell. We give them the option come here and get what the rest of the world no longer has. But do it at a premium. Because it costs to maintain this.

I don't think there's any great benefit comparing NZ to with all due respect to third world countries like Nepal or Peru, and them charging access fees. The number of locals recreationally walking in those countries is minimal, probably out numbered by those that are paid to guide foreign tourists or act as caddies carrying bags or camping gear. There's many European countries with small populations, Switzerland twice that of NZ, Norway fractionally more than NZ, Iceland a population only 3/4 of that Wellington, and many more, none of them charge international visitors more for hut fees, or track access. Simplest would be a departure tax, with % of it going to DOC to maintain track facilities and surrounding areas.