Should NZ's Great Walks be privately-run?

@Izogi and @waynoski have summed it up Theres a big difference between engaging the community or working in partnership, and simply looking for free labour. Getting community "ownership" of conservation is positive, just ditching anything that someone will do for free, isnt

Yes, 'engagement' was definitely a word I was looking for. Everyone doesn't need to volunteer and many probably can't, but being engaged translates to a person actually feeling they have a stake about the outcome and caring about it. I guess one of the issues I have with things like entry gates is that it risks losing engagement, because people start feeling like they don't have a direct stake in the land any more. Instead, there's a gatekeeper telling them they can't come in unless they pay, just as if someone else owns it.

More coverage of this: http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/87880546/Kiwis-risk-losing-an-unalienable-right-to-wild-places

A couple of random thoughts on the subject National Parks etc exist for 2 purposes Conservation and recreation. A large portion of tracks and huts serve both purposes. Conservation is most definitely the responsibility of the taxpayer. The results are important to every New Zealander Recreation though is a lot harder. If every NZ resident was making use of the National parks even only occasionally then the tax payer should pay but if a large portion dont ever visit a National park then should they rally be paying into the recreation budget from their tax? How many NZ residents make use of Doc facilities? Of course the situation gets confused further once you consider roads through parks. Legally the road isnt part of the park but what about any picnic areas short walks etc on the side. Think Milford road and Mirror Lakes Maybe the time has come to investigate some sort of park pass system. If it added say $10 to an annual hut pass most of us wouldnt even notice and it would raise a lot of money. The question is how much would get swallowed back in extra admin?

@geeves re recreation funding, I don't buy your argument about not funding things out of general taxation / general rates if a large proportion of people don't use them. I don't use libraries, sports fields, Dunedin Stadium, swimming pools, free education or a host of other 'public goods' that I pay for in rates and taxation. But I don't believe I should stop contributing towards them. The questions to me is 'do they serve a public good?'. If so, 'Do they contribute sufficiently to the health, productivity and /or wellbeing of those who choose to use them to justify their cost?'. I think all of the above do pass the test to merit free use and public funding (with the exception of new-Carrisbrook). I think that free safe and easy access to backcountry recreation delivers at least as much per $ spent as all the others on the list.

It was random thoughts. The same can be said for health care and social welfare but we all pay for that. Im really saying that maybe having those that use a facility do pay a larger portion. Whether or not it makes a difference I dont know. The other way is either take money from somewhere else or increase taxes. Considering its election year thats not going to happen

Well... what would happen if there was zero taxpayer funding for Conservation land? (But not subdivided and sold.) Does the land just sit there? I'm not sure but have had the impression that this is more or less what happened up until early to mid 20th century. Not lots of active management, except for maybe very specific places, with enthusiasts going in and exploring and doing stuff because nobody said they couldn't. Is this correct? How did stuff like logging native timber work in what are now gazetted parks? Was it free-for-all if you were able to do it, or was it necessary to pay a concession somewhere?

I dont think there is a national park anywhere in the world that has decent facilities and is fully self supporting. The problem isnt the park itself its the facilities provided. Gone are the days we can just poke a long drop anywhere Gone are the days of building a tin and local timber hut. A 10 bunk hut 50 years ago in todays money would of cost maybe 10k in materials and a couple of weekends by 20 or so people. Today a 10 bunk hut is going to hit the half million mark. Popular tracks are no longer created by someone wandering along taking a blaze out of every third tree they are benched and gravelled. Still people wander off them. Things like logging would have to come out of the conservation not recreation budget. We might say we are happy with tin huts and unformed tracks but housing and work safe rules prevent them being the norm Dont think Im advocating user pays. Im just saying it might be the only option left and we might have to accept it.

You have to pay to enter National Parks in Canada, and in my experience their trails and infrastructure was no better then what is found in our parks. They certainly do not have anywhere near the same number of huts. A lot of the infrastructure was tired and falling into disrepair, plus once away from the tourist walks the trails were poorly marked and maintained. Worst then many of the routes I have been on here.

This is one example of a park that pays for itself. I'm sure there are others. https://www.nps.gov/dena/index.htm We were given a presentation about this one as it faced and found solutions to many of the same issues as nz has on the Milford Road. Their solution: tender out everything. Busses, accommodation, guides. Only way in is on foot, bicycle or by bus. No private cars. Bus companies tendering must offer hop on hop off trackend services as well as the guided tourist luxury stuff. Full 100% of all income from tender process goes to the park, not general government. Can'the recall the exact figure but $30 per head rings a bell as the take for the park itself. Off 160 busses per day. Do the sums! Tracks, amenities, visitor centre, informational signage all top notch. What you can do with millions of $ income every year. By sacrificing the freedom to drive your car to a road end.