We are not visitors

Perhaps I am just getting old and cantankerous but I don't see how standardised terms are going to facilitate a safer and more enjoyable outdoor experience. I am of the opinion that learning to read more effectively would aid in comprehension of what you are about to do, and thus assist in better research of what one is about to attempt as a means of achieving a safer and more enjoyable outdoor experience. Rather than dashing off on a whim and a fancy simply because the best mate of your cousins best friend did it and thought it was great despite the helicopter ride after being accidentally discovered in dire straits and week in hospital with severe hypothermia. However, human nature being what it is idiots will still exist, Some will even survive to do it all again. Ahh! Hmmm, maybe I shouldn't comment too much further on that one?

"If you do not live on DOC-maintained land, you are a visitor to it. You also have a right to claim ownership to the Beehive, but surely when you go there you say you were 'visiting'." Heh, speak for yourself. :) As far as I'm concerned, the general conservation estate is something that belongs to me and everyone else who lives here. We've collectively agreed on a bunch of laws and rules to govern what we're allowed to do whilst in it, and also how it should be managed on our behalf. For the most part it's further away, but I don't really see myself as being a 'visitor' to the conservation estate than to the council-operated streets outside my house. I'm not strongly hung up by terminology differences, though, despite being a little irked from time to time about the cultural and attitude changes which are sometimes associated with it. Language is a dynamic thing. People having different names for stuff doesn't change what it is, or its importance.

"People having different names for stuff doesn't change what it is, or its importance." Agreed Izogi! A rose by any other name.....

But.... I can see where FMC is coming from, and tend to agree. Like it or not, language has an effect on perception, and so adjusting language is a tool that's often used to adjust perceptions. Double plus ungood languages like Orwell's newspeak which makes it impossible to say certain unwanted things would be an extreme example, but still when DOC calls everyone 'visitors', the language frames everything in such a way that's synonymous with DOC being an owner, and everyone else only being there by permission. The legal stance, however, is that DOC only looks after the land on behalf of parliament, which is appointed by the people, according to the rules set by that parliament. That language, in turn, encourages attitudes like "going where you're told" according to the tracks and the signs, and basically ticking off DOC's pre-prepared Disney experiences, instead of "exploring independently".... which is more of an attitude I expect FMC wants to ensure is retained because it's what most clubs historically want to do, and want to encourage others to do. Down the line, continued use of the word 'visitor', probably also makes people more accepting of measures which would give DOC and the government more strict control to lock people out of the land if that somehow simplifies its management. It evokes the impression that you're allowed there by permission, instead of by right. It's a similar reason to why I get annoyed when I see DOC talking about 'closed' tracks. 'Closed' is a legally defined term in section 13 of the Conservation Act that means access is prohibited to a designated area. The word definitely makes that impression to someone unaware, yet access is almost certainly really not being prohibited in virtually all cases. Closing a track doesn't even make sense if it remains legal to enter the area around it. Usually DOC just wants people to think they're not legally allowed in, or is lazily indicating that it's not maintaining the track, and is effectively misrepresenting people's rights to them because it's most convenient to do so. It's also an imprecise approach to things like safety, which probably dissuades perfectly responsible people from exploring and empowering themselves further because they're afraid of legal consequences, whilst not necessarily affecting the actions of reckless people who ignore signs anyway. Therefore in my opinion, DOC shouldn't be using the word 'closed' in such a way unless it actually genuinely means 'closed' under law, and is constrained by the lawful reasons allowed by law for closure, and is prepared to make people aware of the reasons for closure as required by law. Trail versus Track doesn't annoy me too much, though.

And then in the NE of Yorkshire you have 'trods' which are the old trading routes. They are paved with flag stones so I guess we are unlikely to have them surfacing in NZ as yet another name for those things we walk on. lol