funding from tourists

On the first count do remember that the Govt thinks it can fix the problem for a buck 50 Im not sure on the second count but for regular medical care the tourist should be paying via their travel insurance. Acc though I dont know what the rule is.If they are covered then that is what the current law is and it may need a tweak or 2. Also does the above some actually distinguish between ACC and other medical bills or even discount those that paid up?

Madpom's proposal: An annual pass (vehicle sticker / tent tag) for all doc, linz, ltnz, council (regional/district) campgrounds/sites with pricetag similar to hut passes. A hefty (e.g. $500-1000) fine for non compliance. Enforcement by private contractor, paid out of the central fund. Checks only need to be occasional if fine if big enough. All hire vehicles with beds must come with the pass included in the price. Pass holders get free use of all crown owned campgrounds/sites - i.e. no incentive to park on Haast Highway & shit in the bush instead of using one of many campgrounds provided. Fund (all of which is new money) is used to cover 100% of cost of all crown owned facilities. So money freed up in conservation, local rates, etc to use for other purposes.

cunning plan

Hi @madpom. Do you mean that revenue from campgrounds would be used to cover 100% of back-country hut costs? Or did you only mean for it to cover the facilities which are being charged for through that system?

in the states, a lot of offences in parks, like not having a permit where one is required, comes under a general law that allows a fine of up to $5000, and rangers there have powers of arrest, they are like the police, you cant just laugh in their face when they tell you to follow the law....

@izogi: My proposal is just for road-accessible campgrounds. I've not crunched any numbers so have no idea what the true charge would have to be. You might have to force the rental side down a fixed tax per night rented, and allow only private owners to buy the annual pass to make it fair ... since private owners will be using a very low % of nights per year whilst rentals will be close to 100% @wayno: Thinking of DOC rangers I know, I don't know many who would _want_ powers of arrest. Not in the typical psyche of a DOC ranger, I suspect, with 1 or 2 exceptions. But you don't need powers of arrest, just the same power as other bodies have to pass the fine on to the rental company, who - I'm sure - will ensure they collect it from the client. Yes, you could have people in privately owned vehicles flaunting the law, just as they do many other laws (license, rego, warrent, etc) - but it would go a long way and catch the main bulk of users.

On the face of it, madpom, a good idea - I like it, but immediately see a few issues .... I imagine private caravan parks would be severely impacted - and not a little annoyed. Private enforcement contractors is problematic - they would have a financial interest in allocating the fines so over-zelous enforcement is a high risk and dispute resolution processes need to be funded. The statutory body responsible for the campground would be the better enforcement agency (and at less overall operational cost, I would think) The financials would be tricky, too. Rather than an annual permit, a dated pass might be better - charged weekly. What would such a permit be worth? 6 nights, unpowered site, 2 people - say $150. Would that generste enough revenue? Who would meet any shortfall? How would the revenue be allocated to maintain sites throughout NZ and across different statutory bodies (all of which would have to agree to the new funding allocation procedure)?

Thanks for clarifying. Re the fines, I've been led to believe that an existing problem with fines is that many of them simply aren't even paid before people leave the country. I don't know why it's apparently so hard to coordinate between councils and immigration authorities to ensure outstanding fines get paid before people leave, but perhaps that's also something that'd need to be sorted out if a fining regime were to have any teeth. I'm also not clear on how strict enforcement would work in practice in NZ -- certainly not beyond the most accessible edges of parks. How does a ranger in a remote part of the back-country force an uncooperative group to even hand over their names?

@izogi. Point 1: As I say - vehicle owner is liable. As per other traffic offences. Like any other fine you have to authorise the rental agency to deduct any fines from your credit card before you can rent. Point 2: My suggestion is for enforcement to be tendered out geographically, agnostic to the agency providing the camping facilities. No need to waste conservation staff / council staff time on this. The likes of Cougar and other security outfits already do this sort of thing on contract, just up their alley. No need for names - rego is all that is required. Enforcers do not need to even collect the fines. Just take a photo of the offending vehicle, location, date and forward the details to the collecting agency. Ticket under the windscreen wiper. Jobsdone. Around here there's a real mish-mash of providers: LINZ is a big one (on land nominally riverbed and lakeshores) who do absolutely no enforcement and who's sites are littered with fruit-pickers. Councils have a few, both district and regional. DOC also have some. And I suspect some of the the state highway rest areas are LTNZ, though I'm not sure. No need for 4 providers to duplicate all the enforcement services. And to repeat - this is not about backcountry camping, this is about road-accessible sites.