great walks fees for foreigners up to double price

I don't know about over run. We're not talking about rats here. But there is definitely a very large number of huts all over the country that are very tourist heavy. And it is making a big impact. From my experience tourists do not leave huts in very good shape. They will use all the resources up and leave nothing behind. In saying that I have been to many 'hunters' hut that are also used and abused. But that is not the point of the thread. I personally will vote for the party who wish to police/tax this backcountry user group the most. That's my opinion and the pleasure of democratic choice. We will see come election.

From my experience huts get full to the brim usually only during NZ school holidays or long weekends, and they are usually full of kiwis, but there's always some foreigners also, but they rarely make up a majority of the people I meet on tracks. I was in Kahurangi early January for a week and we didn't see any foreigners, only kiwis, and huts were full. Same on the Wilkins Circuit in February long weekend. Pahautea hut in Pirongia can't be booked as far as I know. I'm pretty sure the number of tourists there (and in the Kaimai) is negligible, I never met one there (except people doing the TA), probably too much mud ;-) @militaris: I do agree, I saw people walking in the mountains at night, almost getting lost, when they could have camped or stayed in a shelter, but because they were running late and there was sign saying "emergency use only" or "no camping" they didn't want to stop there. This is exactly how you create an emergency :( But people trust signs, and I can't count the number of times I had to explain to fellow trampers that the sign on water tanks was for legal reasons and that the water is usually fine (but in doubt just boil it). And I saw people getting sick from drinking water from the nearby tarn/lake/river because there was no sign there but the rainwater tank had a sign so they thought it wasn't safe to drink…

@madpom's probably onto something to a degree. There's heaps of politics which convolutes the discussion, especially if you take a look on an open social media conversation full of random people where it's difficult to know the backgrounds and angles of anyone commenting. At least within back-country users, I suspect much of the sentiment comes from people seeing so much DOC money channelled into tourist-heavy facilities in places where they aren't, even though DOC doesn't strictly get budgeted for tourism---only recreation. At the same time, some of the more regional facilities (eg Onga Onga base) are being shut down, with local staff reduced, to save money.

I'd agree that the line 'why are doc spending all that money on gt walks when they should be spending it in [conservation || backcountry huts&tracks || looking after the highcountry] are the most common complaints I hear. But as I say, it ocurrs to me that spending more on those things is not how the policy has been publicised. It's being sold as conrolling the number of foreigners && making them pay && building / improving tourist infrastructure.

The politico's tend to view tourism as a golden egg. To be creamed for as long as possible. The Great Walks are being targeted because some cannot see any further than the end of the nose on their face. And the increased profit from these walks is negligible in the overall scheme of things. But we will target it anyway because it can be thinly disguised as a conservation issue to boot. Because it is election year after all. Has anyone noticed how taxes are a non issue in election years. Lets not use that word this year until after the election. Yet let us make charging tourists sound like a feel good story to show how we are taking the current situation seriously. Sound more like the making of a good Tui ad. If the policy makers had any sort of will to do something serious for Doc, The conservation Estate, and tourism generally the most easily managed and most beneficial means is by way of a border tax, border entry/exit fee or whatever other name one would wish upon it. Chargeable to all visitors to New Zealand. Non citizens each and everyone. If 3.6 million visitors in the past year is correct then a $25 dollar fee on each of those would go a long way at 80% to Doc and 20% to the promotion of tourism. Plus if they still want to hike rates for various walks they could do so, but they risk those that wont pay anyway continuing to avoid payment just as they do now. Trying to enforce this situation will expend more than will be reaped. Would $25 stop anyone from coming here? I doubt it and if they are not willing to expend the $25 what else would they be likely to avoid paying if they came all the same. The likes of madpom would have to pay should he leave the country and then return again. Which considering all that pom has put into this country is not exactly fair, but perhaps where such people can demonstrate long term residency then dispensation should be allowed. Some in this country are very long term residents yet still hold a passport for their country of origin, there needs to be recognition of this. The government, irrespective of its collective colour have got it wrong with their attitude on the tax system. The failure to address the current situation just shows what a bunch of numpty's they are. Hiking the Great Walk fees is a rort and achieves nothing, the return is minuscule. I have said it before and will again, If there is to be a border tax it needs to be policed very carefully so it doesn't end up simply fattening the governments pockets. It needs clear and concise definition on it's use. But then, therein lies the problem, similar to the attitude of not labelling a new charge a tax, they wont ring fence it either to ensure it is applied to ensure better facilities to further the conservation estate and the tourist appreciation of same.

A border tax of $25 wouldn't stop me visiting (and I doubt it would stop any others) 3.6 million visitors would generate around 3.6 x 25 = $90 million. A tad more than the $4 million suggested by the press release by the GW fee increase. Additionally, a border tax would be vastly more efficient to collect and with almost 100% compliance. So it begs the question : Why does the Gov refuse a border tax?

Yeah, agree with some of the comments. Doubling price for foreigners (I'm another again! though suspect this apply being a resident) $140/night will reduce the demand on GWs, and see some going on cheaper back countries tracks, huts, many much smaller and without booking to guarantee a bed. Is that a good thing? not sure it is. Plus extra pressure on those resources. I did Travers-Sabine later in the year than Easter, and many of the huts were near to capacity, except the first the Lakehead Hut, which is close to the start unless you kick off with 1/2 day walk, that was almost empty. Pre-bookable Angelus Hut was booked pretty much the whole week. I don't see % of tourists being a big deal, and it's unfair to lump them all together, re: skipping hut fees, tidyness in hut etc. I notice Labour's today mentioned a tourist charge of $25, not seen the detail re: how much would go to DOC, but as before that's better idea, instead of charging foreigners double for GW huts.

Did anyone spot any consultation of any sort for the increased price announcements? The earliest I heard of it was a few months back when the Minister declared the extra funding, including a big chunk for overhauling online services. Other than that, it seems to have mostly come out of the blue. (Maybe they design policy by monitoring rage in social media.) What should be on people's minds, though, is that with differential pricing for Great Walks, it won't be long until there's the prospect of differential pricing for any number of other booked facilities: other huts, campsites, whatever. There would be good and bad arguments for that, but I get concerned when these sorts of changes happen without any obvious public involvement.

Yeah, no great surprise here with it being mooted several months back at the time of costs overhauling current web services, though not sure there was a great deal wrong with the website. Much of the feedback then seems to have been negative, but it's been ignored.

It depends what's meant by Online Services. Presumably the booking system will be overhauled and we'll see integration with an app or two here and there. Naturally the new system will have a requirement of supporting differential booking, but the cynic in me expects it'll continue to ignore minor things that have been complained about for years, like being able to manage the discounts for people with FMC cards. If it involves something like getting modern kiosks to visitor centres in remote places then the costs could mount. But DOC might also be keen to redevelop whatever systems it uses between all its distributed staff internally. Has anyone seen a scoping document at all?