Taupo Stakeholder Meeting 23 September 2003
The Events Centre, AC Baths Avenue, Taupo
2pm to 4pm
9 Attended (New Zealand Forest Managers Ltd, Rotorua/Taupo Federated Farmers, NZ 4WD Association, DOC, Federated Mountain Clubs, Taupo Tramping Club, Taupo Fishery Advisory Committee)
Commentary
· When property changes hands, will an easement remain there forever?
· Creation of a right to walk within a defined `width' (say 5 metres) on each side of the waterway.
· Use of the Walkways Act as a tool.
· Complexities of gazettal.
· Cost sharing - who pays for the invariable costs of providing access that will arise?
· What is the situation with the Kaingaroa State Forest, which was sold into private ownership?
· There can be varying rights along the same stretch of land, even between each parcel.
· The current government is not able to sympathise with rural landowners.
· Commend the Group for their work and look forward to contributing in a constructive way.
· Does this refer to walking access only?
· What does `traditional' access mean?
· What about access over private land?
. Access only in a situation where those requiring access do so in a responsible manner.
· Will the right to roam be allowed over strips on the riverbank?
. What about the right to roam over designated areas?
. People are scared about the right to roam and rightly so.
· Did the walkways legislation work well?
. There needs to be a more simplified legal system to allow the public a right of way.
· There should be minimum and maximum requirements for concessions.
Would people be allowed to carry firearms? [· John Acland: No to firearms, dogs and mountain bikes].
· People pay a premium for their riparian rights, so they should be entitled to compensation, if the public really values access.
· There is a problem regarding increased pressure on fisheries.
. Fisheries are a public good, so how can people restrict access to something that is not their own?
. The public pays for fisheries that only a few can access.
· Legislation creating access could destroy commercial ventures.
· Negotiated solutions will not deliver everywhere - so what else will apply?
. This is usurping property rights, when some people might have paid a premium for those rights.
. Will there be compensation?
. The public does not want to pay for access and does not respect it, always wanting more.
. Would it be too difficult to have different solutions for different places?
· The 1926 Taupo Act does not allow too much access through forestry.
· There is a cost of managing and administering access, especially with OSH.
. OSH liabilities are not just on the recreationalists, but also potential impacts of the recreationalists on workers.
· If exclusive access remains, then why would Fish and Game continue to manage it?
. Fish and Game: They can't not manage a defined piece of river, although they can close a fishery (part of a river).
. In Taupo, private land is locked up but in Rotorua it is open for use.
. Why can't it be opened here?
. If Fish and Game people want access, they should pay for it.
· If you do not have a fishing licence, are you trespassing?
. The Trespass Act will need to be looked at if greater access is put in place.
. The Act is useless regarding the power to control malicious access.
. The Police are not interested.
· It is difficult to know where to get access and what is currently available.
. Maps do not indicate what land is public and what is private or it can be indicated differently on the map.
. There is no information on who to phone for access.
. DOC and territorial authorities should pool information on access and make it available.
. There could be an inventory as in the UK.
· Is it practical to have access tools on the Internet?
. Few people use the Internet, especially when they are on holiday.
. There are mixed messages on the availability of access.
. Visitor centres are not up to date on who to ask for access; or it is physically impossible.
· Well-marked DOC tracks can end in nothing.
. Proper tracks would not necessarily cost a lot of money.
· DOC: The English example should be considered, they inventoried all walks and access.
· What about horse access?
. There is a problem for farmers rescuing those who are stuck, including 4WD drivers.
· How far is too far for public access across private land?
· What about camping and picnics?
· If there is no camping, no firearms, no dogs, no mountain-biking, no vehicles, what is the question here?
· 4WD: Keep all legal roads.
. Enhance the Queen's Chain.
Contact for Enquiries
Rural Affairs Coordinator
Sector Performance Policy
MAF Policy
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND
Phone: +64 4 894 0675
Fax: +64 4 4 894 0745
Contact this person
