Windy Tops

Tag: government policies

  • On New Zealand Conservation Estate Fees for Tourists

    It’s interesting to see that David Round, a member of the Aoraki Conservation Board, is calling for foreigners to be charged more than NZ Citizens and Residents for use of the Conservation Estate.

    From that single article, it’s unclear to me exactly what’s being proposed by Mr Round. The Timaru Herald’s headline suggests charging foreigners more for hut fees. The base complaint is about “enormous non-payment” of hut fees, and of it being very hard to police. Inconsistent with the article’s title, the proposed solution seems to involve something about an “international access pass”, which would not be directly attributed to huts but would be required to “enter larger parts of the conservation estate”.

    Charging higher amounts for tourists is a topic which comes up recurringly, but so far has not gained any traction. There are a variety of relevant factors, both to do with practicality and law.

    (more…)

  • An update on that “inappropriate PLB activation” incident

    In February I wrote a lengthy post based on a major media incident where a man was reported to have activated a Personal Locater Beacon (PLB) because he was “running late”. This wasn’t just out-of-control media, however. It was sparked by a hasty press release pushed out by the Rescue Coordination Centre of New Zealand (RCCNZ)—the part of Maritime New Zealand which is responsible for monitoring and responding to PLB activations. In my opinion, the press release was full of inflammatory and unverified innuendo that accused the man of “apparently” mis-using the beacon, and it then threatened to charge him for mis-use. At the time, popular media lapped it up.

    It’s great to see, therefore, that the RCCNZ has now completed an investigation and cleared the man of any wrongdoing with respect to activating the PLB. (Here’s the Fairfax coverage via the Nelson Mail or the Press, which have different comment threads.)

    To me this whole incident seemed uncharacteristic and inconsistent on the part of the RCCNZ, certainly when compared with other rescue organisations. I haven’t seen reliable details of the specific incident and therefore can’t comment on this man’s case, except to note that being cleared of allegedly activating a PLB without an emergency doesn’t necessarily mean that things couldn’t have been done better to avoid problems in the first place. What I do know is that PLBs are activated regularly in New Zealand, and some activations are definitely less appropriate than others. I still don’t understand what was so incredibly special about this incident which caused it to be singled out. I can’t see any clear reasons why the man’s actions were taunted so strongly and inconsistently, especially from official sources, when there are so many other incidents to choose from.
    (more…)

  • Protecting our place in silence

    In my recent trip report, which described several days in the northern Ruahine Range, I referred to the presence of whio (pronounced fee-oh), also known as New Zealand’s Blue Duck. The bird has evolved in an isolated fashion and is not closely related to other ducks. It’s a strong swimmer, and one of very few birds in the world that lives its entire life on fast-flowing, bouldery mountain rivers. It’s most active during the edges of the days, and sometimes overnight, and it’s named after the feee-oh sound of the male’s call… moreso than the responsive squalk of the female. Whio are not as iconically popular as some of New Zealand’s other birds such as the kiwi or the kea, yet if you turn over a New Zealand $10 note, you’ll see a pair of whio on the back.

    Whio are also listed as vulnerable to becoming extinct. They nest for three months a year in caves, log jams and under other vegetation, so the eggs and chicks are vulnerable to both spring flooding and introduced predators. The total population is hard to count, but a current estimate is for as few as 2,500 individual birds, scattered throughout the country and dropping. Being exclusively territorial they’re usually seen in pairs at best, which doesn’t help towards improving numbers. Occasionally, however, there are also good stories.

    Its requirement for clean water and a high diversity of aquatic insects means the presence of whio is considered a key indicator of a genuinely healthy river, something that’s all too uncommon in New Zealand today. If you find whio, it means you’ve found a waterway that’s in a fairly pristine state. Keep this in mind next time you’re thinking of leaving a mess that will seep into a waterway, or throwing unwanted food-scraps into a stream, or washing dishes in a river outside a hut or camp-site. You may well be making life harder or impossible for vulnerable species such as whio, not to mention all the insects it relies on.

    It’s fortunate to be able to see such birds in the Ruahine Range, but it’s something I’ve taken for granted that I can report having seen them without putting the very birds I’ve seen in danger. Sadly it’s not always the case. Despite being at risk of eventual extinction for several reasons, the whio is, at least, not generally in danger from people of malicious intent simply knowing where they live. From this point on, I’m going to write about lizards.
    (more…)

  • Clarity on not charging for Search and Rescue in New Zealand

    This incident occurred just over a week ago, but I’ve avoided posting until now. I was annoyed when I first saw it, and still am, but not for the same reason as most other people who have expressed their brief opinions in the comment thread below that article.

    A man activated a Personal Locator Beacon (PLB), sometimes called an Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon (EPIRB), whilst tramping in the Paringa Forest area of South Westland [map], and a helicopter collected him. The pilot later reported the man as having said “he had significantly underestimated the amount of time to get out of the area and was struggling with the challenging terrain”. This has become a media article with a headline that complains about the rescue helicopter being treated as a taxi service, and begins with a claim, not clearly substantiated by other information, which asserts the man was “running late and wanted a ride to his car”. Now, the Rescue Coordination Centre of New Zealand (RCCNZ), a sub-section of Maritime New Zealand, is “considering” whether to charge the man, threatening a possible penalty of up to $30,000.

    A carbon copied story has been replicated throughout the Fairfax eco-system of newspapers and websites within New Zealand and Australia. The Herald has an identical take. It’s identical because the journalists on all sides are merely parroting a Friday press release from the RCCNZ, including the headline and opening paragraph. [Update 12-June-2013: The RCCNZ has now cleared the man of any wrongdoing with regard to activating the PLB.]

    I’m disappointed with this press release and its inflammatory tone. The facts are not established beyond hearsay, and if Maritime New Zealand truly does plan to take the matter to court, I don’t think it should be spreading such things in the media. Thanks also to the one-sided nature of the text, comment threads on those media repetitions which host them are mostly one-dimensional hang’em brigades. Based on the press release they scream that the man is an idiot, and that he should be heavily charged for the rescue. If it’s enough to indicate that there may be another side to this story, however, the Nelson Mail’s rendition of the story (from the man’s home town) attracted a comment from a person who claims to know the man and the circumstances, and believes the RCCNZ’s information to be sensationalised.

    PERCEPTION OF COSTS

    Charging a person for search and rescue in the back-country is not easy under New Zealand law. It’s also unprecedented. One of the most important reasons is that if people are dissuaded from requesting a rescue when they need it, the situation can become much worse, and risk can increase for all involved.
    (more…)

  • My submission about increasing maximum penalties on the Conservation Estate

    I’ve finally put my submission in for the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill, which (if successful) will increase maximum penalties available for many crimes on the Conservation Estate by about ten-fold. Often this will be good. For example, judges have commented on the frustration with the low penalties they’ve been restricted to when sentencing international criminals who’ve been caught smuggling out protected wildlife for sale on the black market. Enabling a higher penalty will increase the risk, set a much higher black market price on our wildlife, and hopefully make the practice less common. The Bill has cross-party support for these types of reasons, and will most likely enter law. You can read everything they said about it when it had its first day in parliament over here.

    My main concern is that the existing indirectly-specified $10,000/1-year-jail penalty for entering “closed” Conservation Areas was already disproportionate and inconsistent with the $500 fine for a nearly identical National Park situation. Following the Bill, that inconsistency will be magnified to a $100,000/2-year-jail penalty compared with a $5,000 fine. This is part of what I discussed in my earlier post regarding DoC and the word “closed”.

    The Bill is now at the stage of receiving public submissions, which will be considered by the Local Government and Environment Select Committee (a selected committee of sitting MPs) to make recommendations for any changes to the Bill before it’s sent back to Parliament to be voted on again. If you’d like to make a submission, which can be as short or lengthy, formal or informal as you like, and you don’t have to agree with me, the closing date for submissions is February 28th 2013. A submission can be completed online by visiting Parliament’s status page for the Bill, clicking the Make a Submission link on the right hand side (it links to here), scrolling to the end of the page and following the instructions to make an online submission.

    Anyway, I’ve included the text of my submission below.
    (more…)

  • The entry restrictions of Matiu/Somes Island

    My previous post criticised some aspects of closed public land, and how DoC sometimes handles it, and so I found it interesting to read a report on Tuesday of DoC rangers being verbally abused in a comparable scenario. It occurred after they instructed two divers to immediately leave the shore of Matiu/Somes Island, in the middle of Wellington Harbour, and return to sea. To be clear, this is not the type of land closure I referred to in my previous post. It happened in a Reserve rather than a National Park or Conservation Area, and the land is legally closed (except for entry under strict entry rules) for reasons appropriate for the purpose of the reserve.

    The highest concern here with people landing uncontrolled on the edge of this island is a biosecurity concern for the Scientific Reserve, whereby unwanted pests could enter the island and wreak havoc amongst its local eco-systems that rely on the island’s status for their protection. Scientific Reserves are specifically set aside “for the purpose of protecting and preserving in perpetuity for scientific study, research, education, and the benefit of the country, ecological associations, plant or animal communities, types of soil, geomorphological phenomena, and like matters of special interest”. (That’s from section 21 of the Reserves Act.)
    (more…)

  • A Brief Question: Public Land Access Rights and DoC

    The introduction below was an opinion piece thefor the November 2012 Federated Mountain Clubs Bulletin. With permission I’m republishing it, plus extra content that includes legal references and various opinions of my own. Please be mindful that nothing here is legal advice. I’m trying to learn about this and be accurate from my own research but would appreciate notification of any errors so I can correct them. As always, constructive discussion is welcome.

    Introduction [from Pages 40-41 of FMC Bulletin 190 (November 2012)]


    No it isn’t.

    We often take for granted our freedom to access public land, and over time I’ve encountered confusion about what’s meant when DoC labels places as “closed”. Some people ignore such directives, confident that reasons are often trivial and they’re not enforceable. Others would avoid a “closed” place, believing there’s likely a good reason, or through fear of being caught breaking rules.

    My layperson’s reading of the law (and I welcome correction) is that it emphasises the importance of free access to public land. DoC is not automatically permitted to close access to anything except specific maintained facilities like huts and bridges. Closing access within National Parks and Conservation Areas (including Forest Parks) requires the Minister of Conservation, although the Minister has confirmed a current ongoing delegation to DoC’s Director-General, who has further delegated this authority to Area Managers and Conservators. If part of a Conservation Area is “closed” under Section 13 of the Conservation Act, DoC must advertise the closure, and entering becomes an offence with a penalty of up to a year in jail or up to a $10,000 fine. Access restrictions within National Parks require the Minister to create a bylaw, which can’t be delegated away and which must be consistent with the park’s Management Plan. A person entering could potentially be fined up to $500. Severe penalties are unlikely, but the fact that it could happen is meant to convince us to avoid “closed” places.

    Despite these provisions, the law’s tone is that restricting access is serious and genuine closure of public land shouldn’t be easy, which is consistent with a view that DoC is a caretaker and not a gatekeeper. How, then, is a term which represents an offence used by DoC so frequently? Often the “closed” label is applied for discontinued maintenance, or a heightened risk for certain classes of visitors but not for everyone. It’s also commonly attached to tracks, as if they’re facilities which define where we may go rather than impressions on the land of where we have been. “Closing” a track makes little sense to someone who’d happily tread on public land alongside it, but referring to a track as “closed” may still impart to the less initiated that entry to the land beyond, or to any non-tracked land, is illegal. In most if not all cases it seems unlikely that closure is official, but with official looking signs, alerts and press releases being used by DoC to communicate about such “closures”, how can we know the difference?
    (more…)

  • PLBs and Media

    Lately there’s been an obvious promotional push from Police, the RCCNZ and SAR officials to tell people to carry PLBs (Personal Locator Beacon) when they visit the outdoors. This makes sense as a progressive way to be able to indicate distress, but I’ve found it interesting to watch how the message is injected into the media machine.

    It’s now standard, in a New Zealand media article about a back-country search and/or rescue, to see a comment about whether or not a person is believed to be carrying an emergency beacon. For better or worse, those who aren’t are often criticised as if they should be. The latest story to be pushed into the press is this one, repeated in several media outlets, which uses a recent incident in Milford Sound as an excuse to advise everyone to carry beacons. Browsing the comment thread under the above-linked article, the initially expressed public opinions mostly seem to be one-dimensional about how great and useful beacons are and how people are idiots not to carry them. Until the second wave of responding comments from readers, there was no acknowledgement that a PLB is effectively an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff which transmits no message except “fly a helicopter here to find out what my problem is”.
    (more…)

  • A New Trusted Contact Service for Outdoor Safety in New Zealand

    About a year ago, DoC announced that it was pulling out of the business of taking intentions for visitors to New Zealand’s back-country. It was only ever doing so inconsistently anyway, through ad-hoc arrangements at various visitor centres, but the announcement still created controversy. One way or another, all of the nominated alternatives (encapsulated by directing people to the AdventureSmart website) required people to have their own trusted contacts.

    For a New Zealand local, arranging a trusted contact is generally manageable. People here know other people here, and those people are generally in the same time zone, speak the same language, know the important phone numbers, and are usually familiar with New Zealand’s systems, conditions and expectations. For visitors to New Zealand, however, finding trusted contacts is often not so easy, especially for visitors who simply don’t know someone who can be trusted to reliably report if they don’t return on time. Some visitors don’t even realise how important it is to have a trusted contact.

    I’m perfectly happy with DoC not being in the business of taking people’s intentions. It’s a very time consuming and expensive thing to do, especially when many of those people were never bothering to properly sign out, resulting in needless efforts to chase up and ensure they’d safely exited. It’s never been a clear statutory requirement for DoC to look after people in this way. Nevertheless, the fact that the staff of some DoC offices in touristy places have been acting as trusted contacts until recently has ensured more reliable oversight for some people visiting the outdoors than would otherwise have existed.

    A year ago I wondered if there might be room for a business to set up for taking and managing people’s intentions as a trusted contact. Very happily, it seems that someone else had a similar idea, and actually acted on it. This afternoon a random press release popped out, from a company/website called Safety Outdoors.

    According to its press release, the Safety Outdoors service, due to launch tomorrow (Thursday) and accessible via http://www.safetyoutdoors.com, will allow people to sign up for a trusted contact as a service, with a fee per activity. [Edit 9-Dec-2012: It seems to be taking longer than advertised for the SafetyOutdoors website to get underway. Meanwhile, you could also check out Adventure Buddy, which is an alternative (and free) service which is also now available.]

    From the Safety Outdoors press release:
    (more…)

  • Check Out FMC Bulletin Number 190

    A Track Closed sign in the Eastern Tararau Range.
    A Track Closed sign in the Eastern
    Tararua Range. Photo: Craig McGregor.

    If you have access to the November 2012 copy of the Federated Mountain Clubs Bulletin Number 190, please take a look at pages 40-41 on which I have a small opinion piece.

    In it, I discuss a creeping issue which I think exists with the Department of Conservation’s tendency to declare places as ‘closed’, after which it’s legally ambiguous and often misleading as to whether they’re actually closed or not. I don’t want to under-cut the FMC Bulletin’s distribution by posting it here immediately, but once it’s had a reasonable chance to get around, I’ll re-post it here with much more elaboration on the issue and the laws involved.

    I’m ultimately hoping to provoke a discussion about this. As much as I enjoy people commenting on this blog, I think such a discussion would be more effective and useful via entities such as Federated Mountain Clubs, which I know reaches many more people than my blog does. Therefore, if you have something especially engaging to say and are equipped to respond in that forum, I’d like to suggest considering a response via the FMC Bulletin or a similar forum. (eg. Write the editor a letter if you’re so inclined — Shaun likes letters. 🙂 ) Otherwise please tell your friends, or comment here if you’re not so organised or aren’t affiliated enough.
    (more…)