Can I ride my bike or drive my car around?

Only on formed roads and designated parking areas and camp grounds, or where signs show where you can or cannot drive or ride in the reserve

At the moment the bylaws apply to the following reserves in Whangarei:

• Uretiti Recreation Reserve
• Motutara Recreation Reserve
• Oakura Beach Domain Recreation Reserve
• Otamure Recreation Reserve
• Bream Head Scenic Reserve
• Manaia Ridge Scenic Reserve
• Motukauri Scenic Reserve
• Purua Scenic Reserve
• Riponui Scenic Reserve
• Mangawhai Government Purpose Wildlife Refuge Reserve
• Bream Tail Scenic Reserve
• Waipu Government Purpose Wildlife Refuge Reserve
• Mimiwhangata Scenic Reserve

And reserves in the Kaitaia area:

• Rangikapiti Pa Historic Reserve
• Taumarumaru Recreation Resserve
• Maitai Bay Recreation Reserve

The Department of Conservation is working towards enacting bylaws for various other reserves in the Whangarei, Kaitaia, Bay of Islands and Kauri Coast areas later in 2008.

Note that similar bylaws currently exist for a range of mostly coastal reserves in the Bay of Islands.

.

NZFWDA.org.nz | Kindly sponsored by Jeep and ARB

The existing ones can be found as PDF files here http://www.doc.govt.nz/templates/summary.aspx?id=39343

There are errors in some of those places that they suggest and there may be others that they could include, which are known to NZFWDA members. The NZFWDA have been asked to assist DOC to get the pamphlets accurate and informative.  Max Wheatley ( pro@nzfwda.org.nz) is the person to contact with information and he will be working with DOC staff to get the best possible collection of available 4x4 options around NZ.

NZFWDA.org.nz | Kindly sponsored by Jeep and ARB

3.2       Kaipara Forest and Bird -Vehicles OFF Beaches Campaign: Outline

The Forest & Bird campaign to raise awareness of the need to ban vehicles from beaches started out as a local Kaipara campaign, and grew into a national movement.  Communities throughout New Zealand have supported their stand to protect beaches and sand dunes and the wildlife that shelter there, and have asked for help to get a ban on vehicles from beaches in their areas.

Kaipara Forest & Bird strongly believe that a total ban on vehicles on the 60km stretch of iconic west coast beach from Muriwai Beach to Papakanui Spit is the only way to protect the beach and dune environment, protect wildlife, and ensure public safety. The dune areas along this coast and at Papakanui Spit are a dynamic ecosystem that were once common on the west coast, but are now nationally rare.  This area, according to the Department of Conservation’s Conservation Management Strategy (CMS 2005) for South Head, “represents the best remaining dune assemblage in the Auckland region, and one of the best remaining in New Zealand”.  Muriwai–Te Oneone -Rangatira Beach is also of spiritual significance to Maori as it forms part of the pathway followed by the spirits of the dead on their journey to Cape Reinga.

Suzi Phillips said it was interesting to note in the Department of Conservation’s last Auckland Conservation management strategy that Conservation Park status was proposed for the South Head/Papakanui Spit area, and the report called for increased support for the heritage values there.

The CMS also noted conflicts between activities such as the use of off-road vehicles in the area and protection of the natural dune formations, vegetation and wildlife values.The difficulty of enforcing controls on vehicles entering the wildlife refuge area at the top of the spit, from the beach was also noted. Kaipara Forest & Bird are very concerned that at present, vehicles progressing up Te One One - Rangatira Beach can continue unhindered into the Conservation estate and wildlife refuge at Papakanui Spit, threatening the breeding and roosting areas of rare and threatened native and endemic birds, as well as nationally and internationally significant populations of migratory waders and other wildlife.

The reasons why a ban on vehicles is necessary were summarised:

• because any vehicle damage to the dunes and beach environment is unacceptable and irreparable.  Or to put it another way, no damage is sustainable.
• because any vehicle disturbance of feeding, roosting and nesting coastal birds is unacceptable.
• to preserve the wilderness and coastal heritage values of areas like Muriwai/Te Oneone/ Rangatira Beach and Papakanui Spit and to ensure the safety of people who are enjoying these values by removing the intrusion and accompanying risks of vehicle passage, and of noise from this experience.
• to prevent vehicle damage to beach foreshore and sand dune environments, particularly the damage done from vehicle tracks that destroys dune vegetation, break down the dune system and cause increased coastal erosion along this foreshore area.
• so that access roads can be blocked before the foreshore and dunes, and carparks established to encourage people to walk to the sea for recreational pursuits such as fishing, camping, beach-combing, and bird-watching, resulting in better outcomes for public health as well as the environment. 
• to stop intrusion into conservation estate land, on coastal strips such as on the west coast beaches and at the top of South Head. 

Earlier that week, Kaipara Forest & Bird were invited by the Rodney District Council’s strategy and planning department to comment on their proposals for setting speed limits on Muriwai-Te Oneone Beach – 60km of iconic west coast beach and sand dune systems from Muriwai to Papakanui Spit. Before responding to the proposed speed limits, Kaipara F&B commented on matters of law affecting access on the beach, as these affect the setting of these speed limit bylaws. 

They agreed with RDC that conflict is occurring between user groups causing safety concerns … and that “thoughtless use of off-road vehicles was causing damage to the sensitive beach environment and dune ecology” there, however they took issue with the RDC’s statement that …”the right of all types of vehicles to use the beach should be recognized …” as Kaipara F&B sought a legal opinion from a respected environmental lawyer, and he concluded that ;

“Neither section 7 of the Foreshore and Seabed Act nor the Land Transport Act provides a policy justification for allowing continued use of public beaches by vehicles.  The Council has complete discretion to regulate that activity on beaches, including to ban their use.”

And further that, “provided the justification for the ban was relevant and reasonable, there is no difficulty in passing the Bylaw seeking a ban.  Such a ban would stand up to challenge.”

He also said that “The Land Transport Act does not grant a right of public access to a beach by vehicle.  The ONLY area where the LTA applies is between MHWS and MLWS.  This is not a right of access, but is for the purposes of enabling Police to enforce traffic law.”

Rodney District Council already has a bylaw enacted that can be used to ban vehicles from the beach.  This is contained in the RDC Bylaws, Chapter 14, 5.1 (d) that states the public cannot, “take any vehicle on to a beach except by the most direct route to launch or recover a boat.”  Kaipara Forest & Bird have suggested that the Council enforce this bylaw on Muriwai Beach along with appropriate signs and promotion, arguing that there is no right of access to the beach and so regulating speed is the wrong approach. They considered that it would also not be possible for the Police to adequately enforce these speed restriction bylaws, as that would require a Police presence that is beyond the capability of the Police to provide. 

Suzi Phillips outlined the justification for a ban is in the need to protect public safety, pedestrian enjoyment of the beach, and the dune ecosystem and wildlife.  There is also justification for a ban in terms of there being no effective way of preventing vehicles leaving the (what is considered by some to be), legal public access (ie the area below Mean High Water Springs), and traversing the back-beach, causing damage to the dune ecosystem and disturbance to wildlife.  The only way to effectively achieve the above is to ban vehicles from the beach. They pointed out that the significant speed difference between a pedestrian at walking speed and a vehicle travelling at 60km/hr is too great without the protection of defined footpath and roadway, and suggested that a speed limit closer to 10kph offers better pedestrian safety, subject to the police being there to enforce it.

It was noted that there is a recent legal precedent for a responsibility on authorities to be aware of the downstream effects of their decisions on the safety of the public. It can now be argued in court that a decision to allow motor vehicle use on the beach, subject to a speed restriction that cannot be adequately enforced, is not showing sufficient care for public safety. The Rodney District Council’s draft speed restriction proposal included two areas of beach that should ban vehicles.  These were at the southern high public use end of Muriwai Beach and at the northern end, extending from the boundary of the Defence Force land and including Papakanui Spit and the wildlife refuge.

While Kaipara Forest & Bird felt that this proposal is a significant improvement, they consider it is not sufficient to protect the public’s right to safely enjoy the rest of the beach, or to adequately protect the sand dune ecosystems that stretch between the two areas, nor the coastal birdlife, or their critical nesting areas. Suzi Phillips said that although the Department appears not to have the resources to actively enforce a ban on vehicles in Conservation land such as the Papakanui Spit Wildlife Refuge, it can help the situation by supporting the call for a ban and in doing so, sharing in the favourable result such a ban would have for conservation lands and associated ecosystems.

Kaipara Forest & Bird have asked Rodney District Council to extend this ban to include the entire extent of Muriwai / Te Oneone / Rangatira Beach, and hope that the Department of Conservation and the Auckland Conservation Board will also want to protect these sand dune ecosystems and associated wildlife, by supporting a call for a ban on vehicles on these beaches.

AUCKLAND CONSERVATION BOARD

Te Runanga Papa Atawhai o Tamaki Makaurau

Board File Ref:

28 July 2008

The Chief Executive Officer
Rodney District Council
Private Bag 500
Orewa 0946

Dear Sir

Use of Motor Vehicles on Beaches

I am writing to you in my capacity as Chairperson of the Auckland Conservation Board (ACB). The ACB is a statutory board appointed by the Minister of Conservation under the provisions of the Conservation Act 1987.  The Act, amongst other things promotes and encourages the conservation of New Zealand’s natural and historical resources.

The ACB provides advice to the Department of Conservation on conservation matters in the Auckland region and to the Minister regarding policies and programmes of the Department, and also advocates for conservation more generally.  Part of this latter process includes regular consultation with a wide number of community groups having a particular interest in conservation and related recreational and historical matters.

At our most recent meeting the Board was approached by representatives of groups concerned with the effects of motor vehicles on the ecological, conservation and recreational values of some beaches in the Auckland region – particularly Muriwai/Te Oneone/Rangatira Beach. The Kaipara Branch of the NZ Forest and Bird Protection Society are running a campaign (“Vehicles OFF Beaches”) and requested the Board give particular consideration to the issue.

The Board are aware that for a significant period of time the public have been permitted access to beaches such as Muriwai, and that for many years Muriwai Beach provided the best access to a number of properties further up the peninsula.  In some cases vehicular access to the beach has virtually become a “customary right” - the beach is a popular recreational area and is well used for picnicking and fishing.  Many more vehicles are now capable of accessing beaches – 4-wheel drive recreational vehicles, 4-wheel quad and off-road trail bikes and other customised vehicles – and not only has the intensity of use increased but modern vehicles also permit movement off the beach and onto adjoining  foredune and associated natural areas.  Most recently the conflicting interests of pedestrians and vehicle use of beach areas has been reflected in a number of serious accidents and demonstrates well why everywhere else in the community foot and vehicular traffic are completely separated.

The beach also has important ecological and conservation values which have become better understood over time, and are now the subject of intense public interest.  The mass migration of godwits each year from areas such as the Papakanui Spit is followed closely on the internet and on TV – an epic journey only made because of the existence of a safe haven and feeding grounds at South Head.  Possibly less well known, this area is one of the few where fairy tern still successfully nest in New Zealand and is of critical importance to the survival of this species.

The lower beach is habitat for bivalve molluscs such as the now relatively rare toheroa,   while fields of tubeworms, etc are the feeding ground for other birds such as oystercatchers.  The maintenance of natural values such as these is not compatible with relatively open and wide scale use by vehicular traffic which is usually below the high tide line, where the sand is firmer .

In brief, several areas of conflict between vehicles and the protection of the natural values of beaches exist;-

• Disturbance of feeding, roosting and nesting coastal birds including species of high conservation importance
• Damage to the beach tidal zone and its associated flora and fauna of ecological importance
• Disturbance of the wilderness and coastal heritage values of areas like Muriwai/Te Oneone/Rangatira Beach/Papakanui Spit lessening both the recreational value and reducing the safety of pedestrian users.
• Infringement of Wahi Tapu status: Muriwai / Te One One / Rangitira Beach is spiritually significant to iwi as being part of the spiritual pathway to Cape Reinga, and because many battles were fought in this area.      
• Intrusion of off-road capable vehicles onto fragile dune systems and adjoining natural areas, creating significant damage and cost for repairs.
• The use of four wheel drive vehicles to transport equipment for para penting, para gliding, kite surfing and similar activities, often right to launch sites on top of the dunes, also greatly disturbs roosting birds as these large winged apparatus appear to be like giant predators to them. This is critically important at times of the year when migratory birds are resting and trying to gain body weight, prior to or following incredibly long flights.

There is clearly a case for more direct intervention and management of the public’s access to areas such as these and we are requesting that Council give further consideration to its policies in this regard. The Department of Conservation in their Conservation Management Strategy (CMS 2005) and after wide consultation identified the South Head dune-lands as most notable in the entire Auckland region and advocated permanent protection of the area for conservation purposes.

To date efforts to lessen the conflict between Muriwai Beach’s ecological and recreational values and the use of the area by motor vehicles has been limited to attempting to control vehicle speed.  Part of the rationale for continued vehicular use relates to the “customary right”; it is doubtful that any legal right exists as neither Section 7 of the Foreshore and Seabed Act or the Land Transport Act provide a justification for maintaining a policy supporting use of public beaches by vehicles.  Specifically the Land Transport Act does not grant a right of public access to a beach in vehicles.  The only area where the Act applies is between MHWS and MLWS and this is not a right of access but is for the purpose of allowing the police to enforce traffic law where beach access by vehicles is permitted.  We believe Councils have the discretion to regulate that activity on beaches including banning vehicular use…e.g. Rodney DC already have a bylaw, Chapter 14, 5.1(d) that states that (where nominated) the public cannot take any vehicle onto a beach except by the most direct route to launch or recover a boat.

The Board notes that specifically in relation to Muriwai Beach the main South Head Road has now been realigned and sealed over its full length and provides better access to all properties in this area.  Improved access to the beach is also provided at strategic points lessening the requirement for public access onto and along the entire length of the beach.   It may be timely for the relevant Councils to consider whether some intermediate position is appropriate including restricting/banning the use of motor vehicles on certain sectors of the beach, and enforcing much tighter speed restrictions in other places.  Without some action it is likely that the problems around conflicting recreational use, damage to fragile ecosystems and disturbance to internationally important wildlife habitat will escalate with unfortunate consequences.

The Board would welcome the opportunity to meet with Council and discuss ways to progress positive outcomes for all stakeholders around this issue.

Yours sincerely

Denise Yates
Board Chairperson
Cc Council Chairperson, ARC and RDC

NZFWDA.org.nz | Kindly sponsored by Jeep and ARB

Due to the recent bad weather, Thompsons Track is in a bad state. Trees
down(which have mostly been cleared) and several large slips which from all
accounts are only passable with Competition trucks. We are asking people to
stay off the track until we can get it tidied up a bit once the weather comes
right. Shinnies are definitely a no go on Thompsons at the moment.

If any one wants to contact me regarding Thompsons Track they can at this
email address MVanB@mpdc.govt.nz or on 0274993427

 Press release 18-8-08

Thompson’s Track

 

The large amount of rainfall over the past month that has taken its toll around the district, has also had a major effect on the condition of Thompsons Track. The District Council reports that there have been several slips and trees down across the well used and popular 4WD and motorbike track on the Kaimai Ranges.

 

Despite signage at the start of the track clearly stating the track condition, many ill-equipped people in 4WD vehicles are attempting the track. The District Council asks that anyone considering using the track doesn’t until the weather improves and the track has a chance to dry out.

 

If use does not dramatically decrease, the District Council will have no choice but to close the track to all users for the next 3 months. We do not want to do this, but unfortunately a few people who think that because they have a 4WD vehicle that can negotiate the track, they are putting themselves at risk, says the District Council. The cost to recover a broken down or bogged vehicle from the track, starts at around $400.

 

Anyone wanting an update on the condition of Thompson’s Track should contact the Matamata Piako District Council.

NZFWDA.org.nz | Kindly sponsored by Jeep and ARB

Visitor Solutions are undertaking a survey on behalf of the Auckland Regional Council as part of a study into the demand for off road motorised recreation in the Auckland region. The aim of the study is to gain an in depth understanding of the demand for and the core issues surrounding off road motorised recreation. The primary purpose of the survey is to gather your thoughts so that we can better understand the demand for off road motorised recreation.

The survey is aimed at people participating in off road motorised recreation within the Auckland region. The survey can be found on:

http://visitorsolution.off-road-motorised-sport-survey.sgizmo.com

NZFWDA.org.nz | Kindly sponsored by Jeep and ARB

The full report from the Parliamentary Select Committee.

The progress of this Bill could be rapid if the Government attempt to leave a legacy. It will be vital to follow this and ensure that your MP's know what you want.

It is expected that Parliament will pass this Bill under 'urgency' during the final session before the election and it may happen before the end of August 2008.

NZFWDA.org.nz | Kindly sponsored by Jeep and ARB

SUV's unsafe reputation undeserved, says research

10.54 THURSDAY JULY 24, 2008

Academics have investigated thousands of injury crashes to try to answer that often debated motoring question of whether sport utility vehicles (SUVs) are safe or not.

"Previous research has shown some clear negatives about SUVs in terms of safety, but they are not as unsafe as many people make out," said public health researcher Michael Keall.

The University of Otago Wellington academic and researchers from Melbourne's Monash University Accident Research Centre investigated 17,245 injury-related crashes involving passenger vehicles in New Zealand in 2005 and 2006 and published the results in the international journal Accident Analysis and Prevention.

They found that SUVs are not generally dangerous, possibly because of the way they are driven, and the people who own them.

But their safety record is compromised by three factors.

"The first factor is that they are dangerous in the hands of young drivers, probably because of their inexperience as drivers and the instability of 4WDs," Dr Keall said.

They are more prone to rollover crashes, which lead to particularly severe injuries for drivers and passengers.

Thirdly, they are more dangerous to pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists and others who are harmed by the high bonnets and rigid structures.

"This means that if you are looking for a really safe vehicle for you and other road users, you wouldn't generally choose a SUV as it is not the best vehicle on the road in terms of overall road safety."

But SUVs are less involved in accidents because of how they are driven and how they are used.

Sports cars have the worst safety record of all vehicles probably because drivers tend to take additional risk when provided with high levels of performance and acceleration.

The research was funded by Land Transport New Zealand, the New Zealand Automobile Association, Road Traffic Authority of NSW, Royal Automobile Club of Victoria Ltd, NRMA Ltd, VicRoads, Royal Automobile Club of Western Australia Ltd, Transport Accident Commission, the Road Safety Council of Western Australia and by a grant from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

- NZPA

SUVs score more safe points in new research

5:00AM FRIDAY JULY 25, 2008

BY MATHEW DEARNALEY

Crash researchers have found lumbering SUVs to be less dangerous than previously thought, despite their potential to cause more mayhem than smaller vehicles.

But that is not to say the beasts have received an unqualified safety tick.

They are still considered dangerous in the hands of young drivers, vulnerable to roll-over crashes carrying high risks of serious head injuries to their occupants, and a threat to other road users such as pedestrians and cyclists likely to be harmed by their high bonnets and rigid structures.

Even so, public health research leader Michael Keall of Otago University's Wellington campus admits surprise at results of an assessment of almost 24,000 vehicles involved in injury crashes in 2005 and 2006.

Not only were below-average crash rates found for SUVs of all sizes, but the best results were recorded in the heaviest of their three categories, those weighing more than two tonnes.

Large SUVs had an overall injury crash rate of just 0.57 per cent compared with an average of 0.8 per cent across 11 vehicle categories. The highest was 0.98 per cent for sports cars.

"It's an interesting result and I was expecting to find 4WDs were rather more dangerous," Dr Keall said yesterday. "Previous research has shown some clear negatives about SUVs in terms of safety, but they are not as unsafe as many people make out."

Dr Keall, assisted by researchers from Monash University in Melbourne with funds from organisations including Land Transport NZ and the Automobile Association, said that was possibly because of how they were being driven and who owned them.

His team's research paper, published in Accident Analysis and Prevention, found only one teenager among owners of the 304 large SUVs involved in injury crashes in the survey.

The paper says SUVs are clearly a safety concern, but only once a collision occurs. It points to previous research showing how SUVs can be "highly damaging" in collisions with cars, given their overall mass, the stiffness of their front sections and their high centre of gravity.

Such factors are listed as a recipe for high "aggressivity" - meaning a greater likelihood of inflicting serious injury or death on other drivers.

NZFWDA.org.nz | Kindly sponsored by Jeep and ARB

NZFWDA.org.nz | Kindly sponsored by Jeep and ARB

There was sympathy among councillors for landowners who want to lock gates to unfenced Council roads crossing their properties, but the law is the law, a meeting of the Gisborne District Council's operations committee decided.

Council staff were looking for some direction on how to enforce commonly-flouted laws, which require public roads to be marked and left open.

The 1955 Gates and Cattle Stops Order,and the Local Government Act of 1974, stipulate this, but are commonly ignored around the Tairawhiti district. "Are you sure it's not an issue with Maori roads?" Atereta Poananga asked. But it was not. Gates on unfenced public roads were often locked because of others getting stuck and needing help, problems with stock theft and fire risks to forests. the meeting was told. The Council had received two letters of complaint about locked gates.

The reccomendation that council consult with land ownersand get them to unlock the gates was accepted. the problem was a perennial one, said councillor Bill Burdett. "There are pig hunters and fishermen who use those roads... at the end of the day the council has an obligation to ensure roads maintained by the council are open for the public to use. "If this is not addressed, there will be gates going up everywhere over a period of time. I'm surprised there have only been five notified, because I know of many more". Mr Burdett said.

"This is quite a change in policy to implement , given that you have had only two letters" said Pat Seymour.

The roads brought to the attentionof councillors were Kokomuka Road in Te Araroa, Awanui Road in Waiomatatini and the paper road off Pa Road at Whangara. One of the people who complained about locking of gates on public roads is Gisborne tramper Chris Sharp. The locked roads he brought to the council's attention all lead to public land. there are many more that do not that are also locked, he said. "I'm only interested in the roads that I can step off on to conservation land or the coast... there are dozens more that are locked," he said.

"Kokomuka Road for example is one of the few vehicle accesses to the Raukumaras. It was locked by a forestry company, but has been unlocked now". he said He understood why landowners wanted to restrict public access but said it was important that access was safeguarded. "I sympathise with them, but it's illegal. My neighbours and I would love to lock our road. We would have no logging trucks thundering past at 4 am, we'd have no four wheelers stolen, no houses burgled if we could put a lock on a gate to keep people out... but it's a fact of life."

It was decided to tell landowners who were locking the gates in question to remove the locks and mark the roads as public, in accordance with the requirements of the law.

by Martin Gibson
Gisborne Herald

NZFWDA.org.nz | Kindly sponsored by Jeep and ARB

The current Wellington CMS was due to expire in 2005, but an extension has been granted to allow for a review to be completed. The Department anticipates publicly notifying a draft CMS by July 2009.

www.doc.govt.nz/templates/page.aspx?id=46526

On the DOC website there is an online form to fill in to record your interest in being contacted by DOC about the CMS progress. It will be important again that four wheeling has input into the CMS construction.

NZFWDA.org.nz | Kindly sponsored by Jeep and ARB

Who can make contributions?

Anyone! We want to hear from as many people as possible who have an interest in how DOC manages public conservation land in Canterbury before we produce the draft CMS. After all, we are managing conservation for all New Zealanders!

 August update from DOC

First, many thanks for the feedback; over 50 responses have been received. The responses have been wide-ranging in the nature of your interests and organisations, and in your identified important issues and places. Your responses do seem to have come from a wider cross-section of the community than previous Conservancy planning processes; maybe that is the power of the internet.

No management issues or places previously unknown to us were identified, but your concerns were clear. I will be grouping  your feedback forms into common issues and/or places (some will fit into several groups) and will provide them to the authors for the various chapters/sections of the CMS.

Two points to clarify:

• This feedback stage is informal and non-statutory; a means of letting you into the CMS review process before the stage of the formal/statutory draft CMS and its submissions and hearings processes (all early to mid 2009).
• There will be no hearings for the feedback information you have provided, but see below.

Where to from here?

• I have extended the initial feedback date until late August, by which time the additional process below will be well underway.
• Department staff are working on the CMS Part One (Management objectives and policies) chapters as listed in the Conservancy overview, and working on the draft Place sections, both chapters and sections as listed on the canterburycms web page. Completion dates for initial draft text is the end of September.
• From late August, these 'initial draft' sections will start to be posted on the web site for further informal comment. Some sections I am anticipating that certain groups will want to discuss with the Department; this process has already started.
• Some issues will require more structured workshops between Department staff and public interest groups; one of these will be for off-road vehicles (motorised and mountain bikes) and planning for this will happen very soon.

One slight disadvantage of public involvement early in the process is that the cross-connections between different parts of the CMS are not always clear and getting the whole CMS picture can be difficult. For example, when considering some of the place sections (e.g. Conservation and Forest Parks) and that within those there is a cross-reference to the management objectives and policies chapters (e.g. 1.3.1 Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecosystems, Habitats and Species). I ask that you bear with us on this as the whole CMS process is very fluid; with many staff involved then many factors influence when draft parts of the CMS become available, but in the end it does all come together. It is your call on when and with what parts of the CMS you provide comment on.

So, thanks again, keep an eye on the web page, let others know that they can still send in feedback forms, and call or email me if you have any questions or you would like to meet.

Poma Palmer

There is a background Powerpoint presentation (visual only) on this CMS review, available on the NZFWDA forum and found under "Reference"

 Part of the  CMS review process is the identification of "Places" that have special characteristics.  These areas have their own sections within the CMS. A proposed list can be downloaded from the web page below. There are several other documents available too.

It is important to four wheeling that the wording covering the 'Places' does not deny 4x4 recreation. Watch the DOC website carefully for updates.

www.doc.govt.nz/templates/page.aspx?id=46394

NZFWDA.org.nz | Kindly sponsored by Jeep and ARB

http://www.sparc.org.nz/research-policy/policy/key-policy-projects

Following the release and a CORANZ meeting with the Minister Clayton Cosgrove, the Co-Chairman: Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations of New Zealand (CORANZ), Ken Sims made these observations..
"There are two things to keep in mind about SPARC in the context of these (ongoing) discussions. Firstly, the system is set up to be self-perpetuating. Controlling the allocation of funding (SPARC's primary focus) gives those involved a lot of status, power and authority, as well as their own financial rewards. Such systems are very unlikely to change themselves internally or on request.

Secondly, SPARC is only interested in supporting (funding/rewarding) things that are measurable. Hence its concentration on sport, which by its competitive nature, provides SPARC with its own measurable outcomes. And hence, why it only supports/funds those sports that:
A) Have already proven themselves as internationally competitive, and
B) Buy into the SPARC performance programmes
If you don't have an approved governance structure, training and performance programmes and at least a 5-year business plan that SPARC can measure you against, just what do you think the chances are of getting major SPARC funding? Funding by the way, that is targeted specifically at supporting international competition.

Hence why the Minister prefers to deal with ONZ. ONZ provides training, and training is measurable. SPARC knows all about training (and coaching) through its concentration on competitive sport, and will insist on it whether you like it, need it, or not. Otherwise, they can't measure it. And if they can't measure it, they can't support it.

Which, interestingly enough, also becomes self-perpetuating. We have a number of educational institutions in NZ and overseas pumping out graduates in Sports Management. Like middle managers anywhere, they are employed by sporting organizations as part of the SPARC approved governance structure, and frequently move around different sporting codes. Underneath them, they set up training and coaching educational programmes at national, regional and local levels. These programmes have to be supported by nationally recognised qualifications of course, be that coaching and training methodologies, first-aid, or whatever. Voila! You have suddenly created an industry. And who pays for this industry? In the small number of sporting codes that meet the SPARC criteria, there may be funding support from SPARC. For everyone else, the organizations themselves do, and the only way they can do that is by levies on membership fees.

So the cost of participation goes up. SPARC can report to the Minister on how effectively the money it allocates to sport is utilised. BUT do we have any proof that New Zealand's participation levels in sports have increased? Or that, as a result of all this, we are any more effective/successful in sport than when it was an amateur pastime? I suggest not. It is also interesting to look at those sports that had international success, built up sporting structures on the basis of SPARC funding, and then lost both the international success and the accompanying funding (hockey, soccer and even rowing spring to mind).

So you will excuse my scepticism about the National Outdoor Recreation Strategy, especially when it is called "Creating a healthy state for Outdoor Recreation in NZ". The model used to allocate funding by the agencies involved would have to change drastically, and I simply cannot see that happening. But I am quite happy to be proved wrong.

I think that SPARC's response to the 4WD Association (as outlined by Peter Vahry) was quite telling. Firstly, why would they want to join SPARC, and more importantly, why would SPARC be interested in them! Secondly, have they adopted the Drug Free Sport policies? Now I am strongly opposed to the use of any performance enhancing, ‘recreational' or illegal drug use, but would simply question whether you have checked the list of what SPARC considers these to be? Can you imagine telling a member of your club/organization that they cannot compete in a competition (or event) simply because they are taking cold medication they can buy at a chemist?

Can you imagine being required to have event organisers for whatever your clubs recreational activity is, being required to hold recognised qualifications in First Aid, Water Safety, Mountain Safety, Group Management, Organisation and Communication, etc, etc. All very laudable and sensible, and totally OTT. Well take a look at organised sports these days, especially those sports that do get SPARC funding. Is that really what our members want, what we can afford, and where we want to go?"

NZFWDA.org.nz | Kindly sponsored by Jeep and ARB

NZFWDA.org.nz | Kindly sponsored by Jeep and ARB

Members of the Local Government and Environment Select Committee

Politicians in general need to be continually reminded too, that this Bill is very unpopular with a wide spectrum of New Zealanders. Talk to your Electorate and List MPs and make it politely clear how you want them to vote.

More information on the Walking Access Bill

NZFWDA.org.nz | Kindly sponsored by Jeep and ARB

For four wheeling it is potentially absolutely disastrous and as you can see from the comments below from Bryce Johnson of NZ Fish and Game Council, that it dismays them too.

The 4x4 community must act swiftly and in big numbers, so contact your MP's and tell them it's not wanted!

We now have a new tool to use that will make it simple for you to reach Members of Parliament! http://www.betterdemocracy.co.nz/email_mps.php

Send all your MP's an email now to let them know the Walking Access Bill is not wanted!

More reading...

Available for download below:

• The NZFWDA's comments to the Select Committee
• Comments from Hugh Barr of CORANZ
• Comments from Brian Stephenson of Federated Mountain Clubs
• A list of all MP contacts

Others news articles on this web site:

• Walking Access Repression - Bruce Mason's view on the bill as a 'blatant assault on our fundamental rights'
• Walking Access Bill - A sinster attempt to rid on unformed legal roads, the view of Bryce Johnson of NZ Fish and Game

Through other web sites:

• An essay on the evolution of this walking access business

Make sure your voice is heard and contact your MP's now!

NZFWDA.org.nz | Kindly sponsored by Jeep and ARB

Submissions close 14th July

This is another important area to four wheeling and it appears that DOC want to heavily restrict use.

NZFWDA.org.nz | Kindly sponsored by Jeep and ARB

WALKING ACCESS REPRESSION

INTRODUCTION

As I sit at home on Anzac Day viewing the provisions of the recently introduced Walking Access Bill, an inescapable reality emerges - this Bill is a blatant assault on our fundamental rights, dressed up as a public good.

While our politicians are commemorating those who gave their lives for freedom and liberty, these same politicians are now not only betraying the supreme sacrifices of those they claim to honour but also present and future generations. According to the Walking Access Consultation Panel (2007) there are 56,900 kilometers of unformed road in New Zealand - the equivalent of four times the distance by road from Peking to Paris. This is an immense strategic asset, much of which is suitable for recreational use.

"The unformed roading network is one of the greatest recreational assets of the nation, for it is the one mechanism that provides an unqualified guarantee of access for everyone". Brian E Hayes. February, 2007. Elements of the law on movable water boundaries'.

However, all guarantees will be removed if the Walking Access Bill becomes law!

"Section 6...[a little-used provision in the Walkways Act 1990, enabling use of unformed roads as walkways]...is a curious provision which is inconsistent with the common law, the statutory law protecting the status of roads, and the rigorous protection the New Zealand courts have provided for the interests of the public". Brian E Hayes. February, 2007. 'Roading law as it applies to unformed roads'.

Rather than repealing section 6 to protect the interests of the public, the Walking Access Bill expands its powers to bar, restrict and penalise the public. The Bill is an Act of Repression!

POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY RULES

My previous predictions as to the thrust of what Government is really on about have proved correct. Government got a hammering from the rural sector (deservedly so in my opinion) for Jim Sutton's misguided attempt at imposing public access rights over private land. Now our leaders are giving away existing public rights over public lands just to keep the rural sector quiet prior to this year's election! Clark and Co don't want a repeat.

Federated Farmers must be rejoicing - they are set to achieve everything they would ever hope for, and more. Not that a Labour-led Government has any particular affection for the Feds. Just consider the cavalier approach by Government to the concerns of pastoral lessees undertaking tenure review. Government is vigorously asserting public interest ahead of private interest in the South Island high country, even if it costs them/us millions to do so.

In the case of the Walking Access Bill, Government trumpets the fact that the Bill does NOT interfere with private property rights. What they do NOT say is that they are 'interfering' with (read 'extinguishing') public property rights. Political expediency and current electoral imperatives rule ahead of ideology, let alone principle.

Unless there is an electoral revolt, the Bill is destined to become law with Labour and National supporting it. The access-hostile content of the Bill should trigger vigorous opposition from the recreation NGO sector. Their leaderships should be held to account if they fail to resist this lamentable outcome.

WALKING ACCESS BILL 2008

The Bill establishes the New Zealand Walking Access Commission.

The Commission's functions include:

• a leadership and co-ordination role in the provision of public access to the outdoors;
• the provision of information about the location of existing public access;
• the provision of a code of responsible conduct for the guidance of the public and landholders;
• facilitating and funding the negotiation of new public access across private land.

While many of the above functions should be beneficial the imposition of Walkways over public land, especially those that are reserves or unformed roads, is unnecessary and dangerous to the public good.

Clause 3 states that the purpose of the Bill is:
"To provide the New Zealand public with safe, unimpeded walking access to the outdoors (such as around the coast and lakes, along rivers, and to public resources) so that the public can enjoy the outdoors".

Given that public lands (other than wildlife sanctuaries, etc.) already have rights of access - at least by walking - there is no need for additional walking rights to be bestowed. As set out below, in regard to public lands, the Bill actually creates a regime designed to IMPEDE walking access - contrary to the primary purpose of the Bill.

Walkway legislation has been around since the mid 1970's. Up to now this has proved to be largely ineffectual in advancing walking opportunities over private land because it depends on landholder consent. It is not unreasonable that agreement is voluntary, but it is a lesson that should have been well understood by now. The ONLY prospect of further advancing

Walkway establishment over private land arises from the offering and acceptance of payment, or other benefit, that outweighs landowner reticence in foregoing privacy, development opportunities, capital gains and succession rights from unimpeded title.

Government has not indicated any intent to dig deep into its pockets for monetary compensation. The only form of 'compensation' to farmers that has been raised during the lengthy access debate has involved so-called 'paper'
roads - the trading off of public property and rights 'in exchange' for unspecified rights over private land.

Exclamations of joy from Federated Farmers late in February last year, heralding impending farmer veto rights over public use of unformed roads, was a foreboding of what has now appeared in the Bill. The Feds, and some recreation NGOs, were briefed by officials on the Walking Access Panel's report before its release in March 2007.

The Walking Access Bill delivers to adjoining landholders -

• 'Rights' of use over unformed roads "for the same purposes and to the same extent" as if a walkway had not been declared. This follows what I believe to be erroneous advice by Brian Hayes to the effect that farmers have unspecified rights of 'occupation' that should be accommodated as "a special need". Whereas the courts regard such 'occupiers' as no more than trespassers.
• Protection of landholders who have rights of 'frontage' to unformed legal roads including the use of vehicles, They will be able to ignore any restrictions to walking-only passage along roads that will apply to everyone else.
• Rights to request closure to the public of unformed roads adjoining their holdings, with no limitations on the grounds for such requests, or limits to acceding to such requests by the authorities, other than being 'on reasonable grounds' or 'necessary'.

Repression of public use will be effected by -

• Imposition of regulations and bylaws concerning the maintenance of "good order" on walkways, providing for the conditions under which the public may enter, remain on, or use any walkway, with penalties up to $1000.
• Imposition of various 'strict liability' offences such as having firearms, horses, dogs or vehicles.
• Penalties against offenders of up to $5000 for 'strict liability' offences.
• The onus is on the defendant to prove that at the time of the alleged offence an activity is authorised, whereas the prosecution does not need to prove that a defendant intentionally or recklessly committing the offence knew that an offence was occurring: i.e. guilty unless proven innocent.
• More serious offences requiring 'knowledge, intent, or recklessness', including, without having the authority of the landholder of land adjacent to the walkway, enters or remains on the walkway if the walkway is closed, interferes with or disturbs livestock, or ANNOYS or DISTURBS the landholder adjacent to a walkway.
• Penalties against offenders of up to $10,000 for 'knowledge, intent, or recklessness' offences.
• Additional liability for loss, damage, or costs associated in effecting prosecutions, including salaries, wages, and incidental expenses incurred in investigating the act constituting an offence.
• Enforcement officers, including every fish and game ranger. Such officers will have powers to call on any person "in the vicinity" for assistance (no guessing required as to who is most likely to be "in the vicinity"). It is a further offence to obstruct such a person.

ROAD RESUMPTION AND PRIVATISATION

There is a key matter not touched on by the Bill. That is the use of existing Local Government Act provisions for resumption and disposal of unformed roads. Contrary to Hayes's advice to Government this is used extensively - all in secret - until such time as published in the NZ Gazette. My research indicates that resumption is currently almost as prevalent as 'stopping' actions by local authorities, which does require public process with scope for appeal to the Environment Court. The Bill, if enacted in its present form, is likely to add impetus to resumption and disposal of roads.

There are two sets of legal access rights attached to public roads - public passage ALONG roads, and private access ACROSS road frontages to and from adjoining property.

In the drafting of the Bill, Government has concerned itself entirely with protecting private property rights. Long-establ