COMMENTS FOR THE
RECREATION SUMMIT 16-17 SEPTEMBER 2006
by Geoff Spearpoint, Editor
Moir’s Guide North and noted tramper
Kia ora,
1
In
the field of conservation, DOC works closely with conservation
organisations.
It seeks their volunteer support. It accepts linking with them at all
levels
and is comfortable to drive conservation agendas in NZ with them. There
are
only a few per cent of New Zealanders actually connected with those
organisations. Is DOC seeking wider views and input from the other
unrepresented 98%? Keen to change its policy to suit newer attitudes
amongst
the general public towards conservation management of DOC administered
lands? I
think not too much. Unless they take on DOCs perpective, their views
would
probably seriously water down DOC’s conservation focus.
2
In contrast, for some time in the
1990s, DOC seemed to became quite disconnected from outdoor
recreational
organisations. DOC saw itself as the arbiters of providing what it
thought was
necessary for recreation, rather than what active outdoor organisations
thought, and i think there was a genuine belief that traditional use of
our
backcountry was almost dead. The cost was significant flack from the
supposedly
weak and collapsing organisations that were written off as sunset
industries.
The extent of the reaction and genuine surprise in the dept was an
indication
of that disconnection. Hopefully we are past that now.
3
During that time, when Chicago
economics dominated thinking nationally, DOC became a very good
advocate for
tourism. Consequently it is now expected to provide infrastructure for
tourists
and approve a burgeoning concession lobby, which for the businesses
involved is
as good as money in the bank in increased value and assets. DOC I think
became
such a strong advocate because there is plenty of professional
credibility and
money in tourism. It felt important to do and it could link a
conservation
message to it. Maybe it has turned out more tricky than expected. Maybe
a lot
of the tourist stuff could be provided through the Tourist Board, or
some other
directly related govt organisation. But I think its a bit disingenuous
to
portray it as essentially Kiwi recreation though. Because it isnt.
Language use
betrayed thinking at the time. Everyone became 'visitors' to their own
land,
called the 'DOC Estate'.
4
The Conservation Act says 'foster'
recreation and 'allow' for tourism. The dept interprets them the same.
My
Collins NZ dictionary defines 'foster' as "to nourish; to rear; to
promote; to cherish". It defines 'allow' as "to acknowledge: to
permit; to give; to set apart; to provide". The same? You decide, but I
don’t see one recognised as a synonym for the other in either case. The
original choice of words was very deliberate and came from the National
Parks
Act in 1953 specifically to differentiate priorities. I still see that
heirachy
as not just relevant, but essential.
5
The original recognition of difference
between recreation and tourism was one of amateur and professional
interests. A
current discussion holds that there is no difference. If that is the
case, then
the results are the same. If that is the case, then access to a site by
a
company with paying customers is no different to haphazard amateur use.
However, that is not the case, because the longer term outcomes are
different,
even though the immediate effect may be the same with the same number
of
people. An amateur group visits and leaves and there is no driver to
keep
returning. Intermittently they may, or may not. On the other hand, the
concessionaire has different priorities that involve increasing the
value of
the concession asset. Increasing amounts of money will be tied up in
advertising the 'product' and for a successful business, there will be
increased pressure on the resource. That is the nature of business, and
as an
example, that is exactly what is happening in Milford.
6
Fishing, hunting, climbing, tramping
and walking clubs, over 40s clubs, youth groups are much more healthy
than many
in the recreational planning field seem to give them credit for. That
should
have been recognised through the backcountry hut debate. I wonder if
any have
ever really investigated them or done in depth analysis of what they
continue
to offer. I belong to an average sized club in Christchurch called the
Peninsula Tramping Club. Their figures for person/days on official club
trips
last year went up another 100 to nearly 1000. Other clubs in ChCh
exceed that.
Added together with all their private trips, it becomes quite a lot of
people. Equally there is significant
formal educational use of our backcountry, and many organisations such
as
project K are also introducing people to our wildlands. They need to be
a
significant part of that consultation too. It doesn’t hurt to remember
peoples
roots though. Very many of the people now immersed in outdoor tourism
or youth
and educational work got their introduction and had their outdoor
passion
ignited through a club. That is not about to stop.
7
So I think part of the way forward is
to stop calling locals visitors and include them in local and regional
planning, as this conference is doing. It is, after all, their place.
Recognise
that they do have a different stake in our backcountry to overseas
visitors.
Where do locals go? What do they want? Support that. Help them to
facilitate
getting more kiwis out there. Don’t get too hung up that locals using
DOC land
may be a bit older. Many people are coming to the hills later in life
and it is
a big growth area for many clubs. Middle aged people need to be
reconnected
too, and facilities and support. Last weekend one of the people on the
club
trip i was on was an immigrant of Asian descent. She has been in NZ 20
yrs,
consciously sought out and joined a tramping club and had a fantastic
weekend
in relatively remote country. So she comes into tramping at midlife.
Statistics
sometimes don’t tell the real story.
8
We need to be careful not to become
disenfranchised from our own wildlands. Let me illustrate with an
example. I
recently went to Mueller Hut (a bit dishonest really- it’s a lodge in
anyone’s
language, not a hut) in Mt Cook NP. It was recently rebuilt, and cost
over half
a million dollars. Consequently, the hut fees are very high for New
Zealanders,
at $35/person/night. But it is very appropriate for NZ tourism. Annual
hut
passes, which active outdoor kiwis might have, cant be used. Now I
never heard
any kiwis pushing for the extremely high hut standard that has happened
up
there, quite the reverse. There were 3 or 4 separate sets of survey
forms at
the hut. They will, going by comments in the hut, absolutely reinforce
what a
wonderful experience the hut offers.
The
problem for me is that all of the hut users that night, wardens
excepted, and
about 90% of those in the hut logbook, were overseas visitors. Who fill
in the
forms. That drive survey results that show what is wanted by
“visitors”. DOC
takes that hard data seriously and tries to provide facilities that
satisfy
those almost entirely overseas visitor’s preferences. Many of our best
backcountry areas are driving down the same track, and many outdoor
kiwis now
simply stay away from them.
Don’t
get me wrong. I enjoyed my stay and the company. In no way do i want to
stop
overseas visitors enjoying our backcountry. I just don’t think that
they should
become the drivers of what standards and facilities DOC provides in the
NZ
backcountry, even in the touristed areas. That should remain primarily
the
perogative of kiwis. Just as i don’t expect to go to Germany and tell
them
where and what to provide as recreational facilities in their country.
Or for
that matter, survey them on how we should manage the conservation
aspect of our
DOC lands, and then base policy on it. For instance, what to do about
our
possums and 1080 and whether we should be managing our biodiversity
differently. That's not appropriate, either.
9
Simplify and lower costs on outdoor
recreational facilities, particularly in the backcountry. Last weekend
i
visited several older style 4 and 6 bunk huts done up recently by DOC.
They are
wonderful. Quintessentially Kiwi backcountry. We had a lot of rain.
None
leaked. A new design 6 bunk hut put in the same area had pools of water
inside.
The extra cost is to make them last? I think not in this case. Simplify
and
weatherproof. That's all backcountry people want, and what they said in
the
standards review. The higher standard is simply corporate junk. Don't
blame
backcountry users for those extra costs. In Stewart Island, huts being
built by
deerstalkers are about $15,000 i think. They are presumably legal. A
DOC
equivalent is about $80,000+. The one that lasts will be the one that
stays
dry.
10
I think DOC could learn a lot and get a
little less bound up in its own policy stuff by taking some lessons
from what
local and regional park people are doing around the fringes of cities,
if they
want to engage more of the community. Think way outside the square DOC
has put
itself into. I don’t have a dog, and
don’t particularly want to see them or their sign everywhere in the
hills, but
where can people with dogs go in the hills? Where is that advertised?
What
opportunities do DoC provide? Friendly roadend carparks where granny
doesn’t
have to park down the road and walk to the recreation area, but can
drive to
many sheltered sites, such up at Kaitoke waterworks for instance. And
in some
places at least some of the overbearing conservation message boards
could be
dropped. People can feel alienated by the uncompromising nature of some
of that
stuff from the religious greens. It is not needed everywhere. Let
people interpret their own land how they
want.
11
To recap, i see the way forward being
DOC working in closer partnership with those interested in outdoor
recreation
in local communities, professional and amateur. NZ is small enough that
there
should be personal links and regular meetings to talk through local
issues. At
the same time, it should not become a closed shop, but be actively
seeking to
include anyone or group that wants to contribute, or have a say.
Decisions
should follow a general overview policy but include a healthy dose of
local
pragmatism too.
12
We don’t need any more grand visions or
to suddenly swing off at a new tangent, as what we have provides a
sound basis
to continue from. A lot of effort and thought has gone into what we
currently
have. People sometimes say we are very lucky to have what we have.
There is an
element of luck in it. But mostly it has nothing to do with luck. We
inherited
a fantastic National Park System because passionate Kiwis had a vision,
and
fought and fought for it.
We have
a wonderful set of Forest Parks because people gave endless time and
effort to
make them so. They didn’t just happen. The backcountry facilities we
have are
more than just an historical hunting accident, though some sometimes
portray it
that way. Those who put them in knew by the early 70s that they were
also
providing substantially for recreation.
And it
needs to sometimes be remembered that even DOC didn’t set up DOC.
Neither did
luck. We did, less than 20 years ago. Just as we have fought for
protection of,
and access to, in countless campaigns, our backcountry for the best
part of a
century before that. We need to build on from where we are, and to
welcome
newer ways to use our wildlands, but let's not forget where we have
come from,
what we have already done, and find ways to support our unique outdoor
culture.
It is our heritage, and I am committed to maintaining it.
Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations of New Zealand,
(Inc.) Dated: October 2006