Thread: Kaimanawa Forest Park

I read the article on stuff, and the one in the Sunday Star times, and note that they are different - and the Star Times paper version appears to say that the land parcel the road is on was given away in the 70's - contradicting what they also had said regarding ownership, but I guess editing or something.

What does interest me is the role of the Federated Mountain Clubs in all of this. Early on reached out to their local rep and received an answer essentially saying we aren't looking to upset the adjacent land owners. She has asked me to keep the details of the email private, but the tone of the correspondence was not at all what I would have expected from a group who have among their stated aims (taken from their website)
all New Zealanders should have free and enabling access to all public land.
FMC will promote the connectivity of public land
where land under non-public tenure, including Crown pastoral lease, separates public land from public access then, following consultation, provision should be made for practical and enduring public access to the public land.

Elsewhere they claim to keep an eye on DOC and the Government, and I take this quote directly from their Vice Presidents online bio - it seems especially apt here
This work has taught me that our conservation estate is managed by often-unaccountable officials,
behind closed doors and sometimes without, necessarily, recourse to the relevant policies or laws.

Finally, while I wonder if it is possible to separate the self appointed guardians of the conservation estate (Public lands, that is - owned by all New Zealanders) from being too intertwined with DOC, and thus concerned with their income as it is a small country, and there is always going to be the same people involved (I know that many DOC staff are there because they really do care).
I am struck by the VERY conciliatory attitude of the Rotorua rep, and note from her FMC bio that her day job is contracting to the Backcountry Trust - a group who do excellent work that should be applauded by all users of the land we all value and love. Digging a tiny bit into the backcountry Trust website give this regarding funding -
Sponsors
We are primarily funded by DOC, but are also supported by a select band of like-minded corporate sponsors to whom we are very grateful. (Italics mine)

I am in an industry that is pretty much entirely to do with government funding one way or another - water and waste water. As a result I have to moderate my public utterances on various subjects - Three Waters, for example, for I know that it could have a direct effect on my ability to win projects, pay my staff and buy my groceries.

I wonder if this applies to other fields as well? I wonder how other folks manage the conflict between their desire to do good and their need to not offend their paymaster?

What we have here is a fairly simple matter -at it's heart is that the land, while not a road, absolutely is Crown owned. The question is, who is going to control it? As we have all seen, ownership is not as important as the ability to control what happens, and I would be very disappointed to see the loss of access that the Waipakahi road allows being lost to satisfy a group with their own commercial gain at the centre of their concerns.

Helisika - I'm done with you.

Originally Posted by Ross Nolan

What we have here is a fairly simple matter -at it's heart is that the land, while not a road, absolutely is Crown owned. The question is, who is going to control it? As we have all seen, ownership is not as important as the ability to control what happens, and I would be very disappointed to see the loss of access that the Waipakahi road allows being lost to satisfy a group with their own commercial gain at the centre of their concerns.

Helisika - I'm done with you.

You have hit the nail on the head here. I believe that this is the absolute heart of the matter and for the sake of continued public access (and to set a president) it is imperative that NZ sees this for what it is and does not sidestep the greater good for the commercial gain of a few.

Originally Posted by Shearer

You have hit the nail on the head here. I believe that this is the absolute heart of the matter and for the sake of continued public access (and to set a president) it is imperative that NZ sees this for what it is and does not sidestep the greater good for the commercial gain of a few.

Completely agree with both of these statements.
The erosion of public access for the pecuniary gain of private individuals shouldn't be tolerated.
There seems to be a bit of smoke and mirrors at play around ownership of lands and Gaslighting around rubbish being dumped.
I am a little worried that miss Dimozantos is playing both sides too.

Originally Posted by Ross Nolan

. …

What does interest me is the role of the Federated Mountain Clubs in all of this. Early on reached out to their local rep and received an answer essentially saying we aren't looking to upset the adjacent land owners. She has asked me to keep the details of the email private, but the tone of the correspondence was not at all what I would have expected from a group who have among their stated aims (taken from their website)
all New Zealanders should have free and enabling access to all public land.
FMC will promote the connectivity of public land
where land under non-public tenure, including Crown pastoral lease, separates public land from public access then, following consultation, provision should be made for practical and enduring public access to the public land.

Elsewhere they claim to keep an eye on DOC and the Government, and I take this quote directly from their Vice Presidents online bio - it seems especially apt here
This work has taught me that our conservation estate is managed by often-unaccountable officials,
behind closed doors and sometimes without, necessarily, recourse to the relevant policies or laws.

Finally, while I wonder if it is possible to separate the self appointed guardians of the conservation estate (Public lands, that is - owned by all New Zealanders) from being too intertwined with DOC, and thus concerned with their income as it is a small country, and there is always going to be the same people involved (I know that many DOC staff are there because they really do care).
I am struck by the VERY conciliatory attitude of the Rotorua rep, and note from her FMC bio that her day job is contracting to the Backcountry Trust - a group who do excellent work that should be applauded by all users of the land we all value and love. Digging a tiny bit into the backcountry Trust website give this regarding funding -
Sponsors
We are primarily funded by DOC, but are also supported by a select band of like-minded corporate sponsors to whom we are very grateful. (Italics mine)

I am in an industry that is pretty much entirely to do with government funding one way or another - water and waste water. As a result I have to moderate my public utterances on various subjects - Three Waters, for example, for I know that it could have a direct effect on my ability to win projects, pay my staff and buy my groceries.

I wonder if this applies to other fields as well? I wonder how other folks manage the conflict between their desire to do good and their need to not offend their paymaster?
…. .

It appears the same with the aotearoa outdoor access commission who have a noble sounding title and yet say they have done extensive research but after that have declined to take any action despite it being in their statement of performance expectations to do so.

There is a piece of the jigsaw missing and its not that the Lake Rotoaira Forest Trust actually does own the land.

Originally Posted by Bagheera

It appears the same with the aotearoa outdoor access commission who have a noble sounding title and yet say they have done extensive research but after that have declined to take any action despite it being in their statement of performance expectations to do so.

There is a piece of the jigsaw missing and its not that the Lake Rotoaira Forest Trust actually does own the land.

My suspicion is that during the current treaty settlement negotiations the Iwi were told that they would be given title to the land the "road" is on, and someone decided that today, tomorrow, whatever - let's build the gate now. The Crown won't prosecute anyone for being a little early - it was just an excess of enthusiasm.

LINZ, the Maori Land Court, everybody agrees on this though - right now, today, the land is owned by the Crown, and the trust have no right to build the gates.

Will anything be done about it? Contact your MP and ask. That is the ONLY thing Government cares about - things that put their next election in jeopardy.