Thoughts.
Printable View
Thoughts.
about.... ?
Too far
Too cold
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post edit: Yes/No/Undecided.
Why not leave it as it is? national park would mean no grazing which in a few years would be a huge fire risk
No theres common sense you dont see much these days.....Not since someone pointed out importing mountain lions to control deer wouldn't work as deer run faster than sheep.....Quote:
Originally Posted by 223nut
I would not like to see it as a National Park under the current legislation and management framework, but by the same token as an enduring "crown park" with those prepared to make a "on the ground contribution" to its upkeep having a real say in its management would be good.
The fire risk thing is interesting, its a "storyline" I've heard a million times, but personally I have a very strong suspicion its complete bullshit, if it were so then "retired lands of 30 years ago (Lake Mavoura area for example, but there are 10's of thousands of other hectares as examples) and other lands should have gone up in huge smokeballs several times over by now.
I've seen more "accidental" fires on leasehold than on crown land in the last 5 or so years.
I actually think it’s too cold and it would be freezing at night. @Gibo is also correct it’s too far from Rotorua let alone Te Puke.
I'll let ya know how cold it is, i'm heading in next week.... Been looking forward to my 5day booking for 3months and now it turns out I have a working bee and agms to go to that clash :pissed off: hinky I'll be going in and out a few times depending on weather and animals seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny
Anyone had any of the blocks between Tennyson and Sedgemoor lakes? Got the upper Wairau and never been up that end before.
Nice, please report away...Quote:
Originally Posted by 223nut
I’ve been in there twice. Next is in July, can’t wait, then on to Cams to eat some beautiful flounder.
National park would compleatly fuck it for hunters.
National parks are (supposed) to be primarily about preserving places in their 'pristine state'. Places like Molesworth are far too modified to get even close to that threshold, I would have thought?
No point being a national park for hunters the 1080 has killed all the deer, and you can’t take dogs. All it would be good for is taking photos of another national park for tourists.
Yup. Fire risk, weed and wilding tree issues would be significant. Just another money hole for the Govt.Quote:
Originally Posted by 223nut
Isn't that Doc's ultimate? Provide photo ops for the tourist, with no user pays system in place. So we pay for all the upkeep and maintenance of all services, with little to no benefit, unless of course we want to visit and fight the tourists for viewing space in our own backcountry :ORLY:Quote:
Originally Posted by tikka
National Parks define NO INTRODUCED ORGANISMS as policy. DoC even looked at poisoning trout in river headwaters within National Parks. NP status will spell the end of any hope of sustainable productive hunting management of game animals other than annihilation by DoC. DoC even attempt to change RHA's to "Forest Park" status, which in their eyes has similar status to NP policy. I.E nil introduced game animals or birds or fish. Never trust the buggers if you want to keep your game birds, trout, salmon, deer,chamois , pigs and Tahr on public lands. Their objection to the beautiful Tahr statue in Mt Cook tells the true story.