nzhorserec
Since: Mar 2011
Posts: 1
Mr Dunne, you seem to be rather ill informed. The figure "$50" was not plucked from the air, it was plucked from all the other Timber Companies that also charge for permits in forests.
Despite Crown Forest Licenses ensuring public access, and some even including provision for recreation group access, Forest Companies are free to ignore their license provisions. LINZ, in charge of Crown Forest Licenses, takes no action on any breaches of Crown Forest Licenses, and the audits taken by MAF (Scion) as part of the Montreal agreement seem to have no knowledge of the Licenses, nor any interest in recreation practices (so who knows what they are auditing against?).
Rayonier charge for recreation permits (keys) to access Riverhead Forest - although they work on a 'voluntary' basis and aren't particularly vigilant about following up.
Hancock Forest Management (and formerly CHH) charge like a wounded Bull and impose severe constraints on recreational access to Woodhill Forest (perhaps the busiest recreational forest in the country).
There are international conferences for forest companies to discuss what are known as alternate use revenue streams. The provisions for public access under the Crown Forest Act, were full of loopholes, and enabled forestry companies to charge for access (except on foot). Is it really any wonder that private forest companies managing what are now private forests (Kaiangaroa now having been returned to Iwi ownership) behave any differently?
If you really want to fight for public access, then start by fighting for it on public land!
Vivien Dostine, NZ Horse Recreation Group www.nzhorseriders.info
Doug Stevens
Since: Apr 2011
Posts: 6
I agree with the last post. Kaingaroa is not the only area now where people are charging for access to what is a public resource - it is the latest in a line of these infringements on the well established egalatarian principle of free access. But Kaingaroa is particularly distastful as it affects so many people (thousands of New Zealands fish and hunt in the region) as well as being an attack on the many tourist operators in the area who rely on access to the river and lakes for their clients. And let us not forget the many people who live in the region who fish and hunt for the family table - they are often the forgotten losers when big companies decide to flex their economic muscle.
I agree with Peter Dunne that this practice must stop. But from my reserearch it will require a law change to ensure that we can pass on to this and future generations the wonderful access to the outdoors that has been our cherished heritage.
And UnitedFuture is the only party that is taking up this hugely important issue on our behalf. We must support Peter Dunne in what is setting out to achieve.
Doug Stevens nzfishing.com
