DOC's Wanaka office have provided a summary of submissions to those who provided them.... it didn't cost them much in postage because there were only 14 submissions received!
"A total of 14 submissions were received from a range of stakeholders and individuals including
landowners (2), Forest and Bird Protection Society, a walking group, hunting groups (2), an off-road motorcyclist, 4WD groups (2), and recreational users (3)."
And four wheelers wonder why we get left out when access decisions are made
Motorised Access onto the Pisa Range: Summary of Submissions
Submissions were sought during the period 8th February to 25th April on the issues and options for motorised access onto the Pisa Range. No ‘as of right' vehicle access is currently available to the Pisa Conservation Area, however in close consultation with neighbouring landowners, a range of options are being considered. These were laid out in the document "Motorised Access onto the Pisa Range Issues and Options" and interested parties were asked to comment specifically on each of the options presented.
A total of 14 submissions were received from a range of stakeholders and individuals including
landowners (2), Forest and Bird Protection Society, a walking group, hunting groups (2), an off-road motorcyclist, 4WD groups (2), and recreational users (3).
The number of submissions which explicitly supported or opposed each of the options are presented below, with details of any further comments summarised.
Option 1: Total Exclusion- the Pisa Conservation Area would be designated as a passive recreation zone only.
Support: (3[1]) Those who supported this option suggested variations such as; total exclusion for all motorised vehicles apart from limited use for farming purposes, total exclusion for all motorised vehicles until such time as the Department has legal tools and resources to manage use, or that access should be provided to the boundary year round.
Opposition: (3) Those who opposed this option did so strongly, stating that total exclusion was too restrictive, contrary to the Conservation Act, that public land should be accessible and that this option although aiming for maximum protection was unlikely to prevent irresponsible use. Others noted that it was unfair to completely close off the area to the largest user group (vehicular users), while others noted that more remote mountain ranges already provide passive recreation opportunities away from vehicles.
Option 2: Vehicle Access by Permit Only- permits would be issued by DoC within a defined season over the drier late summer- early autumn months.
Support: (9) The largest number of supportive comments were given for this option. Many saw
considerable merit as the best option for managing use and protecting conservation values and quoted other permitting systems that appear to work well. Many made suggestions on how the system could work, and how permits could be timed to coincide with farming practice (i.e avoiding lambing), suitable weather conditions, and particularly with provision of a code of conduct to which all users would adhere.
One submitter mentioned trialling a system first, another that an access cost per permit to cover
handling and track maintenance should be administered, while another that a fee should not be charged nor the number of users restricted on any given day, to uphold the goals of free access under the Conservation Act. Others less enthusiastic felt that this option should be taken only on tracks that cannot sustain year round use.
Opposition: (2) Submitters opposing this option mentioned that any vehicle use across the
conservation area was undesirable (in order to uphold total exclusion), while other felt that it is too restrictive and requires DoC to act as policemen.
Option 3; Access with Approved Concessionaires Only- access to vehicles would be restricted to those participating in a concession activity provided by an approved concessionaire.
Support: (0) There was no support for this option.
Opposition: (6) Those opposing this option did so strongly, stating that it was too restrictive, would reduce the freedom of public and that it makes DoC a monopoly by rewarding approved
concessionaires.
Option 4: One off Events/ Fundraisers- vehicle access would be confined to periodic ‘one-off`
concessions usually associated with fundraising.
Support: (2) Those supporting this option did so as long as these were carried out on a ‘case by case' basis and as long as undue damage was avoided.
Opposition: (3) Those opposing this option felt that it was too cumbersome and restrictive, goes against the principles of freedom of access, only benefits 4WD groups, and were concerned that trains of vehicles can do more damage than single visits.
Option 5: Restricted Vehicle Open Season - vehicle use would be restricted to that time of the year when tracks are drlest and snowfall is rare.
Support: (5) Some of those supporting this option suggested extended season dates (November or December to April), while others supported it only for tracks that could not sustain year round use.
Opposition: (3) Those in opposition felt that DoC would still have limited control over use, while others felt it was unnecessary as winter conditions make it impossible to drive in areas anyway.
Option 6: Open Season Year Round- Subject to vehicle owners obtaining permission from neighbouring landowners there would be no restriction on vehicle usage.
Support: (6) Many of those supporting this option felt that year round open access was the ideal, a few mentioned that the Southern end of the Pisa range was most suitable, while others felt it was desirable only lf there are tracks that could sustain all year round use. Others felt signage should be included in areas where vehicle use is not appropriate.
Opposition: (3) Those opposing this option felt that other block mountain areas are being damaged under this system, and that although it is the ideal, management is likely to be necessary to preserve areas values.
Option 7: Interim Arrangement: Code of Conduct - pending revision to current management strategies or changes to Conservation legislation, a code of practice would be put in place which is supported by landowners when granting access,
Support: (7) Many submitters expressed support for a Code of Conduct. Some stating that it could link in well with a permit system or with a restricted open season season. Many felt strongly that access to the area should be restricted to designated routes, with many noting the success of other arrangements such as the Denniston 4WD loop track.
Opposition: (3) Those opposing this option did so because they felt good 4WD clubs already had these in place, or that it may take too long to instigate while other management techniques can be implemented.
Further Comments and Suggestions:
Variations on the permitting system were suggested. Several commented that a designated 4WD track or circuit might be appropriate, similar to others already operating, that would be run via cooperation between DoC and recreational groups who would help develop and maintain tracks and facilities. This would also mean that passive recreationists could know where to go to avoid vehicles.
Old vehicle access routes should be retained as part of our historic heritage, and legal roads retained as present and future access options.
More information is needed on the level of use the area is currently receiving and whether these are motorcyclists 4x4 etc.
More information should be provided on the biodiversity of the area. where sensitive areas are, and if damage is actually occurring. ROS consultation needs to be done before long term constraints on public access are made.
[l.] Values represent the number of submitters who either supported or opposed the option.