Recreationaccess.org.nz

[Moriarty]

In the Chronicle today, our local 3 min silence, there is an article by one BRUCE MASON
(Chron is sending me the article in full, will post it with MY highlights at the end of this rant.)

Looking for the article led me to http://www.recreationaccess.org.nz/ where to my dismay and no surprise whatsoever, I found this!!!


Protection now secondary to 4WD "imperative" (in prep)

Off-Road vehicles
Dob in the hoons -
off-road vehicle gallery (coming soon)

Off-road vehicles destroying the evironment (10/8/07) (link)

In the light of recent discussion (done to death and resolved) elsewhere, this article is most germane. There are people out there who want only THEM on foot to enjoy our outdoors. They are radicals, yes, but it is the vociferous radical who gets heard. To counter them we must play their game, be loud in our own defence and to point out to them, and anyone else who you can hold still long enuff, that we are responsible etc.
Unfortunately, we are always on the back foot, because we are trying to counter opinion, not fact, one-eyed bigotry, not FACT and emotional blackmail. NOT FACT!!

Here is the Mason Article.

By Bruce Mason
There is widespread dismay at the damage caused by recreational vehicles to New Zealand's protected areas, and unformed and poorly surfaced rural roads. Dismay is not just over physical damage. There are strong objections to the presence of vehicles in many natural areas that detract from quiet recreational activity. Rapid expansion in the number of four-wheeled drives, trail bikes, and other off-road vehicles has implications for many areas used and appreciated by others.

The potential for damage to the environment from wheeled vehicles is
immense. Trail bikes are increasingly removing limits to the terrain that
can be traversed. Restraint, or any perceived need for such, is considered
by many riders and drivers to be a fundamental infringement of personal
freedom, no matter what the environmental cost.

The thrills and excitement of off-roading driving, as advertised by
manufacturers and retailers, is expressed by thump, splash, mud and
spinning wheel, feeding on an ever-present desire to speed unrestrained
across the countryside. Television and the print media are full of it.
Four-wheel drive clubs have formed national associations with the object of promoting and protecting their interests through lobbying for access to,
and vehicle use within, public lands. To lessen criticism of their
activities most clubs have adopted an imported American code of 'Tread
Lightly' ethics that projects an environmentally responsible face, with the
slogan of "travel and recreate with minimum impact".

However, realities on the ground can be very different. Any codes of ethics appear more honoured in the breach. 'Tread lightly' codes of practice have not moderated overall driver behaviour or attitudes discernibly. Wet conditions are the attractant for many. Conquering mud, ruts and other obstacles provides an underlying, primeval attraction. Large spinning wheels and 'heaps of grunt' will propel vehicles through most bogs and wet terrain, with maximum environmental effect. The more mud-caked the vehicle, the better to later show-off back in town.

An exponential increase in damage to many rural roads has created potential liabilities for local authorities. Contrary to the beliefs of many drivers, the right of unhindered passage over roads does not extend to creating damage. If a driver ruts or muddies the surface to the extent that this becomes an "appreciable interference" with others' use of the road, then, under common law, legal action can be taken. Likewise, adjoining land occupiers inhibited from accessing their properties can sue.

Local authorities have plenty of statutory and bylaw powers available to
them to prevent damage, and to prosecute offenders. So too does the
Department of Conservation, for land under its control, but bewilderingly
DOC seems reluctant to do so. It appears that the department is under
instruction to be more 'popular', even if the natural values under its
protection are degraded from off-road vehicle use.

Conservation and environmental protection, per se, are not primary
considerations for roads. It is the prevention of 'nuisance' to public
passage that must, by law, preoccupy the minds of councils.
The primary issues requiring attention are matters of strategy and policy,
such as-

* What are the most effective measures for preventing road damage on unmetalled rural roads generally, and on specific sections of road?

* To what extent can education or codes of conduct assist?

* In the absence of fencing and gates to physically bar vehicle entry, how
practical is it to rely on prosecution as a basis for legal action and as a
deterrent?

* Should bylaws be devised, for instance to prohibit vehicle use in wet
ground conditions, rather than have blanket or seasonal vehicle bans?

* To what extent can information from members of the public be used for
successful prosecution?

* Should members of the public be encouraged to instigate legal action,
under common law, against drivers of road-damaging vehicles?

* Can the Police be used to a greater extent to deal with unregistered
vehicles and dangerous driving? Will the Police respond to mobile phone
*555 complaints in rural areas? Could other state agencies be given powers to prosecute?

Both common law and statute are well equipped to deal with damage to roads and to prevent damage of any origin. The primary need is for local
authorities to assess the extent and scale of damage occurring to roads
under their control, resolve to take action, then devise comprehensive
remedies. The 'displacement factor' must be anticipated - isolated
restrictions transfer problems to other areas. Protected areas' managers have been caught off-guard, being often too slow to perceive the magnitude of adverse vehicle impacts and too prone to half-measures. Local authorities have generally been more proactive in managing such impacts on public reserves and parks than DOC.
At a national level, key public policy issues need to be addressed -

* Should areas formally protected for their natural values, including quiet, be sacrificed to whatever technological demands are placed on them?

* Should other, more benign, forms of recreation be allowed to be discouraged and displaced by machines?

* Should dependency on recreational vehicles be discouraged as public
health and energy conservation measures?

* Should motor vehicle use off formed roads within protected areas be
recognised as inherently incompatible with their purposes and banned?

* Should land in private ownership be the primary place for off-road
vehicle recreation?

Allowing mechanised onslaughts over supposedly protected areas is anathema to the public purposes for which they are held. Attempting to make all areas all things to all people is a recipe for degradation. Other natural treasures such as held by Te Papa or in the National Archives are not permitted to have unbridled public use by any means so far devised.
Preservation for future generations is the rightful imperative. So too is
it for protected areas.

As the desire of men to play with machines appears to be genetically
immutable there is clearly need for outlets for such activity. The
industry-backed off-road sector should make their own arrangements, either by purchasing their own land, or negotiating access with private landowners who are willing to accommodate such use. Two-thirds of New Zealand is potentially available.
---------------------
Bruce Mason is a former National Parks and Reserves Ranger, the author of
'Public Roads: a guide to rights of access to the countryside' and
currently the researcher for Recreation Access New Zealand
(http://www.recreationaccess.org.nz).

RANZ's aims are the promotion of minimum impact recreation, and obtaining
secure access to public lands and waters.



How do we combat such emotive arguments? there is not a lot of logic in this, more scaremongering and innuendo. He loses sight of the fact and does not mention that there are more than a few "play" areas for 4wd vehicles. We dont rampage willy-nilly over crown lands. There IS room for all users of the great outdoors!!!

[kiwipete]

Hmmmm, interesting to note on his own so called gallery of damage to roads, that he himself has usd a 4wd to access said areas. Even the "mud plug" areas?

I ponder...........

[Moriarty]

do not as I do, but as I say?

[NJV6]

It is the same article that was discussed at length recently. It is slowly making its way round the nation. It has been in the Otago daily times and last week in the Otago Southland Farmer.

http://www.offroadexpress.co.nz/modules ... ruce+mason

[Bubba]

I love the way he refers back to HIS own submission as if it verifies and adds weight his own statement (I am referring to what I said before therefore it must be true:? ).

Although some of what he says is true it's so lost in his own ego that it is watered down and lost all relevance. He has lost all objectivity and thus can't be taken serously.

I feel he needs to pull back, take a big breath have a little nap on the "timeout mat" and then look at the whole subject again. That or he needs to retire and take up something that doesn't get him so wound up

[Moriarty]

It is the same article that was discussed at length recently. It is slowly making its way round the nation. It has been in the Otago daily times and last week in the Otago Southland Farmer.

http://www.offroadexpress.co.nz/modules ... ruce+mason

Sorry, didn't realise that it was old stale news, Blame the Chron, My home page is the NZ Herald, and stories THERE usually surface ion the Chron 3 days later.

Hence, when I saw this article by mason, I was intrigued, but too late! Bugger, story of my life!!!

[wjw]

He's even trying to get rid of commercial operators who have DOC Concessions:

http://www.recreationaccess.org.nz/imag ... 010012.jpg

[Moriarty]

He's even trying to get rid of commercial operators who have DOC Concessions:

http://www.recreationaccess.org.nz/imag ... 010012.jpg

Bill, that photo, it's YOUR neck of the woods, what season is it?
HOW did he get that photo? drive up, Helicopter, so no "footprint"? Or magic?


Bob.

[wjw]

He's even trying to get rid of commercial operators who have DOC Concessions:

http://www.recreationaccess.org.nz/imag ... 010012.jpg

Bill, that photo, it's YOUR neck of the woods, what season is it?
HOW did he get that photo? drive up, Helicopter, so no "footprint"? Or magic?


Bob.

He would have had to walk up, or perhaps he drove up on the first day it opened.

[Moriarty]

If he drove up, the most likely scenario, he would justify that has a needed device to get rid of us "hoons" still a case of "do NOT as I do, but as I say" the worst sort of hypocrisy.

To nullify him, and others like him, what must we do? Apart from being squeaky clean, of course.

Could we take a leaf out of another Amurkan book, that of Ducks Unlimited, the biggest breeder of game birds and animals in Amurka? They have just about shut up the green brigade and the anti blood sports lobbyists with that program. hard to combat an outfit that is instrumental in being the biggest single protector and agency in the breed's survival as a species.

[PeterVahry]

It takes a lot of organising and backing financially to achieve a balance with the environmental lobby. 4WD Victoria in Oz are doing well with their efforts and have got their dependency on member funding down to 30% this year, while increasing their involvement with sustainability projects.

Some of the stuff they and others are doing can be found in the UFWDA e-News, downloadable from http://www.ufwda.org