by Kevin Hague
Roughly 30 years ago my parents built a small bach in a small coastal community on the Coromandel Peninsula, at Hahei. Since that time I’ve had the good fortune to be able to hide away in the off-season or hang out with my family in the Summer (in fact, that’s where I’m writing from). One of the highlights of any trip to Hahei has always been spending some time at Cathedral Cove. It’s not far away by kayak, but on foot it’s about a 45 minute walk from Hahei, up and over a typical steepish Coromandel coastal headland.
Whether or not you’ve visited yourself, you have almost certainly seen it, featured in many of those international tourism promotions for New Zealand: rock arch, white sand, pohutukawas, vivid blue sea. One of its great joys is that once you’ve arrived at the beach you are in a completely unmodified environment – not a building or manufactured object to be seen. Until now.
As the Herald reports, the Department of Conservation has granted a concession for a commercial operation on the beach. For a trial period a vendor will be able to set up a stall selling ice cream, drinks etc. Now certainly I’ve been hot on the beach, but as one of the people quoted in the Herald article says, I’ve never encountered anyone bemoaning the lack of opportunity to buy anything there.
The concession runs counter to one of the most important things that locals and tourists alike value about this place, so it’s a case of DOC not acting to conserve the values of the place. Not that you’d necessarily know this, as there has been no public consultation about the decision at all. Unsurprisingly this is causing considerable anger. last week I obtained the background documentation for this decision from the Department, and working through it with a view to mountaing a challenge to the process and decision.
Most tellingly, however, is DOC’s rationale for approving the concession: they need the cash. Under this Government funding for conservation has been cut significantly, leaving the Department scrambling for opportunities to raise extra dollars, to minimise the service cuts they need to make. This means that the Department will move from making decisions about proposed concessions on the basis of balancing the conservation values of a place with legitimate uses, because of pressure to raise funds. This is bad news for conservation, and the tragedy unfolding at Cathedral Cove will soon be coming to a place near you.
Thus it’s not DOC bureaucrats we have to blame for what’s going on, but Tim Groser. Perhaps it’s time for the Government to appoint a new Minister of Conservation, who will spend sufficient time in New Zealand to familiarise himself with what New Zealanders actually value about the conservation estate.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by Kevin Hague on Tue, December 29th, 2009
More posts by Kevin Hague | more about Kevin Hague
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
That’s like putting Lucifer in charge of the Pearly Gates?
these are indeed strange times.
Like or Dislike:
10 
3 (+7)
Like or Dislike:
8 
4 (+4)
Like or Dislike:
6 
4 (+2)
When would we realize that real development is not in defacing the nature and its creations and polluting the place.
Like or Dislike:
11 
1 (+10)
Like or Dislike:
3 
7 (-4)
Like or Dislike:
6 
0 (+6)
http://www.unpurenz.com
Unpure New Zealand
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
Get real folks, selling a few drinks n things on a remote piece of landscape, well remote in that it takes a good 25 minutes or more of hard slog walking to get there, isn’t going to ruin the place. The moaners are probably the ones who didn’t think of the idea first. Typical Neanderthals.
Like or Dislike:
25 
10 (+15)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
19 
37 (-18)
So it’s ok for your family to put that housing infrastructure (bach) into nature, with the resulting pollution, and roads, and impact, and services , but heaven forbid anyone sell some light refreshments because you – and other long-time polluting locals – don’t like it?
Because you were there first, or something?
Hilarious.
Like or Dislike:
27 
24 (+3)
Like or Dislike:
10 
7 (+3)
Like or Dislike:
6 
11 (-5)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
13 
26 (-13)
A dehydrated child can make the most wonderful location a disaster.
I understand that many people set out on the walk without realising how long it is and do get caught short.
I see no problem in providing some liquid to these people and the photo in the Herald suggests that it is hardly a garish shed or similar. And the young man appears to clean up as required.
IF you start insisting that everyone takes in their own drinking water then be prepared for a much wider distribution of rubbish.
Like or Dislike:
16 
16 (0)
Like or Dislike:
8 
1 (+7)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The guy sells drink and sandwiches plus he cleans the beach at the end of the day. It is a tourist attraction.
From the shock, horror I thought he was selling P or alnight rave parties.
Kevin put your money where your mouth is, pull down the bach and let the land revert.
Like or Dislike:
15 
5 (+10)
24/7 during summer only.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
Like or Dislike:
4 
5 (-1)
Furthermore, I like both ice cream and cold drinks, and would have no objection at all to someone selling these from a stall at Hahei beach. My key objections are these:
1. There ought to be some places where setting up a commercial activity is not permitted. In my view, places that are highly valued for their pristine and unmodified nature are exactly such places.
2. Actually regardless of whether or not you like the idea of commercial activities in the conservation estate, surely most people would agree that it would be appropriate to consult the public from the local area about such activities before a decision is made whether or not to allow them.
3. Decisions by DOC about whether or not to allow concessions (commercial activities) on conservation land should primarily relate to the consistency of such activities with the conservation outcomes sought for the particular location. They should not be made because the Department is desparate for cash to meet its funding shortfall from Government. Government’s funding cuts have distorted the decision-making process.
And Owen, I assume your tongue is firmly in cheek. Surely you don’t think nanny state should act to save individuals from the negative consequences of their own decisions? As scareyd has mentioned, people seem to have managed pretty well for a very long time to get over to Cathedral Cove and back using their own resources without dying and without leaving the place a mess. The same can’t be said of, say, the Tongariro Crossing. Wonder what price the Department could get for a stand half way across selling hot soup and merino clothing?
Like or Dislike:
12 
6 (+6)
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Like or Dislike:
9 
3 (+6)
And location counts.
For example walking in the bush is much less dehydrating that walking along a coastline on hot sand with a strong sea breeze.
The worst environment I have ever encountered was when I walked to the bottom of the Grand Canyon and then walked up and out. The hot desert wind blows up the walls of the canyon and the rim is at 9,000 feet and it goes on and on and on. Finally made it but then collapsed with the worst cramps in my life.
Location counts.
And I was thinking more of children.
Smaller body volume more skin area/per kg – more dehydration. And we old folks on our blood pressure pills are also prone to severe dehydration.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
Like or Dislike:
7 
4 (+3)
I think it’s a tad hysterical calling this a “desecration”.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
Like or Dislike:
5 
2 (+3)
“(some chap called Kevin Hague who I have never heard of)”
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Really would ruin it for the few….
Like or Dislike:
5 
8 (-3)
Show your empathy by rattling your pearls everyone!
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
DOC have for far too long had the attitude that money is an unclean commodity that should magically appear from ’somewhere else’ in fact ‘anywhere else’.
If a proposal passes the twin hurdles of conservational responsibility and be of benefit to recreational public then I say give it a trial and see how it goes.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Win-win.
Like or Dislike:
5 
7 (-2)
If sunseekers want to quench their thirst and there’s a cordial hawker, let them quench, let him hawk. Hot chips too, lollypops and something from the Colonel! A ten-pin bowling alley (if you don’t want to bowl, don’t go in!). Metal-detector-hire and a pawn shop (all those lost rings and bracelets!). Pole dancers (look only if you want to!) Our beaches, au naturale!
Like or Dislike:
5 
5 (0)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
eg: areas of Ponsonby where multistory apartments have been built next door to lovely villas, reducing available sunlight and changing forever the lifestyle of the villa-dwellers.
I’m definitely not against progress but if our laws are not sufficient to restrict commerce and/or other development where locals may not want it, what actual protections do we have?
When I go to Bethells there is a coffee stand in the carpark, but not on the actual beach.
Thats how I like it. But is there anything in legislation to stop the coffee guy moving onto the beach??
Maybe not if he could slip DOC a bit of coin…
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
I suspect though that all those who have purchased a drink have already ‘voted’, and I wonder how compelling their vote would be to this discussion?
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
The fact that a concession stand is appearing on one of these fabled quiet spots may mean too many people are turning up there now. Is the underlying annoyance at the commercial activity really a layer of the onion that resents too many people in this location?
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
I’m all for funding DoC what it needs – but I’ve seen a fair amount of its budget go to head office initiatives rather than front line action. How to fix this? Maybe any new funds allocated to it need to be designated to specific front line programs?
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
The wider issue that really pees me off is that there seems to be no legislation that allows an area to be maintained in the character it has become known for.
eg: areas of Ponsonby where multistory apartments have been built next door to lovely villas, reducing available sunlight and changing forever the lifestyle of the villa-dwellers.
——–
A couple of articles linked to from Palnetzin could be relevant: one is
http://spacingmontreal.ca/2009/12/07/just-a-beautiful-place/
and this one from the American Enterprise Institute which asks if beauty is subjective or objective.
http://www.american.com/archive/2009/december-2009/the-high-cost-of-ignoring-beauty
Funny that sunlight isn’t considered a property right. A zoning change would be considered ‘necessary’ and “in the public interest” and Cunliffe says: “migration benefits everyone”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Perhaps he’ll tell us later about the “holocaust” of misplacing his car keys this morning?
Like or Dislike:
5 
2 (+3)
My heart goes out to the poor sap picking up after everyone else (unless he’s paid to groom the beach).
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Still can’t believe how the two skyscrapers in Herne Bay slipped through the cracks though.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes, I would have thought so. I am a keen supporter of an effective RMA (the key issue being how to balance competing “rights” when implementing an RMA) but there certainly seem to a lot of unhappiness about developments that some councils have permitted.
Some “progress” seems to slip through as “non-notifiable”.
Hope some places can be maintained as pristine.
Yeah, thats one that really gets to me.
I think its fine for like-minded people to live in a dark apartment building if its built up against a cliff, but build that same apartment in a position where it reduces another citizens sunlight access and I consider it a crime against humanity.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
And we acted as though it were. When I was in ACC in the mid sixties we introduced daylight planes that guaranteed light to adjoining properties by both controlling height and length of building in relation to boundaries. (We introduced a set of “daylight indicators” which were quite sophisticated in their operation at the time.
Sadly, the new doctrine of Smart Growth has made density an over-arching goal and so squeezing more people onto small lots now overrides the traditional property rights of adjoining owners. This same Dumb Growth philosophy also led to eaves being abandoned so that side walsl could get closer to boundaries thus adding further fuel to the leaky building fire. Same happened with decks which were allowed to intrude into the building envelope. Result – swimming pools over the dining room.
I was part of the team that zoned a few areas in Auckland for high rise towers including Herne Bay, Remuera and Parnell point, but notice their shape means they do not steal the light from adjoining properties.
We deliberately placed them on ridges and points where they emphasised natural landform and provided the least damaging location. We were under pressure to allow slabs to be built along the waterfront which would steal the light and the views from all those behind – especially in the Tamaki Drive area. We did however allow them in front of the bluffs – the cliffs don’t suffer.
Sadly the Smart Growth protagonists have abandoned these policies too and slabs now dominate much or our waterfront development. If you must have high density in those locations then pencils, or end-on slabs, are better.
Our philosophy was that density was just a measurement and the ONLY reason for having a range of density provisions is to increase choice. Now density is no longer a measurement but a tool in the hands of those who love to rule.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
For those who don’t see a problem with commercial activity in a place like this, my question is whether there is anywhere you feel it would be inappropriate for cool drinks (let’s stick with the specific for the time being) to be sold? Try and make it local if you can, as the people who feel most strongly about protecting Cathedral Cove are people who live here or who have a strong connection to the place. I’m really trying to ascertain whether you believe that wherever demand exists, supply should be permitted to satisfy it, or if it’s simply that you make a distinction between the places you believe trading shouldn’t be permitted and Cathedral Cove.
Owen – was disappointed by your crack over on kiwiblog (whereas Big Bro’s was par for the course). The walk to Cathedral Cove from Hahei involves a walk up a road leading to the top of a ridgeline, and then jumps a fence and sidles down through mostly farmland to the beach. It’s not a walk along hot sand, and the point at which you might need a cold drink on the way because of the exertion is at the top of the road. Very happy to see a stall there. Not sure I followed your point about the Grand Canyon. Were you arguing that more cold drink sellers were needed there too?
ZenTiger – yes, who to consult? The law on consultation requires that those who are affected are consulted, but in this case it obviously extends beyond locals to those who care about the place or have some interest (like thinking they might be thirsty when visiting) in it. Practically this probably means general public consultation, with those who have an interest self-selecting. In practice the Department does precisely this all the time, so is experienced with managing these things.
BP and Wat – (aside from your points about having a family bach etc, which make for an interesting discussion but aren’t relevant to this issue) the point you are making is that I have “last settler syndrome”, or something like it. This is where each successive wave of people interacting with an environment in some way (in this case having a bach, but often used in recreational use of an area, for example) resents the subsequent waves of users. I certainly agree that this characterises my personal view of further development in Hahei (at least to some degree). I intensely dislike the development over the last 20 years or so that has seen Hahei move from a village to a town resembling the suburb of Howick. However, if you look at my arguments against trading in Cathedral Cove I hope you can see that this is not the basis for my objection.
Wat – I’ll agree “desecration” is poetic licence, but a necessary one for ‘Cathedral’ Cove. The other option was “murder” (will no-one rid me of this troublesome merchant? etc)!
Greenfly – Yes, the hordes have descended this week but will quickly start dissipating in a couple of days. My preferred time to visit the Cove is the middle of Winter, in fact, when it’s likely nobody else will be there, but the place does seem to have the trick of absorbing quite a few people without losing its special character. I’ll shortly be returning home to my rural bush fastness to enjoy less heat and humidity, fewer people, and a Hunter S Thompson lifestyle while preparing to get back into the fray.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
We’re talking about a matter of degree.
I see little problem with drink selling in nature areas. A lot of it happens now. It’s nice to be able to buy a meal when you’ve been skiing all morning in the mountains, for example.
At some point, the amount of activity will overwhelm the beauty of a natural area, so we must make a choice what type of area we wish it to be.
But I can’t see how one guy with a makeshift tent at the side of a beach is a major issue. It’s not permanent, it’s not spoiling the environment, and it’s not obvious how it will lead to the Cove turning into a red light district. It’s also appreciated by many visitors, a point seemingly overlooked.
So, it’s inconsequential and people like it.
Really, unless you’re a Green ideologue, what is the real harm? Aren’t you turning a molehill into a mountain?
Like or Dislike:
3 
5 (-2)
Kevin, an interesting question you pose. If we look at two parts of NZ that have UNESCO world heritage status there is Tongariro National Park and South Westland. I think you’ll find places to eat both on Mt Ruapehu and at Milford Sound. I don’t think it’s a yes/no question – bur rather you work out the appropriate stall for the site and appropriate conditions and location for that stall. I think that this one has passed that test, but perhaps there might be times when that test would be failed (although I imagine on most occasions where a place is too natural for a stall the area would be too quiet to make it viable).
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
has got the tongues in my head (eww!) wagging!
(Don’t look the lizards in the eye!!!)
Back to the beach, nudists would say, no doubt, that the beach is already polluted with clothing.
The objectors I saw on’telly, were all wrinkly. The customers flocking to the refreshments were taut. Customary use, eh!
Where, if I may ask a delicate question, does the sewerage from the batches go? (I always judge a place by its waste management).
Cheers
gfly
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The developments at Pauanui and Hahei are a result of the ‘keeping up with the Joneses’ mentality of affluent (mostly) Aucklanders, who do consider a second home on the Coromandel to be a given, once trust funds for the kiddies and some retirement planning have been covered.
None of these kind of home-owners are ever going to value the environment over their own gratification, so I despair of hte efforts being made to shame anyone into a concern for the consequences of their own pleasure.
Owen,
I think the point you’re trying to make is that all places should be accessible to all people?
As a keen tramper and hiker in my 20’s, I was often responsible for groups of young people hiking with me.
I never took a group anywhere without each carrying in his or her pack, a mandatory drink bottle (refillable) and some form of high-energy snack food, a spare garment or two in case of weather changes or such; and my pack always had the first-aid kit, which all of the leaders of our hiking groups were trained to use.
These were not habits that had to be justified; this is how you go into the bush.
If people insist on going into the wilds without sufficient commonsense to know
a) their limits and
b) the minimum resources needed to make it a pleasant experience all round,
why on earth are they venturing onto our conservation estate at all?
I agree with Kevin – there are places that are special because they are untrammelled – if DoC is administering an area, that pretty much is why they have it; so no, I don’t expect that your Doctor would suggest a half-hour tramp in the wilderness if you’re on blood pressure medication!
Just as I temper my enthusiasm for the wild places these days, as my physical/medical conditions don’t allow me to go to isolated places, where if I collapsed, a helicopter would be needed to drag me out & hospitalise me; it’s a simple equation of known risk to known physical capacity.
Small children, likewise, should not be taken for tramps that are beyond their capacity, unless their parents are equipped for carrying them most of the way. (I have back-packed a toddler over a ridge to get to a swimming hole, but many years ago now!)
Just because “all things are allowed”, we shouldn’t rush into doing something; “not all things are advisable”.
We have a mentality in the contemporary social consciousness that says we should all be able to continue to do any pleasurable activity, ad nauseum, under the conditions of the market; but really, this whole discussion defines the limits of what counts as a sensible activity,and what is perceived as a complete overkill of market access.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2 (+4)
No I am not saying all places should be accessible to all people.
Different places – different policies.
One of the great outcomes at the West Coast beaches is that the beaches are fed by finger roads and not every beach is served and those that are served are not served equally. One local body politician had the mad idea of putting a coastal road from whatipu to Muriwai but I managed to stop that in its tracks using my local political connections. (I lived at Karekare for over thirty years).
The great outcomes is that Piha is for the big crowds and works well – they are even civilised to have a dog end beach and no dog beach.
Then Karekare is for a small settlement and much smaller crowds.
Then you have to walk to Whatipu and even in mid summer you can often walk the length of Whatipu and not see a soul.
Many coastal areas in NZ would be enhanced and better managed if we cut chunks out of the coastal roads and provided finger road access only.
It’s the connecting coastal routes that do the damage over time. High speed traffic and no ability to focus visitors according to what they want.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Well, I didn’t build the Herne Bay towers. But we were faced with dealing with a demand and think we got it about as right as one can.
I also know that many (if not all) of the houses have changed hands since then as people rotate and move on and so those who are living there now have mostly “moved to the nuisance” in terms of common law and can hardly complain. Also, I cannot see how they have lost their light or even had their light reduced by 10% (decimated). The sun moves round and as other have pointed out those housed might now have found themselves jammed up against a five story slab. And in winter that means a slab of shade of about eight stories on the flat. That’s permanent shade over the whole property.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Btw Gloucester Towers in Gloucester Srteet was forced through a loop hole against the city plan in the property crash of the 80’s. One of the principals of the company (Mainstay) is “Hendo’s” lawyer.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Presently I find the greediest lot are the consultants advising councils on their plans and applications. They are confronted with less actual activity so are squeezing the few applicants for every dollar they can – including ninety year old client of mine (a neighbour) but they are equal opportunity exploiters; they are taking me for every dollar they can get too. Engineering consultants are becoming the worst offenders – they want to gold plate everything; not just the taps.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
No one, I fear, could sustain such a lifestyle for more than a couple of pages.
Hope you have a great New Years Eve Kevin, coal in hand and looking, always, to first-foot it!
gfly
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The line between commercial activity and Conservation should be very clear, all ice cream and burger vendors outside the boundaries of the National park.
I seems to me that Mr, Groser is bluring the lines by allowing this vendor. Some of you may think that this issue is trivial but it does set an unfortunate precedent.
First we have a vendor selling sandwiches and bottled water then we have another selling burghers and coke, the another selling ice cream and ices in plastic tubes? another offering massages, another offering alcoholic refreshments another selling balloons and confetti!!!
All in the name of progress and liberalisation so lets just keep the progress and liberalisation outside the boundaries of our pristine National Parks!!!!
Like or Dislike:
6 
4 (+2)
You zealots may be against it, but the rest of us are quite happy with it, thanks.
As I say, it’s been happening for years in many National Parks, most notably at the ski fields. They have permanent restaurants.
This hasn’t resulted in the apocalypse.
Like or Dislike:
4 
12 (-8)
A sandwich bar set up on top of Mt Cook!
Call it ‘Summit 2 Eat’.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Like or Dislike:
2 
10 (-8)
(we’re in the mountains, remember…)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Like or Dislike:
2 
6 (-4)
Share the love!
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
But if they think they can drown out my stereo, they are sadly mistaken
Like or Dislike:
3 
9 (-6)
Trash National parks and what do we have to offer the ovreseas taurists?
I will let you lot use your imaginations on that one!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think the “problem” with drinks becoming available is that it is an indicator the place is becoming popular enough that a vendor thinks they can meet a demand. The drink vendor is therefore the gauge, not the real issue. Making the drinks vendor go away will not, in the long term protect the area in the way you envisage; it just makes it a non-commercial area.
If local residents, or other groups, want to protect the wilderness character of a place, I don’t think the can do it by banning vendors, they ultimately can only doing it by restricting total numbers of people OR by investing in infrastructure to support the increased numbers (guided tracks, signage, rubbish management policy, protected areas, etc)
If a place does become “too popular” then I guess restricting commercial activity at that point can stop it from blowing out into a mini-tourist attraction, and the only reasonable way to do that is to zone the land, and lobby for more mini National Parks, reserves, or some other designation.
That’s when we need to look also at the bigger picture – and work out if there is a good balance in the area of tourist places, tramping and bush walking locations and varying levels of protected parks, beaches and in-shore reserves. New Zealand isn’t a popular tourist destination just for a visit to Rotorua and the Milford Track.
At this stage, I don’t see a problem having a drinks vendor installed there, but I would expect DoC to have a plan to monitor and consider how to preserve the area whilst catering for what appears to be a steady increase in visitors.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
Meanwhile on Mt Ruapehu we have a wide variety of commercial activities yet that’s seemingly OK.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
I think the central problem here is a cartoonish ideological one: commerce vs nature. They are making a big thing out of something rather inconsequential.
Agree with ZenTiger, which is a point I advocated earlier.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5 (-3)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
As I have tried to focus on in my media comments, the issue I am most concerned about is that the Department has made the decision for the concession on a commercial basis. The Department doesn’t argue that the trading activity is a good fit with the conservation outcomes sought for the place. Rather it says that it needs the money. In other words conservation outcomes are being compromised to meet a funding shortfall. In the scheme of things of course a temporary and removable concession stand in Cathedral Cove seems a relatively minor instance of this problem, but it opens the door to more of the same.
Samiam raised the issue earlier in the thread (sorry not to respond earlier Sam) of where the money for conservation should come from if commercial activities are not permitted in the conservation estate. For me the preferable route is to say that conservation work is something being undertaken in the public good (for the present and future generations) and so the best funding source is general taxation. To those who say the Government can’t afford to fund the activity at the necessary level, I would respond that this is largely a question of prioritisation. Government, for example, is choosing to prioritise massive spending on roads. I disagree with that sense of priorities, and draw to readers’ attention that roading is an activity where the benefit is largely both quantifiable and private – much less suited for funding by general taxation than conservation work. For the sake of the discussion, however, I will agree that some commercial activities are ok on conservation land, provided that these do not compromise the conservation values of and outcomes sought for a particular place or experience. Personally, I think that there is also potential to differentiate NZ recreational users from overseas tourists with higher hut fees etc for the latter. Over the years I have tested this idea out with many people from both groups, with high levels of agreement from both.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Like or Dislike:
0 
5 (-5)
‘most effective environmental protection measure ever known’,
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ! Oh me, oh my!
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Looking out my study window right now I can see hundreds of privately owned properties…all tidy with trees galore.Why? Because these people OWN their properties and have the incentive to look after them and enhance their value.A mile or two away there is a State house area and the difference is stark…its like a literal line has been drawn across the map.Properties are neglected,the street fronts are filthy and there are far less trees and plant life about.The reason is obvious….the people there don’t own the houses they live in and so don’t have anywhere near the same incentive to value them as do the private owners.This principle is repeated all across the world with the inevetible result…
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
You use privately owned properties in your town as an example of ‘environmental protection’ – good god man, the ‘environment’ of most Kiwi front and back yards is light-years away from good, natural, resiliant, sustainable ‘environment’ – lawn, lawn and more lawn, introduced shrubs and flowers providing little value beyond the aesthetic and all maintained through the use of fossil fuels and herbicides. Is that your shining example of ‘effective environmental protection’?
You like the pretty and the tidy, James, but that’s too shallow a criteria to be of much value.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
I have seen many instances where something “owned” has been trashed, not valued. I’ve seen it with cars, properties, and even the resources of a company (including both staff and assets of a company).
By contrast, in NZ particularly, we have plenty of examples of “non-owned” resources being well maintained and not abused.
DOC has traditionally aimed to take this approach – and maintain these resources well.
The question is where to draw the “commercial” line in maintaining the beauty of public areas, especially isolated ones.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
As always I appreciate your right to hold this view, but I’m sure you will understand that your view being so different from almost everyone else believes makes your assertion about what is or is not an issue a little hard for others to take seriously.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
It is a fact that private property rights tend to encourage proper management of the property, and discourages pollution of that property (o other damage) by others.
If you tip your rubbish onto your neighbour’s property you are likely to hear about and be discouraged from doing it again.
You may then chose, as so many chose, to dump it on the roadside or on some other public area.
The reason we have to regulate activity to reduce pollution of the air, sea and land is because so much of it is in public ownership or not owned at all.
For similar reasons no farmed animal is at risk of extinction. If you are a farmed animal you future is guaranteed. If you are popular garden plant (or an at risk native displayed on television) then your future is guaranteed. If you are a fish in a properly managed fishing zone with tradeable property rights in fish your future is more guaranteed than in the free for all of Europe
etc. If of course you are an animal or plant on the DoC estate your extinction is almost guaranteed – or at least the risk of extinction because the more threatened species the more money DoC gets.
I remember examining the additions to the list of DoC threatened trees in NZ. I was surprised to find that many of these threatened species were freely available from native plant nurseries. When I asked the obvious question DoC advised that these species were only at risk of extinction on DoC land. But these were the only ones that count because they regard plants on private land and in nurseries as in “Captivity”.
I am not making this up,
Remember when, back in 1945, there was only one Tecomanthe speciosa left and was on the Three Kings islands Once that was made known the nurseries got to work and they are now everywhere. I have planted one which is now growing all over the pergola outside my office here in Kaiwaka. Apparently there iare now six vines on Three Kings .It remains on the “Natural Status Endangered” list because are private ones are in captivity – and can’t wait to escape and get run over. Does the Tecomanthe actually care who owns it?
So there are far more Tecomanthe in private gardens than on the public DoC estate. But Greenfly does not approve of private gardens because they give humans pleasure.
The New Puritanism is rampant – just like my Tecomanthe.
Similarly the easiest way to get tuatara and kiwi off the endangered species list is to let us farm them and export them. (no need to eat them); although farming and eating wood pigeons surely makes sense.
But when it comes to farming native species the New Puritan view is “Better dead than Bred.”
And finally, any farmer will tell you that DoC is the “neighbour from hell” when it comes to invasion of pests and weeds. They just do not have enough people to manage the huge estate. It takes us all our time to manage the pests and weeds on our few hectares – but we do it.
BUt how many people would Doc need to employ to achieve our density of labour, and intensity of land management, and investment?
DoC would do better to divest much of its lower priority land to private owners and focus on its priority areas.
It is simply too thinly spread.
Like or Dislike:
0 
5 (-5)
“If you are a farmed animal you future is guaranteed.”
It surely is!
You do say, let’s not indulge in “ad extremis” arguments, so I’m wondering at your claims that I don’t “approve of private gardens because they give humans pleasure”. That is a nonsense statement, but amusing. My objection to ‘the gardens of most New Zealand homes’ was for other reasons, as I described.
Your ‘farm the tuatara’ suggestion is also amusing to me, having been involved with their breeding programme for a couple of years. Can’t beat having them out of doors and in their natural environment, is my conclusion.
You ask, “Does the Tecomanthe actually care who owns it?”
I’d say not and ask’ “Does the Tecomanthe actually care whether it is owned or not”?
As for having DOC as a neighbour, I was in that position also for a couple of years and was grateful for their ‘neglectful ways’ – the Trust I worked-for wanted to spend their putea on spraying the broom and gorse on the property, but I was able to argue it’s futility, thanks to the obvious re-infestation the DOC land was providing, thus the legumes stayed and served their function as a nurse crop for the native trees further into DOC’s reserve, our valley flourished and the money saved went into other restoration activities.
So many sides to every story, eh.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
What the hell would you know about sentient free humans Comrade? The very idea is repellant to Green principles….You are well aware that Libertarians are opposed to slavery as much as socialists like you
favour it…when its a case of man vs the enviroment….or the “common good.” Private property rights free men from other men…”public ownership enslaves them to other men.
“And James, to be clear, are you seriously advocating that all NZ beaches and land currently in the public conservation estate should be instead held in private hands? Oh wait a moment, yes that is what you Randians think, isn’t it? You think the only legitmate role for the state is in providing armed forces, right?”
The States role is the protection of individual rights…armed forces being a nessessary and legitimate means to that end…..because what other moral and therefore practicle role that doesn’t result in massive contradictions and misery can it play Kevin?The state is force…with a monopoly to use it in a certain geographic area….thats all it is.And when that force is twisted from its only legit role of rights protection to insted backing privilage for some at the expense of others tryanny and conflict are the inevertible result.Henec what you have happening at Cathedral Cove and thousands of other “publically owned places.
“As always I appreciate your right to hold this view, but I’m sure you will understand that your view being so different from almost everyone else believes makes your assertion about what is or is not an issue a little hard for others to take seriously.”
Only if those others continue to willfully evade the metaphysical fact that man is an individual with his own reasoning mind and that his set nature AS man requires he have his freedom to survive and better his life.Why shouldn’t every beach be owned by those who value them most?Im happy to give up any so called “claim” I have to any beach and respect the property rights of those who do own them and to trade with them for the use of that beach if and when I wish to in exchange for NOT having to be an unwilling “public owner” having to continually fund the upkeep of these beachs the rest of the time.This works perfectly well in the case of movie theaters,skating rinks,golf courses etc (all privately owned and therefore lacking the potential conflict that arises at such “public places” as Cathedral Cove.
You, Kevin, want everyone, regardless of what THEY want,to be enslaved through the “common good” to have to fund beaches etc because YOU think you know better than them what they should and shouldn’t do with their money and lives.Kindly piss off and mind your own business.
Like or Dislike:
0 
7 (-7)
Gotta own everything, for it’s own good?
Land? Sea? Rivers and lakes? How about the air we breathe James?
Owners do tend to want to exert their ownership rights on the things they own, don’t they and that generally means (tbc)
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Plenty of wild places ARE privately owned….why would private ownership have to mean the disappearane of wild places if the owners liked them that way?You are so concrete bound in your thinking Fly…its rather sad.Whats wrong with you Greens buying the rights to wild places and leaving them that way if thats what you value?I have no issue with that.Why don’t you raise a Worldwide campaign and buy the rights to the Amazon and place covenants on it? Plenty of people would chip in to help,hell the celebs would be worth a Billion or so at least…I would kick in a few bucks myself, I happen to think retaining some of the Amazon is a good thing so I would offer value in trade to the people who currently control its use who feel they have to clear it and use the land for other purposes.Thats what moral,decent people would do….the new owners could offer eco tourism and all sorts of sustainible activities on their terms to cover their costs and add value if they wanted.Thats the market at work…Capitalism in its tree sense.Common Greenies….how about it?
“Gotta own everything, for it’s own good?”
No….so man can live in a peaceful and civilised manner.Private property rights allow that….public ownership causes conflict.
“Land? Sea? Rivers and lakes? How about the air we breathe James?
Owners do tend to want to exert their ownership rights on the things they own, don’t they and that generally means (tbc)”
People who own things tend also to allow others to enjoy them on their terms.Some will open their land up to use by others….some will not.So what?Where did you get the idea you had the right to go anywhere you liked at someone elses cost?Thats the mindset of a bludger…a user (in the negative sense of the word.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
“Whats wrong with you Greens buying the rights to wild places and leaving them that way if thats what you value?”
We hardly need to James, when they are already protected for all New Zealanders and paid for through our taxes. Our task seems to be to exert our opinions loud enough that the condition of those shared resources isn’t diminished.
Where did I get the idea that I had the right to go anywhere I liked at someone else’s cost?
I don’t have that ‘idea’.
Where did you get the idea that I had the idea that I had the right to go anywhere I liked at someone else’s cost, James?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
I take it then James that you agree with hapu and iwi ownership of the foreshore and seabed? After all, ownership rights can be collective as well as individual.
What are you doing in this blog anyway?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
So there is not one person who would rather have sold the land for cash?
I find that very hard to believe.
In fact, I’d go so far as to say that you are making it up.
The problem with Maori tribes being owners of vast tracts of land is that it is compulsory even for those who would rather sell the land and use the money for other things.
Instead, tribes should parcel-up the land and issue stock to members, which can then be retained or sold for cash.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4 (-4)
“Whats wrong with you Greens buying the rights to wild places and leaving them that way if thats what you value?”
We hardly need to James, when they are already protected for all New Zealanders and paid for through our taxes. Our task seems to be to exert our opinions loud enough that the condition of those shared resources isn’t diminished.”
The trouble is many of your fellow NZ’ers don’t want to be part owners of these places but were forced to by a State that saw no issue with pulling out the gun and threatening them to pony up with their hard earned money to fund things they would choose not to if allowed….Its money that they now don’t have to spend on feeding their kids properly,buying them books to read or just spending as they wish….get it?When you statists rob people of their earnings to fund YOUR dreams and desires don’t be suprised when these people start to do it hard and have to go onto your welfare rolls…..I’d be happy to give up my “portion” of these resources in exchange for never having to fund them or have anything to do with them…but you can’t allow that can you because its about control over others rather than the enviroment eh comrade?
“Where did I get the idea that I had the right to go anywhere I liked at someone else’s cost?”
You are a Green and a socialist….its all part of your package deal.
“I don’t have that ‘idea’.
Where did you get the idea that I had the idea that I had the right to go anywhere I liked at someone else’s cost, James?”
Its implied in you Green/socialist dogma fly.
Janine: “Re DOC land – some years ago, our Conservation Board had a proposal put by Ngatihine to manage the Ngatihine Forest. This was agreed to and the result is positive for everybody – the DOC estate is well-managed by a community that has a stake in it.”
Crap…its an overblown/tied up boondogle that costs most Kiwis too much of their earnings without a say in how its run….and thats usually poorly.
“I take it then James that you agree with hapu and iwi ownership of the foreshore and seabed? After all, ownership rights can be collective as well as individual.”
A collective is just an abstraction….only individuals exist and therefore only individuals have rights.Collective action…meaning consentual common action by many with the same goal is pefectly consistent with individualism…its only collectivsm…the forced association of people against their individual choice that is wrong.I have no issue with Maori…or anyone owning and controlling land that is theirs to do so.If Maori wanted to toll me and others who ocasionally want to use their beachs in exchange for no longer being taxed continually to fund their upkeep I’d be thrilled.Thats the relationship I currently have with my local movie theather and pubs and bars and it works perfectly.Whats so special about a beach?
“What are you doing in this blog anyway?”
Debating and offering an opinion…what are YOU doing here?…From your tone its to try and silence that opinion?
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
I was on that Conservation Board and therefore was part of the discussion about whether or not to try that form of co-management. It is a matter of public record.
It was DOC estate, crown land, though of course formerly Ngatihine land, so not available for sale.
It seems you have no understanding of Maori tribal ownership at all so it is not worth discussing that issue with you.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Instead, tribes should parcel-up the land and issue stock to members, which can then be retained or sold for cash.”
Wat has it nailed perfectly…Maori suffer from the negative results of colletivism….and they are poorer and disadvantaged as a result.Their social struture is at odds with objective reality and they suffer as a result….and until they wake up and change they deserve to.Maori will only proper and lift themselves up when they embrace individualism (and true collective action if thats their choice.Maori need liberating from “Maori”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
I didn’t so Im not.
“I was on that Conservation Board and therefore was part of the discussion about whether or not to try that form of co-management. It is a matter of public record.
It was DOC estate, crown land, though of course formerly Ngatihine land, so not available for sale.
It seems you have no understanding of Maori tribal ownership at all so it is not worth discussing that issue with you.”
I understand collectivism and how this has been the anchor holding Maori back from realising their true potential and worth.When you look at the examples of Maori people who have broken with this failed doctrine and have applied themselves to the real world ie Tamaki brothers,you can see clearly it isn’t the race but the straightjacketed culture that holds them back…My ancient British ancestors were the same…..they eventually changed and prospered and had one of the worlds greatest empires at one point.What could Maori people achieve once liberated from primative failed thinking? The same thinking the left want them to keep employing to the same dependant,miserable effect.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
The miserable grinches! Perhaps they’d be more comfortable living elsewhere and you might like to lead them to their promised land, James.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Thank you Bwana!
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Ah James! Comedic gold!
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
You do realise that NZ is not your private estate, right? You don’t get to dictate other people’s priorities.
- “Perhaps they’d be more comfortable living elsewhere”
So you agree that it is no one else’s business where people choose to live? That all immigration restrictions should be abolished?
I’ll raise a glass to that.
greenfly, you just did an incredibly brave thing. What you should have done was land your plane! You don’t own that plane, the taxpayers do! Son, your ego is writing checks your body can’t cash. You’ve been busted, you lost your qualifications as section leader three times, put in hack twice by me, with a history of high speed passes over five air control towers, and one admiral’s daughter!
Like or Dislike:
0 
6 (-6)
I’m aching to hear the English translation of your crowing, wat, eager to see if there is anything at all behind the pomp. At this point, I can only guess at your meaning, if there is any.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
“The miserable grinches! Perhaps they’d be more comfortable living elsewhere and you might like to lead them to their promised land, James.”
Translation: Actung! You vill own land wit der rest of us und be thankful that you do so….or you vill be sorry!
So fly….what IS so special about a beach that it’s supposed wellbeing gets to ride roughshod over peoples rights and lives? I know you people think rocks and swamps have rights over people so I guess beachs do too huh?
““Maori need liberating from “Maori”.”
Thank you Bwana!”
Proably a sentiment not a million miles from the one uttered by most 18th century Maori when British law helped end the murderous and cannalibalist rampages they had had to endure up to then from their fellow Maori…you know….those gentle,in harmony with nature ones…;-)
The liberated Maoris in Aussie would agree…
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
I’m trying, for the sake of discussion, to imagine how a beach’s well-being rides roughshod over peoples rights and lives but it’s not clear how that might happen. I imagine that if the beach was privately owned and someone who had always enjoyed access to that beach and was now excluded at the whim of the owner might feel ‘ridden over’ – is that what you mean?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
A question for you enlightened persons:
How is it that one comes to own land?
It is easy enough to say that a person owns that which they have produced but, for the most part, a person can only ever create improvements to land rather than the land itself. Because of this another mechanism is required to explain ones ownership of land. One can say that one owns it because they have purchased or inherited title from a previous title holder but that does not say how the land became owned in the first place.
If a boat of settlers is to land on an uncharted and uninhabited land how is it that ownership is established? Whom owns what and where? Is it the first person to touch the soil that owns the entire land or the first person to see it? Is it the amount of land that one can work? Is it the total land divided by the total voyagers? Is it that a person owns only the land they can protect from the intrusion of others?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Just poking fun at your faux-concern for human rights…
“I’m trying, for the sake of discussion, to imagine how a beach’s well-being rides roughshod over peoples rights and lives but it’s not clear how that might happen.”
If some peoples ideas of what the wellbeing of a beach entails imposes unchosen obligations(rates,taxation) on unconsenting others to have to contribte funds towards said beachs upkeep then those unconsenting others have had their rights to liberty and their own property ridden over roughshod….no? Not hard to grasp is it? If I was able to get the State to demand money from you to help upkeep my place would you not feel violated and annoyed?
“I imagine that if the beach was privately owned and someone who had always enjoyed access to that beach and was now excluded at the whim of the owner might feel ‘ridden over’ – is that what you mean?”
No.My friends and I used to use empty sections around here to play on when we were young.We stopped when people bought these sections and aquired the right to excluded us from them….did we have a “right” by virtue of previous free use to continue playing there?No….same goes for a beach.The price for living in a civilsed society is the fact that others,who have paid for the right, can determine what happens on property that is theirs…and their view outweighs yours….sorry…get over it.For the security of knowing that your person and property are yours and will not be taken from you or violated is the knowledge that you may not take and violate the property of others.When this balance is gone then don’t grizzle when others muster more force than you possess and start to practice what you socialists preach…Do unto others as you want to be treated fly…..an old law but a goodie.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4 (-4)
The story of civilisation is largely a story of Governments providing a legal system that guarantees rights to property – including rights to property in goods, chattels, and of course land and buildings.
The more secure those rights in property generally the more prosperous the nation and the more satisfied the people.
Rights in property also referred to your property in your thoughts and beliefs. It was recognised that a citizen was hardly free if the citizen could not protect himself from trespass or arbitrary entry and arrest.
New Zealand and Australia developed and instituted the Torenz system of registration of title which gives us an efficient system of title registration and transfer.
There is a good reason why in most countries people have to “search the title” before the can buy or sell it or raise a mortgage. It really does require a search.
The history of the US is very much a history of the differences between the Federal and State Government about the creation of legal title to land.
We give up our right to rape pillage and steal in exchange for a legal system of property rights and we transfer the right to use force to our police forces for protection from internal raiders and to our armed forces for protection from external invaders.
REad Hernando de Santo for the contribution of secure property rights to economic development and human welfare.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
I know this. I was hoping that I could get James and Wat to say it though for the instant they admit it they loose all basis for all of their arguements.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Hardly…..I just can’t be bothered rehashing the same old argument with you again re natural rights….of which property (in ones person) is the basic one.We then will end up at the silly, debunked “is/ought” dicotomy and whats the point? RSI for no gain?
One point.Owen said “The story of civilisation is largely a story of Governments providing a legal system that guarantees rights to property – including rights to property in goods, chattels, and of course land and buildings.”
But governments only arose to protect pre-existing rights….ones that nature confers on us by virtue of being human….and the fact that if humans are to live and prosper we must have a system that is non contradictory and intune with our nature as man and the requirements of that nature.We don’t have rights because we have governemnt…we have Government (small,limited and focused on rights protection only if we get it right)to protect all ready existing rights.
Anyway….off to watch the cricket…..babble amoungst yourselves…
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Governments are but a form of collective.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
How can non existent abstractions create rights?Only individuals exists therefore only they have rights and it is ONLY nature that can betow them…because only nature exists as their source…unless you posit a supernatural source….? .If individuals work together in collective action there are still only the rights of those individuals…no new rights can be or are created.
“The collectives declare the rights and then create them through protecting them. Nature can not grant rights as it has not directed force.”
Nature certainly has directed force…the laws of cause and effect,non contradiction and the law of identity.The absolutes of life and death.
“Governments are but a form of collective.”
The State is supposed to be the objective holder of everyones right to self defence of their person and property.It is a creation derived from the fact that mans has rights and they require objective protection from those who would violate them.
Now….cricket!
;-0
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
The beach at Cathedral Cove is there for the enjoyment of all and sundry, including those who don’t own land at all. And long may it remain so.
The concept of using one’s desire for private ownership as a good reason to despoil wilderness with commerce is irrelevant.
It is a very good thing that our government is enlightened enough to allow collective ownership.
It would be hard to imagine a private owner letting me visit Cathedral Cove.
Do you remember Spencers’ efforts at Stoney Batter on Waiheke?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Every time a human is killed does ‘nature’ step in and give out punishment? Does ‘nature’ protect against theft? Does ‘nature’ protect against rape? No, nature lacks a force directed toward the protection of supposed human rights outside of the actual organization of humans.
The rights you claim we have by virtue of being human are not real. By virtue of being human we have thought and thus the ability to desire rights, but that does not make rights a given simply because we desire them. Likewise we don’t have rights by virtue of Rand declaring we do unless rand has the force to protect the supposed rights. Rights may only be realised through force and likewise they may be taken by force.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Never a truer word spoken sapient.
I detest the modern day concept of “rights”.
Whether it is rich peoples version of their “rights”, or poor peoples version of their “rights” it is a detestable concept that is used to excuse human greed.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
The perfect moment to strike !
“Climb Mt Dubbledipton”
PS; i’ve neen surrounded by spies all my life
this lot ought be hilarious!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
Like or Dislike:
6 
0 (+6)
Actually nobody is against progress the question that is not considered or asked often enough is, ‘In what direction is this progress heading?’
The Cathedral Cove stall is headed in the direction of commercialization of as yet unspoilt nature. It appears harmless but maybe it will not be in the long term.
We can and do stop progress when it becomes obvious it is harmful to what we value. Maybe it will be time to stop the progress of this blog when it progresses completely off the subject.
E
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)