Queens cains access to waterways.

[inlinefour]

What do you all think about this. I'm buggered if I'd want people coming onto my property without having the right to tell them that they are tresspassing. If its good for city dwellers to have private property, then why not the rural dwellers. There is enough crime in rural remote areas allready, won't this make it worse?

[Lou Girardin]

What do you all think about this. I'm buggered if I'd want people coming onto my property without having the right to tell them that they are tresspassing. If its good for city dwellers to have private property, then why not the rural dwellers. There is enough crime in rural remote areas allready, won't this make it worse?

Unless of course, you want to retain the traditional right to hunt and fish without paying a landowner to do so.
Part of the farmers unspoken argument is to gain the right to charge for access.

[inlinefour]

Unless of course, you want to retain the traditional right to hunt and fish without paying a landowner to do so.
Part of the farmers unspoken argument is to gain the right to charge for access.

I'm just a townie who is wondering what everyone else thinks of it...

[Ixion]

Queen's chain ? Didn't know Bessie was a biker. Game old bird. Rides a Yamaha Royale I suppose ?

Being as it's her chain shouldn't they ask her what she wants done with it. I'd get a bit pissed off if people started messing about with my chain without asking me.

[ManDownUnder]

What do you all think about this. I'm buggered if I'd want people coming onto my property without having the right to tell them that they are tresspassing. If its good for city dwellers to have private property, then why not the rural dwellers. There is enough crime in rural remote areas allready, won't this make it worse?

I think it's a load of shite. I'm a hunter and enjoy fishing (not that I get out much lately)... but I have NEVER expressed an entitlement to access rivers etc. If I am on someone's land, I want them to know. I want their express permission and they retain the right to remove me from their land for any (or no) reason whatsoever.

It's a two way street... I'll help the farmer by shooting possums, deer or assisting in otherways, and they allow me onto their land.

Or not.

No big deal - and as was pointed out, this is the same as land ownership in the cities.

My experience is that farmers aren't unreasonably restrictive. Most are really good people with a more than average practical and generous outlook on life.

MDU

[TonyB]

Unless of course, you want to retain the traditional right to hunt and fish without paying a landowner to do so.
Part of the farmers unspoken argument is to gain the right to charge for access.
All they want is the right to have a say in who they let onto their land, and when they can do it.
An unknowledgeable person walking through a paddock at lambing time can cause chaos.
An unknowledgeable person walking through a paddock at calving time can get them selves seriously injured or worse.
I'm not exactly sure how it works, but I believe if someone injures themselves on your land it gets tricky with ACC.
Then there's the delightful ones that come along and kill one of your sheep for some tucker. The dogs people bring with them worrying stock. People leaving gates open- your stock gets on the road and causes an accident- that gets tricky. Flighty lambs panicing and piling into a corner and smothering.
And finally, the people that sneak in and plant some dope on your land. Not sure of the rules at the moment but only a few years ago it was possible to loose your farm if you couldn't prove it wasn't yours.

All they want is for people to come and ask if they can cross their land. Then they'll know where you are, and can advise of any posssible dangers etc. You won't often meet a cocky who'll tell you to piss off.

[ManDownUnder]

All they want is the right to have a say in who they let onto their land, and when they can do it.
An unknowledgeable person walking through a paddock at lambing time can cause chaos.
An unknowledgeable person walking through a paddock at calving time can get them selves seriously injured or worse.
I'm not exactly sure how it works, but I believe if someone injures themselves on your land it gets tricky with ACC.
Then there's the delightful ones that come along and kill one of your sheep for some tucker. The dogs people bring with them worrying stock. People leaving gates open- your stock gets on the road and causes an accident- that gets tricky. Flighty lambs panicing and piling into a corner and smothering.
And finally, the people that sneak in and plant some dope on your land. Not sure of the rules at the moment but only a few years ago it was possible to loose your farm if you couldn't prove it wasn't yours.

All they want is for people to come and ask if they can cross their land. Then they'll know where you are, and can advise of any posssible dangers etc. You won't often meet a cocky who'll tell you to piss off.

Exactly right on all scores.

Add to that the fact a farmer may be pest controlling... with a .22 or something little more powerful. They know where the cattle are, and will not shoot towards them, they know where the empty paddocks are and WILL shoot towards them...

Possums come out at night, they shoot, they miss and suddenly they find they've shot someone?!?

uh oh.

naaa mate - for EVERYONE's protection, keep access under control.

Some cockies are going to say NO. And good on them - they've been stuffed around with this for so long.

[Jackrat]

All they want is the right to have a say in who they let onto their land, and when they can do it.
An unknowledgeable person walking through a paddock at lambing time can cause chaos.
An unknowledgeable person walking through a paddock at calving time can get them selves seriously injured or worse.
I'm not exactly sure how it works, but I believe if someone injures themselves on your land it gets tricky with ACC.
Then there's the delightful ones that come along and kill one of your sheep for some tucker. The dogs people bring with them worrying stock. People leaving gates open- your stock gets on the road and causes an accident- that gets tricky. Flighty lambs panicing and piling into a corner and smothering.
And finally, the people that sneak in and plant some dope on your land. Not sure of the rules at the moment but only a few years ago it was possible to loose your farm if you couldn't prove it wasn't yours.

All they want is for people to come and ask if they can cross their land. Then they'll know where you are, and can advise of any posssible dangers etc. You won't often meet a cocky who'll tell you to piss off.

Fully agree here,
The Dope thing still stands,plus pulling the shit up can result in threats of violence or damage to your property.
A bullet an a tomo,that's all the access those cunts deserve.
But back to the subject at hand.
There's miles of public land in NZ that's freely accessable to anybody that wants to put in a bit of effort.
My brother in law manages our property,he is more that capable of deciding if somebody is a legit sports person or not,he/we do not need laws to let just anybody cross the place.
As far as selling access rights,,,,,get a fucking life.

[Jackrat]

Unless of course, you want to retain the traditional right to hunt and fish without paying a landowner to do so.
Part of the farmers unspoken argument is to gain the right to charge for access.

If it's unspoken,how the fuck would you know ?

[What?]

I'll vote when I work out what the available options mean...

Meanwhile, in the last nine years we have only had ONE person ask for (and was granted) access to the river that forms our bottom boundary. In the same period we have had numerous know-alls tresspassing, wrecking fences, leaving gates open and leaving their rubbish behind, then spouting ill-informed crap about the "queen's chain" when challenged.
Aside from merely pissing me off in the extreme with their attitudes and damage caused, the use of firearms is not unknown here. If there are people on the property unbeknown to me, they could be in genuine mortal danger. And if the worst happens, guess who is in the poo.

[zadok]

According to a document I just read, "there is no legal device called a 'Queens Chain'."
http://www.doc.govt.nz/Regional-Info/007~Tongariro-Taupo/005~Publications/003~Other-Publications/Target-Taupo-40/003~The-Queens-Chain.asp
The last paragraph about asking for permission, as has been mentioned on this forum, would seem be the right thing to do.

I'll decline to vote with the options available.

[Skyryder]

There has been a long tradition in this country that fisherman have had access to both rivers and lakes through private property. However this has not meant that fisherman have had access to all and every part of the private property. I know of one location that I used for many years. This was on the understanding that the track was not to be left and all gates were to be left as found. Many fisherman including myself were suddenly excluded from this water when the station was sold to an American buyer who promptly leased the water rights to a local fishing guide. There have a been number of instances where this has happened and my report is not an isolated case. I pay for the priveledge too fish for trout along with many other New Zealanders. This resource is managed under statute by Fish and Game New Zealand. If it was not for my licence fees along with many thousands of other New Zealanders this absentee landlord would not have an additional asset.

Now I don't have a problem when it comes to competing with the local fishing guide but when a traditional access is removed from licenced fishermen so that a private buisness can be established then I get a little bit upset. Now remember that the land owner does not own the river nor the trout that inhabit it. And another thing to remember as the water access is through private property there is no way for Fish and Game rangers to establish if the guides clients have licences.



Skyryder

[Skyryder]

If it's unspoken,how the fuck would you know ?

Because that's what's happened. See my post.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Bit lengthy but it's all here.

http://www.publicaccessnewzealand.org/files/queens_chain.html


Skyryder

[Jackrat]

Because that's what's happened. See my post.

Skyryder

My reply to our resident bigot wasn't aimed at you,sorry if you got the idea it was.
The situation you highlight doesn't involve a New Zealand land owner,rather an outsider that in my opinion should NEVER have been allowed to buy land here in the first place.But that's a whole other discussion anyway.
I refer to real Kiwi farmers that have never really had any issue with allowing access to legit sports people.
As it stands now on my own family property,the gate is shut to everybody,my own friends included.
If this law goes ahead that's going to be how it stays.
The Gov't created this problem,their going to have to solve it,penalizing the real kiwi farmer for their own muck up it's going to do it.

[Big Dave]

Queen's chain ? Didn't know Bessie was a biker. Game old bird. Rides a Yamaha Royale I suppose ?

Being as it's her chain shouldn't they ask her what she wants done with it. I'd get a bit pissed off if people started messing about with my chain without asking me.


What is a k75 doing with a chain?

[Ixion]

What is a k75 doing with a chain?

Li'l Ratty got a chain (Yamaha SRX250)

[Clockwork]

I don't fish, hunt or tramp. I'll probably never have any need for this law but having grown up in the UK where farmers accept the public's right to use footpaths that cross their land the principal behind the law don't seem unreasonable to me. Of course the paths should remain well clear of all residential & farm buildings and should be restricted to foot access only. ie No hunting, no animals, horses, dogs etc.

If these rivers remain the property of the NZ public then arn't their/our property rights as valid as the land owners?

[Skyryder]

Picked this up from an email that I recieve on a regular basis from Jim
Anderton.

************************************************** *******

RURAL LAND AND WATER ACCESS Q&As

What is this about?



There has been a proposal in the public arena for some time to legislate for access to public waterways and public areas of particular scenic value. The current discussion is over what form this should take in particular relation to waterways, lakes, and the seashore.


Where did this idea come from?



These sorts of legal access rights are common in many countries. For example in Britain there is a longstanding right in common law to use rights of way which have been sanctioned by time and custom. These rights are safeguarded by a range of organisations such as the Ramblers’ Association.



Outdoor recreational groups in New Zealand , particularly in the areas of hunting, tramping, and fishing, have been seeking similar rights for some years. There is also very widespread support in New Zealand for the extension of what is usually called ‘the Queen’s chain’ to major waterways for public access and enjoyment purposes. Recreational groups lobbied the political parties to include such rights in their manifestos and Labour took it up. It has been in their election platforms for at least two elections, so no-one can say that it suddenly emerged as a policy and that no-one was warned about the prospect of it happening.



The Progressive Party doesn’t have a policy on it specifically although it fits with our general approach which says that all New Zealanders should enjoy equal access to leisure and recreational activities and that these should not be constrained, as they are in some countries, by considerations of wealth which allow people to buy fishing or hunting rights, for example, and deny them to others. We have therefore endorsed government initiatives so far.
What waterways will this apply to?
Only to significant public waterways. This means, for example, permanent, running, natural waterways a minimum of three metres wide and which also are of significant land access value. It won’t apply to small streams or drains. It is important to note that something like 70% of the waterways affected are already the subject of access provisions, and mostly have been for decades. This has not led to any significant or widespread problems for the landowners. The idea is to cover the other 30%, not create something new or unusual.
So what has happened so far?



The Minister of Rural Affairs has commissioned a report on the proposal known as the Ormond Report after the chair of the group who prepared it (John Ormond, ex chair of the Meat Board, hardly someone hostile to rural interests). This was published in August 2003 and is available on the web at www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/people-and-their-issues/access/index.htm There’s no secret about it and it is freely available to all of those who want to see it. This report sets out a range of options and is intended as a basis for consultation and discussion with interested groups and individuals. So far these consultations have included over fifty well attended meetings in rural areas under the auspices of the Ormond Committee. Among the groups consulted has been Federated Farmers which has recently expressed strong opposition to the idea.


How close is this legislation to passage into law?



Nowhere near it. Consultation is still proceeding. The outcomes will be published in due course with amended options and recommendations arising from the consultation process, and at that point it will be considered by Cabinet. If Cabinet approves, or does so after requiring further review and consideration, it will then be sent to the Law Drafting Office. Some preliminary work done on this has shown that this is, unsurprisingly, a complex area, so that the drafting process is liable to take some time. At the end of al that, the proposed legislation will be introduced to parliament in the usual way. From there it will be sent to a Select Committee, further public submissions will be invited, and it will then be reported back and debated, eventually to be passed. All of that will also take some time. A year and more would be a very optimistic estimate. Probably much longer. So there’s no need to get excited. Nothing is going to happen in the immediate future and there is still ample room for debate.



So why is this an issue?



An interesting question. Some commentators have suggested that this has little to do with the private property rights of farmers and quite a lot to do with the fact that this is election year. Some of those opposed to the proposed legislation have made no bones about their desire to return the Opposition to government and see this as a convenient stick to beat the government with.



But haven’t the farmers got a point? What about their private property rights?



Fair question. But there are also some important things to recall when such claims are made.



The first is that no-one has an absolute right to property in New Zealand (nor in most other countries). Land property in New Zealand is held in what is known as fee simple to the Crown, and it isn’t usually interfered with without good reason. But that property right has to be balanced against the broader community interest and there are numerous instances of the individual right being considered secondary to the community interest. It happens with new roads, for example, which sometimes have to cut across private property. This is a case of that sort. Usually in such cases there is compensation for what has been lost, and that has been one of the aspects of the discussions so far on the current access issue. The government has already said that it would meet some of the costs involved in signage and fencing for example.



Like the foreshore and seabed issue?



Precisely. It’s interesting to note that many of those who supported the retention of recreational access to our beaches are not nearly as keen when it comes to recreational access to rural land and waterways, but they can’t have it both ways.



Yes, but if people are allowed legal access doesn’t that amount to a right to roam as people like. Won’t total strangers invade farmers’ property, disturbing their stock and littering their property or worse?



No. The government has given an absolute assurance that there will be no ‘right to roam’ included in legislation. What is proposed is a highly restricted access right. This will be overseen by an independent Access Commission which will set strict rules on how access is to be conducted. In some ways this will be a significant improvement from the point of view of landowners on the present situation. Normal laws relating to trespass and wilful damage will continue to apply as before. Walkways will not be allowed to go within 50 metres of a residence or 20 metres of any other lawfully erected building.



If people want access to waterways for recreational purposes why don’t they just ask as they do now?



Most people will continue to do so. New Zealanders are courteous people who respect the privacy of others, and who don’t like the thought of going on someone else’s land without them knowing about it. Most rural landowners, when asked, don’t have a problem now with bona fide hunters or trampers accessing their land as long as they obey the rules. That won’t change. But as with everything else there’s always a small minority who take an unreasonable stance over access, and so something needs to be done about that. If there wasn’t a problem, national recreational groups would not have raised the matter in the first place.



Jim Anderton
M P for Wigram and Leader of the Progressive Party

ENDS

************************************************** **********


Skyryder

[Al]

There are still some New Zealanders who are NOT "courteous people who respect the privacy of others, and who don’t like the thought of going on someone else’s land without them knowing about it."
IMHO people who ask permission to access parts of a farm will close gates, remove rubbish/litter and have respect for the farmer and HIS land.

I feel the same about the Queen's chain as I do about Youth offenders/drunk drivers/drug-induced carnage, etc.

Ok, bye!

Al

[Pixie]

I support the farmers.They want the right to tell obvious arseholes to fuck off.
Since I moved out of town these are some of the things I've seen:One neighbour regularly loses goats,I see a surprising number of middle eastern types stop and scope out his property and he finds evidence of intruders like cigarette butts where someone has been lurking.He has also had 3 quads stolen,but curiously ,although he had one stolen every six months,since that prick got shot up north he hasn't had any trouble.
Another neighbour had to drive a slasher through a quarter acre of dope he found growing in the scrub at the bottom of his farm.
And in the local paper;A farmer allows a bow hunter onto his land and 2 weeks later finds a ewe wandering around with a crossbow bolt through it's face. :no:

[geoffm]

Unless of course, you want to retain the traditional right to hunt and fish without paying a landowner to do so.
Part of the farmers unspoken argument is to gain the right to charge for access.

Private land - you can't go hunting there without permission now, and this is not going to change. There is no way I would want the public traipsing across my land without my approval. To many OSH problems, to much crime, vandelism and stock problems now.
Geoff

[soundbeltfarm]

im on a farm which has 2 rivers run through it and our back boundry runs along the egmont national park.
we have a lot of people go duck shooting on the rivers and all but one has asked to my amusment the cock that didnt ask drove up our race to the back of the farm then got stuck i didnt know he was there and drove our bulls up there they fucked his ute dents everywhere.
he tried to have a go at me but he soon shut the fuck up when i gave one of my dogs a hold command on him and just called him off about 10 metres away.
then he had the nerve to ask me to pull him out.
so i did but the chain did a bit more damage to his ute. haha
he tried to get me to pay but to no avail as we have a big sign that says before entering enquire at the shed or house for known hazards.
and at this stage it covers us. ( not sure how far though)
we have no problem letting people on our property as long as they ask so we know they are here.
tourists stop all the time on the road to take a pic of mount taranaki and if they want to go on the property every single one of them has asked.
well thats just my rant on the access issue ,as far as land owners wanting to charge for access i personally dont know of any farmer want to charge for access.

[poorbastard]

The whole lots a load of shit. Born and bred on farms here. Sure there are some farmers who have something up their arses but most farmers who have rivers on their land will grant access if they are asked. Shoudnt they have a right to know who is walking on thier backyard I know most townies wouldnt want people just walking into their backyard while your sitting ther doing whatever you like to do there but lets not go into that. If this law is passed it has to be passed with not just rural areas towns etc should have the chain placed. Farmers dont need more people walking around thier farm looking for stuff they can steal there is enough of a problem there already.

The most stupid part about this is the fact that the farmer is responsible for making the place 'safe' for people. If someone hurts themselves on the property the bastards can take the farmer to court. Where is the sence in this.

I say if this is going to happen let the whole country be affected take land off those around lake taupo and other areas as well then see how happy people will be about it.

Just my opinion

[Skyryder]

This proposed legislation is about access to waterways. It does not entitle the public to roam at large over private property. It may surprise some who oppose this that the public in general do have access to private property. This is a narrow strectch of land that leads up to your front door. They do not have the right to camp, loiter litter etc. The proposed Public Access statutes although constituting a different destination other than the front door are in effect no different.

Skyryder

[Jantar]

im on a farm which has 2 rivers run through it and our back boundry runs along the egmont national park.
we have a lot of people go duck shooting on the rivers and all but one has asked to my amusment the cock that didnt ask drove up our race to the back of the farm then got stuck i didnt know he was there and drove our bulls up there they fucked his ute dents everywhere.
he tried to have a go at me but he soon shut the fuck up when i gave one of my dogs a hold command on him and just called him off about 10 metres away.
then he had the nerve to ask me to pull him out.
so i did but the chain did a bit more damage to his ute. haha
he tried to get me to pay but to no avail as we have a big sign that says before entering enquire at the shed or house for known hazards.
and at this stage it covers us. ( not sure how far though)
we have no problem letting people on our property as long as they ask so we know they are here.
tourists stop all the time on the road to take a pic of mount taranaki and if they want to go on the property every single one of them has asked.
well thats just my rant on the access issue ,as far as land owners wanting to charge for access i personally dont know of any farmer want to charge for access.

Our property is a lot smaller, and only has a water race rather than a river on the boundry. As far as I am concerne, I don't mind people following the water race while duck shooting, tramping etc without coming up to the house to ask permission. All I require is four simple points of etiquette.

1. Leave all gates as you find them
2. Do not disturb any stock.
3. Take only memories
4. Leave only footprints

I know how much I have enjoyed wandering along the banks of a stream or river, and when coming across a fence, I have not always known whose property it is, or even where to ask for permission. In many cases in the South Island the homestead may even be many kilometers away, if you even knew which one it was.

[soundbeltfarm]

Our property is a lot smaller, and only has a water race rather than a river on the boundry. As far as I am concerne, I don't mind people following the water race while duck shooting, tramping etc without coming up to the house to ask permission. All I require is four simple points of etiquette.

1. Leave all gates as you find them
2. Do not disturb any stock.
3. Take only memories
4. Leave only footprints

I know how much I have enjoyed wandering along the banks of a stream or river, and when coming across a fence, I have not always known whose property it is, or even where to ask for permission. In many cases in the South Island the homestead may even be many kilometers away, if you even knew which one it was.


i dont mind people using the rivers but just want to know they are there.
some of the banks are high and they walk along the bottom they cant see where stock are.
if they come and ask we just tell them where any stock and dangers are.
the dangers are for osh regulations

[What?]

This is an example what pisses me off...

[Skyryder]

My reply to our resident bigot wasn't aimed at you,sorry if you got the idea it was.
The situation you highlight doesn't involve a New Zealand land owner,rather an outsider that in my opinion should NEVER have been allowed to buy land here in the first place.But that's a whole other discussion anyway.
I refer to real Kiwi farmers that have never really had any issue with allowing access to legit sports people.
As it stands now on my own family property,the gate is shut to everybody,my own friends included.
If this law goes ahead that's going to be how it stays.
The Gov't created this problem,their going to have to solve it,penalizing the real kiwi farmer for their own muck up it's going to do it.

Missed this. No need to apologise as no offence was taken.

You are correct that in the past many farmers have allowed access to water over their property. This is not the case in many instances, now and while I acknowledge the reason that some of these acessess have been closed it has now got to the stage where outdoor organisations, which are part of the New Zealand culture, i.e Federated Mountain Clubs, NZDA, Fish and Game, to name a few, have got together under PANZ, so that their members have access to the pursuites that interest them.

You are wrong when you say that the Government created this problem. Some farmers have prevented access due to the Court decisions. Others for personal gain, and others due to damage and litter problems. I am not unsympthetic to farmers interests and lifestyle. There are however some landowners who do not share my philophosy in respects to my interests and my lifestyle. I have no problem with legislation that upholds this, not only for myself but many other New Zealanders who pursue their outdoor activities.

Skyryder

PS
Not too sure if I agree with you comments about LG. LatelyI seem to be in agreement with his posts.

[Hitcher]

Don't believe everything that Federated Farmers says. The Government's proposed legislation is about providing certainty around access arrangements to public amenities/land through private land.

The Queen's Chain, as it currently stands, is an imperfect solution. In many cases it does not exist and, in others, exists where a river is no more. This proposed legislation also deals with issues around paper roads and other issues that seem to result in conflict between land owners and others from time to time (e.g. Stoney Batter on Waiheke Island, surfies on the Wairarapa Coast).

There is no proposal to take land off people who currently own it. I would have thought that the last thing any property owner would have wanted would have been General and Missus Public rocking up to the back door of their house (after having driven past various farm buildings) each and every time they wanted to get "permission" to go fishing, boating, swimming. camping, tramping, hunting, sunbathing on a lake, river, DoC reserve or national park.

If Federated Farmers supports feudalism, then they should just come right out and say so.

[Lou Girardin]

Private land - you can't go hunting there without permission now, and this is not going to change. There is no way I would want the public traipsing across my land without my approval. To many OSH problems, to much crime, vandelism and stock problems now.
Geoff

I'm referring to access to huntin' and shootin' spots. As it is now, some farmers are charging for exclusive access to trout streams. And who can afford to pay these fees - rich tourists.

[ManDownUnder]

I'm referring to access to huntin' and shootin' spots. As it is now, some farmers are charging for exclusive access to trout streams. And who can afford to pay these fees - rich tourists.

Yeah true, but then it's good for the economy... and there are always other spots to go hunt or fish in...

no?

[Hitcher]

This proposed legislation isn't about "right to roam". It doesn't affect all landusers, only those whose properties adjoin waterways "of significance" and then only a designated corridor adjoining those. It is also intended to cover designated access routes across private land to public land. It in no way diminishes the rights of property owners.

Top marks to the person who posted the references from www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/people-and-their-issues/access/

[toads]

What do you all think about this. I'm buggered if I'd want people coming onto my property without having the right to tell them that they are tresspassing. If its good for city dwellers to have private property, then why not the rural dwellers. There is enough crime in rural remote areas allready, won't this make it worse?

I agree, most farmers are quite happy to allow people to access rivers etc but only like to be asked, I've never encountered any farmer who has denied access to me or my family, but I know of a few who get really snakey when someone goes wandering around without permission, and who can blame them. I'm right behind the farmers protesting, it's another civil liberty being ripped away.

[toads]

This proposed legislation isn't about "right to roam". It doesn't affect all landusers, only those whose properties adjoin waterways "of significance" and then only a designated corridor adjoining those. It is also intended to cover designated access routes across private land to public land. It in no way diminishes the rights of property owners.

Top marks to the person who posted the references from www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/people-and-their-issues/access/

The only problem with this is, like the "koha" fishing rights, it can be then used as an excuse to exploit the law, and at the end of the day the only people that profit from the legislation are the crooks and the lawyers. Being a land owner, and having had cattle poached in the past, I can only say I intend to keep a lock on the gate.

[RiderInBlack]

The only problem with this is, like the "koha" fishing rights, it can be then used as an excuse to exploit the law, and at the end of the day the only people that profit from the legislation are the crooks and the lawyers. Being a land owner, and having had cattle poached in the past, I can only say I intend to keep a lock on the gate.My Father already has had this problem. A Pot Grower was using the "Queen's Chain" to cross our property. Would not have been so bad if he had been good about it, but he had:

cut our gates in the middle of our breeding season. This allowed the bulls to fight each other rather than doing what should be doing.
emptied our water tank. If rain water is all you have this is really bad news.
threaten my Father with a saw-off shotgun when asked to take his house truck off our property.
It was not easy to get rid of him.

Up until then Dad had be good about letting people croos our proptery. Not now. Gates are locked and if you can not be bothered to ask us, don't expect us to let you cross.

[ManDownUnder]

My Father already has had this problem. A Pot Grower was using the "Queen's Chain" to cross our property. Would not have been so bad if he had been good about it, but he had:

cut our gates in the middle of our breeding season. This allowed the bulls to fight each other rather than doing what should be doing.
emptied our water tank. If rain water is all you have this is really bad news.
threaten my Father with a saw-off shotgun when asked to take his house truck off our property.
It was not easy to get rid of him.

Up until then Dad had be good about letting people croos our proptery. Not now. Gates are locked and if you can not be bothered to ask us, don't expect us to let you cross.

Yeah not good.

Get his number plate and dob him into the IRD... The police can arrest and put him in prison for a spell... but the IRD can take the truck, the pot, fine him, do nasty things to his peron... and THEN call the police to do their thing

(actually... it's sad... but true... the IRD man is the bigger threat - what does that say about the Govt priorities??)
MDU

[RiderInBlack]

Yeah not good.

Get his number plate and dob him into the IRD... The police can arrest and put him in prison for a spell... but the IRD can take the truck, the pot, fine him, do nasty things to his peron... and THEN call the police to do their thing

(actually... it's sad... but true... the IRD man is the bigger threat - what does that say about the Govt priorities??)
MDUThat's alright the Pot Grower got killed a few years ago now. Got in bed with an under age girl, and got axed by the girl's Father. Too bad the Father ended up in jail for it but. The Pot Grower was a real arse-hole. Even the Black Power had a bullet for him.

[Lou Girardin]

It's all moot now. The Gummints done yet another tyre shredding U turn on this legislation.
Principles be damned, the only principle these people believe in is the "keep our snouts in the public trough" one.

[Hitcher]

If a Labour-dominated government is returned after the election, so too will this legislation. The "drafting delays" referred to by the Associate Rural Affairs Minister are real.

And don't forget that the status quo is an unsatisfactory situation that needs to be addressed.

[What?]

Damned right Hitcher - the delays are designed to look like a u-turn in an attempt to appease the farmers in the election build-up. Post election, it will be back.

[Krusti]

It's only a matter of courtesy....ask and normally you shall recieve...plus am I then under OSH supposed to employ some one full time to sit at the gate in case some one wanders on and I have to under law advise them of the hazards.

How many multi million dollar bussiness in town would allow some one access across their property to get to the creek at the back....nada, zero, zilch.

We are really a friendly lot out here in the back blocks ya no ya all.

All we will end up doing is passing laws that allow arse holes access when normal folk allready have great access.

bla bla bla bla bla:done:

[Lou Girardin]

It's only a matter of courtesy....ask and normally you shall recieve...plus am I then under OSH supposed to employ some one full time to sit at the gate in case some one wanders on and I have to under law advise them of the hazards.

How many multi million dollar bussiness in town would allow some one access across their property to get to the creek at the back....nada, zero, zilch.

We are really a friendly lot out here in the back blocks ya no ya all.

All we will end up doing is passing laws that allow arse holes access when normal folk allready have great access.

bla bla bla bla bla:done:

OSH regulations only refer to workplaces. Which is why they lost their action against the Berrymans.

[idb]

OSH regulations only refer to workplaces. Which is why they lost their action against the Berrymans.
From the Government website;

Aren’t I liable for any injuries people get on my land?
No. Under the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Act 1998, you are not responsible for injuries people might incur while on your land if you do not know they are there.

If you do know they are going on your land, you are only obliged to warn them of extraordinary risks: for example, if trees were being harvested, you would need to warn people of that and the risk of logging trucks. You do not need to warn them of natural hazards, such as tomos or bluffs.

[inlinefour]

I see another u-turn from our govt. I don't see the point in giving them a hard time as all the wanna be govt groups all suck eggs just as good as each other. Good to see the Footrots and like will be getting back into it and not having to worry about any unnessary shyte...

[What?]

OSH regulations only refer to workplaces. Which is why they lost their action against the Berrymans.
I thought they lost because the Berryman's owned neither the bridge nor the land it sat on - they simply had the use of both(?)
As a farm is a workplace, OSH reg's do apply. The only case for an argument would be a lifestyle block that was not a commercial venture.

The juicy bit lies in the part that says you are nor liable under OSH rules for injuries sustained by persons on your land without your knowledge. That's because A.C. fucking C. will get you instead!

[ManDownUnder]

It's ok - I've heard the govt is going to form a committee to help solve the problem!

That'll have it beaten in the fewest years possible...
:rofl:
MDU

[Lou Girardin]

I thought they lost because the Berryman's owned neither the bridge nor the land it sat on - they simply had the use of both(?)
As a farm is a workplace, OSH reg's do apply. The only case for an argument would be a lifestyle block that was not a commercial venture.

The juicy bit lies in the part that says you are nor liable under OSH rules for injuries sustained by persons on your land without your knowledge. That's because A.C. fucking C. will get you instead!

According to a report on the OSH case, it was decided that the bridge was not the bee-keepers work place. Just as the roads we travel to work are not ours.
How that leaves cops is an interesting point. Can the Police be charged if a cop is injured due to an unsafe situation on a road?

[What?]

It doesn't just stop there, Lou - a commercial vehicle is defined as being a workplace, and, presumably, so do cop cars. Except the gummint owns the cop cars and the roads, and, as we all know, the gummint is not responsible for anything...

(ps - the old man says Gidday)