fish and game issue

[toads]

For those of you interested in such matters, here is a transcript of an email I recieved this a.m. It's in regard to to public right of access to lakes and rivers for recreational purposes in the aftermath of the seabed and foreshore legislation. I know some of you ( Jackrat) have already experienced the frustration of not being able to go onto land that was previously accessible for recreational purposes, although in his case this was due to offroad vehicles straying onto this land which was not alocated for that purpose.
Personally, I want to be sure that my kids and future generations have the right to walk about in and hunt and fish in and around all the places I have been able to in my life, we pay our licence fees and all the rest of it, and abide by the law in everyway, but it's scary how quickly legislation can change the way things are forever, and not always for the betterment of New Zealanders either.

[750Y]

lol, what a can of worms. wider issues come into play also. eg. what about the safety of our children around these areas? do we need a 1.2m regulation fence around any body of water or structure capable of holding water greater than 30cm depth like the swimming pools act.
I can just imagine tipto-eing up some rural farmers waterways with a rifle with my black beanie. Imagine how long it'll take till some Northland farmer rushes round shooting warning shots that accidentally kill someone..
mate i'm just gonna sit back and enjoy this one 8-)

[Hitcher]

This issue is important for us and future generations of New Zealanders. Federated Farmers and others are endeavouring to start a misinformation campaign in the run-up to election year.

Walking access to land is nothing to do with the recent Seabed and Foreshore legislation.

The Government has not yet made a decision on its preferred options for access.

There has been much discussion and consultation on this important matter. You can read more about this (if you're interested) at:

http://202.78.129.208/maf/search.aln?search=land%20access

The Government's objective is to provide certainty -- for both land owners and those wishing to enjoy the great outdoors. The status quo does not do this.

[toads]

thanks for that hitcher, I note the tendency of people in this country not to bother making a fuss until legislation has been implemented that changes the status quo, by which time it's usually too late. I for one want to make sure that the hunters/trampers/fishermen in my family have their chance to experience what we currently take for granted far on into future generations, political correctness be blowed, smoke free everywhere, no cow poo/sheep poo or farts ruining the environment, etc, being nice to killer drivers, where will it take us?.
Winston Peters advocates bringing back compulsory military training, tougher sentences and reducing parole opportunites for recidivist offenders.
It really surprises me noone has had him locked up, after all he makes dangerously good sense.

[Skyryder]

lol, what a can of worms. wider issues come into play also. eg. what about the safety of our children around these areas? do we need a 1.2m regulation fence around any body of water or structure capable of holding water greater than 30cm depth like the swimming pools act.
I can just imagine tipto-eing up some rural farmers waterways with a rifle with my black beanie. Imagine how long it'll take till some Northland farmer rushes round shooting warning shots that accidentally kill someone..
mate i'm just gonna sit back and enjoy this one 8-)


What can of worms?? Safety of children. What a load of old cobblers when you suggest safety fences on rivers , and as for the suggestion that farmers are going to go round and shoot fisherman with warning shots. This is the sort of crap the the opponents of Public Access are putting out. It's the sort of logic when the left side of the brain is in reverse while the right is in foward. What comes out is all fucked up.

Skyryder

[mangell6]

Walking access to land is nothing to do with the recent Seabed and Foreshore legislation.


Hitcher you are wrong :Pokey: and that is why it is beng lumped in to this 'emotive' piece of legislation that includes lots of little pieces that will please no-one and cause real issues.

Farmer allows people through his land and gets pissed at the inconsiderate people leaving litter, not closing gates, etc and ends up barring the gate, gets taken to court by the local council for refusing access - from memory I think that is how it went - local paper

Maori farmer OWNS their OWN land, just like their pakeha neighbour, they get abused for not allowing people across there land, the owner calls it trespassing others say 'customary right'. - Personal experience, Waikato area

All confusion and political appeasement, not resolving the real issues in my opinion.

:done:

Mike

[What?]

...in his case this was due to offroad vehicles straying onto this land which was not alocated for that purpose..
Always the way. In the past few years, a number of people have been through our place to go fishing. Only one ever asked permission. The rest have left their rubbish behind, damaged fences or invaded our privacy. Now the govt wants to force me to provide access? Fuck 'em!
Same attitude from the Maori landowners down the east cape region - once you could camp anywhere on the road side, now it's all closed off. All because of a few inconsiderate assholes who thought it their right to leave rubbish and cut down trees.

[Hitcher]

All confusion and political appeasement, not resolving the real issues in my opinion.
Read the stuff my earlier link points towards. The points you raise are exactly why the status quo is untenable -- paper roads, "the Queen's chain", riperian rights, access to public land via private land, etc. All a buggers muddle. The purpose of any legislation will be to provide certainty to landowners and walkers alike. The Government has yet to decide what its preference is. Much emotive hot air is coming from Gerry Eckhof and others.

[Hitcher]

Always the way. In the past few years, a number of people have been through our place to go fishing. Only one ever asked permission. The rest have left their rubbish behind, damaged fences or invaded our privacy. Now the govt wants to force me to provide access? Fuck 'em!
Same attitude from the Maori landowners down the east cape region - once you could camp anywhere on the road side, now it's all closed off. All because of a few inconsiderate assholes who thought it their right to leave rubbish and cut down trees.
Again I direct people to the material to which my link points. All of these matters have been discussed at some length. The last thing many farmers and rural dwellers want is an endless procession of folk waltzing up to their home, past their farm buildings, invading their privacy to get "permission" to access some "public" amenity -- be that a tramping hut, lake, swimming hole, fishing stream or national park. Certainty of access makes things easier for everybody.

[750Y]

What can of worms?? Safety of children. What a load of old cobblers when you suggest safety fences on rivers , and as for the suggestion that farmers are going to go round and shoot fisherman with warning shots. This is the sort of crap the the opponents of Public Access are putting out. It's the sort of logic when the left side of the brain is in reverse while the right is in foward. What comes out is all fucked up.

Skyryder

lol Skyrider 8-)
i was just giving examples of how i thought the whole issue would unfold & reasons why i would want to sit back with a beer & enjoy the entertainment.
It was exactly the bunch of 'old cobblers' i was imagining would be dragged up. I was merely playing devils advocate. You obviously have faith in the doctrine of common-sense which i admire, hopefully it prevails on this issue.

[What?]

Again I direct people to the material to which my link points. All of these matters have been discussed at some length. The last thing many farmers and rural dwellers want is an endless procession of folk waltzing up to their home, past their farm buildings, invading their privacy to get "permission" to access some "public" amenity -- be that a tramping hut, lake, swimming hole, fishing stream or national park. Certainty of access makes things easier for everybody.
Yes, but do you really trust the government to get it right when it is translated from proposal to legislation? Consider the huge shag-ups they made with the Holidays act, or the party-hopping act.
And what really fucks me off is the people who believe (and campaign to govt) that they should have access through private land are not about to offer any reciprocal agreement. Meanwhile, I am supposed to gaurantee their safety (oh, yes - there will be two contradictory pieces of legislation on this subject...)

[mangell6]

Such a skeptic tsk tsk tsk. Parliament is full of lawyers so I am sure that they will get the law correct and unambiguous (sp?).

[What?]

Full of people who failed at all sorts of things in real life. Except mechanics - they go to VTNZ.

[Ghost Lemur]

thanks for that hitcher, I note the tendency of people in this country not to bother making a fuss until legislation has been implemented that changes the status quo, by which time it's usually too late. I for one want to make sure that the hunters/trampers/fishermen in my family have their chance to experience what we currently take for granted far on into future generations, political correctness be blowed, smoke free everywhere, no cow poo/sheep poo or farts ruining the environment, etc, being nice to killer drivers, where will it take us?.
Winston Peters advocates bringing back compulsory military training, tougher sentences and reducing parole opportunites for recidivist offenders.
It really surprises me noone has had him locked up, after all he makes dangerously good sense.


You obviously don't know ol' Winnie that well, or have closely read what he's said. He's a true practioneer of Realpolitik. Got a lot of repect for him, he certainly knows how to play the game.

[Hitcher]

You obviously don't know ol' Winnie that well, or have closely read what he's said. He's a true practioneer of Realpolitik. Got a lot of repect for him, he certainly knows how to play the game.
If he didn't have a pathological urge to destroy things that he had created he would have been Prime Minister of New Zealand by now.

[toads]

i agree there are two sides to every issue, we own farmland bordering a river, which fortunately for us has no fish in it or even eels, but legislation is apparently being considered to get every river,pond waterway etc fenced off to stop cattle/sheep from fouling the water etc, this is an ok consideration for some farms, but for high country sheep farmers is a logistical nightmare, legislation has a tendancy to enforce impractical hard and fast rules on everyone, I would far rather each property be assessed on it's own basis, and leave the government out of it completely.

[Hitcher]

i agree there are two sides to every issue, we own farmland bordering a river, which fortunately for us has no fish in it or even eels, but legislation is apparently being considered to get every river,pond waterway etc fenced off to stop cattle/sheep from fouling the water etc, this is an ok consideration for some farms, but for high country sheep farmers is a logistical nightmare, legislation has a tendancy to enforce impractical hard and fast rules on everyone, I would far rather each property be assessed on it's own basis, and leave the government out of it completely.
Nitrate runoff is a major ecological issue. Just look at what's happened to the Rotorua lakes. Even Lake Taupo is at risk. Once a lake is "dead" it can take up to 30 years to restore to viability. Riparian fencing and planting doesn't cost that much -- particularly if farmers do it in a phased manner -- and the environmental benefits are significant.