Originally Posted by Ixion
What is a k75 doing with a chain?
Farmers, who are they to say I can't get to the rivers or lakes?
I feel sorry for them, but I want my access rights upheld.
Prtect the famers and rural areas and do away with the idea of queens chains.
Allow access to the waterways, even if it means access through town sections. Gumboots and all!!!
One hell of a ride.
What is a k75 doing with a chain?
Forum whore
Li'l Ratty got a chain (Yamaha SRX250)
Easily wound up!!
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?
"There must be a one-to-one correspondence between left and right parentheses, with each left parenthesis to the left of its corresponding right parenthesis."
Forum whore
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 http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-...cess/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
Free Scott Watson.
old enough to know better
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
4 wheels move the body
2 wheels move the soul
Forum whore
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.
Hardcore Biker
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
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <) Peace through superior firepower...
Build your own dyno - PM me for the link of if you want to use it (bring beer)
kiwi biker Double D (dirt div)
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.
Hardcore Biker
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
Forum whore
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
Free Scott Watson.
Night rider
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.
Time to ride
kiwi biker Double D (dirt div)
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
Geriatric hippie
This is an example what pisses me off...
ACC - It's where the Enron accountants all went.
Forum whore
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.
Free Scott Watson.
Deus ex ukulele
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.
"Standing on your mother's corpse you told me that you'd wait forever." [Bryan Adams: Summer of 69]
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks