[Gerard Galvin]

DOC is reviewing the fee system for public huts and camps. The main issue is poor compliance, particularly at unwardened facilities.
A draft concept has been formulated, the full text of which, can be viewed on the DOC website here at <http://www.doc.govt.nz/whats/fee_review.htm>

The existing pass and ticket system to be replaced with the following

365 pass – $120 inc GST
60 day pass – $ to be determined, possible range $50 – $90 inc GST
3 night pass – $10 inc GST
3 year pass – $299 inc GST

The day value of the pass is to commence from date of purchase.
There would be various discounts available.

DOC have requested feedback from clubs etc., regarding the proposals.

Please take this opportunity to have your say, and email both the club notice board and myself at the above address with your comments ASAP. I will forward all comments received to DOC.

Gerard Galvin

[John Thomson]

I hate the idea! It just seems so bureaucratic, and pretty unfriendly.

The price for a year has also more than doubled over the current cost. Why? $120 is too much.

My understanding of the current system is that DOC actually has no powers to enforce the collection of hut fees – will this be changing? Maybe the wardens will have powers to ask for ID and to search bags. Will the wardens have computers to verify details?

Looks like I will be doing a lot more fly camping trips – this proposal makes me even more inclined to avoid huts.

[GET HARD]

$120 a year for an annual pass – wow.. I wonder how many will bother with the annual pass system now.. Also, where is the FMC discount (which we receive in return for club money/resources etc that is spent on huts in the backcountry)

It seems to me that DoC have a number of options in regards to huts, including rationalising the number of huts, or trying to get more revenue in to cover costs. I dont think we can expect that the Govt will automatically spend more on the hut system (i for one would rather more the conservation $ is spent on preservation of native species etc, and not on the hut system).

Maybe a reduction in the number of back country huts would be a better way to reduce costs (quite a few are falling apart slowly – and there is little or no $$ to replace them). I can’t help but wonder if the amount that DoC receives for backcountry huts is being spread too thin over too many huts..

We have to be realistic – I don’t think the new proposal will generate the extra revenue required, and I really question whether the Government will commit extra funding for backcountry huts. Maybe rationalisation of the number of huts is the way to go??? (or maybe other options such as charging more for the huts on the Gt Walks should be considered, while maybe giving a discount to NZ’ers for these Gt Walk huts – are the DoC charges pricing NZ’ers out of National Parks etc??)

Would be interesting to hear as many views, from club members, as possible so we can make a club submission to DoC on this issue.

Thanks
Wayne

[The Rain God]

I don’t think they have thought this through fully.

1.) I think the annual and 3 year passes will lead to more avoidance, not less. Currently, many people but an annual pass for two reasons. First, as a form of “insurance” so that they don’t need to plan when they want to use a hut, but can do so if the need arises. Second as a “quasi-donation” to DoC where most people realise they will never realistically use up $60 of hut fees but recognise that they are users of the backcountry and should help support the cost.

Raising the cost to this set of people will simply lead them to neglect to buy the new annual pass and pay on a time by time basis, potentially reducing DoC revenue. Moreover, there is no mention of a FMC discount and even with the new cost, Great Walk huts are still excluded. I suspect a lot of people will ask themselves whther an annual pass is still worth it.

2.) They appear worried about admin costs, but are increasing the number of passes. I think that the 3 year pass is unnecessary. I also think that the annual andthe 60 day pass are effectively the same thing – most tramping occcurs in a compressed Summer perion of 2-3 months. Who will really buy additional passes after their 60 day pass expires to do the last couple of trips in March? I do think that the 3 day pass is a good idea but not at the expense of the daily one. Who is really going to pay $10 for a trip that will involve one hut night? Again, the proposal willl raise avoidance.

3.) The identified problem is basically non-compliance. The proposed fees won’t change this at all and so I can’t see why this is being proposed. Seems to me that there are three reasons for non-complinace: active refusal to pay on ideological grounds , ther “don’t cares” who use and abuse huts and those who mean to pay but don’t get around to paying. The proposed fee structure will have little impact on these (and I suspect an adverse one, if any). Compliance can only be changed by behavioural changes that change the values of trampers to support payment (slow, but occurring through the Clubs etc) and making passes more accessible to reduce the hassle factor.

In sum, I suspect that the new fees are a solution in search of a problem, risk making things worse and need to be re-thought. There is a problem out there but this won’t fix it. I think the Club should put in a submission.

[Simon Ward]

Ahh, great to see bureaucracy gone wild again! Note that the DoC proposal is from the “Revenue Manager”. Generally I agree with the comments others have made – quite how the new system will simplify admin and increase revenue I can’t figure out. Did you see the proposal to have an additional charge for huts with extra facilities. Does this mean an extra ticket if you want to go to Sunrise Hut which has gas? Where will we buy this pass? I can see the point of a 2 month pass – this could be popular with visitors, however most tourists would do at least one of the “great walks” which still need a separate pass (which are already too expensive in my view, probably why I have never done a “great walk”). Assuming there will be an FMC discount, the annual pass will probably still be good value for money. I can’t see the point of a 3 year pass.

As others have commented, this is a compliance issue. The WT&MC is generally pretty good at paying hut fees – most of the active tramping members have annual passes, otherwise punters buy tickets as required. A simple system – so we should resist any change that makes life more complicated for the back country user.

[Simon Wakeman]

The essence of the DOC proposal appears to be moving from pay-per-use with the current hut tickets to pay-for-access to the hut system – for periods from 3 days to 3 years. I agree that increasing the cost will not generally increase compliance. The cost of an annual hut pass will definitely increase and this will discourage compliance among regular trampers, although because they are generally more loyal to the system then DOC may see an increase in revenue. The proposal could also increase the cost of a weekend trip using huts (cf a minimum of $5 for one night in a category 3 hut to $10) and so discourage compliance by the occasional tramper as well, but it is interesting to note that it would reduce the cost for a 4-day trip using huts (from a minimum of $15 for 3 nights in category 3 huts now to $10 under the proposal).

Given this general increase in costs, the only way I see that DOC believes that this proposal will increase compliance is that because passes have to be bought for a whole trip, rather than an individual night, DOC representatives will only have to check passes once during a trip and so the cost of monitoring compliance will be reduced. However, since I have never had my pass checked other than in a Great Walk hut there will have to be a substantial increase in DOC officers on tracks to make this effective. Moreover, unless officers start turning up while you are actually staying in a hut – i.e., at night – they cannot expect to “catch” any more non-compliers than they do now. Therefore I cannot see any argument that this proposal will or might increase compliance.

The general effect of the proposal, therefore, appears to be the shift from a pay-per-use to pay-for-access. However, because the payment is not directly related to a specific use of the huts, the payment is as much for access to the DOC lands and the track system as a whole as the huts themselves. If that is what DOC means – and it is an idea worth considering, although I know there will be fierce opposition to it – then it should say so and justify it.

As an aside, I have just got back from a Christmas/New Year trip into the Young-Wilkin area. We arrived at Siberia Hut on New Year’s Day to find that there were only 2 of 20 bunks left, the reason being that a party of 11 tourists and 3 guides had been FLOWN IN from Makarora. People we met on the track told us that the same group had been there on New Year’s Eve, when there we 35 people wanting to stay in the hut. It appals me that commercial operators are using the hut system to the exclusion of private groups of trampers, hunters, etc. If DOC is conducting a review of charging for the hut system then I would strongly recommend they consider this aspect as well and either institute a higher charge for commercial groups or give them lower priority on bunk beds.

[Andrew]

Most of the points have been covered above.

The biggest flaw in the proposals is the compliance issue – if the tickets are for hut usage (which despite Simon W’s comments above, I think they are) then compliance can only ever be effectively checked at the huts concerned. This will only ever happen in wardened or front country huts. Hence the incentives to avoid fees remain the same. I don’t see how the new system would change things other than loading additional costs on the “honest” users – the freeloaders gain the most under the proposal.

To move towards “access charges” rather than “amenity charges” is currently unlawful under section 17 of the Conservation Act. It would be outside the scope of the current administrative review of hut fees to review this and would be a slippery slope – user pays works if organisations like clubs encourage it. I think the key for DoC is to work with clubs to improve compliance, keep fees reasonable and mainatin a reasonable networlk of basic facilities.

I don’t have a problem paying a bit more for an annual pass – but $120 sounds steep to me. I presume even if an FMC discount was negotiated it would still be around $80 (16 nights equivalent).

Simon – I hope you’ve passed on your concerns to DoC Makarora. Guiding companies are governed by their concessions. I would have thought that at the very least a condition of their concession would be to take into consideration overcrowding in peak season and inform DoC when taking a large party in. Better still you could voice your concern/disappointment that helicopters (again under concession) are used to get to this hut. I’d be interested to know whether that party had brought alternative accomodation with them. Hope it didn’t detract too much from your holiday.

[Glynne Lloyd]

I do not like the fact that the new annual pass would not cover the high use wardened huts. It appears we would have to pay more for an anuual pass to cover less huts. This is likely to mean less compliance not more.

I have a letter to the club from FMC which outlines the above point, and makes others. I will post this letter on the club notice board.

FMC are in favour of a system which would strengthen the annual pass system not weaken it as proposed by DoC.

Cheers, Glynne

[Paul Christoffel]

People seem to have covered the problems pretty thoroughly, so I’m suggesting an alternative that could be proposed to DOC rather than adding to the gripes.

To summarise, the main problem with the proposal is that it seems to reduce the incentive on people to pay up-front by buying an annual pass, and increases the incentive to buy short-term passes (in this case 3-days). This would appear likely to reduce rather than increase the level of compliance, which is the opposite of what is intended.

A better approach would be to provide incentives for people to pay up-front, by increasing the advantage of doing so rather than reducing it, as often happens with public transport.

I suggest that on-the-spot payments of hut fees be allowed, but these should be reasonably expensive, averaging say $10 but varying depending on facilities.

But people could buy a ten-trip ticket at a large discount, for $50 eg. (Not sure how these would be “clipped”, but that’s a practicality to sort out later). Some huts could be one clip and others two or three.

Or people could buy an annual pass for (say) $80, with unrestricted access to all huts and camps (with current exclusions applying), and with appropriate discounts (eg tramping clubs).

Family passes would seem appropriate for camps, given the space economies of a family campsite, but not for huts. At the moment it’s quite expensive for a family to spend a week at a DOC campsite that has minimal facilities, especially as in the past these were free.

By the way, anyone know how these proposed three-day passes are intended to work? Do they get date-stamped at first use then have to be used within 3 days? If that’s the case, then people will probably just carry one around until they get caught with it unstamped.

[Don Goodhue]

Basically all that I see this proposal does is increase charges. it does not really address the issue of non-compliance. Those who chose not to comply now are likely to be unlikely to comply just because there is a different ticketing system in place.

The proposed increase of the annual pass to $120 (may be less via FMC) really appears that DOC are trying to recover more from those willing to pay. In other words, those who pay will further subsidise those who don’t. Increases of this magnitude could have a negative impact – it may encourage an increase in non-compliance and so the problem becomes worse.

I think DOC need to look at who are not complying – I would say that compliance in general is better with members of affilliated clubs than from inidividuals who have no affilliation with any body, eg; FMC, NZDA. In part the problem could be that the is a lack of awareness for those individuals not being encouraged by bodies such as NZDA, FMC. If you look at our club, I believe that the level of compliance by members has more to do with the efforts of the club to promote compliance than the efforts of DOC. There needs to be more effort by DOC to educate hut users and make them aware of the need to pay hut fees and what happens to the money.

I don’t believe that this proposal really addresses the issues of compliance, but merely puts more financial burden on those already prepared to pay.

cheers
Don

[Don Goodhue]

As a footnote to this – it will be interesting to see how the provision of huts and other structures will be approached by DOC in light of the new legislation that will make government departments accountable!!!

[Andrew]

DoC have been quoting the Buiding Code for some years now as a basis for closing facilities. In some cases it has been justified. The threat of prosecution will certainly sharpen their awareness but I doubt we will see much change from the current approach of the VAMP scheme (or whatever it is called now) and post Cave Creek policies. These schemes are all about IDing risks with facilities and then mitigating those risks with a limited and shrinking pot of funding.

The role of clubs is going to have to increase to fill the gap for “important” facilities that don’t meet DoC’s criteria. Thats where there may well be increased redtape for clubbies to deal with before undertaking work on such huts/facilities once the law is changed with respect to OSH legislation and Building Act. Hopefully the Smith creek work will occur before the changes are passed.

Speaking of which did anyone notice a Dom article (part of their Summer series) that showed a map of Kaitoke and Puffer track to Smiths Creek. It had Dobsons Hut and Kaitoke Shelter still marked on the map used with the article!

[Don Goodhue]

I discussed this issue a few years ago with a consession holder in Kahurangi. In that case, he had to pay his his consession plus any hut fees, but was quite clear that his group had to vacate the hut if required to make space for public users. ie: they could not use huts at the inconvenience of public users.

Worth following up with DOC

[Grant Newton]

I’ve discussed the proposed maintenance weekend on Smiths Creek Shelter with DoC this week and they’re rapt that we’re keen to put some time and money into the shelter. It seems that there will be no redtape for our proposed work.

Cheers
Grant

[Nick]

In general terms I agree with much of what has been written so won’t repeat it apart from to say it seems that compliance appears to be the main issue.

As a suggestion of a way to increase compliance among annual pass users, I would have thought DoC might consider sending out current holders a friendly reminder when there current pass is to expire. We have to provide our contact details when we buy as I recall and they know when it will expire. I am sure that many people myself included find that weeks or even months often pass before renewing (the case on oure recent Xmas trip!!) which from DoC’s perspective is lost revenue. Other organisation ssuch as YHA do this.

Further perhaps there is a role for clubs to gain further discounts if we took (were allowed to take !) a more proactive role in the reminder & purchase process. Is this a possible negotiation plank for the club??

Nick

[Andrew]

Totally agree Nick – maybe wtmc should suggest that large clubs are enabled to sell annual passes again. I thought it worked reasonably well when we used to sell them. Other suggestions would be increasing the number of places they can be bought (especially in Wgtn), perhaps even including over the internet with the pass being mailed out (proof of FMC membership could be tricky for discounts)

[Grant Newton]

I believe the proposed system has some merit, but would fail to improve the situation as it will encourage non compliance to a higher degree thus negating the higher $$ to buy an annual hut pass. Below are some points:

1. The concept of predating a ticket is good as it avoids the situation when a user carries a current hut ticket but does not fill it out until they arrive at a hut with a warden present. The only problem is that it also assumes a place to sleep, but many have arrived at a full hut.

2. I believe that if predated tickets are implemented there needs to be a hefty penalty (double the price) for those without tickets. This would then provide an incentive to comply.

3. The price of the new annual hut pass is excessive. During last year I spent 18 weekends on overnight trips with the Wellington Tramping & Mountaineering Club. I carry an annual hut pass, but if I had been using hut tickets, the cost would have been $45 (my annual hut pass cost $43.50 with FMC discount, would have been $65 without). I believe a small increase could be warranted, from the exiting $65 to maybe $80, but $120 will encourage many users to forgo annual hut passes. This annual pass equates to 12 three day passes (12 trips in one year using DoC managed huts would be very uncommon by most annual hut pass holders). By keeping annual passes at a reasonable level and 3 day passes being slightly higher (maybe $15), there would be encouragement for users to switch to annual hut passes, thus providing better compliance.

4. The hut passes should cover all huts except those already excluded (great walks etc). This would make it simpler and easier to administer. Also many people change plans on a trip and may intend to stay at a basic hut , but due to weather conditions be forced towards a hut with facilities.

5. To reduce costs of huts I would question the wisdom of gas heaters and gas cookers being provided at non great walk huts. It seems wastefull to be flying gas in by helicoptor to Tutuwai hut in the Tararuas for example. Users should be expected to carry their own cookers and fuel. If they carry their own cookers and fuel, they can be self sufficient if plans are forced to change. Self sufficiency in the outdoors should be encouraged or safety issues are sure to rise with ill-prepared parties becoming too dependant on DoC facilities.

6. All hut books should have a column for hut pass/ticket number to be recorded. By doing this I am sure DoC will be able to get an idea of compliance. Currently there is no means of measuring compliance in huts as hut tickets can be counted, but there can be no idea of annual hut pass usage among the remainder of hut users listed in the hut books.

Overall :

I would encourage DoC to implement the passes but cover all the huts that are presently covered (no extra surcharges for extra facilities). I would encourage the price for a 3 day pass to rise to $15 and the annual hut pass to be lowered to a cost similar to what it currently is, and finally add a hefty surcharge to those without passes – this means that those complying don’t foot the bill for those who do not intend complying.

[Author]

Posts