Hey – you are a bit quick of the mark. If you read the chain below you’d realise that most people contributing to discussion support the pay as you go system – their beef is that the proposals may increase the cost for those that do pay now (“the honest ones”) while freeloaders will continue to not pay. The other risk is that the policy will create new freeloaders cos of its complexity and additional cost.
I also have an issue with DoC’s way of measuring compliance. For example Hut Log books (in the absence of wardens) are about the only source for estimating hut usage. Current figures are drawn from these but strangely few hutbooks prompt annual hut pass owners to jot down there number – the result is underreporting of paid users. Another good example is the underreporting of hut tickets used for remote huts because they are infrequently used – Maungahuka is a good eg. of this.
Its also worth noting the increased amount of volunteer work and funding that tramping clubs are putting into backcountry facilities. Will these goodwill arrangements continue if members of those clubs feel the hut system is no longer good value?
Compliance by all users is the issue – hiking the fees will not solve this and is more likely to exacerbate non-compliance.
The cost of the hut network will continue to spiral because of increased tourism pressures for fancier facilities and external law requirements (ie. Building Code) – in the meantime the old Forest Service huts will continue to keep on keeping on, only requiring the odd coat of paint and clean out. These are the facilities most threatened and ironically the ones that generally pose the least financial burden.
As parting thoughts – should there be some consideration of the public good value of the recreational and safety facilities provided in NZ conservation lands? Is it realistic to expect full cost recovery from users?
