August 2012 Issue - Federated Mountain Clubs of NZ

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Planning Your Words CarefullyExecutive member David Barnes asks why some DOC staffinterpret ‘should not’ in a management plan to mean‘oh, alright then’.40FMC Bulletin • August 2012
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “itmeans just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”– Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking GlassI’m starting to wonder why we bother withnational park management plans, and whygroups like FMC put so much time and effortparticipating in the planning process. Mypessimism arises from the constant flow ofconcession applications for activities that areclearly, on any reasonable reading of the plan,not allowed, and the repeated ‘approval inprinciple’ of these activities by Departmentof Conservation decision-makers. The threethat come to mind – the Routeburn tunnel,aerial trophy hunting in the Olivine WildernessArea, and an increase in guided walkers on theRouteburn Track (all in Mount Aspiring NationalPark) – are, at the time of writing, still awaiting theoutcome of a submission and hearing process.However, in my view, none of them should havegot to that point in the first instance. It seemsto me that DOC is sometimes misdirected onwhich tests it needs to consider.There’s a convention that statutory planningdocuments should not fetter the ultimatediscretion of the Minister (who, in practical terms,almost always delegates the decision to a DOCofficial). For that reason, plans rarely contain anoutright prohibition on matters that the Ministermust legally decide. Rather, they use terms like‘should not’. But the General Policies on NationalParks and in most cases the plans themselvesmake it quite clear that ‘should’ or ‘should not’means something that should only be departedfrom in ‘exceptional circumstances’. I don’t seeanything exceptional about any of the proposalsmentioned above to warrant over-riding the clearintention of the plan.DOC staff prepare an ‘Officer’s Report’that summarises the concession application,details any statutory or management planconsiderations, reports the views of area officestaff, and lists any special conditions to beapplied if the concession is granted. It’s thebasis of the decision. In all three of these cases,the decision-maker approved the concession,subject to public notification, submissions anda hearing. (Concessions can be granted on anon-notified basis, but usually only when theactivity is compliant and unlikely to be of publicinterest.) In each of the cases, the report makesno attempt to describe anything about theproposed activity that makes it ‘exceptional’ ina way that warrants a radical departure from thenational park management plan.Of perhaps even greater concern, in eachcase the report focuses on effects, and concludesthat they would be acceptable, using terms like‘not more than minor’. This is not something thatshould be considered unless the exceptional testis met. It doesn’t actually matter if the activitywill have absolutely no effect on ecosystems orother users if it’s not an allowed activity.In each of these three cases, the applicantshad (and, I believe, took) the opportunity tocontribute to the planning process. Despite that,DOC staff did not recommend that their viewsbe accepted, and nor did the ConservationBoard, the Conservation Authority or theMinister – each of whom has to sign off theplan. Having lost that battle, these applicantsare trying to have another bite at the apple,and some DOC staff seem to be bending overbackwards to allow this.A formal process exists for seeking changesto management plans. Concessionaires who can’tlive with a management plan are able to initiatethat process. The integrity of our managementplanning process needs to be defended – by parkusers and by DOC staff. Those DOC staff whowork so hard to get a really good plan, one thattakes into account a wide range of communityviews, must despair at these repeated attemptsto bastardise their work.Once a national park management planis in place, we shouldn’t have to keep fightingrearguard actions. The plan supposedly providescertainty, and it’s time for DOC to say ‘No’ toactivities not allowed by management plans.Darryn Pegram descends off Fiery Col, Olivine Wilderness Area, Mount Aspiring National ParkPhoto: Shaun Barnett/Black Robin PhotographyFMCAugust 2012 • FMC Bulletin 41
Page 2 and 3: With each of our stores stocking ov
Page 6 and 7: and track projects. By and large th
Page 8 and 9: LettersJan HeineAfter seeing the ph
Page 15 and 16: FMC AGM, 9 June 2012, ChristchurchE
Page 17 and 18: Hut Bookings on the Rees-DarttrackL
Page 19 and 20: Great Walks Hut and CampsiteFees St
Page 21 and 22: hut will be closed and dismantled i
Page 23: August 2012 • FMC Bulletin 23
Page 26 and 27: Here is a summary of the walks that
Page 28 and 29: FMC Youth Scholarships - Expedition
Page 30 and 31: Transit Beach, with thickets of ong
Page 32 and 33: New ZealandOUTDOORS INTENTIONS FORM
Page 34 and 35: This year, groups travelled to Tasm
Page 36 and 37: Arthur’s Pass CallingGerald Bruce
Page 38 and 39: Sam McLeod laying traps in the Edwa
Page 42 and 43: Forest and Bird’s Mokihinui River
Page 44 and 45: WeatherWind in the MountainsBy Leig
Page 46 and 47: Huts as HeritageBig Hut, Rock and P
Page 48: Uncle Jacko’s Cookery ColumnKindl
Page 51 and 52: 7. What was the surname of the famo
Page 53 and 54: The Hungry Heart, Journeys withWill
Page 55 and 56: Give Your Thoughts Life, WilliamCol
Page 57 and 58: Climbing DictionaryBy Matt Samet, i
Page 59 and 60: The most dramaticseason of all!Pict
Page 61 and 62: Little AdsFinished with this Bullet
Page 63 and 64: 406MHz PLB’s, GPS’s, TrackingGM

August 2012 Issue - Federated Mountain Clubs of NZ

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?