| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 59225 | 2005-06-25 05:27:00 | public access across private land Bill | mark c (247) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 366950 | 2005-06-25 09:58:00 | Hmmm.. I don't believe that the farmers hysteria in wellington shows the facts as they are intended. I would love to see the actual wording of the act and the intentions of it as well. As a tramper in the South Island, I would be for it, down here you see many places that would be fun to visit, isolated and uninhabited that are behind fences where you have no idea who owns it or where they live. However in the crowded and claustrophobic north Island there may be valid fears of stampeding walkers and potential troublemakers. But remember Stony Batter, the ultimate in bad publicity for the land owners. |
netchicken (4843) | ||
| 366951 | 2005-06-25 10:18:00 | What makes farmer's land any different to anyone else's land - it's rightfully theirs, and they should have every say in who through their property. And when it really comes down to it, if you ask a farmer for permission, they're more than likely to let you walk through their paddocks to get to the public river anyway. Exactly. I have used land owned by farmers in the past. When I knocked on the door and asked permission I have never been refused. If you did not knock then you should be shot! I have quite a bit of sympathy for the farmers on this issue. Any one walking on my quarter acre will be asked what they are doing there. |
AMD1 (6552) | ||
| 366952 | 2005-06-25 11:29:00 | Private land is private land. That's why it's called "Private". I wish do-gooder politicians would spend more time rectifying important issues instead of trying to change things that don't need changing. "Get orf me land!", I say. There is no such thing as private land in New Zealand. You own the dwelling on the land, but not the land itself. That [the land] belongs to The Crown. Freehold just means you get to use it, pays rates etc. See Wiki (en.wikipedia.org) here. Just substitute New Zealand for England in the 2nd paragraph |
MartynC (5610) | ||
| 366953 | 2005-06-25 11:38:00 | And taking tax by force isn't? This is Terry's lot behind this and is the price we must pay to the socialist oppressors. :yuck: Terry's lot? :) I remember soon after we came to New Zealand, National were elected, and I couldn't understand how a "Conservative" government could be so far to the left of Mao Zedong, then about 7 years later we had a Socialist government somewhat to the right of Genghis Kahn, no wonder New Zealand is upside down at the bottom of the world :) Those who read the FMC magazine will know all about access to public land problems, paper roads, etc. It is a heated topic, and promises to get even hotter in the run up to the election. In addition to private land we have high country leases which are yet another story. There is also the foreshore access problem. We have a vexed situation in Wellington regarding the Orongorongo River mouth, and foreshore there. Then we have land which was "illegally" taken from Maori, Parihaka, for instance. As I say, it isn't as clear cut as some make out. |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 366954 | 2005-06-25 12:06:00 | I think this bill is only going to make it easier for dope growers. This is already a problem, and this bill can only make things worse! As kiwi's we already have access to many rivers, lakes etc and as has already been mentioned, the majority of farmers are pretty reasonable when it comes to letting people on their land. Another problem with this, as brought up by a farmer I talked to is the danger of accidental shootings. Imagine this scenario: Farmer lets hunters on his land, townies decide to exercise their newly found 'right' to trudge across farmers land to waterway. Hunter sees movement in bush and shoots at it. Dead townie. |
pine-o-cleen (2955) | ||
| 366955 | 2005-06-25 12:24:00 | Interesting - and encouraging. Out of 14 posts there are two slightly in favour and the rest against enforced access. Good. In fact much better than I'd have thought given that most Kiwis live in cities and seem to regard country cousins with derision. This issue is difficult. There is a real value to the community in preserving and enhancing access to rivers, beaches and public lands. It isn't saying too much to hold this up as a New Zealander's birth right. However our government are going too far when they seek to create uncontrolled access across private land. Perhaps if this was surveyed and compensated for, then ok. After all, we are compassionately recognising Maori claims for loss of land and paying compensation. Oddly enough owners of homes on the Avon River in Christchurch will not have to allow the public to wander along the river bank. Why not? Farmers do. This is the most deeply offensive and contemptuous aspect of the proposal. City dwellers with river access get to be exclusive but farmers are refused the same right.:mad: |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 366956 | 2005-06-25 12:35:00 | Just to clarify for a moment the bill AFAIK doesn't allow 'unconditional' access by a long shot. (Not a rifle shot) It's meant to give access to areas currently inaccesable because some desable natural feature is surrounded by private land. My big point is haven't we already got enough? like I said / asked earlier is how many people have really had a lot of strife and dissapointment about not being able to get to these places? OK I still don't like the Bill and certanily don't like the "foriegn' owners who come here to relatively open NZ and bring with them their security ideas from Europe, Asia or America with fences, dogs, alarms heavies etc. Wouldn't want to see that but so far this bill has just stirred up the farmers and I've got friends who are farmers and perfectly reasonaable and generous people and don't like this bill at all.......m | mark c (247) | ||
| 366957 | 2005-06-25 13:06:00 | There is a lot of detail about this proposal at This (www.maf.govt.nz) Quite clearly this idea has been badly mishandled as far a rural folk go. Surprise ?? Was it dreamed up by someone in a Wellington office ? |
TonyF (246) | ||
| 366958 | 2005-06-25 15:50:00 | I think this bill is only going to make it easier for dope growers. This is already a problem, and this bill can only make things worse! Because it will suddenly make it legal for dope growers to grow dope???????? |
Jeremy (1197) | ||
| 366959 | 2005-06-25 21:03:00 | Because it will suddenly make it legal for dope growers to grow dope???????? What gave you that idea?? No, what was meant was that easier access could well see more canabis being grown on private property. Some of these growers are so brain-blown that they grow in the most stupidest places where trampers easily stumble across patches. I have destroyed many plots with my slasher when out for a mildly "off-track" tramp. |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||