6 December 2005
Commissioner of Crown Lands
C/o Tim Broad
Opus International Consultants Ltd
Box 1482
Christchurch
Tim.broad@opus.co.nz
This submission is made on behalf of the New Zealand Deerstalkers' Association Incorporated (NZDA).
NZDA is the national body of recreational deerstalkers and other big game hunters. We have 57 branches and a number of hunting clubs throughout New Zealand. We have 7200 members, and have been actively advocating for deerstalking and recreational hunting, and running deerstalker training courses, trips, conferences etc since 1937. NZDA also maintains the ethical side of hunting by maintaining ethics for hunting, including fair chase, and encouraging harvesting of animals taken.
NZDA supports the surrender of CA1, an area with hunting potential, and backing onto public land with hunting value. We also support surrender of CA2 and CA3.
However, no practicable public access under the Crown pastoral Lands Act is provided in this Preliminary Proposal, either across the proposed freeholded land to CA1, or across the freehold land or proposed freehold land, to either the upper Tasman, and via this to the north end of CA1, or up the Jollie, to proposed surrendered and public land.
Providing acceptable public access is required under the CPLA. This should be negotiated, before the proposal proceeds.
As well, we are concerned that wilding larch and conifers on the land to be surrendered should be cleared as part of this tenure review, or the lessee penalised for not having kept these "weeds" under control, as required by his lease conditions.
Mt Cook pastoral lease is of 2,463 Ha, on the top eastern side of the Tasman River. It backs onto Mt Cook National Park, and is opposite Mt Cook Village, across the Tasman Valley. Area proposed to be surrendered is:
Freeholding: 828 Ha, the land still in pastoral use, is to be freeholded to the Burnett family.
Deerstalking and hunting of deer, tahr, chamois etc takes place on the public land at the head of the Tasman Valley, including public foot and vehicular traffic past the proposed Mt Cook Station freehold:
NZDA branches in this area that would/could hunt on the surrendered land include: Ashburton Branch, Malvern, North Canterbury, North Otago, Otago, Palmerston, Rakaia, South Canterbury, Southern Lakes (Queenstown/Wanaka/Cromwell), South Otago and Blue Mountains Branches. No doubt other branches further away, or from the North island could also visit the area.
Tahr and deer hunting in this area attracts hunters from throughout New Zealand. Returning the proposed areas to full Crown ownership and management will provide hunters with the ability to hunt these areas, because they will become public park land.
However, this raises the question of adequate public access, which, given the freehold land not part of this tenure review, does not seem to have been provided. NZDA is also interested in protecting the outstanding natural landscapes of this area.
NZDA is surprised that actual and potential recreational value of parts of the lease are not mentioned in the reasons for the return to full Crown ownership and management. There are other matters beside native biodiversity that make up the significant inherent values the Review is endeavouring to protect for the public and other reasons.
We note with concern that only half a page in DOC's Conservation Resources Report (CRR) relates to recreation. Three quarters of this is concerned with access, not recreation. DOC's CRR is therefore incompetent and useless. DOC has a statutory responsibility to foster recreation. It has forgotten what it is there to do.
There are significant inherent values in the introduced wild game that live in the wilder parts of the lease. There are inherent values in the scenic mountain views and glaciated landscapes visible from this lease that are iconic in the same way that the view from the Hermitage is iconic. Yet this is not even mentioned by DOC as a recreational attribute.
Nor is hunting tahr, Red deer or chamois. Nor is mountaineering, canoeing, tramping, or even recreational driving for scenic mountain views of New Zealand's High Peaks, across the Valley. These views are internationally significant, as the CRR says. So this must add to the reasons for the lease's recreational importance, and for the need to provide public access for public enjoyment of them.
The potential recreational value of this lease is outstanding. But one would never know from DOC's report. Sure, the lower slopes of the Burnett Range need landscape protection. But what about the magnificent views from them over Mt Cook National Park. Or their high value for recreational hunting?
It is disappointing that the only mention of big game animals in the CRR is under 2.5.5 Problem Animals, where tahr is discussed. Yet DOC's Act the Conservation Act, requires the Department to manage all natural resources - including big game animals - "to maintain their intrinsic values, provide for their appreciation and recreational enjoyment by the public, and safeguard the options of future generations". It is also to foster recreation.
So DOC has a statutory responsibility to preserve and protect big game for both its intrinsic and recreational value. It has not done this in this Tenure Review.
NZDA strongly supports the surrender of CA1, CA2 and CA3 to full Crown ownership and control as public conservation land. For CA1, the land is steep, infertile and rocky. The northern part has not been grazed for many years, underlining the difficulty of grazing. However we are concerned at the wilding larch and conifers on this land. Will the lessee be required to clear these weeds, under his pastoral lease covenants? These wildings should presumably have been removed under the terms of his pastoral lease to keep the lease free of weeds. Or will he suffer a penalty of the costs of leaving them to DOC to clear?
Re inadequate public access, the proposal document states "The area (CA1) provides opportunities for walking, tramping, scenery viewing and nature study in a relatively undeveloped setting adjacent to one of the country's premier tourist destinations"
To achieve this vision it is necessary that the public have adequate legal and practical access to the land discussed. NZDA submits:
5.1 The Jollie River to the immediate south of Mt Cook lease is a popular route into the high country for hunting and other recreational pursuits. This is often reached via a farm road which runs parallel to the true left of this river for approximately 5 kms. However this access is a private track and there is no legal access. Under the Proposal a marginal strip will be created along the south eastern boundary of the new freehold land. However this does not provide continuous access from the Braemar - Mt Cook Station Road. This access gap should be closed by either:
5.2 The legal road line that runs past the property on the true left bank of the Tasman is crucial access to the left bank and upper valley upstream of the present lease. This would give access toward Gorilla Stream, and peaks in that area in Mt Cook National park, including the popular Nun's Veil (2,737 m). See eg "The Mt Cook Guidebook" by Hugh Logan eg 1994 edition, publ by NZ Alpine Club, Christchurch, and for recreational hunting access.
Despite this no practicable and legal access is provided along this route. The legal road line finishes at the southern end of the homestead freehold block although a formed road continues to the homestead itself.
A legal road line appears again part way up the south west boundary of the homestead block and then runs through a portion of the present lease (which will become freehold) before entering conservation area CA2. It seems probable that this was a continuous legal road in the past but has been stopped where it crosses the freehold land.
We submit that this break in the access should be remedied with an easement along the farm track for foot, mountain bike and horse access. Vehicular access is also desirable as this route is capable of 4WD traffic and it is legitimate to use this to reach recreational land upstream.
We note failure to provide continuous and practicable legal access through or past the property to both the Tasman and Jollie Rivers is clearly contrary to one of the principle purposes of tenure review being the securing of public access and enjoyment under the Crown Pastoral Lands Act, S.24, (c), (i)
5.3 The Conservation Resources Report records early warning public consultation in 2002. This stated a need to ensure access up the face above the homestead. This is necessary to obtain good public access and recreational use of the new Crown land. Such public access must be provided in the proposal.
We submit that a foot easement should also be provided via the farm track that leads up the spur to Big Hill No 2 and thence via the fence line to conservation area CA1. This will allow the public to reach the conservation land and then undertake sidling travel through the public land past Black Point. It will also provide access for parties wishing to travel higher along the main ridge of the Burnett Mountains.
Marginal strips are laid off from another process not part of tenure review. Consequently it is essential that easements be laid off as part of LINZ's obligation to provide reasonable public access to surrendered land.
This preliminary proposal fails to provide adequate public access to the surrendered land, or to public land upstream of this lease. These inadequacies should be rectified as proposed. Also the issue of removing wilding larch and conifers from the land to be surrendered needs addressing.
Thanking you
Yours truly
Dr Hugh Barr
National Advocate
© 2011 New Zealand Deerstalkers' Association