gidday. Well you must be really bored if you have waited this long and are still checking the site. Thanks to both of you. No doubt Freudian Slippers will drop me off the blogroll again after her comment "Bloggers who don't regularly update annoy the hell out of me."
We climbed Tarawera. Our 3 generational party of 8 got dropped at the outlet and did the traverse with my 80 year old father in the van. Eventually my nine year old pipped him to the top. Clear blue skies and a beautiful day. I just read Peter Cresswells comment and think he makes a very fine point. Repeated below so you do not have to bother hunting the post.
What we're missing is this: A recognition that rights in property are essentially a bundle of rights, of which many different people or groups can hold a 'stick' in that bundle. Some of those 'sticks' might represent for example harvesting rights, fishing rights, or easements for access - as perhaps they should in the Tarawera case.
As such, maybe instead of trespassing, you could explore a common law action asking for an access easement to be recognised that has been acquired over time by 'prescription' - the legal term
I did not get to sic the sister on the thugs at the top of the mountain. She has a very short fuse at the best of times and can generally be relied upon to make her views known, if you know what I mean. But it was too late in the season so there was no quad bike with goons. What I have found curious is that despite the fact my sister and her partner work in environmental protection in the south island, she is much more reluctant than me with regard to the concept of establishing rights of way. She was willing to trespass but kept telling me that I was not allowed to swear if we met the goons. I had been looking forward to her listening respectfully for maybe 30 seconds as they threatened us with violence again and abused our heritage and came up with all sorts of inaccurate legal and historical justifications as to why we should not be there. Then I thought she might start to make her own views known. That would have been good entertainment, sigh, maybe next year...
Welcome back Sage. That's where aggregators like Bloglines are useful - I don't have to go check everybody's site :)
I concur with the sentiments about 'trespassing' when somebody suddenly begins asserting property rights over land that has been publically accessed for generations. Sadly the presence of goons does not help either side.
I was dismayed to find that the wonderful quarry/swimming hole at Warkworth, once free to all, now charges $5 for access (a few years ago, maybe more now)
Also the loss of public camping grounds to rapacious property developers. I side with the Greens in saying that economic growth and ever increasing 'wealth' do not necessarily bring a net benefit to society at large. IN NZ they appear to benefit mainly the established moneyed class. But I may be getting off track ... :ob
Posted by: rude peasant | Apr 12, 2005 at 02:12 AM
I wouldn't drop you off the blogroll Sage - I'm secretly in love with you. Welcome back!
Posted by: Ruth | Apr 12, 2005 at 08:05 AM
I to, welcome you back Sage. I'm NOT secretly in love with you but I do like what you write.
rude peasant- which public camping grounds are you talking about?
Allah protect us
Posted by: TheProphet | Apr 12, 2005 at 11:34 AM
I'm neither secretly nor openly in love with you Sage, but I do feel an enormous benevolence for anyone who quotes me lovingly. :)
Glad you enjoyed the traverse, and my comment. Try it on New Year's Eve next time, at midnight. :-)
Posted by: Peter Cresswell | Apr 12, 2005 at 11:53 AM
Ruth - you have me blushing.
The loss of camping sites is inevitable where a camping ground is on a prime seaside site. Brash shows himself to be pragmatic with that suggestion for govt funding. I have not camped in a nz campsite for many years but definitely see the benefit to other people. There seems to be a difference between a DOC site in the back of beyond for trampers and a commercial site near a popular beach where the vast majority of New Zealanders are comfortable. room for both I feel. DOC caters to the former but not the latter.
The thought of a common law action is an interesting one. although if granted it would probably be specific to location and probably even family. There is no way I would want to lose access for others.
I have watched the likes of ACT and Franks rave about Property rights and they seem to miss the point that the availability of space is what makes nz special. Limiting access to owners only would be a terrible thing in many places in new zealand. As would losing the crown chain.
Posted by: sagenz | Apr 12, 2005 at 11:07 PM