KEY POINTS:
There is wide dismay at the damage being caused by recreational vehicles to New Zealand's protected areas, and unformed and poorly surfaced rural roads. There are also strong objections to the presence of vehicles in many natural areas that detract from quiet recreational activity.
The rapid expansion in the number of 4WDs, trail bikes, and other off-road vehicles has implications for many areas used and appreciated by others. The potential for damage to the environment from wheeled vehicles is immense; trail bikes are increasingly removing limits to the terrain that can be traversed.
Restraint, or any perceived need for such, is considered by many riders and drivers to be a fundamental infringement of personal freedom, no matter what the environmental cost.
The thrills and excitement of off-road driving, as advertised by manufacturers and retailers, are expressed by "thump", "splash", mud and spinning wheels, feeding on an ever-present desire to speed unrestrained across the countryside. Television and the print media are full of it.
Four-wheel-drive clubs have formed national associations with the object of promoting and protecting their interests through lobbying for access to, and vehicle use within, public lands.
To lessen criticism of their activities most clubs have adopted an imported American code of "Tread Lightly" ethics that projects an environmentally responsible face, with the slogan of "travel and recreate with minimum impact". However, realities on the ground can be very different.
Any codes of ethics appear more honoured in the breach. "Tread Lightly" codes of practice have not discernibly moderated overall driver behaviour or attitudes.
Wet conditions are the draw for many. Conquering mud, ruts and other obstacles provides an underlying, primeval attraction. Large spinning wheels and "heaps of grunt" will propel vehicles through most bogs and wet terrain, with maximum environmental effect. The more mud-caked the vehicle, the better to show off back in town. An exponential increase in damage to many rural roads has created potential liabilities for local authorities. Contrary to the beliefs of many drivers, the right of unhindered passage over roads does not extend to creating damage.
If a driver ruts or muddies the surface to the extent that this becomes an "appreciable interference" with others' use of the road, then, under common law, legal action can be taken. Likewise, adjoining land occupiers inhibited from accessing their properties can sue.
Local authorities have plenty of statutory and bylaw powers available to them to prevent damage, and to prosecute offenders. So too does the Department of Conservation, for land under its control, but bewilderingly DOC seems reluctant to do so.
It appears that the department is under instructions to be more "popular", even if the natural values under its protection are degraded by off-road vehicle use.
Conservation and environmental protection, per se, are not primary considerations for roads. It is the prevention of "nuisance" to public passage that must, by law, preoccupy the minds of councils.
The primary issues requiring attention are matters of strategy and policy. What are the most effective measures for preventing road damage on unmetalled rural roads generally, and on specific sections of road?
To what extent can education or codes of conduct assist?
In the absence of fencing and gates, to physically bar vehicle entry, how practical is it to rely on prosecution as a basis for legal action and as a deterrent?
Should bylaws be devised, for instance to prohibit vehicle use in wet ground conditions, rather than have blanket or seasonal vehicle bans? And to what extent can information from members of the public be used for successful prosecution?
Should members of the public be encouraged to instigate legal action, under common law, against drivers of road-damaging vehicles?
Then there is the question of whether the police be used to a greater extent to deal with unregistered vehicles and dangerous driving? Could other state agencies be given powers to prosecute?
Both common law and statute are well equipped to deal with damage to roads and to prevent damage of any origin. The primary need is for local authorities to assess the extent and scale of damage occurring to roads under their control, resolve to take action, then devise comprehensive remedies.
The "displacement factor" must also be anticipated - isolated restrictions transfer problems to other areas. Protected areas' managers have been caught off guard, often too slow in perceiving the magnitude of adverse vehicle impacts and too prone to half-measures. Local authorities have generally been more proactive in managing such impacts on public reserves and parks than DOC.
At a national level, key public policy issues need to be addressed such as whether areas protected for their natural values, including quiet, be sacrificed to whatever technological demands are placed on them. And should other, more benign, forms of recreation be allowed to be discouraged and displaced by machines?
Should land in private ownership be the primary place for off-road vehicle recreation? Allowing mechanised onslaughts over supposedly protected areas is anathema to the public purposes for which they are held. Attempting to make all areas all things to all people is a recipe for degradation.
As the desire of men to play with machines appears to be genetically immutable there is clearly a need for outlets for such activity. The industry-backed off-road sector should make their own arrangements, either by purchasing their own land, or negotiating access with private landowners who are willing to accommodate such use. Two-thirds of New Zealand is potentially available.
* Bruce Mason is a former National Parks and Reserves Ranger. He is a researcher for Recreation Access NZ, promoting minimum impact recreation and secure access to public lands and waters.
