illegal campers on great walks

[RonK]

the huts were paid for with NZ taxpayers money.... NZers have funded them, they cost money to maintain, someone coming from overseas wanting to pay nothing is a double insult, they've never contributed anything.

Exactly - unless you are a NZ citizen you have contributed nothing. Using these facilities without paying is the same as stealing.

I was under the impression that New Zealand had a consumption tax? So visitors to New Zealand that buy stuff or services do in fact pay tax.

Dave

Are you suggesting that a few dollars paid in consumption tax should entitle visitors to use the facilities for nothing.

Not quite the same thing as paying income tax and all the other taxes NZ citizens are subjected to.

[icefest]

Are you suggesting that a few dollars paid in consumption tax should entitle visitors to use the facilities for nothing.

Not quite the same thing as paying income tax and all the other taxes NZ citizens are subjected to.

He is literally saying that "unless you are a NZ citizen you have contributed nothing" is not true.

Visitors also don't get discounted healthcare, social security and other things that get funded by income tax.

Lets see:
2014/2015 year:
Total Revenue: $66.6 billion
GST Revenue: $1.2 billion

Same year DoC funding: $166million

Percent of total tax income that goes to DoC: 0.2492%

I'd wager that the added taxes paid in NZ due to visitors paying GST, tour operators, increased company tax, outweigh the per-person DOC funding that is required for the facilities they use.

But hey, I'd totally support paying a Tassie-esque parks pass for NZ. Seeing all the stoat and possum traps around the upper rockburn is incredible.



http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/ ... n15/07.htm

[DaveNoble]

Are you suggesting that a few dollars paid in consumption tax should entitle visitors to use the facilities for nothing.

Not quite the same thing as paying income tax and all the other taxes NZ citizens are subjected to.

He is literally saying that "unless you are a NZ citizen you have contributed nothing" is not true.

Visitors also don't get discounted healthcare, social security and other things that get funded by income tax.

Lets see:
2014/2015 year:
Total Revenue: $66.6 billion
GST Revenue: $1.2 billion

Same year DoC funding: $166million

Percent of total tax income that goes to DoC: 0.2492%

I'd wager that the added taxes paid in NZ due to visitors paying GST, tour operators, increased company tax, outweigh the per-person DOC funding that is required for the facilities they use.

But hey, I'd totally support paying a Tassie-esque parks pass for NZ. Seeing all the stoat and possum traps around the upper rockburn is incredible.



http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/ ... n15/07.htm

I think some of your figures have not been used correctly. The GST Revenue of $1.2 Billion is the increase in GST revenue compared to the year before using your source. Using this source - http://www.tourismnewzealand.com/about/about-the-industry/ visitors to New Zealand contribute about $2.5 billion a year to GST. I hardly think this is a "few dollars paid in consumption tax" as RonK suggested.

I often visit New Zealand for bushwalking trips and often stay in the huts so this has given me a good chance to see how the system works. On my first walking trip, bushwalking club friends advised me "Make sure you pay any hut fees" and backed this up with interesting stories about what happened to defaulters. So it seems there has been a long term culture of paying hut fees by at least many Australian visitors to NZ mountains. Over the years the hut system has changed a bit with hut tickets and annual passes (and now also 6 month passes) which I think works out pretty well. I have observed once or twice some parties of overseas visitors that seem to be using a certain hut more as a holiday lodge than as an overnight shelter on a long trip. But these have been in huts that were at the time regularly visited by hut wardens, so not too much abuse of the system seems to take place. I am not sure of the compliance rate of New Zealanders paying their hut fees - but they do have better access to the annual passes and club discounts. It should also be noted that many of the huts attract no fees.

Dave

[DaveNoble]

I was under the impression that New Zealand had a consumption tax? So visitors to New Zealand that buy stuff or services do in fact pay tax.

Dave

Are you suggesting that a few dollars paid in consumption tax should entitle visitors to use the facilities for nothing.

No

[DaveNoble]

Only a third of hut stays nationwide in all huts are paid for. .

This does not imply that the system is being abused. I would think that it would not be abused for the big money huts - those on the Great Walks and those with "Serviced Huts" - as all these huts have hut wardens to enforce the system. A lot of people that visit huts do not have to pay - those that stay in basic huts or those under 11 years old in any (non Great Walk) hut and free for "Youth, Child, Infants" in Great Walk Huts. One would think perhaps if any non compliance of hut fees is taking place - then that would be more likely in the "Standard Huts" which are not visited by rangers and hut warders very often and only have an honesty box for hut tickets. Some overseas visitors do use these huts, but far more Kiwis use them (except perhaps for huts on the Te Araroa walk - but I think most overseas visitors on that particular walk would buy a long term hut pass).

Dave

[sim1oz]

There are some big differences between the NZ Great Walks and the Three Capes. As wayno mentioned, there is a big cost differential for two adults - Three Capes is double the cost of the Milford Track for the same number of nights. Another is that you can choose to camp at assigned GW campsites and walk on the same track (for less than the huts) without anyone getting snarky at you. And the campsites for Routeburn and Kepler looked quite nice, whereas the one official Three Capes campsite sounds quite dismal. We've paid to be independent walkers in Tassie and in NZ. I don't have a problem with it because it seems to be a general trend for parks and conservation bodies to be underfunded, so we are happy to contribute to look after these beautiful areas. But the way it has been handled for the Three Capes walk has not left me impressed. There's so much of Tassie that I still haven't explored, so Three Capes has completely dropped off my list, in principle, because I don't like the exclusive nature it has taken on. Once I have ticked off everything else, maybe I'll do the walk with huts or camping, or maybe I'll be fit enough to run it in one day and skip paying altogether.

The night we were at Lake McKenzie Hut it was bucketing with rain and the hut ranger allowed some of the campers to stay in the hut because there was room. But if the campers wanted to take up the offer, they needed to pay the difference between the hut fee and camping fee. I didn't see any problem with that. Someone mentioned that they usually keep a few beds available for exactly those circumstances. I'm not sure how true that is.

I remember staying at a holiday village when I was a kid where you had to put coins in to get hot water for a shower or to heat the room. Some of those payment options for things like gas usage at the Great Walks huts that daywalkers can get to (eg. Lake Howden, Moturau) may need to be considered. The 21st century version would be a reader that checks your hut ticket or charges a credit card. A $1000 fine seems pretty heavy handed, though I guess once word got around it could make freeloaders think twice.

[wayno]

Only a third of hut stays nationwide in all huts are paid for. .

This does not imply that the system is being abused. I would think that it would not be abused for the big money huts - those on the Great Walks and those with "Serviced Huts" - as all these huts have hut wardens to enforce the system. A lot of people that visit huts do not have to pay - those that stay in basic huts or those under 11 years old in any (non Great Walk) hut and free for "Youth, Child, Infants" in Great Walk Huts. One would think perhaps if any non compliance of hut fees is taking place - then that would be more likely in the "Standard Huts" which are not visited by rangers and hut warders very often and only have an honesty box for hut tickets. Some overseas visitors do use these huts, but far more Kiwis use them (except perhaps for huts on the Te Araroa walk - but I think most overseas visitors on that particular walk would buy a long term hut pass).

Dave

no the serviced huts don't all have dedicated wardens, often its only in the peak season they have dedicated wardens and even then a lot of huts have a warden that may float between then and others only get sporadic visits from wardens. Backpackers talk to each other and pass on huts where there are seldom wardens, some backpackers and Te araroa trail walkers even will brag about never having paid hut fees. wardens don't have much power, they may ask for hut fees but people will tell them tall stories and the warden can't do anything about it, only on great walks are there penalties, and even they seldom get applied especially out of peak season where the huts really get abused, there are a lot of backpackers who explicitly look for huts to stay in where they can get away with not paying, the tourist no's to nz are skyrocketing. a lot of the trampers i talk to are of the opinion there are a lot of people not paying fees. log books often are missing a lot of entries when they know the huts have been busy.
a lot of serviced huts are only serviced in summer then get downgraded and wardens removed, then its a free for all for those who don't want to pay..
there are 900 public huts on DOC land... numerous huts in recent years have had major upgrades or been replaced altogether, those along with new huts are far more expensive to build and maintain than most huts that were previously built, which were very basic construction, you have what were just tin shacks some without fireplaces, replaced with high quality, well insulated, solid buildings. those huts encourage more people to come and stay in them, but not all the people who do are paying. like it or not, DOC is changing the experience of walking on tracks around a lot of NZ. you can have a very comfortable night in a lot of huts where once the experience would have been more cramped, and a lot colder and damper.

article about DOC's funding woes. DOC claim spending was up last year but they spent all of this years pest control budget last year due to beech trees seeding and causing an explosion of pest no's , and the funding isnt all from govt, thers commercial funding in there now from sponsorship deals.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/7863 ... reen-image

[Lizzy]

There are some big differences between the NZ Great Walks and the Three Capes. As wayno mentioned, there is a big cost differential for two adults - Three Capes is double the cost of the Milford Track for the same number of nights. Another is that you can choose to camp at assigned GW campsites and walk on the same track (for less than the huts) without anyone getting snarky at you. And the campsites for Routeburn and Kepler looked quite nice, whereas the one official Three Capes campsite sounds quite dismal. We've paid to be independent walkers in Tassie and in NZ. I don't have a problem with it because it seems to be a general trend for parks and conservation bodies to be underfunded, so we are happy to contribute to look after these beautiful areas. But the way it has been handled for the Three Capes walk has not left me impressed. There's so much of Tassie that I still haven't explored, so Three Capes has completely dropped off my list, in principle, because I don't like the exclusive nature it has taken on. Once I have ticked off everything else, maybe I'll do the walk with huts or camping, or maybe I'll be fit enough to run it in one day and skip paying altogether.

The night we were at Lake McKenzie Hut it was bucketing with rain and the hut ranger allowed some of the campers to stay in the hut because there was room. But if the campers wanted to take up the offer, they needed to pay the difference between the hut fee and camping fee. I didn't see any problem with that. Someone mentioned that they usually keep a few beds available for exactly those circumstances. I'm not sure how true that is.

I remember staying at a holiday village when I was a kid where you had to put coins in to get hot water for a shower or to heat the room. Some of those payment options for things like gas usage at the Great Walks huts that daywalkers can get to (eg. Lake Howden, Moturau) may need to be considered. The 21st century version would be a reader that checks your hut ticket or charges a credit card. A $1000 fine seems pretty heavy handed, though I guess once word got around it could make freeloaders think twice.

Yes there are some big differences between NZ & 3 Capes. I am pretty sure there are no campsites on the Milford- now that's elitist! Also from what I have read the 3 Capes huts are pretty fancy and even supply cooking pots etc.... Unless they have upgraded- Milford huts not so fancy but did have gas. It's not necessarily my cup of tea either but I do know that it would certainly suit many people and they would be happy to pay for that kind of experience.... Those of us that don't want to pay it can always walk somewhere else or camp and not use facilities if they are available.
Tourism provided big money to places like Tassie and NZ- so why not cash in on it with a few walks where they can make a bit more $ by catering to those who will spend it...and also crack down on those avoiding fees and using facilities.

[wayno]

this is the last word on three capes, its off topic after this, start another thread i you want to discuss it.
$500 is too round a figure, even with the services provided for the three capes walk, someone who set the price wanted to make a lot of money and rounded up the figure... its too much money for whats being offered, they are capitalising on the scenic location and its reputation to cash in on it, as often happens in the tourism industry and has crept its way into conservation services.
in NZ theres moves to allow up to 80 helicopter landings on mt tutoko the highest peak in fiordland just pposite the routeburn, and its supposed to be designated a remote area, its a prominent climbing area for serious climbers. is there any point when they essentially have an airpad operating from the peak? go and stand next to the helicopter area at queenstown airport and look how busy that is, that's how busy you're starting to talk about, the noise carries for miles... commercialism in the outdoors often sucks....
theres big money to be made by those operating it, at the expense of the masses who want a more affordable service but often get shut out or are affected adversely with the consequences...,

[icefest]

Thanks Dave, That sum seemed a bit low but I couldn't find any clarification.

[sim1oz]

Wayno, when you mentioned the helicopters it reminded me that we lost count after a while of the number of helicopters we heard each day when we were on the Kepler track. The noise certainly pulled us out of 'wilderness zone'. I didn't notice them so much on the Routeburn. Having said that, it rained most of the time we were on the Routeburn and there was little visibility so perhaps that reduced the number of sightseeing helicopter rides.

Every walker, whether day or overnight, camper or hut-booked, puts wear and tear on the track. Did the powers that be ever consider having a track charge for every walker (during peak season) regardless of whether they stay in huts or camp? That may allow the camping and/or hut charges to be reduced thus creating an incentive not to camp illegally. I guess some people would still try the walk hoping not to bump into a ranger...

[sim1oz]

I am pretty sure there are no campsites on the Milford- now that's elitist! .

Lizzy, you are right. I had forgotten that Milford Track does not have any campsites, as it seems most of the other Great Walks do offer camping or huts. But then, if people want to walk Milford outside peak season they can do it for almost no cost. So there is an element of access and choice available for people even on the Milford.

For someone who has mainly camped before, I found the Great Walk huts to be decent but certainly not luxurious compared to staying in a good city hotel (or the new huts on the other walk we are not talking about any more). Some of the huts on the Routeburn and Kepler seemed to be getting quite worn, but nevertheless have their own charm. The hot showers and heated rooms on the guided walks take the luxury up a notch for those who want it and can pay.

However, cost does seem to be the main factor raised above when people are talking about illegal campers on Great Walks. The other factor might be that the accommodation is already booked out but people, I guess this would mainly be non-local tourists, do the walk anyway. So the key question seems to be, what can we do to encourage and/or ensure that people using the GW facilities contribute to their upkeep?

[wayno]

the milford was originally run by a govt tourism organisation that ran the luxury guided huts. they werent interested in campers or freedom walkers, it was elitist. dept of conservation predecssor dept of lands and survey parks dept inherited the walk and its facilities and added the freedom walking huts. the milford track goes through the wettest place in the world at sea level. regularly gets half a metre of rain a day. its literally like standing in a shower the ground gets saturated and floods in large stretches several feet deep,the valleys are wind tunnels there, high winds are a frequent problem,long straight narrow deep valley with sheer rock faces.... , theres a lot of rookies on the great walks, putting campsites on the track will have the inevitable happen, lots of drowned rats in collapsed tents running to the huts pleading for shelter....

[Walking_addict]

Just finished planning for 3 weeks walking in NZ for Feb '17
Happy to pay the AUD$360 for the 13 nights in huts, standard, serviced, and great walk levels.
Can't. Wait.
Booking huts and flights Monday night

We'll be having a pretty easy time of it with the great tracks and huts, but have at least thrown in Big Bay - Pyke route as our last track on either the route in or out from Martins Bay.

[izogi]

Only a third of hut stays nationwide in all huts are paid for. .

(--snip--) One would think perhaps if any non compliance of hut fees is taking place - then that would be more likely in the "Standard Huts" which are not visited by rangers and hut warders very often and only have an honesty box for hut tickets. Some overseas visitors do use these huts, but far more Kiwis use them (except perhaps for huts on the Te Araroa walk - but I think most overseas visitors on that particular walk would buy a long term hut pass).

For reference, that one-third figure came from an un-named DOC source in an NZ Listener article, which can be read online. I'd take the exact figure with a grain of salt, because realistically DOC has no reliable way to measure how frequently people don't pay hut fees. What is known, though, is that there are recurring and frequent anecdotes of people -- both from New Zealand and overseas -- not paying hut fees, and there are plenty of people from overseas taking full advantage of the second tier hut network. I'd tend to agree with Wayno's line on this.

Hut fees already only prop up about 40% of the total annual expenditure on huts (with GW huts and fees excluded). That's not even including other recreation spending like tracks. They're also largely unfair in places where they can't be reliably enforced, because people who pay simply end up subsidising those who don't. What is known, though, is that out of around $18m/year of spending on all huts (including capital and corporate overheads), only about $4 million/year of that goes into the maintenance of huts which are not Great Walk huts (numbers here on my blog). That's most of the huts in the network being maintained and kept going for relatively little in the scheme of things. Right now it gets back about $1.5m+ of the spending on those huts from sales of back-country passes and tickets.

Personally I'd really like to see options explored towards charging for the Great Walk mansions with wardens, and maybe a handful of others, but just stomaching the cost for the others and paying for them out of Crown Funding, with the occasional capital injection for big renevations or replacements, as part of DOC's mandate to foster recreation. As usual, though, the problem seems to be where priorities get set. NZ's current government tends to treat the conservation estate as a slow-burning expendable resource for generating billions of tourism income (never mind the negative externalities and long term degredation) instead of a long term asset in which to invest.

[wayno]

anecdotally talking to other NZ trampers, i'd say only a third of people paying isnt wide of the mark. get away from the rangers and very few people are paying, look at how many are in the huts and comparing it with the log books, either the log books often dont have a lot of peoples names in them because they dont want to leave any record of them being there so they don't have to pay the hut fee, people are also actively bragging about not paying,.
rangers know what hut occupancy is like in various places and theres a pattern where they are collecting a lot more hut tickets when they are at a hut than when they arent...

[Walking_addict]

Have booked Kepler and Routeburn huts for next Feb, will get other hut tickets for Caples and Hollyford in QT when we get there . . .

So what happens if you lob at a hut and it's full ?
Not so much what to do, we will have a megamid back up shelter, but if it's full and you have bought hut tickets (most not cheap in the $15 serviced bracket) and can't use them ?

Also, if half or 2/3 thirds of people in the hut might not have hut tickets, and you do, don't you have a right to ask if people have them ?
If not, of course you should have a right to get into the shelter.
If the system can't be, or isn't policed, then it will gradually see a further decline in people doing the right thing as word spreads in the lower economy travellers circles.

[wayno]

off topic, start another thread

[Walking_addict]

On topic to your previous post.
I'd just like a locals answer / perspective.
What I pointed out and asked is very topic related.

[whitefang]

Have booked Kepler and Routeburn huts for next Feb, will get other hut tickets for Caples and Hollyford in QT when we get there . . .

So what happens if you lob at a hut and it's full ?
Not so much what to do, we will have a megamid back up shelter, but if it's full and you have bought hut tickets (most not cheap in the $15 serviced bracket) and can't use them ?

Also, if half or 2/3 thirds of people in the hut might not have hut tickets, and you do, don't you have a right to ask if people have them ?
If not, of course you should have a right to get into the shelter.
If the system can't be, or isn't policed, then it will gradually see a further decline in people doing the right thing as word spreads in the lower economy travellers circles.

All the huts I have used have had a hut warden that checks tickets. The illegal campers on the great walks is referring to those who camp illegally on the track. That is, not in huts, but not more than 500m from the track.

[sim1oz]

@walkingaddict, contact DOC to see if you can return unused hut tickets. It sounds reasonable and would encourage people to buy tickets just in case they need them, rather than freeloading.

[madpom]

Booked huts are the only place that camping is restricted. @walkingsdict. Any non booked hut can be camped outside, or you can camp beside the track if its not a bookings-only great walk. All seasoned trampers take a tent or emergency shelter in case the hut is full or rivers / wind / snow stops them from reaching their destination. And the beauty of backcountry huts is you don't need to book, so are free to go where whim & weather take you. The price of that is they are 1st come 1st served. That said ive met just 2 full huts in the last 200-or-so hut nights. Go where the crowds are and you find crowds; explore the backcountry and you'll likely as not have it to yourself.

So for the 90%+ of us that avoid the great walks like the plague - non of this affects us. And for those that do walk great walks: yes you have the right to expect that everyone in a hut has booked and the knowledge theres between 33% and 100% chance that a warden will be checking.

[newhue]

yes it seems Great Walks have become a victim if their success. The money makers happy enough to take the revenue from the tourist they attract, but also happy enough to largely disregard the fall out from abuse and poachers. Perhaps the wardens need to be at the starting points as well. Perhaps the money makes should have more respect for the cash cow they are milking and allocate its proper funding. But if helicopters are allowed to land on remote peaks the cancer is well established. I know when I witness a chopper land on the Kepler, for the wealthy to waddle down the hill it was the writing on the wall for me and great walks, and that was over over 15 years ago.

The great walks are a lambs designed for the slaughter. Nature for cash. For the ones looking for better remote outdoor experience as other have mentioned, long live NZ's remote hut system. Of which I am happy to donate GW prices for the privilege of using.

[wayno]

a recent trend has been more people coming to grief out of the main season when the services are reduced, some bridges can be removed, winter weather takes effect in some places snow and avalanche danger
someone has died on the routeburn recently, another person had a harrowing experience, another person died on the milford track a couple of years back. backpackers getting out of their depth

[newhue]

perhaps part of booking a GW or any tramping passes is you prove you have insurance to cover recovery. Perhaps Doc could sell it even.
However the greatest thing about NZ, and with all respect, is its like how it was 30 years ago. The responsibility was on the individual. A simple sign or word of warning was enough for one to make their own mind up on his or her destiny. In Aus they would shut it down, or helicopter mother you and take all the adventure - risk out of it in the name of safety. For the public or government staff it is not all that clear.
But personally I don't have any great concerns with letting them die either. Want to go into the mountains ill prepared, so be it. Plenty of info around to get organised these days. Last time I was at Mueller hut a bunch of young germans arrived late in the afternoon. It was April, in the rain, no wet gear, no warm gear, no hats, no food and certainly no torches. The warden said they could stay the night and asked if we could all share stuff as the huts emergency food and blankets may not be enough. We obliged and told the kids they would have to go without which they were not overly impressed. However the group decided to go down, half an hour before Doc shut, and would have arrived in the dark very cold and wet I imagine. If they perished it would be sad, but also not the end of the world. Just how many times can you help dumb people? However if they all had insurance than it pays for the recovery at least.

[izogi]

Last time I was at Mueller hut a bunch of young germans arrived late in the afternoon. It was April, in the rain, no wet gear, no warm gear, no hats, no food and certainly no torches. The warden said they could stay the night and asked if we could all share stuff as the huts emergency food and blankets may not be enough. We obliged and told the kids they would have to go without which they were not overly impressed. However the group decided to go down, half an hour before Doc shut, and would have arrived in the dark very cold and wet I imagine. If they perished it would be sad, but also not the end of the world. Just how many times can you help dumb people? However if they all had insurance than it pays for the recovery at least.

I'm reluctantly nodding my head at most of this but a tragedy with groups, often not acknowledged, is that they're not individuals making individual decisions. Sometimes (not always) they're groups of people who'd never do something by themselves but they've misplaced their trust in someone to lead a group and make some critical decisions for them. Even with individual good judgement, sometimes it's much harder to rebel against a decision if the alternative is to split a group and risk making things even worse.

I'm withholding some direct personal judgement from this recent person who's been copping lots of flak (on the Routeburn). In part that's because I'm sure she's been through enough and I'm finding local media's entertainmentising of this whole thing very tiring. Also, however, there were two of them, and one of them's dead and hasn't been given much trial by media at all. It's easy to look at the decisions that were made and criticise them independently, and that should happen, but it's not clear to me what role she was playing in deciding to do what they did.

[newhue]

yes fair call. I am unaware what has happened, and not sure if I could be bother looking into it. In my youthful beginnings I joined a bushwalking club to learn. I read guide books, trip reports and so on. Practiced navigation and took an interest in the weather. Invested in eye bulging priced equipment. That's all my decision. Then I come across traveller in his thongs, carrying plastic shopping bags with his food in because his day bag was not big enough, doing the Tongariro crossing. I can't think of any reason this bloke should not contribute significantly to his recover if needed.

[wayno]

the mueller hut warden is a volunteers position so the warden would have just been making an independant decision telling you to share, if there was enough daylight i think he should have told them to go back or go without, its not your responsibility to look after them if its not a genuine emergency.
numerous rescues recently here for ill equipped people teh gent who died on the routeburn was warned not to proceed by doc, didnt have their own shelter, crossed dozens of avalanche pathss after heavy snow...

[newhue]

He didn't order us, just asked in passing as we had become quite friendly with him over our time there. I do feel for Doc staff. Yes he was a volunteer, quite young at that, and you could see he was in a awkward position. There wasn't much day light left, and storms were predicted to increase. So these guys didn't listen or ask back at Mt Cook Doc office otherwise they would know it was going to rain on the way up. Damed if you do, damed if you don't. But I don't think many worry about the discomfort of the stupid, but do worry about the dis comfort and lives put at risk from the volunteers and staff to go get the stupid.

Not sure if they still do, but to do the Overland Tracking in Tassie Parks give everyone doing the walk a good 20 minute run down on do's and don'ts. They check gear and I think have the right to hold someone back if ill prepared.

[newhue]

wayno, just had a recollection of when we doing the Arthurs, and the Overland for that matter. It was some time ago but a ranger or rangers walk the track in reverse. They were looking for poachers and checking on people behaviour in general. Perhaps GW could afford this. Mated with an on the spot stiff fine the word would get around the back packers pretty fast.