wayno wrote:the govt arent passing on the revenue from other areas to DOC at all. they cut $50 million out of DOCs budget years ago and havent increased it at all since
wayno wrote:conservation needs to stand separate from tourism to avoid conflict of interest, its debatable already whether the conservation dept still entirely has conservation's best interest at heart everywhere, various tracks re over run with people with rubbish and sewerage around the tracks.
the previous forestry dept used to be responsible for harvesting forests and conserving them, they used to napalm native forest to plant exotic species...
LachlanB wrote:Also, how would you collect it? A blanket permit system is easy, but once people are in the parks, how do you tell if they're locals or foreigners? Many systems could end up costing more in enforcement to DOC than it actually collects, especially if collectors and inspectors are required.
wayno wrote:conservation needs to stand seperate from tourism to avoid conflict of interest...
wayno wrote:i think the govt want to turn the dpt of conservation into a tourist organisation...
GPSGuided wrote:wayno wrote:conservation needs to stand seperate from tourism to avoid conflict of interest...
Certainly, tourism and conservation are separate objectives. If conservation is the focus, then restriction on numbers is the obvious priority, just don't discriminate or create special cases, or the conservation argument goes out the window. Revenue or conservation, pick one. Can't have both.
north-north-west wrote:It's called the Department of Conservation, right? Kind of a giveaway which option they should be focusing on.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests