- 02/02/2009 at 1:10 pm #12403
The bloke bought the station and the politicians are getting him to do their dirty work for them by clearing out those living on the site illegally. If you want to leave your garage open and let people wander in, check your freezer for something to eat, and then let them pee in a botttle and throw it into your garden then feel free to give him grief; if you want your property respected then respect his property.18/02/2009 at 2:35 pm #12543
Several friends of mine who are “hut owners” at Lake Coleridge are of the view that the only way forward is through negotiation with the new owner. They realize that the law is against them on this. They are trying to avoid antagonizing the new owner. Some are extremely “upset” to put it mildly. Their public and private views are quite different.
Unlike many lakes in New Zealand there is no public road running around Lake Coleridge to provide easy public access for boat launching and camping. Entry to the lake is down no exit roads with the surrounding land in private ownership. The problem is made worse because Coleridge is the only decent boating and fishing lake close to Christchurch.
Notwithstanding the “illegal building” aspect, the gate business is just not on. This whole affair should never have been allowed to develop in the first place. Strict conditions of sale should have been imposed by the government to allow anglers to drive to these lakes as they always have. Many years ago Tony Orman warned about the insidious reduction of the public’s right of access to public lands. He was right to say so! It seems to me that a sort of slow creeping erosion of access rights is taking place here. Bit by bit unfettered access is being taken away from the majority and placed in the hands of a wealthy few. The rights of the landowner to do as he wishes on his own land must also be upheld. Sadly the pendulum is unlikely to swing the other way while the majority remain silent.
Yellowfin17/03/2009 at 7:42 pm #1276202/04/2009 at 8:14 am #12865
priorpark17: You are correct in regard to your assessment that the prime instigators opposing the permanent camp sites were Government agencies, namely the Dept. of Conservation, Selwyn District Council, the Overseas Investment Office and the power company who have an interest in Lake Coleridge (I think it is Contact Energy ?). It was one of the conditions of approval of Shrimpton’s purchase of the Ryton Station. In regard to your other point, I can sympathize with land owners but like most of the population I tend to think only in terms of how I and the other members of the general public are disadvantaged when access rights change. I too am sick of the mess left behind by those who use the outdoors and although it hurts me to admit it, some of the worst offenders are the biggest users of the resource such as fishermen and campers. I bring a bag of rubbish (other peoples) home with me from most fishing trips. The balance between public access and land owner’s rights is a difficult issue and one even the last Government shied away from attempting to resolve. Thanks for your contribution to the topic.02/04/2009 at 8:32 am #12866
With the benefit of hindsight and thanks to the depreciating economic conditions and the Governments restrictions on lakeside development of aesthetically high value properties I believe that Phillip Burmester’s original development would have been very unlikely to succeed. Regretably the situation in regard to camping at the Ryton appears fairly much a done deal as is the blocking of vehicle access to Lakes Ida and Catherine, and I can’t see it being resolved in favour of those of use who have enjoyed years of camping there. For those who wish to fish and stay overnight with minimal luxuries we will probably have to content ourselves with other options and nearby location of which there are plenty. People will probably continue to camp in the region even if they are not allowed to camp at the Ryton and they have to camp “illegally”. Clearly it would be to the advantage of DOC and Selwyn District Council to establish a camping ground in the region if they wish to maintain some form of control over the environment. One good point to come out of this issue is that, as a condition of Shrimpton’s purchase of the property, although the access road to the Ryton Bay remains a private road there is an easement on the road that guarantees public access. From my enquiries I ‘m assured that continued uninterrupted public access will be monitored by the various Government bodies.02/04/2009 at 8:46 am #12867
For information regarding access to Upper Glenthorne Station and Lower Glenthorne Station (formerly Ryton Station)
see the following web site:15/05/2009 at 11:03 am #13213
[b:3jdam5rg]Dirty Farming Practice – Lake Georgina[/b:3jdam5rg]
Has anyone noticed the dozen or more cattle standing chest deep in Lake Georgina in the last three weeks or so of this summers fishing season (2008/09) ? This small (16 hectares) lake which is one of the Coleridge group of lakes is a much fished lake by many Canterbury anglers of all skill levels and using all fishing methods, but it particularly attracts dry fly enthusiasts. As such a small lake it is highly susceptible to adverse environmental factors such as pollution. Thirty years ago the sight of a herd of cattle standing chest deep in a picturesque lake or river would have been considered postcard material and wouldn’t have been worthy of comment, but our appreciation of environmental issues have changed and generally speaking this practice is no longer considered acceptable, except by some of the stalwarts of the farming community.
I contacted [b:3jdam5rg]Environment Canterbury (Ecan)[/b:3jdam5rg] and registered a complaint in regard to this practice by the landowner. Unfortunately although I received a fair hearing I was very disappointed to learn that the legislation as it stands does not provide for any enforcement action against farmers whose stock fouling waterways, and [b:3jdam5rg]Ecan[/b:3jdam5rg] said they are limited to a process of “education” only (a point that I suspect is not lost on the landowner or property manager). Not satisfied with the response from Ecan I phoned [b:3jdam5rg]Lake Coleridge Station [/b:3jdam5rg]whose land Lake Georgina sits on. Although the response was civil it was icy and uncompromising. It appears that these people see nothing inappropriate with the practice of what has come to be known as “Dirty Dairying” (although these were beef cattle). Never the less I attempted to registered my point of view in regard to the situation without adopting an antagonistic attitude. One of the comments fired at me in response was that “the people camping around Georgina produce more effluent contamination than the cattle.” Nowhere near the truth although a fair comment given some of the worst offenders in regard to littering are the people who use the environment the most (fishermen and campers).
[b:3jdam5rg]Anyone who shares my point of view and witnesses this unacceptable practice of cattle standing chest deep in Lake Georgina and fouling this pristine high country lake are invited to do the same and phone the Lake Coleridge Station to register their disapproval. [/b:3jdam5rg]
In the mean time lets hope Ecan continue their “education” role.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.