CTC ROR Submissions

I'm sure it's obvious to any tramper that looked at them that the Christchurch Tramping Club's submissions on DoC's "Recreational Opportunity Review" (on retaining huts and tracks etc) were embarrassingly impotent.

The club's submissions had a fairly low success.

Apparently those that penned the submissions  for the club responded by just blaming everyone except themselves, eg the Federated Mountain Clubs among others.

However I can't help but compare their effort with the results Honora and I got from our private efforts. And we only selected the huts and tracks we believed were most at risk. We didn't really think we had a hope with any of them. But sometimes it's important to just be seen to be on the right side, and making an effort. But we did ask people in the tramping community, if they agreed with what we were doing, to please give us their support by saying so.

We ended up with multiple submissions on our most important projects.

DoC changed its position on all of them. We were totally gobsmacked by some of the changes they agreed to, eg Pfeifer Biv.

Clearly our approach was one that worked.

Now it's for the CTC to decide whether its members are being well served by the club's current approach to submission writing, whether it's ROR, Tenure Review or whatever.