Moke Creek/Ben Lommond public access hot of the press

Yes you are right about the damage as being a cause for a lot of the denial of rights. The Dagg Brothers used to own Coronet Peak back in my day and every year I used to get permission to go in through Macetown gold fossicking and shooting. I always took a .22 for rabbits around the town and my .303 for goats. There were no whiners, whingers, trolls, insecure attention seekers and fuckwits back then so no one ever turned a head at you with a rifle - today of course the Armed Offenders squad would be helicoptered in even if you flashed your bright orange green and yellow Nerf gun! In any case it came the year, about 1977 when I phoned and asked for the annual permission and the goldmining was ok but the shooting was not - another aside here is the fact that if you were caught trespassing with a rifle then you got a good slap on the hand and threatened loss of firearm but today it is instant LOSS of firearm plus licence. I will say that today when I catch poachers I give them one and one only chance and tell them that next time it will be a trespass notice and they will lose their firearms licence. To take a persons licence first time round is a bit fucking rough. Anyway back to story - I asked the Dagg fellow if he would be prepared to give me a reason and he told me that I would see the reason when I was up there gold mining. His cattle were dead all around the Macetown town site and environs - you can hardly blame the land owner in instances such as that.

absolutely with cattle worth 1 to 2k each thats disgusting . the trouble now is that there is such a population in Queenstown , that if the same % went on recreation like in late 70s there would be 1000s going up and down those roads. so thats the landowners side , the recreationalist just wants to be treated fairly , not charged like a wounded bull every trip. i think daniel has just gone off the deepend somehow and really annoyed foster . maybe foster wanted to squelch any idea of tours going in on crighton , crighton owns half that road foster is charging for,does foster do all the maintenance or does doc own crightons share of the road now?

John Foster told me it would cost me $50 a day per person just to be on “his” land if I stepped off the Moonlight Track/farm road that goes from Moke Lake through to Arthurs Point. That was just for the day. Nothing to do with overnight camping. My Wife & I were on our mountain bikes & had ventured off the “track” to have a look at some old high sluiced gold workings. He hadn’t seen my wife, otherwise he would have said I owed him $100. I asked how I was to get this money to him. He said to bring cash next time & to phone him & tell him what day I would be there & he would catch up with me. We exchanged phone numbers & he said next time I come to bring him $100. Would have been $200 if had seen my wife.


Total piss take which is why the paper road option should be fought.

1 Like

Dear Lawndog.
This has been an interesting discussion. Seams as though opinions are like assholes , everyone has one! Me i like to deal in facts.
I would recommend if your going to come on here and potentially character assisnate another person and his buisness then you get your facts right.

  1. Paper roads or ULRs are owned by the crown and are not owned by private individual’s. As such the paper road in question cannot have access withheld and that includes vehicle access.
  2. please see attached photo of the paper road as outlined by data from QLDC and LINZ

    As you can see there is a woolshed which has been built recently as well as considerable earth works done on this paper road. This is illegal and is hindering access.
  3. i went down to Moke Lake today and have walked the paper road. I have taken photos of the obtrusions and i have attached photos showing where access has been hindreed a sample of this is attached. This includes 6 fences all without gates, a woolshed ( built over the paper road) and considerable earthworks carried out by the farmer making it impossible to walk let alone drive a vehicle.

    The paper road in question is actually an old dray track as parts of the track that have been unaltered one can still make out the road.
  4. If the above obtrusions were not present vehicle access would be possible. It is illegal for access like this to be denied and it is also illegal for buildings to be built on a paper road let alone land not owned by tbe farmer. Assuming consent for the woolshed was granted by the QLDC then there is also a case to be made that consent was granted illegally as well by council. Both the farmer and the QLDC it seams have egg on their faces. I would argue therfore that QLDC are aware of this and why they and Ben Lammond station have gone down the route they are embarking on by trying to implement the by law denying vehicle access in the hope this gets buried!
  5. The land owned by the farmer is lease land owned by the crown. A condition of lease was that public access be maintained and encouraged. Further evidence of this occurs further towards the camping ground where marginal strip has been fenced off denying the public access along the marginal strip.
  6. The bylaw in question that QLDC want to invoke preventing vehicle access requires a considerable threshold to be meet usually by environmental or safety concerns to the public. This requires a full public consultation process. This hasnt happened and i would argue any thresholds meet has been caused by the station owner in question.

I think comming on here and raising how much Dan at dredgenz charges for his tours is irrelevant and none of your buisness let alone anyone elses. Whatever he charges is soley his jurisdiction. I find it sad that someone like Dan who came to this country put his bloody money where is mouth is, got a claim and invested in his buisness to make something of himself is somehow criticized for how much money he charges. Its also pretty rich that you hide behind a pseudonym making these criticisms while Dans name and buisness is well known.

I do however agree with you that previous lots of people and there activities have ruined it for many in the past.




Fucking arsehole - not you - him. Its ok to charge bloody tourists who shit all over the place but not New Zealanders who are doing no harm.
It isnt Mr High and fucking mighty’s land anyway - it belongs to us all. He has only paid to be the caretaker. The only land he or anyone else ever gets is a cemetery plot and even then your tenure is up to the local land speculator or council who want to construct a public shithouse or road on top of it.


I was always under the impression that you were not able to generate another source of income off lease hold land outside of pastoral farming unless you had extra consents.

Interesting - you could well be right there - could pay to do some checking up on that.

I currently work on a property that was going through the tennure review process ( before that was all stopped ) and had heard this was the case

prich 385 people have a right to do their business and charge what they like to the point that noone will do business with them on grounds of price. on farms they can run any sort of business they like with consents etc,and build anything they like on their leasehold title with building permits. (not as you say paper roads, which is an interesting point with the woolshed and would make it seem there has been a transfer of ownership of the paper road because of the building permits etc) i dont care how much daniel charges ,hes the one who has to ask his customers, the point is on a tour he charges something and if i was letting someone sit on my land doing business id want something too,but it turns out it wasnt even fosters land according to daniel. if it was too realistic a figure well thats his problem, maybe i should of said 100k to make my point obvious . he knew what the land owner is like,and there are faults on both sides like always . paper roads are as you describe in your text and of course there is a “but”. have you checked he hasnt obtained ownership, or amalgamated title with the lease?.when you get access, it may be short lived as all he needs to do is apply to get the paper road transferred to his property for a nominal sum.then he has even more power to screw everyone over. i agree rights are being eroded, but that is all round with countering rights as well ie safety, land owners rights etc . what you win, in the short term will affect everyone in nz as the issue will prompt farmers action in applying for any paper road in and around their properties. a subject that is currently off their minds .linz information can be wrong as in the case of our own paper road where we had a swap between the new road and old road , the council was still apparently the owner ,but we had title deeds. this is a forum and i have never intended to divulge my identity and i still dont intend to . the main attitude from me is to make people think what they are doing , and consider things they might not have considered otherwise without telling them what i think . but ill tell you now, i think you probably will win but there will be massive antagonism from land owners ie blacklisting daniel and yourself ,(they do talk to each other you know) and your win will be shortlived and costly because the road will be bought off the crown for a nominal sum. it comes down to a principle in the end i spose ,whether its worth all the cost effort and stress.

Umm im not sure you get it…
Dans activities were not and never have been on anyones elses land as you say. They were carried out on Dans claim this is not part ofBen Lamond station. Access to Dans claim was sought along a paper road. A paper road is not owned by the farmer in question.

There has been no transfer of the paper road into the farm otherwise why has Ben Lamond station applied to the QLDC to prevent vehicle access on this paper road. Thats the whole point of tommorow (mondays) hearing.

This is about making council and rogue landowners accountable to public access. As a landowner its my responsibility to know where my boundaries are and any particulars ie paper roads that transverse my property. Dont go moaning about the public accesing areas that are designed to provide public access as thats like buying a house next to an airport and complaining about the noise!


Just to clear things up here and this is to defend the station owner in this regard, he has got the necessary consents from what I’m aware of.

1 Like

Similarly related… joined a mate yesterday for a trip over to the west coast to check out a potential spot to claim. After checking WAMS for access before we went and seeing the gravel road right up to the spot was a public road, we arrived to find a big locked metal gate preventing access from the highway. No signage present to give us any idea of who to try and contact.

Plan B, next valley along had a 4wd track also along a paper road. Got there and discovered yet another metal gate preventing access.

That was one wasted trip driving all the way over from Christchurch for the day because of locked gates across legal access routes.

Not the first time I’ve encountered this problem unfortunately.


Its not till you do some exploring you realise there’s actually quite a few access points to doc land via unformed roads or even easements the latter do not really show up on the wams maps there’s a few on there but a lot are not & require a bit more investigation , my understanding of somehow purchasing a ulr is that its not going to happen especially when there is interest in using it , its public access .

i agree this man is a rogue landowner. talk to anyone on properties around him . it appears then he has built that woolshed on public land and it will be interesting to see what he has to do to make that right ! now id like you to find out if doc owns the other side of the moke ,Crighton having settled last year on tenure reveiw . if that has happened , daniel will be able to have access easily ,as doc can be dealt with. but will still have to cross the moke several times onto ben lomond side and a bit far away from the paper road and creek centreline . There is more to this than meets the eye and what Daniel is telling you. and how can foster get away with this since 1983 when it was cut off?? It is very annoying to me all sides of this situation in 1983 and even now, and there is arguments for both sides. much has been made of access down paper roads and there is a point where legally you cant anymore. so you have to find that out before the hearing. This is a tourist town and run by people on a power trip. be careful it doesnt soak up more and more money and you have to pay an unfair share .

Can you be a bit more specific lawndog about what I am not telling people in this forum? And also, I have written this in my private message to you yesterday, why can’t you man up who you are? Are you afraid that I would take legal action or what is it that you are afraid of?


The deerstalkers association would be well worth getting a comment from seen as how they need access up there as well for the hunting on Doc land.

1 Like

a freindship of how many years blows up because of more than just 1 reason is the simple answer. youve been going there for a long time and suddenly this happens? if you want to bang your head against a brick wall and cut off all access to everyone its up to you.i know foster will cut off access to everyone at the end of the paper road,thats the type he is . maybe all those people will have more of a case against you in court than my probing questions . obviously your annoyed . but think will you? ive said my piece and raised questions. turn your attention to somewhere meaningful. rights are being infringed as i said, 2 sides to every story , thats my last response to this matter . take from it what you will .

Its the Farmer that’s essentially cutting off access by charging $55pp , I like the sound of the free version better .

as far as I understand a paper road is a legal road ,able to maybe driven down, walked or cross along without fences, locked gates or buildings on it. a farm track on a farmers place is his to do what he wants. if he wants to charge for using his property he has the right. ITS HIS. if you live in town and some one feels like walking across your back lawn you wouldn’t allow it so why should a farmer be any different about his back yard just because its bigger.
I feel that all paper roads should be posted so as one can follow them. but a farmers track is his track.