Moke Creek/Ben Lommond public access hot of the press

Gold Fever
82

Not that I’m in any way condoning this… a friend told me that the locals in one instance started using super glue on the lock. Once the cocky put two and two together he stopped illegally locking the gate. I guess this was in a time before hunting cameras etc. were commonplace. Seems quite an elegant approach as the cocky got a taste of how frustrating it was to be denied access themselves.

It’s a tricky subject though as i guess if there’s private tracks that come off the public road then you’ll get people accidentally using these too, unless the land owner signs them as such. Which i have come across and worked well where I’ve seen it practiced on my exploring.

1 Like
83

That is actually no answer for the simple reason there can be factors you may not know - in which case you could get into a heap of trouble. Where there is a paper road then everything should be done by the law. IF the council and land owner/occupier clearly flaunt the law and for which there is no valid or justifiable reason then is the time to act…but always make sure that every other avenue was taken first and always make sure of your facts and that the legal aspects are on your side.

Hmm am I being serious? I suppose I can be sometimes!

84

For the interest and information of you all written on behalf of you guys who want access, this was sent by me two minutes ago and I hope to fuck that the information relating to the woolshed etc that you guys have given here is correct other wise who ever stated it will be as popular as a pork pie in a synagogue.

Dear Stacey

I request that you accept this letter as a written submission regarding the access through Ben Lomond Station to Moke Lake and the Moke Creek marginal strip.

Access has always been available for many years and the area in question is popular with recreational gold fossickers and outdoor recreation groups and individuals and recently I note that there are questions being asked regarding the restrictions placed on access by the land owner/occupier

It appears that this person has denied access via the paper road but will allow it through his farm track providing those who wish to gain access pay a fee.

He has absolutely no right to deny access via the paper road by 1) blocking that paper road by fencing across it and 2) constructing a wool shed across its path

I wish to point out the legal requirements pertaining to paper road access - You must not obstruct the paper road with fences, trees, vegetation, buildings or locked gates. You are entitled to erect a gate so long as it is unlocked. Members of the public must ensure that gates are left as they are found, or they might be committing an offence under the Trespass Act 1980.

This clearly indicates that two points in law have been breached by the land occupier; the erection of the fences across the paper road and the construction of the woolshed across it.

I now question the councils lack of action to protect the rights of the public to access the paper road and to allow the land occupier to erect the fences without gates and to construct the woolshed. By allowing these structures to remain the council is showing a lack of integrity in keeping with the legal requirements and an order must be issued to mitigate the problem.

I am requesting that the council discuss the situation with the landowner/occupier and point out his legal obligations. I also question if he had permission to construct the woolshed in that exact location spanning the legal road. If so then the council or that individual who was responsible for giving that permission must be held to account. This might indicate that the council could be held liable for that breach of access law by allowing the construction of the woolshed and must at its own expense relocate the woolshed.

I request that in order to keep all parties happy that the landowner be ordered to provide access to the river and lake, at no cost to those who wish to use the road. This effectively means that the road, although private, must be opened up to the public at no charge and that there is also no charge for camping on that land which is marginal strip bordering the creek.

I request that the landowner be informed that due to his obvious attempt to block public access via the paper road by fencing that paper road and constructing the woolshed across it that he accept the ‘trade off’ of the public having unhindered access via the road and that he be ordered to provide that access at no cost to the user.

I would also suggest that the council consider its own position relating to the building consent for the woolshed and in order to prevent possible embarrassment should there be any breach of legal procedure relating to paper road access as a result of that consent, not withstanding the motives of the land owner/occupier, that the council agree to either maintain the access road for the land owner and politely suggest that he gives an access easement over it in exchange for its maintenance.

Yours sincerely

5 Likes
85

I’ve been looking into who actually owns the land in the area, other than the Queen the owners in the area seem to be two parties, the left side of the creek is freehold and owned by Mount Creighton Station Limited, the other side of the Creek is Leasehold by Quest Moonlight Limited.

1.jpg1259×685 311 KB

2.jpg1267×683 331 KB

Mount Creighton Station Limited has theirs Freehold with no debt, lucky buggers

Property Report
Data Extract from the public property register
Maintained by LINZ
LINZ ID:
7843173
Land District:
Otago
Recorded Area:
3042005.0m²
Calculated Area:
3048335.1m²
Title - 838778

Reference:
-1
Issued:
29/05/2018
Status:
Live
Type:
Freehold
Prior Title References:
None
Encumbrances:
None
Legal Description(s)

Parcel ID(s):
7798137
7817465
7817493
7816168
7816595
7816594
7817463
7798136
7817464
7816597
7816596
7816598
7843173
7798138
7817492
7817501
7798190
7816599
Legal Description:
Section 1-4 Survey Office Plan 510753 and Section 9-14 Survey Office Plan 511359 and Section 15 Survey Office Plan 519419 and Section 18-23 Survey Office Plan 511362 and Section 1 Survey Office Plan 511363
Legal Description Type:
Estate
Estate Type:
Fee Simple
Purpose:
Not recorded
Legal Description Status:
Registered
Proprietors:
Registered 1/1 share belonging to: Mount Creighton Station Limited

Quest Moonlight Limited has all of theirs as Leasehold with debt to ANZ on it.

Property Report
Data Extract from the public property register
Maintained by LINZ
LINZ ID:
6553085
Land District:
Otago
Recorded Area:
0.0m²
Calculated Area:
40705774.0m²
Title - OT6D/1163

Reference:
-1
Issued:
03/11/1976
Status:
Part-Cancelled
Type:
Leasehold
Prior Title References:
None
Encumbrances:
ANZ National Bank Limited
Legal Description(s)

Parcel ID(s):
3967
3124433
3146244
3962
3965
3022016
3084059
3064683
3010666
3163282
3033677
Legal Description:
Run 794, Run 795, Section 79 and Part Section 46 Block XIX Shotover Survey District, Crown Land adjoining Sections 54, 56, 57, 121, 132 and Run 794, Block XIX Shotover Survey District, Section 26 Block VII Mid Wakatipu Survey District, Section 146-147 and Section 154 Block XIX Shotover Survey District, Section 55 Block I Mid Wakatipu Survey District and Section 1 Survey Office Plan 23804
Legal Description Type:
Estate
Estate Type:
Lease under s83 Land Act 1948
Purpose:
Not recorded
Legal Description Status:
Historical
Proprietors:
Historical - Original 1/1 share belonging to: Quest Moonlight Limited

Parcel ID(s):
3064683
3163282
3022016
3033677
3010666
6553073
3967
3146244
6553084
3965
3124433
6553085
Legal Description:
Run 794 and Run 795 and Section 79 Block XIX Shotover Survey District and Part Section 46 Block XIX Shotover Survey District and Crown Land adjoining Sections 54, 56, 57, 121, 132 and Run 794, Block XIX Shotover Survey District and Section 26 Block VII Mid Wakatipu Survey District and Section 146-147, 154 Block XIX Shotover Survey District and Part Section 55 Block I Mid Wakatipu Survey District and Section 1 Survey Office Plan 23804 and Section 1 Survey Office Plan 24577
Legal Description Type:
Estate
Estate Type:
Lease under s83 Land Act 1948
Purpose:
Not recorded
Legal Description Status:
Registered
Proprietors:
Registered 1/1 share belonging to: Quest Moonlight Limited

Parcel ID(s):
6553084
3163282
3967
3146244
3010666
6553073
3033677
3124433
3962
3064683
3965
3022016
Legal Description:
Run 794 and Run 795 and Section 79 Block XIX Shotover Survey District and Part Section 46 Block XIX Shotover Survey District and Crown Land adjoining Sections 54, 56, 57, 121, 132 and Run 794, Block XIX Shotover Survey District and Section 26 Block VII Mid Wakatipu Survey District and Section 146-147, 154 Block XIX Shotover Survey District and Part Section 55 Block I Mid Wakatipu Survey District and Section 1 Survey Office Plan 23804 and Section 1 Survey Office Plan 24577
Legal Description Type:
Estate
Estate Type:
Lease under s83 Land Act 1948
Purpose:
Not recorded
Legal Description Status:
Historical
Proprietors:
Historical 1/1 share belonging to: Quest Moonlight Limited

Parcel ID(s):
3146244
3962
3064683
6553073
3022016
3965
3124433
3033677
3010666
3967
3084059
3163282
Legal Description:
Run 794 and Run 795 and Section 79 Block XIX Shotover Survey District and Part Section 46 Block XIX Shotover Survey District and Crown Land adjoining Sections 54, 56, 57, 121, 132 and Run 794, Block XIX Shotover Survey District and Section 26 Block VII Mid Wakatipu Survey District and Section 146-147, 154 Block XIX Shotover Survey District and Part Section 55 Block I Mid Wakatipu Survey District and Section 1 Survey Office Plan 23804 and Section 1 Survey Office Plan 24577
Legal Description Type:
Estate
Estate Type:
Not recorded
Purpose:
Not recorded
Legal Description Status:
Historical

86

Beautifully done and worded Graeme :slight_smile:

2 Likes
87

Aw thank you Gavin - yous a good boy you is!

1 Like
88

Hi all, Hamish Foster from Ben Lomond Station here. I’d like to lay out some facts, correct some information and provide some balance to the discussion.
There is an unformed legal road (ULR) extending from the reserve approx 2.5km north to the top of Daniels claim. This road has never been built, it is not and has never been possible to drive a motor vehicle along it - this is prevented by Ben Lomond Creek (a 4m deep gully), stands of Matagouri etc. There is not and has never been legal public driving access beyond the Moke Lake Reserve. Prich above says that “…if the above obtrusion’s were not present vehicle access would be possible…” It isn’t possible to drive a vehicle across the first creek - see photo in Mountain Scene Article - it is a 4m deep gorge. Also I think I know the line you are referring to that you thought was a dray track - that was an old fence, the line formed by stock walking along each side. There has never been a road or track along the ULR. I commend Prich for getting out and walking this route and seeing the issues themself - for those of you that haven’t you won’t fully understand the issues.
Yes the Woolshed occupies part of the ULR - we have a license to occupy.
Public access beyond the reserve is down the Marginal strip near the north end of the reserve. While the ULR provides legal public access, it is not used as it is not formed even for walkers and an alternative exists.
The farm track was built by and is maintained by Ben Lomond and is a private road. Access along this road is by permission from Ben Lomond Station, Mt Creighton Stn, LINZ or more recently DoC. Gavin notes correctly above “…if there’s private tracks that come off the public road then you’ll get people using these too…”; Gavin - our road is one of these private tracks.
Ben Lomond Stn has always supported Gold miners in the area, from the big dredging operations in the 80’s and 90’s to the panners, detectorists, suction dredgers etc we see now. All the rivers up the Moke and Moonlight are under claim - gold mining is not permitted by others without the claimholders permission.
We have great relationships with the claimholders beyond Moke Lake and they continue to cross Ben Lomond to access their claims. Daniel was one of these and we have had a long relationship with him and his family. We are gutted that he’s taken the steps he has without firstly talking the issues through with us - this issue has arisen previously with other parties (e.g the glueing reference by Gavin above). I had a 1hour talk with Daniel on Sunday and we both expressed our disappointment at how this has played out and the damage to the friendship however we remained civil despite disagreeing on the legal status of the access. Daniel - I would urge you to get good legal advice specific to this issue - do not rely on the above information in this forum.
We charge $50pp (not $55) per night and that includes road access and use of our huts for the other claimholders. They continue to visit Ben Lomond and we enjoy a great relationship with them, some of which we’re lucky enough to call our friends - you know who you are and they may be readers of this forum.
The agreed price with Daniel was $450 for his recent trip for 5-6 people for 10 days - that is ~$7.50pp per day. Not $4620 as noted above. We believe this is reasonable. He would require Mt Creighton Station permission also.
I would urge people here to work closely with Landowners and develop good relationships. I would urge you to firstly talk with the Landowners if issues arise and if not satisfied, get proper legal advice. Be cautious about taking advice from this forum. Regards, Hamish Foster.

89

Thank you Hamish taking the time to post this information on this forum ,much appreciated,its always good to get both sides of the story and layout this info in a logical and reasonable way.
I’m sure I speak for many forum member when I say that we hope that this issue can be resolved in a pro active and civil way by all parties.
regards Mal

2 Likes
90

I am also a high country land owner and I maintain the track in my property. I have the odd request for access and have never denied it. I have also allowed access along several ks of track and have neither charged nor accepted remuneration for that access. I do have a locked gate and it is a very expensive lock with very expensive keys. If a person wants access they call at my home and get a key in return for a bond which is refunded on the return of the key. If a person proves decent and takes my interests into account and respects my property and wants to go there on a regular basis then out of my own pocket I get a new key cut.
I see allowing access as being to my benefit as it deters poachers and miscreants and I would never think of charging for that access.
In regards to your woolshed there might be some technical legalities as to its positioning as the council cannot give any mandate to partially or fully block that paper road by issuing a building permit to construct any device, building or obstruction as the legalities relating to that paper road are very explicit however there could be factors beyond my knowledge.
As on my property the paper road on yours is not possible to traverse by wheeled vehicle but the law does state that it has to be accessible to ‘foot, horse or vehicular traffic,’ and therefore legally you must provide gates on each and every fence along the route of said paper road but in saying that no reasonable and fair person should have any recourse to complain if they have free right of way by another easier route and therefore I assume that it is the charge to use the alternative route that is being questioned and because there is a charge people complain about the paper road access being blocked by fences and a woolshed - despite the fact that it is largely impassable to wheeled traffic.
The council is NOT liable to construct, form or maintain that paper road but it does have the legal status of a regular road.
My only qualm is your track and the charge to traverse it to be honest. Should someone decide to circumvent the demand to pay as much as one cent to traverse the track and get a bulldozer to open the paper road then it might be interesting to sit back and watch as legal technicalities might swing back and forth on favour of one party or the other until such time as it is resolved.
I admire your explanation above and consider it fair and square but I am also of the opinion that New Zealand does belong to us all and thoughtfulness and consideration on the part of all concerned should rule the day.
What I would like to see? - the track being opened to the public free of charge and the council make a fair contribution to its upkeep with the possibility of an easement being obtained from you and even the construction of a fence along its route to prevent off road driving at councils cost. In exchange for the easement the demands for paper road access should cease. There are some who would still not be happy and want to access the paper road just to be pedantic but to be honest I equate those types with the hole at the North end of a South bound cow…vacant and sub intellectual!
I noted Hamish’s correction re costs and it is against my principles to charge anyone anything but his correction is a lot more realistic. Is the charge $7.50 per day to use the road or camp on the DoC camp ground? Is it to camp on land owned by Ben Lomond? If it is to camp on the DoC camp ground then I would not be happy.
I have no conflicting interests here as I dont go up there and merely look at things from a legal perspective with land owner - council - DoC and those who want right of access all in mind.
Personally I would like to see it resolved to the benefit and satisfaction of all - Hamish, Daniel and those who wish to access the Moke. I was last there well over fifty years ago. My gold mining partner who was born in the skippers in the closing years of the 19th century knew the area well and my uncle used to average many ounces every year gold fossicking there during the Christmas holidays up until about 1978.

3 Likes
91

Hi Lammerlaw, thanks for your response. Council can authorise construction over a legal road (License to Occupy), this takes many forms from tables for outdoor dining at cafes to pergolas, shelters etc for buildings in busy streets to buildings in rural areas (like our shed). Each assessed on its merits. No-one can take a bulldozer and form the Legal Road without Council permission - essentially they would be building the road and that can only be done by Council (or their nominated contractor). I admire your generosity with access. Our case may be slightly different to yours as we have hundreds of different activities taking place in that area and we need to balance their impacts on us and on each other, hence we charge a fee. We also agree public access is important - there are 50,000 people that walk and Mtn bike through our station freely, that needs to be balanced with the managed vehicle access. Regards, Hamish

3 Likes
92

Hi Hamish - I had heard over the years many positive things and of course both sides of the story must be taken into account. In my case I give free access for many reasons but perhaps one of the more ‘self centered’ ones is the fact that not living on site now and the property being only an hour from Dunedin I have a huge amount of poacher trouble. It is in my interests therefore to allow free of charge access to decent honest and reliable people as they are in effect - my ‘caretakers’ I also give free access to the house and free use of the facilities and believe me its a learning curve - on one side the generosity of some who use the place and on the other all the wood burnt, items stolen and so on. I see you point of view and if I were in your shoes I may well think and do as you do. I do think however that it would be a good point if there were no charge to access the road and that the council maintained it for you it in view of the traffic that use it but there might be elements in that suggestion not in everyones interests.

93

I’m a bit confused, you’re saying 50,000 people get to walk and mountain bike through your station freely yet up further in the forum posts in the comments someone was saying they were on their Ebike trying to ride the paper road to get to Moke Creek and they were caught by somebody representing your farm and informed they need to pay $50 to ride their bike to the creek. To me that’s just ridiculous.

If I jump on my bike tomorrow can I ride to Moke creek through your property trying to follow the paper road as much as I can. My bike can’t ride up the walls of a shed and over it’s roof so I’ll be forced to go around it in doing so I’ll be leaving the paper road.

If the council requests it due to the process taking place at the moment for statistical purposes are you willing to hand over the records of the income you’ve generated charging people for access? You must have it as surely you’re declaring it as taxable income. If legal action ends up taking place you’ll have little choice but to hand over these records.

1 Like
94

Hi Phrunt, hikers and mountain bikers (including ebikes) are able to traverse the Moonlight Track, Ben Lomond Saddle and Summit tracks. These are through our station. There is no legal access for these routes, it is through our goodwill. We charge commercial users (e.g. guided walks). The trail is well marked. If people want to go elsewhere it is with our permission and we often charge a fee. I am not sure of the details of the comment above but there was no reference to it being on the paper road - we can’t charge for access on this road and don’t. Regarding the Woolshed, it protrudes 3m into the ULR, there is 17m remaining to go around. However in reality no-one uses the ULR because it has never been formed, hence difficult to follow - you would struggle to walk its length due to vegetation, let alone ride it and as mentioned above driving is not possible. There is a marginal strip which is the formed, legal access to Moke Creek which is what is used by the public. You can jump on your ebike and ride through this marginal strip to Moke Creek, or choose to go along the ULR however legally you can’t leave the ULR. https://www.wams.org.nz/OutdoorAccess/ shows you the details.
Note many stations provide little if any public access and legally are quite entitled not to provide it - we have no obligation to provide it but choose to. Users of this forum may have gold claims without legal access across other stations and would need to negotiate their own access arrangements or helicopter in and Ben Lomond is no different. Regards, Hamish

95

Thanks, I’m overlaying the ULR onto my GPS mapping software so I’ll go have a snoop around and see if I can work it out. I’m used to making my way through scrub so that’s no issue.

My query was more if I had to leave the ULR to get around an obstacle making it troublesome to pass would you be wanting to jump on me for a $50 fee because I left the unformed track by 20 meters so for example. I would think it’s only reasonable of you to allow such a breach given the circumstances without having to pay any fee.

1 Like
96

Hi Phrunt, legally you can’t leave ULR without permission from the neighbouring landowner otherwise its tresspass. That’s the challenge with ULR’s - without a survey or an accurate GPS you don’t know if you’re on it. The ULR in question is about 2.5km long. There is alternative legal and formed walking and cycling access available which is what is used see attached. We haven’t had the situation where someone strays from the ULR because no-one uses it - would we jump on you for $50 for being 20m out of line? No we’d say G’day and help you find your way! See attached a photo of the formed legal access route - this is where everyone goes. The key issue is no legal motor vehicle access exists - it is a private road.

Existing%20marginal%20strip%20access%20down%20Moke%20Creek
Existing marginal strip access down Moke Creek.jpg1024×576 79.5 KB

97

Dear Hamish
Thanks for coming on here and clarifying your position however there are some pretty simple issues which need to be raised:

  1. The paper road in question has a number of fences erected over it thereby denying access on the paper road. You haven’t addressed this yet?
  2. Its not just a woodshed that is built on a paper road it is also the considerable amount of earthworks that has been done to construct the pad for woodshed as all your personnel gear including containers, horse floats, boats etc that restrict vehicle access. I refer to my photos that show this?
  3. There is indeed a creek that transverses the paper road, however due to excavation of the woodshed and of the creek bed itself I would argue that this has prevented vehicle access.
  4. You state you have a a license to occupy- What are the conditions of that license to occupy as the main issue here is it denying the public the right to use this paper road.
  5. There is no legal status to the access as you point out- The paper road is not owned by you and as such you do not have the right to deny the public access by vehicle on it.
  6. The fact you grant access on your own private farm tracks for walkers and cyclists is irrelevant and is it not a condition of your lease with the crown that public access be maintained therefore it is not your goodwill as such that allows so many bikers and walkers access through Ben Lamond but simply a requirement of your lease?
    Cheers
98

In fairness to Hamish, to Daniel and to all who wish to access Moke Lake I have withdrawn my submission above on the basis of misinformation supplied by two contributions above. People should get it 100 percent right before they make comments - which I took in good faith and based a submission on. To say that I am pissed off is an understatement. The woolshed is not ‘on’ the paper road and does not effectively block it and the information above implied that it did - bad!

This is my new submission.

Submission regarding access through Ben Lomond Station.

Subsequent to noting the fencing off of the paper road accessing Moke Lake and Moke Creek through Ben Lomond Station I wish to request that the Queenstown District Council order the placement of gates across each fence where it crosses the paper road as is required by law if he wishes to charge a fee to use his farm road.

This leaves the onus on the person seeking access to either pay the fee as requested or access the Lake via the paper road as he/she is legally entitled to do and to also accept their own responsibility for environmental damage or accident and the costs therein occurred to mitigate that environmental damage or to retrieve their vehicle should it become stuck.

I would also request that the Council open negotiations with the land owner to open the road free of charge in order to access the Moke and to provide the funding to maintain that road thus negating the land owners need to maintain a road that the public make use of and his subsequent need to charge an access fee to those who use it. It is entirely unfair that the land owner should be required to maintain the road when the vast majority of users are recreational users.

It is in the Councils interest to take a financial interest in maintaining this road as many people come to the district with a desire to access Moke Lake and Moke Creek and environs for the many recreational reasons that the area provides.

I believe that the Council, DoC and landowners negotiate an agreement to the benefit of all - free access in exchange for the maintenance of the road so that there is no need for members of the public to demand their legal rights to access via the paper road.

Yours sincerely

1 Like
99

Hi Prich,

  1. The fences were erected to separate the DoC campground from the farm and agreed with DoC, QLDC and us. Alternative walking and cycling access is available, there is a style to help crossing the fence. I agree the fence does not permit vehicles to pass, but vehicles are unable to traverse the road anyway. Remember no-one uses the ULR, they use the legal alternative
  2. Yes that exists, again the public use the alternative
  3. I respectfully disagree - the creek has never permitted vehicles to cross irrelevant of Woolshed excavation. Up and downstream it is still a 3-4m deep gorge. It is only possible where we have formed a crossing/culvert.
  4. It simply shows what is occupying the ULR. The alternative legal access is available.
  5. The alternative access is the marginal strip down Moke Creek which is DoC managed. Agree, the ULR is not owned by us but its not possible to drive a vehicle, regardless of the fences. The creek prevents such vehicle access.
  6. Our lease has no requirement to provide public access within the lease, no pastoral leases have such a clause - we do it because we want to and enjoy the interaction with the public.
    Note that walkers and cyclists are considerably less impact than vehicles. Hope this clarifies, Regards, Hamish
1 Like
100

Hamish,
Thank you for taking the time to comment on here and provide an alternative view.
Full respect for front-footing this issue and I am sure the people on here will afford you and your farming operation a suitable degree of respect.
cheers

2 Likes
101

In reply to Hamish’s’ first post I finally would like to comment on the whole issue in detail further below. And this is from my personal point of view and lays down the facts as accurately as I can remember them. If necessary I have witnesses who will support me if this would be dragged through a court process. I never intended this to go that far. Hamish raised the following question. > We are gutted that he’s taken the steps he has without firstly talking the issues through with us

Blockquote
I can only reply and ask, why didn’t his dad pick up the phone and give me a call when he heard that I had brought up the issue with the council?

Hi,
In 1980 I first ventured down Moke Creek to visit the late Barry Crump at Sefferstown who was mining the gravels of Moke Creek. The road at that stage was still looked after by QLDC to almost the spot where the miners monument still stands today. In those days the road lead from Moke Lake via the ULR down the marginal strip and across Moke Creek to the neighbouring Mt Creighton station. This road is still very clearly visible on Google Earth today.

Once the present owners of Ben Lomond Station had taken over, the paper road was fenced off and a locked gate was put up. A new track was bulldozed in on the true right hand side of Moke Creek leading to Sefferstown and beyond. This track deviated a bit from the "paper road" (ULR) leading from the fence at Moke Lake in a South to North direction. Hence the paper road never got much use. Numerous fences were erected across this ULR and the public was kept at bay with the locked gate.

For a number of years I had the privilege to drive on that track. At the same time I brought the Fosters considerable business with the tourists that either stayed at Sefferstown or Ben Lomond lodge. By then a mutual friendship had been formed. In 2006 we were granted the Moke Creek Mining Permit No. 41926 which is a lease from the government. It gives us the right to mine the gold bearing gravel from the creek with hand held tools or small suction dredges. For the first 5 years we conducted one or two very small gold mining trips each summer with overseas tourists. Mister Foster by then decided that we had to pay him a nominal fee of $23 which was for a round trip across his private track. Back then we questioned the reason behind those charges. His explanation was that we couldn’t drive on the paper road because of the first creek crossing. We knew this wasn’t necessarily true, but we had no other choice because of the locked gate and being a new immigrant we didn’t want to rock the boat too hard so we agreed to pay these fees.

For the next 5 years we drove the 1.2km on the road Fosters had established even though we could have easily driven on the paper roads, if they hadn’t been fenced off. The rest of the way to our claim we drove on the other paper roads. In 2011 with the encouragement of Mr Foster we hired the late Mark Rialton and his digger to improve the paper road where it leaves Fosters farm track at point X and leads to point Y (see attachment). It removed the obstacle of one difficult river crossing. Hikers, Bikers, Horse riders and Marathon runners still use this section of paper road to this present day which we financed ourselves. The cost was between $1,000 and $2,000!

After 2012 we hardly ventured into Moke Creek. Instead it was leased out for several summers and the station owners charged the lessees a fee which was agreed between the two parties.

In June 2018 a local Queenstown man signed a contract to lease our claim for the 2018/2019 summer season. After the Fosters tried to charge him $100 per trip and would only open the gate every second day he pulled out of the contract.

In February 2019 I contacted Mr. Foster on a short notice and wanted to find out if we were able to access our Mining permit with the intention to camp there for two weeks with a group of friends. The camp site is on the marginal strip besides the neighbouring Mt Creighton station who had given us permission in the past to set up our tents at our usual camp spot. Now all of a sudden Mr Foster wanted $55 per person per night. After a hefty discussion and indicating that we were only going to use his short piece of farm track and not even camping on his land Mr Foster asked me how much I was willing to pay. I didn’t really know how much I should offer him with my friends standing around listening in on the conversation. Reluctantly I said $400. Fosters answer came very quick. **$450 in CASH**. I said I didn't have that much cash on me. His reply, go to the bank.
My friends were not keen to take Mr Foster up on this offer after I’d hung up which they thought was a form of extortion so we declined to go in there at all.

A month later I was informed by the person who wanted to lease our claim how much and under what conditions Mr Foster would let him through. I was gutted and I realized that so called friends had betrayed me. Their greed resulted in a loss of over two thousand Dollars in revenue for us.
This was the point when I started looking into the legal rights of using ULR’s In the process I turned to the QLDC to ask for help. Mrs Ruth Joiner was very helpful, raised the issue within the council, spoke to Mr Foster and reported back to me that Mr Foster actually had signed the lease agreement with the crown under the condition that he had to provide public access onto the station.

Closing the specified ULR’s in the report would be equivalent to closing off the ULR’s / farm tracks on Mt Creighton station along Moonlight creek which is the access track for the Fosters to reach Ben Lomond lodge. I bet they wouldn’t be happy if they were denied access to their property!

Now all of a sudden the council decided to close some of the paper roads for vehicle use. How convenient for them and for the farmer. The new by-law would shut off all the other paper roads further down the valley for vehicle access where a 4WD could easily drive on!!!

3 Likes