smithy09 50 Posted November 14, 2010 Share Posted November 14, 2010 Just a tip for those with a dog sh*t problem.Squirt peanut butter on the turds and the dogs will clean it up.When the owners figure out what is happening they will not bring their dogs there.Unfortunately the peanut butter is a bit expensive but it may have some entertainment value. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Rocket Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Had my usual holiday on a private island - with a great big sign and where everyone knows (and teh sign says) that the owners provide a public landing away from their fee paying customers. 4 launches show up - occupants swim in right beside the sign that says no landing, proceed to piss us off by yahooing and carrying on all over a pristine beach - not unduly but this is our beach and they are not invited. They swim out and get their dog that proceeds to tear up and down the beach, charging at everyone and finally doing a great big poo beside us. When I tell her to read the sign and piss off (nicely but not very nicely) she moans at me - I persisted and they all left looking agrieved, and mouthing off. Dogs and boats do not mix and boaties should respect private property - I am willing to bet that if I stomped round to their place and put my kids in her pool and shat on her lawn she would be a trifle upset. I freaking hate dogs on boats - on that stretch of the Corramandel there are bird sanctuaries and private islands - so they simply cannot keep a dog on a boat without either landing on a sanctuary or landing on someone elses island. Worst bit was they looked like day trippers - wtf would you take a dog on a launch for a day trip - tie the freaking thing to a post. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Just out of interest - can you "own" a beach, isn't it public property up to a certain distance from the high tide mark? Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 below the high tide line is public isnt it? Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Rocket Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 It depends But yes you can own a beach above the water line - and dogs don't get that so taking a dog to a private beach is just taking the piss. I now have some sympathy for Spencer Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 As far as I understand it only 2 places in NZ remain where property owners own 'to the waterline' i.e. below the high tide line. One is Cheltenham Beach in Devonport. I also understand that when the property chances hands that right disappears now. And there is less full ownership of any beaches as property changes hands. The Queens Chain kicks in. But if say the beach is out the back of a farm the owner can stop access to it by simply saying no one is allowed to cross their land to get to it. Unfortunately they have issues if someone arrives by boat though. People letting dogs leave a dump isn't helping anyone. That just annoys both sides. Sympathy for Spencer??? You haven't seen his latest effort in Kawau then. He's building 200 odd meters of broad-walk and jetty a truck can drive over. Every inch of the structure is on top of public land, much of which will shortly be unavailable for everyone. Apart from the eye-sore look it'll bring to the place it is still on public land. No sympathy from me sorry, it works both ways. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Dogs and boats dont mix, its cruel to have them couped up particurly in summer when its damn hot. I have two Black Labs and they stay home - too hot, not enough room and hanging on when you are busting for a piss and there is nowhere to go is just not fun. Aside from the above its bloody hard keeping the little buggers on board - my two dive off whenever they see something (or nothing) in the water. Then theres the hair in the bilge... Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Private ownership and beaches don't mix, attitudes like that are becoming more and more prevalent and really piss me off. Our dog doesn't go near other people or interfere with anyone elses enjoyment of the beach, amazed those launch owners were so polite, know what I would have said. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Rocket Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 The Owners of this beach provide landing and water at another beach on the island for the general public. They own it and the other beaches - it is plain arrogance by the boaties - there is a thing called riparian rights and they vary from place to place. How do we expect to ever have a tourist business in NZ if we have such a cavalier attitude to property rights? Dex you would be served with a trespass notice if you persisted - and the cops will drag you away. As to dogs not going near other people lets get real here what do you think a dog will do after beeing cooped up on a boat all day? It aint the dogs fault... they bother me by being there cos I know what the primary purpose for bringing them ashore is. Try wandering into Huka Lodge for a crap... Link to post Share on other sites
Clipper 346 Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Our dog doesn't go near other people or interfere with anyone elses enjoyment of the beach. Dog sh*t interferes with my enjoyment of the beach. And the park. And the street. And if i catch the dog that has twice shat on my lawn (after it has come through the gate). I will follow it home and take a dump on its owners doorstep. Link to post Share on other sites
darkside 61 Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 I think its great that kiwis have a cavalier attitude to property rights. Most property owners in NZ have a great attitude to people "invading" their land. Great Merrcury's rules are very sensible, no fires, no dogs, take your rubish, leave the stock alone, stay away from the houses and a few others. But you are free to hike and enjoy the beaches. Not many private islands in the Med or Caribbean will let you near them. In Borabora yachties get asked to move anchor in front of one resort because they are spoiling the view for the guests. People walk past my house down private access to the beach every week in summer. What does it matter? Also I think you will find that the tresspass sign means nothing, you actually have to be asked to leave. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Been snooping around, it appears about 70% of the coast is protected by the queens chain, so 30% isn't. What a pity Queen Victoria's directive wasn't adhered to 100%, then we would have the chain on all our coast. What I can't find is whethter the govt has any directive/policy on including the QC when private property changes hands - anyone? Also not sure how one is to figure out which bits are public and which bits are private. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Rocket Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Look at the OIC website they are trying (not very succesfully) to unravel private property rights. You will note the number of islands listed as having "ownership rights". Mercury Is is not a resort nor is it trying to be - and I think the no dogs rule seems pretty pertinent. Many islands are farmed - farmers have the right to shoot dogs on their property - even in the middle of Greenlane/One Tree Hill that goes on. Why would you take a dog to someonelse's island - even if you believed in the right to the Queens Chain try explaining it to your dog. I suppose it is the same attitude that allows people to walk their ferret on Great Barrier or take their dog to a bird sanctuary for a run around. Not much debate here - just determined disrespect for property rights. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 I googled OIC and got Organization of the Islamic Conference, what are you referring to? Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 farmers have the right to shoot dogs on their property ....if they are suspected of worrying stock. Not all dogs are bad Rocket...its the owners. I use my two Labs for hunting deer, as of about 3 years ago it costs me another $200 per year per dog and two trips per annum to Whangerei to have them recertified as 'bird safe' for DOC land, reserves etc. Dogs need to be tattooed, microchipped and I need original current certs for both dogs. Copies wont do and the chopper companies wont fly you if you dont have... Then I bump into 3 dudes in the deapest darkest part of the urewera's with 10 unregistered, un-tagged, un-certified dogs running around which really pisses me off. This should link to the 'should powerboat users be licenced' thread - same deal - only effects the guys that do the right thing. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Rocket Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Overseas Investment Commission Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Rocket Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Agree that the owners are the problem Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 So they own the entire beach under the hightide mark as well? Maybe its not the foreshore laws and Maori we need to be worried about then. Dog craps, scoop it up and dump it out to sea, no biggie or different from taking it for a walk round the block. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 The Owners of this beach provide landing and water at another beach on the island for the general public. They own it and the other beaches - it is plain arrogance by the boaties - there is a thing called riparian rights Don't confuse riparian rights with ownership or control, they are very differing kettles of fish. Riparian rights only give a property owner access to the water, they do knot give any ownership rights to that bit of land only the right for access over it. Basically 99% of the land between MHWS (Mean High Water Spring) and out to the territorial limit is owned by the Crown. Riparian rights give an adjoining land owner access but that is sort of redundant as public have the right to use that bit of land anyway as it is always owned by the Crown bar a very very small number of specific places. As I understand it no land owner with riparian rights can use that to enforce any sort of control or stop access by the public. There is some cases where they can apply for a RC to get more use to the land i.e. put in a jetty or similar but that is done case by case and if it is approved it is still only a temporary right, even if temporary may mean 10, 20 50 years or 99 as is the case with some Marinas for example. The time frame can vary. But ownership of the land or the land covered by the structure never leaves the Crown. The Queens chain is different again. Say using 'Rocket Island' as a hypothetical example. The island has been in private ownership for donkeys years so more than likely 'owns' right down to the High water mark (later amended to MHWS so they lost a small amount). Mr Owner decides he'll subdivide into 4 lots and flick them to rich US software makers for a gazillion bucks each. When Mr Owner applies for Consent to subdivide the chances are exceptionally high the Council will take 20mts from MHWS and in doing so get the Queens chain thing happening. Again during the consent process Mr Owner could apply for a smaller or dispensate distance due to say a structure that has been inside this 20mts. It would be very unusual for Consent to be given to have zero mts of Queens chain, they want something even if in the odd case it's bugger all. It's all a bloody shambles really. Way to many think this or that, way to many interpretations and a few who seem to think that if they stick Private Property signs up it'll help to keep the masses thinking public access to places is knot allowed when in fact it is. Basically land owners who have land adjoining MHWS or the Queens chain don't really have feck all rights bar the semi-redundant Riparian rights. So basically in all but the one or 2 very rare cases no one can stop the public using any land below MHWS bar the Govt itself. In some and a growing number of places they also have total rights to use up to 20mts above MHWS. But note that is knot all places yet and in some cases the public maybe stopped due to specific reasons like safety, historical places and things like that. So walking below MHWS is OK but venturing above that is possibly still fought with dangers and issues in many places. Also if you are talking a river inland there are other considerations to be aware of. The above is more about coastal waters than riverside. That is as I understand it in a brief none technical 'the gist of it' way. You could try using that as a case for a RC but you'll find there are lots of ins and outs knot mentioned as they would use just about all the bandwidth available in NZ. And as things are fluid it may all change tomorrow. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 What KM wrote seems right c/f the reading I have been doing, except for the % of coast that is/isn't affected by the Queen's chain. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.