Because wilderness areas are places for quiet enjoyment, free from obvious human impact, and require physical endeavour to achieve in full measure the wilderness experience, the use of powered vehicles, boats or aircraft will not be permitted.
Traditionally, wilderness in the Western world is a place where people travel independently, or ‘under their own steam’ – for example on foot or by kayak. This is one of the core values in most international wilderness legislation and policy, including the New Zealand Wilderness Policy 1985. However, there is a long history of motorised access to Fiordland (primarily because of its size and remoteness) which has meant that some of the traditional wilderness ideals have been compromised in certain areas. Although (with the exception of hunting access to certain wilderness areas during the roar) mechanised access to wilderness areas is prohibited, it is still permissible to access remote areas92 and the boundaries of wilderness areas by motorised means. Some people argue that this is the only feasible way for anyone to achieve a wilderness experience in Fiordland because of its remoteness and inaccessibility. However, as will be explained in Chapter Nine, this is certainly not a view which is shared by everyone. In addition, other developments such as improvements in technology and broader social factors (a growing urban population, increasing disposable income, busier lives, growing diversity of recreational activities therefore less time and experience) have also meant that motorised transport is being used more and more to facilitate recreational experiences in the area. This issue is one of the main themes in Chapter Nine.
Of the sixty seven participants in this study, only seven completed their trip entirely without the aid of some form of motorised transport within the Park. All of the other participants used either aircraft (helicopter or fixed wing), jet boat, small power craft or commercial fishing vessel (or a combination of these) to access and/or depart from their chosen area. Reasons given for the use of motorised transport included time constraints, the inaccessibility of certain areas, a desire to see Fiordland from a different perspective (e.g. from the air) and the difficulties of carrying supplies for an extended trip. It is important to note that no one actually used motorised transport during their visit (with the exception of a hunter who was rescued by helicopter and a kayaker who departed on a flight which was servicing a fishing vessel). Participants all travelled under their own steam during their trip, and frequently emphasised the importance of being self sufficient, self reliant and away from the sights and sounds of civilisation (especially motorised transport) when in wilderness.
The two methods of self-sufficient travel used by respondents during their trip were on foot, and by kayak. Sixty one people travelled on foot, and six used a combination of walking (including portaging kayaks) and kayaking. The issue of how people should access (and travel within) wilderness is extremely complex, philosophical, and often controversial. Many
92
The Fiordland National Park Plan (DOC 2008c) now stipulates exactly where and how frequently each concessioned aircraft operator can land.
respondents (in particular, New Zealanders) had very strong views on this topic, which are in part a reflection of existing wilderness legislation and policy, but are also rooted in the unique social and historic context of New Zealand.
7.11 Chapter Summary
This chapter has provided a variety of information about the study participants and their wilderness trips. This included basic descriptive data (age and nationality) and also information about where they went, how long they went for, how they travelled, who they went with and what they were expecting from their experiences. The key findings to note from this chapter are: 1) wilderness is neither something for the very young, nor the elderly. The window of opportunity (based on age, available time and level of experience) is relatively small and visitors seem to be aware of the need to maximise their time available by accessing wilderness while they are still fit and able; 2) the New Zealand wilderness resource is
becoming increasingly popular amongst international visitors, and this may be causing anger amongst some New Zealanders who feel like they are being ‘pushed out’; 3) small group travel is definitely the preferred way to experience New Zealand wilderness, although for personal or practical reasons, some people may choose to travel alone or in a larger group; 4) longer trips of at least five days are regarded by existing users as the ‘right’ way to experience wilderness because this enables visitors to become fully immersed in the setting, and to appreciate the numerous facets of wilderness; and 5) the expectations expressed by study respondents were generally consistent with the way wilderness is described in New Zealand policy, legislation and in the management plans for Fiordland (discussed in Chapter Five). Most people were expecting a challenging trip in a remote, natural, untouched and highly scenic location, with few other visitors and little evidence of human modification. In addition, a number of participants discussed what they did not expect to see in wilderness; highlighting the importance of wilderness as a relational concept (i.e. a contrast to society).
The congruence between visitor expectations and New Zealand legislative definitions of wilderness suggests that, either the management policies reflect wilderness users’ views very accurately, or that the participants in this study base their views on/expectations of wilderness on ideas and images contained in contemporary legislation and policy. Many of the comments made by respondents (especially New Zealanders) indicated that they had very specific ideas about what they were likely to (or what they were expecting to) encounter during their
wilderness trip. This illustrates that they have particular understandings or preconceived ideas about what is appropriate in wilderness, where and when. Again, these beliefs are likely to be
a reflection of the ideas contained in existing policy and legislation, but may also have deep social and cultural roots.
A potential management issue which was raised in this chapter is the issue of motorised access. This is a complex issue because motorised transport clearly goes against many of the core wilderness values embodied in policy and legislation, but there is a long history of motorised transport in Fiordland because of its remoteness and inaccessibility. I return to this in Chapter Nine.
In the following chapter, I explore the meanings and values of New Zealand wilderness identified by respondents. This will be followed (in Chapter Ten) by an examination of the main threats to contemporary wilderness values.