The "Routeburn Rage" Running Race Concession

The "Routeburn Rage"

This is another example from Otago Conservancy of subjective and biased processing of an application for concession for a running race on the Routeburn Track. Otago Conservancy made a subjective assessment of the social effects of 300 runners on trampers.

New information was brought into the process after a public hearing.

The analysis of submissions was biased as 300 postcards from harrier club members (likely race entrants) were considered to represent public opinion.

The adverse effect of displacement of trampers was ignored.

A flawed monitoring program was set up.

The irrelevant fact that the race was in May, and not summer, was incorrectly considered to be mitigation.

19 March 2001 Submission on the Routeburn Rage Mountain Run Concession
19 March 2001 Covering letter for the submissions
12 April 2001 DOC Report to Approve "Routeburn Rage" 2001 Otago Conservancy Open in new page
November 2001 'Routeburn Rage' Run approved by DOC (Wilderness)
November 2001 Routeburn Rage Mountain Run Concession (FMC Bulletin) Open in new page
30 April 2002 Letter to Director General
26 July 2002 Reply from Director General
30 September 2002 Second Letter to Director General
13 November 2002 Reply from Director General
November 2002. Poor Process and Bias (FMC Bulletin) Open in new page
25 March 2003 Letter from Otago advising of 2003 Race 
23 April 2003 Complaint to Ombudsman 
28 April 2003 Further Complaint to Ombudsman