The more that is revealed about the Department of Conservation ‘‘trial'' to ramp up helicopter flight numbers on to the isolated Ngapunatoru Ice Plateau in Fiordland the worse it looks.
Doc bowed to the lobbying by helicopter companies and agreed to a one-year trial to increase flight numbers from a limit of 10 a day to 80.
In doing so, it blatantly overrode the spirit of the Fiordland National Park Management Plan, failed to consult interested parties and ignored serious misgivings.
Doc in many of its roles deserves praise.
It has a vast "estate'' and limited funds.
It maintains networks of tracks and huts, endeavours to control pests and save threatened species, all the while under pressure from both commercial and conservation interests.
Because most staff working with dedication and skill, the flights' debacle is all the more disappointing.
Federated Mountain Clubs (FMC) - an umbrella organisation for outdoor clubs with about 20,000 members - was alarmed and upset when news of the plan first emerged this year.
Excluded from consultation, it sought, under the Official Information Act, documents relating to the decision.
Doc responded with a $1600 fee demand, which FMC began to try to raise, before Doc was shamed into waiving the charge.
What the papers reveal is disturbing.
As FMC president Peter Wilson said, doubt is cast on Doc's ability and willingness to regulate the tourism industry according to the plans worked out and agreed to.
The papers also show Doc cannot control the daily flight limits agreed to in 2007, that it may have collected money from landings in breach of the plan, and that there are concerns about "unsafe practices''.
The Southland Conservation Board, which advises Doc, listed issues - about not following correct procedures, about not allowing potentially affected parties to present their concerns and about the so-called trial.
Mr Wilson compared the pretence of a trialwith Japanese whaling under the guise of research.
Indeed, what is the trial supposed to uncover and what would it achieve?
And what monitoring and research will be in place?
New Zealand needs to pay its way in the world, and the boom in tourism has helped compensate for the fall in dairy prices.
Commercial opportunities provide essential income for the nation, businesses and Doc itself.
Nonetheless, New Zealand's wonder, its wild remote corners, its attraction as a destination of space and boundless beauty will be ruined by the buzz of helicopters all around the mountains.
The alternative is to concentrate on certain areas - Doc's established approach - and commercialise them, leaving much to be admired from afar in its relative purity.
Some of the wilderness places are, it is true, beyond the physical reach of almost all New Zealanders.
But that does not mean we should open them up, and in a harshly intrusive way, to another small group, wealthy tourists who can afford costly helicopter flights.
Doc was slammed last year by the Ombudsman when it disregarded management plans to arbitrarily increase walker numbers on the Routeburn Track.
The Ombudsman described Doc reasoning as "nonsense on stilts''.
Once again, Doc has made a farce of the checks on the use of our national parks.
Clearly, it is under pressure from exploding tourist demand.
At the same time, what pressure, stated or implied, has been coming from the Government?
Doc needs sometimes to be able to say no to tourist industry demands and do so for the right reasons.
It, and this country's special places, should not be for sale to the highest bidder.
New Zealand and Doc will face further increased tourist pressures.
They will have to find ways to absorb these and to provide tourism opportunities.
But that must not be at the expense of proper and fair processes, and not at the cost of New Zealand's backcountry soul.
