As is so often the way, it is the few who spoil it all for the majority. New Zealanders have been "freedom camping" for as long as they have lived in this country. Tramping and camping lore is pervasive and includes a certain etiquette pertaining to the delicate matter of being caught short in the bush.
And, in isolation, toiletting in the back blocks has never been a problem. Nature has an effective way of taking care of such "business".
But in recent times, this country has experienced an exponential increase in people freedom camping. Government sources suggest the numbers have doubled in the past decade, to 110,000 international visitors and more than 40,000 New Zealanders. Many of them appear unversed in either bush techniques, common courtesies, or the whereabouts of - admittedly limited in places - facilities.
The result is that many of the country's iconic camping and tourist sites have been routinely littered by human waste with the result that our priceless reputation for unspoiled natural beauty is being compromised.
This is unacceptable for an industry that plays such a critical role in the economy. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the Government has moved to address this vexed issue with the introduction this month of a proposed Freedom Camping Bill.
This will set an instant $200 fine for camping illegally and fines of up to $10,000 for illegally dumping campervan waste. It will also enable councils to determine where camping is allowed, where it is restricted to campervans with self-containment, and where it is prohibited.
The Department of Conservation will be able to make similar rules on the reserves it manages.
Councils in and around Otago have responded positively to the initiative, saying it will make it much easier to extract money from those found to be breaking the rules. At present, miscreants must be prosecuted through the courts, an exercise that can cost up to $3000 a time.
The new law will also require rental-car companies to keep records of names and addresses of clients to make it possible to follow up and collect fines - a sensible move given that it is often those renting from the cheaper, non-self-contained end of the campervan market who are responsible for much of the mess.
The Bill appears to say little or nothing about the provision of additional toilet facilities for campers, but if the scheme proves a revenue-gathering success, a proportion of it should be fed back into the industry for just such purposes.
Some in the camping and tramping fraternity see the proposal as an assault on long-held freedoms, but this is an overreaction. The infringement system in the proposed Bill does not apply to the back country - rather to areas within 1km of a formed road or the sea, or 500m of a great walk track.
And it applies only if camping has been explicitly restricted. As such, it is a welcome initiative and should be supported.
And another thing
Rightly, under the Human Rights Act, it is illegal to prevent anyone from breast-feeding in public. Surely the days are long gone when mothers and babies were effectively confined to isolation by the new-born's requirement for regular sustenance, and by society's squeamishness about an entirely natural, indeed, healthy and recommended practice.
However, as is often the case where the law acts in areas of nuanced cultural sensitivity, a degree of common sense should be applied.
Unfortunately, this appears not to have been the case in the instance of the Arthur Street Cafe in Timaru, which finds itself embroiled in a media blizzard over a breast-feeding incident.
This blew in after cafe proprietor Juliet Whitley asked breast-feeding mother Megan Fitzgerald to cover herself with a tea towel while she fed her 3-month-old daughter Jada in the cafe.
Mrs Fitzgerald subsequently complained on a social networking site and the matter erupted: Mrs Whitley and her cafe were subjected to a boycott campaign, and abusive phone calls. "I'm definitely not anti-breast-feeding. I breastfed my own son," explained Mrs Whitley.
"It's just that her shirt was unbuttoned all the way down and it was very exposed." She has subsequently apologised for calling the manner of Mrs Fitzgerald's breast-feeding "confrontational", but she is surely entitled to suggest that a degree of decorum be observed on her premises - in this as much as in other behavioural matters - without reaping such a storm of vitriolic abuse.
