Fish and Game Regulations Update - Part Two

January 1999 - written by Ross Millichamp. The Legal Standing of Fish and Game Regulations
Fish and Game regulations are contained in various statutes such as the Conservation Act, Freshwater Fisheries Regulations and Anglers Notice. At present the only way of handling breaches of these regulations is through a prosecution in the District Court. Any ‘warning’ issued has no legal standing and so the only option available to Fish and Game is to either let the offender off scot-free or to lay an information in the District Court. Those cases that do proceed are civil (not criminal) prosecutions, but in most cases they still require the offender to front up at the District Court and receive their sentence. There is legislation currently before Parliament, which if passed, will allow Fish and Game to offer instant fines instead of court proceedings for less serious offences. However, there is no certainty that the legislation will become law. How Are Offences Detected?
At the time when Acclimatisation Societies were managing freshwater sports fish, anglers were legally required to produce their licence on the demand of any other licence holder. That regulation has now been abandoned and licences need only be produced on the demand of a Fish and Game warranted officer (or police officer). Fish and Game warranted officers are a mix of paid and voluntary workers. The bulk of the work in the field is conducted by honorary rangers while staff tend to be involved more in co-ordination and processing the prosecutions which come before the Fish and Game Council. The Fish and Game ranger warrant gives the holder a number of powers with respect to gathering information and seizing evidence from suspected offenders. Those powers are above and beyond those of ordinary citizens and are the tools that allow officers to collect the material required for a prosecution to proceed. However, ordinary anglers can also bring prosecutions in the absence of a warrant holder if they see an offence being committed. In this case they present the evidence to Fish and Game who, if satisfied that the evidence is sufficient, may lay charges in the District Court. In this case the angler must be prepared to stand in court as a prosecution witness. One such case was recently heard where two anglers observed another intentionally foul-hooking salmon in the Rangitata River. Fish and Game lay charges and the offender received a very substantial fine (close to $2000 including costs) despite the fact that no Fish and Game ranger had observed the offence. How Much Compliance?
Most anglers have very high expectations of Fish and Game with respect to enforcing the regulations. One of the constant complaints we receive from anglers is that we do not do enough compliance work. However, as crown entities with a number of statutory functions, compliance must take its place alongside other Fish and Game work. For the record, around 10% of Fish and Game income is currently spent on compliance activities, which is probably about the right amount. If we spent all our time and money on compliance and nothing on other functions such as habitat protection and species management, there would be few fish left to protect from poachers. The fact that only around 10% of Fish and Game income is spent on compliance must be considered alongside the fact that the majority of the work is carried out by unpaid volunteers. This means that anglers are getting a lot for their money. In the North Canterbury region around 10% of licences issued get checked during the season and upwards of fifty prosecutions may proceed to the District Court. One thing that frustrates me about the public’s compliance expectations is their expectation of honorary rangers. I recently chaired a public meeting at a rivermouth bach settlement, which was held to try to raise awareness of trout by-catch in the nets set by flounder and mullet fishermen. One of our honorary rangers resides at that settlement and was present at the meeting. The message I received from hut owners was that they expected the resident honorary ranger to be available at their beck and call to deal with every alleged offence being committed by the thousands of anglers who frequent this popular fishing location. In effect, they had an expectation that he was a full-time employee of Fish and Game. Clearly, this is not the case and anglers must understand that honorary rangers are volunteers who selfishly give up some (but not all) of their spare time to perform a service to their community. JPs are not expected to be at court full-time and charity workers are expected to contribute more than a few hours each week to their chosen cause. By comparison with other voluntary workers, honorary rangers give up a huge amount of their free time to their chosen public service, and we anglers should be grateful. Compliance is a part of the Fish and Game work plan, which is under constant scrutiny. It is always a balancing act when deciding how much time and money should be spent on that project versus other equally valid projects such as species management, habitat management and client servicing. Luckily, 99% of anglers make a real effort to stick to the regulations and the few that do transgress are the real minority. May 2000 - from the Fishing.net news desk.