Jump to content


Photo

Launch Forfeited for Taking undersize Scallops : Marlborough Sounds, Pelorus Sound.


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#11 harrytom

harrytom

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,598 posts
  • LocationAuckland

Posted 03 March 2016 - 05:58 PM

good job... Who remembers this lady if you think that loosing your boat was excessive?

 

http://www.stuff.co....28-000-Audi-car

 

 

$128k car for 1100 cockles + welks + oysters.


  • 1
The boss said "see you in the morning"didnt know he liked sailing

#12 darkside

darkside

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 384 posts

Posted 03 March 2016 - 08:14 PM

Happy to have the book thrown at those that break the fisheries rules but I don't see the "justice" in vessel or car seizures.

Why does the person in the Audi taking the cockles pay a higher penalty than those on foot?

 

Also as a diver I don't like the fact you are breaking the law possessing paua with scuba tanks on board.

It doesn't matter if you took the paua on a snorkel and Sian Elias saw you do it, you are still guilty.

Is there any other example of that in English law?

That law is only there because it is enforceable, not because it is right or just.


  • 0

#13 DrWatson

DrWatson

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,060 posts
  • LocationLand locked

Posted 03 March 2016 - 10:25 PM

Happy to have the book thrown at those that break the fisheries rules but I don't see the "justice" in vessel or car seizures.

Why does the person in the Audi taking the cockles pay a higher penalty than those on foot?

 

Also as a diver I don't like the fact you are breaking the law possessing paua with scuba tanks on board.

It doesn't matter if you took the paua on a snorkel and Sian Elias saw you do it, you are still guilty.

Is there any other example of that in English law?

That law is only there because it is enforceable, not because it is right or just.

 

I agree that I find some aspects of the recreational fishing act rather poorly written. Often it does not take into account the practicalities of many situations.

 

I'm firmly against any act which criminalises through an assumption of guilt. That by "X and Y in one spot you are therefore guilty" etc, regardless of if you did it. 

 

ie, shucking shellfish below the hightide line (what about on your boat?). Or has that been fixed in recent amendments?

 

Or the possession of certain fishing gear on your vessel in a certain area. For example in the BOI there is a seasonal ban on net fishing in a certain area roughly bounded by Tapeka point, the islands out to Urupukapuka and back to Rawhiti, and along the mainland. So, if you are lucky (or unlucky?) enough to live on the mainland there with your own boat ramp, you can't legally have a certain fishing net (or long line) on your boat even if you want to head out to somewhere else. 

 

Or you're on your summer cruise and you park up at Roberton. Deep in the bottom of your lazzarette you have a snapper net, you haven't used it for 5 years but it's still there. You're now breaking the law, and could be prosecuted and lose your boat.

 

Poorly written laws are the ammunition end of arbitrary prosecution wedge "at the discretion of the enforcing officer", who all too often are not capable of objective discretion.

 

However, in the situation above, where a car was forfeited, I think it's a good idea to tie the punishment to the ability of the person to pay. I think the punishment should have the same psychological effect on each guilty party. The guy with a crap job and 10 kids in South Auckland is going to feel the loss of his 2K Enema far more keenly than the rich Chinese lady who cops a 2K fine. In all honesty, she can probably go out and buy a new Audi tomorrow...

 

Also, I think you'd be hard pressed to carry 900 oysters and 1100 cockles on foot...

 

Speeding tickets in Switzerland are, above a certain speed (+15kph?), tied to your salary... occasionally we read of someone coping a 200K fine...


  • 0

"Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer"

 


#14 wheels

wheels

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,534 posts

Posted 04 March 2016 - 07:27 AM

I agree, penalties need to be equal for all offenders. There seems to be very little in the way of consistency. Even in this particular case, the Officers fined him $1000, he took it to court, he lost $50K. Surely the original fine should have been upheld, rather than the harsher penalty of losing the Boat. Of course, it may have been that losing the boat was the more appropriate penalty, but if that was the case, then the officers should have not given the fine of $1K. They should have simply referred the case to Court. As opposed to some regurgitated garbage, pretty much all of the Pelorus Sound is Scallop Bed. Ketu is shallower and easy to dredge for the amateur. Much of the rest of the Sound opposite Ketu Bay was decimated many years back by a guy that commercially trawled the area and pretty much wiped the other side of that area completely out. He was caught and lost the Boat he was using at the time, which was not his, so someone else paid the price. There can still be Scallops found on the other side and they are slowly re establishing beds.
 


  • -1

#15 wheels

wheels

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,534 posts

Posted 04 March 2016 - 06:25 PM

And here is a particular example of this seeming unbalance of penalties given. Unbalanced as I see it anyway.
Today at court, three people from Kaikoura were convicted of receiving and selling Crayfish, equating to about $70K in commercial value. There was a high possibility that two of the offenders would receive jail time of around 15 to 18months. But in the end, two were sentenced to just community detention and 250hrs of community work and the other guy just 400hr of community work, because his home was unsuitable for detention. They had no property/vehicles seized because these three people were not caught catching the Crays.
 

      Just for interest, 43 people had been arrested in the undercover operation with the seizure of 10 Cars, 5 Boats and a Tractor. I don't know what fines these 40 other got. I hope that info will be released in the court info next week.


  • -1

#16 AJ Oliver

AJ Oliver

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 935 posts

Posted 04 March 2016 - 07:08 PM

Civilized countries make the fines proportionate to the offender's income (wealth would be even better). 

 

http://www.theatlant...-ticket/387484/


  • 0

#17 harrytom

harrytom

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,598 posts
  • LocationAuckland

Posted 05 March 2016 - 04:16 AM

As far as I am concerned .Penalties for taking under fish/shellfish or excess are not high enough.

They are taking a natural resource that belongs to all people of nz,unlike stealing someones possessions.


  • 0
The boss said "see you in the morning"didnt know he liked sailing

#18 wheels

wheels

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,534 posts

Posted 05 March 2016 - 05:27 AM

Yes agree and don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the penalties are too high for some cases. I am saying that there seems to be no consistency in the level of penalty for all. Although I realise it is the Jude that determines what a Penalty will be and that penalty is based in number of things the Judge brings in to consideration, but sometimes I do wonder if a Judge is not living on Planet Earth with some of the Rulings we hear about.


  • -1

#19 harrytom

harrytom

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,598 posts
  • LocationAuckland

Posted 05 March 2016 - 06:55 AM

spent a day at Kawakawa bay with the honorary Fisheries Officers and asked about penalties,they said some of the offenders  and there boats are worth nothing.(we do not need a yard full of junk)some of the offenders are driven by church leaders and do not care about penalties. What gets them is they can issue a fine and due to offender not being able to pay the Judicial system says bad boy do not do it again,next week back offending.

 

My problem with it all is once caught with  say 100 undersize snapper,there have been many cases,issued a $200 fine allowed to keep their entitlement of 7 and the rest get destroyed ,put back in the sea.When they could be used to feed the missions as long as they are on ice and fresh.  just a waste of resources..

 

Now in the case of this of scollops and the cockle lady when you look at the amount one would say they were being supplied to a restaurant/takeaway shop via the back door.   If proven I presume Mpi would then raid the business and would want to see receipts for fish in shop?no receipt confiscate all fish/shellfish,of which there have been a few cases where this happens.

 

There were 2 bins of scallops on board – 1 containing 104 legal sized scallops, the other containing 155 scallops, of which 133 were undersize. Both bins of scallops were clean of mud and other debris.

 

Watch the Aussie water police programs and see what fine get issued over there,no wet bus ticket and they do not care if they ruin your business.


  • 0
The boss said "see you in the morning"didnt know he liked sailing

#20 wheels

wheels

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,534 posts

Posted 05 March 2016 - 07:39 AM

I am in no way defending this guy, but to be fair, the total of 259 scallops may be legal. Because we do not know hoe any were on board. It is 50Scallops per person, which I actually think is too high a number, but anyway, it's 50. Of course, everyone that claims their 50 must have taken part in the collection of them. For dragging, Both the Driver and the person handling the dredge are participating. So a total of 100 correct size could be kept. We have to assume there were at least 5 persons on board and all 5 had a hand in collecting the Scallops.. The article does not say.

So far I have not been able to find out any more on this case. It was heard over in Nelson and lets just say, I don't have "sources" over there ;-)


  • -1




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users