ROD AND GUN Problem Of Disciplining Irresponsible Shooters

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31462, 31 August 1967, Page 6

ROD AND GUN Problem Of Disciplining Irresponsible Shooters

(Specially written for “The

Press” by .

JAMES SIERS)

Access across private property has always been a difficult question. In some parts of the world a man may still be shot for setting foot on someone else’s land without author, tty. Land and its possession are two factors which, probably more than any others, were responsible for most wars throughout mankind’s history. It seems to me that clause 103 of the Animals Bill, which seeks to consolidate the Stock Act, will make it .a criminal offence to cross private property with dog and/or gun. As the law stands at present, the onus is on the property-holder to prove damage or wilful intent; the new amendment decides the issue before it Can be put. Trespass was recently mentioned in the news when a nine-man deputation representing more than 230 farmers in the Wanganui area, called on the Minister of Justice and Mr D. J. Carter, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture,

to demand tougher laws against trespassing. The deputation listed cases of wilful damage and vandalism and said they had closed more than a million acres of land to shooters. In a television interview after their call at Parliament Buildings, the deputation said they had nothing against the legitimate sportsman. Members of the Wanganui Deerstalkers’ Association had excellent relations with the farmers and were considered the fanners’ friends. It was the irresponsible hunters and shooters who were the cause of the trouble. Control by Clubs

Why should an irresponsible few prejudice the case for many. How should this problem be met? Since the law already makes it an offence to cause damage to property or stock, how can stricter trespass laws prevent this type of damage? Should not this whole question be tackled from the other end: make sportsmen responsible for shooters?

Recently, I wrote about the aims of' the New Zealand Deerstalkers’ Association on firearms ownership. The association’s view is that weapons should not be issued without prospective owners first joining a bona-fide club. On this basis, all firearms owners would belong to the various organisations catering for their particular type of shooting. Big game hunters would join the Deerstalkers’ Association; big-bore range shooters would join rifle clubs; smallbore shooters would join the Deerstalkers’

and similarly bird and skeet shooters would join the appropriate club. Under this ‘‘Continental" system the club has authority to penalise the shooter who has committed a breach of its rules, or to help the police bring criminal proceedings against him for breaking the law, in which case, the shooters’ rights to own firearms may be cancelled for an unlimited period. As the law stands at present, a man may be convicted of causing wilful damage, but it still does not stop acts of vandalism. It would seem to me that the answer lies in taking away the means by which these acts can be committed. Self-Discipline It seems that the restrictions which are being applied by the Government in a series of moves, are tackling the problem from the wrong angle. The Forests Amendment Bill sought to permit the seizure of firearms by forestry workers; the Animals Bill seeks to put the onus on the shooter, two moves which are hardly likely to encourage self-discipline among responsible organisations. Where management has a problem with a persistent and clever unionist, it often resorts to promoting him to executive status. No responsible hunter would deny that the present system is inadequate and that the farmer has little redress against the nuisance, but the genuine sportsman would argue about the best means of control. Surely, if a shooter knows that a breach of the rules and regulations will cost him the right to possess a firearm, he will think twice about a misdemeanour than he would if he knew that such an offence would only earn him a token fine.

Surely also, if it is fair that a Rugby player should join a club before he can play Rugby, or that any sportsman must join an organisation before he can take part in organised sport, then it is' fair that hunters should be called to account by elected administrators and made to observe the rules by which their sport is conducted. The problem here is one of deciding Whether the Government will insist on establishing increasingly restrictive laws, with their subsequent policing problems, or whether it will favour the establishment of law-abiding, ethical and self-disciplining fishing and shooting organisations which are aware of their responsibilities to the landholder, the community and to their fellow sportsmen.