ANGLER IN COURT

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22406, 30 April 1936, Page 12

ANGLER IN COURT

AN OVERSEAS VISITOR BREACH OF REGULATION BENCH DISMISSES CHARGE [by telegraph—OWN CORRESPONDENT] ROTORUA, Wednesday The contention that it was not reasonable that overseas visitors should be prosecuted for technical breaches of the trout-fishing regulations unless definite steps are taken to bring new amendments under their notice by signs erected in tho particular areas was made by tho defendant in a prosecution heard before Messrs. F. Goodson and O. H. Coleman, J.P.'s, in the Police Court this morning. The defendant in the case was Horace Graham Kennedy, an Indian Army officer, who is on a visit to the Dominion before proceeding to England on furlough. He was charged that on April 18 ho fished for trout in the Tongariro River above tho point where the stream, known as Dan's Creek, leaves the river, contrary to the Taupo troutfishing regulations and their amendments. A New Amendment Mr- A. Kean, conservator of fish and game, who prosecuted, stated that tho charge was the first brought under a new amendment to the Taupo troutfishing regulations, which had come into force oil November 1 last, and prohibited fishing from boats above the point where Dan's Creek leaves tho Tongariro River. Defendant was accosted some distance above this point by Ranger Francis, and although it was not considered that defendant had committed an intentional breach of the regulations, the ranger had to car y out his duty. The Bench: Is any mention of the new regulation noted on the licence? Mr. Kean: No. It is the practice of tho department to provide the agents issuing licences with copies of the regulations and amendments from time to time, although I do not know whether defendant was given a copy. Fished Near Ranger Defendant admitted tho technical offence, and said that while lie was fishing with two companions from a boat a sudden storm had made them put into the river for shelter. As they passed up tho river they passed two other boats, one of which contained the ranger, who was fishing. Some distance furthev on. defendant commenced to fish, but was informed by the ranger that he had committed an offence. He had been fishing only about 250 yards above tho stream and was unaware that it was a prohibited area for fishing from a boat, particularly as he had seen the ranger himself fishing only a short distance away. •' " Discourtesy to Visitors " There was no notice at the spot for tho guidance of strangers, said defendant. He would suggest to the Court that when the fishing regulations were framed, although they wore intended to apply to all anglers, they were meant to apply more particularly to local fishermen. When overseas anglers specially came to the Dominion to fish it was a discourtesy to charge them with trifling breaches of the regulations. In this case a conviction would mean the confiscation of valuable fishing gear, and he, accordingly, asked that the charge should be dismissed or an order made for tho return of liis gear. The Bench stated that although it realised that the regulations had to be observed, this was the first prosecution under the amendment to the regulations, and it was satisfied that defendant had committed tho offence unknowingly. The charge would be dismissed on payment of costs, and although the Bench could not make an order for the return of the gear, it was of opinion that this would be done by the department.