do you have a clue what my mob is :D
Printable View
do you have a clue what my mob is :D
Now you know thats not what I said...:D
I was simply pointing out there was cost to what happened to him... and that doesn't mean I was justifying anything...
I made no comment on the relative merit or otherwise of that outcome... I simply pointed out there was cost...
Do people know what 'hunt' means in law?
It does seem reading statutes is no more popular here than any other forum. What people 'reckon' isnt worth much in court.
Wild animal control act - look under definitions:
Hunt or kill, in relation to wild animals, includes—
(a) hunting or searching for any wild animal, and killing, taking, trapping, capturing, having in possession, tranquillising, or immobilising any such animal by any means:
(b) pursuing, disturbing, or molesting any such animal:
(c) taking or using any dog, firearm, vehicle, vessel, aircraft, net, snare, trap, poison, or like method while engaged in hunting any such animal, whether or not this results in capturing or killing any such animal:
(d) attempting to hunt or capture or kill any such animal while engaged in recreational, commercial, or guided hunting or hunting to capture live wild animals for export, farming, sale, breeding, exchange, public display, scientific, or other purposes:
(e) engaging in a wild animal recovery operation
'Molest' has an older meaning to do with harassing - the more modern interpretation of the word probably comes with other charges and is less popular. I hope.
Good luck arguing this if you get caught with scuba gear....in your vehicle....while in possession of paua.Quote:
Originally Posted by bang-thud-thump
The onus is on you to prove innocense - and it is bloody hard to do.
If you have a spotlight and a rifle, it is hard to argue you aren't hunting regardless of a paper definition...taking this into account, you fail the test of both b) and c).
Your thoughts?
I agree possession can/does imply guilt and its hard to disprove. I free dive/spear fish and collect paua. I dont have tanks but I go on a mates boat and we wouldnt have tanks within cooee of us. Too much risk and its made very public what can happen. Good job when it does. Screw the poachers! They ruin it for everyone.
In terms of hunting s38 of the WAC act states the onus is reversed - as it should be.
Wild Animal Control Act 1977 No 111 (as at 28 November 2013), Public Act 38 Presumptions and obligations in connection with hunting and killing – New Zealand Legislation
Take it from a land owners point of view. Unless you film a poacher lining up an animal, laying traps etc or butchering/carrying then you have bugger all chance of pinging them. Letting them walk where they want is ridiculous.
The onus is on the hunter to know where they are and have express permission of the land owner or occupier to be there.(thats in the act too)
Again - good job when they get busted.
I dont see any good reason to be on someones land with your hunting gear unless you have been caught by severe weather or injured and taking the quickest way out. And of course in doing thi you will have dumped your kill as you are after the quickest safest way out. If you can hump a deer you aint in immediate danger.
If you lose you car license in court for your first drink drive you get it back in 6 months. The FAL is a little harder to retrieve.
And I agree with the initial post - all people should be treated equally but beware of how poorly the media reports the 'facts' before we can make a balanced decision.