Marine Park Sanctuary zones - Mate Busted for driving through

[Chenz]

A mate was recently up the coast and was travelling at sea between Forster and Port Stephens. He was aware of the boundaries via his chart plotter of the Port Stephens Great Lakes Marine Park near Seal Rocks. Thinking he knew the rules about travelling through the Seal Rocks Sanctuary Zone they cut the corner and proceeded home.

When they got to the ramp a fisheries boat pulled up and the officer told him he was going to be fined $500 and issued an infringement notice to him. When asked why the officer told him he was trolling and they had him on film going through the zone. My mate denied this and told him to have a look as they had no trolling gear or lures on board as they were soft plastic fishing reefs. He showed him his chart plotter track and the officer said "see you were not going in a straight line so you must have been trolling. My mate told him he was putting in new coordinates into the plotter to fish some other reef locations further south when he was not going straight.

As I am travelling up there in a couple of weeks I sent an email to then asking to clarify as their user guide simply states states “Vessels must stow any fishing gear whilst transiting a sanctuary zone”. What does this mean and what do I need to do with fishing rods and other fishing gear on the vessel?

They replied "Any vessel may transit through a sanctuary zone.

When transporting fishing gear through a sanctuary zone (that is, to or from a place where the fishing gear may be lawfully used) such gear must be in the 'authorised state'. This means any fishing line must be inboard and not baited, fishing nets must be clear of the water, and any other fishing gear must be stowed.

Vessels anchored, moored, or aground in a sanctuary zone must have all fishing lines un-rigged". This is what my mate was doing but to fight it he has to take a day off work and travel from Sydney to Port Stephens.

Some people should not be given authority as they simply abuse it. During the Xmas period I witnessed persons illegally fishing and taking shellfish from rock platforms in Sydney. I called Fisheries and was told they don't have an officer to attend on Sydney Harbour on the weekend. They have no problem however with having one with a video camera up the coast accusing people of doing things they were not.

I am all for rules and regulations but this is just a stitch up.

[Ean Austral]

Fight the charge in court - I am assuming you have the rules in writing. Save all chart plot data hopefully he still has it. Did they come alongside him when he was in the sanctuary zone and catch him in the ? - or at the wharf with an assumption he was fishing ? - They will need to supply a copy of all their tracking and proof of him fishing.

Fisheries cops are usually just people who failed the police exam --- oops they are reelly good people [bigwhistle][bigwhistle][bigwhistle]

Cheers Ean

[Grumbles]

I am unsure of how a conviction for a fishing offense is viewed officially ie is it a permanent stain on his record aka criminal conviction, misdemeanor or.....? Such things have a way of coming back to bite years after the event.

Perhaps a chat to a solicitor may be prudent........

[cripesamighty]

So if they didn't physically see the boat at the time, how did they did they figure something was being done against the rules? Conjecture? Osmosis? Using the force?

Bureaucratic idiots. I would fight it. The first thing would be sending them a letter from a lawyer holding 'them' personally responsible to explain their accusation, not the bureaucratic juggernaut behind them.

[trout1105]

So if they didn't physically see the boat at the time, how did they did they figure something was being done against the rules? Conjecture? Osmosis? Using the force?

Bureaucratic idiots. I would fight it. The first thing would be sending them a letter from a lawyer holding 'them' personally responsible to explain their accusation, not the bureaucratic juggernaut behind them.

The Fisheries have these people on Film/video, No
Conjecture? Osmosis? or Using the force?
If they can see this boat on that footage with a line in the water then it is a Fair Cop, If they haven't then they have Nothing.
I personally think that the Fisheries do a Great job and the more people they can apprehend for illegal fishing the better as far as I am concerned.
Here in the West and in the NT IF you stuff up you can loose your boat, trailer, fishing gear, the catch and even the vehicle that towed the boat to the ramp, On top of that you can get huge fines as well.
I am pretty sure that Fisheries offences are criminal offences and will go on your record.

[Chenz]

The Fisheries have these people on Film/video, No
Conjecture? Osmosis? or Using the force?
If they can see this boat on that footage with a line in the water then it is a Fair Cop, If they haven't then they have Nothing.
I personally think that the Fisheries do a Great job and the more people they can apprehend for illegal fishing the better as far as I am concerned.
Here in the West and in the NT IF you stuff up you can loose your boat, trailer, fishing gear, the catch and even the vehicle that towed the boat to the ramp, On top of that you can get huge fines as well.
I am pretty sure that Fisheries offences are criminal offences and will go on your record.


They have a camera on shore that can detect a boat in the sanctuary zone. My mate said he could see a boat a few kilometres from him and this was the boat that met up with him at the ramp. I fail to see how they could have seen if he was fishing or not which he wasn't. There were rods in the rocket launchers above the cabin on his boat that would be plain to see. When my mate tried to reason with the officer he got the "I could take all your gear your boat and your car" threat.

If convicted this will be a mark against him on his record for good.

[vnx205]

I know this is a serious issue, but for some reason, it reminds me of this joke.

Out on the Lake - Joke | eBaum's World (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/jokes/out-on-the-lake/80885640/)

[Ean Austral]

They have a camera on shore that can detect a boat in the sanctuary zone. My mate said he could see a boat a few kilometres from him and this was the boat that met up with him at the ramp. I fail to see how they could have seen if he was fishing or not which he wasn't. There were rods in the rocket launchers above the cabin on his boat that would be plain to see. When my mate tried to reason with the officer he got the "I could take all your gear your boat and your car" threat.

If convicted this will be a mark against him on his record for good.

If they had concrete evidence they WOULD have taken it all.

In your earlier post you said it wasn't illegal for vessels to transit the sanctuary - do you have this in writing ?
Trolling requires you to change your speed, did they have a radar gun on him to see that had happened.

Unless there is more to this than what you have said , there is no way they could prove that he was trolling.

Cheers Ean

[Chenz]

If they had concrete evidence they WOULD have taken it all.

In your earlier post you said it wasn't illegal for vessels to transit the sanctuary - do you have this in writing ?
Trolling requires you to change your speed, did they have a radar gun on him to see that had happened.

Unless there is more to this than what you have said , there is no way they could prove that he was trolling.

Cheers Ean

This is the wording I received back from the Dept. of Primary Industries that administer Fisheries, which is out of their Marine Park Rules and Regulations:

"Any vessel may transit through a sanctuary zone. - ​(Doesn't say by how much, what course you take be it circular, straight or otherwise)

When transporting fishing gear through a sanctuary zone (that is, to or from a place where the fishing gear may be lawfully used) such gear must be in the 'authorised state'. This means any fishing line must be inboard and not baited, fishing nets must be clear of the water, and any other fishing gear must be stowed. - ( I asked what "stowed" meant and got no response apart from the statement here)

Vessels anchored, moored, or aground in a sanctuary zone must have all fishing lines un-rigged"

They claim, from his chart plot that he showed them because he went in a circular route and not straight through the zone they claim he was trolling. From the camera on shore and their vessel a kilometre or so away there is no way they can prove he was - which he wasn't. It would appear that you are guilty until proven otherwise. Even the infringement notice has wording to the effect, you can fight this in court but only 4% of cases are overturned. He is going to fight it in court. I wish I could go as I would love to these incompetent imbos lose.

As I said earlier in posts. I have no problems with Fisheries and encourage them to go out and enforce the laws and go after those are doing the wrong thing but this is bloody minded lunacy. A simple, "Hey mate when going through the zone you should do ABC and XYZ" Not rush up and accuse people of doing something they think they did and issue $500 fines and then threaten to take your gear boat and car. That does nothing but people off.

Apparently, others at the ramp at the time commented after the Fisheries officer left that he is a real hard case and is as popular up there as a fart in an elevator.

[Ean Austral]

Yes I have been to court against fisheries more than once , the last time they didn't even bother turning up to defend their actions and the judge thru it out.

Different state, same animal - I deal with them weekly , most are ok , but there is always 1 that failed the police force exam , sadly I get him about once or twice a month - doesn't even need to look at the rule book , he can quote the infringement by rule and prefix off the top of his head.

Tell your mate good luck. Make sure he has a copy of the ruling you just posted to give the judge.

Cheers Ean

[Gordie]

He who alleges...must prove.

[Chenz]

Some of these Fishing Inspectors are in another world. Many years ago my father and I were fishing at night in Botany Bay and caught our limit of Tailor. At the ramp we were met by Fisheries inspectors that were sitting in a vehicle and asked us to show our catch.

As we had nothing to hide we opened our Esky and they counted and measured our fish. He then asked us where the rest of the catch was to which we replied this is it. This one inspector then stated that he wanted to search the boat as he he suspected we had hidden more fish.

He then proceeded to pull out all the life jackets from the front cabin locker, lifted up the covers on the bait tank, engine cover - it was a stern drive, all the articles in the side drawers and then tried to pull up the front floor section. Satisfied he then said we could go.

My old man then sparked up and said - after you put back all the stuff you pulled out and left all over the place. This he refused to do saying it was not his job to put stuff back. For a moment I thought the old man was going to clock him so I said can we ring the cops or his boss and have to talk to him about it. The inspector then lost it and started saying I can take you boat and car. I then pulled out the old Nokia and pretended I was calling the cops.

His mate then piped up and said they would put the gear back and then proceeded to do so.

As stated previously, I have no problem with them doing their job but accusing people of being criminals and acting like the Gestapo wins no friends and does little to lift their image with the community.

I will let you know how my mate gets on when he goes to court

[trout1105]

I have had dozens of encounters with Fisheries over the last 50 years of Professional fishing, Processing and recreational fishing and I have Never been Busted or had a disagreeable encounter with them in all that time.
The people are only doing their job protecting the industry and our recreational fish stocks for us.
Maybe it's just an "attitude" thing when I encounter them that I havent had any dramas with them [bigwhistle]
Bagging the Fisheries as a whole isn't helpful.

[Grappler]

They have a camera on shore that can detect a boat in the sanctuary zone. My mate said he could see a boat a few kilometres from him and this was the boat that met up with him at the ramp. I fail to see how they could have seen if he was fishing or not which he wasn't. There were rods in the rocket launchers above the cabin on his boat that would be plain to see. When my mate tried to reason with the officer he got the "I could take all your gear your boat and your car" threat.

If convicted this will be a mark against him on his record for good.

A shore based surveillance could easily photograph the use of fishing gear (or not) at a couple of kilometres

[Chenz]

The saga continues. He wrote a letter stating all the fact and received a terse response saying no leniency and the charge will stand. He therefore has to lose a days pay, drive from Sydney to Port Stephens and have the matter dealt with in court

[101RRS]

Well if he wins - claim the costs.

[ramblingboy42]

The Fisheries have these people on Film/video, No
Conjecture? Osmosis? or Using the force?
If they can see this boat on that footage with a line in the water then it is a Fair Cop, If they haven't then they have Nothing.
I personally think that the Fisheries do a Great job and the more people they can apprehend for illegal fishing the better as far as I am concerned.
Here in the West and in the NT IF you stuff up you can loose your boat, trailer, fishing gear, the catch and even the vehicle that towed the boat to the ramp, On top of that you can get huge fines as well.
I am pretty sure that Fisheries offences are criminal offences and will go on your record.

bloody hell Trout , I agree with you.

I don't want this to happen too often.....ok?

[ramblingboy42]

Chenz, it's almost the same as a photographed road infringement. If they have the photo etc, you have to defend not the other way around.

Some of the cameras are very powerful and very accurate. I have seen one in qld and it can tell the colour of your nostril hairs at about 5km.

Not knowing about stowage and derigging in a Marine Park is your problem, they don't accept that you may not have read the rules and they are empowered to apprehend rule breakers.

You have probably got the rough end of the pineapple here.

I meet up with inspectors regularly in my role and they are decent guys.....if boaties have slightly undersize fish (their test, not yours) and they are alive they will often let them put the fish back and give them a warning.

[trout1105]

bloody hell Trout , I agree with you.

I don't want this to happen too often.....ok?

All is Good Mate, I would think that we would agree on Many things [thumbsupbig]

[ramblingboy42]

He who alleges...must prove.

...wrong....it's the same as a speeding camera....if you want your day in court , don't pay the fine.

[Gordie]

...wrong....it's the same as a speeding camera....if you want your day in court , don't pay the fine.Correct...but in court, they must provide evidence that supports the elements of the offence.

[Gordie]

If they have the photo etc, you have to defend not the other way around.
. There you go...you just said it...he who alleges must prove...they must have the photo showing the offence occurring, or statements from those who saw it happen. Same as a speed camera, no photo, no offence.[thumbsupbig]

[Chops]

There you go...you just said it...he who alleges must prove...they must have the photo showing the offence occurring, or statements from those who saw it happen. Same as a speed camera, no photo, no offence.[thumbsupbig]


If one were to attend to this in court, would/are you be able to see the "alleged" evidence first?

[Gordie]

If one were to attend to this in court, would/are you be able to see the "alleged" evidence first?The evidence provided thus far will be the allegation and details of offence on the expiation notice. If it goes to trial, there has to be full disclosure from the prosecution to the accused, which is where copies of all statements and evidence will be provided prior to trial.

[Gordie]

Well if he wins - claim the costs.Bear in mind....IF one wins...one doesn't always get the full costs returned. Mate fought a speeding ticket, cost $10k to defend...he won...but only recouped about $7k in costs.

[101RRS]

For sure you will only get back what are considered reasonable costs not actual costs - they are not going to recompense you the costs of a QC when a solicitor straight out of law school would suffice.

[ramblingboy42]

There you go...you just said it...he who alleges must prove...they must have the photo showing the offence occurring, or statements from those who saw it happen. Same as a speed camera, no photo, no offence.[thumbsupbig]

yeah, I think I got that arse about.....what you said.

[trout1105]

There you go...you just said it...he who alleges must prove...they must have the photo showing the offence occurring, or statements from those who saw it happen. Same as a speed camera, no photo, no offence.[thumbsupbig]

I Very much doubt that the fisheries officers would charge anyone without reasonable proof of an offence, They are not Stupid despite what others may think.
Maybe going to court and pleading the case May get you off or lessen the penalty, It may also harm your prospects as well [bigwhistle]

[Gordie]

I Very much doubt that the fisheries officers would charge anyone without reasonable proof of an offence, They are not Stupid despite what others may think.
Maybe going to court and pleading the case May get you off or lessen the penalty, It may also harm your prospects as well [bigwhistle]There are about 3 courses of action:
1.I am guilty and I will pay it
2. I am guilty but I will go to court and try to get out of it on technicalities or get a reduced fine
3. I did not do it, feel wrongly accused and wish to fight it.

I, like you, fully support the work of fisheries, I detest and loathe poaching etc. If he did fish in a marine park, I am glad the law caught up with him. If he has been wrongly accused through human error(which even the best of law enforcers can be open to), then I totally understand his frustration at being wrongly accused.

[trout1105]

Luckily we only have to face the fisheries and the courts if we poach in Australia, This is what can happen in Africa [bigwhistle]
Suspected poacher eaten by lions in South Africa (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/suspected-poacher-eaten-by-lions-in-south-africa/ar-BBJ2gJ1?ocid=spartanntp)

[Gordie]

Luckily we only have to face the fisheries and the courts if we poach in Australia, This is what can happen in Africa [bigwhistle]
Suspected poacher eaten by lions in South Africa (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/suspected-poacher-eaten-by-lions-in-south-africa/ar-BBJ2gJ1?ocid=spartanntp)Love it..that IS justice. Just like that bloke hunting lions(Not poaching, in a game park) the other week, who was shot himself, by someone stalking him....rather poetic.

[jx2mad]

Some years back I had been out in the boat and caught a few fish of legal size.Arriving back at the caravan park I moored the boat and took the catch to be weighed and measured for our records. I then went to the wharf where there is a fish cleaning station. A fishing inspector was travelling up the channel and saw me and came over and asked me to produce my fishing license. I asked him if I needed a license to clean fish at the same time pulling it out of my pocket. He gave me a dirty look and pulled away. I wonder what would have happened if my wife had come down and was cleaning the fish. She does not fish. As far as I am aware you do not need a license to have fish in your possession.

[trout1105]

Some years back I had been out in the boat and caught a few fish of legal size.Arriving back at the caravan park I moored the boat and took the catch to be weighed and measured for our records. I then went to the wharf where there is a fish cleaning station. A fishing inspector was travelling up the channel and saw me and came over and asked me to produce my fishing license. I asked him if I needed a license to clean fish at the same time pulling it out of my pocket. He gave me a dirty look and pulled away. I wonder what would have happened if my wife had come down and was cleaning the fish. She does not fish. As far as I am aware you do not need a license to have fish in your possession.

I doubt very much that anyone would buy fish Legally from a shop or a fishing boat and then take them down to the wharf to clean them.
The Fisheries officer was well within His/Her rights to ask for your fishing licence in this instance I would think.
Also if you Wife took the fish down to the wharf a simple explanation from her that you had caught them and were too lazy to clean them would have cleared the matter up anyway [thumbsupbig]

[Saitch]

Some years back I had been out in the boat and caught a few fish of legal size.Arriving back at the caravan park I moored the boat and took the catch to be weighed and measured for our records. I then went to the wharf where there is a fish cleaning station. A fishing inspector was travelling up the channel and saw me and came over and asked me to produce my fishing license. I asked him if I needed a license to clean fish at the same time pulling it out of my pocket. He gave me a dirty look and pulled away. I wonder what would have happened if my wife had come down and was cleaning the fish. She does not fish. As far as I am aware you do not need a license to have fish in your possession.

I've had a discussion with a NSW Fisheries person about their licences and why they can't have the same set up as Qld, where your spouse is included on the licence. I got a very sympathetic reaction although, as this was several years ago, obviously not successful.
I must say that I have more faith in my NSW licence fees being used for their supposed purpose than my fees in Qld! Hopefully I'm wrong in this.

Steve

[donh54]

The evidence provided thus far will be the allegation and details of offence on the expiation notice. If it goes to trial, there has to be full disclosure from the prosecution to the accused, which is where copies of all statements and evidence will be provided prior to trial.

One case I was defending myself on, the prosecutor gave me copies of all the stuff he was going to use in court- one minute before we entered the courtroom. When the magistrate asked if I had seen the evidence and I told him it was a minute ago, literally, the look he gave the prosecutor was priceless. He was fighting an uphill battle from then on.
I won the case, and as I was leaving, the magistrate asked the prosecutor to come to his chambers for a "short discussion" - I would've liked to be a fly on the wall for that meeting!

I have had quite a few instances where they have held out until a couple of days before the court date, then claimed that they're giving me a break "due to your good driving record" (you get that with a few decades of interstate truck driving) [bigrolf]

[Saitch]

Has the original case been heard yet?