TROUT POACHING CASE AT WHANGAMATA BAY

Taupo Times, Volume V, Issue 209, 3 February 1956, Page 5

TROUT POACHING CASE AT WHANGAMATA BAY

"Oh! What A Tangled Web ..." A fishing oase heard in the Magistrate's Court, Taupo, on Thursday, January 26, before Mr W. A. Harlow, S.M., involving the poaching of trout in the Whangamata Stream, had the unusual feature that the defendants, who pleaded not guilty, claimed in evidence that information given by them to a ranger when the circumstances were being investigated was not true, but had been given in order to protect certain Maoris. Defendants were Michael William Sadlier and Roger Gordon Laing, of Masterton. They were charged that on August 5, 1955 at Whangamata Bay, Lake Taupo, they did take trout in an unsportsmanlike manner, and also that they fished for trout without licences, and that they took trout in a prohibited area. Defendants had been living at Whangamata Bay Station, the property of Messrs T. N. Gibbs, I. O. Gibbs and the Bt Hon. K. J. Holyoake, for three and a half weeks, where they were engaged as contractors to erect a telephone line. The Conservator of Wild Life, Mr S. A. McNamara, prosecuted, and Mr J. Corry appeared for defendants. Fish With Spear-hole Mr P J Burstall, Senior Fisheries Officer at Rotorua, in evidence, stated, that with Ranger R. Yan Wering he beached his boat at Whangamata Bay at 4 p.m. on August 5 near the stream mouth, some fifty yards from two houses. He wished to interview Mr I. O. Gibbs re a proposed dam in the stream. There was nobody at Mr Gibbs' house and they went to the other house. The door was open. They called out and knocked but there was no one there. On the floor inside, about ten feet from the door, he noticed six fish. The nearest fish had an obvious spear hole in it and appeared fresh. They left the house and investigated the stream, going together about li to Ij miles upstream. They saw nobody. Mr Yan Wering continued up river and witness returned to the vicinity of the houses, which were about 100 yards from the stream.

Poaching Gear Found • He found in a pump-house on the stream a wire-netting net, which he considered was for setting in the stream to enable fish to be driven downstream into it. Weed on the net was wet at the time. In soft ground near the pump house were prints of rubber soled commando type boots. In scrub near the stream he found a hand net of cheese-cloth which was wet. On the opposite side of the stream another cheese-cloth net was lying in the open. It did not appear to have been used recently. In scrub on the side near the houses he found a gafif poked right under blackberry and scrub. On the same side he found a potato fork attached to a manuka pole by a bootlace. It was wet and the binding was tight. There was no rust on the fork. He took all the gear, put it in the boat, and waited for Yan Wering to return and kept watch on the house. Yan Wering arrived back at 6.30 p.m. and about 6.45 p.m. the two defendants* arrived at the house in a motor-vehicle. Witness and Yan Wering went to the house and told Mr Sadlier they wanted to see Mr Gibbs re the hydro dam. Sadlier said Mr Gibbs would be there at 7 p.m. He then said they were rangers and would like to see the fish they had seen earlier and record them. Laing produced two fish from a safe in the room, both of which were clean and had no holes or scar marks. He told Mr Laing there were four others and asked where they were. Mr Sadlier went out of the house over to the vehiele and came back with four fish. Witness examined these and observed

spear holes in them and asked how they were caught. "Caught With Bare Hands" Mr Laing stated that they had caught two fish from a boat the day before. He had told witness that he had a licence but it had expired. Witness had said he considered it doubtful if the boat had been used the day befor as skid marks on the beach only commenced thirteen feet back from the water, indicating that there had been a blow since the boat was used, and the Lake had been cairn the previous day. Mr Laing had said the other four fish had been caught with their bare hands up the river, and accounted for the holes in them by saying Maoris had been doing a lot of poaching and about every fish in the river had spear holes in it. Witness had then said he had got a lot of illegal gear which he had picked up near defendant's house adjacent to the stream. Laing had said he knew all about that — there were nets, a fork and a gaff down there, but they didn't use them. It was not them — Maoris from Mokai came down at night and fished with them. Witness then took defendants' names and addresses and told them he would take possession of the fish. Mr Sadlier then departed in his vehiele and Mr Laing remained, witness thought. At that stage he saw Mr Gibb, who had returned, and discussed with him the matter he had come for. To Mr McNamara, witness stated that footprints seen near the pump house were made by the commando t/pe of boot. Defendants had similar types of boot. There were no footmarks near where the gear was found. There were others further upstream. To Mr Corry, witness said he saw the fish first from ten feet away. They were still shining and glossy. All this was on Friday, August 5. He did not see any Maoris. He was told there were some further up. "Maori With Fork" For the defence, Mr Corry said that the defendants had come all the way from Masterton to defend the case, as they considered it serious. The ranger had said he had come to see the creek re the hydro dam and they thought he was from the State hydro. They had been "peeved" and had told the ranger an involved story. Actually the fish were caught by Maoris, and the' defendants had been working on the

day in question for nine hours, erecting a telephone line. He called Roger Gordon Laing. Witness stated that they had worked all the day in question. After breakfast they picked up three Maoris living 300 yards away to work with them, and came home about 6 p.m. Mr Burstall arrived and said he was from the Hydro Electric Department re the dam in the creek. They asked him in for a cup. of tea. He asked about the fish. Witness asked him was he a ranger and he said yes, and took their names. In conversation with the ranger, witness said he thought Maoris could take fish on their own land. The story re catching the fish with their hands was concocted because they were sore over Burstall not saying he was a ranger. The Maoris had been very decent to them. To Mr Corry, witness said the fish came into their possession the night before. The four fish were to be given to the Maoris to smoke, as they realised it was no good trying to keep all the fish fresh until Mr Gibbs and Mr Holyoake came at the weekend. They had not attempted to catch fish that day and were at work all day. To Mr McNamara, witness said Burstall had said he was from the Hydro Electric Department re the dam. The reason he thought the Maoris could take fish on their own property was because they did so freely down home. The poaching gear produced had been there when they first went there. He thought that when Mr Burstall said in evidence that the gear was wet when found that he must have imagined it. He had seen a Maori running up and down the bank with the fork. Michael William Sadlier said in evidence that the two rangers came just after they had arrived back from work. They said to him that they were from

the Hydro works to see Mr Gibbs and witness asked them in for a cup of tea. Burstall asked about the fish and wanted to weigh and measure them. They then asked whether he was a ranger and he said he was and they had a slight argument, and they did not have the cup of tea. Burstall asked them how they got the fish and they said they caught two and got four out of the creek. That was not true. The fish were given to them by the Maoris. They did not fish at all on August 5. To Mr McNamara, witness said that Burstall said either that he was from the Hydro Department or the State Hydro. He did not know when the Maoris caught the fish. In giving judgment, Mr Harlow, S.M., quoted "Oh! what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive!" Defendants' conduct had not been consistent. They had lied when questioned by the ranger, and were not to be believed when they came before the Court. On the charge of taking fish in an unsportsmanlike manner, defendants would be convicted and fined £5 each with costs £1 each, and on the charge of taking fish without a licence would be convicted and fined £2 10s each with costs £1 each. Mr Harlow said he gave full consideration to Mr Burstall's opinion in evidence that nets were not customarily used by Maoris, and he held defendants responsible for catching fish in the nets, not for spearing. If they were not guilty, it was their own fault. The fine would have been about double for using the fork. The charge of taking trout in a prohibited area would be dismissed. The * prosecution had not produced evidence to* show that the stream was in the prohibited areas referred to in the Regulations.