The Wairarapa Daily. FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 1889. What is Game ?

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume X, Issue 3189, 26 April 1889, Page 2

The Wairarapa Daily. FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 1889. What is Game ?

A controversy whioh is of not a ; little interest to sportsmen throughout the colony, 'lias arisen in Napier as to whether native game may or may not be shot without a liconse. The Telegraph, first of all, warned sportsnftn that according to the Animals Protection Act, 1880, they would be liable to a fine if they shot wild pigeons without a license, and the Herald then expressed the opinion that 110 license was necessary. We have gone carefully through the Act named, as well aa through the several amendments which have been made, and are certainly inclined to the opinion that a license is only required by those who wish to shoot imported game. Clause 2, which is the interpretation clause of the Act, says"' Game' includes all imported animals and birds mentioned in the third. Sohedule to this Act relating to game; 'Native game' includes all native animals and birds mentioned in the Fourth Schedule to this Act, and any other native animals and birds which shall be.declared to come within the provisions of this" Act relating to native game." Against this has to be set Clause 29, which reads as follows:-Every person in pursuit of game shall produce his license to any,-.: authorised person demanding such production: and any person in pursuit of game or native game who shall refuse or neglect bo to produce such license, Or to give his name or ( place of address, or who shall give a false name or place of residence or address, shall bo liable to a penalty . of £20." It will be seen tlmt there is an irregularity in the wording of this clause. It says, in the first place, that any person in pursuit of "game"—i.e. imported garno—shall produce his license upon ; demand and. then proceeds to provide a penalty for failing to produce a license to shoot •' game," or "native gamo," It seems.as if the words "or native game "had ' got into the clause through an oversight. In whatever manner they , got there, it is clear that no prosecu- . tion for shooting native game could I be sustained under the clause, as it does not contemplate the issue of a license for doing so. It merely pro- '■ vides a penalty for an act, the per- ! petratiou of which has not-been made illegal. If any doubt is left on the subject, it should be removed by , Clause 6, which provides that " No _ person thall take or kill, o f use any ' dog, gun, net, or othor engine for

jg, gun, net, or othor engine k he purpose of taking or killing an game, until such person shall hav taken out a license to kill game.' The draughtsman was probably in ; funny mood whence wrote the abov clause, otherwise the words " dog gun, net or other engine" would no have found themselves togethei Upon. comparison with the strio distinction between theterma" garno 1 and " native game" which is mad in the interpretation clause, it will b clearly enough seen that there wai no intention in thjs clause to includi native game. The. form of th( license provided in tha 'first schedule is even more distinct. It reads:— of—having this day paid the sum ol —pursuant to the Animals Protection Act, 1880, is hereby licensed to take or kill game within the District of—during the game season of-." This, -read with the distinction made in the interpretation clause, should set all doubt at cost; and those who wish to shoot native game need have no fear 6i being, fined if they indulge in the sport; ■ /. r ; ;