According to the department, a variety of illegal motorised devices were being used by recreational anglers to “illegally catch fish as well as sharks”. (Photo by Peter Titmuss UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)
A recent ruling by the supreme court of appeal has upheld the ban on drone fishing.
Last week, the court confirmed that it remains unlawful for recreational anglers to use bait-carrying drones and bait-carrying remote controlled boats when fishing.
The matter arose on 24 February 2022 when the deputy director general of fisheries management at the department of forestry, fisheries and the environment, Sue Middleton, issued a public notice declaring that the use of motorised equipment such as bait-carrying drones and remote controlled boats were outlawed for angling under regulations promulgated in the Marine Act.
According to the public notice, a variety of illegal motorised devices were being used by recreational anglers to “illegally catch fish as well as sharks”, and declared that these devices would be seized and forfeited to the state.
Gannet Works, IARC CC, Unmanned SA and CDS Angling Supplies and CEG Projects — all business entities who manufacture, import, market and such sell angling equipment — responded to the ban by hauling Middleton and the then environment minister, Barbara Creecy, to court.
They had sought an order that a declarator be issued that the use of drones, bait-carrying remote controlled boats and other remotely operated devices are not prohibited in terms of the Act and the published regulations.
They argued that Middleton should publicly withdraw the public notice and declare that it is of “no legal effect or consequences”. They alleged that the publication of the notice had an adverse effect on their businesses, having experienced a rapid decline in the demand for the drones and other bait-carrying devices.
They contended that the use of these devices does not derogate from the fact that the anglers who use them apply the old, recognised method of fishing by manually operating a rod, reel and a line with hooks, swivels and sinkers. In essence, the appellants contended that angling does not exclude the use of drones to drop the bait.
But on 12 April 2022, the high court in Pretoria sank their urgent application, dismissing it with costs.
As the respondents in the matter, the deputy director general and the minister contended that the public notice does not amount to a new law and it was a notification to the public that the use of such motorised devices are not permitted when undertaking recreational angling.
Lawful recreational angling could only be conducted by manually operating a rod, reel and line on one or more separate lines to which no more than 10 hooks were attached per line.
They argued that the interpretation of the statutory requirement for lawful recreational fishing endorsed for angling alleged by the appellants conflicted with the purposive interpretation of the provisions of the Marine Act and its regulations. The regulations prescribed the different categories and methods of fishing which could be authorised under the Marine Act.
Middleton and the minister contended that recreational fishing was recognised as a discreet fishing category, subject to the acquisition of a recreational fishing permit, which was then endorsed with the type or method of fishing permitted and angling fell within this definition.
As angling was defined in the regulations to mean “recreational fishing by manually operating a rod, reel and line or one or more separate lines to which no more than 10 hooks are attached per line”, any method that fell outside of this was not permitted as recreational fishing endorsed for angling.
The supreme court of appeal’s judgment noted that once a person chooses a permit for angling as the type of fishing, the method to perform angling, as defined in the regulations, comes into play.
“The respondents contend that a permit for recreational fishing endorsed for angling authorises only fishing by manually operating a rod, reel and line. They point out that a method for ‘recreational angling’ is clearly defined in very specific terms as the ‘manual operation’ of a rod, reel or line.” Thus this definition implicitly excludes the use of remote-controlled, motorised equipment, such as drones.
“Counsel for the appellants argues however that once a fishing permit has been issued to an angler, the angler is then at liberty to engage in any form of fishing activity using whatever methods that may be available, provided the method used is not specifically prohibited in terms of the Marine Act or the regulations. He contends that the activity of fishing, by definition, includes the use of aircraft such as drones.
The court found this argument was ill-conceived. “First, the Marine Act and its regulations not only specify the type of fishing activity, but also the method to be used in performing such fishing activity.
“Second, lawful fishing can only be authorised by means of a … permit …. Once the angler has been issued with the permit for angling, the angler is not at liberty to use any method other than the one that is provided for in the regulations that is, fishing by manually operating a rod, reel and line or one or more separate lines to which no more than 10 hooks are attached per line. To use any other method other than the authorised one would be unlawful.”
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Dion George, the minister of forestry, fisheries and the environment, said the ruling was a “significant victory for the protection of our marine ecosystems and the enforcement of regulations designed to safeguard our natural resources”.
His department said it remains committed to the conservation and sustainable management of the country’s marine resources. “We believe that the ban on drones and remote-controlled devices in marine environments is crucial in preserving the delicate balance of our oceans and protecting vulnerable species.”