# Hunting > Hunting >  Police poachers not charged.

## veitnamcam

Police officer won’t be charged despite claim he was ‘poaching’ on private land |

----------


## R93

I know one of them. Wife worked with his partner/wife.
He seemed to be a straight up and down fella. I reckon there is more to the story.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

----------


## rossi.45

look forward to more information  . . .

----------


## veitnamcam

> look forward to more information  . . .


Me too but I doubt we will get it.

----------


## mikee

> Me too but I doubt we will get it.


nah it would seem different rules apply to different people

----------


## craigc

The guy shone a light into a paddock. Nothing else. What are supposed to charge him with?

----------


## nelpop

Yep he shone a light into someones  paddock. You got to ask why??.  Bullocks.

----------


## Harryg

I may be wrong but I think there has been a compaint laid to the "police complaint authority" by three people who were charged of poaching under lesser circurmstances be interesting to see full outcome

----------


## 257weatherby

Ute full of guns and blokes pointing a spot into a paddock that just happens to hold deer............. not rocket  science really.

----------


## veitnamcam

> Yep he shone a light into someones  paddock. You got to ask why??.  Bullocks.


After being denied hunting access, only one reason to be there.

----------


## Kudu

> The guy shone a light into a paddock. Nothing else. What are supposed to charge him with?


Illegal hunting. Shining a spotlight around with a gun in the car, thats all the evidence you need. Remember you can get charged for drunk driving with out driving the car. Sitting in the car with the keys is enough to get done. People have been charged around here for that exact thing. Young fellas shining the spotlight around down a local road around here got done for it. cocky saw them rings the cops. cops catch the young fellas and charge them. Yet this cop gets off for the same thing???????????

----------


## veitnamcam

> Illegal hunting. Shining a spotlight around with a gun in the car, thats all the evidence you need. Remember you can get charged for drunk driving with out driving the car. Sitting in the car with the keys is enough to get done. People have been charged around here for that exact thing. Young fellas shining the spotlight around down a local road around here got done for it. cocky saw them rings the cops. cops catch the young fellas and charge them. Yet this cop gets off for the same thing???????????


Exactly.


Sent from my SM-G800Y using Tapatalk

----------


## rewd

You or I would have been charged and have to pay to try and prove our innocence.
Appears wearing a blue shirt and you avoid that test.Nice of the crown law office to save these Fallows a lawyers bill.
Slippery slope.

----------


## BRADS

Happened round  here a few years back a still back and still happens in Dannerivke one of the cops is real bad. 
The guy up here went into a paddock poaching in the cop ute and got locked in there buy a very irate farmer.
His punishment was he was sent to Pitcairn island.  

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

----------


## viper

Two sets of rules, one for them and one for us.
Seen it happen before

----------


## 223nut

With firearms in the car you need to behave, if he didn't have them in there it wouldnt have been a problem.

----------


## Uplandstalker

This isn't about doing whats right and been a cop, this is about having a case thrown out of court. The way the law is worded, to be poaching, two things must happen:
1. Illegally be on a property
2. Have intent to take animals

From the media's report, only one of these things happened (2). Therefore, it would be difficult for the police to put this in front of a judge.

I suspect that if a deer was seen, it would have been shot and received from the farmers land. However, in this case, it didn't happen like that. I don't believe you can be charged with thinking about or considering poaching.

----------


## 1000PA

I wonder if they held FAL as some Police officers don't..........................just saying. It could get an little murky if they were riding around with firearms without the proper paperwork eh...

----------


## mikee

> This isn't about doing whats right and been a cop, this is about having a case thrown out of court. The way the law is worded, to be poaching, two things must happen:
> 1. Illegally be on a property
> 2. Have intent to take animals
> 
> From the media's report, only one of these things happened (2). Therefore, it would be difficult for the police to put this in front of a judge.
> 
> I suspect that if a deer was seen, it would have been shot and received from the farmers land. However, in this case, it didn't happen like that. I don't believe you can be charged with thinking about or considering poaching.


I read somewhere that Police were taking the Hard line with poaching and that if you were found with firearms in an area where game was present then you were considered to be hunting and it was up to you to prove otherwise.



> Brown said poaching was a big problem in the area and it was dangerous to confront hunters with guns.
> 
> "I think this is double standards - it's pretty hard to have faith in the police force."
> 
> In March, Central Otago prevention officer Toni Velenski told a community paper, The News, police now had a better understanding of their powers under the Wild Animal Control Act.
> 
> "If someone is found in an area where wild animals are present, and the person has something they could hunt with, they are presumed to be hunting unless the opposite can be proved."
> 
> A change to the Act in 2013 means poachers now face fines of up to $100,000 and a year in prison.
>  - Sunday Star Times


Last part of the article said above. see here for full article Police officer won't be charged despite claim he was 'poaching' on private land | Stuff.co.nz

----------


## Uplandstalker

There is no point is laying charges if they won't stand in court.

I'm sure if he wasn't a cop and was once of us, and was charged, there would be an uproar that he shouldn't have been.

----------


## MassiveAttack

For all the people saying innocent until proven guilty there is this bit:

_“A couple of weeks later we caught another poacher in the same situation and he went through the courts within a week or two.”_

Police complaints authority is a joke.  Always has been.

----------


## Uplandstalker

> For all the people saying innocent until proven guilty there is this bit:
> 
> _“A couple of weeks later we caught another poacher in the same situation and he went through the courts within a week or two.”_
> 
> Police complaints authority is a joke.  Always has been.


The farmer said that, right?

If he is so certain about this, there is the option of a civil case against him. You don't have to use the police to put a case in front of a judge.

----------


## Steve123

I find it interesting that plod and other agencies are placing the burden of proof on the accused now days, I thought it was meant to be the other way round.

----------


## MassiveAttack

> The farmer said that, right?
> 
> If he is so certain about this, there is the option of a civil case against him. You don't have to use the police to put a case in front of a judge.


The farmer said that and it was reported on stuff which as we all know is about as accurate as a shotgun work slugs at 600m.  However as it's the only info we have to go on it''s the only thing we can draw conclusions from.  Sure the farmer could take a civil prosicution but why should he have to.  If the bloke in person was so convinced of his innocense then he should have no problem proving that in a cort of law.

If you read the wild animal control act then you don't have to actually shoot anything to be guilty of illegal hunting aka poaching.  Being in a area with game and having the equipment to hunt is enough proof.  Thats the conclusion that southland police came to and if this bloke is a sworn officer then he should know all that and be smart enough to not shine spotlights on paddocks where he has repeatadly been denied hunting access.

Credability is the real thing being questioned here.  If a small matter like this gets swept under the rug then why should we believe anything a sworn police officer says.  It's the boys in blue that suffers in the long run.

----------


## mikee

> Credability is the real thing being questioned here.  If a small matter like this gets swept under the rug then why should we believe anything a sworn police officer says.  It's the boys in blue that suffers in the long run.


Pretty much my thoughts, I don't think they have the credibility they once did.

----------


## Smartie

If it makes any difference I have not charged hunters with Unlawful hunting because it lacked in some way shape or form..most of the time it is because you have to prove they were actually hunting "what were you doing?" "I was in the doc block but got lost so walked out onto this farm, I'm not hunting my firearm is unloaded"

I don't know anything about this incident but for anyone to be charged under the Wild animals control act you must be able to prove that they 1) hunted OR killed OR had in there possession a wild animal ON land without permission of the owner/lawful occupier of that land.
2)Discharged a firearm into OR over OR across any land without permission of the owner/lawful occupier of that land.

I'm not sure where they were when they were lighting the land? from a public road?

I doubt there is a big cover up as some suggest - I wish I only had to meet some of the ingredient's of an offence to charge someone! 

An unrelated example - search warrant at well known address, drug paraphernalia for Africa, a point bag located with some white crystal in the corner (small amount), offender when asked says meth, ESR say Meth, judge says "well how do I know that it is enough to use? and dismisses the charge.

Its not easy to prosecute people without meeting evidential sufficiency if they go not guilty.

----------


## Smartie

> I wonder if they held FAL as some Police officers don't..........................just saying. It could get an little murky if they were riding around with firearms without the proper paperwork eh...


They could be rapists too as they are men, and some men are rapist's?

----------


## 223nut

> They could be rapists too as they are men, and some men are rapist's?


i have had firearms taken off me... Long story, but relating to this. the officer never showed me his licence and i heard through the rumour mill he didnt have one.

----------


## mikee

> i have had firearms taken off me... Long story, but relating to this. the officer never showed me his licence and i heard through the rumour mill he didnt have one.


FAL is not required if you are a police officer performing your duties, same as armed forces I am led to believe. I don't have a issue with it being that way.

----------


## Smartie

Are you saying that a police officer doing his/her job took your firearms from you, and that they did not have a licence?

If so I don't see the issue, that pretty normal.

If you are saying that they use firearms recreationally and don't have a firearms license, than that is an issue?

----------


## Nickoli

> The farmer said that, right?
> 
> If he is so certain about this, there is the option of a civil case against him. You don't have to use the police to put a case in front of a judge.


Really? There is a cost to taking a civil case.... It really is up to the police, that is what they are there for (They ARE the EXECUTIVE, and are responsible for upholding the law...)

----------


## Nickoli

> If it makes any difference I have not charged hunters with Unlawful hunting because it lacked in some way shape or form..most of the time it is because you have to prove they were actually hunting "what were you doing?" "I was in the doc block but got lost so walked out onto this farm, I'm not hunting my firearm is unloaded"
> 
> I don't know anything about this incident but for anyone to be charged under the Wild animals control act you must be able to prove that they 1) hunted OR killed OR had in there possession a wild animal ON land without permission of the owner/lawful occupier of that land.
> 2)Discharged a firearm into OR over OR across any land without permission of the owner/lawful occupier of that land.
> 
> I'm not sure where they were when they were lighting the land? from a public road?
> 
> I doubt there is a big cover up as some suggest - I wish I only had to meet some of the ingredient's of an offence to charge someone! 
> 
> ...


The problem here lies with the JUDICIARY and their interpretation of the law - as seen by not granting preventive detention orders against those who cannot be trusted to live in society (it cuts both ways - the cops and parole boards advise that someone is a risk, yet the judiciary in their wisdom disagree....).

----------


## MassiveAttack

It's amazing what you learn when you actually read the legislation.

_38Presumptions and obligations in connection with hunting and killing
(1)In any prosecution for an offence against this Act, proof that any person found in any area where wild animals are usually present had with him or under his control any poison, snare, net, trap, or firearm, or any vessel, vehicle, or aircraft so adapted or equipped as to be capable of being used for hunting or killing any wild animal, or any dog or weapon that could be used for the purpose of hunting or killing any wild animal, shall be evidence from which the court shall presume, until the contrary is proved, that the person was hunting or killing wild animals in the area.
(2)Where any person is found on any land in an area where wild animals are usually present in circumstances that create a prima facie presumption under subsection (1) that he was hunting or killing wild animals in the area, if a licence, permit, concession, or other authority under this Act to hunt or kill wild animals in the area is required, or if any licence, permit, concession, or other authority under any other Act to enter onto the land to hunt or kill wild animals is required, the person shall produce his licence, permit, concession, or other authority to any authorised person demanding its production within a reasonable time, and if he fails to do so and if he is unable to prove that he was not hunting or killing wild animals in the area or on the land, as the case may be, he commits an offence against this Act._

----------


## kiwijames

> It's amazing what you learn when you actually read the legislation.
> 
> _38Presumptions and obligations in connection with hunting and killing
> (1)In any prosecution for an offence against this Act, proof that any person found in any area where wild animals are usually present had with him or under his control any poison, snare, net, trap, or firearm, or any vessel, vehicle, or aircraft so adapted or equipped as to be capable of being used for hunting or killing any wild animal, or any dog or weapon that could be used for the purpose of hunting or killing any wild animal, shall be evidence from which the court shall presume, until the contrary is proved, that the person was hunting or killing wild animals in the area.
> (2)Where any person is found on any land in an area where wild animals are usually present in circumstances that create a prima facie presumption under subsection (1) that he was hunting or killing wild animals in the area, if a licence, permit, concession, or other authority under this Act to hunt or kill wild animals in the area is required, or if any licence, permit, concession, or other authority under any other Act to enter onto the land to hunt or kill wild animals is required, the person shall produce his licence, permit, concession, or other authority to any authorised person demanding its production within a reasonable time, and if he fails to do so and if he is unable to prove that he was not hunting or killing wild animals in the area or on the land, as the case may be, he commits an offence against this Act._


So reading that, a woman cannot be done for poaching?

----------


## kawekakid

You even get caught with a light in the Kaimanawa forest park in your car you loose .

----------


## buell984

Used to work for DOC years ago, responded to a call from the crew we had on an Island doing Kiwi monitoring, that someone was shooting towards them, it was dark and the person was using a spotlight from a boat. When we arrived and found the "person" it turned out to be a local cop and his mates............sighting his rifle in on DOC signs before carrying on to spotlight the surrounding Islands. He really got punished alright, when the shit hit the fan, they transferred him to Auckland, now that's punishment alright, what a farkin joke!! So yup definitely two sets of rules alright.

----------


## MassiveAttack

So joe public goes poaching he gets a $100000 fine and if you are a cop then based on the unconfirmed stories in this thread you get sent to either Pitcarn Island or Auckland?  That doesn't sound like one rule for all.

----------


## Sidney

You think that didn't cost him more than $10000....?

And he got sent to Auckland  ...lol

----------


## timattalon

If he has to buy or rent a house in Auckland he is well stuffed.....

Transfer to Auckland moving costs  $3000,
Pay cut due to bringing police force into disrepute $0.00

Finding somewhere ot live at short notice..Priceless.......(or unaffordable, impossible, might as well quit now..)

----------


## kotuku

this shit is reserved for/the paranoid wee Im always alright on the TARD ME MESSAGES BOARDS. its been dealt with ,the court of public opinion means 6 7/8 of sweet fuck all ,leave it and move on. sidney your mob are renowned as gougers!

----------


## Sidney

do you have a clue what my mob is    :Grin:

----------


## Sidney

Now you know thats not what I said... :Grin: 

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...

----------


## bang-thud-thump

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.

----------


## Nickoli

> 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:
> 
> ...


Good luck arguing this if you get caught with scuba gear....in your vehicle....while in possession of paua. 
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?

----------


## bang-thud-thump

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 &ndash; 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.

----------


## Nickoli

> The farmer said that, right?
> 
> If he is so certain about this, there is the option of a civil case against him. You don't have to use the police to put a case in front of a judge.


Really? There is a cost to taking a civil case.... It really is up to the police, that is what they are there for (They ARE the EXECUTIVE, and are responsible for upholding the law...)

----------


## Nickoli

> If it makes any difference I have not charged hunters with Unlawful hunting because it lacked in some way shape or form..most of the time it is because you have to prove they were actually hunting "what were you doing?" "I was in the doc block but got lost so walked out onto this farm, I'm not hunting my firearm is unloaded"
> 
> I don't know anything about this incident but for anyone to be charged under the Wild animals control act you must be able to prove that they 1) hunted OR killed OR had in there possession a wild animal ON land without permission of the owner/lawful occupier of that land.
> 2)Discharged a firearm into OR over OR across any land without permission of the owner/lawful occupier of that land.
> 
> I'm not sure where they were when they were lighting the land? from a public road?
> 
> I doubt there is a big cover up as some suggest - I wish I only had to meet some of the ingredient's of an offence to charge someone! 
> 
> ...


The problem here lies with the JUDICIARY and their interpretation of the law - as seen by not granting preventive detention orders against those who cannot be trusted to live in society (it cuts both ways - the cops and parole boards advise that someone is a risk, yet the judiciary in their wisdom disagree....).

----------


## MassiveAttack

It's amazing what you learn when you actually read the legislation.

_38Presumptions and obligations in connection with hunting and killing
(1)In any prosecution for an offence against this Act, proof that any person found in any area where wild animals are usually present had with him or under his control any poison, snare, net, trap, or firearm, or any vessel, vehicle, or aircraft so adapted or equipped as to be capable of being used for hunting or killing any wild animal, or any dog or weapon that could be used for the purpose of hunting or killing any wild animal, shall be evidence from which the court shall presume, until the contrary is proved, that the person was hunting or killing wild animals in the area.
(2)Where any person is found on any land in an area where wild animals are usually present in circumstances that create a prima facie presumption under subsection (1) that he was hunting or killing wild animals in the area, if a licence, permit, concession, or other authority under this Act to hunt or kill wild animals in the area is required, or if any licence, permit, concession, or other authority under any other Act to enter onto the land to hunt or kill wild animals is required, the person shall produce his licence, permit, concession, or other authority to any authorised person demanding its production within a reasonable time, and if he fails to do so and if he is unable to prove that he was not hunting or killing wild animals in the area or on the land, as the case may be, he commits an offence against this Act._

----------


## kiwijames

> It's amazing what you learn when you actually read the legislation.
> 
> _38Presumptions and obligations in connection with hunting and killing
> (1)In any prosecution for an offence against this Act, proof that any person found in any area where wild animals are usually present had with him or under his control any poison, snare, net, trap, or firearm, or any vessel, vehicle, or aircraft so adapted or equipped as to be capable of being used for hunting or killing any wild animal, or any dog or weapon that could be used for the purpose of hunting or killing any wild animal, shall be evidence from which the court shall presume, until the contrary is proved, that the person was hunting or killing wild animals in the area.
> (2)Where any person is found on any land in an area where wild animals are usually present in circumstances that create a prima facie presumption under subsection (1) that he was hunting or killing wild animals in the area, if a licence, permit, concession, or other authority under this Act to hunt or kill wild animals in the area is required, or if any licence, permit, concession, or other authority under any other Act to enter onto the land to hunt or kill wild animals is required, the person shall produce his licence, permit, concession, or other authority to any authorised person demanding its production within a reasonable time, and if he fails to do so and if he is unable to prove that he was not hunting or killing wild animals in the area or on the land, as the case may be, he commits an offence against this Act._


So reading that, a woman cannot be done for poaching?

----------


## kawekakid

You even get caught with a light in the Kaimanawa forest park in your car you loose .

----------


## buell984

Used to work for DOC years ago, responded to a call from the crew we had on an Island doing Kiwi monitoring, that someone was shooting towards them, it was dark and the person was using a spotlight from a boat. When we arrived and found the "person" it turned out to be a local cop and his mates............sighting his rifle in on DOC signs before carrying on to spotlight the surrounding Islands. He really got punished alright, when the shit hit the fan, they transferred him to Auckland, now that's punishment alright, what a farkin joke!! So yup definitely two sets of rules alright.

----------


## MassiveAttack

So joe public goes poaching he gets a $100000 fine and if you are a cop then based on the unconfirmed stories in this thread you get sent to either Pitcarn Island or Auckland?  That doesn't sound like one rule for all.

----------


## Sidney

You think that didn't cost him more than $10000....?

And he got sent to Auckland  ...lol

----------


## timattalon

If he has to buy or rent a house in Auckland he is well stuffed.....

Transfer to Auckland moving costs  $3000,
Pay cut due to bringing police force into disrepute $0.00

Finding somewhere ot live at short notice..Priceless.......(or unaffordable, impossible, might as well quit now..)

----------


## kotuku

this shit is reserved for/the paranoid wee Im always alright on the TARD ME MESSAGES BOARDS. its been dealt with ,the court of public opinion means 6 7/8 of sweet fuck all ,leave it and move on. sidney your mob are renowned as gougers!

----------


## Sidney

do you have a clue what my mob is    :Grin:

----------


## Sidney

Now you know thats not what I said... :Grin: 

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...

----------


## bang-thud-thump

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.

----------


## Nickoli

> 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:
> 
> ...


Good luck arguing this if you get caught with scuba gear....in your vehicle....while in possession of paua. 
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?

----------


## bang-thud-thump

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 &ndash; 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.

----------

