DRONE FISHING GETS THE CHOP
SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL DEALS FATAL BLOW TO DRONE FISHING
In this ongoing saga of drone fishing, the Supreme Court of Appeal had to decide whether the use of remote-controlled motorised equipment for purposes of recreational angling is authorised by the Marine Living Resources Act 18 of 1998 (MLRA) and its regulations.
Gannet Works (Pty) Ltd and Others v Middleton Sue NO and Another (492/2023) [2024] ZASCA 112 (16 July 2024)
On 24 February 2022, the Deputy Director-General (DDG), published a notice in which members of the public, recreational anglers and suppliers of fishing equipment were advised that the ‘use of motorised devises, such as, but not limited to, bait-carrying drones , bait-carrying remote-controlled boats and other remotely operated vehicles, as well as motorised electric reels’ are prohibited for angling.
The appellants thereafter brought an application in the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria seeking 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 MLRA and the regulations published pursuant thereto;
the first respondent (DDG), publicly withdraws the public notice published on 24 February 2022; and
the first respondent declares that the aforesaid public notice is of no legal effect or consequences.
The high court dismissed the application. The Appellants then approached the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).
The key question to determine was whether the MLRA and its regulations prohibited the use of bait-carrying drones for purposes of recreational angling.
According to the respondents (Department of Environmental Affairs), as angling is defined in regulation 1 to mean ‘recreational fishing by manually operating a rod, reel and line or one or more separate lines to which no more than ten hooks are attached per line’, any method that falls outside of the ‘manual operation’ of a rod, reel and line is not and cannot be permitted as recreational fishing endorsed for angling.
The respondents also contended that a permit for recreational fishing endorsed for angling authorizes only fishing by manually operating a rod, reel and line.
They pointed out that a method for ‘recreational angling’ is clearly defined in very specific terms as the ‘manual operation’ of a rod, reel or line. This definition implicitly excludes the use of remote-controlled, motorized equipment, such as drones .
The SCA held that, 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 ten hooks are attached per line.
To use any other method other than the authorised one would be unlawful.
The SCA found that the appellants failed to make out a case for the relief sought and subsequently dismissed the appeal with costs.
The result is that RECREATIONAL ANGLING by means of drones or other remote controlled devices remains prohibited in terms of the Act.
