Court upholds ban on drone fishing
Department of forestry, fisheries and environment says drone angling is illegal, is a threat to endangered fish and sharks and small-scale fisher livelihoods
During last year’s sardine run, Kwazulu-natal angler Roark Hamilton caught a 316kg male Zambezi shark using a drone to fly his bait out to sea. “There is no bigger male landed off the land,” he told the Berea Mail. “It will fall under the unofficial category because I used a drone to take my bait out … It took about an hour and a half to land [the catch]. It was a gruelling fight.”
The shark was tagged and released. In South Africa, several thousand recreational anglers like Hamilton use drones to increase their fish catching efficiency. But, according to the department of forestry, fisheries and the environment, drone fishing is illegal and threatens imperilled fish and shark species and the livelihoods of small-scale fishers.
In February, it issued a notice declaring that the use of motorised equipment such as drones and remotely operated devices and vehicles for angling is outlawed under regulations promulgated in the Marine Living Resources Act. A variety of “illegal” motorised devices are being used by recreational anglers to “illegally catch fish as well as sharks”, it said, vowing to seize the devices and have them forfeited to the state.
Drone manufacturers such as Gannet Works, Unmanned SA and CDS Angling Supplies, responded to the ban by taking Environment Minister Barbara Creecy and deputy director-general of fisheries management Sue Middleton to court.
Dewald Steenkamp, of law firm Otto Krause, said its clients had
approached the court for a declaratory order seeking confirmation that the Act “does not prohibit the use of drones or bait boats for purposes of deploying baits for fishing purposes”.
But on 12 April, the high court in Pretoria sank their urgent application, dismissing it with costs. The respondents submitted that any method of fishing that may be authorised, must be in line with the minister’s “constitutional obligation and duty to ensure that the impact of fishing activities is such that the fish populations remain as stable as possible to enable fishing to continue for the benefit of all South Africans, (present and future generations), and to ensure that the environment is not adversely affected”.
Judge Tshifhiwa Maumela noted how the department had “explained comprehensively, also providing applicable scientific and other reasons why only the manual operation of a rod, reel and line may be permitted as recreational fishing, endorsed for angling”.
“Such evidence is indicative thereof that apart from being unlawful, the method of using motorised equipment to fish has potential to bring about an adverse impact upon certain species of fish. This is within a context where the populations of these species, and their ability to recover, is already proving to be in a dire state. This adverse impact, in turn, impacts negatively upon the livelihoods of small scale fishers thereby impacting negatively upon their chances of survival.”
The applicants had asked the court for a declaratory order that Middleton publicly withdraw the public notice and for its content to be publicly declared as “incorrect” and “of no legal effect or consequence”. They contended that it had resulted in sales coming to a “standstill”.
Making use of a remote controlled, bait-carrying device, such as a drone, “does not derogate from the fact that the fishermen who use these devices inevitably apply the old recognised method of fishing by manually operating a rod, reel and a line with hooks, swivels and sinkers being attached to the line”, they argued.
In the notice, Middleton wrote how under the regulations “angling means 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”.
The department is concerned about the conservation status of several shark and fish species “targeted by these illegal methods”. The motorised devices give anglers a “huge advantage” over those that confine themselves to traditional angling methods, as provided for by the law.
“With the aid of these devices, anglers are able to catch large breeding fish with a much higher success rate than when confined to manual methods and in doing so unduly increase the pressure on already threatened species,” she wrote, stating how recreational angling can be enjoyed by all South Africans “regardless of socioeconomic status”.
A 2021 study on the emergence of marine recreational drone fishing noted how online evidence suggested there had been a 357% spike in interest during 2016, primarily in New Zealand, South Africa and Australia.
The South African drone catch, it found, was dominated by large elasmobranchs — sharks, rays and skates — (97%) including the dusky shark (23%), bronze whaler shark (19%) and butterfly ray (13%). It highlighted how, “in particular, the capture of endangered dusky sharks and critically endangered whitespotted wedgefish, which together comprised 35% of the drone catch in South Africa, is most concerning”.
The latest IUCN Red List Assessment confirms that 42% of chondrichthyan species — sharks, rays, skates and chimaeras — occurring in South African waters are threatened, according to the Wildtrust. South Africa is a global hotspot for shark and ray diversity.
Drone fishing has always been illegal, “although arguably not always effectively enforced”, it said. “A key concern is the inability of drone operators to successfully land their catch. It is our understanding that a large proportion of hooked fish (using drones) are lost. Lost drone fishing tackle leaves (mostly large) sharks and rays with embedded hooks and strong fishing line trailing behind them — a danger to other marine life.”
Jennifer Olbers, a Wildtrust marine scientist, said: “The prime motivation is undoubtedly the excitement of hooking and landing a big fish. The catch is rarely retained, unless it is a small shark, usually a hammerhead, hound, dusky or copper, which may be retained as bait to hook a larger shark.”
All animals, including sharks, are susceptible to capture stress, which may cause significant physiological changes, sometimes lethal. “The longer the struggle, the greater the stress and the lower are the chances of the shark surviving after release.”
Sharks and rays are late to mature and depend on critical and essential habitats for various life stages, “which means they are extremely vulnerable to pressure from fishing and habitat destruction”.
The South African Association for Marine Biological Research and the Oceanographic Research Institute said among their concerns are that drones enable anglers to target species and reach habitats beyond casting distance from the shore. “This has resulted in increased catches of endangered shark and ray species and fish species such as black musselcracker in the Eastern Cape and silver kob and white steenbras in the Western Cape.”
Drones are being used to fish illegally in offshore no-take areas, which were zoned to protect offshore reef fish, they said. “Fish and shark species are being hooked long distances offshore resulting in extended fight times, reduced survival rates after release and greater levels of depredation by other predators.”
They are disappointed it took the department so long to react to drone fishing, which has existed since 2015. “Consequently, a large number of anglers have purchased drones for fishing and a support industry has developed. The impact of this delayed compliance action will affect considerably more people and jobs than if the practice was prohibited at the start.”
Yugen Govender, chairperson of the SA Drone Angling Association, said the fishery must be regulated with stakeholders. “Up to now, there hasn’t been any sort of formal communication, arrests, fines or anything. There hasn’t been any new legislation that has been a catalyst for these announcements or notices to be made … The department has set a precedent for the last seven, eight years, which allowed drones to be used and retailed in major dealers.”
Drone angling is “growing exponentially”. “There’s four big suppliers in the world and three of them are South African companies so we export drones all over. It’s ironic that you would ban drones in a country that is the home of drone fishing … There is no tangible evidence of any negative effect that drone angling is causing on marine ecosystems.”
‘The method of using motorised equipment to fish has potential to bring about an adverse impact upon certain species of fish’