The Ahipara Komiti Takutaimoana, the only friend Ahipara's paua beds seem to have, has told this newspaper in the past that the number of customary permits issued burgeons when conditions are at their best. That alone suggests that customary permits have bugger all to do with genuine 'need' for the shellfish, and everything to do with greed.
Everyone, barring the greedy few and the MPI, agrees that the customary permit system is dumb, and so open to abuse that it is contributing to the beds' demise rather than their sustainability. That might not be the fault of those who issue the permits, but surely they smell a rat when every man and his dog comes calling when the conditions are good.
Meanwhile the Ahipara Komiti Takutaimoana battles on, at enormous cost in terms of time and effort, and no little financial expense, to protect what remains of the beds for future generations, and to restore the paua population to a sustainable level. But while they and their supporters, including many local schoolchildren, do their best to save a priceless resource, poachers simply see an even greater opportunity to help themselves, and stuff everyone else.
The first port of call for putting the poachers out of business has traditionally been the District Court, assuming someone can catch them, and the court can certainly hurt them - if it wants to. The Fisheries Act allows for up to five years in jail, fines of up to $250,000 and the forfeiture of property used in the offending, from dive gear to boats and cars. Unfortunately, forfeited gear is usually returned to the offender by negotiation with the ministry, jail terms are extremely unlikely for any but recidivists, and fines tend to amount to no more than a tiny fraction of what the Act provides.
The court can also ban an offender from any form of fishing for a specified period of time, but it's not clear how effective that is in an area where the ministry's ability to police the regulations is hampered by a lack of resources. The reality is that the community stands a much better chance of deterring poachers than the Fisheries Act ever will - if it wants to.
It is arguably true that almost every form of criminal behaviour relies on a lack of community intervention. This newspaper has been saying for years that growing cannabis would be all but impossible to get away with if the Far North resolved not to accept it. The same goes for stealing, particularly from tourists, for domestic violence - you name it. And you can include poaching seafood.
Does anyone really believe that someone can come home with 150 paua, of any size, without anyone noticing? Does anyone really doubt that keeping quiet makes them complicit? And in this case, does anyone really believe that the day is not coming when paua at Ahipara will be nothing more than the subject of bedtime stories for the kids?
Paua poachers, like every other criminal, depend on the silence of those around them to avoid being caught. The Far North has the power to put poachers out of business, but has clearly not yet reached the point where it wants to do that. This newspaper has, however, and will do what it can to achieve that. And it can do plenty, by exposing these people to the public opprobrium that they probably fear more than fines and forfeitures.
Some people take exception to being publicly exposed as thieves, thugs, dope growers and drink drivers. And that has become increasingly apparent over recent years. This newspaper has received threats and been offered bribes by some who really wish to remain anonymous, most often people who face drink-driving charges and see themselves as somewhat elevated from the lower socio-economic ranks. But breaching the fishing regs is one field of offending that no one, whatever their status, wants the wider community to know about. They know they have behaved disgracefully. And while threats and bribes have never worked in the past, and won't in the future, from now on the Northland Age will make a real effort to expose them.
This newspaper simply cannot cover the Kaitaia District Court like it once did - there is just too much of it, not enough hours in the day to sit there and not enough space to publish the outcome. Thursday and Friday sittings of the court are all that can be covered except in the case of major crimes, but from this point on poachers will be targeted, whenever they appear.
And while this newspaper has never photographed a defendant in the dock, it will break from that tradition.
"Gaining permission to use a camera in court involves making an application well in advance, which means some assistance will be needed from the MPI, but if that assistance is forthcoming, convicted poachers will not only be named but will also see their faces on page 1."
Public naming and shaming, for want of a better term, has long been an integral part of the justice system. On one level it is about justice being seen to be done, but more fundamentally it is a valid component of any punishment the court imposes. It also fulfils a newspaper's obligation to tell its community who has offended against it. That consideration is particularly relevant to breaching the fishing regulations, where literally everyone within a community is affected.
The prospect of public humiliation is a very real deterrent for some people, and it's a weapon that this newspaper will use to deter poachers from indulging their greed. That's what we can do; the community can do its part by making it clear that poaching is not acceptable and will not be tolerated. Beyond that, people who wish to put poachers out of business should report any suspicious activity by phoning 0800 4 POACHER, or the police. Don't turn a blind eye. If we all do that there will soon be no paua at Ahipara to worry about.
