Small radio-controlled boat for fishing. The drone can detect fish with the help of an echo sounder, and deliver fishing tackle to the place of accumulation of fish. (MaYcaL/Getty Images)
- It remains illegal to fish using drones and remote-controlled boats in South Africa, the Supreme Court of Appeal has ruled.
- A group of aggrieved companies that sold fishing drones tried to challenge the ban on fishing with the technology, but have lost a high court battle, and now an appeal.
- New minister of Forestry Fisheries and the Environment Dr Dion George welcomed the ruling amid environmental concerns from drone use in fishing.
- For more financial news, go to the News24 Business front page.
It will remain illegal for recreational anglers to use drones or remote-controlled boats to assist them when fishing in South Africa, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) confirmed in a ruling this week.
The Department of Forestry Fisheries and Environment (DFFE) issued a notice in 2022 stating that it was illegal to use drones and remotely operated devices for recreational angling based on its interpretation of the Marine Living Resources Act.
The department also flagged concerns about the impact of the fishing method on marine life, as anglers using drones could catch large breeding fish that other anglers couldn’t reach.
Some anglers attach their line to the drone or remote-controlled vehicle, and drop it wherever they please, allowing them to cast much further and more accurately than would be possible with a standard mechanical cast.
A host of South African drone importers and manufacturers had taken drone fishing products to market, but the DFFE’s public notice put the brakes on sales.
A handful of drone fishing companies instituted a legal challenge against the DFFE, but lost a high court battle, and then turned to the SCA, which has now dismissed the appeal with costs.
The high court had ruled that SA’s fishing laws had left no room for ambiguity regarding what is legally permissible fishing, but the applicants had still contended the DFFE notice was unlawful, and neither the Marine Act, nor the regulations prohibit the use of motorised devices such as drones in fishing
They further argued that the use of a remote-controlled bait-carrying device such as a drone is similar to the recognised method of fishing in all ways other than casting.
The DFFE disagreed, saying the notice was not new law. The case turned on the interpretation of fishing regulations and the Marine Act, the latter of which doesn’t include the term “angling”.
The inclusion of the term in the act, the fishing companies argued, was all-important. Permits awarded for “angling” would expressly prohibit the use of drones while fishing. Since the word “angling” was not contained in the legislation, the companies argued that the permits were for general recreational fishing.
In its judgment this week, the SCA concluded that although angling is defined in regulations and not in the Marine Act, the legislation includes “any regulation or notice made or issued under this act”, and therefore is included.
It dismissed an argument that, once a fishing permit has been issued to an angler, they can use whatever methods that may be available, provided the method used is not specifically prohibited, as “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,” the judgment read.
“Second, lawful fishing can only be authorised by means of a S13 permit. … [O]nce 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.”
New DFFE minister Dion George welcomed the decision to maintain the ban on drone fishing in a statement issued after the judgment.
“This ruling is a significant victory for the protection of our marine ecosystems and the enforcement of regulations designed to safeguard our natural resources,” said George.
