Campfire Kiwi Outdoorsman Cops DOC Vendetta

There is more detail over on the fishnhunt forum.

from the article "Even although DoC were aware he did not light the campfire" Im assuming from this he had no part in creating the fire or its maintenance ie did not collect wood or put any on the fire. I know thats a hard one to prove but if so then he is a mere spectator of the fire and no more guilty than someone watching someone picking flowers in a park.

Out of curiosity, what are the powers of DOC rangers/employees? If I'm sitting by my campfire by a remote rock bivi somewhere and someone from DOC comes by checking a stoat trap line and wants my name and address to prosecute me for sitting by my fire, do I have to cooperate? I understand there's stuff in the wildlife section of the act regarding this, so if I was roasting a kereru and had bunch more in a sack beside me, a DOC ranger has powers of arrest, search, requiring I tell them who I am, but do those powers apply in other situations?

Note that in this case it was a private forestry employee (and 'self appointed enforcement officer') who spotted the fire and reported it, though the fire was on DOC land. Those details from the fish'n'hunt thread. http://www.fishnhunt.co.nz/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1473351169 The rural fires act linked in the previous thread here on tramper makes it possible to prosecute all those present for an illegal fire, not just those who lit it. The act seems to state that its an offence to fail to extinguish / report a fire even if you didn't light it. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1977/0052/latest/DLM442947.html

Does anyone have a feeling if this is really a 'vendetta' against this particular person, a particular conservation area getting particularly officious / trying to scapegoat someone to make a point regarding fires in their area, or is this the start of a nationwide push to try and stop all of us doing what we've been doing for generations in the NZ outdoors? Also, is a conviction does succeed along the lines of this situation, is it a criminal conviction, or at the level of say breaking a parking bylaw or getting a speeding ticket?

"Note that in this case it was a private forestry employee (and 'self appointed enforcement officer') who spotted the fire and reported it, though the fire was on DOC land. " It looks to me as if this 'self appointed enforcement officer' could himself be prosecuted under the Forest and Rural Fires Act 1977 if he only took a picture of the fire, those around it and left without pouring a bucket or two of water over it: Fire suppression: 35 Duty of persons in vicinity to endeavour to extinguish fires (1) Any person not being engaged in essential services where adequate precautions against the outbreak or spread of fire are taken who becomes aware of a fire burning unattended in the open air— (a) in or within the fire safety margin attached to a State area, forest area, or specially protected site; or (b) in any part of any district during a restricted or prohibited fire season, or while a warning under section 20 or an order under section 21 is in force— shall immediately cease the work or other activity on which he is engaged or employed and shall do everything reasonably within his power to extinguish the fire, whether or not there is an immediate danger of its causing damage; ... (4) Every person who fails or refuses to comply with the foregoing requirements of this section commits an offence against this Act.

Following @madpom's reference, FMC has pointed out today via its Facebook page that the Forest and Rural Fires Act is on its way to possibly be replaced in the near future by the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill, if it completes its way through Parliament. https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/document/00DBHOH_BILL69468_1/fire-and-emergency-new-zealand-bill Submissions after its introduction closed in July. A report's due in January, then it'll eventually get a second reading after which more submissions may be requested, but they tend to prefer to make less major changes second time around unless there are big problems. Peter Dunne's running its progression, so if you have some concerns to express then I'd email him.

Browsing the Fire and Emergency NZ Bill [ http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2016/0148/latest/whole.html ], its introduction notes that one of the changes its making is the removal of the ability to recover the costs of a rural fire from a person to have caused it. Those costs (I'm inferring this) are apparently being socialised back to the levy which people who live in the area pay. That's a change that might have been relevant to this guy, whose case we discussed in May: https://tramper.nz/?view=topic&id=8809 BUT, that doesn't mean it'd not be an offence to be irresponsible with or around a fire, as you'd expect. eg. Check out around sections 49 to 57 for all the offences it makes of stuff like lighting open fires when prohibited, or recklessly letting fire spread to vegetation. For individuals, the maximum fine a court could impose would be 2 years in jail and up to $300,000. Beyond this there might also be other cost recovery mechanisms a court could impose on someone found guilty through all the existing laws about extracting money from people who've imposed costs on others through crime. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2016/0148/latest/whole.html?#DLM6888226 As usual I'm just a layperson trying to read this stuff, so don't take any of this as legal advice.

The end to cost recovery backs up what I've heard rumoured through rural fire people. Part of bringing rural and urban fire under the same system.