Most New Zealanders would have been horrified to learn of the incident involving Norwegian tourists who posted on the internet images of shooting at a fully protected native wood pigeon (kereru), the bird falling from a tree, and film of one of the tourists holding two dead birds.
Though heavily dependent on tourism, the country does not need or want visitors such as these, but there appears to be no existing mechanism within the prosecution regime whereby they can be banned from returning.
Yet if the perpetrators were to be charged and convicted under Norwegian law, the punishment would be far more in keeping with the crime - up to six years' jail for having wilfully or through gross negligence reduced a natural population of protected wildlife in Norway or overseas.
The later point is germane, and the Department of Conservation is seeking the assistance of Norwegian authorities to have the men charged under local law, since both New Zealand and Norway are signatories of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
The case has exposed the generally inadequate penalties available under our law not just for killing protected wildlife, but for stealing animals and birds for smuggling purposes, and for animal cruelty generally.
The seizures of protected species at our borders under the convention amount to 40,000 or more a year, because more than 30,000 protected animal and plant species and any product made from a protected species are included.
Most often, ignorance is the reason why travellers have such goods confiscated, but the worldwide trade in endangered species is growing: one estimate places its value at third, behind drugs and weapons.
Because of the rarity of so much New Zealand native wildlife, this country is a common target; hence the outrage when three visitors - a Swiss, a German and a Mexican - tried to smuggle 16 of Dunedin's protected jewelled geckos out of the country.
The maximum sentence they faced was six months' jail for hunting or possessing wildlife; they were sent to prison for 15 or 18 weeks.
Such a sentence is clearly inadequate to deter this kind of criminal behaviour.
There will be some sympathy for the judge in this case, who complained that significant increases in terms of imprisonment and fines was desirable for such behaviour.
Yet, in broad terms, this is not a new complaint by the courts where illegal hunting is concerned.
One incident that may be recalled involved a West Coast case where the owner of a dog that attacked protected wildlife was punished with $1000 in fines and costs, for failing to have proper control of the dog.
Another, involving hunters in the Bay of Plenty, who shot and killed protected native birds during the duck-shooting season, resulted in the absence of any prosecution because the offenders could not be satisfactorily identified.
The attitudes of the community are, unfortunately, reflected in the levels of sentencing available to the courts, and only very recently - and then in only the most severe cases - have judges sentenced offenders to jail terms.
When Judge Neave, who dealt with the gecko smugglers, expressed his frustration with the sentencing regime available to him, and called for tougher penalties to be available, he was reiterating what the courts have wanted for some time, as indeed have those whose focus is the protection and preservation of our native wildlife, flora and fauna.
His comments have, at last, prompted a response from the Minister of Conservation, who has said a review of sentencing laws by the Department of Conservation was "likely".
She talked of raising maximum sentences for hunting or possessing the wildlife from six months' jail to two years'.
But in saying that, the minister herself raised doubts about whether increased penalties would be sufficient to deter visitors from such criminal activity.
The fact the maximum penalty for killing protected wildlife is a paltry $100,000 fine and/or up to a year's imprisonment means an automatic ban on future entry is not possible, but if the sentencing regime was increased to two years or more for these offences, then it would be.
It may be the best we can hope for, since often in such cases the smugglers are not the principal offenders, but are working to order, and are merely couriers for far bigger criminal organisations.
The prospect of a hefty jail term might deter those willing to take such risks at present, and a ban on their return an added penalty.
But the co-operation of the courts would be necessary to have the most effect, and the vigilance at our borders maintained to the highest possible standard.
