In the present case the Appeal Court relied on the legislative intention to protect and control the fishing industry to broadly interpret “equipment” to include the catch record of gillnetters. The appellants had argued that the catch record could not properly be construed to be “equipment” for the purposes of the Fisheries Act. The current legislation has addressed this issue so that the search and seizure provisions applicable to the fisheries officers now includes “gear, equipment, record or other documents” which is “used or intended to be used in relation to fishing” in s. 49.