Can anyone help me nail this...

[squarezebra]

Hey guys,

I'm using NHK news daily to increase my reading ability, and there's an article in particular that is bothering me. I get the whole gist of it, and the final conclusion, but this one passage has me going round in circles.

Here's the link
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/2012040 ... 61000.html

And here's the bit that confuses me:
那須塩原市の塩原温泉を流れる箒川では、２月に県が行った検査で、今月から厳しくなった国の基準値を超える放射性セシウムが魚から検出されたため、釣った魚を放流する「キャッチアンドリリース」での渓流釣りの解禁が当初の予定より遅れたほか、その後に解禁となる、魚を持ち帰ることができる釣りについても、延期が検討されていました

By the tests that were conducted in february, the fish had higher levels of caesium than the current more stringent standard set as of this month, which meant that the lifting of the fishing ban was postponed, only to be later reinstated.... With the proviso that you can't take the fish back home with you?

The rest of the article is fine as it talks about how lots of people are happy that they have started fishing again etc and have caught loads of fish etc.... Am I missing something really obvious here?

Thanks

[Ongakuka]

Which part has you going round in circles? If it helps I can't see >>

only to be later reinstated

that part

[squarezebra]

Hmmm, maybe 'reinstate' is a bad translation lol.

Time to move on I guess

Thanks

[Hyperworm]

More importantly, it's that the subject of that 解禁となる is not the previously mentioned fishing ban, but the following clause which it modifies.

その後に（＝渓流釣りの解禁の後に）解禁となる「魚を持ち帰ることができる釣り」
についても、
延期が検討されていました

[squarezebra]

Now that's interesting hyperworm, and actually explains my confusion. I wasn't thinking of that as a modifying clause at all. Thanks for pointing that out.