Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

ANGLING CHANGES

PROHIBITION OF MATUKU LURES

TROLLING AND SPOON FISHING

Commenting on the prohibition of the use of matuku feathers for lures for lake and river fishing in this district, it may be stated that substitutes for this popular feather are easily enough, obtained, and that its loss will not involve any great hardship. It was an anomaly that, while the matuku or native bittern was strictly preserved, and it was an offence to have feathers or skin in one's possession, lures made of the feathers were commonly advertised and sold. Of course the term tuku" did not necessarily .mean that the angler actually got matuku feathers, sincc lures hardly distinguishable could be made from hawk's feathers or those of the German or Chinese owl. Trolling Restricted. The restriction of trolling and spoon fishing is not unwelcome. Spoon fishing calls for some skill, but in the opinion of many trolling is simply pot* hunting and on allr fours with the jagging or strokehauling of trout by unscrupulous persons. Probably the best interests of angling would be served if trolling were prohibited altogether, and no doubt it would in the long run please even those fisherme.i who are at present addicts. In time they might be converted to more sporting methods and they would look back without regret to their unregenerate days. Objection can hardly be raised to the reduction in the limit from twelve to ten. In these days a man who can fake ten fish is having a Jot of luck and a good day's sport. However ten fish would svem about the minimum to which the liaut should be reduced. ! The regulations pertaining to the depositing of trout in freezing chant hers have been gazetted recently. It is not obligatory for persons depositing trout in smoke houses to supphr a return of the number of fish deposited with the Conservator of Fish and Game, though this must be .done by the proprietor of the smoke house or freezing chamber. It is not necessary for the person supplying the fish to do more than to give his license number for record purposes. Clarity Called For. However, the issue of a clear and concise of the regulations has been long overdue. They provide, for instance that if fish are deposited in the freezing chamber a return shall be made; there is nothing to differentiate be'ween smokehouses arid freezing chambers, and no cognisance is taken of the fact that when fish are taken in for snjok ing they are almost inevitably placed in a freezing chamber, both before and after smoking. The elucidation of the problem is thus left to the unfortunate license-holder.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BPB19391018.2.35

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 1, Issue 76, 18 October 1939, Page 5

Word count
Tapeke kupu
442

ANGLING CHANGES Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 1, Issue 76, 18 October 1939, Page 5

ANGLING CHANGES Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 1, Issue 76, 18 October 1939, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert