The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. TUESDAY, MAY 17, 1927. A FISH CONTROVERSY.

Hokitika Guardian, 17 May 1927, Page 2

The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. TUESDAY, MAY 17, 1927. A FISH CONTROVERSY.

The question of trout versus whitebait came up at the late meeting of the Westland Acclimaisation Society, and the subject matter was deferred to obtain further information on the questions at issue. There appears to be much divergence of opinion about the matter, and even fishing experts are at variance. However, the local Society was wise in deferring the subject to glean more information, for it will be noted by an article reprinted to-day from the Lyttelton Times, that the Curator of the North Canterbury Acclimatisation Society discusses the question. The special point of hTs discourse is that he regards the whitebait as essential for the life of the trout. Trout, it appears, are failing all over Now Zealand through lack of food, and this lack of food is said to he caused by the large catch year after year of whitebait which are proved to he so much relished as a food by trout. If tliis deduction be correct, then we have the local controversy brought down to a more definite issue, namely: Which is the more valuable for tbe community—tbe sporting fish such as the trout; or the food supply fish, die whitebait ? Of course it may not be conceded generally that the Curr.ir right in bis deductions, for tin re nil! be those who will have in mind the famous trout produced in the I: tes of tbe North Island, which could not have thrived on whitebait. Perhaps it was the warmer waters of the lake, as at Rotorua. which assisted with tbe prolific supply there, so great that it was necessary to make wholesale catches at times. But at Taupo. the trout are now declining and we do not hear of such great hauls at Rotorua. We know, too, that trout at periods are caught in our own lakes of fair size, and in numerous quantity. Lake Tvanieri, for instance, lias its good and indifferent seasons. Whitebait can hardly reach the lake, and it does not appear that the trout in the lake are sea-run. This is a query which might well he put to the Curator, asking whether bis dictum on the subject is altogether final and conclusive. But if accepting it, even ip part, there is food for thought for 1

the local Acclimatisation Society, and we go back to the problem propounded above —a. decision as to the more valuable fish to cultivate for the ultimate go.nl of the community—trout or whitebait. Trout is the sportsman’s fish, and year alter year if is fished vviLli enthusiastic avidity, its acclimatisation has been going on for many years, and in the aggregate must have cost an enormous sum. Yet, despite the cost, the fish is a declining quantity, and on the statement of one wellqualified to make a statement , can only he saved at, the expense of a native fish on which the trout readily prey. The whitebait is a food fish of universal popularity. II outweighs the trout many times in that respect. The whitebait has created an industry of considerable value, an industry founded originally hv Government subsidy. The industry provides labor and creaTes wealth in the wages and eaniiucs distributed. In money and food value there call hardly be any comparison. mid if it is thought the trout-fishing is a menace to the future of the whitebait. then it appears economically logical that, the trout rather than the whitebait should go. If there is 1 ■ he conservation of lish. the best. lish. nationally should he retained. In ’Canterbury the desire appears to be to preserve the whitebait for the trout. Here, we should say the policy should he to preserve the whitebait for the people, and leave the trout to the lakes and inland waters, away from the whitebait.