MARINE DEPARTMENT REPORT

Hokitika Guardian, 28 March 1931, Page 3

MARINE DEPARTMENT REPORT

1930. WHITEBAIT. (By Chi;'!' Inspector of fisheries). In hist year’s report the whilehaitfishiutr season ol' 1928 was smnmetl up a s generally poor. Our sources of reliable information as to these widely distributed fisheries are not so representative as could he desired, but, so far as our information goes, it is evident that the 1929 season was better than the pervious one. This applies particularly to the West Coast fisheries, where, although the actual fishing season was short, some very big runs of whitebait were seen, and heavy catches secured. In the Manawatu Tlivei the season wa s a very poor one this year. The following shows the returns of quantities-'caught ■at certain centres for the past three seasons. Unfortunately there arc at present no means of making these returns more comprehensive. 1927 1928 1929 Cut. C-wt. C'-'t. Hokitika and neighbourhood, 92d 103 1319 Greymouth and neighbourhood 160 100 202 Westnort and neighbourhood 538 600 Kai.aroi and neighbourhood 361 8d 183

In last year’s report I dealt at sour length on the conditions of the whitebait fisheries from the aspect of in urination obtained from acclimatisation societies and from Inspectors of Fisheries and others interested in the subject,. On the basis of this information certain modifications of the regulations were tentatively recommended in the direction of keeping the administration in close touch with the fisheries by setting up a licensing system, and by prescribing a close season to ensure more escapement, from fishing operations', in order to increase the breeding stocks. It was pointed out in that report that our knowledge of the practices and the production of these fisheries was not as exact nor as complete as was desirable, and one ol the principal objects of the recommended changes in regulations unis designed to remedy this deficiency.

Tn the past year. the in’ormation J previously obtained lias been added to and \, ex fitful edw In ,Iyho absence of a scheme ,?for obtaining/strict. statistical dafjii.T ohr understanding of the indus- 1 trial aspect, of the whitebait fisheries stands very mud where it did. Th<> | abnormally good whitebait season on I th ■ West Coast in 1929 lias affected | the point of view of most people ■'who jare .'interested in that fishery. It has 1 encouraged a te'ndeney to swing towards optimism and laissoz faire.' just as the had season of the previous year encouraged pessimism and the “something must he done” attitude. 'Phis is a, -natural human reaction-..-hut. it is not good from the point of view of administration where our policies must

he yd!,idl'd and governed hy average conditions and the general trend. .Our primary policy is to ,ascertain wluit these are, find the aim of the whitebait regulations should btv. principallv directed.i;to\vards this object. In the past, the temlencv has been 'to regulate first under the compulsion of popular VlamouV and to leave fundamental investigations for another day. Rational fishery regulations must he based d) comprehensive knowledge of the life-history of the fish. It" should he the primary function of the Fisheries Department to obtain and make' us-of-both these classes of information.

and in order to function 'properly it should he staffed and oc.nipped for these purposes. Though very littb advance has been made towards this ideal up to the present. progressive work is - being done to perfect our knowledge of the fundamentals referred to above. In’connection with th ■ natural history r/ 1 - the whitebait, a very definite advance has been mad' hy means of the excellent work carried out by Captain Haves with regard to the spawning of the whitebait in the Manawatu Piver, which has thrown a new and important light on the subject. A general account of this work is given under the head of Scientific Investigations (and will he published in a later issue).

POLLUTION’. There is in the Fisheries .Act of IHOB a section which was designed to prevent the pollution of rivers and streams into which trout or salmon has been introduced. Allowing sawdust to get into such waters, which is definitely, known to be deleterious to fish-life and to the life of organisms on which fish feed, was expressly mentioned in the Act under prohibited forms of pollution, and this-,same prohibition is repeated in most, if not all, or the regulations in -force under the authority of various acclimatisation societies. Cases have too frequently come to by notice where this Law is ignored in a w:n* wliir'h in some eases amounts to deliberate defiance;. Individual! sawmillers apparently take the view that in the face of such feeble enforcement as the Department- and certain acclimatisation societies have been able to effect.

it is (•lio.ii per to risk an occasion;)] smii.il fine than to make provision. winch the majority of sawmillcrs do make, for tlm disposal of their sawdust otherwise than by pouring it into a-stream'. I wish to state most emphatically that this sort of thing should not he tolerated. Not only is it on the one hand defiance of statutory authority; and on the other a lame or half-hearted carryout of duties statutorily delegated; it is making- distinction between onparty and another to file benefit of the lion-1 ti w-a bid i i:and it is pdiiiy np trouble for the future. The Department should he in a position to take, and should take, more initiative in these eases, and should not. leave enforcement to local at a!!. Though at the present day there : re-

main very few waters-which 'have not been stocked with trout or salmon. I Imre appears to be no rational cans 1 ’’ why the protection of streams from pollution should be limited to siich waters. The native sncrie s are equally in need of protection; tlm whitebait fishery, for instance, is of considerable economci importance. The pollution law plight very well by revisral, Imt meanwliile there is real need- for its enforcement as it stands.