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

THE FISHERIES ACT.

NETTING WHITEBAIT,

ILLEGAL METHODS. At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday the Inspector of Fisheries (Constable F. Woods) charged Stanley Reeve with, on Sept ember Bth, at Manawatu Heads, using a contrivance in netting whitebait which tended to wholly prevent the movement of whitebait up or down stream, such being a breach of Hie regulations governing the netting of whitebait.

Defendant, who was represented by Mr J. B. Wither, pleaded not guilty. Const able AYoods, Inspector of Fisheries for the Foxton district, stated that on September Bth, on account of complaints received, he visited Hie Manawatu Heads and found Reeve fishing for whitebait at the month of the Whakapnni stream, a tributary of the Manawatu River. He had a nine feel net in the stream, and one side of it was against a rush bush, and on (he other side a groyne, had been built of wood and mml from the hank to (he net, thus preventing whitebait from moving an or down stream. He had warned Reeve last year about the same practice. Witness said he had received several complaints of late from residents of Palmerston North who visited the Beach that it was impossible to eat eh whitebait further up the stream on account of Hie method adopted hy Reeve stopping them from getting past his net.

To Mr Wither: lie didn’t measure Reeve’s net, hut it was within the regulation measurement. The rushes on one side of the stream had been placed there, lint had since taken root. The groyne had been made with a piece of wood with earth packed up and around it. The si ream had recently been convened into a drain —il was originally a natural stream. There was about IS inches to two feet of water in it a I ’the time. No water was running round the net, which was a set net, being pegged down. For the defence, Mr Wither (allied the defendant, Stanley Reeve, who stated that the rushes were growing at the side of the stream —

he did not put them there. The depth of water in the stream that day was only from five to six inches. The water could run round his net on either side, and w hit elm it could get underneath the not. In fishing in the manner ho had done he was only following the example of all other fishermen. It was the usual practice to fish in that avuv. The same day a man who was fishing further up stream caught quite as many whitebait as he did, which he contended proved that the whitebait could pass round or underneath his net. It was not a natural stream, but was a drain that had been dug' to drain the lakes. The Chief Inspector of Fisheries, Mr Arson, had visited the Deads about a year ago, and he saw witness fishing in the same place in exactly the same manner, and made no complaint about it. Witness Constable Woods had-never cautioned him previously. Arthur Reeve, father of defendant, said although he was not on the spot on the day in question he went down a day or two later, when the net was placed in exactly (he saint 1 position, and the water was running round one side of it. It did not prevent whitelm.it going up or down. It was a cut drain, not a natural stream. Mr Ayson visited the locality about twelve months ago, and made no complaint about the method adopted, which was the same as that of other fishermen.

The Magistrate said ho must find Ihut a breaeh of the 'Regulations laid been committed. The method adopted by defendant tended to wholly prevent whitebait from moving stream beyond his net. Defendant was convicted and fined £3, with costs 7s.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MH19180928.2.17

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Manawatu Herald, Volume XL, Issue 1883, 28 September 1918, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
633

THE FISHERIES ACT. Manawatu Herald, Volume XL, Issue 1883, 28 September 1918, Page 3

THE FISHERIES ACT. Manawatu Herald, Volume XL, Issue 1883, 28 September 1918, Page 3

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