The Times. PUBLISHED ON TUESDAY AND FRIDAY AFTERNOONS. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1918. FLAX OR TROUT?

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 7, Issue 435, 17 December 1918, Page 2

The Times. PUBLISHED ON TUESDAY AND FRIDAY AFTERNOONS.

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1918. FLAX OR TROUT ?

"We nothing extenuate, nor set down aught in malice."

The decisions in the Stipendiary Magistrate's Court at Mercer, on Tuesday last, when two flax-millers were fined for permitting flax refuse to flow into the Waikato river, open up a very large question. The informations which led to the actions were laid by the Auckland Acclimatisation Society, and the grounds of action were that the owners of the mills were injuring trout by allowing any refuse to run into the river- The defendants, on their part, pleaded that they would be hindered in their industry should the provisions of the Fisheries Act be applied to them. To this the prosecution rejoined that although the flaxmillers had attempted to have the law altered, public opinion was very much against them. A fine of £2 and costs was imposed in each case.

Seen upon the subject by a representative of the ''Times." a prominent member of the Acclimatisatisation Society explained in what way injury to trout resulted from flax milling on the banks of the river. The fibrous particles which escaped in washing the flax caught in the mouths and gills of the fish, and caused injury and perhaps death. The whole question appears to narrow itself down to whether men or trout aie to be considered of the most importance in New Zealand. If the flax-millers were discharging into the river material polluting and contaminating the water we should have no word to say in their defence, but the effluent they discharge is a thousand times less objectionable in every way than the natural flow of a hundred creeks and drains that carry the waters of rotting peat swamps into the river. The most that can be urged against it is that it carries a certain amount of fibrous matter that may be occasionally injurious possibly disastrous to a trout here and there. The total value of the flax trade to New Zealand exceeds a million sterling annually. The convictions recorded at Mercer establish a principle which applies equally to every stream in New Zealand. It is probable that means could be found to prevent any refuse finding its way into the river, but everyone who understands the methods of dealing with flax will readily admit that the expense would make flax-milling either an unpayable proposition, or would largely reduce either wages or the price of the raw material. If we prefer trout-fishing to flax-milling, by all means allow the law to stand as at present It is absurd to pretend that the lower Waikato river is by any means an ideal trout stream. It has none of the attributes which would make it a desirable haunt

for either trout or trout-fisher. I has been stocked and re-stocked with little apparent result. We do not affirm that trout do not exist in it, but we do say that they do not thrive there, and probably uever will thrive as thev do in cold, clear, rapidly-running rivers. There are enough ot these latter and to spare in Xew Zealand that are not and never will be intertered with by the flax industry to give trout-fishers all the scope and sport they can possibly require, and to destroy, or even injure, a valuable industry would be the highest ot absurdity. We have had enough injurv in the past from the brainless activities of the Society in introducing baneful animals and birds. The injury done by the Californian quail alone could be estimated in millions. Not long ago we had a number of settlers suddenly pounced upon and fined £5 each for netting mullet in the lakes, a custom which has prevailed from time immemorial, and which is the only way mullet can be caught. Now we have the flax-millers fined. How long, we wonder, will it take the Society to fill up the measure ot its iniquities ?