THE SALE OF TROUT.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 9005, 18 January 1895, Page 3

THE SALE OF TROUT.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. . Sir, —I desire a small space in your columus to draw attention to whao I venture to call the arbitrary conduct of the Canterbury Acclimatisation Society in connection with the sale of trout. As the public are probably aware, the Society have decided to sell to the public the trout caught in the nets of the Lake fishermen. One would have thought that they would have made this an open matter and granted a license to every fishmonger, to sell these trout under the proper restriction of the trout being sold co the fishmongers at the railway station as the flounders now are. If this were done, the Secretary of the Society.or some other officer appointed by them could be present at the station and see the fish sold. This would ensure fair play to all engaged in the sale of fish in the city, and would prevent the monopoly which now exists without any reason at all. Wβ understand that the party appointed to sell was not to be connected in the fiah trade, but they have now commenced selling all kinds of fish. I contend that as this is a public matter, and that the Society are serving the public by the sale of these trout, it is not right that their convenience of purchase should be so entirely ignored as is the. case now. No matter what part of the city a person lives in he has to go right away up Victoria street to buy trout if he wants one. Why should he not be able to get a fish if he wants one as easily as he can bny flounders ? The sale is made by the Society and under the supervision of theijr officer, who sees who buys the fish. Where, then, can be the barm in allowing all the fishmongers of. the city to be licensed, instead of confining the sale to one man in a remote part of the city ? I may also point oat that it will interfere very much with the sale of the trout and consequently with the revenue to be derived by tne Society. If the fish are kept away from the main thoroughfares of the city, how is it likely that anything like a demand will be created for the fish ? For these reasons I think that the Bociety should urge their Committee to reconsider the question of granting the license and serve all alike. Under proper restrictions, as I have suggested, there,would be no possibility of poached fish being sold, and the convenience of the .public, which should be theifirst consideration of the Society, would be consulted.—Yours, &c, Live and Let Live.