MENACE TO TROUT

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22000, 26 January 1937, Page 16

MENACE TO TROUT

SALMON NOT WANTED

IN OPIHI

“RIVERS NOT SUITABLE FOR

MASS PRODUCTION”

[THE PRESS Special Service.]

TEMUKA, January 25.

“There is not the slightest doubt that the presence of quinnat salmon in the rivers is detrimental to the interests of trout. We do not want salmon in the Opihi river, and we tried one year to keep them out by means of a trap; but unfortunately it was not satisfactory.” . ~ This statement was made by the ranger to the South Canterbury Acclimatisation Society (Mr F. W. Pellett) at Temuka yesterday. “It is not the parent fish which causes the damage,” he said, ‘ though the salmon is voracious, and there is little doubt that it would attack a trout that got in its path. It is a well-known fact, however, that a quinnat salmon yearling, which is much bigger than the brown trout yearling, will outstrip the trout in fossicking for food, and, more than this, it will eat two or three times as much. That is where the real damage lies and where the salmon is a menace, particularly in a river such as the Opihi, which is partly rain-fed.” From the time of hatching, Mr Pellett said, the salmon remained in the river for 12 months. When they migrated another batch would be growing in the river and trout had no hope of competing favourably for food. It was a case of the survival of the fittest and it was extremely difficult, under the circumstances, to raise brown trout to a good weight. Fish traps had been tiped but they were successful only until a flood, when logs and rubbish smashed them. Electrical barriers, 100, would be useless, for, they would block all fish, whereas the society’s desire was to foster the trout.

“They are a menace to trout, but it must be admitted that salmon do provide some sport and possess a good commercial value,” said the ranger. “In my opinion, however, they do not give as much sport as a 10 or 12-pound brown trout in good fighting condition. Originally they were introduced to this country for commercial purposes, but they have not been caught in sufficient numbers to warrant the establishment of an industry, and all that can be said is that they offer a little sport in certain of the snow-fed river mouths at certain periods.” “The Government probably visualised the great commercial asset they would be to New Zealand, but this has not been realised.” concluded Mr Pellett. “New Zealand rivers are not suitable for the mass production entailed in forming a canning industry.”