FISH RESOURCES OF DOMINION

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22371, 7 April 1938, Page 10

FISH RESOURCES OF DOMINION

“ appalling waste * better conservation AND USE URGED EXPERT’S RECOMMENDATIONS A plea for the better use and conservation of the fish resources of New Zealand was made by Mr David Graham, F.R.M.S., F.Z.S., formerly of the Marine Fisheries Investigation Station at Portobello, near Dunedin, in an address to the Canterbury branch of the Royal Society of New Zealand last evening. Mr Graham claimed that proper investigation was required, that the amount of waste in the fishing industry was appalling, and that several abundant kinds of fish were mistakenly rejected as food. The nearest counterpart on land to the fisheries industries was not animal husbandry, but hunting, for marine fish husbandry was only a -name, and modern resources represented improvements in methods of fish-hunting rather than in means of fish-culture, said Mr Graham. Nevertheless there was abundant evidence, from achievements m other areas, that organised programmes of investigation returned handsome dividends by the proper exploitation of marine harvests without sacrificing them through uncontrolled intensification of fishing. The first requirement in attempting to improve the utilisation of the marine products of New Zealand was not more intensive fishmg. improvement was in a large measure required on land. Great Amount of Waste “The present stage of the industry may be compared with the prerefrigeration period of sheep production, when carcases not required for local consumption were boiled down for tallow,” said Mr Graham. “It is surprising that the present appalling waste has nqt stimulated efforts to ensure more efficient utilisatl“Waste takes several forms—the rejection of unwanted fish caught on the grounds, the ignoring of relatively or absolutely unprofitable species even when they were present m superabundance, the return supplies from the market to be damped back in the sea, and the non-utihsa-tion of fish offaL In January. ISM, approximately 11 tons of edible fish were returned from Dunedin to Port Chalmers to be either dumped mto the sea or sold at a ndicously low price to curers. _ . . _ Need for control of groper fishmg in the spawning season was emphasised by Mr Graham. The groper was once an abundant fish, but it was becoming more difficult to catch in any numbers. There was no restricuve legislation, and the need for conservation of such a,valuable resource was as urgent as it was clear. The present wanton over-exploitation tmspective of the need cf protecting tne "rounds, and especially the spawning grounds, called for action. At best recovery from the damage done would b6 In S 1932 and June cf 1933 records were kept of- the number of npe female groper on the market in Dunedin. The estimates indicated that 300,000,000,000 eggs -were destroyed in this way in one month. Such a loss could scarcely be viewed with equanimity. Some Neglected Fssfa Some fish were wrongly despised by housewives. One was red cod. which was an abundant and valuable iooa fish. If it was properly prepared, Mr Graham considered it preferable to blue cod or groper. Yet it was absolutely unsaleable at times and tons of it were dumped into the sea. Another fish that was neglected was the pilchard or herring. He had seen, jshoals of herrings many acres in extent, yet nothing was done to uqum this fish. Garfish, which were also abundant, were another neglected food fish. The flesh was of excellent flavour, and if the fish was properly cooked, could be made to come away clean from the fine bones, which caused most people to reject it.