Trout farming recommended

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 32848, 23 February 1972, Page 16

Trout farming recommended

There was far more chance of fish in trout farms contracting diseases from wild fish than there was of the reverse, the general manager of the Fishing Industry Board (Mr J. S. Campbell) told the Christchurch Rotary Club yesterday.

Claims bv those opposing trout farming, which had already been proved incorrect, were still being made although it had been shovm that there was no reason trout farms could not exist alongside sports fishing and would most likely benefit it he said.

Concrete ponds on fish farms could be sterilised; rivers, streams and lakes could not he said. The remains of diseased fish in the wild became food for other wild fish, therefore there was less chance of certain diseases. such as whirling disease. in farms where the ford supply was controlled. It had been claimed that importation of ova wou d cause disease, but farmers had already agreed they would rather incur the added; cost and delay of using New Zealand ova to build up a healthy brood stock, said Mr Campbell. Some overseas visitors

coming to New Zealand for sports fishing had been detected bringing in salmon ova for bait said Mr Campbell, and this posed just as great a threat to New Zealand’s wild trout.

It had been claimed that the sale of trout and salmon on the local market was not in the public interest and yet there were generations of New Zealanders who had never eaten trout in any form and had never eaten salmon fresh or smoked.

Imports of canned salmon to New Zealand last year amounted to $3,600,000, Mr Campbell said, but no local trout or salmon was available in hotels and restaurants except that which was donated bv guests. "It could be asked which is the greater public interest,” said Mr Campbell. "Fishing licences issued to anglers account for less than 5 per cent of New Zealand’s population.” “Sportsmen could still catch their trout and the public could buy trout and salmon without affecting the sports fishery if trout farming is introduced.” he said. Objectors to fish farming claimed that there would be I more coaching if trout was 1 a? d ,9 n the '°cal market, said Mr Campbell. - r “l h ®‘ e . C ? uld in fact be a *” at £ eal ,ess - !t would apnow snH tl here iS P° achin B now and there probably al-

wavs will be a certain amount of poaching by people who like the excitement. This type of poacher may do it for fun, for his own pot, or, on a few occasions, to sell. “It would be almost impossible for poachers to catch trout in the normal commercial size, which is Boz to 12oz dressed. This fish will be packaged and larger fish will be tagged,*’ he said. “The fact that there is poaching proves there is a demand for trout. This could be satisfied by the sale of trout so poaching could be discouraged. “As it stands, about the only way a housewife can get hold of trout or salmon for the family table is to mam a fisherman—and what woman would want to do that”

Overseas earnings from the export of farmed trout would be about slm by 1981. “We believe that there could be an export market of up to s4m to ssm in rainbow trout, but this would have to be built on high quality and with good marketing presentation,” said Mr Campbell. “One London fish smoker told me that he would be prepared to buy 500 tons of rainbow trout from New Zealand a year.” Apart from what was raised in private ponds for private consumption, 38,000 tons of farmed trout was produced throughout the

world each year and high prices paid for them. Lienmark alone sold farmed rainbow trout in 40 countries. Trout farming would not bring about alienation of public waters or the sale of private fishing rights, Mr Campbell said, and it would have less effect on the ecology than wild trout had had on decreasing numbers of eels, koura, whitebait and freshwater prawns.