New move to alter trout farm law

Press, 18 June 1982, Page 9

New move to alter trout farm law

Supporters of trout farming are. preparing another attempt to have the commercial farming of trout legalised in New Zealand. Controversy has surrounded previous efforts to establish trout farming during the last 20 years.- but supporters believe that trout farming could have the potential to at least match the kiwifruit industry in ' revenue earnings. Deer, rabbits and goats are now an accepted part of the farming scene, although their long-term viability has yet to be proved. Supporters point to trout farming as the next logical step in the diversification of New Zealand's agricultural industry. The natural water resources in New Zealand would provide ideal conditions for the rearing of trout, according to trout farming ■supporters. And they believe that the irrigation schemes which are springing up'throughout Canterbury will provide further scope for trout farming. Trout farming is a contentious issue, with strong cases for and against. The whole question is surrounded with political and emotional argu--1 ments. New Zealand is the only developed country with favourable conditions which does hot allow trout farming. In the latest developments, two South Island organisations recently, passed remits calling for trout farming to be permitted. The provincial executive of North . Canterbury Federated Farmers has asked its national body to persuade the Government to amend the existing Freshwater Fish Farming Regulations to include the legalisation of trout farming. And the Canterbury-West-land.division of the National Party has passed a remit calling for trout farming to be legalised immediately. Trout farming supporters

•have suggested that the Government permit the establishment and development of a limited number of commercial trout farms in Canterbury with the aim of obtaining information on the farming and marketing of trout under New Zealand conditions. •If the present fears of the trout farming opponents proved to be unfounded, then the Government would be asked to allow trout farming anywhere in New Zealand that- is suitable. Supporters are talking about “winds of change" but a long-time advocate of trout farming. Mr Neil Isaac, of Harewood, remains sceptical whether new efforts will be successful. Mr Isaac was at the forefront of moves several years ago to establish trout farming in Canterbury, but with the final decision left to the politicians his company abandoned further attempts. The Isaac Wildlife Trust at Harewood at present has 10.000 trout living in gravel pits for display purpose's at the Peacock Springs Wildlife Park. A hatchery, capable of raising 500.000 young trout a year sits unused in the park amidst an elaborate system of pools. . The history of the trout farming debate goes back to 1962 when a ParliamentarySelect Committee came out in favour of introducing trout . farming with ■ emphasis on expbrt possibilities, but the draft . regulations were strongly opposed by some acclimatisation societies. The Fisheries Management Act Number 2. which legalised fish farming, and the Freshwater Fish Farming Regulations were introduced in 1971 and it appeared that trout farming would become a reality and increase a multi-million dollar industry Within 10 years. ' . However, that hope was short-lived ~, when the

National Government was defeated and the newlyelected Labour Government introduced regulations banning the farming of all trout species. When National was returned to power in 1975, the hopes of trout farming supporters were dashed when the Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon) stated his opposition to trout farming. The Government has remained firmly against trout farming ever since.

Opposition to trout farming falls into several categories. including disease, economics, poaching, commercialisation and pollution. According to a prominent author and research director of the New Zealand Federation of Fresh Water Anglers. Mr Tony Orman, of Nelson, disease is a real danger in fish farming.

Disease, which Mr Orman claims -would affect every fish farm sooner or later, could break out and spread into public hatcheries used for restocking public sports fisheries.

But Dr J. R. Clary, a fisheries scientist certified by the American Fisheries Society and a fisheries pathologist, has stated that there is no demonstrable evidence that hatchery diseases have ever caused any problems with wild rainbow, brown, or brook trout downstream from a hatchery outflow.

In a letter written in 1978 regarding an application for a trout farming licence in Tasmania. Dr Clary said that although hatchery diseases do occur in wild fish (and vice versa) they are limited for the most part to the hatchery environment.

. The conditions conducive to the disease in a hatchery, such as crowding, stress, and handling, are not found in natural environments.

"As such, there has never 'been any problem or reason for concern about a 'trout hatchery’s outflow passing into a natural .waterway. ■: “In fact., most commercial. . and government hatcheries in'*the, United States .and .Europe are ..located? on natural waterways, and to date, there is no evidence that disease from these hatcheries has broken but ip natural stocks of fish dOWnstream, I ’:said Dr Clary.The presence of a'ha'tchery on a watershed does not increase or decrease the possibility of disease in native stocks of' fish. The hatchery is a . completely benign entity. according ,to Dr Clary. The water quality of most hatchery outflows (assuming .the use of adequate settling ponds), is at least as good, arid generally better than the run-off ■ from conventional agricultural pursuits. / .

“In fact, most scientists would consider it better, due to the absence 1 of toxic chemicals (herbicides and pesticides) which are used in heavy concentrations in farming operations. “Normal water treatment ’facilities are completely satisfactory for treating the outfall of hatchery water and making it suitable for human consumption,” said Dr Clary. ' Fears of anglers that rain-

bow trout farming would cause missive problems of disease 'in wild fish were completely unfounded, said Dr Mike Hine, scientist in charge of fish disease studies at the Fisheries Research Division of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries in Wellington.

There would be no real risk in. a fish farm stocking fish that were already in New Zealand, said Dr Hine. But there could be a danger of disease if live trout were imported from overseas for the farms, he said!

Dr Hine said a study just completed by his department had shown that whirling disease was present in a few well-defined areas of the South Island and did not occur in the North Island. The affected areas are the lower reaches of the Waimakariri River, parts of Otago, and possibly a branch of the Upper Waitaki River. Whirling disease can affect most of the trout and salmon family, with rainbow trout the most’susceptible followed by quinnat salmon, said Dr Hine. “ . But the disease was not a threat 30 fish in the wild, said Dr Hine. Trout'could become unhealthy if they were infected with high levels of the parasite, but this would only occur under intensive culture.

f Tpout in the wild which had the parasite would show no signs df the" disease and be healthy: ' *■' According to Dr Hine, whirling disease could cause problems in a commercial fish farm which was badly managed and had a high density of fish, placing, them under stress, especially ‘ if they were reared in mud ponds. . . . ,

Dr Hine said he knew of no other serious disbase 'in trout in New Zealand,

Although quinnat . salmon are susceptible to. whirling disease it was unlikely that it would be a. problem in a salmon farming situation, said Dr Hine: "As far as I know, no one has ever had a problem with whirling disease in salmon farming overseas," he said.

Under experimental conditions. scientists had managed to infedt, salmon with the 'parasite. .to the extent of causing disease, but in a ; farming situation disease is unknown,’ although the parasite may be present. ; Only canned fish is permitted to be imported into New Zealand. Some countries are thinking about relaxing import restrictions, but, according to Dr Hine New Zealand had no intention of easing the regulations.

Dr Hine. said the fish diseases . section took its work very seriously because of the z danger of introducing new diseases. A Government fisheries research programme was recently abandoned: because it involved importing a dried fish • ex-

tract which had no guarantee that it was disease-free.

Some exotic tropical fish were allowed to be imported for pets because these fish would pose no threat to wild fish, said Dr Hine. Tropical fish, which require warm water, would die if released in New Zealand waters.

Mr Orman said the pond raising of trout and salmon is a capital-intensive, economically uncertain, high risk venture.

Deer farming had suddenly lost its gloss and the future of rabbit farming was uncertain. Some trout farms in Australia were going into liquidation, which was a good indication for New Zealand to keep out of trout farming. Ninety per cent of the advice received by the Federation from more than 70 fish and game state agencies in Canada and America warned against New Zealand introducing trout farming because of disease and pollution, economics, and the conflict with sports. fishing.’

Several countries banned the importation of trout because many deadly diseases had been introduced and this would prohibit the export of trout farm produce from New Zealand to most countries, said Mr Orman. On the home' market, capital- and rearing costs would be so high that farmed trout would retail at an expensive cost compared with sea fish.

Mr Orman said he challenged Federated Farmers to produce evidence showing how trout farming could be justified. “If they think trout farming is a simple get-rich scheme they are mistaken." The concept of selling fishing rights is clearly prohibited in New Zealand law anti by tradition established over the decades, said Mr Orman.

Fishing as a sport by the public would be undermined because trout farmers would have to prop up their creaky economics by selling fishing rights, said Mr Orman. Trout fishing is currently enjoyed by 200.000 New Zealanders each vear. . •

‘Which is more important — the freedom of New Zealanders to'enjoy trout fishing and trout or the dollar aspirations of a few individuals in producing a product less than one per cent of New Zealanders could afford?"

Trouf fishing was-a proven big dollar spinner in stimulating consumer spending and bringing many tourists to New Zealand, said Mr Orman.

Large quantities of public water would be needed Tor, trout farms and the effluent returned to the streams would be heavy in fish excreta resulting in organic pollution, said Mr Orman. Putting a value on trout would encourage black market trading and poaching, said Mr Orman.

Supporters- of trout farming. say it is up to the

individuals to study the economic aspects of trout farming to ensure viability before investing their money. “If licences are granted and those that become involved go broke, it is essentially their own affair." said Mr A. G. Dunlop, chairman of the Springston branch of Federated Farmers. According to Mr Dunlop, most failures in the trout farming industry overseas were ca'used by bad management, lax hygiene, and inefficient husbandry problems, by no means unique to fish farming. "On the other hand, there is much factual scientific evidence that trout farming can .be a profitable utilisation of a natural resource and. furthermore, is another type of farming diversification with export potential for New Zealand.

"We as a farming organisation, can be seen to be taking a, positive attitude towards initiating an industry which in Canterbury alone, may have a potential equal to or higher than the successful kiwifruit storv.

"We have got deer, rabbit arid goat farming after much dialogue and negative thinking by many people. "There are few animals on earth that can convert so little food, so efficiently, into so much humanly acceptable edible protein.” ’

Trout farming would have an immediate export potential of about $5O million which would involve no Government investment, according to Mr Robert Naysmith.

of Christchurch. who seconded the remit of the Canterbury-Westland division of the National Party. All trout farming projects would be financed by private firms.

Mr Naysmith said he had considered the trout farming issue from both sides because he was neither an angler nor an intending trout farmer. New . Zealand is the onlydeveloped country with suitable conditions that did not permit trout farming, said Mr Naysmith. New Zealand could become one of the major trout exporters in the world because the market potential for trout had not been realised by other countries. The Acclimatisation Society movement was vigorously guarding the recreational aspect of trout, according to the chairman of the South Canterbury society (Mr K. G. Andrews). The society had gone along with the ocean ranching concept of salmon farming because the industry could possibly give some spin-off to the sports angler. However, the society was opposed to the sea-cage rearing of salmon as it would not benefit the angler;,; Trout farming would pro-’ vide no spin-off to the recreational angler and would create a danger of introducing disease td‘ wild stock, said Mr Andrews. The chairman of the North Canterbury society (Mr W. McKillop) ’ said his society. had not changed in its opposition to trout farming.