Poaching rise feared from trout farming

Press, 30 August 1989, Page 2

Poaching rise feared from trout farming

PETER LUKE

in Wellington

The Conservation Department has found no evidence to back fears that trout farming would put wild trout at risk through disease.

But in a report released yesterday, the department warned that farming could lead to a big rise in poaching wild trout, including poaching in West Coast rivers. It recommends that the greater costs of policing poaching should be borne by trout farmers themselves, if Parliament gives the industry the go-ahead. The report has come in the wake of the public support for trout farming from the member of Parliament for Tasman, Mr Ken Shirley, who has signalled his intention to introduce a private member’s bill lifting the existing ban. The Minister of Conservation, Mr Woollaston, said that the report was careful and balanced, and helped separate the real issues from the rhetoric. He said he had released it as a contribution to informed and rational debate.

The report said that there was no authoritative evidence to suggest that wild trout populations would be at risk from diseases which might appear on trout

farms. Farmed stocks could be derived from New Zealand wild trout, thereby eliminating the risks of introducing new diseases. The report also found no scientific information to back-up concerns that escaping farmed trout would genetically alter the fighting qualities of trout sought by anglers, but said this issue should be studied further.

But the report did say that the commercialisation of trout would open the door more fully to poaching, by providing

more opportunities to dispose of illicit catches.

“The products of poaching reaching the consumer market will be very difficult to identify from those from trout farms,” said the report.

It said that fisheries in the central North Island, Southern Lakes, and West Coast rivers could be most at risk.

“Should extra enforcement be necessary as a result of the commercialisation of trout, this should be considered as a legitimate cost to the industry which will directly benefit as a result of the change in the status of trout.”

The report noted that trout farming could lead to problems at specific sites, including the need for a large amount of high-quality water, and the production of effluents needing treatment.

But it concluded that such issues could be dealt with under existing laws. The report also acknowledged that the value of recreational trout fishing should not be forgotten, but it recognised that this could co-exist with trout farming.