ISLAND BAYS TROUBLES

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 296, 10 September 1926, Page 8

ISLAND BAYS TROUBLES

ALLEGED ABUSES OF THE BEACH PROTESTS AGAINST FISHERMEN’S WAYS A large deputation from the Island Bay Progressive Association waited upon the City Council last evening in connection with various matters concerning the commonweal of the Bay. Mr. A. J. Clerk stressed initially that they were not at all antagonistic to the fishermen, but he wished to refer to the wharf, which had been talked about for the last three or four years past. It had been said that there was not a sufficient depth of water in the creek for the landing wharf, but the boats had been landing their fish for years past He also referred to tlie habit of fishermen burying fish-heads a few inches under the sand on the beach, and there was also the practice of gutting the fish and leaving the offal about the beach, creating a most objectionable nuisance. The association was doing its utmost to improve the Bay. They were spending about £lOOO in improvements, and-at the present time they were calling for tenders to equip a children’s playground down near the beach. All they wished to do was to improve the Bay in every way possible, and, once more, they wished to say that they were not at all opposed to the fishermen, but they wished to object strongly to some of their habits.

Mr. E. J. Colley reminded the council of a promise given two years ago by the then engineer of the council that the work would be proceeded with. They had since then been put off with promises. The Island Bay Electors’ Association had been advised that the money was not available, but they knew that the Marine Department was prepared to advance its quota. Then they had been told that the plans exceeded the estimates. The council should tell the Island Bay people whether they were or were not going to do the work. They had no quarrel with the Island Bay fishermen, but they did object to the fishermen using the beach as if they owned it. Bathers were unable to use the bathing-sheds owing to tlie stencil of fish. They had been promised a beach custodian, but up to the present such an official had not been appointed.

Mr. A. Dicker, president of the Island Bay Surf Club, complained of the nuisance caused by the infection of the beach by fish stench. The present method of handling fish at Island Bay was very primitive. Councillor G. A. Troup asked the deputation if they had seen the. plan which had been prepared, , and if so, whether they considered it was satisfactory ?

Mr. Collev replied that they had not seen the plan. The Mayor (Mr. C. J. B. Norwood) said he could not understand why previous councils had not kept their promises to the Island Bay people. The present council had had outside advice, and the Bay had been inspected. It was just a question now whether the greater expenditure would not be the best way out. The council’s idea was to fix the aquarium on the island, where coolers could be erected. He personally had questioned the fishermen at Island Bay, nnd it was 1 news to him to learn that the fish were sold on the beach. The representations of the deputation would be taken into consideration, and a recommendation would be brought down by the committee considered. Councillor H. D. Bennett said that tenders for the works at Island Bay would be opened at next meeting of the council, and submitted to the Msirine Department. Fishermen’s Point of View. Mr. D. R. Hoggard attended on behalf of the fishermen of Island Bay. He said the fishermen were at one with the residents to make the Bay a pleasant place. But the fishing industry at Island Bay was a very important one. There were 20 launches and 30 men engaged in the industry. The catch for last year amounted to about £60,000, and the value of their plant was about £20,000. The fishermen thought the eastern side was the better site for a landing wharf, for they bad found that there was insufficient water for the larger launches; and, further, the western site was more . exposed to the southerly than was the eastern site. He thought that the evidence of the fishermen concerned should be taken before anything further was done. It was a perilous enough occupation as it was, without forcing them to the western side of the bay. The offal complained of was not from the fishermen. They fished eight or nine miles away, aiid the gutting was done on the way home, which took from one to two hours. It was necessary for the fishermen to use their haul nets in order to obtain bait, and sometimes they had to take their nets over to Evans Bay, and even Oriental Bay, to obtain this bait. None of it was wasted—it was too precious fot that. As to the boats on the. beach, the fishermen had to leave their boats somewhere, and there was no other place to keep them except on the beach. In reply to a question from Councillor R. A. Wright, Mr. Hoggard said he could not understand the objection to the eastern site, as most of the fishermen lived, there, and it was a quarter of a mile away from the bathing sheds. The Mavor said it was obvious that the matter must be given very serious consideration.