ISLAND BAY BEACH

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 74, 20 December 1929, Page 8

ISLAND BAY BEACH

ELECTORS’ ASSOCIATION AND FISHERMEN FURTHER COMPLAINTS TO COUNCIL The long-standing grievance of Island Bay residents, regarding the activities of the fishermen was again before the City Council last night, when complaints from the Municipal Electors’ Association were discussed. It was stated that a nuisance was being created by the fishermen in dragging for bait. In doing this the fishermen bad been leaving the beach in a filthy condition, and the association saw no reason why the citizens should foot the bill for the removal of a nuisance created by a small section of the community. There was also a complaint as to the use of the eastern rocks by the fishermen, which had always in the past been an area for recreation.

The association asked that the existing by-law be enforced for the following reasons:— (1) The whole of the foreshore from Lyall Bay, excluding the Healthatorium site, which was freehold, to the runaround was some years ago declared city reserve, some portions of the rocks at Island Bay being acquired at a tremendous cost to the city. (2) Your council, the personal of which remains unaltered, on December 13, 1928, by resolution excluded the eastern side of Island Bay from use as a fishing wharf. Should the proposed by-law as presented to your council to-night be confirmed, then by implication the eastern side of Island Bay and the eastern rocks are thrown open to the uncontrolable activities of the fishing industry —the very thing my association and the residents least desire to see. (3) The inclusion of the area asked for will permanently remoye any possibility for future negotiations for eastern bay fishing accommodation and will remove the launches from a position they should never have been allowed to occupy. (4) So long as the launches are allowed to moor off the eastern rocks, which, by implication, the proposed by-law permits and invites, there will always remain the temptation to create a centre of activity in this locality and as a result the ‘prohibited area’ will be, as now, strewn with offal and fish-heads washed in from the mooring ground.” The Mayor said in regard to the. rocks mentioned, this was an area vested in the City Council, and there was no need to refer it to the Marine Department or anyone else, and he thought they might take steps to proclaim this area one for recreational purposes only. Councillor Semple approved of the Mayor’s contention, and said they must guard their foreshore. They could not allow it to be used, as had been the case in past, for commercial purposes. Clear for Holidays. “Could not something be done at once in view of the Christmas and New Year holidays?” asked Councillor Mitchell, who pointed out that the council would not be meeting again until after the vacation. The people should be allowed to enjoy the use of the foreshore during the holidays, and the fishermen should, not be allowed to us&the beach during that period. Councillor Luckie said the portion,of the beach referred to was marked off as a reserve from the rocks on the western side to the rocks on the,eastern side. Councillor Huggins urged immediate action to keep the foreshore clear during the holiday period. ■ ' . - An Inspector There. The Mayor said they had-an inspector patrolling the beach, and if these nuisances were being created the inspector) should be called upon to say why.':' ‘ Councillor McKeen asked if they could not license the fishermen. The Mayor stated that they had no power to license, and he doubted if the Marine Department would give the council the power. Councillor C.- D. Morpeth said that there should be a law preventing the fishermen from gutting their fish on the northern side of the island. . The Mayor said there was a by-law to that effect—that no fish or parts of fish should be thrown overboard Within 700 yards of the island, which meant the whole of the bay. The matter is to be referred to the Marine Department.