FISH RESEARCH

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 170, 14 April 1932, Page 11

FISH RESEARCH

Work of Committee “MONEY WELL SPENT” Favourable Comment Described by one member as practically a vote of no-confidence in the work of the Fresh-water Fish Committee, a motion, of which he had given notice, was withdrawn by Mr. R. H. Nimmo at a meeting of the Council of the Wellington Acclimatisation .Society last evening. The resolution was as follows :— That, in view of the unsatisfactory report by Mr. Hefford of the activities of the Fish Research Committee, this society make no further contribution to the work, until such time as we are presented with evidence to prove that the research is being carried out in a manner calculated to be of benefit to fish. Mr. Nimmo said that, in view of what had taken place since he had given notice of the motion, he thought it was only fair and proper that at the present juncture he should withdraw the motion, reserving the right of course to bring it up again if he thought necessary. He thought that until the Fish Research Committee’s report had been investigated courtesy demanded that he should refrain from moving his motion. Mr. C. 11. Bould said he thought that in the circumstances Mr. Nimmo had adopted, the wisest course. The little trouble which had been stirred up no doubt would be all to the good. The Committee Defended. Mr. L. O. H. Tripp, chairman, said that if the Fish Research Committee had printed'its own reports they would have been to hand some months ago. Mr. Hefford was in no way to blame for the delay. The 'committee had felt that as it was doing national work, without financial support from the Government, the least the Government could do was to print its reports, and so far the reports had been printed by the Government. There were delays in getting the reports so printed. Had that fact been known a good deal of misunderstanding might have been saved. Mr. Tripp outlined how fish research came to be undertaken by the acclimatisation societies. He suggested to all members that they should study the various reports available, in which it was apparent that an enormous amount o£ work had been done by the biologist, Mr. Parrott, who was a young New Zealander, who was being trained under Professor Percival, and in whom they had a scientist who would be a great help to the societies and the Government in the years to come. “It is perfectly true,” Mr. Tripp said, “that we are doing work which the Government ought to be doing, and which they ought to have douc long ago, and which in the future the Government will have to take up. In the meantftne, though,’ wc may have to cut down our contributions to the Fresh-water Research Committee. I would urge, all societies that can afford it to continue some financial support to the committee. If you cannot give it financial support do not attempt to stop the work that is being done to-day.” Scientist’s Eulogy. Mr. Tripp said he had received a letter from the Hon. G. M. Thomson in which that noted scientist had stated: — I have long ago come to the conclusion that in all fishery problems, marine and fresh-water alike, scientific research is essential. But such research is a matter of slow growth and of slow return. It is now carried on by most civilised countries, often at great expense, often in expensive and wellequipped stations, and the results come in slowly. But results are achieved,' and the practical, application of the knowledge so gained is being utilised to improve the condition of the fisheries and to enrich the countries which employ these scientific methods of research. I have perused with interest and care the reports drawn up by Professor Percival and Mr. W. A. Parrott and presented by these gentlemen to the Flail Research Conference which met in Christchurch on April 5. I have, also previous reports by Mr. Parrott, and the papers on the subject which have appeared in the annual reports on fisheries (issued by the Marine Department) from 1929 onward. I know from many years of experience the cost of scientific research, even when those engaged on it give their services and their knowledge free, as has been the case in this present business. It appears to me, after perusal of all the papers bearing on It, that considering the relatively small amount of money expended on this work, your society has got a very good return for the money you have expended. Many business men, concerned only with practical and visible results, often look for immediate returns from the examination of problems whirl) can only be solved by long and continued research. At the same time I hope they will realise that those engaged on such research are doing good and earnest work which is ail to the future benefit of the fishery problems of this country. I must apologise for butting into this controversy—f“only do so from a desire to help in your good work.

Mr. Tripp said he had also receiyed a report from Professor 11. B. Kirk on the value of the fish research carried out since the establishment of the research scholarship. In his report Professor Kirk had stated that the mere fact that, organised research was being carried out at a research centre was in itself a most important and stimulating thing. The report of the director of research, the professor pointed out, evidently gave but a brief outline of the enormous amount of work that was being done. A Prophecy. Dr. G. F. Anson said he was absolutely confident that when he had investigated the reports Mr. Nimmo would be an ardent fish research enthusiast. He was afraid that some of the criticism levelled at the committee would be construed by those actively Engaged in the work of research as a criticism of their scientific qualificatons. He was hopeful that at a later date the council of the society would pass a vote of confidence in Mr. Hefford and Professor Percival. He believed it was well merited. The reports of the activities of the committee which had been laid on the table were referred to the fish committee of the council to investigate and report back.