PROTECTING FISHERIES

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 36, 11 August 1923, Page 10

PROTECTING FISHERIES

SEALS, OYSTERS, AND INDISCRIMINATE KILLING.

Three interesting points in connection with the fisheries under New Zealand's administration were raised in,the Legislative Council by the Hon. Sir Thomas Mackenzie.

Referring to the seal fisheries, he asked the Leader of the Council if there was any restriction upon the killing of seals in the south seas, and whether there was an inspection of the islands to ensure protection. Ha wished to know whether the authorities were solely dependent when granting licenses upon the assurances and statements of the applicants. The matter was an important one, and the seals should be protected under some regulations. He suggested that _if nothing of the sort was already provided, sealers should be required to pass all their skins through the Customs, so that the. number of seals killed might be checked. He also asked whether any presecutions 1 had taken place for the destruction of fish suitable for human consumption. One often heard of fishermen destroying fish, and he suspected that such action was inspired by a desire to keep the market prices -up. "One wonder's," he said, "whether the law is a dead letter in this respect, or whether the authorities are vigilant and see that fish are not destroyed unnecessarily." Thirdly, Sir Thomas said he had been informed there was a rery considerable weakening, of the law in regard to oyster fisheries. He understood the modifications of the Act in favour of Natives, as .proposed in the Fisheries Amendment Bill, were opposed by some of the leading authorities -in the Dominion. The Leader of the Council (Sir Francis Bell) said that at the Auckland Islands, which were uninhabited, seals were utterly unprotected from the depredations of crews of vessels. He had taken the opportunity when he was Minister of Marine of granting the lessee of the Kermadee Islands the right to kill 400 seals upon condition that he prevented others from poaching. He did not know that there was any means of preventing fishermen from destroying fish. It was desirable to prevent them from Oomg so^ but he could not promise that the numoer of inspectors would be increased. At, present a fisherman had only to cry "stinking fish," and he could destroy them as he liked. In respect to oysters, he thought the- new legislation would work out satisfactorily. There was no reason why the Maoris should not have acoess to oyster beds just aa they were entitled to take mussels, but they would be kept within the limits prescribed m the Act. He did not t&£ there was any danger in the new propos-