WHITEBAIT FISHING

Grey River Argus, 24 February 1942, Page 8

WHITEBAIT FISHING

Grey River Ban BLAKETOWN RATEPAYERS’ PROTEST. At t'.ie annual meeting of the Blaketown and Preston Road Rate--1 payers’ and Citizens’ Association, held on Sunday evening, it was reported that a vigorous protest had been made against the prohibition of whitebait fishing in the lower reaches of the Grey River. It was reported that the following letter had been sent by the Secretary (Mr J. W. Grant to the Inspector of Fisheries. Marine Department, Wellington: — “As a recent meeting of this Association, I was instructed to lodge a protest against the recently-gaz> etted regulations, prohibiting the taking of whitebait from the Grey River. Our members, representing the suburbs of Blaketown and Preston Road, claim that an unwarranted hardship has been imposed on the residents of not only this district, but Greymouth as a whole. The majority of whitebaiters whom this regulation affects are workers who depend on small catches for their own personal consumption, and this impos.tion will hit them very hard, besides tending to . monopolise this pastime for a certain few who make a trade out of it whilst the fish are in season. The argument has been put forward that the recently-installed sewer, which discharges into the river, is contaminating the fish. Evidently this argument has been advanced by some person or persons with little knowledge of conditions in this section of the river as experienced fishermen claim that sewerage discharge is not in evidence in the lower portion of the river.” The following reply was received from Mr A. G. Hefford, the Chief Inspector of Fisheries: —“With regard to your Association’s protest against the recently-gazetted regulations prohibiting the taking of whitebait from the Grey River,” all I can say is that no such regulation has been made. What has been prohibited is the taking of whitebait from that part of the Grey River below the Cobden Bridge. The measure was taken entirely for the purpose of safeguarding public health. Any protest or objection to it should therefore have regard to this factor. _ I

think you and your members will agree that being prevented from catching small quantities of whitebait for personal consumption, without a journey, is not such a hardship, as the starting of a typhoid epidemic would be. I do not profess to speak with the highest authoritv on the subject, for that you should refer to the Health Department—but my experience has taught me a great deal more about sewerage polluted waters than is the case with the ordinary citizen. There is a great deal more in pollution than meets the naked eye. I may add that the regulation was not made on account of .“some argument advanced by some person or persons with little knowledge of conditions in this section of the river.” So far as expert advice available to this Department has been concerned, there is risk in handling whitebait from any part of the river on either side contained in the closed area. If anyone, however, can bring forward any material facts which will stand the test of bacteriological examination, which would prove that there is any part of the closed area that is not liable to contamination, I will see that they receive full consideration. Personally, I do not believe in hard and fast or uncompromising measures, but where risk to public health is concerned I do realise that there has to be a margin of safety. For instance, if the water your members fished in is safe for 13 days and unsafe on the fourteenth, so far as health administration is concerned, it must be regarded as unsafe all the time. I will see that your communication .is brought to the notice of the Head of the Department, but I would suggest that this is a subject which really concerns the Department of Health, although actually the regulation was made by the Marine Department, under the authority of the Fisheries Act.