ANGLING PROSPECTS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 16 February 1935, Page 2

ANGLING PROSPECTS

(To the Editor) Sir, —Although not prospectively interested myself in fishing the Nelson rivers after this season I am moved to suggest that an answer to the question, “What has become of ajl the trout?” is one which will become more and more insistent as time gqes dh. With [ierhaps the ftiwaka And Motueka rivers as exceptions the same story of increasing scarcity comes daily to hand. Two or three seasons back, sport ‘was available to anglers i:i all directions within a radius of 80 miles or so from Nelson. To-day when even the most accomplished “liars” foregather such expressions as “nothing doing,” “an absolute washout,” “sheer waste of time,” etc., meet one on all sides. So there must be something in it, notwithstanding the (to others) dubious veracity of the informants.

Just recently I spent nearly three weeks on the Mangles. The Sveathet conditions were generally favourable. I fished the Tutaki, Tiromea, and the Mangles gorge day by day with an iiidustry and waste of time for which we brethren of the-craft are notorious. , Tlie netted result was almost negligible. For several years past, I have enjoyed some of tlie finest sport in the Tutaki that any angler has a right to expect. Now, with the exception of a very occasional jack , fish in the deep pools, I came across little else. On inquiry, the residents endorsed my remarks. One of them told me that the shags had cleaned up the rivers of all small and medium-sized fish. Only two years ago there were promising shoals of A to lib trout which, given a chance to develop, would have provided a fine succession of sport for years to come. Constable Hart, a keen angler with four years’ experience of the Murchison district, told exactly the same story. The fish have been and are disappearing at an alarming rate and eventually will be exterminated unless some drastic action is taken without delay. It is just waste, of money and labour to stock tlie rivers with young fry whilst the shags reirtain unchecked. . .

The following shocking account of a blood-thirsty tragedy, quite tip to the Murchison standard, was narrated to me by a resident. A farmer from the lower Manila asked my informant, an angler himself, what size trout a shag could or Would tackle. “Oh,” lie replied, “one and a half to two pounds.” “Well then,” retorted the other, “wliat would you say if I told you that tSvo of us saw, a couple of shags kill fish up to 81b?” My friend made the obvious reply. “It was this way,” he continued, “my mate and I were sitting under the bank of the river nearly opposite a deep hole. Two large shags appeared. They dived into it and chased two big trout on to the shingle, when they peeked out their eyes. They then proceeded to feed on their entrails which they dragged out through their gills, leaving the bodies to rot.” I was assured, that this story could he readily substantiated. The. whole question resolves itself into this: Is it desirable to encourage trout-fisliing on the beautiful streams of this district or not? If so, then the litter failure to deal with the shag menace must be realised and the obscene fowl must go. A stuffed specimen in a glass ease should be the only survivor. It could be used as a shrine for bird-lovers who obstinately stick to a pet theory which.has been utterly refuted, and to which fe\v sensible persons give credence—l.am, etc., FRANK W. SYKES. Nelson, loth February.