FISHING ACCESS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22166, 20 July 1935, Page 17

FISHING ACCESS

Sir, —On Tuesday you published a 1 letter by Mr. E. Earle Vaile in which he complains of much that has been said about the necessity for securing public j access t<~> fishing waters. A good deal j of what Mr. Vaile says about damage j done by picnickers is no doubt very ! true. It probably applies in some measure to a proportion of fishermen, and whatever steps are taken should not overlook these points. I must, however, join issue when Mr. Vaile claims that he puts forward overwhelming arguments against all that has been said on the side to which he is opposed. He refers to trout fishing as "a particularly cruel sport," a remark which I take as implying that it should be absolutely prohibited. It may be news to him that it is believed by scientific investigators that fish do not experience pain in a measure comparable to that known to "higher" forms of life. However, it is generally accepted that our j fishing is a national asset to be in- j dulged in and exploited to the full, and ! that is an axiom which I do not pro- j pose to devote more space to here. ilr. j Vaile asks: "Is the State to rob the : citizen of the rights and privileges j solemnly and by deed sold to him?" Of : course not, but it must be remembered that no man has a right to anything j if his exercise of that "right" is prejudicial to the interests of the common- j wealth, and also that the common- ; wealth may take away from the indi- : vidual anything which it needs if reason- ! able compensation be given. Mr. Vaile partly answered the contention implied by his question when he says that

"river frontages are the gift of the gods," and that they should be put to the best use in the public interest. He should also take into account the fact that to the gods, as distinct from the individual landholders, is due the credit for the presence of trout and salmon and that no individual can claim this asset as having been "solemnly and by deed sold to him." One of the chief causes of the present agitation arises from the fact that fishing rights are baing grabbed from the public by individuals who are speculating in them for private gain, and Mr. Vaile overlooks this most important fact when he asserts that "lands privately held against fishermen are devoted to forestry and farming." I would ask Mr. Vaile if he has any quarrel with the following assertions: —fl) Trout and salmon fishing in New Zealand waters is at present accepted as a national asset of considerable monetary value. (2) As such it belongs to the commonwealth and should not be permitted to drift into private ownership. (3) The State will not be guilty of robbing from the landowner if it* takes from him whatever may be necessary to give the public access to fishing, provided the landowner is fully compensated in cash for anv loss direct or indirect which he may suffer always excepting any speculative value, which has not been paid for. in fishing rights. (4) There will be no robbery if the landowner is prevented from fishing in places inaccessible to the public, provided that he did not take fishing rights into account when fixing the price he paid for the land. (5) Trout fishing has, in the older settled districts, drifted into private ownership, where it frequently represents the major portion of the market value of the land. (6) This drift is now taking place m the Rotorua, Taupo and upper W aikato areas and it is Parliament's duty to stop it. M. E. Fitzgerald. Tirau.