ACCLIMATISATION

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVIII, Issue 11046, 1 November 1921, Page 7

ACCLIMATISATION

AND REGENT CRITICISM REPLY BY CHAIRMAN OF WED LINGTON SOCIETY. WHAT HAS BEEN DONE. Iu connection with, the recent criticism of the Acclimatisation Society, made by a correspondent of the “New Zealand Times,” Mr Ernest J. C. Wiffin, chairman of the Wellington Society, writes to to the editor as follows: — Sir, —You were good enough to allow me to ramble through the columns of youir widely read paper. May I crave a further indulgence* to again ramble m an endeavour to put “Piscator” upon the right track. lam quite in agreement with him as to the good which will be derived as a result of the correspondence which is taking place. Although my view- iu that connection will' not tally with his, I am not a bit angry upon the subject, nor have I been “touched upon the raw.” What the feelings of Messrs Talbot and Maokay are I do not know; they are quite capable of answering for themselves. I fail entirely to see where “Piscator” has advanced his argument one whit, further than in his original attack, and, to use his own words, his latesterfort is just a “damnable reiteration” of what he said on that occasion. “TOO RIDICULOUS FOR WORDS.” . His statement that the failure of the fishing in Wellington is "proved up to the hilt” is too ridiculous for words. It would he interesting to know who the experienced anglers are he is so fond of quoting; for I, and others, have not met one single person who is in agreement with him. I think I am safe in saying that - the majority of experienced anglers think “Piscator" is something of a- Juggins, or else he is making deliberate misstatements for some ulterior puip pose. He makes the extraordinary assertion that the Wellington Acclimatisation Society has done nothing in the direction of stocking our rivers with fish, and states that only private enterprise has done anything. Does he seriously intend that to be swallowed) by our members? How utterly absurd of him! If the society did not stock our rivers, I would be pleased to learn, from him who did, for we have no record of private enterprise in that direction. Everybody is agreed that good work has been done by those gentlemen mentioned, especially Mi Ayson. But I would point out that these gentlemen have nothing to do with our society in any way whatever. Neither have the Government done anything in connection ijvith. our fisheries, further than to supply ova, for which we paid them from revenue derived from fishing licenses. OVA PURCHASES. In connection with ova, for many years we purchased from th© Government all we required, until the time, arrived when more enterprising and ' ;*-to-date sportsmen were elected to council, who resolved to use the valued services of an expert—-who is our curator at the Masterton hatchories —thereby saving the difference between 5s Ad per 1000 purchased from the Government and 50 per cent, less ■per 1000 done by our own staff. According to your correspondent that is bad business,, I suppose. Did “Piscator" ever hear of “Tone’s Pamphlet"? if not, I would commend it for his perusal. lam sure it will help in his education. It may interest hl-m to know that Mr Tone stocked the whole of the rivers in the Forty-Mile Bush with fry, and fry only. Some success, was it not? The success has been continued by the same methods by such experts as Messrs F. Whitley and W. G. Talbot, together with our ranger and in any other expert members of the society. I have heard it said that the gentlemen mentioned :by “Piscator" were experienced anglers, but that does not make them experts in fish-culture, and, as a matter of fact. I have not heard them mentioned as such. ! AN AUTHORITY QUOTED. I noticed your correspondent oaxefuily ignores the existence of such, a person as Professor Prinoe, an undoubted authority'on. fish culture. How is that? Has he not heard of himP He should read the report prepared by him at the request of the Government; it would be a further step in his education. May I tell “Rsoator” what Professor Primes told us in our office when he was here? He asked how much country was <under our control and the| amount of our annual income. W hen he was told the whole of the Wellington provincial district was under our jurisdiction and our income was under JB2OOO per year, he expressed amazement and said we were doing excellent work. He was asked his opinion as to the merits of stocking- with yearlings or fry. His reply was that both were good, but, in view of the excellent results obtained by the liberation of fry and the exceedingly email income we had to work upon, he would strongly advise us to continue with fry. That is the opinion of an undoubted export. It has just occurred to me that “Pisoator" i,s a modern Rip Van Wdnkje, and has just* awakened out of a ten-year sleep. All this stuff of his was applicable to the council, which was in control when he went to sleep. In those days experts were sadly needed. May I say for "Piscator’e” further education that the council to-day is oompoeed of experts who are pleased to be amateurs only. GAME SHOOTING. "Piscator” refers to the shooting and my • unfartuniate reference thereto. He possesses to a marked degree the unfortunate habit, so common, in some people, of twisting statements and figures, to suit his own. purposes. His figures are correct, but, unfortunately far his argument, they are for the wrong year. The correct figures would not be available to him unless he came to the office. They will not appear until ouir next annual report ie printed. If “Piscator’’ is a member of the society—whioh' I very much doubt—he may procure the figures at the office. Why did he omit to men, tiiou the other bards liberated in our district in addition to the fifteen at Wainui-o-mata. and the five at Belmont? Did ha not 1 know of those? ' In connection with the question of pheasants, all particulars are known to the sportsmen who toko an intelligent interest in the affairs of the society, so there is no need to go into that, only to point out “Pisoatar’s" lack of knowledge as to where we got our pheasants from. We do not go to the Auckland Society; we go to a Mr Dobson, of Aratapu, an expert possibly not known to him. 1 do not quite understand his meaning, in connection with his remarks about duck. , Dices he cavil at the action of a lot of loyal sportsmen who paid our Prince a sportsmen’s tribute P Nobody questions "Pisoator’s'’* right to his opinion; he is quite <at liberty to keep them if be so wishes, but he would be well-advised, to alter them, for really they are quite wrong. We would ask that he concedes us the same privilege, especially when our opinions are backed up by the majority of those interested members who attended the last annual meeting. I can only say this, that we shall continue to work according to our lights until the next annual meeting, when, if those lights are unsuited to members, why then they will be put out. In conclusion, Mr Editor, I thank you for allowing m» «naoe to answer the criticisms which had been aimed at oiir council, and I wish to state that I do not intend to further continue this unprofitable correspondence with "Piscator.” If he 1 continues I hope he will attach his signature. It is more open, you know, and certainly more sportsmanlike. On behalf or the council I extend to him a most hearty and cordial . invitation to he present at our next annual meeting.