ANGLING RESTRICTIONS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13998, 3 September 1907, Page 4

ANGLING RESTRICTIONS.

Anglers are naturally up in arms over the Government regulations gazetted last week, in accordance with which a day's caich of trout is to he limited to twenty in number or twenty pounds in weight. Much exception could be taken to the general application over the colony of such a restriction. A very small amount of reflection upon the subject will disclose th'e absurdities likely to be attendant on the attempt to enforce generally a - regulation which is of a somewhat impractical nature. To contend that an angler could observe such a regulation and yet have a fair day's sport in a well-stocked trout stream in which the fish were at all of large size would be seriously impossible. If a few minutes after starting his operations with rod and line ho were to land, say, a fifteen or an eigiiteen-pounder, his sport would bp oyer for the day, unless ho liked to run the risk of infringing the. law by killing another fish of sufficient weight to bring his total beyond twenty pounds. Of course ho might fill in the day by catching fish and throwing them back into the water, but we doubt if he would care much' about the pastime, and it would not be good foi the trout. "'Twist- temptation and the law- the angler would be unable to do much beyond breathing a fervent prayer that lie might be allowed to catch, his allotted weight of fish in such a „nanner that be would get- the maximum amount of sport possible in so doing. J.'lio plight of the fisherman who, having perhaps travelled many

leagues for tho sake of a long day'on-; tho banks of. some likely stream, should begin by bringing ashore such an illegal catch as a twenty-two-pouudcr may well . be imagined. The suppression of tho fish-story habit that, might be achieved would lie accompanied, we are afraid, bv far too much travesty were the' regulation quoted enforced in the majority of districts. That something of a case may bo made out on the other sido we,are, of course, well aware, am] that a regulation of this kind. is necessary in certain districts tho > stocking of streams has not made strong • progress is likely enough. We are surej' however, that exceptional circumstance!';" govern the cases in which a limitation! of a, catch to twenty fish or twenty' pounds in weight would be wan-anted. ' Tho recommendations made to the,. Government by the ■ Acclimatisation: Conference appear to have been mcrel< ! in the direction of gaining Government' ~ endorsement of any restrictive stejs • that lniglit bo taken by individual societies, not in the direction of a and fast rule having application all W the colony. We suppose most angers would admit that in any district'the imposition Oi somo limit to the Jay's catch would be a desirable thing but it ir necessary that tho limit sli&tld be a reasonable one, and it wonh' most naturally be governed 'by coalitions existing in tho various acclimatisation districts. Illustrative cases siuh as we previously quoted cannot ba regarded as exceptional. Local angteri are well aware of tho fact that in suci localities as the mouths of the 'Waitali or Waiau single fish that would approach in weiglit the limit in the regulation under discussion are not uncommonly caught. Admittedly, moreover, there is a sfcfong, argument against sucl a restriction ill the effect it would ha T e of discouraging tho presence of the nhgling ; tourist, in catering for whom much has been spent. Ho could hardly he expected to find the attraction of a few cists and perhaps one fisli per day irresistible. Drastic limitation of tho kind'criticised would, we judge, *sit perhaps lightly' on the country angler who indulges in frequent and brief angling excursions, but wonlcl weigh most heavily on the town, fisherman, to whom an angling trip is a serious business, made, perhaps, once a week or on the rarer occasion of' a holiday. Further, there is the question of angliug competitions, ' which the general application of a limit' would presumably render illegal. So far, it is true, we have been discussing the position 011 the assumption that a general regulation such as lias been now gazetted would be of unassailable authority in all acclimatisation as protests from anglers have obviously been made 011 this understanding. Anglers should, however, find not a little comfort in Mr R. Chisliolm's explanation of the position, as published in our issiw. of yesterday. After having made inquiry in Wellington, Mr Cliisholm is very clear in stating that Government regulations with regard to fishing licenses do not over-ride. the regulations drawn up by the local Acclimatisation Societies, and duly gazetted, but are superseded by tho latter. If this be indubitably so, the Acclimatisation Societies, of districts iu which the imposition of the new Government regulations would be ridiculous have presumably only to take steps to dissociate their districts from its application. The Otago Acclimatisation Society, it is satisfactory to note;' is apparently going to lose no time in framing local regulations to secure its ■interests, and if these general regulations gazetted by the Government are just as formidable as Mr Ohisholm has stated, anglers have really no cause for alarm after all, unless it b? as to the action of the Acclimatisation Societies 0! their own districts.