NETTING THE WAITAKI

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18456, 18 January 1922, Page 6

NETTING THE WAITAKI

PROPOSAL FROM OAMARU. WAIM ATE ACCLIMATISATION SOCIETY ANTAGONISTIC. (Fhom Odr Own Correspondent.) WAIMATE, January 17. The proposal that the experimental netting pi quirmat salmon should bo carried out in the WaitakL River was severely criticised by the Waimate Acclimatisation Society. The proposal emanated from the WaitaM Acclimatisation Society, but it was not made directly to the Waimate society, being contained in a letter from the Fisheries Department. The Chief Inspector of Fisheries, Mr L. F Ayson, wrote enclosing a copy of a letter from th© secretary of the Waitaki Acclimatisation Society, and stating that he would be glad to know if the Waimate Society would be favourable to some experimental netting of salmon for market being done. The netting would he carried out under the supervision of either himself or the manager of the Hakataranm salmon station, and, ‘if he wished, a member of the Waimate Society. Any trout taken in the netting would of course be returned to the river Mr R. Y. Smith, president of the Waimate Society* said he was strongly opposed te it. All “sports” would be up in arms if it were done, Mr P. Nash agreedi. He did not think that when the society had taken money from people for licenses, the Government could step in in that manner. Mr Smith said it should not be allowed until after the trout fishing season. Air Eathgen suggested that th© netting should be done in the upper reaches of the river, if at all—say. in the vicinity of Knrow. Messrs Nash and F. W. Jones supported this view. “There are some strange things happen on that river,” remarked Mr P. Pollock. “I had a conversation with a man, now a member of the Waitaki Society, and he told me of how he had netted trout! It is not going to be a good thing for anglers if netting is allowed here.”. Mr Smith: I expect every angler would pack up his rod and go home if it is started here. Mr Jones: If they.net th© river, the sooner the Accliir.ati.sati on Society throws up the sponge the better. We are trying to stock the river with trout, and if there is any netting for salmon, it is bound to get some trout. Air Nash remarked that the last thing any society should do was te suggest netting a river. Mr Mines said the Waitaki Society should have approached them first. Mr Smith said the Oamaru Society had not done the right thing. “They knew we wouldn’t approve of the proposal,” he said. “That's why they did not approach us. It would no the at all fair te anglers te allow it.” _ ! Mr Pollock agreed that it was not a fair thing to suggest jt, especially on a boundary river. Mr Smith: They cannot do it if we are against it. They should handle their experiments in tho proper manner-set traps for th© quinnat, and if trout get in they can be lifted out. Otherwise, the trout caught during tho netting would be strangled. Mr Jones remarked that big trout went a good distance up the river to spawn. Even if netting were prohibited lower down, there would still be trout where the operations wore carried out. After further discussion, tho following resolution, moved by Mr Jones and seconded by Mr Pollock, was carried unanimously—- “ That this society is of opinion that it would be detrimental to the trout to allow any netting in tho Waitaki, and would suggest that if any experiment work is to be done, that it be'done by trapping.” PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— Mr J. M'Grogor, in a characteristic article on preference to unionists, declares that every farmers’ union in the country desires the abolition of preference to unionists. Now, that is splendid, and is a good augury for the future. It reminds me of a motto that we are all familiar with—namely, “Equal rights for all, special privileges for none.” When we have the farmers subscribing to a principle of that nature, the outlook is more than hopeful. Would that everyone was like-minded, “seeking 1 not their own but another’s good.” Am I right if, in this desire of tho farmers, I include the farmers who, being members of the Farmers’ Union, are also unionists? Then, what does this desire of the farmers moan? First, that they do not favour the country quota. Many politicians think they do favour it, and consequently have been “afraid,” _ as Mr MacGregor puts it, to abolish this preference to tho farmers—a preference which practically makes one farmer’s vote worth two worker’s votes, resulting in a very much larger proportion of farmer supporters being returned to Parliament than they are fairly entitled to. This is quite contrary to the fanners’ wishes, and means that they favour proportional representation. Further, we all thought that) the farmers wanted their lime, etc., carried free on the railways. No, that \is not the case; they are quite prepared to pay the same as other people, and stand by the principle of no preference. When adjusting railway finance Mr Massey should note this. It was not the wishes of the farmers that there should be a revision of the tariff to relievo tho farmers of some of the burden of taxation, for do they not stand for no preference? A duty will now have to bo placed on certain chemical manures which come into the country and are admitted free as at present. Tlie £600,000 given to the farmers as a butter subsidy w;is quite contrary to the wishes of tho farmers, and is another instance of how the Government has misjudged the position. No farmer wanted to be exempted from going to the front when be made the plea of essential industry He was only joking, but tho Government failed to see tho joke, and in many instances exemption was granted to him Tho farmers have no desire that Parliament should occupy its time discussing how their moat shall reach the consumer at Home, or how tho scheme should' be subsidised with publio money. They want to know what it has got to do with the Government, and in this instance desire no preference. I think I have fairly interpreted what the abolition of preference 1o unionists should mean, and am with the farmers in its universal application. But they should know that people living in glass houses must not throw stones, and if there is to be no preference to trade unionists, there can be none to farmer unionists. —I am, etc.. Consistent.