OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18624, 4 August 1922, Page 7

OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS

m EFFECT ON BIRD. LIFE. 1 - •' UNPLEASANT CONSEQUENCES, ‘ I (Ebcm Ous Own \,.:j / LONDON, June 15.;' By the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill, now passed the second reading stage-'in , the House of Lords, the Board of ■ Trade 1 seeks powers to prevent the discharge or *{■ escape of oil at sea within the three-mile & limit. In the course of yesterday‘s discus- - A: sion some remarkable disclosures were made regarding the destructive effect of this oft refuse on bird life round the. coast, as . 'well as in certain tidal rivers, particularly s in the South of England. Not only so, hot i; disquieting hints were dropped concerning - the mischief with which, flourishing seaside resorts appear to be threatened in. codec* .. £ quence of the risk incurred by 1 bathers - df ’ ;i finding themselves covered, as T /ord Mayo si* picturesquely described it. with “a'horrible < compound of perfectly filthy stuff.”- At present, he added, wa could not deal • with vj Dutch or German steamers turning-; dakoutside the three-mile limit, or even within ■ ' it, and if this were to be> continued “wti / shall all be perfectly beastlf when we oome - .4out of the water after a bathe.” - -/ According to Lord Somerleyton, who ha*^ ; - ’ charge of the Bill, this evil is much mote ' -- prevalent than is generally suspected, “since' ->"■ the seaside resorts themselves are the law , people who dare mention it to the pubJitT ■ As to the destruction of birds and fish,' - f J Lord Montague of Beaulieu testified th&t - > j ha himself had seen many of the lattSc 1 lying dead on the shore at Southampton. Water ae the result of oil And'' he had counted the bodies of as many as c; 40,/ swans in Beaulieu Water done to death ni-‘ the same way. ’ There was no doubt that round the coasts the shore-feeding fish ? wqre being destroyed. ( Lord Southborough’s objection was that the Bill dealt in a wholly unscientific man- "• ner with the subject. It was impossible to •■!; say whether the oil on the shores Qjime .. j from beyond the three-mile limit or was dis-' .? charged’in harbours. Before the war there? '/I was little trace of oil. and it MU; Been suggested that- a great- deal of it haft . escaped from vessels sunk during hbstilitiesl >, That should be investigated, and the matter should be considered from the wide phblio ■■■■•• viewpoint with the object of dealing oft i’from the narrow seas. , s With regard to birds. Lord Somerloyton mentioned the receipt of a letter from the -.t Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, ■< l which confirmed previous statements as ta ■; hundreds of birds covered with oil coming . } ashore on the South of England. Thu '-I object of the Bill was not to drive ships outside the three-mile limit to’ discharge their oil, but to penalise them if - they ’ charged -it within the three-mil© 'lnjiit.-. Great Britain was in a groat position to v? show an example to other countries, which he believed would follow tMt. example. An arrangement which satisfied the shipowner# should be good enough for the oil com- -. parries. He believed that there were several ingenious contrivances to prevent tile oil .! i evil, and he hoped that before long the nuisance would be abated, economy enconr- *>. aged, -and the people would be aHo to en- - v joy their ,own seashores, ' V The penalties under the present' law. ’ Lord Somerieyton regarded as quite- inhtfe? A quate. The ordinary limit of the petmftJT was £lO. and in very excentiqnal ciroranstances £SO The Act provides for fines np to £IOO on conviction for the discharge or 'i osoape of oil, and fines not exceeding £2O for the transfer" of oil to or from vessels lying in harbour between rrmset and sunrise. except where notice has been given i to the harbourmaster not less than three . ■■ houre previously. ‘ ’ SIMILAR TROUBLE JN AMERICA. A few days ago. Dr Gilbert Pearson, v president of the Audubon Societies -ofi America,_ reported the evil to be as- groat! in America., with the result that bird pro-: teotion societies and other important, interests were supporting a Bill in _ the - United States, and he hoped that international action would follow. ■ SHELL FISH. ‘ Replying to an inquiry by the Oyster" Merchants and Planters’ Association as to ' whether fish are affected by the oil—espeef-" ally shell fish—Mr H. G. Maurice (Ministry of Fisheries) has stated that oil does nos i affect fish or even larvae or fry of fish,: ‘ though it might affect the market value’ of oystere exposed at low water. ■ The Gov©mment had made experiments, 1 which 1 showed that oil did not adhere to fish. ’