ACCLIMATISERS OR ANGLERS.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIC, Issue 13336, 12 July 1907, Page 6

ACCLIMATISERS OR ANGLERS.

THE SOUTH CANTERBURY SOCIETY.

REPLY TO Ml! WHITESIDES

At the meeting 'if the Council of the South Canterbury Acclimatisation .Society iit To'muka yesterday, the seC'.K-tsry Mr W. (!. Asplnull (late chairman of the . Council) implied to criticism of the proiifedingS of this Council hy Mr Whiteit vite-|>rekide»!fc of the Canterbury Society. A letter was i ; s;c':ived from the CilnterbuTy Society some time ;lg«, stating that they had some salmo salar to dispose of, at £'i ]>;t 1000, and the secretary had replied, inquiring bow many and their age, but no reply had beell received to tiieSfc (|ilerie9. At the annual meeting of the Canterbury Society t-h-a chairman, Ml' Whitesides, referring to this correspondence, made some remarks condemnatory of, the South Canterbury Society, and Mr Aspinall now made .sonto remarks upon Mr Whitesides' criticisms. He said that he had tbo assurance of three or four other members of the sister Society, whom he met in Christchurch, that the Society did not sympathise at all with Mr Whitesides, but the hitter's remarks had been published, and when met by a partial criti--eism had been repeated and expanded by him in the Christchurch papers. Mr Whitesides, in effect, charged this Society with cadging for fish that had cost his Society 'something, whereas the fish were offered, and all that his Society had done was to make some inquiiy about them. On this Mr Whitesides based an attack on the South Canterbury Society, saying it hey should not be allowed to have the fish under £5 per 1000; that they were no better than an Anglers' Club; that they had done nothing for acclimatisation, but had been hoarding money and had a credit balance of" £600;, that they were doing nothing to keep the rivers stocked with fish, and consequently last year .there was no good fishing in their best river, the Opilii. Mr Aspinall read the reports of Mr Whitesides' remarks at the annual meeting, and. of a subsequent interview with him on the subject. He then proceeded to comment upon them. He reminded the Council that they had turned out 70,000 salmon fry and had never' seen on® of them again. They might, as well have chucked the money into the eea. Mr Ayson said it would bs ridiculous to turn salmon fry into their livers to be: eaten by trout, and that the best plan was to leave it to the Government hatcheries, where fry could bei kept till they became strong. These Christchurch fry, they were: led to believe when they inquired about them were yearlings, whereas they were only three months old, and would be eaten by the big trout in no time. Mr Whitesides talked about the. cost of the fish as a reason for asking £5 a 1000 for them; but the balance sheets showed that, the Government bore most of the expense, and that' the -whole, consignment of 60,000 cost, the Canterbury Society only £25. Mr Pringle said he had been spoken to by other members of the Society at- Christchurch, and assured that Mr Whitesides had no support from them. Mr Palliser remarked that their critic was ungrateful, as he had been exceptionally well treated in 'South Canterbury. Mr Pringla said Mr Whitesides was all out of it in regard to the huts. Ho seemed to think that the 'Society had paid for these.

The secretary said they had only paid for one hut, this being ono for the- ranger at Macgregor's lagoon, Lake Tekapo.

.Mr VPallit-xn- said Mr Whitesides had been speaking from a misunderstanding all along. Mr Aspinall, resuming liis- criticism, .said that Mr Whitesides condemned the South Canterbuiy Society as being only *lll anglers club. That however was untrue, as its members had to pay a special subscription, besides any license fee they might pay as anglers, whereas"T:-he annual members of the Canterbury Society—all of tlfem except 20 life members —were such by virtue of payment. of the annual fishing license. They therefore we're the anglers' club. (Laughter. ),' Mr Whitesides ; was otherwise careless in regard ito facts. He had said this Society had been hoarding money and had £6OO accumulated. At the end of March 1905 they had £615; in March that balance was reduced to £lB6, and at March List only £62. The Cliristchurcli Society's balance-sheets showed that in 1905 they had a balance of and in' 1907 one of £595. Comparing the two cases, he asked who had been hoarding money. When, the facts were such as these, was it right that Mr Whitesides should speak of an affiliated society as he had don®? He had also maligned their streams faying there were no. fish in them. If he had been with Mr Ayson the other day he could have seen as many as 600 fish of lOlbs and upwards in the traps at! once; but because lie could catch no fish himself (while others could, and gave him some to take home) he publicly maligned the river from .the chair of a sister society. Mr Aspinall claimed that- expenditure on rangers for the protection of fish was part of the duty of an acclimatisation society, and the South Canterbury Society had spent more on this work than almost any other society. Last year this society spent £340 on ranging, 'Wellington £347, Canterbury £2-.4, Qui go £478, Ashburton £3B. Mr Whitesides talked about the duty of acclimatisation societies to introduce new fish, new birds, new game. But what had tlio Christchurch Society done? Their recent reports mentioned attempts; to get game from India, but nothing . come of them except a donation of 100 rupees and some expenses. - They had also borrowed a pintail drake from this Society, and had not yet returned it. They sold this society rainbow trout that turned out fontalis. Mr Whitesides ridiculed their expenditure on thar. They spent £2l 14.s on them, nearly as much as the Canterbuiy Society paid for their salmon. Mr Aspinall concluded by Faying that he entirely exonerated tlif* Canterbury Society; it was Mr Whitesides alone who was responsible for the attack, and his statements- were absolutely erroneous. He thought this Society should express its indignation at the way Mr Whitesides had slandered the Society and maligned their streams. After a little discussion as to the form of resolution to be passed Dr Hayes moved and Mr W. H. Brown seconded that the chairman and secretary draft a letter explaining the position, to be sent to tho Canterbury Society and to the Christchurch papers; the letter to exonerate the other members of the Canterbuiy Society from ilr Whitesides' uncalled for attack upon a neighbouring society. This motion was carried, and the Council proceeded to other business.