TROUT FISHING.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9024, 3 September 1907, Page 4

TROUT FISHING.

THE NEW REGULATION. Mr G. B. Ritchie, a member of the Canterbury Acclimatisation Society, recently attended the conference of Acclimatisation Societies in Wellington. He was 6een yesterday afternoon by a representative of the " Lyttelton Times" in reference to the newly gazetted regulation under the Fisheries Conservation Act, restricting catches for a day to twenty fish or twenty pounds in weight. He said that although he had thought that he knew as well as anyone what was likely to be done, he was much astonished by the new regulation. He could only conclude that it was drawn up by someone who had no idea of the conditions of trout fishing. The restrictions would be all right if applied only _ to flyfifihers, and it was quite conceivable, in his opinion, that the regulation might have been meant to have that limited application. To set such a rule to fishing in the Waimakariri, Selwyn, Rakaia, Hurunui, Opihi and Waitaki, however, was ridiculous, for fish of over twenty pounds weight were frequently caught in those rivers, and in such a cas«T the fisher would have no option but to return hie catch to the water. Even if he caught a fish of twelve pounds, he would be practically de-

barred from catching any more, for fear he would hook one that would bring his total over the limit, and the man who went for a week-end on the river and started his Sunday morning with a catch of two big fish, would have hie holiday spoilt. The immediate result of the regulation would be that no one would take out minnow-fishing licenses, and such societies as the Canterbury would lose two^-thirds of their revenue. Rotorua's reputation was based upon its big catches, and would lose all its attractiveness to tourists if the restriction was enforced. The conference did not recommend any sucli regulation. What it did recommend, however, was that each district Association should be empowered to make such regulations as were advisable in its district. He felt sure that the regulation was more a mistake than anything else, and that it would be speedily rectified. Dr Moorhouse, when questioned on the subject, supported Mr Ritchie's expressions, and 6aid that the regulation was probably a mistake, • and. being quite unnecessary and unworkable, should be corrected, as soon as possible. Mr R. Chisholm, of Dunedin, has supplied an explanation of the regulation in the "Gazette'' restricting tne daily basket of trout to 201b. The regulation has caufeed a good deal of discussion amongst _ anglers, but Mr Chisholm's explanation should set their fears at rest. He says that the regulation gazetted is a general regulation, and it is quite distinct from local regulations. The latter may over-ride the former, which may become ineffective. In remote places in the colony, acclimatisation societies sometimes do not pass any angling regulations whatever, and sometimes /their regulations are crude and clash with the Act. To meet cases of this kinct, the fisheries Department has drawn up some general regulations. These apply to the whole colony, but acclimatisation societies are not altogether governed by them, and they have power to make them ineffective by the operation of the Societies' own regulations. Wherever the general regulations are unworkable, the local Society can amend them and inform the Department that it has done so, and in that case the alteration is endorsed on the back of each district license. Mr Chisholm states definitely that regulations drawn up by local societies and properly gazetted supersede the Government's general regulations. A Press Association telegram from Wellington last evening confirmed Mr Chisholm's statement. Societies have power to draw up a regulation superseding that gazetted.