Friday, March 29, 2024

ALTERNATIVE VIEW: Cut off the propaganda money

Avatar photo
There’s a row brewing between the Government and Fish and Game and it’s going to be an interesting battle.
Reading Time: 3 minutes

Legislation before Parliament, the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill, gives the Conservation Department wide powers to protect indigenous fish.

In Parliament Conservation Minister Eugenie Sage said “We need to prevent the loss of any more native freshwater fish species and restore the health of their populations and fisheries.”

So the legislation provides better tools to manage both indigenous fish and noxious fish like koi carp.

I’d add trout and salmon to the latter category. 

Sage did admit in April both trout and salmon eat native fish.

National’s conservation spokeswoman Sarah Dowie said “DoC’s native fish plans would actually take precedence over sports fish plans.”

National will support the legislation to the select committee.

The freshwater fish Sage is out to encourage include bullies, eels, lamprey, mudfish, smelt, torrentfish and whitebait.

With the exception of mature eels and lampreys they all fall into the category of food for trout, salmon or ducks.

With ducks you have a complication in that they are rampant excreters of E coli.

So, I suggest you can’t preserve our indigenous freshwater fish and tolerate trout, salmon and ducks.

Fish and Game aren’t happy, which is nothing new.

As a licence holder I received a passionate email from them urging me to contact my local politician because the Bill presents a serious threat to trout, could allow the removal of trout and salmon from waterways and allow the sale of trout fishing rights in Treaty of Waitangi settlements.

Legal opinion of the treaty issue is at variance with F&G’s emotively charged diatribe.

F&G supremo Martin Taylor said it isn’t trout eating threatened species but 95% of the reduction in native fish is due to water quality.

While that’s F&G’s typical anti-farming rhetoric it is wrong in fact.

Indigenous fish numbers declined even when the water was pristine and they need lesser quality water to survive than trout and salmon do.

We should also remember trout are on the Invasive Species Specialist Group’s list of the world’s 50 most invasive fish species.

Trout compete with native fish for habitat and food.

They are highly successful predators and not native to NZ.

We have put two of the 50 most invasive fish species on a pedestal and given them protection over that given to indigenous fish.

Further, NZ freshwater scientist A D Huryn in 1998 compared algal biomass in streams with invasive trout and those with our native freshwater fish species called galaxiids.

The research showed algal growth was six times higher in water with invasive trout even though nutrient levels were the same.

So, agriculture isn’t the major problem with indigenous fish, It is the invasive and introduced trout and salmon and the invasive and polluting duck.

If you’re serious about native fish support you need to get rid of trout, salmon and ducks. 

It is a fish and duck issue and not a problem for farming.

The issue F&G has is they’re on their own. They’ve arrogantly burned off approaches from other organisations.

As the result of an Official Information Act request I found that in February this year Federated Farmers president Katie Milne wrote a most conciliatory letter to F&G chairman Lindsay Lions, probably as the result of his chief executive’s anti-farming outburst at the Fieldays.

In his reply Lyons went back to 2001 when Federated Farmers had criticised F&G.

Why? I have no idea who I might have criticised and offended 17 years ago. Move on.

The rest of the letter I would describe as shallow, predictable and emotive.

Lyons agreed to meet on the condition Feds agreed to discuss four issues, starting by asking the question is the environmental impact of farming on our waterways unacceptable and finishing with, should the cost of restoring waterways fall on those who have polluted them.

What unbridled arrogance, totally ignoring the reality that water quality is improving and many rivers are fine.

F&G should also be careful about the costs of cleaning up waterways. Could they be responsible for cleaning up the pollution caused by all the waterfowl crapping at will in our waterways?

The fact remains, if we are serious about restoring our native fish we need to get rid of salmon, trout and ducks.

It must also be obvious to the Government the fat licence fees F&G receives to fund their political lobbying and public relations campaigns should be removed.

The licence fee should support the core business and be a fraction of its current price. Why should a farmer or native fish supporter have to pay a licence fee when a large part of that money is used for anti-farmer or anti-Government activities?

Total
0
Shares
People are also reading