ORIGINALLY POSTED BY NIGEL JUBY
I know that I am new here and wasn't at the AGM, but I do feel like I need to add my 5 cents worth to the Tuwharetoa debate.

When I have students, I always tell them that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If they don't understand something then others very likely don't either and they should raise the issue, even if they are nervous about looking stupid. I say the same thing to my clients. And myself.

Anyway, I have a few questions here. Some may be stupid, others may be legitimate.

As well as questions, I have a done some research and appear to have found a few facts - or conclusions made by experts and apparently not disputed by other experts in their field.

I have a few opinions as well.

What I'm saying here is that I am sure that some of you will disagree with some of my arguments. Please feel free to answer any questions that I may raise, correct any facts that I may have got wrong and finally use facts to argue with any opinions that I may have. Unlike many of you, I don't have decades of experience here. However, I also may not have decades of entrenched opinions either.

I also need to apologise that at 2.30am, I am inclined towards the polemic.

I’ll present the following as facts, coupled with evidence. Please challenge me if you think that I have got things wrong.

1: Koaro were a significant source of nutrition for Tuwharetoa.

Anyone dispute this?

2: Trout decimated the koaro population in Lake Taupo.

Evidence: Several papers by R.M. McDowell (who also argues that the virtual extinction of koaro in Lake Taupo also led to the significant decline of the Kakahi - fresh water mussel). Historical evidence around timing, boom and bust of trout and then success of trout when smelt were introduced.

Can anyone find any good evidence that trout were not responsible for the sudden and catastrophic loss of the populations of koaro?

If you want to read more about this, try Google “trout and galaxiids nz” - Here are some I came up with in about 30 seconds.

http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/science-and-technical/sfc320entire.pdf

http://newzealandecology.org/nzje/2909

http://www.pams.canterbury.ac.nz/ferg/pdfs/McIntosh_2000.pdf

-The Taupo specific effects are even greater - try F&G magazine issues 59 and 63.

Enough?

Bearing in mind that koaro larvae are adfluvial versions of anadromous whitebait, at $100/kg, Tuwharetoa could argue that the economic loss of this resource was significant. There are reports of “tonnes” being caught (1 tonne = $100 000 worth of whitebait).

But we don't even need to argue this, Tuwharetoa seems to be conciliatory and doesn't seem to blame trout entirely. See below.

6.12 Ngāti Tūwharetoa tradition records that fish were created in Lake Taupo (Taupomoana) by Ngātoroirangi when he cast the shreds of his cloak into the waters. Those fish included kōaro, inanga, kōkopu and kōura, all delicacies that Ngāti Tūwharetoa were famous for. As native fish species have declined, out of necessity Ngāti Tūwharetoa people have turned to trout as mahinga kai. Trout have therefore become a valued supplement to whānau and marae dining tables as well as a means to provide for manuhiri and to carry out traditional fishing practices.

and

6.29 Following the introduction of exotic fish, some native fish species have become extinct and others have dwindled. Introduced trout preyed on native fish species and competed with them for food. This has meant that Ngāti Tūwharetoa are unable to fully exercise their customary fishing rights provided for under section 14(2) of the Maori Land Amendment and Maori Land Claims Adjustment Act 1926

Pakeha scientists such as Bob McDowell are much more direct in blaming trout for the loss of Koaro from Lake Taupo.

Does anyone have a problem with this?? I don't as it seems pretty factual (apart from Ngatoriorangi and his cloak - although it seems that Maori may indeed have introduced koaro into the lake).

3. Tuwharetoa benefit from trout.

As far as I can see, No one is arguing with this. Tuwharetoa and the crown recognise this in the agreement in principle in many places including 6.12 above.

4. Tuwharetoa have adapted their traditions to include trout instead of Koaro.

In the same way as Pakeha kiwis have adapted our traditions to circumstances, so have Tuwharetoa. Our ancestors were more likely to have goose for Christmas dinner if they could afford it. In NZ we have BBQs, ham, turkey - if we can afford it. We are very fortunate that Maori have adapted in the same way. Rather than eating pigeons, weka, dogs and occasionally people, they have changed their food at traditional events to deer, pork, beef, chicken, trout etc. On “normal” days, they eat the same as us. Just like they dress the same, work the same and pay their mortgages the same.

I have the opinion that we are fortunate that their culture is flexible to change - as ours is.

This raises the problem. Tuwharetoa want a source of trout for special occasions to replace the fish that trout have eaten. At all other times, they are happy to catch them like everyone else.

Is this really unreasonable?

If one accepts the arguments above, what solution do you suggest for them?

a) Go out and catch wild trout using legal tackle and within the rules? I’m against this as it means that they are competing for the same fish as we do. Sometimes for significant quantities.

b) Gillnet surplus fish in Maori only areas? Not something that I would support for many reasons.

c) Raise their own fish? Why isn’t this a great idea? No effect on wild fish, using existing facilities, fish available whenever they need them, easily monitored etc.

The only arguments against option c) seem to be that;

(i) this is not the real agenda, rather it is a cunning plan to allow trout farming,

(ii) that somehow, what they want to do carries more risk than when the same ponds were full of fish for stocking waterways.

(iii) philosophical or racist prejudice.

I have pasted some of the areas of the draft agreement below. I think that the wording is pretty clear and dont support the “secret plan” conspiracy theory to commercialise trout in a way that they are not already commercialised.

Tongariro National Trout Centre

6.31 The deed of settlement is to provide for the following cultural redress arrangements with respect to the Tongariro National Trout Centre site: 6.31.1 for the purposes of raising trout to harvest for significant Ngāti Tūwharetoa hui, tangi and other occasions,

(a) arrangements for Ngāti Tūwharetoa to utilise a raceway at the Tongariro National Trout Centre;

(b) arrangements for Ngāti Tūwharetoa to use any other existing facilities that the Department of Conservation considers are not required by the Department of Conservation; and

(c) arrangements to enable Ngāti Tūwharetoa to construct and manage any new facilities agreed by the trust (referred to in clause 6.31.3)


National trout centre site - DOC land - government policy is to use government land in treaty settlements. Does the federation have a history or policy of opposing this?

We already raise trout at the trout centre for the purpose of harvest for "other occasions". In the current case, these "occasions" are kids fishing days. I have tried but I cannot see any difference between raising trout for harvest by one minority group (children) and another (Tuwharetoa).

If you want to call the Tuwharetoa operation a "farm", surely the kids fish out pond is one as well. Not only this pond, but all others around the country.

(c), might be a concern. However, decisions about expansion are made by the trust who is -

6.31.3 the establishment of a trust under the Reserves Act 1977 comprising six members to administer the land occupied by the Tongariro National Trout Centre, with the governance entity, Minister of Conservation and the Tongariro National Trout Centre Society appointing two members each;

Maybe there is an argument that F&G should be present here or that the trustees should be different. If this is the case - make the argument.

Can someone please tell me why Tuwharetoa would want to farm trout? - they already benefit from the trout industry and I would think that they are allies rather than adversaries here

In reading the AIP, it seems that Tuwharetoa value trout and, to be honest, I struggle to find anything disagreeable in it. If we accept the facts above, I think that trout anglers are getting off very lightly.

So: As far as I can see, trout ate the koaro in lake Taupo - all 216 square km of it. As well as concessions on licenses etc, Tuwharetoa wants to raise a few trout in a 1000 square m(???)  concrete pond, right next to another pond where we support the raising of trout for food for another minority group - children. Where is the problem? It sounds like they are more than fair and it is a practical solution.

If there is a secret plan to commercialise trout, I would have thought that Tuwharetoa would not have mentioned raising trout at all - just taken over the trout centre without controversy and then moved on with their plans.

There is no mention of restricting access to fishing water and all other clauses that I have seen just leave the status quo in place.

I have pasted the following from nzfishing.com.

On foot A 20-metre walking right-of-way extends around most of the lake for licenced anglers. For the most part this access is across privately owned Maori land and the access rights do not include access for vehicles.

This isn’t under threat.

Finally, I had a look at the federation's aims and objectives. If we were to look at the Tuwharetoa proposal as reducing the amount of trout that they take from wild populations, I see that supporting most of the AIP fits well within these.

Anyway, with only a couple of weeks left in the season, I'm heading back to bed so that I my nymph strike isn't too slow today.

We live in a great country where things like this are discussed openly and, if one can get over sleep deprivation, there is great fishing to be had, accessible to anyone with a license and the will to get out there.

We all want to protect this. This is the reason that we are involved in the federation.

Note: I waited until I re-read this with a clear head this morning. 2 cups of tea later and I still think that I make a good case. I’d love some feedback.

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY TONY ORMAN

2: Trout decimated the koaro population in Lake Taupo.

I’m not sure on this. I know koaro are still present in the Hutt River after over 100 years of trout being there in substantial numbers. In fact a former president of the federation Theo Simeonidis and a friend caught koaro on the dry fly one night in the Hutt - as I remember back about 1990!

I’m must say I don’t share any enthusiasm for the late Bob McDowell who I knew personally - (we went to Palmerston North Boys High School together - a couple of classes back). We occasionally met in years later and I recall in the 1970s he and Bryce Johnson urging me to drop opposition to trout farming.

Note the opposition was based on much science from overseas (e.g. USA, Britain, Denmark, Australia etc) of disease, poaching, effluent and economic problems.

Bob McDowell is on record in Conservation Authority minutes as terming trout as “pests.”

Just remember because a chap is a scientist doesn’t mean he can’t be challenged. There are very good scientists and some very so-so average scientists.

Bearing in mind that koaro larvae are adfluvial versions of anadromous whitebait, at $100/kg, Tuwharetoa could argue that the economic loss of this resource was significant. There are reports of “tonnes” being caught (1 tonne = $100 000 worth of whitebait). Tonnes of koaro caught do you mean? By who?

If there was a koaro decline, what role did runoff with the “cocktail of chemicals” play, or the role of pine forests draining into the Lake or as someone suggested climate change, natural or man-induced? My understanding (proven by science) is that predator-prey relationships settle into a balance. Although I have to add NZ currently is in a grip of a frenzied phobia about pests, invasions and predators e.g. Gareth Morgan, Nick Smith which has no reality or ecological basis.
For those interested in following this up read Bill Benfield’s book “The Third Wave”(obtainable from Tross Publishing)

From COLIN TAYLOR - ex NZFFA Executive Member

As Alan (Simmons) says, dwelling on the past or trying to “correct” historic events will get us nowhere. It’s now that counts. In this regard, a Dominion-Post newspaper article reported a Taupo District Court case in which the Department of Conservation Taupo charged a Turangi man, Jamahl Hona, with poaching by netting trout in the Omori Stream. In stressing the seriousness of the offence, DoC staff told the court … and I quote … “Trout fishing brought in about $90 million annually to the Taupo economy.” DoC’s case was supported by Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board secretary, Rakei Taiaroa, who told the court “the board collected about $700,000 a year” from the sport fishery. As Tony (Orman) constantly points out that according to numerous overseas cases, it is well known that trout bred in captivity generate several highly contagious diseases which are almost certain to spread into surrounding wild waters. Just one of many precedents for this is the spread of Myxobolus cerebralis among wild trout populations in the USA referenced as follows:  “However, it has recently become established in natural waters of the Rocky Mountain states (Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Montana, Idaho, New Mexico), where it is causing heavy mortalities in several sportfishing rivers. Some streams in the western United States have lost 90% of their trout.” [Tennyson, J. Anacker, T. & Higgins, S. (January 13, 1997). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Whirling Disease Foundation News Release.]

Living in the present and not in the past, why then would anyone, let alone members of the NZ Federation of Freshwater Anglers, want to support a proposed project involving Ngati Tuwharetoa and DoC that is very likely to risk introducing deadly diseases by breeding trout in captivity – knowing that this could wipe out the Taupo sports fishery and destroy a $90 million income to the Taupo region every year? And risk a $700,000 a year income for Tuwharetoa? Just on an economic basis alone, let alone recreational considerations, the proposal to raise trout in captivity for “harvesting” for any reason is totally irresponsible and could have a disastrous economic effect on the lives of hundreds of Maori and non-Maori who benefit directly or indirectly through employment from the current wild fishery. The fact of the matter is, if we want to help Taupo-Turangi Maori in relation to supporting the local economy, local businesses and employment-wise, we should strongly oppose any form of trout farming for “special events” or for any other reasons.

From STRATO COTSILINIS, exec member NZFFA

Thank you for your comments.

However with regard to the disease risk, those who are proposing the fish farming operation will no doubt point out that the Turangi Hatchery has been raising trout for decades without any risk of disease.   Why would the fact that one part of the hatchery will be used by Ngati Tuwharetoa suddenly give rise to a disease risk?

I am totally opposed to commercial trout farming for all the reasons that everybody has so passionately described in recent correspondence.  However I would not have been so concerned had the proposal only been related to raising a few fish for special events within the current hatchery system.   My main concern however is that the proposal also includes the ability of Tuwharetoa to build additional structures on the land.   If the proposal is truly only to supply a few fish for special events, why would any additional structures be required?   This sounds to me like a significantly bigger operation than they are trying to portray

From Andrew Christmas, Fishing Guide, Turangi...

http://www.taupotroutguide.com/2012/08/10/wild-taupo-fishery-yeah-right/

From STRATO COTSILINIS, exec member NZFFA

The Turangi hatchery has been raising trout to adulthood for years as it runs its own childrens fishing program and supplies us (Wellington F&G) and Stratford with adult fish.(3yr olds) It does not supply Tarawera which is supplied by the Rotorua  hatchery

From DON SCOTT, executive NZFFA
I feel I must also add my comments to this issue. I have to declare at the onset I am not totally opposed to the commercial propagation of trout. It is an environment I grew up in before I got to New Zealand and without it I doubt if I would ever have had an interest in angling. Also it is a vital ingredient in the sport fly fishing industry in Southern Africa where hatcheries stock dams but their real purpose is to grow fish for market. Also I have fished extensively in the UK where 'fish farming,' particularly trout, is practiced on a large scale. Lakes and dams are extensively stocked and an industry catering to millions of fisherman has evolved where the sums make the turnover in New Zealand look like a kids picnic party. So called 'trout farming is not always bad and can have great beneficial effects. Having been financially involved in such a venture myself I doubt if the commercial production of trout at the moment would be a success in New Zealand as salmon are already produced in quantity and taste better anyway.

Much is said about the disease aspect of the Taupo hatchery. As Strato points out grown fish have been supplied for years to their children's fish out days and disease has not been an issue. Likewise our children's fishout days in Palmerston North over many yearsacquire fish from Rotorua and were put in the lagoon and afterwards released. These fish have found their way into the Manawatu river and it is said that this was the reason why rainbows now predominate at the expense of browns. Again disease does not appear to be a problem. Further thousands of fish are hatched and the Rotorua lakes are stocked and without this, these waters would not be as productive as they are now. Again disease does not appear to be an issue. The key here is the proper husbandry of the resource and the practices developed by Fish and Game and others illustrates that it can be controlled. If we try and make this one of the main pillars against fish farming it will only be a matter of time before someone comes up with an argument that will shoot ours down in flames. Poaching is another argument against 'fish farming.' It is going on already and I doubt if trout being available for sale will make any real difference.

You received a comment from Nigel on Wednesday June 17 where he outlined his thoughts on the issue. This was well balanced and I have yet to hear any real counter arguments to the points made by him. I can not help thinking that there are deeper underlying issues than just 'trout farming' here.

At the AGM in Christchurch the demise of various traditional waters were highlighted during a presentation on the diversion of a river course in the area. This plus other developments including the construction of various water storage schemes has badly affected traditional wild water fishing but has resulted in other unexpected benefits. Farmers night storage dams, canals and ponds for irrigation purposes have acquired trout, some of which it is alleged have grown to enormous size. Perhaps New Zealand is not ready for this yet but one day fishing pressures may dictate that what is done in South Africa and Britain may become necessary if our wild fishing waters continue to decline. Just because the Federation was founded on opposition to trout farming, wider issue are now to hand and we should not let the current issue at Taupo cloud our real purpose and that is an overall improvement in our sport..