Even if you do catch a fish it could be toxic! Photo/Thinkstock
Even if you do catch a fish it could be toxic! Photo/Thinkstock
I know a few guys who hold fishing licenses but it baffles me as to why. Fish & Game NZ, as opposed to the local Fish & Game councils, seems to have gone out of its way to pin everything bad about water on farming. When the Sunday Star Times'Rod Oram comes out and says people need to look past the negativity because there's genuine improvement out there, I'd take note.
Instead, Fish & Game increasingly looks like the grumpy fat geezer at a Young Farmers do. Not a very attractive proposition.
Why would you fish anyway from what we're being told on rivers that Fish & Game NZ claim to be at death's door? Even if you do catch a fish, it'll be so toxic, you could forget about eating it. The problem is that they've talked many good things down for so long, while talking up the negative, that it's now seemingly hurting license income. If you chuck in a love of the courtroom, it helps to explain why Fish & Game NZ has turned in a $1.1 million dollar deficit for 2012-13.
Of course licenses are compulsory so income is assured but before Christmas, Feds' Russell MacPherson in an opinion piece invited the Fish & Game CEO to fish at his Southland farm. All that was received was a letter to the editor pointing to photos taken several years' previously. To me Fish & Game NZ missed a huge opportunity here to see a dairy farm in action right beside a river which has trout in it.
Instead of treating farmers like they're a mallard duck, it's time to take a leaf from the Environmental Defence Society and find common ground. Sure there'll be times we'll have ding dong scraps but come on Fish & Game, we've got so much in common. You just have to lose the negative vibe.
