One must take on board Mike McVicker's comments (Letters, October 23) on the Rotorua trout fisheries and his comments must also apply to Lake Taupo.
Having myself, stripped trout, fertilised and incubated the eggs from lakes Tarawera and Taupo when an employee of the Wildlife Division of Internal Affairs Department, one has to wonder what is in the minds of those who set out to amend the Conservation Act and destroy the trout fishery?
My colleagues and I were very much aware of the damage caused by the commercialism of trout and the farming of such in America.
The American scientists advise us no end to not allow trout farming in New Zealand as it will destroy our wonderful trout fishery through disease.
I helped to pack and ship the trout eggs from Turangi to America as they needed disease-free trout ova from New Zealand to begin the process of raising disease-free trout.
Their trout stocks had become so contaminated with disease from commercial trout farming operations the wild fisheries were being destroyed through disease, and the only way to recover the fishery was to poison the lake and start again with fresh fish stocks disease free.
Not easy in New Zealand.
There is very little hope for New Zealand's trout fishery if these amendments go through and the businesspeople who rely on trout fishers for their businesses will find their cash flow dry up. (Abridged)
A concept is described in my dictionary as a general idea, a notion, a way that something may turn out. I enjoy reading of concept cars in the Rotorua Daily Post.
A concept car is, as described in my dictionary, a general idea of what a design will look like. When reading about a concept car, I will never see a detailed plan or costing of the thing as such things do not exist.
In responding to my earlier letter, Reynold MacPherson (Letters, October 30) claimed that I used the word "reliable" regarding the $19.9 million budget for our Lakefront.
Wrong. I never used the word in my letter, how could I, the Lakefront development is still only a concept, no detailed budget exists.
He states that the RDRR boycotted the consultations because "they lacked project plans and public consultation". How silly.
The project plans that he wishes to see do not as yet exist beyond a concept, so he cannot see them.
There was heaps of public consultation for the concept, all along the way of our drawn-out consultation of the Long Term Plan, If he did not like the process and so decided to boycott, then that is his problem, and he should realise that he will never be heard.
As for the $20 million that he claims would be better spent on the Bath House instead of our Lakefront, the Government gave us the money to be put towards the Lakefront.
If we decided to tell the Government "no, we do not want any money for our Lakefront, we do not want to develop it, but we do want some for our museum", the Government could quite easily answer that they do not want to do that and take their money back.
Then we would have nothing. The choice is ours. (Abridged)