Trout Protection - an update

We outlined in our last newsletter how the present Labour government was preparing to abandon it's pre-election promise to New Zealand's anglers, and scrap the Conservation (Protection of trout as a non-commercial species) Amendment bill. This was because the Canadians are insisting that under WTO rules, they have the right to sell their chemical-laden, disease-riddled farmed trout here, despite the fact that is always has been, and currently still is, illegal to sell trout commercially within New Zealand.

One of the reasons that the Federation was formed, was to oppose the farming of trout. It has also been fighting the importation of trout flesh ever since that was first proposed. Along with Fish & Game NZ, we believe (based on the abundant evidence from overseas) that such importation will inevitably lead to trout farming, and either would see the end of our wild trout fishery, as we currently know it.

Thanks to the participation marshalled from you, the ordinary New Zealand angler, just prior to the last election enough pressure was exerted for Mark Burton, MP for Taupo, to draft the 'Protection of trout as a non-commercial species' amendment to the Conservation Act. This would have the effect of making the importation, sale or farming of trout within New Zealand illegal. The Federation was informed at the time, by Jim Sutton, that 'all Labour MP's support this bill'. It even went through a select committee stage unscathed, despite vigorous opposition from within the National government. Once Labour was elected, it formally adopted the bill as a government-sponsored bill, and eventually made it the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment, Marion Hobbs, to progress into law.

Now we find that the Labour cabinet has been captured by a dry-right element reminiscent of the 'Roger Douglas' days, and Ministers, including Jim Sutton, are actively campaigning against the bill they once so vociferously championed. We are told that the Crown Law Office has decided that the Bill does indeed contravene some of the international trade agreements that the last National government obligingly signed us up to. We are also told that the current Labour government is prepared to 'roll over' and let WTO backed commerce take precedence over it's own legislation. In other words, the freshwater anglers of New Zealand are being sold down the river to appease overseas commercial fish farmers (notably Canadian).

We think that if NZ's anglers can make a difference to this process, and keep the government to its promises, then it has to be done now. We don't think that it is accidental that this is happening at this time of year, using the December-January period is a well proven method of disadvantaging opposition to government intentions. But it's crunch - time for the protection of our wild trout fisheries. The moratorium on the importation of trout (an extension of the original one) ends in April. We have to mobilise anglers and the public, and do whatever it takes to make a headstrong government sit up and take notice. And do it fast.

The need to act is urgent. The alternative is the destruction of a national icon, the end of the egalitarian right for anyone to buy a licence and fish for wild, world-class, self-sustaining trout in clean, freely accessible rivers and lakes. Failure to support and pass this bill in its current form will see the ending of an age of fishing within New Zealand. We will join the rest of the world, reminiscing about fishing for full-sized wild prey in a natural environment.

The current state of play . . . .

The Conservation (Protection of Trout as a non-commercial species) Amendment bill continues to languish within the Ministry for the Environment. At the time of writing, the 'revision' of the bill which was due at the end of 2000 shows no sign of re-emerging. Correspondence from Environment Minister Marian Hobbs continues to state that Cabinet has decided to refer the bill back to a Select Committee, so that any changes can be throughly scrutinised by Parliament, and to allow further submissions from the public and interest groups. Given that the bill has already been through this process once, we can only assume that Government is expecting a hostile reception to its changes from those most interested in it (anglers like yourselves), while trying to placate self-seeking organisations such as Federated Farmers and industry groups. So they should. Changes to the bill they themselves sponsored, to allow overseas business interests precedence over New Zealand law is a shameful cop-out. Putting a world-class recreational fishery at risk for a insignificant and unimportant trade in trout flesh is even worse. MP's need reminding that anglers have long memories and passionate feelings about this public resource. Which makes all of the letters that you write to them even more important, particularly before the next select committee considers it. We will be asking for your support again in making as many submissions as possible to that select committee.

Government commissions reports. . .

We asked the Minister for a copy of a couple of reports that they had commissioned as part of the review process, under the Official Information Act. The Minister released one to us, a report by APR Consultants of Rotorua, on the fisheries management consequences of trout imports. The other, a Crown Law opinion of the World Trade Organisation implications of trout imports, was refused, on the grounds of legal professional privilege. Fancy that! A Minister, elected to represent you the public, withholds from the public, a report by public servants (albeit the Crown Law Office) on the basis of professional privilege. No such worries with the report from commercial consultants. This must be the 'open government' we keep hearing about! We are going to have to apply to the Ombudsman to review this decision.

A preliminary glance of the said 50 page report (it is Christmas) indicates that it addresses the trade implications in greater depth than the fisheries management consequences, and would appear to be based on a number of preconceptions:

• that the requirements of international trade agreements take absolute precedence over national law, (and hence),
• that the only valid management method for species such as trout is based on 'free-market' principles,
• that the MAF Import Health Risk Analysis was complete, accurate and unquestionably correct and valid,
• that trout would not only be imported into New Zealand, but also harvested or farmed as well,
• that what hard information it (this report) contains is based on the Taupo fishery, because they have no knowledge of (or hard data on) any other freshwater recreational trout fisheries

That the Minister is being given this sort of advice to base decisions about the future of our recreational resource upon, is of great concern.

Spreading the word. . .

The Federation is so concerned about this issue, which we see as critical to the future of the fishery, that we have started a publicity campaign to widen knowledge about it among the angling public. Posters and pamphlets have been sent sports shops around the country, as well as to our members, in the hope that they will be prominently displayed where anglers can see them and read them. Any assistance that you can give to ensure this happens would be most welcome. If you have any enquiries or require more pamphlets, please contact the Federation Secretary, or your local representative.

In the end, it might all boil down to. . . .

So why all this fuss about importing a fish for which there isn't a market in New Zealand? Where the return is unlikely to justify the cost, especially when in direct competition with salmon? Because, that isn't the main agenda. The Canadians may simply be trying to prove a point - that they can use the WTO and international trade agreements to usurp national laws that they don't see as being in their best interest. Within NZ however, the aquaculture industry is lining up to have a crack at farming trout. They know that if it can be imported, there is no justification for not growing (or like eels - harvesting) our own. APR Consultants seem to consider that such fish would fetch $5/kg ex-farm, $8/kg wholesale, and $21/kg retail. We think it much more likely that the public wouldn't find commercially reared fish particularly acceptable (once all the wild stock had been poached out, or killed off from disease and pollution). That is certainly the message that we get from overseas markets. We think that it is more likely that the real market can already be found on supermarket shelves. Nestles, the trans-national company that could afford to buy NZ, and with whom the dairy board certainly doesn't want a quarrel, already import trout into New Zealand. Marketed under their Fiskies 'Fancy Feasts' label, their Flaked Trout Feast is Gourmet Cat Food made in the USA.

It would be somewhat ironic, but absolutely typical of industry and international trade, if we lost a priceless recreational resource so that we could produce catfood.

Federated Farmers dismisses anglers fears as 'irrational'

Federated Farmers national president Alistar Polson has dismissed anglers comments on the importation of fresh trout flesh as emotional and irrational. The issue was one of New Zealand's credibility on international trade and the potential risk to nearly $7 billion worth of dairy products alone that were sold overseas, plus other exports that rely on WTO rules for market access, said Mr Polson.

The sale of trout flesh will not lead to large-scale poaching. Other game species, such as salmon, deer, duck and pigs are all farmed commercially, and are on restaurant menus, without evidence that they are being poached from the wild, said Mr Polson. Lawful importing might even reduce poaching. Internationally trout was not a high value product like paua, so there was no external market for poachers.

He said under World Trade Organisation requirements New Zealand could not ban imports of Canadian trout flesh if they were safe. A risk analysis had shown there was no real risk and the imports had been given the nod. Fresh imported farmed trout would be a great enhancement to New Zealand's cuisine, said Mr Polson..

We think that it is hugely hypocritical for Federated Farmers to be telling us that NZ law has to change to allow the sale of trout just because overseas companies want to sell it here; at the very time that they are asking the NZ government to change the law to create a trade monopoly in the dairy industry, just so they can compete with subsidised overseas producers. But then concepts such as logic, rational thought, fairness, non-tradeable values, equality or natural justice are lost on those who see commercialism and market forces as the cure (rather than the cause) of the problem.