SHOOTING TIMES & COUNTRY MAGAZINE – APRIL 1-7 1976
BACKGROUND TO SPORT BY FRANK SAWYER
Comparing the Cost
In my last article I finished by saying that, “in the long run it (the rejuvenation of the river with chalk) will be far less than what is being paid for stock fish and artificial food.” What I meant by this is that thousands of pounds, maybe a million or more, are being spent each year about the British Isles to produce trout artificially and introduce them, ready-made, to our fishing waters; yet we are getting no lasting or material benefit. In this article I would like to put forward a few facts to substantiate this statement.
Recently, I was able to compare the cost of stocking our upper Avon fishery during the past six years with the cost of six consecutive years from 1930 to 1935. It was in 1930 that I constructed our first trout hatchery and we then embarked on the policy of stripping some of our own wild fish, hatching the eggs and then keeping the alevins on through the stage to the time when the young fish needed food. These little fish were then planted out thinly throughout all the shallow parts of the river and along the various sidestreams where they started and lived a natural life, until they were large enough to provide sport. Though from time to time we imported eyed ova from other rivers or fish farms, no fish other than these were introduced. This policy lasted for over 30 years and the great majority of the eggs always came from our own wild stock.
However, the hatchery and production of fry was only a small part of the work involved, and was by far the easiest. The main work was in keeping the shallows of the river and the adjacent side-streams in such a condition that the young fish had a chance of survival after they were introduced. Though the actual cost of stock was extremely low, it did mean quite a lot of expense in casual labour, and a big call on my own time.
During six years in the 1930s the total cost to build a hatchery and produce sufficient trout fry for the fishery amounted to just over £90, an average of about £15 per year. The total of trout killed by rods during this same period was 6,085, an average of just over 1,000 a year. These had an average weight of just over the pound, but included in the bags each season were a good number of two-pounders and others which ranged in weight from four to six pounds. These, of course, were exceptional, but all were really wild fish. What we did in those days was to make the river produce its own stock and to do everything possible to provide an adequate and wholesome food supply for them.
Our river here 40 years ago was considerably different from what it is now, for much has happened since then. But the point I wish to make is that in those days we made our fishery produce its own stock, and it can be done again. However, before going on I wish you to see the comparison between then and the past six years.
Since 1969 the value of the stock fish we have introduced has totalled just over £9,000. To try to keep up a supply to meet the demand of our fishermen we constructed our own rearing ponds. Eggs were hatched, fry were reared and followed by yearlings, two-year-olds and three-year-olds – a complete cycle of fish artificially hatched and reared and ready for the rod: £9,000 work, just one hundred times more than that which we spent during the six-year period in the 1930s. These were in addition to any which might be wild-bred and native of the river.
You might think at once that the total bag for these six years would be far in excess of the corresponding period 40 years ago. But you would be mistaken. Despite all the work in making nurseries, all the expense of artificial food, all the worries of keeping stock fish in captivity, the tally for the past six years has proved less, and these of no better quality than those we produced from unfed fry.
I might add that in addition to the takeable fish which have been reared artificially, we have also introduced unfed fry. But as I have said, our river now is not like it was 40 years ago and far more needs to be spent to bring it back to its former condition.
What we have spent to try to keep our fishery going is but a small part of all the expenditure throughout the country and this, to my way of thinking, is being wasted.
By artificially rearing and introducing takeable fish to catch I feel we are by-passing the main issue, and we will never get anywhere by doing it. Money must be spent and work must be done, but let this be done where it will have a lasting effect, and this means on the river and its adjacent streams. Owners of fisheries are now paying for the ravages caused by civilisation. They are footing the bill for what really should be done by the local authorities. We have to stock our fishery and pay a high price to do it simply because of pollution, because impurities of one kind and another are being discharged into our river systems. And I know it is the same in many parts throughout the country.
Possibly owners of fisheries are right in thinking that it is not their responsibility to keep our rivers free of polluting matters and that the cost of this should be borne by the nation. This it true, of course, but until it happens we can at least do a little.
The good and prosperous farmer is he who cultivates and tends his land, not he who sows on barren wastes or overstocks barren pastures with cattle or sheep. We cannot do better than follow this example, as I think my comparison of costs will have proved.
