After TRM posted the response from DOC to TRM’s questions the following comments were received. They were added to the original response but that was after most had read it, so this post is for those who may not have seen them.

Trout Farming Rears its Ugly Head at Taupo

From NZ Federation of Freshwater Anglers
The spectre of trout farming has reared up from the murky shadows of the previous National government’s treaty deals. Māori owners of Lake Rotoaira near Turangi are reported to be backing an attempt to allow trout farming.
Retiring president of the New Zealand Federation of Freshwater Anglers Graham Carter said at the organisation’s Annual General Meeting in Wellington in mid-May, that while it was not unexpected it was absolute folly.
“It is not a great idea to put at risk and potentially wreck New Zealand’s annual one billion dollar ($1,000,000,000) recreational and tourism trout fishing industry,” he said.
Referring to it being not unexpected, he added, “Well that was predictable given the terms of National’s treaty minister Chris Finlayson’s parting treaty deal with Tuwharetoa. When he effectively designated introduced trout as customary Taonga, and gifted Tu Wharetoa use of the Taupo trout hatchery, we said at the time that trout farming was the hidden agenda.”
In addition, Parliament’s primary production committee was currently considering a petition from salmon farming pioneer Clive Barker for restrictions on the farming and sale of trout to be lifted. Mr Barker began a salmon farming based on “ocean ranching” in Golden Bay but it failed.
That petition has been vigorously opposed by the Federation of Freshwater Anglers, who have put a submission to the Select Committee outlining the effects and damage disease from trout farming has caused in other countries, the poor quality of the farmed trout, black market development once trout are commercialised, poor economics with trout farming, use of public water, organic polluted effluent and many other environmental risks.
Lake Rotoaira Forest Trust Tu Wharetoa owners were looking closely at the debate, arguing their lake could be suitable for aquaculture.
But the Trust is only looking at potential profits and ignoring the huge risks posed to both their own and other fisheries,” said Graham Carter.
He said an attempt to allow trout farming in the 1970’s was thwarted when a strong trout angler’s lobby campaigned against then – minister Duncan McIntyre and other National MPs pushing for trout farming. Labour led by Norman Kirk strongly opposed trout farming and in a landslide victory became government. Newspaper editorials identified Save Manapouri and trout farming as major factors in National’s defeat.
Tony Orman who was in the front line of the 1972 trout anglers’ lobby said scientific evidence from overseas on fish farming warned that trout farming was capital intensive, high risk and of doubtful marginal economics.”
“Nothing has changed; it still requires huge capital, is huge disease risk and has doubtful economic justification.”
In addition trout from farms are invariably very poor quality, insipid, pale and wrinkled. He said he had recently seen farmed trout in Australian shops.
“They were pathetic specimens,” he added.
Graham Carter said the repetitive failings of the salmon farming industry both in New Zealand and world-wide had shown that successive governments would allow anything to try to support the economy with even uneconomic proposals while putting at risk recreational and environment values and the trout tourism industry. Even salmon farming, which is arguably more economic than trout farming, is under huge pressure around the world because of the downstream environmental effects such intensive production farming have and are causing.
“Using the ‘down in Twizel’ argument where they’ve got salmon farms at altitude in the canals, and they’ve got large trout which feed off the salmon food is a very poor example,” he said. “It doesn’t stack up. Those large trout are predatory cannibals which consume a huge amount of other trout and salmon to reach that size. This proposal for Rotoaira clearly lacks a researched business case and reflects the commercial immaturity of the proposers”

One of many other responses – from Lyn Lloyd

I noted in the Doc rendering they show a sign for Bibury trout farm. This one has been around for a long time. I lived less than 15 kms from this place and used to fish the river that ran beside the farm from which the farm draws its water and discharges its used water. This farm had several wipeouts of fish due to disease which in turn contaminated the waters in the river. I am strongly opposed to allowing farming trout in Nz. The other concern that seems to have slipped by most people and no mention has been made of- if trout farming is allowed that would mean the regs resale of trout would have to change, and. Once that happens we can only imagine what would happen. Poaching is a problem now, just think what would happen if they can legally sell the trout. Taupo would be cleaned out pretty quickly – again all for the mighty dollar. Take note- the amendment act being put through and considered by parliament could change this and allow all these things to happen.

Why there will not be trout farming in New Zealand

From NZ Herald – The Country

Periodically someone proposes trout farming in New Zealand.

The arguments are always the same, and fail to take into account the political and commercial implications of trout farming.

Trout farming motivates a very committed and large voting block of New Zealand anglers.

With 200,000 plus license holders they are powerful block that vote on a single issue and can alter elections. Advertisement

This means there is a serious impediment to getting ministerial approval for a law change, let alone getting it through Cabinet or Parliament.

A minister knows that they will lose every trout angler’s vote if they permit trout farming.

They will likely face a well-funded and aggressive campaign in their electorate and against their party.

They do a raw political calculation. “Do I put my career at risk by allowing trout farming?”

Trout fishermen include many very wealthy people who are very clear that they will spend any amount of money necessary to prevent it.

Contrast this to potential farmed trout customers. Being able to buy trout is not an issue that turns out voters. It is not an issue that finds people willing to commit cash to campaigns for.

Those seeking a law change to allow trout farming face another problem.

Commercially trout farming is not particularly lucrative, so any decision to invest in attempting to change the law needs to be balanced with cost of changing the law and the potential profits from trout farming.

A long and involved legal process fighting to gain trout farming licenses will be extremely expensive.

A multi-year lobbying project, ongoing court cases with angler groups who will take decisions through to the Supreme Court, will burn vast amounts of cash for an uncertain result.

Investors in potential trout farms need to consider whether this expensive fight is going to return value to their shareholders or trust members.

They run the risk of burning cash that could have been invested profitably elsewhere, and being held accountable for the predictable losses incurred through trout farming.

Anyone considering law changes to permit trout farming needs to do a thorough risk analysis of the political environment.

When they have completed that they need to do an even more thorough analysis on their own position if they invest other peoples money in trout farming and then fail to gain licenses.

Both these factors suggest that trout farming will not be happening in New Zealand any time soon.

– Simon Lusk is a committed fly fisherman from Hawke’s Bay.