Debate on the trout controversy
Conservation of catchments: a personal view from Nick James,
Rivendell Hatchery
The response given to your article by Johan
Brummer demands correction of the facts and clarification of the details he
did not provide. Regrettably Johan Brummer's contribution of selective
information, half-truths and total inaccuracies is the sort of misinformation
that gives environmental activists a bad name. Since he takes as an example a
specific catchment, the Salt River in the Southern Cape, I shall limit comment
to that particular example, and the views given may not necessarily extrapolate
to other river systems, as he attempts to do.
His opening remarks (I shall ignore his emotive first line…) concerning
what he perceives to be the paramount threat to conservation in the southern
Cape (developers) indicate that he cannot see beyond the narrow confines of his
obsession. In fact the number one threat to conservation in the southern Cape is
the mass invasion by, largely Australian origin, invasive vegetation. To some,
these may just be trees and bushes, so how can they be so bad? To give all the
facts here would fill a book, but suffice to say that such invasions alter the
entire ecology of the mountain fynbos of the Cape: this includes the flora which
is displaced; the fauna which depends on the wide diversity of plant and animal
material required for survival; and the changes in the geomorphological
processes that control erosion, sedimentation and river flow.
In light of the above, what are the real threats to the Salt River catchment,
as singled out by Johan Brummer? Three years ago the upper 8km of the catchment
above, and on, the developer's property comprised pristine mountain fynbos. The
stream itself (which we surveyed in detail, , Bok 2000a & b, Barber-James
2000, de Moor & Barber-James 2001) was a totally sediment-free headwater
stream with pools, waterfalls and riffle areas over large cobbles and bedrock
(James 2000). As with several other streams of the S. Cape, there were no
primary freshwater fish species present. Aquatic invertebrates were found to be
diverse, and to contain several species not formerly recorded from the S. Cape
(this finding is hardly surprising since so few fishless S. Cape rivers have
been studied in such detail) (James 2001)..
Two years ago, during the process of the EIA for the proposed development, Dr
Ferdy de Moor (of the Albany Museum) and I had the opportunity to walk high into
the upper catchment. As a result of a disastrous fire the year previously, Hakea
was found to be massively invading the middle and upper slopes, displacing the
mountain fynbos, and already some were setting seed. The lower slopes of the
catchment had been largely cleared of a very extensive black wattle infestation
by the developer, who proposed building a number of timber chalets hidden in the
hills, clearing all the exotic vegetation, and stocking a 3km stretch of the
river with trout to serve as an up-market angling draw-card for overseas
investors. At this stage it is pertinent to point out several inaccuracies, and
facts left out by Johan Brummer:
(1) The developer proposed to stock only 3km of the river with sterile
triploid trout which could not breed. The river, in its pristine state, anyway
lacks the gravel beds (redds) that trout need to bury their eggs in.
(2) Stocking would be limited to a section downstream of two high barrier falls
that would prevent upstream migration into the pristine area.
(3) The entire upper catchment was to be declared a nature reserve (Open Space
3) and all invasive vegetation was to have been removed by the developer on his
property. Thus the upper 5km headwater region would have had its entire
assemblage of flora and fauna sustained by the initial investment and income
derived from the up-market development.
(4) The "huge dam" that Johan Brummer claims was stocked with trout
was in fact a pond adjacent to the developer's house! W. Cape Nature
Conservation did give verbal permission to bring in trout, but had never
produced the written permit (Dean Impson, pers. comm.).
(5) Low pH water is not necessarily unsuitable for trout growth and survival,
but can prevent development of their eggs: for example, the Steenbras Reservoir
near Gordon's Bay with a pH as low as 4.5 has regularly produced large adult
trout. Many of the Piscator records will confirm this.
(6) No limestone was put in the Salt River. The developer's neighbour authorized
the adding of a quantity of limestone along an inlet furrow leading to a pipe
feeding a two-tank hatchery situated on the Hol River in which he hatched some
trout eggs.
(7) The lady who claimed to have seen redfins in the Salt River later retracted
her statement when challenged in various articles in the press (Kynsna-Plett
Herald 2000a, b, c & d).
(8) The EIA study of fish and aquatic invertebrates was far from superficial as
claimed by Brummer, and was one of the most careful and intensive faunal studies
of this type done in the S. Cape.
(9) I was not the "developer's consultant". The fish survey was lead
by Dr Anton Bok (Bok 2000).
Johan Brummer sees fit to substantiate his anti-trout lobby with reference to
a survey that I was part of some years ago, reporting on the fish fauna of
rivers in the Elliot/Ugie/Maclear district of the NE Cape (Skelton & James
1991). I wonder if in fact he has even read what I wrote? If so, he does most
certainly not understand the interacting geomorphological and biological process
that affect different catchments with their flora and fauna! There is a clear
succession of events that can lead to a successful invasion by exotic fish in
montaine catchments in the Cape, particulary trout, but also to a lesser degree
bass. An understanding of these processes is essential in prioritising the
perceived threats to catchments. The process starts with a pristine mountain
catchment, and proceeds as follows:
(1) With the natural thick grassy or grassland-fynbos vegetation covering the
slopes of upper catchments, erosion is slow, and the stream sediment load light.
Natural fires are regular, but limited to cycles far longer than experienced
today. Constant in-stream flow removes what little sand or gravel there is, to
lower reaches. Thus the upper stream channel is almost entirely one of bedrock
and large boulders. This is typical of the upper 8km of the Salt River at
present. The aquatic and terrestrial flora and fauna is species diverse. Lacking
suitable breeding sand or gravel beds, the river is resistant to invasion by
trout or bass, with the exception of occasional up-stream migratory individuals
during high-flow periods, if barrier falls allow this. This was the status of
the Salt River at the time of our surveys, two years ago.
(2) Next step: Invasion by exotic vegetation, overgrazing (as per the NE Cape
example of Skelton & James 1991)), construction of roads, forestry, repeated
burning and other "disturbances" to the natural processes, rapidly
increase sediment load in the upper stream, which then becomes periodically
turbid and silt-laden. The terrestrial floral and faunal diversity is reduced by
swamping with exotic monocultures of (largely) wattles and acacias. Exotic fish
such as bass and trout can now breed successfully in the abundant gravel and
sand beds and establish feral populations.
(3) With the abundancy of prey items (indigenous fish and/or aquatic
invertebrates) the recruitment of exotic fish is initially highly successful in
the now-disturbed catchment, and feeding by exotic fish is selective on the most
desirable or easily caught items. Concurrent with this, accelerating
environmental disturbance puts indigenous species (flora and fauna, both
terrestrial and aquatic) under stress. This negatively affects them, resulting
in reduced recruitment, reduced food availability, and lower survival of
indigenous biota. Such a situation is typical of the upper reaches of several NE
Cape streams such as the Pot River, today.
(4) The final step is the complete submergence of the natural vegetation under a
"blanket" of wattles, Eucalyptus and exotic acacias along the water
courses, and pines and Hakea on the upper slopes. The stream has now become
nothing more than a sediment sluice with rock pools filled-in with sand and
gravel, and former riffle -reaches submerged in sediment. Water chemistry and
flow is highly variable, and species diversity has crashed to an all-time low.
There is now insufficient food for the remaining trout (or bass) which stunt,
become parasitised, and lacking alternative food sources now eliminate any
surviving indigenous species. Stream banks collapse, and the water courses are
filled with the debris of exotic vegetation brought downstream by floods of
(now) unusual magnitude. Effectively the river has died. This is the case for
many of the middle reaches of those same NE Cape rivers, and an increasing
number of S. Cape streams.
The lesson to be learned from this sorry but predictable sequence of events
is that the causal effects must be understood: it is of little use singling out
trout per se, or other exotic species, as the trigger for environmental
catastrophe when they are often little more than a contributing factor along the
way once the real villain has been ignored. The whole sequence of biological and
geomorphological processes that enable this process of degradation to start must
be both understood, and more importantly, acted upon without delay. This is the
situation with the Salt River example as quoted by Johan Brummer: There is no
question that Working for Water, or anyone else other than individual private
land owners, are in a position to do anything about halting the massive spread
by invasive vegetation currently taking place all over the S. Cape. Clearing
costs money: lots of it (R4000.00/ha, DWAF 1999 figures), and this is out of
reach for most landowners without an income-producing source from their
properties. At times developments are proposed that may appear to be
contradictory in terms of 'pure conservation'. One should then consider
"bio-control", the use of an exotic organism to eradicate a pest: if
the exotic control organism can be shown to have a negative impact that is
controllable, and less than its positive impact, it is acceptable in the context
of an almost out-of-control problem. If the 'control' or 'income earning method'
is also self-sustaining, well even better.
As such, the proposal to stock a short reach of the Salt River with sterile
trout, thus enabling finances to be realized for the establishment of a nature
reserve, in the upper valley, on a sustainable basis, was a viable and realistic
answer to what is fast becoming an insoluble problem. It is surely unrealistic
to imagine that even huge inputs of money to WFW, as have happened during the
last two years, will even scratch the surface? In this one example, the
developer's proposal offered a viable alternative to the "do nothing, but
ban all exotic fish, and hope it will come right" type of philosophy that
bedevils conservation thinking . One of the most important facts is that an
invasion by exotic wattles and acacias must be stopped before these plants have
the ability to mass-seed the catchment slopes. In the case of Hakea, this means
less than two years from the time of germination to production of viable seed.
Time is short, and there is no time for the luxury of endless debates on the
finer ethics of "what to do?". I must emphasize that the sort of
development that was proposed for the Salt River may well not be the right one
for many other streams, but at least it offered the catchment a chance of
sustainable survival with only a limited and short term impact by the trout.
This stream was in fact stocked with trout by Hey in the 1950's, unsuccessfully
as it happened, as they would not breed and soon died out. Sterile triploid
trout were not available then.
In March 2002 I had the opportunity to re-visit the S. Cape and took the
trouble to re-examine the hills flanking the upper Salt River: the older hakeas
have now seeded all over the upper slopes and the next generation of seedlings
is now smothering the fynbos. On the lower slopes, the black wattles formerly
laboriously removed by the developer are re-encroaching like a plague, virtually
forming a monoculture. The Hol river tributary to the Salt is dry, its water
course cluttered with fallen wattle and pine. The Salt River, upstream of any
water extraction point is (according to local information) lower than anyone can
remember. The developer, denied (by a refusal of a stocking permit) a viable
income-earning method from his property has had to sell it. The new (overseas)
owner proposes to bulldoze all the lower slopes into irrigated polo-fields, and
afforest the upper ones with pine…And so it starts: that whole sequence of
processes as described above…when with a little imagination, understanding of
what was actually proposed (instead of wildly emotive accusation, as made by
Johan Brummer and his "anti-trout" lobby), it could have been possible
to have the entire upper catchment under control at the cost of a few sterile
trout in a short section of the river.
It is too late to save the Salt River now: the hakeas and wattles have
dispersed years of viable seed into the ground. Yes, an alien introduction of
some sterile fish was stopped, but we lost yet another catchment in the process…Is
this really something to be proud of? I think not.
I do not, of course, propose the stocking of trout into every river under
threat. To suggest that (some have tried to infer that I do…) would be
patently absurd. What I do hope is that through the emotive controversy over
this much maligned animal (trout) people can see the wood for the trees. It is
not just a question of trout being desirable or undesirable in the Salt River.
It is a complex interplay of natural and un-natural processes that are
relentlessly changing the landscape that we live in, and the perilously short
time we have to do anything about it. The trout, for better or worse, is only a
small part of that process, and should not become the cause celebre behind which
too many are starting to hide in the belief that they are helping conservation.
See Johann Brummer's response to this letter.
Return to Main Article
References
Barber-James H. 2000. Preliminary investigation of the freshwater
macroinvertebrates in the Salt River, in relation to the proposed stocking of
trout into the upper salt River, farm 236, The Crags. Internal EIA report,
Albany Museum, Grahamstown RSA.
Bok, A. 2000 a & b. Proposed stocking of trout into the upper Salt River,
Farm 236, The Crags. EIA assessment report. Anton Bok & Associates, Port
Elizabeth.
de Moor, F & HM Barber-James 2001. Preliminary investigation of the
freshwater macroinvertebrates in the Salt River, in relation to the proposed
stocking of trout into the upper salt River, farm 236, The Crags. Internal EIA
report, Albany Museum, Grahamstown RSA.
James, NPE. 2000. Trout stocking controversy. Piscator 132, Journal of the Cape
Piscatorial Society, November 2000. pp 42-50.
James, NPE. 2001. Trout stocking controversy- part two. Piscator 133, Journal
of the Cape Piscatorial Society, November 2001. pp 64-70.
Knysna-Plett Herald, 2000 a. Toying with our environment, by Brenda Berge.
Knysna -Plett Herald, Thursday 7th September 2000.
Knysna-Plett Herald, 2000 b. More fresh air, less hot air, by Julia Lloyd.
Knysna-Plett Herald, Thursday 14th September 2000.
Knysna-Plett Herald, 2000 c & d. Toying with articles? By Brenda Berge
and N. James. Letters to the editor, Knysna-Plett Herald, Thursday 14th
September 2000.
Skelton P.H. & N.P.E. James 1991. A survey of the fishes in the rivers of
the North-East cape, districts of Elliot, Ugie and Maclear, December
1990-October 1991. JLB Smith investigational report for Mondi Timbers Ltd.
Department of Water Affairs & Forestry (DWAF) 1999. Plettenberg Bay Water
Resources Management: Part 1: Management strategy. Water quality management
series, DWAF, June 1999.
Johann Brummer's reply to Mr Nick James letter
Debate On Trout/Development Of The Salt River Catchment.
I have no obsession against trout as Mr James claims in his article.
I merely have a problem with the insidious destruction of our natural heritage
by unscrupulous developers and their apologists. I am very much aware of the
threat posed by invasive aliens, of all kinds, to our indigenous fauna and
flora. I am especially aware of the threat posed by the Aussie invasion. I have
spent many thousands of Rands and hours eradicating these pests from our own
ground at The Crags.
As an owner of agricultural land himself, Mr James will be aware of the
requirements laid down in law regarding the landowner's duty to keep his land
free of certain listed invasive species. (In terms of WC legislation trout are
given similar status in the piscatorial sense as Black Wattles hold under our
National legislation.) National legislation requires of owners to keep their
land free of these plants. If you want to own the land you have to take the
responsibility to look after it and maintain it. If for whatever reason a
landowner is unable or unwilling to comply with the obligations placed on him by
his ownership, he should sell the land to someone who is.
In 1998 the land in question was cleared of all aliens by Working for Water.
This is probably the reason why Mr James found the area to be
"pristine" when he visited it three years ago. In his report after
visiting the area on 12 August 2000, Dr Jim Cambray wrote," The catchment
is quite intact with small but easily controllable infestations of pines and
hakea. The fynbos is recovering from the 1998 fire that swept through the area.
The water is crystal clear near the top of the catchment. Once the river flows
out of the mountains there is a heavy infestation of black wattles. In this
area, which is rapidly being bulldozed, there are wetlands that should have been
sacrosanct."
It appears that the invasion of aliens in the interim occurred during the
time the property was under the control of the developer.
The lower slopes were indeed being bulldozed at the time and a large amount
of small (post 1998 fire) black wattles were being destroyed in the process.
This was obviously being done in preparation of constructing one of the large
dams which were to form part of the development.
Hanekom and Russell's report had the following to say about the dam.
"This dam must be huge, because the proponent would not divulge its (the
most important proposed development on farm 236) size during the public meeting
on the 4 September at Kurland Club."
After a site visit in early September 2000, Messrs Hanekom and Russell from
South African National Parks commented as follows.
"The proponent has already bulldozed large areas on Farm 236 to remove
alien trees and presumably to prepare the site for the construction of the earth
dam. These areas are situated at the base of mountain and have been cleared of
all the vegetation. This makes them extremely susceptible to soil erosion, with
the runoff likely to increase the water turbidity and sediment deposition in the
Salt River system. This in turn will adversely affect the health of the river.
Let us not forget that a similar type of bulldozing activity at the proposed
Samola Golf Course in Knysna resulted in massive erosion of the landscape and
'pollution' of the Salt River (another Salt River) after heavy rains in
1996." (My comment)
In his letter Mr James very eloquently explains exactly how harmful this kind
of irresponsible land use can be to river systems and the environment in
general. His study of the NEC rivers showed him this.
The clean-up of privately owned land by the state was done with the
understanding that the land owners would keep doing follow-ups thus keeping the
land alien free in future. The landowners did not comply with this and that is
probably the reason, apart from the 1998 fire, why on his second visit he found
the area to be full of hakea.
Nick informs us that his observations indicated that there were "no
primary freshwater fish species present," and that the "aquatic
invertebrates were found to be diverse." Presumably, although he does not
say so the latter is as a result, even if just partially, of the former. The
question then arises, why stock fish into this system? That is, apart from the
developers desire to have a draw-card to make a chalet development saleable.
In his article, Mr James continues by purporting to point out several
supposed "inaccuracies" and facts left out by myself. I must point out
that my brief comments were never meant to be exhaustive, and to record all the
facts of this saga is a task for which I do not have the time.
1. I did not mention what length of the river would be stocked with trout,
nor did I claim that they would breed in the river. As Mr James is at pains to
point out the river is close to "pristine" and in that pristine state
contains "no primary freshwater fish species" and that "aquatic
invertebrates were found to be diverse." Again the same question arises,
Why put fish into a river where none occur naturally and risk the obvious
negative effect such a population of fish would have on the diverse aquatic
invertebrates that would become a food source of what I understand to be a
fairly voracious species of fish? Even if it is just 3km of the river, why
destroy it for the sake of conning people into buying chalets they otherwise
would not have considered buying.
There are of course other considerations as well, such as the small matter of
South Africa being a signatory to the (International) Convention of Biological
Diversity, which means that it would not be possible, at least morally, for a
government department to allow the introduction of a foreign species into waters
which are free of alien species.
Both Mr James and the developer will have been aware of WCNCB's policy
regarding trout; that no trout should be stocked into rivers where no legally
stocked trout exist.
So there we had Mr James standing in front of an audience for his telling us
that it was quite okay for the developer to stock trout into just such a river
in contravention of an international convention and in conflict with the
responsible conservation authority's policy.
If the land around the lower end of the river were to be properly cared for it
would probably recover and again be close to pristine. I have personal
experience of the power of recovery of the land if one removes the invaders
without unnecessarily disturbing the soil, doing it by hand and not with
bulldozers.
Messrs Hanekom and Russell had the following to say in their report regarding
the advisability of stocking trout and the condition of the lower reaches of the
river. "The proposed development, which will introduce trout into the
river, is situated some 5km upstream of the De Vasselot Reserve. During periods
of strong flow or flooding, the introduced trout may readily be washed down
stream into the Salt river, one of two substantial rivers in the De Vasselt
Reserve. An area that has been state land since 1882, a nature reserve since
1974, and part of the Tsitsikamma National Park since 1887 (Strydom 1992) and is
therefore a near pristine river system." So let's not just write off the
lower end.
2. Developers are very keen on the theory that they should be allowed to
develop "degraded" land. The reason why such land is degraded is
invariably that the owner/s, past and present, have failed in their duty to
properly care for their land. They then use this neglect as an excuse and
expected to be rewarded with development rights.
There is a moral duty on the owner to maintain the land in his custody. On
top of which legislation requires that the area referred to is kept free of
aliens. This is not dependant on the land's zoning or its status as a
"nature reserve." Development proposals are often motivated by
developers claiming that certain areas will be declared nature reserves. My
experience is that this is normally comprises areas that are unsuitable for
development and are even often offered as a "gift" to the community,
thus cleverly shifting the onus and cost of maintenance onto the taxpayer. In
other cases so-called nature reserves become neglected and have on occasion even
been further subdivided and developed!!
The argument that the land must be developed in order for its flora and fauna
to be sustained is spurious. This property already had a large fern nursery
established and operative. A portion of the income from that source should have
been set aside for maintaining the property. Obviously this was not done. Why
then should one believe that income from another source would be applied for
this?
Developers tend to see the land as a crop in itself, rather than as the means
through which to produce a crop. I am generalising but am sure Mr James will
forgive my cynicism when it comes to developers' proposals.
3. I apologise if my comments may have created the impression that the dam with
trout was on the development land. As to the size of the dam or whether it
should have been described as a "pond", it is a matter of perceptions.
It took a bulldozer months to construct the dam wall. If that is a pond then I
stand corrected. Whether it is a pond, dam, huge dam, lake, puddle or whatever,
the fact remains it was illegally stocked with trout.
No government body ever gives verbal permission. The legislation requires
that a permit be issued, not that verbal permission can be given. No official
has the authority to go outside the confines of the law legislation in terms of
which he may grant permission. In the unlikely event that verbal permission is
granted the person receiving that permission would be foolish to act thereon. To
the best of my recollection the person involved denied in a public meeting
having done so. (The public meeting at which this occurred was tape recorded by
Jim Cambray and he may still have this record.) Obviously I was not privy to any
later personal communication between that person and Mr James. The bottom line
is, verbal permission is not worth the paper it is written on.. One trusts that
if verbal permission was granted and that against the stated policy of the
department, disciplinary steps would have been taken against the person/s
concerned.
4. Mr James is the expert and I must take his word that the trout placed in
the Salt River would not have been able to breed, but would have survived and
grown. I am certainly not about to question the Piscator's records in this
regard. What would the effect be on the diverse aquatic invertebrates along that
stretch of the river? But then again past experience shows they will all soon
die off anyway.
5. The limestone was placed in the Hol River which is a tributary of the Salt
River, thus in the Salt River catchment. Only a very small portion of the
limestone on site had been placed in the river and this was stopped by Henk
Nieuwoudt of CNC. I now recall that there was a quantity of agricultural lime
dumped in the upper reaches of the Hol River. Large quantities of calcareous
rock remain stockpiled on the property and large amounts of agricultural lime
was worked into the bottom of a huge dam on the neighbouring property. Why would
that have been done?
I am not an expert on aquatic life and systems, but I question the
advisability and environmental friendliness of altering the ph of a river.
Messrs Hanekom and Russell, who do have a bit of knowledge of these things
reported as follows, "The Salt River system is a typical southern Cape
acidic river, and the successful establishment of trout in this system would
likely require artificial manipulation of water quality, in particular pH. Any
attempt to deliberately alter the water chemistry of the Salt river system would
be totally unacceptable as it would have a detrimental affact of all indigenous
aquatic biota which have adapted to local conditions."
In view of the hundreds of cubic metres of calcerous rock that had already
been stock piled, presumably in preparation of altering the chemistry and pH of
the water, perhaps Mr James can explain how this altered water would be confined
to the 3km stretch of river.
6. She did not.
7. I will let DECAS' letter to the Environmental Consultant speak for itself.
"
9. Granted, but Mr James was very prominent in pushing for the stocking to go
ahead and by his own admission was involved in the surveys. I am sure that he
will recall that at the time he was on the agenda for the public meeting to
speak for 10 minutes on the "Positive Aspect Regarding Trout Stocking"
and that objection were raised to this on the grounds that Anton Bok was the
consultant. Incidentally Anton Bok was also allotted 10 minutes, as was Ms James
who presented the specialist study on aquatic invertebrates. I am really sorry
that I got confused, but it would seem that Nick is as well, as the agenda lists
Dr Malcolme Logie as the independent EIA consultant
My knowledge of the whole process may not be as comprehensive as Mr James's,
but even us layman do have an understanding of these things. As so nicely
explained by Mr James it is a combination of the alien vegetation, fish and the
general disturbance of the catchment including the building of roads and
infrastructure in sensitive areas which causes the problems. Unnecessarily
bulldozing large areas adjacent to a stream does not fill one with confidence in
the developer's sensitivity to and understanding of the environment.
The developer proposed to bulldoze a road into the "pristine"
catchment area and to build no less than 20 chalets in there. This together with
trenching etc to bring in the other services. Not the kind of activity that
should be encouraged in a "pristine" catchment, or one already
suffering the impact of invader species as a result of neglect. To then add
trout to the equation in order to serve as "an up-market draw-card for
overseas investors" seems to me to be environmentally irresponsible and
undesirable.
To set about doing this without the necessary investigations having been done
and no due process is not acceptable.
Mr James is absolutely correct in saying that action without delay is
required to rid the land of alien invader plants. The land in question was
cleared by Working for Water, but the follow-ups were not done properly. They
must be done and without delay. Doing this work is expensive, more so for the
private land owner where the economies of scale which apply to Working for Water
are not present. I know this from personal experience.
If I understand correctly Mr James proposes that in this instance trout
should rather have been seen as a form of slightly harmful but controllable
"bio-control" for the eradication of alien vegetation. He goes on to
motivate this by hinting that the income from the trout would be utilised for
the "establishment of a nature reserve, in the upper valley, on a
sustainable basis." A novel and imaginative approach. I seem to recollect
that at the time of the public meeting this was not mentioned, but an effort was
made to sell the whole thing as an experiment to see what effect the trout would
have on the stream.
Earlier in his letter Mr James comes a bit closer to the real reason for
stocking trout; "…with trout to serve as an up-market angling draw-card
for overseas investors." The price of units would be higher than they would
without the trout draw-card, and this would have seen to a good profit for the
developer. The burden of keeping the land clean would have shifted to the new
owners without any guarantee that they would have taken their responsibilities
any more seriously than any of the previous owners. Let us not be fooled into
believing that all the profits would have gone into cleaning and maintaining the
land or even in the unlikely event of this happening that the necessary
follow-ups and maintenance would be carried out by the new owners.
At no time did I ever say or even imply that we should do nothing about the
alien vegetation problem apart from banning exotic fish and hope that things
will come right. Talk about "half-truths and total inaccuracies"!!!!
At the risk of being repetitive, I know that the alien invader plants are, next
to man, the biggest threat to the environment. On the land where I am
responsible I have and still am, and probably will for the rest of my life, wage
a battle against these plants. I will not ask what the developer did especially
against the hakea during the period that he had custody of that land. As Mr
James rightly points out, these plants must be stopped from setting seed and in
the case of hakea you do indeed only have two years in which to do that. You
cannot therefore wait for a development to materialise before you start taking
action. You simply have to do it and fund it yourself.
I agree one hundred percent that there is no time to debate. Landowners must
accept the responsibilities that come with being the custodian of land and must
do what must be done now. As Mr James points out himself, his visit in March
2002 indicates that no effective action was taken against the hakeas which has
resulted in the problem increasing many fold. Why would it be any different if
there are fifteen new owners and trout in the stream?
I do not follow Mr James' argument that stocking the river with trout would
offer the catchment "a chance of sustainable survival with only a limited
and short term impact by trout." (My emphasis) He goes on to inform us that
the river was unsuccessfully stocked with trout fifty years ago. If we follow
this argument to its logical conclusion, the trout will only survive for a short
time and then die out, unlike their cousins who flourished in the acidic waters
of the Steenbras Reservoir, because after all they are only being put in the
stream to "serve as an up-market angling draw-card for overseas
investors." Once the units are sold and the profit is taken the trout die,
so the second time the new owner visits his trout lodge…. no trout!!! We are
asked to believe that this, by now somewhat disappointed owner will continue to
pour money into maintaining a property that no longer contains the trout that
were the original draw-card that made him buy in. I think not.
The Hol River is indeed in the kind of mess described by Mr James. This is
the site of one of the illegal hatcheries that was operated by the developer
although it is not on the property where the development was to take place but
is a neighbouring property. At the time the developer vehemently denied having
any interest in that property at all apart from advising on the trout breeding.
Perhaps Mr James knows differently. I have however had sight of plans indicating
that a hotel and sixty houses are in the pipeline for that property, which
according to the developer had nothing to do with his development.
To the best of my knowledge the new owner does propose to establish polo
fields, paddocks etc on the land where the fern houses were. This is a scheduled
activity in terms of section 25 and will require him to go through the
procedures with DECAS. Polo fields and the irrigated paddocks that go with them
are very heavy on water consumption and that aspect will have to be fully
investigated as the Salt River is already very heavily exploited for irrigation
and for the rapidly growing Kurland Village which has a burgeoning population
and is earmarked for major expansion. I understand that fairly major expansion
of Kuthumba Village is on the cards and that this will also be taking supply
from the Salt River.
As far as afforestation is concerned, I very much doubt that the required
permit would be issued for the land concerned. Forestry is not advisable in the
small catchment which supplies around four thousand people with water. The new
owner, whether he is from overseas or not, will still have to care for the
property and ensure that alien invaders are cleaned off the land and kept under
control.
No harm whatsoever has come to that catchment as a result of the community's
insistence that the developer follows due process. I agree with Mr James when he
points out that the land has been horribly neglected but it is not in such a bad
state that it cannot be rehabilitated and kept clean by a new owner. I sincerely
hope that he will, so let's give him the benefit of the doubt.
The last I heard, on 11 November 2001, I was advised by the developer's
environmental consultant that they were still going ahead with the application
for the development, (No longer in the name of On-Line Fishing CC but in the
name of the developer himself.) and that I should register within 14 days from
that date as an I&AP. (Again the introduction of alien fish did not form
part of the notice.) I did so and have had no further communication from them.
The developer clearly decided that it was not worth his while to continue with
the application. It must be pointed out too that to the best of my knowledge the
developer never applied for a stocking permit. It certainly did not form a part
of the latest public notice.
All this community insisted on was that the due process was followed and that
the developer should be prevented from going ahead with the development,
including stocking of the trout into the rivers, until such time as a proper
study had been conducted and informed decisions could be taken based on the
outcome of that study. We wanted no earthworks, no dams built, no new roads
built, no chemical changes and other aggressions inflicted on the stream, and no
services installed until the authorities had been given the chance to take
decisions and issue the necessary permits and permissions. We were concerned
about the impact that the trout could have had, but were far more concerned by
the illegal activities of the developer and his complete disregard for the law
and the rights of the environment and the community.
The authorities were not happy with the original study and required a further
study be done before considering any application. The developer persevered for a
while and apparently was then made an acceptable offer for the land and sold.
Who knows, if he had submitted the new study to the authorities they may have
approved it?
Having given some more detail which may jog Mr James's memory, I will try to
state my position very simply and clearly.
1. I fully understand the massive environmental threats posed by the almost
uncontrollable spread of alien vegetation in this area.
2. The development in question was being done in the most reckless manner, with
total disregard for any and all legislation.
3. The studies, as presented at the public meeting, were woefully inadequate and
therefore unacceptable. This is a sentiment shared by the authorities.
4. The developer was deliberately withholding information from interested and
affected parties.
5. I am neither for nor against trout. The reason trout were the main topic
until now is because they were perceived to be the most immediate threat given
that they were already on site and had not even been mentioned in the notice of
what was intended for the property.
6. I did not think it was necessary to go into all the details of what
transpired and all the other potential negative impacts that would have arisen
out of the development as the subject I had been asked to comment on was TROUT.
7. It is not too late to save the Salt River, all that is needed is an owner
that takes his responsibilities as landowner/custodian seriously, and there are
many who do just that, or for the authorities to enforce the legislation that
will force the owner to do so.
8. If I were to use "…a little imagination (and) understanding of what
was actually proposed…" my conclusion would probably be that somewhere
along the line somebody was being set up to be ripped off, and that no
consideration was being given to the possible negative environmental impacts.
9. I have made no "wildly emotive accusation" nor do I have an
anti-trout lobby. I have merely listened to what Mr James and other experts have
to say on the subject, observed the actions of the developer and his band of
merry men, and made up my own mind that the proposed development, including the
stocking of the river with trout or any other non-indigenous species is
unacceptable.
10.No matter what Mr James says the connection between trout and the bio-control
of black wattle is just a little too tenuous to be readily accepted. This novel
approach was not brought up at the time, in fact Mr James tried to sell the idea
that it would be an interesting experiment to stock trout into this river and to
see what happens.
11.Mr James need not worry that the new owner will be allowed to do as he
pleases with the property without regard for the environment or following due
process. The local officials and community will see to that.
PS. Mr James' claim that the catchment is to be planted to pines has led to
quick reaction from the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. Two officials
from DWAF contacted me today in an attempt to obtain contact details for the new
owner so that they can ensure that he does not plant the trees without the
necessary investigations being done and permits being issued. Nothing to worry
about there DWAF is on the ball.
Return to Main Article
|
