48 
OrSTEE CULTURE COMMISSION—MINUTES OF ETIUENCE. 
Mr. W. J. loss. Then when they pay such an enormous sum for merely getting them out of tlio water, of course 
lianghaiu. tliey cannot sell them so cheaply? 
1G89. Anti they have also to dredge the heds continually in order to get rid of the enemies to the oyster ? 
29 Not., 1876. Yes, they arc all tlie better for being turned over occasionally. 
1690. Arc you aware that in Kngliiiid, Ireland, and Scotland ilic greatest diniculty they experience is in 
saving the s])at ? Yes. 
1691. Thai sometimes for tell, twelve, or even tiflceii years no quantity of spat can be saved? Yes, I 
have heard so. 
1692. And are you also aware that in England, Trcland, and Scotland, unless the oysters are covered to a 
considerable depth, say 4 feet of water at low-tide, the whole of tliem arc frequently killed by tlic frost? 
Ye.-^. 
1690. But you have never known oysters in this Colony to be killed by frost ? I have known them to be 
killed by frtist in a boat. 
1694. In this latitude ? No, to the southward. The oystennen here in the winter-time generally cover 
the oysters over in their boats to keep the frost oil* them. 
1695. But I am speaking of oysters under water. You have never known them to be killed by frost in 
this country, even if dry at low-tide ? No. 
1696. Therefore the spat costs nothing excejit the trouble of collecting, and there is no trouble in getting 
them from the fattening grounds except putting them into the boats ? No. 
1697. Then with all these advantages, don't you think oysters in this country should be plentiful and 
clieap ? Yes, they should be cheaper than they are. 
1698. Do you uthabute the present high prices to the monopoly of the rivers by a few persons? Yes, 
partly ; and partly to the rivci’s being overworked, and tlie oysters scaivc. 
1690. Have tliey not been eliiefly ovenvorked in order to burn the oysters for lime ? Ves ; but that has 
not been done to any extent within the lust few' years. 
1700. But you luivc told us of several rivers where tlie rocks are still covered with spat ? Yes. 
1701. So that they cannot have been injured by overdredging? No, not the hank oysters. 
1702. What, in your opinion, lias been the effect of closing the rivers upon the character of the oyster 
heds ; have they improved? They have in some eases ; but no one has been in charge of them, and the 
oysters have been taken away to a considerable extent. There has been nothing to stop it, except when 
the police have caught a person robbing tlie beds, or some one has given information, wmich has been very 
seldom the ease, because no portion of the tine goes to the informer. 
1709. Hon. J. 13. Wilson.'] Ho that, although the rivers have been closed by the Governineiit, they have in 
reality been w'orked? Y'es. 
1704. And consequently there lias been no opportunity for the oysters to breed ? No, very little. 
1705. 1 low many Inspectors do you think would he required to protect the whole of the leased rivers ])roperly 
—I mean from the Ihveed down to the Victorian border. Ilow' many rivers do you think one man could look 
afler — could he look after more than one ? Yes, more than one in some instances. In some rivers, for 
instance, wliere there are bar hiirhours and the steamers do not trade. It is chiefly where thoi'e is 
steam navigation that protection is required. 
1706. Do not persons send oysters down by these timber vessels ? They do in a good many instances. 
1707. JIow many Inspectors do you think would be required to protect the oyster-bearing rivers generally; 
a dozen? liCss than that. I think about six Inspectors would do it. 
170S. And do you think Ihc services they w'oiild render w^ould he of greater value than tlie remuneration 
they would receive; tlmt is to say, that it would pay to appoint Inspectors to look after tliese I’ivei’s ? I 
lliiiik so. Where there are only sailing-vessels on a river it is far easier to look after the oyster beds 
than where there is steam traflic. 
1709. Do you think these six Inspectors would be able to look after tlie leased beds to see that tlie pro¬ 
visions of the Act were being carried out—woukl they be able to do tliiit also ? 1 think so, wdth the 
exceiition of places that were closed. It would take one person’s whole time to look after a closed river. 
1710. Do yon think there W'oukl be any ditiiculty in introducing into the lease a proA’ision to compel 
the lessees to return tlie beds to the (jovernment at the expiration of the term of lease in a certain 
prolific state ? I do not think so. 
1711. V oil think it Avoukl be an advantage to introduce such a provision into all tlie leases ? I think it 
would. 
1712. In the way those areas are leased at the present time tliere is evorv inducement to the lessees to 
destroy the beds absolutely ? Yes, tliere is nothing to prevent them, l^or instance, Avhen the oyster-beds 
at Newcastle and on the Clai’ence Avere leased they took enormous quantities of oysters out the first year. 
I Avas tokl that about 7,000 hags were taken out of the Clarence during the first year of the lea.se, and in 
the Newcastle nver a very large (luantity was also taken, although the river avuh supposed to he paidially 
closed at tiie time. Thu same thing was done in the IVlanning Bivor. More oysters Averc taken out oip 
these rivers during the tirst year than in ilny subseiiucut year. 1 tried to get a return of the oystci-s 
taken out each year, hut the lessees declined to give me the correct quantities. 
FRIDAY, 1 DECFMBER, 1876. 
iScfScut:— 
Hok. T. holt, I Hon. J. B. WILSON. 
The Hok. THOMAS HOLT, M.L.C., in the Chair. 
Mr. Jonalliau Knight called in and examined:— 
Mr. J. Knight. 1719. Chairman^ How long liavc you been engaged in the oyster business, Mi*. Knight ? Eighteen years. 
1714. In this Colony ? Ves, on the river Huutei'. 
1 Dec., 1876. 1715. Solely on llie Hunter, or have you been on any oilier rivers? Yes, I liavc been on the Parramatta 
Itivcr. 
1716. Have you liad any experience in England in the oyster business ? 1 did not folloAV it as a business 
in England, but 1 have made niy living by it in this country for eighteen years—in Newcastle. 1717. 
