Why Anglers Are Disappearing from Canterbury’s Waters

NZFFA Follow-up to “At Long Last: Canterbury’s Water Is Finally in the Spotlight”

Guest Post by Dave Rhodes

In our previous article, NZFFA welcomed the long-overdue media attention on Canterbury’s water quality — particularly the growing concern around nitrates in drinking water and groundwater systems. That coverage marked an important shift: the conversation finally moved from technical reports and closed-door processes into the public square.

RNZ’s follow-up article is here

RNZ’s subsequent article, “Anglers becoming endangered species on some Canterbury rivers,” takes the next necessary step. It moves beyond chemistry and thresholds and asks a simpler, more confronting question:

What is actually happening on the rivers themselves?

For freshwater anglers, the answer has been evident for years.

---

When the water looks fine — but the fish are gone

Many Canterbury rivers still look, at first glance, deceptively healthy. They run clear. They sparkle in the sun. They pass roadside inspections without raising alarms.

And yet anglers walk kilometre after kilometre without seeing fish.

This is not nostalgia talking. It is repeated observation across seasons, rivers, and decades — from the Selwyn/Waikirikiri to the Ashburton/Hakatere and beyond.

RNZ’s article centres on the Selwyn River and includes comments from Peter Trolove, a veterinarian, fish-health specialist, and immediate past-president of NZFFA, who remains active on the Federation’s executive. Trolove describes walking long stretches of river where trout were once abundant and now are largely absent.

That observation matters — not because of who Peter is, but because it reflects what countless anglers have been quietly reporting for years.

NZFFA acknowledges Peter’s leadership role openly because transparency matters. His comments stand not as advocacy talking points, but as professional and lived experience — echoed by many who fish Canterbury’s lowland rivers.

---

The slow unravelling of lowland fisheries

Lowland rivers are the canaries in the freshwater system.

They sit at the receiving end of:

• land-use intensification,
• irrigation abstraction,
• nutrient loading,
• altered flows,
• channel modification,
• and warmer water temperatures.

None of these pressures alone necessarily collapse a fishery. Together, over time, they erode it.

Anglers describe a familiar pattern:

• fewer mayflies and caddis,
• heavier algal growth in summer,
• more frequent low-oxygen conditions,
• trout pushed into shrinking refuges,
• and recruitment failures that only become obvious years later.

This is not primarily about nitrate toxicity in isolation. It is about nutrient enrichment interacting with flow, temperature, and habitat loss — a cumulative effect that does not show up neatly against a single regulatory line.

---

Why anglers notice first

Anglers are not casual observers.

They spend long hours:

• watching insect hatches,
• reading water clarity and weed growth,
• noticing subtle changes in fish behaviour,
• and returning to the same reaches year after year.

They notice when a river stops “working”.

By the time fish counts confirm a collapse, anglers have usually been talking about it for a decade.

That early warning role has too often been dismissed as anecdotal or self-interested. RNZ’s reporting shows the cost of that dismissal.

---

The disconnect between regulation and lived reality

One of the most important — and uncomfortable — themes emerging from RNZ’s coverage is the gap between regulatory compliance and ecological function.

A river can:

• meet minimum water-quality standards,
• comply with consented nutrient limits,
• and still fail as a fishery.

This is particularly true for lowland rivers that depend on:

• adequate flows,
• cool temperatures,
• oxygen-rich water,
• and healthy invertebrate communities.

When nutrient loading fuels excessive algal growth, nighttime oxygen crashes can occur even at nitrate concentrations below drinking-water limits. Fish don’t read compliance reports. They respond to conditions.

---

Water takes, flows, and what’s missing from the picture

RNZ also highlights another long-standing concern for anglers: water abstraction.

Large volumes of water are taken from Canterbury rivers and aquifers, primarily for irrigation. While these takes are consented, their cumulative impact on lowland river flows is often underestimated — particularly during dry periods when ecological stress is highest.

Reduced flows mean:

• higher temperatures,
• less dilution of nutrients,
• slower movement of oxygen,
• and fewer refuges for fish.

Anglers often find themselves fishing what remains, rather than what once was.

Compounding this problem is incomplete data. RNZ reports that a significant proportion of water takes still lack real-time reporting. When data gaps exist, management decisions are inevitably less conservative than they should be.

---

From ‘safe to drink’ to ‘safe to fish’?

In our earlier article, NZFFA discussed the growing tension between legal drinking-water standards and precautionary health advice.

RNZ’s follow-up makes clear that ecosystems operate on a different scale altogether.

Freshwater life is affected by nutrient enrichment at levels well below those considered acceptable for human consumption. Fish, insects, and periphyton respond to:

• long-term exposure,
• seasonal variation,
• and interactions between nutrients and flow.

This is why anglers can experience collapsing fisheries in rivers that still technically “meet standards”.

It is also why focusing solely on compliance misses the point.

---

The human cost: losing public fisheries

The quiet disappearance of anglers from some Canterbury rivers is not just a recreational issue.

Public fisheries are:

• shared cultural assets,
• entry points for young people into conservation,
• and indicators of environmental health.

When rivers become unfishable:

• participation declines,
• knowledge is lost,
• and public connection to waterways weakens.

That loss is rarely counted in economic assessments, but it is real — and often irreversible.

---

This is not anti-farming — it is pro-freshwater

NZFFA is clear: this issue is not about vilifying farmers.

Many farmers are themselves deeply concerned about water quality and frustrated by systems that reward intensification while socialising environmental costs.

The problem lies in settings that allowed cumulative impacts to build unchecked, and in a governance approach that treated early warnings as inconvenient rather than instructive.

Anglers did not cause these pressures — but they are among the first to feel their consequences.

---

What needs to change — now

RNZ’s reporting creates an opportunity. NZFFA believes the following changes are essential if Canterbury’s rivers are to recover:

1. Manage for function, not just compliance

Water-quality limits must reflect ecological reality, not just minimum legal thresholds.

2. Protect lowland rivers as priority ecosystems

Lowland rivers are often treated as expendable. They should be treated as high-risk, high-value systems.

3. Get real-time, complete water-take data

You cannot manage what you cannot see. Full reporting must be non-negotiable.

4. Reduce nutrient loading in sensitive catchments

This means real reductions, not just slowed growth or improved modelling.

5. Listen to anglers as early-warning observers

Anglers are not obstacles to progress. They are part of the monitoring network — whether recognised or not.

---

Why this moment matters

Media attention has finally caught up with what freshwater users have been saying for decades.

The danger now is complacency — assuming that attention alone equals action.

If Canterbury’s rivers continue to empty of fish, the loss will not be sudden. It will be gradual, quiet, and easily rationalised — until it is too late.

Anglers are not becoming “endangered” by chance. They are responding rationally to rivers that no longer function as rivers should.

The question is whether decision-makers will do the same.

---

NZFFA position

NZFFA supports:

• transparent reporting,
• precautionary freshwater management,
• and long-term protection of public fisheries.

Freshwater systems do not collapse overnight.
But recovery, once delayed too long, may never come