WILD-LIFE PROBLEMS.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 19852, 13 February 1930, Page 17

WILD-LIFE PROBLEMS.

THE QUESTION OF CONTROL "MAMAKU'S" REPLY TO HIS CRITICS.

Six articles by "MamaJiu" The Press on January 18th, Januaiy - > January 22nd, Januaiy 23rd, January " > and Jauuarv 35tli. Kepliea by Mr • ; J ' Thornton, M.A., were printed on 29th, January 31st, and February W- " now print "Mamalui'a" reply to Mr Thoin , and also to Mr L. O. It. Iripp, hai Broken :iiu] writien beUnU of A criinirtli«:i\ioM Societies. 11. "This anonymous attempt t0 s^r 11 P strife between the Forestry Department and the societies will do no good, and as far as we are concerned, will make no impression," said Mr L. O. 11. Tripp, in the course of his statement to the Wellington Acclimatisation Society, in referring to "Mauiaku's" articles dealing with wild-life control, or rather the lack of it. With this statement the writer is in perfect tiecord, as in the tirst place he never had any intention of stirring up strife between the Forestry Department find the societies, and in the second place ho never expected to make any impression on the societies. He wrote the articles solely witli a view to awakening the public conscience as to the menace of the existing system of wildlife "control," and whether he has succeeded in doing so or not he leaves it to his readers to judge. Nevertheless so far as the Internal Affairs Department and tlio aeelimatisation societies were concerned, he was not a little astonished that so much began to happen after he presented his series of questions to Mr Tripp during the course of a personal interview towards the end of October last. Indeed, the position changed so much from week to week that ho was compelled during the Christmas and New Year holidays to almost wholly rewrite his second and third articles. A Ministerial statement appeared on November 28th, announcing the measures to be taken regarding more intensive deer culling, and then on December 7th came the announcement of the forthcoming conference, even alter the acclimatisation societies had already met in conference so recently as in September last, and the Internal Affairs Department had since been conferring with the representatives of the societies on the subject. These developments, of course, were mere coincidences for which "Mamaku" claims no credit, and is prepared to leave that wholly to the societies who Mr Tripp says suggested the conferenco to the Government. It is evidence, at any rate, that something is to be done, but in view of the past and present attitude of the societies and the Internal Affairs Department, "Mamalcu."' franklv, is not wrv hopeful.

Forestry Department Bogey. It is useless for the societies, however, in their endeavour to escape responsibility, to set up the bogey of the Forestry Department, to allego that it is responsible) for " Mamaku's" sins, and has promoted the whole. controversy in an endeavour to secure wildlife control. And in this connexion the writer regrets to liave to complain oP misrepresentation by Mr Tripp. "I gather," says Mr Tripp, "from the anonymous correspondent who has been attacking us, that he and those who aro supporting him, want the Forestry Department to take control of all wildlife in the Dominion." If Mr Tripp will do "Mamaku" the justice to refresh his memory ho will recollect that during the personal interview that took place between them in October last he asked the writer the straight question as to whether he favoured the Forestry Department taking over control, and that the writer replied an the diroct negative; that what he favoured was a Board of Control on which the various interests should be represented which would be responsible for initiating policy and directing control. lu fact, "Mamaku" has never held any other view, and no suggestion to the contrary can be found in any of his writings or personal utterances. Indeed, he is definitely against any such proposal because ho believes that the job of wild-life control is more than even the Forestry Department can hope to tackle successfully, that it involves issues with which the Forestry Department is not primarily concerned, and, moreover, that to adopt such a proposal would only bo to court disaster in view of the declared antagonism of the societies. On the other hand, he believes that the Forestry Department should bo given a much more effective voice in the control of wild-life within the State forests, and he regards it as really a reflection on the Department that it was only on November 28th last it was announced by the Minister for Internal Affairs that "authority had been given to the State Forest Service enabling the Department to destroy deer within the State forests." Muoli more effective voice would obviously be given by a Board of Control composed of experts who would recognise that the conservation of the State forces is a matter of the first national importance.

Wild-Life Control No Gatcli,

Why then, in view of " Mamaku's" own personal statement to Mr Tripp and his actual advocacy of a proper Board of Control in his articles, is this bogey of the Forestry Department raised by both Mr Tripp and Mr Thornton? The public themselves must be left to judge. "Mamaku," however, takes the liberty of pointing out that the taking over of control of wild-life within the Dominion, especially after it' has been allowed to get out of control by the present administration, is no "catch" that anyone would welcome, and that to effect control must involve heavy expenditure—not dividends such as the acclimatisation societies have been receiving. The references l>y Mr Thornton lo the work of the New Zealand Native Birds' Protection Society are ungenerous and carry their own refutation. It is possible that if the New Zealand Native Birds' Protection Society had received the same subsidised assistance from the Internal Affairs Department as the Acclimatisation Societies have been receiving, and it had beeu in existence only half as long, the people of New Zealand would have been so well educated regarding wild-life matters that none of the present menaces would have existed. In view of the refutation by the Commissioner of State Forests of the suggestion by Mr Thornton that . the Forestry Department has inspired "Mamaku's" articles, it should be unnecessary for the latter to refer to the subject. In justice to the State Forest Service, however, he deems it his duty to confirm the Minister's statement, and to state that he alone is responsible for the articles and the _ statements contained therein. It is very flattering ef Mr Thornton to thus associate "Mamaku" with the Forestry Department which does know something of wild life, and, vide Mr Thornton, must dispose of Mr Thornton's charge of "Mamaku's" ignorance.

Societies Not Disposed to Learn. But, as' "Mamaku" hap said bofore, tlie Acclimatisation Societies are not disposed to learn. In September, 192G (vide Hansard, page 616, vol. 211), the late Hon. Mr Bollard, then Minister for Internal Affairs, stated: — The Government has decided to remove protection on deer at the close of the next stalking season, unless it can be shown that adequate steps aro being taken by acclimatisation societies to cope with the menace. Before, however, final action is taken all parties concerned will be consulted. The acclimatisation societies have been informed to that effect. Sinco then the socioties have rosisted and continue to resist proposals for the removal of the protection of deor all the year round. When the present Minister for Internal Affairs stated in September last that "it appeared to him that the time had come for permission to be givon for deer to be shot at all times," and so appeased Parliament, thero were those who hoped that sonlething wag going to be done at last. But recent Gazette notices disabused such false notions, and "Mamaku" in seeking the explanation from the societies' bal-ance-sheets found that they were receiving more revenue from deer licenses than they were exponding in culling. Befonn Must Gome in Time. In conclusion, "Mamaku" states frankly that he doea not believe that any real solution of wild-life problems in this country wil be reached until a fully qualified Board of Control of experts representing the different interests is established, and it is given the job of initiating, deciding, and controllng policy. On this Board of Control the acclimatisation societies have every right to be represented, also all other well-defined interests as well. No real progress, other than spasmodic efforts, can result otherwise. But this, doubtless, is "destructive criticism" in the eyes of the societies. Still, reform must be achieved in time. If the deer, pig, goat, wild cattle, and other wild-life menaces are not solved now, then of their own growth and their immense cost to the country they will compel solution. If the societies cannot see the writing on the wall in this, then they will only have themselves to blame for what happens.