Shooting Pukeko

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31222, 21 November 1966, Page 12

Shooting Pukeko

Sir, —I regret the North Canterbury Acclimatisation Society’s decision to reintroduce shooting pukeko throughout North Canterbury. North of the Waimakiriri, right up to the Amuri, this beautiful and interesting bird has ha« vanished altogether in many districts, and decreased almost to vanishing point in others. Mr Mugford is reported as stating that his staff had to be sent to destroy pukeko, and that they had been a “problem” even in the far north of Canterbury. Would Mr Mugford kindly give details of the districts in North Canterbury where staff had to be sent, and what “problems” occurred to justify gunning down their sadly-depleted ranks by a further three birds a gun a day. As a partowner of a vanishing heritage, 1 consider 1 have every justification in asking for details from persons who abrogate to themselves the right to destroy forever that heritage. —Yours, etc., E. LAURENCE WYLES. November 10, 1966.

[The secretary of the North Canterbury Acclimatisation Society (Mr J. R. Claydon) replies: “Mr Mugford has confirmed that field staff have been sent to areas in the Cuiverden, Leithfield - Amberley and Woodend areas to deal with pukeko which have been causing damage to crops. As Mr Wyles will know, at the annual general meeting of the North Canterbury Acclimatisation Society on November 16 Mr Mugford gave details of the game provisions approved by the Minister for Interna] Affairs, which included a daily bag limit for pukeko of up to 10 for the South Island, while he pointed out that the game committee had seen fit to reduce this to three day in the North Cantrbury district. Your correspondent will also know that the members of the society endorsed the game committee’s actions at that meeting.”]