Pukeko

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31224, 23 November 1966, Page 20

Pukeko

Sir, —At a recent meeting of the Acclimatisation Society 29 people voted for the re. introduction of the pukeko on a shooter’s licence; 29 keen shooters out of a total population from the Rakaia river to the Conway decided to legalise the destruction of one of our vanishing native birds. The colourful pukeko, which was once so numerous, is now confined to a few isolated areas. By what demo-

cratic right do these men sit in judgment on one of the ancient inhabitants of our land? As Mr Wyles has said, they are part of our national heritage—not the property of a small clique of so-called sportsmen. The time has come for a curb to be placed on the activities of the Acclimatisation Society. The fate of our native birds is a national matter, and as such they must be placed under Government control.—Yours, A. PRENTICE. Parnassus, November 21, 1966. Sir, —The New Zealand Encyclopedia published by the Government and released this month states that the damage attributed to pukeko is greatly overrated. As this must be the thinking of experts in the Government, it appears that our game committee are flying in the face of truth when they recommend the shooting of these birds. I venture to suggest that another meeting to discuss this with all interested bodies will bring the Acclimatisation Society round to cancelling this move, and sanity will return to the sporting picture.— Yours, —etc., L. BACHOP. Lyttelton, November 22, 1966. Sir, —In 1925 Mr Edgar Stead wrote in “The Natural History of Canterbury”: “Of the four rails inhabiting Canterbury the pukeko is the only one holding its own. It is apparently a bird whose only effective enemy is man with a gun.” Were he to witness the proposed slaughter of these harmless creatures would he add, “and an illinformed game committee”? I am amazed that this committee has such powers and that the executive of the society does not even have to be consulted when their rangers are employed to shoot these birds, as appears to be the case recently. Surely if ever there was a case for Government intervention it is now.— Yours, etc., B. THOMSON.

November 22, 1966.