Concern At Shooting Of Pukeko

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31226, 25 November 1966, Page 21

Concern At Shooting Of Pukeko

“V>e wish to express our concern that the native pukeko is to be placed on the game list in North Canterbury for the 1967 season,” said the chairman of the Canterbury branch of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand (Mr T. M. C. Hay) in a statement. ‘ This action is being taken not on the bird's merits as a game bird but because it is stated to be a pest in a few farming areas. The demand to have pukekos on the shooting list comes not from farming organisations but from the shooters themselves,” said Mr Hay. Mr Hay said there was adequate provision in the Wild Life Act for farmers and rangers to destroy those birds which were causing damage at the place and time of damage.

Between February 1963 and January 1964 the Wildlife Division of the Internal Affairs Department examined birds shot in Rotorua, Westland, Nelson and Canterbury From several grain and potato growing areas of North Canterbury 100 birds were examined but, from there as elsewhere, the published findings produced no evidence of grain or potatoes being eaten, said Mr Hay.

"We appreciate that pukekos can be troublesome but usually on farm land t° which shooters have no right of access,” said Mr Hay. Mr Hay said little research had been done but it was generally accepted that the birds did not move far and in the autumn flocking before the shooting season many had retreated to the safety of nearby wildlife refuges and closed game areas. The greatest concentration was in the Lake Ellesmere area and a large number would be shot on the portion of the lake’s shores in the Wairew-a county where there was public access for shooters.

“There is no evidence that these birds are moving out into grain-growing districts as there is adequate habitat available locally,” said Mr Hay. Mr Hay said it was of interest to know that farmers from numerous parts of North Canterbury had requested that trapped pukeko be transferred to their properties and more would apply if birds were available. In spite of a few isolated instances of damage, the majority of farmers did not begrudge pukeko and other native birds a place to live.

“In our opinion the bag limit is of little value for conserving pukeko in North Canterbury or elsewhere as so many shooters leave pukeko where they fall. There appeared little hope for an enlightened approach to wildlife matters when the decision to destroy, or not to destroy rests with those who wish to destroy,” Mr Hay concluded.