Wildlife Branch Replies On Shooting Of Pukeko

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31332, 31 March 1967, Page 12

Wildlife Branch Replies On Shooting Of Pukeko

I Under the Wildlife Act, 1953, pukeko are declared to !be game birds—but the main danger facing them in many districts is destruction of their swampland habitat, rather than sportsmen. This reply has been given by the Wildlife branch of the Department of Internal Affairs to a correspondent “J. E. R.” who has asked what the department is doing to preserve the pukeko, which he says was “never a game bird.”

“1 am pleased to note that the Wildlife branch of the Department of Internal Affairs is concerned at the killing of native birds by cats,” wrote “J. E. R.” “A much more lethal enemy of native birds is the sportsman who destroys the pukeko—never a game bird but one which is fast vanishing and will become extinct if the actions of the acclimatisation societies are not curbed. What is the department going to do to preserve this native bird?”

Mr F. L. Newcombe, controller of the Wildlife branch of the department, says that it has encouraged acclimatisation societies to review the length of season and bag limits for pukeko, and, where desirable, to have close seasons in part, or for whole acclimatisation districts.

[Daily limit bags for pukeko in the approaching shooting season are one bird north of the Ashley river in the North Canterbury acclimatisation district, and three

south of the Ashley, five birds in the Ashburton district, and 10 birds in both the Nelson and Marlborough districts. I “The Wildlife branch has itself carried out research work into the feeding habits of pukeko and given financial assistance to a scientist engaged on an ecological study of the bird,” says Mr Newcombe. “As the second holder of the wildlife scholarship sponsored by the department, this scientist is now able to extend bis research.

The main danger to pukeko in many districts was the destruction of its habitat, Mr Newcombe said. The department, over the last 10 years, had been active in bringing before development organisations the urgent need to retain reasonable areas of wet lands for wildlife purposes.

In the Rotorua acclimatisation district, directly administered by the department, pukeko causing genuine damage were now trapped and used to restock suitable areas of wetlands where there was no likelihood of the birds being a nuisance, said Mr Newcombe. “Section 54 of the Wildlife Act. makes provision for the issue of permits to destroy protected birds or game birds doing damage,” he said. “In other districts where it is found necessary, after investigation, to issue destruction permits, a written appeal is made to the person to whom the permit is being issued, pointing out the need to scare the birds away if at all practicable, rather than shoot them.”