Seagulls

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32701, 2 September 1971, Page 12

Seagulls

Sir,—l have heard that it is legal to shoot seagulls. Can this be true? If so, by whom was the order instigated? Was it a council, board, group, private bill, Parliamentary decree, or some "sporting” society? Someone gave the order. Could I' be told the truth please?— Yours, etc., RUTH S. WILKS. August 27, 1971.

[Mr J. S. Adams, game management officer, Wildlife Branch, Department of Internal Affairs, replies: “It is now legal to shoot the blackbacked gull. The other species of gull, the red-billed gull and the black-billed gull, are, however, fully protected. The black-backed gull was recently removed from the partially protected schedule by the Department of Internal Affairs through an Order-in-Council under Section 8 (b) of the Wildlife Act, 1953, which states: ‘The GovernorGeneral may from time to time, by Order-in-Council, declare any wildlife for the time being specified th any schedule hereto to cease to be included in that schedule and to be included in any other schedule hereto.’ The decision to change this species from the second schedule (partially protected wildlife) to the fifth'schedule (wildlife not protected) was made by the Department in consultation with the Nature Conservation Council and the Fauna Protection Advisory Council.”] .

Sir,—The black-backed gull was never a totally protected bird but a partially protected one under the second schedule of the Wildlife Act and could be shot by the occupier of land or someone acting with his authority where damage to lambs, etc., could be proved to be taking place. The removal from this partial protection by the Internal Affairs Department was requested by the Fauna Protection Advisory Council; it was said to be interfering with the breeding of more attractive species, including the king shag and fairy tern, by predation. I do not agree that this was in any sense a wise move, but feel that the bird should be totally protected in harbour and coastal

areas. I made strong protests at the time. The operative word in all this is “may.” At no time should it be taken that the bird must be taken; simply that it may. I hope that soon the blackback will be back under some protection, particularly in the harbours.—Yours, etc., BADEN N. NORRIS. August 31, 1971.

Sir, —Everyone has sympathy for the farmer who is having trouble with blackbacked gulls in his flocks. However, there are factors about the removal of this gull from the protected list which puzzle all conservationists. Before protection was removed, any farmer who felt that he had a grievance against this gull could shoot-and remove the hazard on his own property. Now, with protection removed, any member of the public may shoot, and for no reason. It is to be hoped that most people will recognise the good points of this bird and leave it to its valuable carrion-feeding in our harbours and beaches.—Yours, M. C. CULLEN. September 1, 1971.