Society presses for gull protection

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32703, 4 September 1971, Page 18

Society presses for gull protection

The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society can make little sense of the decision from the Wildlife Branch of the Internal Affairs Department and its fauna protection advisory council to remove what protection the black-backed gull enjoys, the chairman of the Canterbury branch of the society (Mr T. M. C. Hay) says in a letter to the editor of “The Press.”

Mr Hay was replying to an earlier correspondent, 5.0.5., who asked that ‘certain societies” endeavour to have the seagull put back on the list of protected birds and so prevent the problem of their “slaughter.” Watching brief only “We have seen S.O.S.’s distress signal at the plight of the black-backed gull, but unfortunately are obliged to resign ourselves to the role of a ’lighthouse organisation.’ We can illuminate the shifting sands of New Zealand wildlife administration and pray for an autonomous nature conservancy while there is still something to conserve,” Mr Hay says. “The black-backed gull under the second schedule of the 1953 Wildlife Act was never more than partially protected, and those with a valid reason, such' as coastal ■ farmers during the lambing | season could• destroy the!

birds on Government application.”

Mr Hay said the reason given for removing what protection the gull enjoyed was essentially to protect such rarer species as the fairy tem and king shag from the gulls* more aggressive behaviour during breeding, and to save the rangers the trouble of obtaining a permit to thin out the birds’ numbers. Since this fighting occured only in certain localities, a blanket removal of all protection from the gull plainly was over-drastic and unnecessary. Shootings at Lyttelton “The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society protested in vain and also objected to the wording of the Wild Life branch’s new release on the matter, which it considered an invitation to slaughter. The day ‘oilowing protection removal, for instance, some 35 gulls were shot scavenging at the Lyttelton tip by ‘sportsmen.’ “Our efforts to salvage the administration of wildlife in this country, as evidenced in the Hunn report, appear to be hard and fast aground. And the findings of the wildlife commission may be acted on this year, next year, some time—or as Mr ’Taiboys so [succinctly puts it —ultii mately.”