National parks no place for pets

Press, 30 August 1977, Page 15

National parks no place for pets

By

JOHN WILSON

Nothing will persuade those concerned about New Zealand's endangered birds to fo- - ve the individual ranj ‘or the negligence — the Wildlife Service for the laxity — which led to the death of a kakapo on Maud Island in the jaws of the ranger’s dog early this month. However, the kakapos death could serve some purpose if it makes people more aware of the threat which domestic animals — those which are still pets and those, mainly cats, which have gone wild — pose to native bird-life, and if it strengthens the resolve of those who administer New Zealand’s national parks and reserves td keep domestic animals out of those areas entirely.

The dog on Maud Island was not the only pet present, illegally, tn a national park or reserve Some national paik rangers have. astonishingly, kept pets of their own within the parks. In at least one North Island park, rangers hate regarded being able to keep dogs as pets as their right even though there are North Island brown kiwis — vulnerable like all ground and ground-feeding birds to predators — in the park. A recent appointee to the ranging staff at Arthur’s Pass, when being shown round the house he was to occupy, asked: “And where do I keep tny dog?” When he was told 'hat he could not keep a log in the park he eclined the appointment The Arthur’s Pass National Park Board has been worried for some time about the number of dogs and cats running loose in the settlement. At the end of July it sent a letter to all bach-owners and residents. to draw their attention to the threat these i animals posed to native bird-life, especially the threat of cats to kiwis, and to remind them that under the National Parks Act and the board’s own i by-laws, dogs and cats are 1 not allowed in the park | without the board's per- ! mission. This letter was sent out by the board as a result of a directive which the National Parks Authority sent to all national park boards in the middle of 1976. This reminded the boards that the authority’s policy was animals in al) national parks except in

special circumstances. The authority instructed the boards to ensure that all pets were removed from parks within six months, and insisted that the prohibition be rigidly applied — to residents and visitors alike. Fhe only people the authority is willing to allow to keep pets in national parks are concessionaires in remote areas, u ho need watchdogs to guard their property. As a result of its recent circular letter, the Arthur’s Pass board has already had two applications for permission to take dogs into the park. Both applications have been declined because they did not meet the authority’s requirement. Some concern is felt by those who administer national parks that members of the public wanting to take their dogs or cats with them on holiday will insist that the freedom of access and entry to the park, which is guaranteed them by the National Parks Act, should be

theirs by right even when they have their pets with them. But under the act, the publics freedom of entry to a park can be made subject to whatever conditions or restrictions are necessary- to preserve native fauna and flora. Protecting native ground birds from predators is clearly a good enough reason to deny people’s pets the freedom of access which the people themselves enjoy under the ac t. But this being so. the authority and the various park boards should perhaps advertise before school holidays to ensure that holiday makers are aware that they are not permitted to take their pets with them into national parks. This was the authority's policy some years ago. but no advertisements seem to have been placed in recent years. The death of tiie kakapo might be an appropriate point to emphasise to give such advertisements weight. Apart from rangers and visitors, there is one other big group which has. in the past, kept pets in various national parks — the staff of various tourist hotels, such as the Hemo tage. In the middle of last year, the general manager of the Tourist Hotel Corporation issued an instruction that members of the staff of hotels on park land administered by the T.H.C. or on land near or within any park were to get rid of all their domestic animals In just a few cases at Arthur's Pass, there is nothing the board can do except ask people living in or near the park not to keep pets which might endanger the bird life of the park. These are the employees of the Railways Department and those fewpeople with cottages or houses tn the settlement whose leases do not. at the moment, include a requirement that thev obey Ute by-laws of the park. Some people who enjoy having their pets with them on holiday mav feel, that they need not cooperate with the efforts being made to keep pets out of parks, because domestic animals are not the most serious predators of native birds. But the concern the park authorities are showing about dogs and cats is not undue, even though other predators — rats, stoats, weasels, ferrets, and wild cats — are a more serious threat to the birds. When laxity can lead to such a catastrophe as the death of one of the three kakapos safe from wild predators, the case for a rigid application of the ban on pets in national parks is surely convincing.