Conservation

Press, 1 October 1983, Page 16

Conservation

Sir,—Jean van Groen agrees that we need a balance between conservation and development. Does she realise that 90 per cent of New Zealand lowland forests have already disappeared in the name of development, although the term can scarcely be applied to much of the unproductive pakihi left after forest clearance in Westland? Nearly all the land in our national parks is mountainous, considered unfit for any sort of development. The early settlers can perhaps be excused for their shortsightedness in reducing so much of Westland’s landscape to a derelict wasteland, but it is amazing that some people still have this mentality of “killing the goose that lays the golden egg.” When the last coal, gold, and native timbers have been removed, and attempts at farming or exotic forestry prove uneconomic, what then? Punakaiki E reserved as a lowland, accessible [ational Park could be a money spinner in perpetuity. — Yours, etc., M. PEACE. September 25, 1983.

Sir,—Perhaps Cath Ford would be most enlightened if she cared to read, “The Southern Gentry,” by Gregg. Some of the early settilers were not only greedy, but in their mad lust for money and power, overstockked much of the back country with devastating results. Her remark on the greedy breed in the conservation movement who are mainly city dwelles with good jobs and who want to lock up everything in national parks, is purely conjecture. I am concerned about any loss of jobs, but indigenous forest is a fininte resource, with the end already in sight. The creating of a Punakaiki national park, with an ever-increasing tourist trade, would stimulate the West Caost’s economy immeasurably, and create many more permanent jobs than the looggingg of indigenous forests. The recent land and Survey Departments splendid publication of the Paparoa area shos the vital need for the Punakaiki national Park.—Yours, etc., STAN HEMSLEY. September 28, 1983.