A GOOD WORD FOR THE BLACK SHAG.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 99, 20 January 1908, Page 11

A GOOD WORD FOR THE BLACK SHAG.

"NOT AN UNMITIGATED NUISANCE." j fail TILEGRAPH— BI'ICIAL COKBESrOKDpNTS.) .Christchurch, January 18. The whitewashing of the black shag would *eem an impossible'task if one were to credit *11 th'o 'stories one hears of the damage inflictedl;'by this rapacious bird on trout itreains, yet this was the task Mr. Edgnr F. . Stead, -essayed in a long letter 'to the Acclimatisation Society, and ho 'succeeded so. far that the Council agreed to abolish the .system; of payiug for shags' hoads. Mr. Stead (lid not deny that ! the shag eats some trout, but he was convinced that he'deserved morp consideration from anglers than he' usually received. The chief point to y which .ho oallefl attention was the' indis-. criminate slaughter of tho shags induced bjf'iJieXpYico put on- their heads. On this account birds were killed which ' had beon> bred oiiV.the sea coast,;'or had lived in salt water, or estuiffies, and had probably never eveii seon'. a small trout in , their lives. In many; waters where there were both eels , and trout; the shags did a great, deal of good;by. their attacks upon the former. Years ago he shot 19 shags on the lower Selwyn, and ciit each of them open to see what it had 'in ! its stomach. Seventeen had eels, oriejhad some freshwater crayfish, and, ono hail ,a ' small trout about seven inches long. /The total amount of good being done by/seventeen of the shags was out of all > proportion to the'damage done by two,, Tho eel was an especial menace in the spawning seison.; A 21b. eel-eould easily eat the spawn .of a ,51b. tront, and besides this, eels eat 'large 'quantities of food: that would otherwise serve as food for the trout. , The reasons: for" the shag's preference for eels wore-many.; {Weight for weight an eel was Wore" nourishing than a trout. A shag could with ease swallow a lilb. eel, while it could manage a lib. trout only with difficulty. As a general rule it seemed to him that there were many, more eels at the mouth of the Selwyn now, than there wero ten years ago, and at,, the same time there wore unquestionably. fewer shags. In one corner of the lake there were noticeably fewer eels than round the mouth of the Selwyn, and this - he attributed largely to the presence of a flock of about 50 shags whioh fished there. In a'colony of shags on tho Rakaia river, Mr..' Stead saw two trout caught out of a total catch of twelve fish, the remainder being eels, In his opinion, the danger with many of the streams ana rivers was not their possible depletion of trout, but overstocking. ; The average size of the fish was nothing like what it was years ago, nor were they in such good condition. Therefore, in many of the streams a judicious thinning out of the fish was to be'desired. The "-ideal condition, Mr. ! Stead submitted, would'lie, the. protection of shags, permits to be graht4d to acclimatisation societies, or their' authorised, manager, to .destroy them in ■ 'districts where mature consideration 'showed that thoy were really inimical to the interests of,-acclimatisation. At the Very least tho prico should be taken off thcif heads:.;.- /. The chairman' (Dr. Moorhouse) saia that he agreed .with much of what had been advanced; by Mr. Stead. The shag was not an unmitigated nuisance, and the streams wore so ; well stocked . that there would be no harm in . this shags having a sprinkling of' the'trout. He moved that the price he taken off shags' heads. He mentioned that , he had seen the bottom of the Avon absolutely seething with eels, which, were .'eating t the spawn of the trout in midwinter. Thdn they • were generally supposed to be hibernating; in the mnd. Mr.; G.'F. Whitesides favoured payment for shags' heads where the Society was stocking new, rivers, He moved as an amendment v that no reward should bo paid for shags'. heads except those .shot on the Rakaia of the Gorge bridge and north' of the Ashley river. J. ; The ; amendment'was 'lost and the motion ■ carried. ,