DESTRUCTION OF SHAGS

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 5, 1 October 1929, Page 12

DESTRUCTION OF SHAGS

gir,—l have read Mr. Stead’s letter of Wednesday, September 7, and may say that one day previous to its appearance a called on the Marine Department and saw Mr. Hefford in regard to the .Kaipara 811 I K found that Mr. Hefford had been recently in Kaipara, and am willing to believe that into the limited time at his disposal, and the scanty funds available for research, he had come to the conclusion that a reduction in the number of the shags was justifiable in the interests of the local'.fishermen. Of one thing I came away convinced—that Mr. Hefford regretted that the sordid tales of shooting breeding birds in cold blood at close range should have been his to supervise. It is due to Mr. Hefford also to state that he has never carried a gun himself, and has no interest whatsover in any form of shooting—we can with this knowledge be the more assuredly convinced that he must loathe the work which has fallen to his lot to superintend. Abominable as it must be, for the pied shag has a protracted breeding season, in shaggeries known to me in many parts of New Zealand, where will be found mated pairs of birds, old nests, only tapued perhaps by a single obvious stick to demonstrate definite ownership, nests with eggs, nests with squab young, nests with fledglings, nests with full-feathered youngSt Before proceeding I should like to say that I take for what it is worth the statements attributed to Mr. Godfrey in one note appended to Mr. Stead’s letter. There we read about “decision to carry out a more thorough investigation to secure a certain amount of birds,” and “nothing in the nature of indiscriminate slaughter.” I suppose in a sense we cannot cavil. There is with a vengeance going to be a more thorough investigation, “a” certain number of birds undoubtedly will be secured,” but how about "nothing in the way of indiscriminate slaughter.” with three or four launcbfuls of fishermen with guns, sure that the shags within range are diminishing their takes of fish? . The public may be quite sure, therefore, that however Mr. Hefford’s presence may act as a check, there will be scores pf wounded birds stifling in the mud, others disabled and spieadeagled on tree tops or caught in forks, young left slowly to starve, parents crippled and allowed to die at their leisure. I have been rook shooting myself—in boyhood—the only excuse except necessity for this sort of work—l have witnessed on two occasions in another country heronries raided by greedy ignorance —in one of which instances I am glad to be able to say that I interfered with success —I can assure readers of “The Dominion” that no euphuisms can alter the effects of men let loose in large numbers with firearms at close quarters on a breeding colony of any sort. Instead of attempting to water down facts for public digestion a more effective line would be openly to have confessed it was unsavoury work but rendered necessary by increase in size of shaggeries. It would have been wiser also to spike the guns of critics with fuller evidence. \Ve are, however, a small community in New Zealand, and funds for investigation have not heretofore, I understand, been available —whose fault? Well, I don’t think the field naturalists themselves can wholly escape blame—they might have helped. How also about the acclimatisation societies of New Zealand, and furthermore, indeed, how about every man who takes out a license to shoot or fish? All, corporate or individual, would gain rather than lose by a round-table conference. We all want to keep New Zealand a pleasant plac?; with a little good-will it can be so easily done. For my own part I have no shame in declaring my belief that we are only just beginning to understand the pleasant possibilities of the world we live in—our gardens, for instance, started as private pleasances already have become civic institutions. In the not far future our road will be tended from the Bluff to Auckland with encouragement and protection to the native growth of every corner and gorge. So, with a few hundred pounds spent on inquiry and experiment will it be with our native birds; there will be hundreds for everyone nowadays; instead of silence, song. That’s what I want New Zealand to be, and what it will assuredly be. We have the best chance in the assembly of nations, we are purest Nordic stock with a developed sense of citizenship ; we are the further flung because the fullest heaviest grain. When even the nations of the Old World after centuries of hatred are beginning to co-operate, I refuse to believe that New Zealand departments and societies now overlapping cannot come together in a friendly mood. By them the question of good or harm done by the shag, kea, paradise duck, and pukeko must be considered and solved.—l am, etc., H. GUTHRIE-SMITH.

Napier, September 16. P.S. —This may be my last attempt in print. To myself there is a sort of Solemnity about it. Death may be very near. Who can tell how long a man who confesses himself in his love of the wilds to be about equally composed of shag and wool king may be yet allowed to live. This slaughter business done by Departments does make him tremble. It is so very easy to imagine that at any moment Sir Joseph Ward may be solicited for another grant on the ground that wool kings require thinning out; that there are too many of them just eating good food that might go to the unemployed.—H.G.S. [ r Fl>e above letter, published on Septemtember 25. is reprinted consequent on a transposition in the body of the letter which destroyed the sense of the concluding portion.]