DIVIDED CONTROL

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 33, 8 August 1923, Page 4

DIVIDED CONTROL

In its efforts to save native birds from complete destruction the Native Birds Protection Society appears to have met with little active opposition. That is to say, no organisation or individual of note has arisen to say that destruction is desirable. We may mate an exception of the opposition in certain districts to the protection of pukeko and paradise duck, as this was opposition upon a matter of detail. The greatest difficulty confronting the society has been that created by apathy and inactivity. The law protecting native birds is admitted to be generally good; but it is not fully enforced. This enforcement at present is the business of several departments and organisations. The Internal Affairs Department is responsible for the administration of the Act, but it has not the machinery to prevent poaching. The Police Department has authority, the Forest Service rangers are also rangers under the Animals Protection Act, and there are rangers employed by the Acclimatisation Societies. 'But none of the rangers so employed or appointed, except for the control of bird sanctuaries, has the time to give to this work. Other duties come first, Meanwhile poaching is widespread, as reports which have been published show. We believe it to be possible, without great additional expenditure, to effect much improvement. The first step is to bring about greater unity of control. The work will not be well done if the blame for failure to do it may be passed on from one body to another and one department to another. The knowledge that someone was definitely responsible and would be prompt to punish offenders would in itself be a check upon poaching practices. It would assist further in promoting a healthy public respect for the law, and a desire to sec it observed. Such a feeling would do more to ensure observance than tho appointment of any number of new rungcra' who have uo time- to carry on the jvork,