WHAT IS BEING DONE

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 46, 1 September 1928, Page 17

WHAT IS BEING DONE

♦ TO PROTECT BIRD-LIFE REPLY TO CRITICISM "COMMON-SENSE POLICY" The experience of this society ' ■ (the Now Zealand Native Bird Protection Society) is that the Department is the greatest hurdle to the preservation of our native birds, and it is felt that it is idle for us to endeavour to assist in imbuing tho public with a greater appreciation of our bird life in the face of such acts and lack of Nature sense as are in evidence. This indictment by the Bird Protection Society of the administration of the Animals Protection and Game Act by the Department of Internal Affairs was contained in a letter from the secretary of the society to- the Minister, and recently printed with other correspondence in "The Post", under the headline, "No Nature Sense." The criticism of the Department's action arose, it seems, because it did not prevent the introduction of trout in the streams of the Karioi Sanctuary by the Waimarino Acclimatisation Society and the permitting of the shooting of shags in the sanctuary because, it was claimed,, the birds were doing harm to the trout. In an interview, the Hon. Sir Maui Pomare (Minister of Internal . Affairs) —himself' a great loye'r .of our native birds— said he wished to place a somewhat different complexion on' the attitude alleged to be,adopted by the Department administrating the bird protection laws. •,■: ''. "JUMPING TO WRONG CONCLUSIONS." "After reading' the correspondence from the secretary of the Bird' Protection Society," said the Minister, "anyone not knowing the facts might jump to a wrong conclusion—that the Government or the Department was not taking any action to protect, native bird life—but the facts somewhat disprove the statement. . ;The present Animals Protection and Game Act, passed in 1921-22, is in itself an example of the Government's desire to do all it can in, the way of assisting ,in the preservation of native bird • life. That Act makes very complete provision for bird protection. Following put the principle of the Act, sanctuaries, among other things, have been established in different places, sucli as Little Barrier, Gouland Downs, Poutu Point, in addition to other, island sanctuaries, it being recognised that the preservation of species would necessitate the setting aside of particular' areas. At • the' same trfae there ,have grown up sanctuaries which are private property. In some cases farm lands are used, the desire of the owners being to preserve native bird life. On the, other hand, the owners or. these properties do not want to be restricted from carrying on farming oporations or .from destroying vermin, or perhaps from fishing." DESTRUCTION OF SHAGS. Complaint was made in the article referred to because authority'was given to destroy shags iii a sanctuary. At the same time the Department was criticised because it did not prevent the placing of trout in a sanctuary, notwithstanding the fact that it. had no power to prevent or no knoweldge of such a proposal. '"It is quite obvious," said Sir Maui," that it is essential that there should be,power,to authorise the destruction, if "necessary, of any kind of pest, : and the Act gives this power to tho Minister of Internal Affairs. It will readily be recognised that if the owners of property, .whether a sanctuary or not, are to be allowed no discretion as to the use of their land, the result Will quickly be that no owner will consent to his land being declared a sanctuary. With' reference' to the statement that Dr. Cockayne intimated that nothing could' be successfully acclimatised except at the "expense of somo existing condition, the Minister pointed out that Dr. Cockayne recently stated that in his opinion opossums did no harm to forests. 'That statement was being largely- quoted as.a reason why the Government should authorise tho liberation of opossums in further areas.. The Government; however, had not authorised the.libera'tfon 'of the animals in further areas, partly because it was believed that opossums were inimical to the welfare of native birds." EXPORT OF NATIVE BIRDS. With regard to the authority granted to an American bird-collecting expedition to take away to the United States certain specimens of our birds, the Minister said the statement made that, the authority permitted' hundreds of native birds to be takenwas hardly correct. ' The great ; majority of the birds for which authority' Was given were sea birds which wefe very numerous.. The number of land birds authorised to be taken was strictly limited in accordance with the rarity or otherwise of each species. The Minister added that the secretary of the Native Bird Protection Society was well aware of the fact. . ....-.' -.-■ ' GRANT TO NATIVE BIRD SOCIETY. As evidence of its. desire to aid the New Zealand Native Bird Protection Society in its endeavour to protect native bird-life, the Government pays an annual grant of £50 to .the, society. "The Department, "said Sir Maui, "docs everything .possible in making investigations and in supplying reports on any matters suggested: by the society. One cannot help feeling that the object of the society'would be furthered rather by making concrete suggestions than by entering into an academic discussion regarding the destruction of a few shags in a sanctuary. The "Department is accused of having no Nature sense. "It has to be realised,'.however, that in dealing with bird-life the Department is compelled to use 'common sense' in dealing with the various conflicting interests.'' . WHAT IS A SANCTUARY. A further article written under tlfo pen-name "Conservationist," and a letter signed by the Hon. G. M. Thomson, M.L.C.,;appearing in "The Post," in which further opinions were expressed on the lack of protection to bird lifo in our sanctuaries, were also referred to by the Minister. In Mr. Thomson's letteri attention was drawn to sanctuaries in '• Switzerland and in America, the idea being held that the sanctuaries were to protect indigenous animals and plants; no interference of any kind was allowed. "Conservationist's" article appeared to consider that a sanctuary on private land was only creating a game reserve. In the opinion of tho Minister, the writer of the latter article showed a lamentable want of knowledge of New Zealand law. The Animals Protection and Gamo Act was, he said, generally. admitted to be very much more complete than-at least the majority of similar, laws in any other part of the world. The Act made special provision for the protection of indigenous birds; it was illegal to take these birds at any time of the year, whether they were within a sanctuary or not. ■"A sanctuary," said the Minister, "is created for the protection of imported arid native game, as. well as tha protection of birds or animals not being imported, or native game'; but the > Tew Zesiland Native Bird Protection Society considers that there should be no interference of any kind with bird or animal life in a sanctuary, and this view appears to be

shared.by the Hon. 'Mr. Thomson. As a matter of fact, the Department also shares the same view to a large extent. It has to bo realised, however, that it is necessary, at times, owing partially, as is stated in Mr. Thomson's letter, to pests getting into the sanctuaries, to authorise the destruction of those pests, otherwise the primary object of the sanctuary would be defeated. It was for this very reason that the Native Bird Protection Society t vat ■ informed that if there were too many restrictions—such as the preventing of t.hf owner of private land from, fishing in a stream that ran through his land, and from the carrying on of ordinary farming operations, or from shooting rabbits or other pests —a farmer would naturally hesitate before he consented to his land being declared a. sanctuary. It was felt,, that the better way: in! the case of private lands that rWere;,tised for farming or other-'.purpqse^ was to prohibit the shooting of game thereon during the open season." ABB THEY GAME RESERVES? " 'Conservationist,' " said the Minister, "appears to consider that when private land is declared. to. be a sanctuary it is for the purpose of creating a game reserve for the owner. :■; In view of what-I have stated, and; of what is contained in the law, this is obviously quite incorrect', .as* 'the ■ effect of a sanctuary is in exactly the opposite direction to that supposed. Moreover, the provision regarding sanctuaries in North Carolina, referred to in the letter, would appear to be more in the direction of creating game reserves, and the writer of the article supports something of; the kind being done in New Zealand. In this connection all I can say is that it has-long been the policy of the Government of this country to do away with anything savouring of the old game laws, as these were well known to create a. monopoly, and were in favour of the rich as against the poor, the result being a most inequitable state of; affairs. It surely "cannot be argued rthat the legislation, in New Zealand.: does not give an equal Tight to anyone being the holder of a license to shoot gameduring- the open season, or likewise, to fish for trout during- the open season. AREAS PERMANENTLY SET ASIDE. "It has been pointed out, time/and time again that.'a sanctuary".is considered by the Department to' be , something of a permanent nature.set aside for the absolute protection of.'bird/life. The Department's experience,:is ;that themost suitable kind of sanctuary- is on an isuand such as Little Barrier, Kapiti, and. other places with ; special caretakers in charge, and this fact'is proved by the increase in' bird life on these islands. As far as. the mainland is concerned, there are difficulties which do not apply to the.same extent, in connection with island sanctuaries., Take, for. instance, forest areas.; Many:-; of these areas contain valuable timber and are let from time to time for milling purposes. This would ' in'■'itself, if the area was a sanctuary, be a breach of the ' provisions of section 6 of' the Act, as obviously the milling operations would cause bird 3to leave the area. In like manner, privatelyrowned lands are used in. many cases, if not for cropping, then for stock-breed-ing, and this necessitates .the vac of dogs, etc.. This again ' would constitute a breach of' the provisions: of the Act. - Certain of our forest areas have opossums in them and the taking of the opossums would constitute, a breach it the sanctuary provisions; in fact, the regulations make it illegal to take opossums in sanctuaries. It has . been said that there should be no interference with the ordinary balance of Nature, but, if this is taken' in its literal sense, ,it would obviously mean that there ftould .be:'ho' gettletnent, as settlement in itself is an interference of the balance of Nature.*'. .;,< ;.!•:■ Concluding his remarks, the Minister said'he did not thimk the best interests of bird life were being served by outside organisations which did not take into consideration the interests of the farmers or owners of private land. It did seem to him that, the owners or occupiers of lands were 'entitled ■: ■to some consideration as to the'm^nner in which that- land could be ,used,;'6r.as to the restrictions that should; be- placed upon' the use of :that land in" so far as such use might or might not interfere with bird life. . " ''..."