DIVIDED CONTROL

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 25, 30 January 1930, Page 11

DIVIDED CONTROL

WILD LIFE PROBLEMS

THE CULLING OF DEER

EEPLY TO "MAMAKU"

By T. E. Thornton, M.A. (Ecply to Article 2.)

It is impossible to understand what is meant by "Maiaaku" in his statement that there is a total lack of any real policy regarding wild life in New Zealand except inertia. Inertia is hardly consistent with the figures published in that article showing some of the societies and, part of their activities in regard to culling doer. It appears that a good deal has been deliberately suppressed by "Mamaku" in this respect too. In the last few years 45,000 deer have been officially culled by nve of the societios, and thousands more killed. "Mamaku" is quite right when he says that some very "startliner" figures relating to the increase of deer in New Zealand were published some time ago. These were published by Mr. B. E. Muir, and were startling for their inaccuracy, ana for no other reason. When Mr. Muir was challenged by Mr. A. D. Kitto to produce the names of the actuaries who provided him with those figures, and to say how the estimates of 300,000 deer in 1922 was arrived at, and to prove Mr. Kitto's figures wrong, he elected to remain silent, although Mr. Kitto showed conclusively that the figures were absurd, and that no accurate survey over took place in 1922, and the figure was guesswork. The truth of the matter was that Mr. E. Muir was writing of a subject with which he was not familiar. The false estimate of the deer population in 1922 alone, without the subsequent multiplication without subtraction, made the final figure most "startling." When one considers the vast areas with no deer, there mv.st be a very restricted area to contain a quantity of deer said to be greater than the population of New Zealand. "Mamaku" advises the Minister of Internal Affairs and of State Forests to take very definite action with their Departments.- Whatever chaos there may be in wild life, we can hardly assume similar conditions to exist in a sober Government Department.

The writer makes the very definite statement in article No. 2 that there is no open season for shooting deer, and states that the reverse appears to be happening. Surely it would have been •worth his while to investigate the matter property before taking the controlling authorities to task for leaving conditions unchanged. Conditions are most certainly changed. If he will be good enough to look up the various gazette notices he will find that this season there is no restriction on the number of heads which may be taken under a licence, or sex, or number of points. As far as the regulation goes in reference to licensees taking dogs in with them, he is probably not aware that this is a matter where the owner of the land may reasonably be expected to have a say, and dogs are not welcomed by the land owners, and some even object to the shooting on their property. From the societies' point of view, too, such dogs are inimical to the welfare of our unique native ground birds, and the societies refuse to permit" their - entrance to forests on that ground.

.■"WONDEBFTTL INCONSISTENCY."

Where did "Mamaku" discover that: the various stalking dates for the 1930 season 'wore "given?; tSo far" as can be asceitained, these dates have not' yet been gazetted in the case of a number of districts. He complains, too, that the stalking season has been shortened. I wonder if he fully realises the wonderful inconsistency of this. In some cases protection has been re-imposeU for the duration of the stalking season. With one breath he urges the removal Of all protection, and with the next complains that the period of the stalking season has not been extended, except in the ■■ case of Wellington and Pending districts. To bo consistent, he should demand that the stalking seaSon be shortened everywhere. Furthermore, it is hard to understand •'Mamaku's" objection to the Southland' Society balloting for the wapiti and moose blocks. It seems reasonably certain that some of the animals at least will be shot. The object of balloting is to ensure success for the single lessee' of the block. If there were the possibility of more than one going on the block, none would go at all, for who would spend the money required to go in if others might be there, culling wapiti and moose at sos much per headt It would be- a good plan to ask Mr. E. J. Herrick how much it cost him to sbfcot his moose, and Mr. K. JDalrymplo how much it cost him to shoot his wapiti, so that applicants for the position of culling might know with reasonable certainty what daily wage they might expect to earn at-the curlent rates of culling. In mentioning chamois and thar, *'Mamaku" has again written upon a fiiattor with which he has a very nodding, acquaintance. Had he put his celebrated increase tables to work on the chamois and thar, he could have told us the exact numbei' alive at present, and made a scare about them, too. As it is, the licences are altered to suit the incroaso in the numbers of these animals, having been increased from six to twenty; the rate has been dropped from £10 to £5; and the area to be shot over ha 9 been extended to ineludo the whole Of two societies' district instead of only a part! In view of this extension to suit the new conditions, why should the Minister's position in facing Parliament bo more difficult still? But perhaps "Maniaku" was not familiar with thoso points. • What does he mean by stating that the virtues of free ammunition given by the acclimatisation societies-remain to be proved? Perhaps it is so, but is there any remedy known for the destruction of deer which does not need to be proved? It is impossible to guarantee that every bullet menps a dead deer, but why question any method at all that promises results. Tho hunting parties (transportation, tucker, and ammunition free—what a shooter's paradise) arranged by the Wellington Society did such good work with their free ammunition that they were requested not to shoot any further deer in Certain localities by tho owners of the land. In another case the Wellington Society gave £50 to tho Tararua Club to holp cut tracks through the bush, as these would help the cullers. They 'were requested not to shoot any more deer in that par' t.iculaf spot, and that request came from the State Forest Service.

THE CULlilNa SCHEME,

•As for the greater scheme of culling t<> be inaugurated, so Convinced ib "JVlainaku" that the societies are collections of scoundrels that before the scheme has ever been announced he saya "it promises very disappointing results." One may fairly ask whether "Mamaktt" rdally wishes to Wipe out the deer, or whether this is camouflage to hide the campaign against the societies, whom it appears to bo his wish to wipe out, ana not the deer. He appears perfectly convinced, too, that stalkers will not cull. What a ehame that he cannot givo honour Where honour is due. The Rakaia for-

est, once overrun with decadent heads, was closed by the society. The stalkers were requested to clean up tho herd. They did it cheerfully, giving up their annual search for tho head of heads, and this year that forest is to be reopened after having been put in splendid order by the stalkers. "Mamaku" was perfectly correct in his statement that licences wero only issued to stalkers, but that does not affect in tho least those who wish to shoot deer at any other time of the year other than the stalking season, so that whethor a stalker elects to cull or not, others may do so, and certainly do. As far as tho Wellington Society is concerned, its policy has been eminently successful, and the herd is well within bounds. But what does "Mamaku" mean by stating that the Department of Internal Affairs and the Acclimatisation Society rely on the stalker for their only culling? This, together, with his figures of culling for the various societies, is indicative of a grave type of suppression of the truth. In the case of the Wellington Society he shows that the revenue is £462, and the expenses o* culling £71. The latter is the cost of the ammunition alone, and no account is taken of tho rangers' timo and expenses in tho heavy culling undertaken, and in conducting shooting parties to certain spots. Within the last month a report reached the society that deer were numerous on the Buahines in the upper waters of tho Moawhango. Threo cars set out, but only two deer were seen. No ammunition was used, so that this matter will not count according to "Mamaku." The actual expenses were £26, and a circlo with a radius of twenty miles was well combed over. The total expenses of all these parties has- amounted to a very considerable total.

OTAGO SOCIETY'S EXPENDITURE,

Presuming the expenses were quite correctly stated at £71, is not the Wellington Society to bo congratulated on culling about 2400 deer for this small sum? But honestly could it be done? This, however, pales into insignificance when compared with the deliberate suppression of Otago's expenditure. , The revenue in the case of Otago is shown at £120 and the expenditure as nil. Appended is an extract from the report of the Otago Society for the year ended March, 1929.—

/"Deer bulling.—Some months ago your council entered into contracts with Messrs. James Muir, Eeg. Muir, and S. Woods to kill out 1200 red deer hinds ■ and old ■ malformed stags, particularly hinds, in • the Hunter Valley. A stipulation was made that the culling should be- done during the rutting season, when the animals are not so scattered. Eeports are not yet to hand of the number killed. Previous efforts over a number of years have resulted in 15,371 deer being killed at a cost of £3070 Is Bd, of which £648 4s was contributed by the Government and £2421 17s 8d by your council. For some years past the society has paid out for culling more than it has received in the way of licence fees, the object being, if possible, to reduce the deer herd to manageable proportions. There is no doubt that as a, result of this policy the deer are not nearly so numerous in the society's deer forests as they were."

How does "Mainaku" reconcile, this with, his table, and with his statement that the societies have yet made no announcement of their policy? Why should they announce their new policy when the whole matter will be fully gone into at the conference in March, when it is hoped that-agreement will be arrived at between all the bodies concerned with deer.

What were the motives actuating "Mamaku" when he chose Wellington, North Canterbury, South Canterbury, Otago, and Southland as the five principal societies of New Zealand? The humour of his choice will cause much amusement to those who know. Why was Westland omitted from the list/ °"cause it showed a very high expenditure. -On'deer culling, or was this fact not known to him? But, above . J, we should like to know why a small society like the South Canterbury Society was included in the list, when it has practically no deer.or forests. If the smaller, societies were to bo considered, why not Waitaki, which culled 3884 deer in two years—possibly it would not have made the case "startling" enough for "Mainaku" to havo done so.

The third article in reply to "Mainaku" will deal with the economic aspect of wild life control, and an examination of the proposals for its control by one Department as suggested by him.