SHAGS AND SHAGS

Evening Star, Issue 23021, 28 July 1938, Page 17

SHAGS AND SHAGS

DESTRUCTION OF TROUT DANGER OF LOOSE TERMINOLOGY AN INVESTIGATION REQUESTED The Native Birds Protection Committee of the Otago Branch of the Royal Society of New Zealand communicates the following open letter to the Press : In a Press Association message from Wellington, dated June 20, published in the Dunedin papers on the following day, occur the following passages : “ The consumption of young trout by the shag, a bird which the Minister of Internal Affairs (the Hon. W. E. Parry) has described as a menace to New Zealand fisheries, was the subject of discussion during an interview a deputation bad with the Minister tpday. Mr Parry said ho agreed with the opinion expressed that both the shag and the hawk wore a direct menace to the sport of fishing and shooting in the Dominion. Measures stronger than those adopted during the last two years seemed to be necessary to curb the two birds.” The deputation then quoted figures supplied by Acclimatisation Society rangers indicating the number and the size of trout found in the stomachs of shags shot by the rangers. One of these tront was recorded as 28 inches in length. As the length from tip of bill to base of tail feathers does not exceed 29 inches in any of the species of shag native in New Zealand, the comment of a member of the deputation was certainly true: “These figures,” he said, “will shock you, and even the most ardent bird protectionist . . .” The Minister said ho had had official returns also illustrating too clearly the heavy slaughter for which the shag was responsible among trout. With the spirited co-operation of acclimatisation societies and others, it was felt, the Minister said, that a big inroad into the shag population could be made. Additional measures regarding the birds were under consideration.

Such being the opinions and intentions of the authorities, it is certainly time for all lovers of New Zealand bird life to take action. The Native Birds Protection Committee of the Otago Branch of the Royal Society of New Zealand records its emphatic protest against the misuse of the word “ shag ” on the occasion recorded above and on very many similar occasions, a misuse which has resulted in the callous shooting of thousands of useful, wholly innocent, and, in the case of several species, beautiful birds. The use of the word “ shag ” in this loose and unscientific sense by persons in authority has been the justification of universal massacre at the hands of every irresponsible owner of a gun. Among bird-lovers New Zealand has world-wide fame for the number of species of shags that frequent its waters. In the whole world there are some 37 species, 18 of which are in this country, Australia having five, and Great Britain only. two. Thirteen of our species are purely marine, never enter rivers, and hence cannot possibly be accused of eating trout. One of those, the rare blue shag of Stewart Island, was thought to be extinct as the result of shooting, but reappeared in 1929, and to-day is about 200 strong. The unique bronze and Stewart Island shags of the Foveaux Strait probably number about 500, and in the past have suffered greatly from the rifle. These birds are one of the marvels of ornithology, because the species is composed of two distinct forms, one being bronze and the other black and white. The big_ king shag of Queen Charlotte Sound, the victim of merciless shooting, is now represented by about 80 birds, most of them on one rock. The most handsome of all, the gaudyplumaged spotted shag now found in numbers only on Banks and Otago Peninsulas and the coast of Marlborough, was once in tens of thousands in the Hauraki Gulf, where there are now comparatively few birds left. After paying out hundreds of pounds for the heads of these birds the Auckland Acclimatisation Society was largely responsible in getting them protected. Protection was gazetted on January 9, 1931. Several marine species appear on the Chathams and the Southern Islands, where, due to isolation, they are reasonably safe. Out of the 16 species of native New Zealand shag there is only one which can be fairly charged with taking trout, and this is the big black shag, or river shag. There is an elementary duty devolving on anyone who refers to this bird—namely, to use its accepted name. Failure to do this (as the acclimatisation societies have failed from the beginning) has resulted in the senseless slaughter of countless innocent shags of other species. Of the 1G New Zealand species 10 arc under the nominal protection of the Animals and Game Protection Act, 1921-22. How little this statutory protection has availed in the past is indicated earlier in this letter. Of the remaining six one is omitted, no doubt, because of remote habitat, and five are condemned or suspect.

But suppose that the accusers were to do elementary justice to the other 15 species by naming the big black shag or river shag in full in their denunciations, would they even yet be acting fairly to the prisoner in the dock by accusing him as they do? The Native Birds Protection Committee wishes to state most emphatically that the charges made against even this single species are not yet proved. Granted that the river shag eats trout, it is equally well known that ho eats cels and crayfish, both of which take heavy toll of trout spawn. Native bird protectionists believe that by taking these two enemies and also by eliminating some proportion of trout wasters in overstocked streams the river shag does more good than harm to trout in general. The taking of trout by the birds is believed to be seasonal Mr 11. A. Falla reports that he has opened as many as 87 river shags of two species over a period of years without finding a single trout, although other food was present. In those circumstances the Native Birds Protection Committee asks that the Minister set up an independent committee to investigate the feeding habits of the river shag, consisting of the four heads of the departments of zoology in the four university colleges Such a committee would be without bias, and both parties in the present discussion would abide by their report.

fn the meantime the Native Birds Protection Committee asks that the proposed intensification of hostile measures be postponed.