RE PUKETITIRI BUSH.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XX, Issue 162, 28 June 1930, Page 8

RE PUKETITIRI BUSH.

(To the Editor.) Sir.—During the past few days a number of people have approached me in of the above, and it is evident that many people who wish to do the right thing, have been sadly misled and the present aspect of the Puketitiri Bush has been misrepresented. With a view to correcting this 1 believe you will publish the following. At this stage, after closely following the Puketiriri Bush question, it is evident that the majority of people stirred to interest in the matter are unaware of the following facts.- (1) That a fifth of the area’s timber was sold some 12 months past and is being converted into sawn timber; (2) that the area sold forms a rectangular salient, which, when milled, totally disfigures the foreground of forest as viewed from the clearing and divides the remaining area of bush, i.e., 300 acres (not 400) in two patches some 30 chains apart; (3) it should be known that when the Government acquired this bush from the natives about four years ago this bush and the surrounding nastoral land was proclaimed a firedistrict. thereby placing direct responsibility on the landholders from whose properties damaging fire originates and spreads. Also that during dry spells this bush is o-uarded and patrolled day and night, and notwithstanding this the Foresty officers who are responsible shiver for its safety. I ask those interested is it sound policy to have our Jong-suffering community (what with inner harbours and controlling of rivers) invested with such a hazardous responsibility as the above. I would undertake to convince sound reasoning people on the ground that the great danger of fire, together with the continual shrinkage of the forest edge through exposure to wind, are two reasons why this bush could not be permanently reserved. It would have been difficult even from the time when the Government acquired the area, but now, with a fifth of the bush sold and doomed to present a huge scar runnjng through, dividing the green bush and effacing 90 per cent, of the reserves beauty, to attempt to perpetuate this forest as a public park would, I am assured, be a ridiculous error. With regard to the agitation allegedly on foot to preserve the Waikaremoana bush, I understand that bush was preserved a long timif past, and we can rest assured of this. It is proclaimed protectional forest for conservation of watersupplies. The bush clothes the catchment area supplying the lake and consequently the hydro-electric power plant, and no Government would interfere with this bush. But what of the native bush at Tarawera? It is within three hours’ car-run on an arterial highway, and

through it the much-mooted deviation would wind for about five miles. Are we, while considering a proposition such as Puketitiri. going to allow the one worthwhile forest to be slaughtered. If so r . well! there’s no more to bo said.—Yours, etc., L.A.U. Hastings, 27/6/30,