WILD BIRDS.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIX, Issue 265, 9 October 1939, Page 5

WILD BIRDS.

RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC. A "Wellington'naturalist has raised the question: “Who owns the wild birds?’’ It is understood that when the Government puts some species of native birds on the protected list, it assumes properly a position of ownership on behalf of the people of New Zealand (including posterity, whose prospective rights are so frequently ignored in all manner of matters). AYlien an acclimatisation society enjoys a statutory right to issue licenses for the killing of birds, the society is not actually the owner of’ them. Similarly, a landowner does not have an exclusive right to the possession of wild game birds which may visit his property. They are free to fly away to a neighbour’s place. Thus it seems that wild birds belong to the people as a whole. The State authorities, acting as trustees for the general public, may directly or indirectly grant permission for the slaughter of game birds, under certain conditions, cr may even allow collectors to take limited numbers of protected birds. What arc the rights of the great majority of New Zealanders who find heartfelt pleasure in seeing wild native cluck in their natural haunts and hate the killing of them? These people, not organised for the safeguarding of the beautiful birds, arc now faced with the sad fact that some species seem to bo doomed to extinction, because this country lacks the urgently necessary strong policy for intelligent management of wild life. In this field, Canada and the United States of America are a long way in the lead of New Zealand. In those countries, intelligent conservationists, including the higher types of sportsmen, as distinct from callous, careless pot-hunters, arc busy with schemes for assuring an increase of game birds, while retaining a reasonable measure of shooting. They are planning for a “game crop’’— a saving of enough “live capital,” so that the bird wealth will he well maintained. That is why water is being restored to some areas which had foolishly been drained. This draining practice had not onlydeprived wild fowl of a necessary means of living, hut had proved injurious to adjacent farm lands by lowering the water level and parching the fertile top soil.