"DIVIDED CONTROL"

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 31 January 1930, Page 7

"DIVIDED CONTROL"

WILD LIFE PROBLEMS REPLY TO ARTICLES 3 AND 5 OF ' ‘‘MAMAKU’’

(By F. I\. Thornton, M.A.)

Complaint is made by "Mnmaku"! that the acclimatisation societies and the Department of Internal Affairs arc strongly to blame for permitting restricted seasons for shooting deer, wapiti, moose, chamois and thai*. If his real object was the diminution in the mimbers of these beasts, lie has no right to complain. "With exception of the deer blocks, if Rafferty rules were permitted on wapiti, moose, chamois, and thar country, it is sure that hardly one would be shot at all. It costs money, and much money too, to outfit an expedition to go after these animals. It is only the fact that those who go are at least guaranteed no competitors on the blocks that induces them to put lip the requisite large sum. By this means too, the whole of a district may be parcelled out, so that each section [ is shot over. Under rafferty rules possibly all would flock to the easiest stalking ground, and the beasts would i

' soon decamp in parts nol sliol over .As it is, all areas arc shot over, ami for the rest of the year there is nc protection on deer. Why question the attitude of the authoritiesV By this? means revenue is secured to carry out culling later on, beasts are shot, and sport Is secured. "Manufku" alleges that for a reason Hot disclosed, [the Acclimatisation iSocietiea' ftyiifarer'ice wont into camtnittco to fliMnss- the rnalter of unity of con- , trol versus divided control and c'harac- ! tenses the meeting as a '"secret conclave." There is no mystery about this '•secret conclave"' at all. The facts were that at a meeting of some of the committee of the Bird's .Society and certain members of the Wellington Acclimatisation Society, a tentative scheme Was put before the members of the Wellington society. This scheme, the members were informed, had been drafted by an official of the Forestry Department, and two members of tlio Native Birds' Protection Society. It was suggested that some members of the Native Birds' Society should meet ithe delegates of the acclimatisation societies, and discuss the tentative scheme, and the question of unity of control of wild life. Mr Tripp agreed to arrange a meeting and was given a copy of the tentative scheme. Un'fortunately the delegates of the Native Birds' Society were unable to meet the delegates of the acclimatisation society.

As il was <>x|>l:i!miml that j In* scheme was mil olliciul, Mr 'l'ri))|) in fairness In everyone decided that, the scheme should he discussed in committee. As for Ihe resolution stu tine that “the ]ircsent method of control was moro suitable’’ being received with astonislinient. it would have been si ill more astonishing if the tentative seheme had been endorsed by the societies. As for the suggestion i|ntt f Imre is a liason between the societies and tile Department of Internal Affairs, ;Mr Tri|i|> has slated that this is an impertinence. and from a gentleman of his standing such a statement must he ini(|iiestional)ly accepted as giving tho lie direct to this charge, and it needs no further consideration. It is quite true (hat tile societies receive very considerable benefits from various sources, but it is only the expenditure of it that produces fresh revenue. Pheasants at His a piece, and heavy slocking of the waters; I lie hatcheries, I lie rangers and other necessary expenses, do not leave a. great margin. Cease llieso activities, and the revenue falls off' at once. The fa Ila cv of “Mamukii’s” figures relevant to the amount expended in culling lias already been discussed. As to the amassing of £22,540 by the societies, a. dissection of tin's sum will show that both North Canterbury Society and Otago are committed to a heavy expenditure on their new hatcheries, which will absorb their surplus. Southland lias every right to its money received from the sale of an endowment which was granted them, because, in the early days, hundreds of pounds were subscribed for the importation of trout and salmon ova when the success of such was problematical. It was considered a fair return, that, should success be ensured, they should have funds to carry on the work. The increment in value of the property lias been considerable. Deduct these earmarked

funds and the remaining balance is no more than any prudent body of men would reserve for unknown eventualities. RIDICULOUS STATEMENTS

The statement that the Department of Internal Affairs has been farming and protecting deer for the benefit of the societies is ridiculous in the extreme, as is the statement that tlio present rate of culling is not coping with anything like the annual increase of deer. There are two questions which "Mamaku" should answer, so that from all his froth of nothingness we may gleam some really desired knowledge: (1) How does he know the deer numbered 30,00 in 1022, and how was that figure obtained? (2) What is the annual increase at the present time? It is quite safe to ask the questions—he cannot answer them, because as ho says later on, the 300,00 culled was "a mere fraction of the probable estimated year's increase." The figures were doubtful merely as an estimate, as a , probable estimate their worth is valueless. At this point the following extracts from the State Forest Service's report submitted to Parliament will be interesting:—Extracts from annual report of State Forest Service for the year ended 31st March, 1022: "Tt is satisfactory to note that a conference has been called by certain acclimatisation societies to consider this question (deer) and already steps have been .taken to keep the herds in check." Same report dealing with opossums: "It is realised that opossum liberation in new country should be carefully considered and all factors weighed before turning loose so fertile and versatile an animal as the opossum. In this connection the service has closely cooperated with the Department of Internal Affairs and certain acclimatisation societies witli a view to safeguarding the community interest." "Some of the societies, alive to the necessity of keeping up the standard of their herds, have culled regularly

and rigidly with (lie result thai Ihe herds are more or less under control and have never increased sufficiently to become a menace." 11l the State Forest Service's 1021 report, dealing with deer, statement is made that the Department of Agriculture, Tourists, and State Forest Service are conferring with each'acclimatisation society separately with a view JLo determining the a'reau upon which protection :is 'neVe&su'ry ariß to what extent the societies can control their herds. Here is ihe point. Practically in the first years of existence of the State Forest Service, an attempt was on foot to eliminate the Internal Affairs Department. Extract from the annual report of the State Forest Service for 1024 dealing with deer: "The proposal to remove protection from the demarcated areas Avns fully discussed. Subsequently the data was forwarded to the Internal Affairs Department for action, and in every ease protection was removed from the areas recommended. Following the recommendation of the Department of Internal Affairs a subsidy of £10111) to be paid as a bonus on deer destroyed was noted by Cabinet and etc.," ends by saying, "The general opinion among the landowners in the districts recently visited is that the depredations will be. greatly alleviated, and much good will result." Also, "Tt is pleasing to note that acclimatisation societies are in most cases doing their best to cope with the situation and are carrying out extensive culling operations." The balance of the article bears upon points already answered in the previous previous articles, and the time lias now arrived to consider the position from the point of view of the existing conditions, and the reasons for the continuance of the status quo. Now here I should like to ask "Mamaku" why one who has shown so lamentable a lack of knowledge of the true position of our wild life ever ventured to tackle the solution of the problem at all. It was possibly from altruistic motives; on the other hand, he may be the mouthpiece of those who seek to gain control, and I lean to the latter view. In view of the reiteration of the name and capabilities of the State Forest Service, it is quite clear to see, that, through "Mamaku" this department seeks to influence lay opinion, so that it may arrogate to itself the position of dictator of wild life. It might be hard to sheet home the culpability for this propaganda to the officers concerned, but the evidence is too strong to be neglected. The question then becomes one of the State Forest Service versus the Internal Affairs aided by the acclimatisation societies.

The first essential of any system of government is the harmonious working of the various components. The simple days when Adam delved and Eve span bear no resemblance to the present complexity of social life. Trade, commerce and all the facets of modern existence are so complicated that every issue impinges on something else. So with our wild life, and the. State should so seek to control it, that we maximise our pleasure in its possession with the minimum of inconvenience and loss, i.e., the question of its administration becomes one of finance, convenience, and ease of control. The present system is based on all three of these canons. Ease of control is secured by the services of the acclimatisation society who attend to every detail of the breeding, liberation, and subsequent care of that wild life with which they deal, and the whole system is self-supporting and costs the State very little. In fact a considerable income accrues to the Government and private individuals from the visitors to our shores who come to enjoy the sport provided. The societies realise that they are the trustees of our sport. Their services are perfectly free, and their organisation covers every portion of New Zealand. Tho present system is satisfactory to them and the sportsmen. The State Forest Service in its ego assumes that these societies would be willing to occupy subservient position under an autocratic control. Take away from the societies their present democratic position, and they would disappear like snow before the sun. Certainly they could be replaced, but not by voluntary i labour, and that without the high decree of intellectual power that now animates them. The only substitute is paid officials. What an army of them would be required! What wonderful opportunities for cultivating the "government stroke." Before this colossal blunder is made the taxpayers of New Zealand will do well to consider if their shoulders can bear a wild life rate to support an army of State forest officials, and the sportsmen to consider if his sport Will still be worth paying [for. This loss of free labour anil subse'quent deterioration of supervision, I would inevitably lead to the loss of the present income. These facts should be apparent to the lay mind, and it is the lav man who would have to foot the. bill.

i Examining tlio canon of convenience, the first point that strikes us is the tremendous upheaval required to alter all the multifarious acts at present placing the various forms of life under ten different departments most closely concerned with them. Their duties are clearly defined, the organisation already exists, no further expense is incurred, and each department rules in its own sphere. What facilities would he offered the State Forest Service in its autocratic orders to these departments to do as tliey were told? None; and here is where chaos would commence. The landowner would do well to consider the question of passing on the onus. Precedent already exists to compel the. landowner to keep his land clear of noxious weeds, surplus water, and rabbits. Under the autocratic control of the State Forest Service, what more easy than to issue the mandate that landowners must keep their deer in chock. At present farmers get free ammunition, the societies do the culling, and will do more yet. how does the possibility of having to treat the deer like the rabbits appeal to the farmers. They would have at least to consider it as a distinct possibility in view of the disappearance of the voluntary societies under an autocratic board of wild life control. The unknown presents the possibilities of disaster, the present system has not unduly harassed anyone but those who seek piaces in-a new and powerful department. Ambition is a great tiling—in the right place. SIMPLICITY OF COXTPOL Now let us finally examine the question of simplicity of control. The present system is modelled on specialisation. The department can consult the highest experts in the hind upon any matters relative to its duties, without directly employing them. although some are so employed. Could the State Forest Service do this? Only if it' worked harmoniously with those experts, but its very nature would preclude it. Hence we may assume a. vast number of highly paid jobs as chiei ranger, biologist, curators, ornithologist, entomologist, pisciculturist, and all the other ists, eacli with their separate staffs. But what would it matter we

should have single control? There is no need to go any further, the whole department would be far more complex than the present arrangement.

There is no divided control as has been suggested. There is one department only administering the Animals Protection and Came Act, and the other departments 'interested are' only interested in so far as wild 'life aft'eefca the purposes connected ' with 'Wicir brgauisition.i: For instance \h<- A'grictilture Department is of necessity inlerested in depredations caused by ..rabbits, hence the passing of the Hnbbit Nuisance Act, and also flic passing of the Noxious Weeds Act.

| The Lands Department which administers the Scenery Preservation Act is interested in animal life in scenic reserves and no animals nor birds may be taken therein without authority. The State Forest. Service in like manner is given control of bird and animal life in State forests. It would lie inconsistent with the legislation thai a department created for a specific purpose such as Agriculture, Lands or Forestry, should la; given control of wild life for purposes having no direct connection with the legislation affecting those departments. It. is hard for instance to visualise! what connection there is between State forests anil game birds or aquatic birds.

The Animals Protection and flame Act provides the organisations for the control of bird life subject to the interests of forestry, agriculture, scenic preservation which interests are in turn safeguarded by the individual governing Acts. As it, is essential that, there should be local organisations, the Animals Protection and (lame Act provides for the creation of acclimatisation societies, these organisations ■ being largely composed of voluntary workers. "Where birds or animals are committing damage, authority is granted by the Minister under the provisions of the Animals Protection and (lame Act to the interested organisation or person who destroys such bird or animal. Pursuant to this power acclimatisation societies are authorised to destroy deer causing damage to property in their district. A similar authority has been granted to the State Forest Service in connection with the damage by deer to State forests. The interests of State forests are protected in that license to take game under the Animals Protection and Came Act does not, entitle the holder to enter upon any State forest, or provisional State forest—a safeguard provided for by section 30 of the Animals Protection and Came Act, 1021-22, passed the same year as the State Forests Act. THE TRUTH OF THE CASE The existing arrangement is here. That it does not function perfectly is granted, but where can we find perfection? It is hoped that these facts will enable the reading public to glimpse the truth of the case and take no notice of the red herring that "Mamaku" has drawn across the scent. The deer question is mere camouflage. Ihe issue is deeper than that. Envious eyes are east upon the revenue from wild life and the possibilities of securing high positions to control it. The State Forest Service would do well to look after its own affairs. It is peculiar position that the rangers

of I lie ficclillllltisillion s<x-ii'l ics are compelled In convict poachers for operating in State foi'ustH in spiLf of nil those paid ollieers, wlioin. we urn Uilil, litivo time lo lake over I lie control of our deer. • As for "Miinmkii's" slnlcnienl, thitl (lie soc-iel ii's have no rigid lo (lie revenue from deer because they do m>l spend i< on coiling, Ihe answer i;; fch.'it "Marosikw" lian represented L]> i.l Cluiy do not—or rather raiM'epre.icoted that t'licv do not, a.-i i-> pointed oul in article ii of series. I- lie nol inconsistent, 100. when lie says tliey clearly have ;i right to the revenue from the lish, but mil from the opossums because they feed on the vegetation of the forests which the societies (lid not provide. The fish feed on the food in the rivers and the sen. The society did not provide this either, and yet on one hand lie accepts "clearlv" their right, and on the other denies it. As for the licenses from native game, the societies have every right to receive it. l'Yoin ISOO to 1022 they protected those birds and 'never received a penny in license fees. Hundreds of convictions were secured by their rangers at ;i great expense, 'j'uey nre the only bodies that have ever protected these birds. The Native Bird Society has not been in existence long tun! in that time has done little more than issue pamphlets. The societies have the very dearest right lo a revenue from these birds. It might be over wearisome to detail :ill the societies work under this head, bin from those appended it will be seen that the protection of native birds, native game and opossums bus been carefully curried out. Prosecutions under Aniimils Prntef (ion Act during hist live years.

0 -r. Is il | Otajro 28 ■i 33 Nelson ■I > 1 Auckland 2(j ■u; 1 -! 12 Soul itltiitd Smith Canto: rbnry 0 n Wellington 30 .>: 3-1 Total Ml !I7 L.) fJ rami loin 1 323.