THE DEER MENACE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXI, 19 October 1937, Page 9

THE DEER MENACE

I'lo The Editor Sir, —111 your issue of Thursday last there is a letter by C. E. Shuttleworth on the above subject, which lie is apparently inclined to believe is greatly exaggerated. He may be correct when he says that all the deer in New Zealand do less damage in one year than a carelessly-flung match. That does not mean that the deer are doing no damage, but rather that the damage is so insidious that it does not make itself manifest until 100 late to be rectified. In this way it is far worse than the carelessly-flung match of a man. Only those who knew our forests in the early days have the slightest idea of the damage done by deer in our uplands.

It may be as well to point out to -Mr Shuttleworth that quite a number o four deer-stalkers—not pot-hunters—have acknowledged that the deer are doing great damage to our uplands. I trust, too, that h) will pardon me for saying that the stalker is not the only one who goes into the back country, and that a man with a sixty pound pack on his back is not likely to be very observant of the damage done by deer or anything else, especially i.i rough country. Neither is a man engaged in stalking likely to have a min 1 sufficiently alert to observe or estimate any damage done by deer. Douet.css lie is quite correct when he states that the red deer can defend themselves in spite of the slaughter that is taking place, but I would point out that it was the stalkers themselves who noticed the deterioration of the herds that was taking place, so that it was almost impossible for them to obtain the “superheads” of which he speaks.

That Mr Shuttleworth is not himself a very observant person is easy, to understand when one reads his ideas of the floods in the Hokitika river. Surely he is not ignorant of the fact that all the West Coast rivers are liable to flood, .ini have been ever since New Zealand was first settled, and long before that. What else can be expected of rivers that lave a fall of several thousand feet in a lew miles, especially in a climate where the rfainfall is almost the heaviest in the world. Yet that river is showing signs of silting up, as he will soon find out if lie looks up a copy of the “Weekly News” which shows a picture of dry land right across the mouth of the river at high tide, yet I sailed right over that dry land in 1887 when I arrived by steamer from Greymouth, and no dredges were require i in those days to keep the mouth of the river open. Will Mr Shuttleworth tell us why this river has silted up so much in recent years? I am sorry to say that I have not read the article in the “Readers Digest,” and would be glad to get the loan of it, and will pay postage both ways if Mr Shuttleworth will send it along, but from what In quotes, it would appear that the writer has very little knowledge of his subject

otherwise he would know that eight ,uj a half million acres of re-afforestration m a watershed, the area of which has beeu estimated at 1,226,600 square miles, or 753,024,000 acres, is a mere pin-prick, and could have very little effect in such a huge area as that of the Mississippi. New Zealand placed in the Mississippi would be lost, yet it has been estimated that for climatic purposes alone New Zealand requires at least 5,000,000, quite apart from that required for timber purposes. Another thing is, that no comparison can tie drawn between New Zealand rivers and the Mississippi, for the reason that our rivers are short, and have a steep graeje, whereas the Mississippi is very long, and has an average full of eight inches to the mile. How can our little rivers be compared with one that is navigable —if the Missouri is included —for nearly 4,000 miles, with a depth ranging from 75 feet to 120 feet That mere half-inch of water he talks about, if emptied into the Hokitika river would sweep the town out of existence, and change the whole face of the country in that district. Apparently Mr Shuttleworth is not yet aware that the delta of the Mississippi is still sagging under tne weight of ttie silt being deposited on it, and- that at high tide the water is higher than the surrounding land, which would be covered were it not for the embankments that have been erected. Ilow long such a state of affairs can last, is hard to say, but it is only a question of time when the land there will be under the sea.

Trusting to hear further from Mr Shuttleworth in the near future. —1 am etc., G. BRITTEN.

Motueka, 15th October