THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, JANUARY 22, 1926. THE CASE AGAINST DEER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19232, 22 January 1926, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, JANUARY 22, 1926. THE CASE AGAINST DEER.

The beginnings of a controversy about the protection or destruction of deer in New Zealand can be discerned. Some months ago the Minister of Internal Affairs stated that, save for certain defined areas, all protection would be lifted from the herds because of the damage they did to forests and agricultural land. Since then various acclima- ! tisation societies have protested vehemently against the proposal. Xow there has been another pronouncement against the deer by the Minister of Labour. He accused them especially of threatening the existence of native forest. Probably the acclimatisation societies will return to the charge in defence. Most of the arguments heard have been on very general lines. Information on the subject can be found, however, which is much more precise. About four years ago an officer of the State Forest Service made inquiries and drew up a report on the damage done by deer in .the forests and plantations of New Zealand. This document, which was formally presented to Parliament, contains the official indictment of the deer. As the question is before the public, it is interesting to follow the charges formulated by this officer. At the outset it must be realised that only red and fallow deer are included. The sarabur, wapiti and moose, the chamois and other mountain breeds, are not accused of depredations. Either they are few in number or their haunts are so remote that they have not made their presence felt. The herds of red and fallow deer distributed throughout the hilly and forested country of the Dominion are estimated to contain 300,000 head. These animals are, practically speaking, all the descendants of about one hundred specimens imported at different times between 1861 and 1909. At first they were liberated on land thought to be worthless. Some of it hafe since become valuable, while the great powers of travel the deer possess have enabled them to penetrate country in which it was never intended they should be established. To these facts can be attributed the beginning of the agitation against them. The first charge made against the deer is that they have proved excessively fertile. They have multiplied to a degtee certainly never contemplated by those who introduced them. They enjoy climate conditions favourable to their multiplication, and are completely immune from the attacks of natural enemies. Until over-stocking limits their food supply they live amid abundance. Even when the pressure of numbers is felt they manage to survive where domestic stock would die. Made bold by necessity , they encroach' on settled land, levying toll on the pastures and-often destroying growing crops. Fences do not stop them, and rivers fail.to bar their progress. Yet despite their powers of foraging they eventually feel the pressure of want. Then degeneration sets in. Overcrowding, inbreeding, and lack of food for the development of body and horn leads to weediness. What shooting is done aggravates the process, for the hunter naturally singles out the best animal with the finest head, so that the poor specimens are left to carry on the life of the herd. Realisation of this fact has set some of the acclimatisation societies to the work of rigorous culling. Where it has been systematically carried out the general standard has improved. The first count against the herds then is that they are so great as to threaten the quality of individuals. Though the inquiry was conducted primarily from the forestry point of view, the research officer also considered the agricultural aspect. He drew up the indictment already quoted, with the addendum that in hill pastures the presence of the deer was most markedly detrimental. It was essential, he said, that this country should be rested periodically by the withdrawal of stock. Yet, even if sheep and cattle were withdrawn, the deer gave it no rest, so that presently it became exhausted and useless. Instances from Marlborough, Nelson and Otago were quoted. He estimated that the 300,000 head of deer displaced roughly 450,000 sheep—cattle being considered an terms of sheep for calculation —at a cost of some £IBO,OOO a year. Against this he put £7OOO as the estimated value of licenses, expenses incidental to the sport and attraction of visitors. The debit is £173,000 per annum. The damage done to forests was not : assessed in money, for it could not be.

Forest land is the favourite habitat of deer in New Zealand. It gives them shelter, shade, concealment, and food. They browse upon the undergrowth and the lower foliage of many trees. In doing this they interfere with the natural process of regeneration. The undergrowth consists either of young trees or of the natural shelter under which the earliest processes of development take place. Both are eaten by the deer, so that the perpetual renewal of the forest for which nature provides is stopped. With the process of clearance the forest floor dries with the winds and the hot weather so that germination of seed does not occur readily. The hardening of the soil and the opening up of the dense jungle-like tracts expedites water-flow, causing a predisposition to flood in rivers running from wooded watersheds. Signs of this have been definitely noted in the Hunter Valley, Otago. ' Tracing back to causes, the operations of deer on the hills have been given the blame. In native forest and in exotic plantations young trees have bees i'o;uv ! browsed over, broken

down and ring-barked. At Whakarewarewa all varieties of conifers, especially pinus insignis, have been found to* have suffered severely, the bark in particular being attacked. The summary of the case against deer in the forest is that native growth is treated so severely that regeneration virtually ceases; the planting of exotics in deei country develops into a direct offensive by the forester against the deer. So deeply does the Forest Service fear the menace that it has recommended unrestricted shooting without regard to the age or sex of the deer, and at all seasons of the year. It even suggests systematic poisoning in districts where unfavourable ground makes stalking too difficult. This series of charges docs not profess to be an impartial statement of the case. It was drawn up on behalf of the Forest Service, which values timber more than deer. It is the indictment, not the verdict. ■ The other side of the case must come from those who object to the lifting of restrictions. They have protested against what the Government proposes to do. It is for them to show cause why protection of the deer herds should'continue.