PROTECTION FOR NATIVE BIRDS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20689, 11 April 1929, Page 2

PROTECTION FOR NATIVE BIRDS.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— Your recent leading article on the paradise duck and the article in yesterday’s Daily Times on the keas by E. E. Muir afford two striking illustrations of the hopelessly unscientific .way in which we practise control of wild life in New Zealand. Our native birds are noted for two_ things—their uniqueness and their rapid disappearance. The birds we have left have been described as <f a dissipated remnant of the most interesting avifauna on earth, wasted largely by the folly and negligence of those whose first care should have been its preservation frr posterity." It is not necessary here to dwell on the details of the deliberate introduction of rabbits, _ stoats, and weasels, and on the wilful importation of small birds and rapacious species such as the brown owl. It is no use crying over spilt milk. But we should try to rectify as much as possible the blunders of the acclimatisation societies. For some time the decrease of the native birds went on at such a rate that it became a habit to assume that most of them were inevitably doomed, fortunately, we now know that, by careful and scientific .conservation, many birds that were previously thought destined to become extinct will survive and may even increase. What is required now is positive work such as the elimination, as far as possible, of ground vermin, the planting of such native trees as supply bird food, the careful reservation of nestmg places, and, most important of all, unity of control of all wild life. As long as acclimatisation societies have anything to do with the control of our native birds, so long will the birds fail to receive the treatment due to them. After all, it is only human nature. The societies are composed of “sportsmen" whose one idea of a bird is that it is something to shoot. Further, the societies are not unmindful of license fees. An example of this attitude is provided by the recent case of the paradise duck, there is no doubt that the feeding habits of this magnificent bird sometimes lead it to damage crops in limited areas. But it is also certain that the damage that is committed can never be other than of trifling proportions. If the small numbers that are now found can do serious damage, why was it that the countless thousands .which used to breed in the bouth Island river beds did not make the growing of crops, impossible? Now, due to protection for; some years, this bird is increasing in various localities and is even extending its range into hitherto unvisited districts. The sight of the birds evidently caused the trigger fingers of certain people to tingle, with the result that the Minister was approached to lift the protection. He lias done so, with the excuse that “it will be a good thing for the ducks. It should be pointed out that the open season has been declared without any proof that damage to farmers has been done during the past year. Our Native Bird Protection Society is subsidised by the Education Department 1 " w ork ,iu our schools. As a result ot bird study, hundreds of our teachers and pupils are practical bird protectionists. What will be their feelings when they see that they protect the birds in order that a few sportsmen may enjoy the slaughter on May 1. If the birds did excessive damage in one particular district, then there would be some argument for a short, open season in that district, but to prescribe universal slaughter is beyond the bouudsvof common sense. It can definitely be stated that the kea has not had fair play in the sefise that no proper scientific investigation has ever been made ot the “ The only attempt at a' scientific- inquiry was made by Mr J. G. Myers, of the Department of Agriculture, in 1023-24. After sifting all the available evidence he came to the following conclusions;—“ From the examination of tea’s stomachs there can be no doubt that these birds eat mutton. It has been proved also that dead sheep and other carcasses are devoured by them, binding of mutton in the stomach is, therefore, no proof that the sheep were killed by the birds. There is considerable circumstantial evidence, together with direct testimony of sheep owners and shepherds, that keas attack living sheep. But the strongest priif against the kea lies in the occurrence of the peculiar wounds near the sheep’s loins. It may be accepted as provisionally true that some keas do attack sheep, but it is very probable that only odd keas actually do the attacking. An analogy can be drawn with the man-eating tiger. The kea is still a common bird, end if every or even every other kea attacked sheep to a much less extent than is often asserted, sheep farming wjuld he no longer practicable in affected regions. There is no evidence that keas from other districts travel to sheep country aiid there commit depredations among the nocks. It usually happens that, "where the local birds have been thinned or shot out, the trouble ceases. The whole question of subsidies is an economic one, and has been too much obscure.! bv unhealthy sentiment on both sides, j'f the progress of sheep farming, were served by the killing of the innocent along with the guilty, if the trouble among sheep were lessened by slaughtering kens where there are no sheep or where sheep are known definitely not to be molested by the birds.

then ample, precedent could be found for the justification of such a measure. But is such the case? ” These are the conclusions arrived at by a responsible officer of the very department which has paid out for keas’ heads £3233 of the taxpayers’ money,, since the above was published in the department’s official journal. Five shillings a- head appears to be good pocket money for keakillers, but it is an expensive amusement for the taxpayer. Babbits do harm to farmers, and dogs often worry sheep, yet the taxpayer does not have to pay the farmers.to destroy the dogs and rabbits. if keas did as much damage as is alleged, sheep farmers _ should be quite willing to do all the killing in the affected districts without any special subsidy being required. In other than sheep districts, the keas should be left alone. The money spent last year alone—£763 —would be more than enough to make a complete scientific survey and settle, the matter once and for all.—l am, etc., • ' PUTANGITANGI. Dunedin, April 10. THE C.O.D. SYSTEM. TO THE Er.ITOR. Sxe, —It has been decided by the Government that the “ cash-on-delivery ” system shall cease. This decision affects the masses of the community. It means that henceforth the qpportunity of securing certain necessities at a reduced price, through a convenient channel will not be available ■to sections of the community whose financial resources preclude them from securing in the local market those same necessities which profiteering has converted into luxuries. To state this position in another way, it means that the local trader is invited by the present Government (through the extinction of competition) to indulge in a general priceinflating campaign. The action which has closed the doors upon the ‘ c.o.d. ” system, with the depnvation it involves to sections of the working class, is surely not in tune with those promises by which individual members of the present Government secured their chance of office. It scarcely tones ji colour of that ** liberalism ” so ardently professed by the Leader of the United Party. It means that a Government dominated by the farming industry has given place to one obeying the greeddictated terms of the business sections. It has not taken the United. or Ward Government long to reveal its partiality the extent to which it dominates the inberahsm flaunted by the Prime Minister, whose pre-election intentions are h ear iug fruit with a vengeance. It should, however, be borne in mind that the position of the United Party is not so secure that its Cabinet car, afford to antagonise directly that .section from which it accepted the votes that elevated its members to the Treasury benches.’ Has ~r J. OSe Ph Ward lost sight of the implication made by Mr Holland anent the future attitude of labour towards the minority ’ Government? He evidently has lost sight of the fact .that, in its present position, by numerical voting strength, the United Party is decidedly a' minority section in Parliament.—l am etc., E M ’ St. Hilda, April 10. '' r