WAR ON SHAGS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21920, 4 April 1933, Page 10

WAR ON SHAGS

ro the editor. . ■ • Sir,—While admitting that shags devour a large number of trout, they are not the worst offenders, especially at the present time, when rivers are so low. In the district in which I Jive it is a common thing to see youths going down to the river with long-handled spears, even in broad daylight. Of course, it is eels they are after. They would not think of putting a spear into a trout! After dark it is a common thing to see . lights up and down the river, and it is not anglers either, as the river is unfishable on account of the weeds and slime. The ranger can’t be blamed, as be can t be everywhere at once. I also know for a fact that there are sugar bags full taken out of streams not far south of Dunedin. A few heavy fines would go a long way to stopping this poaching. I am, etc., ANGLER.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir —Congratulations on your leader in your issue of March 29 regarding shags. It is certainly a most peculiar attitude of mind amongst these Acclimatisation Society people that they nearly always blame some bird for the rapid lessening of trout and shooting birds. The writer thinks that the destruction of the native forests is the main cause of trout depletion, because without these the streams become erratic in flow and the cover and fish food are washed away to sea. This, combined with over-fishing, legal and illegal, is undoubtedly the cause of game depletion. Poaching in all its forms, for instance, was never so rife as at. present, and I will undertake to say that if game birds were as numerous to-day as they were 30 years ago from three to five years hence they would be back to their present numbers. It is slowly evident, even to some acclimatisation societies, that trout must decrease and game shooting disappear under the present system of permitting uninformed .People to decide on the intricacies of wild life matters. The president of the Auckland Society considers game will disappear in 10 years from now. Five years is probably nearer the mark, and this should cause hunters and fishers to pause and consider what is to be done to conserve their interests in the future. —I am, etc., E. V. Sanderson, Hon. secretary New Zealand Native Bird Protection Society. Wellington, March 31.

TO THE EDITOR Sir. —T wish to add my quota to the protest against the destruction of the I shag. You are to lie congratulated lor ■bringing this very important matter before the public, and no doubt public interest has been aroused to the necessity for the protection of our native birds, W.ad the Acclimatisation Society showed s.'imie concern for destruction of the deer, wteasel, and stoat, they would have the w\iole-bcarted support of the people ot tin? Donimion, but we will not stand for tbe» destruction of onr native birds. We had' at one time several bcautilul birds

that have become extinct—the kakapo, kiwi, saddle-back, blue heron, and others that. I. have seen in plenty. They have disappeared and cannot be replaced, to they are in no other part of the world They will never be seen again. ine weasel and stoat must be credited with this wholesale destruction of our native birds, and who is to blame for bringing these pests into the country? And now we have a few thoughtless people wanting to help on the destruction in place o£ trying to preserve and protect the few birds that are left. It is high time that the Government passed legislation to protect all native birds in the Dominion. As I am a lover of our birds, and have had the opportunity and pleasure of seeing them in their natural haunts, I would support any extreme measure to protect them. Regarding the shag depleting our streams of trout, I don’t agree with this suggestion in the least. I w lU Jl u< i* e an instance of shags and fish 50 to 60 years ago. At Jackson’s Bay there were landed from the steamer a number of diggers and settlers. Around the rocks of the bay there was fish in plenty, and shag* by the hundred. It was quite common to see 40 or 50 fishermen around the rocks, and every one, after a couple of hours, going to his camp with a bag ot fish. In course of, say, a year the complaint was that we could not gat many fish—they were becoming scarce. Row, when we landed there the fish and shags were in plenty, but after we had our sport for a few months the shags were still there but the fish were gone, or, in other words, the demand was greater than the supply; and the same thing applied to the rivers and creeks along the coast. There were fish and shags in plenty until the people got to work with nets and lines, and the demand became greater than the supply. And so it is with the fish in this country, the demand is greater than the supply, and they blame the poor black shag. Five years ago I fished frequently about the river and streams of the Taieri, and I only met the same few fisherman. This last year or so, when the season opens, or at holiday time, there are hundreds of rods where five years ago there were only half a dozen. The motor car has made all the difference. The shags takes a certain amount of the small fish, but our anglers take all the big fish. They take the- big fish that go up the creeks to spawn, and consequently do the damage by taking the big fish that would by Nature keep up the supply. The shags don’t bother about the big trout, but the angler and the poacher look for them with fly, minnow, worms, spear, net, explosive, etc. —I am, etc., Harry J. Cuttance. Outram, April 3.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —In the early sixties there were few shags in Wanaku, more especially at Albert Town, at The junction of/the Haweu and Upper Clntha; Rivers. We would sec--.6in.v- about bvo or six, alb the black kind, and they were so tame That we bovs could walk quite close to them when they were roosting. The feed was not extra plentiful. There .were three kinds of small native fish in the river, and the shag had to work hard for his living, and it required many of them to fill him up. The shag did not seem active enough to catch insects. 'I here were no

eels small enough for him to swallow. Gradually the shags were exterminated here. Early in 1876 some trout fry were liberated here. By degrees afterwards the shags increased in number as there was a fine supply of trout for them, and they foraged about all over the district. Early in this century I had an irrigation race made, and then kept full a, big dam three miles from the Upper Clutha which 1 previously made to hold rain storm water. This contained innumerable tiny crimson crayfish, which I never saw anywhere else, and the horses would swallow thousands every day. . I put in the dam over 100 derelict small trout, which were in the last stages of starvation, and they throve amazingly and soon grew to the size of herring®. A big black shag then found them out and cleaned them out, although the water was rather cloudy, and he was too wary for anyone to get a shot at him. Then I was away from Wanaka for 15 years, and came back for a lengthy holiday about seven years ago. All the native little fish were gone, doubtless exterminated by the trout, and I was surnrised one day to see 27 black shags sitting on top of the high bank of the river opposite the pioneer cemetery. A tew days after I saw a black shag catch a trout the size of a herring in the rapid current opposite the cemetery and swallow it at once. There was another kind of little native fish in Oamaru and neighbourhood, but they are also, eaten by the trout, no doubt. Without a doubt the shag will eat small eels up to the size of a candle. That has been proved, and they will also sat freeh-water crayfish but these are now nearly extinct. They will eat frogs when they can- get them, but frogs are not everywhere, and a stray water rat or a mouae will not go amiss, and a shag was once seen to eat some rabbit entrails. The smaller white-bellied shag was m Wanaka, but they confined themselves to the lakes. It would be straying away from the point to write in detail of the now extinct native fish it* Otago.—l am? Richard Normah.