SHOOTING OF PUKEKO

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22219, 23 March 1934, Page 7

SHOOTING OF PUKEKO

OBJECTION TO; CLOSE SEASON

LOCAL SPORTSMEN DISSATISFIED

| Dissatisfaction at the decision of the ; Department of Internal Affairs to declare a close season for pukeko is felt by the Otago Acclimatisation Society, whose atti- ! tudo is similar to that of other societies in New Zealand. “We feel rather sore i about it.’’ said Mr G. E. 'turner, a member of the council of the local society, yesterday, “and the Government has been influenced by the Bird Protection Society. In Otago, around Lake Waihola and the Upper Taieri, there are such,.big swamps that there is no chance of the birds being cleaned out. It is admitted that at limes they become a nuisance and do a lot of damage to stacks of wheat and oats, pulling out the straws for the grain, and if there is a close season the birds become verv cheeky.” Mr Turner added that farmers had a right to apply for a permit to destroy pukeko, but that privilege' was abused. He mentioned an application a couple ox years ago, when a man secured permission to destroy pukeko, and the return given, which was required under the terms of the privilege, was only three tiros. They could not have been such a terrible nuisance if no more than three could be caught. On one occasion poison was laid for them at Waihola, and 400 birds were destroyed. That would have provided shooting for all round Dunedin. A short season kept 'the birds down, while not permitting .them to be destroyed in unduly large numbers,', and he thought that the fanners also would find a short season satisfactory,; as in many cases it would not be necessary for them to apply for permission, to'destroy pukeko. Two years ago when there was a short season there was a drive round Patearoa which cleaned up 1000 birds, and another drive in the same season accounted for 200 or 300 more. The Acclimatisation Society was just as anxious as the Bird Protection Society that birds should not be wiped out, and would not advocate open season if there were any possibility of that. “We claim that we are just as much a bird protection society ns they are,” Mr Turner added, “ and, indeed, we were responsible for the institution .of game sanctuaries. The Bird Protection Society .takes up an attitude which would lead people tq believe that we pro out to shoot-tuis ,and other songbirds. There was enough dover in Otago, Mr Turner said, for. the birds to protect themselves. Some vears ago there was a close season, when about 24 permits were granted in Otago. One was granted, in Waikouaiti, and, to the society s own knowledge, there coul.d not have heeii 50 birds in the whole district. The society claimed that where permits- weie granted it should be empowered to send the ranger out to investigate the position and see that, the claim was not merclv an application for permission; to shoot' the birds for sport. A season of onlv a fortnight, with a limit of 10 birds a day, would be sufficient to keep pukeko down to reasonable limits. In some districts farmers were . actually poisoning pukeko without permits. ,- ... Speaking of the Governments decision to fix no limit on the bag for mallarjl duck, Mr Turner said that most of the societies' throughout New Zealand had spent a good deal of money trying to introduce these birds. It was a contention that they crossed with the grey duck, but he believed that this happened only in .certain areas. There were not a great many mallard duck in the interior, because they had a habit of going out to sea in the dav time and coming in to feed at night. Most of. the population was around the coastal districts, and the inallard duck provided sport and helped to conserve the grey duck. , There was some dissatisfaction also at limiting the season for grey duck in Otago to only one month while oilier districts had two months, and an effort is being made to persuade the Minister to extend the season to two months. Incidentally. the Otago Society had limited the : number /of decoys to ■ls instead of 25, as before. •