DEPREDATIONS OF KEAS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25798, 20 March 1945, Page 7

DEPREDATIONS OF KEAS

Sir,—With reference to the letter in your issue of March 9, signed " Kea,” on the subject of the deputation of the Lake County Council headed by the chairman to Mr W. E. Parry, Minister of Internal Affairs, at Queenstown, I would ask what* the object of your correspondent is in writing this desfcreditable article? Has he an axe to grind with the members of the deputation, as their integrity is not' in doubt by the public? These men know what they ‘are talking about, as their statements are based on experience and reliable information which has been given to them by owners of high country property. I know beyond doubt that the number of sheep quoted (6625) is under-estimated, and not over-estimated. Obviously our friend has no sheep to lose, and thus the kea menace is not costing him one brass farthing. He refers to keas living in the bush. It is quite natural for birds to go to the bush, but they are not feeding on bush. We do not contend that every kea is a killer of sheep, but may I ask how does our friend arrive at the percentage of keas that take to sheep killing? The runholder arrives at his loss when the percentage of loss goes up considerably above normal. He looks around for the cause, and he discovers the presence of keas on his sheep country. He finds that a considerable number of sheep has been killed by these birds. Owing to the rough nature of this country it is only possible to find a portion of the sheep killed, so we credit the keas with a reasonable estimate of the shortage above normal loss. I have no hesitation in affirming this to be a very reliable estimate irrespective of how many keas may or may not be sheep killers.

The kea is living and breeding on Crown lands. The people occupying Crown lands pav rent and rates for grazing sheep and not for having them killed by keas. Should the loss of sheep killed by these birds exceed the normal increase of lambs, llten, at that point the end is in sight of that particular property as a grazing proposition, and it must be abandoned for sheep. This surely is a national loss. Would our friend still contend that the Government has no interest in this and should do nothing to protect a national asset.—l am, etc., One Who Supplied Information. Lakes District, March 16.

The directors of the Paretai Dairy Company have asked us to state that it was not by them, but bv the Director of National Service, that an appeal was made at a sitting of the Armed Forces Appeal Board for the exemption of a cheesemaker in their employ. It is not t'heir poliev to appeal on behalf of their employees. They have lost practically all the members of the factory staff to the armed forces.

The secretary of the Milton Primary Production Committee, Mr A. Tweed, informs us that, contrary to a statement in our report of the Armed Forces Appeal Board sitting at Milton on March 15, the aopeal by Mr W. Hallahan in respect of a' farm hand had the full support of the committee.