NATURE AND MAN

Southland Times, Issue 21930, 3 February 1933, Page 4

NATURE AND MAN

VARIOUS THOUGHTS. “SPORT” OF KILLING. (Edited by Leo Fanning.) Glancing through a file the other day my gaze was arrested by a heading “Save The Godwit” on a letter published in a Wellington paper over the signature of Mr J. R. Kirk. It was a very eloquent plea for pity on behalf of harmless birds, which breed in Siberia and migrate to New Zealand for the summer season here. Other writers rose in different districts for the godwit, but did they win against the kill-ing-craze of so-called “sport?” They did not. So again, this year, when the godwits are mustering in the northern part of the Dominion for their long flight across the ocean the guns of heartless unimaginative “sportsmen” and “sportswomen,” too, will take toll of them. This slaughter will not be done by hungry persons in search of food. Wellfed New Zealand does not need the little bodies of godwits for its pots, pans or ovens. No, the killing will be for “sport.” Oh, “sport,” what cruelties are done in thy name against birds and other creatures! The canine teeth of man are reminders of his descent from savage ancestry. In many individuals the old primitive instinct to kill is still strong, but it is glorified by the name of “sport,” which is often nothing better than organized systematic butchery of birds and beasts in one-sided warfare. Philosophers say that the human race is progressing to higher things, but the rate of advance is very slow for many of us. How many more centuries will be required to put butcher “sport” out of court in human affairs? Meanwhile, friends of the high humanitarianism must do their best to put the right impress on young folk, for casehardened “sports” are usually loth to listen to reason, and are apt to decry as “old women” the critics who dare to question the fairness of their killing pastimes. Need Of More Bird Sanctuaries.

Preceding articles have mentioned that some New Zealanders, whose estates include some noble stands of native bush, have the power to increase the number of sanctuaries for birds. It must be remembered that the making of safety zones for birds ensures not only the preservation of threatened species; this policy also gives the birds a chance to spread beyond the boundaries of those special areas. In one of his bright helpful articles on the birdlife of Kapiti Island Mr Johannes Andersen remarks:— “It is known that several of the birds on Kapiti visit the mainland when the flowers are in bloom; it is also known that of the tuis that go many do not return, but remain on the mainland. A great advantage, therefore, of having these sanctuaries scattered about New Zealand is that they act as nurseries from which the greater part of New Zealand may again be replenished with our characteristic birds; and if they are encouraged and left unmolested, as they are on Kapiti, then the people of New Zealand generally may experience the enjoyment I had during my three weeks of real holiday. These notes were written with a view to transmitting some of that enjoyment to such as care for these things, and I believe them to be many.”

Blunders in Acclimatization. One of the numerous parodies of “Alice in Wonderland” was headed: “Alice in Blunderland”—a phrase which could be applied to some of the work of acclimatization enthusiasts. New Zealand can be fairly termed the “wonderland of the Pacific” from some viewpoints, but in certain matters it is a “Blunderland,” and acclimatization is one of them. A little more than a half a century ago, keen observers of mistakes in the field of acclimatization had begun to sound notes of warning, but they were regarded as voices in the wilderness. In his book, “Out in the Open” (first published in 1882) Mr T. H. Potts, as intelligent as he was ardent in his love of nature, wrote:— “It would not be a matter of much regret if the present irresponsible system of acclimatization were stopped before mistaken zeal results in further errors. This is a delicate subject to deal with, and I trust it will not be considered impertinent to question the infallible wisdom of acclimatization councils. The time may come when the sparrow controversy may be revived here; when that grand bird, the black swan, useless or unsavory as food, a disturber of the broods of less powerful Anatidae, may be regarded as an acquisition of doubtful value. . . . Acclimatization societies might expend some energies in the re-establishment of the most valuable of our native fauna. This would prove a useful if not a very showy occupation; dwellers beyond the narrow confines of our shores would take an interest in the progress of such work; yet it must be candidly avowed that attempts in the direction indicated would be attended with little of the eclat which now accompanies the announcement of every newly introduced wonder, and advertises each local society.”

More blunders have been made since the days of Mr Potts, and altogether New Zealand will be compelled to suffer immeasurable and irreparable losses as the result of stupid mistakes in acclimatization, and the unwillingness of successive Governments to take timely effective measures against disastrous nuisances, particularly the devastating deer.

The Friendly Hedge-Sparrow. Although the hedge-sparrow is not a “native,” I like to think of it as a cousin of the grey-warbler, although that notion would, no doubt, shock an ornithologist. The hedge-sparrow has the modest, friendly demureness of the warbler and similar habits. They are both sworn enemies of insect pests, and they both seem to have no appetite for fruit. In a note on the warbler, Mr Potts remarked many years ago:—“The fruit grower need not take alarm about this bird; its habit is purely insectivorous. The writer noticed a nest built in a currant bush with the branches of the crimson berries ripening against the sides of the nest and left all untouched by the parent birds and their tender offspring.” Probably the hedge-sparrow would have a similar attitude, but the temptation would be too much for that “adopted native bird,” the lovable little whiteeye, which likes juicy berries, whether grown by man or by wild Nature. However, the white-eye does so much good as a destroyer of harmful insects, grubs and blights that man should not begrudge it a little fruit as wages. The Bird Mind.

A preceding article mentioned the difference in intelligence among birds of the same species. This truth was again impressed on me recently by a pair of hedge-sparrows which made a home and raised a family in a whitebroom bush in my garden. There were many suitable nesting-places available, but they deliberately chose a bush flanked by two grassy paths, so that the birds’ abode was almost in the fairway of traffic. However, they built their nest and had eggs before anybody knew that the broom-bush had tenants. Indeed, their enterprise might have remained secret if one of them had not suddenly fluttered from the bush once when I happened to be standing very close to it. That flutterer was evidently the less intelligent of the pair, for I later perceived a difference in their

sense. The shrewd would approach the nest very cunningly by stages. It would flit about in a roundabout way, and then suddenly disappear in the broom. The other would sometimes fly from a distant tree to the nesting-place—a sure clue for any onlooker. “Mobbing” the Morepork.

Reference has been made to the sense of tuis which chase cuckoos from the vicinity of their nesting-places. Similarly birds, which suspect the morepork of designs against their lives, will give one of these owls an unhappy time if they find it dozing during the daytime. The first bird to see the slumbering morepork gives a cry which is both an alarm and a call, for soon many birds are drawn to the spot, and the owl’s peace is rudely broken. Angry little eyes glare at him, and many little beaks threaten him. For a few moments he tries to awe his persecutors by baleful stares and some formidable noises, but he soon decides that flight is better than fight, and flutters off to a darker part of the forest.