The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. “Luceo Non Uro.” MONDAY, JUNE 10, 1935. RUDE OR WORSE

Southland Times, Issue 25307, 10 June 1935, Page 6

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. “Luceo Non Uro.” MONDAY, JUNE 10, 1935. RUDE OR WORSE

Departmental clarification of the letter mentioned by Dr. Ritchie Crawford last week, shows conclusively that active antagonism exists between two departments on the subject of deerstalking. The Department of Internal Affairs, judging by the statements of the Minister, Sir Alexander Young, is determined to get rid of the deer. Now, the department may have good grounds for this decision, but if it has decided to exterminate the deer one would expect it to go about the matter in a more businesslike way. Instead of giving a job to a party of cullers, it might achieve its purpose by widening the scope of the attack and offering better terms for deer skins. But those points are of secondary importance at the moment. We' are concerned with the fact that the Tourist Department is active in endeavouring to bring stalkers to New Zealand, with guarantees given under the Government’s authority, of good sport, and the Department of Internal Affairs is not only busily engaged in killing off deer, but it declares quite openly that it does not want these overseas stalkers in the Dominion, and that it will not go out of its way to encourage them. In fact, if the Minister’s words are to be taken as an indication of the departmental temper, it is not too much to say that the department is rather pleased if the course of its operations discourages the visitors. If that is so can the department give an assurance that the action of the deer-killers in shooting over a block a few days before the visitor who had engaged it arrived was not deliberately planned to discourage visitors? Even if the department can give this assurance, there is no indication that this sort of thing will not happen again, and the Government’s advertisements promising deer-stalkers good sport in New Zealand is a piece of misrepresentation amounting to fraud. Evidently the Minister of Internal Affqirs has forgotten that his department is only one part of an organism of which the Tourist Department is also a part, and that if a difference of opinion between the two results in the Government’s assurances being made worthless it is the good name of New Zealand that is involved and not the dignity of any Minister. Instead of committing himself to statements strongly indicative of a feeling of personal independence, the Minister of Internal Affairs should see that the Government is not made twofaced. If the Government is determined to wipe out the deer, let it set about the task in proper fashion, and let it indicate to overseas stalkers that it is unwise for them to come to the Dominion. But if the Government continues to invite stalkers to come, let it disclose to the Minister of Internal Affairs the fact that the part is not greater than the whole, and should not take up an attitude which commits the Government to a policy 7 of fraud. There is no reason why the Minister’s killing gang should not proceed with their campaign, but the desire to lessen the deer menace need not make the department discourteous and churlish to overseas visitors invited by the Government, whatever may be its behaviour in dealing with New Zealand stalkers. This matter has gone so far that something decisive must be done. Either the Tourist Department must cease to urge stalkers to come to New Zealand, or the Department of Internal Affairs must abandon its rude independence.