SHAGS AND TROUT

Southland Times, Issue 23544, 25 June 1938, Page 9

SHAGS AND TROUT

To The Editor Sir, —In reply to your first three correspondents on the shag question I wish to say that they were discussing the Big Black River Shag (Phalocrocorax carbo). During my address of June 10 last I made a plea in an endeavour to stop the indiscriminate persecution of the Spotted Shag (Stictocarbo punctatus) a totally different bird and stated that probably no member of the audience had seen one of these birds. Continuing, I remarked that these Spotted Shags tiever ate trout simply because they never enter trout rivers, being purely a marine species. Now, sir, may,. I take this opportunity of stating that New Zealand is unique in many phases of her plant and animal life. Of the approximately 37 species of shags in the world, this country possesses 16, Australia 3, and Great Britain only 2. Thirteen are harmless marine types, yet in years gone by and to a lesser extent at the present time these birds are persecuted simply because they are shags. Fishermen as a whole are largely responsible for this destruction of one of our most valuable heritages. In their endeavour to annihilate the Big Black River Shag they do not discriminate, believing that the slaughter of any species of shag is a national service.

The rare Blue Shag of Stewart Island was thought to be extinct but reappeared again in 1929, being about 200 strong today. The big King Shag of Queen Charlotte Sound is now represented by only 50 birds. The Bronze and Stewart Island Shags seen in the Foveaux Straits, one of the marvels in the world of ornithology, have been frequently shot and a price collected for their heads. The Spotted Shag now appears in only a few localities where they were originally present in thousands. A few years ago no less a body than the Auckland Acclimatization Society mi_s largely responsible in persuading the Government to declare the Spotted Shag protected l by law. This was duly gazetted on January 9,1931. But as far as Auckland is concerned it was too late. Of the hundreds of thousands of these birds in the Hauraki Gulf only about 50 remain hidden in a sea-cave which they rarely leave. The Auckland Society paid away as head money hundreds of pounds and in the end acknowledged that it was all wasted. At Curio Bay there are a few Spotted Shags, which are being persecuted probably because it is not known that they are protected. It should be made known that there is a maximum penalty of £25 for those caught killing these birds. Further, this same colony is of the greatest importance to ornithology and it is up to Southland to save their treasure before it is too late.. All the above birds mentioned except the Black Shag are protected. They exist in New Zealand alone, and once they are extinct, they are gone for ever. I had intended, sir, to defend the Black Shag but I have already trespassed on your space too far. I may do it in a further letter if necessary. I know they eat trout, but people who open the stomachs of Black Shags count the trout only and ignore the rest. In short, they collect the evidence for the prosecution but do not bother about that for the defence. Is that British fair play? “Hold Hard’s” story'of the 63 shags is interesting. A similar one appears in Mr Edgar. Stead’s book on New Zea-, land birds, page 10. Mr Stead was able to catch trout in the pool after a swarm of Black Shags had passed through it, undisturbed by the observer. But perhaps Mr Stead is a better fisherman.— Yours, etc.,

L. E. RICHDALE. Dunedin, June 21, 1938.

To The Editor

Sir,—ln an apparently officially inspired article headed “Hawks and Shags,” the Hon. W. E. Parry directs attention to alleged killing of trout by shags without in any manner indicating the species of shag referred to. Such statements are apt to lead the public to believe that all species of shags attack trout, and thus they feel incited to kill all shags, including protected species which do not frequent rivers. Included in these absolutely protected shags is the rare spotted shag, which is not structurally equipped to swallow a trout, and which has paid a heavy penalty, as the result of sweeping statements such as the one in the article referred to. Such remarks cannot be regarded seriously by those who expect research to be accurately conducted by people competent to analyse stomachic contents and give the credit or .discredit as the case may be to the species concerned.— Yours, etc., E. V. SANDERSON, President Forest and Bird Protection Socfety. June 22, 1938.