WILD LIFE PROBLEMS

Taranaki Daily News, 31 January 1930, Page 16

WILD LIFE PROBLEMS

THE SOCIETY’S POLICY REPLIES TO QUESTIONS.

(No. 5. —By “Mamaku.”)

Arising out of the articles on wild life control written by “Mamaku,” following ar© the remaining questions submitted by him to Mr. L. 0. H. Tripp, president of tho New Zealand Acclimatisation Societies Association and of the Wellington Society, and the answers siipplied by Mr. Tripp: Q. 6: If the acclimatisation societies do not put on and pay men for culling, can any real results in culling be expected through the agency of the acclimatisation societies 'i Reply: Most of the societies affected have employed men to, cull, and in many cases supplied free ammunition, and many have paid bonuses for deer destruction. In addition the Department of.-Internal Affairs has paid h- ./ bonus for the destruction of deer in ■ certflin districts where. there is no protection.- In the last four years returns the Wellington -society of deer killed have been 12.529; to the Otago so- ; ciety approximately 12.000; in the last three years North Canterbury society have killed • 70'00; Waitaki society for two years, (3884; the Southland society have returns for the last four years for approximately 10,700; and last year’s returns for the Westland .society was 1500. I have not received returns from the other societies, but in addition to the returns for deer killed we know . many have been killed by people who made no returns, and or which numbers, of course, there is no record. I understand that all societies ai\e actively engaged in culling. Q. 7: In the opinion of the acclimatisation societies how many head of deer per annum is it ’ necessary to cull in order to cope with' the annual increase, and at tho same time reduce the existing herds? Reply: This depends to a large extent on the number of doer in New ; Zealand, which is a’matter of . conjecture, and not estimate. In the nnountainous bush dad regions of South, Westland and the National Park. Southland, and in some of the high lands in the South, tho cost of materially reducing the numbers will be heavy • unless some safe means of poisoning can be found. It is contended by the ‘ societies that in many,#other parts of ■ New Zealand the deer herds by. syste- ’ matic culling have been much reduced, and are now practically under control. ■ Q. 8: Do the acclimatisation societies agree with the following statement by the Commissioner of State Forests: “Either the pigs and deer had to be destroyed, or the forests would be destroyed. There was no middle course”? Reply: No, the societies think the above statements are too wide. Where the deer are not under control they, of course, do much damage, but there is no doubt that the cattle, pigs, and goats contribute in some parts to the damage < • attributed to deer. Furthermore, in tho past the forest reserves have not been securely fenced, and cattle have been allowed to wander into the reserves, and many have gone wild. If the deer are really under control in the forest, the societies . think that' the damage they would do would be very little. Q. 9: Why did the recent conference of acclimatisation societies’ representatives in Wellington go into committee to discuss the-question of unity of control v, divided control? Reply: Prior to • the conference another society had submitted to my -, society a scheme for putting wild life under another department. This had apparently been mentioned in the Press, because two members of that society’s committee interviewed me, and informed me that the scheme was • not an official scheme from their society, as it had not been considered by tho whole committee. For that reason I said that we would discuss it in committee. Q. 10: Is not the real reason for the . declaration by the acclimatisation societies’ conference in favour of divided control, financial benefits received: that under this system five of the ' societies, for instance, have been able td accumulate liquid assets to the ex- ! tent of £22,549? Reply: The societies contend that the animals, birds, and fish in New Zealand ' can be much better controlled by the 1 various societies, whose council in • nearly every district is composed of leading business men who devote gratuitously an immense amount of time (and "often at considerable private expense) in the interests of acclimatisation. These men have toll knowledge of the physical features of their district and the wild life there’n. and also of their enemies, including poachers, and being on the spot they are available for immediate consultation in cases of emergency. Should a central ■ board of control or other similar body be appointed in Wellington, can these numerous business men all over the Dominion be expected to take as much personal interest in the work? I would point out that' the actual work ' of ranging- and protecting our an : mals is done by stall'd of rangers who act under the* direction and guidance of the council of the various societies, and furthermore the members of the council, through their country friends, frequently receive private information of considerable interest to the protection of our wild life, which information would probably in many cases not .be available to the officials of a board of control or other similar body. Amongst the liquid assets referred to is the sum of £5550 belonging to the Southland society, invested with the Public Trustee, the proceeds' of a sale of an endowment. The Southland society only receives the interest. The Southland society has agreed to find certain moneys for research. The Otago “society has been accumulating moneys _ for the urgent purpose of erecting a hatchery and the necessary outbuildings, and has agreed to . find certain moneys for research. The Canterbury society, I understand, has lately sold its hatchery, and is building a new one. It also has agreed to find money for research. The Wellington society at the end of last year had a credit balance of £5OOO. Against this there were certain commitments. The Wellington society has no endowments, and I personally think that we should have a reserve. So far we have the sum of £2900 invested. For many years we had to work on an overdraft guaranteed by the members of the council. Since we received the opossum revenue wo have been ablo to do much more .ranging, aiid have been spending moneys’ in research, and have agreed to continue to do so. We had allocated certain moneys for the destruction

of stoats, weasels, and other vermin in our forest areas, if the protection is taken off the stoats and weasels in those areas. Wo have no superannuation scheme, and, in my opinion, we should have some money available so that we are able to give something to our old and valued servants,, when through old age they have to retire. The question of whether or not it is possible to support a superannuation scheme is now being gone into. Then again, the opossum revenue must in all probability materially diminish in the future. There will probably have to be a close season for the whole or portion of our district. As the society's expenditure is now heavy I think we ought to have suflicent money in hand to be able to keep going without reducing our work, even if we have a close season for opossums and our native game. THE QUESTION OF CONTROL. Q. 11: How do the acclimatisation societies justify their statement that “the control exeicised by the Department of Internal Affairs in the administration of the Animals Protection and Game Act has ’ been wisely exercised and should not be disturbed,” when deer have been allowed to increase to the present menacing proportions? Reply: The societies recognise it is advisable that' ! a Government department should be a controlling body, and are of the opinion that the control exercised for so many years by the Department of Internal Affairs has been a wise bne and the department has the means of obtaining the best advice in matters pertaining to the wild life of the Dominion; Can it be for one moment suggested that the increase of the deer in New Zealand has been the result of inefficient control by such department? The only way the deer in the mountainous regions referred to could have been kept under control was by spending, veryz large sums of money which the Government of the day wore not prepared to spend. Q. 12: How can the Internal Affaire partmental field stall’ to control wild life in this country- when it has no field staff with which to do so? Reply: No departmental, field staff can hope to control and keep down the increase of deer and control the wild life of the Dominion on account of the great' expenses involved. A departmental filed .staff of control wild life and to render efficient service in this respect would require special training and receive its instructions from a local committee or council which has local knowledge and takes up the work because of the love of and interest in wild life. Q. 13: What is the justification for the ‘ Internal Affairs Department continuing . control of deer, when, after having had its attention called to the menace, it has allowed the estimated 1 number of deer in this country to increase from 300,000 in 1922, to the present Menacing proportions? Reply: Answer to No. 11 covers this question. It is an absolute impossibility for anyone to say the number of deer there were in 1922, or the number there are to-day. Q. 14: What are the qualifications of the Internal Affairs Department to come to the final decision in questions affecting wild-life matters? Reply’: This is best answered by stating that it has the benefit of many years’ experience in exercising such control, and has means of. obtaining the best advice, and that such control has <riven general satisfaction, and no other department has any better qualifications and no cause has been shown to the contrary. Q. 15: What Tight have the acclimatisation societies to receive deer licenses revenue when they do not expend anything at all in culling? Reply: This question is not correct as far as many societies are concerned, and large sums have been and are being spent in culling deer herds and supplying free ammunition, and in some districts subsidising the Government bonus. ;

Q. 1G: What right have the acclimatisation societies to receive 50 - j r cent, of the opossum revenue when the opbnsums live on the forests and the State Forest Service is faced with lack of means, in controlling deer and other pestu ? Reply: The societies have in the past spent large sums of money in obtaining and liberating opossums, and in the ranging and protection of them in their various districts. The opossum was first put- under the protection of the societies in 1889. In 1912 the Government of the day took off the protection of the opossums, and the societies took up the battle on their behalf. The societies’ representatives spent an enormous amount of time and went to considerable expense in obtaining all, the information that it was possible for them to do on the habits of the opossums. I personally wrote to the Government of every State in Australia, except Western Australia, for information, and eventually in 1916, after much work and after presenting all the. information we had, collected to the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Government of the day restored, the protection. The' societies always contended that they did not want the opossum protected in Nelson, Hawke’s Bay, or any fruit district. In those days we had no thought of getting any revenue from the opossums, but as I told the Minister of Internal Affairs that, if the opossums were protected and the turning out and killing of opossums regulated, eventually New Zealand would have a trade in the opossum skins approaching the fat lamb trade. The Forestry Department now gets half the revenue from opossums, and they would never have got this revenue if it had not been for the action of the various' members of the different societies. The question suggests that all the opossums come from the State, forest. This is not so. A very..large number of opossums are taken on private lands and lands belonging to other bodies. Q. 17: Is there not an alliance between tho Internal Affairs Department and the acclimatisation societies, inasmuch that the latter support the former in its failings, while the former grants the latter, very decided privileges and financial benefits? Reply: Certainly not. This question is impertinent, and should never have been asked.

Q. 18: What right have acclimatisation societies, as such, to receive revenue from the shooting of native game, which they did not'acclimatise ? Reply: The societies since their formation (many of them being in existence from thirty to forty years) have been the sole bodies conserving and protecting, not only our native game, but also all birds and animals absolutely protected. principal work has been ranging within the means available, and thereby helping to protect the native game and other birds absolutely protected from extermination by poachers. May I point out that very large sums have been annually expended in this matter by

- BUY—-

the societies for many years past, and until 1921 practically the only revenue received by the societies was from the sale of fishing licenses. The anglers have, therefore, in the past uncomplainingly “footed the bill” for the protection of our native game and protected, birds. Is it-.not reasonable, therefore, that the societies should receive the revenue from licenses to shoot native game, which, owing to the adequate protection they have received through the work of the societies under judicious control, are reported to be more than holding their own, in spite of the rapid increase of the Dominion's population, the drainage of lagoons and swamps, the destruction of native bush, and the cultivation of lands? These results are surely eloquent testimony to the good work of the societies. Q. 19: Has not the time arrived to review the. wild-life policy of this country and effect real control which will be in the interests of all concerned, and therefore of the country? Reply: The societies believe that the control of the wild life of the Dominion has been, taking everything into consideration, efficient, should not be disturbed, and that if a referendum of the people of the Dominion were taken it would undoubtedly result in a wholehearted support of the present policy of control. Q. 20: Why do members of acclimatisation ' societies support divided control of- wild-life matters, when, as business men, they would not tolerate it in their own businesses? Reply: The societies contend that the control of wild-life matters, except as regards the stoat, weasels, ferrets, etc., is not divided as stated in this question. The control is exercised solely by the Department of Internal Affairs, whose policy is satisfactorily administered by the various societies ' with special knowledge of the requirements and difficulties of each district. A conference of the various societies meets in Wellington annually or bi-annually as occasion requires, when the various matters affecting the welfare of such wild life are fully discussed and considered, and appoints competent executive officers resident in Wellington to attend to any necessary matters between the conferences. The control of the stoats, weasels, and ferrets is under the Agricultural Department, and these animals are protected. These animals are the enemies of our native birds, but I am doubtful if the farmers would ever agree to these animals being placed under. the control of any department or body other than the Agricultural Department. We are now trying to have the protection taken off these animals in those districts where there are no rabbits. In conclusion, I am of opinion that in the interests of the country and our native birds and wild life the present control should not be interfered with, but there should be co-operation between the societies and the different Government departments interested. The replies given by Mr. Tripp will be the subject of a further article contributed by “Mamaku.”