DEER MENACE.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18583, 2 June 1930, Page 4

DEER MENACE.

RECENT CONFERENCE REPORT TO SHEEPOWNERS* UNION. At a meeting ot the Canterbury Sheepowners' Union. Mr R. C. Todhunter, delegate to the recent conference to consider the menace caused by deer, submitted the following report:— There were far more delegates representing different interests than I thought possible, the provincial Council Chamber being particularly full. Barring Government interests, there were none whose pocket it actually touched except the sheepowners. The general impression gained from the meeting was that the total extermination of deer was the ideal aimed at. This, of course, is impossible, but if total extermination is aimed at, some control may be gained. After listening to the various delegates, none of whom had any concrete proposals as to the methods of destruction and control, I told the meeting that the sheepowners wished to see the last of the deer, and in doing, so pointed out that the Government did not want to let it go out to the public that deer were open to all and sundry to shoot. If this were done, sheepowners’ properties would be overrun with indiscriminate shooters who would be a worse menace than the deer, or they would disturb stock which in the high country runs might mean heavy losses and extra mustering expenses—besides indiscriminate shooting would only scatter deer far and wide without kiling many, and in the long run would lead to increasing their numbers. It was pointed out by the Government that under the present Trespass Act, runholders had adequate protection, but on back country runs of big areas a runholder would have to send special men out to the back .to keep indiscriminate shooters off, and they should not be put in the position of having to get convictions as it means attending Courts with witnesses, and then if you manage to get a conviction, the penalty as a rule is not sufficient to deter others; besides, the expense of witnesses and loss of time in attending Court is a big matter for a back country man.

Runholders should have absolute control ever their own country, and that any destruction should be done only by experienced men, who should be under control of some Government Department or local authority. I had no suggestion to make as to destruction, but at the same time Ipointed out to the Minister that chamois and thar were increasing fast, and that it was the Government’s duty to take immediate steps to deal with them.

Suggestions to Government. Now, I would like this meeting to send a letter to the Minister of Internal Affairs, giving our views on the destruction and control of deer; tc draw the Minister’s attentions to the fact that of all the different interests represented at the Conference, the sheepowners were the only ones whose living was affected by the deer, and therefore they should be given first consideration; the Land Department make Government runholders plant trees which deer destroy—with a decrease in carrying capacity already; runholders are entitled to some compensation for loss through deer, that all unoccupied Canterbury Government land under control of Commissioner of Crown Lands Department, Forestry Department, and any other Departments be immediately cleaned up as far as possible of deer; that the Government appoint only expert men to do this, these men to be licensed and under the control of which Department they are working for; that runholders either leasehold or freehold, have absolute control of their own properties; and that men shooting on unoccupied land adjoining any run first get permission from the said runholder before shooting, so as stock should not be disturbed, but that the runholder must fix some suitable time for culling, that the Government cullers be at the service of the runholders if required; that runholders keep deer under control, if not the Government to put their cullers on to do the work; that all skins must be stamped by the Government before being sold; that a small fee be charged for license; that licenses be issued by the Government or some local authority, and that property owners, and their employees be eligible for licenses unless there is some reason otherwise; that the Government increase the subsidy per tail from 2s. to 4s. and with the price of skins at say ss. this will do more to get deer under control than anything else, and should give employment to a number of men during the winter. High country musterers are the most suitable as tliey know the country, and it would give them employment during the slack time; that the penalty be made heavy for unlicensed shooters, and that Government rangers and cullers prosecute; that it is the opinion of sheepowners that unless the destruction of deer is kept strictly under control, and done only by licensed experts, the menace will become worse than ever, and that indiscriminate shooting must be put down with a firm hand. As for stalking, it will be found once deer are under control, that is. as near extermination as posible, the better the heads will become (more feed means better heads), and the stalking will be worth while; that the Government take immediate steps to put these proposals into force.

Four years ago a party of deer shooters went out with dogs during lambing. The ewes were driven out of shelter to the far end of the block where there was no shelter. That night it rained, and 40 dead lambs were counted in the morning.

Only a few weeks ago a party again was out with dogs and put sheep back over a saddle on to country just mustered. This had to be gone over again, and had there been snow such as in May, 1923, they would have been lost.

From these two instances only it will be seen that the strictest control must be kept, and that Government rangers be instructed to prosecute any unlicensed shooters, also for a good heavy penalty. On one run aone, carrying 10,000 sheep, 2000 deer have been killed during the last four years. Take a deer as equal to four sheep, it meant carrying 3000 less sheep if they had not been destroyed. Destruction has cost that runholder hundreds of pounds, and he is entitled to sound compensation. Make the subsidy 4/- per tail and you will at least give runholders a chance to get their culling done for a smaller cost. Let the Government start at once on the chamois and thar about Mt. Cook. The guides should be able to do something. They are spreading at a far greater rate than anticipated, and have been reported as far north as Nelson, while at the head of the Waimakariri, Wilberforce. Rakaia, and Rangitata, they are in fairly large numbers, and are even on many of the high peaks and rough places in the front hills. Five were seen on the face of Mt. Hutt a fortnight ago.