DEFENCE OF DEER.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17008, 5 April 1923, Page 7

DEFENCE OF DEER.

i .... „ “ NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGE.” THE CASE AGAINST CATTLE i (Special to the “ Star.”) WELLINGTON, April 5. In anticipation of the conference of Acclimatisation Societies and Forest Service officers on the subject of the destructiveness of deer, which will be held here on April 11, Mr G. I. Dascent, secretary of the Wellington Acclimatisation Society, vigorously contests the : suggestion that deer are" responsible for i the heavy damage to crops. He quotes I a ease where a farmer persistently complained ot a destruction to his rape crop. Careful inquiry showed that it had never been touched by deer. “ This agitation,’ l says Mr Dascent, “ "'as promoted by someone —an excellent shot—who wished to have permission to range freely among the herns with a gun. “ Far more damage is done to forests by cattle which are allowed t<S run there. Grazing permits are given to farmers by the Government to allow their cattle to graze in the forest reserves, and I believe that for every deer in the large reserve near Wellington ! there are two head of cattle. There are cattle tracks fifty miles in length, and j those heavy creatures do ten times more j damage than deer do. to say nothing of j wild pigs. L admit that in the South Island ■ deer have done damage to crops on oc- * casions, but in this district the damage j done is mostly imaginary.” Mr Dascent states that since Novem- i her 3000 deer have been destroyed in the Wellington and Marlborough districts. He asks: Jt deer do so much j damage, what are forestry rangers thinking about? They exist to protect ; the forest, and I have never heard of j the Forestry Department applying for a permit for any of its rangers to shoot ; down these animals which are supposed i to be doing so much damage to trees. ; r have never heard of them even shooting down any of the destructive wild ; cattle or ‘Captain Cookers.’ Why j should we have to go to the expense of doing the work? The forestry rangers should perform it as an ordinary protective measure.**