NATURE—AND MAN

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 283, 3 December 1935, Page 5

NATURE—AND MAN

DESTRUCTIVE ROADING SPOILING NATURAL ASSETS. (Edited by Leo- Fanning.) Admirers of natural beauty in the great Tongariro National Park are conerned about needless road-making schemes— 14 sops to the lazy,” as one critic has termed them —which open the way to a gradual marring of natural charm. One commentator mentions “that while the Government and Parliament were willing to vote £3,500 for the continuation of an unnecessary road in the marvellous park no money was available for the saving of a beautiful stand of forest. “For the last year.” the complainant states, “the only foiest on the mountains has gradually been diminishing in area through the operations of the timber millers. This sub-alpine bush is on the northern side of the Tongariro Range, and it should be part of the park. It extends or originally extended from Papaki, near the Ketetahi hot springs, to To Mari, a beautiful belt of tall timber and a great resort for native birds. It has often been urged that the Government should secure this belt by purchasing it from the Maori owners, who were quite willing to sell, and add it to the National Park area, which it adjoins. But no one in authority appeared to trouble the matter or to realise what a necessary addition this

realise what a necessary addition this would be to the volcanic and alpine park. When enquiries were made on the subject, the reply was that there was no vote on the Estimates for the purpose. Now there is that £3,500 vote for a non-urgent purpose, a sufn which could be devoted to a pressing national need, the saving of this small but precious forest for the public. “In a few months this bit of the anvient forest will have been wiped from the face of the land, au irreparable loss, unless the Government Departments that should be concerned about it bestir themselves to save it. It will be a greviou reproach upon administrative wisdom if this remnant of the mountain bush belt is suffered to disappear because it was apparently- no one’s business to preserve it. Here is a very urgent matter of forest re-cue which the bush protection bodies should V&e up at once and make a subject of inspection, inquiry and action. ’ ’ Will history repeat itself? Will the call for New Zealand go unheeded? Wil] the screeching and moaning of the timber-millers’ saws replace the songs of the birds? Active Lovers of BeautyNew Zealand has plenty of lovers of natural beauty, but far too many of them merely figures of “still life.” Thev may sigh among themselves about vandalism but they give no help in the checking of desecration, and offer no real assistance in the cult of beauty. In contrast with that limpness, it is pleasant to read reports of the Hamilton Beautifying Society’s plan for planting trees on both sides of the Hamilton-Cambridge highway which is thus destined to be a noble avenue —a street of charm for wayfarers. No doubt the Society will not forget trees which yield nectar or berries for native birds. Similar projects are under •consideration in other districts. In some cases thc“consideration’has been going on —“carefully” it may be presumed for some years. Butchery of Godwits. Bird-lovers are again pleading for the protection of godwits, the brave waders that fly regularly between New Zealand and Siberia (where thev nest). It is reported that some godwits have raised families in New Zealand, but such action is exceptional. The hereditorv urge to migrate sends flocks of the birds from the Dominion at the end of April or the beginning of May. Constant appeals bv the Forest and Bird Protection Society have had only a limited result —the shortening of the shooting season from three months to two months (February- and March V There is no sport in the slaughter of godwits, whi'.di are easily ambushed. Who needs them for food in such a country as New Zealand which produces a superabundance of meat, butter and cheese? Surely birds, about to begin their wonderful tight over thousands of miles of ocean, have a claim on human admiration and should be saved from callous pot-hunters’ guns. The Habits of Coots. The other day in a perusal of “Bird ■ lore.” I learned much more about roots than I knew when I memorised the first verse of Tennyson’s “Brook” in boyhood:— ‘•'l come from haunts of coot and hern; I make a sudden sally And sparkle out among the fern To bicker down a valley.’ As the word “coot ’ has long be used as a svnonym of foo] and blockhead mv curiosity was aroused. Here is the note of an expert observer: — “Coots cackle, screech, groan, grunt, whistle, sob. fight and tumble through the reeds like the candidates for Bedlam which thev are proverbially supposed to be.” Those words make one feel that some of the hecklers at political meetings during the recent election campaign could be fairly described as human <r coots.” The coot is a water-fowl which looks ’ like a compromise between a swamphen (such as the pukeko) and a duck. Birds’ Right to Live. Annihilation is the sentence which some tvpes of sportsmen would impose on any bird which they suspect of trving to make a living on “forbidden food.” That is why they wish to wage war on shags and black-backed gulls. This matter is the subject of a thoughtful article bv Roger T. Peterson in “Bird-lore” (published by the National Association of Audubon Societies, America. “Do you know what territory is?” He writes—“ Birds observe territorial rights the same as human beings. The kingfisher especially. The male bird will defend his half-mile of stream against all other kingfishers. This assures his mate and their family a steady supply of food without depleting the stock of fish in the stream too much. Man alone does not recognise the importance ot restricted fishing. Twenty or thirty men will whip the same half-mile of stream with their artificial flies and when the fishing finally dwindles away they blame the poor kingfisher—or the herons or one of the other fish-eating birds. Thev don’t stop to consider that the kingfishers and herons were living along the stream for centuries

and the fishing still remained good. W. L. McAtee, principal biologist of the U.S. Biological Survey, writes: “The very name—‘fish-eating birds’— implies encroachment upon the food supply of mankind, an implication that is essentially false. The results of all •comprehensive investigations of the foo.d habits of these birds agree in indicating that under natural conditions the bulk of thir food consists of fishes not directly utilized by man. The underlying reason is that these fishes are more available to the birds, usually because they are more common and easier to catch.' ’