NATURE—AND MNA

Waikato Times, Volume 114, Issue 19010, 29 July 1933, Page 8

NATURE— AND MNA

WHAT IS SELFISHNESS. POINTS FOR SPORTSMEN. By Leo Fanning). Letters of protest have reached me from several deer-stalkers who resent any Imputation or allegation that their sport is selfish. They declare that they are true lovers of the forest and birds and are warm communicants with nature when they go gunning for deer. They also make the old claim that If the culling oT herds Is left to Acclimatisation Societies the pests will be kept In check. Well, the folk who hold that It Is more Important for New Zealand to have the native forests than the alien deer have not asserted that gunmen lack love of nature’s oharm, but they do contend rightly that the devotees of deer sport are aapparently unwilling to recognise the plain fact that deer have proved very destructive to large areas of forest. There Is an old proverb to the effect; “None Is so blind as he who will not see.”

One Must Go. The enormous Increase of deer In forested oountry Is surely proof positive that the old schemes of culling have failed disastrously. Ordinarily the animals have so many avenues of escape that control In the wilder parts of the country must become Increasingly difficult If the war against the enemy Is -elaxed. New Zealand has to choose between deer and the forests which are necessary for the conservation of farming lands —the areas which give this oountry its living. New Zealand cannot have them both. One must go. Surely the one to go must be the deer. The case against the deer has been proved beyond question by anybody except a person who Is unwilling to hear or read the evidence. Surely a persistence In this wilful, obstinate blindness to facts is a form of selfishness which puts the personal pleasure of stalking In a higher plane than the national welfare. What will stalking do for this generation or posterity If the ravaging deer are allowed their ruinous roamings In the forest? Raise More “Natives.” “Cannot the planting of conifers for profit be consistent with planting a certain proportion of Indigenous birdfeeding trees?’’- is a question asked by the N.Z, Native Bird Protection Society. That kind of planting would not be' only good for the birds but would help to safeguard the Inflammable pine forests against fire. It is well-known that some of the berrybearing native trees are flre-resisters. This truth should be more than kept steadily liy view by the makers of State and private plantations Friends and Foes of Sparrows. A report that poisoned grain has been spread on some farms for the killing of sparrows is reviving a muchargued question as to whether these busy little birds do more good than harm. The Canterbury or Otago agriculturist who sees a cloud o*f sparrows swooping In and out of his fields of ripening grain believes fiercely that this bird has no right to live. It may happen that an Individual farmer suffers sorely occasionally from pillage hy oertaln birds. Even the gentle little white-eye may be cursed by the grape-grower when the fruit. Is ready for the wine-presses. Yet, there are two sides to a balance-sheet —credit and debit—and various birds, which are decried as highway robbers, must be given credit for their ceaseless war on Insects and blights. Millions of Whito-Eyes. Who would estimate, within a million or two, the number of white-eyes In New Zealand to-day? In Wellington City alone this winter the tally of these lovable visitors would run Into tens of thousands. Probably every garden here Is visited daily by these delightful birds. That silvery rim of fairy white about the eyes gives them a quaint look of wisdom as they fossick for grubs and blights lurking In the bark or on the stems or In The buds of trees and shrubs. If garden pests had. the Intelligence and agitational prowess of human beings what a stir they would raise against whiteeyes I What angry deputations would call on the Pest Prime Minister, and what demands would be made on the Pest Parliament for the extermination of those dreadful ogres—the whiteeyes I Breakfast for Birds. Now is the special lime to remember the sweetened remnants of porridge and similar breakfast foods, as well as chopped-up fat, for the birds. The cold, lean period of the year is upon them, and they ask for human kindness In their need. Care must be taken to put this provender beyond tho reach of fowls and cats (deadly enemies of all small birds —native or acclimatised). If the cats did not mop up the milky porridge and the fat, they would be pleased to creep into ambush by the feeding-place | awaiting an opportunity to pounce

upon the birds. A story is toTcT—it may be a “tall” one—that a cat (no doubt one with a large forehead) was cunning enough to spread crumbs in a garden as a lure for birds. A Shag With an Eel. Trout-anglers have set a black mark against the black shag which they aocuse of crimes against trout, but this cormorant has a defender in Mr Edgar Stead, Who mentions that the shag wages war on eels which are deadly enemies of trout. “The calcTiTng of a good-sized eel by a shag is quite an interesting performance to watch,” remarks Mr Stead in his “Life Histories of New Zealand Birds.” “The bird dives, and presently comes up, and In Its hill Is an eel, say two feet long,' wriggling and squirming as only an eel •can; yet the shag is able to hold it without difficulty, for the edges of Its bill are so sharp that they out Into the eel’s skin and so give a good grip. After waiting a moment or two for the eel to get over its first paroxysms, the bird shifts its grip to get its prey hy the head. The ,eel Is by no means idle, and.tries to hook its tall round the bird’s neck, and so get a leverage that will enable It to twist Itself out of tho bird’s bill. The shag’s oounter move is to throw Its head forward and down, but often the fish succeeds In getting suoh a grip that the bird is for-, ced to let it go, in. order to get free of Its coils. The eel disappears under water, but the bird Instantly follows, and In a few seconds comes up again with It, and the Contest Begins Afresh. On an average such an eel will break away three or four times, but If the water Is not weedy the shag recaptures It without difficulty, and gradually the struggles of the fish become less and less violent. The shag is all the time trying *o get hold of the eel Just behind the head, and when at last it succeeds In doing so, •flings the eel straight out In front of It on the water, and, putting Its own head and neck along the surface Jn a straight line with the eeT, proceeds to gulp it down. All Is not necessarily over yet, however, for I have seen an eel half swallowed hy a shag give (no doubt when its head first came Into contact with tho bird’s gastric Juices) such a convulsive heave that it flipped Itself clean out of the bird’s throat. Caught again in a moment, however, it was quickly swallowed, the bird lying stretched along the water, back-watering its feet and hunching up its shoulders ns It gulped at the eel to get It as far down as possible. Even when swallowed there may be four or five inches of the fish’s tall hanging out of the bird's bill, but. the shag, after a rapid bath, swims or files to some convenient perch, and sits there, occasionally swallowing morn eel, as that part of it which is already in the bird’s stomach becomes digested.”