EDITORIAL “Red Gods" for Sport and Ruin for the Country

Forest and Bird, Issue 91, 1 February 1949, Page 1

EDITORIAL “Red Gods" for Sport and Ruin for the Country

SINCE 1930, when “open slather” was proclaimed against the “red gods,” it has been the accepted policy of the country that the deer are a menace and must be exterminated, if ever such a result can be achieved. At the famous conference held at Christchurch in that year it was agreed that this was necessary for the preservation of our native forests and saving the country from consequent erosion and final ruin.

This policy has been in operation now for some eighteen years, and has been so vigorously pursued by the Wild Life Branch of the Internal Affairs Department that good results have been obtained. Indeed, so successful have been the operations conducted in some districts that the deer there are now threatened with extinction and have become so hard to find that stalkers have become alarmed. They now seek to change the national policy from indiscriminate into discriminate culling.

Such a change of policy, of course, would be revolutionary, and must be strenuously opposed by all lovers of our native flora and fauna, and also by all those who are seriously concerned about the vast extent to which erosion has already taken place. Seeing that the deer have been so largely responsible for bringing about this disastrous state of affairs, it is surprising that the deer stalkers should make such a demand, but nevertheless it must be taken seriously, judging by what was disclosed at the annual conference of the New Zealand Deer Stalkers Association at Invercargill in July last. Most of the proceedings were conducted in secret, but in opening the meeting the President of the Association, Dr. G. B. Orbell, read a telegram stating that “in the Rotorua-Taupo district deer and pigs were on a par with the moa.” “That,” he commented, “seems to be a tribute to the Department’s policy of culling.” Excellent. But then he said that “things appear to be shaping satisfactorily”— the negotiations with the Department to retain deer for sport. So they were, judging by the remarks made by the Head of the Wild Life Branch of the Internal Affairs Department. Discussing the results of the 1930 conference in Christchurch, this officer is reported by the “Southland Times” to have said:

“It was decided at that conference that protection of deer must go and that drastic action must be taken to deal with them as a menace. If it had been possible at that time for the then Minister of Internal Affairs to have pressed a button and killed all the deer in New Zealand, then I believe he would have pressed that button. Control measures were introduced, but later we came to take a more lenient view, namely, that there might be deer for sport provided we could get the numbers of deer down, keep them under control and remove the term ‘menace’ from them. I think that in some areas at least we are reaching the stage where the more lenient policy might be put into operation, whereas a few years ago the Government was all out to exterminate the deer.”

This is a remarkable statement for him to have made, and shows in what direction the wind is blowing. Many people will want to know when the Department “came to take a more lenient view” and who was influential in bringing this about. Also why was the “more lenient view” never announced? When the 1929-30 anti-deer campaign was in full swing it was represented by opponents that the deer were so numerous, so widespread and so difficult to get at that they could never be exterminated, and in any case vastly reducing their numbers would cost an enormous sum of money. Now when in some districts deer are hard to find and stalking has become stalking indeed, stalkers are demanding that some must be left for sport!No one wishes to disparage the stalker, his desire for the outdoor life, his love of the chase, and his sportsmanship. These are all characteristics that go to build up a virile, hardy and self-reliant manhood, but it may well be asked is he not being selfish

in urging his present claim? Deer were never meant for this country; they are foreign to everything an all-wise Providence intended; in their native habitats there are predatory animals to keep their number always in check, and we have none here to keep them down—except the stalker, who seeks only the magnificent head. Considering the few deer that were imported into this country during the 60-year period from 1850 to 1910, and the vast numbers to which they have increased today notwithstanding “open slather” and vigorous culling; considering also the very definite menace they are to the future prosperity of the country and the heavy expenditure that has already been incurred in reducing their numbers —considering these factors it will surely be agreed that it is the height of folly to desist from completely wiping out the herds in those districts where, as a result of wholesale killing, the deer are already scarce. Such a cessation in these areas could only result in their becoming infested again, further damage will be done to the country, and the State will be called upon for ever-recurring expenditure in keeping the numbers of these pests down. It is manifest on the face of it that there is only one policy that can be pursued in the national interests. The aim must be to completely exterminate the deer in those districts where they are now scarce, and then to extend the operation to other districts until the deer are wholly eliminated from the Dominion. If it be argued that this will “spoil sport” the answer is that the interests of the country are paramount. Again, if it be said that the stalkers are being deprived of out-door life, the reply is that there are plenty of opportunities for this nowadays in mountaineering, tramping and camping, none of which do any harm and all of which inspire love of country. The issue, in short, is whether the “red gods” are to be preserved for sport, and so allowed to continue their depredations to the ultimate ruin of the country.