LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Chronicle (Levin), 1 October 1947, Page 2

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

DESTRUCTION OF SHA(xS Sir, — I understand that there is a determihed effort being made by the Acclimatisation Society of Manawatu to destroy as many shags as possible — in fact to try to exterminate them. Rookeries are to be located and an appeal. is. made to farmers to help in the work of destruction. It is alleged that shags are destroying many thousands of trout, and it is also stated that -examination of the stomachs of 2883 birds over a period . of ten years revealed 18 eels and 15,805 trout. If your readers will do a little simple division sum, they will see there is something "fishy" even in these figures, for they work out to about five and a-half trout for each bird over a period of ten years — about half- a trout each year. Would any sportsman grudge a handsome and interesting bird for twelve months a mere half trout, especially, too, as shags prey on eels, which in turn devour the fish? There is another aspect to be considered. George Mack, a noted ornithologist of Gippsland, has stated that "post-mortem examination of birds' stomachs can be a very misleading performance." In "Cormorants and Lake .Fishery," he points out that "there are^wo methods of stomach examination to determine whether birds are a menace to fish: (1) The bulk method; and (2) the numerical. For instance, by method one, the stomach of a cormorant distended by one large marketable fish compared to the stomach of another bird containing 70 anchovies or gobies (non-marketed) would by the numerical method count as 70 to one in favour of the nonmarketed form of fish, and therefore in favour of the cormorants, whereas by the volume method the fesult would be as. one to one. The numerical method as applied to our shags is not a fair way, as it does not give any idea of the part played by the different kinds of organisms in the bird's diet." Then again, do the public realise that the spotted shag, one of the most beautiful of our marine birds, is absolutely protected by law? It cannot swallow large fish, but, in spite of this, it has been terribly decimated by enthusiastic sportsmen. Also the lovely white - throated shag, which lives on eels and crabs, and the rough-faced shag of Queen Charlotte Sound are also protected by law, but the latter is almost extinet. I should like to call the public's attention to the law of the land, which says: "Any person who takes or kills any of the above birds, or sells or has in his possession . any protected birds, or liests, eggs or feathers, is liable to a fine of £25 for each offence. Moreover, all guns, launches, yachts, motor-cars, etc., used or intended to be used contrary to the provision of the Act are liable to seizure or confiscation. Lastly, I appeal to the young people of the district and ask them why a few enthusiastic fishermen should lay down the law as to which birds are to be ruthlessly destroyed? The desire to kill these interesting birds is mainly a selfish one — more sport, and sport of a kind which cannot be indulged in by the majority of the people. There must be many more people interested in preserving our native birds than there are trout fishermen. May I conclude by summing up my arguments? Firstly, there is no direct evidence that shags do more harm than good to trout. They live partly on eels and eels in turn prey on trout. To disturb the balance of nature is always dangerous. Secondly, shags are interesting, handsome birds, and several species are absolutely protected by law. Thirdly, Acclimatisation Societies, instead of dictating to and inciting young, or old, people to obey their destructive behests, would be better employed in repenting in sackcloth and ashes for the way in which they have helped to ruin a once lovely country. The animals introduced by them for purely selfish reasons of sport, the deer, oppossum, chamois, etc., have helped to denude our noble forests. It is time the public kept a strict check on the activities of such societies. Yours etc., "NEW ZEALANDER." Otaki, Sept. 30.