OPOSSUMS

Hokitika Guardian, 19 October 1928, Page 2

OPOSSUMS

ARE THEY AN ASSET?

RISK OF DAMAGE TO FORESTS

“It is doubtful whether any other country possesses such a history ol mismanagement and lack of .foresight in the introduction of fauna as-New Zealand. Where.,man introduces mammals and birds to a new country, wtili|iut exercising efficient control over theip: 'lifter their successful establishment, the result is usually detrimental.”

tolThus. 'rifns ; an article in the current 'it&ue oftf'lthe- official magazine of the 'Canterbury. College School of Forestry, mud the rwritbr'. goes on to apply the afgun)cuts';7to\-.i'Key'<)p.oHsMm. That opos-i sums.do eat;birds’; eggs- is an indisput--ed fact;* but , little information has •been' collected as to the exteiit of such' practice. 77 “in the /eighties, and- ‘nineties,’’, states the article, “various acclimatisation bodies and private persons intro-; ducecl the Tasmanian and Australian opossums, and they, were liberated in several different parts of the Dominion. They adapted .themselves to the new conditions, which were ideal, and multiplied rapidly, spreading over many parts of the country. They were free Ifrom their natural enemies, tapping being the only thing which limited thei. numbers. , “ The effect of the opossum on our forests, however, has caused considerable argument. Past reports of the Director of the State Forest Service stntes that its economic value as n furbearing animal much outweighs the very slight-damage that it causes, and repommend the etxension of the opossum trapping industry by closed seasons in over-trapped areas, and the release of animals in unstocked regions. 1 On the other side a number of observers throughout the Dominion report on damage done by the opossum both to native and exotic forests and also as to their effect on native bud life. Those who are opposed to the opossums certainly have all biological and silvicultural principles with which to support their argument. “As the opossum lives on many of the foods necessary for the welfare of the birds, it may cause much damage in this direction. In. ordinary seasons of plenty the effect may .he small : 4' is in. the lean year that it comes into serious competition with the birds for food supply. By killing kotukutuku and rata, it reduces the sources of available foods, and the continual presence of the opossum in one district might result in the extinction of these The opossums was liberated oif Kapiti Island in 1897’, and by 1919 it had , considerably altered the supply of native bird foods. ‘

“ Opossums are not present in any plantations in large numbers up to the present, but where they are present they have usually* caused some damage. “Before accepting the opossum as an asset and encouraging it, the authorities should take into account every future possibility. When deer were liberated few people thought that they would become the pest that they are now. A healthy stocking of native birds for pollination, seed dissemination, and insect control purposes will be required. It as impossible that the opossum, for its fur-bearing qualities, would be encouraged under such conditions, where it is a factor (perhaps small) against the regeneration and permanence of our timber and protection forests. “The supporters of the opossum assume that the price obtainable for the skins will always be sufficient remuneration for the labour expended in trapping them, and then they will always be able to be kept under control by trapping. But is this assumption correct? Will there always be a demand for opossum skins, and if so, might it not be supplied by fanning the animals under control, with the production of skins at a price that would render the trapping of the wild animal unprofitable ? Silver foxes are •farmed commercially in Canada, and the production of raooit skins in England from rabbit farms is greater in number per annum than that exported from New Zealand —perhaps the opossum will be added to the list of commercially farmed animals.”