WILD LIFE

Hokitika Guardian, 15 February 1930, Page 6

WILD LIFE

question of c ontrol

DUNEDIN, February 6,

Interviewed to-day with respect tq articles which have appeared in “The Press” upon the subject of wild life control, the ,Hon. W. B. Taverner v-ommisisioner of State Forests, stated that the articles had not come under his notice until his return from tho Far North, where he had carried out an inspection of the kauri forests and investigated the problem of sand fixation .in areas threatened with drifting sand.

With the subject matter of the articles, lie stated, the Forest Service was not concerned, except in so lar as us responsibilities under the Forest Act for the control of wild lilc within the State forests wero involved Numerous misstatements and inaccuracies had been incorporated in- the articles by both parties to the debate, but lie did not propose to comment beyond those which had a direct bearing upon the Forest Service As to the general policy governing the question be had no comments to make except .that the regulation and control of deer was of vital importance to the future of tho New Zealand forests, both native and exotic. The Minister stated that at the present tunc deer constitute the most serious menance to the State-owned forests, and in consequence of their great numbers the forest floor has in many places been despoiled In many parts' of New Zealand regeneration has ceased, and the plants which furnish most of the honey and berries upon which native birds subsists are being destroyed. Deer destruction lias not yet overtakent the annual increase of the herds. Notwithstanding the unremitting efforts at control made by some of the Acclimatisation Societies, the herds have reached such proportions as to constitute a danger to the perpetuation of the native flora and fauna. That must be regarded with the gravity of a national problem. The ForestService Officers’ views thereon have been regularly and properly submitted to the responsible Ministers from time to time, and such of those as could lie made public were incorporated in the annual report of the Forest Service, or in Ministerial statement made from time to time.

The Minister stated that he did not propose to discuss certain obvious inaccuracies bearing upon the general question of wild life control, as these did not come within his province. Certain improper inferences had, howover, been made with respect to the Forest Service, which called for comment :

(1) The Department bad no knowledge of any “tentative scheme drafted by an official of the Forestry Department,’’ • nor was it represented or invited to.be represented; at the conference of AcclomatisiiQpn Societies ill question

(2) Certain extracts from the annual reports to a former Minister during 1922 and 1924 were quoted as inferring that the Service had gone beyond its legitimate and statutory mmtions That inference \yas. considered to be quite unwarranted (3) It was infeved that the articles contributed by “Manrnktt’ had been originated by officers of the Forest Servi o That was not -so.

(4) Tfc was assumed by Mr Thornton in his concluding article that the State Forest Service wished to replace or eliminate the. Societies. Tli s was not so, and moreover, their value, their rights and their services to the community were fully appreciated by the Forest Service. 'lnei'e were, however directions in which a higher degree of co-ordination of existing machinery for control could be attained. Progress in that direction was not facilitated by provocative statements attain J had not been absent from the recent coul.i oversy.

“| take strong exception,” said the Minister, “!o the reflections which have been east..upon the motives of the State Forest-:.;,Service in its work for L,.e preservation of the Dominion’s native forests ' Briefly stated the primary responsibility ol the State Forest Service is the conservation and perpetuation of the indigenous forests together with the establishmnt ol exotic forests, where climatic conditions are favourable economic reasons justify and financial conditions permit. Consequently, its present fundamental concern is the control of' extermination within State forests of destructive pests, which have been introduced either by way of acclimatisation or by domestic species which have become feral This is vital to the conservation and protection of the forests and their indigenous inhabitants, and State Forest officers, trained and experienced in all phases of the science of forestry, certainly cannot be regarded as inferior to any other existing body in ability or qualifications for the performance of duties involved in the conscientious administration of the Forests Act”