A PROTECTED BIRD

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXX, Issue 5500, 13 November 1929, Page 2

A PROTECTED BIRD

SHOT FIRED TO SCARE.

CASE IN PAEROA COURT.

W. O’Hara appeared in the Paeroa Police Court on Monday charged before Mr F. W. Platts, S.M., with attempting to take or kill a pukeko, a protected bird. He pleaded not guilty.

Sei’geant Calwell, for the prosecution, pointed out that the'Act read whether a person killed a bird or not, the mere act of attempting to take, or firing at one, rendered a person liable to prosecution. In this case the bird was not killed. The offence also took place in the close season. Constable McClinchy said he had interviewed O’Hara on the subject. O’Hara stated that he had shot twice at the bird and it flew away. In a written statement to the police O’Hara had stated that he did not hit the bird. He had never fired at nearby ducks. He had fired on this occasion because the son of his employer, Mrs Keyes, had told him that as soon as crops were planted the birds pulled them up. He would not use the gun again.

Mr A. T. Jones, for the defence, said that the pukekos were a veritable pest on the farm. They were so tame that they fed with the fowls and ducks. It was impossible to plant anything without them coming and pulling it up. O’Hara had only fired to scare the birds. Of course, the seeds could be poisoned, but then the fowls would probably suffer. O’Hara had fired under the authority of the owner of the property, Mrs Keyes, Junction Road, Paeroa. O’Hara, in the witness-box, maintained that he had shot to frighten the bird and not to kill it. Mrs Keyes’ son had told him to frighten the marauding birds from one end of the lagoon to the other. They caused ,a lot of damage in the garden, and were absolute pests. In answer to Sergeant Calwell defendant said Keyes had told him before he went away to fire at the birds to frighten them. Sergeant Calwell j You did not tell Constable McClinchy that when he asked you if Keyes had told you to do that. You said “no.” H. Keyes said he was his mother’s agent for the property. O’Hara was manager. He told defendant to scare the birds away if possible. Through the birds five crops had been lost over several seasons, and a second crop did not often come up well. The birds were nearly as bad as floods to the property. The food crops destroyed by the pukekos altogether amounted to several hundred pounds at the property in question. The pukekos had never been molested. He maintained that his mother’s property contained what was admittedly the? finest sanctuary in the district, a lagoon whereon ducks and pukekos bred. Pukekos were prolific breeders, having on an average 15 chicks. He was asking the Minister responsible for permission to have the pukekos destroyed. The secretary of the local acclimatisation society recognised the danger they were to crops. These birds had destroyed acres of grain on the property, and maize was essential as a winter, feed. When the floods had gone back the summer was gone, and maize was badly needed as there was no other feed. The ducks and pheasants did no harm. There were so many pukekos that if something was not done the farm would have to be abandoned. The magistrate in giving his decision said that defendant had told a consistent story. He had fired under the instructions of his employer. The case would be dismissed.

The magistrate stated that .Keyes could obtain authority from the Minister to clear the birds away if the Minister was given satisfactory proof of the necessity.