NATURE- AND MAN

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 83, Issue 36, 13 February 1939, Page 6

NATURE- AND MAN

CARE OF NATIONAL PARKS DISASTER IN AUSTRALIA

usihieu ox Leo rannmg.j Three months before disastrous fires destroyed many thousands of acres of Victoria’s best woodlands—including some sanctuaries—an Australian magazine, “Wild Life,” had an article headed: “Are National Doomed?” “Concern is being expressed both in New South Wales and in Victoria about the fate of the areas which have been reserved as sanctuaries for native fauna and flora,” it was stated. "Two factors, n i seems, are at work to destroy the effectiveness of the reservationswholesale picnic traffic and grazing:' hence arises the demand, which LI steadily growing, for the declaration and rigid protection of ‘primitive areas' similar to those which have I been been reserved in progressive•; lands abroad. “An important conference of representatives of Victorian clubs and societies convened by the Federation of Victorian Walking Clubs, discussed the matter last month in Melbourne, with a view to seeking Government action. The discussion is centred in present conditions at Wilson's pro- ! monfory in particular. This promon- • tory. the southern-most point of the j Australian mainland, is particularly i well suited to reservation as a prim:- ■ live area. It is extensive; yet it. j iorm makes it possible to isolate it by’ the mere closing of a narrow neck of : land. Furthermore, the area is—or! was. according to observers who have been there recently covered with • good natural scrub and forest proviii-| ing an excellent home for most kinds i of natural fauna of the State, and including flora of many types which are well worthy of protection. “The reservation was formally made man; years ago. but the grantof grazing licenses has reduced its effectiveness. “The gravamen of the complaints i now receiving attention from the! societies lies in tne fact that, in the | period covered by the grazing licenses, much of the most valuable part of the j promontory from the conservation ; point of view has been devastated by i. frequent fires. As a result, much of j the original flora has disappeared, and with it most of the animal inhabitants which the sanctuary was de-1 signed to protect.” It is suspected that deliberated | scrub-burning during hot dry weather] by grazers is responsible for the

recent enormous loss of forests. Similar stupidity in New Zealand has , caused much loss of native bush. ‘ The Godwit —A National Asset. < In reference to the “medical inspection” practised by godwits (men- - tiored in a recent “Nature—and Man” column) Major J. R. Kirk, a well- : known bird-lover, sent me this note: —''What a National asset we are al- < lowing to be blown into smoke! The 'medical inspection’ featured is but 1 on* of many attractions provided by i these daring adventurers, and when 1 the public realise their value. I can imagine (just as In the case of the gannets near Napier and the albatross a’! Otago Heads) many people journeying in this case to the North, to Witness the departure of the orderly battalions. But we must first secure total protection, and I hope the Forest and Bird Protection Society will not relax the splendid assistance to this end which it has long been capably affording.” In “Stars in th Mist.” the late D. M.. Ross had a good poem on the gotwits'

Hight. Readers will notice that the poet evidently had a mistaken impression that godwits raised their families in New Zealand before the anual migration to Siberia. The Flight. Day after day I saw them gathering From all along the desolated tide— Fleet-winged old Kuakas on pinions tried And strong young birds on still unproven wing. Day after day—and then not anything But empty air and o can vast and wide, I knowing only how my heart had cried At their so seeming treason to the spring. Here had they nested; on this tawny shore They raced between Ihe foam lines on the sand. Then flew to Arctic summer from the south. I heard them pass; heard, 100, the waves deplore The disavowed ami solitary land - The sea-rime raw and bitter in my mouth. Comparison of Birds’ Songs. It is mentioned by A. 11. Chisholm in "Feathered Friends" (Australia) that John Burrough, an eminent American naturalist, once attempted to compare the birds of Britain with those of his own country, chiefly in regard to their songs. In setting down his impressions he pointed out that the charm of the song of birds, like that of a nation's nopular airs and hymns, is so little a question of musical excellence, and so largely a matter of association and suggestion, that it is perhaps entirely natural for every people to think their own feathered songsters the best. On the whole. Burrough was of opinion that a certain Duke of Argyll erred in thinking British birds sang better than those of America. He conceded that America had no singer of its kind to rival the skylark, and he gave high praise to the nightingale; but he thought the American hermit thrush a more melodious and more spiritual singer than the English thrush, and he named o-ther American species that

seemed to him to be better vocalists than kindred birds in Britain. His general impression was that British birds sang more persistently, and that their voices were louder and more vivacious. but that the American birdchoir was a larger one, and embraced more good songsters, than that of Britain. By the way. Captain Sanderson, president of the Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand, declares that the bell-bird strikes the first note in the early morning chorus—the true bell-bird chime, not the notes which are an imitation of the t"i’s chant.