A PLEA FOR THE HARRIER.

Forest and Bird, Issue 15, 1 July 1928, Page 23

A PLEA FOR THE HARRIER.

Lack of knowledge is the chief reason that many species are placed on the “black list.” Thus, birds of prey generally are almost universally condemned. Yet, as with the kestrel, Britain’s most numerous “hawk,” common - sense, backed by observation, is gradually replacing prejudice. On many game reserves to-day this little falcon goes unmolested after generations of persecution, for it has been found that partridges, pheasants, etc., are only taken when very small, and even then the pressure of hunger seems to be necessary. On the other hand, it devours large numbers of rats, mice, moles, etc., to say nothing of various species of injurious insects.

So with our own harrier. May we not be premature in making it an outlaw! One frequently sees the same controversy revived from time to time in the press: “Is the harrier harmful or beneficial?” Sportsmen generally and Acclimatisation Societies in particular condemn it on account of an occasional pheasant or quail. Here it may be as well to point out that very few people indeed have actually seen a harrier strike a game bird. In the majority of instances it is a case of having seen the bird rise from a carcase. This, however, proves nothing. Nearly everyone knows how partial the harrier is to carrion as witness the easiness with which it is captured by a baited trap. Even though the victim’s body be fresh and even warm, that proves nothing, for the harrier has remarkable sight and quickly discovers a tasty tit-bit. Some farmers also condemn the harrier because they maybe lose a fowl. This loss is usually impressed upon them by the wild

commotion that occurs in the poultry yard, or the discovery of scattered feathers and picked bones.

Other - farmers are more observant. They see things more fairly; • The remains of a fowl, like the remains of a pheasant, do not prove that the harrier captured the bird in the first place. It may have been a cat or a stoat, and in some instances a rat. Should a “hawk” be caught red-handed, they endeavour to shoot or trap it. This is the most logical course to pursue. We do not seek to destroy all dogs because one or two become renegades and worry sheep.

The harrier does quite a considerable amount of good by catching rabbits, the young ones in particular falling an easy prey. It also devours a very large number of rodents and insects such as crickets and grasshoppers, and here we open up a fresh question: How much grass do these pasture-haunting insects devour? This subject would yield some surprising results to an enterprising observer. If some idea was gathered of the amount eaten by one individual and this multiplied by whatever was considered the average number to an acre, I venture to say the loss in grass would be astonishing. It is not everyone who is fortunate enough to have unlimited time at his disposal, but if the opportunity occurs, it is worth while watching the ravenous appetite of a grasshopper and seeing the rapidity with which even a coarse pasture leaf like paspalum is devoured.

Judging by the amount of really reliable information we have, it would seem that the good done by the harrier at least balances the harm. Yet it is condemned. Surely the Powers-that-be are not so ignorant of that wonderful thing called Nature, as to take the birds of prey as a class and label them a menace to other bird life! On the contrary, the dashing falcons keep the species they prey on from becoming degenerate by continually weeding out the weak and undeveloped. Perhaps, had New Zealand possessed a reasonable quota of preying beasts and birds, we should not have to-day the degenerate kiwis, wekas, and other birds with their useless or almost useless wings. They would be better able to hold their own against the carnivora we have introduced.

But the harrier lacks the dash and courage of the falcons, so can hardly be considered detrimental in any way to our native birds or of even playing an important part in preventing degeneration. I do not advocate allowing the harriers to multiply unchecked, for that would probably result in an insufficiency of food for all, and in consequence the bird would become a nuisance. Nor do I agree with the plan of putting a price on each bird’s head (or rather feet), for this tends to encourage ruthless slaughter.—(S. D. Potter.)