THE NEED FOR BIRD PROTECTION IN NEW ZEALAND.

Forest and Bird, Issue 15, 1 July 1928, Page 13

THE NEED FOR BIRD PROTECTION IN NEW ZEALAND.

Read at Geneva Conference on 21st May, 1928, by J. G. Myers, Sc.D., F.E.S., New Zealand member of the International • .. ■ - Committee for Bird Preservation .

New Zealand is noted for some of the most remarkable birds in the world. No fewer than 78 of the species, including practically all the land birds, are endemic. Nor is this all, for a number of the families and very many of the genera occur nowhere else in the world. I need only mention the Apterygidae (kiwi), the Strigopidae (kakapo), the Xenicidae (wrens), and need then emphasise no further the scientific interest of New Zealand birds, and the paramount ornithological importance of their efficient preservation. The economic value of the indigenous birds has been treated at length in a series of articles by Atkinson and the present writer. It emerged that the vast majority of the species are directly or indirectly beneficial to agriculture and forestry. The forests of New Zealand are immeasurably important from the viewpoint of timber, of water conservation and the prevention of erosion, and their existence is indissolubly linked up with that of the birds which are confined to them. No fewer than 15 per cent, of the forest woody plants and trees are pollinated apparently exclusively by birds, while the seeds of 60 per cent, are dispersed by the same agency. This is apart altogther from the value of birds as destroyers of noxious insects.

The effects of colonisation on the indigenous avifauna have been very great, but it has long been the fashion to exaggerate their inevitability. It is, of course, inevitable that country which is permanently settled should in time take on the semblance of an; English landscape without that mellow beauty which is England’s own; but there still remain in New Zealand large tracts of forest, and probably a greater proportion of sanctuaries and reserves compared with the total area than in any other country. The effects of colonisation on the birds may be briefly referred to under the following heads:—

1. Total Destruction of Habitat, with consequent wholesale alteration of food supply. The marvel is, not that the indigenous birds should have decreased and in some cases disappeared from the settled districts, but that so many of them should have adapted themselves more and more to such an unparalleled change of conditions. As Guthrie-Smith has remarked, it is almost impossible for a true bird of the forest to live in. fields of grass or of turnips. A very pleasing feature is the coming of

the tui ( Prosthemadera ) and the bell-bird ( Anthornis ) into the middle of some of the larger towns to feed at the flowers of the introduced Australian Eucalyptus tree. Buller once believed the latter of these two honey-eaters to be extinct on the mainland; yet it is now common in many suburban gardens.

2. Introduced Animals. — Here is undoubtedly the second greatest factor in the decrease of New Zealand birds; a factor, however, of far less importance than (1). Cats, dogs, stoats, weasels, ferrets, rats, pigs—some introduced accidentally, others intentionally—all are taking toll of the native birds, and no measures of any kind whatsoever are being employed to check them. As usual, of course, man himself is one of the most destructive of these introduced animals, either in his capacity of hunter or of collector. The opinion is still widespread that the native birds are doomed, and that we may as well take our share of them, whether for the pot or the museum, before it is too late. But this is a grossly exaggerated view. After a stocktaking of the endemic species, I wrote in 1923 that “eight endemic species have either increased in one or more localities, or appeared in places in which they were hitherto unknown; five have definitely decreased since 1905; and thirty are either easily and obviously maintaining their ground or in no worse position than in 1905. Four species were extinct long before 1905, chiefly through fires and collectors.” Of the remaining species there was insufficient evidence of former or present status, or both, to venture an opinion.

In addition to the weasels, some 26 species of foreign birds are naturalised in New Zealand. Research is needed into the the effects of their competition, direct or indirect, on the native birds.

3. Fire.— This is the chief weapon of the farmer in the conversion of forest into grassland, and as such is the chief agent in (1) above. But, in addition, there is considerable evidence that grass fires on the original tussock plains of the South Island were the principal factors in the total extinction of the New Zealand quail.

it remains now to indicate what is being done to protect the birds which are left, and what ought to be done to preserve them more effectively. There are two kinds of bird-protection—pas-sive and active. So far as the first is concerned, New Zealand probably leads the world; for under the Animals Protection and Game Act of 1921 almost every native bird is absolutely protected, while a small number is placed on a game schedule which permits their being shot at certain times and under very restricted conditions. It is now the policy of the Government to refuse collecting permits to non-residents, and in the event of specimens

of native birds being granted to foreign institutions, such specimens must be shot by an official of the New Zealand Government. It can fairly be said that as far as Government action is concerned this is all that is done to preserve the birds of New Zealand, and on paper it would seem to be all-sufficient. How lamentably inadequate it is in practice is indicated by two very paradoxical sets of facts: Firstly, those birds which are not protected, but on the contrary strenuously outlawed —for instance, the kea parrot, the shags, and the harrier hawk—are probably more abundant than ever, and in some cases extending their range; secondly, the indigenous birds of Cuba, as I had an opportunity to observe in 1925, seem in no worse case, if in no better, than those of New Zealand, yet so far as I could find they were shot or trapped without restriction. So far, then, as the protection laws in New Zealand are concerned, we can probably suggest no improvement. With regard to active protection, what are we doing to counteract the deleterious influences outlined above, and what can we do ? First and foremost, the laws, excellent in themselves, should be enforced, as they are most emphatically not to-day. To quote from the latest report of the New Zealand Native Bird Protection Society: “The Act does not, however, state definitely whose business it is to enforce the conditions, and we have been unable so far to fix the responsibility. The Department on which responsibility falls primarily has no apparent means of checking poaching and other breaches of the Act with reference to these absolutely protected birds. Further, all the income from wild life sources appears to be set aside in the interests of game-bird and fish conservation, excepting a half-share of opossum skin royalties allotted to the State Forest Service for the purpose of destroying goats, deer, etc. This latter, now amounting to a large sum, awaits utilisation. Our most valuable birds are thus left out in the cold. The State Forest Service, so far as their special reservations are concerned, some Acclimatisation Societies, and

occasionally the police, interest themselves, but the whole matter of enforcing the conditions of : the Act, so far as these specially listed birds are concerned, appears extremely vague and certainly' requires elucidation.” Finally, the sanctuaries and reserves themselves are under the control of a number of different Government Departments and Boards. One of the greatest aims of the Bird Protection Society is to secure unity of control in all matters related to conservation. , . With regard to the sanctuaries and reserves, there exists the; same notion that a mere paper declaration is all-sufficient to obtain the end in view. Tam glad to see that Dr. Hill, the Director- of Kew Gardens, during his recent visit to New Zealand, criticised very strongly in the local Press this mistaken policy. He writes: “The setting aside of areas as reserves is a very laudable policy,

but what I would like to know is what exactly is your object in establishing these reserves? Are they merely beauty spots set aside for picnic parties, or are they reserves for the preservation of native plants? If, as I hope is the case, they are the latter, it is nothing short of a scandal that in the Tongariro National Park, for instance, heather should have been introduced, and that goats should be allowed to wax fat on the growth on Mount Egmont. In Switzerland reserves are reserves, and the greatest precautions are adopted to prevent the introduction of alien plants. In New Zealand, in some instances at any rate, your policy seems to be to create a reserve and then fill it with foreign plants or animals, much to the detriment of the native growth. Your native flora is such that it needs no outside assistance to make it attractive. What is needed seems to me to be a botanical expert to advise upon the policy in respect to your reserves.” And we would suggest also an ornithologist, for the welfare of the birds and the forest is intimately connected.

The mania for acclimatisation, or the establishment of foreign animals and plants, perhaps more prevalent in New Zealand than in any other country, is a most insidious form of vandalism. In reserves and national parks it is a sin against posterity, and an everlasting reproach to New Zealand, that such a process should not only be allowed, but should actually in many cases be deliberately and actively encouraged by persons in authority whose patriotism, scorning those natural beauties which embody the very spirit of our country, rises no higher than a desire to create in New Zealand a paltry imitation of other lands.

The second line, then, which active protection must take, is a vigorous campaign against aliensplant and animal—in the sanctuaries and reserves, above all, against the rats, feral cats, stoats and weasels. The two latter were intentionally introduced as a measure against the plague of rabbits, themselves also deliberately imported. But Australia, which suffers far more than New Zealand from the rabbit pest, refused to believe that two wrongs could make a right, and has therefore never followed New Zealand’s bad example in introducing stoats and weasels. In the latter Dominion an Order-in-Council in 1923 declared stoats and weasels to be the natural enemies of the rabbit throughout the country, and so these bloodthirsty little animals, widespread through the forests where rabbits do not exist, may not be destroyed save by special permission granted by Inspectors of Stock, and effective only on sanctuaries, poultry-farms, and gameraising establishments. In any case, a campaign against vermin cannot be undertaken without vastly more caretakers and skilled rangers than are at present employed. No fewer than 39 islands and groups of islets round the coast are gazetted under various Acts as bird sanctuaries, but only two have curators.

There is another very dangerous side of the acclimatisation question which should not be overlooked. Once a sanctuary is created in a favourable situation, there is a regrettable tendency to stock it, or wish to stock it, with species of native birds not already present, but confined to different localities, or even to other islands. In the case of the confusing medley of species and varieties in the kiwis ( Apteryx and the wekas ( Gallirallus ) this practice leads inevitably to inter-breeding, and perhaps prevents for ever the elucidation of puzzling forms. It is species we should preserve mongrels.

Finally, there is great need for education. A healthy public opinion, freed from the erroneous notion that the native birds are doomed in any case, would do more to enforce the protection laws in the backblocks than all the police in the world. This is the task of the Native Bird Protection Society, and I can confidently report that it has the work well in hand, and is receiving very hearty support from the Press and from the Government Departments concerned.

To summarise briefly, the greatest needs of bird protection in New Zealand are as follows: 1. Adequate enforcement of the protection laws. 2. Unity of control of sanctuaries and reserves. 3. A campaign against aliensplant and animal-in the sanctuaries. - - : : . 4. Intensive research into the problem why some species adapt themselves to changed conditions, while others disappear. . 5. Education of young and old in the value and interest, scientific, economic, and aesthetic, of the native birds of New Zealand.