The protection of Pirirakau

Forest and Bird, Volume 16, Issue 2, 1 May 1985, Page 8

The protection of Pirirakau

by

Gerard Hutching

I t is not difficult for the visitor to pinpoint the exact location of Michael and Pam Garrett’s Roto-o-rangi farm, for their impressive stand of kahikatea contrasts sharply with the exotic vegeta-

tion in what is one of the most closely settled landscapes of the New Zealand countryside. The changes that have been wrought would be startling to someone coming

from the nineteenth century. A visiting historian then reported that Lake Roto-o-rangi — with a recorded depth of 25 feet — looked like a vast inland sea. However, European settlers were swift to exploit the fertile land, and by the early twentieth century the lake was no more. Lying a few miles south of Cambridge, the Garrett’s bush property, in the Waipa county, is now secure from development under a QEII National Trust open space covenant. By the standards of other reserves the area might not appear large — 7.2 hectares — but in the context of what remains in the Waipa County it is significant. In fact, well before the arrival of the European, the Waipa plains had been largely deforested, as a result of fire. Today, remnants of indigenous vegetation are small and scattered; the Garrett’s reserve is one of the largest. Protection had not come without sacrifice, however. Out of a total of 63 hectares, one eighth has been set aside, a sizeable chunk of prime Waikato dairy land. In a candid moment Michael reveals that if the area had been developed their mortgage would have been paid off some time ago. However, the couple’s feeling for the bush would not allow them to cut it down. Michael, an Englishman who arrived in New Zealand in the 1950s, was struck by how much native forest was being felled at that time, and determined to make good some of the loss. ‘‘When I first came to New Zealand, bush was being felled and I made a vow to myself that if I bought a farm I would create a piece of bush. I wasn’t looking for a farm with native bush on it. That was the last thing on my mind,"’ he says. While no member of his family had ever farmed, he had grown up with a respect for natural values that he regards as part of an English tradition. ‘"We are here today and gone tomorrow but the land is always there. And there’s another saying: ‘The best manure for the land is the master’s 10Gb 3. Between 1961 and 1968 the Garretts sharemilked north of Cambridge until the property at Roto-o-rangi came up for sale. So pleased were the previous owners to find a buyer keen to protect the bush that they offered to leave money in the property; if they hadn’t, the Garretts would

have t been t pushed t to ' afford . it. , ) ) > t s ‘‘We didn’t have enough money for the property but the owners said we could forget the loans and they would provide the mortgage. They initially preserved the bush but didn’t set it aside. They simply didn’t fell the trees.’’ The most important immediate task was to fence off the kahikatea stand from browsing stock, and so allow the undergrowth to regenerate. The area fenced off initially was somewhat smaller than it is today. For the first three years the Garretts were besieged by ‘‘every miller from Taupo to Hamilton’’, but they were never tempted to put the trees to the chainsaw. A suitable name had to be chosen for the farm, something that related to their love of trees. With the help of a Maori friend they dubbed it ‘‘Pirirakau’’, meaning ‘‘the keeping of the trees’’. It wasn’t until 1981 that the Garretts heard of the QEII National Trust, and the thought of the permanent protection a QEII National Trust Open Space covenant would provide was attractive. Unfortunately open space covenants are not always as welcomed by the farming community. Michael says there is an element of suspicion over the effect of a covenant among some farmers. ‘‘A lot of people are frightened it will give open slather to the public. That’s not the case. We still have control of it. The QEII National Trust simply has the

right to investigate whether we (or more likely the future owners) are keeping up the agreement,’’ he explains. No two agreements are the same,. allowing the owner to make an individual agreement with the Trust. The covenant is registered on the land title, but the landowner retains ownership; it does not become the property of the Trust or the State. Another farming concern is that the value of the land will be reduced if an area is set aside, making it difficult to resell. Michael has a ready answer to this fear. ‘"To us the bush was one of the farm’s assets. Some farmers feel the value of the land has been reduced, but in today’s enlightened community the _ reverse could be true. I think that today there must be people prepared to buy a farm with a piece of bush,"’ he says. Some moves could be made to attract more farmers to covenant their land, he suggests. One important way would be to remove the burden of rates on the reserved land; Michael could have been spared a substantial sum over the 16 years he has fenced his bush off, more especially since the farm is on some of the highest rated farm land in the country. Rates will climb even higher as horticulture makes inroads into the Waikato, as it is certain to do. For the future it is hoped that school children will make use of the bush for study. Since 1974 the Garretts have

opened up their land to children, but they plan to go further with a series of activity points where particular studies can be made. One of the clearings will be turned into a fernery to help people to identify specimens. The Garrett’s property is one in the Trust’s School Covenant Programme, linking schools with nearby areas protected by open space covenants. Clearly the bush is a source:of pleasure to its present owners, simply for its value as a home for wildlife and the different plants growing there. But thanks to the QEII National Trust open space covenant it should remain an enduring store of delight for generations to come — and that, more than anything, is what satisfies the Garretts. oe