KILLING THE KERERU

Forest and Bird, Issue 267, 1 February 1993, Page 18

KILLING THE KERERU

ROSS ATKINSON

Ian Close

In Northland, kereru or native wood pigeon are in trouble. And this time it’s not just the ecological problems of predation by stoats and rats, and competition from possums.

As

explains,

hunters are taking increasing numbers of this dwindling forest icon — and getting away with it.

OOD PIGEONS are dying. : The weather is calm and clear. On any beautiful still lateautumn morning somewhere in Northland, pigeons may be dying at the rate of up to twenty a day. These kereru, or kukupa as they are known in Northland, are not dying naturally. They are being taken by rifle or shotgun. It is happening every year in the majority of Northland’s native forests such as Puketi, Waipoua, Warawara, Raetea, and Omahuta. Fine, clear, and calm conditions are favoured by the kereru’s hunters. From dawn to around 10.30 am, the kereru is feeding and at its most active. In the stillness of the morning the wing beats are easily heard as the bird moves about readily in search of miro berries. It then likes to sit in the sun and preen.

In a typical scenario, the hunter has been dropped off by vehicle near his favourite area, just on, or slightly before daylight. He picks his way quietly and carefully along the track, taking particular care not to leave any footprints for at least the first few hundred metres. The hunter is wary of the few wildlife rangers or Department of Conservation officers who are skilful enough to track and catch him. Within an hour he has arrived at a lonely descending side spur off the main ridge track. The side spur has plenty of miro scattered about. Miro trees that have been painstakingly cleared of undergrowth that would inhibit his shooting. This has been done over successive seasons, with regular trimming every year. The berries have been ripe for about a month now, and the kereru has had time to build up condition. The miro flavour is succulent throughout its plump body. Rupe for the pot. By 8 am the hunter has his first bird. continued over page

Crime and punishment: three cases

AN GREGORY (brother of Northern Maori MP Bruce Gregory) was observed on 13 April 1991 leaving home with a canvas bag, a .22 rifle and a number of dogs. He entered the Herekino conservation area. A number of shots were heard and sometime later that day Gregory was approached in the reserve by two wildlife rangers. He threw the canvas bag into the bush and ran off carrying the rifle. The bag contained four freshly plucked kereru. DoC has the statutory responsibility for prosecuting wildlife offences, and usually does this through the Crown Solicitor. In order to save money, and because firearms were involved, DoC handed the case over to the police. Gregory was charged with a firearms offence and also charged under section 63 of the Wildlife Act with hunting and unlawfully possessing a protected species. He pleaded guilty to all charges. The police, understandably, were more interested in pushing the firearms offence. Gregory was convicted on this charge and sentenced to 150 hours community service. He was also convicted on the wildlife charges but discharged without penalty. N JULY 1991 Sandy Pihema and Joseph Tahere, both unemployed of Mangamuka, pleaded guilty in Kaitaia District Court to charges that they had killed seven kereru. For one of them it was a second offence. The defence lawyer, Ken Bailey, argued that the two young men had been asked to do so by older people. "To deny these people the small luxury of hunting these birds at a certain time of year is virtually the same as denying us our Christmas ham," he told Judge McKegg. He argued that it was the loss of habitat rather than hunting pressure which was contributing to the bird’s increasing rarity in Northland. Further evidence was received from Maori elders that the real threat to the kereru was from drifting sprays used by pine tree owners.

DoC, again for cost reasons, had let the police handle the prosecution and were not represented. None of the above evidence was contradicted. The judge, noting that the defendants had no money, convicted them and discharged them without penalty. AST NOVEMBER 35-year-old Kaitaia panelbeater Raymond Subritzki pleaded guilty to charges of killing and possessing a native pigeon and of using a firearm in a reserve without authority. He argued that he had taken the bird on the wishes of his dying father-in-law, a local kaumatua.

DoC prosecuted this case itself. Kaitaia Field Centre manager Bruce Waddell told the court of the bird’s low breeding success and that numbers were declining. He said the department believed the main offenders were outside the network of 1wi control. Judge McKegg, who had earlier asked DoC to meet with Maori representatives to discuss the possibility of a legal take of kereru for cultural purposes, discharged Subritzki without penalty. He said he did not regard the defendant as a criminal. DoC has decided not to appeal the judge’s decision, on the grounds that it was unlikely to be successful.

Shot through the breast with the silenced .22 rifle. He quietly makes his way some metres off the shooting area and carefully plucks every feather from the kereru, even from the head. The feathers are carefully concealed under a log with debris pushed over them, or with ponga fronds laid on top. As the bird is placed in a plastic bread bag inside the pack, another pigeon is heard arriving noisily back up the ridge. And so it goes on. Just what is being done to protect this endemic bird from continual predation by hunters? It would appear that while it is an absolutely protected species under the Wildlife Act, the poor kereru is afforded very little "absolute protection" at all. Kereru are naturally slow breeders. They lay only one egg and not necessarily every year. The period from laying the egg to fledging is an unusually long two and a half months. We now know that

the naturally low reproductive rate of kereru has been exacerbated by pressure from introduced predators and competitors such as rats, weasels, stoats, ferrets, possums and cats, and that an average of only one in eight nesting attempts today results in successful fledging. Northland DoC scientist Dr Ray Pierce is convinced that kereru are not breeding fast enough to replace themselves. While the problem is worst in the north, the only area of the country in which populations don’t appear to be in decline is in Marlborough. Pierce is at present carefully duplicating a 1979 Wildlife Service survey by recording bird calls at 120 Northland sites. The census is expected to confirm a sharp drop in kereru numbers over the last decade.

EFORE THE ARRIVAL of Europeans in New Zealand, the country was predominantly covered with forest, and kereru were abundant. The bird was a traditional and important food source to Maori, who caught it using spears and snares and preserved it in its own fat. With Europeans came firearms and axes and the beginning of the huge downward trend in kereru populations. Pakeha also saw the bird as an excellent food and there are photographs and stories of hunting parties returning with bags of hundreds of birds. The felling of the majority of the forest tracts in the country reduced the population to a barely sustainable level. As early'as 1864, kereru were the first native birds to be given (partial) protection, and in 1921 the species was fully protected. In pre-European days it did not matter if a large number of birds were taken from a specific area. The extensive habitat and sizeable populations were such that it was not long before that area was replenished. The iwi of the region attempted to ensure that the species was not over-hunted. They were aware of the need to sustain the food source and the cultural significance of the bird. Today, however, it is a different story. Those who still take kereru do not use traditional methods. The use of shotguns and, more often, the silenced .22 are common.

Forest and Bird’s position

The society’s policy on indigenous plants and animals was adopted by the Council in June last year. Among other things it aims to ensure: * "that all absolutely protected wildlife under the Wildlife Act remains fully protected. ¢ "that the absolute protection afforded to species under the Wildlife Act is not compromised by the killing of species for cultural, economic or other purposes." The society’s position is in line with that of the International Council for Bird Preservation. ICBP accepts the killing of protected species only where essential for the sustenance of indigenous peoples and where the kill is sustainable.

In some of the remaining areas of native forest in Northland, hunting of this species seems to take place with little control by the iwi, to the extent that in some forest areas you will see different parties from separate tribal areas all hunting a small population of birds. The results are devastating. Driving through the beautiful areas of remaining native forest in Northland today, you will be fortunate to observe even one kereru. Even when stopping to enjoy the tranquillity of a picnic area, you will find the forest is noticeably empty of birds. F THE HUNTING of kereru is a significant problem in Northland, it is also a very sensitive one. Let’s look at some statistics. In Northland since April 1990, 18 people have been apprehended for taking this absolutely protected species — with a total of 33 birds seized. Twelve of these offenders (involving 22 birds) were caught in just one scenic reserve (Mangamuka Gorge). These figures represent only those hunters who have been detected. The

Law and policy: what DoC is up to

TIS THE WILDLIFE ACT of 1953 that governs the protection status of all native non-marine wildlife. There is a general presumption in the Act that all native birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians are absolutely protected throughout New Zealand. But there are some exceptions. First, with the permission of DoC, wildlife can be killed for conservation purposes (for example animals taken by scientists for genetic studies). Second, there are seven bird species listed in schedules to the Act which can be taken in certain circumstances. Four (paradise duck, grey duck, shoveler and pukeko) are game birds which can be hunted under particular conditions and during set seasons. Weka can be hunted in the Chatham Islands. And, in an arrangement that pre-dates the Act, two seabird species are open to limited cultural harvest. Sooty shearwater or titi can be harvested on islands off Stewart Island, and the grey-faced petrel can be taken from certain northern islands. The maximum fine for each offence under the Act is $1,500, but it appears that the courts rarely

impose penalties over $800. DoC argues that it is in a bind on the issue of cultural harvest. While the Wildlife Act obliges it to prosecute any taking of protected species, the Conservation Act, under which the department functions, obliges it to "give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi’. Because of the competing demands of the two Acts, says DoC’s director of protected species Janet Owen, the department "needs to balance both cultural perspectives"’. So far DoC has no firm articulated policy on cultural harvest of wildlife. A committee, set up over two years ago by the New Zealand Conservation Authority to examine the issue, asked for the department’s views but has yet to receive a report. To date only one request for harvest has been granted by DoC. A proposal by Chatham Island Moriori for a once-off ceremonial harvest of toroa (royal albatross) was approved in 1991 after much internal soul-searching and with strict conditions. Only a maximum of 20 chicks washed up on the beach and who were unlikely to live could be taken.

The Minister of Conservation formally referred the issue of cultural harvest to the Conservation Authority for advice last December. The authority next meets in March. Meanwhile other requests are currently being considered by DoC. These include a proposal to take flesh-footed shearwater from Karewa Island in the Bay of Plenty, and another for titi or sooty shearwater in the Chathams. In the case of kereru in Northland where poaching is rife, the department’s position has been to resist calls for any harvesting regime. DoC’s director-general Bill Mansfield says that the department "remains opposed to any harvest where a species is under threat". But on the other hand, it has been less than vigorous, at least until recently, in enforcing the law and in providing expert witnesses to inform judges on the vulnerable status of the species. There are welcome signs, however, that as a result of the publicity surrounding recent court cases in Northland DoC is toughening its stand.

number that go about their business unchecked is not known. Nor is it known what the effect is of this hunting pressure on the already unstable breeding and static population of an area such as Mangamuka. Mangamuka and the adjoining Raetea conservation area are now fortunate enough to be policed by a predominantly voluntary group of enforcement officers and DoC staff with minimal financial resources. What is happening in a forest such as the Warawara where there is no such active protection? What of the Waima, where pig hunters tell of finding piles of pigeon feathers that come up to their knees? What of the Puketi where cut

horse tracks lead to camps with their hitching rails set up, and the miro trees cleared of surrounding undergrowth? What of the rumours from local hotels of kereru being sold or raffled for a hundred dollars apiece? In the Mangamuka example, if you were to enter the forest prior to 1992 on a fine day during the pigeon "season" (April through to late June), you would have been sure to find evidence of hunting. All the major tracks were well trodden with fresh footprints. Good miro stands with piles of pigeon feathers about. The odd camp site littered with rubbish, spent shotgun and .22 rounds. And, if you knew what to listen for, you would have heard the occasional shot.

Mangamuka in mid-June 1992 is now a different story. The tracks are no longer well trodden, the piles of feathers have all but disappeared, and the camps are no longer used. The occasional hunter is still trying his luck but he is now very wary. At the Easter holiday break, a time when many out-of-town hunters normally come home to try their luck, Mangamuka was quiet. The word around was that going for a bird was too risky. Mangamuka is now an exception to the norm in hunting pressure, although the kereru population has yet to return to an acceptable level. This result has been achieved by old-fashioned enforcement procedures.

A plea for protection

66 HE DESIRE to harvest indigenous species conflicts with the widely-held conservation ethic which is reflected in New Zealand’s protected species legislation. Essentially, the ethic is centred on valuing ecosystems in a non-hierar-chical way. In this sense, it does not place humans above everything else. It recognises an intrinsic value in each component of ecological communities. It is central to this point of view that each component has a right to exist for its own sake, in this case as an element of New Zealand’s remarkable natural heritage. This right is derived from the contribution made by each to the stability and diversity of its community. From the notion of intrinsic worth have arisen strong cultural and spiritual associations. Together with ecological values, these establish in principle that the right to exist overrides the human night to harvest. In New Zealand, this is especially so for indigenous species, since these are more closely identified with New Zealanders’ maturing perceptions of their heritage. These cultural and spiritual values are as valid as those of the tangata whenua although they are not so clearly associated with any particular ethnic group. The protection view sees individual species in a context which is quite literally a global one. This perspective has grown in both stature and acceptance internationally as modern science has revealed more of the biology and vulnerability of these species, and of the fragility of life

systems on the planet. The need to reduce levels of risk to these systems is felt acutely. Proponents of protection acknowledge the existence of harvest traditions and accept that Waitangi Tribunal rulings on claims of right may be well-founded. Considered in the context of New Zealand’s natural heritage today, however, the appropriateness of the harvest tradition is questioned. It is clear that too large a proportion of New Zealand’s indigenous species is threatened by hu-man-induced change, and almost all of those on which harvest applications are focused are small remnants of a once rich and more diverse fauna. The importance of recovering as much of this fauna as possible is fundamental to the protection view. Renewed human exploitation is seen as fraught with risk, a view underscored by deep scepticism about stated guarantees of security for the harvested species. Conservation agencies have been unable to cope with existing threats to species, for instance. It is not accepted that harvest could improve this situation. The reinstatement of harvest practices represents a fundamental retreat from the healing philosophy of absolute protection. The fear is held that sanction for the . . . harvest (of indigenous species) will increase harvest expectations and prompt communities to apply for a more extensive range of species. This may result in the need to research and monitor a steadily increasing number of harvested spe-

cies and is seen as inevitably drawing scarce resources away from recovery programmes for threatened and endangered species. Existing harvests of indigenous species are not automatically accepted as precedents for extending harvest to others. It is argued instead that these existing harvests are now inconsistent with good conservation principle and practice, especially where they exploit species which have not benefited from modification of the New Zealand environment or may be threatened by exploitation. Expert international opinion, as articulated by the International Council for Bird Preservation, supports New Zealand’s present species legislation. Though not opposed in principle to indigenous harvest of species, ICBP found that Chatham Islands Maori and Moriori claims to harvest toroa [royal albatross], for instance, did not meet minimum criteria for acceptance: * the tangata whenua are not truly dependent on the harvest for their livelihood; * reliable assessments of sustainable harvest would be extremely difficult to obtain because of the scale of the research required. The department’s desire to stop illegal harvesting by allowing controlled take was considered to be unfounded: in ICBP opinion, controlled harvesting usually facilitates illegal take. 99 — from an internal DoC discussion paper on the harvest of native birds, 1992. The paper also contained an alternative "harvest perspective".

F ENFORCEMENT and compliance can be effective in this instance, why don’t we see more of it? It may be that the public do not perceive the species to be actually under threat. Kereru being large and noisy birds often seem more numerous than they really are. Without public pressure it is perhaps understandable that a government department with considerable budgetary problems would give the difficult and culturally sensitive responsibility for enforcement a low priority. Since its formation in 1987, the Department of Conservation has had a continual financial struggle to maintain and implement its statutory obligations. Despite these constraints, some threatened species such as yellow-eyed penguin, kakapo and kiwi now have the benefits of corporate sponsorship to assist DoC in well-publicised campaigns for their survival. How far should a species be allowed to decline before a rescue party comes to its aid? There is a real need for an education and public relations programme to create an awareness of the problems and potential disaster facing the kereru in the 1990s. Enforcement alone will not solve the problems. Kereru poachers must be

shown that not only are they wrong, but why the species is protected. New Zealanders need to be made aware of just what is happening to the kereru before it too becomes endangered. The kereru is now one of the few animals capable of ensuring the propagation of such trees as puriri, taraire, miro, and karaka. The decline of kereru in Northland is also a threat to the continuing survival of all those species. There has been much said of the continuing cultural significance of kereru and the wishes of certain Maori in continuing to kill them. However the most important question that all conservationists need to address is that whether the cultural needs of some people outweigh the ecological needs of the bird and the forests.

Ross Atkinson is a volunteer senior wildlife ranger in Northland.