CHANGES IN WILD MAMMAL POPULATIONS IN CANTERBURY

NEW ZEALAND FOREST SERVICE INFORMATION SERIES No. 52 CHANGES IN WILD MAMMAL POPULATIONS IN CANTERBURY

by MAVIS M. DAVIDSON

A. L. Poole, Director-General of Forests

NEW ZEALAND FOREST SERVICE WELLINGTON 1965 NEW ZEALAND FOREST SERVICE INFORMATION SERIES No. 52 SYNOPSIS A review is given of the changes in wild tnammal populations in Canter­ bury, New Zealand, as determined from research into all relevant historical sources available to the writer and broi1;ght up to date (I962) from information supplied by the New Zealand Forest Service. The mammals concerned are: the native bats, rat, and dog, and the in­ troduced rats, rabbit, hare, cat, mustelids, hedgehog, opossum, wallaby, horse, pig, cattle beast, sheep, goat, thar, chamois, fallow deer, and red deer. Information has been given, as far as is known, of the date and place of liberation of the introduced mammals, the history of their establishment, and the present siti-1;ation and assessment of the future role of all wild mammals in Canterbury.

Inset l All photos in this publication are copyright and may not be reproduced without permission. CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION . . 7

CHIROPTERANS.. 8 V espertilionidae Long-tailed bat (Chalinolobus tuberculatus) 8 Mystacinidae Short-tailed bat (Mystacina tuberculata tuberculata) 8 Southern short-tailed bat (new sub-sp.) (Mystacina tuber- citlata robusta) 9

RODENTS ro Heteromyidae Kiore rat (Rattus exulans) ro Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) II Ship rat (Rattus rattus) II Mouse (Mus musculus) IZ Leporidae (Lagomorphs) Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) . . r3 Hare (Lepus europaeus) 15,

CARNIVORES r7 Canidae Wild dog (Ganis familiaris) 17 Felidae Wild cat (Felis catus) r9 Mustelidae Ferret (Putorius putorius) 20 Stoat (Mustela erminea) 20 Weasel (Mustela nivalis) 20

INSECTIVORE 22 Erinaceidae Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus) 22

MARSUPIALS 24 Phalangeridae Opossum (Trichosurus vulpecula) 24 Macropodidae Wallaby (Protemnodon rufogrisea) 28

5 Page UNGULATES (Perissodactyle) 30 Equidae Wild horse (Equus caballus) 30

UNGULATES (Artiodactyles) 30 Suidae Wild pig (Sus scrofa) 30 Bovidae Wild cattle (Bos taurus) 32 Wild sheep (Ovis' aries) 33 Wild goat (Capra hircus) 34 Thar (Hemitragus jemlahicus) 36 Chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra) 37 Cervidae Fallow deer (Dama dama) 39 Red deer (Cervus elaphus) 41

THE FUTURE 45

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 47

LITERATURE CONSULTED 47

6 INTRODUCTION This paper was prepared for inclusion in the main symposium (The Changing Face of Canterbury) of the Royal Society of New Zealand's Tenth Science Congress, held in Christchurch in the year of the Canter­ bury centennial (1962). The requirement was for information on the history and present situation of the wild mammals in Canterbury together with an enlightened look into the future. The area under review is not that of the old Canterbury provincial boundary of 1876 (which reached northwards only to the Hurunui River), nor the Canterbury Land District (which finishes at the Conway River), but is that of the Canterbury Conservancy of the New Zealand Forest Service. This, flanked to the west by the Southern Alps, extends from the Waitaki River northwards to the Clarence River mouth beyond Kaikoura. The method of presentation of a paper on the wild mammals of Canter­ bury posed the problem of the order in which the animals should be described. It was thought that perhaps they should be separated into larger and small mammals, which would correspond roughly with those for which the New Zealand Forest Service is responsible (Davidson, 1958) and those controlled by other organisations. As usual the opossum posed a difficulty: it is a small mammal but until recently (31 March 1961) it was the responsibility of the New Zealand Forest Service, and still is so on Crown land. It is usual to separate the marsupials (Metatheria), the group con­ taining our opossums and wallabies, from the more common mammals (Eutheria); but, since there are no clear ecological differences between the two classes, both are considered here without differentiation (see Kean 1959a, 1961).

7 The deciding factor in the order of presentation was that surely one should refer first to our native bats, definitely small mammals. The unorthodox procedure was then adopted of fitting in the marsupials between the small and the larger mammals. We have then, chiropterans (bats), rodents (rats, mice, hares, and rabbits), carnivores (dogs, cats, stoats, weasels, and ferrets), an insectivore (hedgehog), then marsupials (opossums and wallabies), followed by the larger mammals, which, except for the horse (a perissodactyle), which is but briefly mentioned, are all artiodactyle ungulates (pigs, cattle, sheep, goats, thar, chamois, fallow deer, and red deer). Another matter calling for a decision was the use of the word "wild" where a more true description might be "feral" (usually applied to an animal which· has escaped from domestication and reverted to the wild state); it was decided that "wild" is commonly used by New Zealanders who are well aware of the situation and that "feral" could lead to con­ fusion.

CHIROPTERANS (BATS) Hutton (1904) gives New Zealand only two native land mammals, the bats Chalinolobus (Peters, :i:866) morio (Gray), and Mystacops (Flower, 1891) tuberculatus Gray. See also Hutton, 1872. Dwyer (1960) refers to Chalinolobus (the long-tailed, short-eared, lobe­ 1 lipped, or wattled bat) as C. tuberculatus • Forster and identifies it as one of six species of the Australian genus Chalinolobus (family Vespertilioni­ dae); earlier, C. tuberculatus was confused with C. morio, a species from south-east Australia and Tasmania. The presence of a bat in New Zealand was recognised when Forster (1844), quoted by Dwyer, caught a long­ tailed specimen in Queen Charlotte Sound during Captain Cook's second voyage; but subsequently Gray confused this animal with the short-tailed bat (Buller, 1892). Dwyer (1960) calls the short-tailed, long-eared New Zealand bat Mystacina tuberculata Gray (sole species of the family Mystacinidae), and is inclined to agree with Dobson (1876) that it is "unique in being the most active climber of all bats"; it is confined to New Zealand. There have been unconfirmed suggestions of a third New Zealand species of bat (Polack, 1838, and Stock, 1876, quoted by Dwyer). From records, which he quotes, Dwyer (1962) has divided the distribution records of bats into those before and after 1930, and into (1) colonies or large flights and (2) small flights and isolated sightings. On this basis Dwyer has no records for Canterbury before 1930 other than in group (2), with four sightings of Chalinolobus and three where the species was unknown; most of these records were in Christchurch and vicinity. Hutton and Drummond (1923) note that the long-tailed bat was common in the Christchurch area until about 1885, roosting under the wooden bridges across the Avon (notably the Cashel Street bridge; E. G. Turbott (Canterbury Museum), pers. comm.), but that the replacement of these bridges caused the bats to disappear. Recently Turbott told me that there were unconfirmed reports that bats had been seen in Christchurch suburbs. An additional record

8 Photo: Domin.ion Muse·am Fig. I. Native bat (short tailed)

furnished by Turbott is of a long-tailed bat found in October 1958 at Orari Gorge homestead, South Canterbury, by A. Graham, who took a colour photograph of the animal. Dwyer (1962) shows four Canterbury records after 1930, a recent record of a Mystacina, a Chalinolobus, and an unknown, virtually to­ gether in the Geraldine county of South Canterbury, an unidentified bat near the main divide in North Canterbury, but none in the Christchurch region. Senior Protection Forestry Ranger Lance Boyd (pers. comm.) advises that an unidentified bat was seen in the Lewis Pass area about 1956. Dwyer (1960) describes the bats as having the size of a mouse and states that they are bush dwellers, " usually seen only at twilight as they pursue insects over clearings or rivers and lakes. Fine summer and autumn evenings are favourable for observing these secretive animals". They hibernate in winter. Dwyer (1962) considers that the present distribution of bats is much less than it was a century ago, and he correlates the decrease with that of the area of forests; bats have failed "to survive in open country or to urbanise". Dwyer considers that there is no evidence of reduced density of bat population in unmodified forest, but there is some suggestion of predation from introduced mammals such as cats and black rats (Stead, 1937) and mustelids. Dwyer (1962) finds that there are two distinct forms of Mystacina which he has described as sub-species, a southern form which he has named

9 Mystacina tuberculata robusta, and the northern form (which probably includes those in Canterbury) which he calls Mystacina tuberculata tuberculata Gray. Dwyer's work suggests that the New Zealand bat population is static but that it may tend to rise coincidentally with the reforestation' which is taking place, and with tlie growth of new forests. As the diet of bats (Dwyer, 1962, p. 24) appears to be composed mostly of insects, introduced species of insects may well furnish an additional source of food, so that with restored and new habitat and a possibility of an additional food supply, a rise in the bat population may occur in the future.

RODENTS RATS AND MICE Buller (1871) writes: "According to native tradition and the accounts of the early colonists, there formerly abounded in New Zealand a small frugivorous rat, which has, within the last quarter of a century, become almost extinct. The extermination of this apparently indigenous species is generally attributed to the introduced brown rat." (It has been the general opinion that the rats introduced by the white man displaced the native rat (kiore*); but Watson (1959) gives evidence for the coexistence of kiore and brown rat, and from information gained by R.H. Taylor on Stewart Island, suggests that this may also be true for the black species.) Hutton (1904) does not recognise the kiore as indigenous but does include it in his list of naturalised animals. (It is recorded (Meeson, 1885) that this rat used to have lemming-like migrations.) Chilton (1927) states that the Maoris, and any predecessors they may have had, brought the so-called Maori rat with them and that "the whalers and other early colonists _unintentionally introduced the Euro­ pean rats and mice now to be found everywhere". Sharp (1956, p. 136) writes that the Maori rat was in the country before the moas were exter­ minated in the South Island because their remains have been found in the Moa Hunters' settlements there. Thomson (1922) and Andersen (1927) record that in 1840 settlers at Riccarton had their first (successful) crop eaten by Maori rats. Clark (1949) gives the further information that the crop was of oats and comments that "it was nearly destroyed by rats (reputedly Maori rats but as likely Norway greys, which must have begun a rapid penetration of the island, probably from the notoriously rat-ridden whaling ships)". Writing of the upper Rangitata in 1860, ·Samuel Butler (1923, p. 77) says: "I had a cat on the pommel of my saddle, for the rats used to come and take the meat from off our very plates by our side"; and on p. 80, "We blessed her both by day and by night, for we saw no rats after she came... " Gardner (1956, p. 146) records life on the Upper Waiau station (Amuri county) in the 1870s and notes that

*The rat commonly referred to as the native rat is also found in South-East Asia, the East Indies, New Guinea, and the Pacific Islands. It is much smaller than either of the introduced rats and is now rare in New Zealand, so that it is no longer of economic importance here. The small grey rat sometimes found in the bush is not the native one but the young of the black ship rat.-Ed.

10 Fig. 2. Native rat

Photos: R. L. Edgar

"their year's supply of prov1s10ns came as back loading on the wool wagons, and had to be carefully stored away from the rats". In 1879 Reischek (1952, p. 49) mentions rats being present in the upper Rakaia valley. Harte (1956) mentioned depredations by rats at Mount Peel Station in the early eighties. Maling (1962) says that in 1892 Hutton received information that the black rat (which he called Mus rattus) was plentiful at Opawa and that he stated that this "was the first recorded instance of its occurrence in Canterbury". \i\Tatson (1956) gives a list of II places where the kiore is present but has no record for Canterbury. He mentions, however, that "no systematic search has yet been made on the main islands and it may well be that R. exulans is more widespread than the above records suggest". In 1871 (Maling, 1962) Rev. J. W. Stack stated, in reference to a report by Boys of the presence of the well-preserved moa bones on the Waipara Plains of North Canterbury, that "the Maoris took great care to protect the plains from fire because they were their rat hunting grounds ... ". Wodzicki (1950) accepts the establishment of three species, the native rat (Rattus exulans Peale) described by Hutton (1877), the black rat (Rat­ tus rattus Linn.) and the brown rat (Rattus norvegicus Erxleben). Watson (1959) gives other popular names by which these rats are known; the kiore is also called the native, Maori, or Polynesian rat; the ship rat is well known as the black or bush rat, and also as the house or roof rat; the Norway rat (though it came originally from the plains of central Asia)

11

Inset 2 is equally well known as the brown rat and is also called the common grey, sewer, or water rat. European rats probably arrived with the first white men, possibly with Captain Cook on his first voyage (Thomson Ig22, p. 76). Watson (I959) says of the Norway rat: "It is now distributed throughout the country, more particularly in towns and around houses, but may be found in rem6te places, especially along creeks"; and of the black rat, "Today the ship rat is generally spread throughout New Zealand. It is found in houses both in town and country, and is the common rat in the bush". Watson (I957) notes that the ship rat is not known to inhabit forests in England as it does in New Zealand, and considers it possible that in England this ecological niche has already been filled by other woodland rodents. Both Saunders (I868) and White (I894), quoted by Wodzicki (I950, p. 89), record that Norwegian rats were a pest in Canterbury in those years. "In Christchurch, according to E. F. Stead and F. S. Palmer (I948) colonies of brown rats are found on the banks of the Avon in inadequately controlled rubbish dumps and in the vicinity of abattoirs, pigsties, and fowlhouses. The prevailing black rat population inhabits factories, suburban gardens and particularly the grain and seed stores." (Wodzicki, I950, p. 93). Stead (I944) reported that in suburban Christ­ church R. rattus "is largely vegetarian in its diet, feeding on berries, seeds, fruits, and nuts" but believed that birds' eggs and young were also eaten (Wodzicki, Ig50, p. 95). It is commonly held that the diminution in numbers of the kiore rat was due to the building up of populations of the ship and the Norway rat (or possibly of mustelids). Watson (I957) records that the kiore is now numerous only on outlying islands where neither the ship rat nor the Norway rat occurs; but he also has a record of a kiore being caught on Stewart Island, where both the other species are found. He says: "The· problem of interspecific competition among rats is extremely complex. All three species have quite distinct ecological requirements, which in South-East Asia keeps one separate and enables the other two to co-exist in close proximity. However, the segregating mechanism preventing competition breaks down under different conditions." Thomson (I922, p. 84) quotes Taylor White (I890) regarding mice appearing in the Canterbury Plains in the early days of settlement (I855 onwards) "suddenly in thousands". No doubt, as Thomson states (p. 84), the mouse gained entry into New ~ealand early in the I9th century. There is no evidence to support the belief that there are two species of mouse in New Zealand, i.e. a house mouse and a field mouse. Watson (I959, p. 6) accepts only one species (Mus musculus), the European house mouse. He says: "It can now be found wherever there are houses and also far out in the bush and even up to grassy mountain tops." In January I956 the writer saw a dead mouse on the Tasman Glacier near the Hoch­ stetter Icefall. Unless at any time the rodent population increases so as to become a plague (a situation which is most unlikely to occur), when the authorities will be obliged to organise ,adequate control, the position regarding rats and

12 mice will probably be as summarised by Watson (1951) after his survey of rats in Christchurch: "Present methods of control are very haphazard and there is general ignorance of modem methods. Rodent control at the moment· is left to the private individual, who has neither the time nor knowledge to carry it out efficiently. It is suggested that effective control will only be achieved when it is organised and carried out by a trained team." Pollard and root-crop baits are acceptable to rats, so that where these are used in opossum poisoning there is some control of the rat population; rats are also taken in traps set for opossums.

THE RABBIT Thomson (1922) impli~s that black or silver-grey rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) were introduced to Kaikoura in the 1850s, and this appears to be confirmed by Buick (1900), quoted by Wodzicki, who records that silver-greys were liberated at Kaikoura in 1858. Gardner (1956, p. 270) says that there is a little hill near Swyncombe which, "according to tradition, marks the spot where Captain George Ruck Keene released a 'few pairs' of silver-grey rabbits, some time after he and his brother Charles Ruck Keene took up Swyncombe in 1859". Gardner continues (p. 271): "In two decades the handful of silver-greys had grown into a myriad menace covering the broken country to the south and standing ready, in the early eighties, to invade the Amuri." Acland (1951, p. 232) states that "Watts Russell was one of those who introduced rabbits to Canterbury. He cleared and ploughed five acres and sowed it in buckwheat, to tum them out on." Acland does not give a date for this liberation but by inference it was in the fifties. Another private liberation (Andersen, 1916, p. 109) was that of E. J. Gould, Water­ falls, Opihi, about 1862, a further adjacent one being made about 1866. Thomson (p. 86) records that rabbits were in the upper Waitaki at an early date. Many early releases of rabbits were unsuccessful, or remained localised, until they were "finally overwhelmed by the invasion of the grey rabbit from the south". According to Andersen (pp. 108-9) this was the common English or Scotch rabbit, grey or brown with short ears, which was introduced into Southland about 1862; Andersen considers that this rabbit really became evident as a pest in Canterbury in 1874 or 1875.' Before that domestic rabbits had been liberated and had run wild but had not increased to any extent. Wodzicki (p. 107) suggests that the reason for the earlier rabbits' lack of success in becoming established was that· they were of fancy breeds. In the early eighties Andersen (p. 109) says there were three breeds of rabbit running wild in Canterbury: the common grey, the Kaikoura silver-grey, and the common, long-eared, variously coloured animal. Burnett (1927) states that the first rabbit seen in the Cave district was in l86I, that by 1878 Haldon Station, at the south of the Mackenzie basin, was employing regular rabbiters, and that by 1888 rabbits had penetrated to the pastoral portions of the Tasman valley. Thomson (1922) says that in 1866 the Canterbury Society distri­ buted silver-grey rabbits presented to .them by Sir George Grey; the

13 2* society officially approved of rabbits being given as a reward "for the destruction of hawks and 'wild cats". Wodzicki (p. ro9), quoting Burdon (1938) , says that by 1878 rabbits had reached Orari Gorge, by 1881 the country between "the south branch of the Ashburton and Rangitata Rivers" and, confirming Burnett, had moved right into the heads of the alpine valleys. On Mount Peel Station (Harte, 1956, p. 72), it is stated: "Rabbits were first sighted on Peel in the late seventies. They became bad enough to need permanent rabbiters, but they were worse on Mesopo­ tamia and the other gorge stations. "

Fig. 3. Rabbit

Photo: N.Z. Forest Service (f. H. G. Johns)

Thomson (1922, p. 88) quotes James Begg, Mosgiel, regarding the methods tried to eradicate rabbits: "In the early days, hunting with dogs, shooting, digging out the warrens, poisoning with various baits, and trap­ ping, were the methods by which farmers tried to rid themselves of the pest. Later, wire-netting fencing [commencing in 1887, Andersen, p. no; also Gardner, 1956, p. 275], the introduction of stoats, weasels, and ferrets, fumigating the burrows with poisonous gases (such as carbon disulphide and hydrocyanic acid), and the stimulus given to trapping by the export trade in frozen rabbits, have been relied upon to reduce their numbers." Andersen (1916, p. III) also mentions the establishment (since 1899) of the frozen-rabbit industry, and wryly remarks: "Having thus become a source of profit to the extent of over £150,000 a year, it is hardly likely that the rabbit will ever become quite extinct." He records that the severe winter of 1895 had inflicted a temporary check on the rabbit pest. Of a similar check Gardner (1956, p. 278) writes, "The exact effect of the 1918 snowstorm on rabbits in North Canterbury is hard to gauge. Rabbits can hibernate for long periods in their burrows. In some areas there may have been great destruction, but if there was, the respite afforded was only temporary. At St. Helens, Donald Manson found large numbers of dead rabbits in the valleys - as many as eighty in a group - during the

14 thaw." Mount Peel (Harte, 1956) has more definite views; on page 72 Harte relates that "the Government took action, passing a new Rabbit Nuisance Act in 1882, and stoats and weasels were imported two years later to stop the spread of the pest, and even gassing was tried, but Mount Peel had best results from phosphorus and strychnine poisoning, coupled with the snowstorms of 1888 and 1895". Wodzicki (1950, p. n4) mentions the difficulty of controlling the rabbit populations established in the gorse hedges and riverbeds of Canterbury. On page n3, Wodzicki writes that "with few exceptions, rabbits have colonised all areas suitable to them in the Dominion", unsuitable habitat including forest and the summits of mountain ranges. To him the "present spread and the degree of infestation of rabbits in New Zealand seem to be shaped by three main factors: (i) by physiographic or vegetation.al natural barriers, (ii) by the density of settlement associated with intensive farming, and (iii) by soil drainage, an interaction between rainfall and soil type". Wodzicki concludes that, from information supplied by the Soil Bureau, rabbits thrive best on dry loose soils, and that by working from a soil map many rabbit infestations could be predicted. About 1948 the Rabbit Destruction Council was constituted to co­ ordinate and extend the activities of rabbit boards. The council aimed at decommercialisation of rabbits, and the adoption of a "killer" policy. The council's activities have resulted in a spectacular decline in rabbit populations throughout New Zealand, and this is evident in many parts of Canterbury, e.g., North Canterbury and the Mackenzie basin. The control of rabbits has allowed the development of great improvement in the carrying capacity of pastures, which has largely compensated for the cost of rabbit control. On the other hand, it is believed that the recent increase in sweet brier is due to the decline in the rabbit population. Among small mammals, the rabbit has undoubtedly exceeded all others with regard to its influence on "the changing face of Canterbury". Howard (1958) considers that rabbit control in New Zealand is already well organised but stresses the desirability for a greater knowledge of the ecology of the rabbit so that even more successful methods of control may be developed through the exploitation of such knowledge. The inference is that with the complete decommercialisation of the rabbit and with control organised by professionally trained men, rabbit control will be even more effective in the future. Forest Service personnel do, and will continue to, play a part in control of the rabbit, for many of these animals are destroyed by Forest' Service hunters in operations against larger mammals and by State-forest staff in the· course of forest management.

THE HARE Donne (1924) records that according to Edward Wakefield the first hares (Lepus europaeus) to arrive in New Zealand came in the Eagle in r851, but that these animals escaped overboard from the ship in Lyttelton harbour and were thought to be drowned. As, however, some months later, hares were found on Banks Peninsula, it was assumed that they were those which arrived in the Eagle.

15 Thomson (1922) states that the Canterbury Society* acquired two hares in 1868, but does not disclose the sex of these animals; another four were obtained in 1873. Although recorded importations are few, the hare spread rapidly throughout New Zealand (especially where rabbits were not abundant), and particularly in South Canterbury, "where they became so abundant that a considerable export trade sprang up, mostly from the port of Timaru". In the Mackenzie Country (as in some other parts of New Zealand) it was not uncommon for white hares to be found during the winter. Andersen (1916, p. 23) records that in the annual report of the Christ­ church Society* held on 20 January 1876 "it was said that hares had increased in. such numbers that they might be said to be successfully established ...".At the meeting of the South Canterbury Acclimatisation Society on 23 February 1876 "it was reported that they had only been able to obtain four hares from the Christchurch Society. It was resolved to give 30s. a head for all hares delivered in Timaru alive and in fit con­ dition for liberation: three for the Levels arrived from Christchurch on the l2th April following". On p. 491, Andersen :i:nentions that a South Canter­ bury Coursing Club had been formed at Timaru on 20 November 1878 but that the acclimatisation society "refused to consent to the coursing of hares in the area under its control". Acland (1951, p. 169) mentions hares first being seen at Clayton (Orari headwaters) in July 1883, but that they had been in adjacent areas earlier than this; Burnett (1927) states that hares were first noticed in the alpine valleys in 1896 and that in 1903 they were at maximum numbers, thereafter for no apparent reason considerably declining. Wodzicki (p. 143) cites the presence of hares in exotic forest in Canterbury with incidence varying within similar age groups of forest; he notes that in the Kurow district hares are reported up to 7,000 ft. There is a suggestion that in some areas hares migrate; Wodzicki (p. 149) reports that a South Canterbury observer says "large numbers of hares driven by snow leave the higher hills for warmer coastal areas". Peel Forest and Ashburton observers had noted (Wodzicki, p. 149) a marked decrease in hares in the last :to or 15 years which they attributed to higher prices for these animals. Wodzicki (p. 145) suggests a correlation between heavy hare populations and low-rainfall areas. He considers that the general opinion is that hares are noxious animals, only a comparatively few people regarding them as beneficial or of no account. Concluding, Wodzicki (p. 150) thinks that the hare occupies the areas suitable for it and has achieved a virtually stable position, "subject only to inherent :fluctuations and to changes induced by control measures and other limiting factors". P. C. Bull (pers. comm.) states that in 1958 hares were in all areas inspected in the Mackenzie Country. Local observers said that the hares spent the winter in the snowgrass belt of the high country and that in spring they descended to the lower levels to breed. In some areas, from roo to 200 hares had been trapped, poisoned, or shot within a few days.

*I.e., Canterbury Acclimatisation Society, which had its headquarters in Christ­ church.-Ed.

16 A black hare had been shot near Burke Pass. (Dr Flux of Animal Ecology Division, D.S.I.R., who recently commenced work on hares throughout New Zealand, shot a white hare at Rangiora in October l96r.) Lance Boyd (pers. comm. 1962) confirms that in Canterbury hares are found at high altitudes (5,000 ft to 6,ooo ft) in mid winter.

Fig. 4. Hare

Photo: Dept. Sci. & Ind. Res. (]. E. C. Fl1tx)

Howard (1958) has this to say about the hare: "Hares have fewer litters than rabbits. In contrast to rabbits, they do not require as much cover in the form of scrub or rock and they thrive in taller grass. Their precocious young are born on top of the ground, furred and with eyes open. When the habitat conditions become unsuitable to rabbits because of dense grass, the hares may increase in number. Hares are not as gre­ garious as rabbits and they will never become as numerous, but they will at times be an economic pest in New Zealand. The hare, which has large hind legs, travels greater distances than the rabbit in its daily activities. With present techniques, the extermination of hares will be difficult. In areas of intense farming where paddocks have been seeded and topdressed, the hare is ... a potential, or real nuisance in destroying forage ... ". As is well known, hare drives are carried out periodically in Canterbury and they seem to be regarded as a sport as well as a necessary controlling measure; many of the bodies are exported. The hare problem remains to be evaluated.

CARNIVORES WILD DOGS Hutton (1904) does not recognise the so-called Maori dog (called kuri or peropero) as an indigenous species nor does he list it as a naturalised animal; he has left a record of its measurements (Hutton, 1897) .

17 Thomson (1922) states that when Captain Cook arrived in New Zealand in 1769 he found a species of dog which the Maoris had brought with them and which was common in Polynesia. Thomson states that Crozet (trans­ lated by H. L. Koth, 1891), also quoted by Colenso (1892), saw the Maori dog in 1772 and described it as "a sort of domesticated fox, quite black or white, very low on the legs, straight ears, thick tail, long body, full jaws, but more pointed than that of the fox, and uttering the same cry; they do not bark like our dogs". It was also referred to by Forster (1777) and other early visitors to New Zealand. Hursthouse (1861) described it as "a small lurcher-like animal, black, red, or dirty yellow ...." Luomala (1962) while studying at the British Museum in 1960 discovered eighteenth-century sketches which portray what· are presumably native Polynesian dogs. She says: "Two are of the Maori native dog, of which no other sketches are known ...". Hutton and Drummond (1923) considered that the habitat of the Maori dog (Canisfamiliaris variety maorium) was restricted to human habitation in Maori times, but that in the early days of European settlement they crossed with introduced animals, resulting in "wild dogs" which took to the ranges and lived in packs, destroying sheep and even attacking man. Colenso (1892) insists that the indigenous New Zealand dog was a "purely domesticated animal and never wild". In an earlier reference (1877) Colenso mentions that the domesticated animals he had referred to in 1842 as native dogs were indeed probably half-breeds; he was firmly of the opinion that the native dog "had become wholly extinct, or very nearly so, at least fifty years ago" a;nd discounts (1892) theories put forward by Hector (1876) and White (1889) regarding its existence. In 1880 Reischek (1952, p. 76) speaks of the Maori dog as being extinct. It seems probable that the dogs which came to cause sheep losses were all descendants of introduced animals. Holford (1927) mentions the visit of Dr Monro to the Deans Brothers, Riccarton, in March 1844, when he observed that the sheep were in moderately good condition but that they "were in a confined space to protect them from the wild dogs, which were numerous at that time". Tancred (1856), quoted by Thomson, records: "A few dogs have escaped and become wild in unfrequented parts, where they have become dangerous to the flocks." Acland (1951) states that in the fifties runholders in the Hororata and Culverden districts had a great deal of trouble with wild dogs; Gardner (1956, pp. 36, 87, 105, 163) makes reference to wild dogs in the Amuri county. Andersen (1916) claims that "wild dogs were a pest as far back as 1849, when 2s. 6d. each for all killed was paid at Motunau". There was everlasting trouble with wild dogs, especially at lambing times. Stringent regulations regarding the purchase of ammunition were relaxed in the case of Canter­ bury runholders requiring it for the destruction of wild dogs (Andersen, p. 491). Today, as suggested by Clark (1949), it seems that on occasion a station dog becomes wild; but as far as I have been able to ascertain there are no packs of wild dogs in Canterbury at the present time. Lance Boyd (pers. comm. 1962) tells of a comparatively recent case of a pack of rabbit dogs

18 going wild in the Ashburton Gorge (Hakatere area) and causing trouble for some years; these are now extinct.

WILD CATS Hursthouse (1861) suggests that the cat (Pelis catus), referred to by the Maori as ngeru or tori, had introduced itself from some early ship. Thomson (1922) states that wild cats have been found in New Zealand from the early days of settlement although, until rabbits attained high numbers, they remained close to human habitation. When the rabbit became a menace, however, farmers bought cats and liberated them in the back country, where they preyed on rats as well as on rabbits. Gardner (1956, p. 274) records that in March 1885 "W. Acton-Adams secured over 200 cats from Christchurch for Tarndale. It is said that he paid 2s. 6d. a head for them in Papanui, but that the venture was not a success. One wagon load was drowned in the Clarence River crossing; the rest were too tame for the unnatural high-country task. The experiment, however, was not immediately given up, and in October of the same year Acton­ Adams wrote to the Amuri council stating that he wished to 'run a four­ horse express with cats frequently' to Molesworth and Tarndale, and requesting that the road be put in order. Again the same year the North Amuri Rabbit Board returned to each stockowner a half of his annual rate to be spent on turning out 'natural enemies'. Within a few years the board had decided to leave individual runholders to their own resources." At Mt. Somers after the introduction of mustelids it was considered that cats were better predators of the rabbit than were stoats and weasels. In the latter part of the nineteenth century wild cats attained great size, attributable, no doubt, to an abundant diet including rabbits, rats, and wekas, ducks, and other birds. In 1860 Butler (1923, p. n9) remarks that wild cats "have increased so as to be very numerous" and considers that they had been instrumental in exterminating the quail. Acland (1951, p. 313) relates tales of wild cats in the Ashburton Gorge (and other areas) in the sixties. After rabbit poisoning was instituted the wild-cat population declined (as did those of the pig and the weka), and the descendants of the wild cats were said to be smaller. Wild cats (Wodzicki, 1950, p. 84) were reported to kill stoats. General opinion seems to have been that cats did have some effect on rabbit populations but it was not evident where rabbit numbers were great. Wodzicki (p. 86) gained evidence of factors, additional to the lack of rabbits for food, which limited the wild-cat population; these were a low survival rate of kittens and mortality because of opossum- and rabbit-trapping operations. He concluded that the wild-cat population was static. In the Mackenzie Country, P. C. Bull (pers. comm.) found that in 1958 wild cats were said to be fairly numerous and they were considered useful as "the natural enemy" of the rabbit. There is a suggestion that, as with the other predators, the wild-cat population will fluctuate with that of the rabbit, i.e. control of rabbits will result in fewer wild cats on farm lands.

19 MUSTELIDS Hutton (1904) includes the mustelids in his list of natural­ ised mammals, and records them as the ferret (Mustela putorius Linn.), the stoat (M. erminea Linn.), and the weasel (M. vulgaris Gmelin) . Thomson (1922) records that the Canterbury Society intro­ duced five ferrets in 1867, another one the following year, and that these appear to have been kept in the Christchurch Gardens.* He suggested that the offspring of these animals may have been sold privately. When rabbits becameamenace, sheep farmers sought and ob­ tained permission for the impor­ tation of a natural predator, Photo: Dept. Sci. & Ind. Res. and ferrets were introduced in (]. E . c. Fz,. .. ; 1882. In 1883 the Chief Rabbit Fig. 5. Ferret Inspector made a recommenda- tion which resulted in the importation of more ferrets, and, also, stoats and weasels. In the Amuri (Gardner, 1956, p. 274), the North Amuri Rabbit -Board favoured control of rabbits by "natural enemies" but the policy of the Hurunui Rabbit Board, responsible for southern Amuri, was control by fencing. Gardner writes: "The shipping of 300 stoats and weasels proved a protracted undertaking, as the animals did not arrive until February 1885." From a questionnaire sent out requesting information, Wodzicki (1950) gained a picture of mustelid distribution. The stoat was found t o have extended its habitat and was widely distributed; the weasel, which appeared to have declined, was sparse, localised, and less widely distri­ buted than the stoat, and the ferret seemed t o have a discontinuous distribution. He considered that there was some correlation between the numbers of the ferret and the rabbit population. When on a visit to the Mackenzie Country in 1958, P. C. Bull (pers. comm.) found that a few ferrets and stoats were said to be present but that the weasel was unknown. B . M. Fitzgerald (pers. comm.) confirms the presence in Canterbury of three mustelid species, namely, the stoat (Mustela erminea), the weasel (M·ustela nivalis), and the ferret (Putorius putorius). In 1961 Professor William H. Marshall of the University of Minnesota, came to New Zealand as a Fulbright scholar to study the ecology and present status of the three mustelid species. Again a questionnaire was

*I.e. The gardens of the Canterbury Acclimatisation Society.-Ed.

20 Fig. 6. Stoat

Photo: C. S . Woods sent out, to field workers in particular. Although, as Marshall (1961) is aware, such a method is open to criticism it does give an idea of the inci­ dence of the animals. Marshall found much the same pattern as had Wodzicki (1950), that the stoat is very widely distributed (he has mapped a virtually continuous record from Kaikoura to the Waitaki River) and that the weasel is very much less so, but warns that, as the weasel is the most difficult of the three animals to observe, the recorded observations may not give the full picture. Marshall found the ferret of particular interest because of the similar discontinuous distribution described by Wodzicki from data collected in 1948. Marshall postulated a combination of climatic conditions and land-use practices for the absence of ferrets in certain areas. He reports that over all the numbers of stoats and ferrets have declined considerably, but because of the meagre informatiOn ob­ tained regarding weasels, a similar opinion cannot be given for this small animal. Marshall confirms the relationship in open country between mustelid numbers and rabbit numbers and believes that "the effective rabbit control by use of poisons is the major factor in reducing the abund­ ance of stoats and ferrets in recent years". Since Professor Marshall's return to the United States, B. Michael Fitzgerald of Animal Ecology

Fig. 7. Weasel

Photo from L. Hartmai>

21 Division, D.S.I.R., is continuing work on mustelids for his M.Sc. at Canterbury University. From the work of Professor Marshall confirming the suspected relation­ ship of mustelid and rabbit populations, it would seem that adequate rabbit control will result in a reduction of mustelids in open country; it is not likely to affect stoats and weasels in forest. Fitzgerald's work will provide answers on many points of controversy regarding these, at present, little-known mammals.

INSECTIVORE (THE HEDGEHOG) Hutton (1904) includes the hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus Linn.) in his list of naturalised mammals. Thomson (1922) records that in 1870 the Canterbury Society received a pair of hedgehogs and in 1871 another animal was presented to the society, but there is no indication as to whether these animals bred. Thomson further states that in 1894 (corrected by Wodzicki (1950) to 1892), 12 hedgehogs were imported for a private home in Merivale, Christchurch, but that they escaped. It is assumed that these animals became estab­ lished, for after some years, during which nothing was seen of the escapees, the hedgehog became abundant in Christchurch. In 1916 they were regarded as garden pests and a menace to the fowl run. Concerning dates on which hedgehogs were liberated or first noticed, W odzicki (1950) gives (in addition to 1892) Maungati 1907, Peel Forest 1910-14,

Photo: N.Z. Forest Service (J. H. G. Johns) Fig. 8. H edgehog 22 Blue Cliffs, South Canterbury 1915-16, Kaikoura 1933, and Darfield 1937· Wodzicki (p. 57) writes that "gardens and orchards, farm paddocks, and to a lesser extent plantations, are the habitats preferred by the hedgehog. Bush and second growth are much less favoured". Wodzicki (p. 59) considered that the natural spread of hedgehogs had been slow and indeed that colonisation is still in progress. Public opinion appeared to be changing in favour of the hedgehog, i.e. that it is beneficial in the garden, while from North and South Canterbury it had been reported that farmers liberated them because they preyed on young rabbits and mice. There was, however, still prejudice against hedgehogs for their alleged preying on ground-nesting birds, and for some years acclimatisation societies had paid a bounty on hedgehogs' snouts, e.g. 4,752 in North Canterbury from 1932 to 1938; Wodzicki concluded that in small numbers the hedgehog could well be an ally of the farmer and gardener, but that a greater population might have an adverse effect on ground-nesting birds. A great deal is required to be known regarding the breeding and hibernation of the hedgehog; Wodzicki (p. 61) postulated that a shorter hibernation period in New Zealand might result in a longer breeding season than occurred in Europe. He concluded (p. 64): "Until an ecological study of its status and relationship to its environment is carried out it is difficult to express a definite opinion on its economic status, and whether the existing measures of control are justified and satisfactory." Brockie (1959) mentions the hedgehog having been accused of preying on ground-nesting birds, "especially pheasants, quail, duck, pipits, and skylarks. It was even thought that the animal was responsible for a de­ cline in the numbers of these birds". Brockie (p. 134) quotes various authors and from these and his own observations finds that there is no evidence of hedgehogs being responsible for affecting the ground-nesting bird population. It is pertinent to note that in 1958 P. C. Bull (pers. comm.) was informed that hedgehogs were very numerous throughout the Mackenzie Country (even up to quite high altitudes in tussock coun­ try) and that, although Bull himself had frequently seen hedgehog droppings in many of the areas he inspected, he noted that skylarks were very numerous despite the high incidence of hedgehogs. Mr C. C. S. Parker, Chairman of the Mackenzie Rabbit Board, told Bull that he believed the hedgehog to be an important "natural enemy" of rabbits, and that their preying on the latter included entering nest stops and eating rabbit young. Brockie (1959, p. 132) refers to the fact that the milder climate in New Zealand results in food animals of hedgehogs (which would disappear in Europe in winter) being available throughout the year; such a condition could be correlated with the shorter hibernation period in this country. He attributes the high level of hedgehog population (as of invertebrates) to the long mild summer, which is conducive to hedgehogs having two or three litters a season. It is not yet certain what the limiting factors are in hedgehog populations. Brockie (1957) suspects that most animals die during the winter but not from lack of food; he considers predation and

23 parasitism negligible. He suggests pneumonia may be a contributory factor and the possibility that many animals are drowned in their nests during hibernation.* A suggestion has been made that the hedgehog exercises some control over the rat population in country districts. There is no evidence available which would indicate the likelihood of any marked change in the distribution and abundance of hedgehogs in Canterbury.

MARSUPIALS THE OPOSSUM The Australian opossum, Trichosurus vulpecula, was introduced into New Zealand in the hope of starting a profitable fur industry; it had, also, some interest and novelty value. Thomson (1922) records the first liberation of the opossum in New Zealand as having been made by a Mr Basstian at Riverton in Southland in 1858, but Pracy (1962) has found evidence of a liberation in that district before 1840 and records the first Canterbury liberation as 42 animals of mixed colour released by the Canterbury Acclimatisation Society on Banks Peninsula in 1865. Most of the Canterbury opossum liberations were made by acclimatisation societies, with a few by private individuals from 1904 to 1917. . New Zealand proved very suitable for the opossum and although in Canterbury this animal has never reached the high densities it did in some other areas, it was inevitable that this district should be drawn into the arguments which raged as to the wisdom of further liberations. Anti­ opossum citizens, mostly fruitgrowers and small farmers, vigorously opposed the pro-opossum group represented mainly by acclimatisation societies. The result was see-sawing legislation for the enforcement or removal of protection. In 1913 legislation declared opossums absolutely protected in certain specified counties, in effect practically all New Zealand forests, which resulted in wholesale poaching, generally with poison. Liberations continued, but by about 1917 the Department of Internal Affairs, which had been having increasingly grave doubts as to the wisdom of further indiscriminate releases, became loath to give permission for any more liberations whatever. In 1920 the Government asked Professor H. B. Kirk for an opinion on (a) whether the damage to forest was likely to outweigh advantages to settler? in being able to earn a revenue by trapping opossums in new country~ and (b) on what areas these animals could be liberated with reasonable security against their overrunning and damaging State forests. Professor Kirk concluded that the opossum was inimical to orchards and , gardens but almost harmless to forests, and, in view of the value of the skin trade, could be farmed to advantage in remote forest areas. Professor Kirk also recommended a trapping season from May to July, licence fees to be paid by transfers and royalties to the Crown. This report had a great

*R. E. Brockie (1964) finds that New Zealand hedgehogs retain a heritable dental abnormality characteristic of the British stock from which they are descended.

24 Fig. 9. Opossum

Photo: ]. H. G. Johns

influence on subsequent legislation and Government policy; and on 5 May 1921 legislation laid down the procedure for the taking of opossums. It also stated that it was unlawful to liberate or harbour opossums in areas where permits were necessary, and in other parts of the country the written consent of the Department of Internal Affairs was necessary before liberation could be effected. This was the beginning of another very complex phase with unauthorised liberations being carried out both by trappers and acclimati­ sation societies. Increasing public opinion against the opossum, clamouring

25 for greater control, resulted in a conference of acclimatisation-society delegates on 28 February 1944· All except North Canterbury favoured continued protection of the opossum, but opposition from Department of Internal Affairs officers resulted in a resolution "that the present regula­ tions are not an adequate means of controlling the opossum population". New opossum regulations appeared on 24May1946, retaining the necessity of a licence to take or kill opossums, but discarding the necessity for brokers' licences, the stamping of skins, and the payment of royalty to the Crown. On 23 April 1947, however, amendments to the opossum regulations cancelled all restrictions on the taking of opossums and made harbouring and liberation not only unlawful but subject to heavy penalties. Poisoning became legal in certain areas where infestation was particularly heavy. The Department of Internal Affairs, however, was not satisfied that · removal of all the restrictions on the taking of opossums would result in adequate control (i.e. by trapping) and that a much greater knowledge of the animal was required to achieve efficient results. Accordingly the Department embarked upon a national opossum survey, a formidable undertaking which occupied the next three years. This was carried out by Senior Field Officer L. T. Pracy and an assistant (C. Malone), who accumu­ lated data for opossum liberation, distribution, and density maps. Riney (1956, p. 4) used Pracy's information regarding opossum distri­ bution and density but gave no detail of river systems which initially served as barriers. L. T. Pracy (pers. comm.) assessed for that time a small, heavy population near the coastin.North Canterbury, between the. Clarence River mouth and Kaikoura, surrounded by a narrow zone of moderate population, thence light to scattered extending up the Clarence to the northern end of the Seaward Kaikoura Range and down the coast as far as the Kahutara River. From there to the Waiau River the land was unoccupied by opossums, but a large area further south contained a light to scattered population which, on the coastal plain, stretched to the Rakaia River but extended through the Ashburton headwaters to the Hinds River in the foothills country. In some of the river valleys opossums had colonised virtually to the main divide (with localised moderate popula­ tions in the main heads of the Hurunui and Rakaia Rivers) and a few animals had penetrated the high-altitude grassland above 4,000 ft; the latter, of course, was summer range, not permanent habitat. Banks Peninsula carried a moderate population in remnant forest and on areas where adequate cover was available; elsewhere there was a light to scattered population. At the time of the national opossum survey (1947-50) there was a gap without opossums between the Hinds and the Rangitata Rivers, only a few animals occurring along the true left bank of the Rangitata in the Peel Forest area. From the south bank of the latter river a light to scattered population extended down the coast to the Waitaki River, bounded inland by the Hakataramea tributary of the Waitaki River, and the Two Thumb and Ben McLeod Ranges above the headwaters of the various branches of the Opihi River and the southern branch of the Orari. Within this large area were three foci of moderate density: between the Rangitata

26 and Orari Rivers in the Peel Forest region, south of this between the Waihi and Haehaetemoana branches of the Opihi River, and on the Hunters Hills in the headwaters of the Pareora River. Again, evidence was found of the presence of a few opossums on the high tops. In September 1950 there was a conference in Wellington of wildlife personnel concerned with opossum control, which made a number of resolutions. It was agreed that, from the results of the opossum field investigations and the national survey, the situation regarding the animal constituted a national emergency, that the Department of Internal Affairs was the only organisation in a position to deal with the situation, that further research on control should have urgent priority, but that it would be impossible for the Department of Internal Affairs with its existing staff and other commitments to undertake control operations on the scale necessary. In view of the last it was recommended that as an interim control measure a bourity of 2s. 6d. per head be paid on all opossums killed from which skins are not taken and that it apply gen­ erally throughout New Zealand. The following year this measure was adopted, and so started the "token" phase of control which ceased on 31 March 196r. During this period a number of liberations were made throughout New Zealand by trappers and private individuals. In 1956, noxious-animal control, and its attendant research, was trans­ ferred from the Department of Internal Affairs to the New Zealand Forest Service. Since then another poison, sodium fluoroacetate (1080) has been added to the list of control methods, and this has been hand laid on the ground and by aerial dropping. 1080 has proved an efficient poison in certain circumstances and safe to handle if the proper pre­ cautions are taken. Just over a decade after his national survey of opossums, L. T. Pracy (now Opossum Control Officer, N.Z. Forest Service) is finishing a second survey and at short notice he generously made available the results for Canterbury.* Canterbury is now almost fully occupied by the opossum. There is no area of heavy density but a light to scattered population extends from the Clarence River mouth to the Waitaki River, inland to Lake Tekapo, the Tasman River, and throughout the mid Canterbury river systems to the main divide except the upper catchments of the Rangi­ tata River. Local moderate populations occur between the Clarence River mouth and Kaikoura, in the headwaters of the Waiau, Hurunui, Ashley, Rakaia, and Ashburton Rivers and the Tengawai branch of the Opihi River in Peel Forest and on Banks Peninsula. During the summer odd opossums are now found throughout all the high-altitude grasslands. J. T. Holloway (pers. comm.) reports a local moderate population on the south bank of the upper Rakaia, and gives the Jagged Stream as an example; he states that the population was heavy in some places in 1950. So successful has been the colonisation of the opossum that no set rules can be laid down for its control; each habitat must be assessed anew. Howard (1958, p. 8) suggests: "The possum ... will never be a serious grassland pest."

*See Pracy, L. T., 1963.-Ed.

27 In general, Canterbury has contained little of the mixed forest which is most suitable for opossums. There have been exceptions, notably the remnants of bush on Banks Peninsula, but such areas have been readily accessible to trappers and have not been difficult to control. Although indigenous forests may recover from the depredations of opossums, exotic forests (which are established for the production of timber) are irreparably damaged, for the injuries inflicted on the trees result in deformations that considerably reduce the trees' value as timber. The mountain-beech forests are deficient in opossum foods, and most of the opossums occur in the vicinity of grassland where supplementary herbs, including clovers, are available. Sweet brier also provides acceptable food. In general, the main factors limiting opossum numbers in Canter­ bury are poor quality food and lack of suitable nesting sites; in some instances (L. T. Pracy pers. comm.), notably in the Hurunui and Kowai (Waimakariri) valleys, there has been an increase in opossums owing to vacated rabbit burrows providing additional nesting.

THE WALLABY Wallabies were introduced into New Zealand in the latter part of the nineteenth century for sport and fur, but information regarding them is very vague. They were imported by acclimatisation societies and private people, and there is a great deal of confusion in the recording of intro­ duction and subsequent change of ownership. Only one of the five species in the country was introduced to Canterbury, i.e., Protemnodon rufo­ grisea. About 1870 Mr Michael Studholme liberated two does and a buck at Waimate, Canterbury. In 1916 Mr E. C. Studholme reported that the

Photo: Nat·io11al P"blicity Studios

Fig. 10. ·wallaby

28 Photo: The author

Fig. II. Wallaby liberation area and habitat: Hunters Hills, near Waimate animals had increased to form a population of some thousands, and that as well as spreading over the adjoining hills they had penetrated north as far as Blue Cliffs. By 1922, however, so many wallabies were said to have been destroyed that the Waimate Acclimatisation Society asked for their protection; in 1936 they were reported as very numerous once more. In 1948 the Government commenced control operations and has since killed over 70,000 animals. Private hunters, also, have accounted for many thousands of wallabies in Canterbury. Today wallabies are dispersed throughout the Hunters Hills of South Canterbury, in an area bounded on the east by settled land and on the west by a tributary of the Waitaki River. Their southern boundary is a line from Waihao Downs to the head of the south branch of the Sisters Creek tributary of the Waitaki River. In the north-east the animals occur sporadically in the Grampian Mountains and across Burke Pass in the Two Thumb Range. P. C. Bull (pers. comm.) was told when on a visit to the Mackenzie Country in October 1958 that a wallaby had been seen recently in the Black Forest area well south of the main colony. A Forest

29 Service file contains the report of a wallaby being shot on Kowai Road, Ashley Forest, in January 1957- Tanfield (1956) reported on bait acceptance and poison trials carried out in the Hunters Hills from February to August 1956, under the direc­ tion of L. T. Pracy. This work, started by the Field Investigation Unit of the Department of Internal Affairs, was continued by the Forest Service after this department took over the control of noxious animals on l April 1956, and its result formed a basis for control by poison. In 1959 the Rabbits Act was amended to include responsibility for destruction of wallabies. Lance Boyd (pers. comm. 1962) advises that in the last two years the Rabbit Boards Wallaby Destruction Committee has been outstandingly successful, and that wallabies are now reduced to control level. Elgie (1961) and the Press of 4 February 1961 record operations in the Hunters Hills. Long-term ecological control of the wallaby is related to land use.

UNGULATES THE WILD HORSE Holford (1927) states that 23 horses (Equus caballus) arrived at Akaroa in 1836, but were bound for Otago. The next record is of Deans Brothers importing three mares in 1843; the first horse to enter South Canterbury (accompanying cattle to the Levels) arrived in 1852. Burnett (1927) records that horses were first introduced to Marys Range in 1856. In the early years, when horses provided virtually all transport, there must have been many unrecorded introductions of these animals. Acland (1951) records that horses belonging to Waikakahi and Waimate Stations used to run together along the whole front country between the Waitaki and Hook Rivers. They were rounded up as required. Today, horse riding has changed from necessity to a sport, and in Canterbury unbroken horses are rounded up for the rodeos which occur periodically at Motu­ karara and Waimate. So far the writer has encountered no reference to any present-day Canterbury horses living in the truly wild state.

THE WILD PIG Thomson (1922) records the first liberation of pigs (Sus scrofa), known to the Maori as poaka or kuhukuhu, being made by de Surville at Doubt­ less Bay in 1769. Pigs were released on Cook's second and third voyages and it is those from the latter liberation that are thought to be "the ancestors of the long-nosed wild pigs which afterwards became so common in the South Island". Hursthouse (1861) speaks of escaped pigs "running wild and breeding, and having a fine climate, abundance of fern root and other food, millions of acres of close covert, and no animal enemies to molest them, they spread over both islands, and may now be numbered by thousands. They roam about in little herds of a dozen or so; but, keeping in the deepest recesses of the forest, are seldom or ever seen except by bush-travellers or pig-hunters. They are small fleet animals, with coarse skins, weighing about roo lb". Clark (1949) quotes the

30 Akaroa Mail regarding an observation that the hills of Banks Peninsula were "thick with pigs" in the early eighteen forties. Holford (1927) states (p. 294) that in a review in 1851, Chas. Torlesse said pigs were turned out in Canterbury in 1845; on page 295 Holford records that Deans Brothers had 20 pigs at Riccarton (probably Berkshires) in 1847 (and that about 1897 L. Wilson, of Teddington, imported the first Tamworths). In 1855 (Hol­ ford, p. 295) the head of the Orari River was reported to be infested with wild pigs and Acland (p. 169) states that they were troublesome for many years. Young settlers looking at land in 1857 (Acland, p. 297) found plenty of pig tracks in the Wilberforce River beyond Lake Coleridge, but were disappointed at not finding the animals themselves; Butler (1923, p. gr) speaks of wild pigs in the Rakaia in 1860. Today (Lance Boyd, pers. comm. 1962) there are no wild pigs in the Wilberforce area. Andersen (1916, p. ro7) says that in l86r wild pigs overran North Canterbury; they were especially bad at lambing time. Between 1858 and 1861 on an area of 400,000 acres north of the Ashley 25,000 pigs were destroyed on confract alone, and thousands more by station personnel, who received a stick of tobacco per tail. South of the Hurunui River on one run alone ro,ooo pigs were killed in a single year without noticeable effect. The Hunters Hills of South Canterbury were so named because pigs outnumbered sheep and had to be hunted daily. In 1871, l,ooo pigs were taken off Mt. Four Peaks, South Canterbury, in four months, some of the skins being sold in Timaru. Acland (1951) states that Stony­ hurst Run, between the Hurunui and Waipara Rivers, had always been a great place for wild pigs. As late as 1878 a shepherd was paid for r,202 pig snouts collected in eight months, and for l,322 in the following year. Acland (p. 197) gives the same situation for Waimate Station, where a contract for anything up to a thousand was let every year. In the sixties (Acland, p. 228) pig hunting was a favourite sport on the Steventon Run in the upper Selwyn. L. T. Pracy (pers. comm.), who was for a time a government hunter in Canterbury, has for January 1937 a diary record of a high concentration of pigs from the Poulter-Thompson junction well down stream, mobs of 20 to 60 being common on the river flats. Wodzicki (1950), working on an arbitrary classification of animal inci­ dence, defined wild-pig density as heavy (one pig to two acres), medium (one pig from two to seven acres), and light (less than one pig to seven acres). On page 231, he records a heavy density of pigs in the Kaikoura area and in the upper Clarence River, with a medium density on the Seaward Kaikoura Range, in the headwaters of the Waiau and Hurunui Rivers, and along the coast between the Hurunui and Waipara Rivers. A light infestation was shown for tributaries of the Waimakariri and Rakaia Rivers, and in south Canterbury. The wild-pig population has certainly decreased from that of the early days but Forest Service Conservancy records show substantial annual kills by Forest Service and private hunters. Pigs frequent most bush areas, but greatest densities are found in plantations, on marginal farm­ lands in fern, scrub, and tussock country, and where there is second-

31 growth forest on good soil; poor soil on which manuka rather than fern regenerates is less suitable for wild pigs. They will roam to the bush line in summer but move down country in winter and spring, rooting up farmlands and killing new-born lambs. Wild pigs are elusive animals and will travel a long distance in a short space of time. Lance Boyd has evolved independently a method for assessing density of animals, and, as this approximates that of Wodzicki (1950), their assessments may be compared. Boyd (as at 1962) has mapped a heavy concentration of pigs in the Ashley area. From the south, there are sparse populations in an area between the headwaters of the Orari and the north Opuha branch of the Opihi, the. headwaters of the north branch of the Ashburton River, across into the Ben More country between the Rakaia and Waimakariri Rivers, and on the true right bank of the Waimakariri and further upstream. A light infestation occurs on the true left bank of the Waimakariri and increases to a moderate density over a wide area reaching back to the heavy Ashley population and on through the head­ waters of the Ashley, Waipara, Hurunui, and Waiau Rivers down the Waiau and northwards up the coast along the Seaward Kaikouras to the · mouth of the Clarence. Then a still moderate population up the Clarence on the true right bank (along the inland slopes of the Seaward Kaikouras), tapering off into a light population in the region adjacent to the inflow of the Acheron River. At times wild pigs in Canterbury will no doubt have to be controlled by special operations, but they are being kept down all the time by hunters and other staff of the Forest Service as well as by private hunters. Wild-pig hunting has, and no doubt will continue to have, considerable recreational value. ·

WILD CATTLE Andersen (1916) and Holford (1927) record that the first cattle (Bos taurus) in Canterbury were 50 ("nearly pure Durham") introduced by W. B. Rhodes in 1839, and that the Deans Brothers imported 61 cattle in 1843. In August 1852, F. W. Stubbs and others took 28 cattle to the Levels, the first cattle to go to South Canterbury. Burnett (1927) gives 1856 as the year cattle were introduced to Marys Range east of Lake Pukaki. Many of the progeny of these or later introductions became truly wild. Kennaway (1874), quoted by Wodzicki (1950, p. 151), speaks of the early Canterbury settlers having their crops destroyed by wild cattle. These animals, of cou,rse, would be descendants of those which had been missed during mustering or which had escaped from inadequately fenced or unfenced holdings. Possibly only those with first-hand knowledge know how wild cattle can become and how often it would have proved impossible to round them up; the alternative was to shoot out relict herds but even this frequently failed and many animals, probably more particularly those which had been turned out to winter in the bush, retained their freedom. Andersen (1916) says that "in 1868 a mob of 150 wild cattle that had established itself in the fastnesses of Mount Nimrod

32 was attacked several times with a view to extermination, but without success. On 23rd September, 1871, however, a hunt was organised, and loo cattle killed. Some of the beasts had been running for II years. This w~s an exceptionally large mob, wild cattle having never been as numer­ ous nor as pestiferous as the pigs". Cattle hunting was an adventurous sport in the early days, as described by Donne (1924); and Acland (1951) says that "in the early days Mt. Torlesse was a great place for hunting wild cattle" and that "Lady Barker (1870) describes an expedition after wild cattle there in the 'sixties". In 1879 Reischek (1952, p. 49) encoun­ tered small mobs of wild cattle inthe upper Rakaia valley, even as far as "the foot of the Ramson [Ramsey] Glacier", where he saw "a herd of some 30 wild cattle out on the open grassland". As settlement progressed, however, wild cattle became confined to remote, rugged country. In 1955 J. T. Holloway (pers. comm.) saw cattle pats (probably several years old) above 5,000 ft on the high tops above Cox Gorge (East Poulter), and Lance Boyd (pers. comm. 1962) records that up to IO years ago there were wild cattle in the Esk-Poulter area but that these are now extinct.* Boyd mentions that there were wild cattle in the Wilberforce in the 1930s, and also in the Harper River and Conway area in 1946. He considers that there may still be a few animals in Broken River. Relph (1958) records: "A certain number of cattle have been run in the Castle Hill basin, at least since 1865, and at present a number of wild cattle graze on the rolling country at the foot of the Torlesse Range. They appear to have had considerable effect in consol~dating the ground and making tracks, and have probably contributed to the relative absence of bracken in this area. Possibly the tendency of cattle to pull tussocks by the roots has been a factor in reducing their number."

WILD SHEEP According to Holford (1927) the first sheep (Ovis aries) in Canterbury were 43 introduced by Deans Brothers in 1843. Andersen (1916) states that the Rhodes Brothers drove sheep into South Canterbury in 1852, and Burnett (1927) notes that the first mobs of sheep arrived in the Mackenzie Country in 1857-8. Sheep became wild in much the same way as cattle, for they grazed far and wide over the country and were seldom mustered. Sheep which were missed at the muster retreated to inaccessible country, and, as Thomson (1922) states, wild sheep became common. After 1930, the Department of Internal Affairs' hunters destroyed them in the course of their deer-destruction operations. Wild sheep still exist in Canterbury and each year Forest Service and private hunters' reported kills show that several hundred sheep have been destroyed. Lance Boyd (pers. comm. 1962) reports that wild sheep are confined to State-forest areas in the Hurunui (SF43) and the Waimakariri (SF18) and that the population is declining; they could be readily reduced by shooting.

*Peter Newton (1964, p. 141) records that in 1941 there were wild cattle in the Esk River headwaters.

33 THE WILD GOAT Thomson (1922) records that goats (Capra hircus) appear to have been successfully established from a liberation on Cook's third voyage in 1777; those released at the time of the second voyage were thought not to have survived. Clark (1949) quotes hearsay evidence (p. 256) from the Akaroa Mail "that the hills of Banks Peninsula in the forties had many goats roaming wild upon them", and continues "but it is surprising to find no direct evidence of goats in the French settlement at Akaroa". He also quotes from the Barker letters (p. 256) that "good 'milch goats' were purchasable for ten shillings apiece in Lyttelton in 1850". Sealers, whalers; and the earliest settlers are thought to have brought goats with them for milk and meat, but there is little record from these sources. In 1867 (Thomson, p. 59) the Canterbury Society introduced three Cashmere and a pair of Angora goats; he records that in 1876, 120 Angora goats from the Port Hills were "dispersed and sold". High hopes had been held that Angora skins would command a good price; but the Angora interbred with the common goat and interest in the enterprise waned. When cows and other domestic stock became plentiful, goats appear to have lost their value and were either liberated or escaped to the hills, where they built up large populations. Even in 1916, though, Thomson (p. 58) notes that at Kaikoura (as on the Hawke's Bay coast of the North Island) goats were numerous yet were tolerated by farmers because they kept tracks open through scrub and bush, which would otherwise have proved barriers to sheep. Wodzicki (1950) defines goat density as medium to heavy (goats reported in mobs of ro or more) and light (goats seen or shot in groups up to ro) and has mapped goat populations according to these categories. He shows that in the area from the Clarence mouth to Kaikoura goat density was medium to heavy and that a light infestation spread southwards down the North Canterbury coast. There was also a light population between the Waimakariri and the Rakaia Rivers. Goats, of course, never have been the problem in Canterbury that they have been in adjacent Marlborough. For 1962, Lance Boyd has mapped goats in Canterbury as being heavy along the Seaward Kaikouras side of the Clarence River, sparse further south-west up the Clarence, and light on the coastal side of the Seaward Kaikouras; there is another sparse population in the Waipara River area. Lance Boyd (pers. comm.) reports that shooting to control goats on the northern flank of the Seaward Kaikouras has been carried out by Forest Service hunters from Nelson Conservancy, and on the southern flank by hunters from Canterbury Conservancy. Inspection of the southern side during last winter (i.e. 1962) showed that goats were still present but in greatly reduced numbers. Goats will no doubt be the object of special campaigns but will also be destroyed in the course of routine deer-control operations. Every year several hundred goats are shot by Forest Service and private hunters.

34 Photo: N.Z. Forest Service (].H. G. Johns)

Fig. 12. Wild goats

Photo: Dept. of foternal Affairs, Wildlife Branch (P. lvlorriso1') Fig. 13. Large herd of wild goats

35 THE THAR The New Zealand Government liberated five thar (Hemitragus jemlahi­ cus) near the Hermitage, Mount Cook, in 1904; these animals were pre­ sented by the Duke of Bedford (Donne, 1924, p. 200), as also were a further eight in 1909 (p. 201). In October 1915, Guide J. R. Murrell of the Hermit­ age (Thomson, 1922, p. 60) reported having seen a mob of 13 on the Sealey Range and that larger numbers had been seen on previous occasions. Donne (1924, p. 201) states that in personal communications to him, Chief Guide P eter Graham reported that 18 or· 20 thar had been seen in 1916, and in 1918 advised that a herd of 50 had been seen " on' the Alps near the Hermitage". Donne's latest advice was that the herd exceeded 100.

Fig. 14. Thar

Photo: N.Z. Forest Service (]. H. G. Johns)

In the annual report for 1936, the Department of Internal Affairs made the following stat ement regarding thar: "There is ample evidence to show that these animals are spreading in the South Island, and investigations have been made by officers of the Department. The animals were originally liberated in the Mount Cook region, and, although in past seasons a few were shot by the departmental parties in other areas, it was evident that it was necessary in any campaign against the menace to pay special attention to the area which has been the source of increase and spread. Departmental parties will operate in the Mount Cook locality during the winter." In October 1939, G. H. Thomson (pers. comm.) and Trevor Thompson, Government hunters, shot ro thar in the Carney's Creek tributary of the Havelock branch of the Rangitata River. These hunters were engaged on a chamois shooting campaign which extended along the Southern Alps to, and including, the Waimakariri, and as during this comprehensive survey they had no further diary record of thar, it seems reasonable to assume that at that time the Rangitata was the most northerly point of spread - at least on the east of the main divide. L. T. Pracy (pers. comm.) has a 1941 diary record of rr thar being shot at the head of the Forbes River tribut ary of the Havelock branch of the Rangitata, but says that at that time there were none on the Cloudy Peak Range.

36 Wodzicki (1950) shows thar range for 1947 as about 60 miles northwards from the liberation area. He records that the Department of Internal Affairs destroyed 5,303 thar between 1936 and 1947· During· noxious­ animals operations in 1955, the Department of Internal Affairs' hunters killed 2,130 thar, of which 1,500 were shot on the Sealey and Ben Ohau Ranges. L. Boyd has mapped the spread of thar to 1962 as follows: light in the Hopkins-Dobson Ranges; heavy from well south on the Ben Ohau and along the Southern Alps northwards through the headwaters of the Clyde branch of the Rangitata River (including the Two Thumb Range); moderate from there to the true right of the headwaters of the Rakaia, thence sparse on the true left bank, the headwaters of the Mathias, and the headwaters and well down the Wilberforce. According to records of the Canterbury Conservancy, N.Z. Forest Service, in the three years up to March 1961, Government hunters ac­ counted for 5,504 thar, private hunters for 3,685, and national parks personnel for 245, a total of 9'434 animals. A disease which Government hunters found young thar in the Have­ lock branch of the Rangitata to be suffering from was diagnosed by the Wallaceville Laboratory of the Department of Agriculture (1960), as contagious ecthyma (scabby mouth); some animals had died. Lance Boyd (pers. comm. 1962) advises that fairly large-scale poisoning trials have been carried out this spring at Mt. Cook and in the Rangitata, and that assessment of the effectiveness of these trials will soon be under way. Previous trials indicate that poison shows promise as a further control measure against thar.

THE CHAMOIS The chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra) was introduced for sport, in parti­ cular sport for tourists. Although Sir Julius von Haast made some inquiries regarding the importation of chamois in 1888, it was not until 1907 that eight animals were liberated at Mt. Cook (Donne, 1924, p. 203). These were presented by the Emperor of Austria, from whom two more were obtained in 1913 and liberated in the same area. Chamois became established all too well, and now extend from the Mt. Cook area a greater distance from site of liberation than any other of the introduced game animals. About 1939 the chamois population was deci­ mated by some disease, but it was only a temporary check; for they went on with their colonising activities at a rapid rate. L. T. Pracy (pers. comm.) states that this disease was confined to animals in the Rakaia and southwards, chamois north of this river being free from it. In January 1937 Pracy records that chamois were present on the tops of the true left of the Andrews tributary of the Waimakariri, and that in 1940 they were in high numbers on the mountains at the head of the Wilberforce. Wodzicki (1950) estimates (as at 1947) medium to heavy densities for the Mt. Cook, Arthur's Pass, and Spenser Mountains region. In 1950 chamois were plentiful in the Harper-Avoca area and in 1956 they were said to be increasing there (Logan, p. 69).

37 Fig. 15. Chamois

Photo: N.Z. Forest Service ( J. H. G. Johns)

In the central Southern Alps, chamois have an estimated normal graz­ ing range between 3,000 ft and 6,ooo ft in high basins and on steep rocky faces; but in this area the writer has seen a few animals on valley floors (e.g. Murchison River); this is also noted by Logan (p. 70) for the Harper and Avoca valleys. To reach the habitats now recorded, however, dispersion has occurred through considerably lower and forested country; for chamois have reached north-west Nelson and at least as far as the Hollyford southwards. Lance Boyd's 1962 map shows a heavy population of chamois on Mt. Cook, and on the Maltebrun and Leibig Ranges. Moderate numbers occur in the Macauley valley, on the Two Thumb Range, and the true right of the Havelock tributary of the Rangitata River; the headwaters of the Ashburton, through to the Lawrence and Clyde headwaters; from the

Photo: The author Fig. 16. Near Mueller Terminal moraine in area of liberation of chamois and thar. Mt. Sefton and Footstool in distance

38 Photo: The author Fig. 17. Thar, chamois, and red deer habitat: Lawrence tributary of Rangitata River

Mathias to the Wilberforce; the Torlesse foothills, and right along the headwaters of the Waimakariri and the Hurunui to the Hope tributary of the Waiau River. A light population is found on the Sealey Range (behind the Hermitage); the Jollie, Cass, and Godley Rivers; the head­ waters of the Potts and Ashburton; the Harper, Avoca, and head of Lake Coleridge; then from the headwaters of the Poulter and the Ashley through the Hurunui and right to the head of the main Waiau and down the true right of the Clarence on the Seaward Kaikouras. Chamois occur sparsely on the Ben Ohau Range between Lake Heron and the Rakaia; from Lake Coleridge through the Waimakariri into the Ashley, and pockets occur in the headwaters of the Waipara and Ashley and between the Waiau and Clarence Rivers.

THE FALLOW DEER The writer knows of no record of any early introduction of fallow deer (Dama dama) into Canterbury. Thomson (1922, p. 48) says: "In 1871 the Canterbury Society had four fallow deer in their gardens, but there is no record now obtainable as to where they came from, nor definitely as to what was done with them. But in later years some were running on the Culverden Estate and two more deer - obtained from Tasmania - were added to them. This herd did not increase, and apparently has been

39 gradually destroyed since." In the annual report of the South Canterbury Acclimatisation Society 'for 1903, it is stated regarding fallow deer, "Your council decided to make a personal inspection of the country where these deer are, with a view to ascertaining if licences should be issued to shoot same, but for various reasons the inspection had to be forgone. Reports have reached the council that they have increased considerably and it will be for the incoming council to decide what steps shall be taken in the matter." In the annual report for 1907 is the following:

Fig. r8. Fallow deer

Photo: N.Z. Forest Service (].H. G. Johns)

"The sum of £7 8s. od. was received during the year from the Government for stalking licences issued in 1906." In l9II the annual report mentioned that "Owing to the depredations of the deer the Minister granted permis­ sion to some of the settlers, who complained, to destroy them. The council has not heard of the permission being abused." Andersen (1916, p. 30) records, "A small herd of fallow deer has been established in the ranges south-west of Albury, and for a few years past a limited number of licences to kill stags has been issued." In 1922 the South Canterbury Acclimatisation Society reported that "the Albury Park herd still affords good sport, but the heads are not improving". Good hunting continued to be reported until 1926; thereafter the only mention was of the shooting of deer that had become a nuisance. Ecologically the fallow deer has affinities with the rabbit. It can occupy high country, as a rabbit can, but there it is outside its ecological niche. There are some 14 known herds throughout New Zealand; but, for the most part, they have colonised only the territory adjacent to the original liberations, and so appear as isolated populations. The fallow has not posed a serious problem, even in its natural habitat on the low country, and it is not so long ago that there was some doubt as to whether the Aniseed (Nelson) herd would manage to survive. In general, they favour

40 fern, scrub, and grassland country, or light forest bordering these but, normally, are not bush-inhabiting animals. Kean (1959b) considers that the fallow "can displace red deer except at high altitudes", i. e. in forest adversely browsed by red deer. It has not been possible to ascertain the date of liberations of the fallow deer in Canterbury, but Lance Boyd's 1962 map shows only a light population, which occurs throughout the headwaters of the Opihi and its Tengawai tributary, and along the true left bank of the upper Pareora River. Control of the Canterbury fallow deer could well be the responsi­ bility of organisations operating in the low country and so it has been left to private hunters to keep their numbers down. Recent inspection (Lance Boyd, pers. comm. 1962), however, has resulted in concern at the number of fallow seen and some systematic hunting may be necessary.

THE RE D DEER

Andersen (1916, p. 30) writes: "The first deer liberated 'on the Waitangi' arrived in South Canterbury on 22ncl November, 1867. These were obtained from the Dunedin Acclimatisation Society for Geo. Buckley." According to Donne (1924, p. 97) the Canterbury Acclima­ tisation Society had made unsuccessful liberations of red deer (Cervus elaphus) at (among other places) Culverden, Cheviot, and Little River, long before the end of the nineteenth century; but, except for a stag at Culverden which had been shot for its "persistent pug­ nacity in charging residents", it is claimed that "they disappeared in an unknown Photo: N .Z . Forest Service (]. H. G. J ohns) manner". Fig. 19. Red deer In October 1897 (Thomson, 1922, p. 43; Donne, 1924, p. 90) eight red deer (three stags and five hinds) imported from Stoke Park, Buckingham­ shire, and a calf which had been born while in quarantine on Quail Island some 5-6 months previously, were liberated in the Rakaia valley near Manuka Point. The annual report of the North Canterbury Acclimatisation Society for 1902 (p. 4) reads: "The young stag which was liberated at Rakaia Gorge has joined the herd existing in that locality" and that for 1906 (p. 4): "The red deer turned out in the Rakaia Gorge are doing very well, and increasing rapidly. On one occasion forty were seen in one mob. The question of issuing licences to shoot them must be considered in the near future."

41 At the end of 1908 or early 1909, three red stags and five hinds were liberated in the Poulter River district, and also a further two stags and six hinds in November 1909; these animals were all from the Warnham Court herd and subsequently were known as the Mt. White herd. Any later liberations there may have been in Canterbury were made from New Zealand stock. As in most other parts of New Zealand, Canterbury proved eminently suitable for red deer and their acclimatisation was a complete success. Legislation which had been passed in 1861, giving deer complete (temporary) protection, although followed by the Protection of Certain Animals Amendment 1866 authorising the issue of shooting licences, enabled the Canterbury herds to increase virtually without check. The red deer dispersed throughout Canterbury, and, as suggested by Donne (1924, p. 93), they probably penetrated into Westland via the Whitcombe Pass. Harold Hodgkinson, a well-known Otago deerstalking guide, inspected the Rakaia herd in 1915 (and is quoted as saying that "the Rakaia deer are coarser and heavier animals than are the Otago deer, and whereas the latter are found high up on the Alps, the Rakaia deer appear to choose the lower ground and forest cover"). Donne supple­ mented this remark as follows: "As a matter of fact, some of the Rakaia deer now frequent the highest country in the district - thus showing that park deer, when liberated in wild country, readily adapt themselves to new conditions." Hodgkinson on this occasion "noted that many of the heads had no bay tines, and expressed the opinion that the stags grew to maturity very quickly and developed good heads when three or four years - old". An earlier reference regarding bay tines appeared in the Lyttelton Times of 24 May 1910: "A very fine stag's head, secured by Mr C. P. Murray-Aynsley, of Methven, at the headwaters of the Rakaia River, was sent in to the Christchurch office of the Tourist Department on Saturday. It is a remarkably symmetrical royal, probably the best yet brought out of the Rakaia herd. In one respect this head is greatly superior · to any other shot in the Rakaia, in that the bay tines are most regular and well formed. Heads secured in this district previously have without exception displayed some defect in the bay tines." Joff Thomson (1952, plate X), a Government hunter, confirms Hodgkinson's observations regarding the absence of bay tines, which, with smallness of head, he regards as "features of the majority of the Rakaia herd". In his deer-distribution map of the South Island, Forbes (1924), too, names the Canterbury red deer herds as "Rakaia" and "Mt. White", indicating two distinct foci of population, but the red deer steadily colonised the high country of Canterbury and joined up with the Nelson and Otago herds. This building up of the red deer herds was a cause of great rejoicing and any opinion (Walsh, 1892; A. N. Perham, 1922) that their presence was, or would prove to be, inimical to the forest and high­ altitude grassland was ignored. Only when over-population became evident in the incidence of malformed "heads", thus jeopardising the interests of sportsmen, was any move made to curb the rate of increase and then only to the extent of culling, including, in some instances, a bounty system. In time, however, erosion that seemed to be directly attributabletotheimpactof deer on the forest and the mountain tops became

42 Photo: Tlze author

Fig. 20. Red deer habitat: outliers of the main divide. Waimakariri River left and centre, Bealey River to right apparent, and the situation was evaluated in the Perham report (1922) . This recommended not only that protection of all deer should cease but also that there should be a bounty paid on kills. In 1927 protection under the Animal Protection and Game Act was removed in the case of State-forest plantations, and the Forest Service commenced a killing campaign. Private hunters became eligible, from various organisations, for a bounty of 2s., later rs. 6d., a head. These measures, however, had little effect in reducing the red deer population and a conference was called in May 1930 to assess the situation. It was decided that there should be joint action by the Forest Service and the Department of Internal Affairs, but later all operations were entrusted to the latter Department, which started large-scale killing operations in the following year. L. T. Pracy (pers. comm.), who was for a time a Government hunter in Canterbury, has supplied information from his diary on deer densities prevailing in those years. In 1937, mobs of roo to 200 deer could be seen on the main fiats from the Thompson-Poulter junction down river, while on the tussock and shingle tops they were found in 20s, 30s, and 40s. Lake Minchin also had heavy concentrations of deer; they occurred in mobs of 15 to 30. At that time deer were very "quiet" on the high tops. In 1940 Pracy was in the Rakaia, where he found deer in mobs of 20s to 30s on the fiats, but not widespread; in the Washbourne Hut - Cattle Creek area, however, local concentrations of 50 to 60 were quite common. The Mathias tributary had much the same densities as the Rakaia, especially in J erusalem and Cattle Creeks; from the heads and down valley in Boundary and Mistake Creeks mobs of 60 to 70 could be encoun­ tered. The Wilberforce carried high numbers of deer on its extensive fiats; from the Moa Stream to the Unknown (Stewart) a mob of roo or more animals might be seen (with a record of 140 in the north branch of the Moa). In the Urquharts Hut - ·weka Stream area there were local con­ centrations of 30 to 40, and in the head of the Wilberforce ros, 20s, to

43 Photo: The author

Fig. 2 r. R ed deer habitat: forested slopes of outer Craigieburn Range

50s, might be seen on the high-altitude grasslands. In the Harper, and its Avoca tributary, small mobs of six or so were seen and animals were scattered; in the Waimakariri, where concentrations of deer were not as high as in the Rakaia-Wilberforce, the animals were more scattered and mobs were smaller.* In the Rangitata in 1940, Pracy found local pockets of deer along the Clyde and Lawrence tributaries (also in the Ashburton River valley), and a scattered population on the true right of the Havelock. On l April 1956 the responsibility for deer control passed from the Department of Internal Affairs to the New Zealand Forest Service, where it remains today. Wodzicki (1950) worked on an arbitrary classification of deer incidence as he.avy (deer seen in mobs of ro or more at a time), medium (three to ro deer seen at a time), and light to sparse (one to two deer seen at a time). On this system Canterbury was mapped with a medium to heavy infestation in the Southern Alps above Lakes Ohau and Pukaki; thence a light population is shown north-east along the main divide until the headwaters of the Rakaia are reached, where the incidence again becomes medium to heavy and continues so beyond the Waimakariri country to the northern limits of Canterbury in the Spenser Mountains portion of the main divide. Throughout the length of Canterbury light populations are shown existing

*Mona Anderson (1963, p . 180) speaks of seeing a mob of 37 deer on Mount Algidus Station, presumably in the 1940s.

44 in the foothill country extending out into the eastern plains and, also, along the eastern coast of North Canterbury. Lance Boyd's 1962 map shows no heavy infestation of red deer. Mod­ erate density is shown from the headwaters of the Lawrence tributary of the Rangitata through the Rakaia, the Mathias, and the Wilberforce, then from the south bank of the Ashley through all the heads of its north­ ern tributaries, those of the Waipara, Hurunui, and Waiau, and contin­ ued along the true right of the Clarence on the Seaward Kaikouras. A light density of red deer occurs on the true left bank of the Waitaki River (downstream from the confluence of the Tekapo, Pukaki, and Ohau Rivers) and extends past Deep Creek to near Waitaki Lake, rising to some 4,000 ft on the Kirkliston Range. Further north a light density exists from the true right bank of the Godley, across the Two Thumb and Cloudy Peak Ranges, to the head of the Clyde branch of the Rangitata, and throughout the catchment of its Lawrence and Potts River tributaries; across the Big Hill Range to the heads of the South Ashburton and Cam­ eron Rivers, and extending southwards to and including the headwaters of the Opuha branch of the Opihi River. Another large area of light density comprises the whole of the Waimakariri catchment as far down­ stream as the Kowai River; across the heads of the Selwyn to the Rakaia, and the Harper-Avoca catchment, taking in the Torlesse, Craigieburn, Black, and Birdwood Ranges as well as the slopes of the Southern Alps. Sparse densities of red deer occur from the Ben Ohau Range to the Godley valley; from the Opuha headwaters southwards through the Hunters Hills to the Waihao River; below the lightly infested country of the head of the South Ashburton - Lake Heron area and the head of the North Ash­ burton and to the Rakaia River on the south-west of Lake Coleridge; a pocket in the Eyre River tributary of the Waimakariri (between the light density of the Waimakariri and the moderate of the Ashley); another pocket near the coast between the Ashley and the Waipara (an extension of the moderate population inland); and a narrow band along the coast from the Motunau River to the Oaro. It has been noted that there is no heavy density of red deer in Canter­ bury. Actually, the numbers of all animals described as noxious which have been destroyed by Forest Service hunters in Canterbury have been declining in recent years, although hunting pressure has not been dim­ inished; for the year ended 31 March 1962, the total of animals destroyed was n,500 as against 16,271 the previous year.

THE FUTURE Order exists in a balanced ecological system, with each species in its own appropriate niche; but mammals introduced into New Zealand are but fragments of the fauna of the life zones fromwhich they came (Allee et al., 1949), and as yet they are ecologically out of balance here. Animal ecolo­ gists are studying the degree of conformity to life zones which introduced mammals have achieved since their arrival in New Zealand (Davidson, 1959; Davidson and Kean 1960). The bat, the only pre-European wholly-land mammal known to be still in Canterbury, poses no problem; even if it increases in number (as appears

45 feasible) it should be in balance with its environment. The Maori dog is extinct, but the Maori rat may yet prove to be still in Canterbury. To comply with the request for an enlightened look into the future re­ garding the status of introduced mammals, one can only suggest the following: Rats and mice. Populat\ons will probably remain static, control being left to individuals except in the unlikely event of a population assuming plague proportions. Mice may require control in exotic forests. Rabbits. Further application of ecological principles in good land use should make rabbit control even more effective than it is at present. Hares. Hares will at times be an economic problem and harder to control than the rabbit; unlike the latter they can cope with tall grass. Present techniques of control need to be improved. Wild dogs. It is unlikely that there will be a large number of wild dogs in Canterbury in the future. Wild cats. On farmlands wild-cat populations will fluctuate with those of the rabbit. M ustelids. Stoats, weasels, and ferrets will retain their relationship to the rabbit populations on farmlands, but other population-limiting factors should operate on stoats and weasels inhabiting forest. Hedgehogs. With further research, the hedgehog may (in general) prove to be occupying an appropriate ecological niche and its role to be bene­ ficial. There is no evidence available of any change in the distribution and density of hedgehogs in Canterbury. Opossums. Control will continue to be necessary where opossums are associated with ground-browsing mammals and in exotic forests where browsing inhibits timber production. Wallabies. Land use will determine long-term control of the wallaby, but poison (which has proved effective) will no doubt be used when, for any reason, numbers become high. Wild pigs. Wild pigs have been exterminated in certain areas and will require special campaigns from time to time; but control is not easy, for they are wary animals and move quickly from place to place. Wild cattle. A few animals may escape and become wild but are unlikely to survive other than in remote, rugged country. Wild sheep. Wild-sheep populations are declining and, as they are readily controlled during routine animal operations, their numbers are expected to remain small. Wild goats. Wild goats tend to remain in isolated populations and could be exterminated with extensive and sustained operations but will build up again quickly if hunting pressure is not sustained. Fallow deer. If adequately organised, groups of hunters operating in the low country will maintain effective control of Canterbury's population of fallow deer. Red deer, chamois, and thar. Urgency is required for control of red deer, chamois, and thar, the three species which are closely interrelated ecolo­ gically; these animals are being studied by Forest Service ecologist5. Some success with poisoning of thar may be misleading; when animals are present in large numbers destruction (or control) seems easy; but, when

46 densities fall, control becomes difficult and costly. Before adequate control of an animal can be planned there must be detailed knowledge of the biology of the animal concerned (Holloway, 1957). The Forest Service is committed to continuing the long-established thar control which so far has no scientific foundation. Recently Anderson and Henderson (1961), of the New Zealand Deerstalkers' Association, compiled an attractive booklet on the thar in New Zealand, which records for the first time what has been known by Government hunters (but unrecorded) for' over 20 years. The natural history of the booklet is good, but objective quantitative data, which must form the only fundamental basis for ecology, are virtually absent; conclusions have been drawn but the evidence upon which they are based has not been made available. Every browsing mammal in Canterbury (as in New Zealand as a whole) requires management, but management can range from the very simple to the very difficult, and falls into two classes: that on the high country, which can be handled most efficiently by the New Zealand Forest Service, and that on the low country, which should be more the responsibility of other organisations. The future regarding the larger-mammal populations depends on the concern of the people of Canterbury for what Holloway (1954) calls the "well-being of the watersheds". If it is their will that the mountain lands should be protected they will see that the necessary resources, in the shape of finance, qualified personnel, and equipment, are made available so that the work can be carried out where it will be of greatest value. Such work would result in improved access, and private hunters could follow in and help in control, as they are doing now in the lower country. The introduced game animals are here to stay, and, although the requirements of control for the well-being of the watersheds may at times result in their not being readily available from a motor vehicle, there will always be plenty of sport for the fit hunter who can climb high.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer is indebted to L. Boyd, P. C. Bull, J. T. Holloway, R. I. Kean, L. T. Pracy, and G. H. Thompson for information, discussion, and criticism; to Mrs G. Lawson and C. McQueen for technical assistance; to the late A. S. Wickens for editing and helpful comments; and to Mrs M. Whitham for typing and other work in the preparation of the manuscript. She is most appreciative of the willing cooperation of the following in making photographs available: R. L Edgar, Dr R. A. Falla, Dr J.E. C. Flux, Dr L. Hartman (in association with E. J. Thomley and C. S. Woods), J. H. G. Johns, P. Morrison, and the National Publicity Studios.

LITERATURE CONSULTED Acland, L. G. D., 1951. The Early Canterbury Runs. Christchurch: Whitcombe and Tombs. Agriculture, Dept. of, 1960. Contagious ecthym.a (scabby mouth) in Tahr. N.Z. ]. Agriculture, IOI (5): 517.

47 Allee, W. C., Emerson, A. E., Park, 0., Park, T. and Schmidt, K. P., 1949· Principles of Animal Ecology. Philadelphia and London: Saunders. Andersen, J.C., 1916. jubilee History of South Canterbury. Christchurch: Whitcombe and Tombs. --- 1927. "Early History of Canterbury." In Speight, Wall, Arnold, and Laing (Editors), Natural History of Canterbury, Christchurch: Phil. Inst. Cant. Anderson, J. A., and Henderson, J. B., l96r. Himalayan Thar in New Zealand. Wellington: New Zealand Deerstalkers' Association (Inc.). (Special Publication No. 2.) Anderson, Mona, 1963. A River Rules My Life~ Wellington: Reed. Barker, Lady, 1870. Station Life in New Zealand. London. --- 1873. Station Amusements in New Zealand, London: Hunt. Brockie, R. E., 1957· The hedgehog population and invertebrate fauna of the West Coast sand dunes. Proc. N.Z. Ecol. Soc. No. 5: 27-29. ---1959. Observations on the food of the Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus L) in New Zealand. N.Z. ]. Sci. 2 (I): 121-136. --·- 1964. Dental abnormalities in European and New Zealand hedgehogs. Nature 202 (4939): 1355-6. Buick, T. Lindsay, 1900. Old Marlborough, or the Story of a Province. Palmerston North. Buller, W. L, l87r. On the New Zealand rat. Trans. Roy. Soc. N.Z., 3.: l-4. --- 1892. Note on the Bats of New Zealand. Ibid. 25: 50-52. Burdon, R. M., 1938. High Country. Christchurch: Whitcombe and Tombs. Burnett, T. D., 1927. "The Mackenzie Country." In Speight, R., Wall, Arnold, and Laing, R. M. (Editors), Natural History of Canterbury. Christchurch: Phil. Inst. Cant. Butler, S., 1923. A First Year in Canterbury Settlement, with Other Early Essays. (Ed.: R. A. Streatfeild), London: Cape. Chilton, Chas., 1927. "Zoology of Canterbury." In Speight, R., Wall, Arnold, and Laing, R. M. (Editors), Natural History of Canterbury. Christchurch: Phil. Inst. Cant. Clark, A. H., 1949· The Invasion of New Zealand by People, Plants, and Animals: the South Island. New Brunswick: Rutgers. Colenso, W., 1877. Notes, chiefly historical, on the ancient dog of the New Zealanders. Trans. Roy. Soc. N.Z. Io: 135-155. --- 1892. Observations on Mr T. White's Paper "On the Native Dog of New Zealand". Trans. Roy. Soc. N.Z. 25: 495-503. Crozet (Trans. by H. L. Koth, 1891). Voyage to Tasmania, New Zealand, the Ladrone Islands, and the Philippines in the Years I77I-I772. London. (Quoted by Thomson.) Davidson, Mavis M., 1958. The introduction, present distribution and spread of each introduced animal the centrol of which is the responsibility of the New Zealand Forest Service. (N.Z. Forest Service, unpublished report.) --- 1959· A preliminary approach to the concept of mammalian life zones within New Zealand. (Unpub. lecture on animal ecology, N .Z. Forest Service.)

48 Davidson, Mavis M. and Kean, R. I., 1960. Establishment of red-deer range in the Tararua Mountains. N.Z. ]. For. 8 (2): 293-323. Dobson,. G. E., 1876. Mystacina tuberculata. Proc. Zool. Soc. Land: 486-488. Donne, T. E., 1924. The Game Animals of New Zealand. London: Murray. Dwyer, P. D., 1960. New Zealand Bats. Tuatara 8 (2): 6I-7I. --- 1962. Sti1;dies on the Two New Zealand Bats. Wellington: Dept. Zool., Victoria Univ. Wellington. Elgie, H. J., l96I. Wallaby Eradication by Aerial Poisoning. N.Z. ]. Agric. I02 (I): 25-3i. Forbes, J., 1924. New Zealand Deer Heads. London: Country Life. Forster, George, 1777· · A Voyage Round the World in H.B.M.S. 'Resolution' During the Years I772, I773, I774, and I775· 2 vols. London. (Quoted by G. M. Thomson.) Forster, J. R., 1844. Descriptiones Animalium in Itinere ad Maris Australis Terr as per A nnos I772-7 4. Berolini Officina Academica, pp. l-424. Gardner, W. J., 1956. The Amuri: A County History. Culverden: Amuri County Council. [Harte, G. W., comp.] 1956. Mount Peel is a Hundred. Printer: Herald Printing Works, Timaru. Hector, J., 1876. On the remains of a dog found near White Cliffs, Taranaki. Trans. Roy. Soc. N.Z. 9: 243-4. Holford, G. H., 1927. "The Acclimatisation of Stock in Canterbury." In Speight, R., Wall, Arnold, and Laing, R. M. (Editors), Natural History of Canterbury, Christchurch: Phil. Inst. Cant. Holloway, J. T., 1954· Forests and Climate in the South Island of New Zealand. N.Z. For. Service Technical Paper No. 3. --- 1957· Soil Conservation and Rivers Control. N.Z. ]. For. 7 (4): l5-3L Howard, Walter E., 1958. The Rabbit Problem in New Zealand. D.S.I.R. Information Series No. 16. Hursthouse, Chas., l86I. New Zealand, the Britain of the South, 2nd. ed. London: Sandford. Hutton, F. W., 1872. On the bats of New Zealand. Trans. Roy. Soc. N.Z. 4: 184-6. --1877. Note on the Maori Rat. Ibid. 9: 348. --- 1897. Note on the Ancient Maori Dog. Ibid. 30: 151-5. --- 1904. Index Faunae Novae Zealandiae. London: Dulau. Hutton, F. W., and Drummond, J., 1923. The Animals of New Zealand, 4th ed. Wellington: Whitcombe and Tombs. Kean, R. I., l959a. Bionomics of the Brush-tailed Opossum (Tricho­ surus vulpecula) in New Zealand. Nature I84: 1388-9. --- r959b. Ecology of the larger Wildlife Mammals of New Zealand. N.Z. Sci. Review I7 (2): 35-7· --- l96r. The Evolution of Marsupial Reproduction. N.Z. For. Service Tech. Paper No. 35. --- Natural Control in Populations of the Opossum Trichosurus vulpecula in New Zealand (unpublished).

49 Kennaway, L. J., 1874. A Settler's Fare Due South. London: Sampson Low. (Quoted by Wodzicki and Acland.) Logan, P. C., 1956. Some problems in the Control of ·Wild and Domestic Animals in a Critical Hydro-electric Catchment. N.Z. ]. For. 7 (3): 68-75. Luomala, Katherine, 1962. Additional sketches of the Polynesian native dog, including the Maori. Pacific Sci. I6 (2): 170-80. McKinnon, A. D., and Coughlan, Lanna, 1960-64. Data on the Establishment of Some Introduced Animals in New Zealand Forests, Vol. l-3, 5, 7, and 8. Wellington: N.Z. Forest Service (Typescript). Maling, P. B., 1962. Philosophical Institute of Canterbury, survey of first hundred years. Press, 4 August 1962. (Christchurch.) Marshall, W. H., 1961 and 1963. Ecology of M ustelids in New Zealand. Animal Ecology Division, D.S.I.R., Information Series No. 38. Meeson, J., 1885. The plague of rats in Nelson and Marlborough. Trans. Roy. Soc. N.Z. I7: 199-207. N .Z. Department of Internal Affairs. Annual reports and files. N.Z. Forest Service. Annual reports and files. Perham, A. N., 1922. Deer in New Zealand. N.Z. Parliament. Append. to Journal of House of Representatives C.-3A. Newton, P., 1964. Straggle Muster. Wellington: Reed. Polack, J. S., 1838. New Zealand, being a narrative of Travels and Adventures during a residence in that country between the years 1831 and 1837. In Fell, H. B., Garrick, J. A. F., et al., 1953, The First Century of New Zealand Zoology I769-I868. Wellington: Dept. Zool., Victoria Univ. College. Pracy, L. T., 1962. Introduction and Liberations of the Opossum (Tri­ chosurus vulpecula) in New Zealand. N.Z. For. Service Info. Series No. 45. --- 1963. Opossum survey, Canterbury Conservancy, March 1963. (N.Z. Forest Service unpublished report.) Reischek, A., 1952. Yesterdays in Maoriland. Christchurch: Whitcombe and Tombs. Relph, D. H., 1958. A century of Human Influence on High Country Vegetation. N.Z. Geog. I4 (2): 131-146. Riney, Thane, 1956. Comparison of occurrence of introduced animals with critical conservation areas to determine priorities for control. N.Z. ]. Sci. & Tech. 58 B (I): I-I8. (N.Z. For. Service Tech. Paper No. ro.) Saunders, A., 1868. New Zealand, its Climate, Soil, Natural and Artificial Productions, etc. London: Clayton. (Quoted by Wodzicki, 1950). Sharp, A., 1956. Ancient Voyagers· of the Pacific. Polynes. Soc. Mem. No. 32. Wellington: Polynesian Soc. Stead, E. F., 1937· Notes on the short-tailed bat (M. tuberculatus). Trans. Roy. Soc. N.Z. 66: l88-19r. --- 1944· Rats. Variety of methods needed in trapping. Press, 15 June 1944· Christchurch. Stock, A., 1876: Notice on the existence of a large bat in New Zealand. Trans. Roy. Soc. N.Z. 8: 180. Tancred, T., 1856. Notes on the natural history of the Province of Canterbury, in the Middle Island of New Zealand. Edinburgh New Phil.]. 3 (5), 18 Jan. (Quoted by Thomson.)

50 Tanfield, H., 1956. Report on baiting and poisoning trials, Hunters Hills, South Canterbury. (N.Z. For. Service unpublished report.) Thomson, G. M., 1922. The Naturalisation of Animals and Plants in New Zealand. Cambridge: University Press. Thomson, J. A., 1952. Deer Hunter. Wellington: Reed. Walsh, P., 1892. Effect of Deer on New Zealand Bush. Trans. Roy. Soc. N.Z. 25: 435-39. Watson, J. S., l95I. A survey of rats in Christchurch, May 1951. (D.S.I.R. Report No. 18, unpublished.) --- 1956. The present distribution of Rattus exulans (Peale) in New Zealand. N.Z. ]. Sci. & Tech. 37 (5): 560-70. --- 1957· Rats in New Zealand; a problem of interspecific competi­ tion. Proc. 9th Pacific Sci. Cong. I9: 15-16. --- 1959· Identification of Rats and Mice in New Zealand. . N.Z. ]. Agric. April, 365-8. White, Taylor, 1889. On the wild dogs of New Zealand. Trans. N.Z. I. 22: 327-30. --- 1890. On rats and mice. Trans. Roy. Soc. N.Z. 23: l94-2or. ---1894. Remarks on the rats of New Zealand. Trans. Roy. Soc. N.Z. 27: 240-6r. Wodzicki, K. W., 1950. Introduced Mammals of New Zealand. N.Z. D.S.I.R. Bull. 98.

OTHER REFERENCES Christie, A. H. C., 1964. A note on the chamois in New Zealand. N.Z. Ecol. Soc., Proc. rr: 32-36. Christie, A. H. C., and Andrews, J. R. H., 1964. Introduced ungulates in New Zealand; (a) Himalayan Tahr. Tuatara. 12 (2): 69-77. Deans, John, 1964. Pioneers on Port Cooper Plains. Christchurch: Simpson and Williams. Gillespie, 0. A., 1958. South Canterbury. South Cant. Cent. Hist. Com.: Timaru Herald. Hewitt, H. B. (Editor), 1965. Peter Grahatn; Mountain Guide. Welling­ ton: Reed. Hight, James, and Straubel, C. R. (General Editors), 1957· A History of Canterbury; Vol. l: to 1854. Christchurch: Canterbury Centennial Association; Whitcombe and Tombs. · Lamb, R. C., 1964. Birds, Beasts, and Fishes. Christchurch: North Canterbury Acclimatisation Society. McLeod, David, l95I. New Zealand High Country. A Canterbury Agricultural College Publication.

R. E. OWEN, GOVERNMENT PRINTER, WELLINGTON, NEW ZEALAND-1965 99641-65 A Haumuri Bluff

.Abut Whataroa

PEGASUS BAY Gillespie

Brighton

Heretaniwha

PENINSULA

Ri ·er

C A N T E R B U R y River B I G H T River

MAP OF CANTERBURY

to accompany

"Changes in Wild Mammal Populations in Canterbury"

by Mavis M. Davidson

R 1962

OAMARU C. Wanbrow

Compiled from Lands & Survey MaPs. eno I Kakanui I haranui

River

Abut Whararoa

Gillespie

PENINSULA

A N T E R B U R y River B I G H T

Ril'er