CHAPTER VI.
EARLY RECORDS.
Like a black hawk swooping
I shall whirl upon the Southern Island,
Sweep it with my name as with a tempest,
Overrun it like a play of sunlight,
Sigh across it like a flame, till Terror
Runs before me shrieking!
It was not until about ten years after the discovery of the Kea that the bird began to acquire the bad habit that has since been its downfall and can end only in its complete extermination. From being one of the least known of our avifauna, its name soon became a by-word throughout the Dominion, and its specific cognomen (notabilis) became only too appropriate.
When killing sheep for home consumption, on the Lake Wanaka Station, North-West Otago, in 1867, the shepherds noticed from time to time what they took to be a new disease on the loins of the animals; and during shearing in 1868 these mysterious scars were again observed.
On close examination the supposed disease revealed severe wounds in different stages of healing or festering.
On some sheep there was merely a patch of bare skin, but on others there was either a half-healed wound or a raw patch of festering flesh, while others again had each a large hole torn in the side, from which the entrails were often protruding.
Many a long discussion was held as to who the culprit could be, but no one could thrown any light on the mystery. One man did suggest that the Kea might be the author of the damage, but he was ridiculed so unmercifully that he thought it wise not to repeat his suggestion.
Suspicion fell at once on the Black-back Gull (Larus dominicanus), and the Harrier Hawk (Circus Gouldi), but it was soon pointed out that it was only the sheep of the alpine country that were attacked, while the gulls and hawks scoured the plains as well as the mountains.
It was a well-known fact that the gulls would pick at the eyes of a very young lamb, or even of a sheep, when it had fallen, but they had never been known to attack the sheep over the loin, in the manner of the unknown culprit.
Wild dogs were next suggested, but they were then practically unknown, and the fact that there were never any injuries found on the sheep, except those on the loin went to prove that the sheep could not have been pulled down and worried by dogs.
About this time the suggestion that the Kea might be the culprit was strengthened by the fact that the bird had been seen picking the refuse around the meat gallows.
Some poisoned mutton was spread out in a likely place, and soon the Keas were observed to come down and devour it so greedily that in a short time their dead bodies were lying around their unfinished meal.
This experiment gave the clue as to the direction in which investigation must be made in order to solve the mystery; and at once Mr. Campbell (of Lake Wanaka Station) ordered his men to keep a sharp look-out when working in high country. Not long after this, these suspicions were substantiated by the observations of Mr. James McDonald, at that time head shepherd at Lake Wanaka Station, and now a sheep-farmer at Dipton, Southland. Through the kindness of Professor Benham, of Dunedin, I am able to give Mr. McDonald’s own description of the first recorded case of sheep killing by Keas. He thus described what he saw:
“I do not know whether I was the first to see the Kea attack sheep, but I was the first to report it to Mr. Henry Campbell, of Wanaka Station. . . . . In 1868 my orders were to go all over the run after the snowfall and see that the sheep were evenly distributed over the ground, that no hill or spur had more sheep on it than it could well carry. While I was at this work, the snow being about 2ft. deep, I went out to the tops; in a small basin under the top on the west side, facing a rocky country that we called ‘Skay,’ there was a mob of sheep snowed in and unable to get out.
_%C2%B7_Marriner_%C2%B7_078.jpg)
Mr. James McDonald, Dipton, Southland.
There I saw the Kea at work. He would come down from the rocks, settle on a sheep’s loin, and peck into the sheep, which would run through the mob; but the bird stuck to the sheep all the time till he got a piece out of it; then he would fly to the rocks. I watched the bird at this work and did not disturb him until I was fully satisfied. . . . . Then I went down to the station and reported to Mr. Campbell. He would not credit me, and all hands on the station refused to believe that the birds would do it; so I was ordered to go to another hill, called the Black Hill, and Mr. Campbell came with me, and some more men, and at the first mob we came to Mr. Campbell and the rest saw the Keas at work.”
It seems to me to be a great pity that the early writers on this question did not take the trouble to get authenticated evidence; for, if this had been done, much of the confusion and uncertainty as to the Kea’s real habits would have been prevented.
However, instead of obtaining the above evidence from Mr. McDonald, which would, at least, have recorded the names of two men who had actually seen the Kea killing sheep, most early writers make use of an indefinite extract which appeared in the “Otago Daily Times,” an extract which, though correct in itself, was not at all conclusive. It runs as follows:—
“For the last three years the sheep belonging to a settler, Mr Henry Campbell, in the Wanaka district (Otago), appeared affected with what was thought to be a new kind of disease; neighbours and shepherds were equally unable to account for it, not having seen anything of the kind before. The first appearance of this supposed disease is a patch of raw flesh on the loin of the sheep, about the size of a man’s hand; from this, matter continually runs down the side, taking the wool completely off the part it touches; and in many cases death is the result. At last a shepherd noticed one of the mountain parrots sticking to a sheep, picking at the sore, and the animal seemed unable to get rid of its tormentor. The runholder gave directions to keep watch on the parrots when mustering on the high ground; the result has been that, during the present season, when mustering high up on the ranges near the sky-line, they saw several of the birds surrounding a sheep, which was freshly bleeding from a small wound over the loin; on other sheep were noticed places where the Kea had begun to attack them, small pieces of wool having been picked out.”
Though this record casts very grave suspicion on the Kea, it does not by any means prove that the Kea was the culprit.
In the first instance, the bird is stated to have been seen merely picking at a sore on a sheep’s back, just as to-day starlings are commonly seen at the same task; and to say that this proves that the sheep was being killed by the Keas is putting more weight on the evidence than it will bear.
In the second instance it is stated that the shepherds saw several Keas “surrounding” (notice, not “attacking” nor “pecking”) a wounded sheep, and, with the uncertainty which existed at that time as to the true culprit, it might easily have turned out that some other animal had wounded the sheep and the Keas had only been attracted by its struggles.
This latter account, and not Mr. McDonald’s, was unfortunately the one that was published in standard books on our avifauna; and it has been partly responsible for many years of arguing and disagreement between the sheep-owners and scientific men.
However, though nearly fifty years have passed since the record was first published, there has not been one thorough-going attempt to enquire into the case; and, up to the end of 1905, this is the only definite case recorded where a man actually saw a Kea picking at a live sheep. Of course many articles have been written, both in magazines and scientific works, but I cannot find one writer who says that he ever saw a Kea attack a sheep, nor is the name of any man given who said that he had seen the bird at work.
It has been since proved that there were, and are at the present time, many men who have been eye-witnesses of the birds’ depredations, but from the records available in 1905 not one could be found. It seems a great pity that writers should publish on such meagre evidence, as though it were an indisputably proved fact, the statement that the Kea has become not only carnivorous, but also a bird of prey.
I think I am justified in saying that all the literature published, up to 1905, stating that the Kea was guilty of the crime, had given to the world, as a substantiated fact, a statement that had not been satisfactorily proved.
If there is anything that ought to be most conclusively proved it is a statement of alleged scientific fact, and as long as investigators continue to publish, as true, half-proved theories, only error and confusion can be the result.
As might be expected from such unsatisfactory evidence, later investigation does not always uphold the conclusions so hastily reached by early writers.
It is rather surprising to find that no one questioned the weight of the evidence until 1905, when Dr. L. Cockayne, the retiring President of the Canterbury Philosophical Institute, while reading a paper “On some little known Country in the Waimakariri District,” made the following statement:—
“I have never seen it [the Kea] attack sheep, nor have I ever met with anyone, shepherd, musterer, or mountain traveller, who has done so; the most that my enquiries have elicited is that sheep are found from time to time with holes in their backs, and that Keas have been seen hovering round sheep.”
A very warm discussion followed this rather unexpected statement, for people had begun to believe that there could be no doubt about the matter of the Kea killing sheep; but, when they found on enquiry that practically no authentic evidence could be found among the records, they naturally became very sceptical.
Dr. Cockayne and his supporters did not, as many people state, say that the Kea was innocent, but that at that time the recorded evidence was quite insufficient to prove the bird’s guilt.
Let us run through the most conclusive recorded evidence, and see on what flimsy and unscientific reasons the bird’s guilt had been declared proved.
About the year 1871, Mr. T. H. Potts condemned the Kea, but on what appears to be hearsay evidence only. He writes as follows: “Through the kind offices of Mr. Robt. Wilkin, the writer has been greatly assisted with valuable notes, acquired by sheep-farmers, owners of stations, shepherds, etc.” Unfortunately he does not state that any of his informants ever saw a Kea at work or whether the notes were merely the sheep-station rumours, of which a bookful could be collected to-day.
I fully believe that many of Mr. Potts’s correspondents were eye-witnesses of the Kea’s depredations, but in finding the truth we cannot take supposed facts to be authentic evidence.
In 1978 the Hon. D. Menzies, in a paper on the Kea, wrote as if certain of the bird’s guilt, but he gives no authority for his statement.
In a book entitled “The History of the Birds of New Zealand,” Sir Walter Buller gives a fairly complete description of the bird and its habits, and also an illustration of a Kea attacking a sheep, but again one searches in vain for the name of actual eye-witnesses. There is mention made of a shepherd who saw a Kea attacking some sheep while he was driving them, but no name was given; and, as nothing is known of the man, the evidence dwindles away to nothing.
There is, however, a correct description of the method of the Kea’s attack (forwarded to Sir W. Buller by Mr. J. G. Shrimpton), but its writer does not state that he ever saw the bird killing or attacking flocks.
In 1884 Reischeck wrote an article on the Kea, but, though he saw them eating the carcases, and also found wool and fat in their crops, he never saw one attack a sheep.
Mr. C. C. Huddlestone, in 1891, gave an account of his experiences in Kea country, and strongly condemned the bird, but he himself never saw the bird in the act of murdering.
In 1894 Mr. Taylor White accused the bird of sheep killing, but yet does not seem to have been an eye-witness. He bases his conclusions on hearsay, for he says:—“One day my brother John came home and said that he knew what caused the holes in the backs of the sheep. It was done by the Kea. This surprised me greatly, but I soon afterwards had evidence of the fact myself, for when some of these birds had once found out that blood of the sheep was good for food, others were initiated into the performance.”
What Mr. White or his brother saw is not recorded, and I think that, if a Kea had been seen attacking a sheep, that fact would almost certainly have been included in the paper. I have since had a letter from Mr. T. White, in which he states that he never saw a Kea attack a sheep.
In February, 1906, at a meeting of runholders held at Culverden, some strong remarks were made about the loss of sheep caused by the Kea, and the Wellington Philosophical Society was ridiculed for upholding the statement that at the present time the recorded evidence against the Kea was not sufficient to condemn it. However, in spite of all their talk, only one speaker was reported to have seen the Kea attacking sheep. The rest all spoke from hearsay, and I have since received a letter from the reported eye-witness, stating that the newspaper had misrepresented his remarks, for he had not said any such thing at the meeting. This meeting was the means of leading many people to believe in the Kea’s guilt; and yet, when the evidence there available was sifted, not one man had seen the Kea in the act of attacking.
This is the pith of the recorded evidence up to the end of 1905, and, in spite of all that has been written on the subject, I was unable to find the name of one writer who said that he had seen the bird attacking sheep.
Though the evidence of eye-witnesses was lacking, the circumstantial evidence was very strong, and may be classed as follows:—
I. Against the Kea:—
- a. The account of the Wanaka shepherds.
- b. Only where Keas were known to live were the sheep wounded after the Kea’s method. Where they were unknown, no instance of this special kind of sheep-killing had been seen.
- c. If sheep had been killed, and the birds in that place were shot, the killing at that place ceased.
- d. Keas had been seen to fly off the bodies of sheep, and wool and fat had been found in their crops.
- e. Some Keas in captivity would eat meat, fat, skins, etc.
At first sight this evidence seems quite conclusive enough to condemn the Kea, but we must remember that circumstantial evidence can never by itself prove a scientific fact.
To see how far we can err from the truth by depending on this kind of proof, we have only to go back to the days of supposed witchcraft and note how an English court of law condemned many people to punishment and death for what it honestly believed to be an undoubted fact. We can see, now, how the level-headed men of those times came to an absolutely wrong decision, because the evidence that seemed so conclusive was merely circumstantial.
On the other side there was also some evidence to show that the Kea might be innocent. This may be classed as follows:—
II. For the Kea:
- a. The lack of the records of eye-witnesses.
- b. In many places where Keas were known to live, no sheep had been killed after the Kea’s method.
- c. Many Keas in captivity would not eat meat, etc.
- d. Many of the men who accused the bird were paid for exterminating them, and they would naturally wish the story to be believed.
Over this circumstantial evidence a war of words has waged for many years, and once or twice it has seemed as if the Kea would be exterminated before the question was finally settled.
In order to try to bring this important question to a final conclusion, I set to work to collect written statements from actual eye-witnesses, who lived or had lived in Kea country, and by carefully sifting and arranging this evidence to obtain the actual facts about this interesting bird.
In response to several requests, kindly published for me by the newspapers, I have received a large amount of evidence from men who live, or have lived, in the Kea country, viz., musterers, shepherds, head-shepherds, managers of stations, runholders, and station owners.
These, it is true, are probably not trained scientific observers. Nevertheless, they all live in contact with facts; and it seems to me that we are sure to get nearer to the truth by taking the experiences of men who have spent most of their lives in Kea country in preference to those of men who judge the birds mostly from caged or preserved specimens.
To make the evidence as reliable as possible, the following precautions have been taken:—
I. Nothing but the accounts from eye-witnesses themselves has been taken.
II. Evidence without the writer’s name and address has been cast out.
III. All details, such as year, have been forthcoming (as far as possible) in each case.
IV. The witnesses, if necessary, have been cross-examined by post.
V. All the accounts of Keas attacking sheep have been forwarded with a written statement to the effect that, if necessary, the writer will swear to his evidence before a Justice of the Peace.
The result of this investigation has already been published,[1] including the eye-witnesses’ names and addresses, as well as many of their written accounts.
I am fully aware that, in spite of all these precautions, inaccuracies may creep in, and I have already proved that some men will even tell lies for the sake of having their names published.
However, in order to substantiate the records, I have made several trips into the Kea country, and can testify to many of the facts myself.
To some people this question will never be satisfactorily proved until some man of scientific standing has actually seen the Kea killing the sheep. In order to satisfy these doubters, I would suggest that a number of sheep should be fenced in on some station where Keas are plentiful, and that some one of scientific standing should watch. The Kea’s method of attack could be witnessed in surroundings that are quite natural, and no forcing or starving of the bird would be needed.
However, I think I am justified in saying that, as far as human evidence can be relied on, I have conclusively proved that the Kea has not only taken to meat-eating, but that it does actually attack and kill sheep.
- ↑ Transactions of the New Zealand Institute, Vol. XXVIII. page 271.