Page:The Kea, a New Zealand problem (1909).pdf/142

138 There are two pieces of evidence entirely against this unlikely proceedure.

First, if the Keas had migrated, then they should have become rare in Otago and Southland; but in fact they were not very plentiful in the south until after 1868, and by this time the Kea was recorded at Lochinvar, some three hundred miles further north.

Second, the reason given for the Kea’s migration is that the systematic slaughter in the early days drove them north; but the whole idea falls to the ground when we remember that, in 1867, a year before the bird was even suspected of sheep killing, and so a year before the slaughter of the bird began, the Kea was recorded from the Lochinvar district, that is, the very country into which it was alleged to have been driven by the aforesaid systematic slaughter.

There is however, a lot of sound evidence to show that the Keas’ area of distribution is widening. This widening is due, as far as I can ascertain, to the great increase in their numbers; for, though their numbers have been thinned by forty years of continuous slaughter, they are still numerous in many parts.

It was noticed that, soon after the birds began to kill sheep and eat them, their numbers increased so that where they had been seen in tens they could be seen in fifties. Many sheep owners put this down to the plentiful supply of food obtained from the dead animals.

This would appear at first sight to show that all Keas killed sheep; but I have already, I hope, made clear that only a comparative few do the killing, though the rest may join in the feast.

This increase has naturally caused the Keas’ area of distribution to expand; and now, instead of confining themselves to the main ranges, they come down even as far as the foot hills on the east and the sea coast on the west. The latter limit is supported by the fact that they have been seen at Koiterangi, near Hokitika, and at Mahitahi, near Bruce Bay; while in June of 1906 Captain Bollons, of the