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.
