THE BABBIT QUESTION.

Otago Witness, Issue 1971, 14 November 1889, Page 17

THE BABBIT QUESTION.

The following letter appeared In Thursday^ Daily Times:— ■ . • '■ Sib,— Your leader of the 11th instf. on the rabbit question opens up a somewhat wide question. As you have referred pointedly to me, I must reply, I am afraid, at some length. You say that the case was decided on the evir 'dence. The Rabbit Act, I believe, makes the inspector's evidence conclusive of the .fact of rabbits being on the land complained of, and the steps taken to destroy them insufficient.' .Evidence can only be called in mitigation of the penalty. Ifc is not necessary for tbe inspector to supplement bis evidence with that of m& recently discharged from the defendant's employ. The witness Doran stated he had caught 1160 rabbits on a portion of my land. On being confronted with his account, which Bhowed only 600, he ingeniously got out of the difficulty by saying he had spld— i.e., stolen— the balance (oWakias.) unaccounted for. The other witness (the Government rabbiter) had also been in my employ.- ■ • ■ . The powers given the inspector are very great, and in my opinion, when entrusted to competent officers, necessary, I may call myself the originator of the Rabbit Act, as I urged its passing many years ago when rabbits first became a nuisance here, having gone to Wellington for the purpose;, and I have always seen that to administer the -act effectually very full powers I must be given to the inspector, but be must be fitted to fill the office impartially and honestly. That considerable grounds for complaint exist as to the administration of the Rabbit Act is shown by the number. of complaints I have received on tha subject, and it is one of the principal subjects for discussion at the ensuing conference of farmers' clubs to ,be held in Dunedin on December 3, and no doubt there are cases of hardship where settlers join reserves where no steps—or jinadeqate steps — are taken to destroy rabbits. ! The facts of my case are somewhat peculiar, and it is not necessary to discuss them publicly at present, further than to point out that the whole of the evidence did not appear in tbe local paper, which can hardly be expected to be so accurate and full in its reports as the Times, A statutory notice to destroy rabbits was served on me 21st June last, accompanied by a written notice that poisoning would commence on 26th June. On 4th July the inspector and agent' said they visited one of my runs and saw no signs of poisoniDg going on, and on that evidence they could have got a conviction against me uDder the Rabbit Act. It was shown that on the day on which 'they said they visited "the land (5000 acres undulating country, and easy to sco over) a plough and pair of horses and 10 men were at work ; in fact nearly half of the block had been poisoned. No other complaint was made of work unperformed on Wantwood until 21st October, when the information was laid under which I was convicted, though I had been in constant personal communication with the inspector about his neglect of tbe Croydon Budh reserve (2500 acres), and had complained through the member for the district, and finally directly to the Minister of Lands, the final reply from whom, I am informed by Chief Inspector Douglass, I am yet to receive. Evidence was given that one man was employed on the Lora estate, of 7000 acres, which joins my North Peak run, of the same area, where I' employed five men, and that on my Croydon run, of 10,000 acres, I employed 10 men, and that, on Grlenure, of 14,000 acres, which also joins North Peak seven men were employed, and that the features and nature of all these were similar. The inspector was asked if the larger proportion of men employed by me to the 1000 acres should not deal as effectually with the rabbits on my runs as the lesser number on the adjoining runs, which were declared to be in a satisfactory state. This be declined to answer. Toe same question was asked the N.Z.A. Company's manager, who. managed Wantwood for many years, and he replied, of course the larger number would do the work the best. ; That the department had a complaint against me because I was paying less for young rabbits than my neighbours, I heard for the first time in court.' In past years I have paid for many thonsand skins which were caught on a neighbouring property, and I would cheerfully have paid a higher price for young rabbits this year if it- bad been shown that it was necessary, and I bad been asked to do so. I only had evidence that two properties joining my own— viz , Glenure and N.Z.A. Company, paid more for, young rabbits than myself. The inspector never asked what number, of men I employed, although, I offered io give him the information. The difficulties owners have to contend with here in the destruction of rabbitd are not overrated by you. The nuisance is on the decrease In my evidence I showed that I got possession of this property in May four years ago, when the rabbits were proved to be well in hand; in the next month (June) I got 24,000 poisoned rabbitskins t>ff Croydon (10,000 acres), and this wiDter I got 16,000 off the whole property (50,000 .'acres), but I must explain in fairness that on 10,000 acr^s of this I ,bave no rabbits. If the fact of my being fined forharbouring a nuisance in any way tends to lesson and abate the plague of rabbits and leads' to their quicker extermination on this and neighbouring properties, and effects the better administration of the act, it will be cheerfully paid. — I am, &c, George M. Bell.

Wantwood, November 12.