ERADICATION OF NASSELLA

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26129, 3 June 1950, Page 6

ERADICATION OF NASSELLA

PROBLEMS IN NORTH CANTERBURY

“APATHY” CRITICISED BY MR W. J. EARL “We have a canker in our midst that can be summed up in the term apathy,” said the chairman of the North Canterbury Nassella Tussock Board (Mr W. J. Earl), describing the attitude of some high-ranking officers of Slate departments in Wellington and some properly owners to the nassella tussock problem in North Canterbury. He was speaking at the annual provincial conference of North Canterbury Federated Farmers yesterday. “If the problem is to be tackled effectively we must have a long-term policy very soon,” said Mr Earl. “We can’t do the job on a short-term policy and with the ineptitude of departmental heads in Wellington. One of the problems the board is up against is that State departments and some property owners regard this menace from a short-term point of view,” said Mr Earl. “I have witnessed and experienced ‘duck shoving’ between departments and property-owners. ft might come to the stage of a political football match. “The board is tied down by a shortterm policy to March 31 each year, and if you haven't a long-term policy you know what that means,” said Mr Earl. “The problem cannot be treated on this basis.” Mr Earl said that the Department of

rxgi icuiiure wdb lu-uciy biaimig search in one corner of the area which should have been done 10 years ago. The Nassella Tussock Board had. soon after its formation, asked Lincoln College to study the effect on stock of nassella, but the Department of Agriculture had intervened to say that it would buy a farm on which investigations could be carried out. The board had even recommended a suitable farm to the department, but “they kept putting it off,” continued Mr Earl. “We have departmental heads who go round in their motor-curs looking at the tussock from the side of the road.” he continued, “but we can’t get them to come out to see it where it really matters. I want to make it clear I am not going to be a scapegoat to the general position obtaining to-day,” he said. Departmental Delay Alleged The board had had under consideration the acquisition of more trucks and the employment of more rangers, but a letter had just come from the Director-General of Agriculture asking the board to hold its hand until the Cabinet had decided on a subsidy “If that is planning, I would I ke to know what else is,” commented Mr TT.arl *’Wr arp un against one of the

most serious problems that has confronted the pastoral lands in the coastal area of North Canterbury. Unless this question is taken up properly areas which are now clear will have little chance of remaining so. “We have the spectacle of propertyowners—occupiers and absentees—who make excuses that they can’t do much about it because they have no manpower. We have had inspections taken over wide areas during the last five years, in some cases properties have been seen several times,, and we have a whole sheaf of reports from which we can see what is taking place. Yet alongside these people are others who have been conscientious in the-r approach to the problem, and now their problem is not one tenth of that of those who have let things go. We have seen property-owners through good husbandry maintaining a good cover and preventing seeding on their properties. Their efforts have been a great credit to them.” said Mr Earl. In a preliminary statement Mr Earl reviewed the board’s finances from its inception in November. 1946. to March 31 of this year. Receipts totalling £15.800 included £3OOO from counties. £lO.OOO subsidy, and £2866 from grubbing done for pro-perty-owners. Expenditure included £3566 for grubbing, of which the board’s share was £7OO, £3198 for inspections, £lO9O for acini'nistra.tion, £954 for tree-planting subsidy. £3304 for capital expenditure, and* £467 for sundry payments.