Rabbit Council’s Reply

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30094, 30 March 1963, Page 7

Rabbit Council’s Reply

"Men most affected by rabbit destruction in New Zealand are farmers, and almost without exception they are more than happy to pay the rabbit rate. They know they get value for money spent and appreciate that over the years they have received in Increased returns many, many times what they have paid for rabbits to be killed,” said the chairman of the Rabbit Destruction Council, Mr G. B. Baker, when asked to comment on the views expressed by Dr. W. E. Howard.

“There are many who have voluntarily increased their rate because they know how vital it is to get rid of the rabbit,’’ Mr Baker said.

“They have suffered the rabbit at first hand and their approach to the problem is probably more realistic than that of a scientist to whom it is an academic pursuit. It is only a few years since the rabbit cost the country £lO to £2om a year in loss of production, and there were many farmers who were destitute because of the rabbit.

“As a theory, a few Government officers watching the rabbit problem is ideal, but as a hard, practical fact, it’s nonsense,” he said. "We’ve seen several examples in the last year or so where there has been a sudden upsurge in the pest. If the hundreds on the job were reduced to a handful there would be many similar outbreaks and the cost to the country, both in loss of production and in

the expense of destruction, would be extremely high. “Perhaps as a visitor to New Zealand, Dr. Howard should be excused for not knowing as much of the history of rabbit destruction as he might. Had he studied the subject a little more closely he would have been aware that some of the ideas he has advanced were tried years ago, with a complete lack of success. If we were to adopt some of Dr. Howard’s views we would be going back 30 years, and the results would be disastrous.

“There was a new approach to rabbit destruction when the Rabbit Destruction Council was formed 15 years ago and amazing progress has been made by the boards during that time. There are men. unfortunately now retiring, who have fought the rabbit for upward of 60 years and it must hurt them somewhat to see a visitor with a superficial knowledge telling practical men what should be done.

"Dr. Howard may be right in saying we will never get the last rabbit: that must be a matter of opinion. Other animals which were once prevalent in this country have been exterminated, but I would not enter into a public discussion on this aspect with Dr. Howard, apart from saying that it is surprising to hear a scientist making such a forthright statement without backing it with facts, and scientific facts. “The Rabbit Destruction

Council and rabbit boards are firm believers in the value of scientific aid in tackling the rabbit and for several years made representations to Government that an applied scientist be appointed. As a result, one is now at work and we are hopeful that his efforts will be of material aid.

“New Zealand has had an international recognition for its success in tackling the rabbit. The importance of total coverage of infested areas by rabbit boards was first advanced here. The use of aircraft to drop poisons was initiated by New Zealanders, and the development of 1080 as a rabbit poison has been largely due to New Zealanders, both scientists and field men. These are only some of the new measures introduced, and we are constantly striving to find news ways of combatting the greatest pest the farmer has had to suffer. “ft is unfortunate that a scientist should move out of his own field and offer advice on aspects of a problem which field men are more competent to deal with. We would welcome anything from Dr. Howard, in his own specialised sphere, which would assist us in our fight. “This is the first occasion we have had to refute statements by a visiting man. We have had some able Australian and English authorities in this country from whom we have learned much and who have been kind enough to say in return that they have learned from us. They have been men whose fulltime occupation has been rabbit destruction. I feel that it is a pity that a visiting American, who is interested in the rabbit as only one of many pests should have misled some people. “Years ago there was a strong campaign by commercial interests to hold up the fight against the rabbit. They claimed that they and New Zealand were losing money because of the devaluation of the rabbit. Similar voices have been more recently raised over the opossum, ft would be a great pity if a visitor were led astray by such interested parties.’'