PROBLEMS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST THE RABBIT

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30348, 25 January 1964, Page 6

PROBLEMS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST THE RABBIT

Progress in the battle against the rabbit was discussed by a panel at a high-country field day held at West Wanaka recently.

Methods of eradication, the cost of administering the boards, and the problems presented by the human element were discussed by the panel which comprised Mr G. L. Burden, of Mount Burke station, who was chairman, and Messrs W. H. Jolly, of Tarras, C. C. S. Parker, of Fairlie, J. P. Shannan and I. W. Bayne, of the Animal Industry Division, Department of Agriculture, Dunedin and Wanaka.

While reminding the audience that pronouncements on policy are made by Ministers and heads of departments, Mr Shannan emphasised that his department would not be satisfied with a programme of control. He asked: “Where would we have got in the last 15 years if we had thought only of control?”

He said the local board had been an example to all; as with many other boards, it had whole-heartedly pursued the aim of eradication in spite of always finding new problems which, incidentally, were mostly human problems rather than rabbit ones. The day this country abandoned the millions of pounds invested in rabbit eradication and changed to a policy of control would see the beginning of the time when all that money would be wasted.

Mr Parker was asked whether he advocated reliance on aerial poisoning or supported the policy of cleaning up with man-power. “I have always been a strong advocate of aerial poisoning but I would not say that it is by any means the beginning and end of rabbit eradication. I am convinced that if we had fewer human problems to contend with we would have been much further ahead,” Mr Parker said. “We would prefer that we should poison at the time it suits the rabbits rather than the stock. We like to deal with the runholder who is prepared even to shift stock off his property so that we can poison effectively at the right time. I will admit that is not always practicable, but it was done with great success in the case of the wallaby in South Canterbury,” he said.

“We have gone past the spectacular stage of rabbit destruction and it is getting harder for a runholder to make the effort to shift stock as required. “The scientists are still trying hard to develop a poison which is safer to stock than 1080, but so far without success. There is a faint hope of a new poison which is a quarter as toxic to sheep and

four times more toxic to rabbits.

“Even with our present poisons I believe that if boards and ratepayers were prepared to make the effort and the sacrifice we could eradicate the rabbit in two years. I realise we would need more efficient manpower to follow up the aerial work with an intense attack on the ground,” Mr Parker said.

Asked what was the best method of training and recruiting staff for rabbit destruction, Mr Jolly considered that improved housing and education facilities must be offered. His own board had aimed at providing these and it considered that the standard of applicants for employment had improved in the last few years. Recently, it had advertised for a trainee and out of 14 applicants six were really suitable. Mr Jolly considered that the status of the men in the field must be raised. “With the use of utility vehicles it is now. possible to group houses rather than have them dotted far apart. Once we have selected trainees we must give them opportunity to train in all methods of destruction and must give a guarantee of continuity of employment. We have so little to offer them for the future that I feel we need some guarantee of cheap finance to enable a good employee eventually to start on his own farm or business.” Asked whether he thought there was sufficient co-opera-tion between ratepayers and boards and also between boards, Mr Bayne said that some ratepayers co-operated very well, but he thought others could do more by providing accommodation, lending horses, reporting rabbit signs and shifting sheep when required. Too many considered tiie effort was not justified.

Discussing the amalgamation of boards, he said that in some areas this had been beneficial, but in the high country, with large runs, the personal touch was most im-

portant, and boards and staff must rely on reports from runholders.

Commenting on a statement made recently that there were more board members than employees, Mr Parker said: “This is true, but I consider that the taxpayer ought to be grateful that so many members give up their time for nothing—men who are usually the most progressive in the district. We could not hold the ground we have gained without them, especially in the high country; unless we have the spread of board members we cannot do the job.” It had been suggested, he said, that other local bodies could do the job just as well. “Could a committee of three or four county councillors keep fully informed about the rabbit situation on four or five million acres?” Mr Parker asked.

Asked about progress on the complete coverage of the country by rabbit boards, Mr Parker said: “I know where we want to go, but progress is very slow and we can hope for little further advance unless the Government creates the correct climate. We have had four deputations in the last three years to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, and we have got nowhere because the Government listens to a vociferous minority. Until we get complete coverage we cannot hope for extermination.” Mr Shannan replied to a suggestion that the cost of maintaining the present number of boards was excessive and that where previously most of the money was used to “put something down the rabbits’ necks,” now too much was spent in administration. He said that administrative costs in rabbit boards were extremely low. One of the reasons why the county councils considered they could handle the matter was that they would save money. He doubted if they would do it nearly as cheaply as it was being done today. He thought that published figures could be misleading on administrative costs. For instance, cost of transport was charged against administration; but use of transport was a direct means of rabbit destruction. If costs were carefully studied, it would be seen that boards operated at lower costs than other local bodies. Mr Parker said that in Marlborough the administration costs of 11 boards were only 6 per cent. The cost of eight boards in South Canterbury and North Otago was between 5 and 61 per cent In one county in Canterbury administration costa

were 9.5 per cent. An interesting example was that in Marlborough a county collected rates for some boards and charged 5 per cent for that collection alone.