Factors Limiting High Country Output

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30829, 14 August 1965, Page 10

Factors Limiting High Country Output

Until a great deal more is known about soil conservation and erosion in New Zealand, Mr P. C. Ensor, chairman of the South Island high-country committee of Federated Farmers, believes that the high country will be responsible for only a small share of the increases in agricultural production that are required nationally.

“I believe that, taking the long-term view, the pastoral resources of the South Island high country are as yet virtually untouched,” said Mr Ensor in his report to the recent annual conference of South Island high-country sections, “and It would be only wild speculation to suggest what the ultimate development may be, but because of the many limiting factors involved in any rapid development at the present time, increased production from the high country must of necessity be a relatively small share of the national increases in production that are being looked for. “During the last 10 years production from the high country has increased very substantially—wool alone by some 24 per cent—and there have been other examples of spectacular increases being achieved, so it may well be asked why we should not look to further spectacular increases in the next 10 years. “I would expect an over-all steady increase in production, but the fact remains that the increased production already achieved has in the main been obtained through animal unit production, as against an increase of stock numbers, and this phase of development must inevitably slow down. “The next step must be through increased stock numbers and there are major problems yet to overcome before this can take place on an over-all scale, or before it is desirable. “The major problem facing the high country is that of soil conservation and all that it means to the high country, and until a great deal more knowledge has been acquired concerning all aspects of erosion and soil conservation, as it applied to New Zealand, and sound long term plans laid down, the stage will not be set for an overall stock increase on the high country grazing lands. Even then time and much capital will be required. “This does not mean that development will not proceed in the meantime, but it is becoming more and more evident that development must not be allowed to get ahead of conservation and watershed management if we are to try to avoid further serious

mistakes in the over-all management of our mountain lands.” Recalling that during the last year Dr. D. A. Williams, chief administrator of the United States Soil Conservation Service, had reported on the organisation and administration of soil conservation in New Zealand, Mr Ensor said that perhaps the best that could be expected was that the main essentials of his report would be digested and acted upon. Looking still to the future, Mr Ensor said he believed that it was more than ever necessary for all high-country men, however remote their situation might be, to take a lively and intelligent interest in all that was going on around them. To emphasise this he referred to a paper read last year by Mr J. T. Holloway, officer in charge of the Forest Service’s forest and range experimental station, in which he emphasised that as lowland resources were developed step by step and the population increased pressure on mountain lands must also grow. There would be demands for increased pastoral production, for further realisation of hydro-electric potentials, for more water for cities and farms, for better flood control and for additional mountain land sport and recreation, and because these various demands would not everywhere be mutually compatible there must inevitably be recurrent controversies, and Mr Holloway had ventured to forecast that from this time onwards there would rarely be a time when an acrimonious battle was not being fought somewhere in New Zealand and on some mountain land issue. In most areas, Mr Ensor said, the deer position could probably be described as fairly satisfactory, but the continued build-up of commercial enterprises dealing in deer meat could create a very dangerous situation. This would have to be watched carefully by all concerned with the welfare of the mountain lands. The Forest Service had undertaken to try to implement a scheme for closer cooperation with runholders where shooting permits were being issued for adjoining country. The service’s cooperation in this would be greatly appreciated, said Mr Ensor. Mr J. Fitzharris, fields director of the Lands and Survey Department, who was guest speaker at the meeting, discussed the question of the withdrawal of class VIII lands from grazing and whether class VII should also be taken out in some cases owing to the difficulty of keeping the latter class of country clear of stock. There could, perhaps, •be severe stock restrictions,

he said, with the improvement of the lower country compensating for this. Resolutions approved by the conference were:— (1) “That this conference fully supports the Forest Service’s survey of the extent of the influx of thar into the Otago-Southland conservancy and strongly advocates a vigorous campaign against them.” Thar continue to spread both north and south of the Mt. Cook region and the conference felt that more vigorous action should be taken against them. (2) “That as October is the deadline for branding we would like to be assured that some scourable marking material will be made available for use before this date.” (3) “That the conference is opposed to the principle cf ‘on cost’ charges as levied by catchment authorities.” Among the many objections raised to the "on cost” charge, the principa l ! ones were: (a) smaller authorities should not have to rely on “on cost” charges to cover their costs, (b) this system amounts to paying two administrative rates and (c) the deduction of the “on cost” charges drastically reduces the value of subsidies. (4) ‘That owing to the uneconomic cost of weed eradication in the high country, the high country committee explore the field of weed eradication by contract and make investigations into other suggestions referred to in the remits.” This reference to “remits” was to two other remits which the above resolution replaced. One suggested “that the Department of Agriculture, in conjunction with the chemical firms, be asked to set up a course to train young men as contractors in the eradication of briar and other noxious weeds interfering with production in the high country, and that ready finance be made available to qualified men,” and the other that “due to the uneconomic cost of weed eradication in the high country the Government be asked to give an additional 50 per cent tax rebate on all monies expended on briar and other weeds interfering with the production in the high country.” Of Mr McCaskill, who recently retired as director of the Tussock Grasslands and Mountain Lands Institute, Mr Ensor said that to him must go a great deal of the credit for the successful launching of the institute. “There would be few men with the energy, knowledge and love of the mountains who could have achieved so much in so short a time,” he said. Mr Ensor also referred to the deaths of Mr Willis Scaife, one of the original members of the committee, and Mr Haldon Beattie, an outstanding South Canterbury high-coun-try man who would be remembered for his original and outspoken views at the many conferences he had attended. Mr Ensor was re-elected chairman of the committee, and Mr D. R. Rowe (Timaru) secretary, and members elected to the committee for the new year included Messrs W. H. Jackson (Marlborough), D. McLeod (North Canterbury, Ensor (Mid-Canterbury), J. I. Innes (South Canterbury), J. M. 'Wardell (North Otago), A Scaife (Otago), and W. G. Menlove (Southland).