Survey Planned By Tussock Board

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31071, 28 May 1966, Page 16

Survey Planned By Tussock Board

A survey of its area to draw up a list of properties where weed control is inadequate will be made by the North Canterbury Nasella Tussock Board.

The board decided this after considering a list of properties in the Cheviot County where nassella control was described as incomplete or poor. The increase in ranging staff had enabled the board to increase its property inspections tremendously, the chairman (Mr T. G. Maxwell) told members. Mr W. L. Kay, an inspector for the board, said that what members had to read into the reports, was the number of old tussocks that had been found in the property inspections. “Where you see old tussocks not grubbed, you can count on it, there has not been a very full inspection.”

Mr D. R. Wilkie, representing the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Council, said there were only a few properties where owners had not made a fair effort.

Mr L. R. C. Macfarlane said there were many properties where the labour force consisted only of the farmer and one employee. The trend in seasonal work, was for men to live in townships and go out to farms doing work on contract, just as shearing was done. The board’s rangers [were expert and with the

board’s staff, could do a much better job than a fanner could. Mr Maxwell: That is the trend, but the reports show we are getting somewhere. Mr A. J. Blakely said he thought that where farmers were not helping themselves, they should be charged the full cost of the grubbing. “1 think we should make a full survey of the poorly controlled areas,” he said. “I would happily pay more to get the country ranged,” said Mr C. H. T. Morrison. “I had some work done. It cost me £l2 10s, and I would not have begrudged paying more.”

Mr A. R. Dingwall, representing the Department of Agriculture, said that under an amendment to the Nassella Tussock Act, any landholder outside the board’s district could apply for financial assistance to control the weed. The aim of the amendment was to bring landholders outside the district into line with those in the board’s district.

Mr Dingwall said the Government assistance, to those outside the district, was administered by the county concerned, but he also suggested that if a county did not think a subsidy was warranted, it need not agree. One would not want to see any anomalies created between those outside the board's district and those within, he said.