Long Gully farm uneconomic former owner

Press, 24 October 1980, Page 3

Long Gully farm uneconomic former owner

PA Wellington A former owner of the farm at the centre of the Marginal Lands Board loan row, Long Gully, has told the Commission of Inquiry that the costs involved in bringing the land ' ack to its full potential are not warranted.

Sixteen pages of written submissions were received by counsel assisting the commission, (Mr J. Upton), late on Wednesday from Mr W. E. D< man, whose grandfather bought Happy Valley station in 1925.

Long Gully, now owned by Mr and Mrs J. M. Fitzgerald, whose $139,050 loan to develop the far is the subject of the inquiry, is part <' the old station. Mr Dorman’s evidence would not be heard verbally but would be accorded the weight it deserved, said the chairman of the Commission, Mr B. D. Inglis, Q.C. Giving a history of the station and its problems during the time his grandfather and later 1 father owned it — 1925 to 1961 — Mr Dorman said: “It would be fair to say that several times my father would have walked off the station if he had not had obligations to the other her tficiaries.” The farm was virtually on the market all the time but just o e offer was received and declined because it was less than the first mortgage, he said. Even the manager of the adjacent Terawhiti station, Mr P. Smith, said ’ ; would not take on Happy Valley even as a gift, Mr Dorma said. His father had been a well-respected farmer whose operations were kept going thanks to seasonal finance from Dalgety NEw .Zealand Ltd. “It: (the farm) would not. have survived without it;” he said

Mr Dorman said the harsh nature of the country' and

|the weather made fanning the property very difficult. One November, during shearing, his father had lost 11000 ewes overnight in a su.'Jen southerly storm. I Stray dogs had also been a problem on the property. In 1955, two dogs killed 400 isheep: four years later, another two killed a further 600. Mr Dorman said he personally shot 105 dogs on the farm between 1956 and 1960. “Over the years the weather and stray .dogs killed thousands of sheep onj Happy Valley and the num-| ber of dogs shot on the pro-i perty would be well in excess of 1000.

By the time the property was sold in 19 c l, vandalism from trespass was also becoming a re-.l problem. The main over-riding disadvantage of farming the Happy Valley station was weather, particularly the southerly winds Mr Dorman said. There were few areas of shelter from these winds which made life hazardous for sheep particularly during lambing and shearing. “I have personally seen a windbreak up there four feet high, constructed using reinforced concrete posts spaced six feet apart, laid flat on the ground by the wind. Each post had been reinforced with six steel wires and the end of them were still concreted into the rock,” he said.

Salt-laden winds and fogs, the latter being able to hold up work on the farm for up to a week at times could totally destroy a well-grass-paddock overnight.

Mr Dorman said his father recalled a 900-acre paddock at the southern end of Long Gully after one bad southerly storm. It had had a good sole of grass one night, and the next day the grass had gone, burnt off by the winds.

; The salt also played havoc ■with fences, he said. They i had lasted a maximum of ijust three years in some places. A Dalgety expert brought ! I from Britain inspected the ! Happy Valley fences because I the company was concerned jat « the enormous quan-' tities of wire being used, he said. The expert had said: the only other place he had seen wire deterorate so ; i rapidly was in the southern tip of South America. The weather and winds! also made finding musterersi and shepherds difficult be-j cause many had refused to! bring their dogs on to the' property, saying it was too: tough for them.

Much of the property had reverted to scrub and gorse which would be very difficult to control. If hormone sprays were used, and they would not control tauhinuj the clover would be dam-: aged for at least two years. I “We would argue that the; costs involved in bringing this land up to its full potential are not warranted. We feel that the money would he better spent on some other property with a better potential,” he said. Mr Dorman, in his covering letter to the commission, said he hoped the information would be of assistance.

He and his father had wanted to rebut part of the evidence given by earlier witnesses that the farm could be brought back into production relatively easily.

“We also believe that the information that follows will sunnort the view held by Mr White (the man whose resignation from 'the Marginal Lands Board in June prompted the • row) and others, that this loan should not have been approved.