Goat farmer fined for weeds breach

Press, 28 May 1983, Page 5

Goat farmer fined for weeds breach

A Port Hills farmer, who said in the District Court yesterday that he was breeding Angora goats with the objective of raising a flock capable of producing quality mohair and meat, was prosecuted for a breach of the Noxious Plants Act. The defendant, Thomas David Flint, of Sumner, was convicted and fined $l5O on a charge of a breach of the act on March 1, by failing to comply with a notice served on him on January 17 requiring him to eradicate broom and gorse for a distance of 20 metres from the boundaries of his land, before February 28. He pleaded guilty.' The property concerned comprised 31.5 hectares of land situated in Lyttelton borough. The charge carries a maximum penalty of $2500, and $5O a day for a continuing offence. In imposing the fine of $l5O Judge Paterson said that the legislature had raised the maximum penalty substantially. The consequences of breaches, in regard to the possible spread of noxious weeds, had to be recog-

nised. However, the defendant had not ignored the regulations and was prepared to follow the over-all plan directed by the authorities. He had sought to do it in his own way, although that had not been as rapid as the authorities desired. Mr P. F. Whiteside, who prosecuted for the Banks Peninsula Noxious Plants Authority, traversed the circumstances of the offence, in which he said a noxious weeds officer had discussed with the defendant in January, last year, the situation of gorse and brown growth on his land, and the requirement of clearing 20m back from boundaries. The defendant said that he did not wish to use poison spray but would cut weeds around the boundaries, with the idea of using goats to eradicate the growth. Subsequent inspections showed little progress in clearing the noxious weeds, and there was growth and flowering and seeding of plants. The defendant said that he was conscious of noxious weeds, the problem of soil

erosion and the provision of suitable ground cover when broom and gorse was removed. He had liaised with the D.5.1.R., Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and North Canterbury Catchment Board in an effort to solve these ancillary problems. He said that he had a deal of experience with the control of noxious weeds by goats; a property he owned at Clifton, which was formerly heavily infested, was now cited frequently by Christchurch noxious weeds officers as a very good example of the ability of goats to control broom and gorse. The defendant said that his Lyttelton property was in very bad condition when he took it over in 1981. He had been unable to graze the whole area at first but had achieved effective control by goats where he could graze them. He said that with fencing of the land having been completed and the whole area able to be grazed he was confident of fully controlling the noxious weeds.