Poultry Amendment Bill

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 98, 19 January 1933, Page 9

Poultry Amendment Bill

Sir, —In replying to Mr. B. Raskins letter appearing iu your columns ot January 13: He says, "it appears to me they are hoping that some egg producers may be -submerged’ because of the need ol finance.” Mr. Raskiu is evidently ot the opinion that Mr. Lcger’s aud the writers letter of December 23 was for the mam purpose of wishing that certain .poultrymen should be forced into bankruptcy. Our letter never even hinted at such, their object being to explain that the present system is now fifty years behind the times, aud if we want ever to be able to survive the crushing penalties now imposed, it is only by sound organisation, and more important still, leadership. Mr. Raskin also says: "I am not aware of any local organised opposition to the fee of 2/6 per 100 Ifirds.” It is rathter amusing to look ba«k to Mr. Jennenss letter of December 17, which states: 1 have always thought 1/- per each aO head of poultry quite sufficient for registration ‘purposes”; also Air. Raskius letter Published in “The Dominion” on November 17. which says: "Through this form of registration, an amount of £6OOO per year will be extracted from the industry, which can ill-afford it, and a large part of this spent on administration from which no benefit can be gained.” Has the above gentleman not yet realised the hopeless position poultrymen have got themselves into, all for the lack of being properly organised? Air. Raskin as good as admits there is nothing wrong with the sales of eggs. He is quite prepared to accept cightpence per dozen tor first grade. Mr. Raskin’s recent letters to your valuable paper on the Poultry Amendment Bill have been more or less coutradletions to his earlier contributions, aud I am sure his public platform explanation would be much the same and of no value Io the public, hence my refusal to accept his very cordial offer. —I am. etc.. R. F. MeDONELL. Levin, January 15. [This correspondence is now closed. — Ed. I