ONSLOWS BUSH

Evening Post, Volume XCIV, Issue 67, 17 September 1917, Page 4

ONSLOWS BUSH

QUESTION OF SHEEP-GRAZING.

Those residents of Onslow who are ■against the letting of the ; catchment area for sheep-grazing are evidently firm believers in the maxim, ";f at first you don't succeed, try, try, try again."' Having failed, at the last meeting of the council to impress councillors, another deputation from the Catchment Area, Water Supply Cpmmittee waited on the council on Saturday evening.

Major Smith, who led the deputation, said that since the,last deputation more evidence as to the damage to, and destruction of, native bush and artificial plantations by the grazing of sheep had been procured. Dr. Cockayne, F.R.S., had visited the area and inspected the bush, and also the pine trees planted in the open portions of the area. , He had pointed out many cases in which sheep damaged and destroyed New Zealand bush. Sheep, by trampling and eating the i undergrowth, had prevented the regeneration of the forest. "The young trees, if left uninjured, would in time grow up and re-establish the • bush. Were it not for the open grass portions of the area., which to some extent constituted a mefrace from", fire,' the admittance of sheep to the area- would be ununthinkable. The best course would be to fence off th« grass from the bush, but the cost of that would be considerable. It -was easy to overestimate.the risk of fire, and even with that possible risk, the unrestricted grazing of sheep should not be thought of. Evidence from Mr. Phillips Turner was also produced by ■Major Smith. Mr. Turner had come to the conclusion that the 'grazing of sheep in artificial plantations was moat detrimental to the bush, while in the case of native bush, the destruction of the undergrowth, the drying o£ the once spongy 'ground, and tho trampling : of the/soil eventually sealed the fate 6f.';i>he bush. Mr. Turner had. also mentioned-the bush fires of 1911, and had s stated; that bush in which sheep had been grazed suffered much more l damage. than that in ■ which stock*, was not permitted. "I claim*" said Major Smith, "that the : expert, evidence produced, in ■, addition, to ..tyhat' was- produced by the previous .deputation, is ample to, prove that the action of the council in proposing to let the area for grazing is unwise, and fraught with danger to the interests'and- property of the borough. It is more, than sufficient to convince any body, of temporary trustees that they aTe justified in refusing to hake the risk.",

: Later in the .evening, Councillor Gardner nwed the following motion :— "That the motion .passed on .i.Sth August, 1917—'That the: tender {Bs/per acre) of Henry Hume for the grazing rights of the ca.tcbment aspa be acdepted—be rescinded." In doing so, he. said that he believed the matter' was being rushed- through without due consideration. He mentioned the deputation which waited on the Ciw^Cormcil last week in regard to amalgamation, and urged that what had been said there was evidence that consideration, should be. deferred. The City, Council 'shmild be approached-with a.'view,-to getting evidence from experts. If the area was to' bY leased, he contendpd that it should be leased for nine months of tie. year only. In June, 'July, and Au«ust it should rnna-in idle, in order to allow the smnll trf.es to sfow, . .

Councillor .Palmer seconded the motion, which, on heinrr put to' the .meeting, was lost, only three/voting, for \it. „. •> A special" meeting was then held, at' which a „ special' order fas required by the Act), to the effect that the catchment .^area^.yould not. .be required -for the purpose for which• ltvwas hold,".during the proposed tenancy, and that the proposed tenancy would not , interfere ■with its .ultimate'use as, a. catchment area, was passed. ' ;.■