WEEDS CONTROL

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22318, 1 May 1947, Page 6

WEEDS CONTROL

CLEARING COSTS REMIT TOO DRASTIC THISTLE INFESTATION A move to have variegated thistle placed on the first schedule of the Noxious Weeds Act. and to make it an offence to have the weed growing on any property, was sponsored by the Waikohu representative at Tuesdav's conference of No. 7 ward of the N.Z. Counties' Association. The remit was defeated on the general grounds that its effect would be too drastic. Before the remit came forward the conference had discussed the general aspects of noxious-weed? control under the new State suOsidv scheme, which will largely finance operations under taken by the counties. The chairman of the Cook County Council, Mr E. H. Baker, stated i that his council regarded the new scheme as a definite advance upon the old svstem of control, and had taken over the responsibility of administration with the full determination of carrying it out. Mr A. A. Fraser stated that in his county, Waikohu, noxious weeds had • got away” bariiy during the war years, when labour for cutting had not been available The property-owners recognised their liability, but ever, nowlabour was short. When a property owner was put under notice to eradicate weeds the tendency was to reply inviting the council to do the work at the farmer's expense. Funds. But No Labour "That puts the council on the spot,’ said Mr Fraser, "because we can't get labour either. The landowners are prepared to pay, but they can't get the work done." On the question of placing variegated thistle on the first schedule of the Act, which would enforce clearing with drastic penalties for failure. Mr D. W. W Williams Waiapu, stated that the machinery was available for any county to have the weed so treated within its own boundary. He suggested. however, that it might be a dangerous step, as some people on badly infested areas might be ruined if they were compelled to cut the thistle at once. Mr R- C Murpliy, Cook considered that councils should not be too drastic in the early post war years. In the Cook County the council was endeavouring to get the farmers to cut the weed but it was realised that it would break many farmers to insist on its clearance at once. The potential threat of a general infestation of the CisboiTv hill lands was referred to tw Mr Faker, who thought that the Government should recognise the obligation to clear land where the position was beyond rea sonablo financial resources of the individual land-owner. Neighbouring Lands Affected Mr .1 G. Appleton stated that in the Waikohu Coun,y complaints were re ceived that some land owners were not clearing the weed, which in consequence was infesting ne’ghbouring properties. Inspectors need only place reasonable demands on the land-owner. Mr H. R. Irving. Uawa. referred t& the problem of leasehold properties, where the lessees had no incentive to clear weeds, as they had the prospect o c surrendering the lands to the owners within short periods. In reference to the proposal for State subsidies for weed-clearance. Mr C. Tiet.ien, Cook, stated that this was offering a loop-hole -to some farmers. He felt that any farmer who could not keen his land in order should have to eo off the land The remit was seconded bv Mr Baker who said he cou'd not see how it could make the position any worse than at present. When the remit was put to the vote the delegates of Cook and Waikohu councils voted in favour of it. and those' of ITawa and Waiapu against it. Exercising his casting vote Mr Baker defeated the remit, on the grounds that it proposed a departure from nast practice and that flier** was substantia! opposition expressed.