RABBIT BOARD POLICY.

Matamata Record, Volume XVI, Issue 1445, 27 July 1933, Page 1

RABBIT BOARD POLICY.

TO SUE, OR NOT TO SUE.

E. Waikato Board’s Discussion.

A lengthy discussion on the policy to be adopted during the coming year took place at the July meeting of the East Waikato Rabbit Board during which heated passages were exchanged, which, however, did not have the effect of destroying the friendly atmosphere of the meeting as a whole. Mr. Shine’s Views. The discussion was opened by Mr. J. J. Shine, who suggested that each year farmers should carry out a general poisoning at their own cost, if necessary. After this the board should follow up with their work of trapping and fumigating to eradicate the rabbits left. He thought the day was in sight when general winter poisoning by farmers would not be necessary.

The chairman (Mr. J. Allen): That means the board would take over and the next point is, what would that cost?

The clerk said that every Id rate produced £550, to which would be added subsidy of an almost similar amount. Mr. Shine remarked that the board should be able to do the work for from 2£d to 3d per acre. He knew of a case where a farmer would pay willingly Is per acre. This farmer had been at the job for 20 years, and wished for the job to be done thoroughly. The man in question had full knowledge of the trials and tribulations of slump conditions. The speaker had no fear that farmers would not pay a good rate provided the results were obtained by the board. Co-ordination of Work. Mr. W. J. Baldwin emphasised that co-ordination of work was necessary. It was essential to have systematic work especially during the spring of the year, when rabbits breeding. At that time the farmer was too busy t<? do what he should do fn rabbit destruction. The chairman said that he thought one difficulty was that some large landowners who had kept their land clear would be called upon to pay a fairly heavy rate. One he knew, under a 2d rate, had paid as much as £46. Mr. Shine replied that there was always a potential danger from rabbits to such farmers. He had a scheme in mind under which eight" or 10 men ceuld do the work. If these were not split up, but were put on certain areas to work through on a face, he thought the board would be amazed at the results secured.

Mr. J. Allen: Do you think the district is in a uniform state ? Mr. Shine: No, but the call is uniform. Mr. R. Carruth thought Mr. Shine’s end of district was not up to the clean state of other districts. Mr. - Shine replied that there was more rabbits per acre at his end than in any district. He had always said so. At the start they . were keen to get farmers his way in the board in order to remove the danger and he asked them to still stick to them.

Cleaning Up Properties.

Mr. Carruth held that if they went over a 2d rate there might be difficulty. If it did not cost more than 2d per acre for the board to do the work he was agreeable. Mr. Baldwin suggested a way out might be for the board to put its own men on properties to clean up certain areas and bring them up to the state of the others. Mr. Shine: What is a clean farm? Mr. Baldwin: The inspector would know. Shine: But I want to know, it is the board which is laying down the policy.

Mr. Baldwin held that it cost farmers on dirty properties more to do-the work themselves than they would be charged by. the board.

Mr. A. Lopdell held there was only one way to clear up rabbits, and that was to give the inspector a free hand to prosecute where farmers were not taking the necessary steps to clean up their properties. It was only a waste of time to allow negligent farmers to hold up the work. Mr. Shine: We are here to destroy rabbits, not to prosecute. Cross-table talk between Mr. Shine and Mr. Lopdell followed, the latter quoting Hawke’s Bay as an instance. Id Per Acre Suggested. Mr. Lopdell then proposed that the inspector be given more power, and that the board see that he carried it out. If that were done he felt certain the board could take over all the work at Id per acre.

Mr. Carruth remarked that he was. prepared for the board to take over the work if it only cost 2d, but so far as he could see the proposition, if carried out now, would cost 6d per acre.

Mr. Allen said if there' were infested properties it was the board’s fault. They had an inspector and sub-inspectors, and should prosecute where farmers failed to do the work. False Pretences. Mr. Shine disagreed, and held that signatures to the board being formed were obtained under false pretences-. Farmers thought they were going to be relieved of the job. Instead the board had shirked the work and put it on the farmers. Mr. Allen strongly dissented fi%m this view, holding that the suggesion was for a small rate and farm:rs to do the work. Mr. Munro had suggested this at the preliminary meetings. Mr. Baldwin concurred, saying the statement made was the board should take over when the area was in a uniformly clean state, He held uniformity was essential, as some farmers did not carry out the work. Mr. Lopdell: Well, that is the fault of the board. We have been too easy right from the start. We should have told the inspector to go ahead and clean things 'up, and prosecute if necessary.

Mr., Shine said he was game enough to say he would give anyone Is for every rabbit seen his place over five provided he was given Is for everyone under.

80 Per Cent. Less Rabbits.

The inspector said was about 80 per cent. less rabbits in the district since the board started operations. The main danger was the few scrubby areas, and if the board would "keep the trappers on during the summer it might provide a middle course. The market for rabbits was now 7d per pair on the roadside, and the cost would thus not be very heavy. If some arrangement was not made trappers would leave for places where there were more rabbits.

In reply to Mr. Lopdell, the inspector said the dirty places were mostly on private land with an odd Crown property.

Mr. Lopdell: Then I think we should insist on "farmers doing the work.

Mr. Baldwin said he favoured the middle course of keeping trappers employed during the summer. There were properties, which for various reasons such as lack of experience by owners, would not be brought into line without assistance, and these should stand the cost. Mr. Shine: But why charge some men with difficult properties when we are all here for the common good. Mr. Lopdell held the farmer concerned could put the trappers on. If the board insisted this would heep the rabbiters in the district.

The inspector said that by leaving the work to farmers, shortage of ready cash delayed the work, and also there was lack of uniformity. If done by the board he thought tRe cost would be less to the farmer.

Mr. Carruth pointed out that some farmers put on an inexperienced trapper who did more harm than good. Costs Halved by Subsidy. Mr. Shine urged strongly that if the board put on trappers out of rate, it only cost the farmer half the cost as the board got subsidy for the other half from the Government. There would also be far more satisfactory work. The inspector said the first year of the board’s operations the farmer had got almost the whole of his rates back in materials and the board carried on on subsidy. Mr. Shine: What the farmer complains about is not the rate, but the inefficiency of the administration. The chairman: Any amount of farmers have congratulated me on the work of the board, and remarked that they wished the board had been started 20 years ago.

On resuming after lunch, Mr. Lopdell suggested that information be prepared for next meeting’ as to costs of the work, with a view to assisting the board arriving at the policy for the year. Mr. Carruth urged that a report

be obtained as to the state of each particular district. In the meantime the season was advancing and they should consider the possibility of trappers leaving .the district. The inspector said that no trappers were being paid by the board at present. The chairman held the position was the board had to decide whether they should keep the trappers on by partial wages or not. The inspector: Also whether any wages paid should be charged up to the farmer or paid by the board. Mr. Carruth held that if negligence or carelessness was proved men should be put on private property by the board at the expense of the owners.

Messrs. Baldwin and Lopdell agreed with this view. Mr. Shine held that argument simply amounted to the board reducing salaries and putting on an inspector-secretary with instructions to sue. There would be more summonses than rabbits.

Mr. Lopdell said the big majority of farmers were willing to do a fair thing.

Mr. Shine: What I want is to get the last rabbit destroyed in the fairest and quickest manner, and this

can only be done by rate. Mr. Allen thought that under such a scheme the man who had kept his property clean would be penalised. Mr. Shine replied that differential rating would meet that difficulty. The Motion. Mr. Baldwin then moved that the board obtain reports from all inspectors as to the state of their districts, and an estimate of the number of men required to keep their areas clean, the board doing the whole of the work, until next winter.

The inspector said an important point was for the farmer to fumigate and dig in the burrows. A discussion of a personal nature followed between Mr. Shine and Mr. Lopdell, during which both admitted that the last few rabbits on a property were the hardest to deal with.

Mr. Shine added that as this was the case with hundreds of farmers, it was absurd to expect each farmer to put certain men on at a certain time, and expect the work to be done satisfactorily. The only method was for the board to do the work and so get uniformity and continuity of policy. If the board was not prepared to run their work on business lines, then he would have to consider whether it was worth his

while wasting time by coming to

(Continued in Next Column).

meetings. Mr. Baldwin urged that the board ! do the work systematically, going j from farm to farm all over the area. [ He seconded the motion, which was then carried unanimously. Keeping Inspectors at Work. Mr. Shine urged that if the trappers were put on as a team one man could collect the rabbits, which would bring down the cost of land- i ing the rabbits on the railway, which was the biggest cost now. The inspector said some properties would pay for trapping, but others would not have enough rabbits on. If the board could evolve a scheme to subsidise work on such properties it would solve the trouble. Mr. Baldwin moved that after the reports called for came to hand, the inspector be instructed to hold the sub-inspectors, and that their engagements be terminated on a fortnight’s notice when the reports were asked for. j Mr. Shine seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.