CLEARING RABBITS.

Matamata Record, Volume XVI, Issue 1445, 27 July 1933, Page 5

CLEARING RABBITS.

QUESTION OF NOTICES.

Board’s Methods Discussed.

The fact that farmers were not clear that work was being done on their properties at their cost, despite the fact that statutory aiotices were served, was brought to the notice of members of the East Waikato Eabbit Board on Tuesday.

Mr. J. Lopdell urged that no sub_4fi£l?ector should put in time on private property unless there was a satisfactory arrangement beforehand.

Mr. J. J. Shine pointed out that in some cases this would be difficult. He knew of an energetic sub-inspector who, when he had completed a round, would take out a bundle of traps and set them on a clay road — one who would go on to private property for an hour and advise the owner of the best means of doing certain work.

To Credit of Inspector.

Mr. Lopdell said he had no objection to such assistance being given, which was all to the credit of the sub-inspector. He objected, however, to a sub-inspector working on private property for two days or a week, without an arrangement being made. It was understood that subinspectors would advise and lissist the whole of the people in' their territory. Now it appeared sub-in-spectors were going on to properties and doing the whole of the work. Mr. R. Carruth agreed with this view, and urged the farmer should pay a share of the cost. Perhaps not the whole cost as the skins would have to he deducted. Mr. J. Allen doubted if a charge could be made if the farmer was not notified.

The inspector remarked that every farmer was notified. It was on the back of the notice that if the work was not done it woulcT be done by the board and charged for. A Cause of Trouble. Mr. Shine held that a notice should also be served the day the man started, so that he would know it was special work. It only led to trouble to let a man go on private property and do work, and then months afterwards charge it up to him.

„ In reply to Mr. Lopdell, the inspector said that no man had been put on to private property without the farmer being advised orally by him.

, The clerk said that there were no special notices which would be suitable. These notices were to be obtained when necessary, and the heed was only now apparent. The board liad a complete case if the work was done within six months of the statutory notice being served.

Mr. Shine thought the position should be more clearly defined. If they charged for three days and not for two, where exactly did they start? There should be some clear definition.

The clerk said they were up against a new problem which had arisen since the sub-inspectors had been appointed. Mr. Shine remarked that he did not quite agree with this view. He urged immediate steps be taken to serve a more clear notice even if the man had to sign the book. The chairman and Mr. Lopdell said they understood that was already the position. The clerk said there was only one case in dispute. The original motion would cover the case and could now be put into effect. Mr. Lopdell: It would be more satisfactory if the board could produce a duplicate of the notice of its intention to do the work.

The clerk: It would probably make the magistrate’s mind easier. The discussion then dropped, it being understood the original motion •covered the position.