THE STOCK EMBARGO.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LV, Issue 151, 27 May 1935, Page 6

THE STOCK EMBARGO.

The circular letter addressed to breed societies and other organisations connected with the welfare of the primary industry by the Minister of Agriculture, seeking an expression of opinion on the removal of .the embargo against the direct importation of stud stock from Britain, shows that rural producers are in a majority against taking such action. The Department had received an enquiry from the British Government regarding the matter, and reinforced by the opinion of its veterinary staff that the embargo might be lifted on drastic precautions being taken to prevent the introduction of foot and mouth disease, had sought the opinion of breed societies and other responsible farming organisations. There has, however, been an impressive weight of views against the removal of precautions which have allayed the fears of the dreaded foot and mouth disease being introduced into the Dominion. The Department adduced strong arguments in favour of its proposal. It was able to point to the fact that last year the Agricultural and Pastoral Committee of the House of Representatives had reported favourably upon a petition seeking the removal of the impediment in the way of direct importations of stud stock from Britain. Its own officers endorsed the suggestion, while the eminent veterinarian, Sir Arnold Tliieler, “considered there was no danger of animals bringing the disease to New Zealand.” _ The Department also raised a hint of the removal of the embargo having an influence upon the meat discussions at Home, but it is obvious that it has no relation to this involved matter. The Dominion executive of the Farmers’ Union has opposed the Department; the Manawatu A. and P. Association’s members gave a strong negative after the general committee had voted in favour of the proposal; the Auckland Farmers’ Union conference, while expressing opposition ‘‘strongly condemned any bargaining with the regulations for an increase in the meat quota.” In Hawke’s Bay the official policy was endorsed at first but later disapproved. There is, indeed, an influential weight ot farming opinion opposed to the Departmental attitude, and in the circumstances —though some prefer to believe that the Government has made up its mind and consulted the. farmers as an act of courtesy—the regulations nowexisting may not be altered. Apparently to do so would create consternation.