MORE EFFECTIVE LEGISLATION TO FIGHT RABBIT PEST

Manawatu Times, Volume LIII, Issue 6672, 27 July 1928, Page 8

MORE EFFECTIVE LEGISLATION TO FIGHT RABBIT PEST

Amending Bill Appears In House at Long Last Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Last Night. ‘ When the House resumed at 7.30 p.m. Hon. 0. J. Hawken moved the second reading of the Rabbit Nuisance Bill. Ho said there were some who held the opinion that the farming of wild rabbits was a payable proposition, but there was always a danger that such a practice might get out of hand. At present they had got the nuisance down to a point where it could be controlled. He instanced the clearance ma,de in the Wairarapa which had been practically cleared, and generally in the last two years as a result of the good work done by boards further progress had been made all over the Dominion. As to the Bill itself it made a good many changes in the existing law. The Bill gives power to the Agricultural Department or a rabbit board when, obliged to undertake the rabbiting of a property because of the owner’s neglect to do so to collect and fell the skins, giving the owner credit for 75 per cent, of the net proceeds. The protection of any_animal_ which is the natural enemy of the rabbit is at present Dominion-wide, but it is proposed to limit this to specified districts. Authority is to be given to keep under proper restriction Angora and other rabbits carrying valuable fur. Fairly considerable changes in the law are proposed in connection with rabbit boards, but they are designed to meet the present-day requirements of the boards as represented by their association. There are now three distinct kinds of boards, but if the Bill passes there will be only one kind. The new boards,will be able to levy their rates on any one of the bases now applying to the three different kinds of boards, The Bill provides that all existing boards shall enure and that both new and existing boards- may change their basis of rating from the stock basis to the rateable value or the. acreage basis, from the rateable value basis to the acreage basis, or vice versa, but not from the rateable value or acreage basis to the stock basis. In every case; a poll of ratepayers will determine the form of subsidy. In the case of existing boards this is not proposed to bo changed, the only alteration in this direction being that in future boards formed with a smaller area than 20,000 acres will not receive a subsidy. The general election of boards is to take place on the same day as county elections. i Stock owners’boards are to be given power ,to raise loans. Most of the amendments made in the Bill have been asked for by rabbit boards for some years.; Rabbit Tactics. Mr. Lysnar generally congratulated the Minister upon introducing the Bill, but thought that the area entitled to form a rabbit board should-be more than 20,000 acres. Small boards were of no use and should not be encouraged. He also objected to the standard poison because the rabbit was a peculiar animal—once bit twice shy—and when a rabbit became shy of a particular poison it was useless rising that particular poison again. To,cope with the rabbit the tactics must be changed from month to month. - Fur or Wool? Mr Burnett did not agree with trading in rabbits. Farming rabbits only encouraged the pest. New Zealand had to decide whether it was going to have wool or ■ fur. He hoped the Minister would not take off the protection now enjoyed by the natural enemy of the rabbit oven though it meant that our native birds were doomed because of the depredations of stoats weasels, and ferrets. As a' bird lover, he regretted this extinction of our birds, but he felt it was inevitable. Discourage Fancy Furs. The Leader of the Opposition deprecated the proposal to foster the breed-, ing of rabbits for the sake of a fur which was fashionable to-day but might not be to-morrow. Methods of destroying rabbits must bo changed from time to time because rabbits like humans had the capacity of adapting themselves to altered conditions. In a general way he approved of the Bill, but urged that ample time be given to,the people affected to understand the changes made in the Bill. The debate was continued by Messrs Reid, Mason (Napier), Mason (Eden), Glenn, Martin, Campbell, Waite, Horn and A. Hamilton (Wallace); The Minister, in reply, said the Act was peculiar in that so much depended upon the judicious way in widely it was administered. He did not think the Department had been unreasonable in that respect and he thought the law had been carried out in a way that tended to get rid of rabbits. The powers asked for in the Bill were necessary because in different- districts different methods of destruction were necessary and some settler might persist in using the wrong methods. Ho saw no danger in permitting the keeping of white rabbits because there was no instance known of their escaping and becoming a nuisance. He believed the Bill was a thoroughly well thought out measure. •

The Bill was read a second time and referred to the Stock and Agricultural Committee.