APITI-POHANGINA RABBIT BOARD

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6902, 7 May 1929, Page 3

APITI-POHANGINA RABBIT BOARD

(To the Editor.)

Sir,- —As your valuable space lias a wide circulation in this district I crave space to reply to an article by ‘‘Satislied Ratepayer’' published in your evening contemporary of May 3, .re the. forthcoming election for the Apiti-1-ohangina Rabbit Board.

X will try to reply to several remark'. First, to dismiss the present Inspector. I myself have not made such a suggestion until a system which would be more acceptable to the ratepayers can be formulated by the combined thought and deliberations of those elected. If everybody is satisfied with the present administration then why should “Satisfied Ratepayer" become so agitated about the matter?. Now that the pest is down to a minimum, I maintain that it is only the permanent rabbitcr who has nothing else to do who will get those last five as suggested by your correspondent. As for inspection, there are several working inspectors in neighbouring boards who have given complete satisfaction, viz., Urautoi, Eastern Pohangina, and Cheltenham. Would not every farmer be an inspector if he was paying a man to do the rabbiting, such working inspectors to be vested with all the powers which the law allows as regards rabbits and weeds. He would also have power to call upon any farmer to get, rid of rabbits if he had a badly infested patch which would detain the permanent man too long. As Mr Souness has been about six years in the district and “Satisfied Ratepayer" has not become acquainted with him, then he must be an absentee ratepayer and no doubt bis letter would carry' more weight if he had signed his name.

My views arc that when suitable accommodation can be found and workablo areas defined, that the board’s iarea be divided into groups and working inspectors be put on, vested with all the powers- the Government allows. As for the white gloves, we can honestly present Mr Souness with a pair in recognition of his work here. What is apparently of more concern to ratepayers is the amount of rate required to carry out this work which I believe can be done for lid per acre if three groups, of 2d if in four groups. If farmers think they can carry on with the present 2d. per acre rate, I append a few figures for them to ponder over. Receipts, 1928/29: sd. per acre on 7G,558 acres, £221 8s 8d; Government subsidy, £221 Ss Sd; total, £442 17s 4d. Expenditure: Pollard, £44; eanide (gas) £33; wages, £191; travelling allowance £63; inspector £400; clerk, £6O; total £791. Other items bring the expenditure to £853. These figures are approximate from the information I have available.

From the above statement ratepayers will see that it is impossible for the board to spend according to last year’s expenses with less than lid. per acre rate, so they must now be carrying on with the assistance of a reserve fund taken from the farmers in previous years when a much higher rate was struck.

For my part I am content to leave the matter in the hands of the ratepayers. If satisfied then (as you were) for another three years, or they can now change the personnel of the board if they so wish. There is a change of thought, or opinion in the direction of working inspectors coming in .many other boards as well as here.

I will now leave it to the ratepayers if they think they would rather put in several days work a year, often at a vc-ry inconvenient time, or pay an increased rate of probably -Jd per acre; now is the time to make, their choice.— Yours’ etc., W. J. FILES. (Apiti.)