Poultry Registration

Manawatu Times, Volume LV, Issue 6840, 22 April 1932, Page 10

Poultry Registration

(To the Editor.) Sir. —The New Zealand Poultry Association no doubt has its reasons for asking for legislation compelling all those who sell a few eggs obtained from a dozen or more fowls or ducks to register and thus become members of an organisation which does not interest them. Those reasons are stated to be concerned with the welfare of the farmer and the industry of egg-produc-tion at a payable price. Apparently it is proposed to utilise a portion of the revenue which the registration fees would produce to create a fund to assist in the export of eggs. In other words householders would be compelled to contribute towards a scheme for maintaining the price of eggs at a level which it would pay thoso in the industry commercially to keep going. From the legitimate poultry farmer’s point of view the scheme is attractive. He is in the business for all he can get out of it but whether he should be given statutory powers to compel householders keeping, say 13 or 14 fowls or clucks, to contribute towards keeping him in business is another matter. To suggest that those selling eggs, obtained from 13 or 14 fowls or ducks, are keeping poultry partly or wholly for commercial purposes is a point upon which the Poultry Association will require to amend its views. Hundreds oi householders keep from a dozen up to 20 head of poultry (the average according to the last census was 2.1 per household keeping poultry) sell, or what is true in hundreds of cases, exchange, those eggjs, over and above those needed for household consumption, for the food supply of the poultry. They keep a few fowls to supply the household needs in eggs and dispose of the surplus in return for grain, pollard, etc. They are content to do this and aio not concerned, nor should they bo compelled to be concerned, with the operations of poultry keepers and breeders proper who carry on on a scale far and away more extensive than the ordinary householder. The Poultry Association’s proposals arc surely trespassing upon the liberties of the poultry keeping householder who should be given a right to vote on the association’s proposals. That they are largely interested in the proposals will be apparent from tnc figures quoted below. The Poultry Association can seek whatever legislation it fancies provided its proposals aro definitely confined to those who can be fairly described as poultry farmers. To attempt to bring into the scheme householders who keep 13 or 14 fowls or even up to 20 and who sell an occasional dozen cr so eggs in return for grain and not for profit, for there is no profit in it—unless the eggs consumed by the household can be described as “profit”—is absurd. If there are no inspectors to enforce the proposals who is going to chock up on the householder who has 13 fowls and sells eggs but states that he only keeps 12? Will it bo the duty of the storekeeper who buys the eggs to satisfy himself that the householder has no more than 12 fowls? And if this job is to be left to storekeepers how are they to decide whether the householder offering eggs for sale has more than a dozen fowls? A storekeeper would not be anxious to question a good cash customer as to whether he was evading the regulations. According to the 1926 census 155,850 householders kept a total of 3,781,145 head of poultry in that year, an average of 21 birds per flock. That was six years ago and as likely as not the figures are greater to-day. On these figuros the imposition of even the minimum fee of 2s 6d would produce £20,000 per annum and this is possibly the attractive prize which the Poultry Association seeks to win annually. It is interesting to note that of the total householders keeping poultry in 1926, 68,133 were residents of cities and boroughs and only a very small proportion of thoso would be actual poultry farmers. If the Poultry Association, or more truly, if those in the egg-produc-ing business as poultry farmers, cannot exist on their own efforts, it should not be permitted that legislative authority compel closo upon 70,000 householders in cities and boroughs to contribute towards their upkeep. The existing legislation for assisting other primary industries is confined to legitimate dairy farmers (not those who keep a cow for household purposes and who sell an occasional pound of butter to the local storekeeper), sheep farmers, orchardists and honey producers, in the step it is taking tho Poultry Association is contributing towards that ever-grow-ing mass of legislation which is gradually yet surely depriving the individual of all personal liberty.—l am, etc., “KEEPER OF 16 FOWLS.”