PEOPLE’S COLUMN

Northern Advocate, 14 February 1928, Page 8

PEOPLE’S COLUMN

[Gur columns are open to the public for the discussion of natters of public concern. We invite correspondence, but do not identify ourselves -with the views expressed by our correspondents. Letters must be written in ink and on one side of the paper only. The real name and address of the writer must be attached to a letter, not necessarily for publication, but as a mark of good faith. —Ed.]

VETERINARY SURGEONS’ ACT,

(To the Editor) Sir. —In reply to “Swede Turnips,” inquiry as to the difference between a veterinary surgeon and a veterinary practitioner, I pen the following:— Previous to the present Act coming into force, a veterinary surgeon and a veterinary practitioner meant the same. Now a veterinary, surgeon is a person who has qualified through the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, London, or holds a foreign diploma of the equivalent. Hence, a veterinary surgeon has M.R.C.V.S., or letters of other diploma., after his name. A “veterinary practitioner” is a person who has practised as a veterinary surgeon, practitioner or veterinarian in New Zealand for not loss than ten years imms diately prior to the commencement of this Act, notwithstanding that he may not be qualified. So he is a veterinary practitioner, M.N.Z.V.P.A., registered—- “ Member New Zealand Veterinary Practitioners Association.” —I am etc.,

‘‘MBS WIGGS,” of the “Cabbage

Patch.”

NO EDUCATION IN REALITY.

(To the Editor.)

Sir. —If there was any meaning in my last letter on education, I am afraid you missed it badly when you w r rote your editorial of January 4. In our primary schools today they cultivate a love for money and other kinds of deadstock without hardly seeing it, except its likeness on paper. There is hardly a household ■without some useful livestock, such as hens, cats, dogs, trees, plants, etc., in or about it. You will agree with me that livestock means all solid matter with life except human life and deadstock all that without life. So we only have three primary subjects on this earth and we only get an education which teaches us to respect two of them, with religion for human life. Reading, writing and arithmetic, as taught today, only suit us for deadstock. By reality is meant any other form of life, or the main object of our being able to live, and we have no primary education on the subject inasmuch as we are itaught nothing about the things we can see, such as how an animal uses its senses and the effect of light, darkness, etc. on plants. We just respect them for their good appearance. Today we have reached a stage when a man prides him* self on being a. wonderful creature, when he really only has one more sense than an animal. Reality should be taught before arithmetic, history, geography, etc., because it stands closer to us in the act of sustaining our lives, especially animals, and they receive least respect. We should be taught about things we can see. Then we would accept the facts about things we can’t see—that is science—at their true value when handling livestock. lam not in doubt when saying all the dishonesty in this country starts amongst livestock, which in this case,\ is fruit trees. No jewel robber started by robbing jewels. It would be useless to delay this education until children leave the primary schools, because they would have learned to disrespect it by then. Today, if a. man continues to offend human nature by kicking or belabouring with his hands anything that has no life, he is put in the asylum or gaol. But if a man continues to offend human nature by knocking about anything of his own with life, 99 per cent, of the people take no notice, or, if it belongs to anybody else, there is a row on after the act, if seen by the owner, as he (the owner) is educated to think he is the only one to do that. We have

enormous losses with sheep and cows, and one cannot go by statistics because th,e Statistician goes by the number of lambs the farmer says he tails, and the number of cows he says he milks—not the number he has to fed in order to milk that number. With cows, there are a number of nervous diseases, which ill-treatment has a very bad effect on, diseases that stop cows coming into profit, and by which the Department of agriculture says we lose 1$ millions a year. Sheep do not contract nervous diseases, but a large number of lambs and sheep are lost through bad handling. One has only to go around the country with his eyes open to see that with all our progress in the last. 40 years in the arts which” teach us to respect deadstock, we have declined in the arts of handling livestock. When one takes the number of cows and sheep grazed into consideration, it is certain that, on the average, the quantity of butter-fat is declining, and also the weight of wool per sheep. Thanks to science we have individual cows and sheep producing more butterfat and wool than ev,er in history. For the number of farmers we have there is less soil tilled than ever in history. Is it any wonder we feel a dry season? When on,o takes the number of people, this is one of the greatest sheep-rais-ing countries in the world, but how

many good flocks are there? We see nothing but individual good sheep, and the same can be said of cows. How many people grow their own vegetables and fruit in plenty? Very few, and on the average the production must be on the decline, or Wie would not have so many Chinamen here. If one takes the number of animals, then on the average our fodder crops are on the decline. No one can say that we, with all our science today, can grow better crops than they did 40 years ago. Go around and see all the old homesteads of 40 years ago, and there yon will see how they planted shelter or left the native bush. You will see a great many of the latter day ones with every tree of native bush chopped down, and not a tree planted for shelter. There is nothing taught that could be called primary in connection with livestock farming.—l am, etc., (PRIMARY.

MR FORBES’ POSITION.

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —Re Mr Forbes’ speech on Friday last. He is most emphatic that “Reform must go.” I would like to look into his (Mr Forbes’) own position as Nationalist. The Nationalist Party was formed of those Liberals (?) who were willing to fuse with the Reform Party under the leadership of Mr Coates. Now this Nationalist concoction who 'have consistently supported the Reform Party in divisions in the House are crying down the very party they wished to join a short time ago. Then, we have Mr Forbes as leader of the Liberal Party (owing to Mr Wilford’s ill-health) throwing down Liberalism for Nationalism, .and now turning to the U.P.P. (Unknown Policy Party)—very suitable, too. It was also plainly hinted that Mr A. J. Murdoch was in line with Mr Forbes and Go. I would like to remind that gentleman that he also has had two parties so far, and that the electors have not all got short memories.—l am, etc.,

A. G. LANGDON.

Whau Valley, Whangiarei.