THE RABBIT TEST

New Zealand Mail, 22 January 1902, Page 52

THE RABBIT TEST

(By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) NAPIER, January 13. It is feared that there is serious trouble ahead for Hawke’s Bay and Wairarapa over the rabbit question—a question, perhaps, of no interest to dwellers in the city, but of vast importance to the men who are the backbone of the country, and upon whom the city largely depends. When the Government last session accepted an amendment to its legislation in regard to the extermination of rabbits, by which powers hitherto possessed by stock inspectors were transferred to Stipendiary Magistrates, Ministers could have known little of the serious consequences of such an alteration in the Act. Prior to the passing of this amendment, in cases where owners were sued by the department’s officers for failing to take the necessary precautions to destroy rabbits on their properties, the onus of proof was thrown on the inspectors. These responsible officials thoroughly scoured the country before prosecuting an owner, and where they laid an information, they invariably had very good evidence to go upon. I'nder the amending Act the inspector is a secondary consideration in the matter of a prosecution. The Stipendiary Magistrate decides a case on the weight of evidence. This means that, despite anything that may bo seen by an inspector on a visit, a farmer, if he so desires, can bring a couple of neighbours to depose that he has done his best towards the eradication of the pest. The inspector is thus helpless. The weight of evidence is against him. In this manner it is almost impossible to obtain a conviction. Meantime bunny multiplies.

Just consider what this means at a time when the rabbit is rapidly becoming master of the situation in the fertile lands of the Wairarapa, and is gradually working his way over the boundary to Hawke’s Bay. The position of affairs in the Wairarapa, a prominent farmer from that province informs me, is much worse than is really imagined. There has not been a conviction in that district for a long period. If seventyfour rabbits can fall to one gun in the course of an afternoon’s shooting, it will readily be seen that the outlook for sheep-farmers is not too rosy, unless t he question is seriously grappled with. It is impossible to keep down rabbits or reduce them in number without taking action against negligent owners, and there are in every district those who try to evade their responsibilities in this respect. Proceedings, therefore, are absolutely necessary in such cases in the interests of those in the district who are spending large sums of money, and are successful in their work. It is the duty of an inspector under the Rabbit Act to protect such people against neighbours less conscientious. A dry season is certainly favourable to an increase of rabbits, but as each year a rabbit infested district, if properly attended to, should become much clearer, there must be some other cause at work for the reported large increase in the W airarapa this year, and which is noticeable so early in the season. In Hawke’s Bay we have suffered from a dry season, hut the inspectors’ reports do not show any unusual increase. Where large numbers of young rabbits are to be seen in early summer, the old ones must also be in considerable numbers, legacies from a former year's breeding. It is the neglect of exterminating the rabbits in the Wairarapa which is giving the farmers of Hawke’s Bay some concern. Three years ago two members of the Hawke’s Bay Rabbit Board, Messrs J. N. Williams and T. Crosse, made a tour of inspection of the Wairarapa, with a view to finding out what methods were adopted in that province to cope with the destruction of the pest. They reported favourably. Since then, however, bunny lias got the upper hand, the stringent precautions previously taken having been entirely relaxed, and apparently very little is being done now in the direction of exterminating him.

To add to the difficulty, through the acquisition of large blocks of land in Hawke’s Bay, the revenue of the Hawke s Bay Board has greatly decreased, whilst its work has increased The existence of the Board, which has done such splendid work in keeping the rabbit under is impended, owing to lack “ thG Board is to carry on it will be necessary to raise the rate so brln e in at least an additional £4OO a year. The Board has been anpealing to the Government for assistmice for more than twelve months without effect. Should the Board collapse and all inspection cease—half a dozen rabbit inspectors now diligently operate throughout Hawke’s Bay—serious results must follow, and the sheepf-r mer, already depressed by the low price of wool and stock, will have still another burden thrust upon him. This will probably be the worst of the lot, for we have seen in Australia how farms have had to be abandoned through the invasion of the rabbit.

At present only those away out in the interior, who daily come into contact with the ravages of the pest, realise the gravity of the case in the WaiThanks to the Rabbit Board, Hawke s Bay is not yet in immediate

-danger, but if the operations of the Board cease, as threatened by the chair-' man, trouble must follow. Cabinet wants to thoroughly consider this rabbit question as it affects the North Island in all its bearings. Perhaps the local branches of the Farmers’ Union might interest themselves in the matter, though, if Cabinet takes the initiative, the Government will earn much credit for its desire to study the farmers. Further, it needs also to consider, as already pointed out, the mis- | chievous amendment of last session by which conviction of negligent owners was made absolutely impossible, and by which the powers of Stock Inspectors were crippled. This warning note is sounded, not only in the interests of 1 the sheepfarmers, but for the benefit of ' the whole island.