UNEMPLOYMENT AND PRICE OF RABBIT SKINS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21983, 19 June 1933, Page 9

UNEMPLOYMENT AND PRICE OF RABBIT SKINS

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir, —Mr Bernard Tripp, writing in your issue of the 15th inst., comments on the recent rise in rabbitskins. Mr Tripp's remarks show so little understanding of the actual facts relating to the rabbit question that one does not know whether he is serious in the matter or whether he is merely attempting to create the impression that the unemployed are now on a really " good wicket," and are no longer entitled to so much public sympathy. No one knows better than Mr Tripp.that right through the summer, and until two or three weeks ago, when skins were practically of iu> value, married men with families were compelled to catch rabbits for farmers at a starvation rate of pay. They had either to do this or see their children starve. Land owners, from one end of the country to the other, were not slow in availing themselves of the cheap labour which the Unemployment Board was throwing about. The deputy chairman of the board lost no opportunity of proclaiming how effective the work was and how it was increasing production. A case was cited in your columns a short time ago of a 60.000iicre block further south that was literally swarming with rabbits; but owing to the productive work done by the unemployed was now practically free of the pest. No sooner did the skin market

show signs of improvement than the Unemployment Board (probably 'owing to the influence of the farmers) recalled every unemployed rabbi ter from the farms, and I do not know of one case where they have been allowed to carry on to get the benefit of the mild boom. If such cases do exist, they must be very rare. I am not blaming the farmers for now catching their own rabbits; they no doubt need a little extra cash as much as anybody, but when we have men like Mr Tripp telling us that unemployed rabbiters can now earn £ls per week, and that the recent rise ought to be serious food for thought in helping to 'solve the unemployment problem, it gives one the impression that Mr Tripp is seriously misinformed. If the Unemployment Board's claim to wisdom and far-sighted-ness in conceiving the scheme of free labour to land owners to catch rabbits is to be credited, the number of rabbits in the country to-day must be almost negligible. In conclusion. Sir, may I ask Mr Tripp if he has at any time availed himself of free labour on any property in which he is interested.—l am, etc., No Charity.