THE CATLINS FIRE LOSSES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22708, 22 October 1935, Page 11

THE CATLINS FIRE LOSSES

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— l am not “a bush farmer,” but I have lived in the Gatlins district a sufficient number of years to know what a fine, independent ,type of man is the average Gatlins farmer, and I cannot understand how one of their number can write a letter giving such a one-sided view of the results of the recent bushfires as that appearing in your issue of October 19. The public would do better to form an opinion from spell letters as that of Mr H. A. Brough in the same issue, and of Mr Gus. Naumann in a previous issue. The facts presented in Mr Neumann’s letter speak tor themselves. It is perfectly true that the disaster is not as bad as it at first appeeared, but it still remains a disaster. How is the average farmer, who can at the best of times, with hard and unceasing work, make a bare living, to take advantage of the clearance made by the fires and turn It to his account? I think he has been perfectly justified in appealing for Government assistance. A very few farmers may be trying to make capital out of the disaster, but the great majority have given a low estimate of their losses. While the loss of stock is not as serious as at first considered, many flocks have been set back for the season through the effects of smoke. Surely that is serious to a farmer depending on wool and fat lamb cheques? Many sheep have died since the fires, and had the recent rains not helped the growth of young grass more would have died of starvation. I have heard it mentioned that the loss of fences is not serious in a land where posts are plentiful. That may be so, but one must remember that it takes time to cut posts, and this is the farmers busy season. Also, while rubbish and old logs burned, so did good post and firewood timber. I would like the public to realise that while the disaster was not as bad as at first reported, it is not the sudden dramatic loss of buildings and stock, but less obvious hardships which follow and affect the farmers’ prospects this season, and maybe many more, that are the real tragedy of, the fire. I think “A Bush Fanner ” has chosen an unsuitable nom-de-plume, and his letter is a disgrace to it. Possibly be is a rare being, a bush farmer not heavily in debt and not a loser in the recent fires. That is no excuse for the one-sided unsympathetic; letter he has written. —I am. etc, Gatlins, October 19. Onlooker. « TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—ln your issue of the 19th mst. are two letters regarding the Gatlins fire losses, one bv “A Bush Farmer ” and one by M. A. Brough. Mr Brough, who is a county councillor, and who has a first-hand knowledge of all the damage caused by the fires throughout the district, is iu sympathy with the farmers, while “A Bush Farmer” is evidently not, and professes to set out to give the general public the true facts of the damage done. Certainly the first reports of the fire were slightly alarmist in character, out wnen

the losses aggregate 15 houses and two sawmills, besides innumerable sheds and heavy stock losses, “A Bush Farmer” must have a slightly distorted sense of values to state that “ I do not think anyone who speaks the truth about the fire will say that it did much harm.’’ He also states that “The fire came before our grass was far advanced, and so even where this was scorched it did not destroy much feed but what he did not say was that any feed at all was precious owing to the abnormal scarcity of stock feed this year. Had the rain been delayed a fortnight some of those farmers who had the fire over their properties would have suffered further losses from starvation. Some farmers certainly have benefited greatly by the fire, and “A Bush Farmer” is evidently one of these, but that is no reason why he should be “ a dog in the manger ” and begrudge his' less fortunate neighbours any assistance which they may receive. All the assistance they have been offered so far is to be in the way of a loan, bearing interest, and to be repaid in three years’ time. To those already over-loaded with mortgages this is of practically no use, as they cannot keep up their payments on the existing mortgages. “A Bush Farmer’’ also states that "the bulk of the fences that are reported to have been burnt was of a very inferior class, and probably it is a good job that it was burnt.” Would he still say the same if his own fences had been destroyed and he in the busiest season of the farming year, had either to leave his own w r Ork to repair them .or else engage men to do so? In some cases it will take over a month’s work, eight hours a day, to repair the fences on a single farm. Also, he is overlooking the fact that, though the wires are still hanging on the posts missed by the fire, those wires are badly burnt, and where the fire has been fierce will not stand straining, and, in any case, will very soon rust through. If “A Bush Farmer ’’ must rush into print, he should at least be sure that the “ true facts ” he prints are facts, ( and when he sets out to place the “true facts ” before the public he should give the truth, and not merely his own biasec opinion. When making statements of this nature and evidently endeavouring t'turn public opinion against the fire suf fevers, “A Bush Farmer ” should have thr courage of his convictions and sign hir own name to his effusions, instead o* shooting from ambush behind a nom-de plume. I have no personal interest i» this matter, own no land or buildings and stand neither to‘gain nor lose by anj assistance which may be given, but . cannot allow “A Bush Farmer’ to mif represent the fire losses.—l am, etc.. One Who Has Seen Maclennan. October 2i.