WAR ON RABBITS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24430, 16 October 1940, Page 3

WAR ON RABBITS

NEW SUBSIDY SCHEME A LIBERAL ALLOWANCE Details of the scheme recently devised by. the Government to deal with the rabbit nuisance were explained to members of the Otago Provincial Council of the Farmers’ Union yesterday by Mr C. V, Dayus, of the Department of Agriculture. The scheme was an excellent one, he said, since the Government subsidised the wages of rabbiters by £3 10s out of a minimum of £4 15s lid, and provision was made for the greatest elasticity in the employment of men. The opportunity was provided for an energetic campaigin against rabbits during the summer season, Mr Dayus said, and the department wanted the. greatest possible use to be made of the. scheme. It could be administered by rabbit boards, county councils, committees of farmers, .or individual farmers, and the work was to be supervised by officers of the Agriculture Department. The farmer would pay out £4 15s lid a week to rabbiters, and would later make application for the subsidy of £3 10s. Although men would be drawn primarily by the employment division of the Labour Department from the register of unemployed, there would be great elasticity in the eligibility of, men for work under the scheme, and men not normally working for the employing authority would be able to start work on the scheme without a stand-down period. The wage of £4 15s U Q included the recent 5 per cent increase in award wages, but where food and accommodation were provided a deduction of 17s 6d a week was made. The skins would be the property of the employing authority. “The scheme■'seems• to have been taken up wholeheartedly in Central Otago.” said Mr -T. A. White, placement officer. “ First-class men have been sent out. as in the first stages only experienced men are being put on.” He added that in some-cases a farmer might like to give the skins to the rabbiter as. an incentive, and there was nothing to prevent him doing so, as the skins were his property. In reply to a question,' Mr Dayus said that where, a farmer refused to ule the scheme and was endangenng cleaner farms he would be dealt with under the Rabbit Nuisance Act.