RABBIT CONTROL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 27388, 13 May 1950, Page 8

RABBIT CONTROL

Sir, —The policies of rabbit destruction and catchment boards have caused much controversy since they were put into effect. The two policies are linked. Can one analyse them to see if any clear and logical decisions have been arrived at? Members of the commission set up to consider the question of the economy of country lands generally had the advantage of travelling and seeing for themselves, and of calling any evidence they required. It seems strange that so little notice has been taken of their findings. It would generally be agreed that the draining of our good land would he a good proposition, but the wisdom of spending large sums on poor hill country is very dubious (especially under present financial conditions) and should be considered only after our better class land has been brought to somewhere near Its full development. Draining, liming, artificial manure and good seeding give quick results, compared with long-term experiments with low-fertility high country, which are of doubtful worth unless it is taken for granted that wool and meat are likely to retain their high prices, and this would be a vain hope. Attention to the question of increasing production should be concentrated on land that it Is known will " respond with reasonable effort. Surely it is not necessary to set up special boards, the cost of which—when a recession in primary produce prices comes, as it surely will—will be a severe drain on the country’s finances. As for rabbit destruction, if the report from Middlemarch was correct that skins and carcasses are actually wasted, this Is stupidity. Since when did money cease to talk all languages —and rabbits and their skins are goods more tangible than money? If the "killer policy ” is one of destroying without anyone’s receiving the benefit of the skins and carcasses, the sooner the people of New Zealand stop this sinful w.aste the better. Rabbit control must be done at reasonable cost, or it Is too dear. It is my firm conviction that it should be done by private effort.

On difficult high country I have seen badly-infested areas cleared and, through good management, cultivation, seeding, etc., Improved from a carrying capacity of 8000 to 20,000. The means used were, firstly, a rabbit-proof ring fence round the whole boundary, then subdivision of the property into 2000-acre rabbit-proof blocks. Following this, an experienced rabbiter was put on the block, and when sufficient skins were not available was paid a really good wage. A man was kept constantly engaged to catch any stray rabbits that might show up. In this way the whole area Was cleared. I. had experience of another problem on high country where roaring • streams, the result of heavy rains, carried away netting and posts. One doubts whether such - country can ever be cleaned up at a worth-while cost while* wool prices are at ordinary reasonable levels. Here the Sheep Farming Commission’s report should be Invaluable, and In it these recommendations stand out clearly:— Tenures of such country should be made fully worth while, and experienced men should receive adequate recompense to keep rabbits in check. Rabbit boards, however, savour too much of State control.—l am, etc.. E. F. Pannett. Clydevale.