RABBIT CONTROL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 27390, 16 May 1950, Page 6

RABBIT CONTROL

Sir, —I was greatly interested in your article of May 10 relative to rabbit infestation on Mr Aitcheson’s property at Ettrick. On his 2800-acre run he estimates there are 60,000 rabbits, and that at the rate of five rabbits to one sheep, the carrying capacity of his run could, by their destruction, be increased by 12.000 sheep. If a sheep returns a profit of 10s, then here is a loss of £6OOO per year. Figure it out how you like, Mr Aitcheson is a heavy loser. The Ettrick Rabbit Board, he states, is not doing its job, and to it he is paying 6d per acre, which amounts to £7O. Considering what the menace means to him on his own showing, and I take it means, or could mean, to all land-holders, then he has brought to light that they are greatly under-rated by rabbit boards. Our thanks are due to Mr Aitcheson for bringing his case under the notice of Mr Bodkin, M.P., because he will surely bring it under the notice of Cabinet that here is a runholder paying 6d per acre rate with 20 rabbits per acre to kill, and complaining that the board is not doing its job. To expect so much for so little with wool at its present price seems to be just fantastic, and before the man in the street is to be taxed to pay the balance of the cost the Government should demand and insist that landholders contribute their utmost in rates. One would expect that after all that has been said of the Ettrick Board and its shortage of funds it will know what to do when it next strikes its rate.—l am, etc., “ George Street.” Southland. Sir. —The Prime Minister has stated that £12,000,000 will be saved by the lifting of subsidies. It is to be hoped that the Minister of Agriculture will put a stop to the extravagant waste of public funds by rabbit boards. Let me give an example of this in the Ettrick Rabbit Board’s area. A block of hill country on one ratepayer’s property was fed first with dry oats. Bunnv scratched and laughed, so oats and molasses were laid; bunny still laughed and scratched, but for three weeks this line was plastered with oats. The cost (including-labour) must have run over the £IOO mark, and scarcely a rabbit was killed. It was then decided to abandon this block and start on another, which was also fed. The ratepayer put his sheep on the first block, but since has been asked to shift his flock so that oats can be tried again. The ratepayer will have to put his sheep on the second block, thus those oats will be wasted. One man would have fed this block with carrots and poisoned it in one week or less. Why all this waste unless it is a scheme to fatten oigeons and quail at the expense of the taxpayer?—l am. etc.. Taxpayer. [This letter was referred to the secretary of the Ettrick Rabbit Board who replied as follows; —The board is not in favour of replying to anonymous letters, although it will give full information to ratepayers interested who communicate directly with the board. The letter from “ Taxpayer ” does not give the main facts in regard to the particular operation, and the board found, on going into-the matter, that the work done by its employees had been reasonable and carried out in a satisfactory manner under difficult circumstances. —Ed.. ODT.I