The Rabbit Question.

Otago Witness, Issue 1854, 3 June 1887, Page 13

The Rabbit Question.

Editor Witness,— As you impress upon correspondents to aim straight at the mark, and avoid circumlocution, -I come at once to my subject. OX what earthly use is a rabbit-inspeo-tor,_ except to fill a snug billet? Any other official duty that he is popularly supposed to' have is imaginary. The whole country round is overrun by rabbits, devouring- everything. Could a rabbit-jnspeotor not be occasionally visible in the flesh .like other men, or must he remain forever a mere supposition; an unreality, ,'a myth ? Rabbit-inspectors should be .granted power to compel all owners of landf to lay. down poison in. a thoroughly systematic manner, at-a date fixed by him r and to continue to do so at fixed intervals throughout the season. Simultaneous and continued action can alone,. cope with the abominable nuisance. At the presentmoment rabbits, have it all their own way, and their depredations among the turnip crops are ! outrageous. I poisoned the whole, of my ground the entire season last year, and an* doing so again now; but.cpmparatiyefy small good can be looked for so long as otliers.'j neglect their . duty in the matter, and unfortunately many are prone to do so. Were county councils invested with full,power to enforce the husiness",bunny would have hard times instead of pleasant ones, and the work would be well done, for- half the money, and double the satisfaction given. At present the matter is a delusion.— -Yours, &c, Pukerau, May 26. ' '♦ — -— ~- ; ' Editor Witness,— l enclose cutting. from Wakatip Mail,' of 20th 1 inst., which I submit is corroborative of statements made by me in a letter headed "Rabbit Legislation," which appeared in the Ofcago Witness last week. In view of the proposed amendment of the Rabbit Act, I appeal to the press to take up the question, and deal with at on its merits, inviting opinions from other correspondents in the Lakes district. ' The dangerous powers conferred by the Rabbit Act have simply made the occupying of pastoral'landsand runs of such a risky' nature that the vacation of runs in the mountainous districts is .proceeding as fast as circumstances permit of the holders getting clear of them. ■I assert- that the re-occupancy of theWakatipu runs will. never be effected,' until the Government will [guarantee the -immunity of tenants from fines and jimprisonmont for having -rabbits on lands in their occujj'a tion for assuredly' tue rabbit will be' there when "t"iis andsuaoeed- ' ing generations are in their graves,— Yours, &c., AJAX.'

The following is the cutting referred to :— " "W. Miller v. J. Nichol.— An information under section 9 of the Rabbit Nuisance Act charging defendant- with neglecting to destroy rabbits ,on Fernhill. .and. Mount Nicholas runs after receiving due notice t0.d0.50. ..- Defendant pleaded guilty Mr Turfcon, for the prosecution, said the defendant had sold all his sheop off and : was leaving theruns.; He had notice to diatroy tabbits two months ago, but had done nothiug It was also stated that defendant had shifted his fence and standards and furniture: and" that be was shortly going away to Sydney. - The in. formant had to put about 2Q men on on behalf of the Government^ -prison the rime, and the cost would. b.e about £200. ■ The rabbitinspector at; the Soutnland end of .the runs .had also to put on men,' and counsel, therefore, asked that the oourt would fix a substantial fine, in order to secure- Government from heavy loss in event o£ defendant leaving the country. "Defendant said the report *?as" false. He had only shifted his %m>are.from one station tO . another, an.4. had ".vmade -preparations for poisoning when' informant put the men on " ; "His Worship said that, under the ofreumstanoes, he would inflict a much heavier penalty than he i would have done. Defendant was fined JPiTET 5°! ts ?2? 2 the fi 9 e t0 be reduced t Q i ti ? defendant does not abandon the iruna or leave the country.'?. ' ' ' "