Depression and the Rabbit Pest.

Otago Witness, Issue 1901, 10 July 1890, Page 8

Depression and the Rabbit Pest.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—The depression in New Zealand has been imputed to various causes. Our public debt, which is vow some £37,000,000 sterling, has had a fair share of blame, and justly so. Private indebtedness and many other things have also been included in the list. But how docs the rabbit pest come in? It has been found that five rabbits will eat as much as one sheep, therefore the cost of keeping five rabbits will amount to something like 5s per acre annually on til improved lands affected, besides the cost of killing, showing the loss to the colony must be close on £1,500,000 sterling annually, or a cnpital loss of £30,000,000 at 5 per cent., with every prospect of being increased yearly if not put a Btop to. This may at first seem an exaggerated statement, but I use it advisedly, with the following oonvincing proofs:-Last year over 12 million rabbitskins were exported from New Zealand. Of the rabbits poisoned not more than one-half the skins are gathered, and large numbers are killed by fire and flood, besides whnt are killed by thoir natural enemies, which are not counted. So the number of rabbits killed annually must he over 30 millions :—The food they consume (together with orchards destroyed, sheep poisoned when poisoning rabbits), cost of killing, &c. bringß the annual loss up to quite one £1,500,000. If a proposal were made by the Government to borrow £30,000,000 within the next few years a good deal would be said about it, even if the money were to be applied on works with a prospect of a small return towards paying interest. But to allow the rabbits to spread all over the colony, and cause a further loss of £30,000,000 does not seem to attract much notice. Why not ? Perhaps it is because the act dealing with the pest (which is an outrage upon the common sense of mankind, and should not be tolerated for one moment in any part of the British Empire) is so framed that every settler that has this migratory pest is liable to be fined up to £100 every month at the instance of the rabbit inspector, the magistrate having no alternative but to go by the inspector's evidence, as no matter bow many witneßsesthe^ unfortunate squatter or farmer may call in his defence he will be convicted and fined if the inspector says so, while bis neighbour with an equal amount of rabbits to his name gets off scot free. And no one can emancipate himself from this depredation except by selling out and leaving the colony. But buyers cannot be found for property affected by the pest unless at a dreadful loss on the original values of lands. He may at great expense clear his land of the pest only to be overrun again in a short time. This being so, the land owner h more likely to try to conceal the fact that his land is infested, say as little about his loss as possible, and make as much out of his rabbitskins as be can by letting them run until their skins are top value. This having gone on' for a number of years is as likely to be the cause of a good deal of depression as anything I have seen brought forward. If the Government would give sufficient inducement to all and sundry to kill every rabbit they could, it; would at once give employment to every person inolined to go to work. The money thus spent would be returned in a short time with 20 per cent, added; free the colony from a good deal of the depression that now exists; likewise raise our credit by giving better security for our public and private indebtedness. Surely something can be done in the matter, if not altogether effectual, by amending the present Rabbit Act. —l am, &c, Dunedin, June 30. Disgusted. Use Sunlight Soap for softening the skin.— CAdvt.T

1